In the 1970 case United States v. District Court In and For Water Division No. 5 et al., the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over water rights on federal lands within that state's borders, specifically in Colorado. The dispute arose when Colorado courts attempted to adjudicate water rights for federally owned land under its prior appropriation doctrine, which allocates water based on who first used it for beneficial purposes. The Federal Government argued that this system infringed upon its authority over federal property as granted by the Property Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Colorado’s right to administer these waters according to their own laws, stating that while Congress has ultimate power over public lands, it does not mean they have exclusive jurisdiction or can override local law unless there is a need for national uniformity or if local law would be detrimental towards federal interests. This decision upheld states' ability to manage natural resources within their boundaries even when those resources are located on federally-owned land.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. District Court in and For Water Division No. 5 et al., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to grant Colorado jurisdiction over water rights disputes involving federal lands was a departure from established precedent, which had consistently held that such matters were within exclusive federal jurisdiction. He contended that this shift would create uncertainty and confusion in an area of law where stability is crucial due to its impact on property rights and economic development. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential conflicts between state and federal interests if states were allowed to adjudicate these issues unilaterally without any oversight or input from the federal government. Finally, he criticized the majority's reliance on principles of comity as a basis for their ruling, arguing instead that constitutional supremacy should be paramount when resolving questions of jurisdictional authority between different levels of government.