+menu-


  • Category Archives CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS
  • 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

     


  • Confront? Question? Demand?

    Confront? Question? Demand?

    Why do  I  personally bother to attend and speak out at  Rep. Derek Kilmer’s Town Hall Meetings?

    Someone’s  GOT TO DO IT … speak  out publicly, in front of the local news media on THE FEDERAL UNMENTIONABLES.

    Someone’s  got to  confronted him with the evidence, ask the hard questions, compel him to face or consider something and  demand answers.

    As our elected rep. in WA DC Rep. Derek Kilmer is responsible to us.

    WHAT WILL  KILMER  DO IN RESPONSE TO

    THE FEDERAL UNMENTIONABLES?

    1. The ISIS terrorist attacks, 62% of Americans are VERY CONCERNED?

    2.  How Is he going to VOTE to prevent the Olympic Peninsula Electronic WAR GAMES. from destroying our entire coastline of public land? And, the entire coastline from Alaska to Mexico?

    3.   How Is he going to VOTE on the FINANCIAL immigration  Crisis? Dec 3, 2014 – Seventeen states filed a joint lawsuit in federal court Wednesday to try blocking President Barack Obama’s executive order on immigration.

    4.  How is he going to VOTE to reform the Obamacare debacle?

    5. Is he going to address the economic crisis created by SUE AND SETTLE?  (ESA)  taking of public and private land, in violation of the Administrate Procedure Act

    6. Is he going to demand JUSTICE from the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT?

    7.  Is he going to support the return of individual states Sovereignty, to the States, of the United States of America? So we can “MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS”

    8. Rep Kilmer put it in writing,  I’ll continue my fight during this Congress to put our government back in the hands of “We the People.”

    —————————————————————————————-

     OK, REP. KILMER, THIS IS WHAT WE THE PEOPLE WANT?

    WHAT REPRESENTATIVE FEEDBACK ARE WE GOING TO GET FROM YOU?

    We the People of the United States, in Order to RE-FORM a more perfect Union,

    MUST RE- ESTABLISH The  Constitution of  the United States of America.

    MUST RE-ESTABLISH JUSTICE,

    MUST INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

    MUST PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE

    MUST PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE

    MUST RE-SECURE the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

    We do ordain and MUST INSIST ON  the RE-ESTABLISHMENT of the Constitution for the United States of America.

    ————————————————————————————

    Rep. Kilmer Newsletter, below,  states,  I’ll be holding six town hall meetings so I can hear directly from you elected Rep. Kilmer will be holding six town hall meetings so I can hear directly from you. I want to stress these town halls are open to the public, and I encourage everyone to attend.

    It’s time to bring sanity back?

    Despite the overall dysfunction?

    I’ll continue my fight during this Congress to put our government back in the hands of “We the People.”

    Make the government more transparent and responsive?

    ————————————————————

    I, personally, SHALL continue my fight to put our federal, state and local governments  accountable and back in the hands of “We the People.”

    Even if I have to go it alone, with my boots on the ground and making public comments  at public forums.

    And, on my website behindmyback.org  in cyberspace

     


  • We Need a New Public Notice Act

    WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    CASES IN POINT FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL

    1. THE PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA ELECTRONIC WARFARE PROJECT.

    2. THE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE UPDATE.

    3.The Pacific Coast Drone project

    4. The Navy residential training that terrorized Port Angeles WA

    5. The West End Broad Band meetings

    6. WA STATE PARKS BLUE RIBBON PANEL

    Best known as, what we don’t notify  American citizens about “CAN” hurt them,

    BUT… it will all be over before American people find out what the hell is going on, so no worries.

    American people won’t feel a thing until after the comment period has expired.

    Then American people can read all about it in the local newspaper, after it’s been passed, to find out what’s in it, what it is and what it was all about.

    —————————————————————————–

    WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    WOW… READ ALL ABOUT IT

    MODEL CITY CHARTER LANGUAGE FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY BODIES

    Making Public Participation Legal – All-America City Award

    www.allamericacityaward.com/…/Making-PublicParticipationLegal_La…

    a ModeL sTaTe PubLic ParTiciPaTion acT: an aMendMenT To The sTaTe … that governs public participation. at the local, state, and federal levels, these laws ..

