Decades – even centuries – pass and ancient roots of conflict, personal and political, fade into the fog of history. Such roots, although buried deep in the crevasses of time, can still have an impact on current affairs. Red River controversies stemming from the crest of European colonialism in North America have these enduring pedigrees, potentially affecting the lives of millions of people today. Perhaps a bit of historical reflection will shed some light on what circumstances created these conflicts and why they persist, more or less, in the Red River Basin.
The Red River has long been a “boundary river” of historical significance. From the 1700s, it was recognized as part of the boundary between French and Spanish territorial claims in North America. After the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which doubled the size of the United States, the Red River became an officially acknowledged portion of the boundary between the U.S. and New Spain (but only after initial boundary disputes were resolved by the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819). When Spain granted Mexico its independence under terms of the August 1821 Treaty of Cordoba, the Red River then became a recognized portion of the boundary between the sprawling Mexican Empire and the increasingly expansionist United States. 
Soon thereafter, simmering Anglo unrest against heavy-handed Mexican leaders turned to rebellion in Texas (then a part of the Mexican state of Coahuila y Tejas), and the political landscape quickly changed. In 1836, a ragtag band of Texians led by General Sam Houston won their independence by defeating Santa Anna’s Mexican army at the Battle of San Jacinto, and a new Republic was born. Part of the Republic’s boundary with the United States was the Red River.
Less than a decade later…in 1845…Texas entered the Union as America’s twenty-eighth state, after which the Red River served as the southern boundary of Indian Territory where numerous southeastern “civilized” Indian tribes…among them, the Chicksaw, Choctaw, Cherokee, Seminole and Creek nations…had been transplanted and many more Plains Indian tribes soon would be relocated to reservations from their traditional hunting grounds.
When Texas seceded from the Union in February 1861 and joined the Confederate States of America the following month, the Red River remained the “recognized” boundary between now warring American political entities. When the Civil War ended, things reverted back to antebellum conditions.In 1907, after Oklahoma Territory became the nation’s forty-sixth state, the Red River remained the boundary we observe today…well, almost.
A few U.S. Supreme Court decisions intervened to draw the more precise boundary that we now recognize – that is, if “precise” is the proper word assigned to the meanderings of an always restless Red River. It’s important to note that, with the exception of Lake Texoma, roughly 440 miles of the southern bank of the Red River is the officially recognized boundary between the two states. Lake Texoma, a flood-control reservoir formed in 1944 by the Denison Dam, is split, more or less, down the middle.
Although the Red River boundary controversy was fathered by the Louisiana Purchase, Texas-Oklahoma border disputes date from Captain Randolph B. Marcy’s 1852 exploration of the Red River headwaters region for the U. S. government. After he “discovered” the North Fork of the Red River, giving rise to the question of which fork was the river’s main stem, Texas – no wilting violet when it came to expanding its territory – claimed as its own the area located between the North Fork and the Prairie Dog Town Fork, called Greer County.
The boundary issue was further clouded in 1867 by three U. S. treaties signed at Medicine Lodge Creek near Medicine Lodge, Kansas. Two of these agreements created a Kiowa, Comanche, Apache confederation reservation east of and adjacent to Greer County in Indian Territory. The treaties identified the reservation’s southern border as “north of the middle of the main (Prairie Dog Town Fork) channel.” By intensifying the simmering boundary dispute, the Medicine Lodge Treaties kicked off the so-called “Greer County War”. The legal maneuvering didn’t end until the U. S. Supreme Court – using a map drawn by Scottish explorer, John Melish, to establish the Red River as the southwestern boundary between New Spain and the U. S., and after a careful review of the 1819 Adams-Onís Treaty – ruled in 1894 that the southern (Prairie Dog Town) fork was understood by the 1819 treaty to be the boundary agreed to by Spain and the United States.
The 1894 Supreme Court decision stood until 1918 when oil was discovered on the south side of the river. Spokesmen for the Indian confederation and other private property owners demanded royalty payments for oil they claimed was being pumped from beneath their lands on the north side of the river. Asserting that the middle of the river to the southern bank was Oklahoma land, the state filed suit against Texas, an action that also reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Adding to the confusion, the federal government, while recognizing that the southern bank was the boundary between Oklahoma and Texas, claimed that it controlled the river bed and any natural resources found there.
