+menu-


  • Category Archives A Policy Without People?
  • Coerced by Federal Bathroom Laws?

    Basic Federal Education and Bathroom Laws

    The feds — specifically, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights — insist that drawing any distinction is sexual discrimination banned by Title IX of the basic federal education law. “The district continues to deny a (self identified?) female student the right to use the girls’ locker room,” charges Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon.

    The feds have given the school 30 days to comply, or face enforcement action.

    COERCED BY FEDERAL BATHROOM LAWS?

    THE FEDS CAN WITHHOLD SIGNIFICANT CASH FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS IF THEY DON’T. THE FEDS HAVE GIVEN THE PALATINE, ILL., HIGH SCHOOL 30 DAYS TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL BATHROOM LAWS, OR FACE ENFORCEMENT ACTION.

    ———————————————————–

    My comment….
    Jan 10,  2015 THE FEDERAL ACT OF COERCEMENT.
    TO MAKE PUBLIC AMERICAN SCHOOLS, DO SOMETHING BY USING FORCE OR THREATS, FORCE OR THE POWER TO USE FORCE IN GAINING COMPLIANCE, AS BY A GOVERNMENT OR POLICE FORCE.

    “WE THE PEOPLE” MUST HOLD OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FEDERAL AND WA STATE BATHROOM LAWS AND RULES

    AS, NO AMERICAN CITIZEN COULD POSSIBLY BELIEVE THE U.S. CONGRESS OR THE WA STATE LEGISLATORS EVER INTENDED TO CREATE THEM

    ————————————————————

    Behind My Back | A WA State Bathroom Rule

    www.behindmyback.org/category/a-wastatebathroom-rule/

    2 days ago – … on wood burning. Category Archives A WA State Bathroom Rule … by Joseph Backholm, FPIW.org | January 6, 2016. Last week, news broke …

    ———————————————————-

    Dec 26, 2015….

    Washington Quietly Adopts New Transgender Policies

    dailysignal.com/…/washingtonquietly-adopts-new-transgender-bathroo…

    6 days ago – The House passed a reconciliation bill rolling back key provisions of Obamacare. … One day after Christmas, Washington state quietly adopted a set of new … The rules, adopted by the state Human Rights Commission, make it … to use the restroom that is consistent with their gender identity” and in most …

    JANUARY 8, 2016 WA STATE

    Gov. Inslee Won’t Answer Question About Bathroom Rule …

    www.fpiw.org/…/govinsleewontanswerquestion-about-bathroomrule

    3 days ago – FPIW communications director Zach Freeman talked with Gov. Jay Inslee

    —————————————————————————————-
    NOVEMBER 3, 2015 THE FEDS — specifically, THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT’S Office for Civil Rights — insist that drawing any distinction is sexual discrimination banned by Title IX of THE BASIC FEDERAL EDUCATION LAW. “The district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls’ locker room,” charges Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon.

    Federal bureaucrats have no business rewriting the law to deny that reality. Nothing in US law suggests these “trans” rights, AND NO ONE COULD POSSIBLY BELIEVE CONGRESS EVER INTENDED TO CREATE THEM.

    Cultural “progressives” have embraced the transgender-rights agenda, but the public hasn’t. Yes, Americans today are more willing to play along with “I identify as” — BUT NOT TO THE POINT OF PRETENDING SEXUAL ORGANS DON’T EXIST.

    ——————————————————————–

    Uncle Sam’s insane push for transgender rights in school locker rooms

    By Post Editorial Board
    November 3, 2015 | 8:41pm
    Talk about lunatic overreach: The federal Education Department is bullying high schools across America to treat “trans” teens exactly as the sex they “identify” as — all the way up to using the same locker rooms and showers.
    Many schools have knuckled under, since the feds can withhold significant cash if they don’t. But one Illinois district is refusing to go along.
    Mind you, the Palatine, Ill., high school already lets the teen in question play on a girls’ sports team and even change in the same room, but in a curtained-off area. Staff refer to the student as “she,” and so on.
    The feds — specifically, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights — insist that drawing any distinction is sexual discrimination banned by Title IX of the basic federal education law. “The district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls’ locker room,” charges Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon.
    The feds have given the school 30 days to comply, or face enforcement action.
    Insanity squared:
    This railroads over other students’ privacy rights. However the kid in question “identifies,” that doesn’t change the reality of what others see in that locker room.
    Federal bureaucrats have no business rewriting the law to deny that reality. Nothing in US law suggests these “trans” rights, and no one could possibly believe Congress ever intended to create them.
    Cultural “progressives” have embraced the transgender-rights agenda, but the public hasn’t. Yes, Americans today are more willing to play along with “I identify as” — but not to the point of pretending sexual organs don’t exist.
    Look: The school has gone the extra mile to be accepting. (Is it fair to other players to let a biological male compete in a woman’s sport?) It’s just showing some respect for the views of other students — and their parents.
    The real offender here is the feds, by sending a strong and demeaning message to the rest of those girl athletes: Your privacy and your opinions don’t matter at all.


