The U.S. Supreme Court case State of Kansas v. State of Colorado in 1994 was a dispute over water rights between the two states, specifically involving the Arkansas River. The river originates in Colorado and flows into Kansas, and both states had been using its waters for irrigation purposes since the late 19th century. However, increased usage by Colorado led to decreased flow into Kansas which prompted this legal action from Kansas claiming that it was being deprived of its rightful share under an interstate compact agreed upon in 1949. Kansas sought compensation for damages caused by reduced water availability due to upstream consumption by Colorado users as well as injunctions against further depletions. After years of litigation and multiple rulings (including one where the court found that while there were violations they did not cause substantial injury), a special master appointed by the court recommended that although some damage had occurred, it wasn't significant enough to warrant relief or reparation payments. In essence, while acknowledging certain breaches on part of Colorado regarding their use of Arkansas River's waters under existing agreements with Kansas; these infractions weren't deemed severe enough to merit financial restitution or other forms remedial measures demanded by Kansas.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Kansas v. State of Colorado, Justice Stevens disagreed with the majority's decision to deny Kansas' request for damages due to Colorado's overuse of water from the Arkansas River. He argued that there was a clear violation by Colorado in exceeding its apportionment under an interstate compact and this had caused significant harm to Kansas. He further contended that it was not necessary for Kansas to prove specific injury as a prerequisite for relief because such requirement is absent in cases involving violations of property rights or contractual obligations. Instead, he believed that once a breach has been established, damages should be presumed and quantified accordingly even if they are difficult to measure precisely. Thus, he would have remanded the case back down to determine appropriate compensation owed by Colorado.