will hear argument next him case number sixty five on our original docket state of texas versus the state of new mexico general hawkins thank you mr chief justice and may it please the court the river masters decision to award evaporated last delivery credits to new mexico effectively deprives the farmers and businesses of west texas of a year's worth of the irrigation and threatens in mexico and the river master have offered only two theories justifying these delivery credits but each violates the plain text of the compact that congress approved new mexico's lead argument is article twelve but as the united states correctly points out article twelve cannot and does not justify the river master's decision it applies only to consumptive use of water by the united states and it was no use here at all the united states merely re regulated the water for public safety purposes and released it not when it could be used but when the public emergency expired the only other sub's of provision new mexico and the river master have pointed to is  five of the river master manual but c five applies only in two situations and neither one is presented here the st is under article six d when dealing with unappropriated flood waters but here the river master determined that these waters are not on appropriate flood waters and the parties haven't challenged that so article six d doesn't apply the nd is under article twelve which as i mentioned a moment ago is not implicated here where there is no use at all the complex sets the rules and the manual simply turns those rules into math here the compact prohibits charging texas for the these evaporative losses that occurred in new mexico and nothing in the manual can supersede that council ever many pay for you go any further i want to clear away some underbrush here you spend an awful lot of time in your brief talking about forfeit sure and all you haven't mentioned that here and you don't really think we would decide a case of this importance between two states on the basis of those doctrines do you well mr she just i think there's two ways to decide this case one is on the substance and the other is on procedure and indeed i think there would be a good reason mr chief justice to refuse to entertain what the river master did here on procedural grounds this court's nine hundred and eighty eight amended to create a specified specific time periods and deadlines for a reason it's partly to manage this court's own docket but it's also i think it acknowledge meant that the farmers and businesses in west texas rely on predictability and some level of certainty they this water is central to their livelihoods and to be in a position where we're arguing about e mails and waiver that happened six years ago i think is a disservice to the real world impact that this has which i think is what the court was acknowledging in one thousand nine hundred and eighty you say that the water at issue here can't be considered stored in the bramley reservoir  for texas right that's correct mr chief justice but but commissioner tate on page sixty one a of your appendix specifically asked that new mexico store texas is portion of the flows until such time as they can be utilized by texas and the email was in fact title texas request for storage well what do you do with that mr chief justice that e mail is talking about storing texas portion of unappropriated floodwaters and you don't have to take my word for mexico's response your honor at sixty three and confirms that new mexico understood this to be a communication about unappropriated floodwaters new mexico is not in charge of bradley and indeed for two months before that e mail at sixty one a the bureau had already been reregulating the water as page sixty six firms and that e mail is simply reflecting a mutual mistake between the parties that these were unappropriated floodwaters and i think it's crucial to know that mr chief justice in that e mail at sixty one he had never been sent nothing would have been different when you draw a sharp distinction between holding the water for storage and holding it for flood control can't they be doing both well two things your honor number one they say that they weren't doing both the united states says they were only reregulating the water for flood control and i think the reason they say they weren't storing the water for use is twofold number one to do that they would need a warrant at contract with texas and there is no such contract and number two i think the fact that the united states release this water in august of two thousand and fifteen when the public emergency expired and without any regard at all to whether any state could use the water confirms that it was not being stored for future beneficial use or whose fault is it that there was no warn act contract mr chief justice i don't think it's a matter of fault texas and the bureau have chosen not to enter into one and of course entering into a war next contract is not as simple as as buying a new car it takes months or years because those contracts are subject to need and environmental reviews thank you counsel i jus motion for review it seems as though the river mass there is deciding that well texas was unable to take the amount of water that it would have been able to take under the nine hundred and forty seven conditions and as a result of that the water have to be held and so it basically said well we will say that this is texas has water i don't understand you to agree with that could you tell me exactly why this assessment by the river master is wrong sure justice thomas i think it all starts with the compact which has the status of federal law the compact at article six she says that the inflow outflow method should be used to determine new mexico's delivery obligation now that just means that new mexico gets credit for water that crosses the state line and doesn't get credit for water that does not cross the state line now here we are talking about water that didn't cross the state line it evaporated in new mexico and so the question is what in the compact allowed the river master to deviate from the inflow outflow rule in sixty and new mexico in the united states in the river master have not pointed to any exception in the compact deviating from this rule and indeed at page two hundred and seventy eight of the record as your honor just pointed out the next the river master effectively admits that this is towards the bottom of the page he admits that if these waters are not on appropriate flood waters then we're just going to use the regular