    —————————————————————————————–

    HERE AND NOW? IN THE REAL WORLD of “We the People”

    WHAT IS THE LOCAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND PARTICIPATION STRATEGY?

    IF YOU ARE HAVING A LOCAL, HUGE MULTI-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD GARAGE SALE, RUMMAGE SALE OR FLEA MARKET?

    AND YOU REALLY WANT THE PUBLIC TO COME?

    You advertise in advance. YOU POST BIG SIGNS WITH THE WHERE AND WHEN every couple of blocks with BIG ARROWS TO KEEP REMINDING AND  INVITING  THE PUBLIC.

    LOCALLY YOU SEE A BIG RUMMAGE SALE BANNER ACROSS FRONT STREET

    AND OUR RADIO STATION KONP GOES ON AND ON ABOUT LOCAL GARAGE SALES

    AND GUYS WEARING SANDWICH BOARDS, DOING THE HAPPY DANCE IN FRONT OF LES SCHWABS, FOR A FLEA MARKET.

    The BIG BANNER across front street even notified THE HOMELESS to come on down to the Vern Burton center and  sign up for local HOMELESS programs and benefits.

    —————————————————————–

    I have mentioned the Real World phenomena  of advertising at Planning Commission Meetings.

    A private (government) response was? “This is not the real world”

    —————————————————————————————-

    OH..BUT… IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE TO  ADVERTISE AND NOTIFY THE AFFECTED LOCAL’S?

    As FOX NEWS,  Judge Jeanine would say….REALLY?

    —————————————————————————

    After the of the Navy’s PUBLIC FORUM FIASCO in PA,  on Electronic Warfare on  the Olympic Peninsula.

    FIASCO? by definition,  a total failure, especially a humiliating or ludicrous one

    —————————————————————————

    MOVING FORWARD,  WHAT CAN”WE THE PEOPLE DO”?

    Expose them, every time there is a  fatal error in Due Process

    Remind them of WA State Law RCW 42.56.030

    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. etc.

    ———————————————————————————-

    Use Clallam County Home Rule to create a more stringent  public notification and participation process by the county and for the residents of Clallam County, including COUNTY FUNDING for REAL WORLD  advertising.

    Great minds think alike

    HERE IS THE LOCAL SOLUTION

    Making Public Participation Legal – All-America City Award

    www.allamericacityaward.com/…/Making-PublicParticipationLegal_La…

    a ModeL sTaTe PubLic ParTiciPaTion acT: an aMendMenT To The sTaTe … that governs public participation. at the local, state, and federal levels, these laws ..

    Contents

    THREE MINUTES AT THE MICROPHONE

    HOW OUTDATED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION LAWS ARE CORRODING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

    POLICY OPTIONS FOR STRENGTHENING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

    A MODEL MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ORDINANCE

    A MODEL STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT

    AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

    ACT AND GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT

    MODEL CITY CHARTER LANGUAGE FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY BODIES

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT:

    THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CONTEXT FOR VOICE

    RESOURCES FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

    ………………………………………………………………

    From the Deliberative Democracy Consortium:

    Tired of tense, unproductive public meetings? Want to embed better online and face-to-face processes in the way governments work? Making Public Participation Legal, a new publication of the National Civic League, includes a set of tools, including a model ordinance, set of policy options, and resource list, to help communities improve public participation. The publication is now available for free. Download here. 

    Most of the laws that govern public participation in the United States are over thirty years old. They do not match the expectations and capacities of citizens today, they predate the Internet, and they do not reflect the lessons learned in the last two decades about how citizens and governments can work together. Increasingly, public officials and staff are wondering whether the best practices in participation are in fact supported – or even allowed – by the law.

    Over the past year, the Working Group on Legal Frameworks for Public Participation has produced new tools, including a model local ordinance and model amendment to state legislation, in order to help create a more supportive, productive, and equitable environment for public participation. The Working Group has been coordinated by the Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC).

