posted 03-11-2002 09:23 AM            

Wednesday, February 13, 2002
Bloomberg News
By Brett Chase
Fairfield — General Electric Co., the largest company by market value, agreed to buy Hercules Inc.'s industrial water-treatment business for $1.8 billion in cash, expanding GE's specialty-materials lines.

Adding the BetzDearborn unit will give GE the second-biggest water-treatment company with about $1 billion in revenue and a sales force of 2,000. The offer continues Chief Executive Officer Jeff Immelt's goal of pursuing acquisitions of businesses with as much as $100 billion in revenue to stem a decline in sales.

The sale is part of Hercules's plan to sell assets, reduce debt and boost the shares under pressure from its largest investor, Samuel Heyman. Hercules bought BetzDearborn for $3.1 billion in 1998. Debt and slowing sales in the water-treatment business have been a drag on earnings for Hercules, which will keep a third of BetzDearborn, its paper-chemicals business.

"What (Hercules) paid for it and what it's worth today are two different things," said David Begleiter, an analyst with ABN Amro Inc., who has an "add" rating on the shares and doesn't own them. "Eventually (Hercules) will all be liquidated. It will all be sold. This solves near-term liquidity pressures."

Chemical maker Hercules, based in Wilmington, Del., expects after-tax proceeds of about $1.67 billion, which will be used to pay down debt, the company said.
Begleiter estimated Hercules's debt at $2.83 billion at the end of 2001. What Hercules is getting for BetzDearborn is about the best it could have expected, the analyst said.

BetzDearborn is the second-largest maker of chemicals used to remove pollutants from water that flows out of refineries, manufacturing plants and power generators and helps prevent corrosion from water that flows into them. Suez SA in France is the largest company in this business, Begleiter said.
GE said it can take products, such as corrosion detection equipment developed at its other businesses such as power-systems, and sell it to BetzDearborn customers.
GE will instantly give BetzDearborn name recognition and more customers than the business had before, in part because of a customer base that already uses water treatment chemicals.
The chemicals can also be used at GE's research and development centers, GE said.
Shares of Hercules, the largest maker of papermaking chemicals, rose 62 cents, or 5.8 percent, to $11.17, after rising 12 percent yesterday. GE shares fell 30 cents, or less than 1 percent, to $37.50.

Materials Lines
The BetzDearborn unit will be the fifth business for Wilton, Connecticut-based GE Specialty Materials, said GE spokeswoman Milissa Rocker. The subsidiary also sells industrial diamonds, fused quartz, silicones and polymer additives used in industries that include oil drilling, construction and telecommunications.
GE split the specialty-materials unit off from its plastics unit in May 2001, in part because it expected to add the chemicals businesses of Honeywell International Inc. That purchase was blocked by European regulators.

Acquisitions may help Immelt stem a decline in sales over the past three quarters. Fourth-quarter profit rose 9.7 percent because Immelt cut costs and GE got more revenue from service contracts, which have higher margins than other products, analysts have said.

General Electric is a maker of aircraft engines and light bulbs, parent of NBC broadcasting and owner of the GE Capital financing business.
Hercules put itself up for sale in 2000 under pressure from Heyman, chairman of International Specialty Products Inc. Heyman's company owns 10 percent of Hercules. Heyman, now a Hercules director, has continued to press the chemical maker to sell itself. Heyman declined to comment through a spokesman.
The transaction will close in early 2002, both companies said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.rense.com/general21/mex.htm
Monsanto Buying Water Monopolies
In Mexico, India, Etc.
From Jane Jones
jane@npwa.freeserve.co.uk
From Betty Martini of Mission Possible
3-11-2

