Abstract
Technical managers and industrial engineers responsible for the upkeep and management of natural resource such as water, face a daunting reality, in that in the U.S. when one state sues another it can only be adjudicated at the Supreme Court. This paper develops a pilot composite framework for evaluating conflict risk across river basins. Using a clustered analysis methodology of two landmark cases (Arizona v. California & Kansas v. Colorado) the study traces the timeline across three eras: seeking equitable apportionment, the rise of interstate compacts, and the contemporary challenges of drought and climate adaptation. The analysis combines different threads of the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) with U.S. Geological Survey volume streamflow to develop a risk score at the basin level. Information from legal events is framed to highlight the cause, basis, and outcome of the litigation. The results highlight the challenge of identifying what drives conflict, which is not by hydrological stress alone, rather an interaction of multiple elements. The same elements when analyzed at a deeper level drive the resolution of such disputes. This pilot framework of two water systems and their litigation can then be expanded to additional cases, offering a potential scalable method for comparative analysis. This application drives both academic and practical applications to identify the drivers of interstate water conflict and provide a tool that can expand its scope for evaluating resilience issues related to governance under water stress. This research showcases a multidisciplinary approach encompassing quantitative hydrology research with legal-institutional analysis to shape treaty design, increase the resilience.