The meaning of and the limitation on the use of reasonable use theory was deliberated in Scott v. Slaughter, 237 Ark. 394, 397 (Ark. 1963). Per Scott,

"This theory appears to be based on the necessity and desirability of deriving greater benefits from the use of our abundant supply of water. It recognizes that there is no sound reason for maintaining our lakes and streams at a normal level when the water can be beneficially used without causing unreasonable damage to other riparian owners. The progress of civilization, particularly in regard to manufacturing, irrigation, and recreation, has forced the realization that a strict adherence to the uninterrupted flow doctrine placed an unwarranted limitation on the use of water, and consequently the courts developed what we now call the reasonable use theory."

In the West, where water rights are generally based on the prior appropriation doctrine, the concept of beneficial use is often invoked as the basis, measure, and limit of a water right. The appropriate right affords the ability to take water from a stream but only on the condition it is put to beneficial use. The condition has evolved in meaning over time from a narrow focus on diversions and vesting to attempts to include determinations of efficiency and wastefulness in water-scarce environments, as well as the kinds of water uses that are appropriate in these conditions, more recently including “nonuse” or in-stream flows for environmental habitat.