+menu-


  • Category Archives A Thousand Wrongs and No Rights
  • WA DOE Rules Recreational Use of Water?

    TO PROTECT SURFACE WATER CONTACT BY RECREATIONAL USERS?

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

    To: ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK@LISTSERV.WA.GOV

    Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:51 PM

    Subject: The following rule pre-proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: Chapter 173-201A WAC- Recreational Use Criteria

    WHAT ARE THE CURRENT SURFACE WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USES?

    Find Designated Uses for Waters of the State

    Aquatic Life Uses (see WAC 173-201A-200)(1):

     

    Recreational Uses: (see WAC 173-201A-200)(2))

    Extraordinary Primary Cont.

    Extraordinary quality primary contact waters. Waters providing extraordinary protection against waterborne disease or that serve as tributaries to extraordinary quality shellfish harvesting areas.

    Primary Cont.

    Primary contact recreation.

    Secondary Cont.

    Secondary contact recreation.

     

    Designated uses have sometimes been called “BENEFICIAL USES” and include public water supply, protection for fish, shellfish, and wildlife,

    AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL

    Miscellaneous Uses: (see WAC 173-201A-200)(4))

    Wildlife Habitat

    Wildlife habitat.

    Harvesting

    Fish harvesting.

    Commerce/Navigation

    Commerce and navigation.

    Boating

    Boating.

    Aesthetics

    Aesthetic values.

     

    ——————————————————————

    Find Designated Uses for Waters of the State

    SHALL WE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE LAW AND THE DOE RULE?

    (RCW 90.58.020) Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs)

    There are three basic policy areas to the Act: shoreline use, environmental protection and public access. The Act emphasizes accommodation of appropriate uses that require a shoreline location, protection of shoreline environmental resources and protection of the public’s right to access and use the shorelines

    Public access: Master programs must include a public access element making provisions for public access to publicly owned areas, and a recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities.

    The overarching policy is that “the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. “Alterations of the natural conditions of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for…development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the state.”

    SHALL WE THE CITIZENS BE ALLOWED TO WALK ON THE SHORELINE BUT NOT TAKE RECREATION  IN THE WATER?

    —————————————————————————-

    CONTINUED….

    Designated uses have sometimes been called “BENEFICIAL USES” and include public water supply, protection for fish, shellfish, and wildlife,

    AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL

    agricultural, industrial, navigational and aesthetic purposes. Water quality criteria designed to protect the designated uses and are used to assess the general health of Washington surface waters and set permit limits. Marine and fresh waters have designated uses assigned in a “use-based” format, where individual waterbodies are assigned individual uses.

    To find the designated uses for marine waterbodies refer to WAC 173-201A-610 and 612. For marine aquatic life uses see map (PDF). For marine criteria refer to WAC 173-201A-210, 240, and 260.

    Finding designated uses and criteria for rivers and streams is slightly more complex because of the large number of salmonid species and their complex freshwater spawning cycles.

    To find the designated use(s) for rivers and streams refer to WAC 173-201A-600 and 602 (Table 602) of the water quality standards.

    Table 602 is an extensive listing of waterbodies and the uses assigned to those waterbodies. Section 600 outlines default uses for those waterbodies not specifically named in Table 602.

     

    Chapter 246-260 WAC: WATER RECREATION FACILITIES

    apps.leg.wa.gov › WACs › Title 246

    Mar 27, 2014 – Special design and construction provisions for hotels and motels (transient accommodations) serving fewer than fifteen living units and for spas …

    ————————————————————————————

    The Department of Ecology plans to amend Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington.

    This rulemaking will:

    • Include new indicators and numeric criteria TO PROTECT WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USES in sections 200(2) and 210(3).
    • REVIEW CURRENT WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USE categories and modify sections 600 and 610 if necessary.
    • Improve the location information in use designation tables listed in this chapter – Table 602, USE DESIGNATIONS FOR FRESH WATERS AND Table 612, USE DESIGNATIONS FOR MARINE WATERS

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

    To: ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK@LISTSERV.WA.GOV

    Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:51 PM

    Subject: The following rule pre-proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: Chapter 173-201A WAC- Recreational Use Criteria

    The following rule pre-proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser:

    August 16th, 2017

    Chapter 173-201A WAC: Recreational Use Criteria

    For more information:

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/ruledev/wac173201A/1607/1607timedocs.html

    To join or leave ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK click here:

    http://listserv.wa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK

    Thank you for using WAC Track.

    Have a good day!

    Visit us on the web or social media.

    Subscribe or Unsubscribe

    Laws & Rules > Open Rulemaking > Chapter 173-201A Recreational Use Criteria

    Chapter 173-201A WAC
    Recreational Use Criteria

     

    Español (Spanish) > Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese) > 한국어 (Korean)

    The Department of Ecology plans to amend Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington.

    This rulemaking will:

    • Include new indicators and numeric criteria to protect water contact recreational uses in sections 200(2) and 210(3).
    • Review current water contact recreational use categories and modify sections 600 and 610 if necessary.
    • Improve the location information in use designation tables listed in this chapter – Table 602, Use designations for fresh waters and Table 612, Use designations for marine waters.

    Timeline and Documents

     

    Date (date subject to change)

    Activity

    August 16, 2017

    Announcement Phase (CR-101)
    Announcement documents
    Read the CR-101

    August 16, 2017 – Spring 2018

    Rule Development Phase
    Develop and prepare the rule language, regulatory analyses documents, SEPA documents, and other information.

    Spring 2018

    Rule Proposal Phase (CR -102)
    Proposal documents available upon filing.

    Spring 2018

    Hold public hearing comment period.

    Spring – Fall 2018

    Review public comments and prepare adoption packet.

    Fall 2018

    Rule Adoption Phase (CR-103)
    Documents available upon filing.

    Fall 2018

    Rule effective (usually 31 days after filing)

    Accessibility (ADA) – For documents in alternate format, call 360-407-6600, 711 (relay service), or 877-833-6341 (TTY). Also see Ecology’s ADA Accessibility page.

    ADDITIONAL RULE INFORMATION

    CONTACT

    Bryson Finch
    360-407-7158
    bryson.finch@ecy.wa.gov

    STAY INFORMED

    Subscribe to the
    E-mail ListServ to receive updates

    RELATED LINKS

     

    Feedback?

     

    To find the designated use(s) for rivers and streams refer to WAC 173-201A-600 and 602 (Table 602) of the water quality standards. Table 602 is an extensive listing of waterbodies and the uses assigned to those waterbodies. Section 600 outlines default uses for those waterbodies not specifically named in Table 602.

    Publication Summary Table  602.

    Title

    Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, Chapter 173-201A WAC

    Publication number

    Date Published

    Date Revised

    06-10-091

    December 2006

    March 2017

    VIEW NOW:

    Acrobat PDF format (Number of pages: 142) (Publication Size: 1956KB)

    Trouble viewing?

    ·         Get the latest Adobe Reader

    ·         Microsoft Word Viewer.

    ·         Microsoft Excel Viewer.

    Author(s)

    Water Quality Program

    Description

    This updated version of publication #06-10-091 incorporates rule language adopted by Ecology on August 1, 2016.

    REQUEST A COPY

    The mission of the Department of Ecology is to protect, preserve, and enhance Washington’s environment. To help us meet that goal, please consider the environment before you print or request a copy.

    Accessibility Options
    Persons with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service
    Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341

    ·         Water Quality Order Form

    Contact

    Becca Conklin at 360-407-6413 or swqs@ecy.wa.gov

    Keywords

    rule, surface water, standards, quality, water quality standards

    WEB PAGE

    Surface Water Quality Standards

    RELATED PUBLICATIONS

    Title:

    Water Quality Standards For Surface Waters Of The State Of Washington

    Waters Requiring Supplemental Spawning and Incubation Protection for Salmonid Species

     


  • The Importance of Federal Water Control?

    Contact: Rosemarie Calabro Tully
    rct@energy.senate.gov
    (202) 224-7556

    Dear Rosemarie,

    I just called your office, left a message and now as instructed, I am emailing you.

    Re: Senator Cantwell Releases a Bold Vision for Water in the 21st Century

    THE IMPORTANCE OF FEDERAL WATER CONTROL

    Congress is one  way  Executive Order  is another a presidential memorandum to institutionalize the National Drought Resilience Partnership (NDRP)

    —————————————————————-

    Feb 5, 2013 WA STATE HAD THINGS UNDER CONTROL.