To further complicate matters, the expanding and contracting, eroding and accreting nature of the restless river bed made fixing the southern bank a very complicated matter indeed. In a series of Oklahoma v Texas rulings handed down between 1921 and 1924, the U. S. Supreme Court determined that:
- a cut bank is the relatively permanent elevation of a river that separates the bed from the adjacent upland;
- that cut banks are permanent and stable enough to serve as fixed boundaries;
- and for the purpose of fixing the boundary, the south bank is the cut bank of the Red River and thus forms the legal boundary between Oklahoma and Texas.
The final ruling was accepted by the two states, but it didn’t solve the difficulty of determining the exact location of the wandering south bank. Finally, Red River Boundary Commissions were created in 1991 by the legislatures of both states. Joined by representatives of the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache tribes, these commissions held a series of public meetings, and in 1999, submitted proposed legislation designating “the vegetation line along the south bank of the Red River” as the boundary between the two states” (except for Lake Texoma, which has a specified boundary that does not change). Both state governors signed the legislation into law in 1999. The Red River Boundary Compact – not to be confused with the earlier four-state Red River Compact – became federal law in 2000.
Although Texas owns an allocated portion of water in various reaches of the Red River under provisions of the Red River Compact, much of Reach I’s water is too salty for use without expensive treatment. To avoid this cost, local North Texas water agencies have applied for Oklahoma permits to pump water from certain of the Red River’s in-state northern tributaries before their flow enters the salty stream…so far, without success.
In any negotiation involving the withdrawal of water from the Red River Basin, salinity becomes an instant hot-button issue. Opponents legitimately argue that by siphoning large quantities of fresh water from Red River tributaries downstream of the salty western forks, salinity of the Red River below such withdrawals would increase. In short, the result of such withdrawals would result not only in a reduced volume of water but in a reduction of quality as well, adversely impacting downstream users. An equally legitimate counter argument is that potential downstream users would likely reside in Arkansas and Louisiana, two states with more than ample water resources.
The May 12, 1978 compact (approved by the U. S. Congress and signed into law by the President on December 22, 1980) is an agreement among Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana that allocates to each state a share of the water in the almost 1,400-mile long Red River Basin. It divides the Red River and its tributaries into five reaches and sub-basins for purposes of apportionment of water and administration of the compact.
But the potential peaceful sharing of Red River water came to an end when fast-growing Tarrant County, Texas – Fort Worth and Arlington – said Oklahoma was hogging water it will never need. Oklahoma and Texas took their squabble to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled for Oklahoma. The Tarrant Regional Water District, which represents 11 counties in North Texas, is appealing that decision. Now, the two states, both facing serious drought conditions have fought over water rights to the Red River at the Supreme Court on April 23. The case focuses on a small portion of the Red River in southeastern Oklahoma – Sub-basin 5, which mainly includes a Red River tributary, the Kiamichi River.
In a nutshell, part of the problem is that the Red River Compact does not clearly say if one state can take water from another state. And the problem is exacerbated by the fact that both Oklahoma and Texas have faced serious drought conditions for nearly three years, a dry-spell comparable to the historic drought of the mid-1950s. And in southern Oklahoma and North Texas there are more people, more industry, more agriculture, and more demands — for essentially the same amount of Red River water. And drought doesn’t recognize political spats and boundaries.
The world of water is a very hostile environment…deeply adversarial…with many competing interests: urban versus rural in all its forms; environmentalists, hunters and fishermen against urban, business and residential users; state against state; states against federal and local governments; the rapidly expanding Fort Worth/Arlington/Dallas Metroplex versus equally vibrant Greater Houston; farming, ranching and municipal water district interests opposing water entrepreneurs; and so on. Still, these growing water supply issues must be resolved. No segment of the economy…local, state or national…can function without adequate water. Effective conservation practices must be implemented now…not later! Reuse must be optimized, but with minimal downstream detriment. Old systems must be brought up to standard to minimize leakage. The haves must share on some basis with the have-nots, and it must be done in a manner benefiting all parties.
Time will tell.
Hugh Wynn is an Historian, author: West of the Cross Timbers & series of Texas history dime novels, co-founder: SaveWaterTexas, narrator of videos & DVDs, water conservationist. To read more about Oklahoma’s brief filed with the U. S. Supreme Court and the Lone Star State’s counter argument, go to: www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/55559/ for an article titled Drought-stricken Texas and Oklahoma Battle for Red River Water Rights written by Amy Slanchik dated April 19, 2013.
