OCR Text |
Show SPRING WATERS 613 The Nevada Supreme Court indicated in a 1925 case that an appropriative right to use water of a spring will be protected by injunction against an interference by another party which, by the lapse of time, could become the foundation of an adverse right.249 In an early case, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the owner and appropriator of a spring fed by percolating waters on the land of another, could not enjoin interference with the source of supply on the other's land, because the absolute use of percolating waters belonged to the owner of the land on which they were found.250 The rule relating to percolating waters as stated in this decision has been changed by statute.251 Hence, except where vested rights are involved, this case now is probably of only historical importance. Springs constituting the source of a creek were held subject to appropriative rights established on the creek, even though waters from the springs flowed underground in unknown courses part of the way to the creek.252 In 1913 the supreme court stated, "Whatever may be the law respecting a spring from which no water flows, there can be no question as to the right to appropriate water flowing in a natural watercourse, the source of which is a spring."253 Notwithstanding statements in some of the earlier cases concerning sources of spring waters and rights to use springs from which water does not flow, there seems to be no question that the waters of springs in Nevada are now governed by the appropriation doctrine, regardless of whether or not they feed watercourses. New Mexico In an early case, a lower appro priator of the flow of springs fed by an underground stream was protected against interference with water in a marsh which was shown to be a part of the stream. The court considered the law clear that "A subterranean stream which supplies a spring with water, cannot be diverted by the proprietor above, for the mere purpose of appropriating the water to his own use * * *."254 As against an attempted appropriation under the statute, the New Mexico Supreme Court held in Vanderwork v. Hewes & Dean that seepage or spring water appearing on the surface from an unknown source, which did not flow upon the premises in a defined stream, belonged to the landowner.255 In 1951, the supreme court again held in Burgett v. Calentine that waters from springs which do not flow in a natural channel, but sink in the soil, are 2A9Robison v. Mathis, 49 Nev. 35, 43-44, 234 Pac. 690 (1925). 2S0Mosier v. Caldwell, 7 Nev. 363, 366-367 (1872). 251 Nev. Rev. Stat. § § 533.025 and .030 (Supp. 1969). wStrait v. Brown, 16 Nev. 317, 323-324 (1881). 253Campbell v. Goldfield Consol. Water Co., 36 Nev. 458, 462, 136 Pac. 976 (1913). 2SAKenney v. Carillo, 2 N. Mex. 480, 495-496 (1883). 255 Vanderwork v. Hewes & Dean, 15 N. Mex. 439, 445-449, 110 Pac. 567 (1910). |