Odger's English Common Law

RIGHT TO THE FLOW OF WATER. 593
right to interrupt the regular flow of the stream, if he thereby interferes
with the lawful use of the water by other proprietors and inflicts upon
them a sensible injury." x
" The right to the water of a river flowing in a natural
channel through a man's land, and the right to water flowing
to it through an artificial watercourse constructed on his
neighbour's land, do not rest on the same principle. In the
former case, each successive riparian proprietor is prima
facie entitled to the unimpeded flow of the water in its
natural course, and to its reasonable enjoyment as it passes
through his land, as a natural incident to his ownership of it.
In the latter, any right to the flow of water must rest on some
grant or arrangement, either proved or presumed, from or with
the owners of the lands from which the water is artificially
brought, or on some other legal origin." 2
In fact, where the stream is not a natural but an artificial
one, the plaintiff must establish an easement entitling him to
the flow of water. If an artificial watercourse be made merely
for temporary purposes, no action will lie for its obstruction,
even though the plaintiff prove long enjoyment of its uninter-
rupted flow; for the fact that the stream was created for
temporary purposes precludes a presumption of a grant of a
permanent right. 3 But if the artificial watercourse be of a
permanent nature, a right to the uninterrupted flow of water
along it may be acquired by prescription or grant. And
moreover in this case rights in the nature of easements may
also be acquired therein by the owner of the land on to which
the water flows ;
he can acquire the right to prevent the man,
who made the watercourse, from polluting the water to his
injury.
Thus the flow of water from the eaves of a house would not give a right
to the neighbour to insist that the house should not be pulled down or
altered so as to diminish the quantity of water flowing from the roof ;
• * Per Lord Kingsdown in Miner v. Gilmour (1858), 12 Moo. P. C. C. at p. 156 ;
cited with approval in JVuttall v. Braeewell (1866), L. R. 2 Ex. at pp. 9, 13 ; and in
Commissioner! of French Hoelt v. Hugo (18 >J), 10 App. Gas. at p. 344.
2 Per cur. in Singh v. Pattuk (1878), i App. Cas. at p. 126 ; cited with
approval by Farwell, 3., in Burrows v. Lang, [1901] 2 Oh. at p. 607.
3 Wood v. Waud (1849), 3 Exch. 74 s . See also Burrows v. Lang, [1901] 2 Ch.
502; Whitmores (Edenbridge-) , Ltd. v. Stanford, [1909] 1 Ch. 427.
B.C.L.
38
nor