  • page 3 “Things That Matter”

    page 3 “Things That Matter”
    OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS
    NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNTIL THE INK IS DRY …

    ——————————————–
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 13514, CLIMATE CHANGE Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, establishes an integrated strategy for sustainability within the Federal Government. Under the Executive Order, each agency is required to evaluate their climate change risks and vulnerabilities to manage the effects of climate

    ———————————————————–

    Things that matter TRUTH AND POLITICS

    “CLIMATE CHANGE WILL NOT BE SOLVED BY GRABBING POWER FROM STATES or slowly hollowing out our economy,” Bush said.
    ———————————————————————————-
    CLIMATE CHANGE: OBAMA EXECUTIVE ORDER 13514
    ——————————————
    IT’S AS EASY AS ONE, TWO THREE…
    (1) FEDERAL Planning Steps Set a Mandate
    The Obama administration estimated the emissions limits will cost $8.4 billion annually by 2030.
    OBAMA’S RULE ASSIGNS CUSTOMIZED TARGETS TO EACH STATE

    —————————————————————

    (2) STATE Planning Steps Set a Mandate
    THE ACTUAL PRICE WON’T BE CLEAR UNTIL STATES DECIDE HOW THEY’LL REACH THEIR TARGETS
    THEN LEAVES IT UP TO THE STATE TO DETERMINE HOW TO MEET THEM.
    IF STATES REFUSE TO SUBMIT PLANS, THE EPA HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE ITS OWN PLAN
    —————————————————————–
    Sustainable Washington STATE HISTORY

    Washington’s Planning Framework for Climate Change
    The GMA and Climate Change

    AND MCCARTHY SAID THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD RELEASE A MODEL FEDERAL PLAN THAT STATES COULD ADOPT RIGHT AWAY.
    ——————————————————————-
    (3) 2015 COUNTY Planning Steps Set a Mandate
    THE CLALLAM AND JEFFERSON COUNTY FINAL CLIMATE CHANGE MANDATE WAS DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 2015
    WE ARE PLEASED TO PRESENT TO YOU THE FINAL “Climate Change Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic Peninsula” report! (full text below)
    INDEED, NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNTIL THE INK IS DRY …

    ————————————————————————
    THEY, The “Partners” of the Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula Project, will let “US” “We the People” know when the public presentations are scheduled.

    —————————————
    They are pleased to present to somebody? with the final “Climate Change Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic Peninsula” report! This report and its many appendices and supplementary information (see list below) are the culmination of all the wonderful input and participation from all of you throughout the project, as well as the expert research, writing, and process flow from our consultants from “Adaptation International” and Washington Seagrant.

    ————————————–
    PARTNERS of the Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula Project,
    HOW COULD THE FINAL REPORT FROM “NORPCD” FAIL TO MENTION THIS $$$$ PARTNER?
    “OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION” HELPED DEVELOP ECOLOGY”S $152,078 GRANT THAT WAS GRANTED TO NORPCD FOR CLALLAM AND JEFFERSON COUNTY
    THE “OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION” SERVES AS A PARTNER ON (NOPRCD) THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (NOPRC&D)— PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA ($152,078)
    HELP PLAN FOR GLOBAL CLIMATE MOBILIZATION?
    “OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION” IS SPONSORING OTHER EVENTS “” IN CONJUNCTION WITH 350.ORG AND OTHER CLIMATE-ACTION ORGANIZATIONS WORLDWIDE.
    AND OTHER (NOPRCD) PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS: “ADAPTATION INTERNATIONAL”, WASHINGTON SEA GRANT.
    WHO IS “ADAPTATION INTERNATIONAL”? Goggle doesn’t know?
    WOW, WORLDWIDE AND INTERNATIONAL OTHER CLIMATE-ACTION ORGANIZATIONS.
    —————————————————————————————
    Like my Dad, George C. Rains Sr. said…
    EVERYTHING GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS FINALIZED BEFORE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COMMENT IS ALLOWED.
    NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNTIL THE INK IS DRY …
    —————————————————————————————–
    Complete text
    From: Cindy Jayne [mailto:cindyjaynept@gmail.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 11:56 AM
    To: Jake Bell; Sascha Petersen; Kate Dean; Ian Miller
    Subject: Final Climate Change Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic Peninsula Report

    Partners of the Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula Project,

    We are pleased to present to you the final “Climate Change Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic Peninsula” report! This report and its many appendices and supplementary information (see list below) are the culmination of all the wonderful input and participation from all of you throughout the project, as well as the expert research, writing, and process flow from our consultants from Adaptation International and Washington Seagrant.
    Here is the list of appendices and supplementary Information, see link above to access any of these:
    • Appendix A: Comprehensive List of Adaptation Strategies
    • Appendix B: Adaptation Strategy Matrix
    • Appendix C: Sea Level Rise Probability Maps
    • Appendix D: Sea Level Rise Analysis Details
    • Appendix E: Monitoring Plan (available by end of October)
    • Appendix F: Focus Area Overview Maps
    • Supplementary Information A: List of Project Partners
    • Supplementary Information B: Climate Preparedness Outreach Powerpoint (available by end of October)
    • Supplementary Information C: Planning Language Examples for Climate Resiliency
    • Supplementary Information D: Workshop 1 Results
    • Supplementary Information E: Workshop 2 Results
    • Supplementary Information F: GIS Map Development
    Note that there are a few items being finalized as we wrap up this project by October 31, 2015. The Powerpoint Presentation (Supplementary Information B), which we have been using for a variety of presentations already, is in the process of being refined, and we will continue to refine it through the end of October. Also, the Monitoring Plan (Appendix E), which defines how and who will continue to track the progress of the implementation of the adaptation strategies, is in process and will be complete by end of October. And we are also working on an extra final product – a packaged up version of the Executive Summary that can be used as a standalone handout.
    We are currently in the process of giving presentations on the final results of this project to the municipalities and other organizations, and we have a few public presentations that are getting scheduled. One that is scheduled currently is a presentation to the Jefferson County Planning Commission, on November 4th. (The commission meeting starts at 6:30 pm, but the specific time slot has not yet been scheduled, you can check the agenda once it becomes available here.)

    We will let you know when the public presentations are scheduled.
    We will send you a final email by the end of October when these last pieces are complete, and to also enlist your help with helping move the identified climate adaptation strategies forward and to provide input on the status of the implementation of the adaptation strategies.

