## Facts

- Texas and New Mexico entered the Pecos River Compact in 1947; Congress consented in 1949.
- The Compact requires New Mexico not to deplete flow at the New Mexico–Texas line below an amount equivalent to what Texas would have received under 1947 conditions.
- The Compact created the Pecos River Commission with two voting state commissioners (Texas and New Mexico) and a nonvoting federal “Government Commissioner,” who lacks voting rights but participates in administration.
- The state commissioners deadlocked over the methodology for determining annual shortfalls at the state line and thus could not resolve the compliance dispute.
- Texas filed an original action in the U.S. Supreme Court alleging New Mexico breached Article III(a) and seeking judicial enforcement; the United States intervened.
- A Special Master recommended structural changes to break commission deadlocks (giving a third party, including the Government Commissioner, a vote) and alternatively recommended that the Court continue the litigation on the merits despite the deadlock.
- The United States and New Mexico filed exceptions to the voting recommendation; New Mexico also excepted to continuing the suit absent a commission action to review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court may, in equity and original jurisdiction, alter a congressionally approved interstate compact by granting the federal commissioner (or another third party) a vote to break commission deadlocks.
2. Whether the Court is confined to deferential review of formal commission actions, or may adjudicate alleged compact violations and proceed despite commission inaction or deadlock.

## Decision

- The Court sustained the exceptions of the United States and New Mexico and rejected the Special Master’s recommendation to grant voting power to the Government Commissioner or another third party.
- The Court overruled New Mexico’s exception and accepted the Special Master’s alternative recommendation to continue the suit on the merits “as presently postured.”
- The Court held it may interpret and enforce the Compact directly and is not limited to administrative-style review of commission actions.

## Legal Principles

- A congressionally approved interstate compact is federal law; absent unconstitutionality, courts may not order relief inconsistent with the compact’s express terms.
- Judicial equitable power in interstate disputes permits enforcement of compact obligations, but does not authorize judicial amendment of the compact’s governance design (including voting rules expressly set by the compact).
- The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction permits adjudication of alleged compact violations even when a compact commission is deadlocked or has not issued a final, reviewable action.

## Conclusion

The Court refused to modify the Pecos River Compact’s commission voting structure because the Compact’s express terms control once approved by Congress, but allowed the enforcement action to proceed, holding that the Court may decide alleged compact violations without waiting for, or deferring to, commission action.


Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554 (1983)