Buried Treasure: The Memphis Sands Aquifer by Leah Grace Wolf

Buried Treasure: The Memphis Sands Aquifer

By Leah Grace Wolf, Contributing Writer from Hutchison School Memphis, Tennessee

If you are anything like me, you probably spent your childhood impersonating Captain Jack Sparrow, tearing up your yard in pursuit of gold coins, rubies, and strings of pearls. Alas, I always came away from my epic hunts disgusted at the lack of riches in Tennessee. But while there may not be caches of gold and gems hidden beneath Memphis, Tennessee, there is, without question, a buried treasure - 100 trillion gallons of it, in fact.

Entombed under 1,100 feet of sandy soil lies the Memphis Sands Aquifer. The water resting here fell to Earth between three and four thousand years ago, where it had ample time to trickle through layers of thick sediment into deeper aquifers. Given the glacially slow rate at which the water percolates, when it finally flows from the Memphis Sands Aquifer to a faucet, it typically hasn’t seen the light of day for thousands of years.

The extensive process, which leads to outrageously pure water, has meant low overhead costs for dozens of water-intensive companies in Memphis, where boreholes draw roughly 200 million gallons of water per day. But lying under eight states (Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, and Kentucky), Memphis is far from the only party that pulls from the aquifer, and because the water is some of the cheapest and purest in the country, companies like Coors, Jack Daniels, and Niagra Bottling benefit from the naturally treated water. Distilleries, pharmaceutical companies, and power plants throughout the eight states are among the many industries that rely on the aquifer.

However, the heavy pumping is taking a toll. Hydrogeologists have discovered twenty new “cones of depression” within the last few years -- shaped like an inverted cone, these regions draw the water table down near a borehole from which groundwater is being abstracted by pumping. While they sound harmless, these cones are major sources of friction between states. Over the past fifteen years, numerous inter-state lawsuits have been filed, and recently a fifteen-year-old case reached the US Supreme Court. In Mississippi v. City of Memphis, the state of Mississippi claimed that Memphis is forcibly siphoning its water, and thereby “invaded Mississippi’s sovereign territory.”

That’s a new way to think about water. For nearly two hundred years, the US legal system protected water as res communes - a public entity not owned by any individual person, business, or government body. This is a very unique status given to only a few other things: air, sunlight, and outer space. While Tennessee has fought to get the lawsuit tossed out, Mississippi is on a mission for a multi-million dollar payout and a ruling that would force Memphis to pump water from the Mississippi River instead.

Surface water disputes between states are not uncommon. Most are settled quickly and satisfactorily in district courts; however, this is the first Supreme Court Case to resolve a dispute over interstate groundwater, resulting in what will be a landmark decision. It has the potential to redefine how states, boroughs, businesses, and individuals interact with regard to the management of water. In a world with increasingly great water scarcity, the repercussions of this ruling will be fundamental in determining our next steps amid the pressing water crisis.

Water law varies significantly across states. For example, Texas landowners have the right to withdraw groundwater beneath their property, but that is distinguished from allowing an individual to own the water itself. If the latter were the case, speculators would effectively hold their water until it became more profitable to sell -- when

pure water becomes even more scarce, which has clear societal and humanitarian repercussions. The wait won’t be long: The UN predicts that by 2050 over five billion people will be affected by water scarcity.

Much of Mississippi’s efforts in arguing the case centers on taking ownership of the water by examining established scientific concepts, like whether groundwater is fundamentally different than surface water. If the two are in fact distinctive, then allegations that the cone of depression underneath western Tennessee have created a gradient (causing water to flow toward Memphis that would otherwise sit under Mississippi) would be equivalent to grand theft. While a ruling from the Supreme Court might kickstart an inter-state groundwater preservation effort, the alternative outcome is worrying. If the court rules that Mississippi does own the groundwater within its state lines, it would open the door for all states to sell groundwater rights to the highest bidder. Citizens would face the reality of buying back water for a much higher price and could face the same debt or bankruptcy situation over paying for their water as paying for their houses, education, or medical care.

Either way, the case signals the beginning of a new phase of transboundary water relationships in the US. The Mississippi v. City of Memphis resolution could even usher in a new age of management collaboration for aquifers that cross national borders, like the 36 aquifers shared by the US and Mexico.

For now, Memphians will continue to enjoy the region’s water, which has brought countless jobs and major economic growth to the area, yet notably, with increased industrialization comes the need to protect the finite amount of water in the Memphis Sands Aquifer. This means, no matter the Supreme Court ruling, local, state, and federal governments must collaborate to bring in a new era of responsible water management.

“I think the answer is far more simple than many have led us to believe: we have not done the things that are necessary to lower emissions because those things fundamentally conflict with deregulated capitalism, the reigning ideology for the entire period we have been struggling to find a way out of this crisis. We are stuck because the actions that would give us the best chance of averting catastrophe—and would benefit the vast majority— are extremely threatening to an elite minority that has a stranglehold over our economy, our political process, and most of our major media outlets.” - Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate