Texas v. New Mexico, 602 U.S. ___ (2024)
The case involves a dispute over the allocation of water from the Rio Grande River among the states of Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado. The Rio Grande Compact, an interstate agreement, governs the equitable distribution of the river's waters among these states. In 2013, Texas sued New Mexico and Colorado, alleging that excessive groundwater pumping in New Mexico was depleting the river's water supply intended for Texas, in violation of the Compact. The United States sought to intervene, asserting its own interests in the Compact's enforcement due to its operation of the Rio Grande Project, an irrigation system in southern New Mexico.
In previous proceedings, the Supreme Court allowed the United States to intervene, recognizing its distinct federal interests in the Compact. The Court noted that the Compact was intertwined with the United States' operation of the Rio Grande Project and that the federal government had an interest in ensuring New Mexico complied with its obligations under the Compact.
Texas and New Mexico proposed a consent decree to resolve the case, which would establish a methodology for determining each state's allocation of the river's waters. However, the United States opposed the proposed consent decree, arguing that it would dispose of its claims that New Mexico's groundwater pumping was violating the Compact.
The Supreme Court of the United States agreed with the United States, holding that parties who choose to resolve litigation through settlement may not dispose of the claims of a third party without that party's agreement. The Court found that the United States still had the same claims it did in 2018, backed by the same unique federal interests. The Court concluded that the proposed consent decree would settle all parties' Compact claims and, in the process, cut off the United States' requested relief as to New Mexican groundwater pumping. As such, the Court denied the motion to enter the consent decree.
States were not allowed to enter a consent decree that would dispose of the federal government's claims under the Rio Grande Compact without its consent.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
TEXAS, PLAINTIFF v. NEW MEXICO AND COLORADO
on exception to third interim report of the special master
No. 141, Orig. Argued March 20, 2024—Decided June 21, 2024
Approved by Congress in 1938, the Rio Grande Compact is an interstate agreement that apportions the waters of the Rio Grande River among Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. The Compact relies on the Federal Bureau of Reclamation’s operation of an irrigation system called the Rio Grande Project. Under the Compact, New Mexico must deliver a certain amount of water to the Elephant Butte Reservoir, located in southern New Mexico. Then, in accordance with agreements called the “Downstream Contracts,” Reclamation releases specified amounts of water from the Reservoir for delivery to two water districts in New Mexico and Texas.
In 2013, Texas filed suit in this Court against the Compact’s other two signatory States, alleging that excessive groundwater pumping in New Mexico was depleting supplies of Rio Grande water bound for Texas. The United States sought to intervene, alleging essentially the same claims as Texas. In 2018, this Court allowed the United States to intervene, holding that the United States “has an interest in seeing that water is deposited in the [Elephant Butte] Reservoir consistent with the Compact’s terms,” as that “is what allows the United States to meet its duties under the Downstream Contracts, which are themselves essential to the fulfillment of the Compact’s expressly stated purpose.” Texas v. New Mexico, 583 U.S. 401, 414 (2018). Texas and New Mexico now seek approval of a proposed consent decree that would resolve this case and codify a methodology for allocating each State’s share of the Rio Grande’s waters. The Special Master recommended that this Court approve the consent decree, but the United States objected and filed an exception to the Special Master’s report.
Held: Because the proposed consent decree would dispose of the United States’ Compact claims without its consent, the States’ motion to enter the consent decree is denied. Pp. 7–20.
(a) A “court’s approval of a consent decree between some of the parties . . . cannot dispose of the valid claims of non-consenting intervenors; if properly raised, these claims remain and may be litigated by the intervenor.” Firefighters v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 529. Thus, “where the Government seeks an item of relief to which evidence adduced at trial may show that it is entitled, the [court] may not enter a ‘consent’ judgment without the actual consent of the Government.” United States v. Ward Baking Co., 376 U.S. 327, 334. Pp. 7–8.
(b) The United States has valid Compact claims. Pp. 8–16.
