FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UNE 28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 14 65 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 00 00 1 M D-J- PAM-J RK

In Re: MDL-1 82 4 TRI -STATE WATER RIGHTS LITIGATION

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3: 07 -cv -0 02 49 STATE OF AL ABAMA, ALABAMA POW ER COMPANY, STATE OF FLORIDA, Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es ,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES ARMY CORP S OF ENGINEERS, JOHN M. Mc HUGH, Secret ary of th e Arm y , et al ., Defen da nt s- App el le es

Cro ss -Ap pe ll an ts
.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3: 07 -cv -0 02 52 STATE OF GE ORGIA, GW INNETT COUNTY, GE ORGIA, et a l., Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s Cro ss -Ap pe ll ees , ve rs usUNITED STAT ES ARMY CORP S OF ENGINEERS,

JOHN M. Mc HUGH, in h is off ic ia l capa ci ty as Sec ret ary of th e Uni te d S ta te s Arm

y , et al ., Defen da nt s- App el le es Cro ss -Ap pe ll an ts
.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3: 08 -cv -2 33 CITY OF APALACHICOLA, FLORIDA, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES ARMY CORP S OF ENGINEERS, JOHN M. Mc HUGH, Secret ary of th e Arm y , et al ., Defen da nt s- App el le es

Cro ss -Ap pe ll an ts

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3: 08 -cv -6 40 SOUTHEAST FEDE RAL POW ER CUSTOMERS , INC., CITY OF APALACHICOLA, FLORIDA, Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es ,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES ARMY CORP S OF ENGINEERS, JOHN M. Mc HUGH, Secret ary of th e Arm y , et al ., Defen da nt s- App el le es

Cro ss -Ap pe ll an ts
.

2__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J un e 2 8, 2 01 1) Befo re MAR CUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andMILLS, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM: The Geor gi a Par ti es , Gwin ne ttCo un ty, Geo rg ia , andth e Uni te d S ta te s Army 1 Co rp s o f Eng in eers (“ th e Co rp s” ) ap pe al fro m th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t i n t hi s co ns ol id at edsu it . The ap pe al ari se s fr om m or e th an 20 y ears of l it ig at io n i nv ol vi ng th e ab ov e p art ie s as well as t he Sta te s o f Alaba m a
an d F lo rid a, Alab am a Po wer Co m pa ny, the Cit y

of Ap al ach ic ol a, Fl or id a, an d So ut he as te rn Fed eral Po wer Cu st om ers , Inc . (“ SeFP C”), a c on so rti um of

co m pa ni es th atpu rch as e p owe r fro m th e fed eral go ve rn m en t. Al l o f th e u nd erl y in g
cas es rel at e to th e Co rp s’ aut ho rit y to op erat e th e Bu fo rdDam an d Lak e Lan ie r, 2

Honora ble Richard Mills, United States District J udg e for the Central District of

I llinois , * sitti ngby designation. The de signation “Geor g ia Parties” r efe rs to the State of Ge org ia, the City of 1 Atlanta, F ulton Count y , DeKa lb County , the Cobb County -Marietta Water Authority , the City of Gainesville, the A tlanta Reg ional Commi ssion, and the L ake L anier Association. Gwinnett County , Georg ia appe als separ ately and is not included in this denomination. The four underlying c ases a

re A labama v. United States Army Corps of 2 Eng ineer s; Sout heaste rn F eder al Power Customers, Inc. v. Calder a; Geor g ia v. United States Army Corps of Eng ineer s; and City of Apa lachicola

v. United States Army

Corps of Eng ineer s. 3th e res erv oi r it crea te d, fo r lo cal wate r su pp ly. In it s o rd er, t he di st ric t co ur t fo un d

th atth e Co rp s’ curren t o pe rat io n o f th e Bu fo rdPro ject— Bu fo rdDam

an d Lak e Lan ie r co ll ect iv el y

—h adall oc at edm or e th an21 % of Lak e Lan ie r’s st or ag e sp ace to wate r su pp ly. The co ur t d et erm in edth atsu ch an all oc at io n e xc eed edth e Co rp s’ st atut ory au th or it y an d o rd eredth e Co rp s t o d ras ti cal ly redu ce t he qu an ti ty of wat er th atitm ad e av ai labl e fo r wat er s up pl y . The co ur t’s s umm ary jud gm en t o rd er al so affi rm edth e Co rp s’ reject io n o f Geo rg ia ’s 20 00 req ue stforad di ti on al wate r su pp ly al lo cat io ns to m eetth e n eed s o f th e lo cal it ie s t hr ou gh 20 30 . The co ur t s ta y edit s
or de r fo r th ree years t o g iv e th e p art ie s t im e to reac h aset tl em en t o r to ap pr oa ch Co ng res s fo r ad di ti on al wate r su pp ly aut ho rit y . On ap pe al , th e p art ie s ar gu e se ve ral juri sd ic ti on al m at te rs . Alab am a an d Fl or id a co nt en d t ha t t hi s C ou rt d oe s n ot ha ve ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on to he ar t he

3 ap pe al of t hr ee o f th e fo urun de rlyin g c as es be cau se th ere i s n o fi na l ju dg m en t i n Subsequent short-for

m refe renc es to the district court a nd previous appe llate dec isions in t he sever al ca ses will be as follows: Alaba ma v. United States Army Corps of Eng ineer s as Alabama and Ge org ia v. United States Army Corps of Eng ineer s as Geor g ia. Southeastern F eder al Power Customers, Inc. v. Calder a bec ame Southeaste rn F eder al Power Customers v. Ge ren on a ppeal due to Luis Caldera’ s succe ssion by Pete Ger en as Sec reta

ry of the Ar my . Short-form re fer ence s to the district court ca se will be to SeFPC, while the appe llate dec ision in the ca se will be ref err ed to in the short-for

m as Ger en. The State of A labama, the State of F lorida, Alaba ma Power Company , and the 3 City of Apa lachicola

have written a joint brief in this case . The de signation “Alabama and Florida ” re fer s to all four par ties. The designation “Appe llees” in this opinion refe rs to these four parties a nd SeFPC. The Corps is also an a ppellee in Ge org ia, but for the sa ke of c larity

it will alway s be re fer

red to by name. 4th e cas es an d p en de nt juri sd ic ti on is in ap pr op ria te . The Geo rg iaPart ie s an d t he

Co rp s ar gu e th atth e d is tri ctco ur t l ack edjuri sd ic ti on ov er the se th ree m at te rs be cau se th ere was no fin al ag en cy act io n, an d, t he refo re, t he Adm in is tra ti ve Pro cedur es Act (“ APA”) d idno t p ro vi de forjud ic ia l i nt erv en ti on at t hi s ju nc tu re. The pa rti es als o a ss erta nu m be r of su bs ta nt iv e cl ai m s. Th e Geo rg iaPart ie s arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco ur t erredby con cl ud in g t ha t t he Co rp s l ack edau th or it y to al lo cat e su bs ta nt ia l q ua nt it ie s o f st or ag e in Lake Lani er t o wat er s up pl y on th e ba si s o f th e le gi sl at io n t ha t au th or iz edth e cre at io n o f th e Bu fo rdPro ject, t he 19 46 Ri ve rs an d Harbo rs Act (“ RHA”), Pub. L. No. 7 9- 52 5, 6 0 S ta t. 6 34 (19 46 ). Alt ho ug h n ot in ag reem en t wi th th e Geo rg iaPart ie s t ha t wat er s up pl y forth e Atl an taareais anau th or iz edpro ject p ur po se un de r th e RHA, th e Co rp s d oe s ar gu e th atth e d is tri ctco ur t u nd eres ti m at edit s au th or it y to acco m m od at e th e wat er s up pl y
ne ed s o f th e Atl an taarea . The Geo rg iaPart ie s an d t he Co rp s b ot h a ss ertth atth e di st ric t co ur t erredby m is in te rp ret in g t he sco pe of t he Co rp s’ aut ho rit y un de r th e 19 58 W at er Supp ly A ct . The Geo rg iaPart ie s an d t he Co rp s u rg e th is Co urt t o
rem an d t he cas e to th e ag en cy to m ak e, in th e fi rs t i ns ta nc e, a fi na l d et erm in at io n o f it s wat er s up pl y

au th or it y . Gwin ne ttCo un ty also in di vi du al ly ass ert s s ta tu to ry ,
co ns ti tu ti on al , andco nt ract ua l cl ai m s re la ti ng to au th or it y gra nt edto itforit s
cu rren t wi th dr awal s fr om Lake Lani er.
5Fo r th e rea so ns ex pl ai ne d b el ow, we h ol d: Fir st , th e d is tri ctco urt erredin

fin di ng th atitha d ju ris di ct io n t o h ear Al ab am a, SeFP C, an d Ap al ach ic ol a b ecau se th e Co rp s h as no t t ak en fin al ag en cy act io n. Th e th ree c as es th eref or e m us t b e
rem an de d t o t he Co rp s i n o rd er t o t ak e a fi na l ag en cy act io n. Se co nd , th e d is tri ct

co ur t an d t he Co rp s erredin co nc lu di ng th atwate r su pp ly w as no t an au th or iz ed pu rp os e o f th e Bu fo rdPro ject u nd er t he RHA. The Co rp s’ den ia l o f Geo rg ia ’s 20 00 wate r-s up pl y

req ue stis th eref

or e n ot en ti tl edto Ch ev ro n d efer en ce, an d t he req ue st

m us t b e rem an de d t o t he Co rp s fo r rec on si de rat io n. Th ird , th e d is tri ctco ur t erredin fin di ng th atth e 1 95 6 Act , whi ch au th or iz edth e Co rp s t o c on tra ctwit h Gwi nn et t Co un ty to wi th dr aw 10 m il li on ga ll on s o f wat er p er d ay , exp ire d a fte r 50 y ears . Gwin ne ttCo un ty’ s co nt ract ua l an d ju st -co m pe ns at io n c la im s ar e wit ho utm eri t. Fo ur th , we als o p ro vi de cert ai n i ns tru ct io ns to th e Co rp s o n re m an d. An d fi na ll y , th e Co rp s s ha ll ha ve on e y ear t o m ak e a fi na l d et erm in at io n o f it s au th or it y to op erat e th e Bu fo rdPro

ject u nd er t he RHA an d WSA. Our o pi ni on is org an iz edas fo ll ows . FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY DISCUSS ION Part I. Ju ris di ct io na l M at te rs A. App el la te Ju ris di ct io n o ve r Alaba m a, SeFP C, an d
6Apa la ch ic ol a B. Fi na l Ag en cy

Acti on in Alab am a, SeFP C an d Apa la ch ic ol a Part II. Geo rg ia ’s 20 00 Req ue st : Th e Co rp s’ W at er Supp ly

Aut ho rit y Und er t he RHA Part III. Geo rg ia ’s 20 00 Req ue stMu stBe Re m an de d t o t he Co rp s Part IV. Gwin ne ttCo un ty’ s C la im s No t In vo lv in g Au th or iz at io n

Und er the RHA an d WSA A. The Exp ira ti on of t he 19 56 Act B. Fo rty MGD from

th e 1 97 4 S up pl em en ta l Ag reem en t t o th e Co rp s’ Con tra ct C. Ju stCo m

pe ns at io n fo r Rel oc at io n o f th e Dul ut h In ta ke Part V. Rem an d In st ru ct io ns to th e Co rp s Part VI. Co ll at eral Est op pe l Effe ct s o n R em an d In st ru ct io ns Part VII. One -YearTim e Lim iton Rem an d CONCLUSION

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The fac t s o f th is ap pe al are in te rtwi ne d wit h th e hi st ory of Bu fo rd Dam an d Lak e Lan ie r. Bu fo rd Dam si ts on th e Ch at ta ho oc he e Ri ve r, ap pr ox im at el y fo rty m il es up st ream of Atl an ta
. The Ch at ta ho oc he e’s he ad wate rs are in North eas te rn Geo rg ia in

7th e Bl ue Ri dg e Mo un ta in s. The riv er flo ws so ut hwe st to Co lu m bu s a nd th en al on g
m uc h of th e le ng th of th e Geo rg ia -Alaba m a bo rd er an d in to th e Fl or id a Pan ha nd le , whe re it co m

bi ne s wit h th e Fl in t Ri ve r to fo rm th e Apa la ch ic ol a Ri ve r. The Ch at ta ho oc he e, Fl in t, an d A p al ach ic ol a Ri ve rs to ge th er are refe rred to as th e ACF Bas in

. The Co rp s fir st be ga n su rv eyi ng th e ACF Bas in fo r su it ab le si te s fo r hydro el ect ric f

a c il it ie s at th e req ue st of Co ng res s in 19 25

. Ri ve r an d Harb or Act of 19 25 , Pub . L. No. 68 -5 85 , ch. 4 67 , 43 Sta t. 1 18 6, 1 19 4 (M arch 3, 19 25 ). As a re su lt of th is su rv ey , th e Co rp s pr od uc ed a rep or t in 19 39

. See H.R. Doc

. No. 76 -3 42 (1 93 9) [h erei na fte r “ Pa rk Rep or t” ]. The Park Rep or t an al y zed el ev en pr ojec ts at va rio us st ag es of d ev el op m en t i n t he ACF b as in , in cl ud in g o ne at R os well , Geor gi a, si xt een
m il es no rth of Atl an ta
. Id

. ¶ 19 6. Dis tri ct Eng in eer Co lo ne l R

. P a rk , th e rep or t’s

au th or , refe rred to tra ns po rta ti on , hydro el ect ric po wer, na ti on al de fen se , co m m erci al

va lu e of rip a r i a n l a nd s, recr eat io n, an d in du st ria l an d m un ic ip al wate r supp ly as

“pr in ci pa l di rect be ne fit s” of th e va rio us pr ojec ts un de r co ns id erat io n. Park Rep or t ¶ 24 3. Co l. Park no te d th at at th e ti m e th e Atl an ta area ha d n o imm ed ia te ne ed fo r in crea se d wate r su pp ly, th ou gh su ch a fu tu re ne ed was “ no t im pr ob ab le .” Park Rep or t ¶ 26 0. He st at ed th at a la rg e res erv oi r m ig ht ha ve va lu e as “ an as su red co nt in uo us wate r su pp ly” du e to th e “ co nt in ue d rap id gr owt h of th e area .” Id

. Tho ug h he as si gn ed
8t h e o t h e r di rect be ne fit s a m on et ary va lu e, he de cl in ed to do so fo r wate r su pp l y,

pr es um ab ly be cau se th e be ne fit of th is pu rp os e, un li ke al l of th e ot he rs , c o u l d on ly

accrue in th e fu tu re, ren de rin g an y va lu at io n at th at ti m e sp ecu la ti ve . Co ng res s ad op te d th e Co rp s’ pr op os al s in th e Park Rep or t in fu ll in it s 19 45 RHA. Pub. L. No. 79 -1 4, 5 9 S ta t. 1 0, 1 7 (1 94 5)

. In 19 46 , th e Co rp s, in it s “Newm an Rep or t,” reco m m en de d cert ai n am en dm en ts

an d rev is io ns to th e or ig in al pl an fo r th e ACF syste m , in cl ud in g co m bi ni ng se ve ral of th e hydro el ect ric si te s ne ar Atl an ta in to on e la rg e res erv oi r at Bu fo rd , Geo rg ia to in crea se po wer ge ne rat io n an d to be tt er reg ul at e flo ws do wns tre am . H.R. Doc

. No. 80

- 30 0, ¶ 69 (1 94 7) [h erei na fte r “Newm an Report ”]

. D ivi sio n E ngi ne er Brigad ie r Gen eral Ja m es B. Newm an no te d th at th e Ch at ta ho oc he e Ri ve r wou ld be an ex cel le nt so ur ce of hydro po wer. Newm an Rep or t ¶ 7. Acco rd in g to Newm an , a la rg e res erv oi r—wh at

w o u l d b e co m e Lak e Lan ie r—wa s ne ed ed to m ak e th e lo ck s an d da m s do wns tre a m
m or e effe ct iv e. The Newm an Rep or t no te d th at th e pr op os ed da m at Bu fo rd wou ld be

va lu ab le fo r th e pu rp os e of flo od co nt ro l be cau se of th e freq ue nt flo od in g in th e ba si n
an d th e se ve re da m ag e th at pr ev io us flo od s ha d cau se d. The rep ort al so ex pl ai ne d th at th e va rio us da m s in th e pr op os al wou ld he lp ke ep flo ws co nt in uo us . The se co nt in uo us flo ws wou ld be ne fit na vi ga ti on be cau se t h e y w o ul d al lo w ba rg es to tra ve l fro m Atl an ta to Co lu m

bu s an d be y on d, an d th ey wou ld as su re a so ur ce of wate r su pp ly fo r
9th e Ci ty of Atl an ta
. Ju st as th e Park Rep ort ha d do ne be fo re it , th e Newm an Rep or t

at te m pt ed to qu an ti fy th e va lu e of th e be ne fi t s o f t he pr ojec t. Onl y th ree va lu ecal cu la te d b en efi ts were l is te d: po wer, n av ig at io n, an d fl oo d c on tro l. Id

. ¶ 98 , Tabl e 10 . It is pr ob ab le th at Newm an , l ik e Park , dee m edth ere t o b e n o i m m ed ia te be ne fit fro m wate r su pp ly, ren de rin g an y be ne fit pu rel y pr os pe ct iv e an d an y va lu at io n of th is be ne fiten ti rel y

sp ecu la ti ve . Th e N ewm an Rep or t, at se ve ral jun ctur es , sp ok e of th e be ne fit th at t h e d a m
wou ld pr ov id e fo r wate r su pp ly. The rep ort co nc lu de d th at th e pr ojec t wou ld “ gr eat ly in crea se th e m in im

um flo w in th e riv er at Atl an ta ,” whi ch wou ld sa feg ua rd th e ci ty’ s wate r su pp ly du rin g dry pe rio ds

. Id

. ¶ 68

. In di sc us si ng th e op erat io n of th e da m , th e Newm an Rep or t no te d th at rel eas es of 60 0 cubi c fee t p e r se co nd (“ cfs ”) sh ou ld be

m ad e du r i n g of

f-p eak ho ur s in or de r to en su re a co nt in uo us flo w of th e riv er at

4 Atl an ta of no t le ss th an 65 0 cfs , ev en th ou gh th is flo w wou ld ha ve a sl ig ht de tri m en ta l effe ct on po wer ge ne rat io n. The rep or t no te d th at th is “ m in im um rel eas e m ay ha ve to be in crea se d so m ewh at as th e area de ve lo ps .” Id

. ¶ 80

. The Rep or t ex pe ct ed th at an y de crea se in po wer va lu e wou ld be m arg i n a l an d ou twei gh ed by th e be ne fit s of an

Off- peak hour s are those time periods whe n the demand f or powe r is relatively 4 low. Hydroele ctric pla

nts attempt to mi nimiz e the amount of water rele ased dur ing of

f-pe ak hours so that power

g ener ation can ope rate at maxim um levels duringpeak hour s when the demand f or powe r is high. 10“ as su red ” wate r su pp ly fo r th e C i t y of Atl an ta
. Id

. The 19 46 RHA st at ed th at th e

pr ojec t wou ld be “pr os ecu te d

. . . in acco rd an ce wit h th e rep or t o f t h e C h i e f of Eng in eers , d a t ed May 13 , 19 46 ,” Pub. L. No. 79 -5 25 , 60 St at
. 63 4, 63 5 (1 94 6)

. Bec au se th at rep or t in co rp or at ed th e Newm an Rep or t in fu ll , th e Newm an Rep or t be cam e p artof t he au th or iz in g l eg is la ti on for th e p ro ject. Co ng res s co nt in u e d t o co ns id er th e pu rp os es of th e Bu fo rd Dam in de ba te s ab ou t ap pr op ria ti on s bi ll s fo r th e pr ojec t’s fu nd in g. The pu rp os es m en ti on ed m os t freq ue nt ly in Co ng res si on al he ari ng s were po wer, na vi ga ti on , and flo od co nt ro l, bu t wate r su pp ly was al so di sc us se d wit h so m e freq ue nc y . Th e n - mayor of Atl an ta , W il l i a m H art sf

ie ld te st ifi ed be fo re a Sen at e su bc omm it te e th at wate r fro m th e Ch at ta ho oc he e was “ ne ces sa ry ” bu t th at Atl an tadi d n ot im m ed ia te ly needth e wat er in th e sa m e m an ne r as ci ti es in m or e ari d lo cat io ns . Ci vi l Fu nc ti on s, Dep ’t of th e Arm y App ro pr ia ti on Bi ll 19 49 : Heari ng Befo re th e Subc omm . o f th e S. Co m m . on App ro pr ia ti on s, 80 th Co ng . 64 4 (s ta te m en t of W il li am B. Hart sf ie ld , Mayor, Atl an ta , Geo rg ia ). Co ng res s de ba te d whe th er Atl an ta sh ou ld be as ke d to co nt rib ut e pa rt of th e
co st of bu il di ng th e Bu fo rd Dam

. Co rp s of fic er Co lo ne l Po tt er te st ifi ed th at th e Co rp s
was no t re co m

m en di ng th atAtl an tabe ask edto pa y be cau se th e se rv ic es th at wou ld be pr ov id ed in th e fie ld of wate r su pp ly we r e a l l in ci de nt al to th e pu rp os es of hydro po wer an d flo od co nt ro l an d wou ld “ no t co st th e Fed eral Gov ern m en t 1 cen t to
11su pp ly.” Ci vi l Fu nc ti on s, Dep ’t of th e Arm y App ro pr ia

tio ns fo r 195 2: Heari ng s Befo re t h e S ub co m

m . of th e H. Co m

m . on App ro pr ia ti on s, 82 d Co ng . 12 1– 12 2 (1 95 1) (ex ch an ge be twee n Rep. G er al d Fo rd , Me m be r, H. Co m

m . on App ro pr ia ti on s, an d Co l. Po tt er, Co rp s of

fic er). Co ng res sm an Geral d Fo rd pr es c i e n t l y as ke d Co lo ne l Po tt er whe th er itwas fo res eeab le th aton e d ay in th e fu tu re At la nt a wou ld be gi n to req ue st gr eat er am ou nt s of wate r fro m th e pr ojec t. Id

. a t 1 2 2. Co l. Po tt er res po nd ed th at th e C o rps wou ld ha ve to st ud y th e effe ct th at su ch a req ue st wou ld ha v e o n p o w e r pr od uc ti on . He sa id th at th e Co rp s wou ld ha ve to ob ta in ad di ti on al w a t e r su pp ly

au th or iz at io n if a req ue st am ou nt ed to “ a m ajor di ve rs io n o f w a t er.” Id

. Ult im at el y , Atl an tawas n ev er as ke d t o, an d d idno t, co nt rib ut e to th e co ns tru ct io n c os ts
. The Co rp s rel eas ed it s “ Defi ni te Pro ject Rep or t ” f

o r th e pr ojec t in 19 49

. The rep or t pr ov id ed a de ta il ed di sc u s si on of th e pl an s fo r th e Bu fo rd Pro ject an d it s op erat io ns . The rep or t refe rred to flo od co nt ro l, hydro el ect ric po wer, na vi ga ti on , an d

an in crea se d wate r su pp ly fo r Atl an ta as “ th e pr im ary pu rp os es of th e Bu fo rd pr ojec t.” U.S. Arm y Co rp s of Eng ’rs: Mo bi le Dis tri ct , Defi ni te Pro ject Rep or t on Bu fo rd Dam Ch at ta ho oc he e Ri ve r, Geo rg ia , ¶ 48 (1 94 9) [h erei na fte r “ Defi ni te Pro ject Rep or t” ]. A la te r pa ss ag e in th e rep ort refe rred to flo od co nt ro l, po wer ge ne rat io n, na vi ga ti on , an d wate r su pp ly as “pr in ci pl e pu rp os es of th e Bu fo rd pr oje ct .” Id

. ¶ 11 5. The rep or t

co nc lu de d by cal cu la ti ng an d ex pl ai ni ng th e be ne fit s of th e va rio us pr ojec t pu rp os es .
12As to wate r su pp ly, it ex pl ai ne d th at th e pr ojec t wou ld res ul t in “ [a] real be ne fit ,” bu t

it di d n o t es ti m at e th e m on et ary va lu e be cau se “ de fin it e ev al ua ti on of th is be ne fit

can no t b e m ad e atth is ti m e.” Id . ¶ 12 4. Bu fo rd Dam was co ns tru ct ed fro m 19 50 to 19 57 , crea ti ng th e res erv oi r kn own to da y as Lak e Si dn ey Lan ie r. The So ut he as te rn Po wer Adm in is tra ti on (“ SEPA”), th e fed eral go ve rn m en t ag en cy fro m whi ch SeFP C pu rch as es th e po wer ge ne rat ed at th e da m , pa id ap pr ox im at el y $3 0 m il li on of t h e $ 47 m il li on of co ns tru ct io n co st s. The

crea ti on of Lak e Lan ie r in un da te d th e wate r in ta ke st ru ctur es of th e Ci ti es of Bu fo rd , Geo rg ia an d Gain es vi ll e, G e o r g i a . As a m et ho d of co m pe ns at io n, th e Co rp s si gn ed rel oc at io n ag reem en ts wit h th e two m un ic ip al it ie s au th or iz in g w a t e r w it hd rawal s di rect ly fro m th e res erv oi r—t he se ag reem en ts al lo wed Gain es vi ll e to wit h dr aw 8

m il li on ga ll on s pe r da y (“ m gd ”) an d Bu fo rd 2 m gd

. Alt ho ug h no st or ag e was 5 6 7 sp eci fic al ly al lo cat ed fo r wate r su pp ly, th e fact th at th e da m o p e r a t ed du rin g “ offpe ak ” ho ur s, to th e de tri m en t of po wer ge ne rat io n, de mo n s t r a t ed th at do wns tre am

A contra ct to this effe ct was e ntere d into on J une 22, 1953. Contrac t Be tween the 5 United States of Amer ica a nd City of Ga inesville, Georg ia for Withdrawa l from L ake Sidney L anier

. A contra ct to this effe ct was e ntere d into on Dece mber 19, 1955. Contrac t

6 Be tween the United States of Amer ica a nd City of B uford, Ge org ia for Withdrawa l from L ake Sidney L anier

. Storag e re fer s to the amount of spac e in L ake L anier dedica ted to a par

ticular 7 projec t purpose. L ake L anier is the rese rvoir for

the B uford Projec t and provides spa ce suf ficient to store appr ox imately

2.5 milli on g allons of wate r. 13wate r supp ly was a co ns id erat io n. In acco rd an c e w i t h th e reco m m en da ti on s of th e Newm an Rep or t, th e Co rp s m ai nt ai ne d th e ne ces sa ry m in im um riv er flo w at Atl an ta by m ak in g o ff-p eakrel eas es of 6 00 cfs du rin g t he se ho ur s o f th e week

. Dur in g co ns tru c t i o n of th e da m , Gwi nn et t Co un ty req ue st ed pe rm is si on fro m th e Co rp s to wit hd raw 10 m gd di rect ly fro m Lak e La n i e r . The Co rp s de ni ed th e req ue st , ex pl ai ni ng th at th e ap pr ov al of Co ng res s was requi red fo r it to m ee t s uc h a req ue st . In 19 55 , t he Co rp s st at ed to Co ng res s t ha t t he pro po se d wi th dr awal s wo ul d be in th e pu bl ic in te res t an d wou ld no t ha ve a m at eri al ly ad ve rs e effe ct on do wns tre am in te res ts or po wer ou tp ut . F.G. Tu rn er, Ass 't Ch ie f, Eng 'g Div ., U.S. Arm y Co rp s of Eng ’rs: Mo bi le Dis tri ct , Rep or t on W it hd rawal of Dom es ti c W at er Supp ly fro m Bu fo rd Res erv oi r ¶ 1 (1 95 5)

