The decades-long battle between Texas and New Mexico over Rio Grande water rights will be heard at the Supreme Court next week. Source New Mexico’s Danielle Prokop told KUNM that this is the culmination of legal fights after drought shocked the region in the early 2000’s.
DANIELLE PROKOP: Legal fights at all different stages, whether between counties, cities, irrigation districts, the federal government have escalated throughout the years, and then culminated in that 2014 filing where Texas sued New Mexico saying it violated the 1938 Rio Grande compact, which splits the river between Colorado, New Mexico and Texas. It alleged in that filing that New Mexico’s pumping downstream of Elephant Butte, which includes the second largest city, Las Cruces, NMSU and all kinds of farmers, have been taking water out of the Rio Grande through pumping that is meant for Texas.
KUNM: So you’ll be traveling to Washington D.C. to cover the upcoming case next week. So tell me how did we get to the Supreme Court? What are the reasons why this case is being heard before them?
PROKOP: Absolutely, so since this is a dispute between Texas and New Mexico over water, and much like other water disputes, it goes before the Supreme Court in the end, but it goes through a different process than a lot of other cases. Since the Supreme Court is an appellate court, it's not a trial court. Water cases have to go before these things called special masters, which are fact finding judges appointed to these cases to make a clear record and make reports and recommendations to the Supreme Court.
KUNM: At this time there is a compromise plan agreed to by New Mexico, Texas, and Colorado right? What exactly is in that plan?
PROKOP: The compromise is a difference in how we now deliver water to Texas. Currently, all water in New Mexico being delivered to Texas is delivered into Elephant Butte reservoir. That is going to remain the same, but what the plan would add is additional mathematical concepts to account better for drought and how water is making its way downstream. It would add a new gauge at the Texas/New Mexico line. And then it would make measurements between what was delivered into Elephant Butte and what actually crossed the state line in Texas and would then have these essentially adjustable amounts where we could fall above or below in delivering to Texas. And then it would make adjustments to the next year by requiring changes from maybe federal governments or farmers to make sure any shortfall is made up or to use up any excess.
KUNM: So how does this compromise plan sort of go into play with the Supreme Court? I mean, if New Mexico, Texas, and Colorado agree, is there anybody that disagrees with the plan?
PROKOP: Yeah, and so that's where we get into a really interesting aspect of this case. Earlier in the case back in 2018 and 2019, the Supreme Court allowed the federal government to intervene on its own interests. And so the Bureau of Reclamation is a really important federal agency that operates a lot down here. They manage what's called the Rio Grande Project, this network of canals, dams, and other infrastructure that helps move water from the river and into irrigation districts out here. And so the federal government believes that its interest in delivering water to irrigation districts and making its allocations to Mexico, which are guaranteed under a treaty, were at risk due to New Mexico pumping. That was the argument they made when they intervened. They were often joining Texas and its arguments at the beginning of this case, frankly, and now they're the ones who are opposing the deal, made between Texas, New Mexico and Colorado, saying that it unfairly imposes new duties on the federal government that they didn't agree to. The judge overseeing this case, the Special Master Michael Malloy, has sided with the state saying that the compromise fits under the compact and is a good deal.
KUNM: So with this new Supreme Court hearing, will we be hearing from all parties involved like farming associations and irrigation districts? Or will we likely only hear from the state’s attorneys?
PROKOP: It's going to be a very quick oral argument. And it's only going to be from the primary parties in this case. So that's going to be the states of Texas, New Mexico and Colorado, who are named in the compact, and the federal government. But the amici which are often a host of irrigators, local universities, cities, utilities from all across Texas and New Mexico. they're not going to be able to speak this time
KUNM: So when do you think we'll likely hear from the Supreme Court on this ruling?
PROKOP: The Supreme Court can rule at any time, as my understanding but we're most likely going to hear it when a lot of the other decisions are coming down in June and July.
Support for this coverage comes from the Thornburg Foundation.
