Jump to content

Unanimous SCOTUS rules against Florida in water suit against Georgia


Recommended Posts

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled against Florida in a water law dispute with Georgia on Thursday. The unanimous opinion was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

The case presents a somewhat uncommon instance of the high court’s original jurisdiction—the ability to hear and decide certain disputes that never go before a lower court. This authority is delineated in the U.S. Constitution and via statute. Germane to the case stylized as Florida v. Georgia, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over the equitable apportionment of interstate waters.

Originally filed in 2013, Florida accused Georgia of using too much water from the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin. The Peach State’s alleged overconsumption, in turn, decimated the Sunshine State’s local oyster population, Florida claimed. But after several inquiries over several years, evidence suggested Florida ignored conservation science and fished its own rivers to death.

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/florida-fished-itself-to-death-justice-barrett-rules-for-unanimous-supreme-court-in-opinion-with-no-references-to-alan-jacksons-chattahoochee/

 

Guess that hoses Apalachicola for a half a decade if not longer...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they address the issue of an upstream consumer's water allotment, or lack thereof?

I didn't see any reference to it; just that Florida wanted to recover cash from Georgie for their own screw-up

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the comments: 

ogredragon  a month ago

Don't worry. It won't matter in a few decades or a few years or maybe tomorrow. When the Greenland Glaciers start crumbling into the ocean; as we have seen so many mountain glaciers dissolve overnight into rivers; Florida will be some islands polluted by the nuclear radiation of their Turkey Point and St. Lucie Nuclear plants when the salt water invades them..

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Did they address the issue of an upstream consumer's water allotment, or lack thereof?

I didn't see any reference to it; just that Florida wanted to recover cash from Georgie for their own screw-up

- DSK

As long as they have evidence of the Plaintiff not trying to mitigate the issue they are suing about, I'm fine with the decision.

I served on a jury where the plaintiff, a developer, was suing CalTrans. One of the Judges instructions to the jury before deliberations was: If the Plaintiff has not taken any steps to help mitigate the issues addressed in the lawsuit, they are not obligated to receive any compensation. In other words, you must at least start to do something to show you are trying to resolve the issue but cannot finish with out the asked for compensation. Besides the guy was an idiot for trying to build on an alluvial island in a creek bed below a watershed that has a history of flooding. 

6 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

From the comments: 

ogredragon  a month ago

Don't worry. It won't matter in a few decades or a few years or maybe tomorrow. When the Greenland Glaciers start crumbling into the ocean; as we have seen so many mountain glaciers dissolve overnight into rivers; Florida will be some islands polluted by the nuclear radiation of their Turkey Point and St. Lucie Nuclear plants when the salt water invades them..

As I pointed out above, if idiots continue to build near the waters edge, you get what you deserve.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:

As long as they have evidence of the Plaintiff not trying to mitigate the issue they are suing about, I'm fine with the decision.

...

Agreed, I'm just curious about the issue of upstream vs downstream water rights. I believe it will be an increasingly important issue over the next few decades

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Agreed, I'm just curious about the issue of upstream vs downstream water rights. I believe it will be an increasingly important issue over the next few decades

- DSK

yeah,  california is fucked

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Agreed, I'm just curious about the issue of upstream vs downstream water rights. I believe it will be an increasingly important issue over the next few decades

- DSK

 

1 hour ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

yeah,  Kalifornia is fucked

Fucked to be sure

the list why, in fine print would look like a FoneBook

only thing left is the weather and Terrain

and they are Fucking w Both

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

yeah,  california is fucked

Well, southern California was a fucking desert before the gov't spent all that money on INFRASTRUCTURE to capture snow melt and also pump the Colorado River to LA.

