Month: January 2001

Commentary – Water Wars

Some people see the Great Lakes as huge reservoirs — pools oflife-giving liquid that should be pumped to places in need of water. But Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Mike VanBuren believes themajestic ”Inland Seas” ought to stay right where they are:

Transcript

Some people see the Great Lakes as huge reservoirs — pools of life-giving liquid that
should be pumped to places in need of water. But Great Lakes Radio Consortium
commentator Mike VanBuren believes the majestic “Inland Seas” ought to stay right
where they are.


When I was a boy, my grandmother sent me a postcard from Arizona. It was covered
with pictures of desert plants and animals. There were cacti, jackrabbits and rattlesnakes
— each well adapted to the harsh climate.


My grandmother was well adapted, too — having lived in Phoenix for many years. But
her needs were different from the coyotes and roadrunners that populated the
countryside. They’d learned to get by on less. She was dependent on generous supplies
of clean, fresh water.


The Southwest, you see, is a thirsty place. The sun is bright and hot. And the land is dry.
It’s enough to send a Gila monster out for a tall glass of cold sarsparilla. And it has made
many misguided public servants cast greedy eyes on the Great Lakes.


The reasons are simple. Water is critical to life — and to many social and economic
activities. In some areas — such as Arizona — water is in short supply. The Great Lakes
Basin contains about twenty percent of the freshwater on the surface of the earth. Why
not just redistribute it so everyone has enough?


Some profiteers — and politicians with dry tongues — like this idea. But I don’t.


Water is already being pumped in and out of the Great Lakes — on a relatively small
scale. Fortunately, no major diversions are currently planned. But some public officials
and environmental leaders say it’s just a matter of time.


The population is expanding in many parts of the country where water is scarce. Recent
census results show that some of the fastest-growing states — Arizona, California,
Nevada and Texas — are also among those most in need of water. The census also shows
that those states will gain seats in Congress, while the Great Lakes region loses seats.
That means that it could be harder to win a congressional vote to restrict the sale of Great
Lakes water.


Siphoning lake water makes perfect sense to those who don’t know — or care — about
ecosystems. But scientists say such activity could harm plants and animals. It could
upset the balance of nature, lower groundwater levels, reduce water quality, and even
change the climate.


And what happens if you have to shut the spigot off for some reason? Who’s gonna tell
the folks in Sun City that the well is dry?


My home state of Michigan is almost entirely within the Great Lakes basin. We have
everything to lose and very little to gain if water is taken. Our economy is tied to
shipping, fishing, agriculture, recreation and tourism. These activities depend on the
Great Lakes being healthy and vibrant. That’s why we all need to conserve water and
develop strong policies to prevent raids on the resource.


Now, I love Arizona. And I’m pleased my grandmother could live there. But if she
wanted to drink from the Great Lakes, she probably should have moved back to
Michigan.

Controlling Great Lakes Water Exports

Governors of the eight Great Lakes states are considering a series ofproposals intended to keep the region’s water in the five Great Lakes. The plan by the Council of Great Lakes Governors would make it a lotharder for private firms or governments to sell water to anyone outsidethe region. But first, the governors need to convince two Canadianprovincial governments and a handful of environmental groups that theproposals are tough enough. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s BobKelleher reports from Duluth, Minnesota:

Transcript

Governors of the eight Great Lakes states are considering a series of proposals
intended to keep the region’s water in the five Great Lakes. The plan by the Council of
Great Lakes Governors would make it a lot harder for private firms or governments to
sell water to anyone outside the region. But first, the governors need to convince two
Canadian provincial governments and a handful of environmental groups that the
proposals are tough enough. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bob Kelleher reports
from Duluth, Minnesota.

Great Lakes residents were alarmed two years ago when a private company announced
plans to sell shiploads of Lake Superior water to customers in Asia. Few would have
missed the water. But if the plan had gone through, it could have established a precedent
for water sales… some of which might be a lot more elaborate than a few shiploads at a
time.


