Not if they're affecting the complainers properties. (well, I mean they don't have the right to, not that they "can't")
If a polluter is polluting your piece of a river, your lake, the water from your well etc, than you have the right to stop him.
You imply that some can rightfully own more water and air than others? Such a property concept has negative externalities because it allows for polluters to own and rightfully pollute the water and air that I drink and breath. With every gulp and breath I would give my consent to some grotesque EULA.
Scarce things are scarce, yo.
Ownership just means you can lay a claim to keep other people from using said resource if you rightfully acquired it (<---debate for another time in there). If someone comes along and dirties it up or otherwise harms this resource, you have recourse. It's just a combination of this notion of 'public property' and our inefficient court systems that favor (due to their expensive nature and laws written by lobbyists rather than dictated by natural rights) large corporations that allow 'acceptable levels' of pollution to happen today.
Without both of those in place, it would become trivial to seek redress vs. any damage to your property by another party, and this includes pollution. Without limited liability laws, the stockholders and management of any company that decided to risk polluting others' property would be at personal risk of losing their assets if they wronged others.
Incentives matter.
