Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado

Last updated

Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 8, 2018
Decided March 5, 2018
Full case nameTexas v. New Mexico and Colorado
Docket no. 22O141
Citations583 U.S. ___ ( more )
583 U.S. 407; 138 S.Ct. 954 [1]
Argument Oral argument
Holding
Maryland v. Louisiana (1981) holds that the federal government has the right to intervene in legal cases regarding certain interstate compacts. In this case, the Court ruled that the Rio Grande Compact qualifies as a fitting compact because it relates to "distinctively federal interests".
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Case opinion
MajorityGorsuch, joined by unanimous

Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), was a Supreme Court case argued and decided during the 2017 term of the Supreme Court of the United States. The case involved an interstate dispute regarding New Mexico's compliance with the Rio Grande Compact of 1938, an agreement which established a plan for equitable apportionment of the water in the Rio Grande Basin among the states of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. [2] The Court considered the question of whether the U.S. federal government had a legal right to join litigation against New Mexico; the Court ruled that the federal government was within its rights when it did so. [2]

Contents

Background

The Rio Grande Compact

The interstate agreement that the case centered around, the Rio Grande Compact, arose from multiple concerns regarding apportionment of water during the early 20th century. According to the terms of the Convention Between the United States and Mexico for the Equitable Distribution of the Waters of the Rio Grande for Irrigation Purposes, a treaty that the United States signed with Mexico in 1906, the U.S. must supply Mexico with at least 60,000 acre-feet of water from the Rio Grande each year. [3] As part of its efforts to develop the arid American West through the Newlands Reclamation Act and the Rio Grande Project, the federal government began construction of the Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico to reserve a large amount of water for transference to Mexican officials; the reservoir was completed in 1916 and soon found additional use supplying farmers in New Mexico and Texas with water for irrigation of their crops. [4] [3] However, a lack of regulation regarding water apportionment between the states caused tension between Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, leading them to sign the Rio Grande Compact in March 1938, which committed all three states to equal division of the Rio Grande's water supplies above a point in Fort Quitman, Texas. [5] [4]

Interstate Conflict

In early 2014, the state of Texas sued New Mexico, formally accusing it of allowing the water reserves of the Rio Grande to be discreetly channeled away for use within New Mexico and of depriving Texas of its equal share in the river's resources. [4] Asserting that the violation was an injury to the general interests of the United States, the federal government followed suit and filed a complaint against New Mexico the same year, which raised the question of whether the federal government had the legal right to intervene in matters regarding the relevant type of interstate compact. [5] [4] The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on October 10, 2017, despite a Special Master's recommendation that the Court reject a hearing of the federal government's complaints on the grounds that the Rio Grande Compact and subsequent federal legislation did not grant the federal government enforcement powers related to the Compact. [2] [3]

Question presented

The key question of the case was "May the United States properly intervene in an action involving a dispute over a compact between states?" [2]

Ruling

The case was argued before the Supreme Court on January 8, 2018, and decided on March 5 of the same year. [2] Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the Court's unanimous opinion, holding that the federal government has the right to join suits in matters related to interstate compacts provided that the compacts at hand are directly related to the operations and obligations of the federal government. [6] [4] The opinion cites the precedent set in Maryland v. Louisiana (1981) that the United States sometimes has the right to intervene in interstate compacts and clarifies this right by adding that, for intervention to be allowed, the dispute must be clearly related to "distinctively federal interests". [6]

Rationale

The Court ruled that adherence to the Rio Grande Compact is of direct relevance to the interests of the federal government for three distinct reasons:

  1. The terms of the Rio Grande Compact are fundamentally linked to the operations of the Rio Grande Project, a federal program.
  2. The federal government is significantly involved in the functions of the Compact and the coordination of its details.
  3. The federal government relies upon the proper operation of the Compact in order to fulfill its treaty commitments to the government of Mexico. [3]

The Court also noted that it had been assisted toward its decision by a fourth consideration: the fact that the federal government joined an existing complaint filed by the State of Texas, one of the parties to the Rio Grande Compact, and that Texas had not objected to the federal government's intervention. [6]

Since these first three factors demonstrate the Rio Grande Compact's relation to "distinctively federal interests" and since the fourth demonstrates that federal intervention occurred with the tacit consent of Texas, the case's original petitioner, the Court ruled that the federal government did have the right to intervene and join Texas as a plaintiff against New Mexico. [2] [4] [6]

