Document: 543 U.S. 86 KANSASv.COLORADO No. 105, Orig. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 4, 2004. Decided December 7, Kansas and Colorado entered into the Arkansas River Compact (Compact) in 1949, but disagreements over equitable distribution river's upper waters persisted. In 1985, charged that had violated by drilling new irrigation wells that, Art. IV-D's words, "materially depleted" river water otherwise available "for use" Kansas' "water users." Accepting recommendation set forth First Report Special Master to find unlawfully depleted violation IV-D, this remanded case for remedies. v. Colorado, 514 U. S. 673, 694. proposing remedies his Second Third Reports, said Colorado's occurred between 1950 1994; recommended pay damages; divided losses six categories, calculating damages somewhat differently each; urged be awarded prejudgment interest on incurred from 1969 through 1994 (the judgment's date). The subsequently adopted these recommendations with one exception: It held would run 1985 (not 1969). 533 1, 15-16 (Kansas III). has now filed a Fourth setting resolution remaining issues. takes exception several recommendations. Held: 1. request appoint decide various technical disputes related decree enforcement is denied. This appointed Masters help resolve States' water-related only twice before, Texas New Mexico, 482 124, Jersey York, 347 995, each time Master's recommendation, always as discretionary matter, when convinced such an appointment significantly aid further disputes, see Vermont 417 270, 275. not appropriate here. For thing, case, while technical, may well require discretionary, policy-oriented decisionmaking directly importantly underlying legal These potential differ at least degree those asked past cases. See, e. g., supra, 134, 135-136. Administration present will involve highly complex computer-run Hydrologic-Institutional Model (H-I or Model), many modeling call judgmental determinations matters are more parties' basic claims. another need here diminished fact parties able future binding arbitration under VII less formal dispute-resolution methods like joint consultation experts, negotiation, informal mediation. all alternatives, opposing because it "simply" make "easier continue litigation." 136. Pp. 92-94. 2. calculation overruled. objection grow out litigation's special history. initially calculated basis "considerations fairness," 97, dividing period three temporal subcategories: (1) Early Period 1950, unlawful depletion began, 1968, should first have known about it; (2) Middle its complaint; (3) Late 1994, judgment was entered, id., 107. adjusted periods inflation, he additional date, total award, including interest, $38 million. Ibid. III accepted approach, S., 11, applied own fairness" concluding "prejudgment begin accrue" 12-15, n. 5. On remand, therefore onward Damages alone. argument (from 1985) damages—i. e., Early, Middle, Damages—would good sense ordinary case. But question rather what III's determination meant case's context. there did seek provide compensation lost investment opportunities; rather, sought weigh equities. another, apparent earlier involved both decision calculate (1969) upon (Middle only). Saying nothing exemption Damages, 14, changed 1985), methodology what. context, Court's silence fairly implies acceptance, rejection, methodology, which yields post-1985 based only. view reinforced resulting numbers. Were accept argument, final award roughly $53 million, the, million originally Master. cannot reconcile numerical result acceptance approach determination, implied modest adjustment favor, not, seeks, major favor. 95-99. 3. H-I used 10-year measurement determine compliance place period, 1-year period. points V-E(5), says "shall no allowance accumulation credits debits against either State." argues averages oversupply undersupply during interim years, likely effect awarding "credit" dry years wet years. Adding IV-D forbids deplete water's "availability use," effectively frees obligation compensate (within period) overpumping made "unavailable" use. also notes heretofore measuring damages. persuaded arguments. Compact's literal words determinative. Its language essentially offsetting "credits," does define length measured. Any inevitably flows just overlooks lack "availability." At same time, practical considerations favor approach. found results than 10 inaccurate, functioned acceptable accuracy longer time. Moreover, unlikely suffer serious harm use developed replacement plan minimize depletions. Assuming, argues, framers expected annual carryover year year, were unaware modern difficulties computer and, any event, preferred accurate measurement. agreed determinative stipulation before fully examined model's accuracy. 