Opinion ID: 613271
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Tarrant's Initial Complaint and Ensuing Litigation

Text: Tarrant's initial complaint challenged two sets of statutes. The first set was enacted in 2004 and placed a five-year Moratorium on the export of water out of state: [T]he Legislature hereby establishes a moratorium on the sale or exportation of surface water and/or groundwater outside this state pursuant to the provisions of this section. Unless otherwise repealed or revoked by the Oklahoma Legislature, the moratorium shall be in effect for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of this act. OKLA. STAT. tit. 82, § 1B(A). Another statute applied the Moratorium to any state or tribal compact or any intergovernmental cooperative agreement, authorized pursuant to law, which is drafted in whole or in part to apportion surface water or groundwater ownership, or authorize or otherwise implement any sale or exportation of surface water or groundwater outside this state, except as authorized by the provisions of this act. Id. 74, § 1221.A. The Moratorium expired on November 1, 2009. The second set of challenged statutes was enacted before the Moratorium. These statutes treat applications for in-state and out-of-state water use differently. One statute requires legislative approval for out-of-state water use: Provided, however, no contract shall be made conveying the title or use of any waters of the State of Oklahoma ... for sale or use in any other state, unless such contract be specifically authorized by an act of the Oklahoma Legislature and thereafter as approved by it. Id. 82, § 1085.2(2). Another provision allows an exception to the general requirement that water be put to beneficial use within one year if the proposal optimized in-state water use: If ... the proposed project, improvement or structure will promote the optimal beneficial use of water in the state, and it further appears that the total amount of water to be authorized by the permit cannot be put to beneficial use within seven (7) years, then the Board shall provide in the permit the time within which the total amount to be authorized shall be put to beneficial use. Id. § 105.16. Also in the second set are two statutes that prevent Oklahoma state entities from selling water for out-of-state use. One statute requires that the Oklahoma Water Conservation Storage Commission  which includes all the members of the OWRB  shall not permit the sale or resale of any water for use outside the State of Oklahoma. Id. § 1085.22. Another statute contains a similar limit on water exports by regional water districts: No district organized hereunder shall sell or export water or gas pursuant to the Rural Water, Sewer, Gas and Solid Waste Management Districts Act outside of the state without consent of the Legislature. Id. § 1324.10(B). Finally, the second set of challenged statutes includes an Oklahoma statutory definition that prevents municipal water districts from including out-of-state agencies. The definition of public agency provides that public agencies of other states shall not be entitled to membership in the district. Id. § 1266(9). OWRB moved to dismiss Tarrant's complaint because the case was not ripe, OWRB was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, the court should decline to hear the case under the abstention doctrine, and Louisiana and Arkansas are indispensable parties. The district court rejected each of OWRB's arguments and denied the motion. See Tarrant Reg'l Water Dist. v. Herrmann, No. CIV-07-0045-HE, 2007 WL 3226812 (W.D.Okla. Oct. 29, 2007) (unpublished). OWRB filed an interlocutory appeal on the ripeness, immunity, and abstention rulings. We affirmed the district court's decision on the first two issues and dismissed the portion of the appeal regarding abstention. Tarrant Reg'l Water Dist. v. Sevenoaks, 545 F.3d 906, 915 (10th Cir.2008) ( Sevenoaks .)