| OCR Text |
Show 778 WASHINGTON tions which are adopted.162 It is also provided that the policy of the State is to retain sufficient minimum stream flows and lake levels to provide adequate stockwatering requirements for stock on riparian grazing lands.163 3.6 Springs The Washington court has, on a number of occasions, ruled that the rights to the use of a stream extend to the tributary sources of the watercourse.164 Thus, springs which flow into and form a part of a stream are subject to the same legal principles which govern the waters of a watercourse, but it appears that if the spring is confined to a landowner's property, he may use this source of supply as he desires.165 The ground water code which was enacted in 1945 recites that none of its provisions are to be construed so as to allow the with- drawal of ground water which could adversely affect the right to the flow of any spring.166 3.7 Diffused Surface Waters Diffused surface water is generally characterized as water from rain and melting snow which is diffused over the surface of the earth and which does not form a part of a watercourse. But once diffused surface water reaches a stream it loses its identity as dif- fused surface water and becomes a part of the stream and is there- after governed by the law of watercourses.167 While there is not a great deal of authority in Washington con- cerning the use of diffused surface water, it appears that these waters are not subject to appropriation in their diffused state but can be used by the owner of the property on which they exist.168 With respect to the disposal of diffused surface water, Washington follows the common enemy rule, and the landowner can defend against the flow of diffused surface water onto his premises even to the consequent injury of others.169 However, a landowner cannot col- lect and artificially discharge diffused surface water upon adjoining land in greater quantities or in a manner different from the natural flow.170 While a landowner may discharge diffused surface water onto natural watercourses, he may not do so if the discharge increases the flow beyond the natural capacity of the stream.171 162 Sees. 90.22.010 and 90.22.030. 163 Sec. 90.22.040. lei In re Johnson Greek, 159 Wash. 629, 294 Pac. 566 (1930) ; In re Ahtanum Greek, 139 Wash. 84, 245 Pac. 758 (1926). 166 Dickey v. Maddux, 48 Wash. 411, 93 Pac. 1090 (1908) ; also see Morris, Washing- ton Water Rights-A Sketch, 31 Wash. L. Rev. 243 (1956). 1M Sec. 90.44.030. ™> King County v. Boeing Go., 62 Wn. 2d 545, 384, P. 2d 122 (1963). ins Thorpe v. Spokane, 78 Wash. 488, 139 Pac. 221 (1914) ; also, see Morris, Wash- ington Water Bights-A Sketch, 31 Wash. L. Rev. 243 (1956). 169 Cass v. Dicks, 14 Wash. 75, 44 Pac. 113 (1896) ; Harvey v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 63 Wash. 669, 116 Pac. 464 (1911) ; Wood v. Tacoma, 66 Wash. 266. 119 Pac. 859 (1911) ; King County v. Boeing Co., 62 Wn. 2d 545, 384 P. 2d 122 (1963). 170 Cass v. Dicks, 14 Wash. 75, 44 Pac. 113 (1896) ; Harvey v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 63 Wash. 669, 116 Pac. 464 (1911) ; Wood v. Tacoma, 66 Wash. 266, 119 Pac. 859 (1911) ; Thorpe v. Spokane, 78 Wash. 488. 139 Pac. 221 (1914). 171 Laurelon Terrace v. Seattle, 40 Wn. 2d 883, 246 P. 2d 1113 (1952) : Strickland v. City of Seattle, 62 Wn. 2d 912, 385 P. 2d 33 (1963). |
