Tag: company

Woman Fights Uphill Battle Against Water Diversion

  • Upstream on the Glen Tay River in the Fall of 1999. Residents fought against a Swiss company (OMYA) who wanted to draw water from the river to make slurry for products like toothpaste and paper. (Photo courtesy of Carol Dillon)

In many communities, there are increasing demands for the limited supply of water. But people often feel there’s little they can do to protect that water from outside interests. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports on one woman who fought to stop millions of gallons of water from being drained from her local river:

Transcript

In many communities, there are increasing demands for the limited
supply of water. But people often feel there’s little they can do to protect that
water from outside interests. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports on one
woman who fought to stop millions of gallons of water from being
drained from her local river:


(sound of crunching leaves)


It’s been a wet spring. But the leaves along the shore of the Tay River in Perth, Ontario
crunch beneath your feet.


Carol Dillon walks a path that was once submerged in water. She stops at a maple tree, and
points to a ring of greenish bark around its trunk.


“This is where the water comes to normally in the spring…
This was sort of the natural shore line, but the water has not
been this high, this would be the fourth year now.”


(sound of wind, crunching of leaves)


Carol Dillon and her husband, Mel, bought this piece of land in
1999. They came here to retire. Then, in the fall of that year, the Tay River dried up.


Four months later, they were shocked when a manufacturer applied
to take 1.2 million gallons of water out of the river every day.


“We simply looked out the window at this very dry river and
said, well how are they going to do that?”


Dillon soon found out they weren’t the only people asking that
question. Six thousand residents depend on the river for drinking water.
Another six thousand draw from wells in the river’s watershed. People worried there wouldn’t be
enough clean water during the dry season. And that wildlife would suffer.


(sound of truck)


An 18-wheeler pulls out of the OMYA plant in Perth, carrying a
load of calcium carbonate sludge. The Swiss company needs water to make the sludge, which
goes into products like paper and toothpaste.


They already draw about 400 thousand gallons out of the area’s
groundwater each day. But OMYA wanted to triple its water consumption so it could step
up production, with a promise of new jobs.


The public had 15 days to comment on the company’s plan.


As a consultant with the federal government, Dillon knew a bit
about bureaucracy. So she started helping out neighbors, who weren’t sure what they
could do.


“At one of the public meetings, a farmer stood up and said,
‘I’ve been a farmer on the Tay River for 40 years, but I don’t know
what to write in a letter to the minister.’ He said, ‘well, we have
to be careful with the water.’ And I said, ‘that’s your letter.'”


Dillon says she wanted to convince people that their voices do
matter. So she dropped off envelopes for them, faxed their letters, and
answered lots of questions. Before she knew it, she had kick-started a grassroots
movement.


“I was not a tree hugger in my life and I never was a
political person, either, but always believed in responsibility…
This is a democracy and when people have an opinion on something,
your government should hear it.”


People were inspired by Dillon. Jackie Seaton is one of the many who got involved.


“She simply spoke to the issue of water. If you’ve ever read
any of her memos or heard her speak at a council meeting, I mean
everybody can understand what’s she saying because it’s in the
plainest and simplest terms. And I must say that was very, very impressive.”


Typically, the ministry of environment receives fewer than 10
letters. But 283 townspeople wrote in to oppose the water taking.


Despite that, the ministry granted OMYA its permit.


The residents could appeal the decision to a quasi-judicial panel. But without money or a lawyer,
they decided it would be impossible.


Dillon, however, disagreed. She forged ahead on her own, and won the right to a hearing. She
relied on scientists who had retired in the community to help her prepare. It would be her word
against lawyers representing the company and the government.


(ambient sound)


Dillon pulls a thick plastic binder off a bookshelf that’s packed
with evidence used in the hearing.


She insists she wasn’t against the water taking per se. She just wanted the government to make a
decision based on good science. The company was granted the initial permit based in part on 75-
year-old data. Dillon argued more research needed to be done.


