Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Texas v. New Mexico (2019)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Texas v. New Mexico
Term: 2020-2021
(Originally 2019-2020)
Important Dates
Argument: October 5, 2020
Decided: December 14, 2020
Outcome
Motion denied
Vote
7-1
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Concurring
Samuel Alito (in part)
Dissenting
Samuel Alito (in part)


Texas v. New Mexico is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 5, 2020, during the court's October 2020-2021 term. The case was part of the court's original jurisdiction, meaning it was the first and only court to hear a case.

The case concerned an interstate water dispute between Texas and New Mexico. The court denied Texas' motion to review the Pecos river master's annual report in a 7-1 ruling, holding the river master correctly determined New Mexico's water delivery credit.[1] Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion. Justice Samuel Alito concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part in the case. Click here for more information about the ruling.

Oral argument for Texas v. New Mexico was initially scheduled for April 21, 2020, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. However, the U.S. Supreme Court announced on April 3 that it was postponing the eight oral arguments originally scheduled during its April sitting. In a press release, the court said the delay was "in keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19."[2] COVID-19 is the abbreviation for coronavirus disease 2019, caused by SARS-CoV-2.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Texas and New Mexico entered a compact about use of the Pecos River. The U.S. Supreme Court appointed a river master to issue an annual report summarizing New Mexico's compliance with its compact obligations. In 2014, the Pecos River flooded. New Mexico released the flood water downstream, even though Texas' reservoir could not hold the extra water. Texas alleged the water was wasted. In mid-2018, New Mexico asked the river master to reduce its delivery obligations because of the 2014-2015 flood water. The river master retroactively changed the 2015 report, against Texas' objections. Texas challenged the river master's retroactive modifications and his 2018 annual report. While that challenge was pending, the river master filed a 2019 annual report, which Texas also petitioned the court to review.[3]
  • The issue: Whether the river master was wrong to retroactively change the 2015 annual report and to charge Texas for evaporative losses without authority under the Compact.[3]
  • The outcome: The court denied Texas' motion to review the Pecos river master's annual report in a 7-1 ruling, holding the river master correctly determined New Mexico's water delivery credit.[1]

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • December 14, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court denied Texas' motion to review the Pecos river master's annual report.
    • October 5, 2020: Oral argument was heard.
    • April 3, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court postponed its April sitting. Oral arguments in Texas v. New Mexico were initially scheduled for April 21, 2020.
    • October 21, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court granted Texas' conditional motion for review.
    • September 3, 2019: Texas, the petitioner, filed a conditional motion for review with the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • December 17, 2018: Texas filed a motion challenging the river master's 2018 annual report.

    Background

    Pecos River basin

    The Pecos River flows south from New Mexico to Texas, where it joins the Rio Grande. In 1949, the two states entered a compact to resolve disputes about river use. The U.S. Supreme Court, exercising original jurisdiction, later appointed a river master to oversee and calculate New Mexico's compliance with its compact obligations.[3]

    In 2014, a tropical storm caused flooding in the Pecos River basin. At the time, Texas' downstream reservoir, Red Bluff, was full. The waters were impounded in a federally owned reservoir in New Mexico. In August 2015, the impounded flood water was released and, Texas argued, wasted because the Red Bluff Reservoir could not hold the extra water.[3]

    When the river master calculated New Mexico's water delivery obligations for the 2014 and 2015 annual reports, he did not reduce Texas' rights based on the allegedly wasted flood water. In mid-2018, New Mexico asked the river master to reduce its delivery obligations because of the 2014-2015 flood water. The river master retroactively changed the 2015 report, against Texas' objections, giving New Mexico a credit of 16,600 acre-feet of water.[3]

    In December 2018, Texas filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the river master's retroactive modifications and his 2018 annual report. While that challenge was pending, the river master filed a 2019 annual report, which Texas also petitioned the court to review.[3]

    Argument

    In its petition, Texas argued:[3]

    “ If the Court grants review of the 2018 final determination and reverses the River Master’s evaporation credit to New Mexico, it should also grant this motion to review the 2019 final determination and order the River Master to revise the calculations of annual and accumulated overage or shortfall to exclude the disputed credit.[4] ”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3]

    Questions presented:
    “

    1. Whether the River Master clearly erred in retroactively amending the River Master Manual and his final accounting for 2015 without Texas’s consent and contrary to this Court’s decree.

    2. Whether the River Master clearly erred by charging Texas for evaporative losses without authority under the Compact.[4]

    		”

    Outcome

    In a 7-1 opinion, the court denied Texas' motion to review the river master's annual report. The court held the river master correctly determined New Mexico's water delivery credit. Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Samuel Alito concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part in the case. She was not a member of the court when arguments were held.[1]

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:[1]

    “ Texas’s argument disregards the history of the proceedings in this case. Both States agreed to postpone the River Master’s resolution of the evaporated-water issue while they negotiated and sought an agreement. The River Master’s annual reports in turn repeatedly explained that the States were trying to negotiate a solution to the issue. Neither State objected to the negotiation procedure. Texas cannot now run away from the procedure that it agreed to. ...


    The text of §C.5 and the record evidence of the States’ correspondence establish that New Mexico is entitled to delivery credit for the water that evaporated while New Mexico was storing the water at Texas’s request. ...

    The water was stored in New Mexico at the request of Texas. Some of the water then evaporated before it was released to Texas. Under those circumstances, as the River Master correctly concluded, New Mexico is entitled to delivery credit for the evaporated water. That result is both legally accurate and entirely fair. We deny Texas’s motion for review.[4]

    		”
    —Justice Kavanaugh

    Concurring in part, dissenting in part

    Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. In his opinion, Alito wrote that he would have vacated the case and remanded it to the river master with instructions "to redo his analysis in accordance with the relevant terms of the amended decree and the manual."[1]

    “ On this issue, there were violations all around. The River Master violated the deadlines imposed by the amended decree for filing his reports. See Texas v. New Mexico, 485 U. S. 388, 391 (1988) (per curiam); App. to State of New Mexico’s Response 61. New Mexico did not file its objections in time, see Texas v. New Mexico, 485 U. S., at 391; App. to State of New Mexico’s Response 38, 59–61, and Texas essentially acquiesced for months, if not years, see Texas’s Motion for Review 9; App. to Texas’s Motion for Review 269a. Under the circumstances, Texas forfeited its objection. Going forward, the States and the River Master should take better care to abide by the terms of the amended decree. ...


    Finally, I would hold that the River Master’s amendment to the manual, insofar as it changed the deadlines imposed by the amended decree, is invalid. The River Master does not have the authority to alter the amended decree. See Texas v. New Mexico, 485 U. S., at 391. The Court declines to reach this question because it concludes that it has no effect on the principal issues before us, but I would clarify the status of this amendment so that the River Master will conform to the terms of the amended decree going forward. By declining to reach this question, the Court may be inviting future problems.[4]

    		”
    —Justice Alito

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]



    Transcript

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Supreme Court of the United States, Texas v. New Mexico, decided December 14, 2020
    2. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Press release from April 3, 2020," accessed April 3, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 Supreme Court of the United States, Unopposed conditional motion for review of river master's 2019 final determination, accessed February 25, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed October 12, 2020
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Texas_v._New_Mexico_(2019)&oldid=8891647"