{"id":169344,"date":"2016-07-16T23:32:23","date_gmt":"2016-07-17T05:32:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/?p=169344"},"modified":"2016-07-18T11:35:24","modified_gmt":"2016-07-18T17:35:24","slug":"texas-gets-boost-in-water-fight-with-new-mexico","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2016\/07\/texas-gets-boost-in-water-fight-with-new-mexico\/","title":{"rendered":"Texas gets boost in water fight with New Mexico"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"attachment_169347\"  class=\"wp-caption module image alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 771px;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-large wp-image-169347\" src=\"http:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/TxTrib-RioGrande05_jpg_800x1000_q100-771x515.jpg\" alt=\"Rio Grande\" width=\"771\" height=\"515\" srcset=\"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/TxTrib-RioGrande05_jpg_800x1000_q100-771x515.jpg 771w, https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/TxTrib-RioGrande05_jpg_800x1000_q100-336x224.jpg 336w, https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/TxTrib-RioGrande05_jpg_800x1000_q100-768x513.jpg 768w, https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/TxTrib-RioGrande05_jpg_800x1000_q100.jpg 800w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 771px) 100vw, 771px\" \/><p class=\"wp-media-credit\">Ivan Pierre Aguirre \/ The Texas Tribune<\/p><p class=\"wp-caption-text\">The Rio Grande at the New Mexico-Texas border on Monday, December 9, 2013 in El Paso.<\/p><\/div>\n<p>If New Mexico wasn\u2019t already sweating in its longstanding tug-of-war with Texas over water in the Rio Grande, this might be the summer it starts.<\/p>\n<p>More than three years after Texas filed a complaint in the U.S. Supreme Court alleging that New Mexican farmers were slurping up too much water along the river \u2014 illegally curbing the flow downstream into Texas \u2014 the justices appear likely to take up the challenge.<\/p>\n<aside class=\"module align-left half type-aside\">\n<h3>About this article<\/h3>\n<p>This article originally appeared in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.texastribune.org\/2016\/07\/15\/texas-and-new-mexico-are-still-fighting-over-rio-g\/\" target=\"_blank\">The Texas Tribune<\/a>,\u00a0a nonpartisan, nonprofit media organization that informs Texans and engages with them about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.<\/p>\n<h3>Read more<\/h3>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/static.texastribune.org\/media\/documents\/6-28-16-First-Rpt-SM-Motion-to-Dismiss-and.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Special Master&#8217;s Report &#8212; Texas v. New Mexico<\/a><\/p>\n<\/aside>\n<p>That\u2019s after Gregory Grimsal, a court-appointed special master, issued a <a href=\"https:\/\/static.texastribune.org\/media\/documents\/6-28-16-First-Rpt-SM-Motion-to-Dismiss-and.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">draft report<\/a> recommending that the court deny New Mexico\u2019s motion to dismiss the complaint, a major development in the high-stakes dispute.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis is a big victory for the state of Texas,\u201d said Russell Johnson, a water rights lawyer who is not involved in the case. \u201cThe special master has in essence swept aside the impediments to Texas pursuing a claim.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>If Texas ultimately prevails, it could receive more than just extra water. New Mexico could be forced to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, experts say.<\/p>\n<p>Like most interstate water skirmishes, this one is complicated and has deep historical roots. Grimsal\u2019s report, currently in draft form, spans 273 pages.<\/p>\n<p>Here are five things you should know about the battle.<\/p>\n<p><strong>1. The Rio Grande holds some of the most studied and squabbled-over waters in North America. And it\u2019s drying up.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The river is lifeblood for folks in three U.S. states and Mexico. It\u2019s an international border. It\u2019s ravaged by drought. The river begins about 12,000 feet above sea level in Colorado and flows southeast after cutting through New Mexico. It forms the Texas-Mexico border between Chihuahua State and El Paso, where it flows through a concrete channel.<!--more--><\/p>\n<p>Before reaching Texas, the Rio Grande collects at New Mexico\u2019s Elephant Butte Reservoir, which is <a href=\"http:\/\/www.waterdatafortexas.org\/reservoirs\/individual\/elephant-butte\" target=\"_blank\">currently just 13 percent full<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Of the American West\u2019s four iconic river basins, the Rio Grande is \u201cfacing the largest climate-change water-supply deficits,\u201d according to a <a href=\"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1890\/15-0938.1\/full\" target=\"_blank\">December 2015 report<\/a> in the journal Ecological Applications.<\/p>\n<p><strong>2. The three-state Rio Grande Compact prevents states from claiming more than their fair share of the water. Except when it doesn\u2019t.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In the 1910 Rio Grande Project, the federal government established an irrigation system aimed at helping agriculture and industry in the states the river flows through. But that project, which also upheld a 1906 treaty that promises Mexico 60,000 acre-feet of water annually, didn\u2019t specifically address state-by-state allocation. Historically, Texas has received 43 percent of the water, with New Mexico getting 57 percent.