My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03967
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03967
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:53:01 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:03:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8126.800
Description
Arkansas River Coordinating Committee - Projects - Issues
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
3/21/1994
Author
James S. Lochhead
Title
Kansas v Colorado - potential questions and responses
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />~ .. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Governor Romer - Kansas v. Colorado <br />March 21, 1994 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />required to repay Kansas approximately 300-400,000 acre <br />feet. <br /> <br />Possible questions you may be asked, together with suggested <br />responses, are as follows: <br /> <br />1. since the Master's report isa draft, when will it be final <br />and will it be changed much? <br /> <br />Kansas and Colorado will have an opportunity to argue before <br />the Master on April 14 and 15 concerning proposed changes to <br />the draft report. We should not expect that the report will <br />be changed significantly in its final form. <br /> <br />2. What is the timeline for u.s. supreme Court proceedings, and <br />when will a decision be final? <br /> <br />The Master's report is not the ruling of a court, but is <br />simply a report by the Master to the supreme Court. The <br />Master does not function as a judge who issues a final ruling <br />that is appealable; rather he is appointed by the Court to <br />take the evidence and prepare a report. The Supreme Court <br />will allow the parties to file exceptions to the report. ' The <br />Court will then hear argument and enter an order either <br />adopting, modifying, or rejecting the Master's report. The <br />Master is expected to finalize his report sometime in May. <br />The briefing schedule before the Supreme Court will be set in <br />the summer of 1994 and the briefs should be finished in the <br />fall of 1994. Oral argument will be held in spring of 1995 <br />with a decision in the fall of 1995. This decision will be <br />as to liability only and will not relate to any damages that <br />might be owing from Colorado to Kansas. The damages phase <br />(Phase 2) will determine the quantity of damages. Trial in <br />Phase 2 may be held sometime in late 1996 or early 1997, with <br />a final Master's decision in 1997 and a final U.S. Supreme <br />Court determine sometime late in 1998. <br /> <br />3. What areas will Colorado most likely appeal? <br /> <br />The final appeal by the State will be determined by the final <br />Master's report. Kansas is also expected to cross-appeal <br />several issues. Based on the dra'ft report, Colorado will <br />challenge the Master's rejection of several of Colorado's <br />affirmative defenses, including particularly a laches defense <br />that Kansas failed to object to Colorado's past <br />administrative practices until 1985. Colorado may also <br />appeal the Master's determination of how much pumping <br />occurred by wells constructed prior to the compact. <br />Based on that direction, we currently think Colorado may be <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.