Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1139153
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:33:58+00:00

Document:
771 Any person may condemn an inferior use of water for a superior use.378 The court in the condemnation proceedings is to determine what use will be for the greatest public benefit, and that use is to be deemed a superior one. However, the statute further provides that no person may be deprived of the use of water reasonably necessary for the irrigation of his land then under irrigation, by the most eco- nomical method of artificial irrigation, in favor of another irrigation use, the court to determine the most economical method. The Su- preme Court of Washington allowed the condemnation, primarily for domestic purposes, of a water supply on another's land not then being used by the landowner, pursuant to this statute, holding that the use of water for domestic purposes is a public purpose when the domestic use desired is the foundation of an agricultural enterprise.378 The riparian doctrine has been recognized repeatedly in the court decisions of Washington. Very early decisions of the supreme court acknowledged the validity of appropriations of water on public lands of the United States pursuant to local laws and customs, under authority granted by Acts of Congress;880 and in a number of subsequent cases the supreme court, in stating the appropriative principle, carefully restricted its applicability to the public domain.881 Adoption of the riparian principle likewise appeared in early cases,382 qualified by the recognition of prior appropriations on public lands.883 In 1897 the Washington Supreme Court held that riparian rights existed in the arid as well as the humid portions of the State, and that such rights attached to lands passing to private ownership at the inception of title thereto and would be protected as against subsequent appropriations.384 But the time element works in favor of appropriative rights likewise; that is, an appropriation of water, validly acquired, is superior to riparian 878 Wash. Rem. Rev. Stats., § 7354. 879 State ex rel. Andersen v. Superior Court, 119 Wash. 406, 410-411, 205 Pac. 1051 (1922). 880 Thorpe v. Tenem Ditch Co., 1 Wash. 566, 569-570, 20 Pac. 588 (1889); Geddis v. Parrish, 1 Wash. 587, 589-592, 21 Pac. 314 (1889); Isaacs v. Barber, 10 Wash. 124,128-132, 38 Pac. 871 (1894). 881 See Benton v. Johncox, 17 Wash. 277, 289, 49 Pac. 495 (1897); Sander v. Bull, 76 Wash. 1, 5, 135 Pac. 489 (1913); Hough v. Taylor, 110 Wash. 361, 364- 365, 188 Pac. 458 (1920); in re Doan Creek, 125 Wash. 14, 20, 215 Pac. 343 (1923). 888 Crook v. Hewitt, 4 Wash. 749, 750, 754, 31 Pac. 28 (1892); Shotwell v. Dodge, 8 Wash. 337, 339, 36 Pac. 254 (1894); Rigney v. Tacoma Light & Water Co., 9 Wash. 576,582-583, 38 Pac. 147 (1894). 888Isaacs v. Barber, 10 Wash. 124,128-129, 38 Pac. 871 (1894). ""Benton v. Johncox, 17 Wash. 277, 279-283, 288-290, 49 Pac. 495 (1897). Reaffirmed in Nesalhous v. Walker, 45 Wash. 621, 623-624, 88 Wash. 1032 (1907). See In re Doan Creek, 125 Wash. 14, 20, 215 Pac. 343 (1923).

References: § 7354
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.