And supposedly, this was upheld in 1984 when the feds got the 140 acres.
The Constitution's reservation of navigable waterways was for purposes of guaranteeing free trade across and between States. That implies that all they truly control is the surface plus the draft depth, not the banks.
The issue of navigable waterways has always been a historical booger-boo in Texas...Where the founders believed Texas would have a plethora of rivers to go up and down with commerce...It would son be found out that was not the case...
Yes, there are a few waterways, but compared to the total of rivers that “might” be able to support navigation by large commercial shipping, there are not that many...And those that are, are close to the coast...Not very far inland...
At least that is what I have heard over the years...
The Red River, is one of those types that are not good for commerce in the normal convention...
Not in that area up there between Oklahoma and Texas...
There is something else called “natural resources” that could be brought into play, and that means someone or something stands to make a lot of money with a deal utilizing the government to displace citizens from their land that has been in their families for generations up there...
And that IS their main play at this time...
The government will not make the same mistake it made in Nevada...they know the public, or at least we are, who pay attention, will be forming opposition groups and facing off with them directly...
What we need are lawyers who believe as we do and take it to the government in the courts...
This is all far from over...And where you see the BLM SWAT guys forming up, that’s where we need to be in our capacity...
Just remember, we cannot shoot first...We will have to take a bloody nose first and foremost, we ill win the court of public opinion at that point, and anyone with that effort that anoints themselves as a “leader”: of those forces had better be well-spoken, measure every single syllable, and not say anything that could, and will be actively sought to be used against our efforts by the complicit media that works with the government to obtain these goals...
Just my opinion...
It goes back to claims that the US made on the northern half of the river bed and claims that Spain, Mexico, and Texas never made. And those claims that the US made on the northern half were inherited by OK when she became a state.
The issue that precipitated this particular court case was oil. Oil was discovered and some of these Texas drillers were directional drilling to the north and producing oil from lands owned by Okies. So Oklahoma sued Texas. And in this case the US claimed the southern half of the bed, AND THE MINERAL RIGHTS BENEATH THE BED.
The other dispute is where the Red intersects the longitudinal line border. In that corner there are 3 forks to the river. Texas established the north fork as the boundary, but in a treaty with the Indians, the US established the middle fork as the boundary.
We look at this issue backwards, literally. We need to go back to 1907 and look forward to get a different perspective. 1918 and 1924 are not long after 1907.
Also, you need to realize there are other issues in play. Texas has been trying to get the water out of Oklahoma's Kiamichi River and the courts(federal) keep ruling against Texas. And, it is campaign season in Texas.