Tag: courts

Sparring Over Water in the South

  • A federal judge ruled that if Florida, Georgia and Alabama don’t come to a water agreement by 2012, Atlanta has to stop taking drinking water from Lake Lanier. (Photo courtesy of the US EPA)

It’s called “the economic engine of
the South.” Atlanta, Georgia’s population
has exploded in the last two decades.
But with that growth has come environmental
problems, like where to get enough drinking
water. Georgia, Florida, and Alabama
have been fighting over who gets how
much water from rivers that flow through
the states. And, as Tanya Ott reports, a
decision in the federal lawsuit could effect
communities across the country:

Transcript

It’s called “the economic engine of
the South.” Atlanta, Georgia’s population
has exploded in the last two decades.
But with that growth has come environmental
problems, like where to get enough drinking
water. Georgia, Florida, and Alabama
have been fighting over who gets how
much water from rivers that flow through
the states. And, as Tanya Ott reports, a
decision in the federal lawsuit could effect
communities across the country:

Atlanta draws millions of gallons of drinking water each day from nearby Lake Lanier. But Alabama and Florida say it’s such a water hog, there might not be enough water sent on downstream to cool power plants or protect the seafood industry.

“I had no idea! (laughs) I didn’t really realize there was a problem.”

Atlanta-area resident Connie Brand says she knew the state was in a drought last year. She knew she was supposed to conserve water, and she did.

“Not taking such a long shower; not doing small loads of laundry.”

But only recently did she realize how big a problem this could be.

In July, federal Judge Paul Magnuson ruled that under the law Lake Lanier was intended only for things like navigation and flood control – not drinking water. He said if Florida, Georgia and Alabama don’t come to a water agreement by 2012, Atlanta has to stop taking drinking water from Lake Lanier.

“The action of a court could create a public health emergency that would probably rival the effects of Katrina.”

That’s Charles Krautler. He’s director of the Atlanta Regional Commission. He says in the past 25 years Atlanta’s population has more than doubled to 4 million residents and there’s no way to get water to people without Lake Lanier.

“How do you decide who doesn’t have water and who does? Our chairman likes to say, ‘FEMA doesn’t have enough trucks to bring in enough bottled water to deal with the shortfall that would exist.’”

It’s not just an issue for Atlanta. There are more than two dozen similar reservoirs around the country. They were built for navigation, flood control or hydropower. But communities are using them for drinking water. Congress might have to step in to basically retro-actively approve the drinking water use. Cindy Lowery is executive director of the Alabama Rivers Alliance.

“If it goes to Congress, which the court case says that it might have to, it could get even more political and more chaotic really.”

Several members of Congress have said they won’t act until Florida, Georgia and Alabama come to a deal. But Lowery says, so far, the negotiations have been dominated by government agencies and special interests like power companies. She wants a panel of neutral advisors and scientists to study the issue.

In the meantime, Atlanta residents like Connie Brand are left wondering what will happen.

“I’m from a family when they grew up they relied on cistern water, and when it rained you had water, and when it didn’t rain, you didn’t have water. So I’m familiar with having to ration and be careful about those kinds of things. But I don’t think my child or people of my generation, their children, have any concept of conservation of water or anything like that.”

Brand says she just might have to step up her own conservation efforts.

“What was it we had in college? If it’s yellow let it mellow, if it’s brown flush it down? (laughs) that’ll be our new motto! (laughs)”

For The Environment Report, I’m Tanya Ott.

Related Links

Sustainable Prisons Project, Part Two

  • This is the entrance to The Hub. Prisoners who’ve been cleared on good behavior get to work here. This is where the prison’s beekeeping operation, recycling center and gardens are. (Photo by Sadie Babits)

Prisons probably aren’t the first
place you’d expect to find organic
gardens or beekeeping. But in some
prisons in western Washington, inmates
are being taught new skills and getting
involved in conservation work. As Sadie
Babits found out, inmates say they’re
restoring their own lives by helping save
native prairies and growing veggies:

Transcript

Prisons probably aren’t the first
place you’d expect to find organic
gardens or beekeeping. But in some
prisons in western Washington, inmates
are being taught new skills and getting
involved in conservation work. As Sadie
Babits found out, inmates say they’re
restoring their own lives by helping save
native prairies and growing veggies:

Stafford Creek Prison would feel like a college campus if it weren’t for the series of
heavy metal gates and the barbed wire.

