The pollution, by a properly constructed city sewer, of a stream which is the natural drainage of the land on which the city is built, gives no right of Action to a lower riparian owner whose mill property, con structed and operated before the building of the city, is injured thereby ; Richmond v. Test, 18 Ind. App. 482, 48 N. U. 610. A plain tiff was held entitled to recover damages where sewers constructed by a city, polluted a stream and the foul water found its way to the two springs of the plaintiff, and he was unable to obtain pure water by digging wells, the whole underground supply being polluted; Good v. Altoona City, 162 Pa. 493, 29 Atl. 741, 42 Am. St. Rep. 840. As a gen eral thing the circumstances of each case must be considered by the court and the con flicting interests, carefully and judiciously weighed, and no general rule can be framed which will afford a rule to be applied by the courts in all cases as matter of law. The right to deposit in the stream must be settled as a question of reasonable use in the same way that courts deal with questions of diversion or obstruction ; Red River Roll er Mills v. Wright, 30 Minn. 249, 15 N. W. 167, 44 Am. Rep. 194; as to many uses of the water, either by common consent or oth er obvious considerations, settled rules have been established ; Redfield, C. J., in Snow v. Parsons, 28 Vt. 459, 67 Am. Dec. 723; many of these cases may be found collected in Gould, Waters § 220.
The legislature may authorize the com missioner of public works of a city 'US take such measures as may be necessary to pro tect the city's water supply from pollution ; Kelley v. New York, 89 Hun 246, 35 N. Y. Supp. 1109. It may empower a local board to prevent boating on a great pond in which there are no private rights of property; Sprague v. Minon, 195 Mass. 581, 81 N. E. 284. The right to protect the water supply includes the right to prevent the casting of sewage into the stream; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U. S. 208, 21 Sup. Ct. 331, 45 L. Ed. 497.
Where a municipal corporation was au thoriied by statute to construct sewers and discharge sewerage into the tide water it was held liable for damages, caused by the sewerage destroying the plaintiff's oysters, although the damage involved no physical taking of property; Huffmire v. Brooklyn, 22 App. Div. 406, 48 N. Y. Supp. 132.
One who had permission to use the water of a canal was held entitled to recover dam ages from a third person, who fouled the water so that the plaintiff's boilers were in jured, the action of the defendant having been without any authority ; 2 H. & N. 476; in a case in the Exchequer Chamber, al though the judgment was reversed on other grounds, there was no dissent from the doc trine of the court below, "that he had no right to cause dirty water to flow on his neighbors' lancrwithout some special right to do so," but it was left doubtful whether the mere permission of the riparian owner to take the water out of the stream was suffi cient to authorize the action against the wrong-doer either for diverting or fouling; 3 H. & N. 675. •
Neither a municipality nor an individual can acquire a prescriptive right to pollute a stream when the pollution constitutes a pub lic nuisance ; Miles City v. State Board of Health, 39 Mont. 405, 102 Pac. 696, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 589; Platt Bros. & Co. v. Water bury, 72 Conn. 531, 45 Atl. 154, 48 L. R. A. 691, 77 Am. St. Rep. 335; Birmingham v. Land, 137 Ala. 538, 34 South. 613; more par ticularly when the stream has been appro priated by statute for a municipal water supply; Martin v. Gleason, 139 Mass. 183, 29 N. E. 664. But where it is not a public nuisance, a prescriptive right may be ob tained by an upper riparian as against a lower riparian owner; Alabama Consol. C. & I. Co. v. Turner, 145 Ala. 639, 39 South. 603, 117 Am. St. Rep. 61; Morris C. & B. Co. v. Paper Co., 71 N. J. Eq. 481, 64 Atl. 746; 16 Can. S. C. 575; so of a city as. against a lower riparian owner ; Smith v. Sedalia, 152 Mo. 283, 53 S. W. 907, 48 L. R. A. 711, where the deposit of city sewage was held not to be a public nuisance. The prescription pe riod begins only from the time when an in jury had been sustained by the complaining party; Lockwood Co. v. Lawrence, 77 Me. 297, 52 Am. Rep. 763 ; and the right of pollution is limited by the user during the period of acquiring the prescriptive right; L. R. 2 Ch. App. 478; Bloomington v. Costello, 65 Ill. App. 407.
Notwithstanding the length of time a city has discharged sewage into a stream, the state may regulate or forbid it ; Miles City v. State Board of Health, 39 Mont 405, 102 Pac. 696, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 589.
See, as to pollution by municipalities, Platt v. Waterbury, 72 Conn. 531, 45 Atl. 154, 48 L. R. A. 691, 77 Am. St. Rep. 335 ; State v. Concordia, 78 Kan. 250, 96 Pac. 487, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1050, and notes.
Where a drain laid by property owners of a public street under permission from the city opens into a natural stream, and there after, without express license from the city, is used as a sewer to discharge sewage into the stream, to the injury of a lower riparian owner, the drain is a nuisance and the city is liable for not abating it ; Mansfield v. Bristor, 76 Ohio St. 270, 81 N. E. 631, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 806, 118 Am. St. Rep. 852, 10 Ann. Cas. 767.
The pollution of streams has been the subject of extended legislation in England, which is embodied in the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876; see Haworth on Rivers Pollution.
A state board of health may forbid citizens drinking polluted water ; State Board v. St. Johnsbury, 82 Vt. 276, 73 Atl. 581, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 766, 18 Ann. Cas. 496.
The state of a woman who has several husbands.
Polyandry is legalized only in Thibet. It is inconsistent with the law of nature. See LAW OF NATURE.