(1) The conclusion that the United States has valid Compact claims follows directly from the Court’s decision six Terms ago “that the United States [could] pursue the particular claims it has pleaded in this case.” Texas, 583 U. S., at 413. To start, the Court in 2018 observed that “the Compact is inextricably intertwined with the Rio Grande Project and Downstream Contracts.” Ibid. Indeed, the Compact could only achieve its goals because, “by the time the Compact was executed and enacted, the United States had negotiated and approved the Downstream Contracts, in which it assumed a legal responsibility to deliver a certain amount of water to Texas.” Ibid. Second, New Mexico conceded that the United States had its own interests in enforcing the Compact, because it was “ ‘responsible for . . . delivery of . . . water’ as required by the Downstream Contracts and anticipated by the Compact.” Id., at 414 (alterations in original). Third, the Federal Government could not satisfy its treaty obligations to deliver water to Mexico unless New Mexico complied with its obligations under the Compact. Ibid. Given these “ ‘distinctively federal interests,’ ” the Court held that the United States could pursue its claims that New Mexico was “effectively breaching its Compact duty to deliver water to the Reservoir.” Id., at 411, 413. That decision compels the conclusion that United States has its own valid claims under the Compact. Pp. 8–12.
(2) The States maintain that the United States has no valid Compact claims because it does not itself receive an apportionment of water. But the same was true six Terms ago. The States also assert that the United States failed to allege a “1938 baseline,” that is, that New Mexico’s groundwater pumping should be restricted to levels in effect when the Compact was enacted. But whether the complaint uses the term “1938 baseline” is beside the point. What matters is that the United States, like Texas, pleaded that New Mexico was pumping more groundwater than the Compact contemplates, and the United States still seeks to pursue that same claim.
The States further maintain that any interest the United States has in the Compact is strictly derivative of the States’ interests. But as the Court explained in 2018, the United States has “distinctively federal interests” in the Compact’s operations. Texas, 583 U. S., at 413. Additionally, although the United States must generally comply with state law when impounding water for use in a federal irrigation project, see California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645, 647, the United States does not seek to skirt any state law here. Rather, its position is that the Compact itself imposes a duty of noninterference on New Mexico. Pp. 12–16.
(c) The consent decree would also dispose of the United States’ Compact claims. Pp. 16–20.
(1) In proceedings before the Special Master, the States conceded that the consent decree would resolve all parties’ claims, and the Special Master agreed. Those concessions make sense because the consent decree would, indeed, dispose of the Federal Government’s claims. The United States alleges that New Mexico’s groundwater pumping breaches the State’s Compact duty not to interfere with the Project, and it seeks an injunction against New Mexico to prohibit that interference. The proposed consent decree would neither impose that duty on New Mexico nor enjoin New Mexico from allowing excessive pumping. To the contrary, the consent decree’s proposed new metric for measuring New Mexico’s compliance with the Compact would take for granted the very increase in groundwater pumping that the United States maintains violates New Mexico’s Compact duties. See Third Interim Report 75. Accordingly, were the consent decree adopted, the United States would be precluded from claiming what it argues now—that New Mexico is in violation of the Compact when it permits groundwater pumping at those increased levels. Pp. 16–18.
(2) The States argue that rejecting the consent decree would unjustly expand the scope of this original action and that the United States should instead litigate its claims in another forum. But the scope of this action is the same as it was in 2018. The United States asserts the same claim and seeks the same relief now as it did then. That Texas has chosen to compromise does not mean that, by staying the course, the United States is expanding this action. And, because the consent decree would effectively preclude the United States from arguing that the Compact itself forecloses New Mexico’s current rates of groundwater pumping, the Court does not see how the United States could vindicate that claim elsewhere. Pp. 18–20.
Exception sustained.
Jackson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, Alito, and Barrett, JJ., joined.
