In Re MDL-1824 Tri-State Water Rights Litigation
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
644 F.3d 1160 (2011)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
In the 1930s and 1940s, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the corps) (defendant) analyzed various hydropower-generation projects, including for the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers. Under the 1946 Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA), the corps developed the Buford Project to build Buford Dam upstream from Atlanta, Georgia, on the Chattahoochee River. The project focused on power generation, navigation, and flood control, but the reports, plans, and congressional hearings also referenced water supply. For example, even though Atlanta did not contribute financially to the Buford Project and did not need accommodations for water supply at the time of the project, the dam was to be operated at a minimum discharge rate to ensure adequate flow of water for water-supply purposes despite a negative impact on power-generation capacity. The 1957 completion of the Buford Dam created Lake Sidney Lanier. In 1958, Congress passed the Water Supply Act (WSA), which directed that multipurpose water projects include water-supply components. However, the WSA applied to existing projects only if changes to implement water supply did not present a major structural or operational change. If water supply presented a major change to an existing project, further congressional approval was necessary. The Buford Project generated decades of litigation over multiple issues across multiple jurisdictions. In this multidistrict litigation, parties in Georgia and Florida (plaintiffs) litigated the corps’ decision to allocate 22 percent of Lake Lanier to water supply and storage. On motion for summary judgment, the district court ruled—based in part on corps testimony that water-supply issues were incidental to the development of the Buford Project—that the project did not contemplate water supply under the RHA. The court further held that adding water supply was a major change under the WSA and required congressional approval. Accordingly, the court held that the corps had exceeded its authority and directed the corps to reduce the water-supply allocation. The corps and the Georgia parties appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.