The U.S. Supreme Court has appointed a new justice to oversee the Rio Grande River water dispute between Texas and New Mexico.
The Supreme Court struck down the compact between New Mexico, Colorado and Texas in June, but the case will continue after five justices sided with the federal government’s challenge to the agreement.
U.S. Supreme Court strikes down New Mexico-Texas compact over Rio Grande
The justices in July appointed Judge D. Brooks Smith of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Duncansville, Pennsylvania, as special master in the case, replacing Judge Michael Meloy of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Special Masters act as trial judges to decide issues in cases and prepare reports to inform the U.S. Supreme Court’s final decisions on cases.
Smith, 72, had a long career in law both as a private attorney and as a prosecutor, beginning in 1984 as a district court judge and administrative law judge in Blair County, Pennsylvania.
In 1988, he was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to serve as a U.S. District Court judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
In 2002, the Senate confirmed his appointment by the Bush Administration to the U.S. Court of Appeals, where he has served ever since.
This is the third special master in Plaintiff No. 141 Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado.
In a complaint filed in 2013, Texas argued that pumping water in New Mexico downstream from Elephant Butte Reservoir would deprive Texas of Rio Grande water due under a 1939 compact.
The 85-year-old document governs use of the Rio Grande between Colorado, New Mexico and Texas, including provisions for sending water to Mexico under a 1906 treaty obligation and for recognizing regional irrigation districts.
In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the federal government, arguing that New Mexico’s groundwater pumping threatened the federal government’s obligations to provide water to Mexico and two irrigation districts.
After months of negotiations and partial court cases, Colorado, Texas and New Mexico proposed a deal to end years of litigation. The federal government and regional irrigation districts opposed the agreement, arguing it imposed unfair obligations and was negotiated without their consent.
Meloy recommended that the court ignore the federal government’s objections and approve the state’s proposed deal.
In June, the Supreme Court narrowly ruled 5-4 in favor of the federal government, blocking the states’ deal.
It’s unclear what the future holds for the case under the new special master, but it’s possible the parties could return to the negotiating table to work out a new agreement or return to court.
