OCR Text |
Show 588 OTHER WATERS AT THE SURFACE natural channel. The supreme court stated that after these foreign waters had served the purpose of their appropriation and could not drain back into the stream from which diverted, they became waste, fugitive, and vagrant water and subject to being treated as such. The^ original appropriators no longer had any jurisdiction over the waters, and did not own the corpus of the water; hence they had nothing to sell, and their attempted sale of the water or the right to use the same was wholly void.124 Nor does the owner of land / on which return flow from foreign water feeds a spring that is one of the \ sources of a watercourse have any right to use such water as against prior \ appro priators of water from the watercourse thus^augmented_by the return flow.l2S In a Colorado case, waters had been diverted from the Rio Grande into an area from which the seepage could not naturally drain back to the river. A drainage system was installed, through which the seepage waters from irrigation and local precipitation were returned artificially to the river, and an appropriation of such drainage waters at a point on the drainage ditch was allowed as against the claims of prior appropriators from the river.126 An Idaho decision likewise held that seepage from a canal, which has its source in a different watershed, is separately appropriable under the statute providing that ditches for the utilization of seepage shall be governed by the same laws relating to priority as ditches diverting from running streams.127 An early Washington decision gave the one who brought water from another watershed the right to the increase in flow of a spring attributable to the irrigation of his lands, even though the spring was tributary to a stream on which others had established appropriations. It was held that such return waters belonged to the one responsible for the development, namely, the one who had brought in the new water. These spring waters entering the stream had not been abandoned, according to the finding, and could be used on a neighbor's land under agreement with the owner of the spring, as against the claim of a downstream appropriator.128 A later decision by the Washington Supreme Court held such waters to be of a vagrant or fugitive nature coming from another watershed, "and do not become a part of the natural waters of the creek, even after they have entered it, and that since such waters do not belong to any person, the first taker has the prior right."129 1MGaliger v. McNulty, 80 Mont. 339, 357-358, 260 Pac. 401 (1927). 12SRock Creek Ditch & Flume Co. v. Miller, 93 Mont. 248, 258-268, 17 Pac. (2d) 1074 (1933). 126San Luis Valley In. Dist. v. Prairie Ditch Co. & Rio Grande Drainage Dist., 84 Colo. 99, 268 Pac. 533(1928). 121Breyer v. Baker, 31 Idaho 387, 171 Pac. 1135 (1918), construing Idaho Rev. Code § 3246, now Code Ann. § 42-107 (1948). 128Miller v. Wheeler, 54 Wash. 429, 103 Pac. 641 (1909). 129Elgin v. Weatherstone, 123 Wash. 429,432-433, 212 Pac. 562 (1923). |