logo
Dedicated crowd beats the heat for lakes seminar in Valparaiso

Dedicated crowd beats the heat for lakes seminar in Valparaiso

Chicago Tribune23-06-2025
A small but dedicated audience braved the heat Saturday for the annual Living With Lakes Seminars at Rogers Lakewood Park in Valparaiso.
Various exhibitors, including Woodland Savanna Land Conservancy, Repower Indiana, and Shirley Heinz Land Trust staged information booths that attendees could peruse in between the four featured lectures.
Talks included Valparaiso University Associate Professor of Geography Jon-Paul McCool's lecture on a geological perspective on the lakes, Midwest Biological Survery founder Nathanael Pilla's lecture on how 'Everything is Connected to Everything,' and Valparaiso University Chemistry Professor Julie Peller's talk on micro and nonoplastics and their impact on the environment and public health.
Sam Carpenter, executive director of the Hoosier Environmental Council, was the final speaker of the day, focusing on protecting Indiana's water. He started by asking the audience if they knew where Indiana's water quality ranks. 'We are number 50,' he confirmed to murmurs from the crowd of about 35 that remained from a height of 50 earlier in the day.
He gave Indiana Gov. Mike Braun credit for taking first steps in developing a comprehensive water plan for the state, but said, 'What they aren't really talking about is water quality.' Carpenter said so far, the state is just focused on industrial water use.
The Indiana Economic Development Corporation bought up 12,000 acres, 'and then they realized, 'We don't have enough water to support this,'' Carpenter said of plans downstate. He said there had been talk of building a pipeline to bring up to 100 million gallons of water per day from the Wabash River to the LEAP district.
That prompted the audience to bring up data centers, referring to efforts by QTS to bring two large centers that would total nearly 800 acres to Wheeler. Carpenter said a data center can use the same amount of electricity as a medium-sized city. 'We need to be very smart and cautious about this,' he said about accepting such a project, as efficient means of cooling the water used should be top priority.
When asked what they were concerned about, the audience also brought up stormwater runoff from new subdivisions. Carpenter informed them that local municipalities' hands are tied by Indiana House Bill 1037, which prevents local entities from enacting into law any stormwater runoff standards on new construction that are more stringent than state laws. Developments less than one acre are exempt even from that law.
'If you're dredging a stream or a lake or a river that's very expensive to do,' Carpenter said. If a developer isn't required to do it, the costs get shifted to the public. 'We see those costs passed on to us. We see those costs on our water bills.'
He also referred to a study recently released by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce about the state's water supply. 'They're really just thinking about water and where is the water supply to promote industry and economic growth,' Carpenter said.
Robyn Skuya-Boss, new chapter director of the Sierra Club Hoosier Chapter, was invited to say a few words. He acknowledged the club's activity in the region had fizzled in recent years and told the audience he was looking to re-engage folks here.
'It's no mistake that our communities are in crisis at the same time that our environment is in crisis,' he said.
While most in the crowd were older adults, VU undergraduate research students junior Connor McMahon and senior Emily Broniewicz were part of just a handful of young attendees. They were heartened by the age of the crowd.
'It's kind of inspiring a little bit,' Broniewicz said. 'It can be disheartening that young people sometimes think they have to fix everything.'
One of the older guard, George Smolka, of Griffith, admitted he was much more active in other environmental organizations in the past. 'I don't go on a regular basis anymore.' The retired biologist and organic chemist was bothered that the audience didn't ask more questions.
'The environmental movement needs a lot of work,' Smolka said. 'They've got to get some guts.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Jon Stewart defended his friend Stephen Colbert in an f-bomb-filled monologue against CBS and the Trump administration
Jon Stewart defended his friend Stephen Colbert in an f-bomb-filled monologue against CBS and the Trump administration

Yahoo

time5 days ago

  • Yahoo

Jon Stewart defended his friend Stephen Colbert in an f-bomb-filled monologue against CBS and the Trump administration

