Two water disputes, which have each been going on for decades, made it to the Supreme Court January 8.
The first, Florida v. Georgia, has been an extensive battle over the use of water from the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin. Florida maintains that Georgia’s increase in water consumption, specifically in the city of Atlanta and farming in the southern parts of the state, is putting the state’s ecological and economic resources at risk. Of particular concern is the state’s oyster industry. Florida claims that the decrease in freshwater from Georgia has contributed to the recent decreases in oyster populations, which have declined significantly since 2012. The special master, a Supreme Court appointee who acts like a trial judge, recommended that the high court should reject Florida’s request, declaring that the state failed to show that a water consumption cap was needed.
The justices discussed whether Florida had sufficiently demonstrated how a cap on Georgia’s water consumption would help alleviate the state’s issues. Several justices remarked that if Georgia is using less water upstream, more will flow downstream to Florida is a “common sense” argument. However, Georgia’s view is that a cap could be inconsequential due to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) ownership of five dams in the area that control water flow within the watershed. The state argued that even if Georgia was to conserve more water, the USACE could use the surplus for other uses. Currently, USACE has not participated in the suit.
The second case, Texas v. New Mexico, is about similar water use and consumption issues within the Rio Grande Basin. Texas claims that New Mexico is in violation of the Rio Grande Compact, a treaty signed in 1938 by Colorado, New Mexico and Texas. The compact determined equitable use of the Rio Grande Basin waters, including annual water delivery obligations for New Mexico and Colorado. The primary discussion point for the Justices was whether or not the federal government should be allowed to intervene in the case. The U.S. government claims it has authority to do so.