99-103. 4. Also overruled amounts toward compact obligations determined Water appeals therefrom. state court, judge dispute sister State, West Virginia ex rel. Dyer Sims, 341 22, 28, must pass every essential question, Oklahoma 501 221, 241. founders, however, full recommendation—and attendant analysis—making clear subject right relief original jurisdiction; rules affect rights, users, senior users; groups similar litigation incentives; permitting consider challenges credit allocations prevent inconsistent determinations. avoid conflict adequately preserves rights contest adverse determination. 103-104. finding complied 1997 1999 rests claim accounting year. already matter. P. 104. 6. refusal 15 disputed issues As found, reasons immediately. second category, involves figures whether 1999, mostly moot. passage produce third categories (and second-category disputes). 104-106. exceptions overruled; accepted; recommitted BREYER, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C. O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, JJ., joined, STEVENS THOMAS, joined except Part II. concurring part judgment, post, p. 106. STEVENS, dissenting part, 1 ON EXCEPTIONS TO REPORT OF SPECIAL MASTER. 2 John B. Draper, Assistant Attorney General Kansas, argued cause plaintiff. With him briefs Phill Kline, General, Eric Rucker, Chief Deputy David Davies, Harry Kennedy, Leland E. Rolfs, Andrew Montogomery. 3 W. Robbins, defendant. brief Ken Salazar, Carol D. Angel, Dennis M. Montgomery, General. 4 James A. Feldman former Solicitor Olson, Sansonetti, Kneedler, Jeffrey Minear, Patricia Weiss. 5 JUSTICE BREYER Court. 6 We again long-running Kansas. River, once proudly called "Nile America." originates high Rocky Mountains. runs eastward Oklahoma, Arkansas, joining Mississippi near town Post. decades, disagreed division waters. See 206 46 (1907); 320 383 (1943). they interstate compact. (Compact), 63 Stat. 145 (agreeing "[e]quitably divide apportion" (internal quotation marks omitted)). 7 Present proceedings began Compact. pointed says: 8 "This intended impede beneficial development basin Federal State agencies, private enterprise, combinations thereof, construction dams, reservoir, other works purposes utilization control, improved prolonged functioning existing works: Provided, defined Article III, shall materially usable quantity availability users construction." Id., 147 (emphasis added internal omitted). 9 submitted "development," particular increases ground consumption wells, Our agreed, recommending we IV-D. 336 (hereinafter Report). 694 (1995) I). proposed Reports. He over-depleted 400,000 acre-feet flow 1994. 112. monetary up 119. category. 120. And reflecting exception; (2001) infra, 95-97. 20. 11 certain Report's overrule adopt 12 * recommend authority error limits) enforcement. 134 (1987) (appointing "make calculations provided [a] decree" concerning Pecos River). rejected request, instead "the retain continuing jurisdiction limited time" permit himself lingering (subject, course, review). 135. renews 13 recognize previously among 134-135; 1002-1004 (1954). done so Master, disputes. 275 (1974) (per curiam) ("[I]t rare case" where install Master). 14 decision-making respect, resolve. Implementation Decree, example, application largely noncontroversial mathematical curve. curve correlates inflows Mexico locations outflows engineers can estimate, given inflow, amount required Texas' 462 554, 572-573 (1983); 446 540 (1980) curiam). Lingering thought, curve's shape officials properly measured flows. 134-135. Although might "degree judgment," often prove capable mechanical usually marginal adjustments. 134; 135-136; 128 (The "does adjudicate kinds disputes" potentially issue here). contrast, simple model, Model). seeks precise been allowed increased after 1949. 