In the 1905 case of Mead v. Portland, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving water rights in Oregon. The city of Portland had granted exclusive water rights to City Water Works Company for twenty years, but later attempted to grant similar privileges to another company within that period. This led City Water Works Company and its successor, H.M Mead, to file a lawsuit against the city claiming breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that while municipalities have broad powers under their police power authority including control over local utilities like water supply systems; they cannot enter into contracts which limit or surrender this regulatory power for any extended period without clear legislative authorization. Therefore, it was decided that Portland's original agreement with City Water Works did not prevent them from granting additional franchises as long as it didn't interfere with existing service provision by City Water Works.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Mead v. Portland argued that the city's decision to condemn a strip of land for public use was not justified under eminent domain laws. The justice believed that there was no compelling necessity for taking this particular piece of property, and therefore it constituted an overreach by local authorities. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes "public use," arguing that simply providing more convenient access to a park did not meet this standard. He also expressed concern about potential abuses of power if such broad interpretations were allowed to stand, as they could lead to arbitrary confiscations without proper compensation or due process protections for property owners.