At the end of June, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a proposed settlement between Texas and New Mexico regarding the allocation of water from the Rio Grande River. This decision prolongs a dispute that has persisted for over a decade and continues to impact water users in both states.
The Rio Grande Compact, an interstate agreement approved by Congress in 1938, governs the allocation of the river's waters among Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. The Compact relies on the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's operation of the Rio Grande Project, which distributes water from the Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico to downstream users in both New Mexico and Texas.
The current dispute began in 2013 when Texas filed a lawsuit against New Mexico, alleging that excessive groundwater pumping in New Mexico was reducing the amount of water reaching Texas. The United States intervened in the case, supporting Texas's claims and asserting that New Mexico's actions were violating the Compact and threatening the federal government's ability to meet its treaty obligations to deliver water to Mexico.
After years of litigation, Texas and New Mexico reached a proposed consent decree that would have established a new method for determining each state's share of the Rio Grande's waters. The agreement, approved by a Special Master, was designed to resolve the dispute and codify the use of the Effective El Paso Index (EEPI), a new metric for measuring New Mexico's compliance with its water delivery obligations.
However, the federal government objected to the proposed consent decree, arguing that it would dispose of its Compact claims without its consent. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the settlement could not be approved without the United States' agreement, as it would preclude the federal government from pursuing its claims that New Mexico's groundwater pumping was violating the Compact.
In the Court's opinion, Justice Jackson wrote, 'The proposed consent decree would dispose of the United States’ Compact claims without its consent, and thus, the States’ motion to enter the consent decree is denied.'
New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez expressed disappointment with the decision, stating, 'We are profoundly disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to reject a comprehensive settlement that would have safeguarded the rights of water users throughout southern New Mexico. This decision will result in millions more spent on legal fees and more uncertainty for New Mexico’s water users, all because the Interior Department feels the need to dictate how New Mexico meets its obligations to the State of Texas.'
The Supreme Court's decision means that the legal battle will continue, with significant implications for water users in both states. The ongoing dispute highlights the complexities of interstate water rights and the challenges of balancing the needs of different states and stakeholders.
As the case proceeds, the focus will remain on finding a resolution that honors the Rio Grande Compact and meets the needs of all parties involved. The stakes are high, as the allocation of the Rio Grande's water is critical to the agricultural, economic, and environmental well-being of the region.