SCVAX@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (01/19/90)
First, thanks to Carl Tausch for posting the reprint.
Second, this subject really hits close to home.
My wife and I own some property on the river that this plant
will use for its effluent, we're about three miles downstream
and concerned about the effects the plant will have on our
retirement acreage.
When we've gone back to the area for visits, neither of us have
been that vocal in our opposition since the area is really dep-
ressed economically and didn't think anyone would want a couple
of outsiders messing things up. But we were amazed at the depth
and intensity of the opposition, even among friends in the timber
and paper industry. Seems they all know what happend to the Fox
river and Green Bay since their mills went in and are worried
about the same sort of thing happening to the waterways of the
Keweenaw.
One has to keep in mind that these are the same people who lobby
to get things like maximum security prisons built in the area
because jobs are so much in need.
I doubt that the project will ever be built since enough local
opposition and legitimate environmental concerns exist. Anyone who
remembers Sanguine/Seafarer/ELF will know how tough it can be to
complete a project that does not have a great majority of the local
support.
Dave Huhta R.Ph.
Univ. of Kansas Molecular Modeling
SCVAX@UKANVAX (bitnet)
scvax@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (internet)
p.s. the river in question (Sturgeon) is no more than 100 feet wide
or so and the thought of the runnoff from a $1.2 BILLION dollar
industrial facility being dumped really scares me. Also, while
the plant itself is planned for Baraga county, the watershed in
that area flows northward into Houghton county (Chassell Twp.)
and into Lake Superior via. the Portage ship canal and Keweenaw
Bay.