53. Canton v. Shock, 66 Ohio St. 19, 58 L. R. A. 637, 90 Am.

St. Rep. 557, 63 N. E. 600; Philadelphia v. Spring Garden Com-mrs., 7 Pa. 348 (dictum); Philadelphia v. Collins, 68 Pa. 106 (dictum); Barre Water Co, v. Carnes, 65 Vt. 626, 21 L. R. A. 769, 36 Am. St. Rep. 891, 27 Atl. G09.

Contra, Stein v. Burden, 24 Ala. 130; Emporia v. Soden, 25 Kan. 588, 37 Am. Rep. 265; Mannville Co. v. Worcester, 138 Mass. 89; Stock v. Hillsdale, 155 Mich. 375, 119 N. W. 435. (Compare Battle Creek v. Goguac Resort Ass'n, 181 Mich. 241, 148 N. W. 441.) Higgins v. Flemington Water Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 538; Gardner v. New-burgh, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 162, 7 Am. Dec. 526 (semble); New Whatcom v. Fairhaven Land Co., 24 Wash. 493, 54 L. R. A. 190. 64 Pac. 735.

54. Stockport Waterworks Co. v. Potter, 3 Hurl. & C. 300, 2 Gray's Cas. 134; Ormerod v. Tod-morden Joint Stock Mill Co., 11 Q. B. Div. 155; Heilbron v. Fowler Switch Canal Co., 75 Cal. 426, 7 Am. St. Rep. 183; Gould v.

It is made to one who is a riparian proprietor, it would appear to be simply nugatory, since the latter already has such a right. The transfer of riparian rights is valid, however, it is said, as against the riparian owner making the transfer, and any person claiming under him.55

- What is riparian land. Generally speaking, all land which belongs to the owner of land immediately abutting on the stream, and not entirely separated from the latter by land belonging to another,56 that is, "land from the end of which the owner may pass continuously over his own land to the stream without having to go upon land not owned by him," is riparian land.57 Occasionally, however, limitations upon the generality of this rule have been asserted. It has, for instance, been said that land which was not within the same entry, for the purpose of acquisition from the government, or not within the same original survey as the land immediately bordering on the stream, could not be regarded as riparian.58 And in California there

Eaton, 117 Cal. 539; Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co.,

150 Cal. 520, 89 Pac. 338; Higgins v. Flemington Water Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 538; Roberts v. Martin, 72 W. Va. 92, 77 S. E. 535; Kirk-land v. Cochrane, 87 Wash. 528,

151 Pac. 1082. Contra, Gillis v. Chase, 67 N. H. 161, 68 Am. St. Rep. 645, 31 Atl. 18; Lawrie v. Silsby, 76 Vt. 240, 104 Am. St. Rep. 927, 56 Atl. 1106, 82 Vt. 505, 74 Atl. 94. And see Elliott v. Fitchburg R. Co., 10 Cush. (Mass.) 191; Peck v. Clark, 142 Mass. 436, 8 N. E. 335.

55. Yocco v. Conroy, 104 Cal. 468, 38 Pac. 107; Gould v. Eaton, 117 Cal. 539, 38 L. R. A. 181, 49 Pac. 577; McCaiter v. Hudson

County Water Co., 70 N. J. Eq. 695, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 197, 10 Ann. Cas. 116, 65 Atl. 489; Stockport Waterworks Co. v. Potter, 3 Hurlst. & C. 300; Ormerod v. Todmorden Mill Co., L. R. 11 Q. B. 156. See post, Sec. 339(g).

56. Alt a Land & Water Co. v. Hancock, 85 Cal. 219, 20 Am. St. Rep. 24 Pac. 645; Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 67 Neb. 325, 10S Am. St. Rep. 647, 60 L. R. A. 889, 93 N. W. 781; Simmons v. Patterson, 84 N. J. Eq. 23, 94 Atl. 421, 84 N. J. Eq. 280, 94 Atl. 421; Jones v. Conn, 39 Ore. 30, 54 L. R. A. 630, 87 Am. St. Rep. 634, 65 Pac. 1068.

