Oklahoma

TexasTowelie

(116,881 posts) Wed Apr 24, 2013, 01:00 PM Apr 2013

The Supreme Court Will Decide if North Texas Can Take Oklahoma's Water

With North Texas' population exploding and near-perennial drought seeming more and more like a certainty rather than a fluke, state water planners have been scrambling to secure new supplies, going further and further afield in search of waterways that haven't been tapped out.

Several years ago, that quest took the Tarrant Regional Water District to Oklahoma, where they hoped to purchase rights to 150 billion gallons from the southeastern part of the state to pipe to its customers in 11 counties. Oklahoma wouldn't mind. The state has 10 times the water it needs. Certainly it wouldn't deny a thirsty neighbor a mere sip.

Oklahoma's response was less than neighborly. It viewed the water district's request as an attempt to grab the state's natural resources, and the legislature passed laws putting a moratorium on out-of-state water sales. TRD sued in 2007 to stop the laws, and the two parties have been locked in a legal scuffle ever since.

The dispute has now made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in the case on Tuesday.

More at http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/04/the_supreme_court_is_set_to_de.php .

Cross-posted in Texas Group.

[font color=green]The court argument centers on the Red River Compact, a 1978 agreement between Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas divvying the water in the Red River basin.[/font]

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Supreme Court Will Decide if North Texas Can Take Oklahoma's Water (Original Post) TexasTowelie Apr 2013 OP

Oklahoma and Texas are always fussing about something! OKNancy Apr 2013 #1

The point is, Oklahoma may not always have more water than it needs. AndyA Apr 2013 #2

OKNancy

(41,832 posts)

1. Oklahoma and Texas are always fussing about something!

Reply to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 03:04 PM

Apr 2013

... and I don't mean football.

The Red River was set as the boundary between Oklahoma and Mexico ( later Texas) After statehood for Texas, this fellow named Marcy "discovered" the North Fork of the Red River, which is Greer County in present day Oklahoma. The dispute went to the Supreme Court then too.. this was in 1894. This needed to be worked out because at the same time ( 1890) there was the act that established Oklahoma Territory. The court ruled for the old boundary. So the future state of Oklahoma got what is the southwestern tip of Oklahoma.

From 1918 to 1999 there was a fuss about oil rights on the Red River.. and what the border really was. Yes, that long. The Red River Boundary Compact became federal law on August 31, 2000.

AndyA

(16,993 posts)

2. The point is, Oklahoma may not always have more water than it needs.

Reply to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 10:57 AM

Apr 2013

If an agreement is reached, Oklahoma will be expected to supply water to Texas regardless of how badly it's needed here.

Many cities were on water rationing last summer, due to shortages, and even Tulsa asked residents to voluntarily conserve, as it was approaching maximum pumping capacity. If hot summer weather continues or worsens, there won't be any extra water to spare.

Since Oklahoma can't be assured that it will be able to supply Texas with water in the years to come, I think it makes sense to not make a deal.

I know things are bad in Texas, I spent most of last summer in the DFW area, and it was awful. Not sure what the solution is, but I don't think committing to something that possibly can't be fulfilled even in the short term is the answer. I know a lot of water supplies in parts of the state are dangerously low, and recent rains haven't done enough to raise the levels, which likely means shortages in a few months unless we have a cooler/wetter than normal summer, which isn't in the forecast.

Reply to this discussion