SCOTUS Rules Against Texas in Dispute with New Mexico over Water.
SCOTUS rules against Texas in a dispute with New Mexico over water rights on the Pecos River.
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.
Texas Senate Primaries Show Early Leads for Crockett and Paxton
AUSTIN, Texas – A new poll released by The Texas Tribune indicates that Jasmine Crockett and Ken Paxton are leading their respective primary races for the U.S. Senate seat in Texas. The survey, published on February 9, 2026, highlights the early momentum for both candidates as they vie for their party nominations in a closely watched election cycle. The results point to strong voter recognition and support for Crockett in the Democratic primary and Paxton in the Republican primary.
The poll, conducted among likely primary voters across the state, shows Crockett holding a significant lead over her Democratic challenger James Talarico, while Paxton maintains a commanding position among Republican contenders John Cornyn & Wesley Hunt.
According to the poll, Ken Paxton leads with 38 percent of likely GOP primary voters, pulling ahead of incumbent John Cornyn, who trails at 31 percent, while Wesley Hunt remains a distant third at 17 percent. The survey indicates Paxton would hold a commanding advantage in a runoff scenario and currently outperforms Cornyn across nearly every key Republican demographic group, with Latino voters the lone exception, where Cornyn maintains a seven-point edge.
Among Democrats, the poll shows Jasmine Crockett opening a notable lead, capturing 47 percent of likely primary voters compared to 39 percent for James Talarico—a meaningful shift from earlier polling that had Talarico in the lead. While still early, the numbers suggest momentum is consolidating ahead of primaries that will determine the general election matchups.
Jasmine Crockett, a sitting U.S. Representative whose district lines were redrawn out from under her, has responded to political extinction with a desperate lurch toward the U.S. Senate. Her campaign, widely criticized as race-baiting and grievance-driven, has leaned heavily on inflaming urban Democratic turnout while cloaking thin policy substance in fashionable slogans about healthcare and “equity.”
By contrast, Ken Paxton enters the race with a long, battle-tested record as Texas Attorney General, earning fierce loyalty from conservatives for his aggressive defense of state sovereignty, constitutional limits, and successful legal challenges to federal overreach. Though relentlessly targeted by opponents, Paxton’s tenure reflects durability, clarity of purpose, and an unapologetic alignment with the voters he represents—qualities that define his standing in the contest.
The Texas U.S. Senate race draws national attention, as the state remains a critical battleground in determining the balance of power in Congress. With incumbent dynamics and shifting voter demographics at play, the primary outcomes will set the stage for a potentially contentious general election. The Texas Tribune poll serves as an initial benchmark, though voter sentiment could evolve as campaigns intensify and debates unfold in the coming weeks.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem joined national security leaders in a dual-state event to commemorate a historic decline in border crossings, according to an official release from the Department of Homeland Security. The event spanned two locations, Arizona and North Dakota, in a single day, highlighting coordinated efforts to strengthen border security. Noem, alongside other officials, marked the achievement as a significant milestone in national security policy.
The Department of Homeland Security reported a measurable drop in unauthorized border crossings, attributing the success to enhanced enforcement measures and inter-agency collaboration. Specific data on the decline was not detailed in the initial announcement, though officials emphasized the impact of recent policy implementations. The two-state commemoration underscored the geographic breadth of the issue, addressing both southern and northern border concerns.
In Arizona, Noem and security leaders reviewed operations along the southern border, a longstanding focal point for immigration enforcement. Later in the day, the group traveled to North Dakota to assess northern border security, an area often overlooked in national discussions but critical to comprehensive policy. The dual focus aimed to demonstrate a unified approach to protecting all U.S. borders, per the department’s statement.
The official release from Homeland Security included remarks from Noem, who praised the dedication of personnel involved in the effort. “This decline in crossings is a testament to the hard work of our agents and the effectiveness of our strategies,” she said. Her comments were echoed by other leaders present, though no additional direct quotations were provided in the initial report.
