Florida v. Georgia

Background

Florida, the downstream State, sued Georgia, the upstream State, over how to share water from the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin, a Y-shaped system of three rivers. Florida says Georgia’s heavy use of Flint River water reduces flow into the Apalachicola River and harmed Florida’s oyster industry after the 2012 drought. The Army Corps of Engineers operates dams that affect how much water actually reaches Florida under its Master Manual.

Reasoning

A Special Master held a long trial and recommended dismissing Florida’s case because, he wrote, Florida had not shown by "clear and convincing" evidence that a cap on Georgia’s use would actually increase flows in the Apalachicola River when Florida needed them, given the Corps’ operations. The Supreme Court disagreed with requiring such a strict showing at this stage. The Court concluded Florida met an initial showing that a consumption cap could likely produce meaningful extra streamflow and that, under certain Corps operating conditions, at least some of that water could reach Florida. But the Court also found the record lacks precise factual findings about how much water would be saved, when it would arrive, and how much it would help Florida’s ecology and economy.

Real world impact

The Court did not grant a water cap or final relief. Instead it sent the case back to the Special Master for more factual findings about water amounts, Corps operations, timing of flows, and likely ecological and economic benefits. The United States and the Corps have said they will consider Court decisions when operating reservoirs, but the Court emphasized that further findings are needed before a final decree.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the Special Master correctly applied the traditional "balance of harms" test and would have denied relief, saying the Corps’ operations make meaningful benefit to Florida unlikely.