Georgia v. Tennessee – The Latest Interstate Rivalry

As reported in the New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, and a host of local newspapers in the affected areas, the state of Georgia has recently claimed that it rightfully owns a piece of the Tennessee River currently controlled by Tennessee. As you might imagine, the state of Tennessee begs to differ. Fueled by a serious drought in the Southeastern US, this latest interstate border dispute is only the most recent of a series of state rivalries that goes all the way back to the founding of the country. But we won’t go back that far today…

Georgia vs. Tennessee: When the US Congress created the state of Tennessee in 1796, its southern border was set as the 35th parallel. Georgia law agrees, specifically citing the 35 parallel as its own northern border. But when the border as surveyed in 1818, substandard equipment led to some mistakes, and the border was set about a mile south of its intended location. Although Georgia has tried to resolve this apparent discrepancy in the past, its ongoing drought has made the issue more urgent. The 35th parallel rights right through a curve in the Tennessee River, and gaining control of its southern bank would earn Georgia much-needed water rights. In pursuit of Tennessee River water, Georgia has just created a boundary commission, and is asking Tennessee to do the same. If the dispute can’t be resolved that way, Georgia has threatened to take its northern neighbor to court.

South Carolina vs. North Carolina: Water is the source of the dispute between these two states, both of which are experiencing drought conditions. In order to alleviate its water shortage, North Carolina had plans to draw more water from the Catawba River, which runs through both states. SC objected, claiming that there wouldn’t be enough left for it after NC draws all it wants. That’s why last summer SC filed a lawsuit against NC, and sought an injunction against NC carrying out its plans until the case could be decided. A decision is expected on the case this spring.

New York vs. New Jersey: Water was only indirectly at issue in the 1998 dispute between NY and NJ. The crux of the matter was an 1834 agreement between the two states, by which Liberty Island (site of the Statue of Liberty) belongs to NY, although it actually sits on NJ’s side of the Hudson River. A later court case indicated that NJ would control all the submerged lands on its side of the River, including everything surrounding Liberty Island. This became an issue when the US Government added about 25 acres to the island during its time as an immigration center. The question was: who owned the artificially expanded parts of the island? In the 1998 case of New Jersey v. New York, the US Supreme Court decided that the 1834 agreement only referred to Liberty Island as it existed then. The expanded portions of the island are technically submerged land that has been raised up over the water, so they belong to New Jersey. So today, New York owns the original area of Liberty Island (which includes the site of the Statue of Liberty) and New Jersey owns the rest.