The arbitrator made 12 recommendations based on the 53 conclusions and 159 findings that he reached. The ruling leaves many important issues unresolved.
The arbitrator ruled that Nebraska cannot shift all of the evaporation losses to Kansas as it has tried to do. As a result, the Kansas estimates on how much Nebraska has been over are more correct than Nebraska's. The arbitrator rejected Nebraska's suggested solution to one of the the demonstrated errors in the Model. However, he did recommend that the technical committee carefully review the problem and suggest a correction. He rejected most of the Nebraska suggestions regarding measurement points with the exception that he did accept the idea that the measurement point on the North Fork of the Republican be moved to the Nebraska/Colorado border. That will make it more difficult for Nebraska to comply in the future as Nebraska will have to stop the water Colorado dumps at the State line from disappearing before it reaches the next stream gage.
The ruling rejected the dollar amounts suggested by all States as being unsupported. So the ruling suggests a nominal award from Nebraska to Kansas of $10,000 (ten thousand dollars) until Kansas "proves" an actual amount in damages.
The ruling rejects the Kansas suggestion that all wells within 2.5 miles of either side of the stream be shut off as being more than necessary due to the reduced pumping Nebraska has already imposed on irrigation. However, he rejects Nebraska's position that the current Integrated Management Plans are adequate and recommends that additional reductions in allocations be made and that Nebraska should secure long term access to surface water rights. No specifics are given. The ruling says that Kansas has the right to seek injunctive relief should Nebraska fail to stay within the allocations and that Nebraska may be sanctioned such that it is incentivized to comply. However, no details are provided as to what that relief might be or what the sanctions might be. Additionally, the arbitrator has recommended that no River Master be appointed.
The arbitrator left a lot of things open for others to decide. He has deferred many of the specifics. No dollar amounts are given. He agrees that there are technical problems found in the Model but leaves it to the States to resolve. He has rejected both parties proposed solutions but has not said what the solution should be. He does suggest that the IMPs are ineffective in keeping Nebraska in compliance because of the time it takes for the IMPs to have any effect. He says Nebraska needs to find better ways to stay in compliance but leaves it up to the State as to how to do that. He says that if Nebraska fails that Kansas can force compliance but also leaves it open as to what it can specifically do. In the short term there are few financial costs. However, Kansas is given the opportunity to prove actual costs which the arbitrator says may result in millions of dollars.
Link to full ruling:



















