Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Herrmann
133 S. Ct. 2120
| SCOTUS | 2013Background
- Red River Compact allocates basin water among Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana; Reach II subbasin 5 in Oklahoma is at issue.
- Tarrant seeks an Oklahoma permit to divert water from subbasin 5 and claims federal pre-emption under the Compact.
- Oklahoma statutes restrict out-of-state diversions and require permits for water use; Tarrant sued to enjoin these laws as pre-empted and as Commerce Clause violations.
- District Court and Tenth Circuit ruled in favor of Oklahoma, rejecting pre-emption and Commerce Clause challenges.
- Court holds that the Compact does not pre-empt Oklahoma laws and that Oklahoma laws do not violate the Commerce Clause.
- Focuses on whether §5.05(b)(1)’s silence on borders creates cross-border rights and whether the Compact leaves any unallocated water for out-of-state use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Compact pre-empt Oklahoma water statutes? | Tarrant argues §5.05(b)(1) creates cross-border rights. | Oklahoma contends no cross-border rights exist; silence is ambiguous. | Compact does not pre-empt Oklahoma laws. |
| Does the Compact allocate cross-border rights to permit cross-border diversions? | Silence on borders implies cross-border rights. | Silence does not show such rights; borders respected. | No cross-border rights are granted. |
| Do Oklahoma statutes violate the Commerce Clause by blocking unallocated water? | Unallocated water could be shipped out-of-state. | No unallocated water remains under the Compact; allocations are defined. | Commerce Clause challenge fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas v. New Mexico, 482 U.S. 124 (1987) (governs interpretation of interstate compacts)
- Virginia v. Maryland, 540 U.S. 56 (2003) (silence in compacts about sovereignty signals state rights preserved)
- Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. 330 (2010) (course of performance informs interpretation of compacts)
- United States v. Alaska, 521 U.S. 1 (1997) (sovereign rights over navigable waters; title presumptions)
- Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) (presumption against defeat of state title to beds of navigable waters)
- Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 (1982) (dormant Commerce Clause relevance to water rights)
- New Jersey v. New York, 523 U.S. 767 (1998) (silence in compacts regarding avulsion/settled law)