Kansas-Colorado Arkansas River Compact Update
The Kansas-Colorado Arkansas River Compact was negotiated in 1948 between the States of Kansas and Colorado with participation by the federal government. Its stated purposes are to settle existing disputes and remove causes of future controversy between the States of Colorado and Kansas concerning the waters of the Arkansas River and to equitably divide and apportion between the states of Colorado and Kansas the waters of the Arkansas River as well as the benefits arising from John Martin Reservoir.
Chief Engineer David Barfield serves as one of three Compact Commissioners along with David Brenn and Randy Hayzlett. Kevin Salter serves as Assistant Operations Secretary of the Compact Administration. Kansas Department of Agriculture staff provides technical and legal support.
Kansas filed Kansas v. Colorado, No. 105, Original, in 1985 to enforce the terms of the Arkansas River Compact. In 1994, Special Master Littleworth recommended that the Supreme Court determine that Colorado had violated Article IV-D of the Arkansas River Compact by means of post-compact well pumping in Colorado. On May 15, 1995, the United States Supreme Court agreed. As the result of the damages and remedies phase, Colorado paid Kansas more than $34 million in damages for Colorado's compact violations during the period 1950 through 1999. On June 29, 2006, Colorado also paid Kansas more than $1.1 million in costs. This money has been deposited in three funds created by statute that specify generally how and where the money will be spent.
The Special Master submitted his Fifth and Final Report to the United States Supreme Court in January 2008, including the Judgment and Decree. Kansas filed an exception related to limitation on awarding costs imposed by the Special Master. Colorado has filed a response. The Special Master's Fifth and Final Report and the Kansas Exception is currently before the Court.
The Judgment and Decree was jointly developed by Kansas and Colorado based on decisions by the Special Master and the United States Supreme Court. The Hydrologic-Institutional Model and accounting procedures are included which will be used to determine if Colorado is in compliance. Kansas staff and technical experts will monitor Colorado's efforts on an annual basis. Each year, the accounting for the prior 10-year period will be reviewed. The Special Master found that Colorado was in compliance for its first 10-year compliance period (1997-2006). Based on the data available to date, it appears that Colorado will be in compliance for the second full ten-year compliance period (1998-2007), although there are differences which will be reviewed by both States to see if agreement can be reached.
At this time the states are awaiting the Court's acceptance of the Fifth and Final Report and its ruling on the Kansas exception to the limitation imposed on the awarding of costs in this case.
Last updated: May 23, 2008