+menu-


  • Category Archives A Wetland is A WOTUS
  • Ecology’s Agenda July-Dec. 2017

    WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE)

    WSR 17-16-063 [Filed July 25, 2017, 2:12 p.m.]

    Rule-Making Agenda July – December 2017

    —————————————————–

    FROM JAN 26, 2011…..

    WA STATE (DOE) ECOLOGY THE WE’S WHO ALWAYS WANT MORE

    Behind My Back | WA DOE $50 Comment Recording Fee?

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/07/12/6854/

    Jul 12, 2017Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of …. www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foe-fum/.

    ——————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | Are You A Normal Person?

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/05/18/are-you-a-normal-person/

    May 18, 2015If you‘re a normal person, you‘d answer “yes, people usually are more important … www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/01/high–dry-and-destitute/.

    —————————————————————-

    WA State DOE | Citizen Review Online

    citizenreviewonline.org/category/wa-state-doe/page/2/

    Jan 25, 2013from Behind My Back.org. DEPRIVED OF … (previously posted behindmyback.org.) …. “It’s a money deal,” she said, adding, “Ecology sucks.

    ————————————————

    Behind My Back | “Ecology Sucks”

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/04/15/ecology-sucks/

    Apr 15, 2013 – Ecology Sucks” And, the rest of the story. The local news … citizenreviewonline.org/ecologys-qa-session-in-sequim-about-… Jan 17, 2013 …

    —————————————————————————

    Dungeness Water Rule: Control of the water – control of the people …

    citizenreviewonline.org/dungeness-water-rule-control-of-the-water-control-of-the-peo…

    Apr 16, 2013 – visit my website behindmyback.org for more educational WATER posts …. Yes, I did say “ECOLOGY SUCKS” that is my position and I am …

    ——————————————————————

    YES, I DID SAY ECOLOGY SUCKS ON Jan 17, 2013.

    THAT IS MY PUBLISHED OPINION AND ON AUG 16, 2017,  I’M STICKING WITH IT!

    WSR 17-16-063

    AGENDA

    DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

    [Filed July 25, 2017, 2:12 p.m.]

    Pursuant to RCW 34.05.314, following is the department of ecology’s rule[s] agenda for July – December 2017.

    If you have any questions please contact Bari Schreiner by phone (360) 407-6998 or email Bari.Schreiner@ecy.wa.gov.

    Rule-Making Agenda

    July – December 2017

    Where “est.” appears before a date that means the date is an estimate.

    AO Number

    WAC Chapter

    Date of

    Filing

    CR-101

    Date of

    Filing

    CR 102

    Hearing Date(s)

    Date of

    Filing

    CR 103

    Rule-Making

    Lead

    Administration

    16-14

    Chapter 173-03 WAC, Public records

    2/28/17

    est.

    September 2017

    est.

    October 2017

    emergency rule 7/20/17 permanent rule adoption est. December 2017

    Linda Anderson

    16-10

    Chapter 173-323 WAC, Grants and loans

    7/25/17

    est.

    October 2017

    est.

    November 2017

    est.

    December 2017

    Bari Schreiner

    Air Quality

    16-12

    Chapter 173-407 WAC, Carbon dioxide mitigation program, greenhouse gases emissions performance standard and sequestration plans and programs for thermal electric generating facilities

    2/7/17

    est.

    September 2017

    est.

    October 2017

    est.

    February 2018

    Caroline Sun

    16-09

    Chapter 173-455 WAC, Air quality fee rule and chapter 173-400 WAC, General regulations for air pollution sources

    2/6/17

    est.

    August 2017

    est.

    September 2017

    est.

    February 2018

    Joanna Ekrem

    15-07

    Chapter 173-400 WAC, General regulations for air pollution sources and chapter 173-401 WAC, Operating permit regulations

    7/21/15 Revised CR-101 12/16/16

    est.

    fall 2017

    est.

    fall 2017

    est.

    winter 2018

    Elena Guilfoil

    Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction

    16-03

    Chapter 173-303 WAC, Dangerous waste regulations

    original CR-101 2/17/16 withdrawal of pervious [previous] CR-101 and filing of new CR-101 2/21/17

    est.

    July 2018

    est.

    August 2018

    est.

    November 2017

    Rob Rieck

    16-08

    Chapter 173-334 WAC, Children’s safe products—Reporting rule

    8/9/16

    3/22/17

    4/25/17

    est.

    August 2017

    Kara Steward

    Shorelines and Environmental Assistance

    15-06

    Shoreline Management Act implementation rules: Chapters 173-18, 173-20,173-22,173-26, and 173-27 WAC

    9/2/15

    2/28/17

    4/5/17, 4/6/17, 4/11/17 and 4/13/17

    est.

    August 2017

    Fran Sant

    Toxics Cleanup Program

    16-02

    Chapter 173-360 WAC Underground storage tank regulations

    3/23/16

    est.

    November 2017

    est.

    December 2017 or January 2018

    est.

    May 2018

    Kris Grinnell

    Waste 2 Resources

    13-08

    Chapter 173-350 WAC, Solid waste handling standards

    11/5/13

    est.

    November 2017

    est.

    December 2017/January 2018

    est.

    March 2018

    Kyle Dorsey

    15-15

    Chapter 173-312 WAC, Coordinated prevention grants and chapter 173-313 WAC, Local solid waste enforcement grant regulation

    12/22/15

    5/24/17

    6/27/17

    est.

    August 2017

    Kyle Dorsey

    Water Quality

    17-02

    Chapter 173-228 WAC, Vessel sewage no discharge zone

    7/5/17

    est.

    October 2017

    TBD

    est.

    February 2018

    Amy Jankowiak and Becca Conklin

    06-12

    Chapter 173-219 WAC, Reclaimed water

    11/7/06 withdrawn 6/4/14 new CR-101 6/4/14

    6/16/15 continuance filed 8/17/15

    withdrawal 12/23/15

    new CR-102 anticipated August 2017

    first round held in July 2015 second round est. September

    est.

    January 2018

    Jocelyn Jones

    16-04

    Chapter 173-95A WAC, Uses and limitations of the centennial clean water program and chapter 173-98 WAC, Uses and limitations of the water pollution control revolving fund

    7/19/16

    4/19/17

    5/31/17

    est.

    August 2017

    Daniel Thompson

     Open – On Hold

    Air Quality

    13-04

    Chapter 173-491 WAC, Emission standards and controls for sources emitting gasoline gas vapors, chapter 173-400 WAC, general regulations for air pollution sources, and chapter 173-455 WAC, Air quality fee rule

    7/2/13

    on hold

    on hold

    on hold

    Elena Guilfoil

    Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction

    15-12

    Chapter 173-333 WAC, Chemical action plans (formerly PBT)

    10/12/15

    on hold

    on hold

    on hold

    Kara Steward and Rob Rieck

    Water Resources

    05-03

    Chapter 173-525 WAC, Grays Elochoman instream resources protection and water management program WRIA 25

    3/2/05

    4/19/10 continuance filed 6/16/10 expired 11/1/10

    on hold

    on hold

    on hold

    Ann Wessel

    05-04

    Chapter 173-526 WAC, Cowlitz instream resources protection and water management program WRIA 26

    3/2/05

    4/19/10 continuance filed 6/16/10 expired 11/1/10

    on hold

    on hold

    on hold

    Ann Wessel

    05-02

    Chapter 173-503A WAC, Samish River subbasin instream resources protection program, lower and upper Skagit water resources inventory area (WRIAs 3 and 4)

    2/15/05

    on hold

    indefinitely

    on hold

    indefinitely

    on hold

    indefinitely

    Ann Wessel

    Waste 2 Resources

    15-11

    Chapter 173-331 WAC, Vehicle battery recycling program

    12/2/15

    on hold

    on hold

    on hold

    Kyle Dorsey


  • June 20, 2017 Clallam County SMP Update

    My public comment

    Vested Clallam County Citizens have been fearful of how the SMP Update will affect their private property use since Jan 26, 2011.