    Many thanks again for all your engaged and thoughtful participation and feedback throughout this project. It is very exciting to see this all come together, and to now have the report as a resource for the North Olympic Peninsula as we continue to work together to create a climate resilient future!

    Cindy Jayne
    Project Manager, NOPRCD
    cindyjaynept@gmail.com
    (360)344-2046
    —————————————————————————–
    The bottom line
    NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNTIL THE INK IS DRY …
    We will let you know when the public presentations are scheduled.
    —————————————————————————————-
    AUG 2, 2015 SOME STATES STOPPED PLANNING AND, STARTED SUING
    Climate change: Obama orders steeper cuts from power plants
    full text below
    news.yahoo.com/obama-mandate-steeper-emissions-cuts-us-p…
    Yahoo! News
    Aug 2, 2015

    —————————————————————————-

    snippets

    “CLIMATE CHANGE WILL NOT BE SOLVED BY GRABBING POWER FROM STATES OR SLOWLY HOLLOWING OUT OUR ECONOMY,” BUSH SAID.

    OPPONENTS PLANNED TO SUE IMMEDIATELY, and to ask the courts to block the rule temporarily. Many states have threatened not to comply.
    TWENTY TO 30 STATES WERE POISED TO JOIN THE ENERGY INDUSTRY IN SUING OVER THE RULE AS SOON AS IT’S FORMALLY PUBLISHED, SAID SCOTT SEGAL, A LOBBYIST WITH THE FIRM BRACEWELL AND GIULIANI WHO REPRESENTS UTILITIES.
    ———————————————————————————
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    North Olympic Peninsula Resource Conservation & Development Council (NOPRC&D)— Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula ($152,078)
    The NOPRC&D will conduct a detailed assessment of climate related vulnerabilities and develop A CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA. This work will focus on options for reducing risks from climate change by improving the resiliency of the local ecosystems in watersheds of JEFFERSON AND CLALLAM COUNTY. The process will engage stakeholders and planning agencies in generating data, priorities and strategies that will inform the creation of the adaptation plan. The plan will inform the comprehensive and strategic planning processes of the cities, counties, tribes, Public Utility Districts and ports within the North Olympic Peninsula.
    Partner Organizations: Adaptation International, Washington Sea Grant.
    ————————————————————————————
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    Climate adaptation grant for North Olympic Peninsula
    OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION helped develop this grant , “Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula Summary” and serves as a partner on it. We will encourage local elected bodies to implement the changes recommended in the report, which will be developed with reference to the best available science and in discussion with the community at large. Part of the responsibility of government is to look at emerging trends and plan for them, and no trend will be as important in this century as climate change.
    Help plan for global climate mobilization Sept. 26
    OCA is sponsoring this event in conjunction with 350.org and other climate-action organizations worldwide. This year’s climate talks in Paris will be crucial, and we need to join hands around the world to tell our leaders that it’s time to get off of fossil fuels and onto clean energy, now!
    Power Through Paris Workshop
    Saturday, September 26, 12:00-2:00 PM
    Port Angeles Library, 2210 South Peabody Street, Port Angeles
    This event is public. Spread the word!
    2015 is on track to be the hottest year in recorded history, and momentum is growing to stop the climate crisis. Political and religious leaders are beginning to get the message, but we need to carry the message home, to the global gathering of governments at the Paris climate change talks later this year — and beyond. Climate action groups are organizing events across the world in November and December, and in order to make them compelling we need everyone to work together.
    The workshop, led by OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION, will help us share ideas, build energy, and lay out plans for “Power Through Paris”—including how to escalate through and after the Paris climate talks, regardless of their outcome.
    Event signup link:http://act.350.org/event/power-through-paris-workshops_attend/10996
    ——————————————————————————————
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    Local Climate Change Activities – Northwest Straits Marine …
    www.nwstraits.org/media/1309/jayne-localclimateactionactivities.pdf
    Jefferson County / Port Townsend Climate Action Committee. ▷ Local 2020 … organization (NOPRCD) / Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic. Peninsula … (NOPRCD.org) project, funded by WA Dept of Ecology and Commerce. ▷ Goal: To … their community, their state, and at a national level. ▷ They went to …

    —————————————-
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic …
    l2020.org/climate…/planning-for-climate-change-on-the-north-olympic-…
    Feb 4, 2015 – PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA PROJECT … THE PROJECT IS FUNDED BY A GRANT FROM WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND COMMERCE, ... For further information on the project, contact info@noprcd.org.

    ————————————————————————

    This is an interesting ….
    THE NODC ALSO OPERATES AS THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (NOP RC&D).

    The North Olympic Development Council (NODC or “Council”) is a collaborative, innovative effort amongst member governments, educational & community organizations to advance economic, environmental & quality of life initiatives on the North Olympic Peninsula.

    Council Members, Roles & Affiliations
    Officers
    Deborah Stinson, Port Townsend City Council – President
    Peter Quinn, Team Jefferson Economic Development Council-Vice President
    Bill Peach, Clallam County Commissioner- Treasurer
    Clea Rome, WSU Clallam County Extension- Secretary

    COUNCIL MEMBERS

    David Sullivan, Commissioner
    Jefferson County

    Bill Peach, Commissioner,
    Clallam County

    Larry Crockett
    Port of Port Townsend

    Laura DuBois
    City of Sequim

    Will Purser
    Clallam PUD

    Kenneth Collins
    Jefferson PUD

    Sissi Bruch
    Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe

    Doug Sellon
    Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

    Patrick Downey
    City of Port Angeles

    Linty Hopie
    Peninsula College

    Laura Lewis
    WSU Jefferson County Extension

    Colleen McAleer
    Port of Port Angeles

    Since 1992, the Council has managed projects in natural resource research, economic feasibility, market development, and regional planning.