Since then, Canada’s two Great Lakes Provinces, Ontario and Quebec, have banned any
water diversions from one watershed to another . essentially restricting any draw on
water from the Great Lakes to uses within the Great Lakes Basin. United States law is
less stringent . but it does require all eight Great Lakes Governors to sign off on any
bulk exports or diversions from the U-S side of the watershed.


The International Joint Commission – a bi-national body that works on water disputes
between the U-S and Canada – asked both countries to draw up a uniform set of
regulations on water use and diversions. The U-S Governors have responded.


It’s not as easy as it sounds to block water sales. Under the North American Free Trade
Agreement, water that’s been processed . like bottled water . could be considered a
commercial product open to free trade. U-S States are also limited in their ability to stop
water trade under U-S Interstate Commerce regulations. A business could challenge
attempts to stop it from selling legally obtained water.
But there is a method to circumvent free trade and commerce rules, according to Jeff
Edstrom, a Senior Planner with the Council Of Great Lakes Governors –


“Under free trade laws, and under U-S federal law, and U-S Federal court
rulings, you can protect the water as long as it is to protect natural resources.”

According to the Governors, their proposal would protect, conserve, restore and
improve the water and water dependent natural resources of the Great Lakes Basin. And
they say it would make it a lot more difficult to sell large quantities of water to the
highest bidder. But some diversions would be allowed, with limited review, if they’re
less than one million gallons a day and meet other criteria. Edstrom says the exemption
would be used when people outside the lake’s basins need fresh water with no other
feasible alternative.


“For instance, if you’ve got a contaminated water supply in a community. Uh,
that’s why there’s a little bit more latitude; it’s more for public health; it’s not for any
commercial enterprise.”


But the exemption is a problem for environmental groups, which had hoped for even
more stringent restrictions . like a total ban on water sales outside the basin. This plan
gives individual governors latitude on new diversion up to a million gallons. John
Jackson, a board member with an environmental coalition called Great Lakes United,
says that’s too much.


“Well that’s a significant amount of water – that’s every day diverting a million
gallons of water a day out of the basin – you know, 365 days a year. That adds up to a
lot. And if you think that there could be a lot of different applicants that come in just
under the million gallons per day, that’s a major slackening of the rules.”


And while the Governors say they need latitude to meet urgent water needs, Jackson
thinks the Governors have included the exemption so water can still be used to fuel
unbridled growth.


And Jackson says new diversions are not the only problem with the proposal. He says
there’s also too little emphasis on current water uses. He wants restrictions on
agricultural, industrial and home water uses across the great lakes. He says the region
will need to demonstrate conservation if it expects to convince the world that diversions
need to be limited to protect the watershed.


Across the border, the Governor’s efforts have drawn a mixed reaction.
The Canadian Premiers want a moratorium on any exports and diversions until the rules
can be adopted. Brett Kelly is with the office of the Ontario Minister of Natural
Resources

“We in Ontario have a policy of no net loss and we do not allow or permit
diversions across watersheds here in Ontario. So, we are reviewing the annex from that
standard.”


Meanwhile, if some scientists are correct, the need for Great Lakes water controls may
be increasing. Recent warm summers and dry winters, coupled with normal cycles in
annual rainfall, have helped push the lake’s levels downward. Lake Superior’s surface
dropped seven inches over the past year.


The Governor’s proposals are available for public comment until the end of February.
The Governor’s will then work with their Canadian counterparts to draft the final
proposal, called the annex to the Great Lakes Charter.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bob Kelleher.

REGION TRACKING BUSH CABINET CHOICES (Short Version)

Nationally, environmental leaders are already battling with the BushAdministration over cabinet positions that will be responsible for thenation’s environmental policy. In the Great Lakes region,environmentalists are waiting to see what the new Bush White House willmean here. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Nationally, environmental leaders are already battling with the Bush
Administration over cabinet positions that will be responsible for the
nation’s environmental policy. In the Great Lakes region, environmentalists
are waiting to see what the new Bush White House will mean here. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


Most leaders around the lakes seem to be taking a wait-and-see approach to
the new administration. However, at least one leading environmentalist is
worried. Keith Schneider is the program director of the Michigan Land Use
Institute. He says in his state he’s been battling Governor John Engler
over development that Schneider says damages the environment. Up until
now. Federal agencies have been safeguarding many environmentally sensitive
areas from development.