Over the past few years, Monsanto, a chemical firm, has positioned itself as an agricultural company through control over seed - the first link in the food chain. Monsanto now wants to control water, the very basis of life. In 1996, Monsanto bought the biotechnology assets of Agracetus, a subsidiary of W. R. Grace, for $150 million and Calgene, a California-based plant biotechnology company for $340 million. In 1997, Monsanto acquired Holden seeds, the Brazilian seed company, Sementes Agrocerus and Asgrow. In 1998, it purchased Cargill's seed operations for $1.4 billion and bought Delta and Pine land for $1.82 billion and Dekalb for $2.3 billion. In India, Monsanto has bought MAHYCO, Maharashtra Hybrid Company, EID Parry and Rallis. Mr. Jack Kennedy of Monsanto has said, "we propose to penetrate the Indian agricultural sector in a big way. MAHYCO is a good vehicle." According to Mr. Robert Farley of Monsanto, "what you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it's really a consolidation of the entire food chain. Since water is as central to food production as seed is, and without water life is not possible, Monsanto is NOW TRYING TO ESTABLISH ITS CONTROL OVER WATER. During 1999, Monsanto plans to launch a new water business, starting with India and Mexico since both these countries are facing water shortages."

posted 04-03-2002 01:18 AM               

Private industry's gold rush on for water rights

By JOAN LOWY
Scripps Howard News Service

December 26, 2001- Water will be to the 21st century what oil was to the last - vast fortunes will be made by controlling it and nations will go to war to preserve access to it.In a world in which fresh water is increasingly scarce, that axiom is being taken to heart in the boardrooms of some of the globe's most powerful corporations.

In nearly every corner of the planet, international water conglomerates are vying to sign operating contracts, make deals, buy rights and acquire local water supply and treatment companies. It's a worldwide water rush.

Given that less than 1 percent of the Earth's water is drinkable, the corporate betting is that the price of water can only go up. After all, fresh water is a finite resource for which there is no substitute.

Estimates of the value of the annual global market for water range from $300 billion to $800 billion. Already, an estimated 300 million to 400 million people receive water through privately owned or operated water companies.And the biggest, most underexploited water market on Earth is the United States, with estimated annual revenues of $90 billion. About 86 percent of the municipal water in the U.S. is delivered by public utilities, while only 13 percent is delivered by private companies. But water companies are swiftly expanding their foothold in the U.S. through operations and maintenance contracts for water delivery and wastewater treatment services or by assuming temporary or permanent ownership of water utilities.

By comparison, 85 percent of French customers get their water through privately owned or operated water utilities. In the United Kingdom, nearly all water services have been privatized for more than a decade.

The two biggest global water companies are French - Vivendi Environment and Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, with more than 100 million customers each. Over the past three years, both companies have made a major push to establish themselves in the U.S. market by acquiring American water companies. In 1999, Vivendi purchased U.S. Filter Corp. for $6 billion in cash. The same year, Suez - which built the Suez Canal in the 1860s - paid $1 billion for United Water Resources and bought two major U.S. water treatment chemical producers, Nalco and Calgon, for $4.5 billion.

The largest private water supplier in the U.S. is the giant German utility RWE, with 14 million customers. In September, RWE announced its purchase of American Water Works, headquartered in Voorhees, N.J., in a $7.6 billion deal. American, which itself had been gobbling up smaller water companies, was the largest publicly traded U.S. water company, supplying water and wastewater service to 1,400 communities in 23 states. RWE now has more than 50 million customers worldwide.The only U.S. company that has been a major player in the global water market is Enron, the Houston-based energy trading company. Since filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in October, Enron has been trying to sell its water subsidiary, Azurix, in an effort to raise cash. One of the companies that have expressed interest in buying Azurix is RWE.

Private water companies contend they can provide water services more cheaply and efficiently than governments or public utilities. Their services will be essential, the industry argues, if the world hopes to stave off the impending global freh-water crisis that's forecast to occur as water-scarce regions scramble to find new supplies to quench their growing populations.

Presently, at least 50 percent of municipal water is wasted through leakage in developing nations, according to the World Bank. In the Philippine capital of Manila, for example, 57 percent of municipal water is lost to theft and leakage. More than two-thirds of irrigation water never reaches crops in the Third World because of inefficiencies. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 1 billion people currently do not have access to clean water.In the United.

