In re Mdl–1824 Tri–state Water Rights Litig..State
| Decision Date | 28 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 09–14657.,09–14657. |
| Parties | In Re: MDL–1824 TRI–STATE WATER RIGHTS LITIGATION.State of Alabama, Alabama Power Company, State of Florida, Plaintiffs–Appellees,v.United States Army Corps of Engineers, John M. McHugh, Secretary of the Army, et al., Defendants–Appellees, Cross–Appellants.State of Georgia, Gwinnett County, Georgia, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants Cross–Appellees,v.United States Army Corps of Engineers, John M. McHugh, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Army, et al., Defendants–Appellees, Cross–Appellants.City of Apalachicola, Florida, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.United States Army Corps of Engineers, John M. McHugh, Secretary of the Army, et al., Defendants–Appellees, Cross–Appellants.Southeast Federal Power Customers, Inc., City of Apalachicola, Florida, Plaintiffs–Appellees,v.United States Army Corps of Engineers, John M. McHugh, Secretary of the Army, et al., Defendants–Appellees Cross–Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Seth Paul Waxman, Christopher E. Babbit, Joshua M. Salzman, Washington, DC, Allen M. Brabender, U.S. Dept. of Justice, ENRD, Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Washington, DC, Patricia T. Barmeyer, Lewis B. Jones, King & Spalding, William Middleton Droze, Natalie Diamond Sacha, Troutman Sanders, R. Todd Silliman, Bruce Perrin Brown, John Curtis Allen, McKenna, Long & Aldridge LLP, Angela Jean Levin, Atlanta, GA, Clyde Y. Morris, Jr., Gainesville, GA, for Appellant.Michael T. Gray, U.S. Dept. of Justice, ENR, App. Sect., Karen A. Sealy, Clinton A. Vince, Orlando E. Vidal, SNR Denton US LLP, James T. Banks, Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., Washington, DC, Matthew H. Lembke, Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, LLP, Joel M. Kuebnert, Jess R. Nix, Bradley, Arant, Boult, Cummings, LLP, W. Larkin Radney, IV, William S. Cox, III, Lightfoot, Franklin & White, L.L.C., Thomas Lee Casey, III, Specer M. Taylor, Balch & Bingham, LLP, Birmingham, AL, Parker D. Thomson, Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Natalie N. Barefoot, Hogan Lovells US, Miami, FL, James A. Byram, Jr., Balch & Bingham, LLP, Montgomery, AL, Christopher M. Kise, Foley & Lardner, Tallahassee, FL, Donald G. Blankenau, Thomas R. Wilmoth, Blankenau Wilmoth LLP, Lincoln, NE, J. Patrick Floyd, Port St. Joe, FL, for Appellee.
C.B. Rogers, Thomas J. Mew, IV, Robert B. Remar, Richard H. Sinkfield, Rogers & Hardin, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Mary Ann Ralls, NRECA, Arlington, VA, Susan Noel Kelly, American Public Power, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae.Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.Before MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and MILLS,* District Judge.PER CURIAM:
The Georgia Parties,1 Gwinnett County, Georgia, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“the Corps”) appeal from the Middle District of Florida's grant of summary judgment in this consolidated suit. The appeal arises from more than 20 years of litigation involving the above parties as well as the States of Alabama and Florida, Alabama Power Company, the City of Apalachicola, Florida, and Southeastern Federal Power Customers, Inc. (“SeFPC”), a consortium of companies that purchase power from the federal government. All of the underlying cases2 relate to the Corps' authority to operate the Buford Dam and Lake Lanier, the reservoir it created, for local water supply. In its order, the district court found that the Corps' current operation of the Buford Project—Buford Dam and Lake Lanier collectively—had allocated more than 21% of Lake Lanier's storage space to water supply. The court determined that such an allocation exceeded the Corps' statutory authority and ordered the Corps to drastically reduce the quantity of water that it made available for water supply. The court's summary judgment order also affirmed the Corps' rejection of Georgia's 2000 request for additional water supply allocations to meet the needs of the localities through 2030. The court stayed its order for three years to give the parties time to reach a settlement or to approach Congress for additional water supply authority.
On appeal, the parties argue several jurisdictional matters. Alabama and Florida3 contend that this Court does not have appellate jurisdiction to hear the appeal of three of the four underlying cases because there is no final judgment in the cases and pendent jurisdiction is inappropriate. The Georgia Parties and the Corps argue that the district court lacked jurisdiction over these three matters because there was no final agency action, and, therefore, the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) did not provide for judicial intervention at this juncture.