231. Modeling disputes—and many—involve inputs, assumptions Model. I, 685-687; 237-240; 123-124. Their (compared Pecos) 128. 16 possible arbitration. itself creates (Administration) empowered differences arising VIII, 149. consists representatives representative States acting chair. VIII-C. Each vote; vote. VIII-D. equally vote, (with consent States) refer matter "Representative arbitrator arbitrators." arbitrator's binding. 17 oral counsel suggested willingness arbitration, noting "in [he was] aware of, suggestion doing Colorado." Tr. Oral Arg. 17. responded "that committed participate that." 26; Reply Brief Opposing Exceptions 15. comments suggest neither party opposes indeed it. Nor expressed opposition means Nebraska, 538 720 (2003) (Kansas, Nebraska resolved Republican settlement stipulation); (discussing ongoing "joint efforts" "cooperation" 18 observing 19 reasons, deny request. II 20 calculation. history litigation. 21 After remedial determinations, harmed beginning harm. replied Compact—like common law—did foresee payments respect unliquidated claims, particularly where, here, speculative. even best will, still could prior filing complaint (in how much owed 92-94; 11-13; Defendant O. T. 2000, Orig., pp. 28-32. 22 deciding "`considerations fairness.'" 97 (quoting Board Comm'rs Jackson Cty. States, 308 343, 352 (1939)). kind Solomonic compromise, Period, 1984; complaint, last evidence trial (Early, Late) inflation. loss money, "only date judgment." Both interpreted order (1969-1994), (1950-1968). Exception Plaintiff 9; App. 12-13. came 23 appeal attacked interest. unable conclude "automatically" imposed achieve compensation." 14. But, added, believe (or believed) assess fairness'" remedy. Hence acted . balancing equities." 24 refused "award excessive pumping then our concluded accrue," date), 1985. 14-15. wrote accompanying footnote: 25 "JUSTICE THOMAS allow KENNEDY CHIEF [1985]. [JUSTICE STEVENS] agree knew violating [1969]. majority four Justices who voted endorse position text." 15, 26 seeking remain faithful onward, (post-1984) alone, i.e., completely exempting objects last-mentioned limitation; sum post-1984 runs. damages, i. alike. all, "[p]rejudgment serves money due thereby achieving injury redress," 479 305, 310-311, (citing Comment, Prejudgment Interest: Survey Suggestion, 77 Nw. L. Rev. 192 (1982)). 29. "use of" "money damages," (which "due" 1985). Why then, asks some due? 27 paragraph quoted above context one. 28 9, 25, 8. All selected totally exempt contested arguing entire accepting Damages. ("Even if defendant's good-faith ignorance breach valid reason justify [reflecting Damages] 1968"). 29 overruling sustaining exception, Thus, (despite argument) change methodology. Moving forward thus moving well. 30 methodology) produced 1998 dollars). damages), 2002 12. That 31 Consequently, objection. 32 Model, measure compliance. programs determines post-1949 makes trying account almost Arkansas-River-connected drop arrives in, stays leaves way rain, snow, mountain streams, underground water, evaporation, canal seepage, transmountain imports, reservoir storage, otherwise. 233-235. "switches" turned on, predicts leave month. 234-235. To obtain figure representing lawful accretion) Compact, subtracts actual flow) number hypothetical prediction flowed dug operated wells. obtains rerun Model's "post-1949 well" switch off. reflect depletions usable, opposed total, flow. 37. 33 Not surprisingly, ability proved controversial, leading modifications 236-240 (describing objections together 139. say, owes Year taking Years 1-10, 2-11, forth. 117; 86, Exh. 34 support, 148, (Internal omitted.) adds 147, use." 37-40, 43-44. 35 Like Thus offsets seasonal differences; measurement, monthly weekly differences, 36 inaccurate. current iteration project diversions (including pumping) single produces overpredict underpredict them others 22%. 111. Similar inaccuracies plague projection If projected deviate substantially flows, estimates — accurate. 115 ("I model sufficiently short-term basis"). long months predicted observed "matched perfectly." 