U.S. Water News Online
TOPEKA, Kan. -- Attorney General Carla Stovall's office can't predict when Colorado will begin paying Kansas monetary damages from a lawsuit between the two states over the Arkansas River. Spokeswoman Mary Tritsch said too many uncertainties remain, despite a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
The justices recently ruled that Kansas is entitled to interest as well as monetary damages, though not as much as Kansas officials had sought. ``There's just too many unknowns to know when a check will be cut,'' Tritsch said.
Kansas sued Colorado in 1985 over the low water levels in the Arkansas River in western Kansas, arguing that Colorado violated a 1949 compact by taking more water from the river than allowed. In 1995, the Supreme Court agreed with a special master's finding against Colorado. Since then, the two states have been arguing about how much money Kansas should receive in damages, in addition to more water.
Kansas officials had hoped to collect $62 million for damages and interest through 1994. The Supreme Court's ruling says Kansas can collect monetary damages -- with inflation, about $21 million -- and interest since 1985, when it filed the lawsuit. Kansas had hoped to collect interest from 1969.
The special master said Colorado should have known by that year that it was violating the terms of the river compact. Kansas sought $41 million in interest. Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar said the Supreme Court ruling should drop that figure by $20 million, to $21 million.
But Tritsch said the special master still must calculate Colorado's bill and put a figure on damages owed to Kansas since 1994. She noted that the master is supposed to take up the issue of Colorado's future compliance with the compact.
Asked about the timing of payments from Colorado, Tritsch said, ``We really don't know.''
Kansas also sued Nebraska in 1998, over what it believes is that state's depletion of the Republican River in violation of a 1943 compact. A special master appointed by the Supreme Court expects to have a trial in 2003.
Under a 1996 state law, proceeds from the lawsuit with Colorado are supposed to pay for the costs in other water litigation. After that, a third of the money would go to the state's water conservation programs and two-thirds to farmers and other western Kansas residents for water conservation projects.
Return to the U.S. Water News Archives page Or Return to the U.S. Water News Homepage
Editor@uswaternews.com
*Your Name:
*Your Email:
*Friend's Email:
Use a comma to separate e-mail addresses:
*Your Comments:
Hi, I thought you might like to read this article.
*Required Fields