144 S.Ct. 1756
U.S.2024Background
- The Rio Grande Compact (1938), approved by Congress, apportions Rio Grande River water among Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, relying on the federal Rio Grande Project to regulate delivery.
- New Mexico must deliver a specified amount of water to Elephant Butte Reservoir for allocation downstream to New Mexico and Texas via federal contracts (the "Downstream Contracts").
- Texas filed an original action in the Supreme Court in 2013, alleging that excessive New Mexico groundwater pumping violated the Compact by reducing Texas’s agreed share.
- The United States intervened, asserting its own interests in enforcing the Compact related to its obligations under the Downstream Contracts and an international treaty with Mexico.
- After litigation and trial phases, Texas and New Mexico negotiated a consent decree resolving their dispute by adopting a new method (the "EEPI") for measuring water allocation; the United States objected, claiming this would extinguish its claims without consent.
- The Special Master recommended approving the consent decree, but the Supreme Court ultimately denied it, siding with the United States’ objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a consent decree between States dispose of federal claims without US consent? | Texas: Settlement should resolve all parties’ claims, including the United States’ | US: Its Compact claims cannot be extinguished without its consent | No; decree cannot bind the US without consent |
| Does the US have valid, independent Compact claims? | Texas/NM: US has no direct apportionment, interests are derivative | US: Has distinct federal obligations under Compact, contracts, treaty | Yes; US has unique, valid Compact-related claims |
| Is the proposed consent decree consistent with the Compact? | Texas/NM: EEPI and El Paso gauge are reasonable, traditional methods | US: Decree would set water allocation metrics that ignore Compact breaches via increased pumping | No; decree would endorse Compact breaches alleged by US |
| Should the US be required to litigate its claims in a different forum? | Texas/NM: US can pursue remaining issues separately in lower courts | US: Only the Supreme Court can resolve its Compact claims because consent decree would foreclose federal claims | No; US cannot be forced out or claims neutralized by decree |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas v. New Mexico, 583 U.S. 401 (2018) (United States permitted to intervene in interstate compact cases due to distinct federal interests)
- Firefighters v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (1986) (Consent decrees cannot dispose of non-consenting intervenors' valid claims)
- United States v. Ward Baking Co., 376 U.S. 327 (1964) (No consent judgment over government objection)
- California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645 (1978) (Federal reclamation projects generally must comply with state water law unless Congress provides otherwise)
- Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92 (1938) (States can bind water users within their borders via compact)