OCR Text |
Show Missouri 445 3.4 Loss of Rights A. ADVERSE USE Rights may be acquired to use water or to flood the lands of another by adverse possession, but, in order for such rights to attach, there must be an open, adverse, exclusive, and uninterrupted use for the entire prescriptive period.55 B. LACHES When a riparian owner acquiesces in the improper use of water by another for a substantial period of time, he will be precluded by the doctrine of laches from asserting his riparian rights to compel discontinuance of such use.66 3.5 Storage Waters, Artificial Lakes, and Ponds The right of the riparian owner to store and use the waters of a stream have been discussed in various sections of this chapter and will not be repeated here. Most pertinent is the fact that construction of dams is subject to certain statutory regulations, as discussed in secion 2.1.C above. 3.6 /Springs The owner of the soil upon which a spring is located is entitled to use the flow of the spring, his rights are not unlimited in this regard. If the spring is used by others or forms a part of a water- course, then the rights of the landowner are restricted to a reason- able use of the water for his enjoyment of his land, and he cannot divert the spring merely to deprive others of its use.57 With regard to the source of supply for the spring, under what appears to be the current rule in Missouri, each landowner is entitled to make a reasonable use of the ground water underlying his lands, as discussed in more detail in section 4, infra. 3.7 Diffused Surface Waters In Missouri, diffused surface water is defined as water derived from rain or snow and which is diffused over the surface of the earth,58 and, once it enters a watercourse, it becomes a part of the stream and loses its identity as surface water.59 The problems which have arisen in Missouri over diffused surface water relate to the disposal of it rather than conflicting rights of use-resulting from too much water rather than too little. While it appears there was some confusion in the early cases as to which rule of law should govern rights of adjoining landowners in disposing of 65 Smith v. Muagrove, 32 Mo. App. 241 (1888) ; Bird v. Hannibal and 8t. Joseph Railway Co., 30 Mo. App. 305 (1888). t&Luease v. Weber, 350 S.W. 2d 424 (St. L. Ct. App. 1961). 67 Belveal v. H.B.O. Development Co., 279 S.W. 2d 545 (K.C. Ct. App. 1955) ; Higday v. Nickolam, 469 S.W. 2d 859 (K.C. Ct. app. 1971). 68 Benson v. Chicago & A.B.R., 78 Mo. 504 (1883) ; Happy v. iTenton, 362 Mo. 1156, 247 S.W. 2d69 (1952). 68 Jones v. ffonnovon, 55 Mo. 462 (1874). |