NATURAL RESOURCES

Florida v. Georgia

Issues

Should the Supreme Court equitably apportion the water of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin between Florida and Georgia? 

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether it should equitably apportion the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin between Georgia and Florida. There is a long history of conflict between the states over Georgia’s use of water from the Chattahoochee and Flint rivers. Florida argues that the Supreme Court should impose a water consumption cap on Georgia because Georgia’s unreasonable water consumption inflicts real harm on Florida and its ecosystems. Georgia counters that Florida is not entitled to relief in this original jurisdiction action because Florida has not proven that the consumption cap will provide effective redress and Florida has failed to include a necessary party in the litigation. Florida contends that Georgia’s water usage has caused a reduction in the flow of the Apalachicola River that has harmed the region’s oyster population damaging the regional economy. Moreover, Florida suggests that it is the Court’s duty to intervene and apportion the water rights equally between the two states. Georgia disputes that it harmed the oyster population and organizations supporting it argue that upstream states have no duty to maintain or protect water flows to benefit downstream states. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

This is an action by the State of Florida to equitably apportion the interstate waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (“ACF Basin”). 

The state of Florida has sued the state of Georgia over the use of water from the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (the “ACF Basin”) in the United States Supreme Court, which has original jurisdiction over the matter—i.e., this case begins in the Supreme Court.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., Inc.

Issues

Whether a business can be held to violate antitrust laws if it is shown that the business purchases too many or pays too much for materials in order to keep competitors from purchasing those materials at a fair price, or whether another standard should apply, such as the standard in Brooke Group, which requires showing that the business sustained a loss as a result of its action but was likely to make the money back once it had a monopoly.

 

Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., Inc., a sawmill, went out of business when Weyerhaeuser, a giant in the forest industry, used its market share to drive up the price of sawlogs. The issue is in this case is whether the jury used the proper standard to find that Weyerhaeuser had violated the antitrust provisions of the Sherman Act. Weyerhaeuser argues that the Brooke Group standard should have applied, whereby a plaintiff must show that the defendant: (1) paid so much for raw materials that the price at which it sold its products did not cover its costs; and (2) had a “dangerous probability” of subsequently recouping those losses. Ross-Simmons advocates for the looser standard applied by the Ninth Circuit, whereby liability may be established by showing that the defendant purchased more raw materials “than it needed” or paid a higher price for those inputs “than necessary” so as to prevent competitors buying the materials at a “fair price.” The Court’s decision could result in a dramatic shift in either of two directions: it could either shield large corporations from suits related to the corporation’s influence on the market, or give small businesses a powerful weapon to wield against the pressures that a large corporation can exert.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

In Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993), the Court held that an antitrust plaintiff alleging predatory selling must prove that the defendant (I) sold its product at a price level too low to cover its costs and (2) had a dangerous probability of recouping its losses once the scheme of predation succeeded.

The question in this case is whether a plaintiff alleging predatory pricing may, as the Ninth Circuit held, establish liability by persuading a jury that the defendant purchased more inputs "than it needed" or paid a higher price for those inputs "than necessary," so as "to prevent the Plaintiffs from obtaining the [inputs] they needed at a fair price"; or whether the plaintiff instead must satisfy what the Ninth Circuit termed the "higher" Brooke Group standard by showing that the defendant (I) paid so much for raw materials that the price at which it sold its products did not [cover] its costs and (2) had a dangerous probability of recouping its losses.

From a bird’s eye view, a patchwork of green and hazy brown shapes weaves together much of the Pacific Northwest, especially the area surrounding the Columbia River, which serves as the border between Oregon and Washington. The logging industry has been active in the area for over a century, leaving that trademark quilt pattern as tracts of forest are harvested.

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to NATURAL RESOURCES