| OCR Text |
Show 402 MICHIGAN and fishing, so long as there is no unreasonable interference with similar rights of other riparian owners.55 C. LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT Certain limitations on the exercise of a riparian landowner's water right have already been reviewed, but a few additional observations are in order at this juncture. In a dispute over the damming of the water of a stream, the court remarked that no person has the right to divert a stream from its natural course and turn it away from a lower riparian owner;56 likewise, a landowner cannot impair the rights of others by obstructing the watercourse.57 Nor can he con- struct a dam across a stream and impound water so that it backs up and overflows the lands of upland owners,08 unless a prescriptive right to do so is acquired by adverse use.59 But a prescriptive right is limited to the extent of the overflow that existed during the time the right was established, and cannot be increased when the dam is re- paired or enlarged.60 Further, a prescriptive right can be lost where a dam is washed out and not rebuilt for a long period, such as 25 years.81 Similarly, the owner of a dam cannot operate it in such a manner that it will flood and damage lower lands. However, he will not be liable for discharging flood waters so long as he is not negligent in the release of these waters and so long as no greater quantity or volume is released than would have been discharged on lower lands by natural flows.62 d. RELATION OF LAND TO WATER As pointed out previously, the right to use water in Michigan is an incident to the owenrship of the riparian land,63 which must have actual contact with the water;6i and land which touches an artificial watercourse which in turn connects to a natural watercourse obtains no riparian rights in the natural watercourse.65 There is language in some Michigan cases which says that riparian rights are presumed to pass as an appurtenance with a transfer of the riparian land, but there is also language which states that ripar- ian rights may be severed and conveyed separately from the land.66 The most recent pronouncement on this subject by the Michigan Su- preme Court states that riparian rights are not alienable, severable, ^Swartz v. Sherston, 299 Mich. 423, 300 N.W. 148 (1941); Burt v. Munger, 314 Mich. 659, 23 N.W. 2d 117 (1946). 58 Dumont v. Kellogg, 29 Mich. 420 (1874). « McKee v. City of Grand Rapids, 137 Mich. 200,100 N.W. 580 (1904). 58 Morrison v. Queen City Electric Light d Power Co., 193 Mich. 604, 160 N.W. 434 (1916) • Holcomo v. Alpena Power Co., 198 Mich. 165,164 N.W. 470 (1917). m Halstead v. Young, 283 Mich. 558, 276 N.W. 703 (1937). a" Miller v. Bank of Belleville, 148 Mich. 339, 111 N.W. 1062 (1907) ; Marr v. Hemenny, 297 Mich. 311, 297 N.W. 504 (1941). «¦ McDonald v. Sargent, 308 Mich. 341, 13 N.W. 2d 843 (1944). 89 Merkel v. Consumers' Power Co., 220 Mich. 128, 189 N.W. 997 (1922) ; Rockford Paver Mills, Inc. v. City of Rockford, 311 Mich. 100, 18 N.W. 2d 379 (1945). «3 Monroe Carp Pond Co. v. River Raisen Paper Co., 240 Mich. 279, 215 N.W. 325 (1927). ^Hilt v. Weber, 252 Mich. 198, 233 N.W. 159 (1930) ; Richardson v. Prentisa, 48 Mich. 88, 11 N.W. 819 (1882). as Thompson v. Ens, 379 Mich. 667,154 N.W. 2d 473 (1967). «« Pleasant Lake Hills Corp. v. Eppinger, 235 Mich. 174, 209 N.W. 152 (1926). |