inflow outflow method and that gives away the game because the info outflow method does not allow the credit for these of african losses but the river has hurt i understand your two thousand and fifteen to make room for these anticipated inflows from the brantley reservoir in february of two thousand and fifteen the united states or rather in january and this is a page one hundred and thirty seven  river or the united states indicated that it was going to begin releasing waters in response that texas started clearing out room in the red blood for as war but new mexico objected to the release of the water at that time because where your submission is you could have taken the water and it did not cross baseline seems they're suggesting you could take it so that's why the hell that for you justice thomas we began releasing thirty thousand acre feet of water from the red bluff reservoir in march of two thousand and fifteen and yet the water did not come in from brantly because the united states was still impounding it because of the disaster in new mexico and then  yes justice thomas the if the bureau had began releasing water in march of two thousand and fifteen we had cleared out room in the red love reservoir to accept that water thank you just as prior but i start where the justice thomas left off by in a very technical stuff here but as i understood it and correct me if i'm wrong there's some water good belongs to texas it hasn't got to texas yet and for whatever reason thought probably because texas asked you mexico stores it in a reservoir and some of that evaporated so the question is is texas given debited from the mouth and did belong to texas the evaporated water which you can't get because it's in the sky and the river master says yes that seems to make sense that's why we appoint river masters to figure those things out you say oh no nothing in the contract a lot nothing in the do you know the basic document here agreement nothing allows well the s g says go read how they did it they did it according to the report of the engineering advisory committee and that's how they decided that evaporation function seems right and then he pointed to six c which says unless there's a more feasible method you ought to use the report of the engineering advisory committee and they look at say six c and say we need a master has the authority to do that that's the kind of thing we appoint him for as well as figuring out what all this me so what's your response so justice breyer i agree with your honor that this is straightforward but i disagree with your conclusion the starting point is that if the water doesn't get to texas the new mexico doesn't get credit for less there's some exception that specifically provide for so the question is what exception would be implicated here while we're talking about reservoir losses water that evaporated there are only three parts in the compact that speak to reservoir losses one is sixty three that can't be implicated here though because these are not an appropriate flood waters which is all that sixty three dollars is talking about the nd is article twelve and that's not implicated here for the reasons that the united states has correctly set out the other is section five of the ten which only says that when you're dealing with reservoir losses look to article six to figure out what to do with them so we're missing something in the compact allowing this deviation from the standard inflow outflow method and the core mistake that the united states makes the united states gets many things right there correct about article twelve they're correct that everything in the manual has to be tied back to the compact but they're  c five to the wrong thing c five only applies in the situations that i've set out and those situations aren't implicated here so we can never get to see five in the st place thank you thank you justice alito counsel could you again by explaining very briefly what as a practical matter is at stake here what would happen if you went as opposed to what would happen if you lose well a couple of things justice alito number one if if we were to win we would of course wipe away the delivery credit that new mexico has been awarded and that's an extraordinary amount of water it's a year's worth of irrigation that new mexico would otherwise be entitled to sit on as a credit and cash in potentially during a drought year but i think the broader implication justice alito is that i think to rule for texas here what underscore what this court said in and three that only the compact controls and it doesn't matter what my question went to the to the practical effect as water so your your answer is that for some period of time new mexico would at some point in the future new mexico would be entitled to refuse to deliver water that you would otherwise be intitled to and and have a need for as i write yes justice alito ok i find this a very difficult case because it seems to me that everybody both texas and new mexico and the river master proceeded in a very informal matter statements and requests were made by a variety of officials and employees on behalf of the states to begin it was unclear to me who is entitled on both sides to make commitments that are binding on the two states only the state commissioners justice league only the state commissioners  appropriate of floodwater and nobody has challenged that determination now if the river master had determined that it was an appropriate of flood water then we'd still we'd still win because unappropriated flood waters must be apportioned five thousand and fifty between the states which of course there are master didn't do here did you agree with the river master that if this water had been released instead of being stored or impounded or whatever reregulated or whatever was done to it well no justice alito we don't agree with that conclusion we were preparing the room in the red bluff reservoir to accept this water but at the end of the day justice alito the river masters findings on that don't actually matter your honor mention that this is a difficult complicated case with a long record i can try to make it easy for your honor just by pointing out that the river master has awarded a delivery credit that the compact doesn't allow for and if the court reaches that conclusion and to reach that conclusion the court only has to look at the contact in the manual everything else drops away all of these communications all of these emails these arguments about waiver and forfeiture they all go by the wayside if this court holds that