Kansas v. Nebraska
135 S. Ct. 1042
| SCOTUS | 2015Background
- The Republican River Compact (approved by Congress in 1943) apportioned "virgin water" originating in the Basin among Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado; the RRCA jointly measures use and compliance.
- Groundwater pumping in Nebraska reduced streamflow; Kansas sued (1998) and the Court agreed groundwater-depletion counts against a State to the extent it depletes streamflow.
- The parties executed a 2002 Final Settlement Stipulation adopting Accounting Procedures and a Groundwater Model to measure depletion, using multi-year averages and excluding "imported water" (water brought into the Basin) from consumption.
- For the first Settlement accounting (2005–2006) Nebraska exceeded its allocation by 70,869 acre-feet; Kansas sought damages and an injunction; Nebraska counterclaimed that the Accounting Procedures incorrectly charged it for Platte River (imported) water.
- Special Master found Nebraska had "knowingly failed" to comply (reckless disregard), recommended Kansas receive $3.7 million in damages plus $1.8 million partial disgorgement, denied an injunction, and proposed amending the Accounting Procedures (the "5‑run formula") to exclude imported water.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Master: (1) adopted the "knowing failure" finding and $1.8M disgorgement, (2) denied injunctive relief to Kansas, and (3) ordered modification of the Accounting Procedures to exclude imported (Platte) water.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kansas) | Defendant's Argument (Nebraska) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nebraska "knowingly failed" to comply with the Settlement/Compact | Nebraska delayed and inadequately implemented compliance measures and thus recklessly risked breach | Nebraska took earnest steps and could not have anticipated the drought-driven shortfall or the timing of RRCA retrospective accounting | Court adopted Special Master: Nebraska knowingly exposed Kansas to substantial risk and thus "knowingly failed" to comply |
| Whether disgorgement (beyond actual damages) is an appropriate remedy | Disgorgement needed to deter opportunistic overuse because Nebraska profited more than Kansas lost; Master’s partial disgorgement is justified | Disgorgement improper absent deliberate breach and must be based on provable profits | Court upheld partial disgorgement ($1.8M) as equitable to deter and stabilize the Compact despite lack of deliberate intent |
| Whether Kansas is entitled to an injunction (ongoing relief) | Kansas sought injunction to enable contempt for recurrence and ensure compliance | Nebraska pointed to post-2006 reforms and argued injunction unnecessary | Court denied injunction: Kansas failed to show a cognizable risk of recurrent violation given Nebraska’s reforms and the disgorgement deterrent |
| Whether the Accounting Procedures must be amended to stop charging Nebraska for imported (Platte) water | Procedures erroneously count imported water in dry conditions, distorting Compact apportionment; must be conformed to Compact/Settlement | Parties bargained for the Procedures; modifying them rewrites the parties’ agreement | Court adopted Special Master’s 5-run formula to exclude imported water, finding the Procedures materially mismeasured and violated the Compact’s scope |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio v. Kentucky, 410 U.S. 641 (1973) (original‑jurisdiction proceedings between States are equitable in nature)
- Texas v. New Mexico, 482 U.S. 124 (1987) (Court may invoke equitable remedies to enforce compacts and deter violations)
- Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433 (1981) (congressional consent makes interstate compacts federal law)
- Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395 (1946) (equitable powers broaden when enforcing federal law in the public interest)
- Kansas v. Colorado, 533 U.S. 1 (2001) (Court has previously modified ancillary measurement regimes to ensure accurate compact apportionment)
- United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) (injunctive relief requires demonstration of a cognizable danger of recurrent violation)
- Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554 (1983) (the Court enforces compacts but may not order relief inconsistent with express compact terms)