Jon Stewart slammed CBS's decision to cancel his friend Stephen Colbert's talk show. CBS, which is owned by Paramount, said the cancellation was "purely a financial decision." But Stewart said Paramount was capitulating to Trump over its proposed merger with Skydance Media. Jon Stewart says CBS's cancellation of "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert" has less to do with the show's financials and more to do with getting into the Trump administration's good books. Stewart slammed CBS and its decision during his expletive-filled monologue on "The Daily Show" that aired on Monday night. Both Stewart's and Colbert's shows share the same parent company, Paramount Global. "Now, obviously, I am certainly not the most objective to comment on this matter," Stewart said of his longtime friendship with Colbert. Stewart acknowledged the financial challenges that come with trying to run a late-night television show like Colbert's. Stewart said in his monologue that "late night TV is a struggling financial model" and is akin to "operating a Blockbuster kiosk inside of a Tower Records." "But when your industry is faced with changes, you don't just call it a day. My God, when CDs stopped selling, they didn't just go, 'Oh well, music, it's been a good run,'" Stewart said. Stewart said CBS's cancellation of Colbert's show raised questions over whether it was "purely financial" or the "path of least resistance" for Paramount's proposed merger with Skydance Media. "I believe CBS lost the benefit of the doubt two weeks prior when they sold out their flagship news program to pay an extortion fee to said president," Stewart said. Earlier this month, Paramount said it had agreed to pay President Donald Trump a $16 million settlement. Trump had filed a lawsuit against CBS that accused the network of "deceptive editing" of an interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris on "60 Minutes." "Look, I understand the corporate fear. I understand the fear that you and your advertisers have with $8 billion at stake," Stewart said. "But understand this: Truly, the shows that you now seek to cancel, censor, and control, a not-insignificant portion of that $8 billion value came from those fucking shows. That's what made you that money," he added. Representatives for Stewart, Colbert, CBS, and the White House didn't respond to requests for comment. 'Fear and pre-compliance' Stewart said that capitulating to Trump wouldn't play out the way Paramount expects. He referenced the president's recent lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal after it reported on a "bawdy" birthday letter Trump sent to Jeffrey Epstein on the latter's 50th birthday. "Donald Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch. The owner of Fox News, the man other than Biden may be most responsible for getting Trump elected," Stewart said. "Fox spends 24 hours a day blowing Trump, and it's not enough. Imagine suing someone mid-blow. How could you? 'Finish up. Finish up down there, and I'll see you in court,'" he added. Stewart added that the reason Colbert's show was ending wasn't its financial health but the "fear and pre-compliance that is gripping all of America's institutions." "This is not the moment to give in. I'm not giving in," Stewart said. During his half-hour monologue, Stewart said versions of the f-word more than two dozen times. CBS said in a statement on July 18 that the cancellation of Colbert's show was "purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night." It added that the decision was "not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount." Last week, Puck's Matt Belloni reported that Colbert's show had been losing more than $40 million a year. This is in spite of Colbert's popularity with viewers. His show was the only late-night show to gain viewers this year, according to ratings from the American audience measurement company Nielsen. Advertising revenue across late-night shows like Colbert's has been dropping, too. Ad revenue for late-night fell from $439 million in 2018 to $220 million in 2024, The New York Times reported, citing data it had obtained from the advertising data firm Guideline. Read the original article on Business Insider

LA Times to Go Public ‘Over the Next Year,' Patrick Soon-Shiong Says
LA Times to Go Public ‘Over the Next Year,' Patrick Soon-Shiong Says

Yahoo

time6 days ago

  • Yahoo

LA Times to Go Public ‘Over the Next Year,' Patrick Soon-Shiong Says

Los Angeles Times Owner Patrick Soon-Shiong intends to make the paper a publicly traded company by next year, the billionaire said during an interview with Jon Stewart on Monday's episode of 'The Daily Show.' 'Whether you right, left, Democrat, Republican, you're an American. So the opportunity for us to provide a paper that is the voices of the people, truly the voices of the people [is important],' Soon-Shiong said. 'So I'm going to announce something with you tonight…that we are going to take LA Times public and allow it to be democratized and allow the public to have ownership of this paper,' Soon-Shiong said. More from TheWrap LA Times to Go Public 'Over the Next Year,' Patrick Soon-Shiong Says | Video Fortune Cuts 10% of Staff, Becomes Latest Media Company Hit With AI-Driven Layoffs Trump White House Boots Wall Street Journal From Press Pool Amid $10 Billion Lawsuit Hunter Biden Blasts George Clooney Over Joe Biden Criticisms: 'What Right Do You Have' Asked when this would happen, Soon-Shiong said, 'We think over the next year that we will, I'm working through with an organization that's putting that together right now, and right, and so the idea and that can hopefully remove maybe some of those questions of where ethics get cloudy.' Watch the interview below: It's unclear how this will affect the paper's current employees, who have been rocked by cascading crises in recent years. This year alone has seen layoffs and buyouts, on top of an ideological shift mandated by Soon-Shiong that led directly to a steep drop in subscribers. In early may, 14 staffers were let go, and in march, dozens of employees in operations and communications sections were axed, a move that followed buyouts for 40 newsroom employees. And the paper lost at least 25,000 subscribers in the weeks after Soon-Shiong overrode the paper's editorial board to cancel a planned endorsement of Kamala Harris, and then began mandating more right leaning coverage. The post LA Times to Go Public 'Over the Next Year,' Patrick Soon-Shiong Says | Video appeared first on TheWrap. Sign in to access your portfolio

