WPCS 2BBcR Z33|["m^36Gff%==\o3=33ffffffffff33oooQzKfzztzp=o=o\%ffQi\=bp:6m:p\ifQUGpbbbX=o=o=3============i:fffffQ\\\\K:K:K:K:p\\\\ppppbfi\\b\zifffQQQQi\\\\bbbbbbppK:K:K:K:fmz:z:z:z:z:pppp\\QQQtUtUtUtUzGzGzGppppppbpXpXpXiz:pQtUzGbbi\pNo3o\6QNNfff=7f=f=%GGf//\\pp%G=ooee3o<;o;rfolWSGrfffZAeAe8.888888888888f>fffff]````J>J>J>J>rffffrrrrxffoffxffofff]]]]o````ffffffrrJ>J>J>J>lox;x;x;x;x;rrrrffWWWoSoSoSoSxGxGxGrrrrrrxfoZoZoZox;rWoSxGxfxfofrNe.}S1SSS```==`9}}`9(PPS88SSrr(P9ee\\w.e77\\\wwweeeCe.wR)EreewwwwIeenR\\\wwwxio\eEfRfIfRxe|W87y\r\rxWlRx\\]\ceIfIs`Wx\rriIe77\``rigewiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee777777777777\\\\\\\````````````rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrxfx8xs8s\"X^FJa3SS}FSFFFFofSS}3o}SOJO}otaxSSSFSS*SSSSSSSSSSOo}}}}fOfOfOfO}}}}}}}oooo}}}}fOfOfOfOOOOOO}}ooottttaaaxxxOota}NF}JokkTKSS3aaAA}}3aSF*RRdE|>gn|g|n|SR{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS2)~"cj&"X^HJS<aa}FSFFFF}oaa}<a]XX}kaaSFSS*SSSSSSSSSS]o]o]o]o]o]o]o]o]XXXXX}}}}kkkX}kNF}J}}}\\VV<xx}SS}}<xVF*RRdE|>gn|g|n|SR{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS"X^?Sf}}SSS}?S?F}}}}}}}}}}FFoSaSFSu}So}o}oS}}FF}F}}}}SaF}}}}ox2xS?SS*SSSSSSSSSS}FooooooooooSFSFSFSF}}}}}}}}}}o}}}}}}ooooooo}oooo}}}}}}}}SFSFSFSFa}FFFFF}}}}}}SSSaaaaFFF}}}}}}}ooo}F}SaF}}}}}NX?q}So}}}}}EN}K}K-oo}SS}}SoKF*RRdE|>gn|g|n|SR}{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS"X^?S}}SSS}?S?F}}}}}}}}}}SS}a}SFS}S}ooS}FSF}oaS}}}oc7cS?SS*SSSSSSSSSSF}}}}}oooooaFaFaFaF}}}}}}}}}}}}}oooooooo}}}}}}aFaFaFaF}FFFFF}}oooaaaaSSS}oooFoaS}}}NX?}S}}}}}}KS}K}KF}}}SS}}S}KF*RRdE|>gn|g|n|SR{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS"m^*,:SS}z22K[*2**SSSSSSSSSS**[[[Collluldu}=Sudzudul_dzljj\2[2[KSSCVK2Q\/,Y/\KVSCE:\QuQQH2[2[2*222222222222V/lSlSlSlSlSwlClKlKlKlK=/=/=/=/z\uKuKuKuKz\z\z\z\jQlSuVuKuKjQuKdVlSlSlSlClClClCuVlKlKlKlKuQuQuQuQuQuQ}\}\=/=/=/=/SuYd/d/d/d/d/z\z\z\z\uKuK}lClClC_E_E_E_Ed:d:d:z\z\z\z\z\z\ujQ\H\H\HuVd/z\lC_Ed:jQjQuVuKz\N[*[K,C@@SSS2-}}S2ooS}2::S''KK\\:2[[RRk*[11RRRkskk[ZZ<[){kJ%>gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR27c) cb- c0 c(4"m^*2gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR"m^3=Iff%==\o3=3offffffffff33oooQzKpzzz~~z=o=o\%ifQpQ=bp=:f=p\ifQQAp_\\U=o=o=3============f=iiiiiQQQQQK=K=K=K=p\\\\pppp~\ip\\~\\ziiiiQQQQpQQQQbbbbbbppK=K=K=K=pfz=z=z=z=z=pppp\\QQQzQzQzQzQ~A~A~Apppppp~\zUzUzUpz=pQzQ~A~\~\p\pNo3w\=QNNfffMDf=f=3GG\==\\pp%G=ooee3o<>RRR1,zzR1llRz199R&&IIZZ91YYQQi)Y00QQQiqiiYXX;Y(yiH$<euXXqiiii@yqqqXXaHQQQiiij]bQXcC"m^!+==\Z%%7C%==========CCC1QOOOVOIV\-=VIhZVIVOEIZOlMMC%C%C7==1?7%;C#!A#bC7?=13+C;V;;5%C%C%%%n%%%%%%%%%%?#O=O=O=O=O=nXO1O7O7O7O7-#-#-#-#ZCV7V7V7V7ZCZCZCZCM;O=V?V7V7M;V7I?O=O=O=O1O1O1O1V?O7O7O7O7V;V;V;V;V;V;\C\C-#-#-#-#=VAI#I#I#I#I#ZCZCZCZCV7V7n\O1O1O1E3E3E3E3I+I+I+ZCZCZCZCZCZClVM;C5C5C5V?I#ZCO1E3I+M;M;V?V7ZCNCC7!1//===%!\\=%QQ=\%++=n77nCCn+n%CC<HYYY66^E@@@@(JEEE66;,1N11@@@A9<16%7,7(7,A6C/A1>1P7A/:,A1E12156(7(>4E/A1H>E>9(6144>986@9999999999999999999(((((((666666666666666666661111111444444444444>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A7AA>E>1&O)o=3no P['C&P &P%e8.|e P['CP&Q8SF> P['CPdR:SHvX pTCdS'l80lX pTCTDS?3s\  PCPUDS??皝4  p(AC&Vu![2*d[ P['CP Wu![2*P[e xzCXX)o=3PRoe xzC&X&r!Y1)LY P['CP Y)o=3no P['C&P &[UC%D4C P['CJP&\F66 P['CP&[G' ԦGG P['C^PKTKE0B$$<??KEDBN"m^ #-AAa_'':G ' AAAAAAAAAA GGG4VTTT[TN[a/A[Nn_[N[TJN_TrRRG'G'G:AA4C:'?G%#E%hG:CA46-G?[??8'G'G' ''u''''''''''C%TATATATATAu]T4T:T:T:T:/%/%/%/%_G[:[:[:[:_G_G_G_GR?TA[C[:[:R?[:NCTATATAT4T4T4T4[CT:T:T:T:[?[?[?[?[?[?aGaG/%/%/%/%A[EN%N%N%N%N%_G_G_G_G[:[:uaT4T4T4J6J6J6J6N-N-N-_G_G_G_G_G_Gr[R?G8G8G8[CN%_GT4J6N-R?R?