is a substan at any point is rescinded ng commissioner or the tate commissioner tate e mail saying store the water for us is there any anything in writing by texas saying release it and release it faster than you are will your honor that e mail doesn't exist because new mexico doesn't control rattly the bureau controls brantley and so  presenting a request like that to mexico to new mexico would like would be like me asking mr wexler if i can borrow miss hansford car and so that's the whole point which is so why did this or commissioner send that e mail to texas asking him to hold the water clearly it seems to me that the assumption of holding the water was that the bureau would mexico acknowledges that there were flooding concerns in any county and that was the source of the bureau's action this e mail that you're on or a st to a sixty one day is simply a discussion between the parties about how to account for unappropriated flood waters but two years later when the river master determines that these are not an appropriate a flood waters all of these e mails drop away and become irrelevant but is there anywhere that you told the bureau said faster well your honor and he wanted to send it to new mexico but why didn't you say it to the government well your honor we were in regular communications with the federal government and we see some of these communications in the  record reflected in the government's e mails like the one at sixty eight a and two hundred and thirty six that reflects the concern is in new mexico not in texas assuming we were interested in the article twelve issue is there anything in the compact or in any of the amendments to it that would preclude the court from relying on article twelve when the river master didn't well the court of course can apply federal law your honor which is it which is what this compact is the reason not to rely on article twelve is because by its plain terms it doesn't apply there is no consumptive use of water by the united states and later on in article twelve it speaks to water in one state for use in the other state that can be a hook to bring that provision into this case because the water at issue was not stored for use in texas it was reregulate or for flood control and the best evidence of that just a sort of my or is that the federal government didn't care whether the water could be used when it released the water from brantly beginning in august of two thousand and fifteen it released it without regard to use and it only confirms what they were saying that they were reregulating it not for use but for flood control thank you counsel justice kagan general welcome to fica take you back to the procedural aspects of this negotiated and then interact negotiations everyone agree and that that river master was in the end going to make a one time adjustment so that everybody agreed to this process and then you know if you look at the record that way if you lost and all of a sudden you think the process isn't any good because you came out on the short side of the process you know is this a process that you agree to and went forward with for years no justice kagan i think that the record tells a very different story we know that the federal government began reregulating this water as it was falling in september of two thousand and fourteen from that moment on the party start talking about this unprecedented event as though it's on appropriated floodwaters and for two years the communications going back and forth are about how to account for unappropriated flood water and that's confirmed at ninety seven a of the texas appendix and new mexico appendix page one  nine we see that that's what the parties have in mind it is texas who was blindsided two years after the rain by new mexico changing its position indeed reversing its position and saying well no wait these are not an appropriate flood waters we actually think that they should be not split five thousand and fifty as unappropriated flood waters would be but rather we think they should be charged entirely to texas and that's when they made their unilateral motion page forty four dollars a of our appendix and that's when we formally objected saying that the compact in the decree does not allow for this and when you say that all the emails are irrelevant to the determination of the substantive question i take it that that's because you're saying that the emails are only about unappropriated floodwater that is that correct so it's the same kind of argument yeah i think that's basically right justice kagan really the subject of argument doesn't depend on e mails because the subset of argument depends only on the text of the compact and the manual and without looking to anything else we can tell from those documents that what the river master did is forbidden well the text of the manual is  think fifteen a of the texas appendix helps answer the question that's chapter a of the river master manual and we see it a one of the river master manual and instruction to use the inflow outflow method which is might at times increase or decrease that obligation so we start with in flower flow and then we look whether there's an exception and under to a through f are the sixty numerated exceptions that can all be traced back to the compact itself and so the in order to invoke she five your honor it has to be traced back to an enumerated exception in the compact itself and that's what's missing here the only provisions in the compact that speak to reservoir like this are in sixty three and article twelve and neither one of those is a playable here and that means that we're missing an exception we're missing a departure and so we have to revert to the core rule of this compact which is inflow out article six article twelve that might allow that application of the manual but why can't article three which indicates who gets what based on one hundred and forty seven levels why couldn't the master reasonably thought that the manual applies to in those circumstances too because justice courses article three doesn't say anything about what happened here here we've got water counts that when indicted what it does say is that texas article three justice courses doesn't speak to of average of losses the core rule i understand that counsel but i'm really might be grateful if you kind of got at my question rather than going back to six or twelve why question on the back and forth questions about procedure here you suggest to that even if that we shouldn't consider new mexico's arguments is analogous to something like fab four which