In the 1935 Supreme Court case of Arizona v. California et al., the state of Arizona filed a suit against California and several other states, seeking to apportion rights to water from the Colorado River. The main issue was whether Congress had intended for each basin state to receive an equal share of "surplus" waters not allocated by existing compacts or if it had intended for these surplus waters to be divided according to principles of equitable apportionment. The court held that Congress did intend for each basin state (including Arizona) to receive an equal share, rejecting arguments based on equitable apportionment principles. This decision marked a significant victory for arid western states in their ongoing battles over scarce water resources.

In the dissenting opinion for Arizona v. California et al., 1935, it was argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over this case and should therefore dismiss it. The dissenting justices believed that the issues presented in this case were political questions, which are typically resolved by Congress or through negotiation between states rather than adjudication in court. They also expressed concern about setting a precedent where any state could bring another state to court over disputes regarding shared resources like water from a river flowing through both states. Furthermore, they pointed out that there was no clear constitutional violation involved in this dispute; instead, it revolved around interpreting complex contracts and statutes related to water rights - tasks better suited for lower courts with more expertise on these matters.