Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130237
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:41:09+00:00

Document:
68 CHARACTERISTICS OF WATERCOURSE water.246 Under certain circumstances, the flow may disappear into the ground and thus join the ground water of the area.247 In the above discussions of "Stream" and "Channel," it was brought out that the disappearance of stream water in the bed of a channel, followed by its reappearance downstream and establishment as the same flow of water, does not break the continuity of stream and channel and hence does not preclude classification of the entire structure as a watercourse.248 Where the course of the water is not traced beyond the place at which it disappears in the stream channel, the watercourse ends at that place. Permanence of Existence The age of a watercourse is not determinative of its classification as such, provided that it has existed long enough to exhibit the elements of permanence and that it meets the other requirements of a watercourse. Long existence persuasive in determining permanence. -Although the element of permanence is necessary, great age is not essential.249 But a long existence undoubtedly lends weight to the requirements of definiteness, stability, and permanence, and its value in that regard has been recognized by many courts. Expressions in support of this that appear in reported decisions include statements or findings such as the following: the stream flows and has ever flowed;250 many years of recurring flow;251 a stream flowing intermittent- ly for many years in a channel that is not ephemeral in character;252 the stream has flowed in its present course more than 20 years;253 the established condition has existed for more than 60 years;254 the present situation has been the case so far as the memory of man runs;255 the watercourse has existed from time immemorial.256 246Sierra County v. Nevada County, 155 Cal. 1, 8 99 Pac. 371 (1908); Hutchinson v. Watson Slough Ditch Co., 16 Idaho 484, 488, 101 Pac. 1059 (1909); Rait v. Furrow, 74 Kans. 101, 109, 85 Pac. 934 (1906);Mader \.Mettenbrink, 159 Nebr. 118, 127, 65 N.W. (2d) 334(1954). 247 The stream may "percolate into the soil, or lose itself in some subterranean channel:" Rait v. Furrow, 74 Kans. 101, 109,85 Pac. 934 (1906). Classification of a watercourse should not be affected by the eventual disappearance of the water into the ground: Allison v.Linn, 139 Wash. 474,477-478, 247 Pac. 731 (1926). 248 See Strait v. Brown, 16 Nev. 317, 323-324 (1881); In re Johnson Creek, 159 Wash. 629, 630, 294 Pac. 566 (1930). See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Carroll, 106 S. W. (2d) 757, 758 (Tex. Civ. App. 1937, error dismissed). 249Scott v. Watkins, 63 Idaho 506, 517, 122 Pac. (2d) 220 (1942). 250 Chicago, R.I. & P.Ry. v. Groves, 20 Okla. 101, 118,93 Pac. 755 (1908). 251 Hellman Commercial Trust & Savings Bank v. Southern Pacific Co., 190 Cal. 626, 634, 214 Pac. 46 (1923). 252 Hoefsv.Short, 114 Tex. 501, 505,510, 273 S. W. 785 (1925). 2S3Popham v.Holloron, 84 Mont. 442,452-453, 275 Pac. 1099 (1929). 254In re Bassett Creek and Its Tributaries, 62 Nev. 461, 466-467, 155 Pac. (2d) 324 (1945). 255 Palmer v. Waddell, 22 Kans. 352, 355-356 (1879); Jaquez Ditch Co. v. Garcia, 17 N. Mex. 160, 161,124 Pac. 891 (1912). 2S6Hansen v. Crouch, 98 Oreg. 141, 146, 193 Pac. 454 (1920);International & G. N. R. R. v.Reagan, 121 Tex. 233,242,49 S. W. (2d)414 (l932);Doney v.Beatty, 124 Mont. 41, 45, 220 Pac. (2d) 77 (1950).

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