Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130207
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:52:25+00:00

Document:
38 CHARACTERISTICS OF WATERCOURSE "Collateral Questions Respecting Watercourses-Watercourse Originally Made Artificially"). Definiteness of Channel Definite channel. -Western courts long ago declared that the channel of a watercourse must be definite.68 That the channel may be "reasonably" definite or well defined has been acknowledged by courts in some later cases.69 Other statements have been to the effect that the channel is well defined,70 created by the eroding force of the running water itself,71 and through which the water is accustomed to flow.72 However, it is held in South Dakota that to constitute a watercourse with respect to the statutory right to drain one's land into a natural watercourse or depression, it is sufficient that the conformation of the land be such as to give the diffused surface water flowing from one tract to another a fixed and determinate course so as to discharge it uniformly upon the servient tract at a fixed and definite point; and that it is not necessary that the force of the water be sufficient to wear out a channel having definite and well-marked sides or banks-this depending on the nature of the soil and force and rapidity of the flow.73 (See "General Features," above, and "Bed and Banks or Sides," below). The description in another case was that of a natural and "regular" watercourse, rather than that of a mere casual overflow.74 Visual indications of definiteness.-In close contests over the existence of a definite natural channel, the readiness with which an observer can discern such existence, particularly when the ground is dry, is important in establishing the watercourse as such. Hence, we find such expressions as these: the channel is easily distin- guished;75 it is rendered perceptible by a difference of vegetation;76 any person 6SPyle v. Richards, 17 Nebr. 180, 182, 22 N. W. 370 (1885); Rigney v. Tacoma Light & Water Co., 9 Wash. 576, 579, 38 Pac. 147 (1894); Jaquez Ditch Co. v. Garcia, 17 N. Mex. 160, 161, 124 Pac. 891 (1912); Hutchinson v. Watson Slough Ditch Co., 16 Idaho 484, 488, 101 Pac. 1059 (1909). 69Alexander v. Muenscher. 7 Wash. (2d) 557, 559-560,110 Pac. (2d) 625 (1941); Scott v. Watkins, 63 Idaho 506, 517, 122 Pac. (2d) 220 (1942);State v.Brace, 76 N. Dak. 314, 322, 36 N. W. (2d) 330 (1949). 70 Watkins Land Co. v. Clements, 98 Tex. 578, 582-583, 86 S. W. 733 (1905);Holman v. Christensen, 73 Utah 389, 397, 274 Pac. 457 (1929); Popham v. Holloron, 84 Mont. 442, 450-453, 275 Pac. 1099 (1929); Maricopa County M.W.C. Dist. v. Southwest Cotton Co., 39 Ariz. 65, 85-86, 4 Pac. (2d) 369 (1931). 11 Palmer v. Waddell, 22 Kans. 352, 355-356 (1879); Miller v. Marriott, 48 Okla. 179, 183-186, 149 Pac. 1164 (1915); Doney v. Beatty, 124 Mont. 41, 45, 220 Pac. (2d) 77 (1950). 12 San Gabriel Valley Country Club v. County of Los Angeles, 182 Cal. 392, 397, 188 Pac. 554 (1920);Hansen v. Crouch, 98 Oreg. 141, 146, 193 Pac. 454 (1920). 73 Thompson v. Andrews, 39 S. Dak. 477, 483-484, 165 N. W. 9 (1917). See Johnson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 71 S. Dak. 155, 161, 22 N. W. (2d) 737 (1946). "Dahlgren v. Chicago, M. & P.S. Ry., 85 Wash. 395, 405,148 Pac. 567 (1915). 75Rigney v. Tacoma Light & Water Co., 9 Wash. 576, 579, 38 Pac. 147 (1894). 76 Lux v. Hoggin, 69 Cal. 255, 419, 4 Pac. 919 (1884), 10 Pac. 674 (1886).

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