imposes a jurisdictional notice of appeal deadline we think that this is similar we've got a federal statute called the pecos river compact and this court is interpreting it in the amended to korea and interpreting it to include certain deadlines the administration of the compact and so we think it's fair to say it's jurisdictional but the court doesn't have to hold that jude law in my favor even if this is not jurisdictional new mexico is not entitled to equitable tolling because they haven't provided a reason why they would be entitled to thank you counsel justice cavanaugh thank you chief justice and good morning general hawkins the it's been argued that the appropriate standard overview of the river master is clear error  deferential standard can you respond to that we agree just as kavanagh that that's the standard that's what this court said in the amended to create a and we easily satisfy that here because the river master has violated federal law and it is always clear air to violate the law ok on the federal law a point i think your primary submission seems to be that it's not rooted in the compact what happened here but i just want you to respond to the the idea that article six e of the compact in article three a referred to the inflow outflow method then the amended to create a points out that you should look to the manual and the manual in turn talks about factors that may increase or decrease to mexico's obligation and c five then seems to refer to precisely this kind of situation where there have been losses attributable to its storage in new mexico so which parts of that you made take issue with several parts of that chain of reasoning how about it justice kavanagh i agree with everything you said except for the last part timing c five into this dispute i agree that we have to start with the compact itself the compact says use in full outflow unless there is a departure now we go to the river master manual and we see and this is page fifteen a of the texas appendix we see a one saying this is the equation for calculating inflow outflow and then an aide to it says that there are these departures under the terms of the pecos river compact and what that means justice kavanagh is that to invoke one of these departures we have to be able to tie it back to the compact and i think justice kavanagh an analogy might be helpful regarding the delaware river the six of the river master manual gives the math for dealing with the delaware river that's cross referenced in a two after and we see that tide clearly back contact itself in article three b which describes the delaware river water as one of these departures from outflow the same thing goes for c five we're talking about reservoir losses which are spoken to in two places in the compact and not of one supply couple here and so we can't ever get to see five and indeed just as kavanagh even if you're not with  g five on its face does not apply it's talking about the texas outstation well but it doesn't tell us what that is it's talking about water stored this water wasn't stored it was real regulated those water wasn't and of course none of that was at the request of texas indeed it was new mexico that initially wanted this water we regulated so even on its face the five is inflexible but it cannot be tied back to an exception in the compact that would allow the emphasize that this case presents to the court a narrow your question of law that question is whether the compact that congress approved allows for the awarding of the evaporative loss credit now my friends on the other side have failed in their briefing to point to anything in the compact that allows us we've got this general rule in for outflow and that prohibits awarding credits for water that doesn't cross the state line unless there is an exception in the compact and that's the end of this case because there is no exception in the compact and it's always clear to violate federal law as the river master did here setting all that aside if this court wants to look to the equities new mexico has the equities all wrong new mexico is asking this court to give it something for nothing it wants credit for water that it never delivered to texas that neither state could have used and that would have caused environmental catastrophe in new mexico had it been released by the federal government on the other side of that ledger is the fact that texas began releasing water from red bluff wasted an unused in march of two thousand and fifteen to make room for the anticipated releases from bra but because of what was happening in new mexico the federal government kept that water we regulated until august of two thousand and fifteen to allow any county new mexico to recover between march and august of two thousand and fifteen texas released over thirty thousand acre feet from red bluff to make room for the bramley inflow and that water never came because of what was happening in new mexico until the fall under these circumstances it would be extraordinarily inequitable to deprive the farmers and businesses of west texas of a year's worth of irrigation water and  keep justice and they have please a court in this case the court must determine whether texas should be charged for evaporation of water that was stored in new mexico at the request and for technical and if the river master appointed by this court determined that new mexico with entitled to a one time credit the court should reject texas motion challenging the river master determination for two reasons for that so it should be responsible for evaporation losses from water stored at its request for texas request that experts argue that the accounting adjustment was untimely but new mexico was justified in relying on the procedures adopted by the river master for resolving the novel and complex accounting issues as the river master found the state knew from the time of the storm that a one time credit would be retroactively applied in favor of mexico with concurrence from the state the river master notified the court of the gunners on the counting and if that was the procedure for deciding the issue either state objected and in mexico is entitled to rely on the river masters procedure although the dates were in regular contact on the issue texas did not question the timeliness of the river masters procedure until three and one half years after the water had been sto court should deny cactuses motion counsel your friend on the other side says that the water could not have been stored at brantley for texas in the absence of a warrant action contract