Jose Huerta

The enduring water conflict between New Mexico and Texas has entered an unexpected turning point, with recent federal interference now threatening to upend the balance of power in the decades-long struggle for water in the borderlands. For us, this isn’t just about water—it’s about protecting our farmers, our southern towns, and the very sovereignty of our state.

At the center of this dispute is the 1938 Rio Grande Compact, a historic agreement meant to allocate water fairly between Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. But the dynamics of water management have shifted dramatically since then. Back in June, the Supreme Court shocked many by rejecting a settlement that had taken over a decade to negotiate, which sought to address the complex relationship between surface water and groundwater while meeting the needs of all three states. The Court’s 5-4 decision argued that the settlement didn’t account for federal obligations to deliver water to Mexico, abruptly derailing years of progress in favor of the interests of an unreliable foreign nation.

Now, federal mediation has taken over, leaving us in a disadvantaged position. The federal government’s decision to stake its own claim to our groundwater has complicated what was about to be a cooperative regional effort. This as an example of gross federal overreach that not only jeopardizes our water security but also undermines our rights to manage our own resources.

Texas’ main complaint is that our farmers’ pumping of groundwater near Elephant Butte Reservoir is reducing the downstream flow of the Rio Grande, depriving Texan farmers of water they believe is rightfully theirs. While it’s true that modern science shows surface water and groundwater are interconnected, applying this knowledge to an agreement written in 1938 is wildly impractical and unjust. Our understanding of hydrology is still evolving, and crafting large-scale policy changes based on incomplete science is a recipe for disaster.

The real culprit here isn’t our use of groundwater—it’s the naturally changing climate. Drought, rising temperatures, and lighter snows have transformed the hydrological reality of the Rio Grande. These challenges affect all western states, and solving them requires innovation and cooperation, not legal blame games. Texas’ insistence on framing this as solely New Mexico’s fault ignores their own stubborn overdevelopment of their portion of the river, which has caused this problem in the first place.

The stakes couldn’t be higher for us. Farmers in the Valley of Mesilla and the Valley of Hatch, two of our most fertile regions, depend on groundwater to farm traditional crops of chile and pecan. If we were forced by outside powers to sharply cut our groundwater use, the economic fallout would devastate dozens of communities, uproot thousands of families, and destroy an agricultural region central to the New Mexican identity. And the implications go beyond our borders. If Texas wins, it could set a dangerous precedent for how water is managed all across the West, potentially sparking legal battles over groundwater in states like Arizona, Colorado, and California.

This isn’t just about water—it’s about justice and the sovereignty to manage our own resources. We have already demonstrated our commitment to accommodate Texas’ wants by investing heavily in advanced irrigation technology to maximize our water use efficiency. But we need Texas and the federal government to meet us halfway. Instead of imposing one-sided, predatory solutions, we should focus on realistic, collaborative strategies to adapt to our shared forecast of dwindling water resources.

The federal government’s role in this dispute raises deeper questions about the balance between state rights and federal oversight. By rejecting the negotiated settlement, the Supreme Court has not only delayed progress but also deepened tensions between states, making future collaboration harder. We cannot allow this decision to threaten New Mexico’s sovereignty or our ability to safeguard our own interests.

Despite the challenges, there is still a path forward. New Mexico and Texas must work together—not as historical adversaries, but as prospective partners—to address the changing realities of water in the Rio Grande. With a new federal administration to take charge next month, our shared future with both Texas and the federal government depends on investing in real innovation, mutual respect, and an honest reckoning with the future challenges we are likely to face. A fair resolution to this conflict isn’t just possible—it’s essential. For us, standing our ground isn’t just about defending our water resources; it’s about safeguarding our way of life for generations to come, and that beyond all cannot be compromised.