Year: 2001

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.

Environmentalists are reeling over a recent decision by the U.S.Supreme Court. They’re concerned that ruling could put as much oftwenty percent of the nation’s wetlands at risk. That could affecthundreds of thousands of acres in the Great Lakes region alone. Earlyreports indicated the decision weakens a portion of the federal CleanWater Act, and could allow major damage to natural areas and animalhabitats. Since then, experts have had time to closely read the SupremeCourt ruling. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reportsthe long-term ramifications of the decision are unclear:

Transcript

Environmentalists are reeling over a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. They’re
concerned that ruling could put as much of twenty percent of the nation’s wetlands at risk.
That could effect hundreds of thousands of acres in the Great Lakes region alone. Early
reports indicated the decision weakens a portion of the Federal Clean Water Act, and
could allow major damage to natural areas and animal habitats. Since then, experts have
had time to closely read the Supreme Court ruling. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Jonathan Ahl reports the long-term ramifications of the decision are unclear.

A group of 23 communities have been fighting for more than a decade to site a landfill at
an abandoned mine in the Chicago suburb of Bartlett. The Illinois E-P-A signed off on
the plan, but the U-S Army Corps of Engineers blocked the move, citing the Clean Water
Act. The Corps contended that the dozens of migratory birds that use the ponds at the
site as temporary habitats are part of interstate commerce. That designation would give
the Federal Government ultimate control over the land. But the Supreme Court ruled that
since the ponds were not connected to any other bodies of water, the Clean Water Act
does not apply, and the federal government does not have any jurisdiction. The narrow
majority ruling by the Supreme Court may be a sign to environmentalists to change their
strategy as they seek to protect land. Barry Kellman is an environmental law professor
at DePaul University.

“It seems that at least from the perspective of environmentalists and
conservationists the area that they should be focusing their efforts is with state
governments.”

Kellman says activists tend to go to the Federal Government seeking legislation to protect
the environment because it casts a wider net. He also says this ruling undermines that
philosophy, and will force environmentalists to spend more time lobbying state
legislatures. But not everyone believes the ruling means environmentalists should shift
their focus to state government. Howard Lerner is the Director of the Environmental
Law and Policy Center in Chicago. He says the burden is on now Congress to be clearer
when adopting environmental law:

“In order to fix the damage done by the Supreme Court’s decision, Congress
needs to act to clarify the clean water act , and provide the clear statement that the five to
four majority found lacking.”

Lerner says the long-term effect of this court ruling is a requirement that Congress tighten
up environmental legislation to close out such loopholes if the laws are to be effective.
But there is another opinion that the decision is not clear enough to make any changes in
the drafting or enforcement of environmental legislation. Patricia Ross McCoven is an
Environmental Law Professor at Southern Illinois University. She says the ruling is
narrow enough that it may not be a precedent setting case:

“That isn’t easy to jump from and then step into other environmental
laws like the Clean Air Act or the Superfund law and have clear, direct implications for
those statues. So I think it may be more subtle than being the death knell for all Federal
environmental statutes.”

The court ruled that the language of the Clean Water Act was not clear, and the Army
Corps of Engineers does not have the right to interfere in such cases. McCoven says that
is significant because the court still left open the possibility that a differently written law
could give the federal government jurisdiction over state and local bodies in land use
issues. But that change would raise a constitutional question the court did not address –
are migratory birds or other environmental factors equivalent to interstate commerce, and
therefore guarantee that federal statutes can protect wetlands and other habitats? That
issue will likely have to be settled by another Supreme Court decision. For the Great
Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Only seventy-nine large floodplain rivers are said to remain in theworld. These rivers are unique for their ability to divert seasonalfloodwaters into large wetlands, creating habitat for an incrediblevariety of plants and organisms. The Illinois River, flowing west andthen south from Chicago, is one large floodplain river that has seenbetter days. Pollution, agricultural development, and dams have wipedout much of its wetlands and wildlife over the last century. But now,an exchange with diplomats and scientists in Brazil may bring new lifeto the Illinois, and provide a blueprint for how to revitalize riversaround the region. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jesse Hardmanreports:

