Supreme Court: Oklahoma's water! Hands off, Texas!

[badger]

We are the champions.... we are the champions...

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Supreme_Court_sides_with_Oklahoma_in_Red_River_wat er/20130613_13_0_WASHIN952161?subj=298)

No time for losers (aka Texas) cuz we are the champions... of this water fight!

UNANIMOUS DECISION! TEXAS STILL SUCKS!

[okie52]

Boomer Sooner!!!!

Of course Holder sided with Texas.

Texas lost every battle on this one.

[Midtowner]

Texas' creative arguments to steal Oklahoma water fail. Next up: the tribes.

Bring it.

[okie52]

Texas' creative arguments to steal Oklahoma water fail. Next up: the tribes.

Bring it.

Beating the tribes in federal court is harder than beating this TX case.

[badger]

Oklahoma score biggest margin of victory in the history of Supreme Court (unanimous decision!)
fhSiRKiHnQk

[KantoSooner]

The tribes have a better argument than Texas had.

And a better one than Oklahoma has

[okie52]

Tribes want order denying Oklahoma water rights
20 February 2012 KEN MILLER, Associated Press
User Rating: / 3
PoorBest

The Chickasaw Nation and Choctaw Nation claim control ov all water in 22 counties in the southeastern corner of Oklahoma, including Sardis Lake, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers creation.
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) – Two tribes have asked a federal judge to declare that the state of Oklahoma and its capital city have no jurisdiction over water in southeastern Oklahoma and, therefore, have no right to transport it.

Four days after Attorney General Scott Pruitt asked the state Supreme Court to address a dispute over water rights, the Chickasaw and Choctaw tribes were back in U.S. District Court asking that a judge settle part of their federal lawsuit without extended proceedings.

The request for partial summary judgment asks that a judge declare the tribes hold regulatory authority over water in southeastern Oklahoma under an 1830 treaty. The tribes also want an order that says their water rights pre-empt state law, though the state and city say the tribes relinquished their rights in later pacts.

Southeastern Oklahoma waters include Sardis Lake, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers creation that has provided Oklahoma City and other central Oklahoma communities with water for about 50 years.

Pruitt filed papers Friday, Feb. 17 asking that the state Supreme Court take up the matter; the tribes submitted their motion Feb. 14 in a lawsuit filed last August against Gov. Mary Fallin, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board and both the city of Oklahoma City and the city’s water trust.

Attorney Michael Burrage, who represents the tribes, said Pruitt’s state lawsuit doesn’t address the issues in the federal court case.

“The issues addressed in the federal court case deal with long-established rights that the tribes have under the treaties and case law that interprets those treaties,” Burrage said.

Pruitt said in a statement that the tribes claim control of all water in 22 counties in the southeastern corner of the state but no longer want to discuss water use.

“They indicated in their original lawsuit that the stream adjudication process was necessary. Since then they have reversed their position,” Pruitt said in a statement relayed by spokeswoman Diane Clay. “They are once again demonstrating they do not want Oklahoma citizens at the table when their water rights are decided.”

The tribes’ federal lawsuit seeks to bar the state and Oklahoma City from transporting water from the region, but Burrage said the tribes “are not seeking to disrupt anyone’s water supply at all.”

The two tribes have refused Fallin’s request to drop their lawsuit..

[Midtowner]

The tribes have a better argument than Texas had.

And a better one than Oklahoma has

What law do you have to support your position and why would the Winters Doctrine not apply in SE Oklahoma? (if it applies there, it would basically mean that the tribes have no rights to stored water because the water they are entitled to falls out of the sky).

Also, from a public policy standpoint, awarding the tribes all of the water in SE Oklahoma would be a logistical and actual nightmare.

[olevetonahill]

Whos Land are these Lakes and reservoirs on? who Built them? Oh the Taxpayers? Thats who OWNS the water.

[cleller]

After the wet spring, maybe we could just name our price for some of that good Okie water Texans crave.

[olevetonahill]

After the wet spring, maybe we could just name our price for some of that good Okie water Texans crave.

Ya got a Point. I never have read up on all of this. Why dont we sell em some water?

[rock on sooner]

Ya got a Point. I never have read up on all of this. Why dont we sell em some water?

Hell, Texicans wud prolly fix tha price and try to screw Okies....

[olevetonahill]

Hell, Texicans wud prolly fix tha price and try to screw Okies....

