your argument first this morning in case the original case number one forty one texas vs new mexico and colorado was a condo mr chief justice and may it please the court the rio grande compact is an unusual interstate compact in that it does not require new mexico to deliver water to the texas state line instead when the compact was adopted in one nine hundred thirty nine it incorporated and relied upon an existing bureau of reclamation project as part of the equitable apportionment framework because reclamation controls releases from the project for delivery to contract holders below the reservoir and in mexico the state of new mexico asserted that this case could not go forward without the united states participation as a party to be bound by this courts to create to permit a full resolution of the dispute in the united states intervened as a plaintiff filed a complaint that presented the federal government's interests that are at stake in this dispute and explain injunctive relief against new mexico could be shaped to protect those interests in its complaint the united states did not distinguish between claims process pursuant to the compact and claims brought pursuant to other laws that distinction is at issue because the master in his recommendation but distinguish between such claims i'd like to know what they are so could you identify them first and then tell me how any interests have not been addressed in the new mexico state action i know that's not an issue in this discrete question before us but i still don't quite understand why you need this claim what's  different what's different from that new mexico claim you're asking about the difference between a compact claim and a claim brought under regular treatment of reckless and often think the problem we're trying to avoid here is that when the united states s somebody for a violation of reclamation law taking water from a reclamation project without a contract or acting in a way that undermines the united states ability to comply with the treaty it's typically suing the individual water users that are violating those laws or interfering with that obligation of the united states to deliver water under a treaty what we're trying to avoid here is a future motion to dismiss filed by new mexico which it which indicates or insinuates on page fourteen of its reply brief that actions brought under reclamation law or under the treaty should be filed against individual water users we think we can file these claims against new mexico because of the compact we can follow them against the state of new mexico because reclamation law what what our complaint does as we've done in other cases where we've intervened as a plaintiff is set forth what the united states interests are and then tell the court how we think it can shape injunctive relief against new mexico to protect those interests so can you can you explain and you're not claiming that and every time they say compact approved by congress you would have a right to come into court if that's correct we're into what's the dividing line between when you can come in as a party and they're a kind of pact and when despite a compact you can't come where the compact protects specific federal interests that are at stake in the dispute that's been filed in this court then we believe the united states can and can intervene as a plaintiff and bring claims against new mexico wants to use that was in the compact the compact does not make any reference to your treaty to our treaty obligations in a way that protects them this is in the compact it's page eighty three of the appendix of the masters report we're looking here at the definitions of project storage and of usable water so that's article one k and l of the compact article four defines new mexico's obligation to deliver water into elephant the reservoir into the project article one k defines project storage as the combined capacity of elephant the reservoir in the as of ours below it those are all projects operated by reclamation in article one l the definition of usable water says that all the usable water is all water exclusive of credit water which is in project storage and which is available for release in accordance with irrigation demands including deliveries to mexico those those deliveries that article one l refers to what the usable water that's delivered into the project is to be used for our releases that the bureau of reclamation makes because it operates the project it has contracts with irrigation districts below the prop project and it has a treaty with mexico saying how much how much water they are entitled what difference does it make i mean if if you are not entitled to raise this claim as a party certainly you can participate as an amicus and make whatever arguments you want about how the compact should be properly construed right that's so what difference does it make to you which way we rule on the question whether or not you are entitled to raise these claims yourself i think a couple of reasons first of all we intervene in this case because new mexico asserted that the united states is a required party  and the united states operates this reservoir that the court will will be deciding what is texas is compact apportionment what is new mexico new mexico's compact apportionment under the reservoir and as new mexico explained in its its brief opposing texas motion for leave to even filed this complaint in the first place you need the united states to be bound by that decree because we are the entity that releases that water additionally we have interests that are at stake in delivering water  to mexico pursuant to a treaty that makes sense where we would like to be a party presenting the federal interests rather than being an amicus this is a pretty basic question i suppose we should know