 

2 minutes ago, DA-WOODY said:

 

Fucked to be sure

the list why, in fine print would look like a FoneBook

only thing left is the weather and Terrain

and they are Fucking w Both

Well, if you didn't like living in a socialistical society that is totally dependent on a major gov't project for the very water of life itself, you shouldn't not have lived in California in the first place. Bitching about it now just shows what a dumbass you are

Of course, you can always show 'em... move to another desert

- DSK

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Eastern states mostly follow riparian rights, giving the land owner adjacent to the water body pretty much unlimited use of the water.  It sounds like the SC was recognizing that.  Western water laws tend more towards a "first beneficial use" type of claim.  I am sure it is a lot more complicated than that and it gets really weird in the western states.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Calif isn't as fucked as ya think. This issue has been adjudicated aplenty since forever but the 30s set the scene. Calif always gets a bigger half than Arizona, and Nevada gets spills, if any. Plus Calif has ocean access that they can make freshwater and sell to the casinos and golf courses in Nevada. Cal 2 -- Ariz. zip.  Arizona v. California 373 U.S. 546 (1963) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, southern California was a fucking desert before the gov't spent all that money on INFRASTRUCTURE to capture snow melt and also pump the Colorado River to LA.

 

Well, if you didn't like living in a socialistical society that is totally dependent on a major gov't project for the very water of life itself, you shouldn't not have lived in California in the first place. Bitching about it now just shows what a dumbass you are

Of course, you can always show 'em... move to another desert

- DSK

moved to San Diego in 1953

before Everything

I can Bitch

But I wasn't

I waz Jus sayin

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DA-WOODY said:

moved to San Diego in 1953

before Everything

I can Bitch

But I wasn't

I waz Jus sayin

You might want to look up the WPA water projects, there, chief. Clearly you know not of what you speak if you think San Diego did not have federal-supplied water in 1953.

Check some history of southern Cali in the 1920s or earlier. People did not have water... no surprise, it was a fucking barren desert with a couple of dozen near-starving dried-out Indians. There's a reason why the Spanish mostly ignored the place.

Go ahead and bitch, nobody will be surprised

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Calif isn't as fucked as ya think. This issue has been adjudicated aplenty since forever but the 30s set the scene. Calif always gets a bigger half than Arizona, and Nevada gets spills, if any. Plus Calif has ocean access that they can make freshwater and sell to the casinos and golf courses in Nevada. Cal 2 -- Ariz. zip.  Arizona v. California 373 U.S. 546 (1963) 

meanwhile......  Ca  is in another big drought  and since they didn't take any real action since the last one,  they're fucked..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor fucking Florida didn't think past their nose. Wah, fucking, wah, wah, fucking wah!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

You might want to look up the WPA water projects, there, chief. Clearly you know not of what you speak if you think San Diego did not have federal-supplied water in 1953.

Check some history of southern Cali in the 1920s or earlier. People did not have water... no surprise, it was a fucking barren desert with a couple of dozen near-starving dried-out Indians. There's a reason why the Spanish mostly ignored the place.

Go ahead and bitch, nobody will be surprised

- DSK

 

????
WTF are you on a sabbatical from PA ???

I said the place is FUCKED

I have denied Nothing

Fucks are clear cutting trees to put up blm/glowball warming signs

and building high density housing at Sea Level and in River Valleys

if you think I don't get it .... You Don't Get it !!

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bmiller said:

Put up a couple solar panels and a desalination plant, problem solved. 

I dunno about "problem solved" but it would help with providing water. Scaling up a cruising boat's desalination system to provide water for 12 million people AND their lawns would be sure to bring some other issues.

The real problem is too many people in an unsuitable place. Sam Kinnison was wrong.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DA-WOODY said:

????
WTF are you on a sabbatical from PA ???

I said the place is FUCKED

I have denied Nothing

Fucks are clear cutting trees to put up blm/glowball warming signs

and building high density housing at Sea Level and in River Valleys

if you think I don't get it .... You Don't Get it !!

So, why do you continue to live there and bitch about it? Your pioneer ancestors voted with their feet.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shit, all We have to do is stop growing almonds for the world, and there will be plenty of water for those lawns and pools in SoCal.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida vs Georgis. Hard to pick a favorite here. Two states that don't want people to vote and are full of beer bellies and rusted pickup trucks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...