The above riparian owners\u2019 rights and obligations are based on common law. Most of the cases are over 50 years old. Accordingly, they predate modern laws on water pollution and environmental standards. Many come from the UK in a very different time. However, they are the basis of the law.<\/p>\n
Modern water pollution and environmental laws create new rights of damages that did not exist before.\u00a0 In addition, the law of negligence which has regard to statutory duties.<\/p>\n
There are two possibilities. One is that the duties laid out in environmental legislation define what landowners can do, so a breach of them causing damage or loss to another is negligence by itself and gives rise to the right to compensation. There may also be a right of compensation in some cases for breach of statutory duty. The courts infer whether this was intended by the lawmakers.<\/p>\n
In both instances, this may mean that modern environmental law redefines and changes what can be done between adjoining owners. The tendency of common law was to give huge respect to property rights. Property rights include riparian rights.<\/p>\n
There are instances where, under the older cases, neighbours can act in their own interest, stand by, and do things that cause predictable loss to neighbours. Where new legislation creates a particular duty under environmental regulations, failure to comply with this duty might itself give rise to a right of compensation<\/p>\n
In addition to the above, the law of negligence has evolved over the last 50 years. More and more, where somebody causes loss to another by acting carelessly (and all the more so deliberately), he or she must compensate the other. To a greater extent,\u00a0 where there are competing rights between riparian owners, the courts look at the matter from a negligence point of view.<\/p>\n\n
\n <\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Flow of the Water At common law, the riparian owner is entitled to have the stream flow down as it has been accustomed to flow,\u00a0 subject to the ordinary reasonable use of the flowing water by upper owners, without sensible (appreciable) diminution or increase and without sensible alteration in its character or quality. The riparian […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[267],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19121"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19121"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19121\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":31462,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19121\/revisions\/31462"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19121"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19121"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}