SCOTUS Decision Impacts State Rights to Aquifer-Derived Water

Adams and Reese LLP

Adams and Reese LLP

In a unanimous decision this week, the United Stated Supreme Court denied Mississippi’s claim that the State of Tennessee was stealing Mississippi’s groundwater. The decision represents a first step in settling a years-long dispute related to the Middle Claiborne Aquifer, a reservoir spanning thousands of square miles beneath eight states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. In the suit, Mississippi complained that Tennessee, through the City of Memphis, pumped so much water from the Middle Claiborne Aquifer that it created a cone of depression extending across state lines, into Mississippi’s territory, causing “billions of gallons of groundwater” to cross the border from Mississippi to Tennessee. This water, Mississippi contended, would have otherwise existed under Mississippi for thousands of years. Mississippi sought over $600M in damages for this “tortious taking” of Mississippi property.

In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court determined that the Middle Claiborne Aquifer is subject to the doctrine of equitable apportionment, which aims to fairly allocate shared water resources between two or more states. The doctrine has traditionally been applied to other forms of interstate water resources such as rivers and streams, but has never before been applied to underground water resources. Noting that the aquifer is a “single hydrological unit,” albeit flowing slower than a traditional river, the Supreme Court determined that equitable apportionment should still apply.

The Court did not determine how the Middle Claiborne Aquifer would be equitably apportioned among the states, only that it would be subject to equitable apportionment. This leaves the door open for future litigation over apportionment of the aquifer, which the Court noted would require the participation of all states under which the aquifer flows.

If Mississippi does seek equitable apportionment, the state will face a heavy burden. As the Supreme Court determined last term in Florida v. Georgia, the state seeking apportionment of water resources must demonstrate that the other state’s water use is causing the complaining state “significant injury.” As the Florida case showed, proving that level of injury will be difficult.

Read the Supreme Court’s opinion here.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Adams and Reese LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Adams and Reese LLP

Adams and Reese LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.