22o141 Docket
The other water dispute the Supreme Court will hear on January 8 involves the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (“ACF Basin”). The ACF Basin distributes water to Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, and the dispute before the Court primarily concerns Georgia’s alleged overconsumption of water apportioned to Florida. The US Army Corps of Engineers operates a system of dams in the basin and, as such, is also involved in the dispute. The question before the Court is whether Florida is entitled to equitable apportionment of the ACF Basin waters and injunctive relief against Georgia to sustain an adequate flow of fresh water into its Apalachicola region.
The Chattahoochee River starts in North Georgia and flows south along Georgia’s border through Alabama and Florida. The Chattahoochee River joins the Flint River to form the Apalachicola River, which flows south through Northwest Florida and into the Apalachicola Bay in the Gulf of Mexico. The ACF Basin distributes 19,800 square miles of water into the three states: 74% into Georgia, 15% into Alabama, and 11% into Florida.
Florida specifically alleges that its Apalachicola region is suffering environmentally and economically—in particular, its oyster industry is harmed—due to Georgia’s overconsumption of water from the ACF Basin. But the issues caused by the ACF Basin’s water distribution is hardly a recent phenomenon. The states involved have complained about the water apportionment from this basin for decades. Back in the 1980s, issues arose from a series of droughts in the area limiting the water supply. Several years later, in 1997, the three states and the federal government seemingly entered into an agreement to develop an allocation formula for the ACF Basin in order to ensure equitable apportionment. But this supposed agreement did not lead to an allocation formula and eventually expired without any conclusion.
As a result of their inability to determine any formal equitable apportionment, an on-again off-again battle over the waters has ensued. In particular, a drought coupled with the collapse of Florida’s oyster industry drove Florida to file a complaint in 2013, leading to the present dispute. This is the first time the Court will weigh in on the legal fight over the ACF Basin. As is custom in these disputes, a Special Master was assigned and his report rejected Florida’s argument that Georgia’s water consumption from the ACF Basin should be limited. The report concluded that Florida had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that capping Georgia’s water consumption would improve the river flows during a drought period and thus aid the Apalachicola region’s economy and environment.
At stake for Florida are its industries that rely on this water supply as well as its environment and ecosystems, as Georgia’s water usage has allegedly dangerously altered the salinity of the water. Georgia counters that putting limits on its water usage from the ACF Basin would actually cost its own economy billions of dollars.