States, many cities are faced with modernizing an aging water infrastructure of pipes and pumps that dates back to the early and mid-20th century. New York City's leaky Delaware Aqueduct has been losing as much as 1 billion gallons a month.

At the same time, water utilities are being asked to meet tighter environmental regulations to protect water quality. The cost to repair, replace and improve the nation's water infrastructure is estimated at nearly $1 trillion over the next 20 years, creating a looming economic crisis for many cities.Over the past few years, dozens of cities ranging from Atlanta to Indianapolis to Jersey City have signed long-term contracts with large water companies to operate and maintain their water services or even to assume ownership of local water utilities on a temporary but long-term basis.

One of the attractions of privatizing water services is that private companies are often willing to make tough decisions that elected officials would rather forgo, such as raising water rates or cutting workforces. "There is a price to be paid for clean, safe water,'' said Kathy Shandling, vice president of International Private Water Association, an industry trade group. "This is going on in this country now, where people who are suddenly getting water bills who didn't get them before are saying, 'Water is an act of God. I shouldn't have to pay for it.'

"At a March 1998 conference in Paris, the United Nations' Economic and Social Council Commission on Sustainable Development proposed that governments turn to "large multinational companies'' for capital and expertise and called for an "open market'' in water rights and an enlarged role for the private sector.

But some environmentalists and labor and human rights advocates sharply question the wisdom of giving multinational corporations control over a critical resource. They doubt that private companies will ensure that water is affordable for the poor, that water quality is protected and that enough water is left behind for the environment. Access to clean fresh water should be treated as a human right, they argue, rather than a commodity bought by the highest bidder.Other environmentalists, despairing that governments are up to the challenge of dealing with water scarcity, are taking a middle-ground approach. "We do not think the trend toward globalization and privatization of fresh water can be stopped, nor do we think it has to be,'' global water expert Peter Gleick writes in a report on privatization to be released next month by the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, located in Oakland, Calif.

"In some places and in some circumstances, letting private companies take responsibility for some aspects of water provision or management may help millions of poor receive access to basic water services,'' the report says. "However, there is little doubt that the headlong rush toward private markets has failed to address some of the most important issues and concerns about water. In particular, water has vital social, cultural and ecological roles to play that cannot be protected by purely market forces.''

There have been striking examples of private sector failures. When Cochabama, Bolivia, turned over its water system to a private consortium led by engineering giant Bechtel, water prices increased so dramatically that riots broke out. A 17-year-old boy was killed and thousands were injured in clashes with police. Water services were returned to public control.After water was privatized in Puerto Rico in 1995, poor communities complained that they had no water while water giant Vivendi supplied tourist resorts and U.S. military bases with as much water as they could consume.In Argentina, when the French company Generale de Eaux got a contract for water delivery, prices doubled and quality deteriorated. The company was forced to pull out when people refused to pay their bills.

"We think people ought to pay a fair price for a resource that is scarce and valuable,'' said Jane Kelley of the U.S. consumer group Public Citizen, "but we don't want to see them paying amounts that encourage significant profit margins and CEO salaries that are astronomical.'' http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=WATERCOMPANIES-12-26-01&cat=AN

posted 04-07-2002 09:13 AM            

It always HAS been.
Many civilizations have not treated their water supply with much understanding...probably because of great abundance of potable water.Others have done better in arid regions.
I spend alot of time hiking remote wilderness, often bivvy camping for days.
One gets a new appreciation for potable water when he cannot just turn the faucett on and have it flow..

There is no question that water will become more expensive for consumers, industry process, agriculture and power production as droughts lengthen in duration or become more widespread.
Companies will position themselves to capitalize on this with technologies & acquisitions just as the petroleum industry saw it's huge growth over 100 years ago..

Now, aside from treating water sources with far greater care than in the past,the questions we can ask are these:

IS the climate being manipulated by H.A.A.R.P. and chemspraying of the atmosphere etc to create shortages for economic gain, political control, genocides?
( BAD USES by BAD MEN for BAD REASONS)

Or are these things tools that are being developed/used to control moisture precipitation and send it where it will be of greatest value?
(Attempt at GOOD USES by SINCERE MEN with unforseen or unintended consequences)
OR MAYBE BOTH?