but can you compromise state rights in the negotiation determination of the two you could you negotiate a treaty with mexico that says we're going to give you this many acre feet of water that is already appropriated somewhere else and then that treaty obligation trumps whatever the prior allocations are i'm not totally sure i think probably yes in this case it doesn't matter because the treaty preexisted the compact  statute after a treaty is not well the this is not a completely clear area of the law but there's a general working rule applied in some of the cases that the later in time controls if there's a conflict between a treaty and a later federal statute and we don't think there's any kind of a conflict here in fact article sixteen of the treaty specifically disclaims any intent to affect the united states treaty obligation to mexico so we think that article should be read to mean that we're still going with sixty thousand acre feet we're still going with the terms of the treaty obligation which congress as as you say justice kennedy could change as a matter of domestic law but here the parties agreed in the compact that they would protect releases from the project that that water delivered into the project becomes usable water that reclamation releases in accordance with your geisha man's and to satisfy its treaty obligations in mexico i don't understand what you mean when you say that if you're not a party you're not going to be bound by the decree i mean what does it mean to say you're not bound by that well i think that's it's sort flow of the side of the argument that were required party you need the united states to implement that to create and surely i mean that if i don't know that if the court said here's what texas compact apportionment is and here's what mexico's is that the united states would sit back and say well our contracts still say a different amount so we're going to go with a different amount but i think that's what makes us a required party that's why new mexico is asserting that you need us here and that's why we're here trying to be helpful and asserting in our complaint what the federal interests are that we are seeking to protect so sense since the united states needs to be bound by that in order for in order for there to be complete relief against the between the parties we are here we are we are willing to be bound by that decree and all that we're asking is that we be permitted to put on the right though that your argument would also allow you to have in the first place in other words even if there hadn't been a suit between the states that you could have said new mexico is is taken too much water and it's preventing us from meeting our obligations and that you could have initiated a suit under the compact yes we do make an argument at the end of our brief in opposition to new mexico's motion to dismiss that even if texas is complaint were dismissed here the united states claims against new mexico could go forward i don't think the court needs to reach that because texas is complaint is going forward this court has denied new mexico's motion to dismiss what the difference how can we say yes you have the right to intervene even though you don't have the right to bring your own suit initially the court's standard for intervention is that intervention of the united states is appropriate where there is distinctive federal interests at stake that are best presented by the united states so i mean i guess the court could say you know we don't have any claims but we could be a defendant something like that we need to be here in the case in order to be able to present evidence and to be able to be bound by this decree but our argument that some kind of one of the federal interests you've asserted is the treaty with mexico  and i'm curious how it interacts with this court's decision in many more this court distinguish between self executing treaties and trees that aren't self executing is the treaty here self executing and if it's not the state department was not included in our you know our collaboration in this case so i don't i actually don't know the answer to whether it's a self executing treaty it was an act in the public law as it has been executed for how many years it's been in existence since one thousand and six and the united states makes deliveries pursuant to it it's in the bureau of reclamation two thousand and eight operating agreement with the irrigation districts it calculates what the that's correct and that's the end of that is ok so it's been an act is it do we know that that's the end of that i mean it sounds like you haven't studied the question of whether it's self executing or not does the government have a position on that i don't ok i don't  kagan to get back to your question the reason why we think that we can bring a claim to enforce this compact against new mexico is based on this court's line of cases that we've cited a few in our brief sanitary district of chicago versus united states  and a fourth circuit case the county of arlington versus united states where this court and the fourth circuit in that case have held that the united states can bring suit for injunctive relief to protect federal interests that are at stake in a dispute  insanitary district of chicago the united states sued in illinois corporation that was using too much water or water in excess of its permit allocation and the united states brought a suit directly against the corporation this court said there's no statutory cause of action that's required the united states can just bring that claim for injunction and if i could and i'm sorry just to just to sort of my us question but to make sure i understood the answer to it i know you were freed that if this goes forward reclamation you might be subject to this motion to