In the 1893 case of Loud v. Pomona Land and Water Company, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a dispute over water rights in California. The plaintiff, Loud, claimed that he had been deprived of his rightful share of water from San Antonio Creek by the defendant company's construction and operation of a dam upstream from his property. He sought an injunction to prevent further diversion of water as well as damages for past deprivation. The court ruled in favor of the defendant company based on its interpretation of California law regarding riparian rights - those related to access and use of flowing bodies like rivers or streams adjacent to one’s land - which allowed reasonable use but not total possession or control over such waters by any single party owning lands along their course. The court found no evidence that Pomona Land & Water Co.'s actions were unreasonable or caused significant harm to other users downstream including Mr.Loud; hence it was within its right under state laws at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for Loud v. Pomona Land and Water Company, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court regarding water rights in arid regions. He contended that under California law, which should govern this case as it involves a dispute within its jurisdiction, riparian owners have equal rights to use water from a common source regardless of when they acquired their property. The majority's ruling effectively prioritized earlier users over later ones, contrary to state law. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that irrigation constituted an "ordinary" use of water; instead he believed it should be considered "extraordinary," given its essential role in making land habitable and productive in dry climates like California’s. This distinction is important because extraordinary uses are typically subject to more restrictions than ordinary ones under riparian doctrine.