OCR Text |
Show KENTUCKY 337 out the provisions of these compacts, Kentucky has created an Inter- state Sanitation Board.12 In addition to the statutory measures discussed above for water quality control, the Kentucky Court has ruled that the right of a riparian landowner extends to quality as well as quantity of water.13 A coal mining company was held liable for damages resulting to farm crops from the pollution of the waters of a stream by the mining operations, but the court said that the landowner had a duty to mitigate damages.14 Where wastes were discharged into a river and in turn deposited on lower land, causing damage to the produc- tivity and fertility of the soil, the lower landowner was allowed both damages and injunctive relief.15 However, the Kentucky Court has said that, as between riparian landowners, a prescriptive right can be acquired to pollute a stream, but that such a right cannot be enlarged, but must be limited to the same purpose and to the same extent as when it was established.16 b. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN There is no environmental control act, as such, in Kentucky. Court decisons and State statutes provide only limited protection to environmental interests. Most of the cases which have arisen in Kentucky have involved attempts by riparian owners to make some use of the stream, as for domestic, including stockwatering, and manufacturing purposes, and some decisions have indicated that water may be used for irrigation purposes.17 However, since the basic effect of the riparian doctrine is that of keeping water in the channel, instream uses such as fishing and recreation ordinarily are preserved, except for water quality deterioration. With respect to the statutes, the Water Eesources Act, discussed above, in recognizing the rights of riparian owners, specifies domes- tic, including stockwatering, manufacturing, and irrigation uses.18 Further, in reciting the State policy, the Act states that conserva- tion and propose use of the State's water resources is necessary because of the increasing demand on water for varied industrial, municipal, and recreational uses.19 Ajid the water quality control act noted above recites that one of its purposes is to conserve the waters of the State for the propagation of fish, animal wildlife, and arboreous growth, as well as for agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other legitimate uses of water.20 C. OTHER AGENCIES AT THE STATE LEVEL The powers and duties of the water pollution control commission and the diversion of water, which are the principal State agencies 12 Ky. Rev. Stat. sees. 224.205 and 224.210. 18 Anderson v. Cincinnati Southern Railway, 86 Ky. 44, 5 S.W. 49 (1887). 14 Norton Goal Mining Co. v. Wilkie, 224 Ky. 192, 5 S.W. 2d 1058 (1928) ; 232 Ky. 539 23 S.W. 2d 942 (1930) ; also see Inland Steel Co. v. Isaacs, 283 Ky. 770, 14|3 S.W. 2d 503 (1940). 16 West Kentucky Coal Co. v. Budd, 328 S.W. 2d 156 (1959). 19 W. a. Duncan Coal Co. v. Jones, 254 S.W. 2d 700 (1953). 17 Anderson v. Cincinnati Southern Railway, 86 Ky. 44, 5 S.W. 49 (1887) : City of Louisville v. Tway, 297 Ky. 565,180 S.W. 2d 278 (1944). 18 Ky. Rev. Stat., sec. 151.140. 19 Ky. Rev. Stat., sec. 151.110. 20 Ky. Rev. Stat., sec. 224.020. |