Should OK Be Forced to Sell Water to TX?

[adaniel]

I don't post very often, but as a Texan attending school at OU I was wondering if you think the state of OK should be forced to sell water to Texas? In case you didn't know the Tarrant County Water District (which covers Ft Worth) recently filed a lawsuit against the state of OK for not selling them excess water coming out of the Kiamichi River watershed. You can read the link below. Personally I feel that it is too much of a liability for OK to tangle itself into Texas water woes. What do you guys think? I can gurantee you that it will become more of an issue in the future b/c the state of Texas is literally running out of water.

RedOrbit - Science - Texas Water District Sues OK Over Moratorium

[NewPlains]

The temptation is certainly there, especially for rural water districts in impoverished regions of the state to cash in by selling water to TX, but I think this would be a disaster in the long term. There will eventually be enough demand in Texas for every spare drop of water OK can produce, and as OK grows our domestic demand for water will increase in parallel. Over the course of 10 or 20 years, that would put an unacceptable strain on our aquifers. Nothing against helping our neighbors, but we have to protect our rescources too. Unless Texas can show that they have a plan for curbing unsustainable growth (and "buy more water" isn't a plan), I would question the wisdom of trading something we will need in the long term for the short term buck.

[BDP]

If it's excess water, I say sell it. Use the money to improve our own water infrastructure for our future growth. It sounds like a good opportunity for us to reinvest in our future to maintain self suffeciency. The truth is that there's always going to be growth upstream from us, too, and you don't want to end up in Texas's position tomorrow when you could have cashed in and improved effeciencies today.

[SoonerDave]

Hmmm.....

I don't see any problem on the surface of Oklahoma as a state, or municipaliites within the state, selling excess water to anyone, provided there are suitable failsafes within the agreement that protect Oklahoma's interests first.

Under no circumstances should Texas be able to compel Oklahoma to sell water, or anything else, to them.

-SoonerDave

[Martin]

largely i agree that texas shouldn't be able to compel oklahoma to sell it's water... i'm not certain that i'd go as far as saying 'under no circumstances.'

let's say oklahoma has water that it does not wish to sell... not in-state or out-of-state. in that case, i'd say that oklahoma shouldn't be forced to sell. let's say that oklahoma has a fixed amount of water that it is willing to sell and that amount is entirely consumed by in-state demand. i'd say that it'd be wrong to force the sale here, too.

the article claims that texas' basis for the suit is that banning out-of-state sales is unconstitutional. therefore, the situation sounds to me as if owrb has placed an arbitrary moratorium on all out-of-state water sales... regardless of supply and demand. in that situation, i'm not so sure that oklahoma has the right to turn down the request.

here's how i see it... let's say that a convenience store in texas has 20 snickers bars for sale. texans buy 10 of those snickers bars. i walk into the shop wanting to buy a snickers bar. there are ten left over and nobody else is going to buy one, but the clerk won't sell to me simply because i'm from oklahoma... that just doesn't sound constitutional to me. -M

[HFK]

Adaniel,

Thanks for an interesting post: I wasn't aware of the issue at all.

My first reaction, as a consumer of water here in OK, is that I don't want to compete for water with Texas: in other words, I don't want the value of water to inflate because of out-of-state demand.

I've probably betrayed a fundamental lack of the economics of publicly operated utilities: if so, please enlighten me.

[BDP]

here's how i see it... let's say that a convenience store in texas has 20 snickers bars for sale. texans buy 10 of those snickers bars. i walk into the shop wanting to buy a snickers bar. there are ten left over and nobody else is going to buy one, but the clerk won't sell to me simply because i'm from oklahoma... that just doesn't sound constitutional to me.

Yeah, and we're not talking about snickers, we're talking about water. It is different.

Theoretically, in many cases, upstream states could monopolize and/or dry out all non-negotiating downstream states. At that point, it goes beyond a question of constitutionality and becomes one of humanity.

Not that that's the issue here.... Texas may have conservation problems, not supply problems.