dismiss on the ground that you can't sue a state under that law but putting that aside is the content of the two suits if you had brought the the suit under reclamation law and if you had brought the suit under the compact is the content of the suit different or the same but i think it's the same because and that's part of the reason why we are filing an exception here to the master's recommendation that  complaint has to be dismissed to the extent it states a compact claim is that the reason we think new mexico is bound by these obligations to protect the project and to have its water users not violate reclamation law or undermine the treaty is because new mexico has signed on to the compact agreeing to protect the project your argument really is like an implied right of action argument is not i mean the compact doesn't give you any rights and yet you say because facts your interests you have a right to sue and you make the third party beneficiary your argument which is an argument that's often made to support an implied right of action but you have to approve a compact you the federal government before it goes into effect couldn't you have protected your interests at that time well are saying we're not going to approve when i go to prove it unless we have the right to bring you know claims to enforce it and you can imagine a group of states or two states saying or and i'm happy to agree with this but we don't want the united states coming in and  you know mucking everything up and so long as you're ok with that and you know you give your consent i don't know why you should be allowed to litigate to forty i'm not aware of any compacts where the united states has preserved that right for itself to intervene and bring suits to bring people into compliance with the compact i think here i wouldn't necessarily think of it so much as a compact claim but a suit for equitable relief where that relief or asking for is that new mexico be required to comply with its compact obligations that's where this and the implied right of action is coming just from this court's cases like sanitary district and ray debs the san jacinto ten company it's more of just an equitable action because this court  is acting in equity when it's interpreting interstate compacts the relief that we're seeking is that new mexico be brought into compliance with its compact obligations if i could i'd like to reserve my time for abo general color thank you mr chief justice and may please the court the u s can raise its own compact claims because the compact creates a statutory duty for the us to distribute water to texas the statutory duty arises from three key facts first the us own as an operates the rio grande project second that project is a necessary predicate for the compact equitable apportionment to quote nebraska versus wyoming and third that project is the sole means to actually distribute the equitable apportionment to texas and so to put it's a simply end quote the special master the signatory states intended to use the project is the vehicle to guarantee delivery of taxes yes because of the nature of this unique compact because the water that new mexico delivers to the federal government is in the middle of new mexico instead of at the state line the united states that is a carrier or distributor has a duty to ensure that there is an equitable portion and so this goes to the heart of the special masters correct conclusion that when new mexico deposits water elephant butte reservoir they must relinquish control now in new mexico's relinquishing control the relinquishing control federal government there be no other way for this compact to work and that's precisely why the compact itself refers directly or indirectly over fifty times to the project and that is the federal project operated by the bureau of reclamation and so just the united states could sue new mexico to enforce its ability to ensure that texas receives its equitable apportionment just like the compact does provide for the usable water definition in the irrigation demands including what is also being delivered to mexico and it is the longstanding practice of the parties and this is in the master's report at page two hundred nine that there is a generally a sixty thousand acre feet of water being delivered to new mexico that's coming off the top before we get into the parties accepted fifty seven to forty three percent split between the water but all those issues about how exactly what quantities of water will actually occur of course will be litigated in due course but for now the issue before the court is fairly narrow it's under this particular compact when the water is being delivered in the middle of another state and yet a downstream state has an equitable apportionment can the united states bring its own claims as a carrier  another way of thinking the thing i believe it is another way of saying the same thing their claims are rising to the compact itself because the compact is doing interstate equitable apportionment between new mexico colorado and texas now my friends on the other side of spoken often about treaty claims and reclamation law claims that would invoke state law but the central focus of this lawsuit that texas has raised here is about the compact in the interstate equitable apportionment as opposed to any intrust allotment and so the reclamation that claims that the special master said could go forward that the united states is raised those may not necessarily be claims against another state as a sovereign and so there would be potential confusion if the united states his claims were not compact claims and in original action between sovereigns but rather instead were somehow reclamation law claims that were invoking state law against particular water users and so i think for judicial economy the