OCR Text |
Show RIO GRANDE COMPACT 291 share of the water open for disposition under the general water statutes of Texas, plainly directs same for irrigation in the Project, A large part of the Project lands are in New Mexico and, consequently, this water delivered to Texas goes to irrigate not only Texas lands, but also New Mexico lands in the Project. The apparent reason for all this is that when the Compact was negotiated, the Rio Grande Project, in all of its far flung works and physical properties was, and for some time had been, superimposed on the Rio Grande and its adjoining valleys all the way from the Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico, to a point below Fabens in Texas and that fait accompli colored the whole Compact as between New Mexico and Texas. Per- haps the problem was handled in the only practicable wTay. In any event, an analysis of the Compact shows convincingly that the water belonging to Texas is definitely committed to the service of the Rio Grande Project. This Compact is binding on Texas and the defendant City and, for that matter, is binding on the inhabi- tants and citizens of Texas. "The Territory of New Mexico put in force the water appropriations made under its laws years ago for the intended use of the incipient Rio Graiicle Project, which, from the standpoint of New Mexico, meant more particularly what later became the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, and, naturally, New Mexico had no intention in the Compact that the water delivered at San Marcial should, in any event, all go downstream to Texas, with the result of leaving said local District waterless. Just as plainly, the United States never supposed that its physical works and facilities were to be put in service to handle that part of the water destined for Texas, only to have the Project lands deprived of it in favor of other uses under the law of Texas, thus, perhaps, imperiling the repayment program between the Project and the United States. !j* 8|5 *p Sp !§S Sj» [C "The above discussion of the different claims of the defendant City comes to the conclusion that all of the appropriative water rights advanced by the City are either without reality or else must yield to the paramount disposition made by the Rio Grande Compact." The trial court's judgment in this case was affirmed with modifica- tions not material to the above, 243 Fed. (2d) 927 (C.A. 5th, 1957), cert, den, 355 U.S. 820 (1957). % Related compact.-See Costilla Creek compact, pp. 85ff ante. |