Texas v. New Mexico

The United States may intervene in a lawsuit between to defend its “distinctively federal interests,” where various factors collectively persuade the Court to permit such intervention.

Texas filed suit against New Mexico for purportedly violating terms of the Rio Grande Compact by illegally siphoning water below the Elephant Butte Dam. The Compact—entered into by Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado in the 1930s—allows water to flow onto irrigable land districts in Texas and New Mexico. The Elephant Butte Dam, created by Congress through its assent to the Compact, allows water to flow to the land districts in the two states. Texas filed this original action pursuant to Article III, sec. II of the Constitution, which provides original jurisdiction to the United States Supreme Court for disputes between states.  The United States intervened, asserting similar claims. On first assignment to the Special Master, the Master recommended dismissal of the United States’ claims because the Compact did not provide an enforcement mechanism allowing intervention by the United States. Because the Court may “regulate and [mold]” its original jurisdiction procedure, the Court allowed intervention for four reasons: (1) the Rio Grande agreement is too intertwined with the contracts that allow water flow onto Texas’s and New Mexico’s water districts, (2) New Mexico conceded the United States’ pivotal participation in the agreement, (3) any breach of this agreement would affect the United States’ treaty obligations to Mexico (as Mexico receives water from this Compact), (4) the United States is asserting similar claims to Texas and is not otherwise forcing Texas to participate in the litigation. Taken together, these factors allow intervention. REMANDED.