Texas v. New Mexico
Headline: Court denies approval of Texas–New Mexico consent decree because it would extinguish the federal government’s Rio Grande Compact claims and change how downstream water deliveries and groundwater pumping are measured.
Holding: The Court ruled the proposed consent decree cannot be entered because it would dispose of the United States’ Compact claims without the federal government’s consent, so the States’ motion to enter the decree is denied.
- Prevents Texas and New Mexico from adopting the proposed settlement that sets a new water-measuring metric.
- Keeps the federal government able to pursue Compact claims about groundwater pumping.
- Continues litigation risk for farmers, water districts, and state agencies.
Summary
Background
Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado are signatories to the Rio Grande Compact, which divides Rio Grande water and relies on the federal Bureau of Reclamation’s Rio Grande Project and the Elephant Butte Reservoir. Texas sued in 2013, saying rising groundwater pumping in southern New Mexico was taking water bound for Texas. The United States intervened. Texas and New Mexico later negotiated a proposed consent decree that would adopt a new method, the Effective El Paso Index (EEPI), based on federal D2 Period data (1951–1978) and measure deliveries at an El Paso gauge; the Special Master recommended approval but the United States objected.
Reasoning
The core question was whether the Court could approve a settlement that would resolve the United States’ Compact claims without its consent. The Court held it could not. Relying on precedent, the Court found the United States has valid Compact claims—grounded in its role under the Downstream Contracts, its operation of the Project, and treaty duties to Mexico—and the consent decree would effectively wipe out those claims by accepting higher pumping levels reflected in the D2 baseline and by not imposing a noninterference duty on New Mexico. Because the decree would dispose of the federal government’s claims without consent, the motion to enter it was denied and the United States’ exception sustained.
Real world impact
The ruling prevents the proposed settlement from taking effect and keeps the federal government able to seek injunctions or other relief against New Mexico over groundwater pumping. Water districts, farmers, and state agencies remain subject to ongoing litigation rather than a settled allocation, and the case is not finally decided on the merits.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Gorsuch dissented, agreeing with the Special Master that the settlement largely preserved federal operations, used longstanding D2 procedures, and would better resolve the dispute; he warned denying approval could harm New Mexico’s economy and erase a negotiated end to litigation.
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?