SCOTUS largely right on TX-NM water rights ruling

Texas and New Mexico ahd for months, nay  years, battled over Rio Grande water issues, having previously faced, then settled, similar mattes over Pecos River water.

This spring, they came to a deal.

But then, the Biden Administration said it needed to row its oar, and until it was satisfied, no deal. At the time, I said "whaaat"?

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court largely agreed with the feds, and the ruling makes at least partial sense on the big picture, though the details do not.

The deal is that the Pecos is, yes, interstate water, but the Rio Grande, below the New Mexico-Texas state line, is also international water. That's even as the Mexican govenment under AMLO refuses to release its five-year rolling average of water from Chihuahua and Cohuilla states into the Rio Grande, in part over Gov. Strangeabbott's stupidity at Eagle Pass. (Not that Mexico really has water to release. It's called climate change.)

SCOTUS agreed with the feds because it said the TX-NM deal undercut international water issues.

There's also hypocrisy involved. There, first.

Tex-ass sued New Mexico in 2013, alleging that groundwater pumping there was depleting the river. The hypocrisy? Texas hydrology law separates riverine and ground waters.

Anyway, the two states eventually came to a split the difference deal.

And, BuRec bitched.

That said, it had a right to. By water seniority, the feds' 1906 deal with Mexico trumps the 1938 date of the Colorado-New Mexico-Texas deal.

Claims that this turns water law in general on its head, like this?

Gage Zobell, a water law expert and attorney with Dorsey & Whitney said today’s decision will allow for the potential increase of federal involvement in water management. “This has turned that long held principle on its head,” Zobell said.

“What we have here is Supreme Court precedent that states that there are federal interests that can actually be brought forward as claims when two states are fighting over water, and that the federal government has a seat at the table, and that has been unheard of.”

Tosh.

See what I said above about Pecos River water.

The 5-4 ruling crossed ideological lines, with Roberts, Jackson, Kavanaugh, Sotomayor and Kagan making the majority.

The problem I have is that BuRec didn't intervene IN THE PROCESS and instead waited until afterward. Or, is even that correct?

The majority ruling said that six years ago, ie, 2018, well before now, but well after Texas sued New Mexico, SCOTUS granted the feds legal right to intervene. And, per Jackson, who wrote the majority decision, it looks like they were cut out, not so much by the two states per se, but by the special master in the case.

So, Gage Zobell is, pun intended, all wet.

The one issue that I see that appears to be still unresolved, is what happens in an interstate case like this where the two states have different water law between riverine and ground waters? Or, for that matter, on international compacts?

As for what's ahead on the specific issue? I suspect it's in part concrete lining of irrigation ditches in New Mexico, just like what's happened in Southern California in recent years.

Side note: Vladek called this case "low stakes." He's wrong, because of the international water rights issue, and this will affect future "minutes" etc on the Colorado River Compact.