If the water of a natural watercourse is, either in part or wholly, diverted from its channel, and cast upon the land of another, upon which it did not naturally flow, there is an infringement of such other's rights justifying the recovery of damages, or in a proper case, the issuance of an injunction, as against the person causing the diversion.64

- By change of channel. A riparian proprietor upon a watercourse who, by causing the stream to flow in a different channel, deprives a former lower proprietor of the use of the water, is liable in damages to the latter, and may, under some circumstances, be compelled to restore the stream to its former channel.65-66

Lumber Co., 84 Wash. 31, 146 Pac. 171; State v. Barker, 37 Utah, 345, 27 L. R. A. N. S. 1138, 108 Pac. 352; Cook v. Seaboatrd Airline Rwy., 107 Va. 32, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 966, 57 S. El 564.

63. Post, Sec. 353, notes 45-47.

64. Menzies v. Breadalbane, 3 Bligh N. S. 414; Lindsey v. So. R. Co., 149 Ala. 349, 43 So. 139; Surridge v. Ellis, 117 Ark. 223, 174 S. W. 537; Learned v. Castle, 78 Cal. 454, 18 Pac. 872, 21 Pac.

11; Falcon v. Boyer, 157 Iowa. 745, 142 N. W. 427; Wood v. Craig, 133 Mo. App. 548, 113 S. W. 676; Christensen v. Omaha Ice & Cold Storage Co., 92 Neb. 245, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1221, 138 N. W. 141; Kane v. Borden, 85 Neb. 347, 123 N. W. 94; Hargreaves v. Kimberly, 26 W. Va. 787, 53 Am. Rep. 121.

65-66. Goodrich v. Georgia R. etc. Co., 115 Ga. 340, 41 S. E. 659; Atchison etc. P. Co. v. Long. 46 Kan. 701, 26 Am. St. Rep.

- (d) Pollution of water. The right of the riparian owner to have the stream flow by his land in its natural condition extends to the quality as well as the quantity of the water, and an upper proprietor has, prima facie, no right so to use his land or the water of the stream as to cause pollution of the latter.67 This right of a lower riparian proprietor to have the water come to him free from pollution is subject, however, to the right of the upper proprietor to make a reasonable use of the water, and whether a use which affects the purity of the water is reasonable in a particular case is, like the question as to excessive use, one of fact, to be determined by a consideration of the character and ordinary use of the stream, the extent of the pollution, its necessity for the purpose of making a beneficial use of the water, and the resulting damage to lower proprietors.68 Equivalent to the pollution of the water with the utilization of the water by an upper proprietor,77 Nor may he raise the level of the stream to such an extent that water on the land of a riparian proprietor cannot drain therein.78

165, 27 Pac. 182; Aubol Grand Forks Lumber Co., 131 Minn. 186, 154 N. W. 968; Corning v. Troy Iron etc. Co., 40 N. Y. 191; Rig-ney v. Tacoma Light etc. Co., 9 Wash. 576, 26 L. R. A. 425, 38 Pac. 147.

67. Young v. Bankier Distillery Co. (1893) App. Cas. 691; Wood v. Waud, 3 Exch. 748; Lewis v. Stein, 16 Ala. 214, 50 Am. Dec. 177; Robinson v. Black Diamond Coal Co., 57 Cal. 412. 40 Am. Rep. 118; Tetherington v. Donk Bros. Coal etc. Co., 232 111. 522, 83 N. E. 1048; Ferguson v. Firmenich Mfg. Co., 77 Iowa, 576, 14 Am. St. Rep. 319, 42 N. W. 448; Kraver v. Smith, 164 Ky. 674, 177 S. W. 286; Merrifield v. Lombard, 13 Allen (Mass.) 16, 90 Am. Dec. 172; McGenness v. Adriatic Mills, 116 Mass. 177; Mississippi Mills Co. v. Smith, 69 Miss. 299, 30 Am. St. Rep. 546, note, 11 So. 26; Holsman v. Boiling Spring Bleaching Co., 14 N. J. Eq. 335; Chipman v. Palmer, 77 N. Y. 51, 33 Am. Rep. 566; Mc-Callum v. Gerrmantown Water Co., 54 Pa. St. 40, 93 Am. Dec. 656; Richmond Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic De Laine Co., 10 R. I. 106, 14 Am. Rep. 658; Williams v. Haile Gold Min. Co., 85 S. C. 7, 66 S. E. 1057; Virginia Hot Springs Co. v. Grose, 106 Va. 476, 56 S. E. 222; (immaterial that plaintiff purchased after pollution began).

68. Lawton v. Herrick, 83 Conn. 417, 76 Atl. 986; Long v. Louisiana Creosoting Co., 137 La. S61, 69 So. 281; Baltimore v. Warren Mfg. Co., 59 Md. 96; Lock-wood Co. v. Lawrence, 77 Me. 297, 52 Am. Rep. 763; MacNamara v. Taft, 196 Mass. 597, 13 L. R. A. N. S. 1044, 83 N. E. 310; Red River Roller Mills v. Wright, 30 Minn. 249, 44 Am. Rep. 194, 15

Sec. 339]

Natural Rights.

In Pennsylvania it has been in effect decided that no matter what the extent of the pollution of the water by the upper proprietor, the lower proprietor cannot complain if this is a necessary incident to the profitable development or utilization of the former's property, or if the expense of preventing the pollution in the course of such development is practically prohibitive,69 and this view appears to have been approved in Indiana.70 Such a view has been expressly repudiated by other courts,71 and even in Pennsylvania, a disposition has been shown to confine the application of the doctrine to

N. W. 167; Hayes v. Waldron, 44 N. H. 580, 84 Am. Dec. 105; Snow v. Parsons, 28 Vt. 59; Hazeltine v. Case, 46 Wis. 391, 32 Am. Rep. 715.

Since an upper owner has the right to water his cattle at the stream, pollution incident to such use of the water is not actionable by a lower proprietor. Hel-frich v. Catonsville Water Co., 74 Md. 269, 28 Am. St. Rep. 245, 13 L. R. A. 117, 22 Atl. 72; 'McEvoy v. Taylor, 56 Wash. 357, 105 Pac. 851.

68a. Mason v. Hill, 5 Barn. & Ad. 11; Ormerod v. Todmorden Mill Co., L. R. 11 Q. B. D. 155; Sandusky Portland Cement Co. v. Dixon, 221 Fed. 200, 136 C. C. A. 610, L. R. A. 1915E, 1210; Walker Ice Co. v. American Steel & Wire Co., 185 Mass. 463, 70 N. E, 937.

69. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Sanderson, 113 Pa. 126, 56 Am. Rep. 891, 6 Atl. 453; McCune v. Pittsburgh & Baltimore Coal Co., 238 Pa. 83, 85 Atl. 1102. See the discussion of the former case by

Professor Bohlen, 59 University of Penna. Law Rev. at p. 389.

70. Barnard v. Sherley, 135 Ind. 547, 24 L. R. A. 56.S. 41 Am. St. Rep. 454, 34 N. E. 600, 35 N. E. 117; Valparaiso v. Hagan, 153 Ind. 337, 48 L. R. A. 707, 74 Am. St. Rep. 305, 54 N. E. 1062; Ohio Cil Co. v. Westfall, 43 Ind. App. 661, 88 N. E. 354. But Penn. American Plate Glass Co. v. Schwinn. 177 Ind. 645, 98 N. E.