| OCR Text |
Show Missouri 443 and obstructing the flow of the stream and depriving a lower land- owner of the natural flow.39 However, the most recent decision on this question indicates that the court now favors the reasonable use doctrine, beacuse it was stated that riparian rights include the right to the flow of the stream in its natural condition in both volume and purity, except as affected by reasonable uses of other riparian owners.40 The court went on to state the common clarifica- tion-that what is reasonable is a question of fact to be determined from the circumstances of each particular case. 3.2 Nature and Limit of Bights A. NATURE OF RIGHT ACQUIRED Because the Missouri courts have not fully defined the scope of the riparian water rights doctrine, it is not possible to evaluate completely the nature of the right acquired. However, the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court which appears to be an adoption of the reasonable use doctrine provides some clarification. The court stated that every riparian owner has a priority for the supply of his natural wants, which includes drinking water for family and live- stock. Subject to this demand, each riparian owner may make a reasonable use of the water for such secondary purposes as irriga- tion and manufacturing, and the allowable extent of such use depends upon the facts and circumstances involved in each case. In sum, the landowner thus has a right to have the stream flow by his prop- erty in its natural course and condition (except for the reasonable use made by other riparian owners), and this right extends to both the quality and quantity of the water.41 B. LIMITATION ON THE RIGHT A riparian owner cannot use water so as to deprive other land- owners of their coequal rights to the stream in its natural condition, as is implicit from the discussion above. It has also been noted that there is statutory authorization for a riparian owner to construct and operate a dam on a stream for certain purposes,42 but that this right is limited in that a dam cannot be maintained across a stream in such a manner that lower riparian owners are deprived of their rights to the flow of the stream.43 Further, water impounded may not be backed up on the lands of another unless a right has been acquired to do so. The Missouri courts have said that one may not obstruct or divert the natural flow of a watercourse, and that a user is liable for the resulting damage caused by the overflow of waters due to his obstruction of the natural flow.44 The intention of the party causing the obstruction is not a factor, because the basis for 89 Dardenne Realty Co. v. Abehen, 232 Mo. app. 945, 106 S.W. 2d 966 (1937) ; also see Mclntosh v. RanUn, 134 Mo. 340, 35 S.W. 995 (1896) and Greisinger v. Klinhardt 321 Mo. 1192, 111 S.W. 2d 118 (1937). *» Bollingerv. Henry, 375 S.W. 2d 161 (1964). °- Bollinger v. Henry, 375 'S.W. 2d 161 (1964). 42 Missouri Kev. Stat., sees. 236.010 to 236.280. i3 Dardenne Realty Co. v. Abeken, 232 Mo. app. 945,106 S.W. 2d 966 (1937). "Happy v. Kenton, 362 Mo. 1156, 247 S.W. 2d 698 (1952) ; Keener v. Sharp, 341 Mo. 1192, 111 S.W. 2d (1937); Wood r. Craig, 133 Mo. app. 548, 113 S.W. 676 (1908). |
