Florida v. Georgia

The Supreme Court “has recognized for more than a century its inherent authority, as part of the Constitution’s grant of original jurisdiction, to equitably apportion interstate streams between States.” Kansas v. Nebraska, 574 U.S. 445, 454 (2015). Consequently, given the competing sovereign interests in such cases, a complaining State bears a burden much greater than does a private party seeking an injunction.

Florida brought this original action against Georgia, claiming that Georgia consumes more than its fair share of water from an interstate network of rivers. Florida argues that Georgia’s overconsumption harms its economic and ecological interests and, therefore, seeks an equitable apportionment of water from the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin. In 2018, the Court remanded the case to a Special Master with instructions to make findings and recommendations on additional issues. The Special Master concluded 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 must prove a threatened or actual injury “of serious magnitude” caused by Georgia’s upstream water consumption. The Court concluded that “Florida has not proved by clear and convincing evidence that the collapse of its oyster fisheries was caused by Georgia’s overconsumption.” Consequently, the Court held that “Florida has not met the exacting standard necessary to warrant the exercise of [the Court’s] extraordinary authority to control the conduct of a coequal sovereign.” Therefore, the Court overruled Florida’s exceptions and adopted the Special Master’s recommendation.