Texas v. New Mexico
Headline: Court enforces Pecos River Compact, upholding order that New Mexico must deliver required water to Texas and appointing a River Master to monitor and enforce deliveries.
Holding: The Court approved the Special Master's report, enjoined New Mexico to comply with Article 111(a) by delivering required water to Texas at state line, and appointed a River Master to calculate and enforce those obligations.
- Requires New Mexico to deliver specified water amounts to Texas at the state line.
- Creates a River Master with subpoena power to measure and verify water deliveries.
- Costs and River Master fees split equally between Texas and New Mexico.
Summary
Background
This dispute involves the State of New Mexico and the State of Texas over water owed under the Pecos River Compact. Last Term the Court issued a decree directing New Mexico to meet its Article 111(a) obligation and asked the Special Master to recommend a River Master and proposed changes to the decree. The Special Master filed a report and proposed an amended decree; New Mexico’s exceptions were overruled and the Court considered the report for approval.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether to approve the Special Master’s report, amend the decree, and appoint a River Master to calculate and enforce the water deliveries. The Court approved the report, adopted the amended decree, and appointed Neil S. Grigg as River Master. The decree sets a detailed process and timetable: calculations begin for water year 1987 with accounting year 1988; the River Master must issue a preliminary report by May 15 and a final report by July 1 each accounting year; New Mexico must submit a plan within 30 days after a final report identifying verifiable steps to cure any shortfall and must comply with an approved plan by March 31 of the following year. The River Master may subpoena data, modify the Manual under rules, and issue compliance reports. Final determinations are effective unless this Court stays them and are reviewable here only for clear error.
Real world impact
The decree creates an ongoing enforcement system to measure and fix delivery shortfalls. Texas gains a formal, court-backed monitor and verification process. New Mexico must take verifiable actions to increase flows when shortfalls occur. The United States was dismissed from the proceedings, and the Court retains jurisdiction to modify the decree as needed.
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?