[C[:_GNG G:#422AAA'#aaA'VVAa'--Au::uGGu-u'GG@@S G&&@@@SZSSGssFFz/G `S:0P]sssFFzZSSSS3`ZZZFFM:@e@@SSSTJN@F0G:G3G:TFV='&T@P@hGT=K:T@Z@A@EF3G3QCY=T@]PZPJ3F&&@CCPJHFSJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ3333333FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF&&&&&&&&&&&&@@@@@@@CCCCCCCCCCCCPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPTGT'TQZ'Q@2PxGo HHyIKBQck QuoteSingle spaced indented quote - Circv C   (  Cd  ( ( ( FTNFormats for each footnote,  X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:_vBQ d  ( , , The Special Master examined the computer models submitted by Kansas and Colorado and determined that the depletions shown by the Kansas model are well  J within the model's range of error. Id., at 334!335. As "   a result, [o]ne [could not] be sure whether impact or  J error [was] being shown. Id., at 335.  We believe that the Special Master gave Kansas every reasonable opportunity to meet its burden of proving its WWSP claim. Kansas, however, failed to prove that operation of the WWSP program resulted in material depletions of usable flows in violation of Article IV!D.  J See ibid. Therefore, we overrule Kansas' exception to the Special Master's conclusion that Kansas had failed to prove its WWSP claim.  ;H2 d d8C؃  2  Article IV!D of the Compact permits future development and construction along the Arkansas River Basin provided that it does not materially deplete stateline  Jf flows in usable quantity or availability. App. to Report 5 (Article IV!D) (emphasis added). In order to establish a violation of Article IV!D, Kansas was required to establish that development in Colorado resulted in material depletions of usable river flow. The Compact  J does not define the term usable. Cf. Colorado v.  Jv Kansas, 320 U.S., at 396!397 ( The critical matter is the amount of divertible flow at times when water is most needed for irrigation. Calculations of average annual flow, which include flood flows, are, therefore, not helpful in ascertaining the dependable supply of water usable for irrigation). At trial, Kansas presented three methods for determining depletions of usable flow.  Kansas' first expert, Timothy J. Durbin, analyzed flow data for the period between 1951 and 1985 by plotting actual river diversions in Kansas against actual stateline flows. Report 293!294. Using these data, Durbin developed criteria to determine what river flows were usable. Durbin concluded that during the summer months, April through October, (1) 78% of the stateline flows were diverted; (2) flows greater than 40,000 acre "  ԫfeet per month were not usable; and (3) flows greater than 140,000 acrefeet for the whole period were not  J usable. Id., at 293. With respect to the winter months, November through March, Durbin concluded that (1) 24% of the winter flow was diverted; (2) flows greater than 7,500 acrefeet per month were not usable; and (3) flows greater than 40,000 acrefeet for the whole period  J were not usable. Id., at 293!294.  After Colorado isolated errors in Durbin's analysis, Kansas presented a replacement case. Kansas' second group of experts, led by Stephen P. Larson, adopted the same methodology but revised certain exhibits and made minor corrections in data. As a result, Larson modified Durbin's coefficients, using 72% for the summer months  J and 25% for the winter months. Id., at 295. K  Later, well after trial had begun, Kansas enlisted the aid of Brent Spronk, who proposed yet another method  JX to quantify depletions of usable stateline flow. Id., at 300!305. Spronk attempted to determine the percentage of days in each month when flows were being fully  J used in Kansas. Id., at 301. Instead of seasonal averages, the Spronk approach yielded coefficients that varied from month to month. Spronk then multiplied these monthly coefficients by the estimated depletions in  J@ flow predicted by Kansas' hydrological model. Id., at 301!302.  