It is water rights litigation that will determine the future of Florida's oyster farmers.
It's a lawsuit filed under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, when one state sues another.
Trial started in Portland, Maine on October 31, 2016 before Special Master appointed by U.S. Supreme Court.
Earlier coverage here.
Supreme Court to Review Florida vs. Georgia Water Dispute
Wednesday, October 26th, 2016
Yet another war is being waged between upstream folks vs. downstream folks, this time in Florida and Georgia over water usage related to the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin, which runs between the two states. The battle began some two decades ago, but it was just two years ago that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) gave Florida permission to formally sue its neighbor to the north.
The gist of Florida’s complaint against Georgia, according to an article on the SCOTUS website, is that the Peach State is guilty of “unchecked usage” of the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin and the Sunshine State is asking the court to “equitably apportion” said waters. It’s a complicated dispute involving inflows, tributaries and hydrologically connected groundwater.
Florida contends that these waters nourish “a rare and exemplary ecosystem” and have helped grow the Apalachicola Region’s “unique and vibrant cultural, social and economic community, dependent primarily on the environmental health of the River and Bay.”
Florida also points the finger at Georgia for disrupting and causing the decline of their fisheries, specifically the oyster beds, due to “Georgia’s upstream storage and consumption of water from
Basins.” According to Florida’s complaint, “the federal government recently recognized the collapse and issued a fishery disaster declaration for the oyster industry in Florida.”
Basins.” According to Florida’s complaint, “the federal government recently recognized the collapse and issued a fishery disaster declaration for the oyster industry in Florida.”
According to the SCOTUS article, Florida says they’ve made “numerous attempts through legal channels and mediation to settle the dispute”, and that “they’ve exhausted all other reasonable means to stop Georgia’s unchecked use of water and halt the continuing degradation of the Apalachicola Region” and “to redress existing harm and to avert additional harmful depletions caused by uses in Georgia.”
As with any argument, there are two sides, and those fighting on the side of Georgia have plenty to say on the subject. Growing America spoke to Bryan Tolar, President of the Georgia Agribusiness Council (GAC).
Full disclosure, the GAC is one of several state organizations, in both Georgia and Florida, that have submitted what are known as “amicus briefs”(a supportive document that is filed in a court by someone who is not directly related to the case under consideration), which will be reviewed by a Supreme Court-appointed Special Master, as part of the proceedings, along with other expert testimony and documentation.
Upon completion of his review of documents and testimony, the Special Master, the honorable judge, Ralph I. Lancaster, of Maine, will recommend outcomes and propose a ruling to the Supreme Court. When a final ruling will be issued is anybody’s guess. Historically, the whole process could take another several years.
So what is at stake in Georgia should the Special Master rule against them and recommend new limits to river water usage?
Tolar says it’s the livelihoods of thousands of agribusinesses and the $74 billion impact they have on the state’s economy. While the public thinks of Georgia agriculture as all peaches, pecans and peanuts, there’s much, muchmore to the industry.
Georgia’s ag interests include everything from row crops to poultry, livestock, blueberries, cotton and onions, as well as adjunct, but hugely critical, ag enterprises like landscape management, sod farms, horticulture, grain elevators, farm equipment dealers and wholesale and retail food distributors—and every single one of these industries has been built on, and depends heavily on, adequate natural water resources.
“Our focus in the amicus brief was not solely on the farm,” explains Tolar. “It’s about the water needed after the product goes to market as well. It’s also about the irrigation needed to grow urban communities. Georgia receives around 52” of rain each year…but this vital resource has to be captured and managed.”
In this battle, someone is going to end up unhappy with the outcome. Of course, Tolar believes the loser should be Florida, but if that’s the case, he hopes the loss will be turned into a learning experience and a call to action for the Sunshine State to step up their stewardship efforts.
“I would hope that Judge Lancaster would look at the progressive steps our state organizations have provided and see that our ag leaders and business leaders are performing stewardship and conservation actions that should set an example, not just for Florida, but to the whole country,” says Tolar.
“Here in Georgia, we’ve been metering our irrigation water usage for over a decade. We invested in and created an Irrigation Research Park for data to help with conservation, and we provide a cost-share program for irrigation efficiency retrofit technologies on the farm to help achieve a targeted eighty percent irrigation efficiency level. We established the 2010 Water Stewardship Act,
a broad water conservation law that targeted inefficiencies in water delivery systems, multi-family dwellings, and outdoor water use…and our State Water Plan is second to none. Every state’s water conservation efforts would benefit if they would follow Georgia’s lead.”
“I wouldn’t want to trade places with Florida as they try and make their case. They just can’t compete with what Georgia has accomplished in our water stewardship and efficiencies,” says Tolar. “Florida wants to grow their economy…I get it. I just don’t want to see them do it at our expense.”
Special Master Lancaster is expected to begin reviewing the case in his home state of Maine on October 31st. If called, state representatives from Florida and Georgia will travel there to provide testimony and additional documents. Organizations like the Georgia Agribusiness Council, Florida Wildlife Federation, Georgia Green Industry and numerous others pay for the preparation of amicus briefs and legal representation out of their own budgets.
For additional reading:
Review Florida’s original complaint document: http://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FLORIDA-v.-GEORGIA-Original-Action-Complaint.pdf
Review the various amicus briefs and submissions related to the case: http://www.pierceatwood.com/floridavgeorgia142original.
Review the SCOTUS docket history of the case: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/florida-v-georgia-2/
No comments:
Post a Comment