New Jersey v. Delaware (134 Orig.)
Oral argument: November 27, 2007
riparian rights
Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado
Issues
Should the Supreme Court allow Texas to proceed under the Court’s original jurisdiction in its claim against New Mexico for violating the Rio Grande Compact? Should the Supreme Court allow the United States to intervene in the action and state a claim against New Mexico under both the Rio Grande Compact and federal reclamation law?
Texas filed a complaint against New Mexico and Colorado, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution and Title 28, Section 1251(a) of the United States Code, alleging that New Mexico violated the terms of the Rio Grande Compact to which all three states are party. The United States subsequently moved to intervene in the proceedings citing both claims under the Rio Grande Compact and federal reclamation law. In the Special Master’s First Interim Report, he suggested that the Court deny New Mexico’s motion to dismiss Texas’s claim, but grant its motion to dismiss the United States’ Complaint in Intervention to the extent that it states a claim under the Rio Grande Compact. The United States argues that the Court must allow it to assert all of its claims against New Mexico because it has a federal interest in the matter. New Mexico and Colorado assert that allowing the United States to proceed with its claims risks re-litigating claims that are already pending at the state level, which they believe is the proper forum for the adjudication of water rights. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will affect the scope with which the United States can proceed as a party in this action.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether New Mexico is in violation of the Rio Grande Compact and the Rio Grande Project Act, which apportion water to Rio Grande Project beneficiaries.
On March 18, 1938, Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado signed the Rio Grande Compact (the “Compact”). Complaint at 2, Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado, (2013). The Compact resulted from a period of controversy among the states, in the early twentieth century, over the equitable apportionment of water from the Rio Grande river.
Written by
Edited by
Additional Resources
Laura Paskus, State’s Top Water Official Gives Legislators Optimistic Brief on Water Dispute with Texas, Las Cruces Sun-News (October 2, 2017).
Lauren Villagran, Texas Suit Most Imminent Threat to NM’s Water, Albuquerque Journal (June 24, 2017).
Submit for publication
0
Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado
Issues
Can the Supreme Court resolve Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado’s dispute over the Rio Grande without the consent of the United States federal government?
Court below
Original Jurisdiction
This case asks the Supreme Court to resolve a dispute between Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado regarding apportionment of the Rio Grande’s waters without the consent of the United States. Petitioner Texas and Respondents New Mexico and Colorado do not take any exceptions to the Special Master’s Third Interim Report, which purports to resolve the dispute by imposing a water monitoring system through a consent decree. The United States argues that the proposed consent decree cannot be implemented without its consent, that the proposed decree should be rejected because it unlawfully imposes obligations on the United States, and because the consent decree would run counter to the Rio Grande Compact. The outcome of this case could have an impact on water management in the Southwestern United States and may also impact the relationship between states and the federal government.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether the court should deny the motion by Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado for entry of a proposed consent decree that would resolve this dispute over the United States’ claim as intervenors that New Mexico violated the Rio Grande Compact without the United States’ consent.
The Rio Grande has its headwaters in Colorado, flows through New Mexico and Texas, and forms part of the border between the United States and Mexico. First Interim Report of the Special Master, Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado, at 32-33.
Additional Resources
- Curtis Segarra, Texas v. New Mexico Rio Grande water settlement awaits Supreme Court, KRQE News (July 6, 2023).
- Susan Montoya Bryan, US judge recommends settlement over management of the Rio Grande, Associated Press (July 5, 2023).
- Danielle Prokop, SCOTUS to hear oral argument on Rio Grande Case, Source New Mexico (January 22, 2024).
- Martha Pskowski, January trial cancelled as Rio Grande Compact states move to settle Texas v. New Mexico case, El Paso Times (October 25, 2022)
Submit for publication
0