    6 (3) The provisions of this chapter apply only to waters of the
    7 Yakima river basin.

    It appears that the WA State Legislators can change WA State DOE Water Rules with a House Bill 1414 ?

    Behind My Back | Water Rules Not Etched In Stone

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/02/05/water-rules-not-etched-in-stone/

    Feb 5, 2013 – ARE WA STATE WATER RULES ETCHED IN STONE? PERHAPS NOT… 6 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF … WASHINGTON:
    7 Sec. 1. RCW 90.38.005 and 1989 c 429 s 1 are each amended to read
    8 as follows:
    9 (1) The legislature finds that:

    It appears that the WA State Legislators can change WA State DOE Water Rules with a House Bill 1414 ?
    36 to satisfy both existing rights, and other presently unmet as well as
    37 future needs of the basin;

    6 (3) The provisions of this chapter apply only to waters of the
    7 Yakima river basin.

    What do we need in Clallam County to change the Dungeness Water Rule?
    Elected officials that represent us, Van De Wege, Senator Hargrove and Tharinger, to do their job and propose legislation
    36 to satisfy both existing rights, and other presently unmet as well as
    37 future needs of the basin;

    What do they need in Skagit County to change the Skagit River Water Rule?
    Elected officials that represent them, do their job and propose legislation
    36 to satisfy both existing rights, and other presently unmet as well as
    37 future needs of the basin;

    Feb 5, 2013 WA STATE HAD THINGS UNDER CONTROL.

    GOD FORBID THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALLOW ANYTHING BE UNDER STATE CONTROL

    ————————————————————————

    WOW in 2015? Last year, Sen. Cantwell introduced the Yakima Basin bill

    THE IMPORTANCE OF FEDERAL WATER CONTROL

    Senator Cantwell Releases a Bold Vision for Water in the 21st Century

    DOUBLE WOW 2016, Sen. Cantwell said. “The Yakima water bill is a national model for watershed management. The federal government has a responsibility to act now to support these efforts.”

    —————————————————————————————

    Indeed, step by step, one way or another, from WOTUS to Wetland Delineation, to Cantwell.

    First the Feds TAKE all of our water using WOTUS

    WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

    Posted on September 4, 2015 8:52 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    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.

    Behind My Back | Congress Must Act on Water Issues

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/12/04/congressmustact-on-water-issues/

    Dec 4, 2015 – Congress Must Act on Water Issues May 24, 2014 It takes an act of the U.S. … www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/01/high–dry-and-destitute/.

    ——————————————————————————-

    WA State Reform on Wetland Delineation?

    Posted on February 11, 2016 11:29 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    Re: WA State Legislative reform ideas for SMPs and wetlands delineation update?

    Wetland delineation is also an element of a “jurisdictional determination. ... A WETLAND IS A WOTUS “water of the United States” and thus regulated under the federal Clean …

    Wetland delineation establishes the existence (location) and physical limits (size) of a wetland for the purposes of federal, state, and local regulations.

    Wetland delineation is also an element of a “jurisdictional determination.” This process identifies which water bodies within a project’s boundaries meet the definition of “waters of the United States.” For more information on this, see the Corps’ of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Guidance Letter 08-02, Jurisdictional Determinations.

    —————————————————————————————

    SO WHAT’S OLD?

    Behind My Back | “Ecology Sucks”

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/04/15/ecologysucks/

    Apr 15, 2013 – Ecology Sucks” And, the rest of the story. The local news papers did report that I said it. WHAT THE LOCAL NEWSPAPERS DID NOT REPORT …

    Behind My Back | High, Dry and Destitute

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/01/highdry-and-destitute/

    Feb 1, 2015 – High, Dry and Destitute WA State citizens, private property owners and … category and have previously been posted on “behindmyback.org”.

    AND WHAT’S OLD?

    FEB 5, 2013, It appears that the WA State Legislators can change WA State DOE Water Rules with a House Bill 1414 ?

    behindmyback.org/2013/02/05/ The provisions of this chapter apply only to waters of the 7 Yakima river basin.

    ————————————————————————–

    MARCH 25, 2016  SO WHAT’S REALLY NEW?

    BY HOOK OR BY CROOK, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER

    TOTAL FEDERAL CONTROL OF ALL WATER

    Senator Cantwell Releases a Bold Vision for Water in the 21st Century

    New white paper outlines a national policy framework for drought and water security

    Congress is one  way  Executive Order  is another a presidential memorandum to institutionalize the National Drought Resilience Partnership (NDRP),

    National Drought Resilience Partnership – US Drought Portal

    www.drought.gov/drought/content/ndrp

    National Drought Resilience Partnership Fact Sheet: Learn more about the NDRP, the importance of drought preparedness, and THE IMPORTANCE OF FEDERAL and …

    ————————————————————————-

    Senator Cantwell Releases a Bold Vision for Water in the 21st Century

    New white paper outlines a national policy framework for drought and water security

    Read Sen. Cantwell’s white paper here.

    Washington, DC – Today, on World Water Day, Ranking Member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) released a white paper to advance the development of a 21st century national framework for addressing drought and water security in the United States.  
    body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color:

    An unprecedented drought last year and 15 years of drought across the American West have demonstrated the need to rethink U.S. water management in the 21st century. Since 1980, droughts have cost the United States more than $200 billion. The drought last year caused widespread and serious impacts for communities, agriculture, industry and the environment. As drought is predicted to continue in the coming years and as communities throughout the United States face significant water-security challenges, it is a crucial time to evaluate and develop new strategies at the national level.  

    Sen. Cantwell’s paper lays out a national framework to address water challenges through the modernization of federal programs to support and finance sustainable, watershed-scale solutions; advance science and technology; and promote partnerships with communities. The purpose of the paper is to foster a public dialogue and to develop a comprehensive policy agenda to address national drought and water security needs, as called for by states, tribes, local governments, utilities, agricultural producers and conservation groups.

    Modernizing federal programs is critical to supporting a more water-secure future,” Sen. Cantwell said. “The Yakima water bill is a national model for watershed management. The federal government has a responsibility to act now to support these efforts.”

    The framework document reflects lessons learned from Washington’s Yakima River Basin, where an extraordinary collaboration has led to a watershed planning effort that has become a national model. Last year, Sen. Cantwell introduced the Yakima Basin bill (S. 1694) to authorize federal participation in this effort, which will help usher in a new era in water management. The bill will help to restore ecosystems and endangered species, conserve water and provide water security for families, fish and farmers for years to come. Last month, Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior Michael Connor called the Yakima process a model not only for working through water challenges, but any natural resource management challenge.

    The white paper released today builds on that approach and outlines five policy principles as a national framework for drought and water security:

    1. Supporting collaborative watershed-scale solutions that are locally-driven. Governance solutions should support and incentivize collaborative, locally driven, watershed solutions by modernizing, coordinating, and streamlining federal programs to make them more effective.

    2. Financing solutions through partnerships and streamlined federal funding. Innovative water financing solutions should utilize an integrated watershed funding approach that streamlines federal funding and increases opportunities for public-private partnerships.

    3. Using and advancing the best science, technology and tools. Science and technology solutions should focus on accelerating innovation and the advancement of tipping points in science, technology and tools to transform water management.

    4. Advancing sustainable water supply solutions for people and the environment. Water supply solutions should take an integrated, portfolio approach that balances the needs of both people and the environment, including: (1) increased use of water markets, efficiency, conservation, recycling, reuse and desalination; (2) improvements in existing infrastructure, operations and low-impact infrastructure (such as aquifer storage and recovery); and (3) nature-based solutions and restoration of ecosystems and fisheries.

    5. Partnering with Tribal Nations, Arctic and Island Communities. The federal government should partner with and support Tribal Nations, Arctic and Island communities as they face unique challenges in responding to and addressing long-term water security needs.

    Addressing long-term drought is also a priority for the Obama administration. Ahead of today’s White House Water Summit, the administration released a presidential memorandum to institutionalize the National Drought Resilience Partnership (NDRP), which seeks to reduce the vulnerability of communities to the impacts of drought.

    Download Sen. Cantwell’s white paper on drought here.
    Read the presidential memorandum on long-term drought resilience here.

    ###

    Permalink: http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/3/senator-cantwell-releases-a-bold-vision-for-water-in-the-21st-century

    How does drought response relate to climate preparedness?

