The supreme Court will rule on Tarrant v Hermann soon. Here is some background on the issue. State sovereignty over its resources is at stake and could set a new precedent for other regional water compact disputes like Arizona or California. Here is an excerpt from Dallas paper:
The central question in Tarrant Regional Water District vs. Hermann is whether the Supreme Court will uphold the Red River Compact, a 35-year-old pact that sets markers on how Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana share water from the river. Each state signed the compact, and Congress approved it in 1978.
Among other points, the agreement stipulates that Texas has access to certain water basins in Oklahoma, just as Oklahoma has access to specific Texas basins. Oklahoma, however, has denied the Tarrant Regional Water District the right to seek a permit for its share of the water from one of the basins the compact covers.
The Tarrant district rightly has pressed this case all the way to the Supreme Court.
The justices may be tempted by sovereignty arguments that were used by Oklahoma legislators to sustain a moratorium on the sale or transfer of water from Oklahoma to Texas. Here’s the problem with that line of reasoning: Whenever a state enters into a compact, it by definition loses some of its sovereign rights. Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that reality during oral arguments in this case back in April.