Michael Coslo wrote:

In our area, we had a world class trout fishing stream. when I say
that, I mean that people from all over the world came here and spent a
lot of money to fish, and stay in hotels, eat in restaraunts.

We also had a chemical production company that wanted to do a lot of
things that some of the populous didn't want them to do. It got to the
point of township meetings. Some folks said that the companies practices
were going to destroy the local watershed. The company and a lot of
people accused them of being anti-business, anti job, anti growth, and
worse.

The chemical company got it's way.

Fast forward to today....


The watershed has been destroyed by two chemicals that leaked from
poorly constructed holding areas. The world class trout stream is no
more. No more visitors spending all that money - it was millions in the
60's, who knows what it would be now. The chemicals have reached a lake
about 30 miles away now, and people aren't supposed to eat fish from
either the lake or stream.


And the chemical company? They aren't in business any more. They were
bought out by a european company who then closed down the competition,
took a write off, and left. That isn't all they left. The bill for the
cleanup is with us.


The end result:

Jobs are gone.

World class fishing stream gone.

A nice lake downstream gone as an added benefit.

No one can say they didn't know. They didn't listen.

What a disaster - and a huge tragedy. Clearly the world would be a
better place....if it was uninhabited.

I guess a better message would have been that holding areas should not
be poorly constructed, rather than just shouting the tired old
eco-mantra 'corporations are evil' - which nobody listens to. But eco
groups aren't exactly the best listeners either.

ac6xg