    ———————————————————————–

    Climate change: Obama orders steeper cuts from power plants

    news.yahoo.com/obama-mandate-steeper-emissions-cuts-us-p

    Yahoo! News

    Aug 2, 2015 – From Yahoo News: WASHINGTON (AP) — Aiming to jolt the rest of the world to action, President Barack Obama moved ahead Sunday with …

    Aug 2, 2015 – Yet it will be up to Obama’s successor to implement his plan, which … said the revision makes Obama’s mandate even more burdensome, costly and … “Climate change is not a problem for another generation,” Obama said in …
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Aiming to jolt the rest of the world to action, President Barack Obama moved ahead Sunday with even tougher greenhouse gas cuts on American power plants, setting up a certain confrontation in the courts with energy producers and Republican-led states.
    In finalizing the unprecedented pollution controls, Obama was installing the core of his ambitious and controversial plan to drastically reduce overall U.S. emissions, as he works to secure a legacy on fighting global warming. Yet it will be up to Obama’s successor to implement his plan, which reverberated across the 2016 presidential campaign trail.
    Opponents planned to sue immediately, and to ask the courts to block the rule temporarily. Many states have threatened not to comply.
    The Obama administration estimated the emissions limits will cost $8.4 billion annually by 2030. The actual price won’t be clear until states decide how they’ll reach their targets. But energy industry advocates said the revision makes Obama’s mandate even more burdensome, costly and difficult to achieve.
    “They are wrong,” Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said flatly, accusing opponents of promulgating a “doomsday” scenario.
    Last year, the Obama administration proposed the first greenhouse gas limits on existing power plants in U.S. history, triggering a yearlong review and more than 4 million public comments. On Monday, Obama was to unveil the final rule publicly at an event at the White House.
    “Climate change is not a problem for another generation,” Obama said in a video posted to Facebook. “Not anymore.”
    The final version imposes stricter carbon dioxide limits on states than was previously expected: a 32 percent cut by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, the White House said. Obama’s proposed version last year called only for a 30 percent cut.
    Immediately, Obama’s plan became a point of controversy in the 2016 presidential race, with Hillary Rodham Clinton voicing her strong support and using it to criticize her GOP opponents for failing to offer a credible alternative.
    “It’s a good plan, and as president, I’d defend it,” Clinton said.
    On the Republican side, Marco Rubio, a Florida senator, predicted increases in electricity bills would be “catastrophic,” while former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called the rule “irresponsible and overreaching.”
    “Climate change will not be solved by grabbing power from states or slowly hollowing out our economy,” Bush said.
    Obama’s rule assigns customized targets to each state, then leaves it up to the state to determine how to meet them. Prodded by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a number of Republican governors have said they simply won’t comply. If states refuse to submit plans, the EPA has the authority to impose its own plan, and McCarthy said the administration would release a model federal plan that states could adopt right away.
    Another key change to the initial proposal marks a major shift for Obama on natural gas, which the president has championed as a “bridge fuel” whose growing use can help the U.S. wean itself off dirtier coal power while ramping up renewable energy capacity. The final version aims to keep the share of natural gas in the nation’s power mix at current levels.
    Under the final rule, states will also have an additional two years — until 2022 — to comply, yielding to complaints that the original deadline was too soon. They’ll also have an additional year to submit their implementation plans to Washington.
    In an attempt to encourage earlier action, the federal government plans to offer credits to states that boost renewable sources like wind and solar in 2020 and 2021. States could store those credits away to offset pollution emitted after the compliance period starts in 2022.
    Twenty to 30 states were poised to join the energy industry in suing over the rule as soon as it’s formally published, said Scott Segal, a lobbyist with the firm Bracewell and Giuliani who represents utilities. The Obama administration has a mixed track record in fending off legal challenges to its climate rules. GOP leaders in Congress were also weighing various legislative maneuvers to try to block the rule.
    The National Mining Association lambasted the plan and said it would ask the courts to put the rule on hold while legal challenges play out. On the other end of the spectrum, Michael Brune, the Sierra Club’s executive director, said in an interview that his organization planned to hold public rallies, put pressure on individual coal plants and “intervene as necessary in the courts” to defend the rule.
    By clamping down on emissions, Obama is also working to increase his leverage and credibility with other nations whose commitments he’s seeking for a global climate treaty to be finalized later this year in Paris. As its contribution to that treaty, the U.S. has pledged to cut overall emissions 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, compared to 2005.
    “We’re positioning the United States as an international leader on climate change,” said Brian Deese, Obama’s senior adviser.
    Power plants account for roughly one-third of all U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming, making them the largest single source.
    ————————————————————————————-

    read more here
    FedCenter – Climate Change Adaptation
    https://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/climate/
    Jump to Federal framework for adaptation planning and guiding … – CEQ based its adaptation planning requirements on a … In addition, climate change adaptation planning in an … SET A MANDATE • Understand How Climate Is …