proper way for this lawsuit to go forward is indeed to allow the united states in texas to bring compact interstate equitable portion of claims and if those are result i understand you are actually taking the position that the federal government can't sue and others the recommendation carriers they would have to sue the farmers who were diverted that is that is probably correct because there would not necessarily be a state law basis under the rubble reclamation but also under hinder line or in that line of cases when there are these disputes between states it is going to be new mexico's duty to prevent diversions of water so even if there were particular water users under this compact new mexico cannot allow diversions that would interfere with texas equitable portion which is exactly what is legal in the us intervene but not beyond addressing any legal matter beyond the compaq claims i wasn't quite sure what you the asian they might try to do and why we would at this early stage hine on that issue no names like an advisory opinion to the special master when you would not necessarily have to opine on precisely how the litigation will go forward however the the crux of this lawsuit is an interstate equitable apportionment compact claim and i believe justice sort of more that's precisely why the united states is here wanting to raise those compact claims but for purposes of how that would operate knowing whether the suit would be against a sovereign state or knowing if would be against individual water users that would certainly affect the interests involved in how the case would proceed why is that  i mean this is really just a question of timing i mean you're saying the united states can't release these claims because of our view about how the compact applies but i mean is there any reason not to go forward with the litigation at the end if  the master thinks they don't have a claim under the compact laws then we can say that at that time but it but at this point we now have to make determinations that i'm concerned about the impact on other compacts and what's involved besides simply the timing mr chief justice from our perspective the practical difference is going to be minimal the state of texas will continue to bring its compact claims in the equitable portion that is at the center of that dispute at the same time the court can rule that the united states can bring its own compact claims here because of the unique nature of this compact given that the delivery of water occurs in the middle of new mexico and then the united states is the distributor and carrier to use the language of the one thousand nine hundred five nebraska versus wyoming decision to ensure that that that texas is equitable apportioned water while it is being relinquished control in the middle of new mexico instead of the state line does reach texas and indeed to new mexico i think i should have asked ms o'connell this but do you view the united states  as interests as diversion from texas is interests in any way that we yes we will have some disputes and this will come up later in the litigation over precisely how the equitable portion it should be calculated but for purposes of the question presented to this court today we do not diverge and we believe the united states should be able to raise its oh no but i meant as the litigation proceeds would there be a difference if only you were in the lawsuit as you know and with presumably the united states as an amicus verses having the united states in as a party what potentially justice kagan just based on the arguments that would be raised as to whether the equitable apportionment was actually being fulfilled but as far as the the main thrust of the argument united states agrees with texas that new mexico is allowing diversions of water and therefore interfering with the equable a portion of water to texas i don't was ruder answering justice kagan she said go to the end of the litigation we're with you in the u s to for what one issue what what issues are there issues in which there can be a difference possibly one issue for instance there was an a settlement agreement an operating agreement that the state of texas never entered into and so it cannot be bound by but the current practice is to use a regression analysis that was looking at dates from the one nine hundred fifty s to the one nine hundred seventy s to calculate return flows which is going to affect the amount of water that is going to be part of the project lands the usable water now our position is that it's the compact and not in the time in one nine hundred thirty eight when the compact was entered into that you control that analysis rather than regression analysis years later that is one example of an issue where the state of texas and united states are not exactly going to be raising the same arguments however and these are going to be arguments that will play out in the remainder of the litigation but for purposes of the issue today we agree that the united states can  settled run litigation rather than to have to start that action against the state yes and we believe that this lawsuit should continue forward and that state of texas be allowed to raise these compact claims and settle this in general garner thank you mr chief justice and may it please the court i'd like to begin if i can by discussing united states exception of the special master's report and turn later to colorado's first exception regarding united states exception what the united states is asking for here in a century of colorado negotiating administering and litigating compaq's like those including those the united states has never asserted in this court has never recognized the right of the united states to bring an independent action it's true this court has never for close such a claim but