Whose Water Is It, Anyway? Federalism and Texas v. New Mexico

Authors

Bryon Louk

Keywords

Texas v. New Mexico, Texas II, 602 U.S. 943, interstate compacts, Rio Grande, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Elephant Butte Reservoir, Rio Grande Reclamation Project, Texas I, 574 U.S. 972

Abstract

When a problem erupts between two states, interstate compacts provide a solution without the need for a nationwide decision. Rather than waiting for federal consensus, the states can, with Congressional approval, compact to solve their problems. However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas v. New Mexico (Texas II) has threatened interstate compacts, ignored principles of federalism, and overextended its original jurisdiction. It has allowed the United States to force Texas and New Mexico to keep fighting over a compact, even when the states have resolved their issues on their own.

First, this Comment will describe the legal background of compact clause law, the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and the case of Texas II. Second, this Comment will analyze the Texas II decision and why it harms state cooperation, avoids water law precedents, and overextends the limited original jurisdiction of the Court. Third, this Comment will assert a new legal test for determining whether the Court should allow intervenors to assert claims against two states which have settled a compact dispute in original cases: whether an alternative forum is available. Finally, this Comment will summarize and conclude that the Supreme Court’s decision undermines state autonomy and weakens the efficacy of interstate compacts.

Recommended Citation

Bryon Louk, Whose Water Is It, Anyway? Federalism and Texas v. New Mexico, 78 Ark. L. Rev. 703 (2026).
https://doi.org/10.54119/alr.tjmd5621
Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/alr/vol78/iss4/6