Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado

Docket Number: 141-orig

Manner of Jurisdiction: Original jurisdiction

Petitioner: State of Texas

Respondent: State of New Mexico and State of Colorado

Dates

Granted: October 10, 2017

Argued: January 8, 2018

Decided: March 5, 2018

Lower Court: Unknown

Advocates

Scott A. Keller, Solicitor General of Texas, for the plaintiff

Frederick R. Yarger, Solicitor General of Colorado, for defendant Colorado

, for defendant New Mexico

Facts of the Case

The Rio Grande originates in Colorado, flows south into New Mexico, and flows into Texas near El Paso. The Rio Grande Compact apportions the water of the Rio Grande Basin among the states of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. Among other things, the Compact provides that Colorado must deliver a specific quantity of water to the New Mexico state line, and that New Mexico must then deliver a specific quantity of water to Elephant Butte Reservoir, a federal Bureau of Reclamation project that distributes water to New Mexico and Texas.

Texas alleges that New Mexico has depleted Texas's equitable apportionment of water under the Compact by allowing diversion of surface water and pumping of groundwater that is hydrologically connected to the Rio Grande below Elephant Butte. New Mexico contends that the Compact does not require it to deliver any specific amount of water to the Texas state line and thus that its actions do not violate the Compact.

Question

May the United States properly intervene in an action involving a dispute over a compact between states?

Conclusion

In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court held that the United States is permitted to intervene in this particular dispute over a compact between states to defend "distinctively federal interests" that a normal litigant might not be permitted to pursue in traditional litigation. To reach this conclusion, the Court assessed four considerations. First, the compact at issue in this case is inextricably intertwined with certain other contracts that implicate federal interests (the Rio Grande Project and the Downstream Contracts). Second, the United States has a critical role in the operation of the compact at issue. Third, a breach of the compact could jeopardize the federal government’s ability to satisfy its treaty obligations to Mexico. Finally, the United States has asserted its compact claims in an existing action brought by Texas, seeking substantially the same relief and without that State’s objection. The Court specifically limited its holding so as not to answer the question whether the United States may initiate litigation to force a State to perform its obligations under the compact or expand the scope of an existing controversy between states.