[Martin]

it does appear that i've made some poor assumptions... i only scanned the article attached to this thread... last week i read another one regarding the same issue and after reading it, i was under the assumption that this was not river water but groundwater... that is, it would not readily flow from one state to another. in that case, i think my hypothetical situation would have better applied. -M

[bombermwc]

Screw Texas....they dont help us when we need anything. It's their problem that they didn't plan well. We'll use the water in the future and by then Texas will just want more...give an inch take a mile.

[Martin]

well... ok... but constitutionally can you say 'screw texas' when it comes to commercial policy? if the water is available and for sale (in state, that is) and it isn't being stored anywhere and it isn't being bought by anyone else, then what right does anyone have to tell an entity that it cannot buy? -M

[Patrick]

If there's excess water, I think the state should help another state. BUT, we should not be forced to sell water. It's our water. If they want water, dam up a creak and build a lake.

[Martin]

i agree, but it's not a matter of being forced to sell... the water is for sale... owrb is just not currently allowing sales to out-of-state entities. -M

[TStheThird]

I think that is how Boone Pickens is planning on making his next couple of billion. Doesn't he own all the water in west Texas or somewhere like that.

Somebody may have more details, but I think the plan is to have Texas build a pipeline and pump his water into the Dallas Metroplex, charging every household along the way.

[jbrown84]

Aren't they a whole other country? And bigger than everything else? Why do they need little old Oklahoma to help them out with water? Build some lakes.

[SoonerDave]

I'm personally of the opinion that if you own something, you should never be compelled to sell it to anyone. If I own it, I am in possession of 100% of all rights associated with it. Period.

If I want to sell my water to the other 46 states, and not Texas, then I must have that right, or someone else becomes judge and jury over what becomes "valid" and "invalid" criteria, an "valid" or "invalid" price.

Suppose I'm Oklahoma, and I think Texas has gone insane and wants to buy my water to make poison gas, or build meth labs? Why can't I stop them? The point is that *you* can sell your water to Texas if you want, that's your privilege, but it's also *my* privilege not to.

If you allow the "validity of argument" notion to pass, I just say, "fine, raise the price to $1 billion a gallon." Then someone else inevitably says "that price isn't fair," and you end up in court again. When you, as a sovereign entity (be it a person or a state) have that sovereignty taken away from you, you lose the ability to work in your own best interests. When the person taking the sovereignty away is the government, you wake up to find out that Karl Marx has come back from the grave...

The argument is that Oklahoma's restriction is unconstitutional. In what way? Where is there an article in the Constitution that says Texas, Missouri, or any other state has an inherent right to purchase water from Oklahoma? Such an argument is nothing more than an extension of the idiotic constitutional fiction that pervades our court system these days. It's also the same fiction that has allowed things like eminent domain to be bastardized as it has.

-SoonerDave

[Martin]

that seems to be a valid point to me, soonerdave... but the law doesn't give a property owner complete discretion over to whom to sell and to whom not to sell. for example: if i were hispanic, you wouldn't have the right not to sell to me just because of my racial profile.

i think that texas is bringing up constitutionality in that it argues that owrb's moratorium on out of state water sales interferes with interstate commerce. -M

[jbrown84]

No shirt, no shoes, no service.

It's like that. It's been made clear that no out-of-state entity can buy our water. There is no discrimination. We aren't doing this just to stick it to Texas, so the "racial profile" analogy doesn't work.

[Martin]

no discrimination? i don't think so. owrb is perfectly willing to sell this water to any in-state entity. it is arbitrarily barring the sale to any out-of-state entity... that's discrimination. honestly, what else could it be?

'no shirt, no shoes, no service' simply doesn't apply here... as far as agreeing on terms of payment, the amounts of water involved in the sale and other details are not being argued as reasons to prohibit this particular sale. the only reason texas is being prohibited from buying this product is because it's texas.

feel free to look up case law... as long as suitable terms are agreed upon and there is water available for sale... from what i've looked up it looks like the supreme court will be on the side of texas here. given the constitution's commerce clause, oklahoma does not have the power to prevent interstate commerce.

