In the case of California v. Arizona et al., 1978, the Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute over water rights between several Western states. The controversy centered around how much water each state could draw from the Colorado River, which flows through all seven states involved in the lawsuit: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The court had previously appointed a Special Master to gather evidence and make recommendations on how to fairly distribute the river's waters among these states. After reviewing this report and hearing arguments from each side in 1978 ,the Supreme Court largely accepted its findings but made some modifications based on legal principles governing interstate disputes about natural resources use. Ultimately it ruled that while every state has an equal right to enjoy shared resources like rivers flowing across their borders; they also have obligations not to harm other states' similar interests by using more than their fair share of such common goods.

In the dissenting opinion for California v. Arizona et al., Justice William H. Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to grant California leave to file a complaint against Arizona and other states over water rights in the Colorado River. He argued that this case should not be heard by the Supreme Court because it was essentially a dispute between two groups of states, one group led by California and another led by Arizona, rather than an issue involving federal law or constitutional interpretation. Furthermore, he contended that Congress had already provided mechanisms for resolving such disputes through legislation like The Boulder Canyon Project Act and The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact which established commissions responsible for allocating water resources among these states. Therefore, according to Justice Rehnquist, it would be inappropriate for the court to intervene in matters that were intended to be resolved through legislative means.