OCR Text |
Show IDAHO 273 tne appropriator's rights in the watercourse extend to all of the tributary supplies, including the tributary springs.123 However, where a spring is not naturally tributary to a watercourse, the own- ers of rights from the stream have no demand on the spring.124 A spring which is located on the public domain may be appro- priated, and that appropriation is valid against a claim by a sub- sequent patentee.125 3.7 Diffused Surface Waters These are waters from rain and melting snow, diffused over the surface of the ground, and not part of any natural stream or body of water.*28 An upland owner has an easement to allow diffused surface water to drain naturally upon lower lands of another, even if this causes damage to the lower lands. But this burden on the lower lands can- not be increased by the acts of the upland owner.127 Diffused surface waters are to be distinguished from floodwaters, the latter being water which has been part of a watercourse but has escaped the stream, overflowing into adjoining territory. An owner has the right to take protective measures to prevent his land from being damaged by floodwaters, but by doing so he may not increase the burden on other owners.128 With respect to the use of diffused surface waters, the Idaho court in one early case ruled that the landowner had the right to collect and use water in an artificial lake which was formed by diffused surface waters.129 The court went on to announce that these waters were not subject to appropriation by others while on an individual's private property. In a fairly recent case, the court stated that a landowner is entitled to capture the natural precipitation on his own land so long as he applies it to a beneficial use.130 4. Ground Water An Idaho statute defines ground water as all water under the surface of the ground, without regard to the geological structure in which it is standing or moving. Many early court decisions in Idaho relating to ground water distinguished subterranean streams from water which percolates through the soil. The former class was governed by rules applicable to surface streams and the latter was owned by the owner of the soil.131 It does not appear that these distinctions are of any great significance today. ls*Malad Valley Irr. Co. v. Campbell, 2 Idaho 411, 18 Pac. 52 (1888) ; Martiny v. Wells, 91 Idaho 215, 419 P. 2d 470 (1966). v*Rabi&o v. Furey, 33 Idaho 56, 190 Pac. 73 (1920) ; and Nordick v. Sorensen, 81 Idaho 117, 838 P. 2d 766 (1959). vsMahoney v. Neiswanger, 6 Idaho 750, 59 Pac. 561 (1899). *** Washington County Irr. Diat. v. Talboy, 55 Idaho 382, 43 P. 2d 943 (1935). **Loo8li v. Heseman, 66 Idaho 469, 162 P. 2d 393 (1945). v* Harper v. Johannesen, 84 Idaho 278, 371 P. 2d 842 (1962). **King v. Chamberlain, 20 Idaho 504, 118 Pac. 1099 (1911). mo Franklin Cub River Pumping v. LeFevre, 79 Idaho 107, 311 P. 2d 763 (1957K MiHutchins, The Idaho Law of Water Rights, 5 Idaho Law Review 112, 115 (1968). |