CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann

United States Supreme Court case

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJan 1, 2026
Entity authorityQ104875359 ↗
Source-derived summary

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.

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. 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. 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. However, Oklahoma has a moratorium on out-of-state water sales. 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.

Initially, the District Court would deny the Oklahoma Water Resources Board’s motion to dismiss the case. 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. Judge Heaton did allow further appeals to higher courts, 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.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann” as united States Supreme Court case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Tarrant, Regional and Water.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2013, 1980, 1978, 2007—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Tarrant, Regional and Water providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann”, the useful work is to connect “united States Supreme Court case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jan 1, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q104875359. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2013, 1980, 1978 and 2007.

Critical limits

Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann primary sources, Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann archive and Tarrant research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.