“Well, what happens when all these federal agencies working at the regional
level are changed and the ideology changes and Bush’s ideology on
development and the environment is virtually identical to Engler’s ideology
on development and the environment, where’s the technical data base that
says it’s illegal. Or you can’t do it. Or you have to do it another way?”


However, none of the Bush cabinet nominees have yet indicated any major
changes are in store for the Great Lakes region.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Region Tracking Bush Cabinet Choices

Along with much of the rest of the nation, many in the Great Lakes region are wondering what a Bush White House will mean for the environment. Nationally, some environmentalists are criticizing some of Bush’s plans for the environment. But around the lakes there seems tobe more of a ‘wait and see’ feeling. The Great Lakes RadioConsortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Along with much of the rest of the nation, many in the Great Lakes region
are wondering what a Bush White House will mean for the environment.
Nationally, some environmentalists are criticizing some of Bush’s plans for
the environment. But around the lakes, there seems to be more of a ‘wait
and see’ feeling. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports.


Before George Bush had even taken the reins of government, leaders of
environmental groups from around the nation recently gathered in Washington
D.C. to criticize his environmental views. Views which they say are far
removed from those held by the public at large. Deb Callahan is the
president of the League of Conservation Voters. She told reporters that her
group had commissioned a bi-partisan poll shortly after election
day –before anyone knew who would be president– to see what the people
thought about the environment.


“That poll shows unmistakably that Americans care deeply about
clean air, about safe drinking water, about protecting our nation’s public
lands. Voters expect their elected officials and, yes, cabinet officials to
uphold these basic and precious American values.”


But Callahan and the other environmentalists said bush apparently feels
differently. They say that’s proven by his first pick for an environmental
cabinet position. Gale Norton for Secretary of Interior.


“Her views are strikingly out of step with american mainstream
values. By nominating norton, president-elect bush has made clear we should
brace ourselves for an administration in which the public’s interest in
environmental protection is going to take a backseat to special interests’
desires to exploit land at the expense of our environment and quality of
life.”


Although that might represent the views of environmental groups at the
national level. There are some in the Great Lakes region who see the Bush
White House much differently. As you might expect, big business around the lakes –for
the most part– likes the ideas it’s hearing from bush and his
team. George Kuper is the president of the Council of Great Lakes
Industries. He says even though Bush supports industry, that doesn’t mean
the Bush White House will be bad for the environment.


“On environmental issues, I would just point out that history is a
pretty good determiner of the future, I think. At least 80-percent and
probably more of important, critical federal legislation relating to the
environment was signed by republican presidents.”


Examples include Teddy Roosevelt establishing the first national park. The
Modern era of environmental protection came together during Richard Nixon’s
time in office. And George W. Bush’s father signed important environmental
legislation.


Even some activists are open to the idea that the bush administration might
Approve legislation that environmentalists can support. Margaret Wooster is
the executive director of Great Lakes United, a bi-national coalition of
environmental groups. She says it’s true some republican presidents have
signed good environmental laws. But usually not until political pressures
forced them to act.


“Unfortunately, what provoked those things were things were so
bad –that was when Lake Erie was dead and so forth– so that everyone
could see that something had to be done. And, i mean, i’m hoping it does
not take a crisis of those kinds of proportions to get this administration
to do something.”


But Wooster says you never know. Bush could follow Nixon’s example of
passing good environmental laws if for no other reason than that they’re
politically expedient.


Other environmentalists, though, are worried. They fear that George W.
Bush will hold to his promise to let local agencies make more decisions,
changing the role of federal agencies. And that, they say, will be bad for
the environment. Keith Schneider is the program director of the Michigan
Land Use Institute. Schneider says federal agencies have been a last line
of defense against what he considers the state government’s damaging
economic development policies. What Schneider calls growth at any cost.


“The opposition to that was so helpful. And the technical
expertise provided by the field agencies like the fish and wildlife service
and the environmental protection agency, and the department of interior, and
the army corps of engineers was vital. Over the last eight years, the
federal government’s opposition has been very helpful to prevent bad things
from occurring to the environment.”


