The Supreme Court has rejected a water-sharing deal between Texas and New Mexico over the management of the Rio Grande river. The decision was made in a 5-4 ruling, with concerns raised by the federal government about New Mexico’s water use on the river. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, reading the majority opinion, stated that the United States cannot allow the two states to proceed without federal intervention. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that the government’s stance on water distribution is overly aggressive, potentially causing economic harm to New Mexico.
New Mexico’s state engineer expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court’s decision, as the proposed settlement aimed to make the aquifers in the Lower Rio Grande region sustainable. The state official emphasized the need for collaboration among parties to find lasting solutions to water management issues. Some New Mexico lawmakers had raised concerns about the settlement, which would have involved reducing the state’s use of Rio Grande water through various measures, including compensating farmers to leave their fields barren and making infrastructure improvements.
Attorney Samantha Barncastle from the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, the largest in New Mexico, welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling. She expressed hope that all parties involved would return to the negotiating table to reach a new agreement. Farmers in southern New Mexico have increasingly relied on groundwater wells due to drought and climate change impacting water flows in the Rio Grande. Texas had filed a lawsuit over the groundwater pumping, claiming it was reducing the amount of water delivered under the interstate compact.
U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Melloy had previously deemed the proposed settlement as a fair and reasonable way to resolve the water conflict in accordance with the long-standing water-sharing agreement. However, the federal government raised objections, including the lack of specific water capture or use limitations within New Mexico. The ruling by the Supreme Court brings the proposed deal to a halt and underscores the importance of federal intervention in water management disputes between states. Parties involved are encouraged to come together to renegotiate a new agreement that addresses the concerns raised by the federal government.
The decision by the Supreme Court highlights the complexities and challenges associated with water rights and allocation in the Western states. As climate change continues to impact water resources and availability, the need for effective collaboration and sustainable solutions becomes increasingly imperative. The ruling serves as a reminder of the intricate legal and environmental issues surrounding water management, emphasizing the importance of balancing competing interests to ensure equitable distribution and conservation of vital water resources.