The Special Master concluded that the Durbin approach, using Larson's coefficients, is the best of the several methods presented for determining usable flow and that it provided a reasonable way in which to  JP determine depletions of usable flow. Id., at 305. We agree. Each of the three methods that Kansas proposed for calculating usable depletions required two steps: (1) a calculation of total depletions using the Kansas hydrological model, and (2) an application of usability criteria. See Brief for United States in Response to Exeptions of Kansas and Colorado 30. Each of the three` "   methods proposed by Kansas was dependent on the Kansas hydrological model to estimate total depletions. The Spronk method required the Kansas hydrological model to predict accurately depletions for each and every month. Report 303. But as Durbin, Kansas' first expert, testified, Kansas' hydrological model was only a  u ! `good predictor' when `looking at long periods of time.' !   J Id., at 303, n.130 (quoting Durbin's testimony). Thus, the Spronk method required the Kansas hydrologic  J model to do something it was not designed to do, i.e.,  Jp predict accurately depletions on a monthly basis. Id., at 303 ( The Spronk analysis assumes that the H!I model can accurately predict changes of Stateline flow on a monthly basis). Because the Spronk method for determining usable river flows was less compatible with Kansas' hydrological model than the other methods proposed, we conclude that the Special Master properly rejected the Spronk method in favor of the Durbin approach, as modified by the Larson coefficients.  9H1 d dy7III؃  D2  ;H2 d d8A؃  2  The Special Master concluded that Kansas was not guilty of inexcusable delay in making its wellpumping claim, and that Colorado had not been prejudiced by  Jl Kansas' failure to press its claim earlier. Id., at 170. Colorado has excepted to this determination. Colorado argues that the equitable doctrine of laches should bar Kansas' claim for relief. See Colorado's Exceptions to Special Master's Report (Colorado's Exceptions) 24!64. We overrule Colorado's exception.  The defense of laches requires proof of (1) lack of diligence by the party against whom the defense is asserted, and (2) prejudice to the party asserting the  J defense. Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 282 (1961); see also Black's Law Dictionary 875 (6th ed. 1990) (   ! `Doctrine of laches,' is based upon maxim that "   equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights. It is defined as neglect to assert a right or claim which, taken together with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to the adverse party, operates as bar in court of equity). This Court has yet to decide whether the doctrine of laches applies in a case involving the enforcement of an interstate compact.  J Cf. Illinois v. Kentucky, 500 U.S. 380, 388 (1991) (in the context of an interstate boundary dispute, the laches defense is generally inapplicable against a State);  Jp Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 294 (1983)  JH (O'Connor, J., dissenting) ( The common law has long  J accepted the principle `nullum tempus occurrit  J Ԛregi'"neither laches nor statutes of limitations will bar  J the sovereign); Colorado v. Kansas, 320 U.S., at 394 (in the context of a suit seeking an equitable apportionment of river flows, facts demonstrating a delay in filing a complaint might well preclude the award of the relief [requested]. But, in any event, they gravely add to the burden [the plaintiff] would otherwise bear). We need not, however, foreclose the applicability of laches in such cases, because we conclude that Colorado has failed to prove an element necessary to the recognition of that  Jh defense. See Costello, supra, at 282.  Colorado argues that Kansas knew or should have known by 1956, or at the latest, before 1968, that both the number of postCompact wells and the amount of postCompact pumping in Colorado had increased substantially. Colorado's Exceptions 37, 39. Colorado argues that by 1956 Kansas had sufficient information about increased well pumping in Colorado and its potential impact on usable stateline flows to call for an investigation to determine if a Compact violation existed.  