ETSI Pipeline Project v. Missouri
Headline: Affirms limit on Interior Department’s power: blocks its unilateral contract to take water from Army-run Lake Oahe for a coal slurry pipeline, leaving control of reservoir water allocations with the Army and affected states.
Holding:
- Prevents Interior from unilaterally contracting Army reservoir water for industrial use.
- Leaves Army Corps of Engineers in charge of Army-run reservoir water allocations.
- Allows states and parties to challenge unauthorized water contracts in court.
Summary
Background
A private energy company contracted with the Interior Department to withdraw up to 20,000 acre-feet of water per year from Lake Oahe for a coal slurry pipeline. The States of Missouri, Iowa, and Nebraska sued, arguing the Interior Secretary lacked authority under the Flood Control Act of 1944 to make such a contract for water taken from a reservoir built and run by the Army Corps of Engineers. Lower courts enjoined the contract and the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted review.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether the Flood Control Act lets the Interior Secretary alone withdraw water from an Army-controlled reservoir for industrial use. Reading the Act’s specific sections, the Court found Army control of main-stem reservoirs clear and that Interior’s powers are limited and subordinate. The Act gives the Army Secretary the authority to contract for surplus water at Army reservoirs and lets Interior build irrigation works only after the Army approves using the reservoir for irrigation. Section 9 did not change that allocation of authority. Because the statute unambiguously preserved Army control, the Interior Secretary could not lawfully enter the disputed contract without Army approval.
Real world impact
The decision means the Interior Department cannot unilaterally sell or contract water from Army-run reservoirs for industrial uses; the Army Corps retains authority to designate surplus water and approve contracts. Affected companies, states, and local water users must rely on Army approval or follow the Act’s irrigation-works procedures before Interior may control reservoir water.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?