The U.S. Supreme Court case Florida v. Georgia in 2017 revolved around a dispute over water rights between the two states. Florida claimed that Georgia was using too much water from the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin, which caused economic and ecological harm to them, particularly affecting their oyster industry in Apalachicola Bay due to increased salinity levels from reduced freshwater flow. The court appointed Special Master Ralph Lancaster Jr., who recommended that the court dismiss Florida's request for an equitable apportionment of waters because they failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a cap on Georgia’s water use would benefit them significantly as it also depends on Army Corps of Engineers' control over federal reservoirs upstream in Alabama and Georgia. However, Justice Stephen Breyer writing for majority disagreed with this recommendation stating there is sufficient evidence showing significant harm suffered by Florida due to decreased river flows attributed largely to increased consumption by Georgia.

In the dissenting opinion for Florida v. Georgia, Justice Thomas argued that Florida failed to meet its burden of proof in demonstrating that a cap on Georgia's water consumption would significantly benefit the Apalachicola Region. He pointed out inconsistencies and lack of substantial evidence in Florida’s arguments about harm caused by decreased water flow and potential benefits from increased flow. Furthermore, he criticized Special Master Lancaster's report for dismissing evidence presented by Georgia showing minimal impact on oyster populations due to reduced river flows. Justice Thomas also disagreed with the majority view regarding redressability, asserting that it was speculative whether a decree could provide effective relief given the U.S Army Corps of Engineers' control over interstate waters but not being party to this case.