| OCR Text |
Show 564 DIFFUSED SURFACE WATERS Wyoming In 1934, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that the water in dispute was diffused surface water and, as such, possessed the status indicated by the authorities to which it referred. Included was a quotation to the effect that diffused surface water could be captured and impounded by the owner of the land on whose lands the waters occur, using any available method, and when so impounded it becomes the absolute property of such landowner and not subject to appropriation by others.127 In the following year, there was much contention as to whether a certain draw was a watercourse. On this phase of the case the supreme court concluded:128 The watershed is small; at least half of it, if not more, is confined to the lands of the defendant, and it would seem that the case may be said to resolve itself into the question as to whether or not the defendant has the right to impound water coming from melting snows and heavy rains, which fall onto his lands and on a small adjoining area, and which drain into a depression on defendant's lands. We think he has that right under the circumstances disclosed herein, or, at least, the trial court had the right to so find. 121Riggs Oil Co. v. Gray, 46 Wyo. 504, 512-515, 30 Pac. (2d) 145 (1934), cited with ; approval in Binning v. Miller, 55 Wyo. 451, 466-467,102 Pac. (2d) 54 (1940). 128 Wyoming v. Hiber, 48 Wyo. 172, 187-188, 44 Pac. (2d) 1005 (1935), cited with approval in Binning v. Miller, 55 Wyo. 451, 466-467, 102 Pac. (2d) 54 (1940). |