EXCEPTION SUSTAINED. Jackson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, Alito, and Barrett, JJ., joined. |
Argued. For United States: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Texas: Lanora C. Pettit, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Austin, Tex. For New Mexico: Jeffrey J. Wechsler, Santa Fe, N. M. |
Motion for divided argument filed by Texas and New Mexico GRANTED. |
Motion for divided argument filed by Texas and New Mexico. |
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, March 20, 2024. |
The exception to the Third Interim Report of the Special Master is set for oral argument in due course. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/19/2024. |
Sur-reply of the United States filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of water law professors filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Utah, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of New Mexico State University, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of New Mexico Pecan Growers, et al. filed. |
Joint reply to exception of the United States by Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Elephant Butte Irrigation District filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 filed. |
Exception of the United States and brief for the United States in support of exception filed. |
Joint notice that Texas, New Mexico and Colorado have no exceptions to the Third Interim Report of the Special Master filed. |
The revised joint motion for an extension is granted. Exceptions to the Third Interim Report of the Special Master, with supporting briefs, may be filed by October 6, 2023. Replies, if any, with supporting briefs, may be filed by December 4, 2023. Sur-replies, if any, with supporting briefs, may be filed by January 3, 2024. |
Revised joint motion for an extension of time filed. |
Joint motion for an extension of time filed. |
The Third Interim Report of the Special Master is received and ordered filed. Exceptions to the Report, with supporting briefs, may be filed within 45 days. Replies, if any, with supporting briefs, may be filed within 30 days. Sur-replies, if any, with supporting briefs, may be filed within 30 days. |
Third Interim Report of the Special Master received. |
The Second Interim Report of the Special Master on the motion of Nathan Boyd Estate, et al. for leave to intervene is received and ordered filed. The motion of Nathan Boyd Estate, et al. for leave to intervene is denied. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020. |
Second Interim Report of the Special Master received. |
Motion for leave to intervene filed by Nathan Boyd Estate, et al. referred to the Special Master. |
Letter withdrawing application (18A1271) to to file a reply in excess of the word limit received. |
Reply of Nathan Boyd Estate, et al. filed. |
Application (18A1271) to file a reply in excess of the word limit, submitted to Justice Alito. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2019. |
Brief for the United States in Opposition to the Motion for Leave to Intervene of the Nathan Boyd Estate, et al. filed. |
Motion to extend the time to file reply in support of motion for leave to intervene is granted, and the time is extended to June 10, 2019. |
Motion to extend the time to file reply in support of motion for leave to intervene to June 10, 2019, submitted to the Clerk. |
Motion to extend the time to file response to the motion for leave to intervene is granted and the time is extended to and including May 20, 2019. |
Motion to extend the time to file response to the motion for leave to intervene from April 19, 2019 to May 20, 2019, submitted to The Clerk. |
Response to motion for leave to intervene from respondent New Mexico filed. |
Response to motion for leave to intervene from respondent Colorado filed. |
Response to motion for leave to intervene from petitioner Texas filed. |
Motion to extend the time to file responses to the motion for leave to intervene is granted and the time is extended to and including April 19, 2019, for all parties. |
Motion to extend the time to file responses to the motion for leave to intervene from April 1, 2019 to April 19, 2019, submitted to The Clerk. |
Motion for leave to intervene filed by Nathan Boyd Estate, et al. |
Answer of United States to New Mexico's counterclaims filed with the Special Master July 23, 2018, received by the Court July 23, 2018. |
Answer of Texas to New Mexico's Counterclaims filed with the Special Master July 20, 2018, received by the Court July 24, 2018. |
Answer of New Mexico to Texas Complaint filed with Special Master May 23, 2018, received by the Court May 30, 2018. |
Answer of New Mexico to United States Complaint filed with Special Master May 23, 2018, received by the Court May 30, 2018. |
New Mexico Counterclaims filed with the Special Master May 23, 2018, received by the Court May 30, 2018. |
The final motion of the former Special Master for allowance of fees and disbursements is GRANTED, and the former Special Master is awarded a total of $10,101.86, for the period March 13, 2017, through April 2, 2018, to be paid as follows: 37.5% by Texas, 37.5% by New Mexico, 20% by the United States, and 5% by Colorado. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/10/2018. |
Final Motion of the former Special Master for allowance of fees and disbursements. |
Oath received from Special Master |
A. Gregory Grimsal, Esq., of New Orleans, Louisiana, the Special Master in this case, is hereby discharged with the thanks of the Court. It is ordered that the Honorable Michael J. Melloy, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, is appointed Special Master in this case with authority to fix the time and conditions for the filing of additional pleadings, to direct subsequent proceedings, to summon witnesses, to issue subpoenas, and to take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem it necessary to call for. The Special Master is directed to submit Reports as he may deem appropriate. The cost of printing his Reports, and all other proper expenses, including travel expenses, shall be submitted to the Court. |
