+menu-


  • Category Archives CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS
  • Obama’s 10,000 Executive Commandments?

    Obama’s 10,000 Executive Commandments?

    Presidential Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda

    INTRODUCTION:

    FROM RULE OF LAW TO RULE BY…WHATEVER?

    ——————————————–

    IVE GOT A PEN AND I’VE GOT A PHONE.

    AND THAT’S ALL I NEED.

    BARACK OBAMA Jan 14, 2014

    ——————————————-

    THE PERTINENT QUESTION AS FAR AS REGULATORY BURDENS ARE CONCERNED IS WHAT THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND MEMORANDA ARE USED FOR AND WHAT THEY DO…….

    Thank God, President Trump, and his  incoming  administration, has promised to restore checks and balances on administrative agencies and appoint federal officials with integrity who will protect the rights of all Americans—not just their preferred special interests.

     WOW.. the more I document and know… The more I must document and post what We the People, American Citizens don’t know……

     —————————————————————————————–

    Snippets from TEN THOUSAND COMMANDMENTS 2015  (a 91 page report)

    Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)

     An Annual Snapshot  of the Federal Regulatory State

    REGULATION: THE HIDDEN TAX

    Federal environmental, safety and health, and economic regulations affect

    the economy by hundreds of billions—perhaps trillions—of dollars annually,

    in addition to the official dollar outlays that dominate the federal policy

    debate.

    THE PRECISE REGULATORY COSTS CAN NEVER BE FULLY KNOWN because, unlike taxes, they are unbudgeted and often indirect. But scattered government and private data exist about the number of regulations issued, their costs and effects, and the agencies that issue them.

    The Weidenbaum Center at Washington University in St. Louis and the

    Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.,

    JOINTLY ESTIMATE

    THAT AGENCIES SPENT $59.5 BILLION (ON BUDGET) TO ADMINISTER AND POLICE THE REGULATORY ENTERPRISE.

    THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WHICH WAS FORMERLY RANKED CONSISTENTLY IN THE TOP FIVE, IS NOW SIXTH,  BUT ADDING ITS 186 RULES BRINGS THE TOTAL FROM THE TOP SIX RULE MAKING AGENCIES TO 1,639 RULES, OR 48 PERCENT OF ALL FEDERAL RULES.

    ADDING THE $1.88 TRILLION IN OFF-BUDGET COMPLIANCE COSTS BRINGS THE TOTAL RECKONED REGULATORY ENTERPRISE TO ABOUT $1.94 TRILLION.

    The “Unconstitutionality Index,” the ratio of regulations issued by agencies to laws passed by Congress and signed by the president, was 16 for 2014 and 51 for 2013. The average for the decade has been 26. This disparity highlights the delegation of lawmaking power to unelected agency officials.

    Compiling some of that information can make the federal regulatory enterprise somewhat more comprehensible.

     THAT COMPILATION IS ONE PURPOSE OF TEN THOUSAND COMMANDMENTS

    ————————————————————————————-

    Presidential Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda

    Ten Thousand Commandments 2016 (an 89 page report)

    An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State

    Clyde Wayne Crews • May 3, 2016

    In January 2016, the Congressional Budget  Office (CBO) reported outlays for fiscal year (FY) 2015 of $3.687 trillion and projected spending for FY 2016 at $3.919 trillion. Discretionary, entitlement, and interest spending is projected to surpass $4 trillion in 2017 and to top $5 trillion by FY 2022.2High debt and deficits notwithstanding, $5 trillion in annual spending will soon be the new normal.

    Highlights of the 2016 edition include:

    • The federal regulatory cost reached $1.885 trillion in 2015.
    • FEDERAL REGULATION IS A HIDDEN TAX THAT AMOUNTS TO NEARLY $15,000 PER U.S. HOUSEHOLD EACH YEAR.
    • In 2015, 114 laws were enacted by Congress during the calendar year, while 3,410 rules were issued by agencies. Thus, 30 rules were issued for every law enacted last year.
    • Many Americans complain about taxes, but regulatory compliance costs exceed the $1.82 trillion that the IRS is expected to collect in both individual and corporate income taxes from 2015.
    • Some 60 federal departments, agencies, and commissions have 3,297 regulations in development at various stages in the pipeline.
    • The top five federal rulemaking agencies account for 41 percent of all federal regulations. These are the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services, and Transportation.
    • The 2015 Federal Register contains 80,260 pages, the third highest page count in its history. Of the seven all-time-highest Federal Register total page counts, six occurred under President Obama.
    • The George W. Bush administration averaged 62 major regulations annually over eight years, while the Obama administration has averaged 81 major regulations annually over seven years.

    View the fact sheet

    Ten Thousand Commandments 2016 Table of Contents

    Executive Summary
    Introduction
    Chapter 1: The Cost of Regulation and Intervention
    Chapter 2: Thousands of Pages and Rules in the Federal Register
    Chapter 3: Presidential Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda
    Chapter 4: 24,000 Public Notices Annually
    Chapter 5: Analysis of the Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations
    Chapter 6: GAO Database on Regulation
    Chapter 7: Regulation and the EPA
    Chapter 8: Regulation and the FCC
    Chapter 9: Liberate to Stimulate

    ———————————————————————————-

    2015  The Ten Thousand Commandments  a 91 page report

    TEN THOUSAND COMMANDMENTS ARCHIVES

    10KC 2015 (full study in PDF)

    10KC 2014 (full study in PDF)

    10KC 2013 (full study in PDF)

    10KC 2012 (full study in PDF)

    10KC 2011 (full study in PDF)

    10KC 2010 (full study in PDF)

    10KC 2009 (full study in PDF)

    ——————————————————————-

    Pardon my redundancy……

    An Annual Snapshot of  the Federal Regulatory State

    2015 Edition by Clyde Wayne Crews Jr.

    REGULATION: THE HIDDEN TAX

    Federal environmental, safety and health, and economic regulations affect

    the economy by hundreds of billions—perhaps trillions—of dollars annually,

    in addition to the official dollar outlays that dominate the federal policy

    debate.

     THE PRECISE REGULATORY COSTS CAN NEVER BE FULLY KNOWN because, unlike taxes, they are unbudgeted and often indirect. But scattered government and private data exist about the number of regulations issued, their costs and effects, and the agencies that issue them.

    Compiling some of that information can make the federal regulatory enterprise somewhat more comprehensible. THAT COMPILATION IS ONE PURPOSE OF TEN THOUSAND COMMANDMENTS, highlights of which follow:

    Based on the best available federal government data, past reports, and contemporary studies, this report highlights estimated regulatory compliance and economic costs of $1.88 trillion annually.

    In 2014, 224 laws were enacted by Congress during the calendar year, whereas 3,554 rules were issued by agencies. Thus, 16 rules were issued for every law enacted last year.

    The “Unconstitutionality Index,” the ratio of regulations issued by agencies to laws passed by Congress and signed by the president, was 16 for 2014 and 51 for 2013. The average for the decade has been 26. This disparity highlights the delegation of lawmaking power to unelected agency officials.

    If one assumed that all costs of federal regulation and intervention flowed all the way down to households, U.S. households would “pay” $14,976 annually on average in regulatory hidden tax. That payment amounts to 23 percent of the average income of $63,784 and 29 percent of the expenditure budget of $51,100. The “tax” exceeds every item in the budget except housing. More is “spent”on embedded regulation than on health care, food, transportation, entertainment, apparel and services, and savings. The estimated cost of regulation exceeds half the level of the federal spending itself, which was $3.5 trillion in 2014.

    Regulatory costs of $1.88 trillion amount to 11 percent of the U.S. GDP, which was estimated at $17.4 trillion in 2014 by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.

    When regulatory costs are combined with federal FY 2014 outlays of $3.5 trillion, the federal government’s share of the entire economy now reaches 30.6 percent.

    The costs of the regulatory “hidden tax” surpass federal income tax receipts. Regulatory compliance costs exceed 2014 total individual income tax revenues of $1.386 trillion.

    Regulatory compliance costs vastly exceed the 2014 estimated U.S. corporate income tax revenues of $333 billion and rival corporate pretax profits of $2.235 trillion.

    If it were a country, U.S. regulation would be the world’s tenth-largest economy, ranking behind Russia and ahead of India.

    U.S. regulatory costs exceed each of the GDPs of Australia and Canada, the highest income nations among the countries ranked most free in the annual Index of Economic Freedom and Economic Freedom of the World reports.

     

    The Weidenbaum Center at Washington University in St. Louis and the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.,

    JOINTLY ESTIMATE THAT AGENCIES SPENT $59.5 BILLION (ON BUDGET) TO ADMINISTER AND POLICE THE REGULATORY ENTERPRISE. ADDING THE $1.88 TRILLION IN OFF-BUDGET COMPLIANCE COSTS BRINGS THE TOTAL RECKONED REGULATORY ENTERPRISE TO ABOUT $1.94 TRILLION.

    Among the six all-time-high Federal Register page counts, five have occurred under President Obama.

    The annual outflow of more than 3,500 final rules—sometimes far above that level—means that 90,836 rules have been issued since 1993.

    The Federal Register finished 2014 at 77,687 pages, the sixth-highest level in its history. Federal Register pages devoted specifically to final rules stand at 24,861 in 2014. The record high is 26,417 in 2013.

    The 2014 Federal Register contained 3,554 final rules and 2,383 proposed rules. Since the nation’s founding, more than 15,209 executive orders have been issued.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA ISSUED 215 BY THE END OF 2014.

    President George W. Bush’s administration averaged 62 major rules annually during his eight years in office; Obama’s six years so far have averaged 81.

    Whereas the federal government issues more than 3,500 rules annually, public notices in the Federal Register normally exceed 24,000 annually, with uncounted “guidance documents” and other materials among them. There were 23,970 notices in 2014, and there have been 501,899 since 1995.

    Sixty federal departments, agencies, and commissions have 3,415 regulations at various stages of implementation, according to the 2014 “Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,” which lists federal regulatory actions at various stages of implementation.

    Of the 3,415 regulations in the pipeline, 200 are “economically significant” rules, which the federal government defines as having annual effects on the economy of $100 million or more. Assuming that those rule making effects are primarily regulatory implies roughly $20 billion yearly in future off-budget regulatory costs.

    Of the 3,415 regulations now in the works, 674 affect small businesses. Of those, 374 required a regulatory flexibility analysis; 300 were otherwise noted by agencies to affect small businesses.

    The five most active rule-producing agencies—the departments of the Treasury, Interior, Commerce, Transportation, and Health and Human Services—account for 1,453 rules, or 43 percent of all rules in the Unified Agenda pipeline.

    The Environmental Protection Agency, which was formerly ranked consistently in the top five, is now sixth, but adding its 186 rules brings the total from the top six rulemaking agencies to 1,639 rules, or 48 percent of all federal rules

    ——————————————————-

    I started here…

    Chapter 3 May 3, 2016

    Presidential Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda

    https://cei.org/…/Ten%20Thousand%20Commandments%202016%20-%20Chapter%…

    Crews: Ten Thousand Commandments 2016. 23. Presidential Executive Orders and. Executive Memoranda. President Obama famously pledged to use his “pen …

     

    Presidential Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda …

    https://cei.org/10KC/Chapter-3

    May 3, 2016 – [51] Executive orders, presidential memoranda, and other executive actions make up a … [61] In all, four of Obama’s executive orders directly address … Read Chapter 2 – THOUSANDS OF PAGES AND RULES IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER.

    The pertinent question as far as regulatory burdens are concerned is what these executive orders and memoranda are used for and what they do…….

    We live in an era in which the government— without actually passing a law—increasingly dictates parameters of various economic sectors, including health care, retirement, education, energy production, finance, land and resource management, funding of science and research, and manufacturing. Executive actions and decrees issued in a limited government context have different implications than do those issued in an era of activist government, rendering some of what transpires today without precedent………

    Counting rules and regulations, executive orders, memoranda, and other regulatory guidance gets us only so far. These actions need more scrutiny and oversight, because they have become powerful means of working around the constitutional system of legislation made by an elected body.[69]

    ———————————————————————————

    Are you concerned, with any of Obama Executive Orders and Memorandums

    IVE GOT A PEN AND I’VE GOT A PHONE.

    AND THAT’S ALL I NEED.

    BARACK OBAMA

    FROM RULE OF LAW TO RULE BY…WHATEVER?

    President Obama famously pledged to use his “pen and phone” to implement parts of his policy agenda without congressional approval.[51] Executive orders, presidential memoranda, and other executive actions make up a large component of that initiative.[52] This section examines those numbers, but a considerable amount of executive branch activity is not well measured and merits heightened attention, especially when an administration so explicitly emphasizes unilateral action.[53]

    Presidential memoranda since 1999— which presidential scholar Phillip Cooper has termed “executive orders by another name”—are also depicted in Figure 15.[55] Memoranda may or may not be published, depending on the administration’s own determination of “general applicability and legal effect,” making it “difficult to count presidential memoranda.”[56] Obama’s pace since 2009 tops that of George W. Bush, which is unsurprising given his administration’s openness about prioritizing executive action. Bush published 129 memoranda over his entire presidency, whereas Obama issued 219 during his first seven years that were published in the Federal Register

    ——————————————————————————————

    This kind of bullying and intimidation of Americans by a federal agency must be shut down. The incoming Trump administration has the opportunity to restore checks and balances on administrative agencies and appoint federal officials with integrity who will protect the rights of all Americans—not just their preferred special interests.

    Originally posted at The Daily Signal. 

    President-elect Donald Trump has a golden opportunity to restrain other overzealous regulators. One place to start is at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which governs private-sector labor relations. Originally built to act as an impartial agency that represents the public in labor disputes, the agency has become overly political and prone to playing favorites.

