This chapter examines Lake Urmia’s ecological crisis through the lens of Bruno Latour’s concept of ‘matters of concern’. Rather than viewing Lake Urmia as a biophysical ‘matter of fact’ the goal is to illustrate a contested site of socio-scientific inquiry. Instead of assuming consensus among the academic community, it maps the multiplicity of narratives, actors, and epistemic practices that frame, contest and negotiate the crisis. Combining bibliometric analysis, network mapping and controversy analysis, it historicises shifts in scholarly attention, identifies dominant disciplinary framings, and pinpoints key areas of disagreement. The analysis reveals that Iranian scientists, often trained in engineering dominate the knowledge network, privileging technocratic diagnoses over socio-political perspectives. In contrast, diaspora scholars such as Kaveh Madani have introduced more critical framings, bridging technocratic and political ecological approaches. Five major controversies are identified: the primary cause of desiccation, the impact of the Causeway, the legitimacy of the Urmia Lake Restoration Program, and the definition of ‘ecological water level’. By situating these disputes within institutional and disciplinary contexts, the chapter treats them as entry points into the socio-political process of scientific knowledge. This approach operationalises this books commitment to actor–network theory and hydro-social analysis, offering a methodological template for tracing how environmental knowledge and power are co-produced.