The Court of Civil Appeals erroneously held and decided that defendants in error, as riparian owners of land lying along the banks of Spring Creek and the reservoir therein formed and created by the dam of plaintiffs in error, had the right, without a permit from the Board of Water Engineers, or a water right secured under the statutes of the State, to divert the waters from the natural channels of said stream and reservoir therein and appropriate and use the same for the purpose of irrigation. Gammel's Laws, Vol. 1, pp. 1412 and 1418; Hartley's Digest, Articles 1857 and 1878; Oldham White's Digest, Articles 1194-1185; Paschal's Digest, Articles 4529-4530; Rev. Stats., 1879, Art. 3911; Rev. Stats., 1895, Art. 4147; Rev. Stats., 1911, Art. 5338; City of Austin v. Hall, 93 Tex. 591; Landry v. Robison, 110 Tex. 295; Petty v. City of San Antonio, 181 S.W. 224, writ of error refused, 108 Tex. 630; Siddall v. Hudson, 217 S.W. 1115; Moore v. City of Dallas, 200 S.W. 870. The Court of Civil Appeals erroneously held and decided that, the riparian right in the statutory navigable streams of the State is such a property right appurtenant to and belonging to the land bordering and abutting on such streams as invests the owner of the land with authority and right, free from the control and supervision of the State, to divert the waters of such stream from the natural channels and use it in the irrigation of such lands.