Political stakes high in Fla.-Ga. water wars
In what is sure to produce a contentious ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday heard oral arguments between Florida and Georgia in their long-running war over the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river basin.
But while the court’s word on many issues is final, history shows that water conflicts aren’t one of them. And no matter what the court decides, without urgent action by the Trump administration, the Southeast’s water wars are likely to flare up, lit by the biggest match of all: partisan politics.
For the better part of the past 30 years, the states of Florida and Georgia, joined occasionally by Alabama, have been at odds over sharing water from the ACF. The roots of the conflict lie in the explosive growth of the Atlanta metro area, which has consumed an ever-greater share of the ACF’s water.
In 2014, Florida filed suit against Georgia in the Supreme Court alleging that Georgia’s failure to use its water efficiently is harming Florida’s economically significant oyster industry in the Apalachicola Bay, which has been declining. The suit asks the court to guarantee Florida an equal share of ACF basin water, under a legal theory called “equitable apportionment.”
Georgia argues that doing this would significantly constrain Atlanta’s growth, and that freeing up more water would in any case not be enough to save Florida’s oyster industry.
While the legal issues might seem arcane, the political implications are anything but. Given that Georgia representatives have already linked the ACF dispute to federal appropriations bills, and that the federal government would likely have to implement a court-ordered settlement, the dispute is virtually certain to influence coming battles over the federal budget. The dispute has, moreover, become a hot potato in Florida and Georgia electoral politics, and given both states’ battleground status, it is likely to rise to national prominence in 2018.
During the 2016 campaign, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio thundered that “Georgia is stealing our water,” and promised voters that “we’re going to make Georgia give us the water, and Georgia’s going to pay for it.” Given this supercharged rhetoric, the issue is likely to be featured front-and-center in Florida’s 2018 gubernatorial election, already seen as a key barometer for the 2020 presidential contest. With the political stakes so high on both sides, it’s hard to imagine anyone backing down, no matter what the court decides.
Even the Supreme Court itself seems to recognize it’s unlikely to end the Southeast’s water wars. In 2014, when Florida first filed its claim, the Supreme Court appointed a “Special Master” to try to reach an agreement. There’s a good reason the court has tried so hard to avoid having to make any decision at all in Florida’s dispute with Georgia.
The court has tended to hear equitable apportionment cases on their individual merits, which has made it reluctant to articulate general principles for dividing water between states. Because of this reluctance, Supreme Court decisions rarely end disputes over water. Even Justice Stephen Breyer asked “Why isn’t the United States in this case?” As his question suggests, one way or another, the other branches of government are likely to have to eventually help settle Florida’s differences with Georgia.
But while Washington’s involvement often makes things more complicated, in the case of the Southeast’s water wars, it in fact points the way toward a solution. The basis of a potential final deal that would benefit all sides became clear last year, when the Special Master caused a stir by asking attorneys for Florida and Georgia whether they could accept a court-ordered canal bringing more water into the ACF from the Tennessee River valley.
Apparently, Georgia officials have contemplated the idea, even proposing subsidizing a highspeed rail line from Tennessee to Atlanta to compensate Tennessee for taking some of its water. But because the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federal entity, largely controls the Tennessee River, the Trump administration would have to be involved in any such final settlement. This provides both the perfect rationale for the administration’s involvement, and it can help use federal aid for infrastructure, a stated administration priority, as leverage to resolve the dispute.
It’s tempting to think a judgment from the highest court in the land will end the Florida-Georgia water wars once and for all. But unless Congress and the Trump administration step in, the court’s decision may prove the adage that “whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting,” sadly true for the Southeast.