Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Texas v. New Mexico

• 1986 • 482 U.S. 124 • Rehnquist Court
In the 1986 case Texas v. New Mexico, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute between these two states over water rights in relation to the Pecos River Compact of 1949. The compact had been designed to ensure that an equitable share of river water reached Texas from its source in New Mexico but did not specify how this should be achieved or measured. In this case, Texas claimed that it was receiving less than its fair share due to increased consumption and conservation measures by...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Rehnquist Court
Term: 1986
Docket: 65 ORIG
482 U.S. 124
107 S. Ct. 2279
96 L. Ed. 2d 105
1987 U.S. LEXIS 2474
Argued: Apr 29, 1987

Texas v. New Mexico

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1986 case Texas v. New Mexico, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute between these two states over water rights in relation to the Pecos River Compact of 1949. The compact had been designed to ensure that an equitable share of river water reached Texas from its source in New Mexico but did not specify how this should be achieved or measured. In this case, Texas claimed that it was receiving less than its fair share due to increased consumption and conservation measures by New Mexico upstream. The court appointed a Special Master who recommended that future deliveries be based on conditions as they existed at the time of signing (1947-1953), rather than current conditions which were affected by factors such as reservoir evaporation and groundwater pumping. The Supreme Court agreed with most recommendations made by the Special Master but rejected his proposal for measuring state-line flows during non-irrigation season, stating it would unfairly burden New Mexico without significantly benefiting Texas. This ruling clarified how compliance with interstate compacts is determined when specific measurement methods are not outlined within those agreements themselves.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Texas v. New Mexico, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to allow New Mexico to divert water from the Pecos River was a violation of an interstate compact between Texas and New Mexico. He believed that this agreement should be honored as it had been in previous cases involving disputes over shared resources between states. Furthermore, he contended that by allowing one state to unilaterally alter its obligations under such a compact without mutual consent or negotiation would undermine future cooperative agreements between states. Additionally, he disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of “usable” water and stated it could lead to further disagreements down the line due to its ambiguity. Lastly, Justice Stevens expressed concern about how this ruling might affect other similar compacts across America.

Opinion written by Justice BRWhite
Decided: Jun 08, 1987
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms