In the case of Cappaert v. United States, 1975, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S government's right to protect and preserve natural resources on federal land from depletion by private entities. The dispute arose when a Nevada couple, Melvin and Helen Cappaert were denied access to groundwater beneath their property which was located near Devil’s Hole National Monument - home to an endangered species of desert fish. The water withdrawal for their commercial venture led to a decline in water levels threatening the survival of this species. Invoking its power under the Property Clause (Article Four) and Commerce Clause (Article One) of Constitution, Federal Government imposed restrictions on groundwater use ensuring protection for national monuments like Devil's Hole pupfish habitat against any significant impairment or destruction caused due to external activities such as pumping underground water etc., thereby overriding state laws governing ground-water rights.

In the dissenting opinion for CAPPAERT et al. v. UNITED STATES et al., Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal reserved water rights, arguing that it was overly broad and inconsistent with previous case law. He contended that such a right should only be implied when necessary to fulfill the primary purpose of a reservation, not simply because water might be beneficial or useful in some way. In this particular case involving Devil’s Hole National Monument, he believed there was no clear evidence showing that preserving subterranean pool levels was essential to protecting pupfish habitat - the main reason for establishing the monument according to its proclamation by President Truman in 1952. Furthermore, he criticized how his colleagues failed to consider state laws regarding groundwater use which had been traditionally respected by courts unless they conflicted directly with explicit congressional intent or policy.