In the case of Shapleigh v. San Angelo in 1896, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over water rights between private landowners and a city municipality. The City of San Angelo, Texas had purchased riparian lands along the Concho River to secure water supply for its residents. However, E.B Shapleigh owned an upstream tract of land and built a dam that obstructed river flow towards San Angelo's intake point causing significant reduction in their water supply. The city sued arguing they had acquired riparian rights with their purchase which included right to unobstructed natural flow of the river. The court held that under Texas law, while riparian owners have certain use rights to adjacent waters including reasonable consumption for domestic or agricultural purposes; these do not extend to obstruction or diversion affecting downstream users' access significantly especially when it is done solely for personal advantage without any beneficial use on one's own property as was seen in this case with Shapleigh’s dam construction primarily aimed at increasing his land value rather than any actual need-based usage. Therefore, despite being an upstream owner, Shapleigh was found liable for infringing upon San Angelo’s legitimate riparian rights leading to affirmation by Supreme Court upholding lower courts’ injunction against him from maintaining such obstructions.

In the dissenting opinion for Shapleigh v. San Angelo, it was argued that the city of San Angelo should not be held responsible for damages caused by a change in the course of a river due to natural causes. The justice believed that while it is true that cities have certain obligations and responsibilities towards their citizens, they cannot be expected to control or prevent acts of nature such as floods or changes in river courses. Furthermore, he contended that if every time there was a flood or other natural disaster and property was damaged as a result, cities were required to compensate those affected, this would place an unreasonable financial burden on them which could potentially lead to bankruptcy. He also pointed out that no evidence had been presented showing any negligence on part of the city officials regarding this matter.