Over the past eight years, 46 community groups have challenged
decisions by the Ministry of the Environment.


No one had ever won – until now.


The panel granted the company just one third of the amount of
water it requested, with a potential for more in the future. And it directed the province to conduct
more research on the river.


“First, we were…it was unbelievable and then we were
ecstatic that it was all worth it.”


But the citizens’ celebrations were short-lived.


In April of this year, Ontario’s environment minister, Chris
Stockwell, reversed the tribunal decision and reinstated the full
permit. He cited new information that predicted the river would drop only
a few inches when the water was removed. The minister won’t comment on the outcome, other
than to say he stands by his decision.


But OMYA’s plant administrator, Larry Sparks, says the decision
was based on science. And while he recognizes that citizens have a right to question the
government, he says it shouldn’t come at the expense of business.


“And it’s very difficult to make
business decisions when you apply for a permit and have to wait three
years for approval and conclusion of the process. Our concern was not with the people, but rather
with the fact that the process was allowed to go on for three years.”


For Carol Dillon, the minister’s decision was a disappointing end to a
long struggle.


“You can have this two and a half year-long process and the
minister can just overturn it, politically, then what’s the point
of it all? So I’m back to where I started.”


(sounds by the river)


But Dillon hasn’t given up. Now she’s lobbying Ontario to adopt new standards for water use.
She doesn’t care if she has to write letters, battle lawyers or
lobby politicians – she just wants her community, and everyone in
Ontario, to have a say in the future of their water.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

Diesel Maker Works Toward Cleaner Engines

The Environmental Protection Agency last year set new emissions standards for diesel truck engines. Most of those engines are manufactured in the Midwest by Indiana-based Cummins, Michigan-based Detroit Diesel, Pennsylvania-based Mack Truck, and Illinois-based Caterpillar. One of those companies is trying a different approach to meet the new standards. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency last year set new emissions
standards for diesel truck engines. Most of those engines are
manufactured in the Midwest by Indiana-based Cummins,
Michigan-based Detroit Diesel, Pennsylvania-based Mack Truck,
and Illinois-based Caterpillar. One of those companies is
trying a different approach to meet the new standards. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:


A truck engine the size of a
small couch is up on blocks at the
testing center of Caterpillar’s engine
research division just
outside of Peoria, Illinois. When it starts up,
you can feel
the vibrations.


(ambient sound, engine)


While this engine for a typical 18-wheeler is
large and loud,
the engineers who designed it say what makes it
different is
very small. Tana Utley is an engineering
director for
Caterpillar.


“We actually talk about the amount of fuel
that an injector
injects in terms of cubic milliliters. We measure the
time in
milliseconds. And even the degree of accuracy that is required to
measure what we are doing is not unlike what you’d find if
were to go to the space program and look at some of the things
they do for NASA.”


Caterpillar is trying a different approach to reduce
pollution from the engines on vehicles like school busses, dump trucks,
and 18-wheelers. Other engine makers are using a process
called
cooled exhaust gas recirculation. That essentially
means
cooling off the exhaust from the engine that
includes
pollutants, and running it back through the engine
instead of
releasing it into the air. Cooling the exhaust makes it
easier for
filters to pick up pollutants, and reduces the amount of
outside
air required to run the engine. But Caterpillar says it has a
better system. They call it ACERT, or Advanced
Combustion
Emissions Reduction Technology. ACERT doesn’t bank
on one thing
to clean up engine emissions like its competitors.
Tana Utley
says it is a combination of dozens of improvements to
the way a
large diesel engine works. She says one
example is a second
turbine placed at the end of the
engine.


“When we put a series turbo on, what we
do is we take the
exhaust energy that would normally be wasted and go out to the
environment at that temperature, the
second turbine takes that
temperature and turns it into useful work. That useful
work is used to add energy to the intake air, which helps us to
reduce the
fuel consumption. It also provides plenty of cool, clean air to
the engine to give us clean combustion.”


