In the case of State of Kansas v. State of Colorado (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over water rights between these two states, specifically regarding the Arkansas River. The river originates in Colorado and flows into Kansas, and both states have legal claims to its waters based on an 1949 compact agreement. However, Kansas accused Colorado of violating this agreement by depleting more than their fair share through groundwater pumping activities which reduced flow downstream to Kansas. The court ruled that while there had been some violation by Colorado, it did not cause substantial injury to Kansas' interests as per standards set out in previous interstate water disputes cases such as Texas v New Mexico (1984). Therefore, no damages were awarded at this stage but further proceedings were allowed for determination if any compensation should be given for past violations or measures taken for future compliance. This case is significant because it highlights how complex and contentious issues around shared natural resources can become between states within a federal system like the United States - requiring intervention from highest level judiciary bodies like Supreme Court.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Kansas v. State of Colorado, Justice Breyer disagreed with the majority's decision to award damages to Kansas based on Colorado's violation of an interstate water compact. He argued that there was insufficient evidence to support a claim for damages and that any harm caused by Colorado’s actions was speculative at best. Furthermore, he contended that it is inappropriate for courts to intervene in such disputes between states over shared resources unless absolutely necessary due to their inherently political nature and potential impact on federal-state relations. Instead, he suggested these issues should be resolved through negotiation or legislation rather than litigation.