IS SCIENCE THE LEAD OR THE JUSTIFICATION WHEN WATER ISSUES ARISE BETWEEN POLITICAL UNITS? A CASE EXAMPLE

Management based on good water science is the dream of the scientist. However, there are many additional factors such as values, economics, laws, regulations, environmental considerations, etc. that have a strong influence on the final management method. Additionally, an influential stakeholder can make the difference between management based on science and no consideration of science. Unfortunately, watersheds, aquifers, etc. nearly always cross political boundaries and the additional factors mentioned above may be totally different from one political unit to another. The example I will address is a reverse situation where a number of political units have an interest in the same locality and the local water cycle is a critical element.

Congress addressed the issue of low-level radioactive waste by authorizing the formation of interstate compacts. The states of Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana formed such a compact. The first issue for the compact was in which state should the first storage site be located. NIMBY, represented by compact vote, prevailed and Nebraska was selected. Several preliminary sites were selected for initial investigation. Lacking eminent domain power, the final site was chosen in large part on the basis of a farmer being willing to sell. The task then became, is the site suitable? The site operator hired a consulting firm to evaluate the site and provide necessary documentation to support the license application. There were a number of preliminary reviews of the license application by state reviewers before the final application was submitted. The license application was rejected and the issue is now in the courts. Science did not play the lead in selecting the site, but was selectively used for justification by the applicant.