. The fo ll owi ng y ear, Co ng res s pa ss ed a la w th at gr an te d th e Co rp s au th or it y to en te r in to a co nt ract wit h Gwin ne tt Co un ty fo r th e al lo cat io n of 11 ,20 0 acre -fee t of st or ag e fo r reg ul a t e d wate r su pp ly an d gr an te d th e co un ty an
eas em en t acro ss go ve r n men t pr op ert y fo r th e co ns tru ct io n an d m ai nt en an ce of a pu m pi ng st at io n a ndpi pe li ne s. Pu b. L. No. 8 4- 84 1, 7 0 S ta t. 7 25 (19 56 ). Co ns tru ct io n was co m

pl et ed in 19 57

. Lak e Lan ie r co ve rs 38 ,00 0 acre s an d ha s 69 2 m il es of sh or el in e. The la rg e si ze of th e la ke al lo ws fo r a su bs ta nt ia l be ne fit in th e fo rm of r ecre at io n. Lak e Lan ie r is di vi de d in to th ree ti ers , or po ol s, di vi de d by el ev at io n. The fir st
14ti er ex te nd s fro m th e bo tt om of th e la ke , a t an el ev at io n of 91 9 feet ab ov e se a le ve l,

to an ele va ti on of 1 ,03 5 fe et . Thi s t ie r ho ld s 8 67 ,60 0 a cre- feet of “ in act iv e” s to rag e. The in act iv e po ol is ge ne ral ly le ft un to u c h e d an d sa ve d fo r in st an ces of se ve re dr ou gh t. The ne xt ti er ex te nd s fro m an el ev at io n of 1,0 35 feet to an el ev at io n of 1,0 70 feet (1 ,07 1 feet in th e su m m er) an d co nt ai ns 1,0 49 ,00 0 acre -fee t (1 ,08 7,6 00 acre -fee t in th e su m

m er) of co ns erv at io n st or ag e. The co ns erv at io n po ol ge ne ral ly pr ov id es th e wate r th at is us ed fo r al l do wns tre am pu rp os es . T he N ewm an Rep or t co nt em pl at ed th at

co ns erv at io n st or ag e wou ld be us ed pr im ari ly fo r hydro po wer an d rep eat ed ly refe rred to it as st or ag e fo r po wer. The fin al ti er ex te nd s fro m an el ev at io n of 1,0 70 feet (1 ,07 1 feet in th e su m

m er) to an el ev at io n of 10 85 feet

. Thi s ti er pr ov id es 59 8,8 00 acre -fee t of flo od st or ag e. The flo od po ol is ge ne ral ly le ft em pt y so th at i t c a n a c c o m

m od at e
ex ces s wat er dur in g fl oo d c on di ti on s. Bu fo rd Dam was co ns tru ct ed to rel eas e wate r fro m La k e Lan ie r th ro ug h a po werh ou se that ge ne rat es hydro po wer. The po werh ou se co nt ai ns th ree tu rb in es . Two of th e tu rb in es are la rg e an d rel eas e ab ou t 5,0 00 cfs whe n ru nn in g. The se two tu rb in es op erat e du rin g pe ak ho ur s , w he n en erg y co ns um pt io n is at it s gr eat es t. The y are th e
m os t effi ci en t so ur ce of po wer ge ne rat io n— ge ne rat in g 40 ,00 0 ki lo watt ho ur s (“ kwh ”)

or ig in al ly an d 60 ,00 0 kwh aft er im pr ov em en ts in 20 04 —an d wou ld be th e on ly tu rb in es u se d if a m in im

um of f-p eak flo w at Atl an ta were no t a pr ojec t co nc ern . To

15acco m

m od at e th is co nc ern , th e po werh ou se al so co nt ai ns a th ird , sm al le r tu rb in e whi ch rel eas es 60 0 cfs , g en erat in g ap pr ox im at el y 7,0 00 kwh . At p e a k p e rfo rm an ce, th e da m rel eas es ap p ro xi m at el y 11 ,00 0 cfs of wate r in to th e riv er. Howev er, whe n
en erg y de m an d is lo w—s o- cal le d of f-p eak ho ur s— on ly th e sm al l tu rb in e is op erat ed , al lo win g th e da m to pr oduc e so m e en erg y whi le pr ov id in g fo r a m in im al co nt in uo us flo w. The Co rp s can al so rel eas e wate r th ro ug h a sm al l sl ui ce ga te , bu t th is is typic al ly do ne on ly whe n th e sm al l tu rb in e is sh ut do wn fo r rep ai rs or in cas es of an em erg en cy . In th is m an ne r, Bu fo rd Dam was de si g n e d t o ge ne rat e m ax im um po wer whi le al so
en su rin g a m in im

um co nt in uo us flo w of wate r do wns tre a m t o acco m m od at e wate r
su pp ly. In 19 58 , Co ng res s pa ss ed th e W at er Supp ly Act (“ W SA”). The s t atut e was de si g n e d to al lo cat e so m e st or ag e in m ul ti -p ur po se pr ojec ts li ke Bu fo rd to wate r
su pp ly. The po li cy

un de rlyin g t he st atut e was : to reco gn iz e th e pr im ary res po ns ib il it ie s of th e St at es an d lo cal in te res ts i n de ve lo pi ng wate r su pp li es fo r do m es ti c, m un ic ip al , in du st ria l, a n d ot he r pu rp os es an d th at th e Fed eral Gov ern m en t s ho ul d p art ic ip at e an d co op erat e wit h St at es an d lo cal in te res t s in de ve lo pi ng su ch wate r su pp li es in co nn ect io n wit h th e co ns tru ct io n, m ai nt en an ce, an d op erat io n of Fed eral na vi ga ti on , flo od co nt ro l, irr ig at io n, or m ul ti pl e pu rp os e pr ojec ts
. 43 U.S.C. § 39 0b (a) (2 01 1) . To fu rth er tha t p ol ic y , Con gr es s au th or iz edth e Co rp s t o al lo cat e st or ag e in fed eral res erv oi rs fo r wate r su pp ly, pr ov id ed th at th e lo cal it ie s pa id
16fo r th e al lo cat ed st or ag e. Id

. § 39 0b (b ). Howev er, Co ng res s pl aced th e fo ll owi ng

li m it at io n o n i ts au th or iz at io n: Mo di fic at io ns of a res erv oi r pr ojec t he ret of or e au th or iz ed , su rv e y ed , pl an ne d, o r co ns tru ct edto in cl ud e st or ag e as pr ov id ed by su bs ect io n (b ) of th is se ct io n wh i c h w ou ld se rio us ly affe ct th e pu rp os es fo r whi ch th e pr ojec t was autho ri ze d, sur ve y ed , pl an ne d, or co ns tru ct ed , or whi ch wou ld in vo lv e m ajor st ru ctur al or op erat io na l ch an ge s sh al l be m ad e on ly up on th e ap pr ov al of C on gr es s as no w pro vi de d b y law. Id . § 39 0b (d ) (em

ph as is ad de d) . Th e p ol ic y of s ub se ct io n (a) in di cat es th at Co ng res s ai m ed on ly to ex pa nd wate r su pp ly al lo cat io ns , no t co nt ract th em by li m it in g pr ev io us
au th or iz at io ns . The art ic ul at io n of the bo un ds of th e st atut e’s au th or iz at io n m ak es no
m en ti on of a li m it on pr ev io us ly gr an te d wate r su pp ly au th or iz at io n. I n t h e cas e of Bu fo rd , th e W SA’s gr an t of au th or it y fo r wate r su pp ly co ns ti tu te s a su pp le m en t to an y
au th or it y gra nt edby the 19 46 RHA. In 19 59 , th e Co rp s is su ed it s Res erv oi r Reg ul at io n Man ua l fo r Bu fo rd Dam (“ Bu fo rd Man ua l” ) as an ap pe nd ix to th e Co rp s’ 19 58 m an ua l fo r th e en ti re riv er ba si n. U.S. Arm y Co rp s o f En g ’rs : Mo bi le Dis tri ct , Apa la ch ic ol a Ri ve r Bas in Res erv oi r Reg ul at io n Man ua l, App en di x B (1 95 9)

. The Bu fo rd Man ua l ha s no t be en up da te d an d

rem ai ns in effe ct to da y . The m an ua l de sc rib e s t he te ch ni cal featur es of th e da m , in cl ud in g a de sc rip ti on of th e th ree ti ers an d th ei r st or ag e cap aci ti es , th e si ze of L ak e Lan ie r, an d th e ge ne ral op erat io n of th e pl an t. It st at es t h a t t h e pr ojec t wil l be ru n to

17m ax im iz e rel eas es of wate r du rin g pe ak ho ur s bu t wil l al so ut il iz e of f-p eak rel eas es in

or de r to m ai nt ai n a m in im um flo w of 65 0 cfs at Atl an ta
. Id

. at B

- 1 3

. Th e man ua l 8

m ak es m ul ti pl e m en ti on s of reg ul at io ns th at are de si gn ed to en su re th is m in im um flo w. Id . at B- 18 –1 9, B- 22

. The re was ve ry li tt l e c ha ng e in wate r su pp ly op erat io ns at th e Bu fo rd Pro ject be twee n 19 60 an d 19 73

. Onl y Gain es vi ll e an d Bu fo rd wit hd rew wate r di rect l y fro m Lak e Lan ie r. Gwin ne tt , wit h whi c h t h e C o rp s was au th or iz ed to co nt ract , di d no t wit hd raw wate r di rect ly fro m th e res e r v o ir. In th e m ean ti m e, th e Ci ty of Atl an ta an d DeKal b Co un ty wit hd rew wate r fro m th e riv er do wns tre am fro m th e da m bu t m ad e no
reco rd ed req ue st s th at th e sc he du le of rel eas es be al te red to acco m m od at e th ei r ne ed s. The Atl an ta m et ro po li ta n area in crea se d it s wate r us e fro m th e Ch at ta ho oc he e by 37 % (fro m 11 7 m gd to 16 0 m gd ) be twee n 19 60 an d 19 68

. U

. S. Arm y Co rp s of Eng ’rs: Mo bi le Dis tri ct , Fi na l Env iro nm en ta l Im pa ct St at em en t: Bu fo rd Dam an d Lak e Si dn ey Lan ie r, Geo rg ia (Fl oo d Co nt ro l, Nav ig at io n an d Po wer) , St at em en t of Fi nd in gs 14 (1 97 4)

. Thi s am ou nt was st il l well be lo w th e am ou nt rel eas ed by th e Co rp s to m ai nt ai n
a m in im um of f-p eak flo w. M o r e ov er, be twee n 19 56 an d 19 69 , th e nu m be r of

res id en ces wit hi n two an d a qu art er mile s of th e res erv oi r do ub le d. Id

. at 15

. The

The Manua l categ orizes 7 a.m.–11 p.m. on weekda y s, 7 a.m.–10 p.m. on Saturday , 8 and 9 a.m.–2 p.m. on Sunday as pea k hours (for

a total of 100 pe ak hours pe r we ek). 18gr owi ng wate r ne ed s of Atl an ta cam e to th e at te nt io n of th e Sen at e, whi ch in 19 73

co m m is si o n e d th e Met ro po li ta n Atl an ta Area W at er Res ou rces Man ag em en t Stud y (“ MAAWRMS”) to de ve lo p a pl an fo r th e lo ng -te rm ne ed s of th e Atl an ta area . The st ud y was co nd uc te d by th e Co rp s, th e Atl an ta Reg io na l Co m m is si on (“ ARC”) , th e St at e o f Geo rg ia , andth e U.S. Env iro nm en ta l Pr ot ect io n Ag en cy in co m bi na ti on . By th e 19 70 s, it be cam e cl ear th at area lo cal it ie s de si red gr eat er acce ss to wate r in Lak e Lan ie r. The Co rp s de te rm in ed th at it co ul d no t gr an t pe rm an en t wate r al lo cat io n rig ht s to th e lo cal it ie s be fo re th e co m pl et io n of th e MAAWRMS. Whi le th e st ud y was be in g p e r f

o r med , t he Co rp s en te red in to a nu m be r of in te rim co nt ract s fo r wate r wit hd rawal . The fi rs t wat er s up pl y co nt ractwas gi ve n to Gwin ne ttCo un ty and al lo wed fo r th e wit hd r a w a l o f u p to 40 m gd di rect ly fro m Lak e Lan ie r du rin g th e
co ur se of th e st ud y . Co nt ract of Ju ly 2, 19 73 , Gwin ne tt Rec or d Exc erp ts vo l. 1, ACF0 04 02 4. The co nt ract ci te d th e W SA fo r au th or it y an d was ba se d on fin di ng s of th e Co rp s’ Dis tri ct Eng in eer th at th e pr op os ed wit hd rawal s wou ld no t ha ve si gn ifi can t ad ve rs e affe ct s on th e ot he r au th or iz ed pu rp os es of th e pr ojec t. No m en ti on was m ad e of th e 19 56 Act, po ss ib ly be cau se th e Act au th or iz ed on ly 10 m gd an d th us wou ld no t ha ve be en su ffi ci en t au th or it y fo r th e Co rp s’ act io ns . In 19 75 , th e co un ty in fo rm ed it s bo nd in ve st or s th at th e co ns tru ct io n co st s al on e fo r it s wate r su pp ly faci li ti es wou ld be $2 8 m il li on . 19In 19 75 , th e Co rp s co nc lu de d, an d SEPA ag reed , th at th e Bu fo rd Pro ject cou ld

su pp ly an an nu al av erag e of 23 0 m gd of wate r fo r do wns tre am wit hd rawal (wit h a
m ax im um of 32 7 m gd in th e su m m er) w it ho ut si gn ifi can tl y affe ct in g hydro po wer ge ne rat io n. The Co rp s rev is ed th is nu m be r in 19 79 , c o n c lu di ng th at by sc he du li ng ad di ti on al pe ak week en d rel eas es it co ul d rai se th e an nu al av erag e to 26 6 m gd as an in ci de n t o f p o w e r ge ne rat io n. In 19 86 , th e Co rp s wou ld ag ai n rai se th e fig ur e fo r
av a i l a b l e wate r su pp ly do wns tre am in ci de nt to po wer ge ne rat io n, co nc lu di ng th at it

co ul d gu aran te e an an nu al av erag e of 32 7 m gd by im pl em en ti ng a ne w wate r
m an ag em en t s y st em

th atha d b een pro po se d i n t he MAAW RMS

. The fin al rep or t of the MAAWRMS was is su ed in Sep te m be r 19 81

. The rep or t

ev al ua te d th ree al te rn at iv e pl an s fo r de al in g wit h Atl an ta ’s in crea si ng lo ng -te rm wate r
su pp ly ne ed s. The fir st al te rn at iv e was to bu il d a rere gu la ti on da m 6.3 m il es be lo w th e Bu fo rd Dam

. Thi s ne w da m wou ld st or e ou tfl ows rel eas ed fro m Bu fo rd du rin g p e ak op erat io ns a n d r e le as e th em as ne ed ed fo r wate r su pp ly. The stud y fo un d th at th is al te rn at iv e ha d th e hi gh es t es ti m at ed rat io of be ne fit s to co st s. Thi s al te rn at iv e rece iv ed th e m os t su pp or t fro m fed eral an d st at e ag en ci es , an d th e st ud y co nc lu de d it was be st
. The se co nd al te rn at iv e was to real lo cat e st or ag e sp ace in Lak e Lan ie r fo r wate r su pp ly. Acco rd in g to th e st ud y , in 19 80 , 10 ,51 2 acre- feet ha d bee n all oc at ed to wate r su pp ly,

am ou nt in g t o 1 4.6 m gdwit hd rawn di rect ly fro m Lak e Lan ie r. Thi s al te rn at iv e cal le d
20fo r an in crea s e o f a l l o cat ed st or ag e sp ace to 14 1,6 85 acre -fee t by th e y ear 20 10 ,

al lo win g fo r a to ta l wit hd rawal of 53 m gdfro m th e la ke . Th e fin al al te rn at iv e was to dr ed ge th e Mo rg an Fal ls Res erv oi r, whi ch li es do wns tre am fro m Bu f or d, an d al so real lo cat e 48 ,55 0 acre- feet of st or ag e sp ace in Lak e Lan ie r fo r wate r su pp ly by 20 10

. In 19 86 , Co ng res s, in th e W at er Res ou rces Dev el op m en t Act, au th or iz ed th e
co ns tru ct io n of a rere gu la ti on da m , th e MAAWRMS’ fav or ed fir st al te rn at iv e. Pub. L. No. 99 -6 62 , § 60 1( a)(1 ), 10 0 St at
. 41 37 , 41 40 –4 1. Howev er, th e pr ojec t ha d pr ev io us ly

no t rece iv ed ap pr ov al fro m th e Offi ce of Man ag em en t an d Bu dg et , whi ch sa id th at st at e
an d lo cal m on ey sh ou ld be us ed to co ns tru ct su ch a pr ojec t, an d Co ng res s di d no t ap pr o p ria te an y fu nd in g to ward s th e co ns tru ct io n of th e pr op os ed rere gu la ti on da m . S ho rtl y th erea fte r, th e Co rp s de te rm in ed th at th e se co nd al te rn at iv e of th e MAAWRMS—r eal lo cat i n g s t o rag e in Lak e Lan ie r in st ead of co ns tru ct in g a ne w da m —wo ul d be m or e eco no mi c a l

. The ch an ge was ba se d, at le as t in pa rt, on an
en vi ro nm en ta l st ud y ge ne rat ed by ne w co m pu te r m od el s th at co nc lu de d th at th e co st s
o f acq ui rin g th e la nd flo od ed by th e rere gu la ti on da m co ul d ris e an d m ak e th e fir st alte rn at ive le ss ec on om ic al th an or ig in al ly th ou gh t. U.S. Arm y Co rp s of Eng ’rs: Mo bi le Dis tri ct , Add it io na l In fo rm at io n, Lak e Lan ie r Rer eg ul at io n Dam 2 (1 98 8)

. In th e la te 19 80 s, th e Co rp s be ga n to pr ep are a Po st -Au th or iz at io n Ch an ge No t i f i cat io n Rep or t (“ PAC Rep or t” ) su gg es ti ng th at th e au th or iz at io n fo r th e ne w
21rere gu la ti on da m be se t as id e in fav or of th e real lo cat io n of st or ag e al te rn at iv e. A dr aft

of th e PAC Rep ort was co m pl et ed in 19 89

. The dr aft reco m m en de d th at 20 7,0 00 acre feet be al lo cat ed to wate r supp ly, al lo win g fo r 15 1 m gd to be wit hd rawn di rect ly fro m Lak e Lan ie r an d 37 8 m gd (5 1 m gd m or e th an th e 32 7 m gd th at th e Co rp s det erm in ed

was av ai labl e as an i n c i d e n t of po wer su pp ly) fro m th e riv er do wns tre am . Thi s rep res en te d a si gn ifi can t in crea se fro m th e 14 2,0 00 acre -fee t of st or ag e reco m m en de d by t he se co nd al te rn at iv e of th e MAAWRMS. The dr aft PAC Rep or t al so i n cl ud ed a dr aft W at er Co nt ro l Man ua l th at wou l d h a v e r e pl aced th e m an ua l fro m 19 58 an d go ve rn ed th e Co rp s’ wate r op erat io ns in th e ACF ba si n. In th is ap p e al , th e Co rp s cl a i m s th at th e PAC Rep or t’s reco m m en da ti on s wou ld ha ve be en m ad e pu rs ua nt to

au th or it y fro m th e WS A

. Th e dr aft rep ort it se lf no te d th e Co rp s’ au th or it y un de r th e st atut e bu t st at ed th at ap pr ov al fro m Co ng res s m ig ht be req ui red du e to th e fact th at th e al lo cat io n ex ceed ed 50 ,00 0 acre -fee t. The dr aft rep or t es ti m a t e d th at th e pu rch as ed 9

Interna l policies require the Corps to obtain the approva l of the Secr etar y of the 9 Army for a ll storag e alloca

tions ex cee ding 15% of total storag e ca pacity or 50,000 ac re- fee t, whicheve r is less. The pa rties have not made this Court awar e of a ny internal re gulations that set a thre shold for allocations above which Congressional a pproval is re quired. How ever , the Corps had wa rned the prec edingy ear

that such a r eallocation of storag e mig ht require Congr essional approva l: The Chief of

Eng ineer s has the discre tionary authority to approve rea llocation of storag e if the a

mount does not ex cee d 50,000 acr e-f eet, or 15 perc ent of total usable stora g e, whiche ver is lower , and if the r eallocation would not have a signific ant impact on author ized project purpose s. [The reallocation contemplated in the MAAWRMS ] would require the r eallocation of 202,000 acr e-f eet of storag e to meet the year

2010 peak de mand of 103 mg d from the lake and 510 mg d from

22s t o r a g e i n Lak e Lan ie r wou ld co st $4 9,3 60 ,60 0. The fin al PAC Rep or t was ne ve r

co m pl et eddu e to res is ta nc e an d t he in it ia ti on of alaws ui t b y th e St at e o f Alaba m a. The Co rp s fo ll owe d th e reco m m en da ti on of th e MAAWRMS to m ak e wate r
av ai lab l e f

o r wate r su pp ly i n th e in te rim be fo re a lo ng -te rm so lu ti on was reac he d, as it ha d do ne whi le th e stud y was be in g co m pl et ed , an d it en te red in to a te m po rary wate r
su pp ly co nt ract w i t h t h e ARC. The co nt ract was ba se d on th e Co rp s’ rev is ed de te rm in at io n th at it co ul d pr ov id e, in ci de nt al ly t o p o w e r ge ne rat io n, 32 7 m gd as a y ear- ro un d av erag e wit h no im pa ct on h ydro po wer. The Co rp s ag reed to pr ov id e rel eas es su ffi ci en t t o a cco m m od at e up to 50 m gd in wit hd rawal s ab ov e th is 32 7 m gd th res ho ld , fo r whi ch th e ARC wou ld pa y . The co nt ract w a s ren ewed in 19 89 bu t

ex pi red in 19 90

. Si nc e th en , th e ARC ha s co nt i n u ed to wit hd raw wate r fro m th e Ch at ta ho oc he e on ro ug hl y th e sa m e ba si s as th at sp eci fie d in th e co nt ract , th ou gh it ha s ge ne ral ly not ne ed edto wit hd raw m or e th an 32 7 m gd

. The Co rp s si gn ed se ve ral ot he r wate r su pp ly co nt ract s in th e 19 70 s and 19 80 s, al l of whi ch ex pi red in 19 90 , bu t whi ch ro u g h l y d i c t a te th e te rm s un de r whi ch th e

the river . . . . There fore , the re quired re allocation is not within the discretionary authority of the Chief of

Eng ineer s to approve. It can only be appr oved by

the [Assi stant Secre tary

of the Ar my for Civil W orks] if impacts are de termined to be insignifica

nt. We believe the powe r losses ar e significant a nd expect that Congr essional appr oval would be r equire d for the r eallocation. L etter f rom C.E. Edg ar I I I , Major Ge n., U.S. Army Corps. of Eng ’rs, to Ha

rry West, Ex ec. D ir., ARC 5 (Apr. 15, 1988). 23lo cal it ie s ha v e c on ti nu ed to wit hd raw wate r fro m th e Bu fo rd Pro ject. In 19 78 , th e Co rp s ag reed to te rm s with th e Ci ty of Cu m m in g, Georg ia fo r th e pa idwit hd rawal of 2.5 m gd

. In 19 85 , th e am ou nt was rai se d to 5 m gd , an d in 19 87 it was rai se d to 10 m gd

. In 19 87 , th e Co rp s si gn ed a co nt ract wit h th e Ci ty of Gain es vi ll e, al lo win g th e ci ty to wit hd raw up t o 2 0 m gd , up fro m th e 8 m gd au th or iz edin 19 53 as ju stco m pe ns at io n. The co nt ract req ui redGain es vi ll e to pa y forth e wat er t ha t it wit hd rew in ex ces s of 8

m gd

. In 19 88 , th e 19 73 co nt ract wit h Gwin ne tt Co un ty was su pp le m en te d, ex pa nd in g th e cap on wit hd rawal s fro m 4 0 mg d t o 53 m gd

. All of th e co nt ract s si gn ed in th e 19 80 s sp eci fic al ly st at ed th at th ey were in te rim co nt ract s to sa ti sf y wate r su pp ly ne ed s whi le th e Co rp s was st ud y in g th e is su e an d de te rm in in g a pe rm an en t pl an . As a
co m po ne nt of th ei r in te rim na tu re, th e co nt ract s ex pl ic it ly st at ed th at th ey di d no t crea te

an y pe rm an en t rig ht s to st or ag e sp ace in La k e Lan ie r. The Co rp s or ig in al ly ci te d th e In de pe n d e nt Offi ces App ro pr ia ti on s Act of 19 52 , 31 U.S.C. § 97 01 , as au th or it y fo r th es e co nt ract s, bu t it la te r de em ed th e st atut e to be i n e f f e ct iv e in au th or iz in g su ch tra ns act io ns . Laterco nt ract s ci te d t he W at er Supp ly A ctforau th or it y . On Ja nu ary 1, 19 90 , al l of th e in te rim co nt ract s ex pi red

. The on ly rem ai ni ng wate r su pp ly al lo cat io ns were th e co m bi ne d 10 m gd gr an te d to Bu fo rd an d Gain es vi ll e in th e 19 50 s by th e Co rp s as jus t co m pe ns at i o n . H owe ve r, th e Co rp s co nt in ue d to pe rm i t th e lo cal it ie s to wit hd raw wate r fro m th e Bu fo rd Pro ject fo r wate r su pp ly.

24App el le es refe r to th es e wat er wi th dr awal s as pu rs ua nt to “ ho ld ov er” c on tra ct s.