    INDEED, THIS IS NOT ABOUT PROTECTING SHORE LANDS, WETLANDS, ANIMALS OR RIVERS. THIS IS ABOUT CONTROLLING PEOPLE AND THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.  I WISH PEOPLE WOULD WAKE UP TO WHAT IS TAKING PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY, STATE AND COUNTY  WITH REGARDS TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING LAND AND IMPOSING HEAVY REGULATIONS ON ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY.

    I received a phone call from a concerned (fearful) Clallam County citizen last night.

    “Pearl, have you read the new SMP Update Draft? Do you know how Steve Grey and (ESA Consultant) Margaret Clancy have changed it? Do you know what’s in it?”

    We talked for over an hour. My understanding of the most outrageous concerns.

    There shall be 200 foot setbacks based on a concocted 100 year plan?  Clallam County SMP Update Requirements prior to any permitted use of private shoreline property shall include, but not limited to,  up to $20,000.00 in …….

    Geotechnical Engineering

    www.whatisgeotech.org/

    IT INCLUDES, WITHOUT BEING LIMITED TO, the analysis, design and construction of foundations, slopes, retaining structures, embankments, roadways, tunnels, levees, wharves, landfills and other systems that are made of or are supported by soil or rock. Geotechnical Societies by Country.

    ———————————————————-

    The concerned citizen said, Pearl, what are you going to do about this? You have private shoreline property that will be seriously affected.

    IN CLALLAM COUNTY WA, THERE ARE 3300 VESTED SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY  OWNERS THAT SHALL BE SERIOUSLY AFFECTED BY THE OUTRAGEOUS RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY SMP UPDATE, I AM JUST ONE OF THEM.

    THE REAL QUESTION IS WHAT ARE OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    THEY HAVE VOTERS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE AFFECTED BY THE SMP UPDATE, THAT FEEL VIOLATED BY THE RESTRICTED USE OF THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY IN CLALLAM COUNTY.

    ———————————————————————–

    INDEED, BUT EVEN MORE TO THE POINT, what business does the government have telling a man whether or not he can plow or not on his own land?  This is not about wetlands and animals or rivers.  This is about controlling people and their property.  I wish people would wake up to what is taking place in this country with regards to central government controlling land and imposing heavy regulations on private property.

    —————————————————————

    Farmer Faces $2.8 Million Fine for… Plowing His Field! – Freedom …

    freedomoutpost.com/farmer-faces-2-8-million-fine-for-plowing-his-field/

    May 26, 2017 – A California farmer is facing $2.8 million in fines for plowing his field and planting wheat without a permit. John Duarte of Duarte Nursery is …

    Tim BrownMay 26, 2017

    A California farmer is facing $2.8 million in fines for plowing his field and planting wheat without a permit.

    John Duarte of Duarte Nursery is David going up against Goliath, just like ranchers, farmers and natural health product makers.  His case could set a dangerous precedent that would require farmers to obtain expensive and time-consuming permits from the US Army of Corps Engineers before planting crops.

    “The case is the first time that we’re aware of that says you need to get a (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) permit to plow to grow crops,” said Anthony Francois, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation. “We’re not going to produce much food under those kinds of regulations.”

    However, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller sided with the Army Corps last June, in which the US Attorney’s Office is asking for $2.8 million in civil penalties.

    Why?  Who was harmed?  What real and actual crime took place?

    USA Today has the background of the story that began in 2012 when Mr. Duarte planted wheat on land that he bought with his own money, some 450 acres.

    Because the property has numerous swales and wetlands, Duarte hired a consulting firm to map out areas on the property that were not to be plowed because they were part of the drainage for Coyote and Oat creeks and were considered “waters of the United States.”

    Francois conceded that some of the wetlands were plowed but not significantly damaged. He said the ground was plowed to a depth of 4 to 7 inches.

    The Army Corps did not claim Duarte violated the Endangered Species Act by destroying fairy shrimp or their habitat, Francois said.

    This particular freshwater species is unique to California and southern Oregon and has been classified as a threatened species since 1994 because much of its wetlands in California’s Central Valley were converted to cropland or became urban.

    Duarte’s wheat was planted but not harvested because in February 2013 the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board issued orders to stop work at the site. The agencies claimed Duarte had violated the Clean Water Act by not obtaining a permit to discharge dredged or fill material into seasonal wetlands considered waters of the United States.

    Duarte sued the Army Corps and the state, alleging they violated his constitutional right of due process by issuing the cease and desist orders without a hearing. The U.S. Attorney’s Office counter-sued Duarte Nursery tto enforce the Clean Water Act violation.

    Farmers plowing their fields are specifically exempt from the Clean Water Act rules forbidding discharging material into U.S. waters, Francois said.

    The government claims that Duarte did not plow but rather used a ripper, which dug 10 inches into the soil and they allege that it disturbed portions of the property that included wetland areas.

    “Even under the farming exemption, a discharge of dredged or fill material incidental to the farming activities that impairs the flow of the waters of the United States still requires a permit because it changes the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters,” the U.S. attorney said in court filings.

    Francois claims the penalties are unfair because his client believed the plowing exemption allowed him to till the soil.

    “A plain reading of the rules says you don’t need a permit to do what he did,” Francois said. “How do you impose a multimillion penalty on someone for thinking the law says what it says?”

    Indeed, but even more to the point, what business does the government have telling a man whether or not he can plow or not on his own land?  This is not about wetlands and animals or rivers.  This is about controlling people and their property.  I wish people would wake up to what is taking place in this country with regards to central government controlling land and imposing heavy regulations on private property.

    ——————

    The bottom line…

    WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    Just saying, To Local Elected Representatives..

    Changes are taking place in WA DC.

    Don’t lock yourself up by imposing restricted use on Private Property that you can’t defend and uphold in a court of law.


  • 2012 SMP Issues Left on the Table

    June 9, 2017  My Updated Public Comment  CLALLAM COUNTY WA SMP

    Subject: SMP PUBLIC COMMENT JULY 14, 2012  ON THE SMP Advisory Committee

    THE PREVIOUS CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES

    July 10, 2012 the 19 SMP Issues left on the table by the Clallam County SMP (citizens?) Advisory Committee.

    Two thirds or more of the SMP (citizens?) Advisory Committee VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE,

    LEAVING 19 OR MORE PROPOSED SMP DRAFT ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOE SMP TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT ARGUMENT, SUGGESTIONS OR COMMENT?

    INDEED, THE INTENT OF A PARTY CAN BE DETERMINED BY EXAMINING THE UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON, AFTER CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE NEGOTIATIONS, ANY PRACTICES THE PARTIES HAVE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THEMSELVES, USAGES AND ANY SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    ———————————————————–

    The 19 SMP Update unresolved issues left on the table, At the July 10, 2012 SMP Committee Advisory meeting, Against my suggestion that we needed an additional August meeting to complete our duty to the citizens and private property owners, as SMP advisors, prior to the final SMP draft proposal being written.

    If any of you read this complete July 14, 2012 comment? You understand fully, why I am critical of the two thirds majority of the Advisory Committee members that failed to complete their responsibility to the citizens and private property owners of Clallam County, prior to the 2017 final SMP Draft Proposal, being given to the Clallam County Planning Commission.

    July 10, 2012 The last remark Steve Gray made to me, nearly five years ago was “I just want to get this over with.” 

    ————————————————————

    SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    SMP Cumulative Impact on People

    Posted on November 18, 2014 10:35 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    This is my Clallam County SMP Public comment and objection

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————-

    SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) – New Revised SMP Draft (June 2017)

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP
    Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 4:39 PM
    Subject: FW: Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) – New Revised SMP Draft (June 2017)

    Interested Parties,

    You are receiving this email because you are on the Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update email notification list.  The County Department of Community Development (DCD) has just released a Revised SMP Draft (June 2017). 