    How Trump Can Curb the Power of Unelected Regulators

    The Daily Signal Trey Kovacs December 9, 2016

    —————————————————————————————–

    From Rule of Law to Rule by…Whatever

    Presidential Memoranda | whitehouse.gov

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential…/presidentialmemoranda

    EXECUTIVE ORDERS · PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDA · PROCLAMATIONS · LEGISLATION · NOMINATIONS & … MEMORANDA. PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM on December 08, 2016 …

    Presidential Memoranda

    Presidential Memorandum on December 09, 2016

    Presidential Memoranda — Minnesota World’s Fair 2023

    Presidential Memorandum on December 09, 2016

    Message to the Senate — UN Convention on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration

    Presidential Memorandum on December 09, 2016

    Message to the Senate — Arms Trade Treaty

    Presidential Memorandum on December 08, 2016

    Presidential Determination and Waiver — Pursuant to Section 2249a of Title 10, United States Code, and Sections 40 and 40A of the Arms Export Control Act to Support U.S. Special Operations to Combat Terrorism in Syria

    Presidential Memorandum on December 08, 2016

    Message to Congress — Brazil Social Security Agreement

    Presidential Memorandum on December 05, 2016

    Presidential Memorandum — Steps for Increased Legal and Policy Transparency Concerning the United States Use of Military Force and Related National Security Operations

    Presidential Memorandum on December 05, 2016

    Letter from the President — Supplemental 6-month War Powers Letter

    Presidential Memorandum on December 02, 2016

    Presidential Determination — Pursuant to Section 570(a) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997

    Presidential Memorandum on December 01, 2016

    Presidential Determination — Suspension of Limitations under the Jerusalem Embassy Act

    Presidential Memorandum on November 16, 2016

    Presidential Memorandum — Eligibility of the Multinational Force and Observers to Receive Defense Articles and Defense Services


  • Violating Private Property Rights

    THERE’S NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRESPASS ON PRIVATE LANDS.

    Federal judge dismisses challenge to Wyoming trespassing law

    “The ends, no matter how critical or important to a public concern, do not justify the means, violating private property rights,” U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl wrote….

    By BEN NEARY Associated Press Updated Jul 7, 2016

    CHEYENNE — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit from groups that challenged Wyoming laws prohibiting trespassing on private lands to collect data.

    Groups including the Western Watersheds Project, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the National Press Photographers Association sued Wyoming last year.

    The groups claimed state laws prohibiting trespassing to collect data were unconstitutional. The groups said the laws, which allowed both civil penalties and criminal prosecution, would block people from informing government regulators about such things as violations of water quality rules and illegal treatment of animals.

    U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl of Casper dismissed the groups’ lawsuit Wednesday, ruling there’s no constitutional right to trespass on private lands.

    “The ends, no matter how critical or important to a public concern, do not justify the means, violating private property rights,” Skavdahl wrote.

    Skavdahl last winter expressed concerns about earlier versions of the laws, which the Wyoming Legislature had passed early last year. The earlier versions sought to prohibit collection of data on “open lands,” a term Skavdahl said could be stretched to cover more than just private property.

    In response to Skavdahl’s criticism, the Wyoming Legislature earlier this year revised the laws to specify they only applied to trespassing to collect data on private lands.

    Gov. Matt Mead on Thursday said he was pleased with Skavdahl’s dismissal of the groups’ lawsuit.

    “There has been a lot of misinformation about the intent of this law,” Mead said. “The judge’s ruling affirms that the issue at the heart of the matter is preserving private property rights — a fundamental right in our country.”

    David Muraskin, a lawyer representing Western Watersheds and the National Press Photographers Association, said Thursday that his clients are disappointed with Skavdahl’s ruling and are considering whether to appeal.

    Federal judge dismisses challenge to Wyoming trespassing law

    trib.com/…/federaljudgedismisseschallenge-to-wyomingtrespa

    Casper Star‑Tribune 2 days ago – CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Wyoming laws that prohibit trespassing on private lands to

    ———————————————————————

    FEB 18, 2013

    WDFW Constitutional Trespass?

    WDFW TRESPASS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

    ———————————————————

    OCT 21, 2014

    Behind My Back | Presumed to be Constitutional?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/10/21/presumed-to-be-constitutional/

    Oct 21, 2014 – This is the PRESUMED law of the LAND in WA STATE. Goggle it for … This is PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE AG. You live in …

    Presumed to be Constitutional?

    This is WA State Law RCW 77.12.154

    These “STATE  EMPLOYEES” may enter upon “ANY LAND” or waters and remain there while performing their duties without liability for trespass.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    The US Government has taken the position that they can do anything that they want, where ever they want whenever they want. Remember the Olympic Peninsula Electronic Warfare Project? And, they got away with it until “We the People” demanded Due Process.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Who Knew? About this is WA State Law RCW 77.12.154

    It took me two months, with the help of an attorney,  to find this  WA State Law, it was buried under the  “Right of entry”  Aircraft operated by department.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    When I told people about the law, they wouldn’t believe me. They said

    They can’t do that on my “PRIVATE PROPERTY” without my permission, without probable cause, without a search warrant.

     —————————————————————————————–

     You want to bet the government can’t do it on your private property?

    I have the documentation of hundreds of these incidences.

    In fact it is documented that FROM APRIL 21, 2010   TO FEB. 5, 2011 WDFW did knowingly trespass on every piece of private property AROUND LAKE SUTHERLAND, And on every piece of private property from Lake Sutherland down and on both sides of Indian Creek to the Elwha River.

     Indeed, They have been doing it and they are going to keep doing it, and keep doing  it until “We the People” demanded Constitutional Due Process.

    “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

     ——————————————————————————————-

    This is the PRESUMED law of the LAND in WA STATE.
    Goggle it for yourself…
    CHAPTER 77.12 RCW POWERS AND DUTIES

     THE 2011 Response from WA State Attorney General’s office
    ANY RCW, LAW PASSED BY WA STATE LEGISLATORS IS PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL

    —————————————————————————————

    THINK ABOUT THIS?

    When They Came In WA. State

    This is  PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE AG

    You live in an isolated area…. on 20 acres of private property…you are home alone…. you are a senior citizen… your husband is gone….you look out your kitchen window…… there is a strange man walking around in your back yard…. he has walked several blocks into your private property, on your private road…
    With your husband gone…. what should you do?

    IT HAPPENED TO MY (removed for privacy)   WHAT DID SHE DO?

    SHE OWNS A GUN…

    She went outside and confronted the TRESPASSER. “This is private property” “What are you doing here?”

    The strangers response (he did not identify himself) was “I just wanted to see where this stream came from.”

    She told him, “This is private property” and asked him to get off of her land.

    So if you see some unknown guy, anytime, anywhere, A TOTAL stranger wandering around and trespassing IN YOUR BACKYARD, on your private property?

    Without your permission, without probable cause and without a search warrant?

    WHAT WILL YOU DO?

    ———————————————————————————————–

    THIS IS PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL?

    WA STATE EMPLOYEES? that do not wear a uniform? do not identify themselves? use your private road for access,  go sniffing  around in their official capacity, inspecting your 20 acres of private property, and  invading your privacy  in your own  back yard?

    This is the PRESUMED law of the land in WA STATE? AND AMERICA?

    —————————————————————————————-

    PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL?

    RCW 77.12.154
    Right of entry
    — Aircraft operated by department.
    The director, fish and wildlife officers, ex officio fish and wildlife officers, and department employees may enter upon ANY LAND or waters and remain there while performing their duties without liability for trespass.

    It is lawful for aircraft operated by the department to land and take off from the beaches or waters of the state.
    [1998 c 190 § 71; 1983 1st ex.s. c 46 § 19; 1955 c 12 § 75.08.160. Prior: 1949 c 112 § 13; Rem. Supp. 1949 § 5780-212. Formerly RCW 75.08.160.]
    —————————————————————————————-
    WA State law RCW77.12.154
    WDFW employees may enter upon ANY LAND or waters and remain there while performing their duties without liability for trespass.

    —————————————————————————

    THE 2011 Response from WA State Attorney General’s office
    ANY RCW LAW PASSED BY WA STATE LEGISLATORS IS PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL

    ————————————————————————————————————-

    And, When THEY Came  to Clallam County In WA State.

    This is the documented chronological order of the CLALLAM COUNTY TRESPASS

    PART (1)  FROM APRIL 21, 2010   TO FEB. 5, 2011 AND WHAT I DID

    DOCUMENT… DOCUMENT… DOCUMENT…

    In fact documented, in 2010, WDFW did trespass on every piece of property AROUND LAKE SUTHERLAND, And on every piece of private property from Lake Sutherland down and on both sides of Indian Creek to the Elwha River
    ——————————————————————————

    Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 6:38 PM
    Subject: UPDATE ON CRIMINAL TRESPASS CHARGES

    I have the following as evidence of, under Washington State RCW criminal trespass by the Dept. of fisheries and the Dept. of Transportation,

    1. A phone call on 4/21/10 from John Marrs at Lake Sutherland, asking me about the two trespassers on the Rains Sr. Trust land.
    When they were asked, who they were, they identified themselves as DFW employees. (My journals have been kept since 1999 and are admissible in court).

    2. A copy of my email date 4/21/10 to Penny Warren at the DFW regarding the trespassers.

    3. Penny Warrens DFW return e-mail to me regarding the trespassers on Rains Sr. Trust land dated 4/21/10, indicating that they were DFW employees, under contract by the DOT. She gave me the phone number for Dave Collins.

    4. A documented phone message left for Dave Collins WSDOT on 4/21/10 requesting that he call me.(my journals)

    5. A documented phone call from on 4/23/10 from Dave Collins WSDOT admitting that, (My journals) THE WSDOT WAS INSPECTING THE CULVERTS ON HIGHWAY 101 FOR FISH PASSAGE

    —————————————————————————

    10/20/14 Added for clarification

     RCW 77.12.755

    Ranked inventory of fish passage barriers.

    In coordination with the department of natural resources and lead entity groups, the department

    MUST ESTABLISH A RANKED INVENTORY OF FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS ON LAND OWNED BY SMALL FOREST LANDOWNERS

    based on the principle of fixing the worst first within a watershed consistent with the fish passage priorities of the forest and fish report.

    THE DEPARTMENT SHALL FIRST GATHER AND SYNTHESIZE ALL AVAILABLE EXISTING INFORMATION ABOUT THE LOCATIONS AND IMPACTS OF FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS IN WASHINGTON.

    This information must include, but not be limited to, the most recently available limiting factors analysis conducted pursuant to RCW 77.85.060(2), the stock status information contained in the department of fish and wildlife salmonid stock inventory (SASSI), the salmon and steelhead habitat inventory and assessment project (SSHIAP), and any comparable science-based assessment when available.

    The inventory of fish passage barriers must be kept current and at a minimum be updated by the beginning of each calendar year.

    ———————————————————————————————–

    My comment UNDER THE INTERAGENCY CONTRACT BETWEEN WSDOT AND WDFW, WDFW WAS CONTRACTED TO REPEAT THESE TRESPASSES EVERY YEAR FOR 10 YEARS.

    —————————————————————————————————–

    NOTHING IN THIS SECTION GRANTS THE DEPARTMENT OR OTHERS ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF ENTRY ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY.

    [2003 c 311 § 10.]

    Notes:Findings — Effective date — 2003 c 311: See notes following RCW

    Active Interagency Agreements – Washington Department of …

    wdfw.wa.gov/…/contracts/i

    Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

    Jun 1, 2014 – 14-1109. 2014 WDFW-Quileute MOU Forage Fish … 10-1040.

    Anadromous Fish Agreement & Habitat Conservation Plan …

    Beaver Creek Intake Passage & Screening Construction …..

    Data Sharing Agreement Between DOL & DFW ….. MOA w/WSDOT

    on Hydraulic Projects, Fish Passage, CED Program.  

    Continuing, the call on 4/23/10 from Dave Collins WSDOT admitting that,

    yes, they were DFW employees,
    yes, they were doing the mapping under contract to the DOT,
    yes, they were mapping our unnamed stream/tributary into Lake Sutherland.
    yes, they had put a biodegradable white tape in our stream,
    yes, they had taken water samples….

    When I asked Dave Collins WSDOT why as Trustee of the Rains Sr. Trust I had not been contacted for permission?

    Why DFW was not required to notify and get permission like Skagit County?

    His response was, “Well, we can’t just contact/notify every little land owner”.

    I informed him that on 4/21/10 DFW was trespassing on 291 acres of Rains Sr. Trust land.

    Read the full text on behind my back.org.

    ———————————————————————

    The bottom line…

    THERE’S NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRESPASS ON PRIVATE LANDS.

    “The ends, no matter how critical or important to a public concern, do not justify the means, violating private property rights,” U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl wrote….

    By BEN NEARY Associated Press Updated Jul 7, 2016


  • Gun Control Circumvents Due Process of Law

    The latest result caused by the U.S. Government’s increased pressure on  a private business,  to circumvent  and deny American citizens their constitutional right to due process on gun control laws.

    Circumvent  by definition, overcome (a problem or difficulty), typically in a clever and surreptitious way, deceive, outwit and. find a way around (an obstacle).

    JAN 30, 2016 Facebook bans private gun sales

    New Mark Zuckerberg’s New Facebook policy bans talk of private gun sales, applies to Instagram.

    MARK ZUCKERBERG, FACEBOOK’S CHIEF EXECUTIVE,  IN RESPONSE TO President Obama and state attorneys general increased pressure on Facebook to tighten restrictions on firearms because of the proliferation of posts that offer guns for sale, often without background checks

    JAN 29, 2016 Facebook Moves to Ban Private Gun Sales on Its Site and Instagram

    New York Times‎ – 17 hours ago

    Facebook is banning private sales of guns on its flagship social network and its Instagram …

    WHAT IS MARK ZUCKERBERG ANTI-GUN “GLOBAL” FACEBOOK  NEW MANAGEMENT POLICY?

    HOW BIG IS IT? WHAT IS IT? WHAT IS IT LEADING UP TO?

    WHAT IS, MARK’S PRIVATE WEBSITES GLOBAL POLICY AGENDA? 

    HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED? WHY NOW?

    HOW DOES FACEBOOK’S NEW POLICY WORK?

    HOW DOES IT EFFECT AMERICAN CITIZENS SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW? HOW INVASIVE? HOW THREATENING?

    ———————————————————–

    Monika Bickert, head of FACEBOOK’S GLOBAL POLICY MANAGEMENT, said in a statement on Friday evening.“Over the last two years, more and more people have been using Facebook to discover products and to buy and sell things to one another. We are continuing to develop, test, and launch new products to make this experience even better for people and are updating our regulated goods policies to reflect this evolution,”

    ——————————————————————————-

    HOW BIG IS IT? HOW BIG IS GLOBAL?

    —————————————————————

    WHAT IS IT?

    WHAT IS, MARK’S PRIVATE WEBSITES GLOBAL POLICY AGENDA? 

    WHAT IS IT LEADING UP TO? THE LONG RANGE PLAN?