United States's exception sustained; all other exceptions overruled; and case remanded. Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. |
Argued. For United States, as intervenor: Ann O'Connell, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For plaintiff: Scott A. Keller, Solicitor General of Texas, Austin, Texas. For defendant Colorado: Frederick R. Yarger, Solicitor General of Colorado, Denver, Colo. For defendant New Mexico: Marcus J. Rael, Jr., Albuquerque, N. M. |
Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General GRANTED. |
SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, January 8, 2018 |
Motion for divided argument filed by the United States. |
New Mexico's motion to dismiss Texas's complaint is DENIED. |
Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by New Mexico Pecan Growers GRANTED. |
Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by New Mexico State University GRANTED. |
The motion of Elephant Butte Irrigation District for leave to intervene is DENIED. |
The exception of the United States and the first exception of Colorado to the First Interim Report of the Special Master (Feb. 13, 2017) are set for oral argument in due course. |
The motion of El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 for leave to intervene is DENIED. |
New Mexico's Sur Reply filed. |
Colorado's Sur Reply filed. |
Sur Reply for the United States filed. |
Texas's Sur Reply filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Kansas filed. |
Reply of Colorado to the exceptions to the report of the Special Master filed. |
Reply of New Mexico to the exceptions to the report of the Special Master filed. |
Reply of United States to the exceptions of the report of the Special Master filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 filed. (corrected) |
Brief amicus curiae of Elephant Butte Irrigation District filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of City of El Paso, TX filed. |
Reply of Texas to the exceptions to the report of the Special Master filed. |
Letter from the Acting Solicitor General proposing to lodge non-record material with the Court. |
Brief amicus curiae of Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority filed. |
Exceptions to the First Interim Report of the Special Master filed by Colorado |
Exception of the United States and Brief in support of Exception filed. |
Exceptions to the First Interim Report of the Special Master filed by New Mexico. |
Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by New Mexico Pecan Growers. |
Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by New Mexico State University. |
Brief amicus curiae of City of Las Cruces filed. |
The Third Interim Motion of the Special Master for Allowance of Fees and Disbursements, as amended by his letter dated May 17, 2017, is GRANTED, and the Special Master is awarded a total of $219,125.57, for the period November 2, 2015, through March 13, 2017, to be paid as follows: 37.5% by Texas, 37.5% by New Mexico, 20% by the United States and 5% by Colorado. |
The March 30, 2017, joint request for an extension of time has been granted as follows: Exceptions to the Special Masters Report are due on or before June 9, 2017; Replies are due on or before July 28, 2017; Sur-replies are due on or before September 1, 2017. |
The Report of the Special Master is received and ordered filed. Exceptions to the Report, with supporting briefs, may be filed within 45 days. Replies, if any, with supporting briefs, may be filed within 30 days. Sur-replies, if any, with supporting briefs, may be filed within 30 days. |
Third Interim Motion of the Special Master for Allowance of Fees and Disbursements filed by Special Master. |
Special Master Report DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 17, 2017. |
First Interim Report of the Special Master received. |
The Second Interim Motion of the Special Master for Allowance of Fees and Disbursements, as amended by his letter dated May 20, 2016, is GRANTED, and the Special Master is awarded a total of $200,000.00, for the period May 1, 2015, through October 31, 2015, to be paid as follows: 37.5% by Texas, 37.5% by New Mexico, 20% by the United States and 5% by Colorado. |
Rescheduled. |
Letter from Special Master regarding fees received. |
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 19, 2016. |
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 11, 2015. |
Motion for Extension of time to file comments regarding the Second Interim Motion for fees GRANTED to and until November 20, 2015. |
Motion for Extension of time to file comments regarding the Second Interim Motion for fees filed by respondent New Mexico. |
Second Interim Motion of the Special Master for Allowance of Fees and Disbursements filed by Special Master. |
The First Interim motion of the Special Master for allowance of fees and disbursements is granted, and the Special Master is awarded a total of $195,461.53 for the period November 3, 2014, through April 30, 2015, to be paid as follows: 37.5% by Texas, 37.5% by New Mexico, 20% by the United States and 5% by Colorado. |
Motion for leave to intervene filed by El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 referred to the Special Master. |
Motion of El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 for leave to intervene DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015. |
Motion of the Special Master for Allowance of Fees and Disbursements. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015. |
Reply in Support of Motion of El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 for leave to intervene filed by El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 . |
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015. |
Brief of United States in opposition to El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1's motion for leave to intervene filed. |
Brief in response to El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1's motion for leave to intervene of Texas, Plaintiff filed. |
