Supplemental water rights subject to abandonment

Thomas Redmon held several water rights including original direct‐flow rights, secondary supply, and supplemental supply rights. Redmon's original supply rights were attached to two separate acreages, and water under those rights was diverted and conveyed to the land by a ditch. Redmon also held a supplemental water right which encompassed a diversion from a river through a pipeline to supplement the original supply water rights. Harold Hofeldt held a water right that encompassed a diversion from a river. Hofeldt sought a declaration that Redmon had abandoned his supplemental water rights because the water had not been applied to beneficial use through the pipeline for at least five consecutive years preceding the filing of his petition. The State Board of Control denied Hofeldt's petition. The trial court certified the case to the supreme court. The court held that supplemental water rights are subject to abandonment under state law and that such a determination best reflected the spirit of the water policy of the state.