In Ju ne , 1 99 0, Alab am a fil ed su it ag ai ns t th e Co rp s in th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Alab am a to ch al le ng e a se ct io n of th e dr aft PAC Rep ort an d th e co nt in ue d wit hd rawal of wate r fro m th e Bu fo rd Pro ject by th e Geo rg ia Part ie s, whi ch App el le es ch arac te riz e
as a de fact o real lo cat io n of st or ag e. Thi s su it is th e fir st of th e fo ur cu rren tl y on ap pe al

. In Sep te m

be r of 19 90 , Alab am a an d th e Co rp s m ov ed joi nt ly fo r a st ay of pr oc eed in gs , whi ch was gr an te d, to ne go ti at e a se tt l em en t ag reem en t. Fl or id a an d Geo rg ia la te r in te rv en ed as pl ai nt iff an d de fen da nt , res pe ct iv el y . The st ay or de r at is su e in Alab am a

v. Uni te d St at es Arm

y Co rp s of Eng in eers , 35 7 F. Supp . 2d 13 13 (N.D. Ala. 20 05 ), req ui redth e Co rp s n ot to “ ex ecu te an y co nt ract s o r ag reem en ts whi ch are t he su bjec t of th e co m

pl ai nt in th is act io n un le ss ex pr es sl y ag reed to , in writ in g, by [Alaba m a] an d Fl or id a.” Id

. at 13 16

. The st ay pr ov id ed th at ei th er si de co ul d te rm in at e it at wil l. It di d

no t d is cu ss th e co nt in ue d wat er wi th dr awal s o f th e Geo rg iaPart ie s. In 19 92 , Alab am a, Fl or id a, Geo rg ia , an d th e Co rp s en te red in to a Mem or an du m of Agr eem en t (“ MOA”) au th or iz in g a co m pr e h e n s i v e st ud y of th e wate r su pp ly qu es ti on an d req ui rin g th e Co rp s to wit hd raw th e dr aft PAC R e p o r t a l o ng wit h it s
acco m pa nyin g W at er Supp ly Rea ll oc at io n Rep or ts an d Env iro nm en ta l Ass es sm e n t s. The MOA co nt ai ne d a “ li ve -an d- le t-l iv e” pr ov is io n th at al lo wed t h e Geo rg ia Part ie s to co nt in ue to wit hd raw wate r fro m th e Bu fo rd Pro ject at th e le ve l of th ei r wit hd rawal s
25in 19 90 , wit h reas on ab le in crea se s ov er ti m e. The pr ov is io n m ad e cl ear th at it di d no t

gr an t an y pe rm an en t rig ht s to th e wate r be in g co ns um ed

. The MOA was or ig in al ly se t to las t fo r th ree years b ut was e xt en de d s ev eral ti m es . In 19 97 , aft er th e co m

pl et io n of a co m

pr eh en si ve st ud y , th e pa rti es en te red in to th e Apa la ch ic ol a-Ch at ta ho oc he e-Fl in t Ri ver Bas in Co m pa ct (“ ACF Co m

pa ct ”), whi ch

was rat ifi ed by Co ng res s an d th e th ree st at es an d rep la ced th e MOA. Pub. L. No. 10 5- 10 4, 11 1 St at
. 22 19 (1 99 7)

. The AC F C o m pa ct in cl ud ed a pr ov is io n al lo win g
co nt in ue d wit hd rawal s si m il a r t o t h e li ve an d le t li ve pr ov is io n in th e MOA. The Co m pa ct crea te d an “ ACF Bas in Co m m is si on ” co m

po se d of th e go ve rn or s of th e th ree st at es an d a no n- vo ti ng rep res en ta ti ve of th e fed eral go ve rn m en t, to be ap po in te d by th e Pres id en t. The co m

m is si on was c ha rg edwit h e st ab li sh in g “ an all oc at io n fo rm ul a fo r ap po rti on in g th e su rfac e wa t e r s o f th e ACF Bas in am on g th e st at es of Alab am a, Fl or id a, an d Geo rg ia .” Id

. art
. VI(q )( 1 2 ) , 1 1 1 St at
. at 22 22

. Und er th e Co m pa ct ,
ex is ti ng wate r su pp ly co nt ract s wou ld be ho no red , andwate r-s up pl y pro vi de rs co ul d in crea se th ei r wit hd rawal s “ to sa ti sf y reas on a b l e in crea se s in th e de m an d” fo r wate r. Id

. art
. VII(c) , 11 1 St at
. 22 23 –2 4. The Co m pa ct in it ia ll y was sc he du le d to e x p i re Decem be r 31 , 19 98 , bu t it was ex te nd ed se ve ral ti m es ; it ul ti m at el y ex pi red on Aug us t 31 , 20 03 , whe n th e Co m

m is si on fai le d to ag ree on a wate r al lo cat io n fo rm ul a. The st ay of th e Ala ba m a cas e rem ai ne d in effe ct th ro ug h th e du rat io n of th e Co m pa ct
. In th e
26m ean ti m e, th e Co rp s co nt in ue d to al lo w th e Geo rg ia Part ie s to wit hd raw wate r fro m th e

Bu fo rd Pro

ject. Bec au se th ere were no co nt ract s in pl ace, th e Co rp s fro ze th e rat es th at it ch arg ed fo r wate r an d co nt in ue d to pr oc eed on th e b a s is of th e pr ic es th at were se t in th e in te rim co nt ract s of th e 19 80 s. Thi s rat e sc he m e an ge red hydro po wer cu st om ers who pu rch as edpo wer p ro du cedby the pro ject d ire ct ly or in di rect ly from SEPA. In Decem be r 20 00 , SeFP C fil ed su it un de r th e APA ag ai ns t th e Co rp s in th e Uni te d Stat es Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e Dis tri ctof C ol um bi a, th e se co ndof t he fou r su it s
cu rren tl y on ap pe al

. SeFP C al le ge d th at th e ag en cy ha d wro ng fu ll y di ve rte d wate r fro m hydro po wer ge ne rat io n to wate r su pp ly, th ereb y cau si ng SeFP C’s m em be rs to pa y
un fai rly hi gh rat es fo r th ei r po wer. SeFP C so ug ht a jud ic ia l de cl arat io n of th e Bu fo rd Pro ject’s au th or iz ed pu rp os es as w e l l as co m pe ns at io n. In Mar ch 20 01 , th e di st ric t

co ur t refe rred th e pa rti es to med i a t io n, an d Geo rg ia was joi ne d. In Ja nu ary 20 03 , SeFP C, th e Co rp s, an d th e Geo rg ia Part ie s ag reed to a se tt le m en t in th e cas e, whi ch cal le d fo r an al lo cat io n of 24 0,8 5 8 a cre- feet (es ti m at ed to be 22 % of co ns erv at io n
s t o r a g e) to wate r su pp ly fo r on ce-r en ewab le 10 -y ear in te rim co nt ract s th at co ul d be

co nv ert ed in to pe rm an en t st or ag e if ap p r o v e d b y Co ng res s (o r if a co ur t de em ed Co ng res si on al ap pr ov al un ne ces sa ry ). In ex ch an ge , th e Geo rg ia Part ie s ag reed to pa y hi gh er rat es fo r wate r, wit h th e in co m e be in g ap pl ie d as a cred it ag ai ns t th e rat es ch arg ed to S eFPC ’s m em be rs . The D.C. di st ric t co ur t th en al lo wed Alab am a an d

27Fl or id a to in te rv en e.

I n Octo be r 20 03 , th e Alab am a co ur t en joi ne d th e fil in g of th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t i n th e D.C. cas e, fin di ng th at th e ag reem en t vi ol at ed th e st ay in it s cas e be cau se th e ap pr ov al of Alab am a an d Fl or id a was no t ob ta in ed

. The di st ric t co ur t in th e Dis tri ct of Co lu m

bi a ap pr ov ed th e Agr eem en t in Feb ru ary 20 04 , co nt in ge nt up on th e di ss ol ut io n of th e Alab am a c o u rt’s in jun ct io n, reject in g Alab am a an d Fl or id a’s arg um en t th at th e Agr eem en t ex ceed ed th e Co rp s’ au th or it y co nf erre d by Co n g r e s s . SeFP C, 30 1 F. Supp . 2d 26 , 35 (D.D.C. 20 04 ). In Apr il 20 04 , a pa ne l o f t h is Co ur t st ay ed an ap pe al of th e Alab am a co ur t’s in jun ct io n to al lo w th e Alab am a di st ric t co ur t to de ci de whe th er to di ss ol ve or m od ify th e in jun ct io n in li gh t of th e D.C. di st r i c t

co ur t’s or de r ap pr ov in g th e Agr eem en t. In th e m ean ti m e, an in it ia l ap pe al of th e D.C. di st ric t co ur t’s or de r in SeFP C by Alab am a an d Fl or id a was de ni ed by th e D.C. Ci rcu it Co ur t o f A p p e a l s fo r la ck of a fin al jud gm en t. The Alab am a di st ric t co ur t de ni ed a
m ot io n to di ss ol ve th e p rel im in ary in jun ct io n, Al ab am a, 35 7 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 13 20 -2 1, bu t in Sep te m

be r 20 05 , a p an el of th is Co ur t he ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in gr an ti ng th e i n ju n c t io n an d va cat ed th e in jun ct io n. Alab am a, 42 4 F.3 d 1 1 1 7 , 1 1 3 3 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). Onc e th is Co ur t di ss ol ve d th e in jun ct io n ov er th e im pl em en ta ti on of th e Agr eem en t, th e D.C. di st ric t co ur t in Mar ch 20 06 en te red a fin al jud gm en t i n S eFPC , andAlab am a an d F lo rid a ag ai n app eal edto th e D.C. Ci rcu it

. 28In So ut he as te rn Fed eral Po wer Cu st om ers , Inc . v. Gere n, 5 14 F.3d13 16 , 13 24

(D.C. Ci r. 20 08 ), th e D.C. Ci rcu it he ld th at th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t ex ceed ed th e Co rp s’ au th or it y un de r th e W SA. The pa rti es to th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t argu ed th at th e Co rp s was au th or iz ed to en te r in to th e se tt le m en t on th e ba si s of it s W SA au th or it y al on e, so th e co ur t sp eci fic al ly refr ai ne d fro m m ak in g an y ho ld in gs on th e ba si s of th e RHA. Id. at 13 24 n.4 . The co ur t fo un d t ha t “ [o ]n it ’s f ace, . . . rea ll oc at in g m or e th an twen ty-two pe rcen t
. . . of Lak e Lan ie r’s st or ag e cap aci ty to lo cal co ns um pt io n us es . . .
co ns ti tu te s th e type of m ajor op erat io na l ch an ge refe ren ced by th e W SA.” Id

. at 13 24

. Afte r th e ci rcu it co ur t’s rem an d, th e Ju di ci al Pan el on Mu lt id i s tri ct Lit ig at io n tra ns ferr ed th e cas e, al on g wit h Alab am a an d se ve ral ot he rs , to th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Fl or id a. Mea nwh il e, in 20 00 , th e St at e of Geo rg ia su bm it te d a fo rm al reque st to th e Co rp s to m od ify it s op erat io n of th e Bu fo rd Pro ject in or de r to m eet th e Geo rg ia Part ie s’ wate r
su pp ly ne ed s th ro ug h 20 30

. The req ue st was to wit hd raw 40 8 m gd fro m th e riv er an d 29 7 m gd di rect ly fro m th e la ke , whi ch , co m bi ne d, req ui red ap pr ox im at el y 37 0,9 30

acre -fee t of st or ag e. In Feb ru ary 20 01 , ni ne m on th s aft er th e req u e s t w a s se nt to th e Co rp s an d wit ho ut a res po ns e fro m th e Co rp s, th e S t at e of Geo rg ia fil ed su it in th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Geo rg ia se ek in g to co m pe l th e Co rp s to gr an t it s req ue st , be gi nn in g th e th ird of th e fo ur un de rlyin g cas es . The Co rp s
29res po nd ed in Apr il 20 02 wit h a le tt er den y in g th e req ue st an d an acco m pa nyin g le ga l

m em or an du m . Mem or an du m fro m Earl St oc kd al e, Dep ut y Gen eral Co un se l, Dep art m en t of the Arm

y , to Acti ng Ass is ta nt Secr et ary of th e Arm y for Ci vi l W orks : Geo rg ia Req ue st fo r W at er Supp ly fro m Lak e Lan ie r 1 ( A p r . 1 5 , 20 02 ) [h erei na fte r

“ 20 02 St oc kd al e Mem o” ]. The 20 02 St oc kd al e Mem o co nc lu de d th at th e Co rp s la ck ed th e au th or it y to gr an t Geo rg ia ’s req ue st wit ho ut le gi sl at iv e ap pr ov al

. The m em o st at ed th at wate r su pp ly was no t an au th or iz ed pu rp os e of th e Bu fo rd Pro ject un de r th e RHA. Fu rth er, itst at edth atev enif wat er s up pl y was au th or iz ed , t he Co rp s wou ld st il l la ck th e au th or it y to m ak e a st or ag e al lo cat io n of th e si ze reque st ed be cau se th e real lo cat io n

“ wou ld in vo lv e subs ta nt ia l effe ct s on pr ojec t pu rp os es an d m ajor op erat io na l ch an ges.” Id

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Fl or id a’s an d SeFP C’s m ot io ns to in te rv en e in th e cas e, bu t th is C o u r t rev ers ed th e de ni al an d rem an de d fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs . Geo rg ia v. U.S. Arm y Co rp s of Eng ’rs, 30 2 F.3 d 12 42 , 12 60 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 ). On rem an d, Fl or id a
mov ed to di sm is s or ab at e th e pr oc eed in gs ; Alab am a, Gwin ne tt Co un ty, th e C i t y o f Gain es vi ll e, an d th e ARC m ov ed to in te rv en e; an d Alab am a m ov ed to ab at e or tra ns fer th e pr oc eed in gs . The di st ric t co ur t al lo wed A l a b a ma to in te rv en e as of rig ht an d th e lo cal go ve rn m en ts to in te rv en e pe rm is si ve ly, an d it he ld th at th e cas e wou ld be ab at ed pe nd in g th e res ol ut io n of t he Alab am a cas e. Geo rg ia , 22 3 F .R.D. 69 1, 6 99 (N.D. Ga. 20 04 ). On ap pe al , a pa ne l of th is Co ur t in an un pu bl is he d de ci si on affi rm ed th e di st ric t
30co ur t’s de ci si on to ab at e th e cas e. Geo rg ia , 14 4 F. App ’x 85 0 (1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 05 ). The

cas e was th en co ns ol id at ed in to th e mu lt id is tri ct li ti ga ti on in th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Fl or id a. In Ja nu ary 20 08 , th e Ci ty of Apa la ch ic ol a su ed th e Co rp s in th e fed eral di st ric t

co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Fl or id a. Thi s is th e l as t of th e fo ur cas es be in g
co ns id ered as pa rt of th is ap pe al

. Thi s cas e was al so co ns ol id at ed in to th e m ul ti di st ric t li ti ga ti on . Whi le th e li ti ga ti on was pe nd in g, th e C o rp s b e g an an up da te of it s pl an s an d op erat io ns in th e A C F B as in wit h a fo cu s on whe th er it co ul d co nt in ue to m eet th e
cu rren t wate r su p p ly ne ed s of th e lo cal it ie s. In or de r to an swe r th es e qu es ti on , sp eci fic al ly in li gh t of th e D.C. Ci rcu it ’s Geren op in io n, th e Co rp s rel eas ed a ne w le ga l

m em or an du m by Earl St oc kd al e. Mem or an du m fro m Earl St oc kd al e, Ch ie f C o u ns el , Dep art m en t of th e Arm

y , to th e Ch ie f of Eng in eers : Aut ho rit y to Rea ll oc at e St or ag e fo r Mu ni ci pa l & In du st ria l W at er Supp ly Und er th e W at er Supp ly Act of 19 58 , 43 U.S.C. § 39 0b 1 (J an . 9, 20 09 ) [h erei na fte r “ 20 09 St oc kd al e Mem o” ]. In th is m em or an du m , th e Co rp s de te rm in ed th at th e cu rren t wate r su pp ly wit hd rawal un de r th e “ in te rim

co nt ract s” co ul d be acco m m od at ed by a pe rm an en t real lo cat io n of ap pr ox im a t e ly 11 .7% of th e co ns erv at io n st or ag e in Lak e Lan ie r. The C o rp s co nc lu de d th at su ch a pe rm an en t real lo cat io n wou ld no t co ns ti tu te a m ajor op erat io na l ch an ge , an d it wou ld
31no t s eri ou sl y affe ctan y

pro ject p ur po se s. The Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Fl or id a, in it s co ns id erat io n of th e m ul ti di st ric t li ti ga ti on , di vi de d th e tri al in to two ph as es . Ph as e One , whi ch i s a t i s s u e h ere, pe rta in ed to th e Co rp s’ au th or it y fo r it s op erat io ns of th e pr ojec t. The pl ai nt iff s in th e fo ur un de rlyin g
cas es m ov ed fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t, an d th e Co rp s fil ed an op po si ti o n a n d cro ss m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud ge m en t in each cas e. On Ju ly 17 , 20 09 , th e co ur t gr an te d pa rti al

su m m ary jud gm en t t o t he pl ai nt iff s i n Al ab am a, Apa la ch ic ol a, an d S eFPC an d t o t he Co rp s i n Geo rg ia , anditde ni edsu m m ary jud gm en t t o t he Geor gi a Par ti es . The co ur t’s or de r co nc lu de d th at th e Co rp s ha d ex ceed ed it s au th or it y in it s “ de fact o” real lo cat io n of st or ag e to acco m m od at e cu rren t wate r su pp ly wit hd rawal s. In re Tri- St at e W at er Ri gh ts Lit ig ., 63 9 F. Supp . 2d 13 08 , 13 50 (M.D. Fl a. 20 09 ). The co ur t fir st he ldth aton ly two co nc lu si on s fr om of t he D.C. Circ ui t h ad pr ecl us iv e effe ct on it s jud gm en t un de r th e pr in ci pl e of co ll at eral es to pp el : (1 ) t h a t th e W SA ap pl ie d to in te rim real lo cat io ns of st o r a g e ; an d (2 ) th at a real lo cat io n of 22 % of Lak e Lan ie r’s to ta l co ns erv at io n st or ag e was a m ajor op erat io na l ch an ge un de r th e W SA. Id

. at 13 43

. Nex t, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th er e was vi rtu al ly no au th or iz at io n fo r th e real lo cat io n of wate r su pp ly st or ag e i n th e RHA an d th at th e Co rp s’ so le so ur ce of

au th or it y to all oc at e st or ag e fo r wat er s up pl y was t he W SA. The co urt wen t on to ho ld th at th e 20 09 St oc kd al e Mem o was a li ti g a t i o n
32do cu m en t wi th po stho c an al y si s t ha t was no t pa rt of th e ad m in is tra ti ve reco rd . Id. at

13 47

. W it ho ut th e m em o, t h e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e reco rd co nt ai ne d in su ffi ci en t su pp ort fo r th e Co rp s’ c al cu la ti on s of th e am ou nt of st or ag e req ui red fo r th e wate r su pp ly wit hd rawal s as of 20 06

. The co urt at te m p t e d it s own cal cu la ti on of th is fig ur e an d de te rm in ed th at th e al lo cat io n was fo r 22 6,6 00 acre -fee t or 21 .5% of Lak e Lan ie r’s to ta l co ns erv at io n st or ag e. Id

. at 13 50

. In reac hi ng it s co nc lu si on on th e
am ou nt of st or ag e ne ces sa ry fo r th e pr ojec t’s cu rren t op erat io ns , th e co ur t reject ed

se ve ral ke y fig ur es th at th e Co rp s ha d us ed in m ak in g pr ev io us cal cu l a t i o n s , mo st

no tabl y reject in g t he Co rp s’ fig ur e fo r th e am ou nt of wa te r av ai labl e fo r do wns tre am wit hd rawal as a bypro du ct of hydro po wer op erat io ns . Th e di st ric t co ur t he ld th at th e 21 .5% al lo cat io n was a maj o r o pe rat io na l ch an ge th at ex ceed ed th e Co rp s’ W SA

au th or it y. Th e co urt al so co nc lu de d th at th e Co rp s’ cu rren t op erat io ns ex ceed ed th e W SA be ca

use they se rio us ly affe ct ed th e au th or iz ed pu rp os e of hy dr opow er ge ne ra tio n. Bec au se th e Geo rg ia req ue st rep res en te d an ev en la rg er wate r su pp ly st or ag e al lo cat io n th an th e cu rren t op erat io ns , th e co urt al so fo un d th at it ex ceed ed th e Co rp s’ au th or it y . The di st ric t co ur t di rect ed th e Co rp s to li m it rel eas es fro m th e Bu fo rd Pro ject to 60 0 cfs du rin g of

f-p eak ho ur s an d to di sc on ti nu e al l wate r su pp ly wit hd rawal s be in g
m ad e di rect ly fro m Lak e Lan ie r, ex cep t fo r th e 10 m gd th at Gain es vi ll e an d Bu fo rd ha d

33be en pe rm it te d to wit hd raw in th ei r 19 50 s rel oc at io n ag reem en ts
. The co ur t st ay ed it s 1 0

or de r fo r th ree y ears , un ti l Ju ly 17 , 20 12 , to gi ve th e pa rti es an op po rtu ni ty to se tt le or to se ek Co ng res si on al ap pr ov al

. In th e m ean ti m e, th e co ur t al low ed cu

rr ent w ithdr awal s to co nt in ue bu t fo rb ad e an y in crea se s wi th ou t t he co ns en t o f al l o f th e p art ie s.

DISCUSS ION Thi s op in io n wil l be gi n by e x a mini ng th res ho ld juri sd ic ti on al qu es ti on s, th en wil l an al y ze th e pr im ary su bs ta nt iv e m at te rs in vo lv ed , an d fin al ly wil l pr ov id e so m e gu id an ce an d in st ruc ti on fo r th e Co rp s pe rta in in g to it s an al y si s of it s wate r su pp ly

au th or it y on rem an d. Part I. Ju ris di ct io na l M at te rs A. App el la te Ju ris di ct io n o ve r Alaba m a, SeFP C, an d Ap al ach ic ol a Alab am a an d Fl or i d a a rg ue th at th is co ur t la ck s ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on ov er th e ap pe al s in Alab am a, SeFP C, an d Apa la ch ic ol a. The y no te th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t

The district cour

t failed to state its rea soning f or choosing600 cfs a s the level for 1 0 off- peak r elea ses. Six hundred c fs was the rate of off -pea k rele ases in the 1950s whe n the plant opened. T he Ne wman Report e x plicitly contemplated r aisingoff- peak r elea ses so as to provide for a minimum flow of the r iver a t Atlanta of 800 c fs by

1965. Newma

n Report ¶ 79. The district court fa ils to ex plain why it mandated that the leve l of off- peak r elea ses not be ra ised from whe re it stood at the tim e of the Buf ord Project’ s construction in spite of the fa ct that the RHA expli citly contemplated suc h a ra ise and in spite of the a dditional water supply authority g rante d to the Corps by

the WSA. As our discussion below will make appa rent, the district c ourt committed obvious error in this reg ard. See infra, note 19. 34ren de r a fin al jud gm en t in th e cas es , as th e su m m ary jud gm en t or de r on th e Ph as e One cl ai m s di d no t res ol ve th e Ph as e Two cl ai m s in th os e cas es . App el le es co nc ed e th at th is

co ur t ha s juri sd ic ti on ov er th e app eal in th e Geo rg ia cas e be cau se th e di st ric t co urt’s

or de r di d am ou nt to a fin al jud gm en t in th at cas e. Howev er, Alab am a an d Fl or id a arg ue th at th e cl ai m s in th e cas es are su ffi ci en tl y di st in ct th at ex te nd in g pe nd en t juri sd ic ti on fro m Geo rg ia ov er th e A laba m a, SeFP C, an d Apa la ch ic ol a cl ai m s wou ld be in ap pr op ria te
. W e di sa gr ee. Is su es in th e th ree co nt es te d cas es an d th e Geo rg ia cas e

1 1

are in ex tri cab ly in te rtwi ne d, ren de rin g pe nd en t juri sd ic ti on pr op er. Eve n if th is Co ur t di d no t ha ve pe nd en t juri sd ic ti on ov er th es e cl ai m s, th is Co ur t w o u l d s t il l ha ve juri sd ic ti on be cau se th e d is tri ctco ur t’s o rd er am ou nt edto an in jun ct io n.

“ Pen de nt ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on is pre se nt when a no napp eal ab le de ci si on is in ex tri cab ly int ertwin edwith t he ap pe al ab le de ci si on or wh en rev ie w of t he for m er de ci si on is ne ces sa ry to en su re m ean in g f u l r e v i e w of th e la tt er.” Kin g v. Ces sn a Airc raft Co ., 56 2 F.3 d 13 74 , 13 79 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The ex erci se of su ch juri sd ic ti on is on ly ap pr o p r i a t e in “ rare ci rcu m st an ces ” so on ly

“ li m it ed fact ua l sc en ari os ” wil l qu al ify. Id

. at 13 79 –8 0. Thu s, th e cri ti cal in qu iry is

A pane l of this court reje cted this argument in a J anuar y 20, 2010 order

acc epting 1 1 pendent jurisdiction over

the district court’s e ntire orde r bec ause “ all issues raised by the appellants a

re ine x tricably

intertwined.” Orde r of Jan. 20, 2010 at 5. (Citing Sierr a Club v. Van Antwer p, 526 F.3d 1353, 1359 ( 11th Cir. 2008); Sum mit Med. Assocs., P.C. v. P ryor, 180 F .3d 1326, 1335 (11th Cir. 1999)). We agree with the finding s of the pane l on this m atter. 35whe th er th e ap pe al ab le is su e can be res ol ve d w i t h o u t r e ach in g th e m eri ts of th e

no napp eal ab le is su es . Tho m as v. Bl ue Cro ss & Bl ue Sh ie ld Ass ’n, 59 4 F.3 d 81 4, 82 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0)

. Alab am a an d F lo rid a arg ue th atth e ap pe al of Georg ia can be res ol ve d wi th ou t ad dr es si ng th e is su es in th e ot he r cas es . The y arg ue th at t h e d i s t r i c t co urt fo un d th at Geo rg ia ’s r e q u e s t fo r a real lo cat io n of 34 % of th e av ai labl e st or ag e ex ceed ed th e Co rp s’ au th or iz at io n be cau se the ar gum ent w as sim ply fo re cl ose d by co ll at eral es to pp el

an d t he pre cl us iv e eff

ect s of th e D.C. Cir cu it ’s Gerende ci si on . Thu s, t he y arg ue th at th e m eri ts of th e Geo rg ia ap pe al can be de te rm in ed wit ho ut co ns id eri ng th e un de rlyin g is su es in th e o th er ca se s. Alab am a an d Fl or id a m is read bo th th e di st ric t co ur t’s op in io n an d th e op in io n in Geren

. The di st ric t co urt di d no t, an d co ul d no t, si m pl y di sm is s th e Geo rg ia cas e on th e ba si s of co ll at eral es to pp el

. The Co rp s’ au th or it y to al lo cat e st or ag e fo r wate r
su pp ly de pe nd s on an an al y si s of bo t h t h e R H A a n d th e W SA. As no te d ab ov e, th e di st ric t co ur t he ld th at on ly two is su es were p r e c l ud ed , an d ne it he r of th em were th e
au th or it y of t he Co rp s u nd er the RHA. In f act , th e D.C. Ci rcu itcle arl y st at edth atth e is su e of wate r su pp ly au th or it y in th e RHA was no t b efo re i t. Se e Geren , 5 14 F.3 d at 13 24 n.4 (“ The co urt, in res po nd in g to th e Co rp s ’ d e f e n s e o f it s ap pr ov al of th e Agr eem en t, ha s no oc cas io n to op in e whe th er th e Co rp s’ pr ev io us st or ag e real lo cat io ns
36were un la wfu l.”)