Transcript

Only seventy-nine large floodplain rivers are said to remain in the world.
These rivers are unique for their ability to divert seasonal floodwaters
into large wetlands, creating habitat for an incredible variety of plants
and organisms. The Illinois River, flowing west and then south from Chicago, is one
large floodplain river that has seen better days. Pollution, agricultural development, and
dams have wiped out much of its wetlands and wildlife over the last century. But now,
an exchange with diplomats and scientists in Brazil may bring new life to the Illinois, and
provide a blueprint for how to revitalize rivers around the region. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Jesse Hardman reports.

When Rip Sparks, a river biologist at the University of
Illinois, first set eyes on the Upper Paraguay River and its Pantanal
wetlands during a trip to Brazil five years ago, he was astounded.

“I talked to commercial fisherman I went to fish restaurants that were based
completely on what is harvested from the river. And this reminds me of
historical accounts of the wonderful fishery that existed along the Illinois
River”

After returning from his trip, Sparks began to compare the health of the two
rivers. But he wanted to make sure Brazilians learned from his research as
well, so he joined the Illinois Nature Conservancy in inviting
representatives of the Upper Paraguay area to see first hand how not to
treat a river.

(sound of airplane taking off)

Governor Dante Martins de Olivera, from the Brazilian state of Matto Grasso,
pauses as he looks down at the muddy brown river through the window of an
eight-seat jet airplane. Governor Dante, seated across from Biologist Rip
Sparks and Illinois Nature Conservancy officials, relaxes in his seat and
begins to tell stories of the Upper Paraguay.

(sound of Portuguese)

Dante says his river supports farmers and ranchers who understand and use
its floodplain, a system which allows excess water to expand into adjacent
wetlands.

Doug Blodgett, a Nature Conservancy biologist, draws Dante’s attention to a
large levee about five thousand feet below the plane. He explains how these
manmade earthen embankments helped to drain a portion of the river’s
floodplain for farming.
Blodgett says land protected by levees along the Illinois produce only one
percent of the state’s crops, but take up 200,000 acres, half the land
along the river’s main wetland area.

Dante nods in agreement…he says he can see, looking down at the river, how
too much habitat and natural resources have been sacrificed for farming
along the Illinois. But he warns those on board not to overreact.

“You can’t put the environment in a dome. We need to take social questions
into consideration. Create jobs and feed the people. My government has taken
this into consideration…taking care to avoid problems like you have in the
Illinois River that will probably take one hundred years more to restore”

Micheal Rueter, conservation director for the Illinois Nature
Conservancy, says his group has already begun a plan to restore wetlands by
buying up farmland along the river, and re-connecting leveed areas to the
Illinois’s natural path. But he says the plan isn’t intended to drive
farmers out of business.

“We live on a working landscape…and we recognize that we need to work with
the people who live on that landscape. To find the mix of public and private
goods that can be produced on the land.”

The pilot carrying this group of river-watchers finally lands the plane
midway along the Illinois River at a small airport in Peoria. The Nature
Conservancy has organized a lunch with local community and environmental
leaders to meet Governor Dante and discuss the restoration of the Illinois.

(sound of luncheon, Portuguese)

Dante offers to form an exchange where Illinois scientists and
conservationists can come study the Upper Paraguay and Pantanal area…and
some of his scientists can travel to the U.S. to research the Illinois
River.
He then tells a story about fishing on the Upper Paraguay.

He gets a laugh from the lunch crowd as he holds his hands a good three feet
apart…describing the fish he says he reeled in one day.

(sound of laughing)

With the help of river aficionados like Governor Dante…the Illinois will
hopefully begin to flow a little more freely, like it used to…and in turn
itself become an example for other regions in the area…of how best to treat
a river.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jesse Hardman.

