In the case of States of Oklahoma and Texas v. State of New Mexico, 1990, the Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute over water rights in the Red River Compact between these three states. The compact had been established to ensure equitable sharing of water resources from this river system among all member states. However, disagreements arose when Oklahoma and Texas accused New Mexico of violating their agreement by allowing excessive groundwater pumping near the river which they claimed reduced surface flows into their territories. In its decision, however, the court sided with New Mexico stating that nothing in compact's language specifically limited or regulated groundwater use by any state as long as it did not affect flow rates below certain points on the river itself - something that could not be conclusively proven based on evidence presented at trial.

In the dissenting opinion for STATES OF OKLAHOMA AND TEXAS v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Justice Stevens disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a 1949 water compact between Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico. He argued that the Compact did not grant New Mexico an unrestricted right to use any amount of water from its tributaries before it reaches Lake Texoma on the Red River. Instead, he believed that each state had agreed to share in both benefits and burdens caused by changes in conditions affecting flow into Lake Texoma. The justice also criticized how evidence was evaluated regarding whether or not New Mexico violated terms of this agreement by allowing increased groundwater pumping near one tributary which reduced surface flows into Lake Texoma.