Tri-State Water Rights Act Case Study

Words: 1450
Pages: 6

Case History
The states of Kansas, Nebraska and Colorado joined a tri-state water rights agreement in 1943. The agreement also known as the "Republican Compact Agreement" was made between all the stated parties above to allocate a certain percentage of the river's water to each state respectively. The agreement allocated 49% of the river's water to Nebraska, 40% to Kansas and 11% for Colorado.
Since 1999 there has been open tension between the states about the agreement made within the compact. It is the premise of the state of Kansas that Nebraska has been breaching the contract made because the state was allowing its farmers to divert more water than they should for private use. The issue with the compact in its original state
…show more content…
Depending on § 155 of the Restatement Second of Contracts, Nebraska makes the argument that making an amendment to the procedures is a permissible action because though it was not in the intention of any of the parties to consider imported water as water from the Republican River, the accounting procedures non the less continues to have that unintended effect, and because of this Nebraska positions that Compact fails to accurately express the true intention of the parties.
Kansas uses § 154 of the same Restatement Second of Contracts to hold the representatives of Nebraska most likely knew that the groundwater system included non-linear parts. The state suggests that Nebraska could have uncovered that imported water was being treated as water from the river in some instances and for this reason the state must live with the consequences of it’s action.
In dealing with the Final Settlement Stipulation (FSS) Kansas argues that because within the stipulation lies a non-severability clause approved by the Court; the Court cannot simply adjust or change only one section of the Settlement Stipulation. On the opposite side of this argument Nebraska contends that a reform of the agreement made by the parties is not what it seeks but rather an adjustment to the mistake in writing that resulted in an undesirable outcome the states did not intend to