    Complete Disarmament Public Law 87-297

    This law was signed for the United States in 1961. John F. Kennedy signed it and every president since has worked to enact its provisions. (The government knows you will not approve which is why they want to take away your firearms.)  (This is Title 22 USC section 2551)

    BEFORE STAGE I CLOSES, ALL CITIZEN OWNED GUNS ARE TO BE BANNED.

    ——————————————————————–

    HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED?

    Facebook users must register before using the social network

    HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ACTIVE ON FACE BOOK?

    More than one BILLION people are active on FACEBOOK

    JAN 30, 2016 1.6 BILLION PEOPLE  ARE ACTIVE ON FACEBOOK

    HOW MANY PEOPLE USE INSTAGRAM?

    Instagram Hits 300 Million Monthly Users

    Just nine months after hitting 200 million users, Instagram now says 300 million people use its photo app every month, with 70% of them coming from outside the US. That makes Instagram officially bigger than Twitter, which had 284 million active users as of six weeks ago.Dec 10, 2014
    WHY NOW?
    Jan 5, 2016 Emotional Obama calls for ‘SENSE OF EMERGENCY” to fight gun violence

    Obama executive action: New gun control orders …

    www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/…/obama-executive-action-guncontrol/
    CNN

    Jan 5, 2016 – Emotional Obama calls for ‘sense of urgency’ to fight gun violence ….. control advocate Gabby Giffords, who was seriously injured in a 2011 mass shooting, … that we can take to help reduce gun violence and save more lives.

    Residents of Oregon Shooting Town Tell Obama: ‘Go Home’

    www.newsmax.com/…shootingobama/2015/…/69555…
    Newsmax Media

    Oct 9, 2015 – Gun-rights activists gathered in Oregon on Friday to protest … at Obama’s plans to use the visit to call for stronger restrictions on firearms.

    ———————————————————————-
    HOW DOES FACEBOOK’S NEW POLICY WORK? HOW DOES IT EFFECT AMERICAN CITIZENS SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW? HOW INVASIVE? HOW THREATENING?
    Although Facebook was not directly involved in gun sales…
    MARK ZUCKERBERG’S Facebook new gun policy?
    My question to my federal and state representatives.
    DO YOU SUPPORT THE LAW OF THE LAND AND  DUE PROCESS OF LAW?
    ————————————————-

    Facebook said it would rely on its vast network of users to report any violations of the new rules,

    —————————————————————–

    My question to my federal and state representatives.

    SO WHEN ANY GLOBAL FACEBOOK USER  REPORTS YOU AS A VIOLATOR OF THE NEW RULES?

    THEN? A FACEBOOK STAFF MEMBER  READS YOUR POSTS AND, JUDGES YOU AND DECIDES IF YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE NEW RULE?

    ———————————————————————-

    and would remove any post that violated the policy.

    —————————————————————

    My question to my federal and state representatives.

    WHEN? AFTER? YOU HAVE BEEN JUDGED AND FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE NEW RULE BY A FACEBOOK STAFF MEMBER?

    ————————————————————————–

    Beyond that, the company said it could ban users or severely limit the ways they post on Facebook,

    ——————————————————–

    My question to my federal and state representatives.

    WHEN? AFTER? A FACEBOOK STAFF MEMBER, READS YOUR ENTIRE? FACEBOOK  HISTORY? AND THEY  JUDGE YOU AGAIN ON YOUR PAST VIOLATION?

    ——————————————————————-

    depending on the type and severity of past violations.

    ———————————————————————–

    My question to my federal and state representatives.

    WHEN? AFTER? YOU HAVE BEEN REPORTED AS A VIOLATOR BY ANYONE OF THE 1.6 BILLION PEOPLE ACTIVE ON FACEBOOK AND  BEEN JUDGED AND FOUND GUILTY OF ALL OF THE ABOVE  BY A FACEBOOK STAFF MEMBER?

    THEN? IF FACEBOOK COMPANY BELIEVES?

    ————————————————————–

    If the company believed someone’s life was in danger,

    Facebook would work with law enforcement on the situation.

    —————————————————————

    My question to my federal and state representatives.

    WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING?

    IN ORDER TO WORK WITH, GET LAW ENFORCEMENT INVOLVED, AN OFFICIAL REPORT BY THE SOMEBODY AT THE FACEBOOK COMPANY. WOULD BE FILED AGAINST YOU, AS A VIOLATOR,  GUN DANGER TO SOCIETY OR TO YOURSELF.

    ———————————————————————

     THE LAW OF THE LAND AND  DUE PROCESS OF LAW

    The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

    The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.

    —————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | Olympia WA Has Gone Anti-Gun Crazy

    www.behindmyback.org/2016/01/…/olympiawahasgoneantiguncraz

    Jan 18, 2016 – It’s the first week of the new 2016 legislative session in Olympia WA and the antigun politicians have wasted no time in sending out a series of …

    WA STATE HB 1857 Concerning extreme risk protective orders.This doozy allows any family member or law enforcement with a grudge

    IF THIS PROPOSED 1857 BILL IS PASSED, IT SHALL ALLOW ANYONE TO SAY YOU ARE A DANGER

    or made a threat (verbal) in the last six months and you lose your gun rights. No proof needed and no other action because if you were a threat, shouldn’t something more be done?

    —————————————————————–

    Facebook will also rely on user reports of private gun sales that occur between members via Facebook Messenger, the company’s private messaging service.

    Facebook does not scan the content of those messages.

    ————————————————————————————–

    My bottom line question

    My question to my ELECTED federal and state representatives.
    DO YOU ABIDE BY  THE LAW OF THE LAND AND CONSTITUTIONAL  DUE PROCESS OF LAW ON GUN CONTROL IN YOUR LEGISLATION?

    ———————————————————————

    Facebook Moves to Ban Private Gun Sales on Its Site and Instagram

    JAN 29, 2016 New York Times‎ – 17 hours ago

    full text

    Facebook is banning private sales of guns on its flagship social network and its Instagram photo-sharing service, a move meant to clamp down on unlicensed gun transactions.

    Facebook already prohibits people from offering marijuana, pharmaceuticals and illegal drugs for sale, and the company said on Friday that it was updating its policy to include guns. The ban applies to private, person-to-person sales of guns. Licensed gun dealers and gun clubs can still maintain Facebook pages and post on Instagram.

    Although Facebook was not directly involved in gun sales, it has served as a forum for gun sales to be negotiated, without people having to undergo background checks. The social network, with 1.6 billion monthly visitors, had become one of the world’s largest marketplaces for guns and was increasingly evolving into an e-commerce site where it could facilitate transactions of goods.

    Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive. In response to President Obama’s recent call to curb unlicensed gun sales, some sellers said they would turn to sites like Facebook. Credit Josh Edelson/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

    Facebook said it would rely on its vast network of users to report any violations of the new rules, and would remove any post that violated the policy. Beyond that, the company said it could ban users or severely limit the ways they post on Facebook, depending on the type and severity of past violations. If the company believed someone’s life was in danger, Facebook would work with law enforcement on the situation.

    Facebook will also rely on user reports of private gun sales that occur between members via Facebook Messenger, the company’s private messaging service. Facebook does not scan the content of those messages.

    “Over the last two years, more and more people have been using Facebook to discover products and to buy and sell things to one another,” Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of product policy, said in a statement. “We are continuing to develop, test and launch new products to make this experience even better for people and are updating our regulated goods policies to reflect this evolution.”

    New York’s attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, who has pressed for restrictions on illegal gun sales on Facebook and other sites, praised the company’s move.

    “Today’s announcement is another positive step toward our shared goal of stopping illegal online gun sales once and for all,” he said in a statement on Friday.

    Facebook plays host to scores of online groups that cater to gun enthusiasts, with members posting pictures and details about an individual gun, or a gun they might be looking to buy. Many of the groups are private, meaning that Facebook users may need to be approved by an administrator before they can see or write posts.

    Unlike professional gun sellers, hobbyists who sell or trade a few guns a year are not typically required to be licensed by the federal government. Some, like Scott Schmoke of Florida, say that Facebook helps them sell just a handful of weapons a year. Mr. Schmoke said in an interview this month that he always insisted on meeting potential buyers face-to-face, to feel them out.

    “I go to a secure location, and I say, ‘Can I see your driver’s license? Do you have a concealed-weapons permit?’ ” Mr. Schmoke said. If he gets a bad feeling, he does not sell, he said.

    But as an unlicensed seller, Mr. Schmoke is under no obligation to perform any kind of background check. Federal authorities have expressed worries that the Internet has fueled the sale of guns to felons and others who might normally be blocked from buying firearms.

    Facebook has taken some steps to regulate gun sales over the years. In 2014, it said it would limit gun sales on its site and on Instagram, including by shielding minors from Facebook pages that advertised guns for sale.

    But since then, Facebook has been inching toward facilitating e-commerce transactions. In December, the company introduced a project that directs users to local businesses and services that are well-reviewed on Facebook. Facebook can also store users’ credit card information. And in recent months, Facebook made it possible to send peer-to-peer payments through Messenger.

    Facebook’s progression toward on-site payments underscored the need to update the company’s content policy, a Facebook spokeswoman said.

    The company has also been pushed by gun safety groups including Everytown for Gun Safety, an umbrella group that united the efforts of two separate organizations of mayors and mothers to promote gun safety. Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, one of those two advocacy groups, said she met with senior Facebook officials repeatedly over the last two years.

    Everytown for Gun Safety presented Facebook with research connecting unlicensed gun sales on the site to gun violence. For example, Ms. Watts said, in December 2014, an Ohio man, Brian Harleman, shot and wounded his ex-girlfriend and killed her 10-year-old daughter before killing himself. Although prohibited from buying firearms because of a felony conviction, he was able to buy the weapon in an unlicensed sale on Facebook.

    “We were saying, ‘Please stop the unfettered access to guns on Facebook,’ ” Ms. Watts, a mother of five in Colorado, said in an interview.

    Because of Facebook’s tremendous influence, she said, its decision to ban person-to-person sales of guns will have ripple effects on gun policy nationwide.

    “What they’re doing is sending such an incredibly strong, sentinel signal to the world that America is working in the right direction on guns,” she said. “For them to take a stand and do the right thing gives cover to other businesses to do the right thing.”

    Rachel Abrams contributed reporting.

    A version of this article appears in print on January 30, 2016, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Joining the Gun Debate, Facebook Bans Private Firearm Sales . Order Reprints| Today’s Paper|Subscribe

    —————————————————————–

    JAN 30, 2016 Facebook bans private gun sales

    www.usatoday.com/…/facebook…on-gun-sales/79543652/

    MARK ZUCKERBERG, FACEBOOK’S CHIEF EXECUTIVE. IN RESPONSE TO President Obama and state attorneys general increased pressure on Facebook to tighten restrictions on firearms because of the proliferation of posts that offer guns for sale, often without background checks

    MARK ZUCKERBERG COMPANY…

    Facebook bans private gun sales – USA Today
    Facebook IS MARK ZUCKERBERG PRIVATE WEBSITE, IS BANNING PRIVATE SALES OF GUNS ON ITS FLAGSHIP SOCIAL NETWORK AND ITS Instagram PHOTO-SHARING SERVICE, A MOVE MEANT TO CLAMP DOWN ON UNLICENSED GUN TRANSACTIONS.

    —————————————————————-

    JAN 29 4:00 PM EST FACEBOOK INC. MARK ZUCKERBERG’S NET WORTH CLIMBED TO $47.6 BILLION AS OF 4PM ET, WHEN FACEBOOK STOCK CLOSED AT $109.11 A SHARE

    MARK ZUCKERBERG as the sixth richest man in the world he,  did not fight back to protect American gun rights with his personal worth at $47.6 BILLION.

    ——————————————————————————

    BACKED BY BILLIONAIRE’S?

    President Barack Obama and state attorneys general, as well as gun control activist groups Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and Mayors Against Illegal Guns – backed by billionaire and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberghad been urging the world’s top social media website to crack down on private gun sales, USA Today reported.

    BACKED BY A BILLIONAIRE? UNDER GOVERNMENT PRESSURE? MARK ZUCKERBERG SOLD US OUT

    JAN 30, 2016 MARK ZUCKERBERG ‘S Facebook bans private gun sales

    ——————————————————————————-

    Facebook plays host to scores of online groups that cater to gun enthusiasts, with members posting pictures and details about an individual gun, or a gun they might be looking to buy. Many of the groups are private…..

    WHAT CAN YOU DO AS AN AMERICAN gun enthusiast?

    PEOPLE PRESSURE FIRST…

    UNFRIEND MARK ZUCKERMAN ON YOUR FACEBOOK PAGE .

    How do I unfriend or remove a friend? | Facebook Help Center

    https://www.facebook.com/help/172936839431357
    Facebook
    Note: If you choose to unfriend someone, you’ll be removed from that person’s friends list as well. … How do I suggest a friend to someone? … How do I remove or cancel a friend request I sent to someone?

    ——————————————————————–

    As a gun enthusiast SUGGEST A FRIEND TO THE NATIONAL RIFLEMEN ASSOCIATION (NRA)

    ————————————————————————————-

    If I unfriend someone, will they be notified? | Facebook Help

    https://www.facebook.com/help/110698549016637
    Facebook
    No, but you’ll be removed as a friend from their friend list as well.

    —————————————————————————————-

    As a gun enthusiast WANT TO NOTIFY MARK ZUCKERBERG ABOUT HIS NEW POLICY ON HIS PRIVATE WEBSITE?

    SELL ALL OF YOUR FACEBOOK STOCK.

    ——————————————

    My bottom line question

    My question to my ELECTED federal and state representatives.
    DO YOU ABIDE BY  THE LAW OF THE LAND AND CONSTITUTIONAL  DUE PROCESS OF LAW ON GUN CONTROL IN YOUR LEGISLATION?

  • Gender Agenda Coming to a School Near You!

    The Gender Agenda – Coming to a School Near You! | Julie …

    julieroys.com/the-genderagendacoming-to-a-schoolnearyou/

    Oct 14, 2014 – Four years ago, if you had predicted that the end-game of the LGBTQ community was to destroy all gender and sexual boundaries, many would …

    The bottom line….

    Do we say enough is enough – and begin reasserting our voice in this society gone crazy? Our children’s future is at stake. And, to quote one of my heroes, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

    Posted in Education, Gender/Sexuality, Teens by Julie Roys

    ————————————————————-

    Researching and documenting is what I do…

    As a concerned American Grandmother, I am shocked and appalled by the following

    Forgive my repetitiveness…

    added for clarity and the understanding of  reasonable American Families.