(sound of mechanical gates opening)

2,000 prisoners are held at this medium security facility. A select group of them
who’ve been cleared on good behavior get to work in what’s called the Hub. It
doesn’t sound too exciting – until you spot the greenhouses.

(sound of door opening and fans)

Inside the largest greenhouse, there are hundreds of yellow plastic tubes. Three
inmates are filling these tubes with dirt. They are planting seeds to help restore
native grasses.

Toby Erheart is one of these prisoners.

“I don’t know if what we’re doing will make a huge impact on the world, but I know
it’s making a huge impact on this project. It will change the face of the prairies in
western Washington.”

This is the project’s first year. The goal is to grow 200,000 plants for the prairies.

It’s getting hot and muggy inside the greenhouse. So Inmate Jeff Harrigan heads
outside. He leans against the greenhouse as he talks about what it’s like to grow
these plants.

“It’s been a learning experience for me cause I’ve never done nothing like this on the
streets.”

Harrigan has been in and out of prison six different times.

“I’ve just learned doing other things than stealing and doing drugs makes you feel
better about yourself. I feel like I’m putting something back, something that is
saving something, ‘cause it’s saving the butterflies from what they told us.”

Harrigan says he’s never planted anything before until coming to Stafford Creek.

“And actually, it’s kind of cool cause since coming here I asked my girlfriend
something I never asked her before, what her favorite flowers were, just cause I had
started planting flowers. (laughs)”

Turns out marigolds and hens and chicks are her favorites. Two plants, Harrigan
says, that can be found around the prison. When he’s not planting native grasses,
Harrigan works in the prison’s vegetable garden.

“Right here, this is stuff that we’ve planted. There’s onions, radishes, beans.”

So far, he’s helped harvest peas, garlic and 200 pounds of zucchini. The kitchen staff
took that squash and turned into zucchini bread for the inmates.

Harrigan talks about how hard it was for him keep a job when he was outside
prison. Drugs always got in the way. Now he says he feels like he’s doing something
that matters and he hopes this experience in prison will help him when he gets out.

“Actually, it’s teaching me better work ethics too, cause I’ve never really had them
out there. I never really kept a job probably because I didn’t like it, you know.”

Harrigan says he does like gardening. He says he now knows how to germinate
seeds and how to get plants to take off – skills he says could help him get a job once
he’s back in society.

“For a person like me, who still wants to feel human and still got good parts in me,
this stuff brings you back to reality.”

He’s got another year and half to go before he’s free. Harrigan says he’s already told
his girlfriend, when he does get out, they have to plant a garden – something he
hopes will keep him from coming back to Stafford Creek.

For The Environment Report, I’m Sadie Babits.

Related Links

Sustainable Prisons Project, Part One

  • Inmates at Stafford Creek who’ve been cleared on good behavior can work in the prison’s recycling center. (Photo by Sadie Babits)

Some industries and businesses have
been greening up their operations to
save money. Now, another big industry
is getting into the act – American prisons.
California has announced 16 new green
energy projects at prisons that they
say will save millions. And prisons
in Indiana, Virginia, and Nevada are
installing solar panels and wind turbines.
But, as Sadie Babits reports, the state
of Washington is taking their green
program a few steps further:

Transcript

Some industries and businesses have
been greening up their operations to
save money. Now, another big industry
is getting into the act – American prisons.
California has announced 16 new green
energy projects at prisons that they
say will save millions. And prisons
in Indiana, Virginia, and Nevada are
installing solar panels and wind turbines.
But, as Sadie Babits reports, the state
of Washington is taking their green
program a few steps further:

(sound of cutting an onion)

Jason Chandler has already spent four years behind bars for a crime he won’t talk
about. He recently was hired to work here in this organic garden at Stafford Creek
Prison. Before this, Chandler says, he was working here as a janitor.

Babits: “What are you doing?”

Chandler: “Cutting the onions off to prepare for the kitchen. Just cutting the roots
and the stock off. Least the winds going my eyes ain’t watering.”