Yesterday (SAT)here near Portland Oregon, the skies were heavily cloud-covered all day long as numerous fronts blew through..

THEY HAD EVERY APPEARANCE OF RAIN CLOUDS.

Normally, we might have received constant drizzly rain to the tune of 1/4" or so as the fronts moved thru.

I doubt we received more than 1/100" tho..

Late in the afternoon, there were a few cloud breaks which showed bright blue sky..
The cloud breaks were not long, maybe an hour, before the next part of the fronts again brought the low hanging ominous clouds..
I saw only one chemtrail, which was apparently laid down above the clouds..It was at least two miles wide by the time I saw it( and photographed it) and went from north to south horizon.

I think it is important to try to discern between those who might capitalize on droughts, storms, natural disasters, wars by providing goods, services etc and those who ENGINEER the disasters so they can be first in position to take the power and make the money.

Huge difference between a construction company that might make huge profits rebuilding after a fire or natural disaster, and that company setting the fire so they can take their previously poised company and 'go to the rescue'..

Huge difference between a company supplying goods and munitions for their nation to use in fighting a legitimate war to protect the country and those companies who are fomenting wars behind the scenes so they can then capitalize on the miseries caused.

We must try to determine the difference, whether it's Monsanto, PG&E power,the Corp of Engineers with all their hydro electric power producing sites out west or what..

I have studied dendrochronology as an amateur for thirty years..The Pacific yew is a great tree to use, as it grows so slowly..A tree growing at 3000' elevation that is 15" in diameter has over 500 years captured in it's growth rings.
I have a small section of such a tree that I polished up for the children, to help them understand the longevity of some living things as compared to man.

In some places( FAR predating the industrial age) the growth rings are so close together that one must use a good magnifying glass and a sharp needle to count them..

This slow growth continued for over 100 years..a drought that far exceeded the lives of most single generations of men.
This planet has had BAD droughts and BAD wet weather many times before in it's history..
It is certain that they were not all 'man caused' even in the indirect sense..
Volcanic eruptions,sunspots,meteors..perhaps even a change in the dim past of the polar axis of the earth thru some cataclysm..

posted 04-07-2002 11:15 AM               

THEY HAD EVERY APPEARANCE OF RAIN CLOUDS.

Oregon, same thing here in Kelowna...the weather people called for rain, my body could feel the rain (up there), my nose could smell the rain (up there), but my eyes could see NO RAIN FALL!!! because none did. Not the first time nor the last. The sun is just attempting to come out now, and all chance of rain has passed once again.

posted 04-07-2002 03:40 PM            

So, what is the purpose behind keeping moisture from falling where it naturally might?
Best I can tell, whatever is happening does not keep the moisture pent up in the clouds to drop rain or snow eastward either..It's as if the moisture is sucked out of the clouds..evaporated, dessicated..

What's your opinion about what is going on an what the purpose is?

I could maybe understand if the government or some other big brother entity was restraining normal moisture drop so it might fall in an area where it was more needed, but that does not seem to be the case..or it's not working in my very limited observations.

Considering how much money it would cost to put as many chemsprayewrs into the air across this nation alone as are being reported, just WHO could fund such an endeavor, and what is their agenda and hoped-for "payback" on that hige investment.?

IF those who are concerned about chemtrails are having difficulty funding a single aircraft with air sampling equipment to fly up and into a single obvious chemtrail, how in the world is this program to disperse chemtrails across so many major cities with numbers of flight approaching the numbers registered by the FAA for commercial aircraft being funded?

Bear with me, for I am not a highly educated man, nor a meteorologist, nor one who works for Boeing or McDonell Douglas or a commercial pilot or Air Force fly-boy..

I do have some decent observation powers, a sense in the spirit that something is going on and it's not right, and MANY unanswered questions.