    ———————————————————

    WOW… WHO KNEW ‘GENDER’ DESCRIBES THOSE CHARACTERISTICS OF GIRLS/WOMEN AND BOYS/MEN THAT ARE LARGELY SOCIALLY CREATED

    ——————
    NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH BIOLOGICALLY DETERMINED MALE AND FEMALE ‘SEX’

    —————–
    OR ‘TRUE’ HERMAPHRODITISM A GENETIC CONDITION IN WHICH AFFECTED INDIVIDUALS …

    ———————-
    WHO SAID SO…. The World Health Organization
    (3) The biological process of sex determination controls whether the male or female sexual … The issues of gender assignment, gender verification testing, and legal … ‘True’ hermaphroditism is a genetic condition in which affected individuals …

    —————————————————————-

    What about transgendered people?

    How is expanding the “gender spectrum” working for them?

    According to a study conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, it’s not going well.

    The study found that a staggering 41 percent of transgendered people say they’ve attempted suicide.

    How is the expanded gender spectrum working IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS  for American teenagers and kids?

    Facts and Figures – American Foundation for Suicide …

    https://www.afsp.org/…suici
    American Foundation for Suicide Prevention

    In that year, someone in the U.S. died by suicide every 12.3 minutes on average. … In 2014, adolescents and young adults aged 15 to 24 had a suicide rate of …

    Suicide Attempts

    No complete count is kept of suicide attempts in the U.S.; however, the CDC gathers data each year from hospitals on non-fatal injuries resulting from self-harm behavior.

    In 2013, the most recent year for which data is available, 494,169 people visited a hospital for injuries due to self-harm behavior, suggesting that approximately 12 people harm themselves (not necessarily intending to take their lives) for every reported death by suicide. Together, those harming themselves made an estimated total of more than 650,000 hospital visits related to injuries sustained in one or more separate incidents of self-harm behavior.

    ————————————————————————————–

    REMEMBERING THAT  ‘GENDER’ DESCRIBES THOSE CHARACTERISTICS OF GIRLS/WOMEN AND BOYS/MEN THAT ARE LARGELY SOCIALLY CREATED

    According to Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, diversity counselors function much like “cult leaders,” often encouraging these confused young people to distance themselves from family and anyone who challenges the legitimacy of their feelings.

    So, our public high schools, by promoting this unproven gender-bending agenda may actually be hurting those they purport to help.

    —————————————————————–
    Scientific Transgender medical and psychological studies

    According to a study conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, it’s not going well.

    The study found that a staggering 41 percent of transgendered people say they’ve attempted suicide. And apparently, permanently changing their sex doesn’t help either.

    A 2011 Swedish study found that people who undergo sex-change surgery start experiencing increased mental difficulties about 10 years after surgery.

    In fact, their suicide mortality then rises to almost 20 times greater than the comparable non-transgender population!

    A case in point is a Belgian woman who underwent sex reassignment surgery and then last year chose to be euthanized.

    Apparently, the self-hatred that drove her to become a man persisted after her sex change. Just like she couldn’t accept herself as a woman, she couldn’t accept herself as a man, either. “(N)one of these operations worked as desired,” Nathan (born Nancy) Verhelst said. “(W)hen I looked in the mirror, I was disgusted with myself. My new breasts did not match my expectations and my new penis had symptoms of rejection. I do not want to be… a monster. ”

    According to Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, people with transgender feelings experience psychological distress because they suffer from “body dysmorphic disorder”: just like someone suffering from bulimia wrongly believes she is fat, so a person with transgender feelings wrongly thinks he or she is a sex that doesn’t correspond to reality.McHugh says most of those who elect to have sex-reassignment surgery describe themselves as “satisfied.”

    However, studies found that “their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have surgery.”

    As a result, Johns Hopkins Hospital has stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery. As McHugh puts it, “producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.”

    Instead, McHugh says, diversity counselors function much like “cult leaders,” often encouraging these confused young people to distance themselves from family and anyone who challenges the legitimacy of their feelings.

    So, our public high schools, by promoting this unproven gender-bending agenda may actually be hurting those they purport to help.

    —————————————————————-

    UNEDITED Full text Oct 14, 2014

    The Gender Agenda – Coming to a School Near You! | Julie …

    Four years ago, if you had predicted that the end-game of the LGBTQ community was to destroy all gender and sexual boundaries, many would have labeled you an extremist on a witch hunt. I know because I made that prediction. And, in response, I received many angry denials from members of a local high school’s Gay Straight Alliance (GSA). “You seem to believe that the LGBTQ movement wants to spark a gender-reformation. How could one reform a biologically accurate thing? Well, it’s not possible…” Another wrote: “The Gay Straight Alliances have done nothing of the sort… They merely have decided… to show that there are so many beautiful people out there that society has not tolerated for the longest of time.” However, two articles published about a week ago in a suburban Chicago high school newspaper show that’s precisely the LGBTQ movement’s intent. The articles appeared in the Statesman, the tax-payer funded student newspaper of Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Illinois, where my husband teaches math. One article entitled, “How vast is the gender spectrum?” argued that limiting gender to male and female is too restrictive. “Nothing is written in black or white,” the article asserted. “In fact, the world is filled with many gray areas. Nowadays, our gender identity is not restricted to two choices: boy or girl.” This is a shocking statement given that Genesis – the foundation for two major world religions – states very clearly in black and white that only two genders exist. Genesis 1:27 states, “God created mankind in his own image… male and female he created them.” Other religions affirm this understanding, as well. In fact, it’s been the established societal view since the beginning of human history. But, in one fell swoop, this article declared this age-old, religious understanding obsolete. And, it asserted this falsehood, not as opinion with attribution, but as fact! A second article in the Statesman further deconstructed traditional and religious sexual mores. When identifying their “sexual orientation,” it encouraged students to think beyond sexual stereotypes – not just heterosexual ones, but homosexual ones too. “I think there are infinite sexual orientations,” a Stevenson student named Cameron said. “There are so many labels. It’s impossible to number them…” Wow. “Infinite sexual orientations”? In my wildest imagination, I could maybe come up with several dozen, but infinite? And, what about the moral legitimacy of these orientations? Cameron went on to say, “There is nothing wrong with however you are. If you like boys, girls, anyone in between, or none of the above, that’s okay.” Seriously? All these infinite orientations are morally acceptable? Is this what they’re teaching students these days? What if you’re attracted to animals? A family member? The dead? (Yes, it exists. It’s called necrophilia.) One has to wonder where students get these ideas. Perhaps, it’s from English teachers like William Fritz, also the GSA faculty advisor. In the article on gender spectrum, he says, “The gender of the person you truly are can be different from (your physical features). We are not a one size fits all species.” One has to wonder how this English teacher came to this epiphany. He offered no evidence to support his claim. In fact, neither article presented any evidence for their wild assertions. They didn’t offer any dissenting opinions either. Instead, they relied solely on LGBTQ activists and their disciples – Mr. Fritz; a staff person with the national GSA; a 17-year-old “gender studies” blogger; and high school students, presumably members of the school’s GSA. Apparently, LGBTQ activists at public schools are getting bolder – and school administrators are affording them special privilege to proselytize openly. Certainly, if a Christian would try to distribute literature at Stevenson explaining the biblical understanding of gender, the administration would immediately shut him down. Yet, here gay activists are given carte blanche to spread their propaganda right in the school-sponsored newspaper! One of the people quoted repeatedly in the article on the gender spectrum is teenage blogger Kathryn Tenbarge. “To break free from conforming stereotypes is a very courageous thing to do,” Tenbarge said. “It means you have reached a level of understanding yourself that most people haven’t.” Really? So, those of us with a Judeo-Christian understanding of sexuality are simply unenlightened? The article concludes, “For now, Fritz, (another student) and Tenbarge agree there is nothing to lose from expanding the strict labels and categories our society tries to squeeze everyone into.” Again, this is just another wild assertion without any basis in fact. With all due respect, how can these self-appointed gender experts know this? To date, the traditional family model has served as the foundation for all Western Civilization. Though many today express disdain for this great civilization, one can’t deny that it’s produced some of the most prosperous and stable societies the world has ever known. But, now we are moving into new territory with unpredictable results. Yet, early indications show that this anything-goes sexuality may have devastating consequences. One woman whose husband left her for his gay lover, and took their children with him, writes in Public Discourse: “Behind the happy façade of many families headed by same-sex couples, we see relationships that are built from brokenness…. I represent hundreds upon thousands of spouses who have been betrayed and rejected.” This is tragic and certainly will have widespread ramifications for the children raised in these devastated homes. But, this is what results when one’s attractions du jour trump marriage vows. The author of the article also notes that “Every same-sex family can only exist by manipulating nature.” Unlike traditional marriage, which naturally produces children, same-sex couples must rely on “assisted reproductive technologies such as surrogacy or sperm donation to have children. Such processes exploit men and women for their reproductive potential, treat children as products to be bought and sold, and purposely deny children a relationship with one or both of their biological parents.” Again tragically, it’s children who suffer.

    But what about transgendered people? How is expanding the “gender spectrum” working for them?

    According to a study conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, it’s not going well. The study found that a staggering 41 percent of transgendered people say they’ve attempted suicide. And apparently, permanently changing their sex doesn’t help either.

    A 2011 Swedish study found that people who undergo sex-change surgery start experiencing increased mental difficulties about 10 years after surgery. In fact, their suicide mortality then rises to almost 20 times greater than the comparable non-transgender population!

    A case in point is a Belgian woman who underwent sex reassignment surgery and then last year chose to be euthanized.

    Apparently, the self-hatred that drove her to become a man persisted after her sex change. Just like she couldn’t accept herself as a woman, she couldn’t accept herself as a man, either. “(N)one of these operations worked as desired,” Nathan (born Nancy) Verhelst said. “(W)hen I looked in the mirror, I was disgusted with myself. My new breasts did not match my expectations and my new penis had symptoms of rejection. I do not want to be… a monster. ”

    According to Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, people with transgender feelings experience psychological distress because they suffer from “body dysmorphic disorder”: just like someone suffering from bulimia wrongly believes she is fat, so a person with transgender feelings wrongly thinks he or she is a sex that doesn’t correspond to reality.

    McHugh says most of those who elect to have sex-reassignment surgery describe themselves as “satisfied.”

    However, studies found that “their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have surgery.” As a result, Johns Hopkins Hospital has stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery. As McHugh puts it, “producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.” Interestingly, McHugh reports that controlled and follow-up studies show that 70-80 percent of children with transgender feelings spontaneously lose those feelings as they mature. School counselors should be challenging these students’ false beliefs about themselves. Instead, McHugh says, diversity counselors function much like “cult leaders,” often encouraging these confused young people to distance themselves from family and anyone who challenges the legitimacy of their feelings. So, our public high schools, by promoting this unproven gender-bending agenda may actually be hurting those they purport to help.

    Perhaps, this is because the reality that billions throughout the centuries have affirmed is actually true! We do not construct ourselves; God constructs us. And, when our confusion and brokenness leads us to deny our God¬-given gender, we only harm ourselves and those closest to us. Instead of encouraging students to pursue whatever feels right to them, maybe administrators and faculty advisors should be urging them to love and accept the person God created them to be? Unfortunately, students in many of our public schools never hear this common sense, Judeo-Christian view. As these student articles show, it’s simply presumed false or too restrictive. You may think this is happening in only liberal suburban Chicago schools, but it’s everywhere. For example, just last week, the media reported that school administrators in Lincoln, Nebraska – hardly a hotbed of liberalism – instructed teachers to no longer use “gendered expressions” such as “boys and girls.” Instead, they told them to use “gender inclusive” terms like “purple penguins.” Seriously – purple penguins! Now that this radical, gender-destroying agenda of the LGBTQ community has been revealed, how should we respond? Do Christians retreat and allow the radicals to distort children’s understanding of their dignity, purpose and God¬-given gender? Do we let high school administrators define our boys and girls as “purple penguins” – and use our taxes to promote propaganda?

    the bottom line…

    Or, do we say enough is enough – and begin reasserting our voice in this society gone crazy? Our children’s future is at stake. And, to quote one of my heroes, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” Julie Roys is a Christian speaker, journalist, and host of national talk radio show Up for Debate. Follow Julie on Facebook or Twitter.


  • Coerced by Federal Bathroom Laws?

    Basic Federal Education and Bathroom Laws

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

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

    COERCED BY FEDERAL BATHROOM LAWS?

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

    ———————————————————–

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

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

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

    ————————————————————

    Behind My Back | A WA State Bathroom Rule

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

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

    ———————————————————-

    Dec 26, 2015….

