1011 E.g., Wilson v. United States, 350 F.2d 901, 908 (10th Cir. 1965) (rejecting proposed use of hay production through projected irrigation installations because of “question[able] feasibility of the development of some of the lands for which water rights were pending”) (citing Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 246, 255 (1934)); see United States v. 46,672.96 Acres in Doña Ana Ctys., 521 F.2d 13, 14-15 (10th Cir. 1975) (noting evidence that value of properties with potential uses of grazing purposes, rural homesites, recreational sites or roadside businesses “depend[ed] on availability of water and roads”).1012 Ark. Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 511, 522 (2012) (noting that bearing of Arkansas water-rights law on whether taking occurred should be addressed on remand).