| OCR Text |
Show 656 RHODE ISLAND With respect to the use of a stream, the Rhode Island court has stated that riparian owners are considered to be tenants in common, and one proprietor may use more than his proportionate share of the unused water in the stream so long as he uses it in such a man- ner that an exclusive claim of right will not be inferred from such use.61 But each riparian owner is entitled to a proportionate share of the flow of the stream if he has a use for it.52 It appears that the right of an individual to use water for domestic purposes and the watering of stock is a preferred use and water may be used for these purposes to the exclusion of all other uses.153 How- ever, it has been held that this exception does not apply to riparian municipalities and a municipality does not have a right as a riparian owner to supply water to its inhabitants for domestic purposes.54 Subject to the reasonable use limitation, it seems that a riparian owner may obstruct the flow of the stream by a dam in order to facilitate his use of the water.55 However, the construction and operation of dams is subject to certain statutory controls which have the affect of regulating the manner in which a dam owner may use the waters of a stream. The Rhode Island statutes provide that a person may build a mill and dam in a natural stream in order to detain waters and regulate their flow for mill purposes.56 However, any person-whether an upper or lower riparian-who is damaged by the construction or maintenance of a mill dam may initiate a civil action to recover any damages which he suffers.57 Further, these statutes provide that a person may only detain water in a mill dam for a maximum of 12 hours out of every 24-hour period, except Sundays, if any dam owner within 1 mile below the dam requests the water.58 A riparian owner is entitled to enjoy the benefits of an artificially constructed pond on a stream but cannot require the owner of the pond to maintain it solely for his benefit.59 As noted earlier, the riparian right extends to quality as well as quantity eo and a riparian owner cannot cause an unreasonable de- terioration in the quality of a stream without incurring liability to other owners damaged by his action.61 A riparian owner may also enjoin an upper riparian from unreasonably polluting or corrupting the waters that flow through his lands.62 The right of a riparian owner to receive water in a reasonably pure and unpolluted condi- tion has been upheld, even though it was strenuously argued in some cases that pollution was necessary for the industrial and economic development of the State. 51 Dyer v. Cranston Print Works Co., 22 R.I. 506, 48 Atl. 791 (1901). 62 Id. 53 Lonsdale Co. v. City of Woonsocket, 25 R.I. 428, 56 Atl. 448 (1903). ** Id. 55 Silver Spring B. & D. Co. x. Wanskuck Co., 13 R.I. 611 (1882) ; Lonsdale Co. v. City of Woonsocket, 25 R.I. 428, 56 Atl. 448 (1903). 56 Sec. 46-18-1. 67 Sec. 46-18-1 to 46-18-9. 88 Sec. 46-18-16. ™Hood v. Slefkin, 88 R.I. 178, 143 A. 2d 683 (1958) ; also see earlier case where court took opposite view, Public Utilities Commission v. East Providence Water Co., 48 R.I. 376, 136 Atl. 447 (1927). 60Silver Spring B. & D. Co. v. Wanskuck Co., 13 R.I. 611 (1882). 81 Payne & Butler v. Providence Gas Co., 31 R.I. 295, 77 Atl. 145 (1910). 82 Richmond Manufacturing Co. v. Atlantic De Laine Co., 10 R.I. 106, 4 Am. Rep. 658 (1871). |