    Washington Quietly Adopts New Transgender Policies

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

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

    JANUARY 8, 2016 WA STATE

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————–

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

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


  • Executive Orders Matter

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

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

    ——————————————-
    CLIMATE CHANGE: OBAMA EXECUTIVE ORDER 13514
    Things that matter TRUTH AND POLITICS
    IT’S AS EASY AS ONE, TWO THREE…
    (1) FEDERAL Planning Steps Set a Mandate
    The Obama administration estimated the emissions limits will cost $8.4 billion annually by 2030.
    OBAMA’S RULE ASSIGNS CUSTOMIZED TARGETS TO EACH STATE
    “CLIMATE CHANGE WILL NOT BE SOLVED BY GRABBING POWER FROM STATES or slowly hollowing out our economy,” Bush said.
    ———————————————————————————-
    (2) STATE Planning Steps Set a Mandate
    THE ACTUAL PRICE WON’T BE CLEAR UNTIL STATES DECIDE HOW THEY’LL REACH THEIR TARGETS
    THEN LEAVES IT UP TO THE STATE TO DETERMINE HOW TO MEET THEM.
    IF STATES REFUSE TO SUBMIT PLANS, THE EPA HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE ITS OWN PLAN
    —————————————————————–
    Sustainable Washington STATE HISTORY

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

    AND MCCARTHY SAID THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD RELEASE A MODEL FEDERAL PLAN THAT STATES COULD ADOPT RIGHT AWAY.
    ——————————————————————-
    (3) 2015 COUNTY Planning Steps Set a Mandate
    THE CLALLAM AND JEFFERSON COUNTY FINAL CLIMATE CHANGE MANDATE WAS DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 2015
    WE ARE PLEASED TO PRESENT TO YOU THE FINAL “Climate Change Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic Peninsula” report! (full text below)
    INDEED, NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNTIL THE INK IS DRY …
    THEY, The “Partners” of the Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula Project, will let “US” “We the People” know when the public presentations are scheduled.
    They are pleased to present to somebody? with the final “Climate Change Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic Peninsula” report! This report and its many appendices and supplementary information (see list below) are the culmination of all the wonderful input and participation from all of you throughout the project, as well as the expert research, writing, and process flow from our consultants from “Adaptation International” and Washington Seagrant.
    PARTNERS of the Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula Project,
    HOW COULD THE FINAL REPORT FROM “NORPCD” FAIL TO MENTION THIS $$$$ PARTNER?
    “OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION” HELPED DEVELOP ECOLOGY”S $152,078 GRANT THAT WAS GRANTED TO NORPCD FOR CLALLAM AND JEFFERSON COUNTY
    THE “OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION” SERVES AS A PARTNER ON (NOPRCD) THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (NOPRC&D)— PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA ($152,078)
    HELP PLAN FOR GLOBAL CLIMATE MOBILIZATION?
    “OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION” IS SPONSORING OTHER EVENTS “” IN CONJUNCTION WITH 350.ORG AND OTHER CLIMATE-ACTION ORGANIZATIONS WORLDWIDE.
    AND OTHER (NOPRCD) PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS: “ADAPTATION INTERNATIONAL”, WASHINGTON SEA GRANT.
    WHO IS “ADAPTATION INTERNATIONAL”? Goggle doesn’t know?
    WOW, WORLDWIDE AND INTERNATIONAL OTHER CLIMATE-ACTION ORGANIZATIONS.
    ——————————————————————————————————————-
    Like my Dad, George C. Rains Sr. said…
    EVERYTHING GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS FINALIZED BEFORE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COMMENT IS ALLOWED.
    NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNTIL THE INK IS DRY …
    —————————————————————————————–
    Complete text
    From: Cindy Jayne [mailto:cindyjaynept@gmail.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 11:56 AM
    To: Jake Bell; Sascha Petersen; Kate Dean; Ian Miller
    Subject: Final Climate Change Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic Peninsula Report

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

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

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

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

    snippets

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

    OPPONENTS PLANNED TO SUE IMMEDIATELY, and to ask the courts to block the rule temporarily. Many states have threatened not to comply.
    TWENTY TO 30 STATES WERE POISED TO JOIN THE ENERGY INDUSTRY IN SUING OVER THE RULE AS SOON AS IT’S FORMALLY PUBLISHED, SAID SCOTT SEGAL, A LOBBYIST WITH THE FIRM BRACEWELL AND GIULIANI WHO REPRESENTS UTILITIES.
    —————————————————————————————————–
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    North Olympic Peninsula Resource Conservation & Development Council (NOPRC&D)— Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula ($152,078)
    The NOPRC&D will conduct a detailed assessment of climate related vulnerabilities and develop A CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA. This work will focus on options for reducing risks from climate change by improving the resiliency of the local ecosystems in watersheds of JEFFERSON AND CLALLAM COUNTY. The process will engage stakeholders and planning agencies in generating data, priorities and strategies that will inform the creation of the adaptation plan. The plan will inform the comprehensive and strategic planning processes of the cities, counties, tribes, Public Utility Districts and ports within the North Olympic Peninsula.
    Partner Organizations: Adaptation International, Washington Sea Grant.
    —————————————————————————————————
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    Climate adaptation grant for North Olympic Peninsula
    OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION helped develop this grant , “Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula Summary” and serves as a partner on it. We will encourage local elected bodies to implement the changes recommended in the report, which will be developed with reference to the best available science and in discussion with the community at large. Part of the responsibility of government is to look at emerging trends and plan for them, and no trend will be as important in this century as climate change.
    Help plan for global climate mobilization Sept. 26
    OCA is sponsoring this event in conjunction with 350.org and other climate-action organizations worldwide. This year’s climate talks in Paris will be crucial, and we need to join hands around the world to tell our leaders that it’s time to get off of fossil fuels and onto clean energy, now!
    Power Through Paris Workshop
    Saturday, September 26, 12:00-2:00 PM
    Port Angeles Library, 2210 South Peabody Street, Port Angeles
    This event is public. Spread the word!
    2015 is on track to be the hottest year in recorded history, and momentum is growing to stop the climate crisis. Political and religious leaders are beginning to get the message, but we need to carry the message home, to the global gathering of governments at the Paris climate change talks later this year — and beyond. Climate action groups are organizing events across the world in November and December, and in order to make them compelling we need everyone to work together.
    The workshop, led by OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION, will help us share ideas, build energy, and lay out plans for “Power Through Paris”—including how to escalate through and after the Paris climate talks, regardless of their outcome.
    Event signup link:http://act.350.org/event/power-through-paris-workshops_attend/10996
    ——————————————————————————————
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    Local Climate Change Activities – Northwest Straits Marine …
    www.nwstraits.org/media/1309/jayne-localclimateactionactivities.pdf
    Jefferson County / Port Townsend Climate Action Committee. ▷ Local 2020 … organization (NOPRCD) / Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic. Peninsula … (NOPRCD.org) project, funded by WA Dept of Ecology and Commerce. ▷ Goal: To … their community, their state, and at a national level. ▷ They went to …
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic …
    l2020.org/climate…/planning-for-climate-change-on-the-north-olympic-…
    Feb 4, 2015 – PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA PROJECT … THE PROJECT IS FUNDED BY A GRANT FROM WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND COMMERCE, … For further information on the project, contact info@noprcd.org.
    The North Olympic Development Council (NODC or “Council”) is a collaborative, innovative effort amongst member governments, educational & community organizations to advance economic, environmental & quality of life initiatives on the North Olympic Peninsula.
    THE NODC ALSO OPERATES AS THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (NOP RC&D).
    ——————————————————————————
    Council Members, Roles & Affiliations
    Officers
    Deborah Stinson, Port Townsend City Council – President
    Peter Quinn, Team Jefferson Economic Development Council-Vice President
    Bill Peach, Clallam County Commissioner- Treasurer
    Clea Rome, WSU Clallam County Extension- Secretary

    COUNCIL MEMBERS

    David Sullivan, Commissioner
    Jefferson County

    Bill Peach, Commissioner,
    Clallam County

    Larry Crockett
    Port of Port Townsend

    Laura DuBois
    City of Sequim

    Will Purser
    Clallam PUD

    Kenneth Collins
    Jefferson PUD

    Sissi Bruch
    Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe

    Doug Sellon
    Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

    Patrick Downey
    City of Port Angeles

    Linty Hopie
    Peninsula College

    Laura Lewis
    WSU Jefferson County Extension

    Colleen McAleer
    Port of Port Angeles

    Since 1992, the Council has managed projects in natural resource research, economic feasibility, market development, and regional planning.
    Climate change: Obama orders steeper cuts from power plants
    news.yahoo.com/obama-mandate-steeper-emissions-cuts-us-p…
    Yahoo! News
    Aug 2, 2015 – Yet it will be up to Obama’s successor to implement his plan, which … said the revision makes Obama’s mandate even more burdensome, costly and … “Climate change is not a problem for another generation,” Obama said in …
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Aiming to jolt the rest of the world to action, President Barack Obama moved ahead Sunday with even tougher greenhouse gas cuts on American power plants, setting up a certain confrontation in the courts with energy producers and Republican-led states.
    In finalizing the unprecedented pollution controls, Obama was installing the core of his ambitious and controversial plan to drastically reduce overall U.S. emissions, as he works to secure a legacy on fighting global warming. Yet it will be up to Obama’s successor to implement his plan, which reverberated across the 2016 presidential campaign trail.
    Opponents planned to sue immediately, and to ask the courts to block the rule temporarily. Many states have threatened not to comply.
    The Obama administration estimated the emissions limits will cost $8.4 billion annually by 2030. The actual price won’t be clear until states decide how they’ll reach their targets. But energy industry advocates said the revision makes Obama’s mandate even more burdensome, costly and difficult to achieve.
    “They are wrong,” Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said flatly, accusing opponents of promulgating a “doomsday” scenario.
    Last year, the Obama administration proposed the first greenhouse gas limits on existing power plants in U.S. history, triggering a yearlong review and more than 4 million public comments. On Monday, Obama was to unveil the final rule publicly at an event at the White House.
    “Climate change is not a problem for another generation,” Obama said in a video posted to Facebook. “Not anymore.”
    The final version imposes stricter carbon dioxide limits on states than was previously expected: a 32 percent cut by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, the White House said. Obama’s proposed version last year called only for a 30 percent cut.
    Immediately, Obama’s plan became a point of controversy in the 2016 presidential race, with Hillary Rodham Clinton voicing her strong support and using it to criticize her GOP opponents for failing to offer a credible alternative.
    “It’s a good plan, and as president, I’d defend it,” Clinton said.
    On the Republican side, Marco Rubio, a Florida senator, predicted increases in electricity bills would be “catastrophic,” while former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called the rule “irresponsible and overreaching.”
    “Climate change will not be solved by grabbing power from states or slowly hollowing out our economy,” Bush said.
    Obama’s rule assigns customized targets to each state, then leaves it up to the state to determine how to meet them. Prodded by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a number of Republican governors have said they simply won’t comply. If states refuse to submit plans, the EPA has the authority to impose its own plan, and McCarthy said the administration would release a model federal plan that states could adopt right away.
    Another key change to the initial proposal marks a major shift for Obama on natural gas, which the president has championed as a “bridge fuel” whose growing use can help the U.S. wean itself off dirtier coal power while ramping up renewable energy capacity. The final version aims to keep the share of natural gas in the nation’s power mix at current levels.
    Under the final rule, states will also have an additional two years — until 2022 — to comply, yielding to complaints that the original deadline was too soon. They’ll also have an additional year to submit their implementation plans to Washington.
    In an attempt to encourage earlier action, the federal government plans to offer credits to states that boost renewable sources like wind and solar in 2020 and 2021. States could store those credits away to offset pollution emitted after the compliance period starts in 2022.
    Twenty to 30 states were poised to join the energy industry in suing over the rule as soon as it’s formally published, said Scott Segal, a lobbyist with the firm Bracewell and Giuliani who represents utilities. The Obama administration has a mixed track record in fending off legal challenges to its climate rules. GOP leaders in Congress were also weighing various legislative maneuvers to try to block the rule.
    The National Mining Association lambasted the plan and said it would ask the courts to put the rule on hold while legal challenges play out. On the other end of the spectrum, Michael Brune, the Sierra Club’s executive director, said in an interview that his organization planned to hold public rallies, put pressure on individual coal plants and “intervene as necessary in the courts” to defend the rule.
    By clamping down on emissions, Obama is also working to increase his leverage and credibility with other nations whose commitments he’s seeking for a global climate treaty to be finalized later this year in Paris. As its contribution to that treaty, the U.S. has pledged to cut overall emissions 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, compared to 2005.
    “We’re positioning the United States as an international leader on climate change,” said Brian Deese, Obama’s senior adviser.
    Power plants account for roughly one-third of all U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming, making them the largest single source.
    ————————————————————————————-

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

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

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

    OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS
    NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNTIL THE INK IS DRY …
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 13514, CLIMATE CHANGE Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, establishes an integrated strategy for sustainability within the Federal Government. Under the Executive Order, each agency is required to evaluate their climate change risks and vulnerabilities to manage the effects of climate
    CLIMATE CHANGE: OBAMA EXECUTIVE ORDER 13514
    Things that matter TRUTH AND POLITICS
    IT’S AS EASY AS ONE, TWO THREE…
    (1) FEDERAL Planning Steps Set a Mandate
    The Obama administration estimated the emissions limits will cost $8.4 billion annually by 2030.
    OBAMA’S RULE ASSIGNS CUSTOMIZED TARGETS TO EACH STATE
    “CLIMATE CHANGE WILL NOT BE SOLVED BY GRABBING POWER FROM STATES or slowly hollowing out our economy,” Bush said.
    ———————————————————————————-
    (2) STATE Planning Steps Set a Mandate
    THE ACTUAL PRICE WON’T BE CLEAR UNTIL STATES DECIDE HOW THEY’LL REACH THEIR TARGETS
    THEN LEAVES IT UP TO THE STATE TO DETERMINE HOW TO MEET THEM.
    IF STATES REFUSE TO SUBMIT PLANS, THE EPA HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE ITS OWN PLAN
    —————————————————————–
    Sustainable Washington STATE HISTORY

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

    AND MCCARTHY SAID THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD RELEASE A MODEL FEDERAL PLAN THAT STATES COULD ADOPT RIGHT AWAY.
    ——————————————————————-
    (3) 2015 COUNTY Planning Steps Set a Mandate
    THE CLALLAM AND JEFFERSON COUNTY FINAL CLIMATE CHANGE MANDATE WAS DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 2015
    WE ARE PLEASED TO PRESENT TO YOU THE FINAL “Climate Change Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic Peninsula” report! (full text below)
    INDEED, NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNTIL THE INK IS DRY …
    THEY, The “Partners” of the Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula Project, will let “US” “We the People” know when the public presentations are scheduled.
    They are pleased to present to somebody? with the final “Climate Change Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic Peninsula” report! This report and its many appendices and supplementary information (see list below) are the culmination of all the wonderful input and participation from all of you throughout the project, as well as the expert research, writing, and process flow from our consultants from “Adaptation International” and Washington Seagrant.
    PARTNERS of the Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula Project,
    HOW COULD THE FINAL REPORT FROM “NORPCD” FAIL TO MENTION THIS $$$$ PARTNER?
    “OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION” HELPED DEVELOP ECOLOGY”S $152,078 GRANT THAT WAS GRANTED TO NORPCD FOR CLALLAM AND JEFFERSON COUNTY
    THE “OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION” SERVES AS A PARTNER ON (NOPRCD) THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (NOPRC&D)— PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA ($152,078)
    HELP PLAN FOR GLOBAL CLIMATE MOBILIZATION?
    “OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION” IS SPONSORING OTHER EVENTS “” IN CONJUNCTION WITH 350.ORG AND OTHER CLIMATE-ACTION ORGANIZATIONS WORLDWIDE.
    AND OTHER (NOPRCD) PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS: “ADAPTATION INTERNATIONAL”, WASHINGTON SEA GRANT.
    WHO IS “ADAPTATION INTERNATIONAL”? Goggle doesn’t know?
    WOW, WORLDWIDE AND INTERNATIONAL OTHER CLIMATE-ACTION ORGANIZATIONS.
    ——————————————————————————————————————-
    Like my Dad, George C. Rains Sr. said…
    EVERYTHING GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS FINALIZED BEFORE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COMMENT IS ALLOWED.
    NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNTIL THE INK IS DRY …
    —————————————————————————————–
    Complete text
    From: Cindy Jayne [mailto:cindyjaynept@gmail.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 11:56 AM
    To: Jake Bell; Sascha Petersen; Kate Dean; Ian Miller
    Subject: Final Climate Change Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic Peninsula Report

