This Article begins with an explanation of the doctrine of equitable apportionment in Part I, followed by a brief history of the litigation throughout the years in Part II. Part III then centers on the implications of Mississippi’s argument that the Supreme Court should grant its request for damages. Part IV addresses the practical implications of applying equitable apportionment to groundwater, after which the discussion turns, in Part V, to Mississippi’s argument that this case must be decided based upon the equal footing doctrine, rather than equitable apportionment. Part VI turns to whether the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case will also have some bearing on the fact that the law does not currently recognize that surface and groundwater are hydrologically connected. Part VII addresses the various ways in which the Supreme Court could avoid ruling on the substance of the litigation.