    An “INTERESTED PARTY SINCE JAN 26, 2011?” concerned, vested, voting, Clallam County private shoreline property owner and member of SMP Update (citizens) Advisory Committee.

    —– Original Message —–

    Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:13 PM

    THE REST OF THE STORY…….

    THE PREVIOUS CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    From: pearl hewett

    to  zSMP

    Cc: several

    Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:13 PM

    Subject: SMP COMMENT #292 ON THE SMP Advisory Committee

    This is my full comment on the SMP Advisory Committee

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Estate

    Concerned Member SMP Advisory Committee

    At the July 10, 2012 SMP Committee Advisory meeting

    Two thirds or more of the SMP Advisory Committee

    VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE,

    against my suggestion that we needed an additional August meeting to complete our duty to the citizens and private property owners, as SMP advisors, prior to the final SMP draft proposal being written.

    The SMP Advisory Committee that  represent the 3300 Clallam County shoreline private property owners is approximately as follows.

    1/3 = 10 private interest groups

    1/3 = 10 paid government employees

    1/3 = 10 SMP Affected taxpaying private property owners (only 8 at this meeting)

    DOES THE MAKEUP OF THIS COMMITTEE EXPLAINS WHY?

    THEY VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE

    LEAVING 19 OR MORE PROPOSED SMP DRAFT ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOE SMP TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY without argument, suggestions or comment?

    (1) DISCUSSED AND QUESTIONED? The undecipherable table with the percentages, the 15% of whatever? It made no sense to me either? One vested citizen, could help with  his knowledge of what he thought it actually was/represented? It would be very helpful to members of the committee.

    The written text related to the undecipherable table below

    1. Minor new development Grading shall not exceed 500 cubic yards; and ii. Land disturbing activities shall not exceed 20,000 square feet, except that on parcels less than five (5) acres, land disturbing activities must not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the gross parcel size; and iii. The total cumulative footprint of all structures on a parcel must be less than 4,000 square feet; and iv. The total cumulative impervious surface area on the parcel must be less than ten (10) . All land disturbing activities must be located on slopes less than fifteen (15) percent; and vi. All land disturbing activities must comply with any critical area buffer and other protection standards established for parcels created by land division.

    ————————————————————————

    (2) DISCUSSED AND QUESTIONED? NOT ADDRESSED

    The limited number of trained specialists,  Engineer’s  comment was in reference to the county SMP  requiring specialists, to perform the mitigation tests. If a property owner could even find one to do the testing? The time delay and cost would be prohibitive.

    ——————————————————————-

    (3) PRESENTED NOT DISCUSSED

    SMP Excessive restrictions on all forms of developments. I am extremely concerned about the additional restrictive requirements written into the SMP update for major development. They are counter- productive to the economic recovery of Clallam County, they restrict the ability of business and citizens to create employment opportunities in both Clallam County and Port Angeles. Why are the Dept. of Community Development and the planning biting off their own feet? Why are they creating these obsessive restrictions on all developments?

    The way Steve was talking it, with all the added bells and whistles, it was to make any form of mitigation for anything totally infeasible, creating a like it or lump it, situation for all development by business or private shoreline property owners.

    ———————————————————————

    (4) PRESENTED- DISCUSSED but NOT ADDRESSED

    The cumulative effect of setbacks SHORELINE, WETLAND and HABITAT   one citizen did a good job when he pointed out an example of the enormous  loss of private property use with the setbacks on Lake Pleasant, in conjunction with the yet undetermined, Clallam County DOE designated WETLANDS.

    ———————————————————————–

     (5) PRESENTED NOT ADDRESSED

    More additional HABITAT setbacks

    IT WAS IMPRESSIVE HOW SMOOTHLY MARGARET AND STEVE JUST ADDED ON THE ADDITIONAL HABITAT SETBACKS, BUT DID NOT MENTION ENDANGERED SPECIES.

    1. Rare, endangered, threatened and sensitive species means plant and animal species identified and listed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as being severely limited or threatened with extinction within their native ranges.
    2. Threatened species means a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future, as classified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, or the federal Endangered Species Act.

    ————————————————————————-

     

    (6)  COMMENT NOT ADDRESSED

    1. Recording means the filing of a document(s) for recordation with the County auditor.

    ————————————————————————————

    (7) NO DISCUSSION OR RESOLUTION (not required by law)

    1. Restoration means the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of fill, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions.

    ————————————————————————————

    (8) DOE DESIGNATED WETLANDS NOT IDENTIFIED OR INCORPORATED

    Wetlands have no boundaries, adjoining wetlands could restrict the use of your property.

    1. Wetlands means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created for non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands created as mitigation and wetland modified for approved land use activities shall be considered as regulated wetlands.

    PROHIBITED EXCEPTION DISCUSSED AND RESOLVED BY RCW

    Provisions for protection SHALL be included in SMP up date.

    1. Revetment means a sloped wall constructed of rip-rap or other suitable material placed on stream banks or other shorelines to retard bank erosion and minimize lateral stream movement.
    2. Rip-rap means dense, hard, angular rock free from cracks or other defects conductive to weathering often used for bulkheads, revetments or similar slope/bank stabilization purposes.

    ————————————————————————-

    (9) DISCUSSED UNDEFINED NO RESOLUTION [insert final date]

    3.1.1 Shoreline Environment Designations

    1. A shoreline environment designation has been assigned to each segment of the shoreline in accordance with this section. The designations are based on the following general factors:
    2. The ecological functions and processes that characterize the shoreline, together with the degree of human alteration as determined by the [insert final date] Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report and subsequent technical analyses; and

    ——————————————————————

    (10) NOT PRESENTED OR  DISCUSSED

     EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    1. c. Hazard Tree Removal: Removal of a hazard tree may be allowed in the buffer when trimming is not sufficient to address the hazard. Where the hazard is not immediately apparent to the Administrator, the hazard tree determination SHALL be made after Administrator review of a report prepared by a qualified arborist or forester.

    ——————————————————————–

    (11) NOT PRESENTED OR  DISCUSSED

    EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    1. Invasive Species Management: Removing invasive, non-native shoreline vegetation listed on the Clallam County Noxious Weed List may be allowed in the buffer when otherwise consistent with this Program. The disturbed areas must be promptly revegetated using species native to western Washington. The Administrator SHALL require a vegetation management plan prepared by a qualified ecologist, forester, arborist, or landscape architect prior to approving the invasive species removal. The vegetation management plan SHALL  identify and describe the location and extent of vegetation management. For properties within designated landslide or erosion hazard areas, the Administrator may require review of the vegetation management plan by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to ensure that the vegetation management will not cause or exacerbate hazards associated with soil or slope instability. The location and size of the invasive species management area SHALL be clearly defined on the site plan

    ———————————————————————–

    (12) NOT DISCUSSED – ADDRESSED OR RESOLVED

    Taking of Value of view property by limited 20% KEYHOLE view corridor. If 50% of the value of your shoreline property is for the view? Losing 80% the view value will affect the true and real value of your property

    4.2.4 Regulations – Shoreline Buffers

    . 3. Buffer Condition: Shoreline buffers shall be maintained in a predominantly well vegetated and undisturbed condition to ensure that the buffer provides desired buffer functions including shade, habitat, organic inputs, large woody debris, slope stability, water storage, biofiltration, contaminant removal, and fine sediment control. Up to eighty percent (80%) of the buffer area shall be vegetated with native trees and shrubs. The remaining twenty percent (20%), or at least fifteen (15) linear feet of the water frontage, whichever is greater, may be retained as lawn for active use.

    1. Allowed Uses and Buffer Modifications: The Administrator may allow limited clearing, thinning, and/or pruning to accommodate specific shoreline buffer uses and modifications identified in this section. Such allowances shall not require compensatory mitigation provided that the amount and extent of the clearing, limbing, and/or pruning are the minimum necessary to accommodate the allowed use and all other requirements of the Program are met:

    —————————————————————————–

    (13) view corridor NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED limited and selective tree removal, pruning, and/or limbing in the buffer

    1. View Corridors: The Administrator may allow limited and selective tree removal, pruning, and/or limbing in the buffer to create a view of the shoreline when otherwise consistent with this Program. The removal, pruning, and/or limbing shall not require any ground-disturbing equipment and shall not materially alter soils or topography.