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

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

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

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

    snippets

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

    OPPONENTS PLANNED TO SUE IMMEDIATELY, and to ask the courts to block the rule temporarily. Many states have threatened not to comply.
    TWENTY TO 30 STATES WERE POISED TO JOIN THE ENERGY INDUSTRY IN SUING OVER THE RULE AS SOON AS IT’S FORMALLY PUBLISHED, SAID SCOTT SEGAL, A LOBBYIST WITH THE FIRM BRACEWELL AND GIULIANI WHO REPRESENTS UTILITIES.
    —————————————————————————————————–
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    North Olympic Peninsula Resource Conservation & Development Council (NOPRC&D)— Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula ($152,078)
    The NOPRC&D will conduct a detailed assessment of climate related vulnerabilities and develop A CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA. This work will focus on options for reducing risks from climate change by improving the resiliency of the local ecosystems in watersheds of JEFFERSON AND CLALLAM COUNTY. The process will engage stakeholders and planning agencies in generating data, priorities and strategies that will inform the creation of the adaptation plan. The plan will inform the comprehensive and strategic planning processes of the cities, counties, tribes, Public Utility Districts and ports within the North Olympic Peninsula.
    Partner Organizations: Adaptation International, Washington Sea Grant.
    —————————————————————————————————
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    Climate adaptation grant for North Olympic Peninsula
    OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION helped develop this grant , “Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula Summary” and serves as a partner on it. We will encourage local elected bodies to implement the changes recommended in the report, which will be developed with reference to the best available science and in discussion with the community at large. Part of the responsibility of government is to look at emerging trends and plan for them, and no trend will be as important in this century as climate change.
    Help plan for global climate mobilization Sept. 26
    OCA is sponsoring this event in conjunction with 350.org and other climate-action organizations worldwide. This year’s climate talks in Paris will be crucial, and we need to join hands around the world to tell our leaders that it’s time to get off of fossil fuels and onto clean energy, now!
    Power Through Paris Workshop
    Saturday, September 26, 12:00-2:00 PM
    Port Angeles Library, 2210 South Peabody Street, Port Angeles
    This event is public. Spread the word!
    2015 is on track to be the hottest year in recorded history, and momentum is growing to stop the climate crisis. Political and religious leaders are beginning to get the message, but we need to carry the message home, to the global gathering of governments at the Paris climate change talks later this year — and beyond. Climate action groups are organizing events across the world in November and December, and in order to make them compelling we need everyone to work together.
    The workshop, led by OLYMPIC CLIMATE ACTION, will help us share ideas, build energy, and lay out plans for “Power Through Paris”—including how to escalate through and after the Paris climate talks, regardless of their outcome.
    Event signup link:http://act.350.org/event/power-through-paris-workshops_attend/10996
    ——————————————————————————————
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    Local Climate Change Activities – Northwest Straits Marine …
    www.nwstraits.org/media/1309/jayne-localclimateactionactivities.pdf
    Jefferson County / Port Townsend Climate Action Committee. ▷ Local 2020 … organization (NOPRCD) / Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic. Peninsula … (NOPRCD.org) project, funded by WA Dept of Ecology and Commerce. ▷ Goal: To … their community, their state, and at a national level. ▷ They went to …
    TRUTH POLITICS AND HISTORY
    Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic …
    l2020.org/climate…/planning-for-climate-change-on-the-north-olympic-…
    Feb 4, 2015 – PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA PROJECT … THE PROJECT IS FUNDED BY A GRANT FROM WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND COMMERCE, … For further information on the project, contact info@noprcd.org.
    The North Olympic Development Council (NODC or “Council”) is a collaborative, innovative effort amongst member governments, educational & community organizations to advance economic, environmental & quality of life initiatives on the North Olympic Peninsula.
    THE NODC ALSO OPERATES AS THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (NOP RC&D).
    ——————————————————————————
    Council Members, Roles & Affiliations
    Officers
    Deborah Stinson, Port Townsend City Council – President
    Peter Quinn, Team Jefferson Economic Development Council-Vice President
    Bill Peach, Clallam County Commissioner- Treasurer
    Clea Rome, WSU Clallam County Extension- Secretary

    COUNCIL MEMBERS

    David Sullivan, Commissioner
    Jefferson County

    Bill Peach, Commissioner,
    Clallam County

    Larry Crockett
    Port of Port Townsend

    Laura DuBois
    City of Sequim

    Will Purser
    Clallam PUD

    Kenneth Collins
    Jefferson PUD

    Sissi Bruch
    Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe

    Doug Sellon
    Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

    Patrick Downey
    City of Port Angeles

    Linty Hopie
    Peninsula College

    Laura Lewis
    WSU Jefferson County Extension

    Colleen McAleer
    Port of Port Angeles

    Since 1992, the Council has managed projects in natural resource research, economic feasibility, market development, and regional planning.
    Climate change: Obama orders steeper cuts from power plants
    news.yahoo.com/obama-mandate-steeper-emissions-cuts-us-p…
    Yahoo! News
    Aug 2, 2015 – Yet it will be up to Obama’s successor to implement his plan, which … said the revision makes Obama’s mandate even more burdensome, costly and … “Climate change is not a problem for another generation,” Obama said in …
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Aiming to jolt the rest of the world to action, President Barack Obama moved ahead Sunday with even tougher greenhouse gas cuts on American power plants, setting up a certain confrontation in the courts with energy producers and Republican-led states.
    In finalizing the unprecedented pollution controls, Obama was installing the core of his ambitious and controversial plan to drastically reduce overall U.S. emissions, as he works to secure a legacy on fighting global warming. Yet it will be up to Obama’s successor to implement his plan, which reverberated across the 2016 presidential campaign trail.
    Opponents planned to sue immediately, and to ask the courts to block the rule temporarily. Many states have threatened not to comply.
    The Obama administration estimated the emissions limits will cost $8.4 billion annually by 2030. The actual price won’t be clear until states decide how they’ll reach their targets. But energy industry advocates said the revision makes Obama’s mandate even more burdensome, costly and difficult to achieve.
    “They are wrong,” Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said flatly, accusing opponents of promulgating a “doomsday” scenario.
    Last year, the Obama administration proposed the first greenhouse gas limits on existing power plants in U.S. history, triggering a yearlong review and more than 4 million public comments. On Monday, Obama was to unveil the final rule publicly at an event at the White House.
    “Climate change is not a problem for another generation,” Obama said in a video posted to Facebook. “Not anymore.”
    The final version imposes stricter carbon dioxide limits on states than was previously expected: a 32 percent cut by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, the White House said. Obama’s proposed version last year called only for a 30 percent cut.
    Immediately, Obama’s plan became a point of controversy in the 2016 presidential race, with Hillary Rodham Clinton voicing her strong support and using it to criticize her GOP opponents for failing to offer a credible alternative.
    “It’s a good plan, and as president, I’d defend it,” Clinton said.
    On the Republican side, Marco Rubio, a Florida senator, predicted increases in electricity bills would be “catastrophic,” while former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called the rule “irresponsible and overreaching.”
    “Climate change will not be solved by grabbing power from states or slowly hollowing out our economy,” Bush said.
    Obama’s rule assigns customized targets to each state, then leaves it up to the state to determine how to meet them. Prodded by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a number of Republican governors have said they simply won’t comply. If states refuse to submit plans, the EPA has the authority to impose its own plan, and McCarthy said the administration would release a model federal plan that states could adopt right away.
    Another key change to the initial proposal marks a major shift for Obama on natural gas, which the president has championed as a “bridge fuel” whose growing use can help the U.S. wean itself off dirtier coal power while ramping up renewable energy capacity. The final version aims to keep the share of natural gas in the nation’s power mix at current levels.
    Under the final rule, states will also have an additional two years — until 2022 — to comply, yielding to complaints that the original deadline was too soon. They’ll also have an additional year to submit their implementation plans to Washington.
    In an attempt to encourage earlier action, the federal government plans to offer credits to states that boost renewable sources like wind and solar in 2020 and 2021. States could store those credits away to offset pollution emitted after the compliance period starts in 2022.
    Twenty to 30 states were poised to join the energy industry in suing over the rule as soon as it’s formally published, said Scott Segal, a lobbyist with the firm Bracewell and Giuliani who represents utilities. The Obama administration has a mixed track record in fending off legal challenges to its climate rules. GOP leaders in Congress were also weighing various legislative maneuvers to try to block the rule.
    The National Mining Association lambasted the plan and said it would ask the courts to put the rule on hold while legal challenges play out. On the other end of the spectrum, Michael Brune, the Sierra Club’s executive director, said in an interview that his organization planned to hold public rallies, put pressure on individual coal plants and “intervene as necessary in the courts” to defend the rule.
    By clamping down on emissions, Obama is also working to increase his leverage and credibility with other nations whose commitments he’s seeking for a global climate treaty to be finalized later this year in Paris. As its contribution to that treaty, the U.S. has pledged to cut overall emissions 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, compared to 2005.
    “We’re positioning the United States as an international leader on climate change,” said Brian Deese, Obama’s senior adviser.
    Power plants account for roughly one-third of all U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming, making them the largest single source.
    ————————————————————————————-

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

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

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


  • WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

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

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

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

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

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

    (SO DO WETLAND WATERS JUST SEEP DOWNHILL?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • WA State Human Environment

    The Human Environment In WA State

    This is WA State Law RCW 77.12.154  These “STATE  EMPLOYEES” may enter upon “ANY LAND” or waters and remain there while performing their duties WITHOUT LIABILITY FOR TRESPASS.

    Presumed by,  WA State Attorney Generals  office, to be Constitutional?

    THESE “STATE  EMPLOYEES” MAY ENTER UPON YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY, “ANY LAND”  IN WA STATE, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION  WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE AND WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT.

    ————————————————————————————–

    THIS IS THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT under WA State Law RCW 77.12.154 .

    The Government has taken the position that they can do whatever they want, where ever they want and whenever they want, without Constitutional due process of law.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Who Knew? About this is WA State Law RCW 77.12.154

    It took me two months, with the help of an attorney,  to find this  WA State Law, it was buried under the  “Right of entry”  Aircraft operated by department.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    DISBELIEF AND DENIAL  IS THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT IN WA STATE.

    When I told American Citizens about the law, they wouldn’t believe me. They said

    They can’t do that on my “PRIVATE PROPERTY”  I have Constitutional Rights. the government can’t do that without my permission, without probable cause and without a search warrant.

     —————————————————————————————–

     You want to bet the government can’t do it on your private property?

    I have the documentation of hundreds of these trespass violations on Lake Sutherland private property.

    THESE “STATE  EMPLOYEES” DID ENTER UPON MY PRIVATE PROPERTY, “MY LAND”  IN CLALLAM COUNTY, WA STATE, WITHOUT ANY DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WITHOUT MY PERMISSION  WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE AND WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRENT.

    In fact it is documented that FROM APRIL 21, 2010   TO FEB. 5, 2011 WDFW did knowingly trespass on every piece of private property AROUND LAKE SUTHERLAND, And on every piece of private property from Lake Sutherland down and on both sides of Indian Creek to the Elwha River.,without due process of law, without permission, without probable cause and without a search warrant.

    ————————————————————————-

    THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT IN WA STATE?

    Indeed, The government has  been TRESPASSING  on private land and they are going to keep TRESPASSING on private land, and keep TRESPASSING on private land until “We the People” demanded Constitutional Due Process.

    “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

     ——————————————————————————————-

    This is the PRESUMED CONSTITUTIONAL law of the LAND in WA STATE.
    Goggle it for yourself… CHAPTER 77.12 RCW POWERS AND DUTIES

     THE 2011 Response from WA State Attorney General’s office
    ANY RCW, LAW PASSED BY WA STATE LEGISLATORS IS PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL

    —————————————————————————————

    UNDER RCW 77.12.154  THIS IS THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT IN WA STATE.

    You live in an isolated area…. on 20 acres of private property…you are home alone…. you are a senior citizen… your husband is gone….you look out your kitchen window…… there is a strange man walking around in your back yard…. he has walked several blocks into your private property, on your private road…
    With your husband gone…. what should you do?

    IT HAPPENED TO MY (removed for privacy)   WHAT DID SHE DO?

    SHE OWNS A GUN…

    She went outside and confronted the TRESPASSER. “This is private property” “What are you doing here?”

    The strangers response (he did not identify himself) was “I just wanted to see where this stream came from.”

    She told him, “This is private property” and asked him to get off of her land.

    So if you see some unknown guy, anytime, anywhere, A TOTAL stranger wandering around and trespassing IN YOUR BACKYARD, on your private property?

    Without your permission, without probable cause and without a search warrant?

    WHAT WILL YOU DO?

    ———————————————————————————————–

    THIS IS PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL?

    WA STATE EMPLOYEES? that do not wear a uniform? do not identify themselves? use your private road for access,  go sniffing  around in their official capacity, inspecting your 20 acres of private property, and  invading your privacy  in your own  back yard?

    This is the PRESUMED law of the land in WA STATE?

    —————————————————————————————-

    PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL?

    RCW 77.12.154
    Right of entry —
    Aircraft operated by department.
    The director, fish and wildlife officers, ex officio fish and wildlife officers, and department employees may enter upon ANY LAND or waters and remain there while performing their duties without liability for trespass.

    It is lawful for aircraft operated by the department to land and take off from the beaches or waters of the state.
    [1998 c 190 § 71; 1983 1st ex.s. c 46 § 19; 1955 c 12 § 75.08.160. Prior: 1949 c 112 § 13; Rem. Supp. 1949 § 5780-212. Formerly RCW 75.08.160.]
    —————————————————————————————-
    WA State law RCW77.12.154
    WDFW employees may enter upon ANY LAND or waters and remain there while performing their duties without liability for trespass.

    —————————————————————————

    THE 2011 Response from WA State Attorney General’s office
    ANY RCW LAW PASSED BY WA STATE LEGISLATORS IS PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL

    ————————————————————————————————————-

    And, When “THEY” Came  to Lake Sutherland, Clallam County, in WA State.

    Read the full text, complete chronological documentation of government trespass here.

