11th Circuit Court Of Appeals

11th Circuit reverses Magnuson's decision

Three members of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta reversed Tuesday an earlier judge’s decision that set draconian mandates and deadlines on meeting Atlanta’s water needs.

In a lengthy opinion marked heavily with historical references, the three members of the appeals court said U.S. District Court Judge Paul Magnuson erred when he ruled that Atlanta’s withdraw of waters from Lake Lanier was not within the original intent of the lake nor of Buford Dam, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoir.

The appeals court also said the July 2009 decision by Magnuson didn’t mesh with other legal research that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ original authority for Lake Lanier was hydropower, navigation and flood control. Magnuson had said the increasing demand to supply Atlanta drinking water was not Lake Lanier’s original intent and that without congressional approval, the lake would return to 1970s water withdraw levels, with only the cities of Gainesville and Buford allowed to take the water.

The appeals court disagreed with Magnuson.

“In light of the foregoing statutory language, and particularly Congress’ intent that the Corps should have authority to accommodate the Atlanta area’s water supply needs at the expense of some detriment to ‘system power value,’ we cannot conclude that Congress intended for water supply to be a mere incidental benefit. By definition, one purpose that is to be accomplished to the detriment of another cannot be incidental. Thus, the language … clearly indicates that Congress intended for water supply to be an authorized, rather than incidental, use of the water stored in Lake Lanier,” the court ruled.

Under Magnuson’s ruling, metro Atlanta had until July 2012 to come up with a plan to sustain its water needs with the same amount of water it received in the mid 1970s, when the population was less than one-third its current size.

But the appeals court vacated that deadline.

Instead, the 11th Circuit is giving the Corps of Engineers one year to come up with a plan of water allocation.

“Because of other matters in this appeal must be remanded to the Corps, it is sensible and efficient for the agency to consider the overlapping issues that are common to Georgia and the other cases together as part of a comprehensive decision about the Corps’ future water supply operations,” ruling stated. “The conclusions that the Corps reaches with respect to the questions at issue in the other cases will provide it with a more complete analysis of the issues in Georgia as well.

11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion – Terry D. Jacks v. Wells ...

Appellants Terry and Sandra Jacks filed this purported class action as an adversary proceeding before the bankruptcy court. Their amended complaint alleged their mortgage lender, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., violated various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules by failing to disclose certain fees on the proof of claim it filed in the Jacks’ Chapter 13 bankruptcy case. Prior to considering class certification, the bankruptcy court chose to address the merits of the Jacks’ individual claims. Following a hearing in which it made findings of fact and conclusions of law, the bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo on all counts. The Jacks appealed this decision to the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.

The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in Wells Fargo’s favor as to all claims except those based on actions that Wells Fargo may take after the Jacks’ bankruptcy case is dismissed or discharged. The court determined that to the extent the Jacks’ claims are based on events that may take place later, they are not ripe, and dismissed them.

Consequences of the ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on forest management projects

ABA Journal

Congressional Record

The Albany law journal, a monthly record of the law and the lawyers

ABA Journal