In the 1906 case Kansas v. Colorado, the state of Kansas sued Colorado over water rights to the Arkansas River. The dispute arose from Colorado's increasing use of irrigation systems which significantly reduced downstream flow into Kansas, affecting its agriculture and natural resources. The U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether it had jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to resolve disputes between states concerning their shared use of an interstate river system for irrigation purposes. In a landmark decision that established federal authority in resolving interstate water disputes, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for majority ruled that while states have sovereignty within their borders, they are not completely independent entities but parts of a greater whole -the Union- and therefore must consider each other’s interests when exploiting shared resources like rivers flowing through them. However, he also noted that some reduction in downstream flow could be permissible if it led to substantial benefits upstream without causing significant harm downstream.

In the dissenting opinion for Kansas v. Colorado, Justice Harlan argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over this case because it was essentially a dispute between private parties rather than states. He believed that while Colorado's diversion of water from the Arkansas River could potentially harm individuals in Kansas, it did not constitute an injury to the state itself. Therefore, he felt that such disputes should be resolved through individual lawsuits rather than interstate litigation at the Supreme Court level. Furthermore, he expressed concern about setting a precedent where any perceived injury or potential future injury could lead to a lawsuit between states.