Is a settlement valid concerning the unknown amount of water flow permitted across another's land in exchange for permission to draw water?

Primary text

A settlement allowing one person to run water across another's land, in exchange for the right of the landowner to irrigate and drink as much as desired, is considered valid and perhaps even more appropriate than the settlement concerning fruit. This is due to the necessity of such arrangements and avoiding great harm and destruction of wealth that cutting the tree would cause, while also addressing the harm to the air space owner if left without benefit. This balances the interests of both parties and aligns with foundational legal principles.