Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorStribling, Barbara A.
dc.date.accessioned2013-08-30T21:06:38Z
dc.date.available2013-08-30T21:06:38Z
dc.date.issued1976-05-01
dc.identifier.issn0272-6106
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/300554
dc.descriptionFrom the Proceedings of the 1976 Meetings of the Arizona Section - American Water Resources Assn. and the Hydrology Section - Arizona Academy of Science - April 29-May 1, 1976, Tucson, Arizonaen_US
dc.description.abstractAmerican legislative bodies and juries of laymen are founded on the concept that what a reasonable man would do is what will be done. In actuality the synergistic effects of prejudice, politics, and polarized language rarely allow this to occur. The result has been conflict of interest statutorily mandated on natural resource governing boards and a lack of expertise in the courtroom. Further contempt has developed between citizen and expert and between legislator and bureaucrat. I propose to explore the operative mechanism in the situation and discuss possible future roles for both citizen and expert as well as tools which could be utilized by them.
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherArizona-Nevada Academy of Scienceen_US
dc.rightsCopyright ©, where appropriate, is held by the author.en_US
dc.subjectHydrology -- Arizona.en_US
dc.subjectWater resources development -- Arizona.en_US
dc.subjectHydrology -- Southwestern states.en_US
dc.subjectWater resources development -- Southwestern states.en_US
dc.titleThe Prejudices, Polemics, and Politics of Water Management Versus the Reasonable Man Testen_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeProceedingsen_US
dc.identifier.journalHydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwesten_US
dc.description.collectioninformationThis article is part of the Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest collections. Digital access to this material is made possible by the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science and the University of Arizona Libraries. For more information about items in this collection, contact anashydrology@gmail.com.en_US
refterms.dateFOA2018-08-30T13:58:53Z
html.description.abstractAmerican legislative bodies and juries of laymen are founded on the concept that what a reasonable man would do is what will be done. In actuality the synergistic effects of prejudice, politics, and polarized language rarely allow this to occur. The result has been conflict of interest statutorily mandated on natural resource governing boards and a lack of expertise in the courtroom. Further contempt has developed between citizen and expert and between legislator and bureaucrat. I propose to explore the operative mechanism in the situation and discuss possible future roles for both citizen and expert as well as tools which could be utilized by them.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
hwr_06-019-027.pdf
Size:
340.1Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record