if you look back through cases including kansas versus nebraska which is perhaps the best most recent example that was a case between states that resulted in a settlement agreement among states the united states was not party to that settlement agreement in fact if you read the settlement agreement the united states is sort of relegated to amicus status in future disputes under that settlement agreement if the united states has the authority to bring independent claims in a compact how do the states don't agree that the prominence of the federal facility in this compact is substantially less than the prominence of federal facilities on for example the republican river if you review the briefing in the united states in the republican river case from twenty fifteen and they said look at the groundwater pumping from new mexico could impede this project to the point where people will start defaulting on contracts that's a pretty significant interest the united states asserted there very similar to the interests asserting here in the united states was amicus in the have to be available for release in accordance with irrigation and including deliveries to mexico this is an international obligation on the united states to the united states would be remiss if it ignored absolutely and that's why we think it is perfectly appropriate for the united states to bring a treaty claim in this case but what the compact does not do is within the context of the apportionment among the states give the united states a right under this compact in this compact used to reconcile involves the i'm sure the united states takes the position that the compact is consistent with indeed furthers its obligations under the code the treaty does yes well i think it's a question of there are multiple layers of laws that are issue in interstate water cases obviously you have state water rights united states must obtain those state water rights to operate the project that's as far back as the reclamation act of one thousand and two which preceded this compact there's the treaty can't claim there's a lot of reclamation issues the question that got colorado's attention what we're concerned about is that is this very new argument in our mind of the united states being able to apportionment of rights it was seeking into clara tory judgment basically like in this case as a operator of the facility at issue that was wyoming who sued the united states but  they're pretty much mirrors of each other i don't necessarily think they're mirrors of each other i do acknowledge there is some ambiguity in the way those i think there are four or five separate opinions of the special master discussions and the briefing discusses a couple of points of difference one the united states was made a party to that equitable portion went to korea i think that is significant the united states is not a signatory to this compact so i don't think nebraska on that issue is necessarily dispositive here i also the decree and an earlier decisions by this court in that same ongoing dispute the court said look federal reclamation water rights come from state law the apportionment will in compass that state law and so it's sort of it's the tail wagging the dog to say that the united cases the united states could be a party to such a suit the constitution says that no state shall with the book consent of congress and threw into any cause and therefore we need the consent of congress obviously the founders who wrote this wouldn't want three or four or five or six states to enter into some compact that might wreck the union so doesn't that suggest they do have the right the united states to intervene at least where there is a federal interest and now here you've seen the federal interest listed the third party  beneficiary interest the interest that they have to deal with this water the interest that they have in terms of the treaty of mexico so it seemed to me quite simple the constitution foresees that they can intervene where there's an interest they have several absolutely has to approve a compact but what it proves is the terms of that contact and the terms of this compact give substantive rights to texas and the commissioners who are voting rights the united states is not a voting right on this commission to demand releases of water due to carry out the equitable portion of the compact what i will say is i think there is a difference that the united states to doesn't draw and its briefing between legislation carried out of the commerce clause of the treaty power and choosing to go a different route which is to say telling new mexico and colorado and texas back in the early to early twenty's negotiate this compact and decide the apportionment among yourselves and that will be the way that we determine how this water is a portion that's very different from the united states saying we will exercise our commerce power or treaty power to determine the equitable portal i discovered in rome and imposed on the states let me you don't disagree do you or tell me if you do but the united states has important interests here and you know part of those interests are international having to do with the relationship with mexico but part of them are domestic because the united states is and was even prior to this compact in a set of contractual agreements that they give it duties with respect to this water so do you agree that the interests are pretty strong here yes ok so how in your view does the united states protect those interests well i think it two ways first of all with respect to the tree interest absolutely we think that it's appropriate to include treaty claims in this case second of all with respect to all of those interests which are identical to those that are issue in cases like kansas for snow brassica it does what it's