Document: 482 U.S. 124 107 S.Ct. 2279 96 L.Ed.2d 105 State of TEXAS, Plaintiffv.State NEW MEXICO. No. 65, Orig. Argued April 29, 1987. Decided June 8, Syllabus The 1949 Pecos River Compact between New Mexico and Texas divides the water States, but, because river's irregular flow, does not specify a particular amount to be delivered by each year. Instead, Article III(a) provides that "New shall deplete man's activities flow at Mexico-Texas state line below an which will give quantity equivalent available under 1947 condition." In 1974, filed this original action resolve dispute States with respect "1947 condition" other matters. A Special Master was appointed, Court previously adopted his report specifying methodology used in calculating Texas' entitlement water. case is now before on both parties' exceptions Master's recent acre-feet shortfall should have been for years 1950-1983, recommending that, addition performing its ongoing obligation Compact, ordered make up accumulated delivering specified year 10 years, penalty kind, i.e., "water interest," any bad-faith failure deliver additional amounts. Held: 1. Both calculation chargeable are rejected. P. 128. 2. There no merit Mexico's contention may order only prospective relief provide remedy past breaches Compact. Although compact, when approved Congress, becomes law United it still contract, subject construction application accordance terms. nothing nature compacts generally or counsels against rectifying perform as well ordering future performance. Moreover, good-faith differences (as here) about scope contractual undertakings do relieve either party from court if contract's terms sufficiently certain basis determining breach has occurred remedy. Pp. 128-129. 3. contends event, afforded option paying money damages shortages. noted sides would possibly better off monetary repayment, he concluded breach, contemplates delivery inconsistent Compact's However, itself prevent suitable remedy, whether money, Eleventh Amendment barrier judgment, since applies suits citizens State. Any concern difficulties enforcing judgments insubstantial here, were awarded, sum awarded forthcoming timely manner, judgment repayment entered. This matter returned such further proceedings deems necessary recommendations allowed elect and, so, size payment must satisfy. 129-132. 4. decree entered current pursuant recommendation applying apportionment formula entirely mechanical involves degree enforcement mechanism supplied, preferred solution—the appointment required periodic calculations—are accepted. Court's jurisdiction over actions like one ample authority appoint master. On remand, requested recommend amendment decree, duties consequences determinations. 133-135. Exceptions sustained part overruled part; WHITE, J., opinion Court, all Members joined, except STEVENS, who took consideration decision case. Charlotte Uram, Santa Fe, N.M., defendant N.M. Renea Hicks, Austin, Tex., plaintiff Tex. Justice WHITE Court. 1 case, here fourth time, Compact1 dividing two States. Because River, did S.Doc. 109, 81st 1st Sess., Art. (1949). parties had different views matters could resolved through Commission, V established carry out provisions can effectively act mutual agreement States.2 After relatively fruitless negotiation, 1974. We granted leave file complaint, 421 927, 95 1652, 44 84 (1975), appointed Master, 423 942, 351, 46 274 Honorable Jean Breitenstein, deceased, then judge Appeals Tenth Circuit recognized expert western law. 2 1979, defining "the proposed river routing study adoption new inflow-outflow manual how much expected receive period level precipitation consumption conditions prevailing 1947. entirety. 446 540, 100 2911, 64 485 (1980). When next we decided attempting restructure Commission enable determine method allocating water, preferring continue litigation mode.3 462 554, 103 2558, 77 (1983). 11, 1984, summarily entitlement.4 467 1238, 104 3505, 82 816. 3 Charles Meyers, Judge Breitenstein's successor, 468 1202, 3568, 868 (1984), held hearings question fulfilled He issued containing findings conclusion 340,100 more than received those years. recommended 34,010 these 4 excepted report, heard oral argument. find reject Mexico.5 5 also excepts short deliveries submission relief, is, requiring performance compact obligations without breaches. If defaults never remedied. our approach 1983. affirmed hear decide claim remanded determination shortfall. As said then, Congress U.S., 564, S.Ct., 2565, but "[a] after all, contract." Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm'n, 359 275, 285, 79 785, 792, 504 (1959) (Frankfurter, dissenting). It remains legal document construed applied West Virginia ex rel. Dyer Sims, 341 22, 28, 71 557, 560, L.Ed. 713 (1951); 2565. called By ratifying Constitution, gave complete judicial power adjudicate disputes among them, Rhode Island Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657, 720, 9 1233 (1838), includes capacity another. 