OCR Text |
Show WASHINGTON 773 between riparian and appropriation rights. These differences are reviewed below. B. RIPARIAN RIGHTS Washington early rejected the natural flow theory of riparian rights and embraced the reasonable use concept with respect to riparian uses.118 Riparian users on the same stream have a coequal right to the use of the water, even though one use began before an- other.119 While all uses must be reasonable, use of water for natural or domestic purposes is a preferred use. Domestic use includes water for household purposes, irrigating gardens, and the watering of do- mestic animals.120 Water may be taken for domestic purposes even if the whole supply is used, leaving no water for other purposes.121 The use of water for municipal purposes is not encompassed within the scope of a riparian right.122 Nor can water be diverted and used on nonriparian lands.123 With respect to the use of water for such secondary purposes as irrigation and industry, all riparian owners share equally in the available water supply. But all such uses are subject to the reasonable use limitation.124 What is "reasonable" is a question of fact to be determined from the size, nature and general characteristics of the particular stream.125 In general terms, any activity which causes a substantial alteration or diminution in the flow or quantity of the water is considered unreasonable and is not allowed.126 So the ripar- ian right which diverts and uses water must not only be a beneficial use of the water, but must also be reasonable in relation to other riparian uses. Riparian rights may be lost by nonuse and the water then reverts to the public and is subject to appropriation, see section 3.4, infra. C. APPROPRIATION RIGHTS As noted above, the principal features of the appropriation doc- trine are the diversion of water and its application to beneficial use. Thus, it is the quantity of water which is beneficially used that is the right acquired, and not the water which is diverted from the stream.127 The prior appropriator is first in right and is entitled to have his right fully satisfied before junior appropriators are entitled to any water.128 "s Oeddis v. Parriah, 1 Wash. 587. 21 Pac. 314 (1889) ; Proctor v. Sim. 134 Wash 606, 236 Pac. 114 (1925) ; Bent on v. Johncox, 17 Wash. 277, 39 Pac. 485 ?1897) 118 Hunter Land Co. v. Langenour, 140 Wash. 558, 250 Pac. 41 (1926) : McEvov v ra^or, 56 Wash. 357, 105 Pac. 851 (1909). ' ' y ' 130 Hunter Land Co. v. Langenour, 140 Wash. 558, 250 Pac. 41 (1926). ^^Tielson v. Sponer, 46 Wash. 14, 89 Pac. 155 (1907) ; McEvoy v. Taylor. 56 Wash 357, 105 Pac. 851 (1909). ^Oartier Van Diesel v. Holland-Horr Mill Co., 91 Wash. 239, 157 Pac. 687 (1916) m» Alexander v. Muenscher, 7 Wn. 2d 577, 110 P. 2d 625 (1941). l '" ^.ffttnter I/a»d Co. v. Langenour, 140 Wash. 558, 250 Pac. 41 (1926) : Proctor v 8im, 134 Wash. 606, 236 Pac. 114 (1925). 126 Hunter Land Co. v. I/onflrenowr, 140 Wash. 558, 250 Pac. 41 (1926). ^.Httnfer Land Co. v. Langenour, 140 Wash. 558, 250 Pac. 41 (1926) ; Proctor v Sim, 134 Wash. 606, 236 Pac. 114 (1925) ; also, see Horowitz, Riparian and Appropria- tion Bights to the Use of Water in Washington, 7 Wash. L. Kev. 197 (1932). w Miller v. Wheeler, 54 Wash. 429, 103 Pac. 641 (1910) ; Ortel v. Stone, 119 Wash 500, 205 Pac. 1055 (1922) ; Beetchenow v. Bartholet, 162 Wash. 119, 298 Pac. 335 ( Zt7ol ) • 128 Sec. 90.03.010. |