    • The President’s Climate Action Plan: In June 2013, President Obama released his Climate Action Plan to cut the carbon pollution that causes climate change and affects public health, including increased risk of drought wildfires.
    • Executive Order – Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change: On November 1, 2013, President Obama established a Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience to advise the Administration on how the Federal Government can respond to the needs of communities nationwide that are dealing with the impacts of climate change, including drought and wildfires.
    • Fact Sheet: Executive Order on Climate Preparedness
    • National Drought Forum Report: In December 2012, Federal agencies and states held the  ational Drought Forum (NDF) to focus on improving government coordination to support the planning and preparedness needed for enhancing resilience to ongoing or reoccurring drought. The NDRP is one important outcome of this forum and continues the Obama Administration’s commitment to helping communities get the drought assistance they need.
    • Federal Actions to Assist the Drought Emergency: A list of recent Federal actions, programs, and funding opportunities to support communities currently facing drought and to prepare for future drought events
    • Drought Recovery Matrix (download): An “at a glance” overview of federal resources, programs, funding, and authorities available to policy experts, federal and state agencies, and other impacted sectors to navigate the numerous programs and opportunities available to assist in building greater drought resilience (Last Updated in 2012).

     


  • Where There’s a Won’t They Don’t

    Where There’s a Will there’s a Way.

    Where There’s a Won’t They Don’t

    In a reelection campaign speech, our Clallam County Commissioner Mike Chapman  said “If we don’t want you to do it, we will make it as difficult as possible”

    Go figure… With this attitude against what our local citizens want, Mike Chapman was reelected.

    ————————————————————————-

    WHAT CITIZENS WANT AND WHAT WE’VE GOT….

    WITH “THEY” BEING DEFINED AS THE ELECTED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THEY WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE OUR WORKING TAXPAYERS MONEY. BY TAXING, TOLLING, FEES, PERMITTING, FOR ENTRANCE…

    THEY WON’T AND DON’T BOTHER WITH FINDING A WAY  FOR WORKING AMERICAN CITIZENS TO PUT FOOD ON THEIR OWN TABLE AFTER FEDERAL DEDUCTIONS. (LIKE SUBSIDIZING OBAMACARE)

    THEY ARE MUCH TOO BUSY DIVING UP TAXPAYERS MONEY TO GIVE FREE  ENTITLEMENTS  TO ILLEGALS AND IMMIGRANTS, ETC.

    THEY WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE OUR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND.

    THEY WILL FIND A WAY BY ACTS, LEGISLATION, REGULATION, RESTRICTION, RULES,  TO TAKE OUR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND USE AWAY FROM WE THE PEOPLE.

    THEY WILL FIND A WAY BY ACTS, LEGISLATION, REGULATION, RESTRICTION, RULES, TO TAKE OUR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND USE AWAY FROM WE THE PEOPLE. (IN FACT, ALL LAND USE, GRAZING, RECREATIONAL AND EVEN BUILDING A HOME ,)

    ———————————————————————

    If congress doesn’t… Obama will..

    Obama signs executive order, bypasses Congress, and …

    https://investmentwatchblog.com/obamasignsexecutiveorderbypasses-…

    1 day ago – Obama signs executive order, bypasses Congress, and legalizes all BLM land grabs. … order, bypass Congress, and do a massive BLM land grab. … http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/22499-behind- …

    ————————————————————-

    OOPS, TO THE GROUPS WITH THE GREAT SUGGESTION…

    THEY BEING THE ELECTED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WON’T BE BOTHERING WITH REFORMING THE (LWCF) any time soon..

    UPDATED Dec 16, 2015

    Conservation fund gets 3-year lifeline in spending bill | TheHill

    thehill.com/…/263424-conservation-fund-gets-3-year-lifeline-in-…
    The Hill

    Dec 16, 2015The reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund … is a sign of the ineffectiveness of this Congress and deep dysfunction in …

    The NEW spending bill also gives the LWCF fund $450 million for the coming fiscal year, a near 50 percent increase over the previous level.

    ———————————————————

    FULL UNEDITED TEXT

    New post on Pie N Politics

    Group: Fix the national parks we have, don’t create new ones
    by Liz Bowen
    PNP comment: I don’t know who is behind this group, but this certainly sounds like a good idea. — Editor Liz Bowen
    Summary
    A group behind “free market environmentalism” said the nation’s nearly $12 billion backlog of deferred maintenance at national parks could be in part solved by taking care of the ones that already exist, instead of spending money on new ones.

    By Amy Joi O’Donoghue,
    Deseret News
    Published: Sunday, Feb. 21 2016 3:10 p.m. MST
    SALT LAKE CITY — A new report issued by a group promoting “free market environmentalism” said the national park system will observe its 100th anniversary this year with a nearly $12 billion backlog of needed maintenance — something it says seven key strategies would help reduce.
    Consider:
    • A leaky wastewater system dumped raw sewage into the streams in Yosemite.
    • Frequent ruptures in an 83-year-old pipeline system at the Grand Canyon causes water shortages and facility closures.
    • And nearly half the roads in national parks are in fair or poor condition.
    The Property and Environmental Research Center founded 35 years ago in Bozeman, Montana, issued “Breaking the Backlog,” detailing deferred maintenance projects that are five times higher than the National Park Service’s budget.
    Over the past 10 years, Congress has funded 4 percent of the agency’s total backlog, while discretionary spending to address the problem has decreased 40 percent.
    The group founded on property rights principles and markets said it is unrealistic to expect Congress to fix existing problems at national parks like roads, campgrounds, wastewater treatment systems or failing bridges because conserving new land has broader appeal and more political punch.
    The federal government, however, should stop acquiring land for national parks and instead prioritize taking care of the land it already has, the group says.
    “By focusing on land acquisition, limited conservation dollars are spent at the expense of properly maintaining existing lands,” the report notes. “Moreover, adding more public lands can exacerbate the problem because the federal government incurs even more liabilities, often with little or no means of maintaining the additional lands.”
    The group recommends reforming the (LWCF) Land and Water Conservation Fund

    —  which it said has allocated $100 million to acquire 100,000 acres from 2011-2014 — and instead dedicate the federal dollars to maintenance at existing parks.
    That idea is likely to draw cries of protest.
    Multiple key environmental organizations across the country consider the fund’s ability to facilitate the federal government’s acquisition of more public lands sacrosanct, skewering Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, when he proposed reforms last year.
    Paul Wilkins, chief conservation officer for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, a coalition of sportsmen’s organizations, said there is no need to come up with new strategies to address the maintenance backlog at national parks.
    MORE
    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865648262/Group-Fix-the-national-parks-we-have-dont-create-new-ones.html

    In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
    —————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | Pie N Politics page (1)

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/07/27/pienpolitics-page-1/

    Jul 27, 2015 – Pie N Politics page (1) Pie N Politics. Like many areas of the United States, citizens in Siskiyou County are finding government regulations are …
    ———————————————————————–

    BY HOOK OR BY CROOK, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, “IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN’T WANT YOU TO DO IT,  THEY WILL MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT AS “IMPOSSIBLE”

    This is a long standing systemic violation of an American constitutional government, FROM THE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL.

    LET’S START HERE…

    FOLLOW THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS MONEY?

    As our elected government representatives, Congress acts, Congress votes, and Congress funds Congress passes the buck, our taxpayers money, through one appointed federal agency to another appointed agency, to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) a Federal program, to the (DOI) to a military contractor, to the (EPA) to (NOAA) ETAL. using a bit of nepotism here and a bit, political cronyism there, a bit of insider trading, real estate contracts, etc….

    SHALL I GO ON?

    ——————————

    CONGRESS JUSTIFIES THE COMPROMISED SPENDING OF TAXPAYERS MONEY?
    AFTER OUR ELECTED CONGRESS HAS ACTED, ENACTED, PASSED THE LAWS, ENABLED AND EMPOWERED APPOINTED FEDERAL AGENCIES?

    —————————————————–

    OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE SAY..

    WELL, GOLLY GOSH AND GEE WHIZ… THE SPENDING OF TAXPAYER MONEY IS OUT OF OUR HANDS. THE REGULATION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND… WE HAVE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (WOTUS)… THE TRIBES HAVE THEIR TREATY RIGHTS….

    OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE SAY..
    OUR HANDS ARE TIED? WE HAVE FEDERAL LAWS.. THE (EPA) THE CLEAN WATER ACT, THE CLEAN AIR ACT, THE (DOI) USE OF PUBLIC LAND, INCLUDING THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) THE WILD, WILDERNESS, SCENIC WILD RIVERS ACT, SCENIC HI WAYS AND BYWAYS, (NOAA) etal.

