+menu-


  • Category Archives Diverting Our Tax Dollars
  • “The U.S. Immigrant Invasions” 1862-2014

    “The U.S. Immigrant  Invasions” 1862-2014

    2014 THE “IMMIGRANT  INVASION” THAT COULD THREATEN THE AMERICAN  DREAM? AND, THE SECURITY, SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE OF AMERICAN CITIZENS.

    2014 ZERMENO SAID THE INFECTED IMMIGRANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED DURING MEDICAL CHECKS IN TEXAS, BUT WERE NOT BECAUSE???

    2014 THE DETAINEES BECAME SO NUMEROUS? THAT THE IMMIGRATION FUNCTIONS? HAD TO BE TRANSFERRED TO?

    YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN 2014…2015….2016….

    FOR ONLY $3.7 BILLION AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS?

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

    1862-2014 IMMIGRATION ISSUES AND CONGRESSIONAL ACTS IN THE U.S.A.

    CONGRESS PASSED  THE FIRST IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION LAW IN 1862

    THE  1897 IMMIGRANT INVASION” THAT COULD THREATEN THE AMERICAN DREAM?

    Congress passed the bill in 1897

    ———————————————————————————–

    IMMIGRATION ISSUES 1946 AND 2014

    1946 THE DETAINEES BECAME SO NUMEROUS THAT THE IMMIGRATION FUNCTIONS HAD TO BE TRANSFERRED TO MANHATTAN FOR LACK OF ROOM

    2014 THE DETAINEES BECAME SO NUMEROUS? THAT THE IMMIGRATION FUNCTIONS? HAD TO BE TRANSFERRED TO?  YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN 2014…2015….2016 FOR ONLY $3.7 BILLION AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS?

    ZERMENO SAID THE INFECTED IMMIGRANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED DURING MEDICAL CHECKS IN TEXAS, BUT WERE NOT BECAUSE???

    THEY HAD TO BE TRANSFERRED TO? BUSSED AND FLOWN TO EVERY STATE IN THE UNION?

    INFECTED IMMIGRANTS, CARRYING THEIR UNSCREENED? UNTREATED?

    CONTAGIOUS HEALTH DESEASES WITH THEM?

    HAD TO BE TRANSFERRED TO? BUSSED AND FLOWN TO EVERY MILITARY BASE IN THE USA?

     

    —————————————————————————–

    LEARNING FROM HISTORICAL CONGRESSIONAL SOLUTIONS?

    1. THE ORIGIONAL ACT IMMIGRANT INVASION” THAT COULD THREATEN THE AMERICAN DREAM. …

    Congress passed the bill in 1897

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

    2. 1917 IMMIGRATION ACT

    (An act to regulate the immigration of aliens) the U.S. CONGRESS enacted the first widely restrictive immigration law. ... SECURITY during World War I made it possible for Congress to pass this Act, and it …

    —————————————————————-

     

    3. THE 1921 EMERGENCY QUOTA LAW

    (an act to limit the immigration of aliens into the United States)

    CONGRESS PASSED THE 1921 Emergency Quota LAW (an act to limit the immigration of aliens into the United States)

    ——————————————————————————-

    4. THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1924 (THE JOHNSON- REED ACT)

    The U.S. CONGRESS  enacted the first widely restrictive immigration law. ... SECURITY

     THE 1924 IMMIGRATION ACT REDUCING THE ANNUAL QUOTA AND THIS MARKED THE END OF MASS IMMIGRATION TO AMERICA.

    —————————————————————————————-

    5. IMMIGRATION-ACT-WAS PASSED-OVER-PRESIDENT’S -VETO

     

    6. The main function of (Ellis Island) changed from that of an immigrant processing station, TO A CENTER OF THE

    ASSEMBLY, DETENTION, AND DEPORTATION OF ALIENS WHO HAD ENTERED THE U.S. ILLEGALLY OR HAD VIOLATED THE TERMS OF ADMITTANCE.

    ———————————————————————————————-

    1924 IMMIGRATION PROBLEM SOLVED BY ACTS OF THE U.S. CONGRESS

    INCLUDING THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

     

    BOTTOM LINE “ASSEMBLE-DETAIN-DEPORT”

    THE END OF ILLEGAL MASS IMMIGRATION TO AMERICA

    ————————————————————————————

    OOPS… THE NEVER ENDING DOCUMENTATION…

    1946 THE DETAINEES BECAME SO NUMEROUS THAT THE IMMIGRATION FUNCTIONS HAD TO BE TRANSFERRED TO MANHATTAN FOR LACK OF ROOM

    2014 THE DETAINEES BECAME SO NUMEROUS? THAT THE IMMIGRATION FUNCTIONS? HAD TO BE TRANSFERRED TO?  YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN 2014…2015….2016  FOR ONLY $3.7 BILLION AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS?