. Thu s, it is cl ear th at th e ho ld in g in Geren—i .e. th at a 22 %

real lo cat io n of st or ag e to wate r su pp ly co ns ti tu te s a “ m ajor op erat io na l ch an ge ” un de r th e W SA—c an no t op erat e as co ll at eral es to pp el wit h res pe ct to th e is su e of th e Co rp s’

co m bi ne d a ut ho rit y

un de r th e RHA an d t he W SA. 1 2 Thu s, th e di st ric t co urt di d no t ap pl y co ll at eral es to pp el in gr an t i ng su m m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t th e Geo rg ia Part ie s an d ho lding that G eo rg ia ’s 20 00 req ue st ex ceed ed th e Co rp s’ a ut ho rit y . R at he r, th e d is tri ctco urt ca m e to an in de pe nd en t co nc lu si on on th is m at te r an d fo un d th at wate r su pp ly was no t an au th or iz ed pu rp os e un de r th e RHA. Tri- St at e, 63 9 F. Supp . 2 d at 13 47 . Th is fin di ng was cen tra l t o th e co ur t’s ho ld in g in

a l l fo ur cas es . Ult im at el y , it is im po ss ib le fo r th is Co ur t to ru le on th e m eri t s o f t h e ap pe al in Geo rg ia wit ho ut de te rm in in g whe th er wate r su pp ly was an au th or iz ed pu rp os e o f t h e Bu fo rd Pro ject un de r th e RHA. Thu s, th e is su es rai se d in th e va rio us ap pe al s are in ex tri cab ly in te rtwi n e d an d pe nd en t juri sd ic ti on is pr op er in Alab am a, SeFP C, an d Ap al ach ic ol a. As an al te rn at iv e ba si s fo r juri sd ic ti on in th e th ree cas es (o th er th an th e Geo rg ia

cas e), th is Co ur t al so ha s ap p e l l a te juri sd ic ti on ov er al l of th e un de rlyin g cl ai m s be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r was an in jun ct io n. The or de r ve ry cl earl y di rect s th e

Our c omplete discussion of the collate ral e stoppel eff ects of G ere n can be found 1 2 infra a t Part VI

. 37pa rti es to act , im po si ng a se t of di rect iv es th at if di so be y ed co ul d su bjec t th e pa rti es to

co nt em p t pr oc eed in gs . W e are gr an te d juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w in jun ct io ns (o r de ni al s th ereo f) b y 2 8 U

. S

. C. § 12 92 (a)( 1) . Al ab am a an d Fl or id a arg ue th at th is st atut e do es
no t ap pl y in th is ca s e be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r is no t an in jun ct io n. In st ead , th ey arg ue , th e di st ric t co ur t m erel y se t as id e th e Co rp s’ act io ns be cau se th ey were no t in acco rd an ce wit h th e la w, an d th eref or e in vi ol at io n o f th e APA. See Ci ti zen s to Pres erv e Ove rto n Park , In c. v. Vol pe , 40 1 U.S. 40 2, 41 3– 14 , 91 S. Ct

. 81 4, 82 2 (1 97 1)

ov erru le d on un rel at ed gr ou nd s by Cal ifa no v. San de rs , 43 0 U.S. 99 , 10 5, 97 S. Ct

. 98 0, 98 4 (1 97 7) . Thi s ar gu m en t i s u np ers ua si ve . The di st ric t co ur t’s or de r is “ a cl earl y de fin ed an d un de rs ta nd ab le di rect iv e by th e co ur t to act or to refr ai n fro m a pa rti cu la r act io n.” Alab am a, 42 4 F.3 d at 11 28

. The di st ric t co ur t m an da te d th e return of op erat io ns to th e le ve ls of th e m id -1 97 0s by 20 12 ,
m ean in g th at th e Co rp s was req ui red to se t of f-p eak flo ws to 60 0 cfs an d on ly Bu fo rd

an d Gain es vi ll e were al lo wed to wit hd raw an y wate r di rect ly fro m Lak e Lan ie r (in th e
am ou nt s es tabl is he d in th ei r 19 50 s co nt ract s)

. Tri- St at e, 63 9 F. Supp . 2d at 13 55

. The

co ur t ga ve th e Co rp s ex pl ic it in st ru ct io n on ho w it was to act in th e fu tu re. The Co rp s
was al so pr oh ib it ed fro m en te rin g in to an y ne w wa t e r s u p pl y co nt ract s an d th eref or e st rip pe d of an y di sc ret io n on ho w to al lo cat e st or ag e s p a c e fo r wate r su pp ly. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t refe r to it s or de r as an in jun ct io n, bu t th e di st ric t co ur t’s in te nt io n
38in th is reg ard is irr el ev an t. See Si erra Cl ub v. Van Ant werp , 52 6 F.3 d 13 53 , 13 58 –5 9

(1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (u ti li zi ng a fu nc ti on al an al y si s to de te rm in e th at th e di st ric t co ur t or de r
was an in jun ct io n in sp it e of th e di st ric t cou rt’s sp eci fic de ni al in th is reg ard ); Uni te d S t a te s v. Gil a Vall ey Irri ga ti on Dis t., 31 F.3 d 14 28 , 14 41 (9 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (“ I n de te rm in in g whe th er or no t an or de r is ap pe al ab le un de r § 12 92 (a)( 1) , th e co urts do no t lo okto th e te rm in ol og y

of t he or de r bu t to it s subs ta nt ia l ef fect .”) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The di st ric t co ur t’s or de r was al so su ffi ci en tl y de fin it e to be en f o r c ed vi a
co nt em pt pr oc eed in gs . See Alab am a, 424 F. 3d at 11 28

. Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro cedur e 65 (d ) req ui res th at an i n

jun ct iv e or de r “ st at e it s te rm s sp eci fic al ly” an d “ de sc rib e in

reas on ab le de ta il

. . . th e act or act s res tra in ed or req ui red .” Alab am a an d Fl or id a do no t qu es ti on t h e de fin it iv e na tu re of th e or de r in 20 12

. Rat he r, th ey fo cu s on th e co urt’s di rect iv es in th e in te rim pe rio d: “ th e pa rti es m ay co nt in ue to op erat e at cu rren t wate rsu pp ly wit hd rawal le ve ls bu t sh ou ld no t in crea se th os e w i t h d r a w al s ab se nt th e ag reem en t of al l ot he r pa rti es to th is m at te r.” Tri- St at e, 63 9 F. Supp . 2d at 13 55

. Alab am a an d Fl or id a arg ue th at th e or de r do es no t st at e wit h sp eci fic it y th e am ou nt of wate r th at each of th e lo cal it ie s m ay wit hd raw. Howev er, th is is of no m om en t be cau se
no pa rty wou ld da re ris k be in g he ld in co nt em pt fo r vi ol at in g th e co urt’s or de r by

ex pl oi ti ng an y of th es e am bi gu it ie s. The pr act ic al effe ct of th is or de r m ak es it su ch th at

no ne of th e lo cal i t i e s wou ld wit hd raw an y m or e wate r th an th ey di d be fo re th e or de r
39was is su ed

. Fu rth erm or e, it is irr e l e v a n t w h ethe r th is in jun ct io n was de fect iv e un de r Ru le 65 (d ) be cau se th is Co urt co ul d st il l ex erci se juri sd ic ti on un de r § 12 91 (a)( 1) ov er
a de fect iv e in

jun ct io n. See I nt ’l Lon gs ho rem en ’s Ass ’n, Local 12 91 v. Ph il a. Mar in e Trad e Ass ’n, 38 9 U.S. 64 , 76 , 88 S. Ct

. 20 1, 20 8 (1 96 7)

. The pr op er rem ed y in su ch a
c a s e w o u ld be to va cat e th e in jun ct io n an d rem an d th e cas e to th e di st ric t co ur t. 1 3 Bec au se pe nd en t juri sd ic ti on is pr op er in th is cas e an d be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t or de r is an in jun ct io n, th is Co ur t po ss es se s ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on an d wil l co ns id er th e m eri ts of th e is su es rai se d b y

th e p art ie s. B. Fi na l Ag en cy

Acti on in Alab am a, SeFP C, an d Ap al ach ic ol a The Co rp s an d th e Geo rg ia Part ie s arg ue th at th e di s t r i ct co ur t di d no t ha ve juri sd ic ti on to he ar th e Alab am a cas e, th e SeFP C c a s e , a n d th e Apa la ch ic ol a cas e be cau se th e Co rp s ha d no t ta ke n a f i n a l a ge nc y act io n, as requi red by th e APA fo r jud ic ia l rev ie w. See 5 U.S.C. § 70 4. In th es e th ree cas es , App el le es ch al le ng e wha t th ey ha ve ch arac te riz edas t he “ de fact o re al lo cat io ns ”—t he tem po rary water wi th dr awal s th e Co rp s ha s al lo wed an d c on ti nu es to all ow. Th e Co rp s ar gu es th atitne ve r m ad e a

Alabama and F lorida also ar gue that the district cour t order is not appe alable 1 3 beca use it is conditional. As a fac tual matter, this position i s incorre ct. The c ourt’s orde r, thoug h stay ed for three y ear s, does not depend on the happeningof a spe cific e vent to g o into operation. J ust the opposite; the injunction was final when issued a nd would take e ffe ct without the occur renc e of a ny conting ency

whatsoeve r. More over, a portion of the orde r for

bids the parties from incr easingwithdrawa ls and the Corps from e nteringinto new contra cts without the consent of all of the pa

rties to the litigation. This is a neg ative injunction which wa s not stay ed until 2012 and took ef

fec t immediately

. 40fo rm al real lo cat io n of st or ag e in th e res erv oi r. In st ead , it arg ue s th at it acco m m od at ed wate r su pp ly un de r ad ho c arra ng em en ts wit h th e lo cal it ie s an d a se rie s of ag reem en ts

am on g al l th ree St at es , whi le la un ch in g m ul ti pl e, ul ti m at el y fu ti le , at te m pt s to reac h a lo ng -te r m s o l u ti on to th e is su e. The pa rti es al l co nc ed e th at th e de ni al of Geo rg ia ’s wate r su pp ly req ue st was a fin al ag en cy act io n an d th a t t h e d i s t r ic t co ur t po ss es se d juri sd ic ti on ov er th e Geo rg ia cas e. W it h res pe ct to th e ot he r th ree cas es , we co nc lu de th at th ere was no fin al ag en cy act io n, an d th e di st ric t co ur t th eref or e la ck ed juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e cl ai m s. The APA st at es th at “ fin al ag en cy act i o n fo r whi ch th ere is no ot he r ad equa te

rem ed y in a co ur t [is ] su bjec t to jud ic ia l r ev ie w.” 5 U.S.C. § 70 4. The APA de fin es

“ ag en cy act io n” as i n c l u di ng “ th e who le or a pa rt of an ag en cy ru le , or de r, li cen se ,
sa nc ti on , rel ie f, or th e equi va le nt or de ni al th ereo f, or fai lu re to act .” 5 U.S.C. § 55 1( 13 ). Bec au se th e de fin it io n of act io n un de r th e APA is so br oa d, th e cri ti cal in qu iry is whe th er th e act io n is fin al

. Whi tm an v. Am

. Truc ki ng Ass ’ns, 53 1 U.S. 45 7, 47 8, 12 1 S. Ct

. 90 3, 9 1 5 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ( “Th e bi te in th e ph ras e ‘fina l act io n’

. . . is no t in th e wor d ‘acti on ,’ whi ch is m ean t t o c ov er co m pr eh en si ve ly every m an ne r in whi ch an ag en cy
m ay ex erci se it s po we r . . . . I t i s rat he r in th e wor d ‘fina l’

. . . .”) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. The tes t fo r fi na li ty inv ol ve s t wo s te ps : Fi rs t, th e act io n m

us t m ark th e “co n s u mm at io n” of th e ag en cy ’s

41de ci si on m ak in g pr oc es s . . . — i t mu s t n ot be of a m erel y te nt at iv e or

in te rlo cu to ry na tu re. And se co nd , th e act io n m us t be on e by whi ch rig ht s or ob li ga ti on s ha ve be en de te rm in ed , or fro m whi ch le ga l co ns eque nc es wil l fl ow. Ben ne ttv. Sp ear, 5 20 U.S. 15 4, 1 77 –7 8, 1 17 S. Ct. 1 15 4, 1 16 8 (1 99 7) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d)

. W e an al y ze wh et he r th e Co rp s’ act io ns were fi na l b y us in g t he two -s te p Ben ne tttes t. Th e Co rp s co nt en ds th atitha s n ot co ns umm at edit s d eci si on m ak in g pr oc es s b ecau se itha s n ot m ad e an y fin al de ci si on s o n h ow t o a ll oc at e wat er s to rag e atBu fo rd . The Co rp s n ot es th atitne ve r m ad e an y pe rm an en t wat er s up pl y

st or ag e al lo cat io ns an d h as no t p ub li sh edan y im pl em en ta ti on gu id el in es . As ev id en ce t ha t

no de ci si on m ak in g p ro ces s h as be en co ns umm at ed , th e Co rp s n ot es th atitha s n ot pe rfo rm edth e co stan al y se s o r pr ep aredth e wri tt en rep or ts requi redby the W SA, th e Co rp s’ in te rn al gu id el in es , andth e Nat io na l En vi ro nm en ta l Po li cy Act t o m ak e pe rm an en t re al lo cat io ns . The Co rp s as se rts th atitatt em pt edto st artth e de ci si on m ak in g p ro ces s i n 1 98 9 wi th it s d raftPAC Rep or t, wh ic h i nc lu de d adra ft

m an ua l fo r op erat io ns in th e ACF b as in , bu t t ha t t he rep or t was ab an do ne d p rio r to it s co m pl et io n a s p artof t he ne go ti at io ns in th e Alaba m a li ti ga ti on . The “ de fact o re al lo cat io ns ” d o n ot m eetth e fi rs t p ro ng of t he Ben ne tttes t. The y are b as edon co nt ract s t ha t h av e al l ex pi redan d wat er wi th dr awal s t ha t h av e

42be en ex te nd edon th e b as is of m ul ti -p art y ag reem en ts an d c ou rt o rd ers . The v ari ou s
co nt ract s t ha t t he Co rp s en te redin to wit h Gwi nn et t, t he ARC, an d t he Cit ie s o f Gain es vi ll e an d C umm in g a ll sp eci fie d t he ir i nt eri m na tu re, ex pi redin 19 90 , anddi d

no t p ur po rt t o p ro vi de an y

pe rm an en t ri gh t t o s to rag e in Lake Lani er. As t he Co rp s
no te s, t he se co nt ract s ar e lo ng ex pi redno w andare n ot th em se lv es be in g c ha ll en ge d in th is li ti ga ti on . Wha t i s b ei ng ch al le ng edis th e co nt in uo us wit hd rawal of wa te r fro m th e Bu fo rdPro

ject o ve r th e la stfor ty y ears . App el le es ass ertth atth e Co rp s h as ut il iz ed a p ract ic e o f en te rin g i nt o t em po rary agree m en ts in ord er t o a vo idth e ap pe aran ce o f

co ns umm at in g i ts de ci si on m ak in g p ro ces s. “ [A]s a ge ne ral m at te r, . . . an ad m in is tra ti ve ag en cy

can no t l eg it im at el y

ev ad e jud ic ia l re vi ew fo rev er b y
co nt in ua ll y

po stpo ni ng an y

co ns eque nc e-l ad en act io n a ndth en ch al le ng in g fe de ral juri sd ic ti on on ‘ fin al ag en cy act io n’ gro un ds .” Nat’l Pa rk s C on se rv at io n As s’n v

. Nor to n, 3 24 F.3d12 29 , 12 39 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (ci ti ng Co be ll v. No rto n, 2 40 F.3d 10 81 , 10 95 (D.C. Cir . 20 01 )). The reco rdin th is cas e d em on st rat es th atth e Co rp s ha s n otact edto av oi d ju di ci al rev ie w. Rath er, t he fact ua l h is to ry of t hi s ca se in di cat es th atth e Co rp s h as m ad e si nc ere e ffo rts to effe ctua te pe rm an en t wat er
su pp ly allo cat io ns bu t h as be en th wart edby the li ti ga ti on pro ces s. The Co rp s h as be en att em pt in g t o re ach a fi na l d eci si on on wate r st or ag e

43al lo cat io ns in th e Bu fo rdPro ject s in ce at lea stth e m id -1 98 0s , when itbe cam e aware th ata pe rm an en t d et erm in at io n o f wat er s up pl y ne ed s was vi ta l. Th e ag en cy
co nc lu de d a t the ti m e th atitwas b es t t o wai t u nt il th e MAAWRMS was co m pl et e be fo re m ak in g s uc h ade te rm in at io n a ndto en te r in to in te rim co nt ract s t ha t wo ul d

ex pi re i n 1 99 0. On ce t he stud y was c om pl et e, th e Co rp s embark edon th e p ro ces s o f is su in g t he PAC Rep or t an d p erm an en tl y real lo cat in g c ert ai n a m ou nt s o f st or ag e to wate r su pp ly—aft er fi rs t p ro po si ng an d re cei vi ng Co ng res si on al au th or iz at io n (b ut

no t fu nd in g) to bu il d arere gu la ti on da m . Howev er, t he Co rp s’ pl an to is su e th e PAC

was de rai le d b y

de ve lo pm en ts in th e Alaba m a cas e. In 19 92 , th e p art ie s ag reedto a st ay an d e nt eredin to a Mem or an du m of Agr eem en t, wh ic h re qu ire d t ha t t he Co rp s wi th dr aw th e PAC an d p ro hi bi te d i t fr om
en te rin g i nt o a ny new co nt ract s. M em or an du m of Ag reem en t By, Betwee n, an d Am on g t he Sta te of Al ab am a, th e St at e o f Fl or id a, th e St at e o f Geo rg ia , andth e Uni te d S ta te s Dep art m en t o f th e Arm y 2 (J an . 3, 1 99 2) . The Co rp s re ta in ed pe rm is si on to co nt in ue to acco m m od at e cu rren t wi th dr awal lev el s. In th e
m em or an du m , th e p art ie s ag reedto co nd uc t a C om pr eh en si ve Stu dy, stat in g t ha t

“ du rin g t he ter m

of t he Co m

pr eh en si ve Stu dy, it i s p rem atur e fo r th e Arm y to

co m m it , gra nt or app ro ve an y real lo cat io n, al lo cat io n, o r ap po rti on m en t o f wat er
res ou rces to servi ce l on g- te rm fut ur e wat er s up pl y .” Id . Thu s, dur in g t he du rat io n o f

44th e te rm

of t he Mem or an du m

of Ag reem en t, t he Co rp s was res tri ct edfro m m ov in g to wardtak in g fi na l ag en cy act io n due to th e te rm s ag reedup on by the pa rti es . The same hel d t ru e dur in g t he pe rio d o f en fo rcem en t o f th e ACF Co m pa ct , th e joi ntres ol ut io n t ha t t he th ree s ta te s ag reedto an d C on gr es s ra ti fie d i n 1 99 7, whi ch rep la cedth e Me m or an du m of Ag reem en t. Th e ACF Co m pa ctcrea te d a n ACF Bas in Co m

m is si on ch arg edwit h t he po wer “ to est ab li sh an d m od ify an al lo cat io n fo rm ul a fo r ap po rti on in g t he su rfac e wat ers of t he ACF Bas in am on g t he st at es of Alab am a, Fl or id a an d Geo rg ia .” 11 1 S ta t. at22 22 . The Co m pa ctsp eci fie d t ha t pa rti es co ul d c on ti nu e wit hd rawi ng wate r bu t t ha t n o v es te d ri gh ts wou ldbe gra nt ed

un ti l t he Co m

m is si on ad op te d a n a ll oc at io n fo rm ul a. Id . at 2 22 3– 24 . The Co m pa ct pr ov id edth atth e Arm

y Co rp s o f Eng in eers “ sh al l co op erat e wit h t he ACF Bas in Co m m is si on in acco m

pl is hi ng th e p ur

po se s o f th e Co m

pa ctan d fu lfi ll in g t he ob li ga ti on s o f eac h o f th e p art ie s t o t he Co m pa ctreg ard in g t he all oc at io n fo rm ul a.” Id . at 2 22 5. M uc h l ik e th e Me m or an du m of Ag reem en t b efo re i t, t he ACF Co m pa ct , whi ch rem ai ne d i n e ffec t u nt il 20 03 , res tri ct edth e Co rp s’ abi li ty to co ns umm at e a de ci si on m ak in g p ro ces s o n i ts wate r al lo cat io n p ol ic y . Thu s, fr om 19 92 to 20 03 th e Co rp s was op erat in g u nd er ag reem en ts si gn edby all t hr ee s ta te s t ha t d en ie d i t t he ab il it y to m ak e an y

pe rm an en t wat er s up pl y

all oc at io ns . By th e ti m e th e n eg ot ia ti on s i n t he Alab am a cas e fel l ap artin 20 03 , th e
45Geo rg iaPart ie s, t he Co rp s, an d S eFPC ha d e nt eredin to a se tt le m en t ag reem en t i n

SeFP C. In pe rti ne nt pa rt, t he ag reem en t s etfor th a pr oc es s fo r en te rin g i nt o wat er
su pp ly con tra ct s t ha t co ul d b eco m e p erm an en t re al lo cat io ns of s to rag e. Eva lu at io n of th e le ga li ty of th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t i n t he D.C. di st ric t an d c irc ui t co ur ts was de la y edforsev eral y ears by a prel im in ary in jun ct io n e nt eredby the Nort he rn Dis tri ctof Al ab am a. In Marc h 2 00 5, wh il e th e in jun ct io n was st il l i n e ffec t, t he Co rp s fi le d ano ti ce i n t he Alab am a li ti ga ti on th atitin te nd edto pro ceed wit h up da ti ng th e wat er co nt ro l p la ns an d m an ua ls forth e ACF Ba si n. In res po ns e, Alab am a’s Co ng res si on al de le ga ti on sen t a l et te r to th e Co rp s s ta ti ng it s o pp os it io n to su ch act io ns du rin g t he pe nd en cy of t he li ti ga ti on , andth e Co rp s ab an do ne d i ts pl an s. Thi s C ou rt v acat edth e Alaba m a co ur t’s i nju nc ti on in lat e 2 00 5 a ndth e Co rp s in fo rm edth e st at es th atitco ns id eredth e “ rel ev an t l it ig at io n” co nc lu de d a ndwou ld pr oc eedto up da te th e wat er co nt ro l m an ua ls forth e ACF Ba si n. Ho wev er, o n
rem an d, t he Alab am a d is tri ctco ur t s en t the pa rti es in to set tl em en t n eg ot ia ti on s, an d th e Co rp s ag ai n a gr eedto de la y th e upd at e. The SeFPC set tl em en t was st ru ckdo wn i n 2 00 8 a ndne ve r to okeffe ct . The Co rp s ar gu es th atitbe ga n t he pro ces s o f up da ti ng it s o pe rat in g m an ua ls forth e ACF b as in alm os t i m

m ed ia te ly after t he set tl em en t ag reem en t was in va li da te d. Th e

46Co rp s al so is su eda le ga l m em or an du m on it s au th or it y

to all oc at e wat er s to rag e at Bu fo rd , th e 2 00 9 S to ck da le Mem or an du m . Howev er, t he di st ric t co ur t d eem edth e 20 09 Sto ck da le Mem o t o b e a l it ig at io n d oc um en t an d n ot pa rt o f th e ad m in is tra ti ve
reco rd . The d is tri ctco ur t i ss ue d i ts su m m ary jud gm en t o rd er i n t hi s ca se on Ju ly 17, 20 09 , andth e Co rp s as se rts th atth is ord er o nc e ag ai n t hwa rte d i t i n i ts att em pt s t o
co ns umm at e th e d eci si on m ak in g p ro ces s. Th e Co rp s s ta te s t ha t “ ev ery si ng le da y si nc e 1 99 0 t he Co rp s was eit he r op erat in g u nd er an ag reem en t t ha t b arre d i t fr om fo rm al ly tak in g a ny ste ps to real lo cat e st or ag e, orwas a ct iv el y en ga ge d i n apro ces s th atco ul d h av e le d t o afin al ag en cy act io n re al lo cat in g s to rag e.” Th e h is to ric al

se qu en ce o f ev en ts supp orts th e v erac it y of t hi s cl ai m . Thi s C ou rt h as acce pt edleg al an d p ract ic al ba rri ers to ad m in is tra ti ve act io n
as leg it im at e ex pl an at io ns forag en cy in act io n. See Nat ’l Park s, 3 24 F.3dat 1 23 8,

1 4

The Corps cites H ome B uilders Ass’n of Greater Chicag o v. United States Army 1 4 Corps of Eng ineer s, 335 F.3d 607, 616 (7th Cir. 2003), f or the proposition that the circ uits have rea ched a consensus that a g ency

delay must be “egreg ious” for it to be c onsidered the consummation of the dec isionmaking proc ess. This proposition is notentirely acc urate . Home Builder s was eva luating the second pr ongof the B ennett test, not the first, whe n it made this statement. Thus, the Seve nth Circuit was ref err ing to the ma

nner in whic h ag ency

inaction deter mines the rig hts or obligations of the parties, not whe ther a g ency inaction constitutes the consummation of the dec isionmaking proc ess. The c ases f rom other c ircuits cited by that court also dea l with the manner in whic h ag ency action af fec ts the rig hts of the par

ties. There may

be some overla

p betwee n the two prong s of the ana ly sis, but we need not de cide whe ther the H ome Builder s “egreg ious” threshold applies a lso to evaluatingdelay s with respec t to the first prong . In this case, the Corps is able to demonstrate that its ac tions were not only not eg reg ious but also understanda

ble due to the c ircumstance s in this case. Thus, its argument that the first prongof Be nnett was not met is persua sive eve n without support from Home B uilders. 4712 39 (ho ld in g t ha t t he Nati on al Park s Se rv ic e’s de la y in im pl em en ti ng a
m an ag em en t p la n was ex cu sabl e in pa rt b ecau se a jud ic ia l o rd er an d aleg is la ti ve
m an da te ha d p rev en te d i t fr om tak in g a ct io n) . The co ur ts ha ve ex pr es se d a le gi ti m at e co nc ern forag en cy av oi da nc e o f jud ic ia l re vi ew th ro ug h i nt en ti on al in act io n. Id . at 1 23 9. In th is cas e, ho wev er, t he lac k o f a d efi ni ti ve all oc at io n o f st or ag e fo r wat er s up pl y

is ex pl ai ne d b y

fact or s b ey on d t he ag en cy ’s con tro l, ra th er th an th e Co rp s’ in act io n. App el le es arg ue th atth e Co rp s h as att em pt edto av oi d ju di ci al rev ie w of i ts

m an ag em en t o f th e Bu fo rdPro ject, b ut th ey

off er al m os t n o e vi de nc e to supp or t t hi s
co nt en ti on . Alab am a an d F lo rid a p oi nt ou t t ha t t he Co rp s, t ho ug h re qu ire d b y co ur t

or de r no t t o e nt er i nt o a ny new co nt ract s, was no t re qu ire d t o c on ti nu e to all ow t he pa rti es to wit hd raw wat er fro m th e p ro ject. Th is arg um en t m is se s t he po in t. Th atth e Co rp s ch os e to co nt in ue to pe rm itwate r supp ly w it hd rawal s s an ct io ne d b y th e
m ul ti -p arty ag reem en ts do es no t d em on st rat e th atth e Co rp s ef fect ua te d apo li cy

in reg ardto wate r supp ly andwas a tt em pt in g t o a vo ida jud ic ia l re vi ew of th is po li cy . The st at es als o n ot e th atth e Co rp s h adsev en y ears si nc e th e ti m e o f th e ex pi rat io n of th e ag reem en ts in 20 03 to un de rta ke a fo rm al act io n. As st at edab ov e, th e Co rp s at te m pt edon m

ul ti pl e o ccas io ns aft er 2 00 3 t o b eg in th e p ro ces s o f m ak in g fi na l de ci si on s o n wat er al lo cat io ns , bu t i t was co ns is te nt ly thwar te d b y th e li ti ga ti on
48pr oc es s. Th e Co rp s’ two st at em en ts to th e p art ie s i n 2 00 5 t ha t i t i nt en de d t o m ov e

fo rwardwit h upd at in g t he wate r co nt ro l m an ua ls , th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t i n SeFP C whi ch was s tru ck

do wn i n 2 00 8, an d t he 20 09 Sto ck da le Mem or an du m , de m on st rat e th atth e Co rp s i nt en de d t o m ov e fo rwardin co ns umm at in g a de ci si on m ak in g p ro ces s af te r 20 03 bu t co ul d n ot . App el le es po in t t o n o s pe ci fic fin al act io ns on th e p artof t he Co rp s an d t he re i s i ns uf fic ie nt ev id en ce t o c on cl ud e th atth e ag en cy

ha s at te m

pt edto av oi d ju di ci al rev ie w vi a in crem en ta l ch an ge s i n op erat io na l p ol ic y . Thu s, Ap pe ll ees are u nabl e to m eetth e fi rs t p ro ng of t he Ben ne tt

an al y si s. The Co rp s’ curren t o pe rat io ns of t he Bu fo rdPro ject a ls o d o n otm eetth e
se co ndpro ng of t he Ben ne tttes t b ecau se th e Co rp s’ all eg ed“ de fact o a ll oc at io ns ”

are n ot act io ns “by whic h ri gh ts or o bl ig at io ns ha ve be en de te rm in ed , or fr om whi ch le ga l co ns eque nc es wil l fl ow.” 5 20 U.S. at 1 78 , 11 7 S . Ct. at11 68 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Curren t wat er s up pl y wit hd rawal s h av e ta ke n p la ce u nd er th e “ li ve an d l etli ve ” an d o th er s im il ar p ro vi si on s i n t he st ay s, t he Mem or an du m of Agr eem en t, an d t he ACF Co m pa ct . Thes e p ro vi si on s, l ik e th e in te rim co nt ract s t ha t pr eced edth em , hav e cl earl y st at edth e te m

po rary natur e o f th e al lo cat io ns be in g
m ad e. As o ut li ne d abo ve , th e Co rp s h as no t h adth e o pp or tu ni ty to en ga ge in a de te rm in at io n o f ri gh ts or o bl ig at io ns du e to th e co ns tra in ts im po se d o n i t b y

th e
49sp eci fic cir cu m st an ces of t he on go in g l it ig at io n. Whi le itis tru e th atacce ss to wate r

ha s b een affe ct edby the Co rp s’ watersupp ly allo cat io ns , as Ap pe ll ees arg ue , th at fact do es no t d em on st rat e th atan y futur e ri gh ts ha ve be en de te rm in ed