The parties also assert a number of substantive claims. The Georgia Parties argue that the district court erred by concluding that the Corps lacked authority to allocate substantial quantities of storage in Lake Lanier to water supply on the basis of the legislation that authorized the creation of the Buford Project, the 1946 Rivers and Harbors Act (“RHA”), Pub.L. No. 79–525, 60 Stat. 634 (1946). Although not in agreement with the Georgia Parties that water supply for the Atlanta area is an authorized project purpose under the RHA, the Corps does argue that the district court underestimated its authority to accommodate the water supply needs of the Atlanta area. The Georgia Parties and the Corps both assert that the district court erred by misinterpreting the scope of the Corps' authority under the 1958 Water Supply Act. The Georgia Parties and the Corps urge this Court to remand the case to the agency to make, in the first instance, a final determination of its water supply authority. Gwinnett County also individually asserts statutory, constitutional, and contractual claims relating to authority granted to it for its current withdrawals from Lake Lanier.
For the reasons explained below, we hold: First, the district court erred in finding that it had jurisdiction to hear Alabama, SeFPC, and Apalachicola because the Corps has not taken final agency action. The three cases therefore must be remanded to the Corps in order to take a final agency action. Second, the district court and the Corps erred in concluding that water supply was not an authorized purpose of the Buford Project under the RHA. The Corps' denial of Georgia's 2000 water-supply request is therefore not entitled to Chevron deference, and the request must be remanded to the Corps for reconsideration. Third, the district court erred in finding that the 1956 Act, which authorized the Corps to contract with Gwinnett County to withdraw 10 million gallons of water per day, expired after 50 years. Gwinnett County's contractual and just-compensation claims are without merit. Fourth, we also provide certain instructions to the Corps on remand. And finally, the Corps shall have one year to make a final determination of its authority to operate the Buford Project under the RHA and WSA. Our opinion is organized as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The facts of this appeal are intertwined with the history of Buford Dam and Lake Lanier. Buford Dam sits on the Chattahoochee River, approximately forty miles upstream of Atlanta. The Chattahoochee's headwaters are in Northeastern Georgia in the Blue Ridge Mountains. The river flows southwest to Columbus and then along much of the length of the Georgia–Alabama border and into the Florida Panhandle, where it combines with the Flint River to form the Apalachicola River. The Chattahoochee, Flint, and Apalachicola Rivers together are referred to as the ACF Basin.
The Corps first began surveying the ACF Basin for suitable sites for hydroelectric facilities at the request of Congress in 1925. River and Harbor Act of 1925, Pub.L. No. 68–585, ch. 467, 43 Stat. 1186, 1194 (Mar. 3, 1925). As a result of this survey, the Corps produced a report in 1939. See H.R. Doc. No. 76–342 (1939) [hereinafter “Park Report”]. The Park Report analyzed eleven projects at various stages of development in the ACF basin, including one at Roswell, Georgia, sixteen miles north of Atlanta. Id. ¶ 196. District Engineer Colonel R. Park, the report's author, referred to transportation, hydroelectric power, national defense, commercial value of riparian lands, recreation, and industrial and municipal water supply as “principal direct benefits” of the various projects under consideration. Park Report ¶ 243. Col. Park noted that at the time the Atlanta area had no immediate need for increased water supply, though such a future need was “not improbable.” Park Report ¶ 260. He stated that a large reservoir might have value as “an assured continuous water supply” due to the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re ACF Basin Water Litig.
...was not an "authorized purpose" of Lake Lanier. Id. at ¶ 88. In 2011, the Eleventh Circuit held in In re MDL-1824 Tri-State Water Rights Litig. , 644 F.3d 1160, 1192 (11th Cir. 2011) that water supply is an authorized purpose of Lake Lanier under the River and Harbor Act of 1946, which auth......
-
Lewis v. City of Union City
...extent the cases went beyond disparate treatment for workplace misconduct, "were mere dicta." See In re MDL–1824 Tri–State Water Rights Litig., 644 F.3d 1160, 1189 n. 21 (11th Cir. 2011). Thus, the "nearly identical" test was tailored specifically to determine whether the misconduct committ......
-
Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Interior
...objections. (Doc. # 123, pp. 1330–31.) See e.g. Ala. v. United States Army Corps of Eng'r (In re MDL–1824 Tri–State Water Rights Litig.), 644 F.3d 1160, 1181–85 (11th Cir.2011) (matter not ripe where various required written reports, including NEPA requirements, were not (2) Standing Defend......
-
Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs
...the reasoning espoused in its 2012 NWP 21 Decision Document. Cf. In re: MDL–1824 Tri– State Water Rights Litig., 644 F.3d 1160, 1205 (11th Cir.2011) (per curiam) (imposing a one-year time frame “[g]iven the importance of [the] case, the length of time it ha[d] been bouncing around the feder......
-
Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
...raised by states that had voluntarily submitted to suit or were themselves the plaintiffs. See In re Tri-State Water Rights Litigation, 644 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2011); Hood ex rel. Mississippi v. City of Memphis, 570 F.3d 625 (5th Cir. 2009). A third, in which the Court has repeatedly refus......