What is good drinking water? 41 years of water conflicts around the Nuclear Research Centre Karlsruhe, 1956–1997

Abstract

Abstract. Drinking water in Germany is usually praised as the best-controlled food that can be enjoyed almost without exception. What constitutes high-quality drinking water is defined by law and drinking water should “inspire enjoyment, in other words, it should be colourless, clear, cool and odourless as well as tasty” (Deutsches Institut für Normung, 2017, DIN 2000:2017-02). Since this food is one of the basic human needs, it receives special social attention. When in 1956, the idyllic Rhine valley in the borderlands between the south west of Germany and France was turned into the nuclear capital of Germany with the siting of the Nuclear Research Centre in Leopoldshafen north of Karlsruhe, the local community feared especially a reduction of the water quality. This early perception of water risks ran like a thread through the history of the Nuclear Research Centre and the local population. This paper traces back the long-lasting conflict between the people in the Hardtwald area, where Karlsruhe and Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen are located, who valued their rural surroundings and lived mostly from agriculture in the 1950s and the claims as well as hopes of the Federal Republic of Germany, which saw the federal reactor station as central for the country's future flourishment in the post-war period (Gleitsmann, 2011). This clash of values between the Nuclear Research Centre, the different governments and the people of the Hardtwald area continued up until the 1990s, when the municipality of Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen made plans to take over one of the water wells of the Nuclear Research Centre. The takeover became a strategic component in the municipality's Water Concept 2000, through which it aimed at modernising and securing its drinking water supply for the future. During the hearing, opponents cited past violations of rules and free interpretations of threshold values as the basis for their counter arguments. This body of knowledge from the past was knowledge lived by the opponents of the Water Concept 2000. The background information from 41 years shaped their risk perception. Historicizing risk is valuable in the way of gaining a deeper understanding of local resistance against nuclear sites. Risk perception is not a linear process and relies heavily on communication processes as well as the recognition of different value systems. Social science research on resistance against nuclear siting often remains in the moment, even though historians have shown that there is a deeper history behind the opposition. Additionally, historical research often lacks both a theorisation and a conceptualisation of the issues portrayed. Seen from a wider perspective, sociologically informed historical research can contribute to future decision-making concerning nuclear sites, such as nuclear waste storage as well as other technological sites perceived as being risky. Being able to understand where increased risk perceptions come from, how increased resistance occurred and also which mistakes could have been avoided, paves the way for understanding cooperation and for finding sustainable solutions.