. App el le es 1 5

are s im pl y un ab le to pro du ce ev id en ce o f su ch a de te rm in at io n. Bec au se th ere h as be en no fin al ag en cy act io n i n t he Alab am a, SeFP C, an d Apa la ch ic ol a act io ns , th e d is tri ctco ur t l ack edjuri sd ic ti on ov er t he se cla im s. The refo re, we v acat e th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng s i n t hi s re ga rdan d re m an d t o t he Co rp s t o m ak e fi na l d et erm in at io ns pe rta in in g t o i ts cu rren t p ol ic y forwate r su pp ly st or ag e al lo cat io n. 1 6

Even if the pa st withdrawals of w ater could be de emed suff

icient to satisfy

the 1 5 second pr ong(notwithstanding the absenc e of a ny deter mination of future r ights or obligations)—a matter w e nee d not decide—the re w ould stil l be no final a g ency action bec ause Appellee s have f

ailed to satisfy

Be nnett’s first prong

. Alabama and F lorida ar gue that this issue was dec ided by this Court and that 1 6 collater al estoppel ba

rs the Corps and the Geor g ia Parties fr om making this cla im. I n our consideration of the appe al in Alabama , we indicated in a footnote that some of the Corps’ storag e alloca

tions were f

inal ag ency

actions under

the APA. 424 F.3d a

t 1131 & n.19. How ever , this iss ue lac ks prec lusive eff ect be cause it was not actua lly litigated in Ala

bama. See In re H eld, 734 F.2d 628, 629 ( 11th Cir. 1984). In Alabama , The Ge org ia Parties ar gued that the c omplaint was moot as a re sult of the fac t that Alabama c halleng ed the PAC Report, a r eport whic h had longsince be en withdra wn by the Corps. We dismis sed the mootness ar gument by noting that Ala

bama wa s challeng ing othe r Corps actions, namely

the ong oing r eallocations of storag e ca pacity . Wit h respe ct to such other Corps actions, this court in footnote 19 commente d that Alabama had identified suc h actions as final ag ency

actions. It is possi ble that this footnote was not mere ly a comment on what Alabama had said, but an implied ac knowledg ment that on-g oing r eallocations of storag e ca pacity wer e indeed f inal ag ency

actions. Even if

the latter, this cour

t’s statement wa s a passing , bald statement with no discussion at all, and wa s not the product of a n actua lly litigated issue. Acc ording ly , the statement doe s not have c ollatera l estoppel eff ect. See id. The par

ties did not 50Part II. Geo rg ia ’s 20 00 Req ue st : Th e Co rp s’ W at er Supp ly Aut ho rit y Und er the RHA W it h re sp ectto th e m eri ts , we tu rn fir stto th e ap pe al in th e Geo rg iacas e. Thi s Co ur t p rev io us ly summ ari zedGeor gi a’s 20 00 req ue stof t he Co rp s as fol lo ws:
brief the issue and ther e is no evidenc e that the que stion of final ag ency action wa s liti g ated a

t all. The matter

was a ddresse d as an a fterthought to the rejec tion of a wholly separ ate, tang ential argument. Havinghear d full and thorough argument on the matter by the par ties, we c onclude that the ac tion alleg ed in these a ppeals wa s not final. Even if c ollatera l estoppel did apply and the district cour

t did have jurisdiction, we would still be re quired to vac ate the or der a nd rema nd the ca se to the Corps, bec ause of the numerous err ors of the district c ourt. Althoug h we ne ed not enumer ate e ach e rror , we note the overa rching err or in conduc ting de novo fac tfinding of issues that must be considere d by the Corps in the first instance. In an administrative c ase, the Supreme Court has sa id, “[t] he re viewingcourt is not g ener ally empower ed to conduc t a de novo inquiry into the matter beingrevie wed a nd to rea ch its own conclusions based on suc h an inquiry .” F la. Power & L ight Co. v. L orion, 470 U.S. 729, 744, 105 S. Ct . 1598, 1607 (1985). The wisdom of that decr ee is a ppare nt in this case . The Corps has yet to undertake any

final, we ll-rea soned ac tions in reg ard to c urre nt water supply withdrawa ls at the Buf

ord Project. As a

result, the judicial re cord in this case is incomplete. Be cause this recor d is incomplete, the district court unde rtook on its own to perfor m calculations to determine the perc entag e of L ake L anier ’s storag e spac e cur rently beingallocate d to water supply . As part of

this determination, the cour t substituted its judgment for that of the Corps on a number of highly

technica l matters better

left to the expertise of the a g ency . First and f oremost, the cour t rejec ted seve ral de terminations by the Corps of the ba seline amount of wa ter available for downstre am wate r withdraw al as a by product of pow er g ener ation. Second, it used data from expired contrac ts even thoug h there wer e no bindingcommitments, rather tha n using f igur es of actua l water

withdrawa ls, alleg edly

compoundingthis mi stake by double-c ounting the City of Gainesville’s w ithdrawa ls. Finally , the cour t took no account of

return f lows even though the return of those flows direc tly

to the lake would of

fset the e ffe ct on the powe r intere st. The expertise of the Corps re nders it better equipped to handle such questions than a c ourt. The district court should not have usurpe d the ag ency ’s fa ct-findingrole. Without i dentifying e ach err or of the district c ourt, suffice it to say that the district court’s ove rea rchingerr or in eng ag ing in de novo fa ct-findingwould have r equire d rema nd even if there had bee n final ag ency actions. Moreove r, the district cour t also err ed in fa iling to re cognize that water supply for the Atlanta ar ea w as an a

uthorized purpose of the RHA . See Part I I , infra. T he fa ct that wate r supply is an authorized purpose of the Project ha s the potential to cause signific ant cha ng es in the rele vant ca lculations, and thus constitutes an independe nt basis for re quiringa re mand to the Corps for de novo rec onsideration. 511. All ow m un ic ip al an d in du st ria l with dr awal s from Lak e Lan ie r to in crea se as ne ces sa ry to th e p ro jecte d a nn ua l n eedof 2 97 m gdin 20 30 ; 2. In crea se th e wat e r r el eas ed fro m th e Bu fo rd Dam su ffi ci en tl y to pe rm it m un ic ip al an d in du st ria l wit hd rawal s in th e Ch at ta ho oc he e Ri ve r s o u th of th e da m to be in crea se d as ne ces sa ry to th e pr ojec te d a nn ua l n eedof 4 08 m gdin 20 30 ; 3. Ent er in to lo ng -te rm co n t r act s wit h Geo rg ia or m un ic ip al an d in du st ria l wate r us ers in or de r to pr ov i d e cert ai nt y fo r th e req ue st edrel eas es ; 4. Ens ur e th at su ffi ci en t flo w is m ai nt ai ne d so ut h of th e Bu fo rd Dam to pr ov id e th e req ui si te en vi ro nm en ta l qu al it y —t ha t is , as si m il at e di sc ha rg edwast ewat er; an d 5. Ass es s fees on th e m un ic ip al an d in du st ria l wate r us ers in or de r to reco up an y lo ss es in cu rred b y a reduc ti on in th e am ou nt of hydro po wer ge n e r a t ed by th e da m as a res ul t of th e in crea se d wit hd rawal s o r rel eas es . Geo rg ia , 30 2 F .3dat 1 24 7– 48

. The pa rti es ag ree t ha t t he Co rp s’ reject io n o f Geo rg ia ’s 20 00 req ue st

co ns ti tu te d afin al ag en cy act io n, o f whi ch bo th th e d is tri ctco ur t an d t hi s C ou rt ha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w. Cen tra l t o t he Co rp s’ reject io n was th e Co rp s’

co nc lu si on th atwate r su pp ly w as no t an au th or iz edpu rp os e o f th e Bu fo rdPro ject. W e n ow h ol d t ha t t he Co rp s erredin dra win g t hi s co nc lu si on . The t ex t o f th e 1 94 6 Ri ve rs an d Harbo rs Act—sp eci fic al ly, th e Newm an Rep or t, wh os e la ng ua ge is in co rp or at edin to th e st atut e—c le arl y in di cat es Co ng res s’ in te nt to in cl ud e wat er
52su pp ly as anau th or iz edpu rp os e in th e Bu fo rdPro ject. The 19 45 an d 1 94 6 R iv ers an d Harbo rs Acts au th or iz edth e b ui ld in g o f th e Bu fo rdPro

ject a ndser ve as t he ba se li ne forth e Co rp s’ aut ho rit y to op erat e th e da m . The Geo rg iaPart ie s co nt en d t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t s eri ou sl y erre d i n i ts 1 7 in te rp ret at io n o f th e sc op e o f it s au th or it y un de r th e Actan d n eg le ct edto no te th e sp eci fic au th or iz at io n fo r wat er s up pl y in th e st atut e. The di st ric t co ur t re jecte d t hi s arg um en t an d h el d t ha t wat er s up pl y was o nl y in te nd edto be an in ci de nt al be ne fit of ot he r op erat io ns an d t ha t t he RHA di d n ot au th or iz e an y st or ag e fo r wat er s up pl y in Lak e Lan ie r. The RHA au th or iz edth e d ev el op m en t o f th e ACF Ba si n “ in acco rd an ce wi th th e rep or t o f th e Ch ie f of Eng in eers , dat edMay 13, 1 94 6.” 60 Sta t. at63 5. Th e Ch ie f of Eng in eers Rep or t i nc or

po rat edth e Div is io n En gi ne er’s Rep or t— i.e. t he Newm an Rep or t. Th us , th e st atut e fu ll y in co rp or at edth e te rm s o f th e Newm an Rep ort. Th e Newm an Rep or t s pe ci fic al ly m od ifi edth e rec omm en da ti on s o f th e Park Rep ort— th e fo un da ti on al rep or t fo r th e 1 94 5 R HA—b y pro po si ng th e b ui ld in g o f a si ng le m ul ti -p ur po se res erv oi r up st ream

of At la nt a in st eadof t hr ee s ep arat e
The 1945 RHA is less per tinent to the analy sis than the 1946 Act bec ause the final 1 7 plans for the Buf

ord Project, most notably its location and size, were not determined until the writingof the Ne wman Report, whic h post-dated the 1945 statute. There fore , the majority of the discussion in thi s opinion centers on the 1946 RHA and a ny mention of the RHA without a specific y ear

is a ref ere nce to the 1946 statute. 53res erv oi rs . One ad va nt ag e o f su ch a m ov e was th atth e n ew da m co ul d m or e eas il y
acco m m od at e wat er s up pl y

ne ed s. As t he Newm an Rep or t m ad e cl ear, t he da m was d es ig ne d wi th wate r su pp ly sp eci fic al ly in m in d. Atti m es , watersupp ly w as ev en to be acco m m od at edat t he

ex pe ns e o f op ti m al hydro po wer g en erat io n. Th e Newm an Rep or t ex pl ai ne d:

If op erat ed at 1 0 0- pe rcen t lo ad fact or , th e Bu fo rd de ve lo pm en t wou ld pr ov id e a m in im

um co nt in uo us flo w of 1,6 34 se co nd -fee t, m or e 1 8 th an su ffi ci en t fo r th e wate r ne ed s of th e Atl an ta area . Howev er, if th e pl an t were op erat ed on pe ak lo ad s, as it sh ou ld be fo r m ax i mu m po wer va lu e, it wou ld be sh ut do wn du rin g week en d s a n d week -d ay of f-p eak pe rio ds ; a s a res ul t of th os e sh ut -d own s, th e m in im um flo w at Atl an ta fro m th e area be lo w Bu fo rd Dam wou ld be o n l y ab ou t 50 se co nd -fee t. Und er th e sa m e co nd it io ns of op erat io n, th e m ax im um flo w at Atl an ta at th e da il y pe ak of th e lo ad wou ld be ov er 3,0 00 se co nd -fee t. In or de r to m eet th e es ti m at ed pr es en t ne ed s of th e ci ty, an d to pr ev en t da m ag e to fis h, rip ari an own e r s , a n d ot he r in te res ts by co m pl et e sh ut do wns of th e B uf or d pl an t du rin g th e da il y an d week -en d of f-p eak pe rio ds , va ry in g flo ws up to a m ax im

um of 60 0 se co nd -fee t sh ou ld be rel eas ed fro m Bu fo r d s o a s t o in su re at al l ti m es a flo w at Atl an ta no t le ss th an 65 0 se c o n d

- feet

. Thi s flo w co ul d be us ed to op erat e a sm al l ge ne rat or to ge n e r a t e of

f-p eak po wer as se co nd ary en erg y , res erv in g th e rem ai ni ng st or ag e fo r pe ak op erat io n. Thi s m in im um rel eas e m ay ha ve to be i nc reas ed so m ewh at as th e area de ve lo ps . Thi s rel eas e at Bu fo rd w o u l d n ot m at eri al ly reduc e th e po wer returns fro m th e pl an t, an d wou l d n o t affe ct th e po wer be ne fit s fro m pl an ts do wns tre am ; th e be ne fit s t o th e Atl an ta area fro m an as su red wate r su pp ly fo r th e ci ty an d Geo rg ia Po wer Co .’ s st e a m pl an t wou ld ou twei gh an y sl ig ht de crea se in syste m po wer va lu e. Newm an Rep or t ¶ 8 0.

“Second- fee t” is another w ay of say ing c fs. 1 8 54The re ar e se ve ral cri ti cal pro vi si on s i n t hi s p arag rap h o f th e rep or t. Fi rs t,

Co ng res s co nt em

pl at edth at“ th e es ti m at edpre se nt ne ed s o f th e ci ty” for wat er
su pp ly w ou ldbe m etby the in it ia l Pr ojec t b y “ in su r[i ng ] atall ti m es a fl ow at Atl an tano t l es s t ha n 6 50 sec on d- feet .” Id . Ind eed , Con gr es s p ro vi de d i n t he

co ns tru ct io n o f th e p ro

ject t ha t, i n a dd it io n t o t he two lar ge tu rb in es , th ere wo ul d b e

“ a small g en erat orto ge ne rat e o ff-p eakpo wer as sec on da ry en erg y , res erv in g t he

rem ai ni ng st or ag e fo r pe akop erat io n.” Id. Th is sm al l turbi ne was c on st ru ct edfor th e so le pu rp os e o f pr ov id in g o ff-p eakrel eas es of 6 00 cfs (wit ho utco m pl et el y lo si ng th e v al ue of t he se rel eas es forpo wer g en erat io n) . If op erat edform ax im um po wer v al ue , th e d am

wou ldbe sh ut do wn dur in g o ff-p eakho ur s an d wo ul d re le as e
no wate r, li m it in g wat er fl ow at Atl an tato a rat e o f 50 cfs . Suc h a n o pe rat io na l

sc he m e wou ldno t re qu ire a sm al l turbi ne at a ll . Thu s, t he de si gn of t he pro ject a nd th e o pe rat io na l s ch em e were i nf lu en cedby w at er s up pl y

co nc ern s. Seco nd , th e m in im

um flo w was p ro vi de d fo r no twi th st an di ng th e cl ear Co ng res si on al in te nt th atitwou ldbe at t he ex pe ns e o f “ m ax im um po wer v al ue .” Id

. Co ng res s re co gn iz edth atsh ut ti ng do wn al l wat er re le as es du rin g o ff-p eakho ur s
wou ldcrea te anin su ffi ci en t fl ow i n t he riv er d own st ream at At la nt a to m eetth e ci ty’ s cu rren t wat er s up pl y ne ed s. Th eref

or e, ev enth ou gh Co ng res s re co gn iz edth at th ere wo ul d b e so m e d et riment t o p owe r ge ne rat io n, i t n ev erthe le ss pro vi de d fo r a
55m in im

um flo w of 6 50 cfs at At la nt a. The Newm an Rep or t, an d t hu s t he au th or iz in g le gi sl at io n i ts el f, ex pl ic it ly stat edas m uc h. Th e le gi sl at io n p ro vi de d, i n c on ne ct io n wit h t he in it ia l m in im

um rel eas e req ui rem en t an d t he co nt em pl at edin crea se s th ereo f, th at“ th e b en efi ts to th e Atl an taareafro m anass ur edwate r su pp ly for the ci ty . . . woul d o ut weig h a ny sli gh t d ecre as e in syste m po wer v al ue .” Id

. Thi rd , Con gr es s re co gn iz edth at“ [t]hi s m in im um rel eas e m ay

ha ve to be in crea se d s om ewh atas t he areade ve lo ps .” Id . Ind eed , inth e imm ed ia te ly prece di ng pa rag rap h, t he au th or iz in g l eg is la ti on co ns id eredth e g ro win g n eedforwate r su pp ly to th e m et ro po li ta n a rea o ve r a fu tu re 1 9- y ear p eri odan d s po ke of i nc reas in g o ffpe akrel eas es to acco m

m od at e th e wat er s up pl y

ne ed s o f th e Atl an taareain 19 65

. Tha t fu tu re wat er s up pl y

ne edwas e st im at edto req ui re a ri ve r fl ow at Atl an taof 80 0 c fs . Id. ¶ 7 9. Th us , th e o rig in al au th or iz in g l eg is la ti on ex pr es sl y co nt em pl at eda
ve ry su bs ta nt ia l i nc reas e in th e o pe rat io n o f th e Bu fo rdPro ject t o s at is fy

th e wat er
su pp ly need s o f th e Atl an taarea(i.e ., from 65 0 c fs to 80 0 c fs in th e ri ve r fl ow at Atl an ta ). 1 9
The languag e of the para g raph r eads:

1 9 L ocal inter ests state that, in 1941, 70 second- fee t of wate r we re r equire d for domestic a

nd industrial purposes at Atlanta , and 415 sec ond-fe et for condensingwater

at the Atkinson steam-e lectric plant of the Ge org ia Power Co. on the river

bank nea r mile 299.5; that an additional unit since installed has r aised the total require ment of the steam plant to 565 second-f eet; and that the total require ment for the A tlanta ar ea f or 1965, base d on a population of 600,000 at that 56In li gh t o f th e fo reg oi ng st atut ory lan gu ag e, an d p art ic ul arl y Co ng res s’ in te nt th atth e Co rp s s ho ul d h av e au th or it y to acco m m od at e th e Atl an taarea ’s water

su pp ly need s at th e ex pe ns e o f so m e d et riment t o “ syste m po wer v al ue ,” we can no t

co nc lu de th atCo ng res s i nt en de d fo r wat er s up pl y to be a m ere i nc id en ta l b en efi t. By de fin it io n, o ne pu rp os e th atis to be acco m pl is he d t o t he de tri m en t o f an ot he r
can no t b e in ci de nt al

. Thu s, t he lan gu ag e o f Sec ti on s 7 9 a nd80 cle arl y in di cat es 2 0 th atCo ng res s i nt en de d fo r wat er s up pl y to be an au th or iz ed , rat he r th an in ci de nt al ,
us e o f th e wat er s to redin Lake Lani er. 2 1
time, will be 600 second-f eet f or conde nsing w ater , 120 second- fee t for municipal supply , and 80 sec ond-fe et of ra w wate r for

industries—a total of 800 sec ond-fe et. Newma n Report ¶ 79. Thus, a s of the time of the 1946 statute, it see ms that domestic and industrial water

supply needs at Atlanta re quired a minimum river f

low at Atlanta of

635 cfs ( 70 + 565). And the a

uthorizi ngleg islation contemplated that 19 year s hence , in 1965, that require ment would incre ase to 800 c fs, a substantial incr ease . In evaluating the e x tent of the Corps’ a uthority to satisfy the wate r supply

needs of the Atlanta a

rea , it is clearly

rele vant that Cong ress e x plicitly contemplated this substantial incre ase in water supply . The district cour t’s injunction, lim iting off

peak r elea ses to 600 cfs, is obviously inconsistent with this contemplated inc rea se in wate r supply

. The 600 c fs level wa s the initial mandate in the authorizing le g islation, id. ¶ 80, and Congr ess expli citly contemplated substantial incr ease s. I d. ¶¶ 79, 80; see also, supra, note 10. The a djectival for

ms of the term ‘inc ident’ ca n mean “ subordinate to somethingof 2 0 g reater importanc e; havinga minor role” or “de pendent upon, subordinate to, arisingout of, or otherwise c onnecte d with.” B lack’ s L aw Dic tionary 830 (9th ed. 2009). T he superiority of water supply to hydropowe r in ce rtain instance s demonstrates that it could not have been a purely subordinate pur

pose. L ikewise, the supe riority of water supply

under c erta in circumstanc es demonstrates that it was not meant to be fully depende nt upon hy dropowe r. In Alabama , we state d, “L ake L anier was c rea ted for the expli citly

authorized 2 1 purposes of f

lood control, navig ation, and ele ctric pow er g ener ation.” 424 F .3d at 1122. We went on to say , “the Corps ha s historically maintained that water supply use is an ‘inc idental bene fit’ flowingfrom the c reation of the rese rvoir.” I d. These statements wer e mer e dicta. T he issue on appea l in Alabama wa s whether the district court’s e njoining of the proce eding s in the D.C.

57App el le es arg ue th atth e Newm an Rep ort’s re fere nc es to wate r supp ly as

“ in ci de nt al ” d em on st rat es th atwate r su pp ly w as no t an au th or iz edpu rp os e o f th e Bu fo rdPro

ject. Th is is an att ract iv e p ro po si ti on du e to it s s im pl ic it y , bu t the co nt ex t of th es e ref eren ces un de rm in es th is cla im . The l an gu ag e in qu es ti on is as f ol lo ws: The ci ty of Atl an ta an d ot he r lo cal in te re s t s i n t h a t area ha ve st ro ng ly ur ge d th at th e Ro swe ll de ve lo pm en t, 16 m il es up st ream o f A t l a nt a, or on e or m or e ot he r res erv oi rs ab ov e Atl an ta , be pr ov id ed fir st , in or de r to m eet a th reat en ed sh or ta ge of wate r, du rin g lo w-fl ow pe rio ds , fo r m un ic ip al an d in du st ria l pu rp os es . If th e reg ul at io n st or ag e res erv oi r req ui red fo r th e eco no m ic al op erat io n of th e pr op os ed de ve lo pm en ts be lo w Co lu m

bu s co ul d be lo cat ed ab ov e Atl an ta , it wou ld gr eat ly in crea se th e m in im

um flo w in th e riv er at Atl an ta , th ereb y pr o d u c in g co ns id erab le in ci de nt al be ne fit s by rei nf or ci ng an d sa feg ua rd in g th e wate r su pp ly of th e m et ro po li ta n a rea. Newm an Rep or t ¶ 6 8 (e m ph as is ad de d) . W e co nc lu de th atth is si ng le refe ren ce t o wate r su pp ly as an “ in ci de nt al be ne fit ” was an ex pl an at io n fo r why the da m wou ld be bu il t ab ov e Atl an taan d was no t m ean t t o c on fer asubo rd in at e st atus . The Co rp s i n t he ParkRep or t p ro po se d t he co ns tru ct io n o f th ree d am s at Ced ar Cr eek , Lani er, an d R os well . Id. Th e Co rp s s ub se qu en tl y de te rm in edin th e
District Court (haltingthe finalization of the settlement agree ment in SeFPC) was prope r. The parties did not brief

the issue of the Corps’ water supply authority and this Court ga

ve the topic no discussion, save for

that quoted above . Thus, these stateme nts were not the product of a ctual litigation, wer e not a “ critica l and nec essar y part of the judgme nt,” and have no pre clusive ef fec t on the dec ision in t his case. See Christo v. P adg ett, 223 F.3d 1324, 1339 ( 11th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). The c urre nt appea l has allowed the Court to scrutiniz e more closely the Corps’ wate r supply

authority . After

a full ana ly sis of the languag e and le g islative history of the RHA and c onsideration of the arguments of the par ties, we c onclude that Cong ress intende d for water supply to be included a s an authorized purpose of the B uford Projec t. 58Newm an Rep or t t ha t t he syste m of d am s i n t he ACF Bas in wou ldop erat e
su bs ta nt ia ll y

m or e eff ic ie nt ly if on e la rg e d am

was b ui ltin st ead . The ag en cy de ci de d t o l oc at e th e d am at B uf or d, ap pr ox im at el y

47 m il es up st ream

of At la nt a. Para gr ap h 6 8 was an ex pl an at io n fo r why the Co rp s d eem editbe ne fic ia l t o b ui ld th e d am at t hi s l oc at io n; th e ex pl an at io n: wate r su pp ly. An ups tre am lo cat io n wo ul d al lo w th e Co rp s t o s ecu re At la nt a’s wate r su pp ly as an in ci de nt of t he ot he r
au th or iz edpu rp os es . Thatis to say tha t t he aim of b en efi tt in g wat er s up pl y co ul d b e
acco m pl is he d wi th ou t an y

si gn ifi can t d et riment t o h y dr op owe r, na vi ga ti on , or fl oo d

co nt ro l. Th e rep ort s ta te d t ha t t he rev is edlo cat io n a ndsi ze o f th e d am an d re se rv oi r
wou ldres ul t i n “ gr eat ly inc reas e[d ] . . . m in im um flo w in th e ri ve r atAtl an ta , th ereb y . . . rei nf or ci ng an d s afeg ua rd in g t he wate r su pp ly of th e m et ro po li ta n a rea.” Id . Thi s b en efi t wo ul d b e in ci de nt al to po wer g en erat io n b ecau se th e wat er
co ns ti tu ti ng th e ri ve r fl ow at Atl an tawou ldha ve ge ne rat edpo wer as itpa ss ed th ro ug h t he ge ne rat or s. Th ere i s n o i nd ic at io n t ha t t he us e o f th e wor d “ in ci de nt al ” in Para gr ap h 6 8 was m ean t t o d es cri be th e im po rta nc e o f wat er s up pl y

to th e p ro

ject

orev en th e im

po rta nc e o f wat er s up pl y

vi s- a-v is th e o th er p ro

ject p ur po se s. Thi s re ad in g i s fu rth er s up po rte d b y th e p hr as e “ sa feg ua rd in g t he wate r
su pp ly of th e m et ro po li ta n a rea.” Id. Th e fac t t ha t re fere nc es to in ci de nt al be ne fit s
an d t he saf

eg ua rd in g o f wat er s up pl y were m ad e in th e sa m e b reat h d em on st rat es
59th atth e Newm an Rep or t d idno t u se th e te rm as a n i nd ic at io n o f a s ub or di na ti on of th e im po rta nc e o f wat er s up pl y . Ins te ad , th e “ sa feg ua rd in g” lan gu ag e o f Para gr ap h 68 in di cat es th e cri ti cal na tu re o f th e wat er s up pl y pu rp os e to th e p ro

ject. In fact , th e Newm an Rep or t wen t o n t o d es cri be th e im po rta nc e o f th e Bu fo rdPro ject f orth e pr ot ect io n a ndass ur an ce o f Atl an ta ’s watersupp ly on a t l eas t fo urot he r oc cas io ns . Id . ¶¶ 73 (“ wou lden su re an ad equa te wate r su pp ly for t he rap id ly gro win g At la nt a
m et ro po li ta n a rea” ), 80 (“ in su re atall ti m es a fl ow at Atl an ta ”) (“ th e b en efi ts to th e Atl an taareaof a n a ss ur edwate r su pp ly for t he cit y ”), 1 00 (“ wou lden su re an ad equa te m

un ic ip al an d i ndus tri al wate r su pp ly for t he Atl an taarea ”). Co ng res s’ fo cu s o n t he ne edto en su re t he Atl an taarea ’s water supp ly serv es as s tro ng
ev id en ce o f th e p rimary

rol e g iv en to wate r supp ly in the pro ject. The on ly oth er re fere nc e in th e au th or iz in g l eg is la ti on to wate r su pp ly as in ci de nt al ap pe ars in th e Newm an Rep or t at Para gr ap h 1 00

. Ther e, th e fi na l 2 2 The languag e of this par agraph r eads: 2 2 The for eg oing r esults cannot be se cure d by the plants below Columbus proposed he rein unless a

considera

ble storag e be pr ovided upstream to increa se the minimum regulated flow a nd the firm ca

pacities at those plants; without s uch upstream stora g e, the de velopments would not be ec onomically justified. The best development f

or that purpose is that at Buf ord propose d here in. Provision of that development a s part of the sy stem would increa se the minimum mont hly flow at the Upper Columbi a site fr om about 1,300 second- fee t to 6,040 second-f eet, with a cor responding

incre ase at the J unction site. I t would gr eatly incre ase both the quality and quantity

of the e nergy

output at exi sting plants above Columbus. I t would simpli fy

the re regulation of flows at Junction to provide a more a dequate continuous flow at all times in the Apala chicola River for naviga

tion. W ithout 60se nt en ce o f th e p arag rap h b eg in s wi th th e wor d ‘in ci de nt al ly’ an d l is ts sev eral

pr ojec t b en efi ts th atwou ldno t s ig ni fic an tl y ha rm ot he r pr ojec t p ur

po se s. On e o f th e li st edbe ne fit s i s fl oo d c on tro l, wh ic h Ap pe ll ees co nc ed e is an au th or iz edpu rp os e. Thi s u se of t he ter m

‘ in ci de nt al ly’ can no t b e co ns tru edto m ean th atwate r su pp ly

was in te nd edto be a su bo rd in at e u se be cau se flo odco nt ro l i s re ferr edto in th e sa m e
m an ne r in th e se nt en ce. Th is factis fur th er i ll us tra te d b y y etan ot he r refe ren ce t o t he pr ot ect io n o f wat er s up pl y in th e sa m e se nt en ce— “ wou lden su re an ad equa te

m un ic ip al an d i nd us tri al wate r su pp ly for t he Atl an taarea .” Id . ¶ 10 0. Ag ai n, as in Para gr ap h 6 8, t he m ean in g c on ve y edin Para gr ap h 1 00 is a de sc rip ti on of h ow t he

se ve ral au th or iz edpu rp os es co ul d b e acc om pl is he d h arm on io us ly andth e m an ne r in whi ch all were b et te r se rv edby loc at in g t he pro ject a t Bu fo rd . Forth es e rea so ns ,
an d e sp eci al ly becau se of t he cle ar l an gu ag e in Para gr ap hs 79 an d 8 0 o f th e
au th or iz in g l eg is la ti on , we do no t re adth e sp ars e u se of t he ter m “ in ci de nt al ” as in di cat iv e o f th e st atus of wa te r supp ly as an au th or iz edus e v el no n.