Utley says improvements to the engines air intakes,
fuel
injection systems, and the electronics
that run the engine all
combine to make for cleaner exhaust. John Campbell is
Caterpillar’s director of On-Highway Engine Products. He says
the ACERT engine follow Cat’s mission of taking a comprehensive
approach to solving problems.


“Who invented ACERT? The answer is Caterpillar invented ACERT.
Because it took a series of people with all kinds of
different
backgrounds, working together, and if you will,
playing off of
each other. And ACERT development
was a true teamwork effort
among a broad-based skill of people to make it occur and
actually bring it to production.”

Campbell says because ACERT does not rely on one piece of
equipment or technology to comply with new standards, Cat
will
have an easier time of meeting the next round
of emission
standards in 2007. But not everyone
shares Caterpillar’s
confidence that ACERT will be the clear
leader in the engine
market. Mike Osenga is the publisher of
Diesel Progress, an engine trade magazine. He says Caterpillar’s
unique approach to the engine market goes beyond the technology.

“The interesting thing that Caterpillar did with
ACERT is they
said, not only does it, in their opinion, change
the game
technically, but they also intended to charge more for ACERT
equipped engines. Especially the truck engine
market is hugely
price competitive. So Caterpillar has said
they’re coming in
with a new technology and they intend to get more
money for it.
That is typically not a path taken in moving a technology
into to a market.”

Osenga says it is impossible to predict which technology will
prevail, or which engine manufacturer will have an easier time
meeting future emissions standards. He says the biggest
question mark is durability. Osenga says none of the engines
currently on the market have been tested for the hundreds of
thousands of miles trucking companies demand from their engines.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

School Connects Kids to Healthy Eating

  • Lynn Beard prepares free fruit dishes for hungry high school students. It's part of a government program to bring nutrition to schools. Photo by Rebecca Williams.

American kids are overweight. Nutritionists say one major reason is that kids are eating too much junk food, and not enough fresh produce. A government pilot program is trying to get kids to eat more locally-grown fruits and vegetables in school by giving them out for free. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams visited a school where the experiment is underway:

Transcript

American kids are overweight. Nutritionists say one major reason
is that kids are eating too much junk food, and not enough fresh
produce. A government pilot program is trying to get kids
to eat more locally-grown fruits and vegetables in school by giving them out
for free. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams
visited a school where the experiment is underway:


It’s 9 am and the halls are quiet at Everett High School, in Lansing,
Michigan. Parent volunteers are setting out bowls of bright
pink grapefruit segments on stands in the hallway.
They’re working quickly, getting ready for 1500 hungry teenagers.


(bell rings, noisy chatter swells, sneakers squeaking)


Kids slow down when they pass the fruit stand. A few kids take a bowl…
but not that many.


“Ain’t nobody want no grapefruit?”


(kids chatting)


“They’re hesitant to try it because it’s new, they’ve never tasted grapefruit
before.”


(final bell ringing under)


Lynn Beard is energetic. When she’s not handing out
fruit, she’s teaching nutrition here at the school.
As much as she talks to kids about their choices, even she can’t predict
what they’ll eat.


The hall empties. Lynn Beard sees a few stragglers.


“Sir, have you ever had grapefruit, honey, before at home? Yes,
okay.”


She pulls Brandon Washington over to the fruit stand…


“He was going to try it, and he put it back down because someone said it
was sour.” B.W. :”I was going to try it.”
“Honest reaction?”
“Honest reaction? Tastes like it needs some sugar in it.”


Even though he’s not a grapefruit fan, Washington says he likes having
the fruit and veggies here.


“Now that they got them at school, I eat it more. And that’s good,
too, because nutrition values, good for your soul, you live longer, right?”


Washington says, before he could get free fruit and vegetables during the day,
he felt hungry between meals. Many of his classmates skipped breakfast.


