OCR Text |
Show KENTUCKY 341 The Kentucky Court has quoted with approval language from early commentaries on riparian rights, which state that the riparian owner obtains no property in the water itself, but rather a simple usufruct, or right of use, as the waters pass along.45 Since the right to the use of the stream is common and co-equal among all riparians, a user does not gain a priority by being first in time of use, as would be the case under the appropriation doctrine. However, in determin- ing the extent of a riparian right, if a landowner already has in- stalled a dam, the "reasonableness" of a subsequent upstream use will be evaluated in terms of whether it will injure the lower riparian's existing use.46 A riparian may change and straighten the channel of a water- course if the lands formerly abutting the stream are still riparian and the rights of other riparian owners are not otherwise impaired,47 or their "coequal" rights invaded.48 C. RELATION OF LAND TO WATER The riparian right is incidental to and dependent upon ownership of real property,49 and an impairment of a riparian right is an injury to the real estate.50 A riparian water right is annexed to the soil, and passes with the land-not as an easement or appurtenance, but as a part and parcel of the land itself.51 The owner of land may expressly reserve the right to use the water in an instrument of conveyance, but, absent a reservation in the deed, the riparian water right passes with the real property.52 One who acquires a small tract of riparian land on a stream cannot pump and transport water to nonriparian land.63 d. TYPES OF USE RECOGNIZED As noted previously, each proprietor has an absolute right to make a primary use of water for domestic and stock watering purposes, and a right to reasonable use for secondary purposes, such as manufac- turing and irrigation.54 These uses are also recognized in the Ken- tucky Water Resources Act.55 3.3 Changes, /Sales, and Transfers Unless riparian rights are expressly reserved in a deed conveying riparian land, they pass with a transfer of the property itself.56 It is not objectionable for a riparian user to change the nature of use « Anderson v. Cincinnati Southern Railway, 86 Ky. 44, 5 S.W. 49 (1887). ie Anderson v. Cincinnati Southern Railway, 86 Ky. 44, 5 S.W. 49 (1887) ; Louisville & N.R. Co. V. Beauchamp, 19 K.L.R. 398, 40 S.W. 679 (1897). « Kraver v. Smith, 164 Ky. 674, 177 S.W. 286 (1915). i9 Anderson v. Cincinnati Southern Railway, 86 Ky. 44, 5 S.W. 49 (1887) ; City of Louisville V. Tway, 297 Ky. 565, 1,80 S.W. 2d 278 (1944). *» Anderson v. Cincinnati Southern Railway, 86 Ky. 44, 5 S.W. 49 (1887). 50 King v. Board of Council of City of Danville, 128 Ky. 321, 107 S.W. 1189 (1908). a Fackler v. Cincinnati N.O. & T.P. Co., 220 Ky. 339, 17 S.W. 2d 194 (1929). nStephm v. Kentucky Valley Distilling Co., 275 Ky. 705, 122 S.W. 2d 493 (1938) ; Thomas v. Holmes, 306 Ky. 632. 208 S.W. 2d 969 (1948). 53 Bank of HopMnsville v. Western Kentucky Asylum for the Insane, 108 Ky. 357, 56 S.W. 525 (1900). B* Anderson v. Cincinnati Southern Railway, 86 Ky. 44, 5 S.W. 49 (1887). « Ky. Rev. Stat., sec. 151.140. «• Fackler v. Cincinnati N.O. & T.P. Co., 229 Ky. 339, 17 S.W. 2d 194 (1929). |