Buf ord, about 4,000,000 c ubic yards of excavation would be r equire d in the Apalac hicola River be low J unction to provide a c hannel 9 f eet de ep; with Buf

ord, the excavation re quired would be reduc ed to about one- half that amount. Incidentally , it would ensure a n adequate municipal and industrial water supply for the A tlanta ar ea, w ould produce larg e bene fits in the way of re cre ation, fish and wildlife c onservation, and simil ar matters, and would, with the a dded floodcontrol storag e propose d here in, contribute to the re duction of floods and f lood damag es in the basin below. I d. ¶ 100 (e mphasis added)

. 61App el le es arg ue th atth e o rig in al pro ject d idno t co nt em

pl at e st or ag e in Lake Lan ie r fo r wat er s up pl y

an d t ha t t hi s i s an in di cat io n t ha t Co ng res s d idno t i nt en d fo r wat er s up pl y

to be an au th or iz edpu rp os e. W e d is ag ree. Th e la ck of s to rag e al lo cat io n fo r wat er s up pl y sh ed s n o l ig ht on th e in te nt io ns of C on gr es s. No st or ag e al lo cat io n was sp eci fie d fo r na vi ga ti on in th e Newm an Rep or t ev en th ou gh

na vi ga ti on is un iv ers al ly accep te d a s an au th or iz edpu rp os e o f th e Bu fo rdPro ject. See H.R. Do c. No. 8 0- 30 0, Let te r fro m Lieu te na nt Gene ral R.A. Whe el er, Ch ie f of Eng in eers , ¶ 11 (d ). Fu rth erm or e, no st or ag e was ne ed edat t he ti m e fo r wat er s up pl y . Alm os t al l o f th e Atl an taarea ’s water supp ly requ ire m en ts co ul d b e m etat t he ti m e
as an in ci de nt to , or b y

pr od uc t o f, th e g en erat io n o f po wer. Thu s, t he lac k o f in it ia ll y al lo cat edst or ag e fo r wat er s up pl y is no t at all in co ns is te ntwit h t he Co ng res si on al in te nt th atwate r su pp ly w as an au th or iz edpu rp os e. Fo r th e sa m e rea so n, we b el ie ve th atth e fac t tha t t he lo cal it ie s wer e n ot ask ed in it ia ll y to co nt rib ut e to th e co st s o f th e p ro ject i s o f no m om en t i n d et erm in in g Co ng res s’ in te nt wit h re sp ectto wate r su pp ly aut ho riz at io n. Geo rg ia , in19 46 , di d

no t re qu ire a si gn ifi can t am ou ntof wa te r be y on d t ha t wh ic h was pro vi de d b y
no rm al pro

ject o pe rat io ns forpo wer g en erat io n, s o areq ue stforst at e co nt rib ut io n t o th e p ro ject wo ul d n ot ha ve m ad e se ns e. Itwou ldha ve m ean t as ki ng th e st at e to pa y fo r a s erv ic e th atth e Co rp s co ul d p ro vi de ess en ti al ly w it ho ut co st . Mo reo ve r, atth at
62ti m e, Atl an ta ’s curren t wat er s up pl y us ag e req ui reda fl ow o f th e ri ve r atAtl an taof 63 5 c fs

. Even “ [d ]urin g t he ex tre m el y lo w-fl ow m on th of Oc to be r 19 41 , th e 2 3

av erag e fl ow fo r th e m on th was 4 93 sec on d- feet , andth e m in im um da il y flo w [was] 42 2 s eco nd -fee t.” I d. ¶ 7 9. In ot he r wor ds , bef or e th e Bu fo rdDam

was b ui lt , th e riv er was pro vi di ng th e wat er s up pl y ne ed s o f th e Atl an taarea . The re qu ire m en t i n th e le gi sl at io n t ha t t he Co rp s m ak e rel eas es “ so as t o [e ]nsu re atall ti m es a fl ow at Atl an tano t l es s t ha n 6 50 sec on d- feet ,” id . ¶ 80 , m erel y pro vi de d wat er s up pl y
ro ug hl y co m m en su rat e to th atwhi ch th e ri ve r was alr ead y pro vi di ng . It i s n ot li ke ly th atth e Co rp s o r Co ng res s wo ul d h av e th ou gh t i t ap pr op ria te to ch arg e Atl an tafor

co ns tru ct io n c os ts of a pro ject t ha t m erel y

rep la cedit s cu rren tl y

av ai labl e wat er
su pp ly. The Co rp s co ul d p ot en ti al ly hav e as ke d Geo rg iato pa y on th e b as is of f

ut ur e wate r su pp ly need s t ha t wo ul d a ffec t p ro ject o pe rat io ns , bu t i t was no t at all cle ar ho w m uc h wat er wo ul d b e n eed edin th e fu tu re. Afte r al l, i t wo ul d b e al m os t 3 0 2 4 y ears aft er t he Newm an Rep or t b efo re t he Co rp s wo ul d s ig n i ts fir stwate r su pp ly

See Ne wman Report ¶

79 (“70 se cond-f

eet of water wer e re quired for

domestic 2 3 and industrial purposes at Atlanta.” In addition, the Atkinson steam-ele ctric pla n had re cently installed an “a dditional unit . . . [ that] raised the total requir ement of the steam plant to 565 second- fee t.” The two r equire ments total 635 cfs).

In 1949, the Corps stated that the B uford Projec t’s assura nce of Atlanta’s water 2 4 supply would be a “ rea l benef

it” but that it was prematur e to attempt a spe cific c alculation of that benef it. Definite Project Repor t ¶ 124. 63co nt ract— ex cl ud in g t he sm al l re lo cat io n c on tra ct s m ad e as co m pe ns at io n fo r in un da ti ng th e in ta ke s o f Gai ne sv il le an d B uf or d. Di vi ni ng th e v al ue of wa te r
su pp ly to the lo cal it ie s i n t he fut ur e wou ldha ve res ul te d i n s pe cu la ti ve an d po te nt ia ll y

m is le ad in g re su lt s. Sim il arl y , th e fac t t ha t i n i ts co st -b en efi t an al y si s, 2 5 th e Newm an Rep or t d idno t as si gn a pa rti cu la r do ll ar am ou nt to wate r su pp ly is n ot

an in di cat io n t ha t i t was no t au th or iz edbe cau se th e b en efi ts of wa te r su pp ly w ere in de te rm in at e atth e ti m e. 2 6 One fin al po in t m eri ts m en ti on in g. Be fo re t he Dam was b ui lt , or e ve n pl an ne d, t he Ch at ta ho oc he e p ro vi de d a lm os t al l o f th e Ci ty of Atl an ta ’s water

su pp ly. The bu il di ng of t he da m co ul d h av e b een a po te nt ia l t hr eatto th e ci ty’ s ab il it y to wit hd raw wat er fro m

th e ri ve r be cau se th e Co rp s h adan

The 1937 F lood Control Act (FCA) allowed state s and loca lities to request that 2 5 the Corps, prior to construc tion of a flood contr ol project ba sed on the a g iven set of plans, modify those plans for the inclusion of storag e for water supply . The a ct re quired that loca lities pay the full cost of such inc rea sed storag e ca pacity . Alabama

and F lorida ar gue that it is inconce ivable, in light of

the fra mework of

the FCA, the only

g ener al statutory

grant of w ater supply authority to the Corps in 1946, that Congre ss would authorize water supply storag e in L ake L anier

without requiringcontribution from the loca lities. The FCA itself is not applicable to this project bec ause B uford wa s desig ned to be a multi-purpose projec t, and not mere ly a flood control projec t. Furthe rmore, it wa s not inconsistent for Congr ess to reque st contribution for projec ts that had to be alter ed to ac commodate water supply , but not to request contribution for projec ts which mere ly

repla ced w ater

supply alre ady provided by

the river , which water supply could be pr ovided by

the projec t as a by-produc t of power g ener ation and with little detriment to other proje ct purposes.

I t bear s noting that the Corps wa s not require d to conduct cost-be nefit ana ly ses on 2 6 all projec t purposes until 1952. See Bur eau of Budg et, Executive Off

ice of the President, B udg et Circular A -47 (De c. 31, 1952). 64in cen ti ve —o pt im al po wer g en erat io n— to sh ut off all wate r fl ow i n t he riv er fo r lo ng st ret ch es of t im e. Co ng res s re sp on de d t o t hi s co nc ern by establ is hi ng a
m in im um flo w requi rem en t an d n ot in g t ha t thi s re qu ire m en t m ig ht ha ve to be in crea se d o ve r ti m e. Co ng res s al so cle arl y in di cat edth atth e Bu fo rdPro ject was in te nd edto be ne fit th e Atl an taarea ’s nee ds by ass ur in g t he wate r su pp ly. If wat er
su pp ly hadbe ende em eda su bo rd in at e p ur po se by Con gr es s, t he Bu fo rdPro ject

wou ldha ve be en de tri m en ta l, ra th er t ha n b en efi ci al , to th e Atl an taarea ’s water

su pp ly need s. Th atis to say, if th e o nl y wate r be in g s up pl ie d was to be a
su bo rd in at e b y

pr od uc t o f po wer g en erat io n, t he n t he Cit y of At la nt a wou ldha ve
ev en tu al ly fou ndit se lf abl e to wit hd raw l es s wat er fro m th e ri ve r th an itwou ldha ve be en ha d n o d am

be en bu il t at all . In l ig ht of t he rep eat edrefe ren ces in th e
au th or iz in g l eg is la ti on to saf eg ua rd in g a nden su rin g a n a de qu at e wat er s up pl y for Atl an ta , Con gr es s v ery cl earl y di d n otin te ndth e d am

to ha rm th e ci ty’ s wat er
su pp ly. The lan gu ag e o f th e RHA cl earl y in di cat es th atwate r su pp ly w as an
au th or iz edpu rp os e o f th e Bu fo rdPro ject. Ap pe ll ees ’ arg um en ts to th e co nt rary are
un co nv in ci ng forall of t he reas on s m en ti on edab ov e. Thu s, we co nc lu de th atwate r
su pp ly w as an au th or iz edpu rp os e o f th e RHA an d t ha t t he RHA au th or iz edth e Co rp s t o a ll oc at e st or ag e in Lake Lani er fo r wat er s up pl y . 65Part III. Geo rg ia ’s 20 00 Req ue stMu stBe Re m an de d t o t he Co rp s

The Co rp s ar gu es th atit s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e RHA in th e 2 00 2 S to ck da le Mem o, wh ic h s up pl ie d t he leg al reas on in g fo r th e d en ia l o f Geo rg ia ’s watersupp ly req ue st , is en ti tl edto de fere nc e fro m th is Co ur t. Th e RHA au th or iz edth e Co rp s t o bu il d t he Bu fo rdPro

ject i n a cco rd an ce wi th th e Co rp s’ pl an s an d “ wit h s uc h ch an ge s t he rei n a s i n t he di sc ret io n o f th e Sec ret ary of W ar an d t he Ch ie f of Eng in eers m ay

be ad vi sabl e.” H.R. Doc . No. 8 0- 30 0, Let te r fro m Lieu te na nt Gen eral R.A. Whe el er, Ch ie f of Eng in eers ¶ 16 . The Co rp s as se rts th atth is gi ve s t he ag en cy wid e la ti tu de in it s i nt erp ret iv e au th or it y . Add it io na ll y , th e Co rp s ar gu es th at be cau se itpre pa redth e rep orts whi ch co m pr is e th e la ng ua ge of t he RHA, it s

“ in te rp ret at io n o f th e st atut e m eri ts gre at er t ha n n or m al weig ht be cau se itwas t he [Co rp s] th atdra fte d t he leg is la ti on an d s te ereditth ro ug h C on gr es s wi th li tt le de ba te .” Howe v . Sm it h, 4 52 U.S. 47 3, 4 85 , 10 1 S . Ct. 2 46 8, 2 47 6 (1 98 1) . Desp it e th e h ig h l ev el of r es pe ctowedto th e Co rp s’ in te rp ret at io ns wit h re ga rdto th e RHA du e to it s u ni qu e ro le in sh ap in g t he st atut e, we can no t d eferto th e Co rp ’s in te rp ret at io n o f it s wat er s up pl y au th or iz at io n i n t hi s i ns ta nc e. Eve n h ei gh te ne d de fere nc e can no t l eadth is Co urt t o i gn or e th e p la in an d e xp res s wi ll of C on gr es s,
es pe ci al ly whe re, as he re, t he Co rp s’ in te rp ret at io n h as no t b een co ns is te nt
. Und er the APA, rev ie win g c ou rts m us t s etasi de ag en cy

act io n t ha t i s
66“ arb it rary, capri ci ou s, an ab us e o f di sc ret io n, o r ot he rwis e n ot in acco rd an ce wi th

la w.” 5 U.S.C. § 70 6( 2) (A). The de ni al of Ge or gi a’s reque stwas b as edon a cl ear
erro r of law— th e Co rp s’ m is in te rp ret at io n o f th e RHA. Ther efo re, t he Co rp s’ in te rp ret at io n c an no t b e g ran te d d efer en ce, i n s pi te of t he ag en cy ’s rol e in dra fti ng th e la ng ua ge of t he leg is la ti on . The seminal cas e Ch ev ro n, U.S.A., Inc . v. Natur al Res ou rces Defen se Co un ci l, In c., 46 7 U.S. 8 37 , 84 2– 44 , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 77 8, 2 78 1– 82 (19 84 ), se t up atwo
st ep fram ewo rkforev al ua ti ng whet he r a co ur t m us t d eferto an ag en cy ’s

co ns tru ct io n o f a s ta tu te itis ch arg edwit h a dm in is te rin g. Def eren ce fr om

th e co ur t is du e if (1) Co ng res s h as no t s po ke n d ire ct ly on t he pre ci se qu es ti on at i ss ue an d i ts in te nt is un cl ear, an d (2 ) th e ag en cy ’s in te rp ret at io n i s b as edon a pe rm is si bl e
co ns tru ct io n o f th e st atut e. Id . The ar gu m en t fo r Ch ev ro n d efer en ce i n t hi s ca se fai ls atbo th st ep s b ecau se Co ng res s m ad e cl ear i ts in te nt io n t ha t wat er s up pl y was a n
au th or iz edpu rp os e o f th e Bu fo rdPro ject. As di sc us se d abo ve , th e Newm an Rep or t rep eat ed ly stat edth atth e Bu fo rdpro ject wo ul d p ro te ctan d a ss ur e th e wat er s up pl y of th e Atl an tam et ro po li ta n a rea. Fu rth erm or e, th e Rep or t au th or iz edth e u se of wate r fo r wat er s up pl y

at t he ex pe ns e o f m ax im um hydro po wer g en erat io n. Co ng res s’ ackno wled gm en t t ha t wat er s up pl y , incert ai n i ns ta nc es , was t o b e pr ov id edat t he ex pe ns e o f m ax im um po wer g en erat io n n eces si ta te s t he co nc lu si on
67th atwate r su pp ly w as no t t o b e su bo rd in at e to ot he r pr ojec t p ur po se s an d was in st eadan au th or iz edpu rp os e in it s o wn ri gh t. Th e Co rp s’ in te rp ret at io n t ha t t he RHA rel eg at edwate r su pp ly to i nc id en ta l s ta tu s ca nn ot be reco nc il edwit h t he pl ai n la ng ua ge of t he st atut e. The cle ar Co ng res si on al in te nt in th e 1 94 6 R HA was t ha t wate r su pp ly w as to be an au th or iz edpu rp os e, an d t he Co rp s’ con tra ry in te rp ret at io n is erro ne ou s an d c an no t b e acc ep te d b y th is Co urt. 2 7 A si gn ifi can t fa ctun de rm in in g a ny defe ren ce t o t he Co rp s o n t hi s i ss ue is th e fact th atth e Co rp s h as als o b een in co ns is te nt in it s s ta te m en ts ab ou t wh ethe r wat er
su pp ly w as an au th or iz edpu rp os e. The 20 02 Sto ck da le Mem o c on cl ud ed (in co rrec tl y ) th atwate r su pp ly w as no t an au th or iz edpu rp os e, bu t t hi s i s n ot

co ns is te nt wit h p rev io us Co rp s s ta te m en ts on th e m at te r. In th e Co rp s’ 19 49 Defi ni te Pro

ject R ep ort, t he Co rp s re ferr edto wate r supp ly as on e o f th e “ pr im ary pu rp os es ” an d o ne of “ th e p rin ci p[ al ] pu rp os es of t he Bu fo rdPro ject.” ¶¶ 4 8, 1 15

.
The Corps conc edes that the 2002 Stockdale Memo mig ht not be entitled to 2 7 Chevron def

ere nce be cause it may

be dee med an inter

nal guidance document that does not de cide leg al rig hts. See Christensen v. Ha rris Cnty ., 529 U.S. 576, 587, 120 S. C t. 1655, 1662–63 (2000). I f this is the case, the n the Corps’ leg al interpre tations in the document deser ve Skidmore defe renc e, mea

ning that the interpre tations are “ entitled to respec t . . . but only to the extent that those interpre tations have the pow er to pe rsuade .” I d. (interna l quotation marks and citations omitted). Be cause the clea r intent of the RHA f

orec loses the hig her Chevr on level of de fer ence , it follows that Skidmore defe renc e is also not applicable to the fac ts of this case. In light of Congr ess’ intent to include water supply as an a uthorized purpose, the Corps’ c ontrary deter mination is notat all per suasive. Since ne ither ty pe of de fer ence can be g iven to the Corps’ leg al deter

minations, we nee d not decide whether the Skidmore or Chevron f rame work is applicable on the instant fac ts. 68Thi s 1 94 9 R ep or t was a fo rm al pro no un cem en t o n t he is su e, an d t he on e m os t

ne arl y co nt em po ran eo us to th e act ua l en act m en t. In a 19 87 reg ul at io n, 3 3 C .F.R. § 22 2.5 , App ’x E, the Co rp s l is te d wat er s up pl y as a pro ject p ur po se forBu fo rd . In t he Co rp s’ com

pr eh en si ve 19 94 rep or t t o C on gr es s, wh ic h l is te d t he au th or iz ed pu rp os es forCo rp s p ro

jects acro ss th e co un try, water s up pl y was i nc lu de d a s an
au th or iz edpu rp os e o f Bu fo rdun de r th e RHA. U.S. Arm y Co rp s o f Eng ’rs: 2 8 Hy dr ol og ic Eng in eeri ng Cen te r, Aut ho riz edan d Op erat in g P ur po se s o f Co rp s o f Eng in eers Res erv oi rs E-94 (19 94 ). That rep ort al so de fin edth e te rm “ in ci de nt al be ne fit s” an d s ta te d t ha t i nc id en ta l b en efi ts , th ou gh th ey were i m po rta nt , were n ot th e su bjec t o f th e rep or t an d wo ul d n ot be li st ed . Id. at 3– 4. Th e Co rp s an d t he App el le es off

er n o e xp la na ti on forwhy th e Co rp s i nd ic at edth atwate r su pp ly w as
an au th or iz edpu rp os e in 19 49 , 19 87 , and19 94 bu t t oo k aco nt rary pos it io n i n 20 02

. 2 9

Recre ation and F ish and Wil dlife ar e also listed as a uthorized purposes in the 2 8 repor t. Howeve r, the a

uthorizi ngstatute listed in the report f or water supply

is the RHA. Recre ation and F ish and Wil dlife ar e listed as being authorized by

statutes not at issue in this case . The Corps ar gues that any inconsistency

in its i nterpre tation is irreleva nt to the 2 9 defe renc e ana ly sis, citing National Cable & Telec ommunications Ass’n v. Br and X I nterne t Service s, 545 U.S. 967, 981, 125 S. C t. 2688, 2699–2700 (2005). Howe ver, the holding of Br and X does not g o quite this far. The case mere ly states that Chevron may

be applica

ble to instances in which the ag ency

has cha ng ed its position “if the ag ency adequately

explains t he re asons for a reve rsal of policy .” I d. at 981, 125 S. Ct. at 2699. This C ourt has also noted that an ag ency must be allowe d to shift its position over time and that such shifts should even be acc orded de fer ence by revie wingcourts. F riends of the Everg lades v. S. Fla . Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 F.3d 1210, 69The Co rp s ar gu es th atev en if i t erredin it s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e RHA, it s

reject io n o f Geo rg ia ’s watersupp ly requ es t s ho ul d b e al lo wedto st an d. Th e Co rp s
su gg es ts th atitacco un te d fo r th e p os si bi li ty tha t wat er s up pl y was a n a ut ho riz ed pu rp os e o f th e Bu fo rdPro ject a ndst il l co nc lu de d t ha t t he req ue stex ceed edit s
au th or it y . In s up po rt o f th is co nt en ti on , th e Co rp s p oi nt s t o t he fol lo win g l an gu ag e in th e St oc kd al e Me m o: “ Eve n i f wat er s up pl y were a s pe ci fic al ly aut ho riz ed pu rp os e o f th e res erv oi r (an d t he 19 58 Act d idno t ap pl y ), th e st at e’s reque stwou ld req ui re s ub st an ti al ch an ge s i n t he rel at iv e si zes of p ro ject p ur po se s. Th is wou ld rep res en t a m at eri al alt erat io n o f th e p ro ject, wh ic h wo ul d re qu ire co ng res si on al act io n.” 20 02 Sto ck da le Mem o a t 1 1 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

. The Co rp s ar gu es th atth is co ns ti tu te s an alt ern at iv e co nc lu si on an d t ha t t he re is no reas on to be li ev e th atitis in cap ab le of c on si de rin g aleg al hypo th et ic al . It arg ue s t ha t re m an di ng th e cas e fo r a co ns id erat io n t ha t i t al read y ga ve wou ldbe du pl ic at iv e. Howev er, an ad m in is tra ti ve ag en cy ’s alt ern at iv e ex pl an at io n fo r de nyin g ast at e’s reque stis “ arb it rary, capri ci ou s . . . or o th erwi se no t i n a cco rd an ce wit h l aw” i f it is ba se d o n a n i m pe rm is si bl e rea di ng of t he au th or iz in g s ta tu te or

1219 (11th Cir. 2009). B ut in this case , the Corps has g iven no explanation for the r easoning behind any

chang es in policy . Also, the Corps’ position has not merely chang ed; rather, it has been in suc h a consta

nt state of flux that itappea rs to have not yet fully

formed. I n any event, the authorizing leg islation it self is sufficie ntly clea r; wate r supply

is an authorized purpose. 70st atut es . See Ma ss ach us et ts v. En vt l. Pro t. Ag en cy , 54 9 U.S. 4 97 , 53 2– 34 , 12 7 S

.