The Stafford Creek prison in western Washington has this garden, a recycling center,
greenhouses, and a beekeeping operation. Chandler says working these jobs beats
mopping floors and cleaning toilets.

“I had to ask my counselor to put me on the list. There are quite a few people on a
waiting list to get positions like this and they got by an application basis and, if
you’re willing to work, it’s a good job to have.”

It’s a job made possible through the Sustainable Prisons Project – a partnership
between Evergreen State College and the Washington Department of Corrections.
The grant-funded project has been running formally for more than a year. While it’s
clear prisoners like these jobs, officials say it’s too early to tell whether beekeeping
or growing vegetables will reduce recidivism rates.

But prison officials say that wasn’t the project’s main goal.

“My early motivation was money, surely money.”

Dan Pocholke is the Deputy Director of Prisons. It costs more than $30,000 a year to
house just one prisoner in Washington state. The Department of Corrections was
ordered several years ago to save money by doing things like conserving water and
energy.

To do this, Polcholke says they got help from Evergreen State College to “green”
Cedar Creek – a minimum security facility in Washington. He says they got prisoners
involved in cutting back their water use.

“And we started studying our use rates and our consumption rates and, low and
behold, a year later we had brought our water use rates down by an astonishing
level.”

Pocholke says the partnership with the college has another benefit. Prisoners are
learning new skills. And Evergreen State College says one of their goals is being
fulfilled too – to spread environmental science to unlikely places – like prisons.

Some inmates in this program get to do research on everything from raising frogs to
growing native prairie grasses. There’s already been a few success stories. One
inmate has gone on to co-author a scientific paper and is now working on a
doctorate degree.

(sound of recycling)

And, while some prisoners are learning new skills, the goal of saving money is also
being met. Stafford Creek prison has cut the amount of garbage they send to
landfills by more than half by recycling.

Inmate Kevin Madigan says he’d like to keep even more out of the landfill.

“The more self sustaining you can become, the less burden you are on the people out
there. And that in itself is a good thing.”

Madigan rips open a clear plastic bag and dumps the garbage onto this conveyer
belt. He gets paid 42-cents an hour to work here, but for him it goes beyond just a
job.

Madigan says it’s one way for him to make amends for all the trouble he caused
outside these prison walls.

For The Environment Report, I’m Sadie Babits.

Related Links

Styrene Industry Sues Over Cancer Listing

  • Styrene is one component in styrofoam containers (Photo by Renee Comet, courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)

The styrene industry is suing to stop environmental officials from saying styrene could cause cancer and birth defects. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The styrene industry is suing to stop environmental officials from saying styrene could cause cancer and birth defects. Lester Graham reports:

Styrene is used in all kinds of products – containers like coffee cups, egg cartons, in construction, in cars.

The state of California wants to add it to a list of cancer-causing materials. The International Agency for Research on Cancer found styrene is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

Joe Walker is a spokesman for the Styrene Information and Research Center.

“Styrene is not a carginogen. Any listing that would categorize it as such basically would be illegal and would be erroneous and would have the potential of alarming the public unnecessarily about products that are made from styrene.”

If the court does allow California to put styrene on its cancer list, the styrene industry has a year to prove it doesn’t belong on that list.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Indian Treaty 2.0

Five Indian tribes claim the right to hunt, fish and gather on lands
and lakes they sold to the federal government years ago. Their
claim extends back to the Treaty of 1836. But it’s been
challenged in court by state officials who say those rights expired
long ago. As Bob Allen reports, now all the parties have reached
an uneasy compromise:

Transcript

Five Indian tribes claim the right to hunt, fish and gather on lands
and lakes they sold to the federal government years ago. Their
claim extends back to the Treaty of 1836. But it’s been
challenged in court by state officials who say those rights expired
long ago. As Bob Allen reports, now all the parties have reached
an uneasy compromise:


170 years ago, the tribes sold millions of acres to the U.S.
government. But they reserved for themselves the right to hunt
fish and gather foods and medicines until the land was settled.


