The Pacific Live Stock Company v. Lewis case in 1915 revolved around the issue of water rights and their regulation by state authorities. The Pacific Livestock Company, a corporation operating in Oregon, challenged the constitutionality of an Oregon statute that established a State Water Board with authority to regulate water usage for irrigation purposes. The company argued that this law infringed upon its property rights without due process as it had prior appropriation rights to use certain waters for irrigation under existing laws before the new legislation was enacted. However, the U.S Supreme Court upheld the validity of Oregon's law establishing regulatory control over water resources within its jurisdiction through its State Water Board. It ruled that states have inherent power to protect and preserve their natural resources including water bodies within their boundaries and can enact reasonable regulations towards this end even if such measures may affect private property interests or contracts.

In the dissenting opinion for Pacific Live Stock Company v. Lewis, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision that Oregon's water laws violated due process rights of the Fourteenth Amendment. He argued that there was no constitutional right to unrestricted use of one’s property and states had a legitimate interest in regulating natural resources like water for public benefit. The state law did not deprive anyone from using their property but merely regulated its use by requiring permits to ensure fair distribution among all users and prevent wastage or misuse. Holmes believed this regulation was within a state’s police power and did not constitute an unconstitutional taking without compensation as claimed by Pacific Livestock Company. He also pointed out that many other states had similar regulations which were upheld by courts, indicating they were generally accepted as lawful exercises of state authority.