The Supreme Court rejected a motion Friday by Texas and New Mexico to settle a long-running dispute over Rio Grande water management, ruling that the states can act only with the backing of the federal government.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court found that the consent decree entered by Texas, New Mexico and Colorado needs the buy-in of the federal government, overruling a court-appointed special master who last year said the agreement could go forward despite the federal opposition.
“Texas and New Mexico have agreed to a proposed consent decree that would resolve this case and codify a methodology for determining each state’s allocation of the Rio Grande’s waters,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the majority.
“But the United States opposes the proposed consent decree, contending that it would dispose of the Federal Government’s claims that New Mexican groundwater pumping is violating the compact,” she added. “We agree with the United States.”
Justice Jackson cited a 1986 decision concluding that parties who agree to a litigation settlement “may not dispose of the claims of a third party.”
“Through the consent decree, the states would settle all parties’ compact claims and, in the process, cut off the United States’ requested relief as to New Mexican groundwater pumping,” the opinion stated. “Because our precedent does not permit that result, the states’ motion to enter the consent decree is denied.”
Mike Hamman, New Mexico state engineer, expressed frustration with the decision, which returns the issue to U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Melloy, the special master.
“We are disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court has remanded the case back to the court’s special master for further proceedings,” Mr. Hamman said. “We need to keep working to make the aquifers in the Lower Rio Grande region sustainable, and lasting solutions are more likely to come from parties working together than from continued litigation.”
The decision saw Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, part of the court’s conservative wing, join liberal Justices Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
In the dissenting opinion, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch accused the federal government of overreach, saying its approach to water distribution between Texas and New Mexico is “so aggressive that New Mexico fears it could devastate its economy.”
“The court’s decision is inconsistent with how original jurisdiction cases normally proceed. It defies 100 years of this court’s water law jurisprudence,” Justice Gorsuch said. “And it represents a serious assault on the power of states to govern, as they always have, the water rights of users in their jurisdictions.”
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation oversees the Rio Grande Compact, the 1938 agreement that allocates water from the 1,900-mile Rio Grande, the fifth-longest river in North America, which runs from Colorado through New Mexico, Texas and Mexico before discharging in the Gulf of Mexico.
• This story is based in part on wire service reports.
• Valerie Richardson can be reached at vrichardson@washingtontimes.com.