    Presumed to be Constitutional?

    Posted on by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    This is the documented chronological order of the CLALLAM COUNTY TRESPASS

    PART (1)  FROM APRIL 21, 2010   TO FEB. 5, 2011

    AND WHAT I DID

    DOCUMENT… DOCUMENT… DOCUMENT…


  • Part (2) Who’s Planning Our Future?

    Part (2) Who’s Planning Our Future?

    WHO’S  CONTROLLING OUR  WATER?

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)

    ——————————————————————————-

    DO YOU HAVE VESTED WATER RIGHTS?

    ARE YOU VESTED  IN THE WATER FUTURES MARKET?

    CONCERNED?

    READ THIS UPDATE ON WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH THE FUTURE OF OUR WATER

    What’s happening in WA DC… Read the updates APR 28, 2015  from Congress, get the facts, GET informed and contact your federal ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

    This expansion of federal regulatory power will have serious consequences for the Nation’s economy, threaten jobs, invite costly litigation, and significantly restrict the ability of landowners to make decisions about their property and the rights of state and local governments to plan for their own development.

     Twice, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed this federal-state partnership when it told the Agencies that there are limits to federal jurisdiction under the CWA, and that they had gone too far in asserting their authority.

     ——————————————————————————————–

    H.R. 1732—Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 …

    https://rules.house.gov/bill/…/hr1

    United States House of Representatives

    Apr 28, 2015 – H.R. 1732Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 … Rules Committee Hearing H.R. 1732, H.J.Res. 43, and Conference Report to …

    ——————————————————————————————

    H.R.1732 – Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 114th Congress (2015-2016) | Get alerts

    A SUMMARY IS IN PROGRESS

    ———————————————————————————————-

    H.R.5078 – Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014 113th Congress (2013-2014)

    Major Recorded Votes:

    09/09/2014 : Passed House

    ————————————————————————————–

    Fact Sheet: H.R. 1732, “The Regulatory Integrity Protection …

    www.nlc.org/…/Regulatory/WOTUS%20Fact%…

    National League of Cities

    Page 1 of 2. Fact Sheet: H.R. 1732, “The Regulatory Integrity Protection Act”. Background Information. • In April 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency ..

    ————————————————————————————–

    Fact Sheet: H.R. 1732

    “The Regulatory Integrity Protection Act”

    Background Information

    · In April 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) proposed a rule that would redefine “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Agencies assert this rule merely “clarifies” the scope of federal CWA jurisdiction over waters in the United States. In reality, however, this rule goes beyond merely clarifying the scope of federal jurisdiction under CWA programs; it  increases the scope of the CWA’s jurisdiction over more waters, and undermines the role of the states as partners and co-regulators of the Nation’s waters.

    · The federal-state partnership Congress intended to establish under the CWA has been successful for the past four decades because of the recognition that not all waters need to be subject to federal jurisdiction and that states should have the primary responsibility of regulating waters within their individual boundaries.

    · Twice, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed this federal-state partnership when it told the Agencies that there are limits to federal jurisdiction under the CWA, and that they had gone too far in asserting their authority.

    · Nevertheless, the Agencies have proposed the rule that would redefine the scope of waters subject to federal jurisdiction under the CWA.

    · Substantial flaws in the process to develop the rule have plagued the rulemaking from the beginning. The sequence and timing of the actions that the federal Agencies have taken to develop this rule undermine the credibility of the rule and the process to develop it. Among other things, state and local governments and the regulated community all have expressed concern that the Agencies have failed to consult with them in the development of the rule.

    · There is concern that the Agencies’ push to unilaterally broaden the scope of the CWA threatens to undermine the federal-state partnership and erode state authority by granting sweeping new federal jurisdiction to waters never intended for federal regulation under the CWA.

    · This expansion of federal regulatory power will have serious consequences for the Nation’s economy, threaten jobs, invite costly litigation, and significantly restrict the ability of landowners to make decisions about their property and the rights of state and local governments to plan for their own development.

     

    Summary

    .· When developing the new proposed rule the Agencies must take into consideration all of the comments received on the rule, the economic analysis of the rule, and the connectivity study which was used as the basis for the rule. They must also

    solicit recommendations from and consult with state and local officials, stakeholders, and other interested parties on how to define “Waters of the United States” and prepare a new regulatory proposal that is consistent with Supreme Court rulings, the feedback from the public comments and recommendations from the state and local officials, stakeholders, and others.

    · The bill requires that the Agencies engage in outreach to stakeholders, including holding a federalism consultation with the states and local governments. The Agencies are instructed to seek to reach consensus with the states and local governments on defining “Waters of the United States,” maintain the Federal–

    State partnership in implementing the Clean Water Act, and take into consideration state and local input regarding geography, hydrology, and legal frameworks.

    · The bill requires that the Agencies engage in outreach to stakeholders, including holding a federalism consultation with the states and local governments. The Agencies are instructed to seek to reach consensus with the states and local governments on defining “Waters of the United States,” maintain the Federal–

    State partnership in implementing the Clean Water Act, and take into consideration state and local input regarding geography, hydrology, and legal frameworks.

    · The Agencies are also to consult with and solicit recommendations from stakeholders that represent a broad range of perspectives who could be impacted either directly or indirectly by the new rule. The Agencies are to promote transparency in these processes by making all of the communications, records and documents available to the public, and prepare a report that responds to the comments received and provides a detailed explanation of how the Agencies have used the comments and stakeholder processes in the new rule.

    #####

    ————————————————————————————————-

    history snippet

    Congress (2013-2014) H.R. 5078 addresses what is yet another example of a disturbing pattern of an imperial presidency that seeks to use brute force and executive action while ignoring Congress.

    The bill also requires the EPA and the Corps to engage in a federalism consultation with the states and local governments by

    Jointly consulting with relevant state and local officials to formulate recommendations for a consensus regulatory proposal that would identify the scope of waters to be covered under the Clean Water Act, and those waters to be reserved for the states to determine how to regulate.  The proposal would need to be consistent with the applicable rulings of the United States Supreme Court.

    ———————————————————————————–

    H.R.1732 – 114th Congress (2015-2016): Regulatory …

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1732

    Apr 13, 2015 – Summary of H.R.1732 – 114th Congress (2015-2016): Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015.

    H.R.1732 – Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015114th Congress (2015-2016) | Get alerts

    Bill

    Sponsor:

    Rep. Shuster, Bill [R-PA-9] (Introduced 04/13/2015)

    Committees:

    House – Transportation and Infrastructure

    Committee Reports:

    H. Rept. 114-93

    Latest Action:

    04/29/2015 Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 231 Reported to House. Resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 1732, the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 11, and H.J. Res. 43.

    Tracker:

    Summary: H.R.1732 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)

    All Bill Information

    A SUMMARY IS IN PROGRESS.

    ———————————————————————————————

    Now, through a new rule proposed in April, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION has sought to bypass the legislative process and achieve the same expansionist agenda through agency guidance and the executive branch’s regulatory process

    ———————————————————————————————

     H.R.5078 – Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014 113th Congress (2013-2014)

    Sponsor:

    Rep. Southerland, Steve II [R-FL-2] (Introduced 07/11/2014)

    Committees:

    House – Transportation and Infrastructure

    Committee Reports:

    House Report 113-568; House Report 113-568,Part 2

    Latest Action:

    09/11/2014 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 559.

    Major Recorded Votes:

    09/09/2014 : Passed House

    Summary: H.R.5078 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

    There are 3 summaries for this bill.

    Bill summaries are authored by CRS.

    Shown Here:
    Passed House without amendment (09/09/2014)

    (This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)

    Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014 – Prohibits the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from:

    • developing, finalizing, adopting, implementing, applying, administering, or enforcing the proposed rule entitled, “Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ Under the Clean Water Act,” issued on April 21, 2014, or the proposed guidance entitled, “Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected By the Clean Water Act,” dated February 17, 2012; or
    • using the proposed rule or proposed guidance, any successor document, or any substantially similar proposed rule or guidance as the basis for any rulemaking or decision regarding the scope or enforcement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act).

    Requires the Army Corps and the EPA to withdraw the interpretive rule entitled, “Notice of Availability Regarding the Exemption from Permitting Under Section 404(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act to Certain Agricultural Conservation Practices,” issued on April 21, 2014.

    Requires the Army Corps and the EPA to: (1) consult with relevant state and local officials to develop recommendations for a regulatory proposal that would identify the scope of waters covered under the Clean Water Act and the scope of waters not covered; (2) provide for the public review and comment of a draft report that includes a recommendation only if consensus has been reached with regard to the recommendation among the Army Corps, the EPA, and state and local officials; (3) publish a final report; and (4) report to Congress on the recommendation

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5078

    ——————————————————————————————————————

    History , Washington, DC, Jul 11, 2014

    Legislation to Prevent Federal Overreach in Regulation of Nation’s Waters Introduced by Committee Leaders

    http://transportation.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=387572

    Bill to be Considered at Committee Markup Next Week

    Washington, DC, Jul 11, 2014 | Jim Billimoria, Justin Harclerode (202) 225-9446

    Bipartisan legislation to uphold the federal-state partnership to regulate the Nation’s waters and prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers from implementing a rule that broadens the scope of the Clean Water Act and expands the federal government’s regulatory power was introduced in the House today by Transportation and Infrastructure Committee leaders.

     

    The Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act (H.R. 5078) is sponsored by U.S. Rep. Steve Southerland, and is cosponsored by Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA), Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Bob Gibbs (R-OH), and a bipartisan group of additional Members of the House.  A Committee markup scheduled for 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, July 16, 2014 will include H.R. 5078.

    ————————————————————————————————————-

    Shuster & Gibbs Statement on Regulatory Integrity Protection Act

    VETO THREAT

    Washington, DC, Apr 30 | Jim Billimoria, Justin Harclerode (202) 225-9446

    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) and Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Bob Gibbs (R-OH) released the following joint statement in response to the Administration’s veto threat of H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act, a bill that stops the Administration’s flawed Waters of the United States (WOTUS) proposed rule that would give the federal government unprecedented authority to regulate virtually any place that water flows in the United States:

    “The Administration’s proposed rule is opposed by at least 32 states.  The rule is opposed by the Nation’s large cities, smaller cities, counties, towns, and townships.  The rule is opposed by the majority of the regulated community – our farmers, homebuilders, businesses, manufacturers, and many others.  More than one million comments have been filed on this proposed rule, with approximately 70% of the substantive comments requesting the rule be withdrawn or significantly modified.  It’s important for the House to stand up for and recognize the concerns and rights of state and local governments, business owners and farmers, and landowners and private citizens.  The Administration’s veto threat is just the latest example of its determination to seize more power, federalize all waters, and regulate land use around the country.”

    H.R. 1732 requires the EPA and the Corps of Engineers to restart the rulemaking process, this time consulting with state and local governments and other stakeholders and taking into account their concerns.  The House may vote on the bill as soon as tomorrow.

     

    The bottom line

    What’s happening in WA DC… Read the updates APR 28, 2015  from Congress, get the facts, GET informed and contact your federal ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

     


  • SMP Public Comment #161

    SMP Public Comment #161

    To Clallam County Planning Commission

    And, Commissioners’ McEntire,  Chapman and Peach

    Concerning fatal errors in due process, not posting SMP public comments

    Omitting SMP public comments and a failure to provide  complete and accurate

    summaries of  SMP Public Meetings during the entire SMP process of

    the Nov. 2014 proposed SMP Update Draft

     

    Failure to notify interested parties (WRIA 20 shoreline property owners  and members of the advisory committee on SMP meetings)

    Failure of CLALLAM COUNTY government to provide  critical early and continuous public participation in to the SMP Update

    The purpose and intent of nearly a year of inactivity on SMP public meetings and  participation on the SMP Update? A cooling off period, if  we ignore them for a year maybe they will just go away?

    ———————————————————————–

    FAILURE  TO POST AND RESPOND TO SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:07 PM

    Subject: WHAT IS NO NET LOSS WORKGROUP?

    —————————————————————————-

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #440 posted 10/4/13

    Failure to provide public outreach  and participation to WRIA 20  throughout the process.

    This is an SMP Public comment
    WA STATE RCW 42.56.030
    Pearl Rains Hewett

    SMP UPDATE EXCLUSION AND OMISSION

    WRIA 20 private property owners are PART OF CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    There were no private property owners representing WRIA 20 seated at the table for the Clallam County SMP Update Committee.
    Shall we question why the WRIA 20 private property owners were and are IN MANY CASES, being treated like SECOND CLASS CITIZENS and were not informed, not invited, not selected, not appointed, not allowed to actively participate in SMP  Public Meetings?
    Failure to make a special effort to reach the under-represented WRIA 20  throughout the process communities/stakeholders.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM

    THEY want us to be upset and discouraged, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested I should/could  QUIT.

    Ironically, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested just weeks earlier, somewhat sarcastically, that if I did not like the way things were going I should participate by volunteering to be on the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    Hmmm? May 10, 2011 Commissioner Mike Chapman suggests that  if I do not like the way things are  going

    I should/could  QUIT.

    Don’t let life discourage you; everyone who got where she is had to begin where she was.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————————————————————————–

    FAILURE?

    Chapter 42.30 RCW

    OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT

    This is the Legislative declaration on RCW 42.30.010

    The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

    The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

    [1971 ex.s. c 250 § 1.]

    Notes:

         Reviser’s note: Throughout this chapter, the phrases “this act” and “this 1971 amendatory act” have been changed to “this chapter.” “This act” [1971 ex.s. c 250] consists of this chapter, the amendment to RCW 34.04.025, and the repeal of RCW 42.32.010 and 42.32.020.

     

    FAILURE ? As related to the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58

    RCW 90.58.130

    Involvement of all persons and entities having interest means.

    To insure that all persons and entities having an interest in the guidelines and master programs developed under this chapter are provided with a full opportunity for involvement in both their development and implementation, the department and local governments shall:

    (1) Make reasonable efforts to inform the people of the state about the shoreline management program of this chapter and in the performance of the responsibilities provided in this chapter, shall not only invite but actively encourage participation by all persons and private groups and entities showing an interest in shoreline management programs of this chapter; and

    (2) Invite and encourage participation by all agencies of federal, state, and local government, including municipal and public corporations, having interests or responsibilities relating to the shorelines of the state. State and local agencies are directed to participate fully to insure that their interests are fully considered by the department and local governments.

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 13.]

