In the case of State of Arizona v. State of California et al., 1983, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute over water rights between several western states and Native American tribes. The conflict centered around allocation from the Colorado River system, with Arizona seeking clarification on its entitlements under federal law and challenging allocations made to California and Nevada. Additionally, five Indian reservations claimed they were entitled to specific amounts based on their historic use and treaties with the federal government. The court ruled in favor of Arizona's claim that it had been unfairly deprived of its share but rejected some aspects related to groundwater usage. It also upheld tribal claims for significant portions based on reserved water rights doctrine (also known as Winters Doctrine), which holds that when Congress reserves land for an Indian reservation, it implicitly reserves sufficient water to fulfill the purpose of reservation.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Arizona v. State of California et al., 1983, Justice O'Connor disagreed with the majority's interpretation and application of federal law regarding water rights in the Colorado River. She argued that by allowing a state to claim unused apportionments from another state without any legal or contractual basis, it undermines interstate compacts and disrupts established allocations between states. Furthermore, she contended that this decision could potentially lead to unnecessary litigation as states scramble to protect their unutilized water shares from being claimed by others. The justice also expressed concern over how this ruling might affect future negotiations between states sharing common resources.