Inc., 225 Ark. 818, 286 S.W.2d 491 (1956) (stating that there should be no right to flood the property to interfere with the natural flow of water onto the property). Appellant urges that the same law should apply here, and the pumping of water backwards over a dam and into the lake is certainly not would be at 168 feet naturally— if nojjwater were pumped out or in — the reasonable-use theory in Harris, supra, would be applicable because it seeks to promote the greatest beneficial use of the water by riparians with minimal harm to others. They assert that the theory has been extended by our supreme court to subterranean and percolating waters, showing that it is not to be so narrowly limited as appellant argues. See Jones v. Oz-Ark-Val Poultry Co., 228 Ark. 76, 306 S.W.2d 111 (1957) (<HOLDING>). Appellees raise the question that if the
holding that woman has constitutionally protected right to determine for any reason or no reason to terminate her pregnancy holding that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are included in the term territorial waters holding that a reason cannot be proved to be a pretext for discrimination  unless it is shown both that the reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason holding that there was no good reason not to apply harris to subterranean waters holding that there is no acrosstheboard prescription regarding the appropriate deference to give the guidelines but that a district court may have good reason to follow the guidelines in a particular case