In the case of Consolidated Canal Company v. Mesa Canal Company, 1899, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over water rights in Arizona. The Consolidated Canal Company claimed that it had prior and superior rights to use water from the Salt River for irrigation purposes compared to those held by Mesa Canal Company. However, the lower court ruled in favor of Mesa based on evidence showing its earlier establishment and continuous usage of canal systems drawing from this river. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld this decision stating that priority in time gives superiority in right under Western American Water Law doctrine known as "prior appropriation". This principle essentially means 'first come first served' - whoever puts water to beneficial use first has senior rights over later users during times when there is not enough water for everyone who wants it.

In the dissenting opinion for Consolidated Canal Company v. Mesa Canal Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider and apply established principles of water rights law in arid regions. The dissent emphasized that under these laws, priority should be given to those who first put water resources to beneficial use. In this case, they believed that the Mesa Canal Company had a superior right over the Salt River's waters as they were using them before Consolidated Canal Company did so. They also disagreed with how the majority interpreted certain provisions of Arizona territorial statutes regarding irrigation companies' rights and obligations. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on existing agricultural practices due to changes in water allocation resulting from this ruling.