Hank Bailey is an elder with the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa
and Chippewa. He’s scouting out a favorite fall hunting spot
even though it’s pelting rain:


“I know these hills well all around here just from exploring
it…hunting, gathering mushrooms…”


Bailey is a direct descendant from a tribal leader who signed the
original treaty. He says the exercise of those rights in times past
were the difference between survival and starvation. And he
doesn’t think a new piece of paper can ever erase what his
ancestors preserved:


“They were told that this treaty was forever. And I know in
my heart that’s what they believed in. And they thought well
as long as we can hunt, fish and gather we will be able to
survive as a people. This is what bothers me about is, I’m
being told now that when we sign this paper, this is going to
be forever and here we go again.”


Four years ago, the state of Michigan went to court to argue tribal
hunting and fishing rights had expired because the land had been
settled long ago.


But then state officials noticed court rulings in other Great Lakes
states that upheld treaties and in some case awarded tribes as
much as half of the natural resources.


Tribal leaders thought they had a strong case, but they too were
leery of how today’s courts might interpret the phrase that said
their treaty rights exist “until the land is settled,” so the parties
were motivated to negotiate a deal outside court.


Jim Ekdahl is with the state Department of Natural Resources:


“We were in a strange kind of legal limbo where the state
wasn’t exactly sure what the ground rules should be in
light of the fact the federal courts hadn’t ruled on the inland
rights. The tribes weren’t 100% confident that they could
advise their membership in terms of what they ought to be
doing.”


From legal limbo, there are now 130 pages of rules and
regulations on how and where the tribes can exercise their rights.
There’s been some grumbling on both sides.


Some tribal members complain, with some exaggeration, that they
have to fill out a form now before they can pick a single
blueberry, and there are sportsmen who don’t like a special set of
rules for Indians.


What the tribes have agreed to is their rights to hunt, fish and
gather will only apply on lands open to the public. And they only
can take enough for subsistence, not for commercial sale.


Tribal resource managers say what their members take is a drop
in the bucket of the overall resource. And Jim Ekdahl with the
state says there’s still plenty to go around:


“There’s sufficient harvestable surpluses of resources
available to accommodate tribal interests. There’s essentially
no effect on harvest by state licensed recreational users. And
essentially no changes in state regulations are gonna be required as this
thing moves forward.”


The parties to the agreement say is it avoids a bitter legal battle
that could last a decade or more and cost millions of dollars.
Both sides remember an ugly dispute that raged 30 years ago
when tribes reasserted their right to fish commercially with nets
in the Great Lakes.


Matthew Fletcher is a specialist in tribal law at Michigan State
University. As far as he can tell, this is the first time a state has
voluntarily recognized tribal treaty rights extending to off-
reservation lands without being told to do so by a court:


“There are tribes and there are treaties nationwide that have
similar language. And I’m sure they’re watching this very
carefully. And this kind of consent decree is going to create a
kind of precedent for other states that are engaging in similar
kinds of negotiations.”


The agreement still needs to be accepted by a federal judge
before it becomes binding in law. For tribal elder Hank Bailey
the deal might chip away some free exercise of historic rights,
but it also reasserts that those rights can’t ever be taken away:


“For me that’s… that is about the most powerful part of it is
being able to know that I will continue to be an Odawa, black
wolf clan, a man… somebody that respects the resources
around me. And I’m willing to work with anybody else that
feels the same way, whether they’re tribal or not.”


For the Environment Report, I’m Bob Allen.

Related Links

Defending Rights of Nature

  • Sister Pat Siemen (pictured) leads a seminar on earth jurisprudence at Barry Law School in Orlando, Florida. (Photo by Jennifer Szweda Jordan)

Some lawyers believe it’s time to stand for the rights of nature. They want to represent trees. They want to defend the rights of birds and lakes, and all of nature.
They’re trying to put into practice a theory called earth jurisprudence.
Jennifer Szweda
Jordan has the story:

Transcript

Some lawyers believe it’s time to stand for the rights of nature. They
want to represent trees. They want to defend the rights of birds and
lakes, and all of nature. They’re trying to put into practice a theory
called earth jurisprudence. Jennifer Szweda Jordan has the story:


A law seminar on defending the rights of nature is probably not what
you expect, at least not at first. The start of Roman Catholic Sister
Pat Siemen’s law seminar on earth jurisprudence is unorthodox and Zen
like:


“We’re gonna start with our reflection time. And what I’d like you to
do is close your computers.”