always done i don't know what that means to those mean the domestic issues yes the domestic issues which congress has said for one hundred thirty years project rights are state law water rights that are subsumed within an equitable portion meant that the state's either negotiator this court sets so it's no different from the many cases the united states has participated in either as amicus which i think is a pretty strong indication that in past cases at least the united states has and saw fit to try to establish the president of being able to take states in the litigation when they're not in litigation and it can assert those interests and make all the arguments that it needs to make and i think it gets back to the history of i'm still stuck on this i understand your your carving out of the treaty interest but the united states has preexisting contract obligations to two water districts to provide a certain amount of water and the resolution of this compact dispute could affect the united states is ability to fulfill its contractual obligations i think you'd agree with that i i would agree with that and why isn't why isn't that significant federal interest rate there it's not that it's not a significant federal interest it's a question of what is the substantive right the united states is asserting here and it's just like hinder light or the united states rights to this water rise under new mexico law in fact new mexico territorial law back in zero six and zero eight to the extent the equitable portion of the compact affects those rights that was consistent with the scheme congress put in place when it said us go to state court and get water rights that's how we will effect these i'm sorry let's take a situation in which the contract is clear right forget about surface water you have to deliver x cubic feet of water every year and the contract is just like this one it authorizes the united states to or there's a federal law that authorizes the united states to distribute that water in a certain way now you pretend it's your position that the government couldn't come in and say to you deliver the water because i have a federal interest in ensuring that the contracts that i signed dependent on your clear contractual obligation doesn't give me a right either to sue you or to bring a claim under that contract well we're obligated to do something to the or to the united for the united  just a sort of my we're not taking a position on any other type of claim the united states may or may not have under other substantive bodies of law including state law treaties and reclamation law all we're saying is that this is texas said i think several times during argument at the heart of this case is an apportionment between the states but think about this this goes back justice prior said look congress approved this compact now it did so against a backdrop in which the united states already had sions obligations to mexico but also contractual obligations to domestic parties now how could it have approved that compact unless it said we took a look at this compact and we think it will allow us to fulfill all of our obligations both domestic and international and you have to think in a case like this that the approval of the compact was premised on an understanding that it would protect the united states is own interests which is exactly what the united states is trying to assert here and i think the question is how does the united states protect that interest because the premise of the compact was also the nineteen zero two reclamation act which was in effect for three six years before this compact was signed it's a very clearly federal government go to state court go to state administrative mechanisms to get your water right and then this court here lighter said and by the way whatever right you get under state law will always be subservient to and contained within either a compact where decrease it by this court so i think it's a question of where how does the quote does the united states protect those interest in what is the substantive body of law under which you can do so we don't object to united states bringing arguments in this case participating but we want to be very careful about what precedent this sets for other compact disputes in the future we're very concerned about that and the united states is one reason they need to participate as a party rather than  amicus is because otherwise they would not be bound by the decree aren't you worried about that i think you know where you're going if you prevail it's not going to mean much because the united states doesn't feel bound by i think that again flips the the legal regime on its head of course they'll be bound they have a state law water right that rises no higher than this compact and so they will certainly be bound to the extent that this compact informs the scope of water rights that new mexico can grant and administer under its law and same with texas one of the things i did to me that's the best argued argument you can make for the fact that the united states has a vital interest here then we don't dispute it has an interest in this case and not a participate in this case our concern is under what substantive law and what it will what it will be able to do in stake in this case every water user in texas and in mexico that receives project water is very keen on this case and will ultimately be bound by it under parents petrea and that's of course the whole point of this regime the states apportion water among themselves water rights within those states must be administered consistent with that well if they want to it's one thing to say that state litigation can bind its own citizens and it's another thing to say that state litigation can bind the federal government without the federal government being