Supreme Court of the United States

Kansas v. Nebraska

February 24, 2015574 U.S. 445

Summary

The Court affirmed the Special Master’s findings that Nebraska knowingly breached the Republican River Compact and ordered partial disgorgement of Nebraska’s gains but denied Kansas’s request for an injunction; it also adopted the Master’s amendment to the Accounting Procedures to exclude imported water. Concurring and dissenting opinions argued over the Court’s equitable authority and the propriety of disgorgement.

Holding

  • Whether Nebraska’s overuse of water constitutes a knowing breach of the Republican River Compact justifying disgorgement.. Nebraska knowingly failed to comply with the Compact and Settlement, and disgorgement is an appropriate remedy.
  • Whether Kansas is entitled to injunctive relief to compel Nebraska’s future compliance.. Kansas failed to demonstrate a cognizable danger of recurrent violation; therefore, no injunction is warranted.
  • Whether the amount of partial disgorgement awarded is appropriate under equitable principles.. A modest partial disgorgement award is sufficient to achieve deterrence and compensation, and the Court adopts the Master’s $1.8 million figure.
  • Whether the Settlement’s Accounting Procedures must be amended to exclude imported water from Nebraska’s consumption calculations.. The Accounting Procedures are adopted to implement the Compact and must be amended to exclude imported water; the Court adopts the Master’s proposed “5‑run formula.”
  • Whether the Court has authority to modify a technical agreement underlying a compact under its equitable powers.. The Court possesses broad equitable authority to modify ancillary technical agreements to ensure accurate implementation of a compact.

Docket 126, ORIG.

Cited authorities

  • 57 Stat. 87
  • 57 Stat. 86
  • 34 Yale L.J. 685
  • 13 Pepp. L. Rev. 23

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF