| OCR Text |
Show 284 ILLINOIS banks, but the flow need not be continuous. The flow normally is dis- charged into some other stream or body of water.53 While a lake is distinguished from a stream by the difference in the movement of the water, it appears that in both instances the rights of the riparian owners are determined under the principles of the riparian doctrine of water rights.54 3.1 Method of Acquiring Rights The right to use water in Illinois, as in other riparian jurisdictions, is an incident of the ownership of land which abuts or across which a stream flows, and it is by virtue of this ownership of riparian land that the water right is acquired. This is explained in more detail in the next section. 3.2 Nature and Limit of Rights a. IN GENERAL The landowner's riparian right is to have the stream flow undimin- ished in quantity and unimpaired in quality except for a "reasonable" use which may be made by every riparian owner, and the Illinois Su- preme Court has given some guidance as to how a reasonable use is to be determined: There may be some diminution in quantity, or a retardation or acceleration of the natural current, because this is an unavoidable result of the use of water, and is consistent with the exercise of the common riparian right. If the use causes injurious results to other riparian landowners, then it becomes unreasonable, and is beyond the scope of the right.55 The court went on to note that there are two general types of use which may be made from the stream-natural uses and artificial uses. Natural uses are those necessary to existence, such as use of water for domestic use and watering livestock, and each riparian pro- prietor may use water as is necessary for these purposes, even if he consumes all of the stream. Artificial uses are those by which the comfort or prosperity of the landowner is increased, and include such uses as manufacturing and irrigation. Artificial uses are sec- ondary to natural uses; that is, all natural uses must be satisfied before any water can be used for artificial purposes. As to what is a reasonable use between riparians competing for the same type of use, as where both are using water for manufac- turing purposes, will be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. But the diversion of the entire stream for the operation of a mill to the injury of another mill owner has been held to be an unreasonable use of the water.56 In other words, as between com- peting secondary uses, neither is entitled to the exclusive use of the water and the flow is to be divided so each receives his reasonable or equitable share.57 Bs People v. Bridges, 142 111. 30, 31 N.E. 115 (1892) ; Lambert v. Akorn, 144 111. 313, 33 N.E. 53 (1893). t*Bouris v. Largent, 94 111. App. 2d 251, 236 N.E. 2d 15 (1968). bb Evans v. Merriweather, 4 111. 492 (1842). 66Evans v. Merriweather, 4 111. 492 (1842). w Bliss v. Kennedy, 43 111. 67 (1863). |
