Florida v. Georgia (142-Orig_2)

argument 142-Orig_2

Florida v. Georgia

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 5m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What are the opening arguments and key issues presented by Florida’s counsel?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument this morning in original case one hundred and forty two, Florida against Georgia. Mr.

Unknown 0:06

Gar? Thank you, Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The last time this case was here, the court remanded for the special master to conduct an equitable balancing inquiry, but on remand the special master immediately short circuited that inquiry by finding that Florida has not been harmed at all as a result of Georgia's exploding irrigation use along the Flint River. That finding, which is overwhelmingly refuted by the evidence, corrupted his entire analysis. The special master relied on the supposed absence of harm in concluding that Georgia's consumption was reasonable. He relied on the absence of harm in concluding that Florida would not benefit from a decree, and he relied on the absence of harm in refusing even to order Georgia to stop irrigating unpermitted acreage.

Unknown 0:54

And yet despite getting off track. Even Special Master Kelly found that Georgia's consumption only increases in drought periods. When water matters most. That Georgia has not effectively curbed this use. And that there's no doubt that extreme low flows have occurred much more frequently in recent times. Those findings alone compel the conclusion that Georgia's unrestrained consumption is unreasonable. Under the balancing called for by this court. The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that Florida would significantly benefit from a decree and that meaningful relief is available for little or even no cost to Georgia. In fact, hundreds of additional CFS and flows could be generated at zero cost simply by halting illegal irrigation, eliminating overwatering, and scheduling irrigation to maximize its impact.

Unknown 1:45

That water in itself could prevent the extreme low flow conditions that decimated the Apalachicola in twenty twelve, a huge benefit. Denying relief in these circumstances not only would be a death sentence for Apalachicola, but would extinguish Florida's equal right to the reasonable use of the waters at issue. I welcome the court's question.

John G. Roberts 2:06

Mr. Garr, how should we analyze the case if we think, based on the record, that Georgia contributed to the collapse of the oyster harvest, but not enough to cause that on its own? That the situation is like that on murder on the Orient Express. A lot of things took a stab at the fishery, drought, uh over harvesting, uh, Florida regularly. regulatory policies, but also lower salinity uh that was caused by Georgia's use of the water. But you can't say that any one of those things r is responsible for for killing the o uh the uh fishery. How how should we analyze the case from that perspective?

Unknown 2:49

Sure. Under basic causation principles, Your Honor, and as we explain in our brief, the test under the restatement for causation is that we have to show that Georgia's Consumption was a substantial factor. in the harm to the Bay and River area. The fact that there may be contributing causes doesn't mean that Georgia's consumption, if it is the substantial cause, is factors as we think the record overwhelmingly shows. The the fact that there could be contributing causes does not defeat causation. And here the one thing that we know that's changed in the region over time is that Georgia's consumption has drastically increased and that has led to an extreme increase in the low flow periods that precipitated the two thousand and twelve crash of the oysters.

Unknown 3:34

Over the over harvesting theory is utterly refuted by the evidence and in particular the fact that dead oysters remained on the bars and that private leases that were not subject to public harvesting were decimated as well.

John G. Roberts 3:48

Well the the special master concluded that uh uh George there the Georgia would be required to uh uh allow huge amounts of water to flow uh uh into the bay to really allow recovery uh of the uh oyster uh fishery, um and that that would not be be equitable. Uh i what is your response to that?

Unknown 4:14

Well first, Your Honor, as the chart on page eighteen of our apply brief shows, just an additional five hundred CFS and flows in key months would help eliminate the conditions that precipitated the crash, and I think that in itself would be huge relief.