The U.S. Supreme Court case State of Kansas v. State of Colorado (2008) revolved around a dispute between the two states over water rights to the Arkansas River, which flows from Colorado into Kansas. The disagreement had been ongoing since 1902 and was based on an interstate compact signed in 1949 that allocated certain amounts of river water to each state. In this particular instance, Kansas accused Colorado of violating the compact by allowing increased groundwater pumping, thereby reducing the amount of surface water flowing into Kansas. After several rounds in court, including a previous Supreme Court decision in 2001 favoring Kansas, this specific case ended with both sides agreeing to settle their differences through arbitration rather than litigation going forward.

In the dissenting opinion for the case between Kansas and Colorado, Justice Breyer disagreed with the majority's decision to deny Kansas' request for additional damages. He argued that Colorado should be held accountable for its overuse of water from a river shared by both states, which violated an interstate compact. The majority ruled that while Colorado had indeed breached this agreement, it was not necessary to award further compensation beyond what had already been paid in previous rulings. However, Justice Breyer contended that these payments were insufficient as they did not fully cover all losses suffered by Kansas due to reduced water availability caused by Colorado's actions. He believed that failing to grant full recompense would undermine future enforcement of such compacts and could potentially encourage states to violate them without fear of significant financial consequences.