Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130257
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 17:02:06+00:00

Document:
88 CHARACTERISTICS OF WATERCOURSE eventually returns to the stream from which it came or joins another watercourse.341 Oregon.-A riparian landowner may protect his premises against overflow of the stream and may protect the banks,342 which he has a right to maintain at their usual or natural height.343 A distinction is made between overflows from ordinary floods and those from extraordinary floods. Unanticipated appearances of water in volume in the form of extraordinary floods constitute a "common enemy" and may be repelled by the owner of lands over which the water flows. But floodwaters that are seasonal and expected and that have been recurring at substantially the same periods of the year and in approximately the same volume are ordinary floodwaters.344 So long as ordinary floodwaters form one continuous body, flowing in the ordinary course of the stream and returning to the natural channel as they recede, they are waters of a watercourse, although not confined to the banks of a stream, in which case the lower landowner is inhibited from obstructing the runoff when following its natural course over his land.345 Stream waters which in times of flood become separated from the main body and spread out over the adjoining country without following any definite watercourse or channel cease to be a part of the stream and are regarded as diffused surface water. The rule with regard to their obstruction by the lower owner is the same as in case of ordinary floodwaters temporarily cut off from the main stream.346 Texas. -Subject to the limitations noted below, a riparian owner may lawfully erect a levee on his own land for the purpose of controlling overflows and freshets in streams along the land.347 This conforms to the principle that the reclamation of land and its protection from overflow are private rights as well as being in the interest of the public welfare. Under the limitation of the law, the landowner cannot exercise this right, even for his own benefit, for the purpose of constructing a levee on his side of the channel if the effect will be to cause the water, in times of ordinary overflow, to flow unnaturally over the ground of the opposite owner to his 341 Jefferson v. Hicks, 23 Okla. 684, 692-694, 102 Pac. 79 (1909); Franks v. Rouse, 192 Okla. 520, 525, 137 Pac. (2d) 899 (1943). 343 Cox v. Bernard, 39 Oreg. 53, 61, 64 Pac. 860 (1901). 343 Mace v.Mace, 40 Oreg. 586, 589-590, 67 Pac. 660, 68 Pac. 737 (1902). 344 Wellnwn v. Kelley, 197 Oreg. 553, 560-562, 252 Pac. (2d) 816 (1953). 345 Wellman v. Kelley, 197 Oreg. 553, 561-563, 252 Pac. (2d) 816 (1953). See also Price v. Oregon Ry., 47 Oreg. 350, 359, 83 Pac. 843 (1906). 346 Wellman v. Kelley, 197 Oreg. 553, 566-567, 252 Pac. (2d) 816 (l953);Price v. Oregon Ry., 47 Oreg. 350, 359, 83 Pac. 843 (1906). ^ Knight v. Durham, 136 S. W. 591, 594 (Tex. Civ. App. l9ll);Jackson v. Knight, 268 S. W. 773, 775 (Tex. Civ. App. 1925, error dismissed). See Fort Worth Impr. Dist. No. 1 v. Fort Worth, 106 Tex. 148, 154-160, 158 S. W. 164 (1913).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.