Lynn Beard worries about her students’ eating habits.


“English, math, social studies, aren’t changing the obesity rate. Early
onset osteoporosis, we’re seeing a huge jump in. Type two diabetes in children.
What are we doing to educate our kids on how to change? Isn’t that an effective
place to use taxpayers’ dollars?”


That’s one of the questions behind the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot.
It’s a year-long experiment, funded by 6 million dollars from the 2002 Farm
Bill.


107 schools in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa and New Mexico were
chosen. It’s a mix of schools: large and small, rural and urban.
The hope is that kids will learn to like fruits and veggies… and be
cultivated into new consumers.


Agriculture promoters hope one of the spin-offs will be a new market for
local farmers. With few exceptions, the pilot program requires that
schools buy only American produce, and local produce if
they can. Fourteen of the pilot schools buy directly from farmers.


Everett High School gave kids some locally grown produce. But Lynn Beard
says the kids still don’t know much about the food that grows where they live.


“Kids don’t understand seasonal fruits, they were so upset we weren’t
getting watermelon in January. ”


And Beard says just getting local produce at all was difficult.
Schools such as Everett High School buy from national food service
companies. The companies often sell these Michigan schools
Washington apples.


Marion Kalb directs the National Farm to School Program. It’s
part of a non-profit group that works to connect farms
and schools. Kalb says food service companies don’t make a
special effort to buy from local farms.
But she thinks schools can influence their suppliers.


“If there’s instruction on the school side to say, you know we’d like
to know seasonally what’s available locally, then that gives incentive
to the distributor to try and make buying from regional or local farmers a
priority.”


And it makes sense to most people to sell apples nearby rather than shipping
them miles away.


(birds twittering in open air market, people talking about flowers)


In a farmer’s market full of flowers, Dwight Carpenter is one
of the few farmers selling produce this early in the year. That’s because
he grows vegetables in a greenhouse.


He sells at two farmer’s markets and a store on his land. He says it’s enough to survive,
but he’d like to expand to places such as local schools.


“It’s kind of a difficult way to make a living, and if better markets were
established, such as schools and hospitals, and that kind of thing,
grocery stores, and if that were turned around, that would help the farmer too,
to be able to hang onto whatever he’s got, rather than to have to sell it off to subdivisions
or whatever.”


(birds out)


(sound up: cafeteria, “Let me know how you like the spicy chicken sandwich.
It’s new.” cash register beeping)


Although the kids at Everett High School are getting used to eating more
produce from the free program, you won’t find many fruits and vegetables
for sale at the cafeteria. That’s because the cafeteria competes with nearby fast food
restaurants.


You also won’t find many nutritious snacks in the vending machines. The school needs
the revenue it gets from the candy bars and chips.


Kids are still lining up at the soda machine today. But some students
think the fruit and veggie program is slowly changing their eating
habits. Wynton Harris is a sophomore.


“Last year everyone was eating junk and this year they cut down a lot. I
can tell, because I’m seeing less people at the machines, and more
people taking fruit. And I said, wow.”


And Everett High School’s nutrition teacher, Lynn Beard, has a vision: vending
machines that offer fresh produce instead of potato chips.


“If there’s nothing free, I think we’d have a number of kids who, instead of buying
a dollar pop, would buy a dollar pear.”


The free fruit and vegetable program ends with the school year. But some 70 schools
in the U-S buy from their local farmers even without special federal funding.
Even so, Lynn Beard doubts her school could afford to keep this program going
without federal money.


“I think next year I’m not going to want to be around here without this
grant, cause there’s going to be so many complaints. Where’s our fruit? Why
can’t we get some fruit? I’m dreading next year. I’m just going to have to keep a smile on
my face and say, “Talk to your government.”


But government support for the program is uncertain.


Congress will debate the future of the fruit and vegetable program. And whether
government should be marketing fruits and vegetables in the schools… and further
subsiding the farmers who grow them.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Rebecca Williams.