Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001622 <br /> <br />7. Completed in 1948. <br /> <br />D. Arkansas River Compact 1948 (see section below) <br /> <br />E. Kansas v. Colorado, U.S. Supreme Court <br /> <br />1. filed by Kansas, 1985, after ARCA could not/would not resolve her concerns. <br /> <br />2. Principal claims by Kansas <br />a. Pueblo Reservoir <br />1) Winter water program not properly approved by ARCA <br />2) Winter water program depletes inflows to JMR. <br />b. Trinidad Reservoir <br />1) being operated contrary to existing ARCA approval. <br />2) operations have depleted inflows to JMR. <br />c. Post Compact groundwater development in Colorado has depleted inflows to <br />JMR and state line flows. <br /> <br />3. Colorado defenses <br />a. ARCA approvals are not required. <br />b. issue of depletions is factual and Kansas has not produced facts to support <br />claims. <br />c. with accounts system at JMR and transit loss account JMR inflows allocated to <br />Kansas do reach the stateline. <br /> <br />4. Present status <br />a. Special Master (Arthur Littleworth, Pasadena CA) will dismiss ARCA approval <br />claims. Failure to obtain ARCA approval's not a compact violation. <br />b. Special Master hasn't found concerning evidence re depletion from Trinidad <br />Res., will likely dismiss. <br />c. Currently taking evidence (through June) on depletion effects of winter water <br />and groundwater development. <br />d. Special Master will prepare report of findings and proposed decree following <br />round of briefing by states. <br />e. Issue of damages for any compact violations has been bifurcated and may not <br />be addressed at this stage. <br />f. Special Master report will be objected to by 1 or both states and taken to <br />Supreme Court. <br /> <br />({~:-~;~ <br /> <br />7 <br />