<\/p>\n<p>Congress approved the Rio Grande Compact in 1938, which determined how much water folks in Texas \u2014 the most downstream state \u2014 should get before those upstream sucked it up. Or so Texas argues.<\/p>\n<p>Now, the states are fighting over whether the compact actually requires New Mexico to cede a certain amount of water to Texas.<\/p>\n<p><strong>3. Both states\u2019 arguments have quirks.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Texas claims New Mexico is siphoning off more water than the compact allows by drawing too much from the river itself and pumping too much groundwater from wells nearby.<\/p>\n<p>The groundwater argument \u201cis probably what makes New Mexico go batshit crazy,\u201d said Johnson, the water rights attorney.<\/p>\n<p>That\u2019s because Texas law does not recognize the nexus between groundwater and surface water \u2014 that over-pumping can lower river levels. Since New Mexico\u2019s law does make the connection, however, Texas argues that it has the responsibility to ensure its wells are not curbing the river\u2019s flow.<\/p>\n<p>New Mexico points out that the compact does not explicitly state that it must deliver 43 percent of water to the state line. Rather, the agreement aims only to ensure enough water flows into the Elephant Butte Reservoir and is properly stored, the state claims. Previous agreements, in fact, had split the water between the two states.<\/p>\n<p>That line of defense may be \u201cignoring reality,\u201d Johnson said. \u201cThat seems to fly in the face of what the compact was intended to do \u2014 apportion the water between the states.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>4. This time, the feds are siding with Texas<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Despite Texas\u2019 often-testy relationship with the federal government, the Obama administration actually supports the state\u2019s position here.<\/p>\n<p>In 2014, the U.S. solicitor general <a href=\"https:\/\/www.texastribune.org\/2014\/04\/02\/texas-hoping-edge-over-new-mexico-water-battle\/\" target=\"_blank\">filed a motion to intervene<\/a> on the Lone Star State\u2019s side, arguing that the 43 percent figure of water New Mexico must send into Texas was \u201cfrozen\u201d by the time the compact took effect.<\/p>\n<p>The federal government also believes it has a stake in the outcome because of its international duties to provide Rio Grande water to Mexico, as detailed in the 1906 treaty.<\/p>\n<p>But the federal government might not get the chance to make those arguments before the justices. That\u2019s because Grimsal, the special master, recommended that the court dismiss the federal motion \u201cto the extent that it fails to state a claim\u201d under the compact.<\/p>\n<p>New Mexico officials have focused on that partial victory in their public statements.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe applaud the Special Master\u2019s suggestion to limit the claims of the United States, and we will continue to work diligently in protecting the interests of all New Mexicans and our water,\u201d Attorney General Hector Balderas, a Democrat, said in a statement this week.<\/p>\n<p><strong>5. Resolving this case could still take years and plenty of taxpayer money.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s not clear when the Supreme Court will decide whether to accept the case. And if the challenge moves forward, that will take some time.<\/p>\n<p>Though Grimsal\u2019s report was filled with plenty of facts for the justices to evaluate, his job could be just beginning. If the case continues, he would oversee a full-fledged trial \u2014 complete with extensive discovery \u2014 before the justices ever heard oral arguments.<\/p>\n<p>Together, the states and federal government have already been charged nearly $400,000 for Grimsal\u2019s services, according to court documents. That tab will likely grow.<\/p>\n<p>Meanwhile, the office of Texas Attorney General <a href=\"http:\/\/www.texastribune.org\/directory\/ken-paxton\/\" target=\"_blank\">Ken Paxton<\/a> has spent nearly $116,000 litigating the case, its records show.<\/p>\n<p>Paxton declined to comment on the case.<\/p>\n<p>A spokesman for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said that agency agrees with Grimsal\u2019s recommendation. \u201cWe believe we have a strong case and\u00a0the draft\u00a0opinion validates\u00a0the need to litigate Texas&#8217; concerns,\u201d Terry Clawson said in an email.<\/p>\n<p>Each party has until Aug. 1 to comment on the report. Grimsal can still make changes before submitting his final recommendations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Three years after Texas filed a complaint in the U.S. Supreme Court alleging that New Mexican farmers were illegally curbing the Rio Grande&#8217;s flow into Texas, the justices appear closer to taking up the challenge.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":169347,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[147,107,2260,277],"class_list":["post-169344","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news-and-analysis","tag-environment","tag-roundhouse","tag-texas","tag-water"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169344","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=169344"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169344\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/169347"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169344"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169344"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169344"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}