Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1139154
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:39:36+00:00

Document:
772 rights of lands entered after the date of the appropriation.888 The common-law doctrine has been modified by imposing upon the riparian claimant the necessity of beneficial use of the water, and by subjecting to appropriation for use on nonriparian land the waters of nonnavigable streams in excess of the quantity that can be used beneficially, either directly or prospectively, within a reasonable time, on or in connection with riparian lands.388 The supreme court has stated that "The common-law rule of riparian rights has been stripped of some of its rigors * * *"5887 and that "For years past, the trend of our decisions and the tenor of our legislation have been to restrict and narrow the common law of riparian rights * * *"#388 j±s a resuit3 the advan- tage of position of riparian lands with reference to water rights has been materially reduced.889 The supreme court stated in an early decision that an underground stream with defined course and boundaries would be protected to the same extent as such a stream on the surface, but that such rule would not apply to water percolating through sand or gravel the limits of which were not defined.390 Subsequently the court adopted a rule of reasonable use and correlative rights in percolating waters as among 88B In re Doan Creek, 125 Wash. 14, 20, 215 Pac. 343 (1923); Weitensteiner v. Engdahl, 125 Wash. 106, 108-116, 215 Pac. 378 (1923); In re Alpowa Creek, 129 Wash. 9, 13, 224 Pac. 29 (1924); Hunter Land Co. v. Laugenour, 140 Wash. 558, 569-571, 250 Pac. 41 (1926); In re Sinlahekin Creek, 162 Wash. 635, 642-643, 299 Pac. 649 (1931). 886Brown v. Chase, 125 Wash. 542, 549, 553, 217 Pac. 23 (1923). See also Proctor v. Sim, 134 Wash. 606, 616-619, 236 Pac. 114 (1925); State v. American Fruit Growers, 135 Wash. 156, 161, 237 Pac. 498 (1925); Hunter Land Co. v. Laugenour, 140 Wash. 558, 569-571, 250 Pac. 41 (1926). 887 In re Alpowa Creek, 129 Wash. 9,13, 224 Pac. 29 (1924). 888 Proctor v.Sim, 134: Wash. 606, 616, 236 Pac. 114 (1925). 889 Holdings and statements concerning the nature and extent of the riparian right, other than as noted above, are included in various cases of which typical ones are here noted. Reasonable use of water as among riparian owners: Mc- Evoy v. Taylor, 56 Wash. 357, 358, 105 Pac. 851 (1909). Impounding of water: Tacoma Eastern R. R. v. Smithgall, 58 Wash. 445, 452, 108 Pac. 1091 (1910). Right to overflows of streams; impounding of water; applicability of Desert Land Act: Still v. Palouse Irr. & Power Co., 64 Wash. 606, 610-613, 117 Pac. 466 (1911). Riparian lands: Miller v. Baker, 68 Wash. 19, 20-22, 122 Pac. 604 (1912). Relation to navigability of waters: State ex rel. Ham, Yearsley & Ryrie v. Superior Court, 70 Wash. 442, 451-453, 126 Pac. 945 (1912). Im- pounding of water: Sumner Lumber & Shingle Co. v. Pacific Coast Power Co., 72 Wash. 631, 640-641, 131 Pac. 220 (1913). Nonnavigable waters; appli- cability of Desert Land Act: Bernot v. Morrison, 81 Wash. 538, 559-560, 143 Pac. 104 (1914). Riparian lands; apportionment of water: Matty v. Weiden- steiner, 88 Wash. 398, 402, 153 Pac. 342 (1915). Right to overflows of streams: Longmire v. Yakima Highlands Irr. & Land Co., 95 Wash. 302, 305-306, 163 Pac. 782 (1917). Riparian lands: Yearsley v. Cater, 149 Wash. 285, 288-289, 270 Pac. 804 (1928). 890 Meyer v. Tacoma Light & Water Co., 8 Wash. 144, 147, 35 Pac. 601 (1894).

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