    ————————————————————————-

    (15) NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

    EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    Administrator shall require a view clearance plan

    The Administrator shall require a view clearance plan prepared by a qualified ecologist, forester, arborist, or landscape architect prior to approving the view corridor. The view clearance plan shall identify and describe the location and extent of the proposed tree removal, pruning, and limbing and shall demonstrate compliance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations (Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management – Standard Practices). For properties within designated landslide or erosion hazard areas, the Administrator may require review of the view clearance plan by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to ensure that the proposed removal, pruning, and/or limbing will not cause or exacerbate hazards associated with soil or slope instability. The location and size of the view corridor shall be clearly defined on the site plan.

    1. Private Pathways: Private pathways which provide pedestrian access to the shoreline may be allowed within the buffer provided they are constructed of pervious material, are less than or equal to six (6) feet wide, and follow a route that minimizes erosion and gullying

    ——————————————————————————–

    (16)  NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

    Taking of Private property for Public access

    The removal of any reference to  the taking of private property for Public access, Clallam County has the highest public access to public land in WA State. At the Private DOE meeting on June 6, 2012 Gordon White agreed that we have sufficient cause 51% to remove any taking of private property for public access.

    —————————————————————————–

    (17) DISCUSSED AND DISMISSED

    EPA. Precautionary setback are not legal

     As questioned by Rob McKenna, why are the DOE SMP setbacks more restrictive the EPA. Precautionary setback are not legal.

    ——————————————————————————–

     (18) LEGALITY OF 80% TAKING  NOT DISCUSSED NOT ADDRESSED

    ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (100%) NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    1. At least eighty percent (80%) of the buffer area between the structures and the shoreline and/or critical area is maintained in a naturally vegetated condition.

    What provisions have the DOE made to  stay within the LAW?

    “It is now undisputed that the county had no authority to deprive residents of the use of their own private property.”CAO’S 65 PERCENT” SEIZURE OF PROPERTY PLF Lauds Supreme Court for “Driving a Stake Through One of the Most Extreme Assaults on Property Rights in the U.S.”

    SEATTLE, WA; March 4, 2009: The Washington Supreme Court

    the CAO limited rural landowners with five acres or more to clearing only 35 percent of their property, forcing them to maintain the remaining 65 percent as native vegetation indefinitely. Rural landowners owning less than five acres were allowed to clear only 50 percent of their parcels. Affected landowners had to continue paying taxes on the portion of the property rendered useless by the CAO.

    —————————————————————————–

    (19) NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

     THE PROVISIONS OF WAC173-26-191 ANYTHING THAT MAY BE  ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT A STATE LEVEL,

     MAY ALSO BE  ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT A COUNTY LEVEL AND SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

     

    WAC 173-26-191

    Agency filings affecting this section

    Master program contents.

    2 The results of shoreline planning are summarized in shoreline master program policies that establish broad shoreline management directives. The policies are the basis for regulations that govern use and development along the shoreline.

    SOME MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES MAY NOT BE FULLY ATTAINABLE BY REGULATORY MEANS DUE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER LEGAL LIMITATIONS ON THE REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. THE POLICIES MAY BE PURSUED BY OTHER MEANS AS PROVIDED IN RCW 90.58.240.

    SOME DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES A SHORELINE PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

     A LOCAL GOVERNMENT EVALUATES A PERMIT APPLICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES AND REGULATIONS AND APPROVES A PERMIT ONLY AFTER DETERMINING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT CONFORMS TO THEM. EXCEPT

    WHERE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN STATUTE, THE REGULATIONS APPLY TO ALL USES AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SHORELINE JURISDICTION, WHETHER OR NOT A SHORELINE PERMIT IS REQUIRED, AND ARE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO RCW 90.58.050 and 90.58.140 AND ENFORCEMENT PURSUANT TO RCW

    90.58.210 through 90.58.230.

    ————————————————————-

    If any of you read this complete comment? You understand fully, why I am critical of the two thirds majority of the Advisory Committees that failed to complete their responsibility to the citizens and private property owners of Clallam County on July 10, 2012,  prior to the final SMP Draft Proposal.

    INDEED, THE INTENT OF A PARTY CAN BE DETERMINED BY EXAMINING THE UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON, AFTER CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE NEGOTIATIONS, ANY PRACTICES THE PARTIES HAVE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THEMSELVES, USAGES AND ANY SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    IF THE PARTIES DON’T WANT YOU TO DO IT, THE PARTIES WILL MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FINANCIALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    The County Department of Community Development (DCD) has just released a Revised SMP Draft (June 2017). 


  • POTUS WOTUS EPA ACE and Justice Scalia

    POTUS WOTUS EPA ACE  and Justice Scalia

    President Trump signed an executive order on February 28, 2017, to roll back the waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers ACE (Corps) promulgated in 2016.

    The Order is entitled, “Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.”

    It instructs EPA and the ACE Corps to begin the process of a rule-making to withdraw the WOTUS rule, id. at § 2(a), and to take appropriate actions in the courts where the rule is in litigation. Id. § 2(c).

    President Trump signed executive order on February 28, 2017 instructs EPA and the Corps to

    “CONSIDER” ADOPTING THE SCALIA TEST FROM RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).

    ORDER § 3. SCALIA OPINED IN RAPANOS THAT, “THE PHRASE ‘THE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES’ includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water ‘forming geographic features’ that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams[,] . . . oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.’. . . . The phrase does not include channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally, or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall. . .” 547 U.S. at 739.

    ————————————————————————

    Notice that Trump signed the EO back at the end of February 2017, and the EPA is JUST NOW sending the information out. It looks like they have deliberately STALLED.

    These statements have to be in by June 19, 2017. Heads up!

    ————————————————————————————

    THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

    IS LOCATED AT 33 CFR 329.4

    • 329.4 General definition.

    Navigable waters of the United States are those waters that are subject to the ebb (the outgoing phase; when the tide drains away from the shore) and flow (the incoming phase; when water rises again) of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of  navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    The federal definition 40 CFR 230 .3 pertains to the Clean Water Act and waters of the United States.

    WOTUS BY OBAMA

    The definition of the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) is very dangerous and overreaching. Under section (o), parts of the definition read as follows:
    o) The term waters of the United States means: …

    (ii) All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;

    (iv) All impoundments of waters otherwise identified as waters of the United States under this section;

    (vi) All waters adjacent to a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (v) of this section, including  wetlands, ponds, lakes, oxbows, impoundments, and similar waters;

    (vii) All waters in paragraphs (o)(1)(vii)(A) through (E) of this section where they are determined, on a case-specific basis, to have a  significant nexus to a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. The waters identified in each of paragraphs (o)(1)(vii)(A) through (E) of this section are similarly situated and shall be combined, for purposes of a significant nexus analysis, in the watershed that drains to the nearest water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. Waters identified in this paragraph shall not be combined with waters identified in paragraph (o)(1)(vi) of this section when performing a significant nexus analysis. If waters identified in this paragraph are also an  adjacent water under paragraph (o)(1)(vi), they are an adjacent water and no case-specific significant nexus analysis is required.

    (A)Prairie potholes. Prairie potholes are a complex of glacially formed wetlands, usually occurring in depressions that lack permanent natural outlets, located in the upper Midwest.

    (viii) All waters located within the 100-year floodplain of a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section and all waters located within 4,000 feet of the high tideline or ordinary high water mark of a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (v) of this section where they are determined on a case-specific basis to have a significant nexus to a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. For waters determined to have a  significant nexus, the entire water is a water of the United States if a portion is located within the 100-year floodplain of a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section or within 4,000 feet of the high tide line or ordinary high water mark. Waters identified in this paragraph shall not be combined with waters identified in paragraph (o)(1)(vi) of this section when performing a significant nexus analysis. If waters identified in this paragraph are also an adjacent water under paragraph (o)(1)(vi), they are an adjacent water and no case-specific  significant nexus analysis is required.

