In the 1908 case between the State of Missouri and the State of Kansas, Missouri sought to prevent Kansas from diverting water from the Missouri River. The dispute arose when Kansas City, located in both states but primarily in Missouri, began constructing a canal system that would draw water away from its natural course into Kansas for municipal use. This action prompted concerns about potential harm to downstream interests in terms of navigation and property rights due to reduced river flow. However, after considering evidence presented by both sides regarding historical usage patterns and projected impacts on river levels, the Supreme Court ruled against Missouri's request for an injunction. The court held that while states have certain sovereign rights over their internal waters under common law principles, these do not extend to interstate rivers where such actions could interfere with federal authority or other state’s equal right to reasonable use of shared resources.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Missouri v. State of Kansas, 1908, it was argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to decide on matters related to water rights between states. The dissenting justices believed that such disputes should be settled through negotiations between states or by Congress rather than in a court setting. They also expressed concern about potential implications and complications arising from this decision, including possible conflicts with existing state laws regarding water use and property rights. Furthermore, they questioned whether it was appropriate for courts to intervene in what they saw as essentially political issues involving allocation of resources among different jurisdictions.