Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Herrmann
2013 U.S. LEXIS 4542, 186 L. Ed. 2d 153, 569 U.S. 614 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Silence in an interstate compact regarding cross-border rights to natural resources, such as water, does not grant such rights. States retain sovereign control over resources within their borders unless they explicitly and clearly cede that authority in the compact's text.
Facts:
- The states of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana negotiated and entered into the Red River Compact in 1978 to apportion water rights in the Red River basin.
- The population of the Dallas-Fort Worth area in north Texas, served by petitioner Tarrant Regional Water District (Tarrant), experienced significant growth, increasing the demand for water.
- A long drought in Texas exacerbated the region's water needs, prompting Tarrant to seek new water sources.
- From 2000 to 2002, Tarrant unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate the purchase of water from Oklahoma and the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations.
- Oklahoma has several state statutes that collectively restrict or prevent out-of-state entities from appropriating or diverting water from within Oklahoma's borders.
- In 2007, Tarrant applied to the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) for a permit to take 310,000 acre-feet of surface water per year from the Kiamichi River, a Red River tributary located entirely within Oklahoma.
Procedural Posture:
- Tarrant Regional Water District filed suit against the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) and its members in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
- Tarrant sought an injunction against the enforcement of Oklahoma's water statutes, arguing they were preempted by the Red River Compact and violated the dormant Commerce Clause.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the OWRB.
- Tarrant appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the OWRB.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted Tarrant's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Red River Compact grant signatory states cross-border rights to divert water, thereby preempting Oklahoma statutes that restrict out-of-state water diversions?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sotomayor
No. The Red River Compact does not create cross-border rights for signatory states to take water from within another signatory's territory and therefore does not preempt Oklahoma's water statutes. Interpreting the compact using principles of contract law, the Court found that the compact's silence on cross-border diversions, when read in context, does not grant such a right. The Court reasoned that states, as sovereign entities, do not easily cede control over water within their own territories, and any such cession must be clearly stated, not inferred from silence. This interpretation is supported by the fact that other interstate water compacts explicitly provide for cross-border rights and establish mechanisms to manage them, which the Red River Compact lacks. Furthermore, the parties' course of performance, including Tarrant's prior attempt to purchase water from Oklahoma, indicates that no state understood the Compact to grant such rights. The Court also rejected Tarrant's dormant Commerce Clause claim, holding that because the Compact allocates all the water in the relevant subbasin, there is no 'unallocated' water for Oklahoma's laws to discriminate against in interstate commerce.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that state sovereignty over internal natural resources is a formidable background principle in interpreting interstate compacts. It establishes that a state's surrender of its authority to control water within its borders must be express and unambiguous. By refusing to infer cross-border rights from a compact's silence, the Court provides greater legal certainty to states managing water under compacts that lack explicit diversion language. This ruling will make it significantly more difficult for entities in one state to claim rights to water located in another state based on ambiguous compact terms, thereby reinforcing the importance of state boundaries in water law.
