Water allocation dispute often arises in dry area like the middle east or the southeastern part of the United States. In fact, most serious water resources allocation disputes arose in those arid area. However, as the population drastically increases in the metropolitan areas, the region which used to be thought abundant with water experiences the shortage of water supplies. Therefore, it is now often seen that those regions once regarded as water affluent face water allocation disputes.
The water allocation dispute among the states of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida in the Apalachicola-Chattahooche-Flint River Basin(ACF Basin) is such a case. This paper analyzes the dispute of ACF basin. This is a part of the research in the allocation of water in major areas of the world including the Colorado River basin in the United State and the Jordan river basin the middle east.
Water allocation dispute of the ACF Basin originates from the rapid population growth of Atlanta. The population of Atlanta metropolitan area increased from 2 million in 1980 to 5.6 million in 2006. However, Atlanta totally depends upon the water of Chattahoochee River and the Lake Lanier in the upstream of the River. As Atlanta is the single most important major city of the state of Georgia, the water supply to the Atlanta became a very important issue for the State of Georgia. Therefore the State of Georgia wanted to use more water from the Chattahoochee River. It triggered serious concern for the downstream states, Alabama and Florida. Florida was very upset having to know that such increase of use of water in Atlanta certainly would result in the serious damage to the fishery and oyster bed operation in the Apalachicola Bay.
In 1990, the officials of the three States gathered and agreed to make an agreement for this matter. In 1997, three States were successful to adopt the ACF Basin Compact. However, it was only an agreement to agree without offering any principles or guidelines. In July 2003, the governors of the three States agreed for the compromise and announced the Memorandum of Understanding. But, as Florida decided not to approve the compact, the compact collapsed.
Therefore, the U.S Supreme Court can hear the case if one the three States brought the case to the Court. Florida is willing to bring this matter to the Court. Georgia on the other hand prefers the compact among the three States. If the U.S. Supreme Court takes this case, there will be another difficulty in finding the proper law. Most of the cases of water allocation were arisen from the disputes of the western States such as Colorado, Idaho, Arizona and California. However, the principle of equitable apportionment is thought to be applicable to the eastern States also. Therefore, the future task will be how to develop the equitable principle which is basically a doctrine for the western States and adapt it to the eastern States.