Court Doubts Water Claims: Denver Post

Home Browse Search

w t- t- d our r,Htr Denver Post Weatherline 303 - 337 -2500 Yesterday's Extremes 24 hour time and temperature updated by KOSI radio High Monday: 91 at Thermal, Calif. 9News website is: http : / /www.gnews.com Low Monday: 0 at Saranac Lake, N.Y. war I "19ft Court;.-, u - etlo Kansas' water dainIS aims ;i 4- Colo. hopeful Y �, of win over Ilan:_.' By Bill McAllister Denver Post Washington Bureau Chief WASHINGTON — Members o #`• the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday questioned whether Kansas is enti= tled to about $19 million in interest payments from Colorado taxpay ers as part of the damages for de= cades of diverting Arkansas River` water from Colorado's easte6 neighbor. Colorado Attorney General Ken" Salazar said later those questions" made him optimistic that the high - court might reject much of the money Kansas is seeking- from Col - oradq in their long - running water dispute. The court's decision is ex- pected this spring. Kansas and Colorado are tens of millions of dollars apart over how much money Colorado should pay for Arkansas River water that nev- er reached Kansas. Colorado says damages should be about $9 mil- lion or less, but Kansas argued Monday for at least $57 million. , The idea that a big payoff might send other states into a frenzy of similar lawsuits gave shivers to many of the justices. Led by Jus- tice Sandra Day O'Connor, some justices challenged Kansas' claim to "prejudgment interest" on the damages it suffered in the early 1960s and 1970s from irrigation wells built in southern Colorado along the Arkansas River basin. "Who's going to pay the bill? The taxpayers of Colorado,'_" O'Connor said. Justice Stephen Breyer voiced concern about "horrendous amounts" tha-t'other states might claim if Kansas is allowed to reap Please see WATER on 1 0B soci- av- a qrs to 4 tpril Iser- r i 0th e at i 1s- 6, 1 m. �Av- re- ion i WATER from Page 1 B Iarge interest payments for the missing water. And Justice David Souter said he was troubled that Kansas learned of the diversions in 1969 but waited 16 years be- fore suing Colorado. After decades of litigation and two trips to the high court, the two states in 1949 established a water compact that covered the Arkansas River. But the justices were told the agreement does not resolve dis- agreements over the amount of water flowing across their boundary. In 1995, the last time the issue reached the Supreme Court, it sided with Kansas over some of the damage claims and sent the dispute to a special master, Arthur L. Littleworth of Riverside, Calif. He recent- ly recommended that Colorado pay mone- tary damages including "prejudgment in- terest." But with the two states unable to agree on how much money Colorado should pay, the issue on Monday came back to the high court for the fourth time. "I thought it went well, but you never know," said Salazar after an hour of argu- ments that largely focused on the "pre- judgment interest" claim. If that inlfrest is omitted from the damages, Kansas' claim would be cut from $57 million W $38 million, Kansas said in written arguments. Kansas had suggested its damages Were as high as $322 million, Salazar oied. Through the efforts of Denver attorney David W. Robbins, a water law specialist who has represented the state throughout the case, the state has eroded the tots of Kansas' claims considerably, the atOWney general noted. Robbins told the justices Monday 4hat Colorado was under "no obligation" tOde- liver Kansas a specific amount of Whter under the compact. z Much of Kansas' claim for damages is built on computer modeling programg)that became available after the lawsuit9iias filed, the special master said. Thosdl�ro- grams enabled Kansas to quantifyo ow much water it had lost to ground w in Colorado tr0 Kansas officials have said they'wave spent as much as $11 million on thel Yaw. suit and Salazar said Colorado has'spent between $8 million and $10 million ddNnd- ing itself. ;ttH * - I'* V IWW*Ity ifte ^.V1 's