Supreme Court ready to wade into water war

[waltky]

Granny says dey need to get to the bottom o' who threw Billy Joe McCallister offa Tallahatchie bridge...

Supreme Court to hear Florida-Georgia Apalachicola water case
Jan. 7, 2018 -- The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a longstanding battle between Florida and Georgia about water flow in the Apalachicola River on Monday.

In the case Florida v. Georgia, the state of Florida is asking the Supreme Court to cap the amount of water Georgia can use from the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river system. Florida claims oyster fisheries in in the Apalachicola Bay have been damaged by Georgia's water use. "It affects the whole economy," said Joseph Parrish, a commissioner in Florida's Franklin County. "It affects people's ability to buy groceries, provide for their family. You know, it'd be like a small town that relies on steel mills or relies on coal and all of a sudden there ain't no more." Florida officially filed its suit in 2013, but the battle between the two states over the distribution of water has been going on for nearly 30 years.

Ralph Lancaster, a court-appointed special master, ruled in February that Florida failed to prove that a cap on Georgia's water usage would help the estuaries in the bay. Florida then requested the special master develop a more "equitable" distribution of water between the states. "For decades, Florida has done everything it could to avert that result -- and Georgia has fought it at every turn," a Florida brief said. "This litigation represents Florida's last opportunity to stem Georgia's inequitable consumption, and protect these irreplaceable natural resources, by apportioning the waters equitably between the states."

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in a lawsuit between Florida and Georgia regarding distribution of water in the Apalachicola River, pictured above, on Monday​

Tom Cunningham, chief economist at the Metro Atlanta Chamber, argued a strict water usage limit in Atlanta would stunt population growth, drive away new businesses and lower property values. Georgia filed its own brief arguing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers effectively controls "the spigot at the state line," therefore a new water distribution plan wouldn't guarantee Florida would receive more water. In his ruling, Lancaster said the court couldn't "assure Florida the relief it seeks" because the Corps wasn't party to the lawsuit.

Florida cited comments from the Corps stating it would adjust its water policies in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river system based on the court's ruling. "It is at the very least reasonable to predict that the Corps would respond to an equitable apportionment by this court just as one would expect -- by adjusting its operations to effectuate that decree consistent with this court's decision and other applicable law," Florida said. Supreme Court Justices will hear arguments on Monday and make their own decision, independent of Lancaster's recommendation, later this year.

Supreme Court to hear Florida-Georgia Apalachicola water case

 

[Ringel05]

I live on the bay. This has been going on for a long long long time. The oysters are really hurting especially this year, but as with most of these calls no really knows why. There is less water coming down and there will have to be a reckoning at some point. For all the jockeying for position I don’t see this being solved by anything but political expediency. It would be nice if some agreement could come that reduces Atlanta’s consumption or at least makes them use it more wisely but I am not holding my breath.

The oysters are really hurting especially this year, but as with most of these calls no really knows why.

As with most issues pertaining to the environment, the "why" is quite well understood and one side's efforts consist almost exclusively of attempts to confuse the matter and, in the minds of affected citizens who are not environmental scientists of some stripe, create doubt about the veracity of the "why," the basis being that there is a very slim chances that the reasons given may be inaccurate. Such is the way of selfish people.

A friend and state judge once told me "there are 3 sides to every story -- the plaintiff, the respondent, and the truth."

​

I'm not rolling my eyes at the statement itself, but rather at the fact that you think it worth here saying. It contributes nothing to the conversation.

Ain't it great being the self appointed control freak. Lighten up Francis.