J Id., at 46.  The Special Master concluded that prior to 1984, Kansas had made no formal complaint to the Administration regarding postCompact well pumping in Colo`"  Ԯrado. Report 155!156. Nevertheless, the Special Master concluded that Colorado's evidence did not deal with the  J issue of impact on usable flow at the Stateline, id., at 161, and did not demonstrate that [the Kansas officials] were aware of the number of wells, the extent of Colorado's pumping, or the impact or even potential  J impact of pumping on usable Stateline flows, id., at 164. The Special Master explained the difficulty of assessing the impact of increases in postCompact well pumping on usable stateline flows because of changing conditions during the 1970's and early 1980's:BQ pC   , , (  The 1970s were generally dry years and some reduction in flow was to have been expected. Pueblo Dam came on line in 1976 and began to regulate native flows. Transmountain imports increased, which to some extent provided an offset to pumping. The 1980 Operating Plan was placed into effect, which Colorado alleges offset the impacts of increased pumping downstream from John Martin Reservoir. The Winter Water Storage Program was instituted. Moreover, there was no quantitative or specific entitlement against which depletions to usable flow could be judged. Nor were there any agreed upon criteria for establishing what flows  J were usable. Id., at 162!163.hBQ d   ( , , As late as 1985, Colorado officials refused to permit an investigation by the Administration of well development in Colorado because they claimed that the evidence produced by Kansas did not  ! `suggest that well development in Colorado has had an impact on usable stateline  J flows.' I !  Id., at 163 (quoting memorandum of Mr. J. William McDonald, chief of the Colorado delegation to the Administration). In light of the vague and conflicting evidence available to Kansas, we conclude that  JW Colorado has failed to demonstrate lack of diligence, i.e., inexcusable delay, on the part of Kansas./"  Ԍ Accordingly, we overrule Colorado's exception to the Special Master's conclusion that the defense of laches should not bar Kansas' wellpumping claim.  ;H2 d d8B؃  J  2  The Compact prohibits future beneficial development of the Arkansas River basin that materially deplete[s] the usable flows of the Arkansas River. App. to Report 5 (Article IV!D) (emphasis added). Because some wells in Colorado were in existence prior to the Compact, both parties agree that a certain amount of postCompact well pumping is allowable under the Compact. Report 182. Kansas and Colorado, however, dispute the extent of this allowance. The Special Master determined that the highest annual amount shown to have been pumped during the negotiations, namely 15,000 acrefeet, should  J> be allowed under the [C]ompact. Id., at 200. Colorado makes both a legal and a factual challenge to this determination. Colorado's Exceptions 66!73, 73!84.  Colorado argues as a legal matter that the Compact does not limit the pumping by preCompact wells to the highest amount actually pumped in preCompact years; rather, Colorado claims that the limit on its preCompact pumping is the maximum amount that Colorado law permitted or the maximum amount of pumping possible  J using wells existing prior to the Compact. Id., at 69!70. In support of its position, Colorado argues that the Special Master failed to consider the subsequent practice  J^ of the parties, i.e., Kansas' failure to object to replacement of centrifugal pumps with turbine pumps or increased pumping by preCompact wells, and that  J Article VI!A(2) of the Compact supports its position. uBN ԍ FTN    XgEpXFr  ddf < Article VI!A(2) provides: Except as otherwise provided, nothing in this Compact shall be construed as supplanting the administration by Colorado of the rights of appropriators of waters of the Arkansas River in said