Ct . 14 38 , 14 62 –6 3 (2 00 7) (ho ld in g t ha t t he EPA’ s re ad in g o f a s ta tu to ry ph ras e in it s al te rn at iv e ex pl an at io n fo r why it d idno t re gu la te gre en ho us e g as em is si on s was
no t i n c on fo rm it y

wit h t he st atut e, an d t hu s re m an di ng to th e EPA). The Co rp s’ hypo th et ic al , whi ch is rei te rat edalm os t v erb at im in th e co nc lu si on of t he m em o, 20 02 Sto ck da le Mem o a t 1 3, re st s s qu arel y on an erro ne ou s l eg al pro po si ti on . In th is alt ern at iv e h y

po th et ic al , th e Co rp s m is ta ke nl y ass um es th atth e WSA wou ldno t ap pl y to th e ag en cy ’s det erm in at io n o f it s au th or it y to gra nt th e Geo rg iareq ue stif wate r su pp ly w ere aut ho riz edby the RHA. Thi s as su m pt io n h as no fou nd at io n i n la w. The WSA no whe re i nd ic at es th atitis supe rced edby, orsupe rced es , ori gi na l

au th or iz at io ns forwate r su pp ly. The Act was m erel y in te nd edto off

er g reat er wat er
su pp ly autho rit y

in fed eral wate r pr ojec ts th an ha d p rev io us ly exi st ed . Forth at

au th or it y to be supp le m en ta l t o aut ho rit y alr ead y ex ta nt in a gi ve n p ro

ject i s pe rfec tl y co ns is te nt wit h t he lan gu ag e an d p ur po se of t he st atut e. To as su m e, as th e Co rp s h as in it s al te rn at iv e co nc lu si on , th atth e WSA do es no t ap pl y to th e Bu fo rd Pro ject m erel y

be cau se th e au th or iz in g s ta tu te in cl ud edwate r su pp ly as an

au th or iz edpu rp os e is no t s up po rte d b y th e la ng ua ge of t he W SA orby its in te nd ed ai m of i nc reas in g wat er s up pl y au th or it y in fed eral pro

jects . The Co rp s’ ho ld in g i n th e al te rn at iv e m

us t b e reject edbe cau se itm is in te rp ret s t he sco pe of t he W SA.
71The Co rp s’ alt ern at iv e co nc lu si on is als o u nd erm in edbe cau se , des pi te th e

Co rp s’ con te nt io ns ot he rwis e, it s m is in te rp ret at io n o f th e RHA was ess en ti al to it s
co nc lu si on th atitlac ke d a ut ho rit y to gra nt Geor gi a’s req ue st . The m ajor it y of t he

m em or an du m

is de vo te d t o t he po te nt ia l ef fect s o f gr an ti ng th e req ue stan d wh et he r th es e eff ect s wo ul d b e co ns is te nt wit h t he Co rp s’ aut ho rit y un de r th e WSA. The di sc us si on of t he ag en cy ’s aut ho rit y un de r th e WSA is pre di cat edon th e as su m pt io n th atth e b as el in e le ve l o f au th or iz at io n fr om th e RHA is zero an d t ha t n o s to rag e
m ay be all oc at edto wate r su pp ly pur su an t t o t he RHA. It i s o nl y at t he ve ry

en d o f th e d is cu ss io n o f th e Co rp s’ aut ho rit y th atth e ag en cy

co ns id ers arg ue nd o t he po ss ib il it y

th atth e RHA au th or iz edwate r su pp ly. Its bri ef d is cu ss io n o f th is al te rn at iv e is fla wedin two res pe ct s. Fi rs t, as no te d abo ve , th e Co rp s erro ne ou sl y
as su m es th atif t he RHA in cl ud edwate r supp ly as an au th or iz edpu rp os e, th e WSA

wou ldno t b e ap pl ic ab le at a ll . Seco nd , alt ho ug h p ur po rti ng to ass um e wat er s up pl y
was anau th or iz edpu rp os e o f th e RHA, th e Co rp s n ev ert he le ss un de res ti m at edit s RHA au th or it y . It fa il edto reco gn iz e th atth e au th or iz in g l eg is la ti on in 19 46 no t

on ly inc lu de d wat er s up pl y as a n a ut ho riz edpu rp os e b ut ex pl ic it ly con te m pl at ed th atth e Co rp s was au th or iz edto in crea se wate r su pp ly usa ge ov er t im e as th e Atl an taareagre w andth atth is in crea se wou ldno t b e a ch an ge fro m Co ng res si on al ly con te m

pl at edop erat io ns at a ll . Thu s, the Co rp s n ev er co ns id ered

72it s au th or it y

un de r th e RHA to su bs ta nt ia ll y in crea se it s p ro vi si on of wa te r su pp ly

an d re al lo cat e st or ag e th eref or —au th or it y

whi ch we ho ldto da y

was g ran te d b y

th e RHA. Andth e Co rp s n ev er co ns id eredit s WSA aut ho rit y to pro vi de wate r su pp ly as

an ad di ti on to (oras s up pl em en ti ng ) it s R HA aut ho rit y . The fa il ur e o f th e Co rp s i n th es e res pe ct s re nd ers it s al te rn at iv e rea so n fo r de nyin g Geo rg ia ’s reque starb it rary, cap ric io us , or o th erwi se no t i n a cco rd an ce wi th th e la w. 3 0 Sev eral ot he r fac to rs als o i nd ic at e th atth e Co rp s’ reject io n o f th e wat er
su pp ly requ es t s ho ul d b e rem an de d fo r fu rth er co ns id erat io n. Fi rs t, at ta ch edto th e 20 02 Mem o i s a “ pr el im in ary an al y si s o f th e im pa ct s o f Geo rg ia ’s water

supp ly req ue ston au th or iz edpro ject p ur po se s an d o pe rat io ns .” The Co rp s’ ana lysis on th e effe ct s o f th e Geo rg iareq ue stwas t hu s i nc om pl et e. Bec au se th e Co rp s’ aut ho rit y to gr an t t he req ue stm ay

be de pe nd an t o n t he pre ci se si ze an d e ffec t o f th e req ue st , itis

cru ci al th atth e Co rp s co m pl et e it s ev al ua ti on of t he req ue st . The n eedfor fur th er st ud y reco m m en ds rem an d t o t he Co rp s.

For example, in the portion of the 2002 Stockdale Me mo dealingwith the 3 0 alternative rationale , Stockdale 2002 at 11, the Corps spoke of the g ener al limitation on i ts discretionar

y authority to make post-authorization chang es in projec ts without seeking a dditional Congr essional authority

—i.e., the Corps’ lac k of authority to make substantial cha

ng es in the relative siz es of pr oject purpose s—without any rec ognition of the fac t that the authorizing leg islation here a lrea dy

g ave the Corps authority to increa se the water supply purpose at the expense of the hydropowe r purpose and without rec ognition of the fac t that the leg islation expli citly contemplated a

considera

ble such incr ease to meet the water supply needs e stimated 19 y ear s in the future. See Newma n Report ¶¶ 79, 80.

73Seco nd , itis als o app aren t t ha t t he Co rp s’ vi ews reg ard in g i ts au th or it y to al lo cat e st or ag e in Lake Lani er t o wat er s up pl y are ev ol vi ng an d t ha t i t h as no t co m e to a fi na l, d et erm in at iv e d eci si on reg ard in g t he is su es un de rlyin g t hi s au th or it y . The re ar e se ve ral pi eces of e vi de nc e fo r th is . In 2 00 2, t he Co rp s re jecte d t he Geo rg iareq ue st , ass ert in g t ha t i t d idno t h av e su ffi ci en t au th or it y to real lo cat e 3 4% of co ns erv at io n s to rag e. Howev er, i n 2 00 4, i t ag reedto set tl e th e Geren cas e, in pa rt by reall oc at in g wh atth e se tt li ng pa rti es de te rm in edat t ha t t im e to be 22 % of t he

co ns erv at io n s to rag e. The Co rp s d et erm in edth atitco ul d m ak e su ch a real lo cat io n
on th e b as is of i ts W SA au th or it y alo ne . Tho ug h t he se de ci si on s ar e n ot di rect ly

co nf li ct in g, t he Co rp s n ev er ex pl ai ne d wh y itbe li ev edth atth e 1 2% s to rag e al lo cat io n d iff

eren ce b etween th e two cau se d i t t o e xc eedit s au th or it y . If th e RHA

au th or iz es so m e st or ag e rea ll oc at io n t o wat er s up pl y , as we h ol d t od ay th atitdo es , th en th e Co rp s s ho ul d e xp la in why th is di ffer en ce i n a ll oc at edst or ag e b et ween th e Geo rg iareq ue stan d t he set tl em en t ag reem en t p us he d i t b ey on d t he bo un da rie s o f it s
au th or it y . Add it io na ll y , th e Co rp s h as rev is edit s fi gu res forho w m uc h s to rag e m

us t be all oc at edto acco m

m od at e cu rren t l ev el s o f wat er s up pl y wit hd rawal . In t he 20 02

m em o, t he Co rp s as se rte d t ha t cu rren t wi th dr awal s re qu ire d a13 % real lo cat io n o f

co ns erv at io n s to rag e. On ap pe al , th e Co rp s cl ai m s t ha t t he cu rren t wi th dr awal lev el s
are o nl y 11 .7%. Itap pe ars th atth e Co rp s m ay no lo ng er co nc lu de th atGeor gi a’s
74req ue stwou ldreq ui re an all oc at io n a s l arg e as 34 %. Any su ch de crea se in th e Co rp s’ pro

jecti on of t he am ou nt of s to rag e it de em s re qu ire d fo r wat er wi th dr awal s
co ul d a ls o a ffec t i ts de te rm in at io n o f it s au th or it y ov er the Geor gi a req ue st
. 3 1 Fi na ll y , bec au se th e o th er m at te rs in th is ap pe al m us t b e rem an de d t o t he Co rp s, i t i s s en si bl e an d e ffi ci en t fo r th e ag en cy to co ns id er t he ov erl ap pi ng is su es th atare co m

m on to Geor gi a an d t he ot he r cas es to ge th er as pa rt o f a co m pr eh en si ve de ci si on ab ou t t he Co rp s’ futur e wat er s up pl y op erat io ns . The co nc lu si on s t ha t t he

The Corps’ position in this appeal see ms to favor e valuatingwater supply 3 1 authority via an a naly sis of the detrimental e ffe ct of incr ease d water supply on the produc tion of hydropowe r as a

n alternative to an ana ly sis predicated solely on the per centa g e of c onservation storag e beingrea llocated. See Brief of U .S. Army Corps of Eng ’rs, e t al. at 99–100, Tri-State Water Rights L itigation, No. 09- 14657 (11th Cir. May 3, 2010) (e x plaining that the “de f acto” rea llocations of storag e to ac count for c urre nt water supply uses ca uses a sy stemwide re duction of hydropowe r of only

1%). The prese nt discussion of perc entag e allocations is notmeant to be an endor sement of this method of eva luating the Corps’ authority . I t is merely meant to desc ribe the evolvingnature of the Corps’ state d rea soning f or its conclusions with respec t to the bounds of its authority . In fac t, the Corps’ forme r re liance on pe rce ntag e-ba sed allocations and its seemingcurr ent re liance on e ffe cts on projec t purposes may also repr esent a

shift in policy . We conclude that the D.C. Circuit’s Ger en opinion does not fore close the Corps f rom fully exploring this iss ue. See inf

ra, Par t VI . On re mand, the Corps should deter mine the optimal methodology for mea suringits authority over w ater

supply allocations. A companion c onsideration in the Corps’ WSA analy sis is t he conc ept of c ompensating the power users for the detrimenta l effe cts of water supply on the power

purpose. The Corps acc epted the notion of suc h compensation in the proposed settlement in Ger en, thoug h the re cord shows no prec edingendorse ment of this conce pt. Be cause the RHA authorized the acc ommodation of some water supply needs at the expense of the powe r purpose , the Corps must deter mine the prope r bala

nce be tween w ater

supply and powe r. Consequently , the Corps must analy ze whether

compensation is a factor

in determiningthe extent of the Corps’ authority under the RHA, whe ther unde r the WSA a rea llocation of storag e is an ope rational c hang e, and whether such a c hang e is major. See inf ra, Par t VI , note 41, indicatingthat Ger en’s c omments on the compensation concept have no collate ral e stoppel eff ect. 75Co rp s re ach es wit h re sp ectto th e que st io ns at i ss ue in th e o th er ca se s wi ll pro vi de it

wit h am or e co m

pl et e an al y si s o f th e is su es in Geor gi a, as well . Forex am pl e, th e Co rp s’ det erm in at io ns of i ts au th or iz at io n o ve r cu rren t wat er s up pl y wit hd rawal s wil l n eces si ta te a th or ou gh stud y of t he am ou ntof s to rag e req ui redfor wate r su pp ly. Als o, t hi s ap pe al rep res en ts th e fi rs t o pp ortu ni ty for a co ur t t o c on si de r th e Co rp s’

au th or it y un de r bo th th e RHA an d t he W SA. Our h ol di ng —t ha t wat er s up pl y is an
au th or iz edpu rp os e u nd er t he RHA, th atth e Co rp s d oe s h av e so m e au th or it y un de r th e RHA to ba la nc e as am on g t he au th or iz edus es an d i nc reas e th e wat er s up pl y pu rp os e atth e ex pe ns e o f th e p owe r pu rp os e an d t o re al lo cat e st or ag e th eref or , and th atth e Co rp s’ aut ho rit y

un de r th e WSA is in ad di ti on to it s au th or it y un de r th e RHA—c on st it ut es a cl ari fic at io n o f th e le ga l en vi ro nm en t wh ic h wi ll aidth e Co rp s in it s an al y si s o n re m an d. Fo r th es e rea so ns , we con cl ud e th atth e Co rp s m us t

reex am in e th e reque stin li gh t o f it s co m bi ne d a ut ho riz at io n u nd er t he RHA an d W SA. 3 2

Part IV. Gwin ne ttCo un ty’ s C la im s No t In vo lv in g Au th or iz at io n Un de r

th e RHA an d WSA

I t should also be noted that the Corps wa s g rante d additional water supply 3 2 authority in the 1956 Act. See inf

ra, Par t IV Section A. Refe renc es in this opinion t o the Corps’ authority under the RHA and the WSA are not to be construed a s neg atingits additional authority under the 1956 Act. 76Gwin ne ttCo un ty ass ert s t hr ee cl ai m s t ha t ar e d is ti nc t fr om th e cl ai m s o f The Geo rg iaPart ie s an d t he Co rp s. Fi rs t, t he co un ty ass ert s t ha t a 1 95 6 Act of C on gr es s
au th or iz edth e Co rp s t o c on tra ctwit h i t fo r 10 m gdforwate r su pp ly. Seco nd , Gwin ne ttass ert s t ha t t he Co rp s co nt ract edwit h i t t o p ro vi de pe rm an en t s to rag e fo r
ro ug hl y 40 m gd . Fin al ly, th e co un ty ass ert s t ha t the Bu fo rdPro ject r en de redit s in ta ke faci li ty at Dul ut h, Geo rg iain op erab le an d t ha t i t i s t he refo re en ti tl edto wate r wit hd rawal rig ht s as jus t co m pe ns at io n. We fin d m eri t i n t he fir stof t he se cla im s b ut rejectth e fi na l t wo.

A. The Exp ira ti on of t he 19 56 Act In 19 56 , Con gr es s p as se d a n a ct , in pa rt, s ta ti ng th e fo ll owi ng : [T]he Secr et ary of th e Arm y is he reb y au th or iz ed to co nt ract wit h Gwin ne tt Co un ty, Geo rg ia , up on su ch te rm s an d fo r su ch pe rio d no t to ex ceed fif ty y ears as he m ay de em reas on ab le fo r th e us e of st or ag e sp ace in th e Bu fo rd Res erv oi r fo r th e pu rp os e of pr ov id in g sa id co un ty a reg ul at ed wate r su pp ly in an am ou nt no t to ex ceed el ev en th ou sa nd two hu nd redacre -fee t o f wat er an nu al ly .

. . .
Pub. L. No. 8 4- 84 1, 7 0 S ta t. 7 25 . The d is tri ctco ur t n ot edin a fo ot no te th at Gwin ne ttha d n ot co nt ract edwit h t he Co rp s p ur su an t t o t hi s au th or iz at io n a ndhe ld th atth e au th or iz at io n “ ex pi redin 20 06 .” Tri- St at e, 63 9 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 35 0 n .24

. The di st ric t co ur t h as m is readth e p la in lan gu ag e o f th e st atut e. The fif ty-y ear li m it at io n i n t he Act re fers to th e dur at io n o f an y co nt ract wit h Gwi nn et t, n ot to th e
77ex pi rat io n o f th e Actit se lf. Th e p hr as e “ no t t o e xc eedfif ty y ears ” imm ed ia te ly fo ll ows th e wor ds “ co nt ract
. . . up on su ch ter m s an d fo r su ch pe rio d” an d t he re i s
no gra m m at ic al cu e th atitsh ou ldno t b e rea d a s m od ifyin g t hi s p hr as e. The di st ric t

co ur t o ffer s n o e xp la na ti on for it s u nn atur al read in g o f th e st atut e an d n on e is

ev id en t t o t hi s C ou rt. M or eo ve r, th e Actals o a ut ho riz edth e Co rp s t o e nt er i nt o a pe rp etua l ea se m en t wi th Gwin ne tt , aut ho riz in g Gwi nn et t t o b ui ldth e n eces sa ry faci li ti es to wit hd raw wat er d ire ct ly from Lake Lani er o n t he Co rp s’ lan d. 7 0 S ta t. at 72 5. It wou ldbe il lo gi cal forCo ng res s t o g iv e Gwin ne tta pe rp etua l ea se m en t t o im pl em en t an au th or iz at io n t ha t wo ul d e xp ire in fif ty y ears . The d is tri ctco ur t’s in te rp ret at io n o f th e Act , whi ch is esp ou se d b y App el le es in th is ap pe al , is in co ns is te nt wit h t he Act’s l an gu ag e an d i ts gra nt of a n e as em en t i n p erp etui ty. To d at e th ere h as no t b een a si ng le co nt ract be twee n t he Co rp s an d Gwi nn et t pr ed ic at edon th e au th or it y of t he 19 56 Act. Su ch a co nt ract in th e fu tu re wo ul d n ot be a real lo cat io n o f st or ag e u nd er t he W SA or th e RHA b ecau se itis di rect ly

au th or iz edby Con gr es s.

B. Fo rty m gdfro m

th e 1 97 4 S up pl em en ta l Ag reem en t t o t he Co rp s’ Co nt ract Gwin ne ttarg ue s t ha t i n 1 97 4 t he Co rp s g ran te d t he co un ty the rig ht to 38 ,10 0

acre -fee t o f pe rm an en t s to rag e so th atitco ul d wi th dr aw ro ug hl y 40 m gddi rect ly

78fro m

Lake Lani er. In 19 73 , Gwin ne ttan d t he Co rp s en te redin to an in te rim wate r
co nt ract for

40 m gd . The fo ll owi ng y ear, t he pa rti es rev is edArti cl e 9 of t he co nt ract to pro vi de : Upo n ex pi rat io n of th e pe rio d of co nt ract
. . . th e Use r sh al l ha ve th e rig ht to acq ui re fro m

th e Gov ern m en t . . . t he rig ht to ut il iz e st or ag e sp ace i n th e pr ojec t co nt ai ni ng at le as t 38 ,10 0 acre feet (wh ic h is es ti m at ed to be ad equa te to y ie ldap pr ox im at el y 40 MGD of

wate r). Supp le m en ta l Ag reem en t No .1 t o C on tra ctNo. DACW01 -9 -7 3- 62 4 B et ween Uni te d St at es an d Gwi nn et t Co un ty, Geo rg iafor W it hd rawal of Wate r fro m Lake Sid ne y Lan ie r (Ap r. 29 , 19 74 ). The c on tra ctst at edth atth is rev is io n was be in g m ad e “ in

or de r to faci li ta te th e sa le of b on ds to fin an ce [Gwi nn et t’s] pro po se d wat er wo rk s faci li ti es .” Id . Sub se qu en t s up pl em en ta l ag reem en ts ex te nd edth e li fe o f th e co nt ract

un ti l i t was fin al ly allo wedto ex pi re i n 1 99 0. The co nt ract ga ve Gwin ne ttth e “ rig ht to acq ui re” t he st or ag e sp ace a t t he ti m e o f th e ex pi rat io n o f th e co nt ract . Thu s, Gwin ne ttpo ss es se d a n o pt io n (a n o ffer ) to pu rch as e st or ag e sp ace a t t he ti m e o f th e co nt ract ’s exp ira ti on , whi ch th e p art ie s ag ree o ccu rredin 19 90 . “ If n o t im e is pre sc rib edforacce pt in g a n o ffer , itm us t b e do ne withi n areas on ab le ti m e.” Wilk in s v . But le r, 36 9 S .E.2d26 7, 2 68 (Ga. Ct

. App . 19 88 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) ; s ee Ho m e In s. Co . v. Swan n, 1 28 S.E. 70 , 72 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 25 ); R es ta te m en t (S eco nd ) of Co nt ract s § 41 (19 81 ). Gwin ne ttha s n ot

79de m on st rat edth atitex erci se d i ts acce pt an ce o f th e o pt io n i n 1 99 0 o r atan y ti m e si nc e th en . Mo re t ha n t wen ty y ears ha ve elaps edsi nc e th e ti m e th atth e o pt io n be cam e av ai labl e, an d t he rig ht to acce pt th e Co rp s’ off er t o a cqui re t he 38 ,10 0

acre -fee t o f st or ag e cl earl y ha s l ap se d. 3 3 C. Ju stCo m

pe ns at io n fo r Rel oc at io n o f th e Dul ut h In ta ke On ap pe al , Gwin ne ttarg ue s t ha t i t s ho ul d h av e b een co m pe ns at edbe cau se th e
crea ti on of t he Bu fo rdPro ject l edto co nt am in at io n o f it s i nt ak e st ru ctur e atDul ut h, whi ch ha d t o b e ab an do ne d i n t he earl y 19 70 s. Gwin ne ttfai le d t o m ak e th is arg um en t b efo re t he di st ric t co ur t. We gen eral ly do n otco ns id er ar gu m en ts rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal an d n eedno t d o s o h ere. Pe ek -a-B oo Lou ng e o f Brad en to n, In c. v. M an at ee Cn ty., 63 0 F .3d13 46 , 13 58 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). In an y ev en t, t hi s ar gu m en t i s m eri tl es s. Gwin ne ttfai ls to di sc us s t he rig ht s o f th e fed eral go ve rn m en t t o m ak e al te rat io ns to na vi gabl e wat ers . The fe de ral go ve rn m en t p os se ss es what is kn own as a na vi ga ti on al ser vi tu de , “ th e p riv il eg e to ap pr op ria te wit ho utco m

pe ns at io n wh ic h a tt ach es to th e ex erci se of t he po wer o f th e go ve rn m en t t o c on tro l an d re gu la te na vi gabl e wat ers in th e in te res t o f co m m erce .”
Gwinnett ar gues that any

challeng es to its right to storag e under the 1974 3 3 supplement are barr ed by the six -year

statute of limitations for actions ag ainst the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) . Though the statute has be en extended to suits under the APA, it is clear ly inapplicable he re. A

ppellees, a

nd/or the Corps, have nothing to cha lleng e her e, and c onsequently nothing that they

are barr ed fr om challeng ing, be cause the Corps mere ly g rante d Gwinnett an unexercised option. No per manent storag e rights were ever confe rre d on Gwinnett by the Corps. 80Uni te d S ta te s v . Va. Elec. & P owe r Co ., 36 5 U.S. 6 24 , 62 7, 8 1 S . Ct. 7 84 , 78 7– 88

(1 96 1) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The n av ig at io na l s erv it ud e is a do m in an t

se rv it ud e, trum

pi ng all co m

pe ti ng an d c on fli ct in g ri gh ts to th e wat erway. Id . Thi s
se rv it ud e ex te nd s t o t he en ti re ri ve r an d t he riv erb edlying be lo w th e h ig h- wate r
m ark . Uni te d S ta te s v . Ran ds , 38 9 U.S. 1 21 , 12 3, 8 8 S . Ct. 2 65 , 26 7 (1 96 7) . It i s
an ch or edin Co ng res s’ comm erce cla us e p owe r. “ The po wer t o re gu la te co m m erce
co m pr eh en ds th e co nt ro l fo r th atpu rp os e, an d t o t he ex te nt ne ces sa ry , of a ll th e
na vi gabl e wat ers of t he Uni te d S ta te s. Fo r th is pu rp os e th ey are p ub li c p ro pe rty of th e n at io n, an d s ub

ject t o a ll th e req ui si te leg is la ti on by Con gr es s.” I d. at 12 2– 23 , 88 S. Ct. at 26 6– 67 (al te rat io n o m it te d) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

. The fed eral go ve rn m en t d oe s n ot ex ecu te a ta ki ng of r ip ari an in te res ts by al te rin g ri ve rs for

na vi ga ti on al pu rp os es . The g ov ern m en t’s d om in an t ri gh t t o m ak e
us e o f th es e wat erways m ean s t ha t i ts act io ns do no t am ou nt to an ap pr op ria ti on . Thi s p rem is e h as be en ex pl ic it ly stat edsev eral ti m es in th e co nt ex t o f hydro po wer in te res ts : Th e fed eral go ve rn m en t i s n ot req ui redto gi ve co m pe ns at io n fo r wat er po wer wh en ittak es rip ari an lan ds in acco rd an ce wi th th e n av ig at io na l s erv it ud e. E.g., Va. Elec ., 36 5 U.S. at62 9, 8 1 S . Ct. at78 8; Uni te d S ta te s v . Twin C it y Po wer Co ., 35 0 U.S. 2 22 , 22 6– 27 , 76 S. Ct. 2 59 , 26 2 (1 95 6) ; Un it edSta te s v . App al ach ia n Elec . Powe r Co ., 31 1 U.S. 3 77 , 42 4, 6 1 S . Ct. 2 91 , 30 7 (1 94 0) ; Un it edSta te s v . 81Ch an dl er-Du nb ar Water P owe r Co ., 22 9 U.S. 5 3, 7 3– 74 , 33 S. Ct. 6 67 , 67 6 (1 91 3)

.

Gwin ne ttoff

ers no ex pl an at io n fo r why thi s p rin ci pl e sh ou ldno t b e ap pl ie d t o t he rip ari an in te res t i n wat er s up pl y . Bec au se of t he fed eral go ve rn m en t’s d om in an t ri gh t t o m ak e al te rat io ns in th e riv er, t he effe cton Gwin ne tt ’s rip ari an in te res ts is no t a t ak in g. Th us , eve n i f Gwin ne ttha d n ot ab an do ne d i ts cla im , th e cl ai m wou ldno t b e co m

pe ns ab le

.

