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