State as decreed to said appropriators by thes"## courts of Colorado, nor as interfering with the distribution among said appropriators by Colorado, nor as curtailing the diversion and use for irrigation and other beneficial purposes in Colorado of the waters of the Arkansas River. App. to Report 10 (emphasis added).l"  Ԍ We conclude that the clear language of Article IV!D refutes Colorado's legal challenge. Article IV!D permits future beneficial development of the Arkansas River basin ... which may involve construction of dams, reservoir, and other works for the purposes of water  J8 utilization and control, as well as the improved or  J prolonged functioning of existing works: Provided, that the waters of the Arkansas River ... shall not be depleted in usable quantity or availability .... App. to Report 5 (emphasis added). Regardless of subsequent practice by the parties, improved and increased pumping by existing wells clearly falls within Article IV!D's prohibition against improved or prolonged functioning of existing works, if such action results in materia[l]  J deplet[ions] in usable river flows. Ibid.; see Texas v.  J New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554, 564 (1983) ( [U]nless the compact to which Congress has consented is somehow unconstitutional, no court may order relief inconsistent with its express terms). Article VI!A(2) of the Compact, which begins with the phrase, Except as otherwise provided, App. to Report 10, must be read in conjunction with and as limited by Article IV!D. We agree with the Special Master that new wells, the replacement of centrifugal with turbine pumps, and increased pumping from [preCompact] wells all come within [Article IV!D]. Report 194.  Second, Colorado argues as a factual matter that the Special Master unreasonably relied upon faulty reports by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Colorado Legislature to conclude that the greatest amount of annual preCompact pumping in Colorado was 15,000 acrefeet. Colorado's Exceptions 73!74. The(l"   Special Master concluded:BQ C   , , ( N N " There is no precise answer to the amount of [preCompact] pumping.... That amount must simply remain as an estimate of water use that affected the general allocation of water between the states when the [C]ompact was being negotiated. Two responsible reports, one published by the USGS and one prepared by the Colorado legislature, reached similar conclusions as to the amounts of Colorado pumping during the 1940s.... They have since been used by the Colorado State Engineer. I have relied on these reports and recommend that the highest annual amount shown to have been pumped during the negotiations, namely 15,000 acrefeet, should be allowed under the [C]ompact. Report 199!200.BQ  d   ( , , Although the ultimate responsibility for deciding what are correct findings of fact remains with the Court,  J Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U. S. 310, 317 (1984), in this instance, we are in full agreement with the Special Master. Accordingly, we overrule Colorado's exception.  ;H2 d d8C؃  2  In April 1980, the Administration adopted a resolution concerning the method for operating John Martin Reservoir (1980 Operating Plan). Report 47. The 1980 Operating Plan divides the water conserved in John Martin Reservoir into separate accounts. Kansas is allocated 40% of the conservation storage, with the remaining 60% being divided in specified percentages among the nine canal companies in Colorado Water  J District 67. Id., at 173. The Special Master concluded that the 1980 Operating Plan for the John Martin Reservoir was separately bargained for and therefore should not offset depletions caused by postCompact well  J pumping in Colorado. Id., at 180!181. Colorado takes exception to this ruling.  