Response to El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1's motion for leave to intervene from respondent Colorado filed. |
Response in opposition to motion of El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 for leave to intervene by respondent New Mexico filed. |
Order extending time to file a response to the Special Master's motion for Allowance of Fees and Disbursements to and including June 12, 2015 for all parties. |
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 4, 2015. |
First Interim Motion of the Special Master for Allowance of Fees and Disbursements filed by Special Master. |
Motion for leave to intervene filed by Elephant Butte Irrigation District referred to the Special Master. |
Order extending time to file response to motion to intervene file by El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 granted to and including June 10, 2015, for all parties. Reply briefs are due July 10, 2015. |
Motion for leave to intervene filed by El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1. |
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 24, 2015. |
Reply to Briefs Opposing Motion for Leave to Intervene of Hernandez, Steven Landeros Elephant Butte Irrigation District filed. |
Order extending time to file a reply to the responses to the motion to intervene by Elephant Butte Irrigation District to and including March 20, 2015. |
Response in opposition to Elephant Butte Irrigation District's motion for leave to intervene from United States filed. |
Response in opposition to Elephant Butte Irrigation District's motion of for leave to intervene by New Mexico filed. |
Response to Elephant Butte Irrigation District's motion to intervene from petitioner Texas, Plaintiff filed. |
Response to Elephant Butte Irrigation District's motion to intervene from respondent Colorado filed. |
Order extending time to file response to Motion for leave to intervene to and including January 29, 2015, for all parties. |
Motion for leave to intervene filed by Elephant Butte Irrigation District. |
Oath of Special Master filed. |
It is ordered that A. Gregory Grimsal, Esquire, of New Orleans, Louisiana, is appointed Special Master in this case with authority to fix the time and conditions for the filing of additional pleadings, to direct subsequent proceedings, to summon witnesses, to issue subpoenas, and to take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem it necessary to call for. The Special Master is directed to submit Reports as he may deem appropriate. The compensation of the Special Master, the allowances to him, the compensation paid to his legal, technical, stenographic and clerical assistants, the cost of printing his Reports, and all other proper expenses, including travel expenses, shall be charged against and be borne by the parties in such proportion as the Court may hereafter direct. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014. |
Reply of respondent New Mexico filed. |
Objection to New Mexico's Lodging Request filed by Counsel for Texas. |
Brief for the United States in opposition to New Mexico's Motion to Dismiss Texas's Complaint and the United States' Complaint in Intervention filed. |
Texas's Brief in Response to New Mexico's Motion to Dismiss Texas's Complaint and the United States' Complaint in Intervention filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of City of El Paso, Texas filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District No. 1 filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 filed. |
Lodging request received from the City of El Paso, Texas |
Lodging Request received from Counsel for New Mexico. |
Motion to dismiss Texas' Complaint and the United States' Complaint in Intervention filed by respondent New Mexico. |
Brief amicus curiae of City of Las Cruces filed. |
Motion for leave to intervene filed by United States GRANTED. |
Reply of United States in support of motion to intervene filed. (Distributed) |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 28, 2014. |
Order extending time to file the Motion to Dismiss the Bill of Complaint filed by Texas to a date 30 days after the Court issues an order on the Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by the United States. Extension granted for all Respondents. |
Response in support of motion of the United States for leave to intervene as a plaintiff from petitioner Texas, Plaintiff filed. (Distributed) |
Response to motion of the United States for leave to intervene as a plaintiff, from respondent New Mexico filed. (Distributed) |
Motion for leave to intervene filed by United States. |
Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is GRANTED. Motion for leave to file supplemental brief is GRANTED. New Mexico is allowed 60 days within which to file a motion to dismiss, in the nature of a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is allowed 45 days to file a response to the motion. A reply, if any, shall be filed within 15 days after the response is filed. |
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 24, 2014. |
Motion for leave to file supplemental brief and supplemental brief in response to New Mexico's supplemental brief filed by petitioner Texas, Plaintiff. |
Supplemental brief of respondent New Mexico filed. |
Supplemental brief of respondent Colorado filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. |
The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013. |
Reply of petitioner Texas, filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District No. 1 filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 filed. |
Brief of respondent Colorado in opposition filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of City of El Paso, Texas filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of City of Las Cruces filed. |
Brief of respondent New Mexico in opposition filed. |
Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint filed. (Response due March 11, 2013) |
Documents filed with the Special Master may be found at http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/texas-v-new-mexico-and-colorado-no-141-original |