Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Plan

4.1.3 Federal Water Laws
The law of water appropriation has been developed primarily through decisions made by state
courts. Since the accepted plan was published in 2004 several federal cases have been decided
examining various water law questions. These cases are too voluminous to include here, and
many of the issues in the cases will not apply directly to the region. However, New Mexico is a
party to one original jurisdiction case in the U.S. Supreme Court involving the Rio Grande
Compact and waters of the Lower Rio Grande. Because of its importance to the entire state,
especially those regions that include the Rio Grande as a surface water source like the Middle
Rio Grande, it is included here.
In Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado, No. 141 Original (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014), Texas
alleges that New Mexico has violated the Rio Grande Compact by intercepting water Texas is
entitled to under the Compact through groundwater pumping and surface diversions downstream
of Elephant Butte Reservoir but upstream of the New Mexico-Texas state line. Colorado is also
a defendant in the lawsuit as it is a signatory to the Rio Grande Compact. The United States has
intervened as a Plaintiff in the case. Elephant Butte Irrigation District and El Paso County Water
Improvement District Number One have both sought to intervene in the case as well, claiming
that their interests are not fully represented by the named parties. The motions to intervene along
with a motion to dismiss filed by New Mexico are currently pending.
4.1.3.1 Federal Reservations
The doctrine of federally reserved water rights was developed over the course of the 20th
Century. Simply stated, federally reserved rights are created when the United States sets aside
land for specific purposes, thereby withdrawing the land from the general public domain. In
doing so, there is an implied, if not expressed, intent to reserve an amount of water necessary to
fulfill the purpose for which the land was set aside. Federally reserved water rights are not
created, or limited, by state law.
Federally reserved water rights on Indian lands are known as "Winters reserved rights." The
Winters Doctrine provides that at the time the United States established an Indian reservation, it
also reserved sufficient water to provide for the reservation as a permanent homeland. Winters v.
United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908). Neither the priority date nor the amount of Winters reserved
rights is based on the historical actual beneficial use of water. Under the Winters Doctrine, the
priority date is based on the date the federal government established the Indian reservation. A
Winters reserved right is quantified based on the amount of water needed to make the reservation
a permanent homeland and to fulfill the purposes of the reservation.
Several courts have held that Winters rights are unique federally reserved rights because of the
many purposes served by federally created Indian reservations. In 1963, the United States
Supreme Court adopted the "practically irrigable acreage" standard for quantifying federal Indian
Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Plan 2017 39