Background on the border security initiatives reveals a multi-year push to address vulnerabilities at both entry points. Southern border challenges, particularly in Arizona, have long dominated policy debates due to high volumes of crossings and complex terrain. Meanwhile, northern border issues in states like North Dakota often involve different dynamics, including trade security and seasonal migration patterns. The Department of Homeland Security has prioritized resources for both regions, though specific funding allocations remain undisclosed in the latest update.
The cause of the reported decline ties directly to recent enforcement actions, though exact mechanisms were not specified in the announcement. Officials pointed to improved technology, increased staffing, and stronger partnerships with local and state authorities as contributing factors. Further details on these efforts are expected in forthcoming reports from the department, which has committed to transparency on border metrics.
Opinion
The recognition of a decline in border crossings signals a potential turning point in how the nation secures its frontiers. Celebrating this achievement in two distinct regions reinforces the importance of a comprehensive strategy that does not neglect less-discussed areas like the northern border.
Events like these also serve as a reminder that security is not a partisan issue but a fundamental duty of government. Prioritizing resources and personnel to protect sovereignty while maintaining lawful entry processes should remain a core focus, ensuring that progress is sustained through consistent policy and accountability.
CARACAS, VENEZUELA — When President Donald J. Trump dropped the phrase “Discombobulator” in a recent interview, the world sat up and took notice. According to the president, the United States deployed a secret weapon to render Venezuelan military systems useless as U.S. forces executed a daring raid that resulted in the capture of Nicolás Maduro.
In an interview with the New York Post, Trump stated the device “made the equipment not work,” and that Venezuelan radar, missiles, and defensive systems “never got their rockets off” during the operation. “I’m not allowed to talk about it,” he said, referring to the classified nature of the technology.
The remarks have sparked curiosity, skepticism, and intense speculation about what the “Discombobulator” might actually be — and what its use means for U.S. military capability and foreign policy.
What Happened: The Maduro Raid and the Discombobulator Claim
On January 3, 2026, U.S. special operations forces carried out a rapid, highly coordinated mission in Caracas that culminated in the capture of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores. The operation, code-named Operation Absolute Resolve, involved aircraft, helicopters, unmanned drones, and elite troops.
Speaking about the raid, Trump took credit for the success, telling the New York Post and others that a classified weapon, the so-called Discombobulator, as he called it, played a decisive role. He claimed that the device disabled Venezuelan military equipment, including systems supplied by Russia and China, before U.S. forces landed.
According to Trump’s account, Venezuelan troops tried to activate their defenses, “pressed buttons,” and found nothing worked. The president’s description suggests a form of electronic or directed-energy warfare — although he offered no detail on mechanism or development.
Context: Military Technology and Secrecy
The U.S. military has long invested in electronic warfare and directed-energy research. Systems that jam radar, disrupt communications, and interfere with electronic signals have been under development for decades. Yet no publicly acknowledged program has been confirmed to match Trump’s description of the Discombobulator.
Wartime secrecy and classification make it entirely plausible that capabilities not widely known could exist. Still, without independent verification or military documentation, journalists and analysts caution against jumping to definitive claims based on the president’s interview alone.
Conservative Commentary and Conclusion (Opinion)
The success of the Maduro raid reflects decisive leadership and a willingness to act where lesser administrations have hesitated. The Discombobulator claim — irrespective of its accuracy — underscores a broader theme: American ingenuity paired with bold strategy is unstoppable.
If such a capability exists and was responsibly employed to save lives and neutralize threats without explosive conflict, it represents a powerful demonstration of military superiority. Critics who mock the name risk missing the larger strategic point.
Whether the Discombobulator ends up in the annals of military history or remains a rhetorical flourish, the episode has already ignited fear in our adversaries about American power, innovation, and military might.
Sources:
- President Trump comments on “Discombobulator,” PBS NewsHour, Jan. 26, 2026.
- AP News reporting on Trump’s interview and weapon description.
- Gulf News analysis of unnamed weapon and its reported effects.
- Axios on use of U.S. drones and technology in operation.
- Wikipedia entry on 2026 United States intervention in Venezuela.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login