"Every proprietor upon each bank of a river, is entitled to the land covered with water in front of his bank to the middle thread of the stream, &c. In virtue of this ownership, he has a right to the use of the water flowing over it in its natural current, without diminution or obstruction. The consequence of this principle is, that no proprietor has a right to use the water to the prejudice of another. It is wholly immaterial whether the party be a proprietor above or below, in the course of the river, the right being common to all the proprietors _on_ the river. No one has a right to diminish the quantity which will, according to the natural current, flow to the proprietor below, or to throw it back upon a proprietor above." Chief Justice Richardson, of New Hampshire, thus briefly states the same position: "In general, every man has a right to the use of the water flowing in a stream through his land, and if any one divert the water from its natural channel, or throw it back, so as to deprive him of the use of it, the law will give him redress. But one man may acquire, by grant, a right to throw the water back upon the land of another, and long usage may be evidence of such a grant. It is, however, well settled that a man acquires no such right by merely being the first to make use of the water." We are not aware that it has ever been held by any court of law, or even asserted, that a land-owner may not intercept the percolating water in his soil for any purpose and at his pleasure; nor have we in mind any case in which the draining out of water from a well, by drainage for agricultural purposes, has subjected the owner of the land to compensation. It is believed that a land-owner has the right to follow the rules of good husbandry in the drainage of his land, so far as the water of pressure is concerned, without responsibility for remote consequences to adjacent owners, to the owners of distant wells or springs that may be affected, or to mill-owners. In considering the effect of drainage on streams and rivers, it appears that the results of such operations, so far as they can be appreciated, are, to lessen the value of water powers, by increasing the flow of water in times of freshets, and lessening it in times of drought. It is supposed in this country, that clearing the land of timber has sensibly affected the value of "mill privileges," by increasing evaporation, and diminishing the streams. No mill-owner has been hardy enough to contend that a land-owner may not legally cut down his own timber, whatever the effect on the streams. So, we trust, no court will ever be found, which will restrict the land-owner in the highest culture of his soil, because his drainage may affect the capacity of a mill-stream to turn the water-wheels.