## Facts

- Downstream riparian owners operated mills and manufactories on Oatka Creek, relying on the creek’s flow and fresh-water quality for power and industrial use; some uses dated back to at least 1825.
- An upstream riparian, Kerr Salt Co., operated a large salt-manufacturing plant on land bordering the creek and drew brine from deep wells for salt production.
- Kerr’s process evaporated substantial quantities of water, reducing the creek’s downstream flow because the water was consumed and not returned to the stream.
- Kerr discharged highly saline waste and residues onto its land in a manner that allowed runoff into Oatka Creek.
- Downstream owners alleged the creek changed from fresh to heavily salt-laden water, causing harm including damage to boilers and machinery, harm to fish and vegetation, and loss of suitability for ordinary agricultural and industrial uses.
- Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief only, expressly reserving monetary damages for later actions at law.
- Kerr denied material diversion and pollution beyond a claimed reasonable use.

## Issues

1. Whether an upstream riparian’s industrial process that evaporates and consumes substantial stream water constitutes an unreasonable diversion that violates downstream riparian rights.
2. Whether discharging saline waste that materially degrades stream water quality and renders it unfit for ordinary uses constitutes an unreasonable interference with downstream riparian rights.
3. Whether asserted business necessity for an industrial use can justify substantial impairment of other riparian owners’ rights in the stream’s natural quantity and quality.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for Kerr and ordered a new trial.
- The court held that the alleged diversion through evaporation and the salination of the stream, if proven as claimed, were unreasonable under riparian law.
- The court rejected the view that industrial importance or necessity could excuse substantial injury to other riparian proprietors’ established uses.
- Because the record was not sufficiently developed on causation details and feasible preventive measures, the court did not order immediate final injunctive relief on the existing record, instead directing a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Riparian owners have coequal rights to make reasonable use of a natural stream, but no owner may make a use that substantially diminishes the stream’s quantity or materially impairs its quality for other riparian proprietors.
- “Reasonable use” does not permit a new and extraordinary industrial use that effectively destroys water as water by consuming it in the process rather than returning it in substantially the same quantity.
- A riparian owner may not materially alter the character of the stream by pollution that renders water unfit for ordinary domestic, agricultural, or industrial purposes of downstream owners.
- Economic utility or business necessity does not authorize substantial invasion of vested riparian property rights.
- Equitable relief may be shaped to restrain unreasonable diversion and pollution and may require preventive measures rather than total cessation, depending on proof and practicability.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that significant evaporation-based consumption and salination of a stream by an upstream saltworks could constitute unreasonable interference with downstream riparian rights, reversed the defense judgment, and ordered a new trial to determine appropriate equitable protection.


Strobel v. Kerr Salt Co., 164 N.Y. 303, 58 N.E. 142 (N.Y. 1900)