Colorado argues that increases in usable stateline"   flows resulting from the 1980 Operating Plan should offset depletions to usable stateline flows. Colorado's Exceptions 85. Colorado maintains that the Administration adopted the 1980 Operating Plan for more efficient utilization of water under its control because of changes  J8 in the regime of the Arkansas River, id., at 91, including [postCompact] well pumping in Colorado and  J Kansas, ibid.; see also App. to Report 107 (Resolution Concerning an Operating Plan for John Martin Reservoir) ( WHEREAS, the Arkansas River Compact Administration ... recognizes that, because of changes in the regime of the Arkansas River, the present operation of the conservation features of John Martin Reservoir does not result in the most efficient utilization possible of the water under its control). We disagree.  As Colorado acknowledges, the resolution adopting the 1980 Operating Plan does not state that [postCompact] well pumping in Colorado or Kansas was a cause of changes in the regime of the Arkansas River. Colorado's Exceptions 88. In fact, Colorado argues in a separate part of its brief that Kansas had made no complaint about well pumping in Colorado to the  J Compact Administration ... before 1984. Id., at 32. The 1980 Operating Plan expressly reserves the parties' rights under the Compact, stating that [a]doption of this resolution does not prejudice the ability of Kansas or of any Colorado ditch to object or to otherwise represent its interest in present or future cases or controversies before the Administration or in a court of competent jurisdiction. App. to Report 116. The Special Master concluded: BQ (C  , , ( N N " The 1980 Operating Plan provided benefits to both Kansas and Colorado which were separately bargained for. There is no evidence to support the claim that benefits to Kansas were in settlement of its well claims. Colorado received ample consideration under the agreement for the 1980 plan without"   a waiver of Kansas' well claims. The benefits received by Kansas under the plan should not be offset against compact violations, and should not be a bar to any of the Kansas claims in this case. Report 180!181. (vBQ 8d  ( , , We agree with the Special Master's resolution of Colorado's claim. Accordingly, we overrule Colorado's exception.  ;H2 d d8D؃  `2  Finally, Colorado argues that Kansas is required to prove its wellpumping claim by clear and convincing evidence. Colorado's Exceptions 91. The Special Master,  J relying upon Nebraska v. Wyoming, 507 U.S. ___ (1993), concluded that the proper burden of proof for enforcing an interstate compact is the preponderance of the evidence standard. Report 70. The Special Master  Jz noted that the Nebraska Court had drawn a distinction between actions seeking to modify a judicial decree and actions seeking to enforce a judicial decree. See  J Nebraska, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 6). ( [W]e find merit in [the] contention that, to the extent that Nebraska seeks modification of the decree rather than enforcement, a higher standard of proof applies). The Special Master concluded that an action seeking to enforce an interstate compact stood on the same footing as an action enforcing a judicial decree, and therefore was subject to the preponderance of the evidence standard. Report 70.  We need not, however, resolve this issue. The Special Master concluded that regardless of which burden of proof applies he had no difficulty in concluding that [postCompact] pumping in Colorado ha[d] caused material depletions of the usable Stateline flows of the Arkansas River, in violation of the Arkansas River  J Compact. Id., at 263. We agree with this determination, and thus overrule Colorado's exception."  Ԍ 9H1 dЙd7IV؃  2  For these reasons, we overrule the exceptions filed by the States of Kansas and Colorado. We remand the case to the Special Master for determination of the unresolved issues in a manner not inconsistent with this opinion.  JB B It is so ordered. S