[1] In the 1907 case (206 U.S. 46), the Supreme Court affirmed its authority to settle the dispute between the states, but at the same time dismissed Kansas's petition on other grounds.

After examining over 8,000 pages of transcripts that had been produced as a result of the litigation, it found that the "perceptible injury to portions of the Arkansas valley in Kansas" was justified by "the reclamation of large areas in Colorado, transforming thousands of acres into fertile fields.

In the 1943 decision (320 U.S. 383), the court found: In 1985, Kansas filed suit against Colorado alleging they had overused their share of water outlined in the Arkansas River Compact.

For the next 24 years, Kansas spent over $20 million and 250 days in trial to convince the US Supreme Court that Colorado violated the Arkansas River Compact.

In the 1995 case (514 U.S. 673), the court stated Kansas and Colorado negotiated [and Congress approved in 1949] the Arkansas River Compact to settle disputes and remove causes of future controversies over the river's waters and to equitably divide and apportion those waters and the benefits arising from the United States' construction, operation, and maintenance of John Martin Reservoir.A special master decided that Kansas and Colorado both filed exceptions to the Special Master's report.

Kansas contends that Congress has never attempted to regulate a prevailing party's recovery of expert witness fees in a case brought under this Court's original jurisdiction, that Article III of the Constitution would not permit Congress to impose such a restriction, and thus, that the holding in Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U. S. 437 – that district courts must adhere to §1821(b)'s witness attendance fee limitations—is not relevant here.