State limits on shared water
Tarrant Regional Water District v. Rudolf John Herrmann
In brief
Tarrant lost its challenge: the Compact does not override Oklahoma's water laws, and those laws do not violate the Constitution's rule on trade between states.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · June 13, 2013 · Opinion by Justice Sotomayor
- What it’s about
- Tarrant Regional Water District, which supplies north-central Texas, argued that an interstate agreement called the Red River Compact entitled it to obtain water in Oklahoma despite Oklahoma’s restrictions.
- Who it affects
- The decision leaves Oklahoma's water restrictions in place against Tarrant and rejects its claim that the Compact let it obtain water despite those laws.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court agreed with the Tenth Circuit: the Compact did not override Oklahoma’s laws, and those laws did not violate the Constitution’s rule on trade between states (the Commerce Clause).
Tarrant supplies north-central Texas and relied on the congressionally approved Red River Compact in seeking water in Oklahoma.
The Red River Compact is an agreement approved by Congress that sets rules for how states can use water from the Red River.
Question presented
1. Did Congress' approval of an interstate water compact illustrate congressional intent to allow state laws to interfere with interstate commerce in water? 2. Does the Compact preempt protectionist state laws that restrict state access to water to which they are entitled under the Compact?
What the Court decided
Holding
The Compact does not pre-empt the Oklahoma water statutes. The Oklahoma water statutes also do not run afoul of the Commerce Clause. Tarrant claims that the statutes discriminate against interstate commerce by preventing water left unallocated under the Compact from being distributed out of State. But Tarrant’s assumption that some water is left “unallocated” is incorrect. The interpretive comment for Article V of the Compact makes clear that when the flow is above 3,000 CFS, “all states are free to use whatever amount of water they can put to beneficial use,” subject to the requirement that if the amount of available water cannot satisfy all of those uses, “each state will honor the other’s right to 25% of the excess flow.” If more than 25 perce 656 F. 3d 1222, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The Court's reasoning
The Court read Article V to let states use water above 3,000 cubic feet per second as far as they could put it to use, while protecting other states' 25% rights to excess flow if supply was short. It rejected Tarrant's claim that water remained unallocated.
The vote
What's next
The Tenth Circuit's judgment remains in place after the Supreme Court's decision.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Herrmann
Opinion added: Herrmann
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.