## Facts

- Red River Roller Mills operated a flouring mill on the Otter Tail River.
- About 1,000 feet upstream, Wright operated a saw and shingle mill constructed over the river so that sawdust, bark, and other refuse fell into the stream and was carried into the plaintiff’s rack and flume.
- The refuse accumulated, impeded water flow, made the flow unsteady, reduced output, and at times prevented production of the best flour grades; the plaintiff incurred added labor to clear the rack and alleged serious losses (including $200 in one week).
- The trial court found the sawmill’s structure and local conditions made alternative refuse disposal impracticable without rendering the sawmill useless as a water-power mill.
- It was customary for similar water-powered sawmills in the state to dispose of sawdust into the streams on which they were built.
- Wright’s mill began operating about two years before the plaintiff’s mill.
- The plaintiff held deeds (including from Wright) granting a perpetual right to use water from a dam and canal “free from charge or rent, or from interference or detention.”
- The plaintiff sought an injunction to stop the upstream discharge.

## Issues

1. Whether an upstream riparian owner’s discharge of sawdust and mill refuse into a river, substantially interfering with a downstream mill, is a lawful “reasonable use” or an actionable interference warranting injunctive relief.
2. Whether deed language granting a right to use water “free from … interference or detention” gives the downstream owner a superior right to an undisturbed flow beyond ordinary riparian reasonable-use limits.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the defendant.
- The court held the upstream sawmill’s discharge of refuse into the river was a reasonable riparian use under the circumstances.
- The court held the plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction.
- The court construed the deeded water-use language as subject to the grantor’s and other riparians’ reasonable uses and not as guaranteeing water in its natural, unaffected condition.

## Legal Principles

- The reasonable-use doctrine governs both diversion/abstraction of water and the deposit of manufacturing waste in a stream; a riparian may make only a reasonable use and nothing more.
- Riparian rights are mutual and qualified by the correlative rights of other riparian owners; no riparian is entitled to a use that unreasonably impairs another’s lawful use.
- A grant of water-use rights “free from … interference or detention” does not confer an absolute right to an undisturbed natural flow; it is construed as preserving a shared community of right subject to reasonable upstream use.
- Reasonableness may account for the character of the watercourse, the necessity and practicability of alternative methods, priority in time of use, and established local industrial customs.

## Conclusion

The court held that, despite substantial downstream harm, the upstream sawmill’s necessary and customary disposal of sawdust into the river constituted a reasonable riparian use, and that the plaintiff’s deeded water-use rights did not displace the governing reasonable-use limits; injunctive relief was therefore denied.


Red River Roller Mills v. Wright, 30 Minn. 249, 15 N.W. 167 (Minn. 1883)