Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Nebraska sues Colorado over Perkins County Canal; state engineer says Colorado will mount vigorous defense
Loading...
Summary
Nebraska filed an original action in the U.S. Supreme Court over the Perkins County Canal and South Platte Compact; Colorado says it will respond by Oct. 15 and defend the state’s water administration while local landowners described threats to property and community impacts.
Nebraska filed a complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court on July 16 alleging Colorado has not met obligations under the South Platte River Compact and asserting claims tied to Article 4 (delivery obligation) and Article 6 (Perkins County Canal), State Engineer Ullman told the Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee on July 16.
Ullman said Colorado received an extension to file its response: the original 60‑day deadline was moved to Oct. 15 by agreement of the parties. He said Colorado’s Division of Water Resources, Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Attorney General’s office are preparing the response and that the state will ‘‘defend our legal position vigorously.’’ Ullman cautioned the Supreme Court’s original‑action process is slow and could take up to a year or more just to decide whether the court will accept the case.
What Nebraska alleges: Ullman summarized that Nebraska’s complaint argues Colorado failed to meet an irrigation‑season delivery requirement (article language cited a mean flow of 120 cubic feet per second at the Julesburg gauge during April 1–Oct. 15) and that Colorado’s actions have impeded Nebraska’s ability to pursue Perkins Canal construction under compact terms. Ullman said specifics cannot be discussed while the matter is litigated.
Local impact testimony: Representatives of Water District 64 and local landowners told the committee they believe Colorado has acted in good faith and warned of broad local consequences if the canal proceeds or if court rulings require adjustments. Joe Frank, general manager of the Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District, said many lower‑section water rights are senior to the 1897 date the compact recognizes and that district users already face tight supplies; he estimated there are about 950 high‑capacity wells in Water District 64.
Fifth‑generation farmer Jay Goddard showed photos and described offers and letters he and other landowners received from Nebraska entities, including references to option agreements and possible condemnation; he said landowners declined offers and reported concern about property impacts and local economies.
Why it matters: An original action between states can ultimately change how interstate compact obligations are interpreted and administered, with implications for irrigation, municipal supplies and local infrastructure. Ullman emphasized Colorado believes it has ‘‘acted with integrity and good faith’’ and that the state’s response will set out that position.
What’s next: Colorado will file its response by Oct. 15 (the agreed extension); the Supreme Court will decide whether to accept the case, which could include appointing a special master to manage proceedings. Committee members asked the Division of Water Resources to continue transparent updates as litigation proceeds.
Sources: State Engineer Ullman’s briefing (Supreme Court complaint filed July 16; response extended to Oct. 15); testimony from Joe Frank and Jay Goddard in committee.
