OCR Text |
Show ohio 597 riparian owners on the same stream, existing uses, the size of the stream, and the volume and flow of the water.40 Subject to the reasonable use limitation, it appears that water can be used for virtually any purpose. Some of the uses recognized by the Ohio court include the use of water for irrigation purposes,41 power, manufacturing and other commercial purposes as well as the primary use for domestic purposes.42 While a riparian owner may use a reasonable amount of water for a proper purpose, this use is not without limitations, and the Ohio court has, in various cases, spelled out some aspects of the reason- able use doctrine. For example, a riparian owner may build a dam on a watercourse, or otherwise obstruct the flow of the stream, in order to make a proper use of the water, but the interference with the flow of the water must not be unreasonable in light of the needs of the other riparian users on the stream. Further, a riparian owner will be liable for the damages he causes if the stored water is allowed to overflow the land of another.43 The owner of a dam is also responsible for its safety and the owner is liable for the damages caused to lower riparian lands if his dam fails.44 The riparian right extends to quality of water as well as to quantity. Thus, a riparian proprietor is subject to the water quality control act,45 and is also subject to the common law restriction of not causing an unreasonable deterioration in the quality of the water in the stream.46 Many States which have adopted the riparian rights doctrine have restricted the use of the waters of a stream to riparian lands. Riparian lands are usually characterized as those which are abutting on the stream, which are held by a single riparian owner and are in the same watershed as the stream. There is very little authority in Ohio on this subject, but the court has extended riparian rights to inhabitants of a riparian municipality who are not themselves riparian to the stream,47 and it has held that a grantor of a tract of land bordering on a stream may reserve riparian rights in favor of an inland tract retained by him.48 Within the framework of reasonable use concepts discussed above, the riparian owner may use the water to meet his needs, but must return to the stream all water not used. However, there may be times when there will not be enough water to supply the proper and reasonable needs of all riparians. The likelihood of this happening is increased by allowing municipalities located on a stream to supply its inhabitants with water for power and commercial, as well as domestic, purposes.49 However, when there is not enough water to i0Monteliou8 v. Elsea, 161 N.E. 2d 675 (1959); Bisher v. Richards, 9 Ohio St. 495 (1859). ^Montelious v. Elaea, 161 N.E. 2d 675 (1959). aOity of Oanton v. Shock, 66 Ohio St. 19, 63 N.E. 600 (1902). **Foa> v. Fostoria, 14 O.C.C. 471 (1897) rev'd. on other grounds 60 Ohio St. 340, 54 N.E. 370 (1899). "East Liverpool City Ice Go. v. Mattern, 101 Ohio St. 62, 127 N.E. 408 (1920). a See discussion in sec. 2.3(a). "Straight v. Hover, 79 Ohio St. 263, 87 N.E. 174 (1909) ; Vian v. Sheffield Bldg & Dev. Co., 85 Ohio App. 191, 88 N.E. 2d 410 (1948). "Oity of Oanton v. Shock, 66 Ohio St. 19, 63 N.E. 600 (1902). *8 Mallory v. Dillon, 18 O.L. Abs. 239 (Ct. App. Mahoning County 1934). «"Oity of Canton v. Shock, 66 Ohio St. 19, 63 N.E. 600 (1902). |