    Making Public Participation Legal is a publication of the National Civic League, with support from the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation. The Working Group also includes representatives of the American Bar AssociationInternational Municipal Lawyers AssociationNational League of CitiesPolicy Consensus InitiativeInternational Association for Public Participation, and International City/County Management Association, as well as leading practitioners and scholars of public participation.

    Communities that want to move forward with new public engagement processes and policies can also turn to an array of new resources being offered through ICMA’s Center for Management Strategies. CMS has assembled a team of leading engagement practitioners, research specialists, and subject matter experts who can help local governments develop and implement effective civic engagement programs.

    —————————————————————————

    WOW AND CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A HOME RULE CHARTER

    AND 15 NEW CHARTER MEMBERS

    AND THREE CONSERVATIVE COMMISSIONERS

    HOT DAMN… LET’S GO FOR IT..

     

     


  • The Enabling Act March 1933

    The Enabling Act March 1933

    ON 23 MARCH 1933, THE GERMAN REICHSTAG VOTED IN THE ENABLING ACT, ALLOWING ADOLF HITLER TO RIP UP THE CONSTITUTION.

    THE FORMAL TITLE FOR THE ENABLING ACT WAS

      THE ‘LAW TO REMEDY THE DISTRESS OF PEOPLE AND REICH’

    The Enabling Act was passed on March 23rd 1933. The act was to have huge consequences for the CITIZENS OF NAZI GERMANY

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

    A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge (complete text below)

    THOSE ENTRUSTED WITH POWER HAVE, IN TIME, AND BY SLOW OPERATIONS, PERVERTED IT INTO TYRANNY

    and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be,  TO ILLUMINATE, AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE, THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE AT LARGE, AND MORE ESPECIALLY TO GIVE THEM KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE FACTS

    WHICH HISTORY EXHIBITETH, THAT, POSSESSED THEREBY OF THE EXPERIENCE OF OTHER AGES AND COUNTRIES, THEY MAY BE ENABLED TO KNOW AMBITION UNDER ALL ITS SHAPES, AND PROMPT TO EXERT THEIR NATURAL POWERS TO DEFEAT ITS PURPOSES

    ———————————————————————————————–

    The Enabling Act March 1933 – History Learning Site

    www.historylearningsite.co.uk › Modern World HistoryNazi Germany

    Mar 23, 1933 – The Enabling Act of March 1933 gave Adolf Hitler huge powers.

    THE ENABLING ACT ALLOWED HITLER TO RULE BY HIMSELF.

    ON 23 MARCH 1933, THE GERMAN REICHSTAG VOTED IN THE ENABLING ACT, ALLOWING ADOLF HITLER TO RIP UP THE CONSTITUTION

    German constitutional law stated that any change to the constitution (and the Enabling Act was seen as a change to it) had to have a vote at which 66% of the Reichstag Deputies had to be present. Of these the vote needed to be 66% or over – not the usual bare majority.

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

    THE SUBJECT OF EDUCATION

    As part of his work in revising the laws of Virginia during the late 1770s and early 1780s, Thomas Jefferson put forth a bill that has become one of his most enduring WORKS ON THE SUBJECT OF EDUCATION: BILL 79

    TO ILLUMINATE, AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE, THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE AT LARGE, AND MORE ESPECIALLY TO GIVE THEM KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE FACTS

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

     

    A BILL FOR THE MORE GENERAL DIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE

    THOMAS JEFFERSON (1779)

    SECTION I. Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights,

     and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy,

    yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms,

    THOSE ENTRUSTED WITH POWER HAVE, IN TIME, AND BY SLOW OPERATIONS, PERVERTED IT INTO TYRANNY;

    AND IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE MOST EFFECTUAL MEANS OF PREVENTING THIS WOULD BE,

     TO ILLUMINATE, AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE, THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE AT LARGE, AND MORE ESPECIALLY TO GIVE THEM KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE FACTS,

     WHICH HISTORY EXHIBITETH, THAT, POSSESSED THEREBY OF THE EXPERIENCE OF OTHER AGES AND COUNTRIES, THEY MAY BE ENABLED TO KNOW AMBITION UNDER ALL ITS SHAPES, AND PROMPT TO EXERT THEIR NATURAL POWERS TO DEFEAT ITS PURPOSES

