OCR Text |
Show 442 Missouri C. PUBLIC WATER AGENCIES Those public agencies which are involved in water matters at the State level are reviewed above, and need not be mentioned again here, but it is appropriate to note the local agencies and organizations which have certain responsibilities relating to water utilization, con- servation, or control: (1) Water companies.29 (2 Water supply and sewage disposal districts.30 (3 County public water supply districts.81 (4 Metropolitan water supply districts.32 (5 Conservancy and conservation districts.33 (6 Soil and water conservation districts.34 (7 Drainage districts.35 (8) Level districts.36 3. Surface Waters The Missouri courts have said that a watercourse is a stream usually flowing in a particular direction, but that the flow need not be continuous. The water must flow in a definite channel having a bed and banks, and it usually will discharge into some other stream or body of water.37 An artificial watercourse may, when substituted for a natural watercourse, be treated as a natural water- course.88 3.1 Method of Acquiring Rights The right to use waters of a watercourse is an incident of the ownership of land which borders a stream or across which a stream flows. The ownership of riparian land ordinarily carries with it a ri^ht to the continued flow of the stream, and also a right to make a limited (reasonable) use of the water, but the decisions in Missouri dealing with this subject are limited and it does not appear that very many aspects of the riparian rights doctrine have been defined. The Missouri courts have not clearly declared whether the applicable rule which governs the use by riparian owners is the "natural flow" or "reasonable use" rule. The former holds that the riparian owner is entitled to the full, natural flow of the watercourse, subject only to diminution through natural uses by other riparian owners, such as for domestic and stockwatering purposes, whereas the latter rule entitles each riparian owner to make a reasonable use of the water. As noted above, the Missouri courts have never squarely adopted either theory to the exclusion of the other. Some cases which have been decided are couched in natural flow terms. For example, an upper riparian owner in one action was prohibited from diverting *> Missouri Rev. Stat., chs. 351, 393. » Missouri Rev. Stat., chs. 247, 148, 249, 250. 81 Missouri Rev. Stat., sees. 247.010 to 247.220. »» Missouri Rev. Stat., sees. 247.230 to 247.670. 83 Missouri Rev. Stat., sees. 257.010 to 257.490. s* Missouri Rev. Stat., chs. 278. 35 Missouri Rev. Stat., chs. 242, 243, 246. 38 Missouri Rev. Stat., chs. 245, 246. & Benson v. Chicago & Alton R.R. Go., 78 Mo. 504 (1893) ; Happy v. Kenton, 362 Mo. 1156. 247 S.W. 2d 698 (1952). M Brill v. Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Co., 161 Mo. App. 472, 14A S.W. 174 (1912). |