The Bryant et al. v. Yellen et al., 1979 case was a dispute over water rights in the Imperial Valley, California. The plaintiffs, local farmers and landowners, challenged the constitutionality of a federal law that limited water delivery from federally funded irrigation projects to lands under 160 acres unless they were owned by families or individuals who lived on them or were their principal place of business. They argued this violated their Fifth Amendment rights as it effectively forced them to sell excess land at less than market value if they wanted access to vital irrigation waters for all their holdings. However, the Supreme Court upheld the law's validity with an unanimous decision stating that Congress had broad power over public lands and resources derived from those lands including water distribution through federal reclamation projects like these ones in question here; thus could impose conditions on its use without violating any constitutional protections against property takings without just compensation.

In the dissenting opinion for Bryant et al. v. Yellen et al., it was argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 46a of the Omnibus Adjustment Act of 1926, which led to their decision in favor of limiting water rights to only those who were landowners at a specific point in time, was incorrect and overly narrow. The dissenters believed this ruling unfairly disadvantaged later landowners and did not align with Congress' original intent when drafting the legislation. They contended that Congress intended for all landowners within an irrigation district to have equal access to water resources regardless of when they acquired their property. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on California state law regarding water distribution rights, arguing instead that these laws should be interpreted more broadly so as not to exclude any current or future landowner from accessing necessary resources.