Luecke, Daniel F., authorColorado State University, publisher2020-01-302020-01-302005https://hdl.handle.net/10217/200603http://dx.doi.org/10.25675/10217/2006032005 annual AGU hydrology days was held at Colorado State University on March 7 - March 9, 2005.Includes bibliographical references.The quality and reliability of hydrologic modes is a regular feature of surface water and groundwater disputes that make it to the courtroom. These models can be enormously useful, but at the same time are often suspect because of their complexity and their lack of transparency. N this paper I wish to visit the question of whether and how courts could approach the use of models, including the assessment of models and their results, before formal proceedings commence. My underlying assumption is that an improved assessment process can lead to better models, and ultimately, to fairer and more efficient outcomes. To do this, I review some of the literature on model building and testing, and some of the proposed guidelines on a number of the features of model construction and testing. I also look at two cases in which models played a central role, the Arkansas River Compact altercation (Kansas v. Colorado) and the Republican River Compact dispute (Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado). They offer very different examples (if not extremes) of model building and use. Finally, I discuss some alternatives to cross examination of experts, once models are introduced.born digitalproceedings (reports)engCopyright and other restrictions may apply. User is responsible for compliance with all applicable laws. For information about copyright law, please see https://libguides.colostate.edu/copyright.Working paper on hydrologic models in the courtroomHydrology days 2005AGU hydrology days 2005Text