Governor Jared Polis and Attorney General Phil Weiser have called on the U.S. Supreme Court to dismiss Nebraska’s case concerning the South Platte River Compact and the Perkins County Canal project. In a recent brief submitted to the court, Colorado officials stated that the state is meeting its obligations under the compact and is not preventing Nebraska from pursuing construction of the canal.
The South Platte River begins in Colorado, supplying water to major cities and agricultural areas before flowing into Nebraska. The river is managed according to a compact between the two states, which outlines their respective rights and responsibilities for water usage.
Although Colorado acknowledges Nebraska’s legal right to build the Perkins County Canal, state officials note that Nebraska has made little progress on the project over more than a century. Recently, Nebraska began initial planning and permitting steps with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but further study and processes remain before construction could proceed.
According to Colorado officials, Nebraska’s Supreme Court filing appears aimed at renegotiating terms of the compact rather than addressing any actual violation. “Water is the lifeblood of our state. We have always faithfully honored the century-old South Platte Compact and all other water agreements with our downstream neighbor states, and we will continue to do so. We refuse to sit idly by while Nebraska chases a meritless lawsuit that threatens Colorado’s precious water resources, our robust agriculture industry, and our rural communities in Northeastern Colorado,” said Governor Jared Polis.
Attorney General Weiser emphasized that no claims currently exist that require review by the Supreme Court: “Nebraska’s claimed violations rely on speculative and premature allegations. To the extent any legal issues arise in the future, there are alternative forums to resolve them. The Supreme Court need not take a case that would put the court and the parties on a long, time-intensive, and expensive path that might well, in the end, put the States right back where they were before Nebraska filed their proposed complaint,” he said. “Even if the court decides to take up part or all of Nebraska’s case, I’m confident that we will win on the merits. Both the facts and the law are on our side.”
Jason Ullmann, State Engineer and Director of Colorado’s Division of Water Resources, responded to claims from Nebraska regarding alleged harm during irrigation season: “For over 100 years the Colorado State Engineer’s Office has worked with Nebraska and performed the hard work of ensuring Colorado meets its compact obligations on the South Platte River. This means we make difficult decisions every day on who receives their water and when based on the priority system and compact terms. As a result, water users in Colorado and Nebraska all receive their allotted share,” Ullmann said. “We were surprised and disappointed by Nebraska’s lawsuit and are hopeful once all the briefs are filed that we can resume discussions to meet the mutual needs of both of our States.”
The Supreme Court holds original jurisdiction over disputes between states such as those involving borders or shared natural resources like rivers. Before hearing such cases, states must seek permission from the court through a motion for leave; it remains up to justices whether they will hear this dispute.
The ongoing case is listed as Nebraska v. Colorado (case number 220161).
Further information about Colorado’s response can be found in its official Response in Opposition to Nebraska’s Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint (PDF).