-M

[bombermwc]

I'll stick with my other post....be it racist against Texans and illegal or not....Screw Texas!

[Martin]

well, bomber, at least you're honest about your motives! -M

[adaniel]

Wow. I've been busy with school lately so I haven't been able to reply. But I can definatley see there are a wide range of opinions about the issue. I'm glad to see everyone has a lot of state pride!! Someone brought up the point that Texas my have the edge on the issue because OK's ban interferes with the Interstate Commerce Clause. Really? How can the regulation of a watershed that is not in their state possibly interfere with their commercial activties? Its kinda like Tx telling Arkansas what to do with the Arkansas River, even though it never really flows into their state. I don't think Tx has a constitutional leg to stand on, but I could be wrong. Someone enlighten me.

[Martin]

first off, this is just my opinion... i'm no legal expert. and for the record, i personally think that oklahoma should have the right to determine who it sells to when it comes to natural resources... i just don't think that the law is on oklahoma's side on this issue.

first, we're talking about a watershed (the kiamichi river & other streams) that flows from hugo lake into the red river... which, last i checked, flows along the northern border between texas and oklahoma. i'm just betting that the water in the red river itself doesn't really lend itself to being used as drinking water... so, i'm betting that texas wants to get at this water before it hits the red river.

second, i think that the commerce clause applies because this moratorium specifically targets out-of-state purchases... the commerce clause (article i, section 8, clause 3 of the us constitution) empowers the federal government 'to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the indian tribes.' legal precedent at the federal level has repeatedly shown that state laws that restrict interstate commerce are unconstitutional.

so... in the situation we have here, oklahoma has water for sale from this region. the tarrant regional water district of texas wants to purchase some of this water. the state of oklahoma (through the oklahoma water resources board) is blocking the purchase because it has a moratorium in effect that bans all out-of-state purchases. therefore oklahoma is unconstitutionally restricting interstate commerce by refusing to sell on the grounds that the buyer is from out of state.

-M

[mranderson]

I don't post very often, but as a Texan attending school at OU I was wondering if you think the state of OK should be forced to sell water to Texas? In case you didn't know the Tarrant County Water District (which covers Ft Worth) recently filed a lawsuit against the state of OK for not selling them excess water coming out of the Kiamichi River watershed. You can read the link below. Personally I feel that it is too much of a liability for OK to tangle itself into Texas water woes. What do you guys think? I can gurantee you that it will become more of an issue in the future b/c the state of Texas is literally running out of water.

RedOrbit - Science - Texas Water District Sues OK Over Moratorium

No. Oklahoma should not be forced to sell Texas anything. They think they are bigger than anything else, let them get their own water.

[Spartan]

Aren't they a whole other country? And bigger than everything else? Why do they need little old Oklahoma to help them out with water? Build some lakes.

Exactly. The whole thing is RIDICULOUS. What judge would honestly force us to sell water to them anyway? Is it in our best interest that Dallas grows like a weed in every sense of the phrase?

A weed that is unsightly, unmanaged, water-needy, and so on...

[jcampbell73134]

Obviously this is not just as simple as "screw Texas" and those that do think it's that simple have no understanding of the long, long history of water rights lititgation throughout the county. The issue, as you can imagine, is much more complicated than "it's our water" and we want to keep it for our citizens.

The water being litigated is water that flows into the Red River and when combined with the Red River becomes too salty to be used as drinking water. Tarrant county desires to buy the water before it enters the Red River. This is not water that can be "saved" for Oklahoma's future growth. The water will flow into the Red River and eventually to the Gulf of Mexico. That argument is especially suspect given the flat population growth for even metro areas let alone the declining population in rural areas of Oklahoma. My suspicion is this will be another case of Oklahoma making an issue of a simple matter and losing in the end. Rather than creating a reasonable approach to water use, my guess is the state will take the low road and eventually lose in court. Unfortunately, this will set precedent that will likely have impacts far beyond some reasonable compromise.