    ZERMENO SAID THE INFECTED IMMIGRANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED DURING MEDICAL CHECKS IN TEXAS, BUT WERE NOT BECAUSE???

    THEY HAD TO BE TRANSFERRED TO? BUSSED AND FLOWN TO EVERY STATE IN THE UNION?

    INFECTED IMMIGRANTS, CARRYING THEIR UNSCREENED? UNTREATED?

    CONTAGIOUS HEALTH DISEASES WITH THEM?

    HAD TO BE TRANSFERRED TO? BUSSED AND FLOWN TO EVERY MILITARY BASE IN THE USA?

    ———————————————————————————————–

    documentation?  read more  HISTORY OF IMMIGRATION ACTS IN THE U.S..

    IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1921 IMPOSES QUOTA  SYSTEM, 1921-1924

    cautioned of AN IMMIGRANT INVASION” THAT COULD THREATEN THE AMERICAN DREAM. … language, and although Congress passed the bill in 1897, President Grover … wealthiest citizens were illiterate when they first arrived on American shores.

    www.dentonisd.org/cms/lib/TX21000245/…/Immigration%20Act.pdf

    ———————————————————————————————

    U.S. IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION: 1921 EMERGENCY QUOTA LAW

    1921 EMERGENCY QUOTA LAW (AN ACT TO LIMIT THE IMMIGRATION OF ALIENS INTO THE UNITED STATES). H.R. 4075; Pub.L. 67-5; 42 Stat. 5. 67th Congress; May 19, 1921. … aliens who were passing through the US or visiting as tourists or temporary … Eugenics Laws Restricting Immigration – An essay linking immigration laws in the first …

    library.uwb.edu/…/usimmigration/192

    University of Washington, Bothell

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

    Subsequent immigration to the United States sharply declined, and, in 1924 a law was passed requiring immigrant inspection in countries of origin, leading to the closure of Ellis Island and other major immigrant processing centers.

     

    IMMIGRATION-ACT-PASSED-OVER-PRESIDENT WILSONS-VETO

     

    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/immigration-act-passed-over-wilsons-veto

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

    THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1924 (THE JOHNSON- REED ACT)-1921…

    https://history.state.gov/…/1921…/immigration-act

    Office of the Historian

    The quota provided immigration visas to two percent of the total number of …

    IN 1917, THE U.S. CONGRESS ENACTED THE FIRST WIDELY RESTRICTIVE IMMIGRATION LAW. ... SECURITY during World War I made it possible for Congress to pass this Act, and it …

     

    THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1924 further restricted immigration, changing the quota basis from the census of 1910 to that of 1890, and REDUCING THE ANNUAL QUOTA TO SOME 164,000. THIS MARKED THE END OF MASS IMMIGRATION TO AMERICA.

    1924

    The main function of Ellis Island changed from that of an immigrant processing station, TO A CENTER OF THE ASSEMBLY, DETENTION, AND DEPORTATION OF ALIENS WHO HAD ENTERED THE U.S. ILLEGALLY OR HAD VIOLATED THE TERMS OF ADMITTANCE.

     

    ————————————————————————————

    HISTORY OF IMMIGRATION LAWS IN THE U.S.-EBSCOHOST….

    Between 1872 and 1890, Congress passed laws restricting the immigration of, among … Laws passed in 1885 and 1887 were among the first to restrict immigration … From 1900 to 1921, Congress established a “quota system,” which granted …

    connection.ebscohost.com >Home US>ImmigrationRestrictions

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

    ELLIS ISLAND·  opened in 1892 as a federal immigration station, a purpose it served for more than 60 years (it closed in 1954).

    www.history.com/topics/ellis-island

    1892? 1890?  The first immigrant to pass through Ellis  Island.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    1897 In five years, some 1.5 million immigrants had been processed.

