The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against Texas in a unanimous ruling. The Lone Star State could have received some kind of consolation if just one SCOTUS justice had voted in favor of Texas, but none did. What Texas wanted from the Court was so wrong that even President Obama’s SCOTUS appointees knew it, despite the fact that the Obama Administration favored Texas in this case. Indeed, it was none other than Justice Sonia Sotomayor who wrote the Court’s opinion.
Here is an excerpt from a news story about the SCOTUS ruling:
The Supreme Court on Thursday decisively sided with Oklahoma and rejected Texas’ claim that it has a right under a 30-year-old agreement to cross their common border for water to serve the fast-growing Fort Worth area.
The justices unanimously said that the Red River Compact “creates no cross-border rights in Texas.”
One would be mistaken to conclude that the Court’s ruling will leave Texans dry. Under the Red River Compact, Texas is entitled to up to 25% of the water in the Red River, which forms much of the border between Texas and Oklahoma, and nobody in Oklahoma is trying to prevent Texas from removing its share of water from the Red River.
However, it isn’t the water in the Red River that Texas officials want. Instead, they want water that is in a river that is completely within Oklahoma.
So, why would Texas officials try to get water that doesn’t belong to Texas?
Answer: Because doing so would save Texas some money.
Any water that Texas obtains has to be treated somehow in order to make it usable for human consumption, and the cost of water treatment is determined in-part by the quality of the water being treated.
Due to a difference in quality, it would be cheaper to treat the water in Oklahoma that Texas wants than to treat the Red River water that belongs to Texas.
Texans are famous for bragging that everything in Texas being bigger. Apparently, they don’t want one of those things to be their water bill.