    INDEED, OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAWS THAT THEY COLLECTIVELY ENACTED..

    SHALL I GO ON?

    ———————–

    THE TAXPAYERS MONEY IS OUT OF CONGRESS’S HANDS?

    OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE ARE NO LONGER RESPONSIBLE OR ACCOUNTABLE TO THE AMERICAN CITIZENS THAT ELECTED THEM?

    AFTER CONGRESS HAS APPROPRIATED, AND FUNDED THE APPOINTED SELF SERVING GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, THOSE AGENCIES  ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE OR RESPONSIBLE TO AMERICAN CITIZEN.

    ——————————
    WHAT’S EVEN WORSE? HOW COULD IT BE ANY WORSE?

    AS WE FOLLOW THE TAXPAYERS MONEY TRAIL?

    OUR TAXPAYER MONEY IS ALL GONE,

    WHERE OUR TAXPAYER MONEY HAS GONE TO, IT HAS BEEN DIVERSIFIED TO FUND AND THE GRANT THE GLOBAL AGENDA 21, SELF SERVING NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS (NGO) THAT HAVE ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY TO ANYONE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    —————————————————————–

    DO TAXPAYERS HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS?
    ——————————————————
    WE THE PEOPLE ARE MAD AS HELL, FOR BEING “COMPROMISED AND DIVERSIFIED” OUT OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND, OUR TAXPAYERS MONEY, BY THE ACTS AND ACTIONS OF THE LEFT AND RIGHT WINGS OF OUR ELECTED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES.
    ———————————
    HOW STUPID DOES THE WA DC POLITICO ESTABLISHMENT THINK VOTERS ARE?

    WE HAVE HAD IT..

    WITH THE ECONOMY
    THE $19 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT
    THE 15 YEAR WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
    THE IMMIGRATION CRISIS
    THE ISIS AND ALQIDA TERRORISTS CRISIS
    THE GOVERNMENT TAKING OF OUR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND
    TAKING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
    THE TOP PRIORITY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
    KILLING A PEACEFUL PROTESTER
    TAKING CITIZENS GUN RIGHTS
    ARMED CONFLICT WITH RANCHERS
    OBAMA’S JUSTICE FOR ALL
    THE UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL AGENDA 21
    THE UNITED NATIONS VETTING OF U.S. IMMIGRANTS
    THE MISTREATMENT OF OUR VETERANS
    LETTING VETERANS DIE AND GETTING A BONUS FOR IT
    JOHN KERRY’S DIPLOMATIC FAILURES
    THE LIARS CATCH AND RELEASE JUSTICE PROGRAM
    THE IRS TARGETING
    THROWING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES UNDER THE BUS WITH A GOLDEN PARACHUTE
    OBAMA’S PEN AND PHONE
    OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS
    OBAMACARE COST
    FAST AND FURIOUS

    WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE HAD IT

    THE ESTABLISHMENT POLITICO PARTY’S ARE OVER.

    TRUMP IS WINNING AND WINNING AND THE ESTABLISHMENT DOESN’T GET IT

    HOW STUPID ARE THEY?


  • WA State Reform on Wetland Delineation?

    Re: WA State Legislative reform ideas for SMPs and wetlands delineation update?

    Dear Rene’, Hello our/my elected Federal, my elected WA State representative, Clallam County Commissioners,  Mary and Connie,

    I received emails from Rene’ in Eastern WA (full text at the bottom)

    Re: WA State Legislative reform ideas for SMPs and wetlands delineation update?

    A WETLAND IS A WOTUS “Water Of The United States”

    Our Olympia representatives have “NEVER” supported wetlands delineation reform.

    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.

    ——————————————–

    Wetland delineation is also an element of a “jurisdictional determination. ... A WETLAND IS A WOTUS “water of the United States” and thus regulated under the federal Clean …

    Wetland delineation establishes the existence (location) and physical limits (size) of a wetland for the purposes of federal, state, and local regulations.

    Wetland delineation is also an element of a “jurisdictional determination.” This process identifies which water bodies within a project’s boundaries meet the definition of “waters of the United States.” For more information on this, see the Corps’ of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Guidance Letter 08-02, Jurisdictional Determinations.

    Remember that the Corps, not applicants or their consultants, determines whether or not a wetland is a “water of the United States” and thus regulated under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). If the Corps determines that a wetland is not subject to the CWA, the wetland may still be a “water of the state” and subject to regulation by Ecology as well as by local jurisdictions. Ecology regulates wetlands determined by the Corps to be non-jurisdictional due to their isolation from navigable waters. > More on Isolated Wetlands

    ———————————–

    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)

    ———————————————————-

    September 3, 2015

    What’s Up with WOTUS? – News | Agweb.com

    www.agweb.com/…/whatsup-with-wotus-NAA-university-news-release/

    What does the temporary injunction of WOTUS mean for farmers? … What’s Up with WOTUS? September 3, 2015 05:57 AM …

    —————————————————

    September 4, 2015

    PLF lawsuit on WOTUS

    Posted on September 4, 2015 9:46 am by Pearl Rains Hewett
    Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) lawsuit challenges Obama Administration’s new
    “waters of United States” (WOTUS) power grab

    ——————————————————————

    September 4, 2015

    Behind My Back | WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/04/wotuswater-runs-down-hill/

    Posted on September 4, 2015 8:52 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    ———————————————————

    January 22, 2016 THE GOOD NEWS WAS….

    WOTUS rule – PLF Liberty Blog – Pacific Legal Foundation

    blog.pacificlegal.org/tag/wotusrule/

    Congress and Obama clarify their positions on the WOTUS rule, and it doesn’t look good for the President. Posted on January 22, 2016 by Todd Gaziano.

    January 22, 2016 THE BAD NEWS IS…

    PRESIDENT OBAMA VETOED THE LEGISLATION A DAY LATER.

    SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

    REGARDING Legislative reform ideas for WA STATE SMPs and wetlands delineation update?

    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.

    ——————————————————————————

    The EPA’s enforcement tactics for WETLANDS

    EPA’s abuse of the Sacketts inspires latest thriller by CJ Box

    www.pacificlegal.org › Home › News & Media
    Pacific Legal Foundation

    Mar 12, 2013 – “EPA is not above the law — that’s the bottom line with the Sacketts‘ Supreme Court victory,” said PLF Principal Attorney Damien Schiff, who …

    ———————————————————–

     EPA’s enforcement tactics for oil and gas producers.

    EPA Official: EPAs “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make …

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze3GB_b7Nuo
    Apr 25, 2012 – Uploaded by Senator Jim Inhofe

    A video from 2010, which shows a top EPA official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, using the vivid metaphor of crucifixion to explain EPA’s enforcement tactics for oil and gas producers.

    ————————————————————————-

    START HERE…

    WHERE EVERYTHING FEDERAL STARTS….

    Behind My Back | WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/04/wotuswater-runs-down-hill/

    Posted on September 4, 2015 8:52 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    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)

    —————————————————————–

    PLF UNDERSTANDS THE GRAVITY OF (WOTUS)

    WOTUS – Pacific Legal Foundation

    https://www.pacificlegal.org/wotus
    —————————————————-

    snippet..

    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.

    ————————–

    THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT!
    NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH WATER IS, GRAVITY RUNS WATER DOWN HILL

    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 “DID”  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.

    ——————————————————————————

    Full text of emails received from Rene” on this

    Subject: Legislative reform ideas for SMPs and wetlands delineation update
    —– Original Message —–
    From: Appy Holadays Sport Horses
    To: ddashiell@co.stevens.wa.us ; wesm03828@gmail.com
    Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 5:51 PM
    Subject: Legislative reform ideas for SMPs and wetlands delineation update
    Hello Commissioners,

    I would appreciate it if you could forward this email to Steve Parker as well, since I don’t have his email address on hand. As SMPs are starting to be formed in this County, I hope our State can move in this direction, described below, instead. Below are some good ideas I wanted to provide for you to think about, as the State CAPR Director, Glen Morgan has sent this to all the CAPR groups for info.

    We hope to have Glen Morgan and Licensed Hydrogeologist, Steve Neugebauer over here again this spring to help with the SMPs and related issues. If either of you would want to attend, let me know and I will be sure to send you an invitation with time and date.

    In the meantime, we have taken Don’s advice to get the wetland delineation removed from the Potter’s property through licensed hydrogeologist, Steve Neugebauer, and actual “Wetland Specialist”, Rone Brewer who both worked together and provided a complete wetlands determination that was 218 pages in length.