Part V. Rem an d In st ru ct io ns to th e Co rp s On re m an d, t he Co rp s i s t o re co ns id er Geo rg ia ’s reque st , as wel l as it s
au th or it y wit h re sp ectto th e cu rren t p ro vi si on s fo r wat er s up pl y , in li gh t o f it s
au th or it y un de r th e RHA as well as t he W SA an d t he 19 56 Act. In pa rti cu la r, it sh ou ldco ns id er s ev eral im po rta nt fact or s wi th res pe ctto th e Newm an Rep or t (i .e., th e RHA). Fi rs t, t he Co rp s s ho ul d t ak e in to co ns id erat io n t ha t wat er s up pl y forth e Atl an tam et ro po li ta n a rea was an au th or iz edpu rp os e o f th e Bu fo rdPro ject a s wel l

as hydro el ect ric po wer, fl oo d c on tro l, an d n av ig at io n. Se co nd , Con gr es s
co nt em pl at edth atth e Co rp s wo ul d b e au th or iz edto cal ib rat e o pe rat io ns to ba la nc e be twee n t he wate r supp ly use an d t he po wer u se . Thi rd , bec au se Co ng res s ex pl ic it ly pr ov id edth atth e “ es ti m at edpre se nt ne ed s” of t he Atl an taareaforwate r su pp ly be

sa ti sf ie d a t t he ex pe ns e o f “ m ax im um po wer v al ue ,” Newm an Rep ort ¶ 8 0, we k no w
82th atth e wat er s up pl y us e is no t s ub or di na te to th e p owe r us e. Fo ur th , fro m Para gr ap hs 79 an d 8 0 o f th e Newm an Rep or t, we kno w th atCo ng res s co nt em pl at ed th atwate r su pp ly m ay

ha ve to be in crea se d o ve r ti m e as th e Atl an taareagro ws. Howev er, t he au th or iz in g l eg is la ti on is am bi gu ou s wi th res pe ctto th e ex te nt of th e Co rp s’ bal an ci ng au th or it y —i .e., th e ex te nt of t he Co rp s’ aut ho rit y un de r th e RHA to pro vi de wate r su pp ly for t he Atl an taarea . On t he on e h an d, t he au th or iz in g le gi sl at io n re co gn iz edth atth e Ch at ta ho oc he e Ri ve r was th e so ur ce o f th e wat er
su pp ly for the Atl an taarea , andth e le gi sl at io n re pe at ed ly referre d t o s afeg ua rd in g o r
as su rin g t he wate r su pp ly of th e m et ro po li ta n a rea. Se e Newm an Rep or t ¶¶79 an d 80 . It al so reco gn iz edth atth e m in im um rel eas es in it ia ll y

pro vi de d b y

th e le gi sl at io n to sat is fy th e p res en t wat er n eed s “ m ay ha ve to be in crea se d s om ewh atas t he area de ve lo ps .” Id . ¶ 80 . On t he ot he r ha nd , th e le gi sl at io n a ls o c on te m pl at es th at

as su rin g s uc h wat er s up pl y for th e Atl an taareacan be do ne wit h a“ sl ig ht de crea se in syste m po wer v al ue .” Id

. W e co nc lu de th atth e Co rp s, t he ag en cy au th or iz edby 3 4 Co ng res s t o i m

pl em en t an d e nf

or ce t hi s l eg is la ti on , sh ou ld , in th e fi rs t i ns ta nc e,

Addingto the possible ambiguity , the quoted phra se fr om Paragraph 80 r efe rs to a 3 4 “slig ht decr ease in sy stem power va lue,” but Cong ress c ontemplated, in the pre cedingParagraph 79, a conside rable incre ase in the r iver flow at Atlanta duringoff- peak hour s in order to provide for Atlanta ’s wate r supply needs nine teen year s in the future. Par agraph 79 c ontemplated incre asingthe river

flow at Atlanta

from 650 cf

s to 800 cfs. 83ev al ua te pre ci se ly wha t t hi s b al an ce s ho ul d b e. 3 5

Onc e th e Co rp s h as de te rm in edth e ex te nt of i ts au th or it y un de r th e RHA, it sh ou ldth en de te rm in e it s au th or it y pu rs ua nt to th e WSA. The a ut ho rit y un de r th e W SA wil l b e in ad di ti on to th e Co rp s’ aut ho rit y un de r th e RHA an d t he 19 56 Act. It i s ap pa ren t fr om

th e rec or d a ndth e ev ol vi ng po si ti on of t he Co rp s t ha t t he Co rp s h as no t arriv edat afin al , def in it iv e d et erm in at io n o f th e sc op e o f it s au th or it y to all oc at e st or ag e to wate r su pp ly. Fo r ex am pl e, itis no t cl ear wh et he r th e Co rp s
The Ge org ia Parties spec ifically asser t that the Corps has authority under the RHA 3 5 to increa se re lease s from the dam in order to provide water supply to downstream use rs, and to rea llocate stora g e for

this purpose, an a ssertion with which we agree today . Howeve r, The Geor g ia Parties do not spec ifically asser t that, in addition to t he for eg oing a uthority , the RHA also g ives the Corps authority to make dire ct withdraw als from L ake L anier for water supply

. Although the authorizing leg islation recognized that the Chattahoochee River was the source of water supply for the A tlanta ar ea, a

nd althoug h Congr ess spec ifically contemplated e nsuringand safe guardingthe ar ea’ s water supply , the only

way that the RHA mentions for e nsuringthe wate r supply of the Atlanta

are a is by

means of inc rea sing r elea ses from the da m for the pur

pose of downstream withdrawa ls. I t also appea rs that the Corps’ position has bee n more c onsistent with respe ct to its lack of author ity under the RHA to provide dire ct withdraw als than it has in other reg ards. See F. G. T urner , U.S. Army Corps of Eng ’rs: Mobile Division, Report on Wi thdrawa l of Domestic Water

Supply from B uford Rese rvoir (1955) (statingthat the Corps advised Gwinnett County

that it did not have the authority at that time—i.e., bef

ore the 1958 WS A—to g rant a reque st for direc t withdrawa ls for water supply and re commendingthat Congr ess provide the Corps with the additional authority nece ssary

to gr ant this request). F inally , beca use it is unclea r at this point precisely

how much of the Atlanta ar ea’ s water supply the Corps will deter mine on rema

nd it can provide pursuant to its clear RHA authority

to increa se re lease s for downstream water

supply , beca

use the 1956 Ac t clear ly

g ives the Corps authority for a specific amount of direc t withdrawa ls for Gwinne tt County , and bec ause the WS A clea rly provides the Corps authority

for dire ct withdraw als from the L ake ( as longas the c umulative exercise of such Corps authority

pursuant solely

to the WS A does not constitute a “ major oper ational cha ng e” or “ser iously aff ect the pur

poses for which the proje ct was a uthorized”), it is not clear that the issue of RHA author ity

for dire ct withdraw als is a live issue in this case. F or all of the f oreg oing rea sons, we express no opinion on whether the RHA could be construed to pr ovide authorization for the Corps to satisfy

the authorized water supply purpose, not only

by incre asingrele ases f

or downstream withdrawa l but also by direc t withdrawa ls from the re servoir.

84ha s arriv edat afirm cal cu la ti on of h ow m an y ga ll on s p er d ay

canbe pro vi de d fo r th e Atl an taarea ’s watersupp ly need s as a m ere i nc id en t t o, o r bypro du ctof, p owe r ge ne rat io n. Th e Co rp s’ lat es t fi gu re, d ev el op edin 19 86 , in th is reg ardha s b een 32 7

m gd ; h owe ve r, atora l ar gu m en t t he Co rp s as se rte d t ha t t he cal cu la ti on was n ot de fin it iv e an d d es erv edm or e st ud y . Als o, i t i s ap pa ren t t ha t t he Co rp s h as no t arri ve d a t a d efi ni ti ve , fin al de te rm in at io n o f whe th er, an d t o wh atex te nt , st or ag e real lo cat io n wo ul d b e n eces sa ry forRHA-au th or iz edrel eas es fro m th e d am pr im ari ly for wat er s up pl y pu rp os es (an d h ow t o fa ct orin th e fac t t ha t t he se rel eas es wil l s ti ll ge ne rat e so m e p owe r, th ou gh no t o f pe akva lu e). Itis als o u nc le ar wh ethe r th e Co rp s h as arri ve d a t a f in al de te rm in at io n o f th e ap pr op ria te m eas ur e fo r de te rm in in g u nd er t he RHA what th e im pa ctof i nc reas edwate r su pp ly use on po wer is , or t he ap pr op ria te m eas ur e fo r de te rm in in g u nd er t he W SA wha t co ns ti tu te s a

“ m ajorop erat io na l ch an ge .” Fin al ly, th e Co rp s h as no t yet art ic ul at eda po li cy on 3 6 whe th er t o a cco un t fo r return fl ows , andif s o, h ow t o d iff eren ti at e b et ween flo ws returne d d ire ct ly to t he lak e an d fl ows returne d d own st ream fro m th e d am . Thes e
are s om e o f th e que st io ns th atth e Co rp s s ho ul d a ns wer o n re m an d, al th ou gh we

In this reg ard, f

or example, the Corps should consider whether , and to what 3 6 extent, considerations such as the followingare rele vant: perc entag e re allocation of c onservation and/or other

storag e, mea surements of de cre ases in sy stemwide powe r, and c ompensation to power customers. See also supra, note 31. 85m ak e n o a tt em pt to be ex ha us ti ve in th atreg ard

. As p artof t he fin al , def

in it iv e st at em en t o f th e Co rp s’ water supp ly anal y si s, if t he ag en cy

ul ti m at el y

co nc lu de s t ha t i t d oe s n otha ve th e au th or it y to gra nt th e Geo rg iareq ue st , itne ve rth el es s s ho ul d i nd ic at e th e sc op e o f th e au th or it y itth in ks it do es ha ve , un de r th e RHA, th e WSA, an d t he 19 56 Act. Th is way , th e p art ie s wi ll ha ve so m e fu rth er i ns tru ct io n, b as edon so ph is ti cat edan al y si s, o f wha t t he Co rp s be li ev es to be th e li m it at io ns on it s p owe r.

Part VI. Co ll at eral Eso pp el Effect s o n R em an d In st ru ct io ns To as si stth e Co rp s i n m ak in g t he se de te rm in at io ns on rem an d, we ad dr es s he re wh et he r cer ta in st at em en ts fro m th is Co ur t’s d eci si on in Alab am a o r th e D.C. Ci rcu it ’s dec is io n i n Ger en carry th e fo rce o f co ll at eral est op pe l. Sp eci fic al ly, we di sc us s wh et he r ei th er o f th e two cla im s fo un d t o h av e p recl us iv e fo rce b y th e di st ric t co ur t i n t he in st an t ca se is bi nd in g o n t he Co rp s an d wh et he r an y of Alab am a an d F lo rid a’s ad di ti on al co ll at eral est op pe l ar gu m en ts ha ve m eri t. Atth e
ou ts et , we no te th atco ll at eral est op pe l ap pl ie s o nl y if (1 ) th e is su e atst ak e is id en ti cal to th e o ne in vo lv edin th e p rio r pr oc eed in g; (2) th e is su e was actua ll y li ti ga te d i n t he pri orpro ceed in g; (3) th e d et erm in at io n o f th e is su e was cri ti cal an d

ne ces sa ry to th e ear li er jud gm en t; an d (4 ) th e p art y ag ai ns t wh om

co ll at eral est op pe l
86is ass ert edha d aful l an d fa ir o pp or tu ni ty to l it ig at e th e is su e in th e p rio r

pr oc eed in g. Ch ris to v. Pa dg et t, 2 23 F.3d13 24 , 13 39 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). The di st ric t co ur t fo un d c ol la te ral est op pe l, p recl us iv e eff ectin th e D.C. Ci rcu it ’s con cl us io n t ha t t he W SA ap pl ie d t o i nt eri m real lo cat io ns of s to rag e. TriSt at e, 63 9 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 34 3. We tak e n o i ss ue wit h t hi s ap pl ic at io n o f co ll at eral

es to pp el . On rem an d, t he Co rp s wi ll de te rm in e th e ex te nt of i ts au th or it y to supp ly th e cu rren t wat er s up pl y

ne ed s o f th e Atl an taarea , com bi ni ng it s au th or it y

un de r th e 19 56 Act, t he RHA, andth e WSA. The C or ps ’ au th or it y

un de r th e WSA (as well as th e st atut ory

li m it s t he ret o) are ap pl ic ab le to th e Co rp s’ det erm in at io n o f it s
au th or it y to supp ly curre nt wate r su pp ly need s, wh ethe r by forc e o f co ll at eral

es to pp el or c le ar s ta tu to ry m ean in g o r bo th

. The di st ric t co ur t al so fou ndpre cl us iv e eff ectin th e D.C. Ci rcu it ’s ho ld in g th atth e rea ll oc at io n o f 22 % of Lak e Lan ie r’s co ns erv at io n s to rag e is a m ajor op erat io na l ch an ge on it s fa ce. Id . Sev eral asp ect s o f th is ho ld in g m eri t d is cu ss io n. Fi rs t, an d fo rem os t, t he Geren co ur t co ns id eredon ly the Co rp s’ aut ho rit y un de r th e W SA, no t i ts au th or it y

un de r th e RHA. Acco rd in gl y , a di ffer en t i ss ue is pre se nt ed 3 7

The settlingparties—the Corps, SeF PC, and the Georg ia Parties—did not make 3 7 an issue of the Corps’ authority under the RHA bec ause the y wer e not in full ag ree ment on whether water supply was a n authorized purpose of

the B uford Projec t. As settling par ties defe nding a

settlement, they

had no ince ntive to assert issues about whic h they disag ree d. 87he re. At t he ve ry lea st , th is di ffer en ce m ean s t ha t an y wate r th e Co rp s fi nd s i t i s
au th or iz edto supp ly pur su an t t o t he RHA is sep arat e fro m th e wat er i t i s au th or iz ed to supp ly pur su an t t o t he W SA, an d t ha t t hi s R HA-au th or iz edwate r su pp ly w ou ld

no t co un t ag ai ns t t he Geren co urt’s 2 2% l im it

. 3 8 It i s al so po ss ib le th atou r rea di ng of t he au th or it y pro vi de d b y

th e RHA fu nd am en ta ll y

ch an ge s t he W SA an al y si s, g iv en th atth e RHA co ng res si on al ly

au th or iz es th e Co rp s t o i nc reas e wat er s up pl y in it s b al an ci ng of h y dr op owe r an d wate r su pp ly need s, m ean in g t ha t s uc h re al lo cat io ns to wate r su pp ly argu ab ly do n ot actua ll y co ns ti tu te a “ ch an ge ” o f op erat io ns at a ll , andth atth e is su e is th eref or e
en ti rel y di ffer en t t ha n t he on e p res en te d t o t he Geren co ur t. In ot he r wor ds , itis po ss ib le th atth e 2 2% h ol di ng ha s n o p recl us iv e fo rce a t al l. Ho wev er, b ecau se itis

no t cl ear t ha t t he Geren co ur t’s 2 2% l im itwil l b e rea ch edin th is cas e, we 3 9

ex pr es sl y de cl in e to ad dr es s t he co ll at eral est op pe l ef fect of t he Geren co urt’s 2 2%

Of c ourse, the a

uthority g rante d under the 1956 Act for Gwinnett County

also 3 8 would not count ag ainst the Ger en cour t’s 22% limit. L ikewise, the pa rties and the c ourts have consistently

assumed, and so do w e, that the 10 mg d in compensatory withdrawa ls by

Buf ord and Gainesville do not af

fec t the amount of water that the Corps is authorized to supply under the various statutory

g rants. There are two rea sons the 22% limit m ay not be re ache d. First, the Corps ha s y et 3 9 to determine the extent of its authority to allocate w ater

to water supply under the RHA. The 22% limitwould not be re ache d unless the wate r allocated under the WSA represe nted at lea st a 22% rea llocation above whateve r allocation is authoriz ed under the RHA. Second, a s discussed in the two para g raphs immediately followingthis paragraph, pe rce nt rea llocation of conse rvation storag e may

not be the cor

rec t or sole measur e of ope rational c hang e.

88li m it

. 4 0

Seco nd , itis cle ar tha t t he qu es ti on of wh ethe r pe rcen t re al lo cat io n o f st or ag e is th e co rrec t o r so le m eas ur e o f op erat io na l ch an ge was n ot actua ll y li ti ga te d. Exa m in at io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs in Geren m ak es cle ar t ha t t he pa rti es ass um ed , bu t di d n ot pu t at is su e, th e que st io n o f whe th er p erce nt real lo cat io n o f st or ag e is th e
co rrec t o r so le m eas ur e o f op erat io na l ch an ge . Sim il arl y , bec au se th e p art ie s m erel y
as su m edth atpe rcen t re al lo cat io n was th e ap pr op ria te m eas ur e, th e Geren co ur t

m ad e th e sa m e as su m

pt io n i n i ts op in io n, wi th ou t an y di sc us si on of t he is su e. Whe n
an is su e is m erel y

ass um ed , itdo es no t m eetth e act ua l l it ig at io n re qu ire m en t fo r
co ll at eral est op pe l. Se e Fi el ds v. Ap fel , 23 4 F .3d37 9, 3 83 (8t h C ir. 2 00 0) (fi nd in g
no is su e p recl us io n wi th res pe ctto whet he r a p art ic ul ar m et ho d fo r cal cu la ti ng di sabi li ty ben efi ts ap pl ie d, b ecau se it s ap pl ic ab il it y ha d m erel y

be en ass um edby the

We do, however , expressly addre ss the collater al estoppel e ffe ct of Ge ren’ s 4 0 alternative holding—that e ven a 9% incre ase in stora g e for water supply is a major oper ational chang e. The district court did not find prec lusive eff ect to this holding. Ala

bama a nd Florida

do not argue in their brie fs that this holding is entitled to collatera l estoppel, and Ala bama a nd Florida expressly abandone d any

such cla im at oral ar gument. Nonethele ss, we conside r this issue in order to pr ovide complete r emand instructions to the Corps. B eca use the issue a

rose in Ger en for the first time at ora l argument, the Corps and the G eorg ia Parties had no oppor tunity to brief the issue. This alternative, and sec ondary , holding ther efor e wholly fails the “a ctually litigated” require ment for c ollatera l estoppel. See Chi. Truck D rivers, H elper s & Ware house Union (Independe nt) Pension Fund v. Century Motor Fr eig ht, Inc., 125 F .3d 526, 530 (7th Cir. 1997) (e x pressingdoubt that the issue of a r egulation’s validity was a ctually

litigated when it emer g ed only

at the re ply

brief sta g e and r ece ived little discussion i n the opinion, notwithstanding the f

act that the pa

rty ag ainst whom collatera l estoppel was a sserted ha d raised the application of the regulation in its ear lier re sponse to summary judgme nt). 89co ur t an d b ot h p art ie s i n apri orcas e an d n ot pl acedat i ss ue ). The f actth atth e Geren co ur t ru le d “ wit ho ut th or ou gh ly exam in in g” th e is su e fu rth er u nd erm in es th e pr ecl us iv e eff

ectof t he rul in g. A.J . Taft Co al Co . v. Co nn or s, 8 29 F.2d15 77 , 15 81 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 7) (de cl in in g t o app ly col la te ral est op pe l wh ere t he is su e was no t fu ll y li ti ga te d, wh ic h re su lt edin th e p rio r co ur t t en de rin g aco nc lu si on “ wit ho ut th or ou gh ly exam in in g” th e is su e). Mo reo ve r, in th is cas e, th e d is tri ctco ur t d idno t ho ldth atpe rcen t re al lo cat io n o f st or ag e is , as am at te r of co ll at eral est op pe l, t he

co rrec t o r so le m eas ur e, an d Ap pe ll ees do no t ar gu e o n app eal th atwe are b ou ndby

co ll at eral est op pe l t o h ol d t ha t p erce nt real lo cat io n o f st or ag e is th e o nl y ap pr op ria te

m eas ur e o f op erat io na l ch an ge . W e co nc lu de , forth e fo reg oi ng reas on s, t ha t

co ll at eral est op pe l d oe s n ot ba r th e Co rp s fr om de te rm in in g t he ap pr op ria te m eas ur e of op erat io na l ch an ge on th e b as is of i ts own ex pe rti se . The Co rp s i s fr ee t o c on si de r
on rem an d wh ethe r ot he r m eas ur es , su ch as i m pa cton hydro po wer, sh ou ldbe 4 1

I t may be that the pe rce nt impact on hydropowe r is signific antly less than the 4 1 perc ent of stora g e re allocate d to water supply under a g iven allocation scheme. F or example, the Corps’ brief

at 99–100 explained that the “de fac to” re allocations of stora g e to ac count for curr ent uses ca

uses a sy stemwide re duction of hydropowe r of only 1%. Another a spect of the evaluation of detriment to hydropowe r is whether compensation to power users c an be c onsidered to mitigate any detriment. Although the Ger en cour t rejec ted the idea that c ompensation to hydropowe r user s might be r eleva nt under the WSA, see Ge ren, 514 F.3d at 1324, Alabama a

nd Florida

do not argue that this rejec tion gives rise to collatera l estoppel. We consider

the issue nonethele ss in order to provide complete r emand instructions to the Corps. For

the followingrea sons, we conc lude that collater al estoppel doe s not preclude the Corps from consider ing c ompensation to power use rs as a mitigatingfac tor in its analy sis of detriment to hydropowe r, if the Corps finds it appropriate to consider compensa

tion for this 90co ns id eredin st eadof o r in ad di ti on to pe rcen t re al lo cat io n o f st or ag e.

Thi rd , exa m in at io n o f th e b rie fs in Geren als o s ho ws t ha t t he pa rti es m erel y
as su m edth atco ns erv at io n s to rag e was th e ap pr op ria te fram e o f refe ren ce ag ai ns t whi ch pe rcen t re al lo cat io n s ho ul d b e cal cu la te d, an d t he co ur t l ik ewis e m ad e th is

as su m pt io n. Acc or di ng ly, th e act ua l l it ig at io n re qu ire m en t i s n ot m etan d t he Co rp s is free to co ns id er o n re m an d wh et he r so m e o th er p orti on of t he da m ’s cap aci ty sh ou ldals o b e co ns id ered . Forin st an ce, i t m ay be th atth e fl oo d c on tro l s to rag e, whi ch so m et im es co nt ai ns ex ces s wat er t ha t co ul d b e rel eas edto sat is fy wate r
su pp ly need s, s ho ul d b e fac to redin to th e cal cu la ti on . Alab am a an d F lo rid a ad va nc e two co ll at eral est op pe l ar gu m en ts in ad di ti on to th os e al read y

co ve redab ov e. Fi rs t, t he y arg ue th atth e Geren co ur t d eci de d t ha t, fo r pu rp os es of t he W SA an al y si s, t he ba se li ne for st or ag e ag ai ns t wh ic h m ajor

purpose ba sed on the e x erc ise of its expertise. The conc ept of c ompensatingpower customers prese nts a diffe rent issue than the one conside red in Ge ren be cause the D.C. Circuit failed to rec og nize the Corps’ authority under the RHA. As we hold today , the RHA authorizes the Corps to increa se water supply

at the expense of hy

dropowe r, and it conte mplates that, in balanc ing the water supply and hydropowe r intere sts, the Corps should consider the magnitude of the de triment to hy dropowe r. B eca

use the Ge ren c ourt failed to r ecognize this authority , it treated the proposed chang e in storag e, and f

low throug h, as a ma

jor operational chang e without consideringthe mag nitude of the e ffe ct on hydropowe r and w ithout consideringwhether financ ial compensa

tion is releva nt to that inquiry . Acc ording ly , the Ger en cour t did not face the same issue w ith respec t to the eff ect of compensa

tion on the Corps’ authority as this Court. Bec ause the issue is differe nt, collater al estoppel doe s not apply . See Christo, 223 F.3d a t 1339. The Corps on re mand may there fore make a

fre sh determination re g ardingwhether financ ial compensation to power customers is mater ial for the pur pose of e valuatingthe magnitude of the de triment to hydropowe r. 91op erat io na l ch an ge sh ou ldbe m eas ur edis zero . They furt he r arg ue th atth e d eci si on

ha s t he effe ctof c ol la te ral est op pe l. We di sa gr ee. As no te d abo ve , th e Geren co ur t

ex pr es sl y m ad e n o d eci si on wit h re sp ectto th e Co rp s’ aut ho rit y to all oc at e st or ag e to wate r su pp ly und er t he RHA. It a dd res se d t he is su e o f th e ap pr op ria te ba se li ne 4 2 fo r th e WSA an al y si s o nl y in th e co nt ex t o f reject in g t he set tl in g p art ie s’ arg um en t th atth e in te rim real lo cat io n l ev el pri orto th e se tt le m en t was th e co rrec t b as el in e. A who ll y di ffer en t i ss ue is pre se nt edin th is ap pe al , in whi ch we are re qu ire d t o a ss es s th e Co rp s’ aut ho rit y

un de r th e RHA to real lo cat e st or ag e o r ot he rwis e p ro vi de wate r
su pp ly, an d t o fa ct orth is au th or it y in to th e WSA an al y si s. Th us , th e Geren co ur t’s de ci si on wit h re sp ectto th e b as el in e fo r st or ag e rea ll oc at io n h as no co ll at eral

es to pp el effe ctin th is cas e. Seco nd , App el le es arg ue th atth is Co ur t’s ea rli er s ta te m en t i n Al ab am a, th at wate r su pp ly is n ot an au th or iz edpu rp os e o f th e Bu fo rdPro ject, i s p recl us iv e. As

no te d e arl ie r in th is op in io n, t hi s s ta te m en t d oe s n ot gi ve ris e to co ll at eral est op pe l be cau se itwas n ot actua ll y li ti ga te d a nditwas m ere d ic taan d t he refo re was no t cri ti cal or n eces sa ry

to th e jud gm en t. Se e su pr a, no te 21 . In c on cl us io n, t he Co rp s i s

Acc ording ly , Alabama

and F lorida ar e plainly

wrongto the extent they

argue that 4 2 this aspect of G ere n establishes collate ral e stoppel for purpose s of findingthat the RHA authorizes no storag e for

water supply . L ikewise, Ala

bama a nd Florida

are wrongto the extent that they argue that Ge ren e stablishes estoppel for the proposition that gr ants of author ity under the RHA and WSA are not supplemental. Ger en made no such holding s. 92no t b ou ndby col la te ral est op pe l i n m ak in g t he afo rem en ti on edde te rm in at io ns an d

sh ou ldm ak e it s d eci si on s o n re m an d o n t he ba si s o f it s o wn re as on edan al y si s.

Part VII. One -YearTim e Lim iton Rem an d Thi s co nt ro ve rs y

ha s l as te d ave ry

lo ng ti m e. Si nc e 1 99 0, l it ig at io n re la te d t o th is co nt ro ve rs y

ha s t ak en pl ace i n t he Nort he rn Dis tri ctof Al ab am a, th e Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ctof C ol um bi a, th e Nor th ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a, th e Nor th ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a, th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a, th e Dis tri ctof C ol um bi a Ci rcu it ,
an d n ow fi ve ti m es in th e Ele ve nt h C irc ui t, an d v ari ou s at te m pt s at co m

pr om is e ha ve be en in it ia te d a ndab an do ne d. Pr og res s t owa rd s a d et erm in at io n o f th e Bu fo rd Dam ’s fut ur e o pe rat io ns is of t he ut m os t i m po rta nc e to th e m il li on s o f po wer
cu st om ers an d wat er u se rs th atare af fect edby the op erat io ns of t he pro ject. Th e st ak es are ex tre m el y

hi gh , andall pa rti es are en ti tl edto a pr om pt res ol ut io n. Acco rd in gl y , th e p ro ces s fo r arri vi ng at aco nc lu si on of t he bo un ds of t he Co rp s’

au th or it y sh ou ldbe as s wift as p os si bl e wit ho utsac rif ic in g t ho ro ug hn es s an d th ou gh tfu ln es s. Gi ve n t he im po rta nc e o f th is cas e, th e le ng th of t im e it ha s b een bo un ci ng aro un d t he fed eral co ur ts , andth e am ou nt of r es ou rces th e p art ie s an d t he

co ur ts ha ve alr ead y

ex pe nd ed , we bel ie ve th aton e y ear i s s uf fic ie nt forth e Co rp s t o
co m pl et e it s an al y si s o f it s wat er s up pl y au th or it y an d re le as e it s co nc lu si on s. Th is
93pa ne l wi ll ret ai n l im it edjuri sd ic ti on to m on it orco m pl ia nc e wit h t hi s t im e fra m e. At th e en d o f th is on e-year pe rio d, we ex pe ctth e Co rp s t o h av e arr iv edat awell

reas on ed , def

in it iv e, an d fi na l ju dg m en t as to it s au th or it y un de r th e RHA an d t he W SA.

CONCLUSION The Co rp s’ di d n ot co ns umm at e it s d eci si on -m ak in g p ro ces s i n t he Alab am a, Apa la ch ic ol a, an d S eFPC cas es . There fo re, t he di st ric t co ur t l ack edjuri sd ic ti on to he ar t he se cla im s. Th e Co rp s’ den ia l o f Geo rg ia ’s 20 00 wate r su pp ly requ es t d id

co ns ti tu te fin al ag en cy

act io n, an d t he di st ric t co urt’s co nc lu si on th atitha d juri sd ic ti on to he ar t he Geor gi a cas e was pro pe r. Howev er, t he co ur t erredin it s
an al y si s o f th e Co rp s’ reject io n o f th e req ue st . The d eci si on s o f th e Dis tri ctCo ur t

an d t he Co rp s wer e b as edon a cl ear e rro r of law— th e d et erm in at io n t ha t wat er
su pp ly w as no t an au th or iz edpu rp os e o f th e RHA. Fu rth erm or e, th e Co rp s fa il edto

reac h afin al , det erm in at iv e p os it io n abo ut it s wat er s up pl y au th or it y be fo re reject in g t he st at e’s req ue st . Con se qu en tl y , we rev ers e th e d is tri ctco ur t’s o rd er gr an ti ng th e Co rp s s umm ary jud gm en t, an d c on cl ud e th atth e Co rp s’ dec is io n was arb it rary andcap ric io us or n ot ot he rwis e in acco rd an ce wi th th e la w. All fo urcas es
are r em an de d t o t he di st ric t co ur t wi th in st ru ct io ns to rem an d t o t he Co rp s fo r
94reco ns id erat io n. Th is pa ne l wi ll ret ai n l im it edjuri sd ic ti on to m on it orth e o ne -y ear

ti m e li m it

. Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco ur t i s re ve rs ed , it s fi nd in gs of f act

an d c on cl us io ns of l aw in all fou r cas es are v acat ed , andth es e cas es are re m an de d t o th e d is tri ctco ur t wi th in st ru ct io ns to rem an d t o t he Co rp s fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs
no t i nc on si st en t wi th th is op in io n. REVERSED, VACATED, AND REMANDED; LIM IT ED JURI SDICT IO N RETAINE D.

95