OCR Text |
Show ARKANSAS 123 Court were in terms of the natural flow theory which, as explained by the court, is that the riparian owner can take water for domestic use, including watering livestock, but otherwise the stream must be left in its natural condition.38 However, in recent decisions, the court has squarely adopted the reasonable use theory. But it has cautioned that not all facets of the riparian right can now be defined, and it will be necessary to await further definition and clarification in subsequent decisions. However, the court did declare certain following general principles. The right to use water1 for domestic purposes is superior to other uses of water, such as fishing, recreation, and irrigation. As to other uses, the rights of all riparian owners are equal. One reasonable use cannot be destroyed by a sub- sequent reasonable use, the latter must yield. What is a reasonable use must be determined from all the facts and circumstances sur- rounding each case.39 8.2 Nature and Limit of Bights A. NATURE OF RIGHT ACQUIRED The right of the riparian landowner is to make a reasonable use of the water, rather than ownership of the corpus of the stream. Except for corresponding rights in other riparian proprietors, every riparian owner has a coequal right to have the stream flow by his abutting property. The right encompasses quality as well as quan- tity.40 The Arkansas Supreme Court has stated that such rights inhere in the soil and are vested rights, and no proprietor has priority in the use of water in derogation of another's right.41 Other aspects of the right which are acquired are discussed in sec- tion 3.1, supra. B. LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT A riparian landowner cannot use the waters of a stream in such a manner that others are deprived of their coequal rights. While water may be impounded and utilized by construction of a dam, nevertheless a user cannot obstruct the watercourse and cause injury to another. A lower landowner cannot impound water in a reservoir which backs up and overflows the lands of another.42 In order for the owner of a dam to be liable to lower landowners for damage caused by water, the owner of the dam must be guilty of negligence in the operation of the dam.43 A landowner may straighten out or modify a natural channel on his property, so long as the natural and general course of the water 38 St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Mackey, 95 Ark. 297, 129 S.W. 78 (1910) : Taylor v. Rudy, 99 Ark. 128, 137 S.W. 574 (1911). wHarrell v. City of Gonway, 224 Ark. 100, 271 S.W. 2d 924 (1954) ; Harris v. Brooks, 235 Ark. 436, 283 S.W. 2d 129 (1955). *o Heriwether Sand & Gravel Co. v. State, 181 Ark. 216, 26 S.W. 2d 57 (1930) ; Harrell V. City of Conway, 224 Ark. 100, 271 S.W. 2d 924 (1954). « Thomas V. LaCotts, 222 Ark. 171, 257 S.W. 2d 936 (1953|). « Turner v. Smith, 217 Ark. 441, 231 S.W. 2d 110 (1950) ; Taylor v. Rudy, 99 Ark. 128, 137 S.W. 5174 (1911) ; Miller v. Crutchfleld, 240 Ark. 1021, 405 S.W. 2d 269 (1966). «Fisher v. Arkansas Power d Light Co., 202 Ark. 433, 150 S.W. 2d 959 (1941) ; Arkansas Power d Light Co. v. Cash, 245 Ark. 459, 432 S.W. 2d 853 (1968). |