OCR Text |
Show ELEMENTS OF WATERCOURSE 71 found sufficient water in the stream to divert it and thus supply their domestic and other purposes."264 The value of a stream in serving irrigation water rights-or water rights for other purposes-great as it is in western economy, is not essential to the classification of a watercourse. It is useful in reaching a decision, but other values will do. This point had the attention of the Texas Supreme Court in the case noted below under "Drainageway" in which it was held that the waters of Mineral Creek were those of a stream, not diffused surface waters.265 In reaching this conclusion, the court made it clear that it was not saying that the creek was a stream to which riparian or statutory water rights may attach. That question was not before the court. It depended upon other factors not involved in the instant case, and its answer had no bearing on the immediate decision or on the classification of Mineral Creek therein. Drainageway.-A watercourse has been held to exist even though it serves as a "mere channel" by means of which a particular watershed is drained.266 It may also serve a useful purpose in carrying away water that otherwise would accumulate locally.267 However, not all channels are classed as watercourses simply because they serve as drainageways. Any local depression that slopes enough to carry water from the higher to the lower part of a small land area may serve this function, even though the only water that it carries at any time is short-lived runoff from rainfall on the immediate terrain. Undoubtedly, in most extreme cases of this character, the runoff would be classed as diffused surface water. In most parts of the country, more than the performance of this local drainage service would be needed to satisfy the requirements of a watercourse. The importance of this feature of watercourse utility when it rises above small local service and actually benefits an entire community-as contrasted with the flow of diffused surface water-was emphasized by the Texas Supreme Court in a case involving a claim for flood damage.268 Mineral Creek, the overflow from which was in litigation, was a substantial stream. It had tributaries and a substantial watershed. It carried water at least seasonally, and a great deal of water during periods of rainfall, in a well-defined channel. On the whole, said the court, the watercourse performed a necessary and 264Allison v. Linn, 139 Wash. 474,477-478, 247 Pac. 731 (1926). A "never failing supply of water for the development of valuable grain lands:" Popham v.Holloron, 84 Mont. 442,453, 275 Pac. 1099 (1929). "s International & G. N. R. R. v. Reagan, 121 Tex. 233,240, 49 S. W. (2d) 414 (1932). 366 Costello v. Bowen, 80 Cal. App. (2d) 621, 627,182 Pac. (2d) 615 (1947). ™Hansen v. Crouch, 98 Oreg. 141,146, 193 Pac. 454 (1920). 368 International & G. N. R. R. v. Reagan, 121 Tex. 233, 238-240, 49 S. W. (2d) 414 (1932). |