In the case of State of Nebraska v. States of Wyoming and Colorado, 2001, the Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute over water rights in the North Platte River Basin among these three states. The issue arose from an original decree issued by the court in 1945 that allocated specific amounts of natural flow and storage water to each state from this river system. Over time, changes in irrigation practices led to disputes about whether certain uses were consistent with or violated this decree. In its decision, the Supreme Court largely upheld a report by a Special Master appointed to investigate these issues which found that while some actions taken by Wyoming had indeed violated parts of the original decree (such as allowing groundwater wells near surface waters), others did not (like permitting increased use for winter watering). Similarly, it agreed with findings that Colorado's actions were generally compliant with their obligations under this agreement but required them to ensure future compliance through better monitoring and administration.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Nebraska v. States of Wyoming and Colorado, Justice Douglas expressed concern over the majority's decision to allocate water from an interstate river based on a percentage basis rather than absolute quantities. He argued that this approach could lead to inequitable results if future conditions change significantly, such as in periods of drought or flood. Furthermore, he disagreed with the court's interpretation that Nebraska had forfeited its right to more water by not using it fully in past years. In his view, states should have flexibility to manage their resources according to changing needs and circumstances without fear of losing rights due to underuse at any given time. Additionally, he criticized what he saw as undue deference by the Court towards existing uses established by Wyoming and Colorado users at Nebraska’s expense.