October Term 2004 · Docket 105 ORIG.

Should the Court appoint a river master to manage water disputes?

Kansas and Colorado dispute how to measure water usage and whether a new official should oversee the process.

Official caption
Kansas v. Colorado
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Kansas advocate John Draper presented three issues for the Court.

    United States advocate Feldman agreed with Colorado on the river master issue.

    Colorado advocate Robbins disputed the similarity of other river compacts.

    Justices questioned the logic of using a ten-year model for dry years.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Kansas argues the current water measurement method is flawed. The state wants a river master to manage the dispute. Colorado opposes appointing a new official. It argues the existing legal framework handles the issue well.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 4, 2004.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Kansas wants the Court to appoint a river master to manage the water dispute.

Colorado wants the Court to reject the appointment of a river master.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Kansas argues the current ten-year model unfairly penalizes dry years.

Colorado argues the existing decree and model adequately conserve subsurface reservoirs.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked why the Court should not average the methodology over seven years.

Justice Kennedy asked if the decree aims to conserve subsurface reservoirs.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome determines how states calculate water credits during dry years. It also decides whether a new official manages interstate water disputes. This affects future resource allocation between neighboring states.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON