From Chad Smith at American Rivers

The Washington Post
November 12, 2003
Editorial

The Uses of Science

FOR AN EXAMPLE of the problems caused by the politicization of science, look
no further than the Missouri River, where a legal battle has been raging for
years.

On one side stands the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as a clutch of
Missouri politicians who want to keep water levels in the river high so that
it remains navigable. On the other side stands a clutch of
environmentalists, a few South Dakota politicians who want to protect their
recreational fishing industry and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, whose
scientists have until now agreed that the Corps should allow the river to
flow more naturally -- high in the spring and low in the summer -- so that
birds and fish living on the river, among them several endangered species,
can live and breed normally. Last summer, the decade-long standoff seemed to
have been decided in the favor of birds, fish and fishermen, when a judge
ruled that the Corps should lower the level of the river in summer to
protect sandbars, where birds build their nests.

This week, some suspect that the terms of engagement have suddenly changed.
Arguing that it is legally required to conduct a "reconsultation," the Fish
and Wildlife Service appointed a team of scientists to conduct a new
investigation. Service officials claim they had reached the end of an
"informal phase" in the assessment of the river and had now entered a
"formal phase" that required a smaller team of scientists. Environmentalists
claim the deck is stacked to come up with an assessment more pleasing to the
Corps and the shipping industry.

It would be nice if the Fish and Wildlife Service's scientists could be
allowed to make their decision based simply on biology. But there are
complicating factors. One, specific to this case, is that the Corps has a
poor record of factoring the environment into its decisions. The cost of
keeping the river navigable may well outweigh the benefit of navigation, for
example, particularly considering the many recreational uses of the river
and the wetlands around it. More broadly, the Bush administration has put
"science" to dubious use across a broad range of environmental issues.

The burden of proof is on the Fish and Wildlife Service to prove its
neutrality. The best way to do this would have been to retain the scientists
who have been working on this issue and who have been warning of the dangers
to wildlife posed by the Corps' dams and flow controls. Now that they have
been dismissed, the agency will have to bend over backward to prove that its
biological assessment has not been affected by politics. That will be
difficult indeed.



Chad Smith, Director
Nebraska Field Office - American Rivers
Mill Towne Building
650 J Street, Suite 400
Lincoln, Nebraska 68508
402-477-7910
402-477-2565 (FAX)
402-730-5593 (CELLULAR)
[log in to unmask]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
 http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp