7776 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

voir during that time. During the summer storage season, both Kansas and Colorado have the right to demand releases of water from John Martin. So long as there is water in storage in the conservation pool, Colorado water users below the reservoir may not "call out" upstream Colo- rado water users. When no water remains in storage in the con- servation pool of John Martin, Kansas is not entitled to any of the flow entering the reservoir. Additionally, when the conser- vation pool is exhausted, the Colorado water users below John Martin are administered in the priority system with all water rights on the Arkansas River. During this time, the senior water rights below John Martin may "call out" upstream junior water rights. The waters of the Arkansas River have been overappropriated since at least the turn of the century and, prior to the compact, were the subject of several protracted disputes between Kansas and Colorado in the United States Supreme Court. In recent years, Kansas has charged Colorado with violating the compact and, in December 1985, Kansas again sued Colorado in the Supreme Court. Colorado has requested that the court not accept jurisdiction be- cause Kansas has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies under the compact. C. Interstate Decrees (United States Supreme Court) 1. Wyoming v. Colorado, 353 U.S. 953 (1957). This is a consent decree equitably apportioning the flows of the Laramie River arrived at after years of protracted litigation. It limits the total amount of water that may be used in Colorado, the place of its use and the type of its use. 2. Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589 (1954). This decree equitably apportions the flows of the North Platte River among Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska. 3. Colorado v. New Mexico, 103 S. Ct. 539 (1982) and Colorado v. New Mexico, 104 S. Ct. 2433 (1984). Colorado brought an action in the United States Supreme Court seeking an equitable apportionment of the Vermejo River. Colo- rado had no existing uses of water but sought an allocation for future development; New Mexico had existing uses. In the first decision, the Court established the legal principles to be ap- plied and remanded the case to the special master for additional -22-