My Ten Cents: 1) Lists of Endangered Aquifers? 2) Personhood for Aquifers?

Caveat Emptor
This post needs more work; it's more like a 'brain dump'/stream of consciousness essay.

Introduction
I was excited about the prospect of having annual lists of the USA's most endangered aquifers - you know, like the folks at American Rivers and its partners who annually publish a list of the ten most endangered rivers in the USA. 'Endangered' can mean a number of things, but the following are usually present: 1) excessive withdrawals; 2) pollution;3) ecosystem degradation; and 4) indigenous use and rights. The World Wildlife Fund does the same for international rivers.

Aquifers
Aquifers don't get quite get the play that rivers and other surface-water bodies do. They're just not obvious; out of sight, out of mind, right? 
I don't recall seeing a similar list for USA aquifers. The EPA has an aquifer exemptions map. It's related to SDWA and UIC regulations. 

From the EPA blurb:

There are about 6,500 aquifer exemptions in the US. The majority of these are located in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, California, Utah, Texas, and Indian country. 

About 98 percent of aquifer exemptions are associated with Class II wells used for injection of fluids related to oil and gas production. Almost one-third of aquifer exemptions associated with Class II wells are for enhanced oil or gas recovery (Class IIR) and about one-fourth are for disposal of wastewater (Class IID). About one percent are associated with Class I industrial wastewater disposal wells, and another one percent of aquifer exemptions are associated with Class III wells, which assist in recovering minerals such as uranium and salts. The remainder are associated with Class V wells which are used to inject other non-hazardous fluids.

The depth of the exempted aquifers ranges from hundreds to thousands of feet below ground surface. About five percent of aquifer exemptions are 500 feet or less below the surface. Most depths are between 1,000 and 9,000 feet deep although some are over 10,000 feet deep. In some cases, there is more than one exempted aquifer at the same location, but at different depths and in different geologic formations.

Aquifer exemption boundaries are determined in a variety of ways. Some aquifer exemptions are defined as a radius (typically ¼ or ½ mile) around the well associated with the exemption and are circular. Others are defined by one or more grids in the Public Land Survey System and are squares or combinations of squares. Exemption boundaries can also be irregularly shaped and follow the dimensions of an aquifer, oil or gas field, or mining area. The exemption areas range in size from thousands of square feet to more than a thousand square miles (almost 36 percent are ¼ mile radius or smaller). Underground sources of drinking water in the surrounding area continue to be protected from endangerment under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

I got the above information from the National Ground Water Association (yes, that's two words). I would think that the NGWA (I used to chair its Scientists and Engineers division and its Foundation) would have jumped on something like this - a list of endangered aquifers, Too controversial I suspect. At one point (c. 2016) the NGWA and AWRA had a groundwater visibility initiative (see here as well). It petered out. My sense is that neither organization (and I belonged to each) wanted to make the effort. The GVI would have made a nice home for an endangered aquifers list. Since there are now a number of organizations talking about GVIs one might take the step.  

By the way there was a great piece by Ian James (now at the LA Times) in the July 2015 issue of USA Today: a third of the world's aquifers are threatened.

Personhood for Aquifers
I first heard of granting personhood for rivers a few years ago - mainly in New Zealand for the Whanganui River. It's essentially granting rivers the rights of humans. Since rivers cannot speak for themselves in legal proceedings, it generally means that some individual or group must represent the river. India's Ganges now has that right, as do Bangladesh's rivers. So does the Magpie River in Canada. There are a number of others. The first successful case of a suit on behalf of a river occurred in Ecuador in 2011 for the Vilcabamba River. 

I wonder what would happen when a tributary with personhood flowed into another river with personhood. I guess they would have to go to court!

Aquifers could be something else. They are generally not as well-defined as rivers. Boundaries can be unclear and the aquifers might interact with rivers and one another. They also have a distinct three dimensionality to them and that could prove difficult to define or treat. Transboundary issues?

We'll see this issue arise in my lifetime (I turn 74 in a few weeks).

Read this article,

Today's quote is apropos.

Would love to hear from some water lawyers! "And in today's verdict, the Memphis Sand aquifer won a 6-3 court decision over the Fort Pillow Sand, which now must pay $1B in damages."

"May you live in interesting times." - Chinese saying 

Comments

[EJ Hanford, PhD]

Here is the California perspective on "Resilient California Water Portfolios Require Infrastructure Investment Partnerships That Are Viable for All Partners"
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021EF002573
In a drought-stricken State, with significant degradation of major aquifers, the mention of allocating water for Nature is not a prominent feature of "resilient" water portfolios.

[EJ Hanford, PhD]

The need to grant "personhood" to aquifers or rivers is a direct response to humans assuming they have the "right" to take the water they want or to pollute the water, with little regard for the vital role that water plays within the overall ecosystem.
Thus, humans overdraft rivers and groundwater aquifers and take little to no responsibility for the consequent (essentially non-recoverable) collapse of groundwater aquifers and land subsidence.
Ah, but it will keep lawyers employed and will keep legislators/authorities occupied for decades to come.

[Gabriel Eckstein]

Hi Michael. I applaud your proposal to develop a "top 10" list of aquifers on the brink. We definitely need more light shed on groundwater use and management, and top 10 lists seem to capture some measure of public attention.

As for affording legal personality to water rivers and other natural phenomena, the idea has been batted around for decades. The challenge is in implementation. My sense is that some people are so disenchanted with our existing protection and conservation laws, they are willing to try anything. I am not against affording legal personality to rivers and aquifer. But, as you intimate in your essay, we need to know what we're getting into. Unintended consequences will certainly arise from such action (Who will pay for the river's or aquifer's legal fees (e.g., taxpayers, donations)? Can you sue a river for flooding your home? Should/can a river or aquifer own the land on/through which it flows?), and we'll need to learn to live with them, or go back to the drawing board.

For those interested, I curated a series of essays on this issue a few years ago. My concluding essay is available here (https://www.internationalwaterlaw.org/blog/2018/09/03/of-rivers-deities-and-legal-persons-a-new-approach-to-managing-freshwater-resources/), and it links to all of the other essays in the series. The series was later republished in 2019 in Vol. 46 (issues 6 & 7) of the journal, Water International.

[Matt Heberger]

I think this would be a very good initiative. Completely agree that groundwater is "out of sight, out of mind" for most Americans.