Conservationists Warn of Army Corps Harm to Vital Florida Estuary

Georgia asked the 11th Circuit to affirm the government's 2017 operational updates to end decades of dispute between its shared water resources with Florida and Alabama. The Apalachicola River and its floodplain form an incredibly rich system of exceptional ecological importance. The river is home to an astounding 131 species of fish, the largest number in any Florida river (Matthew Godwin) ATLANTA (CN) — Conservation organizations argued to an 11th Circuit panel Tuesday that the government failed to properly consider the environmental impacts of its operations on Florida’s Apalachicola River, floodplain and bay. The National Wildlife Federation, Florida Wildlife Federation, and Apalachicola Riverkeeper say the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ water control operations are devastating to an extraordinary ecosystem of major ecological and economic importance. They claim the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has evaded the environmental scrutiny of these operations that federal law requires for years. More than 50 years ago, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act, requiring agencies to take a hard look at their actions’ environmental impacts to inform their decisions and disclose those impacts to the public. The act further requires agencies to consider mitigation measures where their actions will have adverse effects. But Chief U.S. Circuit Judge William Pryor said a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from last year may doom the conservationists’ claims, which were mostly tossed by a Georgia federal court in August 2021. In May 2025, the justices ruled federal agencies do not have to study remote upstream or downstream environmental effects that fall outside their direct regulatory authority. “It seems to me that’s precisely what you are inviting us to do,” Pryor, a George W. Bush appointee, said. In reaching the decision about whether a railroad line project should go forward, Justice Brett Kavanagh wrote, “an ‘agency is not constrained by NEPA from deciding that other values outweigh the environmental costs.’” As part of its 2017 Master Manual update, the Corps considered longstanding requests by the state of Georgia and others to allocate additional storage capacity in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river basin to provide an assured source of water supply for residents through 2050. Several metro Atlanta cities argued that if affirmed, decades of litigation known as the “Tri-State Water Wars” over the shared water resources of two major river basins between Georgia, Florida and Alabama would finally be resolved. It was the first update since 1958 to the manual, which explains how the Corps operate its system of five reservoirs and upstream dams along the Chattahoochee River in Georgia and Alabama. Through these operations, the Corps has long controlled the timing and quantity of freshwater reaching the Apalachicola ecosystem, whose health depends on receiving adequate flows at appropriate times. But attorney Angela Ellis told the 11th Circuit that the Corps’ undertook a yearslong public process that examined every aspect of its operations, including an environmental impact statement that spanned more than 1,000 pages. She disputed the argument that the Corps violated the 2007 Water Resources Development Act, claiming it was only required to include a specific mitigation plan to redress ecological harm when it prepared reports to Congress, not in environmental impact statements. Pryor said the conservation groups are interpreting the meaning of “report” out of context. “Just the natural reading of the text really defeats your argument,” Pryor told them. However, U.S. Circuit Judge Embry Kidd questioned whether the Corps’ Environmental Impact Statement accurately analyzed the full impact of its operations and what the conservation groups would have them more thoroughly evaluate. The conservation groups argued the Corps relied on outdated data for

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service