The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has delivered a significant ruling in a longstanding dispute between Texas and New Mexico over water rights on the Pecos River. This landmark decision, issued on December 14, 2020, marked a turning point in a contentious battle that has spanned decades. In this comprehensive exploration, we delve into the background of the Pecos River, the origins of the dispute, and the intricate legal proceedings that led to the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision, excluding Justice Barrett.
Background: The Pecos River
The Pecos River, originating in north-central New Mexico, winds its way into the state of Texas, eventually emptying into the Rio Grande. Its headwaters are situated on the eastern slope of the Sangre de Cristo mountain range in Mora County, north of Pecos, NM. This river plays a pivotal role in the arid landscapes of New Mexico and West Texas, serving as a vital water source for farmers and ranchers.
Recognizing the vulnerability of their water supply, Texas and New Mexico took a significant step in 1949 when they ratified and received Congressional approval for the Pecos River Compact. This compact was designed to address several critical objectives, including the “equitable division and apportionment of the use of the waters of the Pecos River” and the “removal of causes of present and future controversies.”
Early Disputes and the Appointment of a River Master
Although the Pecos River Compact aimed to establish harmony between the states, disputes arose, leading to legal battles that eventually reached the Supreme Court. In 1987, the Supreme Court made a consequential decision, designating a third party known as the “River Master” responsible for making calculations outlined in the compact. This move aimed to provide an impartial mechanism for resolving disputes and maintaining the spirit of cooperation between Texas and New Mexico.
The Dispute: Tropical Storm Odile’s Impact
In 2014, Tropical Storm Odile unleashed heavy rainfall upon the Pecos River Basin. The resulting influx of water filled the Red Bluff Reservoir in Texas, situated just south of the New Mexico-Texas border along the Pecos River. Fearing potential flooding, Texas’s Pecos River Commissioner reached out to the counterpart in New Mexico, requesting that New Mexico temporarily store Texas’s portion of the flows until it could be utilized in Red Bluff Reservoir.
New Mexico’s Commissioner, in response, agreed to store the water at the Brantley Reservoir within their state. However, a critical point of contention arose within this correspondence. New Mexico’s Commissioner asserted that the water “belongs to Texas” and clarified that, had it not been for Texas’s request, New Mexico would have released the water. Furthermore, New Mexico contended that any evaporative losses resulting from the storage of this water should be borne by Texas.
The Crux of the Matter
The heart of the dispute rested on the handling of these evaporative losses. Ultimately, the water was released, but not before substantial losses occurred due to evaporation. Following the principles outlined in the Pecos River Compact, the River Master determined that New Mexico was entitled to a credit for the evaporated water. However, Texas vehemently disagreed with this assessment, setting the stage for a protracted legal battle that would ultimately reach the highest court in the land.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
On December 14, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Texas vs. New Mexico, with Justice Barrett abstaining from participation. In this pivotal ruling, the Court sided with New Mexico, affirming its right to receive credit for the evaporated water in accordance with the terms of the compact. This judgment not only marked a significant victory for New Mexico but also underscored the importance of upholding interstate water compacts as a means of ensuring equitable access to vital water resources.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Texas vs. New Mexico dispute over Pecos River water rights serves as a vital precedent in the realm of interstate water disputes. This case highlights the intricacies of water allocation agreements, the role of the River Master, and the critical importance of adhering to the terms of such compacts. With this ruling, the Court has reaffirmed the necessity of cooperation between states in managing and preserving shared water resources, setting a precedent that will shape future disputes and foster the equitable distribution of water for generations to come.