    —————————————————————————————

    WRITING FOR THE COURT IN THE 2014 CLEAN AIR ACT CASE, UTILITY AIR REGULATORY GROUP V. EPA, JUSTICE SCALIA DECLARED EPA’S INTERPRETATION UNREASONABLE BECAUSE IT WOULD BRING ABOUT AN ENORMOUS AND TRANSFORMATIVE EXPANSION IN EPA’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITHOUT CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.

    JUSTICE SCALIA DECLARED “We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance,’” he wrote.
    —————————————————————————————

    OBAMA VETOES GOP ATTEMPT TO BLOCK WOTUS WATER RULE

    By Timothy Cama – 01/19/16 07:22 PM EST

    ———————————————————-

    EPA ‘Waters of U.S.’ Rule Is a Power Grab | National Review

    www.nationalreview.com/article/431134/epa-waters-us-rule-power-grab

    by Rupert Darwall February 11, 2016 4:00 AM. Obama’s power-mad agency claims jurisdiction over land and water use almost everywhere in … EPA, under the Clean Water Act, a statute Congress passed two years after its clean-air sibling. … partially checked, in what has become known as the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS).

    ————————————————————————————————-

    President Trump signed an executive order on February 28, 2017, to roll back the waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) promulgated in 2016. The Order is entitled, “Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.” It instructs EPA and the Corps to begin the process of a rule-making to withdraw the WOTUS rule, id. at § 2(a), and to take appropriate actions in the courts where the rule is in litigation. Id. § 2(c).

    The Order raises a number of interesting issues. First, it instructs EPA and the Corps to “consider” adopting the Scalia test from Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). Order § 3. Scalia opined in Rapanos that, “the phrase ‘the waters of the United States’ includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water ‘forming geographic features’ that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams[,] . . . oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.’. . . . The phrase does not include channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally, or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall. . .” 547 U.S. at 739.

    Because Rapanos was a split decision (4–1–4), there is no controlling opinion. The circuit courts, applying the Marks analysis, have concluded that Kennedy’s lone concurring opinion, which focused on the significant-nexus test, is the controlling standard from the case. (A couple of circuits have allowed Kennedy’s or Scalia’s opinion to be used to establish jurisdiction.) All of the circuit courts and almost all of the district courts have rejected the argument that Scalia’s test should be adopted as the sole jurisdictional test. The Supreme Court has denied certiorari numerous times since Rapanos on WOTUS issues, so we have no clarification from the Court on how to interpret the decision.

    IT IS CLEAR WHY THE ADMINISTRATION HAS CHOSEN SCALIA’S TEST—IT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE OF JURISDICTION.

     THAN THE KENNEDY TEST, WHICH EPA AND THE CORPS ADOPTED IN THE WOTUS RULE.

    UNDER THE SCALIA TEST, MOST HEADWATER SYSTEMS—ESPECIALLY IN THE ARID WEST—WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO  THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) BECAUSE MOST HEADWATER SYSTEMS ARE EPHEMERAL OR INTERMITTENT AND ARE THEREFORE NOT “RELATIVELY PERMANENT WATERS.” HEADWATER SYSTEMS COMPRISE A LARGE PART OF THE NATION’S TRIBUTARY SYSTEM. IN PLACES LIKE ARIZONA EVEN THE MAIN CHANNELS ARE DRY MOST OF THE YEAR AND, THEREFORE, MAY NOT MEET THE SCALIA TEST FOR JURISDICTION.

     

    THE SCALIA TEST WOULD LIKELY ALSO REMOVE MANY OF THE NATIONS’ WETLANDS FROM . EXPANSION IN EPA’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITHOUT CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.

     

    AS JUSTICE SCALIA SAID “WE EXPECT CONGRESS TO SPEAK CLEARLY IF IT WISHES TO ASSIGN TO AN AGENCY DECISIONS OF VAST ‘ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE,’”

    —————————————————————————-

    President Trump Issues Executive Order Directing EPA to Review the WOTUS Rule

    Thursday, March 2, 2017

    On February 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) to review the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) definition of “Waters of the United States”(WOTUS) Rule (the Rule) (80 Fed. Reg. 37054, June 29, 2015). Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the “Waters of the United States” Rule, Executive Order (Feb. 28, 2017) (EO). The EO directs EPA and ACE to review the WOTUS Rule for consistency with the policies set forth in the EO which specifies that “It is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation’s navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution.” The EO also directs EPA and ACE to “publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the [WOTUS] rule, as appropriate and consistent with law.”

    Pursuant to the EO, EPA and ACE submitted for publication in the Federal Register, a notification of intention to review and rescind or revise the Rule. Notice of Intention to Review and Rescind or Revise the Clean Water Rule, Environmental Protection Agency and Dept. of Defense, Feb. 28, 2017. The notification will be published in the Federal Register in the coming days.

    THE EO ALSO DIRECTS EPA AND ACE TO CONSIDER INTERPRETING THE TERM “NAVIGABLE WATERS,”IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE OPINION OF JUSTICE SCALIA IN RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). The Rapanos opinion set out two separate standards for CWA jurisdiction. See Rapanos at 715‑718. Justice Scalia, writing for a plurality, determined that the statute should only apply when there is a “continuous surface connection”between “relatively permanent”waters. Id. at 743. Justice Kennedy, on the other hand, determined that jurisdiction should be based on whether a water or wetland possesses “a significant nexus to waters that are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made.” Id. at 759. Neither standard was supported by a majority, so neither standard has become binding precedent. See Id. at 715-718. Regulators, however, have generally followed Justice Kennedy’s standard,

    AND THUS, A SWITCH TO JUSTICE SCALIA’S STANDARD WOULD REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL EXTENT OF THE CWA. SEE 80 FED. REG. 37054, 37056, 37060-37061 [WOTUS RULE].


  • Feb 28, 2017 POTUS Executes WOTUS

    PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (POTUS) DONALD J. TRUMP

    SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER ON WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (WOTUS)

    Indeed, Trump Signed an Executive Order to Begin Water Rule Rollback

    In President Trump’s own words, “With today’s executive order I’m directing the EPA to take action paving the way for the elimination of this very destructive and horrible rule,” Trump said.

    “The EPA so-called Waters of the United States rule is one of the worst examples of federal regulation, and it has truly run amok, and is one of the rules most strongly opposed by farmers, ranchers and agricultural workers all across our land,” Trump said. “It’s prohibiting them from being allowed to do what they’re supposed to be doing. It has been a disaster.”

    The rule was signed by President Obama in May of 2015, (the master of several disasters) and went into effect in late August of 2015.

    President Trump’s  Director of Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt was  sworn in on Feb 17, 2017. “They” say….Scott Pruitt is the EPA’s Legal Nemesis

    POTUS Executes WOTUS

    They” say it was a hatchet job.

    “They” say 3000 jobs will be lost at the EPA.

    I say great, 3000 more ways to downsize the government

    —————————————————————

    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)

    —————————————————————————-

    The EPA is earning a reputation for abuse – The Washington Post

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/…epa-is…abuse/…/gIQAucvzzT_story.html

    May 3, 2012Earlier this year, Mike and Chantell Sackett brought a case against the EPA to the Supreme Court, challenging a “compliance order” …

    ——————————————————-

    Apr 4, 2012 www.nationalreview.com/article/295188

    That subtext to the Sackett opinion is one that the lower courts (who try to avoid being overruled) can read as clearly as EPA.
    Congress should subpoena Al Armendariz, the EPA’s regional administrator, to come explain how this whole fiasco happened.
    ——————————————————
    Apr 25, 2012 – Uploaded by Senator Jim Inhofe

    2010, video  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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze3GB_b7Nuo
    ————————————————————-
     Apr 4, 2012

    The EPA Abuses First, Apologizes Later – | National Review

    www.nationalreview.com/article/295188

    Apr 4, 2012 – EPA can issue emergency orders to anybody. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sackett v. EPA, which insisted that citizens hit with an …

     The EPA Abuses First, Apologizes Later
    April 4, 2012 4:00 AM @Mario_A_Loyola

    The regulatory state’s biggest bully beats up another victim.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/295188

    ————————————————————————-

    May 29, 2012

    Senate Republicans Request Answers on EPAís Sackett … – Inhofe

    www.inhofe.senate.gov/…/senate-republicans-request-answers-on-epais-sackett-comm…

    May 29, 2012Senate Republicans Request Answers on EPA’s Sackett Comments … Post saying that the agency is ‘earning a reputation for abuse.’ EPA …

    Just saying….

    May 29, 2012 The establishment’s GOP asked questions and talked about it

    —————————————————————–

    Sep 4, 2015

    Behind My Back | PLF lawsuit on WOTUS

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/04/plf-lawsuit-on-wotus/

    Sep 4, 2015 – PLF lawsuit on WOTUS Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) lawsuit … www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/12/who-is-protecting–we-the-people/.

    ————————————————

    Feb 11, 2016

    Behind My Back | A Wetland is A WOTUS

    www.behindmyback.org/category/a-wetland-is-a-wotus/

    Feb 11, 2016 – www.behindmyback.org/2016/04/26/let–me–ask–america-a-question/ ….. www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/04/wotus–water-runs-down-hill/.

    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 (EPA) Clean Water Act and become subject to EPA review and control.

    —————————————————————–

    The EPA’s enforcement policy and 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.

    Just saying…

    Apr 25, 2012 The establishment’s GOP watched it and talked about it.

    ——————————————————

    On Feb 28, 2017 with the stroke of his pen in President Trump’s own words, “With today’s executive order I’m directing the EPA to take action paving the way for the elimination of this very destructive and horrible rule,” Trump said.

    ———————————————————————

    March 2, 2017 UNDER WOTUS, THE EPA’S  POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT HAS  ABUSED HUNDREDS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS, INCLUDING IMPRISONMENT.

    HOW HORRIBLE IS THAT….

    ——————————————-

    Post on Pie N Politics

    WOTUS overturned! Now pardon Joe Robertson!

    Clean Water ACT – EPA, CORRUPTION, Federal gov & land grabs, President Trump and officials
    On the back of today’s Executive Order, Joe deserves an immediate, unconditional federal pardon.
    ….
    To be Continued…

  • The Human Toll of WA DC Edicts 2012-2016

    2012 TWO COUNTIES – same problem – water and land use REGULATIONS

    SISKIYOU COUNTY CALIF –  CLALLAM COUNTY WASHINGTON

    WHAT HAVE OUR COUNTY’S GOT IN COMMON?

     WATER AND LAND USE REGULATIONS AND LITIGATION ARE DESTROYING US.

    —————————————————————————————–

    2016  THREE  COUNTIES – same problem – water and land use REGULATIONS

    FEBRUARY 26, 2016  THE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE CAUSED BY (WA DC Edicts) FEDERAL CONTROL, THREE COUNTIES,  THREE STATE, SISKIYOU COUNTY CALIF –  CLALLAM COUNTY WASHINGTON And JOSEPHINE COUNTY OREGON CAUSED BY THE….

    ———————————————————————

    THIS IS A MUST READ FIRST

    BLM Bureau of Land Mismanagement

    Posted on February 29, 2016 9:33 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    February 26, 2016 Toni Webb’s  story is here… OREGON CANDIDATE EXPOSES SOCIAL, ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE CAUSED BY FEDERAL CONTROL IN JOSEPHINE COUNTY OREGON

    Liz and I both saw this … As the history of our three counties in three different states. Washington State, Oregon and Calif. Liz Bowen is from Siskiyou County, Calif. Pie N Politics Pearl Rains Hewett is from Clallam County WA

    —————————————————————————-

    JUNE 10, 2016

    The Bottom line….

    Pearl Rains Hewett,  LET ME ASK AMERICA A QUESTION

    HOW HAS THE ‘SYSTEM’ BEEN WORKING OUT FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY?

    —————————————————————————–

    By Donald J. Trump April 14, 2016 7:18 p.m. ET

    (unedited full text)

     LET ME ASK AMERICA A QUESTION

    HOW HAS THE ‘SYSTEM’ BEEN WORKING OUT FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY?

    Behind My Back | Let Me Ask America a Question

    www.behindmyback.org/2016/04/26/letmeaskamerica-a-question/

    Apr 26, 2016 – Let Me Ask America a Question. How has the ‘system’ been working out for you and your family? No wonder voters demand change.

    ————————————————————————————-

    MAY 9, 2016 DONALD J. TRUMP SAID ” AS A BUSINESSMAN I THINK REGULATIONS ARE EVEN WORSE THAN TAXES”.

    WOW, GETTING RID OF THE EPA?  Environmental Protection Agency

    THE ESA THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT?

    May 27, 2016 – Trump accused state officials of denying water to Central Valley farmers so they can send it … so they can send it out to sea ‘to protect a certain kind of threeinch fish‘. The theory that California’s water shortage is all the fault of the Environmental Protection Agency is, like most conspiracy.

    GO FIGURE? WATER FOR PEOPLE NOT A THREE INCH ENDANGERED SMELT.

    The Human Toll of WA DC Edicts 2012-2016

    Apr 26, 2016 – Let Me Ask America a Question. How has the ‘system’ been working out for you and your family? No wonder voters demand change.

    ———————————————————————————-

    DONALD J. TRUMP, AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, A BUSINESS MAN, WILL BE TRANSFERRING THE CONTROL OF OUR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LANDS BACK TO WESTERN STATES, LIKE OREGON, BACK TO WE THE PEOPLE, BECAUSE IT IS SO CRITICAL TO OUR SURVIVAL.

    ——————————————————

     The Human Toll in Siskiyou County – KARE

    www.klamathalliance.org/information/the-humantoll-in-siskiyoucounty/

    Siskiyou County has been hard hit by the environmental movement during the past twenty years. Time and again, we are promised that tourism will rise and …

    ———————————————————————————

    Nov 18, 2012- June 10, 2016

    CLALLAM COUNTY WASHINGTON- SISKIYOU COUNTY CALIF-  

    OUR TIMBER INDUSTRIES  HAVE BEEN HARD HIT BY THE “ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT” DURING THE PAST TWENTY YEARS.

    TIME AND AGAIN, WE ARE PROMISED THAT TOURISM WILL RISE AND …

    ————————————————————————————

    from Pearl Rains-Hewett

    Posted 11/18/2012

    WHAT HAVE OUR COUNTY’S GOT IN COMMON?

    OUR TIMBER INDUSTRIES AND,

    How Water and Land Use REGULATIONS and Litigation Are DESTROYING Us

    2012 “The hand writing on the wall” is an idiom for “imminent doom or misfortune” and for “the future is predetermined”.

    CLALLAM COUNTY

    Timber harvesting is the dominant land use in the County with 285,842 acres in large commercial timber holdings. Widespread timber harvesting in the area began in the 1920’s and continued intensively through the 1980’s, when the rate slowed significantly due in part to federal listings of the northern SPOTTED OWL AND MARBLED MURRELET.

    At one time, it was the largest timber production area in the state.

    However, OUR FOREST INDUSTRIES HAVE BEEN DEVASTATED BY FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS.

    How many sawmills and wood processing facilities are gone?

    There is no doubt that the restrictions on timber harvest from public lands under the Northwest Forest Plan have played a significant role in this decline.

    Eighty- one % (81%) of the land base in Clallam County proper is in Federal (or state) ownership.

    Olympic National Forest Is over 1 million acres.

    There are more than ? miles of wild and scenic rivers in Clallam County.