6 Mexico, however, argues it, good faith, believed refrain using. true odds interpretation their respective substantial foundation. Masters acted Breitenstein 1982 "obligation uncertain definition condition translated into quantities numerical standard." Report 18. basic meaning defined until 1979 course litigation; workable translating achieved litigation.6 But intended contract fact for. Restatement (Second) Contracts § 33(2), Comment b (1981). often retroactive impact courts promisor's undertaking; today pay what decides they promised yesterday not. view, cannot escape liability adjudicated failures 7 submits event found entitled shortages ascertained, rather kind. 40-41. possibility discussed some extent once stated might best parties. "stipulated" preferable. Tr. Hearing Before 94 (Apr. 16, 1985). states refers suggested counsel observes contains explicit provision relief. contemplated supports view. 8 rightfully cautious, lack specific not, mandate preclude damages. Nor (1983), necessarily foreclose There, asserted judicially, restructuring administrative That extended devising ascertained quantifying obligation, done. agreed him fully performed, quite sure money. propriety action, South Dakota North Carolina, 192 286, 24 269, 48 448 (1904); Michigan, 190 379, 23 742, 47 1103 (1903); specifically involving Virginia, 246 565, 38 400, 59 1272 (1918). proper actions, barrier, terms, Maryland Louisiana, 451 725, 745, n. 21, 101 2114, 2128, 68 576 (1981); Mississippi, 380 128, 140, 85 808, 814, 13 717 (1965); supra. there caution undermine enter cases undoubted jurisdiction, attested almost invariably "States rendered, conformably duty voluntarily respected effect same." supra, 592, 402. understand pursue thought foreclosed inadequate, unfair, impractical. said, issue raised hearings, record permit confident equitable feasible. To making shortfalls earmarks performance, requires attention relative benefits burdens enjoy suffer compared "[S]pecific demandable absolute right, rests discretion, exercised, true, according settled principles equity, arbitrarily capriciously, always reference facts case." Haffner Dobrinski, 215 446, 450, 30 172, 173, 54 277 (1910). Specific compelled "if circumstances inequitable so." Wesley Eells, 177 370, 376, 20 661, 664, 810 (1900). 11 users suffered caused underdeliveries State, recipients damages, difficult impossible identify. likely fail benefit deprived past.7 awarding ignore long willing financial penalty. light remedying made whatever sanction deliberate perform, conclude ensuing suggest satisfy.8 Meanwhile, form interpreted attached enjoins comply decisions fashioned litigation, occasioned inability votes, agree divided. Neither nor displaces able before, namely, upon mutually satisfactory division utilization history repeats itself, come forth approved. does, petition terminate appropriately modify be. Even takes unpredictability peculiarities Pecos, implemented reflect realities river. appropriate seek done actions. 14 goes further, supplied. accept solution: calculations. 1983, declined tie breaker arrive allocate accordingly proceeded litigative mode construe enforce asserting so unequivocal arrived deem fair solution consistent us master judgment. 591, 401. 15 exercising power, taken distinctly jaundiced view appointing agent functionary implement decrees. Vermont York, 417 270, 2248, 41 61 (1974), emphatically expressed reluctance. recognized, id., 275-276, 2251, solution, one, employed occasion demands. Jersey 283 805, 51 562, 75 1425 (1931); Wisconsin Illinois, 281 179, 50 266, 74 799 (1930). occasions employed. natural propensity disagree allocation leaves room ignored. Absent disinterested determinations binding parties, anticipate series flowing Pecos. therefore calculations provided annually promptly possible data available, representatives Texas. His include negative positive departures credits reflected State's later obligations. 16 Provision decree. suggestions amendments attention. compensation borne equally welcome candidates Master.9 DECREE 17 Ordered, Adjudged, Decreed officers, attorneys, agents, employees hereby enjoined: 18 (A) calculated equation contained Exhibit 68, page 19 (B) calculate Index Inflow component channel-loss equations 79, modified 1987, manmade depletions Mexico. "Index Inflow" mean 3-year progressive average "annual flood inflows" Table 2, p. 5. retains suit purpose order, direction, modification supplementary time deemed relation controversy. signed 1948 1949. I, 10, cl. 3, Constitution "No shall, Consent . another foreign Power. ." composed representative third, nonvoting, rejected "Double Mass Analysis" "Inflow-Outflow" Figure pp. 4, properly described used. 10,000 higher past. Inflow-Outflow Manual incorporated proved faulty unusable. way general coffers hurt. permitted bring public interest sovereign plaintiff. See 735-739, 2123-2125, wholly recover free spend determines interest. recommends approve postjudgment paid. paid, appear report. plus net accruing date hereof, which, entitle apply enforcement, cf. Wyoming Colorado, 309 572, 573, 60 765, 954 (1940), during satisfied. unpersuaded, unless proves necessary. statutory allow action. relies statement Pierce 255 398, 406, 365, 368, 65 697 (1921), absent authority. bound rule jurisdiction. 238 202, 242, 35 795, 811, (1915), express federal award STEVENS

Category: 10