?o9 u.s. Opinion ot the Court. owners of the stream, on the ground that it authorized a suit by 'the State in their interest where it does not appear that they all have released their rights. See Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U.S. 125, 142. But we prefer to put the authority which cannot be denied to the State upon a broader ground than that which was emphasized below, since in our opinion it is inde- pendent of the more or less attenuated residuum of title that the State may be said to possess. All rights tend to declare themselves absolute to their logi- cal extreme. Yet all in fact are limited by the neighberhooc[ of principles of policy which are other than those on which the particular right is founded, and which become strong enough to hold their own when a certain point is reached. The limits set to property by other public interests pre?ent themselves as a branch of what is called the police power of the State. The boundary at which the conflicting interests balance cannot be determined by any general formula in ad- vance, but points in the line, or helping to establish it, are fixed by decisions that this or that concrete case falls on the nearer or farther. side. For instance, the police power my limit the height of buildings, i? a city, without compensation. To that extent it cuts down what otherwise would be the rights of property. But if it should attempt to limit the height so far as to make an ordinary building lot wholly useless, the rights of property would prevail over the other public interest, and the police power would fail. To set such a limit would need compensation and the power of eminent domain. It sometimes is difficult to fix boundary stones between the private right of property and the police power when, as .in the case at bar, we know of few decisions that are very much in point. But it is recognized that the State as guas/-sovereign and representative of the interests of the public has astandlng �in court to protect the atmosphere, the water and the forests within its territory, irrespective of the a?ent or dissent of the private owners of the land most immediately concerned. Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U.S. 125, 141, 142; $. C., 206 U.S.
�
