Chamber, environmentalists differ on water rules

Even with a raft of proposed changes, Shelby County’s groundwater regulations would remain too lax and vague to protect a critical aquifer that supplies the public with drinking water, environmental groups contend in recent comments filed with local officials.

The Greater Memphis Chamber, on the other hand, argues in a comment letter that the proposed rules are so strict they could cost the area jobs.

The proposed revisions to regulations - and public comments recently received about them - are slated for discussion when the Shelby County Groundwater Quality Control Board convenes for the first of two meetings Wednesday at 1:30 p.m. in the Bartlett City Hall Annex at 6382 Stage Road.

The second meeting, at the same location, is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. June 26.

The board drafted the proposed overhaul to the county’s 1987 well-construction ordinance largely in response to a controversy that arose in 2016 when the Tennessee Valley Authority won approval to drill five wells to pump an average of 3.5 million gallons of water daily from the Memphis Sand aquifer to cool a new power-generating plant in Southwest Memphis.

Environmentalists and many local scientists and public officials opposed the wells, saying they were unnecessary and could suck contaminants into the deep, high-quality aquifer used by local municipalities for drinking water.

The groundwater board approved the TVA wells, however, saying there was no basis under the existing ordinance to deny the permits.

TVA put its pumping plans on hold – agreeing to buy cooling water from the Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division at least temporarily – after extremely high levels of arsenic were found in a shallow aquifer near a coal-ash pond just north of the new Allen Combined Cycle Plant.

The proposed revisions to the ordinance provide for different requirements for two classes of wells. “Class A” wells – those pumping at least 250 gallons per minute – must be subject to a 30-day public notice and comment period that includes a board hearing. Opponents had complained there was inadequate notice for the TVA wells.

The revisions also require well-drillers to show “justifiable need” to tap local aquifers, providing documentation that sufficient water from public utilities is not available for their projects.

For wells used to obtain cooling water, the revisions would require that users adhere to strict and costly “best available control technology” to conserve water.

In comments submitted to the board, environmentalists seek additional measures. The Southern Environmental Law Center, representing the group Protect Our Aquifer and the Sierra Club, said private wells should be subject to conservation fees and other measures to control water usage and prevent contamination. Private owners also should have to do more to prove there is no alternative water supply before drilling wells, they say.

But the Greater Memphis Chamber contends certain provisions of the new rules add expensive and unnecessary burdens to industry, “potentially costing our community jobs and investments from companies seeking to locate their facilities in our county,” it said in a comment letter.

The requirement for automatic appeals and hearings for Class A wells could create lengthy delays for businesses, the Chamber said, arguing for the addition of time limits on the process. Also, the rules prohibiting well permits where utility water is available could add undue costs, requiring companies buy more expensive treated water when cheaper unfiltered well water would suffice.

Reach Tom Charlier at thomas.charlier@commercialappeal.com or 901529-2572 and on Twitter at @thomasrcharlier.