But it might be some time before much of anything happens differently in the
Great Lakes region. Early signs indicate that the new Bush administration
will be looking to things such as grazing issues in the west. And oil
drilling in the Alaskan wilderness. That might give Great Lakes leaders a
little time to plan strategy for dealing with a Bush White House.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

More Effective Test for Beach Closings?

In recent years Great Lakes beaches have been closed, sometimesunnecessarily, because of concerns about bacteria. A researcher saysshe’s found a way to better predict when beaches need to be closed. TheGreat Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

In recent years, Great Lakes beaches have been closed, sometimes
unnecessarily, because of concerns about bacteria. A researcher says she’s
found a way to better predict when beaches need to be closed. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


If water at the beach looks dirty, there’s a greater chance of E. coli
bacteria. That’s according to work done at Bio-check Laboratories at the
medical college of Ohio Advanced Technology Park. Researcher Nancy Hatfield
told the Toledo Blade that she’s found the majority of the time there’s a
correlation between murkiness and high bacteria counts. This research
complements separate studies by the U.S. geological survey. It’s found when
waves stir up sediment and sand, bacteria counts are usually higher.
Hatfield says she’ll encourage officials to get equipment that will measure
how murky the water is on a daily basis. Right now, officials say, bacteria
testing alone is not very satisfactory. The testing takes so long, often
beaches are open when there’s high risk of bacteria. And closed when the
risk is past. For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Voracious Shrimp May Invade Great Lakes

A small vicious predator might soon be killing and maiming tiny aquaticanimals in the Great Lakes. It’s spreading in the ballast waters oflarge ships. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

A small vicious predator might soon be killing and maiming tiny aquatic
animals in the Great Lakes. It’s spreading in the ballast waters of large
ships. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


A researcher in Belfast is warning a voracious shrimp called Dikerogammarus
villosus will have a severe impact on the areas it invades. Jaimie Dick says
he’s studied lakes in Europe where the shrimp invasion caused lots of damage.


“Now, what we found was that Dikerogammarus very rapidly spread, almost
entirely replaced the native species, had a very advanced ability to simply
kill, simply shredding the victims to the point that they were gone for–
all but small pieces of exoskeleton and appendage.”


Dick says the shrimp originate in the Caspian and Black seas. But cargo
ships are giving them a ride in their ballast water. Dick predicts if the
U.S. does not strictly enforce rules requiring ships to completely exchange
ballast water at sea. It’s inevitable that the shrimp will invade the Great
Lakes. For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Dam Re-Licensing on the Fast Track?

More than a hundred hydroelectric plants on rivers that feed the GreatLakes are up for re-licensing over the next ten years. This week afederal agency is wrapping up a series of public meetings to considersimplifying the re-licensing process, some say at the expense ofenvironmental protections. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s DavidSommerstein has more:

Transcript

More than a hundred hydroelectric plants on rivers that feed the Great Lakes are up for
re-licensing over the next ten years. This week a federal agency is wrapping up a series
of public meetings to consider simplifying the re-licensing process, some say at the
expense of environmental protections. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David
Sommerstein has more.

Conservationists see re-licensing as an opportunity to redress the environmental effects of
dams. But the process can cost hydroelectric utilities millions of dollars and take years of
work. Congress recently instructed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to
review the process with the intent of reducing its cost and time. Matt Sicchio is the
coordinator of the Hydropower Reform Coalition.


“Good government sounds great to everybody, but only if they improve environmental
quality in the process. They can’t mortgage the future of our rivers in the name of process
efficiency.”


Wisconsin and Michigan are among the top four states in the nation with licenses up for
renewal by 2010.


The commission will make recommendations to Congress in May.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m David Sommerstein.

