Term: 2012
Docket: 11-889
Tarrant Regional Water District, Petitioner v. Rudolf John Herrmann, Et Al.
- Pro
11-889 TARRANT REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT V. HERRMANN DECISION BELOW: 656 F.3d 1222 CERT. GRANTED 1/4/2013 QUESTION PRESENTED: This Court has held on numerous occasions that a State may not discriminate against interstate commerce in water absent an "expressly stated" or "unmistakably clear" congressional intent to immunize the relevant state laws from dormant Commerce Clause scrutiny. See Sporhase v. Neb. ex rel. Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 (1982); So.-Cent. Timber Dev., Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82 (1984). The questions presented here, which are of vital importance to arid regions of the United States that depend on interstate imports of water and interstate compacts governing access to water, are as follows: 1. Whether Congress's approval of an interstate water compact that grants the contracting States "equal rights" to certain surface water and - using language present in almost all such compacts - provides that the compact shall not "be deemed * * * to interfere" with each State's "appropriation, use, and control of water * * * not inconsistent with its obligations under this Compact," manifests unmistakably clear congressional consent to state laws that expressly burden interstate commerce in water. 2. Whether a provision of a congressionally approved multi-state compact that is designed to ensure an equal share of water among the contracting states preempts protectionist state laws that obstruct other states from accessing the water to which they are entitled by the compact. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-6184
The Tarrant Regional Water District v. Rudolf John Herrmann et al., 2012 case involved a dispute over water rights between the state of Texas and Oklahoma. The petitioner, Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD), is a Texas state agency responsible for supplying water to north-central Texas including Fort Worth and Arlington. TRWD sought to divert water from tributaries in Oklahoma under the Red River Compact, an agreement that allocates use of waters among states along the Red River Valley - Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas. However, they were denied permits by Oklahoma due to its laws restricting out-of-state water exports. TRWD then filed suit against officials in charge of enforcing these laws arguing that they violated federal law – specifically the Commerce Clause which prohibits trade barriers among states – as well as breaching terms within the compact itself. In June 2013, Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Oklahoma stating that while interstate compacts can be used to alter traditional rules regarding cross-border flows if there's explicit provision for this; such language was absent from Red River Compact hence it did not preempt Oklahoman statutes limiting out-of-state exportation.
In the dissenting opinion for Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the majority's interpretation of the Red River Compact was incorrect and overly simplistic. She contended that it failed to consider key provisions in their full context, leading to a flawed understanding of state rights under the compact. In her view, Oklahoma did not have exclusive rights over its water resources as suggested by the majority but shared these with other states involved in this agreement. Furthermore, she disagreed with how they applied dormant Commerce Clause doctrine to this case and believed it should not be used when interpreting interstate compacts approved by Congress since such agreements already represent a balance between federal and state interests.
