In the 1900 case of Hobbs v. Beach, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a dispute over water rights in California between two parties: Mr. Hobbs and Mr. Beach. The court ruled that under California law, riparian owners (those who own land adjacent to a body of water) have an equal right to use the water for reasonable purposes on their lands but not beyond it; this includes irrigation if necessary for cultivation or beneficial enjoyment of property, even though such use might diminish natural flow downstream. The decision also clarified that appropriative users (those who divert water from its source and transport it elsewhere), like Mr. Hobbs in this case, are subject to prior existing rights of riparian owners like Mr.Beach and cannot infringe upon them without compensation. This ruling reinforced the principle that while all citizens may have access to public resources such as rivers or streams, they must respect established private property rights when doing so.

In the dissenting opinion for Hobbs v. Beach, the justice disagreed with the majority's interpretation of riparian rights and their application to this case. The dissent argued that under common law principles, a landowner along a non-navigable stream has an absolute right to use water from that stream as it naturally flows past his property. This includes using it for irrigation or other purposes without having to pay compensation to downstream owners unless such usage significantly diminishes the flow of water or causes harm. In this case, they believed that Mr. Hobbs had not violated any laws by constructing dams on his property because he did not substantially interfere with Mrs. Beach’s ability to use her portion of the river nor caused significant damage or injury in doing so.