Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Herrmann

Last updated
Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Herrmann
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 23, 2013
Decided June 13, 2013
Full case nameTarrant Regional Water District, Petitioner v. Rudolf John Herrmann, et al.
Docket no. 11–889
Citations569 U.S. 614 ( more )
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorCIV-07-0045-HE Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann, NO. CIV-07-0045-HE, (W.D. Okla. July 16, 2010)
Tarrant Regional Water District v. Sevenoaks (Tarrant II), 545 F.3d 906, 909 (10th Cir., 2008).
Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann, 10th Cir., No. 10-6184, September 7, 2011
Holding
The Red River Compact does not preempt Oklahoma’s water statutes because the Compact creates no cross-border rights in its signatories for these statutes to infringe. Nor do Oklahoma’s laws run afoul of the Commerce Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajoritySotomayor, joined by unanimous

Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann, 569 U.S. 614 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Oklahoma statutes forbidding the export of water from the state are not preempted or forbidden by the Red River Compact.

Contents

Background

Since 1980, water from the Red River of the South has been allocated by the Red River Compact, which had been signed by the four basin states in 1978 before being ratified by Congress. [1] However, since the signing of the Compact there had been large-scale population growth in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex which lies just south from the Red River basin, which by the middle 2000s had led to substantial water shortages in Tarrant County and a number of adjacent counties covered by the Compact. [2] Consequently, in 2007 the Tarrant Regional Water District asked the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to purchase water from the Kiamichi River, and also asked the Oklahoma Apache Tribe for permission to purchase groundwater from within Stephens County. [3] However, Oklahoma has a moratorium on out-of-state water sales. [4] Texas appealed to the federal District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma because they believed that the Dormant Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause barred Oklahoma's statutes that prevent out-of-state water sales. [5]

Initially, the District Court would deny the Oklahoma Water Resources Board’s motion to dismiss the case. [3] However Judge Joe L. Heaton suggested that the moratorium applied not only to contracts (as the Oklahoma Water Resources Board had argued), but also to Tarrant Regional Water District’s permit application. [6] Judge Heaton did allow further appeals to higher courts, [6] but once the Tarrant Regional Water District appealed to the Tenth Circuit, it was ruled by that court that Oklahoma’s statutes were entirely consistent with the Red River Compact. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the Red River Compact was designed so that each state would possess complete control over those waters within its boundaries.

The Tenth Circuit would also resoundingly rule against Tarrant Regional Water District’s attempt to purchase water from the Apache Tribe in Stephens County, Oklahoma. [3] In this context the Tenth Circuit argued that none of the parties had filed for a permit to use the groundwater and that the controversy is not even justiciable.

Related Research Articles

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism. The Court considered a Louisiana law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught. The constitutionality of the law was successfully challenged in District Court, Aguillard v. Treen, 634 F. Supp. 426, and the Louisiana Court of Appeals affirmed, 765 F.2d 1251. The United States Supreme Court ruled that this law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. It also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Current United States federal appellate court

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002), is one of the United States Supreme Court's more recent interpretations of the Takings Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The case dealt with the question of whether a moratorium on construction of individual homes imposed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency fell under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution and whether the landowners therefore should receive just compensation as required by that clause. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was represented by future Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion of the Court, finding that the moratorium did not constitute a taking. It reasoned that there was an inherent difference between the acquisition of property for public use and the regulation of property from private use. The majority concluded that the moratorium at issue in this case should be classified as a regulation of property from private use and therefore no compensation was required.

Neil Gorsuch Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Neil McGill Gorsuch is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President Donald Trump on January 31, 2017 and has served since April 10, 2017.

Jerry Edwin Smith American judge

Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Oklahoma Water Resources Board

The Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) is an agency in the government of Oklahoma under the Governor of Oklahoma. OWRB is responsible for managing and protection the water resources of Oklahoma as well as for planning for the state's long-range water needs. The Board is composed of nine members appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Oklahoma Senate. The Board, in turn, appoints an Executive Director to administer the agency.

Joe L. Heaton is a Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

<i>American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland</i>

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland, 560 F.3d 443, is a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals involving a constitutional challenge—both facially and as-applied to internet communications—to an Ohio statute prohibiting the dissemination or display to juveniles of certain sexually-explicit materials or performances. The Sixth Circuit panel declined to resolve the constitutional issue but, instead, certified two questions to the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of the statute. The Ohio Supreme Court answered both questions affirmatively and placed a narrowing construction on the statute. Since the Ohio Supreme Court's decision, the Sixth Circuit has not reheard the case.

