In Re MDL-1824 Tri-State Water Rights Litigation
644 F.3d 1160
11th Cir.2011Background
- MDL proceedings concern Corps operation of Buford Dam/Lake Lanier for water supply and other authorized purposes.
- District court found the Corps allocated over 21% of Lanier’s storage to water supply, exceeding authority and ordered reduced withdrawals.
- Multiple parties (Georgia, Gwinnett, Apalachicola, SeFPC, Alabama, Florida) challenged the Corps’ authority under RHA, WSA, and 1956 Act.
- Settlement attempts and interim contracts dominated decades of litigation; MOA and ACF Compact constrained final action.
- Stockdale memoranda and PAC/Water Control Manual developments framed remand considerations; one-year remand period ordered for final determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alabama/SeFPC/Apalachicola appeals are properly before the court. | Alabama/Florida contend no final judgment, pendent jurisdiction improper. | Georgia/Corps argue intertwined issues justify pendent jurisdiction or appealability via injunction. | Pendent jurisdiction proper; district court injunction review also supports appellate jurisdiction. |
| Whether there was final agency action in Alabama/SeFPC/Apalachicola. | Appellees contend de facto reallocations were final actions. | Corps argues no final agency action due to ongoing negotiations and interim arrangements. | No final agency action in those cases; remand to Corps for final determinations. |
| Whether Georgia’s 2000 water-supply request was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA). | Georgia argues RHA (via Newman Report) authorizes water supply as an approved project purpose. | Corps contends RHA did not authorize water supply, requiring Congressional approval. | Water supply is an authorized RHA purpose; remand to reassess under combined RHA and WSA authorities. |
| Gwinnett County claims under 1956 Act and related contracts. | 1956 Act authorized contracts for 11,200 acre-feet at 50-year term; supplemental agreement created 40 mgd right. | No contract exercised; 50-year limit misread; Duluth intake compensation claim lacks merit. | 1956 Act authorization not exhausted; Gwinnett’s 40 mgd/compensation claims rejected; certain 1956 Act rights may persist. |
| Remand guidance and time limits for Corps. | Remand needed to resolve ambiguous authority; one-year limit. | Courts should defer to Corps on remand with structured analysis. | Remand to Corps for comprehensive reanalysis; one-year time limit preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alabama v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 424 F.3d 1117 (11th Cir. 2005) (injunction and finality considerations; appellate review of district order)
- Geren v. Southeastern Power Administration, 514 F.3d 1316 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (WSA authority; collateral estoppel issues; major operational change)
- King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 562 F.3d 1374 (11th Cir. 2009) (pendent appellate jurisdiction; intertwined issues)
- Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (two-step framework for agency deference)
- Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (agency considerations; remand for reconsideration under law)
- National Parks Conservation Ass’n v. Norton, 324 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2003) (agency delay and final action considerations; context for finality)
- Cal. v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (Chevron deference scope and when agency position may change)