RIPARIAN PROPRIETORS. Those who own the lands bounding upon a watercourse. Tyler v. Wilkinson, 4 Mas. 397, Fed. Cas. No. 14,312.
"One whose land is bounded by a navigable stream." Potomac Steamboat Co. v. Steam boat Co., 109 U. S. 672, 686, 3 Sup. Ct. 445, 4 Sup. Ct. 15, 27 L. Ed. 1070. In its common law sense, the owner of the rips or bank of a stream not navigable. Gough v. Bell, 22 N. J. L. 441. An owner of land bounded gen erally on a stream. Bardwell v. Ames, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 333. It is said that the mean ing of the term has been needlessly extended from rivers and streams to the shores of the sea ; Corn. v. Roxbury, 9 Gray (Mass.) 451. If it is necessary to express it by a single adjective, the term littoral proprietor as used in Boston v. Lecraw, 17 How. (U. S.) 426, 15 L. Ed. 118, is more accurate.
Land, to be riparian, must have the stream flowing over it or along its borders; Craw ford Co. v. Hathaway, 67 Neb. 325, 93 N. W. 781, 60 L. R. A. 889, 108 Am. St. Rep. 647. Mere contiguity of quarter sections with another quarter section does not make the former riparian, although all are own ed by the same person, where they were granted by separate patents, though issued to the same individual but based upon sepa rate entries ; Boehmer v. Irr. Dist., 117 Cal. 19, 48 Pac. 908.
Each riparian proprietor owns that por tion of the bed of the river (not navigable) which is adjoining his land usque ad filiern oqucc; or, in other words, to the thread or central line of the stream ; Hargr. Tracts 5; 3 Dane, Abr. 4 ; King v. King, 7 Mass. 496 ; Canal Com'rs v. People, 5 Wend. (N. y.) 423 ; Griffin v. Kirk, 47 Ill. App. 258; Kau kauna Co. v. Canal Co., 142 U. S. 254, 12 Sup. Ct. 173, 35 L. Ed. 1004.
The technical title to the beds of navigable rivers of the United States is either in the states in which the rivers are situated or the riparian owners, depending on the local law. The title of the riparian owner is a qualified one and subordinate to the public right of navigation and subject to the abso lute power of congress over the improvement of navigable rivers; U. S. v. Water Power Co., 229 U. S. 53, 33 Sup. Ct. 667, 57 L. Ed. 1063. Where the middle of a stream is the boundary between states or private landown ers, that boundary follows any changes in the stream which are due to a gradual accre tion or degradation of its banks; Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U. S. 359, 12 Sup. Ct. 396, 36 L. Ed. ,186 ; Fowler v. Wood, 73 Kan. 511, 85 Pac. 763, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 162, 117 Am. St. Rep. 534 ; hut where a navigable stream suddenly changes its course, the owner of the shore does not acquire title to the aban cloned channel ; Cooley v. Golden, 117 Mo. 33, 23 S. W. 100, 21 L. R. A. 30.
Where one had obtained title by adverse possession of land bounded by a stream, it was held that he had not acquired title to the middle line of the stream; Stanberry v.
Mallory, 101 Ky. 49, 39 S. W. 495, 72 Am. St. Rep. 389.
As to the rights of riparian owners over the bed of navigable waters between high and low water-mark, the decisions are some what conflicting, although the general rule is that the riparian owner holds the right of access to the water, subject to the right of the state to improve navigation ; Philadel phia v. Scott, 81 Pa. 80, 22 Am. Rep. 738. The raising over abutting property, by the improvement of the river, of water to a depth sufficient for navigation, vests a right of navigation in the public ; Schulte v. War ren, 218 Ill. 108, 75 N. E. 783, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 745. Where the United States, to improve navigation, built a pier on submerg ed land, away from, but in front of, an own er's land, by which he lost access to naviga bility, such act is not within the prohibition of the constitution as to taking property for public use without just compensation; Scran ton v. Wheeler, 179 U. S. 141, 21 Sup. Ct. 48, 45 L. Ed. 126.
That the riparian owner has a right of action where his access to the water is cut off by a structure erected between high and low water mark, by a corporation acting un der its charter, see L. R. 5 H. L. 418 ; Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall.,(U. S.) 497, 19 L. Ed. 984; Delaplaine v. R. Co., 42 Wis. 214, 24 Am. Rep. 394; contra, Tomlin v. R. Co., 32 Ia. 106, 7 Am. Rep. 176 ; Lansing v. Smith, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 146 ; Stevens v. R. Co., 34 N. J. L. 532, 3 Am. Rep. 269. Where, by the action of the sea, the sea front was cut off between certain points, and a beach formed outside the main land, divided from it by a navigable bay, the title to the new formation was held to be in the owners of the part cut off ; Murphy v. Norton, 61 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 197. See Bristol v. Carroll Co., 95 Ill. 84. An owner does not lose his property in the soil by submersion or avulsion if he afterwards reclaims it by natural or artificial means, nor (roes the length of time during which the soil was sub merged bar his rights ; Chicago v. Ward, 169 Ill. 392, 48 N. E. 927, 38 L. R. A. 849, 61 Am. St. Rep. 185. Land lost by submergence may be regained by reliction unless the submer gence has been followed by such a lapse of time as to preclude the identity of the land from being established. If, after a submer gence, the water disappears from the land either by gradual retirement or by the ele vation of the land by natural or artificial means, the proprietorship returns to the original owner; Mulry .v. Norton, 100 N. Y. 424, 3 N. E. 581, 53 Am. Rep. 206; Fowler v. Wood, 73 Kan. 511, 85 Pac. 763, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 654, 117 Am. St. Rep. 460, 9 Ann. Cas. 459. If an island forms on the land submerged, it belongs to the original own er; /d.