Siemen taps a handheld chime in a classroom at Barry Law School in
Orlando, Florida. She has the law students practice slowing down so
they’ll notice what’s going on around them in nature, and they’ll take
the time to really think about arguing for the rights of nature in the
courtroom.


The legal system doesn’t recognize the rights of nature just yet.
Courts interpret the Constitution as protecting needs and rights of
humans. So only humans, or say, groups of humans such as corporations
can sue. The rights of bunnies and trees aren’t entitled to a voice in
courtrooms. Siemen says the emerging field of earth jurisprudence wants
to change that.


Part of the whole thought of earth jurisprudence is that other beings
actually be given their rights -legislatively – to come into court
through the understanding that someone as a guardian or trustee stands
in their right.


Besides teaching this new area of law, Siemen directs the Center for
Earth Jurisprudence. The center’s just wrapped up its first academic
year. Siemen’s early legal work focused on advocating for people who
were poor, minorities, or otherwise marginalized.


Siemen moved in a different direction when she was influenced by
ecotheologian Thomas Berry. Berry says that if the animals and trees
had a voice, they’d vote humans off the planet. Siemen was shocked:


“I had spent my whole life – at least adult life – ministerially trying
to stand in positions of empowerment of others, and furthering the
rights of others and I had never once really thought about what it
meant to be – whether it would be rivers or endangered species – what
it would mean to have to live and exist totally by the decisions of
humans.”


Siemen was also influenced by University of Southern California Law
School professor Christopher D. Stone. Stone wrote an article entitled
“Should Trees Have Standing?” In 1972, Supreme Court Justice William
Douglass agreed that inanimate objects should have rights. But that
view hasn’t gotten very far in American courtrooms.


The idea that ecosystems should have legal rights is problematic in the
view of free-market advocates. Sam Kazman is General Counsel for the
Competitive Enterprise Institute. He calls the theory of earth
jurisprudence gibberish.


“It is impossible to lay out what is in the best interest of an
ecosystem unless you lay out just what you as someone who owns that
ecosystem, or enjoys it, or appreciates it from a distance, what you
hold important.”


In other words, the owner will decide what’s best for the ecosystem.
Some legal experts believe giving nature rights would take nothing less
than a constitutional amendment.


University of Pittsburgh Law Professor Tom Buchele disagrees. He’s an
environmental lawyer who’s used the standing concept – unsuccessfully –
in arguing for a forest. He says that the Supreme Court could, if it
chose, interpret the constitution as allowing nature to have legal
standing:


“There’s certainly nothing in the constitution that says a case or
controversy has to have a person as the entity. It’s just that current
case law doesn’t do that.”


Buchele and Siemen know changes in court decisions are a long way away.
But if teaching about earth jurisprudence can make tomorrow’s corporate
counsels, real estate lawyers, and governmental officials consider the
trees and the water in their work, Siemen feels she’ll have made some
progress.


And getting law students to think about the rights of nature along with
the rights of humans might be the start of the legal revolution Siemen
wants to see.


For the Environment Report, this is Jennifer Szweda Jordan.

Related Links

State Attempts to Stop Foreign Trash Imports

States have tried for years to limit the number of out-of-state trash haulers heading to their landfills. They’ve tried to ban shipment from crossing their borders. They’ve tried to make other states jump through bureaucratic hoops. But courts have repeatedly struck down those attempts. Now, a state is trying to stop trash from being imported from outside the country. But neighbors living close to a massive dump near Detroit say they’re not hopeful the effort will make their lives any better. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:

Transcript

States have tried for years to limit the number of out-of-state trash haulers heading to their landfills. They’ve tried to ban shipments from crossing their borders. They’ve tried to make other states jump through bureaucratic hoops. But courts have repeatedly struck down those attempts. Now, a state is trying to stop trash from being imported from outside the country. But neighbors living close to a massive dump near Detroit say they’re not hopeful the effort will
make their lives any better. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:


The road to Dave Swisher’s home leads to a towering brown mound that grows taller every year. Trucks queue up well before sunrise. They wait their turn to inch up the side of the mound. They’ll each
contribute their few inches – of garbage, and human waste in the form of a grayish sludge. Swisher says he’s not sure which is worse: the stench drifting down from the dump, the dust that coats his car and home, or the constant stream of truck traffic.