    The new Climate Change Adaptation Program Area supports Federal agency climate adaptation planning. Please check in periodically for new information.
    • What is climate change adaptation & why do Federal agencies need to adapt?
    • Background on the Implementing Instructions for federal agency climate change adaptation
    • Federal framework for adaptation planning and guiding principles
    What is Climate Change Adaptation & Why is it Important?
    Climate change adaptation means adjusting to a changing climate to minimize negative effects and take advantage of new opportunities. Climate change directly affects a wide range of Federal services, operations, programs, assets, and our national security. Through adaptation planning, an agency can identify how climate change is likely to impact its ability to achieve its mission, operate, or meet its policy and program objectives. By integrating climate change adaptation strategies into its planning, the Federal Government can ensure that resources are invested wisely and Federal services and operations remain effective in current and future climate conditions.
    Background on the Implementing Instructions for Federal Agency Climate Change Adaptation
    Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, establishes an integrated strategy for sustainability within the Federal Government. Under the Executive Order, each agency is required to evaluate their climate change risks and vulnerabilities to manage the effects of climate change on the agency’s mission and operations in both the short and long-term as part of the formal Strategic Sustainability Performance Planning process. In it’s October 2010 Progress Report, the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force recommended that CEQ issue climate change adaptation planning implementing instructions. The Implementing Instructions for Federal Agency Climate Change Adaptation Planning identify how agencies should respond to the adaptation requirements under the Executive Order.
    Federal Framework for Adaptation Planning, and Guiding Principles
    CEQ based its adaptation planning requirements on a six-step, flexible planning framework and eight Guiding Principles, as recommended by the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. The planning framework is not meant to be prescriptive or to provide detailed recommendations for project-level adaptation, those detailed options will be developed over time by each agency with the help of a growing set of planning tools, illustrative case studies, and lessons learned. In addition, climate change adaptation planning in an iterative process; our knowledge of climate change is evolving, as is our understanding of different types of adaptive actions.
    Please click on the links below for more information on specific planning actions
    Planning Steps

    • Set a Mandate
    • Understand How Climate Is Changing
    • Apply to Mission and Operations


  • Educations Most Onerous Provisions

    Educations Most Onerous Provisions

    —————————————
    ONEROUS by definition (of a task, duty, or responsibility) involving an amount of effort and difficulty that is oppressively burdensome.

    ————————————–
    2002 THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB) WAS AN “ONEROUS” FEDERAL LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS. It was to effect what (curriculum) STUDENTS were taught (using common core) by their TEACHERS in public schools.

    —————————————–
    CURRICULUM—2002 T0 2012 HOWEVER GRAND (THE FEDERAL EDUCATION) PLANS MAY BE—CAN ONLY BE THAT PORTION OF THE (common core curriculum) PLAN THAT ACTUALLY REACHES THE STUDENT.

    ———————————————-
    EMPHASIZING THE OUTCOMES OF TEACHING COMMON CORE CURRICULUM AND LEARNING

    —————————————————–
    TEACHING? TEACHING IS A SYSTEM OF ACTIONS INTENDED TO PRODUCE “LEARNING”, TO CAUSE THE STUDENT TO “LEARN” and acquire the desired knowledge, skills and also desirable ways of living in the society.

    ————————————————————-
    It is a process in which LEARNER, TEACHER, COMMON CORE CURRICULUM and other variables are ORGANIZED IS A SYSTEMATIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WAY TO ATTAIN SOME PRE-DETERMINED GOALS.

    —————————————–
    Which brings us to the OUTCOME OF “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND”

    ———————————————–
    IN 2012 SAT READING AND WRITING SCORES DROPPED TO LOWEST IN HISTORY

    ——————————————————————-
    In 2012, the Obama ADMINISTRATION began “BEATING THE NCLB DEAD HORSE” by offering flexibility to states regarding specific CURRICULUM requirements of NCLB IN EXCHANGE FOR RIGOROUS AND COMPREHENSIVE TESTING.

    ———————————————-
    IN 2015 SAT SCORES AT THE LOWEST POINT IN A DECADE Sept. 3, 2015 “Simply doing the same things we have been doing is not going to improve these numbers

    —————————————
    In 2015, the Obama ADMINISTRATION, The U.S. CONGRESS continues “BEATING THE OLD NCLB DEAD HORSE” BY CHANGING THE NAME? TO”THE EVERY CHILD ACHIEVES ACT” YET ANOTHER, ONEROUS FEDERAL LAW
    And, simply continuing to do the same thing the Obama ADMINISTRATION, The U.S. CONGRESS has been doing since 2002 BY CREATING ANOTHER COMMON CORE CURRICULUM “ONEROUS” FEDERAL LAW

    ——————————————–
    PER SENATOR CANTWELL SEPT. 2015
    “THE EVERY CHILD ACHIEVES ACT” (ECAA) MAKES A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT CHANGES TO SOME OF “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND’S” EDUCATIONS MOST ONEROUS PROVISIONS.
    —————————————————————————–

    The bottom line…
    THE “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND” REWRITE WILL CONTINUE TO DRIVE THE ONEROUS NATIONAL COMMON CORE  EDUCATION AGENDA UNDER THE NEW NAME “EVERY CHILD ACHIEVES ACT (ECAA)”

    ———————————————————
    Every Child Achieves Act: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
    —————————————————————————-
    THE 21 MOST ONEROUS PROVISIONS IN THE EVERY CHILD ACHIEVES ACT (ECAA)

    ——————————————————

    Read this  complete unedited document verifying the above comments.

    ———————————————————–
    Every Child Achieves Act: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
    www.americanprinciplesinaction.org/…/every-child-achieves-act-a-wolf-i…
    Jul 1, 2015 – American Principles In Action has just released a list of 21 reasons to oppose the Every Child Achieves Act.
    The Every Child Achieves Act – A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
    No Child Left Behind Rewrite Will Drive a National Education Agenda The following is a nonexhaustive list of fatal problems with the bill.
    ————————————————
    1. The Every Child Achieves Act (ECAA) is 792 pages, 122 pages (20%) longer than No Child Left Behind (NCLB) — hardly a move in the right direction.