114. reason, "[o]nly using term do simulations closely match historic data." 115. needed ensure 37 program designed Amended Rules Regulations Governing Diversion Use Tributary Ground Basin (Use Rules), 36, 6; 8-13. protects insisting junior wells) replace They buy Rockies' western slope land irrigated pre-1949 remove cultivation. 10-13. practice, belong associations conduct transactions, reporting details Engineer's Office, receiving their members. 13. 38 work perfectly, net figure, month, decade, zero (that is, difference precompact conditions). Of perfection impossible; claims defects Rules. 27. operation diminish real depletion, limiting negative 119-120; 32. 1997-1999 results, showing aggregate effect. 39 quote Commissioner recognizing "`no carry-over year,'" Joint Exhibit 3, 14-84). arguendo, carryover, modeling. framers, surplus inaccurate really all. 40 stipulation, previous agreements govern 41 exception. IV 42 mentioned, caused program, non-Arkansas pumped farmers removed cultivation lands rights. Replacement Plan therefrom." 138, ¶ 9. recommendation. 43 court. "`State ultimate controversy State,'" 45-46 (1951)), "`pass essential'" resolving dispute, 241 (1991) turn quoting Kentucky Indiana, 281 163, 176-177 (1930))). believes violates well-established principles. 44 adds: 45 Courts Stateline, reliance actions necessarily satisfy obligations.... credits, determined, [as in] Section VIII." 138-139, cross-referenced 93-95. 47 view, mentioned. V 48 1997-1999. "greater year." 47. concedes "an Having 100-103, VI 49 end brief, lists yet decided. categories: 50 "Disputed Calibration Issues" ("[c]alibration procedures, parameters criteria," "[c]anal capacities," "altered diversion records," "statistical outliers," "Sisson-Stubbs right" representation); Accounting ("[d]ry-up acreage," credit," "winter book-overs" credit); 51 Future Compliance acreage monitoring," "[d]ry-up credits" external source "return obligations," beyond "precompact uses," "[s]pecial winter release timing, "[o]ffset [a]ccount" "consumptive return obligations"). 48-49. 52 now. unanswered important questions "`essential'" "`determination controversy'" 241). us them. 53 There most 1999. 1997-1999, process relying figures. 30-31. far tell briefs, 54 arise future). learn relevant resolution, namely, strengths, weaknesses, monitoring why take date. 135-136, 55 experts two confer, 91-92, hope expert discussion, necessary, lead express 56 exceptions. recommit preparation consistent opinion. 57 ordered. 58 judgment. 59 I join II, concerns accruing thereafter (post-1985 damages) owing (pre-1985 damages). O'CONNOR explained III), nor law compact's formation allows recover 21-25 (opinion, SCALIA part). now-familiar rule whole spanning duration breach, present. Milwaukee Cement Div., National Gypsum Co., 515 189, 195-196, (1995); (1987). 60 crafted viewed apply sui generis accrue 14-16. compromise left open door litigation, saying answer accruing. too little Arkansas. weighing unnecessary before. entitled compound windfall received III. 61 part. 62 adhere views 13-16 III).1 THE filed. today's majority, compromise. Unlike run, starting accrued "knew violating" Kansas—i.e., 1969. Such respects reasoning behind conclusion component unless includes component, affirmed nature bar Nevertheless, 1969, knew, known, explicitly discuss point opinion, exclude principal 1969.2 64 led appraisal equities portion attributable relatively innocent 106-107 ("The general knowledge early impacts along served protect liability phase laches. fairness, believe, relieve rates 1950-68 ."). ibid.; Opposition ("For interest"). reject contain erred respect. 12, happenstance selected, bearing gave rise obligation. limit 65 Surely tort involving harm-causing recovery, resulted events occurring accrue. Funkhouser J. Preston 290 168 (1933). Indeed, doubt requested This, unique unusual necessitated correct rejecting nominal 1984." 66 However, represents large convince me Nothing compels result. my proper chose implicitly Choosing initial benefit respecting affirmation Report, awarded. 67 Accordingly, sustain insofar applies post-1968 Notes: predated 673 (1995), 522 1073 (1998). objected 1950. inKansas regarding approved selection 1968 paid. 14; Report) (explaining awareness central Today, explains inequitable give equivalent ago, explain bear

Category: 10