The US Supreme Court has backed New Mexico over a contentious battle with Texas over water obligations lasting decades between the two states. At the very heart of the lawsuit are evaporation and its impact upon the commitment by New Mexico to deliver water from the Pecos River to the Lone Star state.
The High Court sided with New Mexico in the Texas v New Mexico case, ruling: New Mexico could keep its delivery credit for water delivery to Texas despite losses during storage. Both Texas and New Mexico share the Rio Grande River along their borders and share the water, according to the “Pecos River Compact."
This water lawsuit is not the first and certainly won’t be the last in the US. As the worst megadrought in over 1,200 years wreaks havoc across numerous states such as New Mexico, Texas, California, and the Southwest, legal battles concerning water rights are becoming more prominent in court.
Texas and New Mexico are currently embroiled in yet another US Supreme Court case concerning the Rio Grande River.
Unlike previous megadroughts caused by natural weather cycles, NASA's scientific studies report that fifty percent of current droughts are linked to global warming and are expected to continue in the Southwest.
Water-sharing between states is managed by the harbor or river masters who follow strict rules agreed to by all parties. The river master for New Mexico and Texas made his decision based upon the “Pecos River Compact” that New Mexico had lived up to its obligations to share water from the Pecos River with Texas.
As part of the two-state agreement, Texas asked New Mexico to store floodwaters in 2014 created from a tropical storm. However, over time the water levels were depleted due to evaporation.
New Mexico receives an annual water credit from Texas for any water shared with Texas. In the case before the high court, the storing of the water by New Mexico was specifically requested by Texas.
With less water coming their way from the stored water, Texas disagreed with the river master’s decision, claiming New Mexico did not adhere to their mutual arrangement for sharing the water.
Texas filed its water complaint with the US Supreme Court seeking clarification on the water master’s decision to credit New Mexico with the stored floodwater, which began at one level and then evaporated over time.
The High Court agreed with the river master in his decision that New Mexico has lived up to its agreement, taking into account particularly that Texas had requested New Mexico store the water.
The court ruled in favor of New Mexico after referring to the river master’s manual, which lists the delivery obligations of New Mexico to be reduced in case of “reservoir losses” while being stored.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that Texas disregarded the agreed-upon regulations relating specifically to evaporation loss and that New Mexico could not be held accountable for evaporation losses. Kavanaugh also said there could be no specific amount of water that New Mexico can guarantee to Texas due to the Pecos River's varying water levels.
The US Supreme Court first decided laws for water rights in 1908 in the decision Winters vs. United States, which led to numerous modern rulings.
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday (May 14), allowed Texas to immediately begin enforcing a controversial immigration law, Senate Bill 4 (S.B. 4), which permits state officials to arrest and detain individuals suspected of entering the country illegally. This decision represents a temporary victory for Texas in its ongoing battle with... Read More »
A contentious Texas law aimed at allowing state authorities to arrest and prosecute individuals suspected of illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border remains on hold following a recent decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The law, known as S.B. 4, has ignited a fierce dispute between the state... Read More »
The Department of Homeland Security implemented a series of Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) in January 2019. Under those orders, most often known as ex-President Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” program, “certain non-Mexican nationals arriving by land from Mexico were returned to Mexico to await the results of their removal proceedings.” These aspiring immigrants,... Read More »
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on a long-standing dispute between Florida and Georgia over shares of the Apalachicola River. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the decision. In the decision, Justice Barrett noted that since the drought of 2012, the oyster population in Florida’s Apalachicola Bay had collapsed.... Read More »
