TVA and the Memphis Sand aquifer

By Tom Volinchak
Special to Viewpoint
View Comments
  • Because water is highly technical, science not emotion must guide us.

The debate over Tennessee Valley Authority and the Memphis Sand Aquifer demonstrates great passion. However, because water is highly technical, science not emotion must guide us.

Going forward, let’s cease calling Memphis water pure. It’s not pure, and pure water doesn’t exist in nature. Memphis water, like all water, is contaminated, albeit modestly.

The concern that TVA wells will deplete the aquifer is without scientific support. The Groundwater Institute estimates the Memphis Sand contains 57 trillion gallons. Even if the new TVA demand pushes daily water use to 225 million gallons, the aquifer will provide water for another 700 years — longer if it is recharging.

The risk to damaging and contaminating the aquifer and clay layer also lacks scientific support. The five TVA wells reportedly will each employ a 16-inch pipe, or roughly 1.5 square feet of surface area each. Memphis spans roughly 324 square miles, or 9 billion square feet. It is impossible to contaminate a 57 million-gallon aquifer through such a small exposure area, which will be sealed after drilling.

TVA use of river water would actually pose greater threat to the aquifer than the wells do.

Treating the river requires pH adjustment with acid and soda ash. It requires the addition of aluminum coagulants, and an extra pumping stage. The resulting sludge would travel to landfills via gas-guzzling trucks. The filtered water requires softening, producing many tons of chlorides that also require disposal. Eventually these contaminants would find their way into our water supply.

One activist assured me that existing regulations would protect us from these poisons. I guess those would be the same regulations that protected the people of Flint, Michigan, or the Colorado River when the EPA dumped 3 million gallons of chrome waste into it?

Some argue that it is unconscionable to use high quality water for cooling. But what about you and me? We use far more water than TVA on things like flushing toilets, showering, washing cars, pets, aquariums, swimming pools, and on pressure-washing chores.

Consider that current technology converts flushed toilet water into bottled water for cruise ship passengers. Technology can take industrial process water and even radioactive waste and turn it into far cleaner water than what comes out of the aquifer.

So, if we really want to conserve the aquifer, should we not demand that all raw sewage and industrial waste be first converted into tap water before we use the Memphis Sand? Shouldn’t we live by the same standard we want to impose on TVA? Where do we draw the line?

The worst thing for the aquifer would be increased government oversight. Just imagine the federal government pumping our water and sending it to thirsty states that have more political clout than we do. Beware, those days are coming.

The key to protecting the aquifer comes in the form of something I am involved with in other water-rich communities. We need a Memphis Water Contract. This would be a generally accepted contract built on cooperation from local academic, scientific, municipal, technical, business and environmental leaders.

The document would outline the protocol as to how we wish to treat our water. Once in place, leveraging community-wide persuasion for users to comply and participate would get new water projects started off on the right foot and save us from having to react afterwards when it is too late.

Until science replaces emotion in this debate, our water will continue being batted around like a beach ball at a rock concert.

Tom Volinchak is an expert in industrial water-use technology.

Tom Volinchak
View Comments