Florida v. Georgia
ELR Citation: 51 ELR 20059 No(s). 142, Orig (U.S. Apr 1, 2021)
The U.S. Supreme Court, in an ongoing dispute between Florida and Georgia over the apportionment of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin's waters, agreed unanimously with a special master's latest recommendation on remand that Florida's request for a cap on Georgia's consumption of water from the Flint River be denied, and dismissed the suit. Florida had argued Georgia was consuming more than its equitable share of Flint River water, asserting that more water would flow down the Apalachicola River if Georgia consumed less water from the Flint River and, thus, would help to recover and maintain Florida's oyster industry. A court-appointed special master initially recommended that Florida's complaint be dismissed, concluding the state failed to present clear and convincing evidence that its injuries could be redressed by a decree capping Georgia's upstream water consumption if the decree did not also bind the Army Corps of Engineers; but the Court held that the special master applied too strict a standard and remanded again for further findings. A new special master was appointed and recommended that Florida's request be denied, but did so based on the conclusion that Florida failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Georgia's alleged overconsumption caused serious harm to Florida's oyster fisheries or its river wildlife and plant life. Florida filed exceptions to the recommendation. The Court found that the state failed to show it was "highly probable" that Georgia's alleged overconsumption played more than a trivial role in the collapse of its fisheries and failed to provide sufficient evidence of actual past or threatened harm to species in the Apalachicola River, and thus failed to carry its burden of proving causation by clear and convincing evidence. The Court therefore agreed with the special master's recommendation, overruled Florida's exceptions, and dismissed the suit. Barrett, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.