    ——————————————————————

    Shoreline Master Program Update

    FAILURE?  THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    March 2010 Revised March 2011

    4.1 Phase I ‐ Public Participation Program

    Clallam County will incorporate public participation in all phases of the SMP process ,document public participation efforts (e.g., public meetings, community events)

    AND KEEP A RECORD OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED.

    —————————————————————————-

    FAILURE?

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENTS

    Citizens Advisory Committee on the update of the SMP

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: sgray@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: earnest spees

    Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 2:07 PM

    Subject: Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan 1976 and Citizens Advisory Committee 2011

    Steve

    Re: Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan 1976

    I read the 1976 SMP

    My biggest concern would be Page 8 Section 8.

    Lake Sutherland Private property owners have every reason to be fearful.

    Is it history repeating itself? Like the National Park take over of all private property on Lake Crescent?

    I was just a girl when it happened, but I have living memory of the grief it caused.

     

    Citizens Advisory Committee 2011

    While the WA State law about participation does NOT specify private property owners.

    Our Family Trusts own 900 acres of land in Clallam County, we have paid tax on our private property for over 60 years.

    We have property in water sheds, including the Sol Duc River, Elwha River and Bagley Creek, legal water rights, hundreds of acres of designated Forest land, logging concerns, a gravel pit, property for development and a rock quarry.

    With 60 percent of Clallam County under Private ownership;

    I ask you?

    Has anyone (as as private property owner) EVER had a right to, or been entitled to, or had a position on the CCDCD Citizens Advisory Committee on the update of the SMP?

    Pearl Rains Hewett PR-Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Trust

    ————————————————————————–

    THIS IS POSTED #50 SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    FAILURE? Omitting public comments and a failure to provide a complete and accurate

    summary of a Public Meeting

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: SMP@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:53 AM

    Subject: ESA Adolfson’s focus study groups

    I read the focus study groups report prepared by ESA Adolfson.

    It was not representative of the meeting I attended on Jan. 26, 2011.

    There was no mention of Lake Sutherland and the outpour of concern by the private property owners. State boats taking pictures of their docks and homes etc. The fear of what the update of the SMP would mean to their private property by making all of them non-conforming.

    I feel that the report was biased, it did not address the issues proportionately, that in their reporting they did misrepresent and not report private property owner’s spoken grievances.

    In ESA Adolfoson’s compliance attempt, they placed far more emphasis on the state take over of private property beach’s and the impute from agencies and business’s  then the concerns of the 60% of private property owners in Clallam County.

    I find it very disappointing  that our Clallam County Commissioners have allowed a totally self serving group of conservationists to publish biased findings and facts as the result of these public focus groups.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————————————–

     UNPOSTED SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:32 AM

    Subject: Fw: STATE DIRECTIVE BY WAC 173-26-191

    Steve,

    Jim Kramer asked for  a copy of this WAC.

    I would also like to add this as my comment on the Advisory meeting on 4/11/11.

    Has a direct link for advisory comments been established?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————————–

    FAILURE TO POST  SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Lear, Cathy

    Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 12:00 PM

    Subject: RCW’S FOR PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Cathy and Margaret,

    After listening to the questions asked by concerned citizens at both public and the advisory SMP update meetings,

    I would like to submit, as my comments, the following RCW’S to educate, inform and clarify private property owners of their rights and protection under WA State law.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

    (6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

    (h) “Wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do 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 from nonwetland 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 may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

     

    RCW 90.24.010Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

    Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

    [1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]

    Notes:

         Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW.

     

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; Jo Anne Estes

    Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 9:21 AM

    Subject: STATE DIRECTIVE BY WAC 173-26-191

    All,

    I find this unacceptable.

    Directing and identifying how our Clallam County Officials can withhold permits to private property owner’s because the State can not legally or constitutionally regulate our private property at a state level.

    We must question every addition into our revised Clallam County SMP that goes beyond State SMP requirement.

    FYI

    Pearl

    WAC 173-26-191

    Agency filings affecting this section

    Master program contents.

    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.

     ——————————————————————-

     FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

    To: Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    Cc: Karl Spees ; pearl hewett ; Kaj Ahlburg

    Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 11:28 AM

    Subject: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

     

    Please forward to:

    Margaret Clancy & Jim Kramer

    1.  We would like a copy of the minutes of the first Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.  We need to know if our comments were recorded to our satisfaction or whether we need to resubmit them.

    2.  We were told that we would be given a website with your slides and material used in your presentation. Also a site to submit additional comments.

    It will be good to see the half million +dollars the County has paid ESA Adolfson for the public input and the representation of the Citizens of Clallam County to be well spent.

    Karl Spees – Representative of the CAPR

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

    FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes ; earnest spees

    Cc: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 7:39 AM

    Subject: Fw: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

    JoAnne,

    See below,

    I agree with Karl

    I have emailed comments to Cathy Lear and Margaret Clancy.

    I have questions. The consultants pie charts indicate 65% of Clallam County shorelines are private property?

    When less than 17.1% (or less) of the entire County is private property?

    We have no link to an Advisory Committee comment site.

    We have no link to a public comment site.

    I read the 25 page report of Jefferson County’s public comments on their SMP update, after the fact.

    I want to know what comments are being made about Clallam County’s SMP update and I want to know before the fact.

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————————————————

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; pat tenhulzen ; Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: marv chastain

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:35 AM

    Subject: All SMP public comments PRIVATE?

    All

    I am working on comments and recommendation to the SMP update.

     Since, all of the SMP public comments are being held private?

     I guess we will have to find a way to make our privatized, public comments PUBLIC?

     Were all of Jefferson County public comments held private until after the fact?

     How can we get a public web site so public comments are made PUBLIC?

     Perhaps we could use WA State Full Disclosure law?

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

    I guess we will have to find a way to make our privatized, public comments PUBLIC?

    SO…  I ended up sending this  SMP comments to Jim Jones??

    I had his email address

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:23 PM

    Subject: TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

    1. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    Jim,

    Because you are in a position to influence the outcome of the SMP update and I am both on the Advisory Committee and a private property owner I feel compelled to inform you on issues of concern, not what is spoken at meetings, like last night, but as written comment.

    As Commissioner Doherty  mentioned last night, times are changing.

    I have spent the last three months on line researching, complying and analyzing, statistics, laws, Port Townsend’s SMP update, the 7th revised addition of the WRIA, trespass by WFDW, Pacific Legal foundation, Jefferson County 25 page public comments on their SMP update, noxious weed control and attending public meeting, just to mention a few.

    I felt that both Commissioner Doherty and Shelia we unprepared  for public comment last night.

    The trespass discussed by WDFW was on 4 parcels of Rains Sr. Trust Land.

    The fear of the people on Lake Sutherland was my comment at a Commissioners meeting.

    I found and have been circulating the Oregon taking of property value.

    I will  provide only documented information to you.

    I am passionate about private property and Constitutional rights.

    1. TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

    Statistics taken from

    Clallam County future land use map

    79.2 % of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND

    17.1% of Clallam County is PRIVATE PROPERTY

    3.7% other

    79.2%  (or more) of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND and it’s SHORELINES

    are available for PUBLIC ACCESS.

    My public comment and recommendation  for the SMP update is that no additional private property be taken for PUBLIC SHORELINE  ACCESS.

     Any additional PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS on private property shall be strictly on a volunteer basis and not as a requirement for permits.

    Owning 79.2% of Clallam County, the Olympic National Park, National Forest Lands and the Dept of Natural Resources should be encouraged to provide PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    As Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————–

    AND…  I ended up sending this  SMP comments to Jim Jones??

    I had his email address

    ANOTHER UN-POSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:36 PM

    Subject: WA RCW’S THAT PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

    Jim,

    DCD Sheila Miller suggested that fear of the government may be dispelled by educating.

    Instead of educating fearful Lake Sutherland private property owners, why not help them?

    I researched and found three laws that  protect private property owner.

    3. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    Any WA State RCW’s that are beneficial to the rights and protection of private property owners should be included in the Clallam County SMP update.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

    RCW 90.24.010

    Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

    Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

    [1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]Notes:

         Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW.  

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

     (6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

     (h) “Wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do 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 from nonwetland 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 may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    AS Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 10:31 AM

    Subject: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow

    Hello, everyone~

    As a fellow conservative and defender of property rights, I am calling on you with an urgent request to attend the Clallam County Commissioners meeting tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. when the Shoreline Master Program update will be discussed.  Meeting information can be found at

    http://www.clallam.net/board/assets/applets/monwork.pdf.  This agenda item is planned for 9:45 a.m.

    Any public comment you are willing to provide is greatly appreciated.  Make your voice heard!  Even if you do not wish to comment, plan to attend the meeting to get a first hand view of our county government.

    Thanks for your consideration.

    Jo Anne Estes

    An Advisory Committee member

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

    To: Karl Spees

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:17 AM

    Subject: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow!!!!!!!!

    Defenders of Property Rights (Article on A8 in today’s PDN)

    Tomorrow, Monday 2/28/11, there will be a meeting in the commissioners meeting room, Clallam County Courthouse, on the Shoreline Master Program, SMP, Update.

    The meeting is at 0900 (AM) and will allow public input.  Unfortunately this is when most people have jobs and will be working.

    They may be just probing, checking our body temperature, the strength of their opposition to the draconian new rules restricting and regulating use of our private property.  (This may be a classic battle of the  citizens, ‘we the people’ against the big government agenda.)

    Please attend and participate.

    Karl Spees – Pres CAPR 13

    An Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 11:08 AM

    Subject: Re: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow!!!!!!!!

    Yes, I will be there.

    How did you find out?

    They sure as hell didn’t let me know!

    imagine that?

    Pearl

    An Advisory Committee member

     ————————————————————–

    WE WERE INVITED TO BE ON THE Shoreline Advisory Committee?

    May 05, 2011 10:19 AM, Per Steve Gray we are “NOT” an Advisory Committee we just an “Important work group to provide input”.

    SO WE BECAME THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE Shoreline”Important work group to provide input” Committee.

    FAILURE? Omitting public comments and a failure to provide a complete and accurate

    summary of a Public Meeting

    —– Original Message —–

    Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:19 AM
    Subject: Responsible party
    —————————————–
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
    Regarding the 30 members of  the invited Shoreline Advisory Committee.
    Per Steve Gray we are “NOT” an Advisory Committee we just an “Important work group to provide input”.
    ————————————————
    Am I confused? No, I am insulted.
    ——————————————-
    After reading Hannah’s documented, selectively summarized outcome of the first Advisory Committee meeting,
    ———————————————————–
    it is my personal opinion that we, as a committee are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation,
    we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson..
    ——————————————————————–
    Comment by Carol Johnson regarding forest management and a new regulation on the SMP compliance report, she questioned why? The forest Act regulates forestry.
    ———————————————————————
    Comment the  “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of the follow WAC 173-26-191.
    ———————————————————————-

    WAC 173-26-191 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.

    Comment by Pearl Hewett, If regulation of private property is unconstitutional or illegal by WA State law Clallam County should NOT use it.


    Comment by Kaj Ahlburg, the WAC’s are more stringent then WA State law.

    The selective summary of the “Our Important work group to provide input” at the first meeting, did not mention any of these comments.
    I called Commissioner Mike Chapman.
    Who is responsible? The elected DCD Sheila Rourk Miller.
    Sheila went on vacation on April 26, 2011 the day after the 4C public meeting and will not be back in her office until Monday May 9, 2011.
    I called today and left a message, asking for a meeting with her.
    Pearl
    —————————————————————————-

    UNPOSTED SMP   PUBLIC COMMENTS on NO NET LOSS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:07 PM

    Subject: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Hello Hannah and Steve:

    I saw this Notice on the Clallam County Website:

    Thursday:  August 18, 2011 – No Net Loss Work Group , Clallam County BOCC Room 160, 223 East Fourth Street, Port Angeles, 10a.m.-2:00 p.m.

    Is this something either of you are leading?  If not, please forward my email to the correct person. I could not make the meeting yesterday.

    Could you please forward me all copies of the meeting agendas and minutes to date for this group?  I would like to gather this as soon as possible so I can get up to speed.

    Do you know if the Shoreline Advisory Committee been tasked with participating with the No Net Loss workgroup?  If so, I do not recall getting notice.  Please add my email address to the distribution list for all minutes and agendas of the No Net Loss workgroup.

    Thanks very much.  Have a great weekend!

    Jo Anne Estes

    —————————————————————————————————–

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    WE WERE NOT RECEIVING ANY RESPONSES FROM

    Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    SO,  I did respond to Jo Anne Estes (a member of the Shoreline Advisory Committee)

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: earnest spees

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:54 PM

    Subject: Re: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Jo Anne,

    When people asked about the NO NET LOSS at the public SMP meeting after our Aug.committee meeting (only 16 people showed up) I asked about the no net loss committee? Who are they? They have had only 1 meeting?  Steve Grey admitted, they had only had one meeting. I fear they are from the appointed 9 in the Planning Dept.? Steve did not identify them.

    Your letter to the PDN was good. Unfortunately too many people have taken the “Wait and see what they do attitude”

    Then, they will start screaming and yelling, after the fact!

    You are correct when you say we, as private property owners, are not represented proportionally on the SMP update committee. In fact we are not represented PERIOD.  Remember the meeting we attended at the Audubon.

    I have emailed, questioned, complained, bitched, requested info, made comments, spoken out at public meetings, been ignored when I raised my hand at the John Wayne Marina Public Forum, sent many DOE, Clallam County maps with their statistics  documenting their errors and omissions

     (August 19, 2011)  AND have yet to received a single response from the Planning Dept, Sheila, Hannah and Steve Grey do not respond.

    The committee members comments are not put on line as we were told they would be?

    Are we just, the required by LAW invited?

     Does anything we do have any effect on the outcome?

     Are our comments even given to the Appointed 9?

    FYI

    ESA Adolfson completed a report on Puget Sound for the National Fish and Wildlife Federation in WA DC prior to our Jan 26, 2011 SMP meeting.

    Keep up the good work,

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Disappointed member of the Clallam County Invited SMP

    Update NOT Citizens Advisory Committee.

    ———————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM 2011

    THEY want us to be upset and discouraged, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested I should/could  QUIT.

    Ironically, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested just weeks earlier, somewhat sarcastically, that if I did not like the way things were going I should participate by volunteering to be on the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    Hmmm? May 10, 2011 Commissioner Mike Chapman suggests that  if I do not like the way things are  going

    I should/could  QUIT.

    Don’t let life discourage you; everyone who got where she is had to begin where she was.

    Pearl Rains Hewett