| OCR Text |
Show MICHIGAN 403 divisible, or assignable apart from riparian land which bounds the natural watercourse.67 6. TYPES OP USE RECOGNIZED The Michigan Supreme Court has, in various cases, recognized the right of the riparian landowner to make a reasonable use of the water from a stream or lake for domestic, agricultural, and manufacturing purposes; and the right to use water for a fishery, for boating, and for general recreational purposes has also been approved.68 However, it appears that a riparian right does not entitle a city bordering on a stream to divert and transport water for use by its citizens and for industrial use.69 3.3 Changes, Sales, and Transfers Riparian water rights are transferred as an incident to the transfer of the real property which the stream adjoins. Thus, a grant of a mill carries with it the right to use the water of the stream which furnishes the power to operate the mill.70 As noted above, the most recent expression of the Michigan Supreme Court indicates that riparian rights are not transferable apart from the land which abuts the watercourse.71 3.4 Loss of Rights a. ADVERSE USE A riparian water right in Michigan may be lost by adverse use if such use is adverse, visible, continuous, and notorious for the period of time required to acquire title to real property by adverse posses- sion. So long as the use made by a riparian owner is a use in common with other riparian owners and no other user is injured or prevented from making his common use, it will not ripen into a prescriptive right.72 Further, a user gains no "priority" for initiating his use first, and it would seem than a lower riparian owner cannot secure an ad- verse use right against an upper riparian owner, no matter how long the lapse of time before the upper landowner begins his use.73 b. laches Where there has been an obstruction of a watercourse for over 15 years and the lower riparian owner has stood by and not objected to the impairment of his water right, he will be barred by the doctrine of laches from asserting an objection.74 « Thompson v. Enz, 379 Mich. 667, 154 N.W. 2d 473 (1967). ^Dumont v. Kellogg, 29 Mich. 420 (1874) ; People v. Hulbert, 131 Mich. 156, 91 N.W. 211 (1902) ; Hoover v. Crane, 362 Mich. 36.106 N.W. 2d 563 (1960). »Stock v. City of Hillsdale, 155 Mich. 375, 119 N.W. 435 (1909) ; but see City of Battle Creek v. Ooguac Resort Ass'n., 148 N.W. 441 (1914) where an equally divided court refused to enjoin the diversion of water by a city to supply its inhabitants. ™ Smith v. Dresselhouse, 152 Mich. 451,116 N.W. 387 (1908). i Thompson v. Enz, 379 Mich. 667. 154 N.W. 2d 473 (1967). ™ Kennedy v. Niles Water Supply Co., 173 Mich. 474, 139 N.W. 241 (1913). ™ Preston v. Clark. 238 Mich. 632, 214 N.W. 226 (1927). « McKee v. City of Grand Rapids, 137 Mich. 200, 100 N.W. 580 (1904). 499-242-73------27 |
