AUSTIN — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has issued a statement responding to the split decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that grants the federal government even more authority over States and halts the agreement between Texas, New Mexico and Colorado that would have secured vital water allotments for Texas farmers.
In 2013, Texas sued New Mexico to enforce the equitable apportionment of the waters of the Rio Grande as agreed upon in the 1938 Rio Grande Compact. After nearly 10 years, the States reached an agreement acceptable to all the States that would ensure Texas received a just water distribution.
In 2023, the Special Master appointed by SCOTUS supported the States’ agreement, saying, “It is difficult to envision a resolution to this matter that might be superior to the Consent Decree (that Texas seeks).”
However, in a 5-4 decision, the Court has now rejected that agreement, thereby allowing the federal government to regulate agreements between states within their own jurisdictions.
Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the majority opinion of the Court.
“Because the United States has valid Compact claims and has not agreed to the proposed consent decree, the only remaining question is whether the consent decree would dispose of those claims,” Jackson wrote. “We conclude it would.
“Our decision follows directly from our prior recognition of the United States’ distinct federal interests in the Rio Grande Compact. Having acknowledged those interests and having allowed the United States to intervene to assert them, we cannot now allow Texas and New Mexico to leave the United States up the river without a paddle.
“Because the consent decree would dispose of the United States’ Compact claims without its consent, the United States’ exception is sustained, and the States’ motion to enter the consent decree is denied,” Jackson said.
In the dissent, Justice Neil Gorsuch said: “The Court’s decision is inconsistent with how original jurisdiction cases normally proceed. It defies 100 years of this Court’s water law jurisprudence. And it represents a serious assault on the power of States to govern, as they always have, the water rights of users in their jurisdictions.”
Paxton disagreed with the decision which, he said, “incorrectly granted the federal government even more power over the states.”
“Every state in this case and even the special master appointed by the Supreme Court itself supported the consent decree that would put an end to more than a decade of litigation and ensure Texas farmers have access to vital water supplies,” Paxton said.
“However, the Biden Administration objected, claiming that they can unilaterally block the states’ resolution of a dispute between the states themselves.”
Paxton said his office will “continue to work to ensure that the rights of Texas farmers are protected during the next steps of the process.”
Comment
Comments