PROPERTY IN WATER. XVII. 
hold for a State as for a private individual. Here, in 
Australia, we have an important case in point. The entire 
bed of the Murray, as far down as the South Australian 
border, belongs to New South Wales. The boundary of 
this State extends to the river bank on the Victorian side, 
but this fact does not afford New South Wales any special 
right or superior claim to the river water. The stream of 
the Murray is common property to the three States, by or 
through which the river flows. They all have equal claims. 
Nor does the fact that one State contributes more than 
another to the quantity of water flowing in the river, make 
any difference, because, once the water reaches the river 
it becomes an integral part of the river, and common pro- 
perty. There is no “ give and take”’ in riparian rights. 
The rights of riparian proprietors are subject to one 
important limitation. They only apply to the ordinary or 
normal flow of the river. Flood waters are held to furnish 
a “‘surplus’’ which may legitimately be drawn upon for 
purposes of general utility. There is no recognised vested 
interest in floods. It is upon this established public right 
to surplus water, which most rivers bring down during 
certain seasons, that many important undertakings for 
water conservation have been carried out. Immense 
quantities of water may thus be diverted or impounded 
without infringing any right, and where a State has obtained 
by law the control of all public watercourses there does 
not seem to be any limit to its right in diverting or con- 
serving flood waters. Of course there are some peculiar 
cases where this rule might not fairly apply, and in some 
countries, like lower EKgypt, nearly all the benefit derived 
from ariver is through its floods, but then there are no rules 
without exceptions, and a law may need to be modified to 
meet the common interests involved. Ina general way, 
however, it may be taken that the law of riparian rights 
does not apply to floods. 
2~—July 20, 1903. 
