In the case of Clark v. Nash (1904), Frank Nash owned a farm in Utah that was irrigated by a ditch running through land owned by William Clark. When Nash needed to enlarge the ditch to accommodate more water, Clark refused him permission, leading to legal action. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nash, establishing an important precedent for property and water rights law: when it is necessary for one person's beneficial use of their own land that they make reasonable alterations or improvements on another's land - such as enlarging an irrigation ditch - they may do so provided compensation is given if any damage results from these changes. This ruling recognized the importance and necessity of shared natural resources like water especially in arid regions where agriculture would be impossible without irrigation systems.

In the dissenting opinion for Clark v. Nash, Justice Brewer argued that while it is true that private property can be taken for public use with just compensation, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes 'public use'. He contended that a broader definition could lead to potential abuses where any individual could justify taking another person’s property by arguing some sort of benefit to others. In this case, Nash wanted to expand his irrigation ditch across Clark's land claiming it would provide water benefits beyond his own farm. However, Brewer believed such an action was not truly a public use as it primarily served Nash’s interests and only incidentally benefited others. Therefore, he concluded that allowing such expropriation violated constitutional protections against deprivation of property without due process.