South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress specifically abrogated treaty rights with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe as to hunting and fishing rights on reservation lands that were acquired for a reservoir.

Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States holding that an Indian tribe has the authority to impose taxes on non-Indians that are conducting business on the reservation as an inherent power under their tribal sovereignty.

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation. They include challenges by states against the ACA, reactions from legal experts with respect to its constitutionality, several federal court rulings on the ACA's constitutionality, the final ruling on the constitutionality of the legislation by the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and notable subsequent lawsuits challenging the ACA.

Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac & Fox Nation, 508 U.S. 114 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that absent explicit congressional direction to the contrary, it must be presumed that a State does not have jurisdiction to tax tribal members who live and work in Indian country, whether the particular territory consists of a formal or informal reservation, allotted lands, or dependent Indian communities.

Red River Compact Commission

The Red River Compact was signed by the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas to avoid disputes over the waters of the Red River in 1978, although Congress had authorized the compact in 1955. The Red River Compact Commission has nine commissioners, two from each member state and one federal representative appointed by the President of the United States.

Same-sex marriage in Oklahoma

Same-sex marriage has been legal in the U.S. state of Oklahoma since October 6, 2014, following the resolution of a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. On that day, following the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to review the case that found the ban unconstitutional, the federal Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the state to recognize same-sex marriage.

<i>Kitchen v. Herbert</i>

Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181, affirmed, 755 F.3d 1193 ; stay granted, 134 S.Ct. 893 (2014); petition for certiorari denied, No. 14-124, 2014 WL 3841263, is the federal case that successfully challenged Utah's constitutional ban on marriage for same-sex couples and similar statutes. Three same-sex couples filed suit in March 2013, naming as defendants Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert, Attorney General John Swallow, and Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen in their official capacities.

King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268 (1939), was a United States Supreme Court case that found a 12-day one-time voter registration window to be discriminatory for black citizens and repugnant to the Fifteenth Amendment.

The Montana Water Court is a court of law in the U.S. state of Montana which has jurisdiction over the adjudication of water rights. The filing, verification, recording, and enforcement of water rights in the Montana Territory and, later, the state of Montana were considered highly inadequate until 1972, when a new state constitution required a more robust, highly centralized water rights legal system. Implementation of this system led to the establishment of the Water Court in 1979, after six years of mixed success with an administrative solution. The Water Court consists of a Chief Water Judge, Associate Water Judge, and four District Water Judges, but most work is handled by special masters. The process of identifying, verifying, and adjudicating water rights is a complex one, and budgetary and personnel issues have slowed the work at times. Appeals from the Water Court are made directly to the Montana Supreme Court.

Sharp v. Murphy, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a Supreme Court of the United States case of whether Congress disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation. After holding the case from the 2018 term, the case was decided on July 9, 2020, in a per curiam decision following McGirt v. Oklahoma that, for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act, the reservations were never disestablished and remain Native American country.

<i>Moritz v. Commissioner</i>

Charles E. Moritz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 469 F.2d 466 (1972), was a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in which the Court held that discrimination on the basis of sex constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Charles Moritz had claimed a tax deduction for the cost of a caregiver for his invalid mother and the Internal Revenue Service had denied the deduction. The law specifically allowed such a deduction, but only for women and formerly married men, which Moritz was not.

References

  1. Bala, Amal. "Blocking the Flow: Texas Faces New Challenges in its Water Crisis after an Unfavorable Ruling in Tarrant" (PDF). Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review.
  2. Patranella, Joe; ‘Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself: An Analysis of the Texas Water Shortage, Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann, and Why Oklahoma Should Be Mandated to Allow Texas to Purchase Water’; South Texas Law Review , vol 52, no. 2, pp. 297-326
  3. 1 2 3 LePage, Jordan. "Busted Pipes: A Review of Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann and the Lack of Direction for Oklahoma and Texas Moving Forward in a Dry Environment". American Indian Law Review, Volume 38, Number 2.
  4. Maule, Kristen; ‘When Silence Speaks 1,000 Words: Negative Commerce Clause Restrictions on Water Regulations and the Case of Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann’; Texas Environmental Law Journal; vol. 38 (2007-2008), pp. 242-268
  5. Thornton, Sara. R. (2014). "A battle ends, but the fight for water in Oklahoma continues". Texas Water Journal. pp. 24–35.
  6. 1 2 Baker, Max B.; ‘Oklahoma Appeals Ruling’; Fort Worth Star-Telegram , March 20, 2008, p. 18

See also