Legacy

Notably, the justices chose not to rule on the issue of whether the federal government has the right to initiate a unique suit regarding proper adherence to interstate compact law. Because of this, the question of whether the federal government can legally intervene in interstate compact law by initiating its own suit (without any existing suits filed by states or without the consent of the states involved in the relevant compact) remains unanswered. [2] [4]

Moreover, the Court chose not to rule on New Mexico's compliance with the Rio Grande Compact during this case, so the issue of water apportionment in the Elephant Butte Reservoir will remain unresolved until such time that the Court chooses to address the question in a future case. [6] [4] However, the Court's subsequent ruling in Florida v. Georgia (2018), a case involving water distribution between the states of Georgia and Florida, established a lower standard of proof in which Florida must only prove "harm" from unequal apportionment for its case to be considered. [7] If the Court continues to apply it for apportionment cases in the future, which is likely according to the assessment of Todd Votteler, the head of Collaborative Water Resolution LLC, this new standard will almost certainly prove advantageous to Texas in its ongoing case against New Mexico. [7]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article Four of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding states

Article Four of the United States Constitution outlines the relationship between the various states, as well as the relationship between each state and the United States federal government. It also empowers Congress to admit new states and administer the territories and other federal lands.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rio Grande</span> Major river forming part of the United States and Mexico border

The Rio Grande in the United States or the Río Bravo in Mexico is one of the principal rivers in the southwestern United States and in northern Mexico. The length of the Rio Grande is 1,896 miles (3,051 km), making it the 4th longest river in the United States and in North America by main stem. It originates in south-central Colorado, in the United States, and flows to the Gulf of Mexico. The Rio Grande drainage basin (watershed) has an area of 182,200 square miles (472,000 km2); however, the endorheic basins that are adjacent to and within the greater drainage basin of the Rio Grande increase the total drainage-basin area to 336,000 square miles (870,000 km2).

Parens patriae is Latin for "parent of the nation". In law, it refers to the public policy power of the state to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent, legal guardian, or informal caretaker, and to act as the parent of any child, individual or animal who is in need of protection. For example, some children, incapacitated individuals, and disabled individuals lack parents who are able and willing to render adequate care, thus requiring state intervention.

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus enabling federal courts to hear Fourteenth Amendment-based redistricting cases. The court summarized its Baker holding in a later decision as follows: "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the authority of a State Legislature in designing the geographical districts from which representatives are chosen either for the State Legislature or for the Federal House of Representatives.". The court had previously held in Gomillion v. Lightfoot that districting claims over racial discrimination could be brought under the Fifteenth Amendment.

In the United States, an interstate compact is a pact or agreement between two or more states, or between states and any foreign government. The Compact Clause of the United States Constitution provides that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power,..."

In the United States, state law refers to the law of each separate U.S. state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Preamble to the United States Constitution</span> Introductory statement of the US Constitutions fundamental purposes

The Preamble to the United States Constitution, beginning with the words We the People, is a brief introductory statement of the US Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. Courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Boundary and Water Commission</span>

The International Boundary and Water Commission is an international body created by the United States and Mexico in 1889 to apply the rules for determining the location of their international boundary when meandering rivers transferred tracts of land from one bank to the other, as established under the Convention of November 12, 1884.


The Rio Grande Compact is an interstate compact signed in 1938 in the United States between the states of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, and approved by the United States Congress, to equitably apportion the waters of the Rio Grande Basin.

Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States extensively refined the abstention doctrine to prevent duplicative litigation between state and federal courts.

Kansas v. Colorado is a longstanding litigation before the Supreme Court of the United States between US states: Kansas and Colorado regarding the payment for the use of the Arkansas River. The Court has rendered numerous opinions on the case:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taney Court</span> Period of the US Supreme Court from 1836 to 1864