    However, now the Planner is not willing to write the letter that can be recorded with the County that verifies that there is not in fact a wetland on the Potter’s property. While that is the conclusion that you had advised we move toward, the Planner is refusing to cooperate with writing the letter of verification. We would appreciate your help with this issue, as it was your direction that we have been taking and have now completed.

    Apparently Connee Potter has tried a few times to set an appointment with Don, but has not heard back from him yet. So if you could please respond asap, we would like to get this wrapped up.

    Thank You,

    Rene’ Holaday

    Stevens County CAPR, Chapter 15
    —–Forwarded Message—–
    From: Scott Shock
    Sent: Feb 10, 2016 9:55 AM
    To: ‘Cindy Alia’ , Glen Morgan , capr-gov@lists.celestial.com
    Subject: [capr-gov] Legislative reform for shorelines and property rights in Wisconsin

    FYI:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/9/assembly-to-vote-on-water-development-property-rig/

    Assembly approves water development, property rights bills

    By TODD RICHMOND – Associated Press – Tuesday, February 9, 2016

    MADISON, Wis. (AP) – Shoreline property owners would have more leeway to dredge and build structures on bodies of water under legislation the Wisconsin Assembly advanced Tuesday despite concerns from minority Democrats that the proposals would harm the state’s waters.

    The bill would make sweeping changes to statutes and regulations governing construction in water bodies, with one of the biggest changes involving waters designated as areas of special natural resource interests, or ASNRIs.

    Under current law, such areas include waters of significant scientific value that contain endangered or threatened species, wild rice waters, ecologically significant coastal wetlands along Lakes Michigan and Superior and wild or scenic rivers. Construction permits in such areas require builders to meet a long list of standards.

    The bill would remove the requirement that an ASNRI have significant scientific value and prevent the Department of Natural Resources from designated an ASNRI based on scientific value without legislative approval beginning in 2017.

    The legislation also includes changes that would make dredging and filling wetlands easier.

    The bill would create a general permit authorizing shoreline property owners to dredge 25 cubic yards of material from an inland lake and 100 cubic yards of material from outlying waters annually. The DNR’s review of alternatives to filling wetlands would be limited to options consistent with the scope of the project and maintenance work on roadside ditches that affects wetlands could be done without a permit.

    The measure’s authors, Rep. Adam Jarchow of Balsam Lake and Sen. Frank Lasee of De Pere, contend the measure will cut red tape, clarify regulations and puts more power in property owners’ hands. A host of business associations, including Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state’s largest business group, and the Wisconsin Builders Association, support the bill.

    A number of environmental groups, including Clean Wisconsin, the Clean Lakes Alliance and the state’s Sierra Club chapter, oppose it. Assembly Democrats railed against the bill on the chamber floor, warning the measure gives shoreline property owners permission to damage water bodies and aquatic habitats.

    “You do not go into a body of water with a general permit and start dredging things up and think you’re making things better,” Rep. Chris Danou, D-Trempealeau, said. “This is bad for Wisconsin. This is bad for Wisconsin’s outdoor heritage. It will damage things.”

    Republicans control the chamber, thought, and in the end lawmakers adopted the bill on a 57-39 vote. The bill goes next to the state Senate.

    The Assembly also passed another bill Tuesday sponsored by Jarchow and Lasee that would expand property owners’ rights. The measure prohibit counties from imposing development moratoriums, forbid municipalities from blocking property owners from selling or transferring the title to their land and block counties from regulating repairs on structures legally located in shore land setback areas.

    The bill also would require judges to resolve any question about the meaning of a zoning ordinance in favor of property owners. Undeveloped land zoned for residential, commercial or manufacturing use would be taxed at 50 percent of its value.

    The Assembly passed that bill on a 56-39 vote with almost no debate. It now goes to the Senate as well.

    ___

    Follow Todd Richmond on Twitter at https://twitter.com/trichmond1

    Copyright © 2016 The Washington Times, LLC.

    From: Google Alerts [mailto:googlealerts-noreply@google.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 8:07 AM
    To: Scott S. Shock
    Subject: Google Alert – “eminent domain” OR “regulatory taking” OR “property rights” seattle OR “king county” OR washington

    “eminent domain” OR “regulatory taking” OR “property rights” seattle OR “king county” OR washington

    Daily update ⋅ February 10, 2016

    NEWS

    Assembly to vote on water development, property rights bills

    Washington Times

    MADISON, Wis. (AP) – The state Assembly is poised to vote on a pair of bills that would ease water body development regulations and expand …

    Flag as irrelevant

    See more results | Edit this alert

    You have received this email because you have subscribed to Google Alerts.

    Unsubscribe | View all your alerts

    Receive this alert as RSS feed

    Send Feedback

    _______________________________________________
    Capr-gov mailing list
    Capr-gov@lists.celestial.com
    http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/capr-gov

    —————————————————————–

    THIS IS A VERY LONG POST…

    WATER HAS BEEN RUNNING DOWN HILL FOR A VERY, VERY, LONG TIME…

    if you are interested in reading the full 4800 word text go to behindmyback.org

    Continue reading here if you are interested more…

    ———————————————————————————–

    PLF lawsuit on WOTUS

    Posted on September 4, 2015 9:46 am by Pearl Rains Hewett
    Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) lawsuit challenges Obama Administration’s new
    “waters of United States” (WOTUS) power grab

    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 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.

    WA STATE IS NOT PART OF THE Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) WOTUS LAWSUIT

    ———————————————————————————

    Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation …

    www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/9694.html

    ———————————————-

    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? – News | Agweb.com

    www.agweb.com/…/whatsup-with-wotus-NAA-university-news-release/

    What does the temporary injunction of WOTUS mean for farmers? … What’s Up with WOTUS? September 3, 2015 05:57 AM …
    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.

    ————————————————————————
    BELOW IS THE LINK TO THE 136 PAGE FEDERAL MANUAL

    Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional

    https://www.fws.gov/…/wetlands/i…
    United States Fish and Wildlife Service
    Jan 10, 1989 – cally Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, EPA’s Wetland Identification … Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation.

    ———————————————————————————–

    full text provided for your convenience

    Behind My Back | WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

    Posted on September 4, 2015 8:52 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    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)

    —————–
    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)

    WOTUS – Pacific Legal Foundation

    https://www.pacificlegal.org/wotus
    Pacific Legal Foundation

    The Obama Administration has imposed a new Clean Water Act (CWA) dictate that … PLF attorneys are hard at work developing our legal challenge to this … We will alert you when we file our lawsuit — and keep you posted along the way, …

    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.
    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.

    ————————————————————-

     


  • WA State Bathroom Rule

    WA State Bathroom Rule
    SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY
    Chapter 162-32-010 WAC TOOK EFFECT DEC. 26, 2015

    —————————-
    ULTIMATELY WE THE PEOPLE MUST HOLD OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES RESPONSIBLE

    ————————–
    The final rule removed any discretion for school officials and mandates that all schools must allow boys into the girl’s locker room if they claim to be a girl.

    —————————————–
    This inclusion of sexual identity that shall allow persons with biological male bodies who identify as girls/women to use girls/women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and other sex-specific facilities, without having legally changed their names or undergone surgery or hormone treatment.

    —————————————–

    Allowing boy’s/men unrestricted access to girl’s /women’s restrooms and locker rooms, if they claim to be a girl,  “defies common sense and common decency.”

    ——————————
    BOY’S WILL BE BOY’S OR NOT?

    What If A BOY/MAN just claims to be a girl/women?  FOR THE FUN OF IT?

    Boy’s/men dressed OR UNDRESSED AS IN NAKED, SHALL BE ALLOWED unrestricted use of women’s restrooms and locker rooms?

    So, all you GIRLS /women who are uncomfortable with the naked guy over there, “Please come with me and leave him alone.”

    The opponents of this WA State WAC must use every argument available to protect our public school girls, teenagers, middle school, high school, college students and the adult female population of the state of WA from SEXUAL TAUNTING,  HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT.

    ————————————
    Sexual predators look for opportunity. This WAC provides it.
     It shall give male sexual predators unrestricted access girl’s/women’s restrooms, lockers and showers.

    96% of people who sexually abuse children are male

    WHILE THE WA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION HAS AUTHORITY DELEGATED TO IT BY THE WA STATE LEGISLATURE,

    THE WA STATE LEGISLATURE HAS THE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO CORRECT MISTAKES MADE BY AGENCIES OR COMMISSIONS.

    ULTIMATELY WE THE PEOPLE MUST HOLD OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES RESPONSIBLE
    —————————————————————————————–
    SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY
    Chapter 162-32-010 WAC TOOK EFFECT DEC. 26, 2015
    ————————————————————————————-

    Washington Quietly Adopts New Transgender Bathroom …

    dailysignal.com/…/washingtonquietlyadoptsnewtransgenderbathroo

    One day after Christmas, Washington state quietly adopted a set of new policies regarding transgender individuals using sex-specific facilities. The rules, adopted by the state Human Rights Commission, make it illegal for business owners to limit sex-specific facilities such as bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms to persons with the anatomical parts of one sex.

    “To my knowledge, this is the first time in the country that there’s been a statewide effort to mandate all public accommodations cooperate with the gender identity concept that somebody declares,” Joseph Backholm, executive director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, told The Daily Signal.

    —————————————————————————————–

    New Bathroom Rule: It’s Worse Than We Thought

    www.fpiw.org/blog/2016/01/…/bathroomruleitsworsethanwethough

    2 days ago – But as details have become available, it appears the final version of the rule is actually worse than the proposed rule. Here are some of the …
    New Bathroom Rule: It’s Worse Than We Thought
    by Joseph Backholm, FPIW.org | January 6, 2016
    Last week, news broke about a new rule passed by the Washington State Human Rights Commission creating a statewide mandate that businesses must allow men into women’s bathrooms and locker rooms if they say they are a woman.

    But as details have become available, it appears the final version of the rule is actually worse than the proposed rule. Here are some of the “highlights”:

    1. Mandate on Schools as Well as Businesses

    While the draft rule imposed a mandate on every business in the state, it provided discretion for schools to deal with each case on a case-by-case basis.

    However, the final rule removed any discretion for school officials and mandates that all schools must allow boys into the girl’s locker room if they claim to be a girl.
    • Mandate on schools as well as businesses
    While the draft rule imposed a mandate on every business in the state, it provided discretion for schools to deal with each case on a case-by-case basis.
    However, the final rule removed any discretion for school officials and mandates that all schools must allow boys into the girl’s locker room if they claim to be a girl.
    Women will be removed from the women’s restroom. Naked men will not.
    The rule states that it is illegal to ask someone who is confused about their gender to use a separate facility for the benefit of women and children who might be uncomfortable.
    However, once a man begins to undress in the women’s locker room a person who “expresses concern or discomfort…should be directed to a separate or gender-neutral facility.”
    So, all you women who are uncomfortable with the naked guy over there, “Please come with me and leave him alone.”

    —————————————————-
    • The rule bans lots of speech
    In addition to prohibiting reasonable accommodations that recognize the public’s right to privacy along with the bathroom needs of the transgendered, this rule targets a wide range of speech.
    It is illegal to ask “unwelcome personal questions about an individual’s sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity, or transgender status.”
    The commission provides no guidance to the public about how they are supposed to know which questions are unwelcome before they ask them.
    It is also illegal for a business to deliberately “misuse” someone’s preferred pronoun. If a man believes he is a woman, but you refer to him as a “he” anyway, he can sue you.
    However, you should be careful not to ask questions about which pronoun he prefers. Remember, if that’s an “unwelcome question” he can sue you for that.
    It is also now illegal to use “offensive names, slurs, jokes, or terminology regarding an individual’s sexual orientation or gender expression or gender identity.”
    The fact that “offensive” is an undefined and completely subjective term that provides no guidance to the public about what they can and cannot do is apparently lost on the commission.
    The best advice may be to just stop speaking. As we all know, someone is offended by everything.
    ________________________________________
    WATCH: Joseph Backholm answers some FAQ’s on the new bathroom policy
    As the public wrestles with how to respond to this, here are some of the most frequent questions we have been asked in the last few days.
    1. Is this really true?
    Very few other media outlets have covered this story. That has led a lot of people to wonder if there isn’t some kind of mistake. Sadly, there is no mistake. Other news outlets have began to cover the story here, here, and here.
    2. What will happen if I violate this rule?
    The Human Rights Commission has the authority to issue fines and create a range of orders intended to “eliminate the effects of an unfair practice and prevent the recurrence of the unfair practice.”
    The rule specifically states that businesses and schools open themselves up to civil liability for violations of any of their new rules.
    3. Who made this rule anyway?
    The Washington State Human Rights Commission was created to help enforce the Washington State Law Against Discrimination. The Washington State Human Rights Commission was created to help enforce the Washington State Law Against Discrimination. There are five members who are appointed by the Governor and are not subject to election. You can find them here.
    While rule-making authority is frequently delegated to agencies for the purpose of enforcing laws the legislature passes, the concern is that a policy of this magnitude and scope far exceeds what the legislature intended or the public expected when the non-discrimination law was passed.
    4. What can I do?
    While the Human Rights Commission has authority delegated to it by the legislature, the legislature has the authority and responsibility to correct mistakes made by agencies or commissions.
    You can contact your legislators through the legislative hotline at 1-800-562-6000 or email them all at one time by clicking here.  If we know your address, this tool allow you to email them all at once.
    5. Isn’t this outrage just much ado about nothing?
    If you believe this could never happen, simply search for Jason Pomares, Norwood Smith Burnes, or Taylor Buehler on the search engine of your choice.

     

    Burnes exposed himself to children in a Walmart restroom in 2010 while Pomares dressed as a woman and snuck into a Macy’s bathroom to videotape women in 2013.  Buehler wore a bra and wig and slipped into a bathroom and locker room in 2012 to watch women at Everett Community College. All three men were arrested.

    In addition, Christopher Hambrook sexually assaulted multiple women in a Toronto women’s shelter while “identifying” as a woman.

    Sexual predators look for opportunity. This provides it.
    Everything we do is made possible by friends like you. If you can chip in $5 or more to help restore rational bathroom policies, we’d be grateful.

    ——————————————————

    New rule in Washington opens bathroom use to transgender people
    Posted 10:32 AM, January 6, 2016, by Associated Press
    ———————————————————————————-

    UPDATE JAN 8, 2015

    UPDATE: Click here to see Governor Jay Inslee’s response to the Human Rights Commission’s bathroom rule.
    From: FAMILY POLICY INSTITUTE OF WASHINGTON <info@fpiw.org>
    Legislative Hotline: 1-800-562-6000 Having trouble viewing this email? Click here

    Gov. Inslee Won’t Answer Question About Bathroom Rule; Bryant Opposes

    Print pagePDF page

    On December 26th, a new rule went into effect that has generated a significant public response.   The rule, which was passed by the Washington State Human Rights Commission, mandates that all schools and businesses in Washington State maintain open bathroom/locker room policies which will allow people to choose the facility they want to use based on their gender identity or gender expression.

    It makes it illegal for any school or business to ask someone to use a bathroom that corresponds to their biological gender or to provide them a separate gender neutral option.

    Members of the Human Rights Commission are appointed by Governor Inslee.

    InsleeYesterday, FPIW communications director Zach Freeman had a chance to talk with Gov. Jay Inslee as well as his Republican challenger Bill Bryant to ask them their thoughts on the new rule.

    Gov. Inslee appeared uncomfortable and resorted to asking Mr. Freeman a series of questions in an apparent attempt to avoid answering any questions himself:

    Gov. Inslee: Are you a journalist?

    Mr. Freeman: I’m trying to be.

    Gov. Inslee: Who do you work with?

    Mr. Freeman: The Family Policy Institute of Washington

    Gov. Inslee: Who is that?

    Mr. Freeman: It’s Joseph Backholm’s group…

    Gov. Inslee: It’s a what group?

    Mr. Freeman: It’s a group that does family policy

    Gov. Inslee: Well what kind of family policy

    Mr. Freeman: We do issues of marriage, life, religious freedom…the things that nobody really likes to talk about.

    Gov. Inslee: Really? What kind of things are they working on?

    Mr. Freeman: Well, at the moment I’m actually asking about the bathroom rule that was proposed by the Human Rights Commission…

    Gov. Inslee then cut off the question by again asking Mr. Freeman if he was a journalist and who he was working for.

    He concluded the exchange by telling Mr. Freeman that if he became a part of the Associated Press “then I’m really happy to answer your question.”

    After the interview, FPIW reached out to Governor Inslee’s press office for a statement on the issue but they have not responded.

