Texas sued New Mexico over Rio Grande water. Now the states are preventing the federal authorities.

Join The Temporary, The Texas Tribune’s day by day e-newsletter that retains readers in control on probably the most important Texas information.

---

This story is revealed in partnership with Inside Local weather Information, a nonprofit, impartial information group that covers local weather, power and the surroundings. Join the ICN e-newsletter right here.

DENVER — When Choose D. Brooks Smith traveled from Pennsylvania to Colorado, he handed over the 98th Meridian, the longitude line separating the water-rich East from the arid West.

The previous chief decide of the U.S. Third Circuit Courtroom of Appeals left a land of dashing rivers and ample rainfall in western Pennsylvania to collect information in a case known as Texas v. New Mexico Supreme Courtroom over water rights from the Rio Grande.

Now a senior decide within the Third Circuit, Smith is serving as a particular grasp to advise the U.S. Supreme Courtroom on what is among the longest-running disputes over dwindling water within the West, which additionally includes the federal authorities.

Smith traveled for a five-hour standing convention final week at Denver’s federal courthouse involving attorneys representing the states, the federal authorities and several other intervenors often known as associates of the court docket.

At challenge is the water Texas and New Mexico are entitled to underneath the Rio Grande Compact, signed in 1938 to allocate the waters of the Rio Grande between the states. Texas introduced the present lawsuit in opposition to New Mexico in 2013, alleging that farmers pumping from groundwater wells in southern New Mexico have been diverting water that the compact allocates to Texas.

The states reached a proposed settlement settlement in 2022 out of court docket. However the federal authorities opposed the deal. The Supreme Courtroom then dominated in June that the case couldn’t be settled with out the federal authorities’s consent. Now the states and the federal authorities should resolve their disagreements to keep away from going to trial in federal court docket, and Smith has ordered the events to return to mediation no later than Dec. 16 in Washington, D.C.

The result of Texas v. New Mexico may essentially change how groundwater is managed within the Rio Grande basin in New Mexico and much west Texas, each for the agricultural trade and cities like Albuquerque and Las Cruce, in New Mexico, that pump water from aquifers. It can even be a bellwether for a way deeply the federal authorities can intervene in inter-state water conflicts, that are more likely to improve as drought and aridification grip the western United States.

“[The United States] is going to have to take some sort of action to get a handle on groundwater over-pumping,” mentioned Burke Griggs, a professor of water regulation at Washburn College in Topeka, Kansas. “They really do want to keep the case alive.”

Groundwater pumping complicates water sharing agreements

The Rio Grande kinds within the San Juan Mountains of Colorado earlier than flowing south via New Mexico to the Texas border. By the flip of the twentieth century, disputes over Rio Grande water have been brewing between farmers in southern New Mexico’s Mesilla Valley and people in El Paso and neighboring Ciudad Juárez in Mexico.

To handle these issues, Congress prolonged the Reclamation Act of 1902 to the Rio Grande in 1905 via the Mesilla Valley and El Paso. This allowed the Bureau of Reclamation, the federal company accountable for water administration and dam constructing in 17 Western states, to undertake the Rio Grande Venture, which included building of the Elephant Butte Dam in New Mexico and irrigation infrastructure downstream.

As soon as accomplished, the Bureau of Reclamation started delivering water saved at Elephant Butte to 2 new irrigation districts: New Mexico’s Elephant Butte Irrigation District, and the El Paso County Water Enchancment District No. 1 in Texas.

Additional complicating issues, the U.S. and Mexico signed a treaty in 1906 committing the U.S. to offering 60,000 acre ft of Rio Grande water to Mexico at Ciudad Juárez yearly.

In the meantime, over the following three a long time, farmers in Colorado’s San Luis Valley and alongside the Rio Grande close to Albuquerque have been utilizing increasingly water for irrigation. Texas farmers anxious this might jeopardize their irrigation water; an settlement was wanted to make sure the water wouldn’t be all diverted upstream.

Thus, in 1938, Texas, New Mexico and Colorado signed the Rio Grande Compact, designating how a lot water Colorado should guarantee would attain New Mexico, which in flip had to make sure a fair proportion of water would attain Texas.

A deep drought gripped the area within the Nineteen Fifties. With much less river water out there for irrigation, farmers started to drill wells and pump groundwater.

Hydrologists now perceive that wells drilled into the aquifer can cut back the circulate of water into related streams and rivers, and New Mexico state regulation developed to handle groundwater and floor water collectively. The state was a pioneer in understanding this connection, in line with Fred Phillips, emeritus professor of hydrology and environmental science at New Mexico Tech in Socorro, New Mexico.

“However, the Rio Grande Compact was put together long before that all happened,” he mentioned in an interview. “It was entirely based on surface flow measurements, and nowhere in the compact is the effect of pumping even considered.”

When the Bureau of Reclamation releases water from Elephant Butte and Caballo Lake in New Mexico, it should journey roughly 100 river miles to the Texas-New Mexico state line. Texas introduced the swimsuit in 2013, arguing that groundwater pumping on this stretch of New Mexico siphoned off water destined for Texas underneath the Rio Grande Compact. The USA and Colorado later each grew to become events to the lawsuit.

In 2022, Texas, New Mexico and Colorado proposed a consent decree to settle the case.

The states needed to put in a brand new water gauge on the Texas-New Mexico border on the Rio Grande, which might measure Texas’ share of water.

Below the settlement, southern New Mexico would obtain 57% of the water launched from the upstream reservoirs and Texas 43%, accounting for drought and groundwater pumping. The states proposed calculating water deliveries primarily based on what’s often known as the “D2 period” between 1951 and 1978, when vital groundwater pumping had already begun.