    2. Proponents cite the inclusion of new language restricting the U.S. Department of Education (USED) from, for example, coercing states into adopting the Common Core national standards. However: a. That language largely replicates existing protections (see Robert
    Eitel & Kent Talbert, The Road to a National Curriculum, PIONEER
    INSTITUTE, no.81 (2012)); b. As with existing protections, the proposed provisions fail to provide an enforcement mechanism for the states and thus depend on the goodwill of USED or congressional action (which was non-existent when USED foisted Common Core on the states); c. ECAA negates the protections anyway: A stated purpose is for state alignment to the same “college-and-career-ready” standards –language that is code for Common Core. Sec. 1001. See further discussion below.

    3. ECAA continues the USED-state master-servant relationship, requiring states to submit education plans and giving USED enormous authority to approve them. Sec. 1111(a)(4).

    4. ECAA retains federal testing mandates that children be tested for math and English in each grade 3-8 and for science once in each of the following grade spans: 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12. It also requires that these test scores be used as a “substantial” portion of a school’s grade to determine which schools will be identified for interventions, thus continuing the “teach-to-the-test” environment of NCLB. Sec. 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I)(aa)-(bb) and Sec. 1111(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II).

    5. ECAA adds to the list of federal programs a state must consult in developing its plan and requires standards to be aligned with federally approved workforce and early-childhood standards. Sec. 1111(a)(1) & Sec.1111(b)(1)(D).

    6. If a state plan fails to meet the requirements of a listed program, USED has the authority to disqualify the state plan unless the state agrees to make the mandated changes. Any prohibitions on USED’s interfering with state standards, assessments, and accountability don’t apply to the “requirements” of the Act. Sec. 1111(a)(4),(5).
    7. ECAA requires statewide curriculum standards, assessments, and accountability systems to prepare students “for postsecondary education or the workforce,” i.e.,
    “college- and career-ready.” The preparation for postsecondary education must (theoretically) enable the student to succeed “without remediation.” All this is code language for Common Core-aligned standards. Sec. 1111(b)(1)(D), (b)(3)(B). It thus puts downward pressure on states to keep Common Core standards, or similar standards, in place.
    8. ECAA contains a requirement for states to “demonstrate” that the state standards are “aligned” to the same criteria used to establish Common Core: “entrance requirements, without the need for academic remediation, for the system of public higher education.” Any prohibition included to stop USED from coercing states to use Common Core or other specific standards is meaningless. USED won’t have to force anything, because alignment to the same criteria as “college-and-career-ready” is a requirement of the bill. Sec. 1111(b)(1)(D)(i)-(ii).
    9. ECAA mandates that a state’s accountability system penalize schools that don’t enforce the requirement that 95% of all their students take the state assessment: The state must provide “a clear and understandable explanation of how the State will factor this requirement [95% student participation in state assessments] into their accountability system determinations.” This is an attack on parental rights and the Opt-Out movement. Sec. 1111 (b)(3)(B)(vi).
    10. ECAA dictates particular types of testing that are extraordinarily expensive, have a history of failure, and are designed to inject more intrusive psychological data-collection and psychological profiling/manipulation into the assessments. Sec. 1111(b)(2)(B)(vi) and (xiii).
    11. ECAA maintains NCLB’s requirement that the state assessment produce not just test scores, but “individual student interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports.” Unlike NCLB, ECAA requires assessment on behavioral/skills-based standards rather than truly academic standards. The data produced under this language could resemble a psychological profile of the student. Sec. 1111(b)(2)(B)(x).
    12. States in PARCC and SBAC are currently required to make these profiles available to USED. Nothing would prevent USED from making other states submit those student-level profiles as well. ECAA’s limitations on what data USED may demand are too weak; USED may demand information from any “existing State or local data source.” Sec. 1111(a)(6).
    13. ECAA does nothing to stop the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) from implementing its planned and unconstitutional affective probing of students’ “mindsets,” “grit,” or other psychological traits.
    14. ECAA removes protection against socioemotional profiling in the statewide assessments (eliminating NCLB’s prohibition against including assessment items that “evaluate or assess personal or family beliefs and attitudes”) and fails to protect against other psychological data-gathering in any other federal education program covered by ESEA.

    15. ECAA continues to give the federal government influence over how states grade their schools in state accountability systems. Although it claims states may design their own systems, it negates real discretion by detailing the framework of that system and its most important requirements. Sec. 1111 (b)(3)(B)(iii).

    16. While NCLB required academic standards and achievement levels be applied to “public elementary and secondary schools,” ECAA extends the tentacles of federal control into public preschools by making this a requirement for “all public schools” and “public school students,” not just elementary and secondary. Sec. 1111(b)(1)(B)-(C).

    17. ECAA’s Early Learning Alignment and Improvement Grants (Sec. 5902) offer new federal funds that states “shall use to develop, implement, or improve . . . a statewide system . . . of voluntary early care and learning.” a. Note that this program is not exclusively for early educational programs and includes “early care,” or childcare. b. Any funding under this grant must be made available through “existing Federal, state, and local sources,” including Head Start and the Child Care and Development Block Grant, two very expensive and ineffective programs. c. States must demonstrate how they will pay for the program after the three-year federal grant expires. d. There is no evidence that such early-childhood programs have educational benefit, and significant evidence that they may actually do academic and emotional harm. e. These programs do, however, benefit the central planners by allowing government bureaucrats to gain influence over children from their earliest years.