Egg Company Fined for Polluting

Ohio’s attorney general has settled a lawsuit with one of the nation’stop egg producers. The suit claimed the company’s farms caused flyinfestations and pollution. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’sJo Ingles reports, neighbors of the operation are not convinced the farmwill hold up to its end of the bargain:

Transcript

Ohio’s attorney general has settled a lawsuit with one of the nation’s top
egg producers. The suit claimed the company’s farms caused fly infestations
and pollution. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jo Ingles reports, neighbors of
the operation are not convinced the farm will hold up to its end of the
bargain.


Dan Perkins says the nearby Buckeye Egg facility has polluted his creek. So
he thinks the one million dollar fine the company has agreed to pay, under
this settlement, is just a drop in the bucket….and he doesn’t like the way
the company gets to pay it.


“They give this guy a one million dollar
fine and six years to pay it off? Do you get six years to
pay off a speeding ticket?”


Perkins doubts the company will live up to the agreement. But a spokesman
for Ohio’s attorney general, Joe Case, says the company has financial
incentive to do that.


“All of the money that would be profit will
be re-routed back into the facilities to modernize them to make sure they
obey Ohio’s environmental law.”


It’s hard to know what Buckeye Egg thinks about the agreement of the
neighbor’s skepticism. Company executives are not returning phone calls from
reporters.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jo Ingles in Columbus.

Commentary – Looking for Leadership

After almost a decade of negotiations, the international communitystill hasn’t reached an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston says it’s timewe looked someplace else for leadership:

Transcript

After almost a decade of negotiations, the international community
still hasn’t reached an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston says it’s
time we looked someplace else for leadership.


Let’s face it – if talking could solve the global warming problem, it
would have been taken care of a long time ago.


There is scientific consensus that human activity is altering the
planet’s climate. Nine years ago, world officials meeting at the
Earth Summit in Rio began to try and do something about it. So they
talked without much success. So four years later, in Kyoto Japan,
they talked some more, and came up with something called the Kyoto
protocol. This agreement requires developed nations to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions – the primary cause of climate change. A
few countries have ratified the protocol, but the U.S. and Canada
have not. So everybody’s decided to do some more talking.


In November 7,000 representatives from 182 countries gathered in The
Hague to talk about greenhouse gas emissions. That’s a lot of hot air
and a lot of jet fuel. But after two weeks of debate they failed to
reach an agreement. A subsequent meeting in Ottawa was also a
failure. So now the pressure’s on the next international meeting
scheduled for October in Marrakesh. But President George Bush doesn’t
support the Kyoto protocol, so this meeting may be doomed to fail
before it starts.


While the leaders of the world are racking up air miles flogging a
toothless international treaty, corporations are beginning to view
climate change as a business opportunity. Increasing energy prices
are forcing companies to look at ways to cut consumption. And new
energy technologies are promising to open up business markets for
innovative companies.


What’s interesting about all this is that the companies traditionally
viewed as the bad guys of climate change are the ones making some
small steps in the right direction. Car giants Toyota and Honda have
invested heavily in producing hybrid cars that will significantly
reduce greenhouse gas emissions – if enough consumers buy them. And
at the recent North American International Auto Show in Detroit, the
president of Toyota Motor Corporation said that the auto industry
must limit the car’s impact on the earth. Impressive talk from the
head of the world’s third largest car manufacturer.


Oil companies are starting to get the message, too. BP has become the
world’s largest manufacturer of solar electric panels and systems.
Suncor, another major oil company, has invested $ 100 million in
renewable energy technologies. Other business giants like IBM,
Johnson & Johnson and DuPont have all pledged to voluntarily reduce
their greenhouse gas emissions.


Granted these are small steps – but even these small steps represent
a lot more than our collective governments are doing. They’re
continuing to bicker over last century’s failures, while the
corporate world is beginning – ever so slowly – to get the message.

