A U.S. Supreme Court representative has agreed to put off a trial date for the yearslong water dispute between New Mexico and Texas so the two states can try to settle their differences out of court.
A federal judge appointed as special master by the high court canceled an Oct. 3 hearing to let the two sides work toward resolving their dispute over which state has taken an unfair share of Rio Grande water.
The states, which have been locked in this legal battle since 2013, will submit a progress report July 26.
If they remain at a stalemate, the special master will schedule a hearing later this year.
State Attorney General Hector Balderas expressed optimism Tuesday about New Mexico and Texas reaching a settlement after a decade of legal wrangling.
“We assembled the best legal and scientific team in the nation to disprove that our farmers and our communities owed billions [of dollars] in damages to Texas,” Balderas said in a statement. “And we are now on the cusp of an exciting historic settlement agreement that will protect New Mexico water for generations to come.”
If the parties reach an agreement, the Supreme Court must sign off on it.
State water managers said they couldn’t comment on an ongoing case.
The case involves complex legal issues surrounding the 1938 Rio Grande Compact, which governs water deliveries to New Mexico, Texas and Colorado.
But it’s simple at its heart.
Texas has accused New Mexico of letting farmers pump groundwater for irrigation near the Rio Grande, reducing the river flow and denying Texas its full share of water under the compact.
New Mexico contends Texas has always received its full allotment, despite farmers drilling wells near the river. New Mexico further argues it has been deprived of its fair share of water.
In 2017, the Supreme Court denied New Mexico’s legal motions to dismiss Texas’ complaint.
If New Mexico loses the fight, it might have to shell out as much as $2 billion in damages and legal fees. Fearing such a bleak outcome, state lawmakers have encouraged negotiations between the two states.
The parties completed the first phase of trial in fall 2021 — with testimony from farmers, hydrologists, irrigation managers and others — and have been engaged in intensive discussions ever since.
Water disputes have cropped up amid diminishing supply as the megadrought drags on and a changing climate warms temperatures and boosts evaporation.
Although the early start of the monsoon has raised the river level and dampened the parched earth, water managers say much more rain is needed.
The U.S. Drought Monitor still shows roughly half the state in extreme or exceptional drought, including through much of the Rio Grande Valley.
Stretches of the river marked record low flows again this year, resulting in some farmers voluntarily fallowing fields to help the state meet downstream obligations.
Tricia Snyder, the interim wild rivers program director for the group WildEarth Guardians, told the Associated Press policymakers need to fundamentally rethink how to manage and value river systems.
“Like many river basins throughout the American West, we are approaching a crisis point,” she said. “Climate change is throwing into sharp relief the cracks in Western water management and policy and the unsustainable water allocation included in that.”
Snyder and others have said that status quo has resulted in water resources being tapped out in the West and that all users — from cities and industry to farmers and Native American tribes — will need a seat at the table during future discussions on how to live within a river’s means.