“I’ve had times where I go to get out of my driveway, and I sit for trucks…I can’t even get out! They shouldn’t even be running that early. I leave at 5:30, 20 of six in the morning. Sometimes I can’t even get out of my own driveway for the trucks.”


Since the beginning of this year, many more trucks are barrelling past his home toward the landfill. Many of them are from Canada. The city of Toronto is now sending all its garbage – in 140 trucks a day – to this dump in southeast Michigan. And Swisher says a look at the license plates on other
trucks tells him where the rest of the trash is coming from.


“You’ve got some from Ohio, I think some from Illinois, an outside of that, I’m not sure how many states there are. But I know those three. And it just seems to be getting worse.”


Many people in the region share Swisher’s frustration. A report from the Congressional Research Service shows that the nation’s top ten trash importers include six Great Lakes states. Brooke Beal oversees solid waste issues for Chicago’s northern suburbs. He says there’s a reason
so much trash is coming to the Midwest.


“Here, most of the waste comes from the east coast. I mean, the east coast saw landfill capacity that we saw in the 80’s and 90’s shrinking back in the 70’s. They’ve been shipping their waste farther and farther west. I mean they started going to New Jersey, now they’ve moved to Virginia and Ohio, and they’re starting to move into Indiana. Because that’s where the landfills are – the
country, we’ll call it, because land costs are cheaper.


Chicago’s northern suburbs generate about 300-thousand tons of trash each year. Beale says all that trash is shipped across the border to Wisconsin. He says that’s because it’s closer and cheaper to export it than to ship it to downstate Illinois. Wisconsin tried years ago to block the trash coming from Chicago. But like similar attempts by
other states, the courts blocked the effort.


Trash, the courts say, is an item of commerce – just like steel
and cars and grain. And only Congress can regulate commerce.


Now, Michigan is hoping to succeed where other states have failed. Legislation would prohibit certain items from state landfills – including beer and soda bottles, and yard waste. States that want to
send their trash to Michigan would have to prove that they filter out those items.


Christopher Peters is a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University. He says the
legislation might not stand up to a legal challenge by the waste industry.


“I think a court is going to say that that is discriminatory legislation. Because it makes it more
expensive, essentially, artificially more expensive for someone to bring waste in from out of state
than for someone to dispose of waste that comes from inside the state.”


It’s not clear how Michigan’s plan would affect the steady traffic of Toronto’s trash coming into
the state. The city already diverts from its waste stream most of the items Michigan wants to prohibit.
And lawyers for the waste industry are already promising a court fight.


Meanwhile, in Dave Swisher’s neighborhood, the trucks are still rumbling past his house. He says
even if Michigan passes a new set of laws, he doesn’t have much hope that the legislation would help him
or his neighbors.


“It’s a dead issue. Nothing’s going to make it any better, nothing’s going to stop it, nothing’s going to ease it up. It’s just
going to get worse.”


Swisher says legislation isn’t going to make the landfill go away. And he says unless he’s willing
to sell his house for far less than he thinks it’s worth, he’s likely to be stuck here, too.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.

DRUG COURTS TRY TO END CYCLE OF ABUSE (Part 1)

According to a report from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the economic cost of drug-related crime is about fifty billion dollars a year. Much of that amount goes toward incarcerating offenders. But many of these people are nonviolent, low-level drug users… and now, instead of locking them up, some court systems are trying a different approach. In the first of a two part series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Wendy Nelson examines the growing trend of drug courts:

ARE DRUG COURTS THE BEST APPROACH? (Part 2)

In 1989, the country’s first drug court was set up in Dade County, Florida. It was designed as a way to reduce prison overcrowding. Today, there are more than three hundred fifty drug courts operating around the country, with another two hundred in the planning stages. But not everyone’s happy with that growth. In the second of a two-part series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Wendy Nelson reports that some people are questioning whether courts are the best place to deal with substance abuse:

Commentary – NAFTA Used to Sue Province

Late last month (October) Sun Belt Water of California filed a $10.5
billion suit against the Canadian government under the North American
Free Trade Agreement. The company claims that it has been mistreated
because the province of British Columbia banned the bulk exports of
water. As Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston points
out, the outcome of the suit will probably cost us all a lot more than
money: