Kansas v. Nebraska
Headline: Interstate water dispute: Court orders Nebraska to pay Kansas $5.5 million, reforms water accounting rules, and counts reservoir evaporation as water use, altering state water allocations and modeling practices.
Holding: The Court held that Nebraska exceeded its allocation in 2005–2006 by 70,869 acre-feet, counted reservoir evaporation as consumptive use, reformed accounting procedures, and ordered Nebraska to pay Kansas $5,500,000 within sixty days.
- Requires Nebraska to pay Kansas $5,500,000 within sixty days.
- Counts evaporation from non-federal reservoirs as charged water use.
- Imposes new RRCA modeling rules for Compact accounting starting 2007.
Summary
Background
Three states — the State of Kansas, the State of Nebraska, and the State of Colorado — brought a dispute over a shared water compact to the Court. The case was tried before a Special Master, who issued a report; the Court reviewed briefs and oral argument and then issued this Decree resolving the contested accounting and allocation issues.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether Nebraska exceeded its water allocation in 2005–2006, how to treat reservoir evaporation, and whether the compact’s accounting procedures needed change. The Court found Nebraska’s combined consumption for 2005 and 2006 exceeded its allocation by 70,869 acre-feet, ruled that evaporation from Nebraska’s non-federal reservoirs is a beneficial consumptive use that must be counted, and held Nebraska not liable for evaporative losses from Harlan County Lake during 2006. The Court reformed the RRCA accounting procedures effective for Compact Year 2007 and after and set out model-based steps in the Appendix for calculating imported water credits and groundwater depletions using paired model runs.
Real world impact
The Decree requires Nebraska to pay Kansas $5,500,000 within sixty days and changes how states must count and model water use going forward. State water managers and reservoir operators will have to account for reservoir evaporation as charged use under the revised RRCA modeling rules. The Court also allocated responsibility for the Special Master’s fees (Kansas 40%, Nebraska 40%, Colorado 20%) and noted that prior payments discharge those obligations; the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the Decree.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?