    18. ECAA requires the statewide preschool standards to align with federal standards established under Head Start and the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act of 1990, creating national standards and achievement levels for our youngest students. Sec. 1111(b)(1)(D)(iii). These federal standards are heavily socio-emotional and result in the compilation of psychological data on young children.
    19. ECAA includes “school climate” formula grants. This risks giving the federal government enormous power to model citizenship, to influence what is an appropriate world-view, and to pressure schools to suppress student expression of orthodox religious values. Sec. 4103, et seq.
    20. Through these formula grants, ECAA funds “extended learning opportunities,” such as before- and after-school programs, summer programs, etc., to ensure children spend less time with their families and more at school. Sec. 4105(a)(B). The grants also fund “comprehensive school-based mental health services and supports” that will enable “early identification of social, emotional, or behavioral problems . . . .” Sec. 4105(a)(D)(ii)(I). This is more governmental surveillance of students’ attitudes and mindsets.
    21. ECAA also allots money to fulfill Sec. Arne Duncan’s expressed desire of having schools become “21st –century community learning centers” (it even uses that exact terminology). Sec. 4201 et seq. This funding would encourage students to rely on the government school, not family or church, for “a broad array of . . . services, programs, and activities, such as youth development activities, service learning, nutrition and health education . . . counseling programs . . . [and] financial literacy programs . . . .” [Do the drafters not see the irony of having the federal government promote “financial literacy”?] And to help out politically connected corporations, these programs should include “career and technical programs, internship or apprenticeship programs, and other ties to an in-demand industry sector or occupation for high school students . . . .” Sec. 4201(a)(2).
    ——————————————————————————————–
    Snippets from Senator Cantwell’s response….
    On July 16, 2015, I joined my colleagues in the Senate in passing the Every Child Achieves Act (S.1177), a bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act AND REPLACE THE BADLY BROKEN NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT.
    The Every Child Achieves Act (ECAA) makes a number of important changes to some of No Child Left Behind’s MOST ONEROUS PROVISIONS.
    ONEROUS by definition, (of a task, duty, or responsibility) involving an amount of effort and difficulty that is OPPRESSIVELY BURDENSOME.
    THE EVERY CHILD ACHIEVES ACT (ECAA) IS 792 PAGES, 122 pages (20%) longer than No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
    ———————————————————
    Curriculum, it turns out, is indeed much more than the idea of specific subjects IT CAN BE CHARACTERIZED NOT ONLY BY WHAT IT DOES INCLUDE BUT ALSO BY WHAT IT INTENTIONALLY EXCLUDES.


  • WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

    WOTUS Water Runs Down Hill
    So, the LAW OF GRAVITY becomes the EPA WOTUS WATER LAW OF THE LAND?

    ———————————
    I DON’T NEED AN APPLE TO FALL ON MY HEAD TO UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (WOTUS)

    Last year the administration wrote new definitions that would have subjected all waters (running down hill) within 4,000 feet of a navigable water to EPA review and control.

    —————–
    USGS WATER SCIENCE SCHOOL ” water returns to the earth from precipitation falling on the land, where “GRAVITY” either takes it into the ground as infiltration or it begins RUNNING DOWNHILL as surface runoff”

    ——————————-
    USGS WATER SCIENCE SCHOOL “NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH WATER IS, IT TRIES TO FLOW DOWNHILL”

    (SO DO WETLAND WATERS JUST SEEP DOWNHILL?)

    ———————————-
    The Environmental Protection Agency says ANY BODIES OF WATER near a river, or standing water that can affect waterways will (RUN DOWN HILL AND) fall under federal regulation.

    ————————–
    NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH WATER IS, GRAVITY RUNS WATER DOWN HILL

    —————————–
    Indeed, science has proven that each water basin has its own land area of the water cycle, including its rainfall, its snow melt, recharging the aquifer, surface water, groundwater, rain that is absorbed into the soil RUNS DOWNHILL. Rain that is not absorbed by soil RUNS OFF DOWN THE HILL

    .——————–
    But how does much of the water get back into the oceans to keep the water cycle going?
    Indeed, the U.S. Geological Survey science tells us that 93 to 97 percent of well water used for domestic or irrigation purposes, RUNS DOWN HILL and is returned to the watershed in the proximity of where it was withdrawn.

    And, ALL precipitation, rain and snow melt do the same, GRAVITY TAKES WATER DOWN HILL as infiltration or surface runoff.

    ————————————–
    The EPA says, the new rule applies to tributaries and ANY BODIES OF WATER (that runs downhill) near rivers that (run down hill and ) “COULD” seep into waterways and “AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT”
    ———————————————————————————
    PLF UNDERSTANDS THE GRAVITY OF  (WOTUS)

    Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) lawsuit challenges Obama Administration’s new
    “waters of United States” power grab

    WOTUS rule – Pacific Legal Foundation
    https://www.pacificlegal.org/wotus
    Pacific Legal Foundation
    PLF Principal Attorney M. Reed Hopper, who successfully argued the … We will alert you when we file our lawsuit — and keep you posted along the way, as we …
    —————————————————————-
    Judge blocks Obama EPA rule as federal power grab over state waters A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit.

    ——————————-
    THE SUIT IN QUESTION WAS FILED BY 13 STATES (ALASKA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, COLORADO, IDAHO, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA AND WYOMING),
    which claimed, among other things, that the WOTUS rule is a threat to state sovereignty because it asserts federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS (AND EVEN SOME RELATIVELY DRY LAND)that should be subject to state government control. As a general matter (and as the Supreme Court has recognized) land-use control is generally beyond the scope of federal power. In this case, the district court concluded that the states were likely to succeed on the merits as the EPA had adopted an “exceptionally expansive” view of its own jurisdiction under the CWA. According to the court, the WOTUS rule “allows EPA regulation of waters that do not bear any effect on the ‘chemical physical, and biological integrity’ of any navigable-in-fact water,” and therefore exceeds the limits on federal regulatory authority identified by the Supreme Court in Rapanos.
    The EPA, said it will only honor the injunction in the 13 states that had sued, and will move forward with the rules in the rest of the country.

