{"id":52704,"date":"2021-03-11T15:43:35","date_gmt":"2021-03-11T15:43:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/klaclaw.visibilitywebdesign.com\/?p=52704"},"modified":"2021-03-11T15:44:47","modified_gmt":"2021-03-11T15:44:47","slug":"florida-gets-a-do-over","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/florida-gets-a-do-over\/","title":{"rendered":"FLORIDA GETS A \u201cDO-OVER\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.9.1″ width=”87%” custom_margin=”-165px||||false|false” custom_padding=”3px|||||” locked=”off”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.9.1″ width=”95%” max_width=”1749px” custom_padding=”|||”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_cta title=”FLORIDA GETS A \u201cDO-OVER\u201d” button_url=”#TOP” _builder_version=”4.9.1″ header_font=”Georgia|700|||||||” header_font_size=”22px” header_line_height=”1.5em” body_font=”Noto Sans||||||||” body_font_size=”17px” body_line_height=”2em” use_background_color=”off” custom_button=”on” button_text_size=”17px” button_text_color=”#ffffff” button_bg_color=”#ff6b5a” button_border_width=”5px” button_border_color=”#ff6b5a” button_border_radius=”100px” button_font=”Noto Sans|700||on|||||” button_use_icon=”off” text_orientation=”left” background_layout=”light” max_width=”100%” module_alignment=”center” custom_margin=”|||” hover_enabled=”0″ header_font_size_tablet=”” header_font_size_phone=”34px” header_font_size_last_edited=”on|phone” button_text_color_hover=”#ffffff” button_border_color_hover=”#ff9e59″ button_bg_color_hover=”#ff9e59″ button_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_text_color__hover_enabled=”on” button_text_color__hover=”#ffffff” button_one_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_border_color__hover_enabled=”on” button_border_color__hover=”#ff9e59″ button_one_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_bg_color__hover_enabled=”on” button_bg_color__hover=”#ff9e59″ button_one_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Posted on July 2, 2018\u00a0by\u00a0Karen Crawford<\/a><\/p>\n

Florida v. Georgia, 585 U.S. ____ (2018), Slip Opinion No. 142, June 27, 2018<\/p>\n

On June 27, in a 5-4 decision the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS or the Court) rejected the Special Master\u2019s conclusion that the Court could provide no relief to Florida for its claims of harm from Georgia\u2019s upstream water usage from the Flint River, ultimately affecting downstream flow in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, a basin affected by operations of a dam and lake by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).\u00a0 SCOTUS reserved judgement on the ultimate outcome of the case, and sent the case back to the Special Master for further consideration with specific direction as to the additional factual findings it considered necessary to decide this case.<\/p>\n

Citing several historical decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court in equitable apportionment disputes over water rights between neighboring states, the Court characterizes the following guiding principles to be used in deciding such cases:<\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The states possess an equal right to make a reasonable use of the waters in question.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0When confronted with competing claims to interstate water, the Court\u2019s effort is to secure equitable apportionment, without quibbling over formulas.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Given sovereign status and equal dignity, a complaining state\u2019s burden is much greater than the burden ordinarily shouldered by a private party seeking an injunction, requiring a demonstration by \u201ca clear and convincing evidence\u201d that it has suffered a \u201cthreatened invasion of rights\u201d that is \u201cof serious magnitude.\u201d<\/p>\n

Once the Court finds the complaining State has met this burden, the Court must determine whether the State has shown it has not only some \u201ctechnical right,\u201d but a right with a \u201ccorresponding benefit\u201d as a precondition to any equitable apportionment.\u00a0 If so, then the Court will seek to arrive at a\u00a0 just and equitable apportionment of an interstate stream, by considering all relevant factors, because equitable apportionment is flexible and should weigh all relevant factors by examining extensive and specific factual findings to properly apply the doctrine of equitable apportionment.\u00a0 To do this, the Court has observed it must consider physical and climatic conditions, the consumptive uses in the several sections of the rivers at issue, the character of return flows, the extent of established uses, the availability of storage water\/capacity, the practical effect of wasteful uses on downstream area, and the benefit to downstream areas against the damage to upstream areas if a limitation is imposed.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In this case, however, the Court stated the Master instead made several assumptions regarding what should be key findings of fact, including that\u00a01) Florida has suffered harm from decreased water flow into the subject basin, 2) Florida had shown that Georgia has taken too much water, and 3) inequitable use by Georgia had caused injury to Florida.\u00a0 These assumptions were found by the Court to stop short of providing the necessary findings of fact required to decide the case.\u00a0 As a result, all Parties agreed that the recommendation of the Special Master turned on one single, discrete issue \u2013whether Florida has shown that a cap on Georgia\u2019s consumption would address its injury if the decree did not bind the Corps as well.<\/p>\n