i'd like your answer to that yes your honor at page sixty eight of the texas appendix you can see an e mail from reclamation in which there indicating to texas two things number one that the water reclamation understood that at that point in and fifteen the water was being stored or texas and nd reclamation could no longer store the water on texas behalf in west texas began to negotiate a warrant after contract we understood and understand that texas always had the option of beginning to negotiate that contract and if they had been reclamation would have continued to store the water you emphasized throughout your  the clearly erroneous standard for reviewing the river master's determinations and it looks to me like we did say that in the nineteen decrees that right it is your honor but i thought in original action that we don't review findings under a clearly erroneous standard because the river master is not in the position of a district court but is acting in our stead and i certainly think there are cases that say that how do you reconcile that you're correct your honor in an original jurisdiction addiction kate ultimately the court is responsible for all the termination and so we're not looking at liability in the st instance i would also say that there is an agreement amongst the states that clearly erroneous standard was applied to review the record in fact proposed a decree in the current form and finally we understand that the rationale for adopting the wrong is clearly erroneous standard was in part to ensure that a series of original actions were not elevated to the court to be decid lines because texas was not there to receive it that's a suggestion i'm not going to read all of the provisions how do you react to that texas as we could have take it and it didn't come across therefore it can't be counted from tropical storm or dial formed part of the water that mexico was obligated to deliver detected and the record is very clear that that but for texas his request to mexico would have delivered that water to the state line   provisions only make sense to the extent that part of the allocation of texas can be stored in mexico as to your question as to whether or not the the water could have been stored in texas i think the river masters finding on  whatever of the term is in the brantley reservoir the bureau of land reclamation for flood control purposes then any evaporation should not be charged against t paragraph five used by the river master key as to whether there is a request for texas from texas here there's no dispute that one of the reasons that there was a significant amount of water had to do with the tropical storm which  reclamation was operating was the flood control authority its authority to do so is relatively broad i think that the record makes clear that and then the river nasser found that in march of two thousand and fifteen march  reclamation would have released that water but for texas has requested it continue to to hold that water under its flood control authority but that has no bearing on whether or not the paragraph the five applie authority by amending the manual to say well i really don't have to file a final report by july the st i can file some other type of report and then make changes to it retroactively don't think that that's what happened here here he did submit a final report if you looked at the two thousand and fifteen final report in particular at page sixty one a there he identified the procedure that the states had agreed upon the procedure to resolve what had been determined whether an unresolved issue and that procedure said either the states would resolve that by agreement or absent that would one of the states could file a motion if you were holding the water for texas he made you pay or took away from you half of the credits for the evaporation from september through march  first of all i don't know how you could have been helping that water for texas in september and october when they didn't ask you to but if they asked you to why aren't you was entitled to the full evaporation credits november until march in part out of a spirit of cooperation and comedy so let me stop you there what would entitle him to have given you saying a spirit of cooperation but if the water was being held both for your benefit and for texas benefit which is how i read his order how to what does that mean on to the normal terms of the compact if you couldn't release the water shouldn't you be paying for the fact ration well i think that that is exactly right prior to november th new mexico would be charged with all of the evaporation and then if you look to paragraph  by the river master manual in that because texas benefits it was for its use pursuant to article twelve or paragraph c five and then certainly new mexico would normally be charged for that water which counsel justice is when you were talking to justice alito you referred to this the reclamation e mail to the states where the bureau says we expect to start releasing this water on march st and you said it one of the mexico never requested that the water be stored and never expressed any concern about the water being released or being held for safety reasons quite the contrary a new mexico made clear that the but for the request from texas it would have release rate at which it should be released and specifically their concern was that the water leads at a rate below one thousand two hundred cubic feet per nd to protect the bridges now that you can see that reclamation considered that issue and said that well we're go release the water at a rate that's consistent with that and you can see at page two hundred and thirty six dollars that when the water was released in august in fact the reclamation did release it at that rate and so there was no reason related to new mexico that the water was stored after march st so why was this the water source well you can see that texas admits that the water is stored for their benefit at both pages eighty a of the texas if and x and page one away and mexico appendix is a letter from two thousand and seventeen and a position paper to the river master in which they had knowledge yes this water was stored after march for our benefit and based on our request and you can see at page sixty eight to be held so that's why is the river master rejected texas position and we also think it's no where they that even though the state had been in regular contact for three and a half years after the flood working through this issue  never raised this position into may of two thousand and eighteen