The U.S. Supreme Court case State of Kansas v. State of Colorado in 2004 was a dispute over the division and usage of water from the Arkansas River between these two states. The court ruled that Colorado had violated an agreement made in 1949, known as the Arkansas River Compact, by depleting more than its share of river water through increased well pumping which reduced natural flows into Kansas. However, it also held that not all reductions to flow were violations if they did not materially deprive Kansas of expected benefits under the compact. In terms of damages for past depletion, while Kansas sought $80 million plus interest for economic losses and future compliance costs, it was awarded only $28 million without interest based on actual consumption values rather than replacement cost estimates used by Kansas.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of STATE OF KANSAS v. STATE OF COLORADO, 2004, Justice Breyer disagreed with the majority's decision to deny Kansas' request for additional damages from Colorado. He argued that while Colorado had already paid reparations for its overuse of water from the Arkansas River under a previous agreement between both states, it did not compensate Kansas fully for all losses incurred due to this overuse. Specifically, he pointed out that Kansas suffered economic harm as farmers could not irrigate their crops adequately because of reduced river flow caused by Colorado’s actions. Therefore, according to him, further compensation was justified and necessary in order to rectify these harms completely.