    What is the unemployment rate? 9.1% of the labor force Sep 2012

    One aspect of this is land conversion from private to Federal lands.

    acquisition or conservation easements

    new wildlife refuge

    convert acres of farmland to wetlands

    There are many forest-dependent communities in our county where local unemployment is estimated from?

    ——————————————————————————————

    SISKIYOU COUNTY

    Siskiyou County accounts for 15% of the timber harvested in California.

    At one time, it was the second largest timber production area in the state.

    However, our forest industries have been devastated by Federal and State regulations.

    There are many forest-dependent communities in our county where local unemployment is estimated from 30-40%.

    There is no doubt that the restrictions on timber harvest from public lands under the Northwest Forest Plan have played a significant role in this decline.

    all 17 sawmills were gone and wood processing facilities

    Sixty-three % (63%) of the land base in Siskiyou County is in Federal (or state) ownership.

    There are more than 152 miles of wild and scenic rivers in the County.

    National Forest’s 1.7 million acres alone comprises 42% of Siskiyou County’s land base.

    In March of 2012, the unemployment rate was 18.7%, ranking Siskiyou 50th out of 56 counties in the state.

    The AP Economic Stress Index ranks Siskiyou County as the 14th most economically stressed county in the United States.

    One aspect of this is land conversion from private to Federal lands.

    Since 1999, 8,625.71 acres valued at $3,922,179 have been converted to Federal land.

    Another 11,236 acres of ranch land in the Shasta Valley is currently proposed for conversion to a new wildlife refuge.

    In addition, the proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement seeks to convert 44,479 acres of farmland in the Upper Klamath Basin to wetlands, (some of which may be in Siskiyou County.)

    It also proposes to secure 21,800 acres of farmland by acquisition or conservation easements in the Scott and Shasta Valleys of Siskiyou County.

    ————————————————————————-

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Please read on if you are concerned

    —————————————————————————

    Siskiyou County Supervisor Marcia Armstrong 5/31/12

    “I have completed part I of my report on (Integrated Water Resources Management) IWRM. http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/IRWM%20siskiyou%20part1.htm This includes an economic and social impact study, a briefing on each of Siskiyou County’s Agricultural areas in the Klamath, a briefing on water rights and a chronology of the major actions (legal, regulatory) in the Klamath River/Siskiyou County over the past 15 years.”

    Part 1 – Siskiyou County

    How Water and Land Use Regulations and Litigation Are Destroying Us

    By Marcia H. Armstrong © 2012
    armsrtrng@sisqtel.net
    (reprint granted with attribution)

    Background on Siskiyou County and its Economy

     

    GENERAL:

    Sixty-three % (63%) of the land base in Siskiyou County is in Federal (or state) ownership. There are portions of the Klamath National Forest; Shasta-Trinity National Forest; Six Rivers National Forest;Modoc National Forest; and Rogue Siskiyou National Forest in Siskiyou County. The Klamath National Forest’s 1.7 million acres alone comprises 42% of Siskiyou County’s land base. The county also includes the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges, as well as the Lava Beds National Monument. There are various BLM lands administered by the Redding, Medford, Ashland and Susanville BLM offices. There are more than 152 miles of wild and scenic rivers in the County. There are lands held in tribal trust for the Karuk and Quartz Valley Indian tribes.

    The entire land base of Siskiyou County is 4,038,843 acres or 6,287 square miles. Of this, 1,153,246 acres (29%) is in farmland, however only 138,000 acres (3% of tot. county acres) are irrigated. 2,525,216 acres is considered rangeland/woodland/ forest (inc. National Forest.) Our relatively sparse population of 44,301 classifies the county as “frontier.” There are nine small incorporated cities that date back to the California Gold Rush. Eight tenths of one percent of private land is urban.

    In the year 2000, the average unemployment rate for the year was 7.5%. By 2008, it had risen to 10.2%, rising again to 15.8% in 2009. In March of 2012, the unemployment rate was 18.7%, ranking Siskiyou 50th out of 56 counties in the state. There are many forest-dependent communities in our county where local unemployment is estimated from 30-40%. The average wage per job in 2008 was $32,707. That was only 63% of the state average. The median household income was $36,823 — or 60% of the state median. Non-household median income is currently $27,718 — a ranking of 47th in the state. The AP Economic Stress Index ranks Siskiyou County as the 14th most economically stressed county in the United States.

    Siskiyou County has a substantial low income population. In 2010, 18.6% of all residents in Siskiyou County, 26.6% of children under the age of 18 and 7.3% of those 65 years or older lived below the poverty line. In 2010, the economic impact of jobs at Human Services and entitlement benefits to County residents was $71,581,874. This includes: $11.6 million in annual “assistance costs” (CalWorks/welfare, Foster Care;) $8.8 million in annual food stamps; $4.7 million in In-Home-Support-Services for the elderly and disabled; and $36.7 million in Medical Assistance/Medi-Cal.

    Social statistics indicate that Siskiyou County has the second highest child abuse/neglect rate in the state – (3 times the state average.) Compared to Los Angeles County, Siskiyou County has higher rates of all forms of violent crime except homicide. [aggravated assaults, forcible rape, and robbery.] Often these crimes have similar underlying causes, namely, social strain combined with the selective disinhibition fueled by alcohol and drug use (read Robert Nash Parker; Robin Room; and Jeffery A Roth). The premature death rate for the general population is almost twice that of the national average.

    According to Indicators of Alcohol and Other Drug Risk and Consequences for California Counties Siskiyou County 2007, the number of local fatalities in alcohol-involved motor vehicle accidents was three times that of the statewide average; the death rate due to alcohol and drug use was 32.5 deaths per 100,000 persons (compared to a state average of 20.9/1000.) Methamphetamine accounted for 44% of admissions for alcohol and drug treatment. Admissions for alcohol use accounted for 31 percent of admissions in 2004. The death rate for cirrhosis if the liver was three times the Healthy People 2010 goal. Drug-induced deaths were 19 times higher than the Healthy People 2010 goal per 1,000. About 85% of child abuse cases involve methamphetamine.

    THE ECONOMY OF SISKIYOU COUNTY IS BASED ON SMALL BUSINESS. In 2008, there were 6,857 non-farm proprietors in Siskiyou County. According to 2007 data, 61% of non-farming establishments in Siskiyou County had less than 4 employees; 82% had less than 10 employees and 93% had less than 20.

    Agriculture is a major economic sector of the county. Our 2010 Siskiyou County Annual Crop and Livestock Report indicates that the agricultural valuation in the county was $195,711,956 (gross and excluding timber.) According to the USDA Ag Census, in 1992 Siskiyou County had 647,446 acres in farms. By 2007, this had been reduced to 597,534 acres. The 1996-2008 Land Use Summary, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program indicates that during the span of the report, Siskiyou County lost 15,164 acres of prime farmland; 3,036 acres of farmland of statewide importance; 40,456 acres of farmland of local importance. With an addition of 16,126 acres of grazing land and 2,390 acres of unique farmland, this mean a total loss of 40,140 acres of farmland. In 2000, there were 895 farm proprietors in Siskiyou County. This declined to only 730 in 2008. The county lost 81 livestock ranches from 1992 to 2007, with an accompanying loss of 20,882 fewer cattle and calves in inventory. According to the CA D.O.T. Siskiyou County Economic Forecast, since 1995, Siskiyou County’s agriculture industries have experienced substantial job loss of about 586 jobs, declining almost 45%.

    During the past 20 years, there has also been a restructuring of size and sales in agricultural operations. Since 1992 to 2007, there has been an increase in the number of small farms: farms under 10 acres doubled to 80. Farms under 50 acres increased 59% to 229. Farms 50-179 acres increased 27% to 228. Farms from 180-449 acres remained about the same at 79. However, there was a 19% reduction in farms 1000 acres or more to 100 farms in 2007. One aspect of this is land conversion from private to Federal lands. Since 1999, 8,625.71 acres valued at $3,922,179 have been converted to Federal land. Another 11,236 acres of ranch land in the Shasta Valley is currently proposed for conversion to a new wildlife refuge. In addition, the proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement seeks to convert 44,479 acres of farmland in the Upper Klamath Basin to wetlands, (some of which may be in Siskiyou County.) It also proposes to secure 21,800 acres of farmland by acquisition or conservation easements in the Scott and Shasta Valleys of Siskiyou County.

