The Supreme Court case State of Nebraska v. States of Wyoming and Colorado in 1994 was a dispute over the allocation of water from the North Platte River. Nebraska claimed that Wyoming and Colorado were using more than their fair share, causing harm to its agricultural industry which relied heavily on irrigation from the river. The court had previously established an apportionment decree in 1945, but Nebraska argued it needed modification due to changes in circumstances such as increased demand for water resources and advancements in irrigation technology. However, after careful examination, the Special Master appointed by the court concluded that there was no compelling reason to modify or reformulate this decree as requested by Nebraska because they failed to prove any substantial injury caused by alleged violations committed by Wyoming or Colorado under existing compact provisions governing use of North Platte River's waters.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Nebraska v. States of Wyoming and Colorado, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on equitable apportionment cases. He contended that instead of considering all relevant factors in determining an equitable distribution, as had been done previously, the Court focused solely on one factor - consumption by Nebraska prior to 1945. This approach ignored other important considerations such as conservation efforts made by Nebraska after 1945 and its reliance on groundwater resources due to lack of surface water availability. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's refusal to consider evidence presented about future needs for water in each state which could have significant implications for their respective economies and populations. In his view, this narrow interpretation undermined a key principle underlying equitable apportionment: fairness among states sharing interstate waters based upon comprehensive consideration rather than historical use alone.