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) email@example.com (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.