Snowmobile Maker Revs-Up Cleaner Machines


Snowmobiling is big business in the Great Lakes. So recent efforts toban snowmobiles from national parks, in part because of the pollutionthey create, have found very vocal critics in the region. A recentlyfiled lawsuit is challenging the ban. While that case makes its waythrough the courts, one snowmobile manufacturer has begun production ona machine it says addresses the problem of pollution, as well as noise. Arctic Cat says the machine is quieter and cleaner, and willrevolutionize the industry. However, environmentalists describe the newsnowmobile as nothing more than window dressing. They say the machineis simply designed to convince the government to lift their park ban. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Gunderson reports:

Transcript

Snowmobiling is big business in the Great Lakes. So recent efforts to ban snowmobiles
from national parks, in part because of the pollution they create, have found very vocal
critics in the region. A recently filed lawsuit is challenging the ban. While that case
makes its way through the courts, one snowmobile manufacturer has begun production
on a machine it says addresses the problem of pollution, as well as noise. Arctic Cat says
the machine is quieter and cleaner, and will revolutionize the industry. However,
environmentalists describe the new snowmobile as nothing more than window dressing,
and they say the machine is simply designed to convince the government to lift their park
ban. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Gunderson reports:


When Arctic Cat recently unveiled its new sled, CEO Chris Twomey and several hundred
employees wore green t-shirts to symbolize what they say is the company’s
environmental commitment.
The assembly line at the Thief River Falls Minnesota plant stopped as workers gathered
around one of the new four stroke machines.


“Here we go quiet everybody. (machine starting) terrific job everbody
applause fades.”


The employees provided an enthusiastic audience for Ed Klim, President of Michigan
based International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association, the group that is suing the
National Park Service to stop the proposed snowmobile ban.


“I don’t have to tell you that recently we’ve been attacked by some
naysayers and extremists that are loose with the facts. They use fuzzy math.”


Klim says it’s time for environmentalists to stop opposing snowmobiles and start working
with the industry.


“I say the naysayers and extremists have cried foul long enough. (applause)
It’s time for the extremists to stop the shrill and come here and discover what the
snowmobile industry has accomplished and what the industry is developing for the
future.”


The snowmobile industry is under criticism from environmental groups and government
agencies for building machines that produce high noise levels and air pollution. However,
because there are no federal regulations or testing, each side produces its own statistics to
support its views.


But Arctic Cat CEO Chris Twomey insists this new machine is in response to customer
demands, not environmentalists or the government.


“If we were only doing this in response to the government. We wouldn’t
have done anything yet since the government hasn’t told us what it wants.”


The federal government is still working to develop emission and noise regulations for
snowmobiles, but it may be several years before standards are in place.
Twomey predicts the new sled will meet those regulations, and he says snowmobiles will
only get cleaner and quieter.


He eagerly demonstrates the new technology on the snow covered front lawn just outside
his office. First a standard two stroke engine which burns a mixture of gas and oil and
emits a cloud of blue smoke.


Then the new four stroke machine which burns gasoline like an automobile engine and
produces no noticeable exhaust


While the company insists the new machines are aimed at individual customers, the first
50 produced were shipped to Yellowstone Park.


Twomey says he doesn’t know if the new machines will change the minds of government
officials, or environmental groups. But he argues an outright snowmobile ban in National
Parks is unfair.


“Should there be reasonable restrictions? Absolutely. Should people be
allowed to denigrate the park in any way? No, but you can’t use phony statistics and
scare tactics to stop a whole group of people who want to use the park in a
reasonable way.”


Meanwhile, the new snowmobile gets no praise from Jon Catton. He’s spokesman for the
Greater Yellowstone Coalition, a Montana conservation group.


“It is not enough to go from an outrageously polluting machine to a
horrendously polluting machine. And we should not in that kind of a transition start
adopting terms like cleaner or certainly clean machine, when the snowmobiles
Arctic Cat is producing are anything but.”


Catton says his group and others will continue to fight allowing any snowmobile use in
National Parks.


The snowmobile industry may also face an uphill battle with the Federal government. A
Park Service official says a cleaner, quieter sled will not automatically get the
government’s blessing.


But the snowmobile industry recently won a temporary victory when Congress ordered
the National Park Service to delay the rulemaking process for restricting snowmobile use
in parks.


Arctic Cat CEO Chris Twomey meanwhile, says whatever the long term outcome of that
dispute, his company will continue moving ahead with development of cleaner ,quieter
machines. He expects the new sleds to take over about 30 percent of the U.S. snowmobile
market. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Dan Gunderson.