The deregulation of electricity has at times pitted rural dwellersagainst townsfolk, and region against region. Now in Minnesota andWisconsin, that battle has come to a head with plans to build a newpower transmission line. On the one hand are residents of major citiesacross the Great Lakes who want cheap power, and on the other are thosewho would be forced to live near the wires. The Great Lakes RadioConsortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:

Transcript

The deregulation of electricity has at times pitted rural dwellers against
townsfolk, and region against region. Now in Minnesota and Wisconsin, that
battle has come to a head with plans to build a new power transmission line. On the one
hand are residents of major cities across the Great Lakes who
want cheap power, and on the other are those who would be forced to live
near the wires. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill
reports.

Like most states in the region, Wisconsin uses more electricity every year
– about 2% more than the year before. And it’s expensive to generate that
additional power at home. So some of that power now comes from as far away
as Montana and Canada, where it’s produced cheaply at big coal and
hydroelectric plants. But utility companies say the lines that bring the
power to Milwaukee, Chicago, and other big Midwestern cities have reached
capacity. So Minnesota Power and Wisconsin Public Service are together
proposing a new link in the regional electric grid, to run between Duluth
and Wausau.

The federal government encouraged this large-scale approach to electricity
distribution when it deregulated the wholesale power market in 1992.
Minnesota Power’s Jim Roberts says – now that distributors are allowed to
buy power from suppliers anywhere in the country – many long-distance
transmission lines are simply overloaded.

“People are gonna try to find the cheapest source of electricity, wherever
it may be, so there’s a tremendous demand on transmission to get that cheap
electricity to their customers. If there’s a lot of cheap generation
somewhere, and only one transmission line, you’re limited.”

And as states move toward deregulation at the retail level, there will be
even more pressure on transmission lines. Roberts says the proposed Duluth
to Wausau line will help prevent blackouts and will keep prices low for
customers all over the Midwest.

But at hearings last fall, farmers and cabin owners along the planned route
spoke out loud and clear against it. Mark Liebaert farms land his
grandfather settled, south of Superior.

“Minnesota Power pretends they’re your neighbors and your friends and yet
they’re proposing the most environmentally damaging project to come before
the Public Service ever. Why? Because they wanna make money off it. My
ancestors that are gone still look upon me and I know they are proud that
we are fighting this fight. And I also know my grandchildren someday will
be very glad that we stood together and beat this proposal from Minnesota
Power. Thank you.” (applause)

Liebaert and other critics say Wisconsin should build power plants close to
the big cities that need the electricity. They say there’s no need to cut
a 150-foot-wide swath through farms and forests and line it with towers up
to 135 feet high, just to bring power to the region’s major urban areas.

And landowners aren’t the only ones fighting the line. The Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources says several routes for a new line were
studied, and the Duluth to Wausau route now being considered is the one
that would cause the most environmental damage. The National Park Service
doesn’t like the route either, saying it would slice across part of the St.
Croix National Scenic Riverway.

And the Wisconsin Public Service Commission’s own environmental analysis
raises questions about whether the line is needed. Officials there say a
combination of upgrades to existing lines and new local generation could
provide enough power.

Some of the people testifying at public hearings on the line are impatient
for new technologies. Retiree Jim Speck told the Public Service
Commission, as long as power companies are allowed to build the lines they
want, they won’t develop alternative sources of energy.

“There are other sources and Minnesota Power says they’re working on them.
If you don’t need to work on them quite so quickly, if you can get by with
the old technology, there’s not as much incentive. The Commission I hope
will hold their feet to the fire of these companies and say no we’re not
gonna let you get by with the old stuff, you’ve got to develop the new
stuff.”

The new stuff includes alternative sources of energy like wind and solar.
They are increasingly being added to the mix, but power companies say
realistically they won’t provide enough electricity in the near future to
meet the increased demand.

