1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXX. The Prætor says: “I forbid force to be employed against anyone to prevent him from repairing or cleaning any aqueduct, canal, or reservoir, which he has a right to use for the purpose of conducting water, provided he does not conduct it otherwise than he has done during the preceding summer, without the employment of violence, or clandestinely or under a precarious title.” 1This interdict is extremely useful, for unless anyone is permitted to repair a conduit, he will be inconvenienced in his use of the same. 2Therefore, the Prætor says, “An aqueduct and a canal.” A canal is a place excavated throughout its length, and derives its name from a Greek word meaning to flow. 3A reservoir is a place from which one looks down, and from it public exhibitions are named. 4Conduits are opposed to ditches, and are for the purpose of conducting and forcing water from a stream, whether they are of wood, stone, or any other material whatsoever. They were invented for the purpose of containing and conveying water. 5A ditch is a place excavated at the side of a stream, and is derived from the word incision, because it is made by cutting; for the stone or the earth is first cut, in order to permit the water to be brought from the river. Pits and wells are also included in this interdict. 6The Prætor next says, “to repair and clean.” To repair is to restore anything which is injured to its former condition. In the term “repair” are included to cover, or support from below, to strengthen, to build, and also to haul and transport everything necessary for that purpose. 7Several authorities hold that the term “clean” only has reference to a canal which is in good condition, but it is evident that it also applies to one which needs repair, for frequently a canal needs both repairing and cleaning. 8The Prætor says, “for the purpose of conducting the water.” This is added for a good reason, as he only is permitted to repair and clean a water-course who made it in order to conduct water. 9This interdict will also lie in favor of one who has not the right to conduct water, provided he did conduct it either during the previous summer, or during that year; as it is sufficient that he did not do so by the employment of violence, or clandestinely, or under a precarious title. 10If anyone desires to make a conduit of stone, which was previously merely dug through the earth, it is held that he cannot legally avail himself of this interdict, for he who does this does not merely repair the water-course. This opinion was adopted by Ofilius. 11Hence, even if a person wishes to dig a canal through a different place, he can be prevented from doing so with impunity. This rule also applies whether he lowers, raises, widens, extends, covers, or uncovers the conduit. I, however, think that he can be prevented from changing it in other respects, but so far as covering and uncovering it is concerned, I do not believe that he can be interfered with, unless his adversary proves that it is for his advantage that this should not be done.

2Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXVI. Labeo asserts that a conduit which has been open cannot be changed to a subterranean one, because, by doing so, the owner of the land will be deprived of the privilege of watering his cattle, or of drawing water from the said conduit. Pomponius says that he does not concur in this opinion, because the owner enjoys this privilege rather from accident than from any right which he possesses, unless this was the intention in the beginning when the servitude was imposed.

3Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXX. Servius, however, holds that water which formerly flowed through an open channel is conducted in a different way, if it is subsequently conveyed through one that is covered; for if anyone constructs a work by means of which the water is better preserved or contained, he cannot be prevented from doing so with impunity. I think the contrary applies with reference to a pipe, unless greater benefit is derived by the adversary. 1Servius and Labeo say that if a person wishes to make the conduit of stone which, in the first place, was dug through the earth, and therefore did not retain the water, he should be heard. If, on the other hand, he should change the conduit which was formerly built of stone into merely a ditch through the earth, either wholly or in part, he cannot be prevented from doing so. It seems to me that any urgent and necessary repairs should be permitted. 2If anyone desires to connect a new channel or new pipes with the water-course, which were never there before, Labeo says that this interdict will be applicable. We, however, are of the opinion that, in a case of this kind, the benefit of him who conducts the water without causing any inconvenience to the owner of the land should be considered. 3If water is conducted into a lake, and from the latter by means of several aqueducts, this interdict will lie for the benefit of anyone desiring to repair the lake itself. 4This interdict has reference to all conduits, whether they are situated in public or in private places. 5Even if the pipe is for the purpose of conducting warm water, this interdict will also be available, where any repairs of the same should be made. 6Aristo thinks that a prætorian action will lie where a subterranean pipe through which vapor is conveyed into hot baths requires repairs; and it must be said that an interdict can also be employed in a case of this kind. 7This interdict is also granted to the same persons, in the cases above enumerated, in which interdicts with reference to water are granted. 8Ad Dig. 43,21,3,8Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 465, Note 9.Where notice to desist from the construction of a new work is served upon anyone who is repairing a conduit, it has been very properly held that he need not pay any attention to it, for as the Prætor forbids violence to be employed against him under such circumstances, it is absurd that he should be interfered with by the service of notice to stop the construction of a new work. It must be said that an action in rem can undoubtedly be brought against the party in question, on the ground that he had no right to make the repairs. 9There is no question whatever, that he who makes the repairs should give security against threatened injury. 10Ofilius thinks that this interdict will lie in favor of anyone who is prevented from bringing or transporting any materials required for repairs. This is true.

4Venuleius, Interdicts, Book I. The interdict is also granted where aqueducts ought to be repaired, and no inquiry is made whether a right to conduct the water exists or not. For the repair of roads is not as necessary as that of aqueducts, for if the latter are not repaired, the entire use of the water will be stopped, and persons will be exposed to death by thirst. It is evident that water cannot be obtained without repairing aqueducts; but if a road is not repaired, passage to and fro will only be rendered difficult, and this is less during the summer time.