as i said three and a half years after the flood thank you council just discourse which i have no questions thank you chief justice there is no dispute that texas requested that the stormwater be stored and if it and there is no dispute that new mexico conditioned its consent on the agreement that all of the evaporation would be charged to texas or is there any purchase to detect argument credit to new mexico with untimely both states new from the time of the flood that a retroactive adjustment to the accounting would be made with the agreement of the states the river master alerted the court to the unresolved issue and established a procedure for resolving i mexico was justified in following the procedure identified by the river master granting the mexico a credit for the texas water is both consistent with the plain language of the compact and the river maps are manual and the equitable outcome thank you  do think that the provided clause of article twelve is triggered because the water was stored or used by taxes even though perhaps ultimately didn't end up using as much water as it expected and had to wait another water to make  the argument by texas that the river master erred in adding a provision to the manual without the consent of both states we don't believe that that is at issue here because that's not the procedure on which they're ever master allied to make this they just meant to make this a judgment adjustment their m x their allies on the procedures he sat out in the two thousand and fourteen water year report which was  ested by the parties which taxes did not have jack and if texas had objected new mexico could have taken steps to protect its rights like seeking an extension from the scores or moving or manual the other a brooch yes engineering report if you want to measure water which could be measured by the infallible method ok so now we look at the engineering report the engineering report says when a texas allocation other saying it is my request that new mexico store texas's portion of the flows and so this is where we were then c i and the river master treated accordingly i think it's a it's a really straightforward application of  use perhaps what grasp of this case is simplistic but it does seem to me the water must either be held for flood control purposes or for some other purpose and for the when it was being held by the bureau of reclamation for flood control purposes it cannot have been held at texas request which would have required a contract which didn't exist  use the water but i also looked at the glossary from the bureau of reclamation and it says any use which lessens the amount of water available for another use so for example i assuming i disagreed with you what would that do with respect to our decision making can we use article twelve one to explain the proof for a master's decision even though he didn't apply that provision or do we have only the power to review the river master's findings just a semi or let me take those questions in order st our because under that is already reclamation simply flows down the water it doesn't change the ownership or or other aspects of the water but adds to your nd question if you disagree with us on that you can resolve this under article twelve you texas's desires for the bureau to head on to the water started driving the various decision making but isn't is that does that have anything to do with with flood control it was relevant to the reclamation flood control of four at a time i think that that offers a lot of support for this interpretation if you possess for justice course which kopel i appreciate your thoughts on the timing this interpretation of the compact and then amended decree to allow this type of procedure at least when agreed by the party i know of as a fairly included in the river master's authority to issue an  think anything turns on a standard overview we think there are a master director any standard and that because he was close to the parties and all the representations out as well as the technical issues his views on the fact as the discussion today indicate the river master determination is the correct result under a straightforward application of the manual language act this is approach by contrast with not only mexico with the well evaporat counsel general holcomb's three minutes for rebuttal thank you mr chief justice the arguments on the other side confirm that the best approach here is to do what this court said in  three and follow the compact and disallow anything inconsistent with that i didn't hear mr wexler tie see five act anything in the compact and neither did the river master indeed there are master and method and this is a page and eighty six a of the texas appendix that he wasn't following the compact that he was doing equity to new mexico and he was using c five as a free floating provision to do what he subjectively things is fair the united states also doesn't tie this back to the compact except to invoke article three and the one hundred and forty seven condition but that misunderstands article three article three has always applied inflow outflow to figure out the one hundred and forty seven condition and you don't have to take my word manual says that c five is a departure from inflow outflow and explicitly ties it back to the compact the united states thinks that c five is some free floating equitable adjustment that can be deployed independent of the compa and that's contrary to a two and a one hundred and eighty three dollars decision my friends on the other side are accused us of writing c five out of the manual and i just want to underscore that is not true we think that c five fully suggested that ruling for texas will open the door to more of these motion the opposite is true the best way to keep this case out of this court is to reaffirm that the compact controls and apply it strictly and deny the river master free floating equitable powers and the history backs me up on that during the one thousand nine hundred and eighty s there was a special master in this case rather than a river master and under that special master this cage this case reached this technical calculations and nothing more and since that time things have gone great this compact has been relatively amicable and litigation free up until now when the river master stepped away from the compact to apply his subjective sense of equity instead of what congress determined that was clear error and the motion should be granted us the court is for their questions thank you general hawkins the case is submitted