    And whereas it is generally true that the people will be happiest whose laws are best, and are best administered, and that laws will be wisely formed, and honestly administered, in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those persons,

     WHOM NATURE HATH ENDOWED WITH GENIUS AND VIRTUE, SHOULD BE RENDERED BY LIBERAL EDUCATION WORTHY TO RECEIVE, AND ABLE TO GUARD THE SACRED DEPOSIT OF THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance; BUT THE INDIGENCE OF THE GREATER NUMBER DISABLING THEM FROM SO EDUCATING, AT THEIR OWN EXPENCE,

    THOSE OF THEIR CHILDREN WHOM NATURE HATH FITLY FORMED AND DISPOSED TO BECOME USEFUL INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC, IT IS BETTER THAT SUCH SHOULD BE SOUGHT FOR AND EDUCATED AT THE COMMON EXPENCE OF ALL,

    THAN THAT THE HAPPINESS OF ALL SHOULD BE CONFIDED TO THE WEAK OR WICKED:

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

    THIS IS HOW WA STATE WORKS ON THE SUBJECT OF EDUCATION

    TO ILLUMINATE, AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE, THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE AT LARGE, AND MORE ESPECIALLY TO GIVE THEM KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE FACTS

    Supreme Court finds Legislature in contempt on education …

    blogs.seattletimes.com/…/supreme-court-finds-legislatu…

    The Seattle Times

    Sep 11, 2014 – The Washington state Supreme Court is holding the Legislature IN CONTEMPT for not making enough progress toward fully funding public …

    ————————————————————————

    Read more on Public Education

    Behind My Back | The ENABLING ACT February 22, 1889

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/…/the-enablingact-february-22-1889/

    Mar 9, 2014 – Through the Enabling Act, a specific acreage of land was endowed and is held in trust for each identified beneficiary. Revenues generated from …

    ———————————————————————————————-

    A BILL FOR THE MORE GENERAL DIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE (continued)

    SECT. II. BE it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, that in every county within this commonwealth, there shall be chosen annually, by the electors qualified to vote for Delegates, three of the most honest and able men of their county, to be called the Aldermen of the county; and that the election of the said Aldermen shall be held at the same time and place, before the same persons, and notified and conducted in the same manner as by law is directed for the annual election of Delegates for the county.

    SECT. III. THE person before whom such election is holden shall certify to the court of the said county the names of the Aldermen chosen, in order that the same may be entered of record, and shall give notice of their election to the said Aldermen within a fortnight after such election.

    SECT. IV. THE said Aldermen on the first Monday in October, if it be fair, and if not, then on the next fair day, excluding Sunday, shall meet at the court-house of their county, and proceed to divide their said county into hundreds, bounding the same by water courses, mountains, or limits, to be run and marked, if they think necessary, by the county surveyor, and at the county expence, regulating the size of the said hundreds, according to the best of their discretion, so as that they may contain a convenient number of children to make up a school, and be of such convenient size that all the children within each hundred may daily attend the school to be established therein, distinguishing each hundred by a particular name; which division, with the names of the several hundreds, shall be returned to the court of the county and be entered of record, and shall remain unaltered until the increase or decrease of inhabitants shall render an alteration necessary, in the opinion of any succeeding Aldermen, and also in the opinion of the court of the county.

    SECT. V. THE electors aforesaid residing within every hundred shall meet on the third Monday in October after the first election of Aldermen, at such place, within their hundred, as the said ALDERMEN SHALL DIRECT, NOTICE THEREOF BEING PREVIOUSLY GIVEN TO THEM BY SUCH PERSON RESIDING WITHIN THE HUNDRED AS THE SAID ALDERMEN SHALL REQUIRE WHO IS HEREBY ENJOINED TO OBEY SUCH REQUISITION, ON PAIN OF BEING PUNISHED BY AMERCEMENT AND IMPRISONMENT. The electors being so assembled shall choose the most convenient place within their hundred for building a school-house. If two or more places, having a greater number of votes than any others, shall yet be equal between themselves, the Aldermen, or such of them as are not of the same hundred, on information thereof, shall decide between them. The said Aldermen shall forthwith proceed to have a school-house built at the said place, and shall see that the same be kept in repair, and, when necessary, that it be rebuilt; but whenever they shall think necessary that it be rebuilt, they shall give notice as before directed, to the electors of the hundred to meet at the said school-house, on such day as they shall appoint, to determine by vote, in the manner before directed, whether it shall be rebuilt at the same, or what other place in the hundred.