allowed to participate in that litigation well and the united states for many years litigating these cases has dissipated in these suits despite strong federal interest without being a party in a certain claims under the decided the united states is a party to this case the intervention has been granted we don't dispute that and never have the question is what substantive right is the united states asserting i would like to go back to the chief justices question if i could and the question is what difference does it make here to recognize for the first time this right which colorado is very concerned about in this litigation we don't necessarily think that's necessary we think the court can reserve the question i think some of the justices of the observed here the issue of deliveries to texas will be litigated through texas is compact claim the issue of deliveries to mexico will be litigated through the treaty claim so to recognize this right for the first time here in the context of a case where we don't think it's necessary i think establishes precedent that just simply isn't necessary to establish and in the context of this case i defy could turn very briefly to colorado's first exception our point here is is just really an echo of what the other states have raised concerns about which is that this is an apportionment case  reclamation law claims can introduce a lot of extraneous inch issues into this litigation that aren't necessarily needed for the apportionment decision to be accomplished by this court what i would point you to is to look at new mexico's district court complaint that they brought against the u s in the water districts and twenty a lot of them raising reclamation all claims regarding the two thousand and eight operating agreement there are all kinds of claims in that case i think if the apportionment is decided by this court that will certainly inform state law water rights in the state adjudication it will also inform reclamation law claims that can then be sorted out in the lower courts as necessary secondly new mexico has not taken exception to the special master's recommendation that the united states be allowed to raise a claim under reclamation law in order to protect its interests finally new mexico does not dispute that the united states can bring a claim for alleged interference with its one thousand zero six treaty with mexico it's just that that claim also arises does not arise in the under the compact but under the treaty itself and how do you think those claims would differ from claims that are brought under the compact this court has already deemed that if the united states is allowed to enforce its treaty obligation of the sixty thousand acre feet a year under the treaty then you don't open that door under the compact claim that my colleague was just speaking about which would allow the united states to  to for the first time ever raise a compact claim in a compact under which it receives no allocation of water and what about these other obligations that the united states has he said you can bring reclamation claims for those what's the difference there i mean i'm trying to figure out why everybody cares so much that this is a claim under the compact rather than under these other bodies of law just saying i think i think everybody cares so much because the reclamation act in one thousand or two is a very comprehensive body of law and it allows the united states or compas almost anything that it's looking to do here it's important to know that there's no claim there's no remedy that the united states is seeking in this litigation that it can under the compact that i care receive under that conference a body of law that is a reclamation act but the reason why i think new mexico cares and i think in colorado as well is this court has never allowed the here for the it states to raise a claim under a compact which which provides it no explicit protections if you if you allow them to you if you allow the united states to read that implicit right then i think you're opening up a dangerous store in which the united states can raise can try to raise implicit rights not only and this compact but in every compact across the country i suppose one reason the united states may be interested is if it has compact claims that there litigated here if they're under the reclamation act or litigated in a complex proceeding in state court right then not you know your honor i think the special master in this case found a very elegant solution and that's why we don't oppose it in  allowing them to participate in this case under the reclamation act as i said there's no remedy that they've sought in their complaint in this case that that they can't get in the recommendation act of one thousand and two that they can get out of the compact and so it would be litigated here in this court for  ne compact and state administers the water rights but we can do so in a manner which is inconsistent with the compact therefore this court has already placed those protections in place so that the united states reclamation law claim and indeed in this case that the united states is a necessary party but their claims arise under the reclamation act of nights on two and not under the compact and so the special master was correct in his recommendation that the united states should participate in order to enforce its treaty obligations but it does so under the tree which it can bring in in this litigation and as far as rights is trying to enforce as far as as well as water ice and other interests that those would be brought into the recreation act of one thousand or two in this litigation so they are necessary party just not a not a not just not allowed to bring compact claims in our opinion as i'd like to point real quickly to the little bit when you made that