In the case of Kansas v. Colorado (1901), the state of Kansas sued Colorado over water rights to the Arkansas River, alleging that Colorado's diversion of water for irrigation purposes was causing significant harm to farmers in Kansas. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Colorado, stating that while states do have a responsibility not to cause harm to their neighbors through their actions, this did not extend so far as requiring them to refrain from using resources within their own borders for fear it might impact another state. This decision established an important precedent regarding interstate disputes and resource use: although states must consider potential impacts on other states when utilizing shared resources like rivers or air quality, they are ultimately allowed considerable leeway in how they manage these resources within their own boundaries.

In the dissenting opinion for Kansas v. Colorado, 1901, Justice Brewer argued that the court should have jurisdiction over disputes involving water rights between states. He contended that such issues were not merely local matters but had broader implications affecting interstate relations and therefore fell within federal purview. Brewer also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "controversy" in Article III of the Constitution, asserting it encompassed more than just legal rights and included factual disputes as well. Furthermore, he believed that denying Supreme Court jurisdiction would leave states without a peaceful means to resolve their differences which could potentially lead to conflict or even violence between them.