The appellant and his wife were Crown lessees and installed a water bore. Later in that year legislation was passed which required a person to obtain a licence for a bore. The appellant’s right to access the water was however preserved. It was held that even if the right to extract water was one of the bundle of rights that go to make up property, the imposition of a regime to regulate access to underground water does not amount to an acquisition of that property. The prohibition or control of use is not the same thing as an acquisition. It is not enough that the legislation adversely affects or terminates the pre-existing right. The appellant’s rights were not interfered with.