TX Loses to OU, Again

This past week saw another beat down for Texas versus Oklahoma.  Water has replaced football as the new regional battle point.

From the Huffington Post - (Supreme Court Water Decision: Court Sides With Oklahoma In Red River Dispute) -

"WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday decisively sided with Oklahoma and rejected Texas' claim that it has a right under a 30-year-old agreement to cross their common border for water to serve the fast-growing Fort Worth area.

The justices unanimously said that the Red River Compact "creates no cross-border rights in Texas."
The case concerns a dispute over access to southeastern Oklahoma tributaries of the Red River that separates Oklahoma and Texas.

The Tarrant Regional Water District serving an 11-county area in north-central Texas, including Fort Worth and Arlington, wants to buy 150 billion gallons of water and said the four-state compact gives it the right to do so. Arkansas and Louisiana are the other participating states, and they sided with Oklahoma.

"Obviously, we are disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision. Securing additional water resources is essential to North Texas' continued growth and prosperity and will remain one of our top priorities," water district general manager Jim Oliver said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor's opinion for the court made plain that the justices did not find this a close case. "We hold that Tarrant's claims lack merit," Sotomayor said.

The case arose from a federal lawsuit the district filed in 2007 against the Oklahoma Water Resources Board and the Oklahoma Water Conservation Storage Commission that challenged the state's water laws and sought a court order to prevent the board from enforcing them.

Lower courts ruled for Oklahoma, including the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It found that the Red River Compact protects Oklahoma's water statutes from the legal challenge.
Legislation adopted by the Oklahoma Legislature in 2009 said no out-of-state water permit can prevent Oklahoma from meeting its obligations under compacts with other states. It also requires the Water Resources Board to consider in-state water shortages or needs when considering applications for out-of-state water sales."

The case is Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann, 11-889.
From the Supreme Court Ruling (Link to the Supreme Court Ruling) -

"The Red River Compact does not pre-empt Oklahoma’s water statutes because the Compact creates nocross-border rights in its signatories for these statutes toinfringe. Nor do Oklahoma’s laws run afoul of the Commerce Clause. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

It is so ordered."
The view and commentary from the Dallas Morning News (Editorial: Supreme Court Deals North Texas Water Plans a Blow) -

"Call us confused in Texas.

Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana worked for more than 20 years to create a pact that governs water in the Red River. Those states then signed the Red River Compact, whose language tracks that of other interstate water compacts. Congress ratified the agreement in 1980. On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled against the Tarrant Regional Water District’s request to allow it to draw water from an Oklahoma basin covered under the agreement.

The more we think about this unanimous decision, the more confusing it becomes. The justices’ reasoning turned partly upon whether the compact explicitly granted Tarrant the right to apply for water from Oklahoma, and they clearly thought that right wasn’t explicit. But the compact talks about the states each possessing “equal rights” to excess water in one of the river’s sub-basins, as long as downstream concerns in Louisiana have been met.

The phrase equal rights struck us as clear. The U.S. government felt the same way, filing a brief supporting Tarrant’s request for a court hearing.

The Supreme Court’s ruling also hinged on the issue of sovereignty. We respect the rights of individual states, but sovereignty only goes so far when a state enters a compact with other states. Even Chief Justice John Roberts said as much during oral arguments.

But what’s done is done. We North Texans, including our water planners, must now turn to executing other parts of the region’s long-term water plan.

As the court’s opinion noted, we’re one of America’s fastest-growing regions, and our population could double over the next half-century. Without sufficient water supplies, North Texas cannot maintain its growth, much less care for those who already call this home.

What must happen next is for each North Texas voter to approve in November an amendment to the Texas Constitution that would authorize a new statewide water fund. That fund will help finance projects in this region’s water plan.

About 25 percent of North Texas’ future supplies will come through initiatives that promote conserving and reusing water. The region’s strategies also include hookups to existing water sources, such as Lake Tawakoni.

The Supreme Court’s decision increases the chances that this region will need to build the contested Marvin Nichols Reservoir in northeast Texas. Taking the Red River Compact out of the equation blows a hole in our water planning strategies, just as a 2010 Supreme Court ruling dealt a blow when it denied this region the right to build a future Lake Fastrill.

Another troubling and confusing decision is in our hands, and we now must turn to developing other water sources. We have no choice if we’re going to secure our future.

Challenges lie ahead

Why residents in the 16 counties of North Texas must worry about the region’s water supplies:
Approximately 26 percent of Texas’ population resided in this region as of the 2010 census.
The region’s population is expected to grow 96 percent by 2060, to 13 million people.
The region’s water demands are projected to grow 86 percent by 2060.
North Texas’ total water supply is predicted to decline by about 3 percent by 2060.
The total capital costs of the region’s water projects over the next 50 years will be $21.8 billion."

But the good news.  Texas is not Egypt.  As Thomas Friedman noted yesterday in his New York Times column (Egypt's Perilous Drift), water and war can be linked, but the option of a Texas invasion of Oklahoma is probably not in the cards.  Look for Texas to take aggressive positions in water conservation, desalination technology, new water sources, pricing strategies, etc. 

"And the headline news in Cairo last week was Ethiopia’s construction of the biggest hydroelectric dam in Africa, on the Blue Nile. As the reservoir behind the dam is filled up, the water supply to Egypt is likely to be reduced, and since Egypt’s 85 million people get 97 percent of their fresh water from the Nile, this has become a huge issue. Some senior Egyptian officials speak of possible military action to prevent the dam from being completed. President Mohamed Morsi, of the Muslim Brotherhood, on Monday declared publicly of Ethiopia: “We are not calling for war, but we will never permit our water security ... to be threatened.” Egypt, he said, will keep “all options open.” Ethiopia has responded with defiance, with its prime minister, Hailemariam Desalegn, saying “nothing and no one” would stop construction."