The Court determined that the Master\u2019s conclusion that Florida failed to meet its burden because it did not present \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d that its injuries could be redressed by a decree capping Georgia\u2019s upstream water consumption if that decree does not also bind the Corps, was too strict a standard to apply to redressability at this point in the case.\u00a0 The Court determined that the Special Master had not defined the\u00a0approximate amount of water that must flow into the Apalachicola River in order for Florida to receive a significant benefit from a cap on Georgia\u2019s use of the Flint River waters, and that unless and until that necessary fact was established, Florida needed only to show that, applying the principles of \u201cflexibility\u201d\u00a0and \u201capproximation\u201d, it is likely to prove it is possible for the Court to fashion such a decree.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Court determined that further findings are needed on all of the evidentiary issues underlying the Master\u2019s assumptions before the Master\u2019s conclusion that Florida failed to meet its initial burden of demonstrating that the Court can eventually fashion an effective equitable decree could be reached and supported.\u00a0 The Court stated that \u201cto require \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d about the workability of a decree before the Court or a Special Master has a view about likely harms and likely amelioration is, at least in this case, to put the cart before the horse.\u201d\u00a0 The Court addressed here only that Florida had made a legally sufficient showing as to the possibility of fashioning an effective remedial decree, thereby meeting its burden.<\/p>\n

The lengthy dissent ultimately agreed with the Special Master\u2019s conclusion that the Corps would not change its operations during droughts if the Court capped Georgia\u2019s water use, and thus Florida would not benefit during droughts.\u00a0 Further, the dissent argued there was no need to remand the case for further findings by the Special Master as the evidentiary findings ultimately rest with the Court.\u00a0 But the majority opinion discusses the differences of view as to interpretation of the facts related to estimated water flows, further emphasizing the complex nature of these cases.\u00a0 The dissent suggests that giving Florida another bite at the apple was unlikely to produce additional evidence to affect the outcome and would be unfair to Georgia.\u00a0 Ultimately, the dissent appears to agree that the Master\u2019s ordinary balance-of-harms analysis was sufficient, and he applied that test.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Also, this blogger found the majority\u2019s \u201cChevron<\/em>-like\u201d discussion of the deference that should be given to the Special Master\u2019s findings interesting but a bit disturbing in that the Court cited a precedent that those findings \u201cdeserve respect and a tacit presumption of correctness.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 The Court\u2019s division over today\u2019s decision turned on both the correctness of the findings by the Special Master and whether he had correctly applied the applicable precedents to sufficient findings.\u00a0 A clear disagreement is articulated by the majority and dissenting opinions surrounding the factual evidence related to whether the amount of water that would flow to Florida during drought conditions would ultimately be increased by a cap on Georgia\u2019s water use from the Flint River.\u00a0 The answer to this question turns on the behavior of the Corps in both storing the resulting additional water, then releasing that additional stored water from Lake Seminole during drought conditions.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, in addressing Florida\u2019s exceptions to the Master\u2019s evidentiary determinations, the Court discussed the consequences of the United States\u2019 declining to waive sovereign immunity from suit in this case at its outset.\u00a0 An early motion by Georgia to dismiss Florida\u2019s complaint on the grounds that the United States was a necessary party was denied as the Special Master concluded at that time that a decree binding the Corps might not prove necessary.\u00a0 Ultimately, however, the Report of the Special Master was based on the conclusion that a decree binding the Corps was necessary to redress the injury to Florida.\u00a0 The Court\u2019s analysis of the evidence indicated that, since the cap on Georgia\u2019s consumption was upstream of the Corps-operated dam and lake, the cap could effectively result in more water storage and more water that could be released to the Apalachicola River reaching Florida in both non-drought and drought conditions.\u00a0 It also disagreed with the Master\u2019s conclusion that effective relief was rendered impermissibly \u201cuncertain\u201d given the Corps\u2019 revised Master Manual and its documented commitment that it will \u201cwork to accommodate any determinations or obligations the Court sets forth if a final decree equitably apportioning the basin\u2019s waters proves justified in this case\u201d and take such a decree into consideration in appropriate operational adjustments to the Master Manual, if applicable.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Again, the Supreme Court stressed that Florida will ultimately be entitled to a decree only if it is shown that \u201cthe benefits of the [apportionment] substantially outweigh the harm that might result.\u201d<\/p>\n

For those keeping score on certain of these issues and looking for clues as to \u201clife after Kennedy\u201d, Justice Breyer penned the majority opinion, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Sotomayor.\u00a0 Justice Thomas wrote the dissent, joined by Alito, Kagan, and Gorsuch.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/h6>\n<\/hgroup>\n<\/header>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

