In the case of Hunt, Governor of Arizona, et al. v. United States in 1928, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving water rights between Arizona and California. The Colorado River Compact was signed by seven states in 1922 to divide the waters of the Colorado River among them but did not specify how much water each state would receive. In this case, Arizona claimed that it had been deprived its rightful share due to California's construction of an aqueduct from Lake Havasu to Los Angeles which diverted large amounts of water away from downstream users in Arizona. The U.S government intervened on behalf of lower basin states (including Nevada and New Mexico) against upper basin states (including Utah and Wyoming). The court held that Congress has ultimate authority over interstate commerce including navigable waters within individual states' borders under Article I Section 8 Clause 3 also known as Commerce Clause. Therefore, even though rivers may flow through several different states before reaching their final destination at sea or international border crossings where they become subject to federal jurisdiction again; those portions flowing entirely within one state are still considered part 'interstate commerce'. This decision affirmed federal supremacy over allocation disputes regarding shared natural resources like river flows crossing multiple jurisdictions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hunt, Governor of Arizona, et al. v. United States argued that the Supreme Court should not have intervened in a dispute between states over water rights and usage from the Colorado River. The dissenters believed that it was inappropriate for federal courts to meddle in such disputes because they are essentially political matters best resolved through negotiation or legislation rather than litigation. They also contended that by intervening, the court had effectively usurped Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce and manage natural resources within its jurisdiction. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of an agreement among seven states sharing access to river water as a binding compact under federal law without congressional approval.