natural flow of water. Appellant indicates that the number of its acres that are flooded varies greatly depending on the level of the water in the lake. If the elevation is at 168 feet, 150 acres of appellant’s property are inundated with water. If the water level is at 165 feet, only fifty acres are covered with water. Appellant asserts that the artificial pumping of water back upstream into a reservoir for the purpose of artificially flooding the reservoir with water cannot be in any sense a riparian use subject to the reasonable-use theory. Appellant claims that the case is closer to those actions involving the unlawful diversion or stoppage of a water course, though acknowledging that the flooding here is caused artificially. See Chism v. Tipton, 269 Ark. 907, 601 S.W.2d 254 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Appellees say that to the extent that Flag
holding lease of property was a commercial transaction where the property was for commercial ranching but a residence was maintained on the property holding that property owner still has relief in the form of the return of his property though condemnation was complete and a highway was constructed across the property recognizing that water rights constitute a real property interest holding that although authorization was initially given for property exercise of that control continued to be authorized only because the defendant deceived the rightful owner of the property into believing that a legitimate use was being made of the property holding that the property owner being trespassed upon should be allowed to divert the flowage of water from property upon which it is unlawfully maintained