In the case of Alabama v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. CV 15-696 (LLA), (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2025), a legal dispute between the State of Alabama and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”), with the State of Georgia and other entities as intervenor-defendants, was resolved in favor of the Corps and State of Georgia. The case centers on the Corps’ 2021 decision to reallocate water supplies from the Allatoona Project, a dam and reservoir on the Etowah River in Georgia, which is part of the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin (ACT Basin). Alabama challenged the Corps’ decision, arguing that it violated the Water Supply Act (WSA) by granting Georgia’s request for additional water supplies without Congressional approval.

The Corps had revised its operational manual for the ACT Basin in 2021, which included granting Georgia’s request for increased water supply allocations to meet future demands due to population growth. Georgia’s request involved reallocating water from the conservation storage of the Allatoona Project and changing the water accounting methodology to give full credit for water returned to the reservoir. The Corps selected Alternative 12, which granted Georgia’s full request for 94 million gallons per day and implemented Georgia’s proposed accounting methodology. This reallocation did not require major changes to the Corps’ operations and was deemed to fall within the Corps’ authority under the WSA.

Alabama argued that the reallocation exceeded the Corps’ statutory authority under the WSA, which requires Congressional approval for modifications that seriously affect the purposes of a project or involve major structural or operational changes. Alabama relied heavily on precedent that it claimed set a threshold for what constitutes a major operational change. However, the Court found that the cases cited by Alabama did not impose a strict numerical threshold applicable to all cases and that the Corps’ reallocation did not exceed its authority under the WSA.

The Court also considered whether the Corps’ decision was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Alabama contended that the Corps failed to adequately analyze the cumulative reallocation amount and did not provide a sufficient legal basis for its decision. The Court found that the Corps had considered the cumulative effects and provided a reasonable explanation for its decision, thus acting within a zone of reasonableness.  The Court denied Alabama’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Corps’ and intervenor-defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment, concluding that the Corps did not exceed its statutory authority and that its decision was not arbitrary and capricious.