SCOTUS appoints new special counsel in Texas vs. New Mexico Rio Grande case • Source New Mexico

The U.S. Supreme Court has appointed a new judge to oversee the Rio Grande water dispute between Texas and New Mexico.

The case continues after the Supreme Court in June threw out a deal between New Mexico, Colorado and Texas, with five justices ignoring the federal government's objections to the deal.

US Supreme Court rejects agreement between New Mexico and Texas on the Rio Grande

In July, the justices appointed Judge D. Brooks Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Duncansville, Pennsylvania, to replace federal appeals court Judge Michael Melloy as special counsel in the case.

A special counsel serves as a trial judge, decides the facts in the case, and prepares reports that constitute the U.S. Supreme Court's final opinion on the case.

Smith, 72, has had a long career as a lawyer, working as an attorney and prosecutor before taking up his robe in 1984 and becoming a judge of the Court of Common Pleas in Blair County, Pennsylvania, and an administrative law judge.

In 1988, he was nominated and confirmed by President Ronald Reagan to be a federal judge in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

In 2002, the Senate confirmed his nomination by the Bush administration to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals, where he has served ever since.

This is the third Special Representative for this case, called Original No. 141 Texas vs. New Mexico and Colorado.

In a lawsuit filed in 2013, Texas claimed that the pumps in New Mexico below the Elephant Butte Reservoir were taking water from the Rio Grande that Texas was entitled to under a 1939 agreement.

This 85-year-old document regulates the use of the Rio Grande between Colorado, New Mexico and Texas and also includes provisions for the delivery of water to Mexico under the 1906 state treaty and recognizes regional irrigation districts.

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the federal government could join the case, accepting the argument that groundwater extraction in New Mexico jeopardized the federal government's obligation to provide water to Mexico and two irrigation districts.

After months of negotiations and a partial trial, Colorado, Texas and New Mexico proposed a deal to end years of litigation. The federal government and regional irrigation districts rejected the deal, saying it imposed unfair obligations and was negotiated without their consent.

Melloy recommended that the court ignore the federal government's objections and approve the state's proposed agreement.

In June, the Supreme Court issued a narrow 5-4 ruling siding with the federal government's objections and blocking the state's agreement.

It is unclear how the case will proceed under the new special counsel, but the parties could return to the negotiating table to negotiate a different settlement or return to the courtroom.