Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br /> <br />if the two can be reconciled. Settlement discussions are on hold pending completion of the <br />technical work. <br /> <br />6. Kansas v. Colorado, United States Supreme Court, No. 105, Ori~inal. <br /> <br />Issue: What is the proper remedy for Colorado's past violation ofthe Arkansas River <br />Compact? <br /> <br />Decision: The Supreme Court issued its decision on quantification of damages on June 11, <br />2001. Although the Court ruled in Colorado's favor on only one argument, it was a big one: the <br />Court ruled that prejudgment interest should begin to accrue in 1985, not 1969. This has the <br />effect of reducing the damages through 1994 to about $20 million. <br /> <br />Discussion: Several issues still remain to be tried: whether Colorado was in compliance in <br />1997,98, and 99 and how future compliance should be determined. The states have discussed <br />future compliance and are presently far apart on how it should be determined. In addition, <br />Kansas recently requested permission to bring the Winter Water Storage Program back into the <br />case and seek additional replacement water. The Special Master denied Kansas' request. No <br />trial date is set. <br /> <br />Attorney General Ken Salazar and Kansas AG Carla Stovall have agreed to try <br />once more to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the case. The two states are <br />contracting with former Montana AG Joe Mazurek to serve as mediator. The Colorado: <br />"team" is scheduled to meet with the mediator on September 26. Representatives of . ; <br />Colorado and Kansas will accompany the mediator on a one-day air tour ofthe Arkansas <br />River basin on September 29. l <11 <br /> <br />, . . .. <br />.' '. <br />.7. Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado, United States Supreme Court, No. 126, Ori~inal.. <br /> <br />Issue: Have Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas wens violated the Republican River <br />Compact? <br /> <br />Decision: The Special Master has ruled on some preliminary motions agreeing with <br />Colorado that the determinations of the Compact Administration from 1959-1994, including <br />unpublished determinations ofthe Engineering Committee, are conclusive and binding on <br />the states. These figures show that Colorado overused its allocation in only one sub-basin in <br />only one year, while Nebraska and Kansas have overused in many sub-basins in many <br />years and Nebraska has overused its total allocation a number of times. As a result, <br />Nebraska and Kansas have both stipulated with Colorado to a mutual withdrawal of claims <br />for the 1959-1994 period, and also for the pre-Administration period of 1943 to 1958. <br />Kansas and Nebraska retain their claims against one another for these periods. The <br />Special Master approved the stipulations. These rulings and stipulations significantly <br />reduce issues at trial, as well as the amonnt of damages for which Colorado could be liable. <br />The Special Master also found that the Compact does not entitle one state to consume any water <br />a1\ocated to another State. This decision is narrowly tailored around the Republican River <br />Compact and distinguishes other compacts. Further, the Master found that a complaining state <br />need not show injury to obtain prospective injunctive relief from the Court. <br />