 <\/p>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

[\/et_pb_cta][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Posted on July 2, 2018\u00a0by\u00a0Karen Crawford Florida v. Georgia, 585 U.S. ____ (2018), Slip Opinion No. 142, June 27, 2018 On June 27, in a 5-4 decision the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS or the Court) rejected the Special Master\u2019s conclusion that the Court could provide no relief to Florida for its claims of harm from […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Posted on March 21, 2013 by Karen Crawford<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EPA issued its long-awaited CISWI Rule in the Federal Register on February 7, 2013. 78 FR 9112. The final rule, entitled \u201cCommercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units;
Reconsideration and Final Amendments; Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid
Waste,\u201d contains the provisions in EPA\u2019s 2011 rule, vacated in January 2012, that EPA agreed to
reconsider. The 2011 final rule in turn superseded EPA\u2019s 2000 CISWI rule. The new CISWI Rule
amends 40 CFR part 60 subparts CCCC and DDDD and part 241. The amendments to 40 CFR part 60 subpart DDDD, along with certain incorporations by reference, were effective on the
promulgation date; amendments to part 60 subpart CCCC are effective August 7, 2013, and those to 40 CFR part 241 are effective April 8, 2013.
In response to both the court\u2019s vacatur of a Notice of Delay issued in 2011 and the numerous petitions for reconsideration and comments submitted by the regulated community and the
public, the final rule includes three subcategories of ERUs (energy recovery units) and two
subcategories for waste-burning kilns based on design-type differences, with separate carbon
monoxide (CO) limits for the latter. Certain limits were also revised based on comments
regarding the CO span methodology and on incorporation of additional data. The rule establishes
stack testing and continuous monitoring requirements and allows for the use of continuous
emissions monitoring systems (CEMS), setting levels based on a 3 hour block or 30-day rolling
average (depending on the parameter and subcategory of CISWI).
The rule addresses and preserves a source\u2019s choice to cease or start combusting solid waste at
any time due to market conditions or other reasons, and to switch from one set of applicable
emission standards to another pursuant to CAA section 112, thereby amending the original \"once
in always in\" approach reflected in the earlier versions of this rule. This in turn will provide an
incentive to the regulated community to continue operating incinerators.
The deadline for compliance with the CISWI Rule by existing sources depends primarily on when the state implementation plan incorporating the final rule is approved, with such approval
required no later than five years after the February 7, 2013 Federal Register publication date. The effective date for new source compliance is August 7, 2013 or the date of startup, whichever date is later. New sources are defined as sources that began construction on or after June 4, 2010, or commenced reconstruction or modification after August 7, 2013.<\/p>\n","_et_gb_content_width":"793","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52704","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\nFLORIDA GETS A \u201cDO-OVER\u201d - Klac Law Firm<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/florida-gets-a-do-over\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"FLORIDA GETS A \u201cDO-OVER\u201d - Klac Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Posted on July 2, 2018\u00a0by\u00a0Karen Crawford Florida v. Georgia, 585 U.S. ____ (2018), Slip Opinion No. 142, June 27, 2018 On June 27, in a 5-4 decision the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS or the Court) rejected the Special Master\u2019s conclusion that the Court could provide no relief to Florida for its claims of harm from […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/florida-gets-a-do-over\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Klac Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-03-11T15:43:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-03-11T15:44:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/florida-gets-a-do-over\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/florida-gets-a-do-over\/\",\"name\":\"FLORIDA GETS A \u201cDO-OVER\u201d - Klac Law Firm\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-03-11T15:43:35+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-11T15:44:47+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/621decac54e9280b38dcf19052ae7ed0\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/florida-gets-a-do-over\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/florida-gets-a-do-over\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/florida-gets-a-do-over\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"FLORIDA GETS A \u201cDO-OVER\u201d\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/\",\"name\":\"Klac Law Firm\",\"description\":\"Klac Law Firm\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/621decac54e9280b38dcf19052ae7ed0\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3b4404843ed567da51bd99ddb87a595f?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3b4404843ed567da51bd99ddb87a595f?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/author\/admin\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"FLORIDA GETS A \u201cDO-OVER\u201d - Klac Law Firm","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/florida-gets-a-do-over\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"FLORIDA GETS A \u201cDO-OVER\u201d - Klac Law Firm","og_description":"Posted on July 2, 2018\u00a0by\u00a0Karen Crawford Florida v. Georgia, 585 U.S. ____ (2018), Slip Opinion No. 142, June 27, 2018 On June 27, in a 5-4 decision the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS or the Court) rejected the Special Master\u2019s conclusion that the Court could provide no relief to Florida for its claims of harm from […]","og_url":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/florida-gets-a-do-over\/","og_site_name":"Klac Law Firm","article_published_time":"2021-03-11T15:43:35+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-03-11T15:44:47+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/florida-gets-a-do-over\/","url":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/florida-gets-a-do-over\/","name":"FLORIDA GETS A \u201cDO-OVER\u201d - Klac Law Firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-03-11T15:43:35+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-11T15:44:47+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/621decac54e9280b38dcf19052ae7ed0"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/florida-gets-a-do-over\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/florida-gets-a-do-over\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/florida-gets-a-do-over\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"FLORIDA GETS A \u201cDO-OVER\u201d"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/","name":"Klac Law Firm","description":"Klac Law Firm","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/621decac54e9280b38dcf19052ae7ed0","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3b4404843ed567da51bd99ddb87a595f?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3b4404843ed567da51bd99ddb87a595f?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/klaclaw.com"],"url":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52704"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52704"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52704\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":52707,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52704\/revisions\/52707"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52704"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52704"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52704"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}