    At the same time, farms having less than $2,500 in sales increased 105% to 359. Farms selling $2,500-9,999 stayed about the same at 151. Farms selling $10-$24,999 decreased 10% to 95. Farms selling $25,000-$49,999 decreased about 18% to 60. Farms selling $50,000 to $99,999 decreased 45% to 44 and farms with sales in excess of $100,000 increased by 28% to 137.

    Siskiyou County accounts for 15% of the timber harvested in California. At one time, it was the second largest timber production area in the state. However, our forest industries have been devastated by Federal and State regulations. For instance, the forestry section of Siskiyou County’s 1972 Conservation Element of the General Plan indicated that there were 17 sawmills in the county (employing 2,055 people or 24% of the employment base) and 8 wood processing facilities (employing 294 people or 3% of the employment base). There were 46 logging contractors and support establishments employing 501 people or 5% of the employment base. By 2007, ALL 17 SAWMILLS WERE GONE. The census indicates that there were a total of 6 wood products manufacturing establishments (including veneer mills) employing 380 people (one mill has subsequently closed in Butte Valley). There were 38 Logging, Forestry and Support Establishments employing 157 employees.

    There is no doubt that the restrictions on timber harvest from public lands under the Northwest Forest Plan have played a significant role in this decline. In 1978, 239 MMBF of timber was harvested from the Klamath National Forest (KNF), 274 MMBF from the Shasta Trinity National Forest (STNF) and 73 MMBF from the Six Rivers National Forest (SRNF.) In 2008, 20 MMBF was harvested from the KNF, 22 MMBF from the STNF and 8 MMBF from the SRNF. [Seehttp://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/regulatory%20impacts.htm for links to tables and reports]

    ————————————————————————–

    The Human Toll in Siskiyou County – KARE

    The Human Toll in Siskiyou County

    SISKIYOU COUNTY HAS BEEN HARD HIT BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT DURING THE PAST TWENTY YEARS. TIME AND AGAIN,

    WE ARE PROMISED THAT TOURISM WILL RISE AND OFFSET ANY DAMAGE TO OUR RESOURCE DRIVEN ECONOMY, AND YET THOSE DOLLARS REFUSE TO MATERIALIZE.

    For 20 years, timber has been excluded from our national forests (see this shocking graph) which consume nearly two thirds of our entire county. Mining has been all but eliminated, agriculture (the largest remaining industry in this county)

    AND NOW KS WILD HAS THE TEMERITY TO CLAIM THAT OUR COUNTY WILL BE BETTER OFF WITH ANOTHER 200,000 ACRES (OF 600,000 TOTAL) OF TIMBERLAND LOCKED UP IN SOME “CLIMATE REFUGE?” Next time somebody trots out that line, give them some of these demographic statistics:

    Unemployment, July 2011

    (State wide data by county: PDF file)

    • California: 12.4%
    • Siskiyou Co: 16.6%
    • Shasta Co: 15.0%
    • Modoc Co: 13.9%
    • Humboldt Co: 11.9%
    • LA Co: 13.3%
    • Sacramento Co: 12.9%
    • San Franscsco Co: 9.0%

    Siskiyou County 2010 Snapshot

    (PDF file)

    • Population: around 48,000
    • The median age of the population is 43
    • 36% of the population is employed
    • Unemployment is 18.5%
    • Median Household Income $35,692 ($59,928 for CA)
    • 28% of households have children under 18 (46% USA)
    • 18% of the population lives below the poverty line (13% CA)
    • 27% of children live below the poverty line (18.5% CA)
    • 18% of the population is eligible for food stamps
    • 22% are eligible for Medi-Cal programs (18% CA)
    • Substantiation of Child Abuse and Neglect 31.7 per 1,000 ( 9/1,000 for CA)
    • Siskiyou Co. has higher rates of all violent crime (aggravated assaults, forcible rape and robbery) except homicide than Los Angeles Co. 11% of Seniors aged 60 and above have been abused.
    • Methamphetamine accounts for 44% of substance abuse treatment admissions. Roughly 11.9 percent of adolescents under 18 reported binge drinking over the past month (CA 6.6 percent.)
    • Of youth between age 10-17 admitted for treatment, 72% were for marijuana, 17% methamphetamine, and 11% alcohol. 83% were male. This age group also accounts for 13% of drug-related arrests.
    • Individuals between 25 and 34 years account for 25 percent of admissions to alcohol and drug treatment. This age group also accounts for 22 percent of drug related arrests
    • Individuals between 35 and 44 years accounts for 27 percent of alcohol-related arrests

    Twenty Year Trends

    (PDF file)

    • Demographic Trends — Age distribution: The census indicates that between 1990 and 2008, Siskiyou County experienced a 25% loss in the population of children under the age of 18. The County saw a 45% increase in the population age 45-64 and an 18% increase of those age 65 and older. This shows that our population is aging dramatically, and younger family wage earners are migrating elsewhere.
    • Income Trends; The BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis) indicates that in 1987, the average wage for jobs in Siskiyou County were 73% of the California average. There was a steady decline down to as low as 57% in the year 2000, then the percentage stabilized at 61 % with an increase to 63% in 2008. This shows that our wages are depressed, not keeping pace with inflation and the rest of the state.
    • Unemployment — The EDD statistics indicate that from 1990-2009, the highest rates of unemployment occurred in individual months in 1991-1993 (19.3-21.1%.) The average rate of unemployment for 1991 was 13.2, for 1992 — 15.8 and for 1993 -15.6. This high rate likely reflects the closure of the four timber mills in Siskiyou County between 1989-1999. The rate of unemployment then very gradually decreased each year until it plateaued around 2001 -2007 at 8-9.5% It climbed to an average of 10.2% in 2008 and was at 15.8% average in 2009.
    • Median Household Income The census (SAIPE) reports that in 1989, the median household income of Siskiyou County residents was $22,077. This was 66% of the California median, (down $11,000 from the CA median.) In 2008, the Siskiyou County median was $36,823. It had decreasedto 60% of the California median, (down $24,000 from the CA median household income.) Siskiyou County ranks 51 out of 58 California Counties in median income.
    • Poverty Rates — The census (SAIPE) reports that in 1989, 14.4% of Siskiyou County residents lived below the poverty line. This was 1.7% higher than the poverty rate for California in general. In 1989, 23.5% of children under 18 in Siskiyou County lived in poverty. This was 2.2% higher than the California rate. In 2008, 16.4% of all residents in Siskiyou County lived in poverty. This is a 2 percent increase in the rate over that of 1989 and is 3.1% higher than the California rate. In 2008, 25.4% of children under the age of 18 in Siskiyou County lived in poverty. That is a 2 percent increase in the rate over that of 1989 and is 6.9% greater than the California rate.

    Summary Comment: Siskiyou County is an aging county. A large percentage of children in the county live in poverty and this is getting worse. Average wages are poor compared to the rest of California and getting worse. The household median income in the County has historically lagged far behind that of California and is getting worse. Unemployment has always been substantially higher than California in general. After stabilizing from high employment in the aftermath of mill closures and Forest Service layoffs, unemployment has substantially increased in the past two years and is climbing. It is currently 15.6% (May 2010.) The well-being of a substantial number of Siskiyou County residents is depressed and trending downward.

    ———————————————————–

    JUNE 10, 2016

    The Bottom line….

    Pearl Rains Hewett,  LET ME ASK AMERICA A QUESTION

    HOW HAS THE ‘SYSTEM’ BEEN WORKING OUT FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY?

     


  • 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.

    ————————————————————-