In the 1902 case of Hooker v. Los Angeles, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over water rights in Southern California. The City of Los Angeles had constructed an aqueduct to divert water from the Los Angeles River for municipal use, which interfered with downstream users' access to water. One such user was William H. Hooker who owned land and used river water for irrigation purposes; he sued on grounds that his property value decreased due to this interference. The court ruled in favor of the city, stating that while riparian rights (the right of a landowner whose property is adjacent to a body of water) are recognized under California law, they are subordinate to public necessity and can be overridden when necessary for public use - provided just compensation is given as required by eminent domain laws. This decision set important precedents regarding municipalities’ ability to secure resources beyond their immediate boundaries and affirmed cities' authority over natural resources within their jurisdiction if it serves greater public interest.

In the dissenting opinion for Hooker v. Los Angeles, 1902, it was argued that the city of Los Angeles had no right to divert water from a non-navigable river outside its boundaries without compensation to those who owned land along the river and relied on its waters. The dissenting justices believed that this action constituted an unlawful taking of property without due process or just compensation as required by the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that while municipalities have certain rights and powers in relation to their inhabitants' health and welfare, these do not extend beyond their territorial limits unless expressly granted by law. Therefore, they concluded that Los Angeles overstepped its bounds when it diverted water from a source located outside its jurisdictional reach without compensating affected parties.