    BryantBill Bryant, the only current challenger to Gov. Inslee in the 2016 gubernatorial election, was also in Olympia yesterday. He was more willing to discuss the issue. “Everybody deserves to be in an environment where they feel safe.” Bryant said.  “That includes someone who is transitioning between genders, but it also includes a high school girl who wants to go into a locker room.  I think the Human Rights Commission picked the rights of one group over the rights of others.”

    Bryant suggested that it would be appropriate for the Governor to set the rule aside for 24 or 48 months so that the legislature can address it.  You can hear Mr. Bryant’s statement below:

    00:00
    00:00

    If you are a member of the Associated Press, you can contact the Governor’s office at 360-902-4111 where he would apparently be happy to answer your questions about this issue.  Please do ask, because the rest of us would like to know.

    Everyone else can use that number to share their thoughts about this issue with the Governor.  If you do, please be respectful. He needs to hear from you, but not if you’re angry.  That only hurts the cause.   Besides, the person answering the phone is not the Governor.  It’s just someone doing their job who probably hasn’t ever done anything mean to you.  But if you’re kind to them, they’ll be happy to relay the message.

    You can also email the Governor by clicking here.

    ————————————————————————-

    HOW THE CITIZEN’S OF HOUSTON GOT THE HOUSTON’S EQUAL RIGHTS ORDINANCE (HERO), ORDINANCE TO THE VOTERS..

     

    FIRST THEY GATHERED APPROXIMATELY 55,000 SIGNATURES
    Opponents of Equal Rights Ordinance sue Mayor Annise Parker, city of Houston
    Posted On 6 Aug, 2014 – By John Wright
    “Indeed, approximately 55,000 signatures were turned in, and the Coalition itself verified over 31,000 signers were properly registered to vote,” the lawsuit states. “Unfortunately, however, even though Defendant Russell certified the result, the ERO Referendum Petition was wrongfully rejected.
    As expected, opponents of the ordinance filed the lawsuit against Mayor Annise Parker and the city after officials announced that a petition to repeal the measure didn’t have enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.

    Read the lawsuit, along with Russell’s memo from last Friday, below.

     

    Anti-HERO Petition Lawsuit by HERO Petition
    The lawsuit was filed in state district court by former Harris County GOP Chairman Jared Woodfill and anti-gay activist Steven Hotze, along with Pastor F.N. Williams Sr. and Pastor Max Miller. The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction forcing the city to suspend the ordinance and place a repeal on the ballot in November. The Houston Chronicle reports that a hearing on the request was held late Tuesday.

    ————————————–
    Houston voters reject LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance
    USA Today Network KHOU-TV, Houston 9:33 a.m. CST November 4, 2015
    The ordinance was initially approved by the Houston City Council in May 2014
    BUT A LAWSUIT TO HAVE RESIDENTS VOTE ON THE MEASURE EVENTUALLY MADE IT TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, WHICH IN JULY ORDERED THE CITY TO EITHER REPEAL THE ORDINANCE OR PUT IT ON THE BALLOT.
    HOUSTON – Voters have said a resounding no to Houston’s controversial equal rights ordinance. Prop 1, failed by a margin of 62-percent to 38-percent.
    Opponents of the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance branded it “the bathroom ordinance,” playing up the argument that it would allow men dressed as women to use women’s restrooms. A television ad featured a little girl being cornered by a man in a restroom.
    Why LGBT Advocates Think They Lost in Houston Election
    dailysignal.com/…/why-lgbt-advocates-think-they-lost-in-houston-electio…
    Nov 4, 2015 – Failing to pass the Houston Equal Rights Protection Ordinance Tuesday night … who have won recent victories at the U.S. Supreme Court and beyond. … Opponents focused on that angle, branding HERO as a “bathroom bill. … ordinance would have allowed,” Jonathan Saenz, president of Texas Values, …

    Dave Welch, executive director of the Houston Area Pastor Council, another group that’s been fighting the ordinance for the past 18 months called the outcome a “victory of common decency.” In an email to The Daily Signal, he said:
    The victory of common decency in defeating this ordinance is a reminder to pastors across the country that together and united, our voices can make a difference, even when outnumbered by a massive propaganda campaign and vastly outspent. These ordinances that are part of a national campaign of the Human Rights Campaign in their attempt to force their radical anti-faith, anti-family, anti-freedom agenda on local communities can be defeated, so we hope this encourages pastors and citizens around the country.
    Ultimately, the people in Houston decided against the measure by a 62-38 margin. That margin, supporters say, is an honest reflection of the city’s values.
    “What the left cannot handle is that the election results are an accurate representation of the values of this city,” Saenz said. “Faith, family, and freedom.”


  • Executive Orders Matter

    Executive Orders 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

    ——————————————-
    CLIMATE CHANGE: OBAMA EXECUTIVE ORDER 13514
    Things that matter TRUTH AND POLITICS
    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
    “CLIMATE CHANGE WILL NOT BE SOLVED BY GRABBING POWER FROM STATES or slowly hollowing out our economy,” Bush said.
    ———————————————————————————-
    (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 WORRYING.. AND, STARTED SUEING
    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.
    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.
    THE NODC ALSO OPERATES AS THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (NOP RC&D).
    ——————————————————————————
    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 – 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

    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
    CLIMATE CHANGE: OBAMA EXECUTIVE ORDER 13514
    Things that matter TRUTH AND POLITICS
    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
    “CLIMATE CHANGE WILL NOT BE SOLVED BY GRABBING POWER FROM STATES or slowly hollowing out our economy,” Bush said.
    ———————————————————————————-
    (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 WORRYING.. AND, STARTED SUEING
    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.
    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.
    THE NODC ALSO OPERATES AS THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (NOP RC&D).
    ——————————————————————————
    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 – 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


  • This Guy Says a “Lot”

    This Guy Says a “LOT”

    This is an unedited opinion of an American citizen. It is worth reading, Democratic or Republican, and it is worth sharing.

    I had hoped that setting up a website would give “We the people” a condensed running forum, a day by day, blow by blow account from ANY American, State, County, city citizens that had knowledge or concerns?

    Where anyone could go, read, find out, relate, expose, share and comment on anything.

    ———————————————————–

    I received this email

    re: “This Guy Says It All”

    I am the Democratic and the Republican Liberal-Progressive’s worst nightmare. I am a White, Conservative, Tax-Paying, American Veteran, Gun Owning Biker. I am a Master leatherworker. I work hard and long hours with my hands to earn a living.

    I believe in God and the freedom of religion, but I don’t push it on others. I ride Harley Davidson Motorcycles, drive American made cars, and I believe in American products and buy them whenever I can.

    I believe the money I make belongs to me and not some liberal governmental functionary, Democratic or Republican, that wants to share it with others who don’t work!

    I’m in touch with my feelings and I like it that way!

    I think owning a gun doesn’t make you a killer; it makes you a smart American.

    I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything. Get over it!

    I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac or any other item, you should do it in English.

    I believe there should be no other language option.

    I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to.

    My heroes are Malcolm Forbes, Bill Gates, John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers, and Willie G. Davidson, who makes the awesome Harley Davidson Motorcycles.

    I don’t hate the rich. I don’t pity the poor.

    I know wrestling is fake and I don’t waste my time watching or arguing about it.

    I’ve never owned a slave, nor was I a slave. I haven’t burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks, and neither have you!

    I believe if you don’t like the way things are here, go back to where you came from and change your own country!

    This is AMERICA …We like it the way it is and more so the way it was…so stop trying to change it to look like Russia, China, or some other socialist country!

    If you were born here and don’t like it…you are free to move to any Socialist country that will have you. I believe it is time to really clean house, starting with the White House, the seat of our biggest problems.

    I want to know which church is it, exactly, where the Reverend Jesse Jackson preaches, where he gets his money, and why he is always part of the problem and not the solution? Can I get an AMEN on that one?

    I also think the cops have the right to pull you over if you’re breaking the law, regardless of what color you are, but not just because you happen to ride a bike.

    And, no, I don’t mind having my face shown on my driver’s license. I think it’s good. And I’m proud that ‘God’ is written on my money.

    I think if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works, I don’t want you deciding who should be running the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years.

    I dislike those people standing in the intersections trying to sell me stuff or trying to guilt me into making ‘donations’ to their cause. Get a job and do your part to support yourself and your family!

    I believe that it doesn’t take a village to raise a child, it takes two parents.

    I believe ‘illegal’ is illegal no matter what the lawyers think!

    I believe the American flag should be the only one allowed in AMERICA!

