Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />negatiation team met an February 22 and June 5 to' assess progress sa far. Anather negatiating <br />meeting is scheduled for September 6. <br /> <br />Discussion: See {jiscussian for DivisiO'n 2 case for generalbackgraund. It is stiHtoo early-in <br />the process to assess whether settlement is likely in this divisian. <br /> <br />6. Kansas v. Colorado. United States Supreme Court. No. 105. Oril!inal. <br /> <br />Issue: What is the proper remedy for Colorada's past violatian of the Arkansas River <br />Campact? <br /> <br />Decisiou: Special Master Arthur Littleworth issneda draft report on June 30. He <br />ruled for Kansas on .some; but not aD. of the disputed issues. Ou the critical issue of <br />prejudgmelJt interest, he recommended that prejudgment interest not he awarded for the <br />period from 1959-1968, because of the generallaek of Iuwwledge about the effects of well <br />pumping in ,ooth states, but that prejudgment interest be awarded from 1969 tll the date lIf <br />judgment. He did not calculate the amount of damages in the report. Our expert believes <br />that it willile about $38 million through 1998. When you 1ldd prejudgment interest <br />through 20QO, it may reach about $40 million. <br /> <br />Discussion: This case has been in litigatian since Kansas sued CalO'rada in the U.S. Supreme <br />Caurt in 19~, alleging that Calorada had violated the Arkansas River Campact, Special Master <br />Arthur Littleworth dismissed two of Kansas' three claims - involving Trinidad Reservoir and the <br />Pueblo Reservoir winter sta~ program - but foond that post-compact welt pumping had <br />vialated the Cumpact, and the Court accepted the Master's TIndings. The remedy phase of the <br />trial was completed an January 28, 200&, Kansas reduced its claim from $78M to' $62M, a figure <br />that includes1Jre.iudgment interest, which we dO' not think is appropriate. Kansas' claim in 1998 <br />dallars (adjusted for inflatian, but with no interest}totals $21M, By camparison, our evidence-in <br />1998 dollars-indicates a much lower damage award. Different assumptions by Calorado and <br />Kansas result in vastly different amounts af damages. We expect the Master to' issue a final <br />report on dajll3ges in August or September, after which the states will have an opportunity to' <br />file exceptions with the U.S. SupremeCaurt. Webelieveweltave severalstnmg legal <br />arguments relating to sovereign immunity and prejudgment interest. Several issues still <br />remain to be tried: whether Colorado was in complil\llce in 1997, 98, and 99 and haw future <br />compliance shauld be determined, <br /> <br />7. Kansas v. Nebraska. United States Supreme Court. No. 126. Oril!inal. <br /> <br />Issue: Have Nebraska wells violated the Republican River Compact? <br /> <br />Decision: Special Master Vincent McKusick issued a report recommending to the Court that <br />the Campact restricts the campacting states' consumption of all ground water - alluvial and <br />Ogallala - that depletes stream flow in the Republican River Basin. . On June 29, without <br />hearing m-gument, the Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order denying Nebraska's <br />motion to dismiss, and recommitting the case to the Special Master for further proceedings. <br />