Riparian proprietors

RIPARIAN PROPRIETORS, estates. This term, used by the civilians, has been adopted by the common lawyers. 4 Mason's Rep. 397. Those who own the land bounding upon a water course, are so called.
     2. Such riparian proprietor owns that portion of the bed of the river (not navigable) which is adjoining his land usque ad filum aquce; or, in other words, to the thread or central line of the stream. Harg. Tr. 5; Holt's R. 499; 3 Dane's Dig. 4; 7 Mass. R. 496; 5 Wend. R. 423; 3 Caines, 319 2 Conn. 482; 20 Johns. R. 91; Angell, Water Courses, 3 to 10; 9 Porter, R. 577: Kames, Eq. part 1, c. 1, s. 1; 26 Wend. R. 404; 11 Stanton, 138; 4 Hill, 369. The proprietor of land adjoining a navigable river has an exclusive right to the soil, between high and low water marks, for the purpose of erecting wharves or buildings thereon. 7 Conn. 186. But see 1 Pennsyl. 462. Vide River.

References in classic literature ?
The selfishness of the riparian proprietor grows with every year.
Part III examines case law reflecting this doctrinal shift and concludes that the decline of the appurtenancy requirement was the inevitable result of another key doctrine in riparian law: the reasonable use requirement, under which riparian rights are correlative and are limited only by the rights of other riparian proprietors.
84) While the defendants might have had a contractual right that was good as against the grantor, they had no rights as against other riparian proprietors.
87) The court noted that the doctrine of reasonable use as between riparian proprietors did not include "'the case of an interference by a stranger, who, by any means, or for any cause, diminishes the flow of the water; for this also is wholly wrongful, and no question of the reasonableness of his action in causing the diminution can possibly arise.
The release from liability that the plaintiff had sought and received from the other riparian proprietors, and his long-accepted diversion of the water, demonstrated that his usage had survived the community's scrutiny.
The appurtenancy and single-transaction requirements in particular exhibited the law's faith that riparian proprietors would purchase parcels of sustainable size.
The court also chose not to include in its quotation of [sections] 1 of the Butler Act the following phrase: "also confirming to the riparian proprietors all improvements which may have heretofore been made upon submerged lands.