I'm over 50 with MUCH experience in many areas of life tho,and not much given to hysteria or mass hypnosis either..

What is the consensus to date concerning chemtrails here on this forum..and what evidence has been gathered by reliable sources to go toward proving that their IS something sinister going on?..jim

posted 04-07-2002 04:11 PM            

I used to think that every big, fluffy trail in the sky was intentionally sprayed. Since I got a subscription to Flight Explorer, I've realized that I was overreacting. Many of the trails you see can be connected with regular commercial airline flights, and they are probably just a normal phenomenon. http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/fe.shtml

However, Thermit's Trail Report showed that some trails last a very long time, like four to eight hours. http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/report.shtml Satellite pictures show that some trails stay intact as they move across several states, and that they last longer than the cirrus clouds surrounding them.

A couple of months ago I did some internet research and learned that military and commercial pilots occasionally dump jet fuel in order to land safely in emergency situations. The dumped fuel looks very much like a conventional contrail, and certain components of it actually reach the ground. The FAA allows airlines to report such events on a voluntary basis, and the military keeps any dumping records it has to itself. We know there are at least 127 such incidents in a year; there may be many more, but the public has no way of getting that information. http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000030.html

posted 04-07-2002 04:36 PM            

I also have observations of aircraft flying at very similar (apparent from the ground) altitudes and virtually the same time in the same section of overhead sky where one will leave a trail from horizon to horizon that lasts two to three hours and the other with a contrail that dissipates within minutes less than five miles astern of the jet's fligh makes me feel that either we are very much novices in our observational abilities, or that there are alot of chemtails being laid down.

Admittedly,from the ground, it can be impossible for one such as myself to ascertain whether the aircraft seen simultaneously in the same section of sky are at the same altitude.
Can a persistent contrail be left IF one aircraft is at 35000 feet and one following moments later whose contrail dissipates in five miles and one minute is at 33000 feet?

I don't know.I am a very trained observer, but not in the estimating of altitudes at such distances from the earth.

I have decent combat tech mil experience and law enforcement experience which have aided me in being a good reliable observer..
I am also a father of five and a life-long hunter and one who works with and manages people.., but the quantifying of what I am seeing/observing is difficult or impossible for me.

For those who might know, COULD a converted commercial aircraft or military aircraft even load up and carry sufficient aquaeous chemicals to lay down such a trail that might extend for 300 miles, horizon to horizon?

I have worked as smoke jumper and firefighter and ten thousand gallons of water, released and dumped over a wildfire from a low-flying doesn't go very far....jim

posted 04-07-2002 04:56 PM            

If the plane shows up on Flight Explorer, you will be given the exact altitude. If you need to estimate altitude, you're in luck. For the cost of one round of ammunition and two protractors you can build yourself a homemade clinometer and use it to make your estimate:

To make an inexpensive clinometer, take two clear plastic protractors and align them back-to-back. Attach them at both ends of the straightedge using doublesided sticky tape. Attach a weight to the hole in the center of the straightedge using thread or fishing line. Be sure the weight will swing freely when you insert a fingernail between the protractors. Re-number the protractor such that 90° is now 0°, 80° is now 10°, etc. You want the horizon to read as 0° and straight overhead to read as 90°.

To use the clinometer, insert your fingernail between the protractors, so that the weight swings freely. Sight along the straightedge, so that it points directly from your eye to a distinctive portion of the c-trail in question. Without changing the alignment, slide your fingernail out from between the protractors, and pinch them together on the fishing line. You can now read the elevation of that portion of the c-trail by looking at the position of the line on the degree scale of the protractors.

To measure the altitude of a trail, you will need the clinometer and a motor vehicle.
1. Pick out a distinctive feature of the trail and site in on it with the clinometer. Call this angle #1.
2. Record the exact mileage on your vehicle's odometer. Drive about 2-5 miles (in a straight line--no curves or turns) in the direction of the distinctive feature. When you reach a place where it's safe to take the second clinometer reading, record the exact mileage on your vehicle's odometer.
3. Measure the elevation of the distinctive feature at the second location and call it angle #2.
4. Put in a call to me and I will calculate the elevation of the trail for you. (Lots of math involved, but I have an Excel program, so I can just plug in the numbers.)

