In the case of Provo Bench Canal and Irrigation Company v. Tanner in 1915, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over water rights in Utah. The Provo Bench Canal and Irrigation Company had constructed an irrigation system that diverted water from the Provo River to irrigate lands owned by its shareholders, including land owned by Mr. Tanner. However, when Mr.Tanner sold his land but retained some of his shares in the company, a conflict arose regarding whether he still held any right to use the water for other purposes or on different lands than those originally intended. The court ruled against Tanner stating that while owning shares gave him a right to use water on specific tracts of land as per original agreement; it did not grant him general rights to use this resource elsewhere or for other purposes without consent from all shareholders involved. This decision established important precedents about how property law applies to resources like water and affirmed that such resources can be tied specifically to certain parcels of land rather than being freely transferable based solely on share ownership.

The dissenting opinion in the Provo Bench Canal and Irrigation Company v. Tanner case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings regarding water rights, particularly those pertaining to irrigation companies. The dissent contended that under Utah law, an irrigation company has a right to use water for its shareholders' benefit but does not have absolute ownership of it. Therefore, when a shareholder sells his land, he also transfers his right to use the water on said land unless explicitly stated otherwise in the sale contract. In this case, since there was no explicit reservation of water rights during Tanner’s purchase from one of Provo Bench Canal and Irrigation Company’s shareholders, Tanner should retain these rights after buying the property rather than them reverting back to the company as per majority ruling.