Kansas v. Colorado

533 U.S. 1 (2001)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In May 20, 1901, P first invoked this Court's original jurisdiction to seek a remedy for D's diversion of water from the Arkansas River. Eventually, the cases led to the negotiation of the Arkansas River Compact (Compact), an agreement that in turn was approved by Congress in 1949. In 1986, the Court granted P leave to file a complaint alleging three violations of the Compact by Colorado. Special Master Arthur L. Littleworth filed his first report, in which he recommended that two of the claims be denied, but that the Court find that post-Compact increases in groundwater well pumping in D had materially depleted the waters of the river in violation of Article IV-D. The Court overruled D's exceptions to that recommendation, including an argument that P was guilty of laches. The case was remanded the case to the Special Master to determine an appropriate remedy for the violations of Article IV-D. The Special Master filed a second report recommending an award of damages. D filed exceptions to that report, arguing that the Eleventh Amendment barred an award based on losses incurred by P's citizens and that the report improperly recommended the recovery of prejudgment interest on an unliquidated claim. In the third report, the Special Master recommends that damages be measured by P's losses, rather than D's profits, attributable to Compact violations after 1950; that the damages be paid in money rather than water; and that the damages should include prejudgment interest from 1969 to the date of judgment. D contends that the recommended award of damages would violate the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution; that the damages award should not include prejudgment interest; that the amount of interest awarded is excessive; and that the Special Master improperly credited flawed expert testimony, with the result that P's crop production losses were improperly calculated. P has filed an objection submitting that prejudgment interest should be paid from 1950, rather than 1969. The United States submits that both States' objections should be overruled.