The Taney Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1836 to 1864, when Roger Taney served as the fifth Chief Justice of the United States. Taney succeeded John Marshall as Chief Justice after Marshall's death in 1835. Taney served as Chief Justice until his death in 1864, at which point Salmon P. Chase took office. Taney had been an important member of Andrew Jackson's administration, an advocate of Jacksonian democracy, and had played a major role in the Bank War, during which Taney wrote a memo questioning the Supreme Court's power of judicial review. However, the Taney Court did not strongly break from the decisions and precedents of the Marshall Court, as it continued to uphold a strong federal government with an independent judiciary. Most of the Taney Court's holdings are overshadowed by the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which the court ruled that African-Americans could not be citizens. However, the Taney Court's decisions regarding economic issues and separation of powers set important precedents, and the Taney Court has been lauded for its ability to adapt regulatory law to a country undergoing remarkable technological and economic progress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oklahoma Water Resources Board</span>

The Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) is an agency in the government of Oklahoma under the Governor of Oklahoma. OWRB is responsible for managing and protection the water resources of Oklahoma as well as for planning for the state's long-range water needs. The Board is composed of nine members appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Oklahoma Senate. The Board, in turn, appoints an Executive Director to administer the agency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water in Colorado</span> State of Colorado water use and rights

Water in Colorado is of significant importance, as the American state of Colorado is the 7th-driest state in America. As result, water rights generate conflict, with many water lawyers in the state.

The Country Club Area is a suburb of El Paso, Texas. It was the object of a lengthy border dispute between Texas and New Mexico.

South Carolina v. North Carolina, 558 U.S. 256 (2010), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States settled a dispute between the states of South Carolina and North Carolina regarding which parties may intervene in litigation between two states over water rights. By a 5–4 vote, the Court held that an interstate water authority and the Duke Energy Corporation could intervene, while ruling unanimously that the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, could not.

Florida v. Georgia, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in an original jurisdiction case. It involves a long-running dispute over waters within the ACF River Basin, running from the north Georgia mountains through metro Atlanta to the Florida panhandle, which is managed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Waters in the area have been stressed by the population growth of Atlanta over previous decades. The immediate case stemmed from droughts in 2011 and 2012 that caused economic damage to Florida due to lower water flows from the ACF River Basin into the panhandle, impacting its seafood production; Florida sought relief to have more water allocated towards them from the ACF by placing a water allocation cap on Georgia. The Supreme Court assigned a special master to review Florida's complaint, but ultimately found in 2016 that Florida had not fully demonstrated the need for more allocation. Florida challenged this determination to the Supreme Court. On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that the special master had not properly considered Florida's argument and remanded the case to be reheard and reviewed.

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that unless they consent, states have sovereign immunity from private suits filed against them in the courts of another state. The 5–4 decision overturned precedent set in a 1979 Supreme Court case, Nevada v. Hall. This was the third time that the litigants had presented their case to the Court, as the Court had already ruled on the issue in 2003 and 2016.

Water rights for the Navajo Nation have been a source of environmental conflict for decades, as Navajo lands have provided energy and water for residents of neighboring states while many of the Navajo do not have electricity or running water in their homes. Beginning in the 1960s, coal mining by Peabody coal at Black Mesa withdrew more than 3 million gallons of water/day from the Navajo aquifer, reducing the number of springs on the reservation. The Navajo Generating Station also consumed about 11 billion gallons of water per year to provide power for the Central Arizona Project that pumps water from Lake Havasu into Arizona.

Arizona v. Navajo Nation, 599 U.S. 555 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case which determined that the Treaty of Bosque Redondo did not require the U.S. Government to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Navajo Nation.

References

  1. ↑ "Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado opinion citation". CaseText. Retrieved March 19, 2024.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado". Oyez. Archived from the original on November 29, 2018. Retrieved October 3, 2018.
  3. 1 2 3 4 "SCOTUS: US Allowed in Texas v. New Mexico" (PDF). The Network Note. May 2018. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 30, 2018. Retrieved November 2, 2018.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Wallace, Chad (July 2, 2018). "Developments in Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado, No. 141 Original | Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources". www.americanbar.org. Retrieved October 3, 2018.
  5. 1 2 Bord, Simon; Thibodeau (January 4, 2018). "Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado". Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 30, 2018. Retrieved October 3, 2018.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 "Texas v. New Mexico et al" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 19, 2018. Retrieved November 1, 2018.
  7. 1 2 Alamdaria, Natalia (June 27, 2018). "Texas-New Mexico water fight could be impacted by SCOTUS ruling". The Texas Tribune. Archived from the original on July 5, 2018. Retrieved November 29, 2018.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.