Further instructions: I am assuming you are driving directly toward the trail. If the distinctive feature of the trail is off at a slight angle from your direction of travel, use the clinometer as a protractor to measure that angle (call it angle #3) at your first location and measure it again (call it angle #4) at your second location. My Excel program can handle it.

posted 04-07-2002 05:44 PM            

Concerning the Flight Explorer:

I have yet to use it or sign up for it..
IF the aircraft is recorded by the FAA in Flight Explorer, what does that indicate?
Are any military flights recorded/logged so they will appear in Flight Explorer?
Are ANY non military/Intelligence flights NOT recorded( other than drug runners)?

With the use of a home-made clinometer and plumb bob, how would such altitude assessments be viewed/accepted by the jurisprudence system?
Legal sharks would eat such evidence for lunch and drown it with two martinis..

IF we are seeking to establish truth and prove that two aircraft, burning the same fuel at the same altitudes BUT laying down widely divergent trails are:

One which is burning fuel with typical contrail and the other which is doing likewise but ALSO spraying chemicals in the atmosphere, how would such 'evidence'hold up?
I would think it'd be easily refuted or debunked, even tho valid.

What about air speed, even given the same altitude, same fuel, same 757 MD jet etc?
Are contrails effected by any of that?

These are questions we MUST know before we present our case to some Senator or Congresscritter who might be willing to stake his career and credibility on helping to secure the truth, but only IF he is assured of coming out a winner/hero.

We MUST gain the knowlege and have as many of the rebuttal questions answerable when we solicit 'horsepower' from the elected reps, EPA, Fox news or whoever.

We cannot take 'estimates' and homemade calculations done by persons not professional and hope to get a positive decision, or to even investigate.

IF what we suspect is happeneing IS happening or worse, the players have much power, beaucoup dollars( probably yours & mine) and plenty of legal spin meisters and disinformation specialists.
AMATEURS CANNOT WIN IN SUCH AN ARENA.

These people will do every thing from dredging up one's driving record to divulging one's sex life and high school science & math grades before it's over.
Maybe even worse for those who are paranoid..
Steal on'es identity, falsify records, and instantly, the whistle blower becomes a terrorist or child molester or fugitive felon..
Or, they just assinate you, making your death look like congestive heart failure, suicide or a car wreck at the beach..

The case must be credible, well prepared and nearly 100% irrefutable or NO ONE will touch it..
ALL evidence must be validated & triplicated at least, from different angles, and confirmed so there is no single key witness to subborn..jim

posted 04-07-2002 10:13 PM            

Yep. If you're serious about this, I'd suggest you get yourself a subscription to Flight Explorer and learn how to use it. If you're not, you'll give me an excuse and a bunch more questions.

posted 04-08-2002 06:58 AM            

Beyond some solid answers to those initial inquiries, I am interested in doing what I might as an ordinairy layman and citizen to make others aware at the very least..
and to do what I can to have those responsible abate the 'experiment' or whatever it is by adding one more small but credible voice to the outcry.

I am not 'retired', independently wealthy,well connected in politics,or a degreed scientist.

Concerning your 'veiled question', my purpose in coming to this site or posting here on this forum is not as a 'troll', but as an honest person seeking answers, and from there, helping as I can to seek solutions.

From my experiences in life, recognizing that there is a problem or danger is the first step in resolving the problem or abating-minimizing the danger.

Beyond identifying a flight and it's altitude( IF Flight Explorer has it's record and it is not unidentifiable))
what do those who subscribe to it and use it do with the data they gather?
I want to do more than build a scrapbook if I can.

Concerning any questions you or any others have of myself, ask away..I'll give you straight answers as best I am able..jim

posted 04-08-2002 07:57 AM            

1. I have given you serious answers to several of your questions and you have dismissed every one. Not that my answers are Gospel, but my sense is that you'd rather ask questions than get answers.

