Georgia Water Providers (which includes ARC, City of Atlanta, Cobb County Water and City of Gainesville Water) supported by the State of Georgia made a motion for consolidation of the tri- state water cases into one forum.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation agreed and moved the proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville) before Judge Paul Magnuson, a Federal judge from Minnesota who has experience with other interstate water cases (MDL 1824). Florida and Alabama opposed the motion. Although the movants requested the proceedings be moved to District of D.C., the panel chose the MDFL since the core disputes primarily affect parties and interest located within the Eleventh Circuit and the MDFL is an appropriate forum for the litigation. The Panel found that the actions in the litigation involve common questions of fact and that centralization would serve the parties, witnesses and “would promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.”  Common to all four of the actions are questions concerning the conduct of the Corps related to the flow of water in the ACF River basin and the role of the Service which impacts the Corps’ conduct.

The actions being consolidated are the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) portion of the Northern District of Alabama case, the 2001 and 2006 State of Georgia v. Corps cases in the Northern District of Georgia and the 2006 State of Florida v. US Fish and Wildlife Service case in the Northern District of Florida. The parts of the Tri State Water wars that are NOT being consolidated are:

• the D.C. case (Federal Powers Customers - it is currently on appeal)
• the ACT portion of the Alabama (concerns the Corps' operation of the Alabama, Coosa, and Tallapoosa (ACT) river basin) - it involves different issues). 

Motions have already been made to the Middle District of Florida to request clarification on how any outstanding responses to amended complaints or motions will be handled. 

The Lake Lanier Association's attorney thinks that from a procedural standpoint, there should be a benefit in regard to monitoring what is occurring in the various cases and more efficiency in regard to motions, etc., however, he thinks it is unclear whether the consolidation will have any impact on the proceedings unless it is purely that the Minnesota judge is theoretically a more impartial judge and the proceedings in Jacksonville will be a neutral forum.