(NewsNation) — A decade-old dispute over whether states can divide up claims on the Rio Grande without the federal government’s blessing will go before the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday.
In the case, Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado, the federal government is pushing back against three states’ efforts to alter the terms of the 1939 Rio Grande Compact without its approval.
The compact is an apportionment agreement between the trio of states over the 1,896-mile-long stretch of river, which begins at the base of the San Juan Mountains and runs into the Gulf of Mexico.
The case stands as one of the few with “original jurisdiction,” meaning the case begins at the Supreme Court rather than going through the court channels and will be highly consequential in the long battle between states’ rights and federal oversight.
What is Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado about?
The case is essentially a continuation of a 2014 lawsuit filed by Texas alleging New Mexico violated the compact by taking more water than it was allotted under the agreement.
In its argument, Texas said that groundwater pumping below Elephant Butte to the New Mexico state line was removing water from the Rio Grande owed to Texas under the compact.
As the states duked it out, the federal government intervened saying it also has claims to the river, which the Supreme Court agreed with in 2018.
But the court did not fully resolve the matter, leaving open the question of how much intervention the United States can have over a new agreement.
The federal government said it had a strong interest in this case for several reasons including its obligations to Mexico and Native American tribes, which also have claims in the river.
Since then, the three states came up with a consent decree that integrates the effects of groundwater pumping and climate change on reduced flows in the river, and requires a more accurate accounting of water delivery among the states, Bloomberg Law reported.
But the federal government opposed the consent decree, saying it lays down obligations on the United States that it did not agree to.
The three states say they should not be bound by the federal government and are asking the Supreme Court to validate their unilateral consent decree.
What is at stake with the Rio Grande water issue?
When the Rio Grande Compact was put into place in 1939, the nation’s water infrastructure was still being built.
But in the more than eight decades since, the combination of groundwater pumping and climate change has greatly altered the river’s surface flow, Andrew Mergen, an environmental law professor at Harvard University told the school’s law review journal.
That surface flow is at the crux of the matter, and how this case is handled will affect groundwater infrastructure, he said.
“The New Mexico state engineer, which manages the water, has already indicated that there are going to have to be some curtailments of groundwater pumping,” Mergen said in the journal. “That raises what they call the ‘F word’ in western water: ‘fallow,’ because you no longer have access to the water needed to grow crops in certain areas anymore.”
According to the United States Geological Survey, ground-water systems are a potential backup source of water during droughts and if ground-water storage is large and the “effects of existing ground-water development are minimal, droughts may have limited, if any, effect on the long-term sustainability of aquifer systems.”
This case “may affect access to water for millions of Americans — and set a precedent that could impact millions more, as increased usage and climate change further strain supply of the precious resource,” Mergen said.
The Rio Grande delivers water to more than 6 million people in the U.S. and Mexico, and more than 80% of its water is diverted to agriculture in the Upper Rio Grande, reported Source NM.
What effect could this case have on future water disputes?
The outcome of this case will empower either states or the federal government in its ability to manage waterways.
If the court rules in favor of the federal government, it could solidify its domain over the flow of water in drought-stricken regions, reported E&E News.
That outcome would be highly consequential as the Biden administration is working towards future operating guidelines for the Colorado River, which will likely be affected by how the court swings.
“Given the 2018 case, where the Court allowed the government to come in as a party, it would seem incongruous to turn around and say that it doesn’t need to be there,” Mergen told the journal. “I think that would be concerning to lots of folks who might not want to put the government under the supervision of a court for settlements it didn’t agree to.”
But if the ruling goes against the states, that could discourage states from striking interstate water compacts in the future, reported Bloomberg Law.
“How the Court decides the principal issue in this case — whether the USA, a non-party to the Rio Grande Compact, can block a settlement among the compacting states — will affect not only existing interstate water compacts but also the likelihood of other states pursuing new compacts,” Burke Griggs, a law professor at Washburn University School of Law, told the outlet.