2. Initially I thought that the questions you asked were good ones. However, the certitude you demand is the kind that requires megabucks or at least kilobucks to achieve. You say that you are not independently. wealthy. Neither is any of us. If you cannot afford to buy a chase plane and keep it ready to fly, if you cannot afford to take numerous sets of pristine samples at altitude and have them analyzed by reputable labs, and if you cannot afford to buy your own radar and weather sounding gear, you might want to listen to some of the suggestions we have.

3. Flight Explorer will give you rather precise information on most commerical flights. Its value is that it allows you to understand what is normal air traffic for your area. If you go out hunting and spend your time shooting decoys, you don't bring home a lot of meat.

4. As to your questions about the physical characteristics of normal contrails, please take some time to do background research by reading all the posts in the Science Forum. Most of the questions you have will have already been addressed there, and you will also find answers to questions you haven't thought of yet.

posted 04-08-2002 08:39 AM            

You can use this site to check on the current and past levels of lakes and water impoundments all up and down Calif.
Pretty useful. It gives the levels from the past and present in a easy to use foremat.

I went to one of our countys backcountry lakes yesterday to do some fishing. I was shocked at the lack of water, usually this time of year it is full and the spillway is running, not so now. Even the main feeder creek is drying up early, so no fish spawn this year. Last year at this tme it had over 24,000 acre feet, this year less than 17,000 and is falling rapidly. That is dramatic for a lake 1x5 miles in size. Most of the lakes in my area are the same, low, low.

posted 04-08-2002 04:30 PM            

I may return when I am more 'educated' on this subject and can converse better..
Thanks for your help. Jim

posted 04-29-2002 12:31 AM            

WATER, WATER

For over almost two decades -- long before Americans started chugging water from plastic bottles and before Coke and Pepsi concocted fake sounding brand names to get their share of the bottled water market -- we've been recommending investment into all things related to water.

The Trends Journal®:

* Allows you to anticipate, recognize and preempt significant changes in virtually every field of modern life.

* Alerts you to the trends that motivate or that result from change and that will in turn shape the future.

* Identifies short- and long-term strategies for profiting from trends.

Individual readers from every walk of life, along with small businesses, corporations, industries, trades, professions, educational and religious institutions ... all can put The Trends Journal®'s trend forecasts and trend analyses to practical use.
http://www.trendsresearch.com/

posted 05-26-2002 03:32 AM            

Vernon Hills-based Sparkling Spring Water Co. got its start more than 100 years ago when William Tillman tapped into an artesian well on his farmland and started selling the water to neighbors.

On Thursday, the company announced it is being sold to Nestle Waters for an undisclosed sum.

It had been in the Tillman family for at least four generations with Warner Tillman most recently at the helm.

According to a news release from Nestle Waters, Sparkling Spring sold $33 million worth of water last year and has 250 employees at six sites. The company serves northeast Illinois, southwest Wisconsin and northwest Indiana.

The acquisition is part of Nestle Waters' strategy to grow in the North American market. The company had captured more than 32 percent of the bottled water market in the United States in 2001 and is looking to grab more.

Nestle leads the bottled water market worldwide with such brands as Perrier, San Pellegrino, Vittel, Poland Spring and Deer Park. Nestle, which is headquartered in Switzerland, is one of the world's biggest food companies.

Nestle will keep the Sparkling Spring brand name at least for the time being, said spokeswoman Jane Lazgin. Nestle also will keep the Sparkling Spring operations as they are now for the time being, she said.

All of that could change after Nestle executives have a chance to examine the business, Lazgin said.

"We will explore what works best and all of it will be decided in the future," she said.

But a news release from Nestle Waters did say that the company's growth in North America is based on 15 strong regional brands, which are among the strongest in their respective markets.

About 85 percent of Sparkling Spring sales came from deliveries to the home and office while the remaining 15 percent comes from retail outlets.