justice ginsburg ginsburg new mexico backed away from that position we have ceded to the fact that the project is incorporated into the into the compact it's just in the incorporation of that project were not of seen the   we the special master found a very elegant solution which we support and think that they're they still need to participate but participating under the reclamation act under the treaty itself is the manner in which the united states can  do you think the state could sue the united states under this compact if the united states started acting in a way that was inconsistent with its terms just saying yes i do i do believe so i believe that that a state has  the the opportunity to try and sue the united states for example if we were to say if the rescue is to say your operation of the project is interfering with our ability to meet our compact obligations to the state of texas i believe that we could do so if the united states is so integral part of this system that estate could sue the federal government why can't the same be true back again the other way because the united states doesn't own any any right any water  rights under under the compact or even under the project those water rights are owned by the landowners themselves who are represented by their individual states as parents patrick and so the united states has an interest in the in the project and they can certainly important to note that both texas claims in the united states claims arise under the same operative facts and and so texas will be able to and i believe both texas and the united states agree that later in the litigation they're not sure as you heard that the generals say they're not sure whether or not the interests are going to be the same at that at the end of this but i'm sorry if you say the united states and the project they can they they can s requires the mexico to deliver a certain amount of water to the united states and not to touch that water that's the government's action you're you're not exceeding that that's with the contract doesn't require the night it's going to mexico to deliver any portion of water to the united states the project is simply a delivery vehicle the water is already allocated amongst the three states itself and while the united states uses the vehicle as a means to meet its treaty obligations with the republic of mexico it's important to note that they have first entitle me to that water and they deliver that water first every year thank you counsel thank you for this on recent column you have four minutes remaining thank you mr chief justice three points in rebuttal the first is in response to colorado's argument that the complaint filed by the united states in this case is unprecedented it's not the case that colorado is is relying upon kansas versus nebraska was a case where there was an admitted violation of a compact by nebraska the states were just talking about what the damages were the united states operations of any projects in that region were not going to be affected by what the damages were that's why we participated in this case as an amicus in other cases we've cited some in our briefs texas versus new mexico the pay goes river case and also texas and new mexico versus colorado a prior case brought in in order to enforce the same compact the rio grande compact in both of those cases the defendant state so in the pinkos river case new mexico and texas versus colorado colorado asserted that the united states was a required party to the action and so to be helpful we intervened as a plaintiff in each of those cases presented what the united states interests were and then asked for general equitable relief whatever relief would protect our interests in the texas versus colorado the united states specifically explained that even though it has no apportionment of water under the rio grande compact it acknowledged that the compact could be interpreted in such a way as to affect the united states interests and it believed its interests would be protected by colorado's compliance with the compact you weren't or answering the question whether there's a difference between the claims asserted by texas and the united states their interests are not necessarily completely aligned in this case this is an interstate project that has delivery obligations both in new mexico and t as of the united states couldn't be expected to rely on texas to assert its interest here the project also has international obligations to mexico as we've discussed quite a bit and i'll point out that under article two of that treaty with mexico if there's not enough water for the irrigation districts in the united states the amount that we send to mexico becomes less and so the united states has quite an interest that we couldn't be expected to rot rely on texas to protect in making sure that that mexico is shorted because of the way that the compact is interpreted finally just on this point of justice kagan put it why everybody cares so much about whether these are compact claims or reclamation law claims the master said that we could bring reclamation law claims we're not totally sure that that's enough to bring claims against the state of new mexico the reason why new mexico is a proper defendant against such claims is because of the compact because the compact has bound new mexico to protect the project and to allow the united states to release water in order to to meet its contract obligations and its treaty obligations to mexico and so we don't want there to be any confusion going forward when the united when the master the united states complaint has to be dismissed to the extent it brings claims under the compact what that means we think we sort of need the compact to make those other claims work thank you thank you council the case is submitted