Opinion ID: 9047786
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Definitions

Text: Whenever used in this Judgment and Decree, including Appendices, terms defined in the Compact shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Compact; in addition, the following terms shall mean:  Acre-foot: The volume of water required to cover one acre of land to a depth of one foot, which is equal to 825,851 gallons; Annual Calculations: The calculation for each year of depletions and accretions to Usable Stateline Flow using the H-I Model, as described in Appendix B; Appendix: One of the Appendices listed in Section VI of this Decree and included in Volumes II and III of the Special Master's Fifth and Final Report in this case; Acceptable Sources of Water: As defined in Appendix G; ARCA: The Arkansas River Compact Administration created by Article VIII of the Compact; Colorado Measurement Rules: Amended Rules Governing the Measurement of Tributary Ground Water Diversions Located in the Arkansas River Basin, revised November 30, 2005, contained in Appendix 1.1, as they may be amended from time to time in accordance with Article III of this Decree; Colorado Use Rules: Amended Rules and Regulations Governing the Diversion and Use of Tributary Ground Water in the Arkansas River Basin, Colorado, Kan. Exh. 1123, contained in Appendix J.l, as they may be amended from time to time in accordance with Article III of this Decree; Compact: The Arkansas River Compact, 63 Stat. 145 (1949); Kan. Stat. Ann. §82a-520; Colo. Rev. Stat. §37-69-101; Dispute Resolution Procedure: As set out in Appendix H; Groundwater Pumping: Pumping of water from wells (other than the Wiley/Sapp Wells) in excess of 50 gallons per minute, from the alluvial and surficial aquifers along the mainstem of the Arkansas River between Pueblo, Colorado, and the Stateline within the domain of the H-I Model described in Appendix C.l; H-I Model: The Hydrologic-Institutional Model as described and documented in Appendix C.l;  John Martin Reservoir: The reservoir constructed and operated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers on the mainstem of the Arkansas River approximately 58 miles upstream from the Stateline, as referred to in the Compact; Offset Account: The storage account established in John Martin Reservoir and operated in accordance with the ARCA Resolution Concerning an Offset Account in John Martin Reservoir for Colorado Pumping, dated March 17, 1997, as amended twice on March 30, 1998, and contained in Appendix L, as the same may be further amended by the ARCA; Replacement: Delivery of water from Acceptable Sources of Water to prevent depletions caused by Groundwater Pumping; Shortfall: A net depletion to Usable Stateline Flow based on the results of the H-I Model over a ten-year period using the Compact Compliance Accounting Procedures described in Appendix A; Usable Stateline Flow: Stateline flow as simulated by the H-I Model and determined to be usable pursuant to the Durbin usable flow method with the Larson coefficients, as set out in Appendix C.2; and Wiley/Sapp Wells: Wells decreed as alternate points of diversion for precompact surface water rights in Colorado by the District Court, Water Div. 2, State of Colorado, Case Nos. 82CW115 (W-4496), 82CW125 (W-4497), and 89CW82; see App. to Third Report of the Special Master 59-61. Chief Justice Roberts, with whom Justice Souter joins, concurring. I join the opinion of the Court in full. I do so only, however, because the opinion expressly and carefully makes clear that it in no way infringes this Court’s authority to decide on its own, in original cases, whether there should be witness fees and what they should be.  Our appellate jurisdiction is, under the Constitution, subject to “such Exceptions, and . . . such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Art. Ill, §2. Our original jurisdiction is not. The Framers presumably “act[ed] intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion” of these terms. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U. S. 421, 432 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is accordingly our responsibility to determine matters related to our original jurisdiction, including the availability and amount of witness fees. For the reasons given by the Court, I agree that $40 is a reasonable choice for the fees at issue here. But the choice is ours.