    If this makes me a BAD American, then yes, I’m a BAD American.

    If you are a BAD American too, please forward this to everyone you know.

    We want our country back! My Country. I hope this offends all illegal aliens.

    My great, great, great, great grandfather watched and bled as his friends died in the Revolution and the War of 1812. My great, great, great grandfather watched as his friends died in the Mexican American War. My great, great grandfather watched as his friends and brothers died in the Civil War. My great grandfather watched as his friends died in the Spanish-American War. My grandfather watched, as his friends died in WW I. My father watched as his friends died in WW II.

    I watched as my friends died in Vietnam, Panama, and Desert Storm. My son watched and bled as his friends died in Afghanistan and Iraq. None of them died for the Mexican Flag. Everyone died for the American flag.

    Texas high school students raised a Mexican flag on a school flagpole and other students took it down. Guess who was expelled? The students who took it down.

    California High School students were sent home on Cinco de Mayo, because they wore T-shirts with the American flag printed on them.

    Enough is enough

    This message needs to be viewed by every American; and every American needs to stand up for America.

    We’ve bent over to appease the America-haters long enough. I’m taking a stand.

    I’m standing up because the hundreds of thousands who died fighting in wars for this country, and for the American flag.

    If you agree, stand up with me. If you disagree, please let me know. I will gladly remove you from my e-mail list.

    And shame on anyone who tries to make this a racist message.

    AMERICANS, stop giving away Your RIGHTS!

    Let me make this clear! THIS IS OUR COUNTRY! This statement DOES NOT mean I’m against immigration!

    YOU ARE WELCOME HERE, IN OUR COUNTRY, welcome to come legally:

    1. Get a sponsor!

    2. Learn the LANGUAGE, as immigrants have in the past!

    3. Live by OUR rules!

    4. Get a job!

    5. Pay YOUR Taxes!

    6. No Social Security until you have earned it and Paid for it!

    7. NOW find a place to lay your head!

    If you don’t want to forward this for fear of offending someone, then YOU’RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!

    We’ve gone so far the other way . . . bent over backwards not to offend anyone.

    Only AMERICANS seems to care when American Citizens are being offended!

    WAKE UP America!

    If you do not pass this on, may your fingers cramp!

    Made in the U S A and PROUD OF IT!

    By an unknown American Author


  • Are You an Environmentalist?

    Are You an Environmentalist?

    “Are You an Environmentalist OR DO YOU WORK FOR A LIVING?”: Work and Nature. In Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. William
    Cronon, (editor) New York: W.W. Norton 1995.

    What a Concept in 2015
    “RETHINKING THE HUMAN PLACE IN NATURE”

    (twenty years later)
    It’s a Great place to start..
    —————————————————————
    I received this response on the
    Olympic Peninsula OLYMPEX Water Project
    After emailing out….
    Olympic Peninsula OLYMPEX WHAT ELSE? Project
    (full text below)
    ——————————————————-
    AN INSIDER’S VIEW OF “WHAT ELSE” on the Olympic Peninsula

    ———————————————————
    Thanks Brooke….

    Sharing is caring
    This is a great place to start….

    Landscape and Politics on the Olympic Peninsula – Journal …

    THE LAST BITE. A PENINSULA STUDY? FROM 97

    An interesting outsiders view of Peninsula insiders
    Olympic Pen and Quinault observation, published in 1997, by then undergraduate at UW, during the previous conflicts with environmentalist, logging, resources, spotted owl and social/political conflicts. JUST LIKE READING OUR DAILY NEWS TODAY, yet 97 still seems like yesterday. I wonder what this guy would have to say today, with the Land and Water Grabs, massive Conservation Movements, debris fed Wildland fires, Forest Service Sellout/Lockout of Public Lands, Federal/Tribal Partnership bed down, EW Wilderness Warfare, Jet Pollution
    AND NOW OLYMPEX
    making sure we are UN micro monitored to quench their thirst, from Americas blood. PLUS the surround and attack set up now marking us a military hotspot target, by possible enemy attacks. A bullseye! Boots on the ground will continue to push their way around.
    What would this guy say about our “new” thoroughfare out in the river? Building the “new Floodplain by Design”, creating a “new wetland” after destroying the natural flowing old one. The Congressional puppet show has to prove that “No Child Left Behinder’s” show some worth, by giving those inexperienced “new” graduates a chance to try out their “new learned skills” acquired from “new” computer modeling software and with “new” 21st century “what if” speculations. In some instances incomplete assumptions altogether, can result in unnecessary irreparable damage . Mother nature doesn’t always work in structural regularity or conduct itself by the books. Science? Science has taken on a peculiar detour in definition. “New” science is anything one wants it to be or mean in today’s world. Science doesn’t even need a purpose. A continual never ending study. A curiosity. To either kill the cat or nurture it into a predatory state.
    http://jpe.library.arizona.edu/volume_4/5DARK.PDF

    Brooke

    ——————————————————————————

    A 26 page document

    Landscape and Politics on the Olympic Peninsula – Journal …

    jpe.library.arizona.edu/volume_4/5DARK.PDF
    by A Dark – ‎1997 – ‎Cited by 4 – ‎Related articles

    Vol.4 1997. 1. Landscape and Politics on the … JPE who offered their well-informed criticisms on an earlier draft of this article. 2. Along with areas of New …

    Landscape and Politics on the Olympic Peninsula:
    Social Agendas and Contested Practices in Scientific Forestry

    ———————————————————————-
    READ MORE THE WILD OF  “WHAT ELSE” ON THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA
    A DOCUMENTED INSIDER’S VIEW of the outsiders.

    The Wild Olympics Scam

    www.wildolympicsscam.com/

    stop the wild olympics, agenda 21, land grabs; will devastate rural communities.
    ————————————————————————–

    (full email text) of the OLYMPIC PENINSULA OLYMPEX WHAT ELSE? Project
    To Whom it May Concern

    Just asking? Just Saying….

    DO YOU TRUST THE GOVERNMENT?

    My neighbor asked, “WHAT ELSE are they going to use OLYMPEX for?”

    ARE YOU SMARTER THEN A 5TH GRADER?

    If you connect the dots… THE (GPM) COVERS “JUST” THE ENTIRE EARTH. THE (GV) IS GROUND VALIDATION?

    INDEED….
    THIS NASA SATELLITE TOGETHER WITH THE NASDA SPACE AGENCY OF JAPAN, will serve as a calibration reference for a constellation of SATELLITES operated by SEVERAL COUNTRIES. It is crucial to???? Completing the SATELLITE SURVEILLANCE coverage of the entire Earth?

    THIS UNIQUE VENUE? THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA? IS THE “IDEAL?” OR? “THE ONLY LOCATION” WITH THE “IDEAL SIZE” THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND FOR A FIELD CAMPAIGN INVOLVING AIRCRAFT, RADARS AND OTHER GROUND-BASED SENSORS, AND OTHER? a SATELLITE with a dual frequency (Ka and Ku band) radar and passive microwave sensors (10-183 GHz frequencies)

    DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?

    THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA ELECTRONIC WARFARE GAME PLAN….

    Using similar? OR THE SAME technology? Covering the entire Pacific rim and CONTINUING THE DEVELOPMENT of Menwith Hill in the EU…. FOR completing GLOBAL SATELLITE SURVEILLANCE coverage of the entire Earth?

    THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA ELECTRONIC WARFARE GAME PLAN….

    THIS UNIQUE VENUE? THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA? IS THE ONLY LOCATION WITH THE IDEAL SIZE,THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND FOR A FIELD CAMPAIGN INVOLVING AIRCRAFT, RADARS AND OTHER GROUND-BASED SENSORS.AND other, a satellite with a dual frequency (Ka and Ku band) radar and passive microwave sensors (10-183 GHz frequencies)

    CONSIDERING WHAT SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY HAS BECOME AND THE MULTIPURPOSES THEY ARE USED FOR….

    For the understanding of a reasonable person

    I AM JUST ASKING? IS THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA OLYMPEX “A WHAT ELSE ” MULTIPURPOSE GLOBAL PROJECT?

    Under WHAT ELSE?
    Lois asked….
    Did anyone mention the cost and who is paying for it?
    ———————————————————————-
    Bottom line

    “WHAT ELSE?” INDEED…
    HOW MANY MORE MULTIPURPOSE GLOBAL PROJECTS?
    ARE BEING LEGISLATED AND FUNDED BEHIND OUR BACKS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS?


  • 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.