     

    SECT. VI. AT every of these SCHOOLS SHALL BE TAUGHT READING, WRITING, AND COMMON ARITHMETICK, and THE BOOKS WHICH SHALL BE USED THEREIN FOR INSTRUCTING THE CHILDREN TO READ SHALL BE SUCH AS WILL AT THE SAME TIME MAKE them acquainted with Graecian, Roman,

     ENGLISH, AND AMERICAN HISTORY.

     At these schools all the free children, male and female, resident within the respective hundred, shall be intitled to receive tuition gratis, for the term of three years, and as much longer, at their private expence, as their parents, guardians or friends, shall think proper.

     

    SECT. VII. OVER ten of these schools (or such other number nearest thereto, as the number of hundreds in the county will admit, without fractional divisions) an overseer shall be appointed annually by the Aldermen at their first meeting, eminent for his learning, integrity, and fidelity to the commonwealth, whose business and duty it shall be, from time to time, to appoint a teacher to each school, who shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth, and to remove him as he shall see cause; to visit every school once in every half year at the least, to examine the schollars; see that any general plan of reading and instruction recommended by the visiters of William and Mary College shall be observed; and to superintend the conduct of the teacher in every thing relative to his school.

     

    SECT. VIII. EVERY teacher shall receive a salary of by the year, which, with the expences of building and repairing the school houses, shall be provided in such manner as other county expences are by law directed to be provided and shall also have his diet, lodging, and washing found him, to be levied in like manner, save only that such levy shall be on the inhabitants of each hundred for the board of their own teacher only.

     

    SECT. IX. AND in order that grammer schools may be rendered convenient to the youth in every part of the commonwealth, BE it farther enacted, that on the first Monday in November, after the first appointment of overseers for the hundred schools, if fair, and if not, then on the next fair day, excluding Sunday, after the hour of one in the afternoon, the said overseers appointed for the schools in the counties of Princess Ann, Norfolk, Nansemond and Isle-of-Wight, shall meet at Nansemond court house; those for the counties of Southampton, Sussex, Surry and Prince George, shall meet at Sussex court-house; those for the counties of Brunswick, Mecklenburg and Lunenburg, shall meet at Lunenburg court-house; those for the counties of Dinwiddie, Amelia and Chesterfield, shall meet at Chesterfield court-house; those for the counties of Powhatan, Cumberland, Goochland, Henrico and Hanover, shall meet at Henrico court-house; those for the counties of Prince Edward, Charlotte and Halifax, shall meet at Charlotte court-house; those for the counties of Henry, Pittsylvania and Bedford, shall meet at Pittsylvania court-house; those for the counties of Buckingham, Amherst, Albemarle and Fluvanna, shall meet at Albemarle court-house; those for the counties of Botetourt, Rockbridge, Montgomery, Washington and Kentucky, shall meet at Botetourt court-house; those for the counties of Augusta, Rockingham and Greenbrier, shall meet at Augusta court-house; those for the counties of Accomack and Northampton, shall meet at Accomack court-house; those for the counties of Elizabeth City, Warwick, York, Gloucester, James City, Charles City and New Kent, shall meet at James City court-house; those for the counties of Middlesex, Essex, King and Queen, King William and Caroline, shall meet at King and Queen court-house; those for the counties of Lancaster, Northumberland, Richmond and Westmoreland, shall meet at Richmond court-house; those for the counties of King George, Stafford, Spotsylvania, Prince William and Fairfax, shall meet at Spotsylvania court-house; those for the counties of Loudoun and Fauquier, shall meet at Loudoun court-house; those for the counties of Culpeper, Orange and Louisa, shall meet at Orange court-house; those for the counties of Shenandoah and Frederick, shall meet at Frederick court-house; those for the counties of Hampshire and Berkeley, shall meet at Berkeley court house; and those for the counties of Yohogania, Monongalia and Ohio, shall meet at Monongalia court-house; and shall fix on such place in some one of the counties in their district as shall be most proper for situating a grammar school-house, endeavouring that the situation be as central as may be to the inhabitants of the said counties, that it be furnished with good water, convenient to plentiful supplies of provision and fuel, and more than all things that it be healthy. And if a majority of the overseers present should not concur in their choice of any one place proposed, the method of determining shall be as follows: If two places only were proposed, and the votes be divided, they shall decide between them by fair and equal lot; if more than two places were proposed, the question shall be put on those two which on the first division had the greater number of votes; or if no two places had a greater number of votes than the others, as where the votes shall have been equal between one or both of them and some other or others, then it shall be decided by fair and equal lot (unless it can be agreed by a majority of votes) which of the places having equal numbers shall be thrown out of the competition, so that the question shall be put on the remaining two, and if on this ultimate question the votes shall be equally divided, it shall then be decided finally by lot.

