Raise your hand if you’re for exporting and against importing nuclear waste. What state wouldn’t take that deal? Initiative 297 promises to deliver just that, but voters are advised to remember this simple rule: Anything that sounds too good to be true should be met with skepticism.

I-297 is replete with uncertainty. It says the federal government must clean up Hanford Nuclear Reservation before shipping any more radioactive waste to Washington state. But such a cleanup can’t be accomplished unless the current waste is shipped to other states.

Thus enters the first uncertainty. What if potential recipient states adopt initiatives that bar the importation of waste? It could mean Washington state is stuck with what it has. About 90 percent of Hanford’s waste is supposed to be buried elsewhere.

The second uncertainty is that such an initiative could be struck down in federal courts, which have tended to favor federal agencies when it comes to interstate commerce. In any event, years of litigation would be likely, and the state would be duty-bound to defend the initiative in court.

Third, state courts could rule the measure unconstitutional because it could be viewed as asking voters more than one question. Other initiatives have passed only to be struck down on such grounds.

Fourth, the state attorney general’s office is confident that it can enforce the Tri-Party Agreement through the courts. The 1989 agreement calls for the state Department of Ecology to work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy on a cleanup of Hanford. Subsequent battles have been over funding, but Congress and the federal DOE might be even more recalcitrant if the state passes the initiative.

Finally, the initiative calls for a new oversight board that would be financed from federal clean-up funds. Among those on this new board would be Heart of America, the environmental group behind the initiative. A new regulatory layer doesn’t sound promising.

No doubt, the cleanup thus far has been slow and disappointing, but the legal momentum appears to be on the state’s side. A headstrong initiative could put the matter into limbo and gum up any behind-the-scenes gains being made at the attorney general’s office. Plus, we wouldn’t put it past the federal DOE to use these new uncertainties as an excuse to backtrack on its commitments.

I-297 has its heart in the right place, but it raises questions that haven’t been clearly answered. For that reason, we urge a “no” vote.