This project has been an attempt to bridge the gap between the physical scientist, who identifies and investigates natural features and processes, and the environmental planner, who must weigh the results of those investigations against the realities of other disciplines to prepare programs that are not only technically sound but also politically feasible. In the past, frustration and failure have often characterized this relationship, with scientists labeled as "purists" and planners categorized as "insensitive." To become an effective team, both the scientist and the planner must first become familiar with each other's jargon so that terms like "safe yields" and "planned unit developments" are more than just gibberish. Second, both professions should strive to understand each other's frame of reference: a planner is searching for alternatives and trade-offs, while a scientist is usually committed to a well-researched theory. Conflict is inevitable—but not unresolvable. Third, in their writings, both parties should be mindful of the team approach, which may require patience in explaining terms, avoiding acronyms (upon which planners often rely), and simplifying calculations. While analyzing the issue of planning for groundwater protection in Amherst, this project has also addressed the scientist-versus-planner dynamic in a way that is hopefully amenable to both professions—that is, through a balanced, politically responsible evaluation that is also technically sound.