October Term 2020 · Docket 65 ORIG.
Who pays for water lost to evaporation in New Mexico reservoirs?
Texas and New Mexico dispute who bears the cost of water lost to evaporation while stored in New Mexico at Texas's request.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Texas argues the River Master's decision causes incalculable economic harm. Texas claims this harm occurs if New Mexico redeems credits during a drought.
New Mexico argues Texas explicitly requested the water storage. New Mexico states this request justifies charging Texas for the resulting evaporative losses.
Chief Justice Roberts questioned the relevance of forfeiture and waiver doctrines. He suggested the Court would not decide this case on those grounds.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 42-54 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 42-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 42-50 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 42-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 32-8 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 32-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 32-32 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 32-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 10-22 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 10-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 16-8 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 16-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 22-36 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 22-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 50-18 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 50-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 20-12 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 20-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 22-30 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 22-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 14-18 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 14-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 28-34 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 28-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 40-52 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 40-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 16-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 20-10 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 20-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 12-14 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 12-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 38-44 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 38-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 24-28 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 24-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 46-50 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 46-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 52-30 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 52-30
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The River Master awarded New Mexico a credit for evaporative losses. Texas argues this credit wrongly shifts the cost to its farmers. New Mexico argues Texas requested the storage and should pay for the loss.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 32-32 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 32-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 16-8 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 16-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 20-12 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 20-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 20-10 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 20-10
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 5, 2020.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 10-22 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 10-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 14-18 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 14-18
What each side wants
Texas wants the Court to reject the evaporative loss credit. Texas argues this credit harms its farmers and businesses.
New Mexico wants the Court to uphold the evaporative loss credit. New Mexico argues Texas requested the storage and should bear the cost.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 32-32 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 32-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 16-8 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 16-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 20-12 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 20-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 20-10 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 20-10
What each side says
Texas argues the River Master erred in applying the manual section for requested storage. Texas claims this decision deprives west Texas of a year's irrigation water.
New Mexico argues Texas made an express request for storage. New Mexico contends this request triggers the manual provision that charges the requesting state for losses.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 32-32 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 32-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 16-8 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 16-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 20-12 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 20-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 20-10 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 20-10
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked how Texas responds to its own request for storage. He noted an email titled Texas Request For Storage.
Chief Justice Roberts asked if the water can be considered stored in the Brantley Reservoir for Texas. He sought clarification on the storage status of the water at issue.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 42-54 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 42-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 42-50 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 42-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 32-8 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 32-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 22-36 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 22-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 50-18 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 50-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 22-30 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 22-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 14-18 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 14-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 28-34 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 28-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 40-52 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 40-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 16-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 12-14 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 12-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 38-44 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 38-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 24-28 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 24-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 46-50 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 46-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 52-30 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 52-30
Why it matters
This dispute determines which state pays for water lost to evaporation. The outcome affects irrigation water availability for farmers in west Texas. It also impacts economic stability for businesses relying on that water supply.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 32-32 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 32-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 16-8 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 16-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 20-12 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 20-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 20-10 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 20-10
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 42-54 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 42-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 42-50 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 42-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 32-8 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 32-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 10-22 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 10-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 22-36 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 22-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 50-18 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 50-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 22-30 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 22-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 14-18 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 14-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 28-34 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 28-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 40-52 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 40-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 16-18 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 16-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 12-14 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 12-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 38-44 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 38-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 24-28 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 24-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 46-50 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 46-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 52-30 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 52-30
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 32-32 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 32-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 16-8 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 16-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 20-12 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 20-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 20-10 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 20-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 32-32 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 32-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-14 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 16-8 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 16-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 20-12 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 20-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 20-10 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 20-10
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.