Sheat, Tell them sonsabitches they got to deal with ME.

[Chuck Bao]

Maybe it is just too early: we finally got our stock tanks near normal level after a two-year drought. It is a hell of a bad thing if our ranchers or farmers have to suffer for the suburban cookie cutter blight that is the metroplex. In other words, "Hell to the No" to Texas.

[olevetonahill]

Maybe it is just too early: we finally got our stock tanks near normal level after a two-year drought. It is a hell of a bad thing if our ranchers or farmers have to suffer for the suburban cookie cutter blight that is the metroplex. In other words, "Hell to the No" to Texas.

Help me understand bro. HOW is sellin them Whorn arseholes water out of say Lake Sardis gonna Hurt Farmers or ranchers? Those lakes wont fill up the Stock ponds, Only rain will.
Hell Im all for making em suffer and ****, But if we (Okla.) can make some money off a resource thats just sittin there evaporatin why not?

[XingTheRubicon]

Maybe it is just too early: we finally got our stock tanks near normal level after a two-year drought. It is a hell of a bad thing if our ranchers or farmers have to suffer for the suburban cookie cutter blight that is the metroplex. In other words, "Hell to the No" to Texas.

If DFW can't get water, the lawns die...the illegals can't find work, without work they decide to go home/starve to death...immigration reform solved.

[KantoSooner]

What law do you have to support your position and why would the Winters Doctrine not apply in SE Oklahoma? (if it applies there, it would basically mean that the tribes have no rights to stored water because the water they are entitled to falls out of the sky).

Also, from a public policy standpoint, awarding the tribes all of the water in SE Oklahoma would be a logistical and actual nightmare.

I'd start with the 1830 removal treaty. It supercedes the existance of the State and makes the tribe subordinate to the Federal government but not to the State. On what authority, the argument might run, did Oklahoma take those treaty rights away?

On a managerial level it wouldn't be difficult at all. The State or OKC would simply have to treat the tribe(s) seriously and deal with them in good faith. Frankly, comparing the State government to that of the tribes, you'd be hard pressed to pick the State in terms of general competence. I have no qualms about having the tribes act as water regulators as opposed to letting OK do it.

[badger]

I wonder if the tribes fear that Oklahoma will get greedy and sell the water to the highest bidder when the drought ends... if it ever ends. On the other hand, I worry that tribes may have the same mindset if they have control of the water, as much as tribes traditionally care about their tribal lands.

In any event, I'm super-happy that Texas can't expand the hell outta their Dallas burbs and expect Oklahoma to bail them out when their parched residents want to fill their swimming pools, green up their lawns and power their cascading waterfall fountains. Yes, I'm making up sh!t, but they have access to the Gulf of Mexico. Can't they just invest in desalting that instead?

[IGotNoTiming]

The state could always revert to killing off the indians. They did it before when they originally awarded land to the indians and since the indians were deemed to be savages the state decided they needed landlords, the fine print of the ownership docs stated that if something happened to the indian and they somehow were to pass on to the great hunting ground in the sky, that particular parcel would then be passed on to the land lord which in most cases was a white government official....

Just saying it has worked once.

[KantoSooner]

And that's the funny point in Indian Law. Had the European invaders simply said, "You got, we want, GIMME". It would all have been fine. Call it a war, declare Indians the losers and divvie up their stuff. That, too, was done before. Works. But, noooooooo, the Europeans wanted to feel morally vindicated, so they made up bogus legal documents (bogus because they were mostly unreadable by the Indians and were not the result of any form of 'arms length' bargaining between anything approaching equal parties). The problem was that the Europeans forgot that those same documents actually didn't take everything the Indians had. Just what the Europeans wanted right then. It left them with some 'stuff'. And now the descendants of those Europeans are discovering that the Indians now understand what that residual 'stuff' is....and aren't too inclined to give that up without a fight.

[OU68]

The state could always revert to killing off the indians. They did it before when they originally awarded land to the indians and since the indians were deemed to be savages the state decided they needed landlords, the fine print of the ownership docs stated that if something happened to the indian and they somehow were to pass on to the great hunting ground in the sky, that particular parcel would then be passed on to the land lord which in most cases was a white government official....

Just saying it has worked once.

"I understand the situation. Their supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof -- that's their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many men they have, and if you wanted Pawhuska I could give it to you. They lived on the land coming down. There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back. Let's not give them time to build up their supplies."