Hearings on the proposed powerline, meanwhile, are taking place in
Wisconsin and Minnesota. If either of the states rejects the plan, the
line won’t be built. For the Great Lake Radio Consortium, I’m Stephanie
Hemphill in Duluth.

Courts will eventually decide whether some Midwest power plantsviolated the federal Clean Air Act by making changes to their operationswithout installing special pollution control devices. But some Ohioenvironmentalists are not waiting for the lawsuit on that matter to bedecided in court. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jo Inglesreports, the activists are trying to force the power plants to reducepollution by going around the courts:

Transcript

Courts will eventually decide whether some Midwest power plants violated the federal Clean Air Act by making changes to their operations without installing special pollution control devices. But some Ohio environmentalists are not waiting for the lawsuit on that matter to be decided in court. As Ohio Public Radio’s Jo Ingles reports, the activists are trying to force the power plants to reduce pollution by going around the courts.

Bob Love and his family are happy with their house on the Muskingum River in southeastern Ohio. Love says it would be a much better place to live if his property wasn’t continually blanketed with acidic rain and black grit from fly ash. The source of that pollution? He believes it’s the American Electric Power Plant just a mile from his home. Love says he can hear the plant blowing out fly ash after dark. And he says he can see the damage from it.

“We believe that it is killing our garden, our fruit and flowers. It definitely eats holes in our canvass boat covers, outdoor furniture and boat seats.”

Love says it’s not only his property that is suffering….it’s the health of his family and friends who also live near the plant. He says they suffer from respiratory problems directly related to the electric company’s operations.

“Would you like to feel their pain and discomfort. We’ll just stick your head in a plastic bag with a very small hole in it for a few hours. This will give you a sense of what they, the oxygen therapy people, are going through. Struggling for every breath.”

Several of Ohio’s environmental groups are backing Love’s request for the power company near his home to clean up its act. The environmentalists say the power plants are causing a public health crisis in Ohio. Amy Simpson is with the Ohio Public Interest Research group.

“In 1999, more Ohioans died from power plant pollution than died in drunk driving accidents and in homicides combined.”

The environmentalists want Governor Taft to force Ohio’s Environmental
protection agency to order changes for four of Ohio’s dirtiest plants. The Ohio Environmental Council’s Jack Shaner says the companies that own the plants are breaking pollution laws.

“The utilities upgraded their power plants, but failed to upgrade their pollution controls. This a blatant violation of the clean air act and Ohio law.”

American Electric Power owns two of the plants under attack. Company
spokesman Pat Hemlepp calls the claims bogus.

“These are claims that these special interest groups make repeatedly. They have their own agenda out there. And frankly, the claims that they’re making here are the same claims they made in other places, under other titles. Its the same story, different title.”

Hemlepp says the company is operating under all of the guidelines in place under the federal clean air act. He says the company’s plant are not harming the health of their neighbors.

“Those regulations are designed to protect public health and the environment. With an extra margin of safety. And our plants comply with the regulations that are in place.”

The environmental groups are involved in lawsuits against AEP and the other power companies that operate four power plants the groups deem as dirty. For that reason, Hemlepp says the activists should wait to fight it out in a court room….not in the court of public opinion.

“And it’s extremely disturbing that these special interest groups are attempting to declare themselves judge and jury. Bypass the courts on the litigation that they are involved with, with our company right now. And attempt to find the company guilty on their own, because that is not how the system works.”

There are dozens of similar power plants operating in other states
throughout the country….most of which are under fire from environmentalists. And a lawsuit similar to the one in Ohio being considered by courts in Georgia. Lawsuits like these are complicated….and take a long time to resolve. That’s why environmentalists in Ohio are trying to get the state’s governor and Ohio’s environmental protection agency to go change the permits for these plants immediately. And if the activists here are successful in doing that, it’s likely environmentalists in other states might try doing the same thing. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jo Ingles in Columbus.