Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): ... by the actual application of all of the water to the use designed” is an appropriation of the water. Carlsbad Irrigation Dist. v. Ford, 1942-NMSC-042, ¶ 14, 46 N.M. 335, 128 P.2d 1047 (emphasis, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). Thus, any diversion for a beneficial use must be accompanied by a right to the water acquired by the user’s appropriation of the water to be diverted. See State ex rel. State Eng’r v. Comm’r of Pub. Lands, 2009-NMCA-004, ¶ 15, 145 N.M. 433, 200 P.3d 86 (“[W]ater rights are both established and exercised by beneficial use, which forms the basis, the measure[,] and the limit of the right to use of the water.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); In re Water Rights in Rio Grande Cnty., 53 P.3d 1165, 1168 (Colo. 2002) (en banc) (<HOLDING>)-. We now turn to the import of consumptive 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a water right is a property right created by a person appropriating unappropriated water and applying it to a beneficial use (B) recognizing the right to use water to generate power (C) holding that simply because claimants had diverted the entire run of the water at issue did not give them the ability to claim a right to all the water when they could not and had not put it to beneficial use (D) holding that article x  2 of the california constitution dictates the basic principles defining water rights that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially (E) holding that the legislative assembly intended the water right certificate not the permit even when followed by a beneficial use to mark the point at which a water right becomes vested
Output (English): holding that simply because claimants had diverted the entire run of the water at issue did not give them the ability to claim a right to all the water when they could not and had not put it to beneficial use