Domrese v. City of Roslyn
| Decision Date | 24 April 1918 |
| Docket Number | 14639. |
| Citation | 172 P. 243,101 Wash. 372 |
| Parties | DOMRESE v. CITY OF ROSLYN. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Kittitas County; H. M. Taylor Judge.
Action by Minna Domrese against the City of Roslyn, a municipal corporation. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Ken & Henton, of Ellensburg, for appellant.
Harry L. Brown, of Roslyn, and E. E. Wager, of Ellensburg, for respondent.
The facts in this case are partially stated in our opinion in the case of Domrese v. Roslyn, 89 Wash. 106, 154 P. 140.
Plaintiff makes further allegation of fact that, before the waters of Cedar creek, or Domrese creek, as it is called in this case were diverted, in whole or in part, plaintiff had put a part of her lands to crop, and had used the waters of the stream to irrigate them; that her lands were dry and arid; and that crops cannot be grown or matured thereon without the use of water. This action was brought to recover compensation for the diversion of the water and for the right of way for the pipe line. The court held upon demurrer that the action was barred by the statute of limitations.
A municipality has a right to take of the waters of a stream for the purpose of supplying its inhabitants with water for domestic and other uses. But, like any other public agency, it cannot do so without condemning and making compensation for the loss of the use of the appropriated waters or the extinguishment of the riparian rights in toto or pro tanto, of the affected owners. Rem. Code, 8005, 8010-8.
A right to continue to take water lawfully appropriated, or to have water follow its accustomed flow, the riparian right, is a valuable right of property, and is so far incident to the land that it has been held to be a part of the land itself. Rigney v. Tacoma Light & Water Co., 9 Wash. 576, 38 P. 147, 26 L. R. A. 425; Judson v. Tide Water Lumber Co., 51 Wash. 164, 98 P. 377; Still v. Palouse Irr. & Power Co., 64 Wash. 606, 117 P. 466. This being so, the case falls squarely within the rule of Aylmore v. Seattle, 171 P. 659. See, also Jacobs v. Seattle, 171 P. 662.
Upon the authority of these cases the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to overrule the demurrer and have further proceedings.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Highline School Dist. No. 401, King County v. Port of Seattle
...period in this state has been held to be ten years. See Aylmore v. Seattle (1918), 100 Wash. 515, 171 P. 659; Domrese v. Roslyn (1918), 101 Wash. 372, 172 P. 243; Litka v. Anacortes (1932), 167 Wash. 259, 9 P.2d This statement of the rule, however, is not quite precise since acquisition by ......
-
Ackerman v. Port of Seattle, 33892
...(RCW 4.16.020) clearly applies. See Aylmore v. City of Seattle, 1918, 100 Wash. 515, 171 P. 659, L.R.A.1918E, 127; Domrese v. City of Roslyn, 1918, 101 Wash. 372, 172 P. 243; Litka v. City of Anacortes, 1932, 167 Wash. 259, 9 P.2d 88; Northwest Cities Gas Co. v. Western Fuel Co., 1942, 13 W......
-
Ackerman v. Port of Seattle
...has been held to be ten years. See Aylmore v. City of Seattle, 1918, 100 Wash. 515, 171 P. 659, L.R.A.1918E, 127; Domrese v. City of Roslyn, 1918, 101 Wash. 372, 172 P. 243; Litka v. City of Anacortes, 1932, 167 Wash. 259, 9 P.2d 88. This holding is consistent with the prevailing rule in ma......
-
Litka v. City of Anacortes
... ... extinguishment of the riparian rights, in toto or pro tanto, ... of the affected owners.' Domrese v. Roslyn, 101 ... Wash. 372, 172 P. 243 ... When ... the city appropriated the water from the lake, it ... took ... ...