Because of the rare use of special masters by the U.S. Supreme Court, this blog has followed the FL-GA Water Wars for years. Now, because this was always a case of original jurisdiction, SCOTUS unanimously rejected Florida's exceptions taken and dismissed the case, essentially finding for GA. This comes even after rejecting a now deceased special master's ruling in favor of Florida and remanding to a new special master to make further findings regarding Florida's claim it suffered harm from the overconsumption of water by Georgia. The second master's recommendation was not to grant Florida’s request for a decree equitably apportioning the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin. The master found the evidence did not show harm to Florida caused by Georgia and that Georgia’s water use is reasonable. Additionally, the evidence did not show that the benefits of apportionment would substantially outweigh the potential harms. Florida asserted the first Special Master found that Georgia’s upstream water use was unreasonable and that the Supreme Court already rejected an additional finding that nothing could be done because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (which manages the reservoirs in the river system) was not a party to the case. Florida sought a cap to alleviate past damage allegedly caused by Georgia. Georgia maintained any limits on its water use would undermine its economy, including the growth of the Atlanta area and the state’s agriculture industry. Florida wanted to limit Georgia’s water consumption from the basin, including Lake Lanier, to 1992 levels and to get reparations for economic and environmental harm to Apalachicola's oyster fisheries from drought. Georgia claimed Florida failed to prove harm to aquatic species and the high court yesterday agreed. The opinion finding Florida has not met the exacting standard necessary to warrant the exercise of this Court’s extraordinary authority to control the conduct of a coequal sovereign was authored by Justice Barrett and can be found here- https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/22o142_m648.pdf
