The Feb. 3 Journal Star editorial, "If river runs dry, lawsuits might flow," is unfairly critical of those of us who are insisting sound science be applied to water issues. You are confusing court decisions with science. They are vastly different.

If sound science were being applied to water issues, there would be detailed analysis results available showing a complete understanding of the claimed interaction between groundwater and surface water. This would explain — in specific physical and mathematical terms — how any interaction is occurring. There would be results of actual field tests proving the correctness of the analysis. It would be specific to a local site, due to the widely varying nature of the aquifer.

Individuals and organizations specializing in critical analysis and testing with proven ability to find defects would have independently verified such detailed information. This is not simply "peer review," which — from my own three-plus decades of engineering experience — rarely finds critical flaws.

Technical people with extensive training, knowledge and experience, not attorneys or judges, do this. There is absolutely no evidence beyond vaguely worded conceptual documents from Department of Natural Resources that this work has been done. This is simply not credible, sound science.

My own analysis of government data shows these claims are incorrect. Furthermore, there are numerous examples of key individuals making completely conflicting statements on these issues. Details are provided on my Web site at www.platterivertruth.org.

Ron Klein, Berthoud, Colo.

Published in the Lincoln Journal Star - February 22, 2005