The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has been covering the tri-state water war for nearly a quarter-century, from the initial filing of the litigation by Alabama in 1990 to the many failed efforts to resolve the dispute over the years. Our reporters have traveled the length of the Chattahoochee, gone out with the oystermen of Apalachicola Bay, followed the court decisions and assessed the economic and political impacts of this long-running story.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a Florida lawsuit that seeks to cap Georgia’s withdrawals from the Chattahoochee River — an unaccustomed setback for Georgia in the long-running dispute.
The court’s decision could lead to a devastating ruling affecting Georgia’s water supply and will certainly cost the state mountainous legal fees to lawyers hired to combat Florida’s litigation.
“This is the start of what could be a very long process, because interstate disputes over water can take years and years,” said Gil Rogers, senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center in Atlanta. “It’s going to be a while before any of us knows how this breaks. This is not going to be cheap, either.”
In recent years, Georgia won a string of court rulings in the decades-long water war with Florida and Alabama. But in October 2013, Florida took the unusual step of filing suit in the U.S. Supreme Court, alleging that Georgia’s unmitigated overconsumption of water was devastating the oyster harvesting industry in Appalachicola Bay.
Thirteen months later, the high court has agreed to take the case, and Florida officials are ecstatic.
Gov. Scott: 'We are fighting for the future of this region'
Gov. Rick Scott, campaigning for re-election, called the court’s decision “huge news and a major victory for Florida.”
“For 20 years, Florida has tried to work with Georgia, and (Apalachicola Bay) families have continued to see their fisheries suffer from the lack of water,” Scott said in a statement. “The Supreme Court takes up so few cases, and their willingness to hear Florida’s demonstrates the merits of our case before the Court. We are fighting for the future of this region, and we won’t quit until these resources are restored.”
Added Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi: “Georgia has delayed long enough, and this lawsuit is essential to protect Florida from the environmental and economic harms caused by Georgia’s overconsumption of water.”
Florida’s suit asks the high court to limit Georgia’s water withdrawals to 1992 levels, when metro Atlanta’s population stood at 3 million people. It has since grown to more than 5.4 million people.
Florida also asked the high court to appoint a special master to help determine the most equitable solution that addresses the region’s various water supply needs. When collecting information, special masters can summon witnesses to testify and issue subpoenas for documents. They also typically file reports directly to the justices while the litigation proceeds.
It remains to be seen whether the high court will appoint a special master to oversee the Florida-Georgia litigation, but it is not uncommon for the court to make such an appointment when handling an interstate water dispute. On Monday, for example, the justices appointed a New Orleans attorney as special master in a dispute between Texas and New Mexico over water allocations from the Rio Grande River.
Georgia and Obama had asked court to stay out
Georgia had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay out of the dispute at this time and noted the Army Corps of Engineers has already spent considerable time and effort updating its water allocation plan for the Apalachichola-Chattahoochee-Flint river basin. The Obama administration, in a court filing by U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, essentially agreed and asked the justices not to take the case up at this time.
In its order Monday, the high court gave Georgia 30 days to file its answer to Florida’s lawsuit.
The decision reached Gov. Nathan Deal and Attorney General Sam Olens as they criss-crossed the state during their final day of campaigning before Election Day.
“It is disappointing,” Deal said during a stop in Augusta. “We will spend years in litigation and state funds. And Florida will have to do the same. It would be better if we could sit down and negotiate it.”
Even though the Corps of Engineers’ lawyers had believed the lawsuit was premature, Deal said, “it’s not unexpected that the Supreme Court would allow it to move forward.”
Georgia’s lawyers will “take every necessary step” to ensure that the Corps is able to finish updating its water allocation plans, Deal said.
Olens calls Florida's claims ridiculous
“The Supreme Court’s action … now gives us the opportunity to address head-on – and defeat – Florida’s ridiculous claims,” he said in a statement. “Although the time and expense this process will involve is regrettable, I am confident that Georgia will succeed. And I want to reinforce how vitally important it is that the Corps finish the critical project of updating the water control manuals for the river basin, without any interference from this litigation.”
Rogers, the Atlanta environmental lawyer who has closely followed the litigation, said he believes a court decree is not the way to resolve this dispute.
“The ultimate, sustainable solution is not going to happen without getting the stakeholders who use this basin all together, and get them in an open and transparent manner to reach a resolution that everyone can live with,” he said.
About the Author