     

    SECT. X. THE said overseers having determined the place at which the grammer school for their district shall be built, shall forthwith (unless they can otherwise agree with the proprietors of the circumjacent lands as to location and price) make application to the clerk of the county in which the said house is to be situated, who shall thereupon issue a writ, in the nature of a writ of ad quod damnum, directed to the sheriff of the said county commanding him to summon and impannel twelve fit persons to meet at the place, so destined for the grammer school-house, on a certain day, to be named in the said writ, not less than five, nor more than ten, days from the date thereof; and also to give notice of the same to the proprietors and tenants of the lands to be viewed, if they be to be found within the county, and if not, then to their agents therein if any they have. Which freeholders shall be charged by the said sheriff impartially, and to the best of their skill and judgement to view the lands round about the said place, and to locate and circumscribe, by certain metes and bounds, one hundred acres thereof, having regard therein principally to the benefit and convenience of the said school, but respecting in some measure also the convenience of the said proprietors, and to value and appraise the same in so many several respective interests and estates therein. And after such location and appraisement so made, the said sheriff shall forthwith return the same under the hands and seals of the said jurors, together with the writ, to the clerk’s office of the said county and the right and property of the said proprietors and tenants in the said lands so circumscribed shall be immediately devested and be transferred to the commonwealth for the use of the said grammar school, in full and absolute dominion, any want of consent or disability to consent in the said owners or tenants notwithstanding. But it shall not be lawful for the said overseers so to situate the said grammar school-house, nor to the said jurors so to locate the said lands, as to include the mansion-house of the proprietor of the lands, nor the offices, curtilage, or garden, thereunto immediately belonging.

     

    SECT. XI. THE said overseers shall forthwith proceed to have a house of brick or stone, for the said grammar school, with necessary offices, built on the said lands, which grammer school-house shall contain a room for the school, a hall to dine in, four rooms for a master and usher, and ten or twelve lodging rooms for the scholars.

     

    SECT. XII. TO each of the said grammar schools shall be allowed out of the public treasury, the sum of pounds, out of which shall be paid by the Treasurer, on warrant from the Auditors, to the proprietors or tenants of the lands located, the value of their several interests as fixed by the jury, and the balance thereof shall be delivered to the said overseers to defray the expence of the said buildings.

     

    SECT. XIII. IN these grammar schools shall be taught the Latin and Greek languages, English grammar, geography, and the higher part of numerical arithmetick, to wit, vulgar and decimal fractions, and the extraction of the square and cube roots.

     

    SECT. XIV. A visiter from each county constituting the district shall be appointed, by the overseers, for the county, in the month of October annually, either from their own body or from their county at large, which visiters or the greater part of them, meeting together at the said grammar school on the first Monday in November, if fair, and if not, then on the next fair day, excluding Sunday, shall have power to choose their own Rector, who shall call and preside at future meetings, to employ from time to time a master, and if necessary, an usher, for the said school, to remove them at their will, and to settle the price of tuition to be paid by the scholars. They shall also visit the school twice in every year at the least, either together or separately at their discretion, examine the scholars, and see that any general plan of instruction recommended by the visiters of William and Mary College shall be observed. The said masters and ushers, before they enter on the execution of their office, shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth.

