Colorado v. New Mexico
United States Supreme Court
459 U.S. 176 (1982)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Historically, nobody in Colorado (plaintiff) had ever used the water from the Vermejo River before it flowed into New Mexico (defendant). New Mexicans diverted and used the water for many years, and a 1941 decree apportioned the water rights among them. Both Colorado and New Mexico adopted prior-appropriation systems. In 1975, a Colorado steel company obtained a conditional right in Colorado state court to divert 75 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water from the river. The four principal New Mexico users sued and successfully enjoined the Colorado company from diverting any water in violation of their senior water rights. In 1978, Colorado filed an original complaint in the United States Supreme Court requesting an equitable apportionment. Colorado claimed New Mexico used water from the Vermejo wastefully and inefficiently. The Court appointed a special master who prepared a report and recommendation. The special master applied equitable-apportionment principles the Supreme Court developed in prior decisions and recommended permitting Colorado to divert 4,000 acre-feet per year or 5.52 cfs for two reasons. First, the special master found New Mexico could compensate for the Colorado diversion through reasonable water-conservation measures. Second, the special master found the benefit to Colorado would outweigh any injury to New Mexico. New Mexico filed exceptions objecting to the report, maintaining that the rule of priority precluded Colorado from diverting any water from the Vermejo.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Marshall, J.)
Concurrence (O’Connor, J.)
Concurrence (Burger, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.