Case Highlights
2004-2005 Term
Following are case highlights for the topic area of Water Law. To access other case highlights for the 2004-2005 Term or other terms, or to return to the main Case Highlights page, use the Topic Area menu to the right.
WATER LAW
Kansas v. Colorado
Docket No. 105, Orig.
Overruled: Kansas' Exceptions to the Report of the Special Master
Argued: October 4, 2004
Decided: December 7, 2004
For Case Analysis: See ABA Preview 29
Should the Supreme Court adopt the Special Master's recommendations for finally resolving the long-running dispute between Kansas and Colorado over the proper allocation of Arkansas River water?
Yes. The Court overruled all six of Kansas' exceptions and accepted the Special Master's recommendations.
From the opinion by Justice Breyer (joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg, and joined Justices Stevens and Thomas except for Part II):
The Special Master also recommended that experts for the two parties confer … and he expressed the hope that expert discussion, negotiation, and if necessary binding arbitration, would lead to resolution of any remaining disputes. … We express that hope as well.
Concurring in Part and Concurring in the Judgment: Justice Thomas
Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part: Justice Stevens
Orff et al. v. United States et al.
Docket No. 03-1566
Affirmed: The Ninth Circuit
Argued: February 23, 2005
Decided: June 23, 2005
For Case Analysis: See ABA Preview 295
Did the United States waive its sovereign immunity from suits for breach of contract in a provision of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, 43 U. S. C. §390uu?
No. The statute does not waive immunity from suits filed directly against the United States (as opposed to joinder of the United States as a necessary party defendant to permit a complete adjudication of rights under a reclamation contract).
From the opinion by Justice Thomas (for a unanimous Court):
Section 390uu grants consent "to join the United States as a necessary party defendant in any suit to adjudicate" certain rights under a federal reclamation contract. (Emphasis added.) This language is best interpreted to grant consent to join the United States in an action between other parties—for example, two water districts, or a water district and its members—when the action requires construction of a reclamation contract and joinder of the United States is necessary. It does not permit a plaintiff to sue the United States alone.
Supreme Court Preview Home | Briefs |
Cases at a Glance | Case Highlights
Cases of Interest to the School Community
| Featured Cases | Subscribe
to Preview
Related Program Events | Search
| Links
