## Facts

- The dispute concerned allocation of water in the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint (ACF) River Basin, whose rivers originate largely in Georgia and flow into Florida’s Apalachicola River and Apalachicola Bay.
- Georgia relied on ACF waters for municipal and industrial supply (including metro Atlanta) and for agricultural irrigation in south Georgia.
- Florida relied on ACF flows for ecological conditions and commercial interests in the Apalachicola River and Bay, including the oyster fishery.
- Florida alleged that during severe drought conditions (notably 2011–2012), Georgia’s increased consumptive use reduced flows into Florida, causing serious ecological and economic harm, including collapse of oyster fisheries.
- Florida filed an original action seeking an equitable apportionment decree capping Georgia’s consumption to increase downstream flows.
- A Special Master recommended dismissal, concluding Florida failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a cap would redress Florida’s harms given the Army Corps of Engineers’ control of key reservoir operations and the United States’ absence as a party.
- Florida filed exceptions, arguing the Special Master applied an overly demanding redressability standard at the dismissal stage.

## Issues

1. In an interstate equitable apportionment action, whether the complaining state must show by clear and convincing evidence, at the threshold stage, that a decree will redress its injuries despite federal reservoir operations and the United States not being a party.
2. Whether a legally sufficient showing of possible redress—i.e., a substantial likelihood that a decree could ameliorate the complained-of injuries—is enough to avoid dismissal and require further findings on the merits.

## Decision

- The Court held that the Special Master applied an overly strict redressability standard by effectively requiring merits-level proof at the threshold stage.
- The Court concluded Florida made a legally sufficient showing that a cap on Georgia’s consumptive use could substantially redress Florida’s alleged injuries, including during drought periods.
- The Court declined to treat the Corps’ absence as dispositive at this stage, noting the Court could craft relief consistent with federal operations and that the Corps had represented it would attempt to accommodate a decree.
- The Court vacated the recommendation of dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, directing the Special Master to make definitive findings on harm, causation, and the benefits-versus-costs balance of a cap.

## Legal Principles

- In equitable apportionment between states, the complaining state ultimately bears a heavy burden and must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the upstream state’s unreasonable use causes serious injury and that an equitable decree can remedy the injury.
- At the stage of deciding whether to dismiss rather than proceed to final findings, the complaining state need not prove certain redress; it must show a substantial likelihood that a judicial decree will ameliorate its injuries.
- The Court’s equitable authority in original jurisdiction disputes allows flexible remedies and does not automatically require joinder of the United States merely because federal agencies operate related water-control projects.
- Any equitable apportionment decree must account for practical administration and requires weighing whether the benefits to the complaining state substantially outweigh the harms to the other state.

## Conclusion

The Court vacated dismissal and remanded, holding that Florida did not have to establish merits-level, clear-and-convincing redressability at the threshold stage; it was enough to show a substantial likelihood that a consumption cap could materially improve downstream conditions, with definitive findings on harm, causation, and equitable balancing to be made on remand.


Florida v. Georgia, 138 S. Ct. 2502 (2018)