Homes and factories ‘can be built faster' with water reforms, says Reed
Homes and factories ‘can be built faster' with water reforms, says Reed

Yahoo

time6 days ago

  • Yahoo

Homes and factories ‘can be built faster' with water reforms, says Reed

Water reforms will help speed up housebuilding and ease wild swimmers' fears that they might be bathing in sewage, the Environment Secretary has said. Steve Reed described supply and sewage infrastructure as 'critical for housing development, economic development and economic growth', as he took questions about the Independent Water Commission's final report published on Monday. Mr Reed told MPs the Government would publish a white paper this autumn, with proposals in response to the review led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, and teased plans for a new water reform Bill. In the Commons, Labour MP Allison Gardner warned that 'antiquated mains water infrastructure cannot adequately cope with the increased demand of new housing developments, even when the developer meets all the required mitigations'. The Stoke-on-Trent South MP asked: 'Does the minister agree with me that with the Government's plan to build 1.5 million homes, it is vital that privatised water companies ensure that they can adequately meet systems demand without sewage dumping, prioritising this over profiteering?' Conservative MP for Exmouth and Exeter East, David Reed, later said some billpayers feared water companies might not 'keep pace with development' in their area. Responding to the Labour MP, Mr Reed said: 'Water infrastructure is critical for housing development, economic development and economic growth in every single region of the country. 'I've accepted in principle, today, one of Sir Jon's recommendations that will allow us to align for the first time water infrastructure investment and spatial planning so that those homes and factories can be built faster to the benefit of local people.' In his report, Sir Jon wrote that 'planning for the water system should be closely aligned with other spatial planning'. This could involve requiring town halls to ask water firms what they need before agreeing their local planning policies. Samantha Niblett said wild swimmers in Derbyshire and Staffordshire 'frequently have to avoid a Trent tan' when they are in the water. The Labour MP for South Derbyshire asked: 'Does the Secretary of State agree with me that by having cleaner waters we can encourage more great exercise like this to make a healthier – and improve the wellbeing of – our country?' Mr Reed replied: 'The Trent tan is a very alarming and graphic image but it does capture what has gone wrong with our water sector for so long. 'The changes we're announcing today will clean up our waterways across the country, so that wild swimmers as well as many other people who like to enjoy our precious rivers, lakes and seas can get on and enjoy them without the kind of concern that she's alluding to.' The Environment Secretary also rejected the suggestion that ministers should take water firms into public ownership. Clive Lewis, the Labour MP for Norwich South, said the review 'feels like a missed opportunity for the Government to show the public whose side it's on'. He said: 'It entrenches a privatised model that has already failed economically, environmentally and democratically, with 20-50% of bills going on servicing debt. 'Why if public ownership is good enough for rail, good enough for GB Energy and renewables, is it not good enough for water?' Mr Reed said the Government had to 'take a rational and not an ideological approach to tackling this problem', and added Government officials had calculated that 'nationalising the water companies would cost £100 billion'. He continued: 'And to pay that money, we'd have to take it away from public services like the National Health Service and education in order to hand it to the owners of companies that have been polluting our waterways. 'That makes no sense to me, it makes no sense to the public. Frankly, I'm surprised it makes any sense to him.' Green Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay said Sir Jon's report 'looks at how to tinker' with the system and added: 'It's a moribund model that has resulted in billions being paid out to shareholders, billions of debt being loaded up, and neglecting crucial infrastructure, meaning that sewage is regularly pumped into our rivers and seas. 'So, does the Secretary of State accept that the cost of this failure must be part of the calculation in determining the cost of bringing water into public hands where it belongs, and that figures like £100 billion are grossly inflated by those who don't think the water industry should pay for this greed and terrible mismanagement of our water systems?' The Environment Secretary said it would take 'years to unpick the current models of ownership, during which time, pollution in our rivers would get much worse not better'. He said: 'He's talking about cutting the National Health Service, giving £100 billion to the owners of the current water companies, and making pollution far worse – doesn't sound very Green to me.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store