Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39296624›Full record

ReviewACS ES&T water2024

An Improved 21st Century Judicial System with Environmental Science Expertise is Needed for Resolving Interstate Water Conflicts.

Nimisha Wasankar, Heather Elliott, T Prabhakar Clement

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ACS ES&T water, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nimisha WasankarDepartment of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487, United States.
Heather ElliottThe University of Alabama School of Law, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487, United States.
T Prabhakar ClementDepartment of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7878-8139

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As stresses on groundwater resources increase due to growing population and climate change, water litigation, such as the recently decided Mississippi (MS) vs Tennessee (TN) lawsuit, will become more common. In the United States, lawsuits between states can be heard only by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). These lawsuits are expensive and lengthy, often requiring highly specialized technical expertise. In the MS vs TN case, the Court unanimously held that an interstate aquifer is subject to equitable apportionment. Although this appears to be a sound resolution, a careful examination of the SCOTUS hearing transcript revealed that the Justices had several egregious misconceptions about the groundwater system. These misconceptions arose in part due to the failure of technical experts to communicate groundwater concepts in understandable terms and in part due to the Justices' lack of expertise in groundwater science. To address these issues, we first explore methods for improving scientific communication in courtrooms. Second, we propose ideas for reforming the legal system and provide compelling arguments for using the lower courts to hear such cases. We also explore the possibility of creating specialized federal water courts to resolve water disputes.

Identifiers

PMID39296624
PMCPMC11406522

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.