1. Beneficial use
2. Loss of appropriation
3. Miscellaneous
1. Beneficial use
Beneficial use requires, in the case of an appropriation for irrigation purposes, actual application of the water to the land for the purpose of irrigation. Hostetler v. State, 203 Neb. 776, 280 N.W.2d 75 (1979).
The diversion of some amount of water into the ditch a few days before suit is filed to cancel the water appropriation does not constitute a beneficial use within the meaning of this section. Hostetler v. State, 203 Neb. 776, 280 N.W.2d 75 (1979).
To constitute a beneficial use within the meaning of the appropriation statute the use must be one described in the appropriation. Hostetler v. State, 203 Neb. 776, 280 N.W.2d 75 (1979).
Under this section all appropriations for water must be for some beneficial or useful purpose, and when the appropriator or his successor in interest ceases to use it for such purpose the right ceases. Hostetler v. State, 203 Neb. 776, 280 N.W.2d 75 (1979).
2. Loss of appropriation
A completed appropriation of water for power purposes remains a valid appropriation to the full extent of its granted right unless restricted by a finding of abandonment or nonuser. Hickman v. Loup River P. P. Dist., 176 Neb. 416, 126 N.W.2d 404 (1964).
Appropriation may be lost either by abandonment or nonuser. State v. Nielsen, 163 Neb. 372, 79 N.W.2d 721 (1956).
Evidence, in proceeding to forfeit appropriation of water for nonuser, supported judgment for contestee. State v. Delaware-Hickman Ditch Co., 114 Neb. 806, 210 N.W. 279 (1926).
3. Miscellaneous
This section has become the fixed policy of the state. State v. Birdwood Irr. Dist., 154 Neb. 52, 46 N.W.2d 884 (1951).
Under former law, provision empowering Department of Roads and Irrigation to cancel water appropriation, where water was not put to beneficial use, was not unconstitutional as violative of due process, or as giving department judicial powers. Dawson County Irr. Co. v. McMullen, 120 Neb. 245, 231 N.W. 840 (1930).
Under former law, appeal from decree refusing to cancel water rights may be taken to district court instead of directly to Supreme Court. State v. Oliver Bros., 119 Neb. 302, 228 N.W. 864 (1930).
Under former law, dismissal of proceeding by Department of Roads and Irrigation to cancel water rights did not bind other appropriators not parties. Kinnan v. France, 113 Neb. 99, 202 N.W. 452 (1925).
In determining priorities, former state board could recognize and determine existing conditions and limitations, but could not impose new. Enterprise Irr. Dist. v. Tri-State Land Co., 92 Neb. 121, 138 N.W. 171 (1912).