7314 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

enforcement of the 1949 compact between Texas and New Mexico dividing the water of the Pecos River between the two States, Article III(a) of the compact provides that "New Mexico shall not deplete by man's activitites the flow of the Pecos River at the New Mexico-Texas state line below an amount which will give to Texas a quantity of water equivalent to that available to Texas under the 1947 condition." The Special Master in this case issued a report finding that for the years 1950-1983, New Mexico should have delivered 340,100 acre-feet more water at the State line than Texas received over those years, and the Mas- ter recommended that New Mexico both perform its ongoing compact obligations and make up the past shortfall by delivering 34,010 acre-feet of water for 10 years with a penalty in kind, "water interest," for any bad-faith failure to deliver the addi- tional water. Both sides excepted to the Master's report. The U.S. Supreme Court (1) found no merit in New Mexico's argu- ment that the Court could only require future performance with- out giving a remedy for past breaches, (2) returned the matter of remedying past shortages to the Master to recommend whether New Mexico should be allowed to pay money damages or make up the past shortfalls by delivering more water, (3) ordered New Mexico to comply with the compact in the future, and (4) ordered the Master to recommend an amendment to the decree to specify the duties of the River Master the Supreme Court found should be appointed. Utah Division of State Lands v. United States, 482 U.S. _, 96 L.Ed.2d 162, 107 S.Ct. _' When the Bureau of Land Management issued oil and gas leases for lands underlying Utah Lake, the State of Utah brought suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it, rather than the United States, had title to the lake bed, claiming that such title passed to the State under the equal footing doctrine upon Utah's admission to the Union. The United States answered that title to the lake bed remained in Federal ownership because in 1889 the lake was sel~cted as a reservoir site pursuant to the Sundry Appropriations Act of 1888 (the 1888 Act). The district court granted summary judgment for the United States, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. The U. S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that (1) Congress will defeat a future State's entitlement to land under navigable waters only in "exceptional instances" when "the intention was definitely declared or otherwise made plain" (quoting from United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 55 (1926)), (2) neither the 30 ~