Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/143orig_1qm1.pdf
Page Number: 6

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

in and around Memphis.  Joint Statement of Stipulated and 
Contested Facts 101.  Some of these wells are located just a 
few  miles  from  the  Mississippi-Tennessee  border,  though
all  are  drilled  straight  down  such  that  none  crosses  the
physical border between the States.  Id., at 101–102, 106. 
MLGW’s pumping contributes to a cone of depression that 
underlies  both  the  City  of  Memphis  and  DeSoto  County,
Mississippi.  Report of Special Master 21–23; Hearing Tr.
206, 435–436, 525. 

Mississippi  argues  that  MLGW’s  pumping  has  altered 
the  historic  flow  of  groundwater  within  the  Middle 
Claiborne  Aquifer.    Mississippi  concedes  that  some  water 
naturally flows from the part of the aquifer beneath Missis-
sippi to the part beneath Tennessee.  But only to the extent
of some 30 to 60 feet per year.  See Exceptions Brief for Mis-
sissippi 8; see also Report of Special Master 24 (“Mississippi
does  not  dispute  the  expert  consensus  that  at  least  some 
quantity of groundwater . . . crossed the border under nat-
ural  conditions.”).  Mississippi  contends  that  MLGW’s
pumping has substantially hastened this existing flow, al-
lowing Memphis to take billions of gallons of groundwater 
that otherwise would have remained under Mississippi for 
thousands of years. 

B 
In 2005, prior to the present litigation, the Attorney Gen-
eral of Mississippi sued the City of Memphis and MLGW in 
Federal District Court.  The suit alleged that Memphis had 
wrongfully appropriated groundwater belonging to Missis-
sippi  through  its  pumping  activities.    Mississippi  sought
hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. 

The  District  Court  dismissed  the  suit  for  failure  to  join
Tennessee,  which  it  determined  was  an  indispensable 
party.  Hood ex rel. Miss. v. Memphis, 533 F. Supp. 2d 646, 
651  (ND  Miss.  2008).  The  Fifth  Circuit  then  affirmed. 
Hood ex rel. Miss. v. Memphis, 570 F. 3d 625 (2009).