Washington ? The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against Kansas in its attempt to get $24 million more from Colorado in a decades-long dispute over the Arkansas River.

The issue was not whether Colorado must compensate Kansas for depleting the river by diverting water to farm fields. The high court answered that question in 1995, ruling that Colorado took water rightfully belonging to Kansas.

This time, the court was deciding whether Colorado must pay damages and interest of $29 million or $53 million. The lesser amount was recommended by the special master in the case, Arthur Littleworth, and includes interest dating to 1985, when Kansas filed suit; the greater amount was sought by Kansas in an effort to recover interest dating to 1950.

Kansas’ request “would make good sense in an ordinary case,” wrote Justice Stephen Breyer, author of the ruling.

But the court refused Kansas’ request for more money because this is a special case that should be viewed in the context of earlier rulings, Breyer wrote. When it held Colorado responsible for diverting the river, the court “did not seek to provide compensation for all of Kansas’ lost investment opportunities; rather, it sought to weigh the equities,” he wrote.

The only dissenter was Justice John Paul Stevens, who said Kansas deserved interest dating to 1969, the date the court said Colorado should have known it was violating its compact with Kansas.

“Surely if this were an ordinary tort case involving a single harm-causing event, an award of prejudgment interest would apply to the entire damages recovery, not just to the portion that resulted from events occurring after interest began to accrue,” Stevens wrote.

Stevens’ dissent involved only that issue; he ruled with the rest of the justices on other issues in the case. Kansas made several requests that would have changed how the Arkansas River compact will be enforced, and the court refused Kansas on all counts.

Kansas wanted to stop Colorado from averaging water flows over 10 years when deciding how much water Kansas should get. And Kansas asked the court to appoint a river master — who would possess more authority than the current special master — to decide how much water to release each year.

In a statement, Kansas Atty. Gen. Phill Kline mentioned the court’s earlier rulings, which went in Kansas’ favor.

“We will now move forward to ensure the implementation of these hard-fought victories,” Kline said. “We will continue to collect the monies that were awarded by the court last year and monitor the Arkansas River to ensure that the increased water flow we have won will continue.”

Colorado Atty. Gen. Ken Salazar praised the decision. “The state of Colorado is now in a position to work with Kansas to bring about a lasting peace between Kansas and Colorado on the Arkansas River,” he said.