     

    SECT. XV. A steward shall be employed, and removed at will by the master, on such wages as the visiters shall direct; which steward shall see to the procuring provisions, fuel, servants for cooking, waiting, house cleaning, washing, mending, and gardening on the most reasonable terms; the expence of which, together with the steward’s wages, shall be divided equally among all the scholars boarding either on the public or private expence. And the part of those who are on private expence, and also the price of their tuitions due to the master or usher, shall be paid quarterly by the respective scholars, their parents, or guardians, and shall be recoverable, if withheld, together with costs, on motion in any Court of Record, ten days notice thereof being previously given to the party, and a jury impannelled to try the issue joined, or enquire of the damages. The said steward shall also, under the direction of the visiters, see that the houses be kept in repair, and necessary enclosures be made and repaired, the accounts for which, shall, from time to time, be submitted to the Auditors, and on their warrant paid by the Treasurer.

     

    SECT. XVI. EVERY overseer of the hundred schools shall, in the month of September annually, after the most diligent and impartial examination and enquiry, appoint from among the boys who shall have been two years at the least at some one of the schools under his superintendance, and whose parents are too poor to give them farther education, some one of the best and most promising genius and disposition, to proceed to the grammar school of his district; which appointment shall be made in the court-house of the county, on the court day for that month, if fair, and if not, then on the next fair day, excluding Sunday, in the presence of the Aldermen, or two of them at the least, assembled on the bench for that purpose, the said overseer being previously sworn by them to make such appointment, without favor or affection, according to the best of his skill and judgment, and being interrogated by the said Aldermen, either on their own motion, or on suggestions from the parents, guardians, friends, or teachers of the children, competitors for such appointment; which teachers shall attend for the information of the Aldermen. On which interrogatories the said Aldermen, if they be not satisfied with the appointment proposed, shall have right to negative it; whereupon the said visiter may proceed to make a new appointment, and the said Aldermen again to interrogate and negative, and so toties quoties until an appointment be approved.

     

    SECT. XVII. EVERY boy so appointed shall be authorised to proceed to the grammar school of his district, there to be educated and boarded during such time as is hereafter limited; and his quota of the expences of the house together with a compensation to the master or usher for his tuition, at the rate of twenty dollars by the year, shall be paid by the Treasurer quarterly on warrant from the Auditors.

     

    SECT. XVIII. A visitation shall be held, for the purpose of probation, annually at the said grammar school on the last Monday in September, if fair, and if not, then on the next fair day, excluding Sunday, at which one third of the boys sent thither by appointment of the said overseers, and who shall have been there one year only, shall be discontinued as public foundationers, being those who, on the most diligent examination and enquiry, shall be thought to be of the least promising genius and disposition; and of those who shall have been there two years, all shall be discontinued, save one only the best in genius and disposition, who shall be at liberty to continue there four years longer on the public foundation, and shall thence forward be deemed a senior.

     

    SECT. XIX. THE visiters for the districts which, or any part of which, be southward and westward of James river, as known by that name, or by the names of Fluvanna and Jackson’s river, in every other year, to wit, at the probation meetings held in the years, distinguished in the Christian computation by odd numbers, and the visiters for all the other districts at their said meetings to be held in those years, distinguished by even numbers, after diligent examination and enquiry as before directed, shall chuse one among the said seniors, of the best learning and most hopeful genius and disposition, who shall be authorised by them to proceed to William and Mary College, there to be educated, boarded, and clothed, three years; the expence of which annually shall be paid by the Treasurer on warrant from the Auditors.

    The Bill was presented in the House of Delegates in 1778 and 1780, but was not passed; James Madison  presented the bill several more times to the state legislature while Jefferson was serving in Paris as Minister to France. A much-revised version was finally passed into law in 1796 as an “Act to Establish Public Schools.”

     

    ——————————————————————–

    Read more on the history of Public Education

    The Beginnings of Public Education

    in Virginia, 1776-1860

    Source: Jefferson, Thomas, 1743-1826. Public Papers, Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library. http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/texts/