However the federal authorities opposed the settlement. Its attorneys argued the deal didn’t mirror america’ treaty obligation to ship water to Mexico, the Bureau of Reclamation’s position in water deliveries and its contracts with the irrigation districts. The federal authorities advocates for a return to a 1938 baseline for water deliveries, earlier than the appearance of widespread groundwater pumping.

In June, the Supreme Courtroom dominated 5-4 to reject the consent decree, ruling that the states can’t attain a settlement with out the federal authorities.

“That Texas’s litigation strategy has since changed, such that it is now willing to accept a greater degree of groundwater pumping, does not erase the United States’ independent stake in pursuing claims against New Mexico,” Justice Ketanji Jackson wrote for almost all.

“We cannot now allow Texas and New Mexico to leave the United States up the river without a paddle,” she wrote.

Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the dissenting opinion.

“Where does that leave the States? After 10 years and tens of millions of dollars in lawyers’ fees, their agreement disappears with only the promise of more litigation to follow,” he wrote.

Gorsuch added that the choice may additionally hinder future cooperation between states and the federal authorities in water disputes.

“I fear the majority’s shortsighted decision will only make it harder to secure the kind of cooperation between federal and state authorities reclamation law envisions and many river systems require,” he wrote.

The way to handle a declining river

Washburn College’s Griggs, the writer of a forthcoming paper within the Idaho Legislation Evaluation on the case, mentioned many water regulation consultants have been shocked when the Supreme Courtroom rejected the consent decree.

“States that settle water disputes are now going to think twice,” he mentioned. “It’s a real wrinkle we haven’t seen before, where a non-party to a compact can intervene and then block a settlement.”

Griggs mentioned that settlements are preferable in these inter-state water disputes as a result of knowledgeable attorneys can craft the agreements.

“Do we want to leave the water future of millions of Westerners in the hands of nine Eastern justices?” he mentioned. “You want negotiated settlements that are done by the level and talent of the lawyers involved in this case.”

However he acknowledged that the Supreme Courtroom’s ruling is “legally understandable” as a result of the Bureau of Reclamation has a transparent position in executing the Rio Grande Compact.

Thomas Snodgrass, a Justice Division legal professional representing the Bureau of Reclamation, articulated this position in his presentation to Choose Smith. He mentioned that the bureau should launch extra water due to New Mexico’s failure to manage groundwater pumping.

“Simply put, groundwater pumping is not sustainable,” Snodgrass mentioned.

The New Mexico Pecan Growers, the Metropolis of Las Cruces and the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, amongst these submitting amicus briefs, have sided with the states however technically should not events to the case.

The Albuquerque water authority’s legal professional warned in opposition to the “federalization of groundwater” and mentioned the federal authorities’s place may very well be “disastrous” for current groundwater allowing in New Mexico.

Griggs argues in his forthcoming paper that america doesn’t belief New Mexico to guard the irrigation rights of the Elephant Butte District. If New Mexico has a shortfall of water to ship to Texas, the state may reduce allocations to the Elephant Butte District.

The Elephant Butte and El Paso irrigation districts have filed amicus briefs that assist america within the litigation.

“These surface irrigators see that their days are numbered — regardless whether they’re in Texas or New Mexico — if groundwater pumping continues,” Griggs mentioned.

In the meantime, farmers who rely predominantly on groundwater favor the states’ consent decree as a result of it does extra to guard current groundwater pumping.

“The conflict between surface irrigators and groundwater irrigators is such an important theme to this case,” Griggs mentioned.

Phillips, the hydrologist at New Mexico Tech, emphasised the contribution of local weather change and drought to the water constraints on the Rio Grande. He identified that Elephant Butte Reservoir has been at low ranges for years and is unlikely to refill because it as soon as did. Local weather change contributes to decreased snowmelt within the mountains of Colorado and elevated evaporation on the reservoir.

“The system was sustainable under the climate conditions of the early 20th century,” he mentioned. “But with the effect of global warming, the balance between consumption and replenishment has shifted.”

Scientists predict that inside 50 years, New Mexico could have 25% much less water out there in rivers and aquifers. A 2022 paper modeled local weather change eventualities for water availability at Elephant Butte. The authors projected that the quantity of water launched from the reservoir can be 10% decrease between 2021 and 2070 in comparison with 1971 to 2020.

“Whatever agreement is arrived at needs to have provisions for how it’s going to be implemented in the case of a steadily declining water supply,” Phillips mentioned of the continued case.

What occurs subsequent?

Oct. 23 was Smith’s first in-person listening to for the reason that Supreme Courtroom appointed him particular grasp. His predecessor, Choose Michael Melloy, retired final 12 months.

Legal professional Stuart Somach, representing Texas, proposed the trial start as early as April 2025. Nevertheless, the lead legal professional for america mentioned that they would want extra time to organize.

The events additionally mentioned a website go to to the Rio Grande in 2025 in order that Smith may see the river and irrigation infrastructure. The attorneys reminded the decide that water will not be reliably flowing within the river beneath Elephant Butte till June.

In ordering the Washington mediation in December, Smith indicated that if the case goes to trial, he’s inclined to carry it in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh.

Smith, who has a decreased caseload as a senior standing decide, mentioned he would proceed his personal schooling on the Rio Grande, first by studying Paul Horgan’s 900-page historical past of the river. He quipped that he hoped to reside lengthy sufficient to complete the ebook and to see the tip of the case.

“I hope,” he mentioned earlier than adjourning court docket, “we can reach an end to this odyssey.”

Reporting supported with a grant from The Water Desk on the College of Colorado Boulder.