The title to an island in a navigable stream arises from the title to the submerged land on which it is formed ; Norton v. White side, 188 Fed. 356. Where the United States, in improving the navigation of a stream, transferred the channel to the opposite• side of an island in the bed of a stream, this changed the title to the island to the oppo site riparian owner ; id.
Where the land of the riparian owner end ed in an almost perpendicular bank from five to six feet high, to the foot of which the bed the river reached, often rising some height above it, and by accretion caused by the planting of trees in the river .a short tance from the bank by one who owned the bed of the river and a separate fishery, the accretion was held to be the property of the latter, and not of the riparian owner ; [1896] 2 Ch. 1, practically reversing [1896] 1 Ch. 78. In the leading case of Gould v. R. Co., 6 N.
Y, 522, it was held, Edmonds, J., dissenting, that "whatever rights the owner of the land has in the river, or in its shore below high water mark, are public rights, which are un der the control of the legislative power, and any loss sustained through the act of the legislature affecting them is damnium absque injuria." Government grants for lands box dering upon navigable waters extend only to high-water mark ; Niles v. Cedar Point Club,' 85 Fed. 45, 29 C. C. A. 5.
Where an act granted to a city the rights possessed by the state in the shore and soil under the Mobile River, it was held valid, and that the rights of the riparian proprie tors were neither enlarged nor restricted by such act; Mobile Transportation Co. v. Mo bile, 187 U. S. 487, 23 Sup. Ct. 174, 47 L. Ed. 266.
A mere grant of a right to erect wharves will not carry title beyond the land actually appropriated ; Morris Canal & Banking Co. v. R. Co., 16 N. J. Eq. 419; Walsh v. Doek Co., 77 N. Y. 448 ; such a grant does not convey an absolute title which may be separated from the upland so as to cut off the riparian rights of the owner of such land ; Shepard's Point Land Co. v. Atlantic Hotel, 132 N. C. 517, 44 S. E. 39, 61 L, R. A. 937.
A conveyance of ferry ways consisting of permanent structures of wood and stone is held to include the land owned and used with them ; Gerrish v. Gary, 120 Mass. 132; a statute giving the right to construct and maintain wharves to the channel of a cer tain river is a legislative grant of the right to the soil as far as the channel ; Hastings v. Grimshaw, 153 Mass. 497, 27 N. E. 521, 12 L. R. A. 617.
One riparian owner cannot build out into the stream, so as to injure the land of an other riparian owner, even when armed with a license granted under act of parliament ; L. R. 1 App. Cas. 662. The owner of lands situated on the sea cannot maintain eject ment for that portion of a wharf construct ed on his land, which extends below low water mark; Coburn v. Ames, 52 Cal. 385, 28 Am. Rep. 634.
The owner of both sides of a stream above tide-water has a right to the ice formed be tween his boundaries; 14 Chic. Leg. News 83.
The intervention of a public road between an estate and a river does not prevent the own er of the estate from being considered as the front or riparian proprietor, when nothing susceptible of private ownership exists be tween the road and river ; Delachaise v. Ma ginnis, 44 La. Ann. 1043, 11 South. 715. A riparian proprietor of land bordering upon a running stream has a right to the flow of its waters as a natural incident to his estate, and they cannot be lawfully diverted against his consent; Sturr v. Beck, 133 U. S. 541, 10 Sup. Ct. 350, 33 L. Ed. 761.
A riparian owner may generate electricity from the water power and convey it -to non riparian property; Mentone Irr. Co. v. Pow er Co., 155 Cal. 323, 100 Pac. 1082, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 382, 17 Ann. Cas. 1222. He may divert the water of a stream at a point on his proper ty, carry it by an artificial channel to a point of use and return it to the stream on his property, if his use does not injure others who have a right to the water; Mentone Irr. Co. v. Power Co., 155 Cal. 323, 100 Pac. 1082, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 382, 17 Ann. Cas. 1222.
The right of a riparian owner to use water for irrigation is limited to riparian lands; Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 67 Neb. 325, 93 N. W. 781, 60 L. R. A. 889, 108 Am. St. Rep. 647; Gould v. Eaton, 117 Cal. 539, 49 Pac. 577, 38 L. R. A. 181. In the east it is held that such right is confined to drinking and other domes tic purposes and watering animals on the ri parian lands; Williams v. Wadsworth, 51 Conn. 277. A riparian owner cannot divert water from a stream to sell it to others; Mc Carter v. Water Co., 70 N. J. Eq. 695, 65 Atl. 489, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 197, 118 Am. St. Rep. 754, 10 Ann. •Cas. 116, affirmed in Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U. S. 349, 28 Sup. Ct. 529, 52 L. Ed. 828, 14 Ann. Cas. 560; Heilbron v. Canal Co., 75 Cal. 426, 17 Pac. 535, 7 Am. St. Rep. 183; Ir. L. R. 21 Eq. 560 (where there is a substantial diminution of the wa ter) ; but it has been held that a riparian owner may take water from a stream and sell it to the inhabitants of a city, the only question being as to the reasonableness of the use; Jones v. Aqueduct, 62 N. H. 489. Many cases, however, take the opposite ground; Lord v. Water Co., 135 Pa. 122, 19 Atl. 1007, 8 L. R. A. 202, 20 Am. St. Rep. 864; Penrhyn Slate Co. v. Power Co., 84 App. Div. 92, 82 N. Y. Supp. 547; Elberton v. Hobbs, 121 Ga. 749, 49 S. E. 779; Osborn v. Norwalk, 77 Conn. 663, 60 Atl. 645. Cases hold that water cannot be diverted for the purpose of supply ing railroad locomotives: Clark v. R. Co., 145 Pa. 438, 22 Atl. 989, 27 Am. St. Rep. 710; Garwood v. R. Co., 83 N. Y. 400, 38 Am. Rep. 452; or to a pond to form ice for sale; Samu els v. Armstrong, 46 Misc. Rep. 481, 93 N. Y. Supp. 24; or by a public institution, being a riparian owner, to supply a large number of its inmates; Salem Mills Co. v. Lord, 42 Or. 82, 69 Pac. 1033, 70 Pac. 832 ; Bank of Hopkins vine v. Asylum for Insane, 108 Ky. 357, 56 S. W. 525; L. R. 7 H. L. 705..