57. Wiel, Water Rights. Sec. 305.

58. Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, are suggestions that if one who owns land abutting on the stream subsequently acquires land abutting on such land but not on the stream, such after acquired land is not to be regarded as riparian land.59 It has also been asserted that land not within the watershed of the stream can not be regarded as riparian.60

- (c) Diversion without appropriation. The owner of riparian land may, as against a lower proprietor, divert the water from its channel to any extent whatsoever, for use upon his land or elsewhere, if he does not detain it for an unreasonable time, and ho returns it to its channel at a point on his own land, undiminished in quantity and in substantially the same condition that it was in when it reached his own land.61 And he may, subject to the same conditions, change the channel on his own land for a purpose other than the utilization of the water.62 The riparian right of the for the purpose of redress in favor of a lower owner is the heating of the water.68a

67 Neb. 325, 108 Am. St. Rep. 647, 60 L. R. A. 889, 93 N. W. 781; Watkins Land Co. v. Clements, 98 Tex. 578, 70 L. R. A. 964, 107 Am. St. Rep. 653, 86 S. W. 733.

59. Boehmer v. Big Rock Irrigation District, 117 Cal. 27, 48 Pac. 908; Anaheim Water Co. v. Fuller, 150 Cal. 327, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1062, 88 Pac. 978.

60. Bathgate v.Irvine, 126 Cal. 136, 77 Am. St. Rep. 158, 58 Pac. 442; Anaheim etc. Co. v. Fuller, 150 Cal. 327, 11 L. R. A. (N..S.)

1062, 88 Pac. 978; Matagorda Carnal Co. v. Markham Irrig. Co., - Tex. Civ. App. -, 154 S. W. 1176. See also Clark v. Allaman, 71 Kan. 206, 70 L. R. A. 971, 80 Pac. 571; Stratton v. Mt. Hermon Boys' School, 216 Mass. 83, 103 N. E. 87; Half Moon Bay Land Co. v. Cowell, 173 Cal. 543, 160 Pac. 675; Contra, Jones v. Conn,

39 Ore. 30, 87 Am. St. Rep. 634, 54 L. R. A. 630, 65 Pac. 1068.

61. Kensit v. Great Eastern Rwy. Co., 27 Ch. D. 122; Mentone Irrig. Co. v. Redlands Electric Light & Power Co., 155 Cal. 323, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 382, 17 Ann. Cas. 1222, 100 Pac. 1082; Daum v. Cooper, 208 111. 391, 70 N. E. 339; Johnston v. Hyre, 83 Kan. 38, 109 Pac. 1075; Glenn v. Crescent Coal Co., 145 Ky. 137, 140 S. W. 43; Mannville Co. v. Worcester, 138 Mass. 89; Roberts v. Claremont Rwy. & Lighting Co., 74 N. H. 217, 66 Atl. 485; Petti-bone v. Smith, 37 Mich. 579; Scranton Gas & Water Co. v. Del. Lack. & W. R. Co., 240 Pa. 604, 47 L. R. A. N. S. 710, 88 Atl. 24; Tolle v. Correth, 31 Tex. 362, 98 Am. Dec. 540; Neumeister v. God-dard, 125 Wis. 82, 103 N. W. 241.

62. Miller v. Eastern Rwy. &

Sec. 339]

Natural Rights.

The riparian owner who diverts water from its natural channel for temporary use elsewhere frequently uses it, or allows its use, for the benefit of persons in occupation of land away from the stream, he ordinarily receiving pecuniary compensation from such persons, and the water being used for the purpose of furnishing power with which to operate industrial plants belonging to such persons. The legal situation resulting from such an arrangement, frequently referred to as a grant of water power, is elsewhere discussed.63