    —————————————————
    OUR WA State legislators “DID  NOT OBJECT” to WOTUS federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS (AND EVEN SOME RELATIVELY DRY LAND)
    Washington State attorney General “DID NOT” file a law suit against WOTUS on behalf of the citizens of WA State.
    Washington State attorney General “DID” file lawsuits against ONE Superbowl ticket vendor, Arlene’s Flowers, and Hanford.

    A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit.

    WA STATE IS NOT PART OF THE WOTUS LAWSUIT
    ———————————————————————————-

    WA STATE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND BY THE GRAVITY FED TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT of WOTUS federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS.
    Indeed, WA State Dept. of Ecology MUST FIRST ADOPT AND DESIGNATE THE SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH ANY BODIES OF WATER, within 4,000 feet of a navigable water, including wetlands near a river, lake, saltwater, or standing water, that (run down hill) can affect waterways (run down hill and) “COULD” affect the environment, that shall fall under the WOTUS Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act and become subject to EPA review and control.

    ——————————-
    So, September 2, 2015 WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY filed the following rulemaking with the Office of the Code Reviser: Rule preproposal
    (using only online public notification?)

    ADOPTION OF DESIGNATIONS OF SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH SHORELINES OF THE STATE (WAC 173-22)
    ———————————————————————————
    What’s Up With WOTUS?
    9/3/2015
    Implementation of the Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States” (usually referred to as the WOTUS rule) was set to become effective on August 28, 2015. Several lawsuits were filed by agricultural groups, among others, requesting a preliminary injunction, or order, to halt the rule’s implementation until lawsuits could be settled. Late in the afternoon on August 27, a District Court judge in North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction stopping the WOTUS rule from going into effect for thirteen states, including Nebraska.
    FOR ALL OTHER STATES WHO DIDN’T HAVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS ISSUED, THE RULE TOOK EFFECT AS PLANNED ON AUGUST 28, 2015.

    Why were lawsuits filed against the EPA and Army Corp of Engineers (CORP) following release of the final WOTUS rule? Several lawsuits were filed following publication of the final WOTUS rule in the Federal Register.

    Twenty-seven states, along with industries from petroleum to construction, and agricultural groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Corn Growers Association, and National Pork Producers Council all filed separate lawsuits. These numerous lawsuits have since been consolidated into a single lawsuit that identifies three arguments for vacating the rule.

    The first argument is that the finalized WOTUS rule exceeds the intended purposes of the Clean Water Act and represents an unconstitutional overreach by the federal government on land. Second, the rule-making process is designed to give the public an opportunity to comment on all aspects of a rule. In this case, EPA added items to the final rule that were not in the proposed rule.

    The third, and perhaps most concerning argument, is that the EPA may have inappropriately worked with environmental activists to lobby for the rule and support the agency’s agenda. If true, this represents an abuse of the federal rulemaking process by the EPA.

    What does the temporary injunction mean for Nebraska farmers? It means that, for now, the status quo will be maintained. So current guidance documents and existing regulations for making “jurisdictional determination” will continue to be used by the Corp. New definitions and parameters outlined in the WOTUS rule will not be part of the Corp’s checklist when making these determinations in Nebraska. Jurisdictional determination simply means that the Corp reviews the necessary checklist regarding features of a water body, and possibly conducts an on-site inspection, to make a decision about whether the water body should be under their jurisdiction as “waters of the U.S.”

    The temporary injunction does not halt the rule entirely; it simply postpones implementation of the rule until legal proceedings are completed (which could take months or even years as we saw with the new AFO/CAFO regulations a few years back).

    If the pending lawsuits are not successful, and the WOTUS rule is eventually implemented in Nebraska, it remains to be seen what parts of the rule will remain and which will not. In Nebraska, we’ll cross that bridge when we get there.
    Source: Amy Millmier Schmidt, UNL Livestock Bioenvironmental Engineer
    ————————————————————————————
    By Jonathan H. Adler August 28, 2015
    UPDATE: On Friday, the plaintiff states informed the court that the U.S. EPA had announced it would continue to apply the WOTUS rule in states that did not challenge the injunction.

    Late Friday, the district court responded with an order for supplemental briefing on whether the injunction “applies nationally or in a limited geographic area.” Briefs are due on Tuesday, September 1.
    ———————————————————————
    CALIFORNIA IS NOT PART OF THE LAWSUITS
    California Farmers Claim EPA Water Rules Extend To Dirt Fields
    August 31, 2015 6:22 PM
    SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY (CBS13) — Farmers say federal regulators are going too far and are taking away their water and chipping away at their property rights under a new rule.
    The Environmental Protection Agency says any bodies of water near a river, or standing water that can affect waterways will fall under federal regulation.
    Since the 1980s, the EPA has regulated any water you can navigate through, including rivers and large lakes. But the new Clean Water Act Rule will add smaller bodies of water to the government’s oversight.
    Bruce Blodgett with the San Joaquin Farm Bureau says the new rule would include any standing body of water, and dry land that can potentially hold water.
    “This field is a great example,” he said. “This dirt field would now be ‘waters of the U.S.’ under this proposed rule.”
    The bureau says the new rule allows the government to require farmers to get permits to farm from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    “We have a lot of fields that are fallow, sitting idle this year, because of the drought,” he said. “That will enable the Corps to come after those lands when they try to bring them back into production next year saying, ‘No, those are now waters of the U.S.’”
    Under the new Clean Water Act rule, the bureau claims any private property with a pond and any farm with an irrigation district is now under federal regulation.
    But the EPA says, that’s not true. It says the new rule applies to tributaries and water near rivers that could seep into waterways and affect the environment . The agency says it’s not going after ponds and won’t interfere with farm irrigation. It says ditches that are not constructed in streams and that flow only when it rains are not covered.
    A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit. California is not part of the lawsuits, but farmers are watching.