Texas v. New Mexico & Colorado
The Facts
The Rio Grande Compact apportions Rio Grande water among Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. Texas sued New Mexico in the Supreme Court, exercising its right to bring original jurisdiction interstate water disputes directly before the Court. Texas alleged that New Mexico farmers' groundwater pumping was drawing down water that would otherwise flow to Texas, violating the compact. The United States intervened as a party. The case has proceeded over several years through the special master process.
The Application
The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article III provides the proper forum for Texas to challenge New Mexico's water management practices, as interstate disputes require direct resolution by the nation's highest court. Because Congress consented to the Rio Grande Compact, it carries the force of federal law, enabling the Court to enforce its allocation terms as a binding interstate agreement. Texas's claim that groundwater pumping in New Mexico intercepts surface water owed to Texas under the compact's apportionment scheme implicates both the compact's substantive terms and New Mexico's affirmative duty to manage its water resources consistently with the compact's allocation framework. The Court must interpret whether the compact's language encompasses liability for groundwater depletion that affects surface water flow, and if so, whether New Mexico's failure to regulate such pumping constitutes a breach that entitles Texas to relief.
The Conclusion
**The case represents ongoing original jurisdiction water litigation.** The outcome determines how much Rio Grande water Texas receives and whether New Mexico must restrict groundwater pumping to protect downstream compact allocations. The ruling has significant implications for water management in the arid Southwest.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
Texas brought an original jurisdiction action in the Supreme Court against New Mexico and Colorado, disputing water allocation from the Rio Grande under the Rio Grande Compact of 1938. The case involves Texas's claim that New Mexico has allowed groundwater pumping near the river to intercept surface water owed to Texas under the compact.
Facts
The Rio Grande Compact apportions Rio Grande water among Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. Texas sued New Mexico in the Supreme Court, exercising its right to bring original jurisdiction interstate water disputes directly before the Court. Texas alleged that New Mexico farmers' groundwater pumping was drawing down water that would otherwise flow to Texas, violating the compact. The United States intervened as a party. The case has proceeded over several years through the special master process.
Issue
Whether New Mexico's failure to prevent groundwater pumping near the Rio Grande that intercepts surface water allocated to Texas under the Rio Grande Compact violates the compact's terms and federal law governing interstate water rights.
Rule
Article III of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over cases between states. Interstate water compacts, when consented to by Congress, have the force of federal law under the Compact Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, Section 10.
Analysis
The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article III provides the proper forum for Texas to challenge New Mexico's water management practices, as interstate disputes require direct resolution by the nation's highest court. Because Congress consented to the Rio Grande Compact, it carries the force of federal law, enabling the Court to enforce its allocation terms as a binding interstate agreement. Texas's claim that groundwater pumping in New Mexico intercepts surface water owed to Texas under the compact's apportionment scheme implicates both the compact's substantive terms and New Mexico's affirmative duty to manage its water resources consistently with the compact's allocation framework. The Court must interpret whether the compact's language encompasses liability for groundwater depletion that affects surface water flow, and if so, whether New Mexico's failure to regulate such pumping constitutes a breach that entitles Texas to relief.
Conclusion
**The case represents ongoing original jurisdiction water litigation.** The outcome determines how much Rio Grande water Texas receives and whether New Mexico must restrict groundwater pumping to protect downstream compact allocations. The ruling has significant implications for water management in the arid Southwest.
Notes
OT2023. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support