    ———————————————————————

    1907

    THIS WAS THE PEAK YEAR AT ELLIS ISLAND WITH 1,004,756 IMMIGRANTS RECEIVED. THE ALL-TIME DAILY HIGH WAS ON APRIL 17TH OF THIS YEAR WHEN A TOTAL OF 11,747 IMMIGRANTS WERE PROCESSED

    ———————————————————————————

    1921

    Post-war immigration quickly revived and 560,971 immigrants passed through Ellis Island in 1921. THE FIRST IMMIGRATION QUOTA LAW PASSED THE U.S. CONGRESS, adding to the administration problems at Ellis Island. It provided that the number of any European nationality entering in a given year could not exceed three percent of foreign-born persons of that nationality who lived in the U.S. in 1910. NATIONALITY WAS TO BE DETERMINED BY COUNTRY OF BIRTH, and no more than 20 percent of the annual quota of any nationality could be received in any given month. The total number of immigrants admissible under the system was set at nearly 358,000, but numerous classes were exempt

    ——————————————————————————

    1924

    THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1924 further restricted immigration, changing the quota basis from the census of 1910 to that of 1890, and reducing the annual quota to some 164,000. THIS MARKED THE END OF MASS IMMIGRATION TO AMERICA.

    The Immigration Act also provided for the examination and qualification of immigrants at U.S. consulates overseas.

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

    1924

    The main function of Ellis Island changed from that of an immigrant processing station, TO A CENTER OF THE ASSEMBLY, DETENTION, AND DEPORTATION OF ALIENS WHO HAD ENTERED THE U.S. ILLEGALLY OR HAD VIOLATED THE TERMS OF ADMITTANCE.

    ——————————————————————————–

    1938-1941

    After the U.S. entered the war in December 1941, ELLIS ISLAND SERVED PRIMARILY AS A DETENTION CENTER FOR ALIEN ENEMIES, THOSE CONSIDERED TO BE INADMISSIBLE AND OTHERS. BY 1946, APPROXIMATELY 7000 ALIENS AND CITIZENS, WITH GERMAN, ITALIAN, AND JAPANESE PEOPLE COMPRISING THE LARGEST GROUPS, WERE DETAINED AT ELLIS ISLAND.

    1946 THE DETAINEES BECAME SO NUMEROUS THAT THE IMMIGRATION FUNCTIONS HAD TO BE TRANSFERRED TO MANHATTAN FOR LACK OF ROOM

    2014 THE DETAINEES BECAME SO NUMEROUS? THAT THE IMMIGRATION FUNCTIONS? HAD TO BE TRANSFERRED TO?

    YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN 2014…2015….2016

     

     


  • “Thou Shalt Not Kill?”

    Thou Shalt Not Kill?

    CHICAGO FOURTH OF JULY WEEKEND TOLL: 82 SHOT, 14 OF THEM FATALLY

    Most victims were in their late teens and 20s.

    AND, THEY WERE MOSTLY GANG RELATED

    Children live and “DIE” what they learn in cities across America

    They learned and were taught?  GANG RELATED SURVIVAL AND RETALIATION,, concentrated in the black neighborhoods, that you’re either going to be shot at or you’re going to shoot.

    ——————————————————————–

    TEACH OUR CHILDREN WELL?

    WELL? They learned and were taught?  GENERATIONAL GANG MEMBERSHIP?

    When asked why they joined a gang? The family’s GENERATIONAL gang membership?

    What happened to

    RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE?

    THOU SHALT NOT KILL?

    ——————————————————–

    TEACH OUR CHILDREN WELL?

    TEACH OUR POLICE, AS WELL.

    POLICE RESPONSE  five  were shot by police on Friday and Saturday, two boys 14 and 16 who were killed.

    ———————————————————————————————

    WELL? CHILDREN HAVE BEEN TAUGHT AND LEARNED GANG RETALIATION BEHAVIOR

    REVENGE IS MINE….

    Their gang shot my gang and I’m going to shoot their gang back.

    The learned and were taught?  THE GENERATIONAL GANG CODE.

    ————————————————————————————-

    SOLUTIONS? (The police have none, their jails are full)

    And, their hospitals and morgues are full, and the length of time that will be spent on the police investigation of who did what to whom and when?

    And the excuses?

    Chicago claims to have some of the toughest gun laws in the country, but the problem is they don’t enforce the laws.

    Conti explained that prosecutors get the gun charges and it’s too much work, too many man hours, the courts are overwhelmed, the prisons are overcrowded – so they knock the charges down to misdemeanors.

    —————————————————————————————–

    Why would anyone have a problem with this?

    TWO BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT MINORS?

    The surge of illegal immigrant minors rushing over the Rio Grande threatens to overwhelm the Texas Border Patrol, and new figures show the unexpected development will cost U.S. taxpayers more than $2 billion this year, 1200 WOAI news reports.

    WHEN THE US GOVERNMENT CAN’T FIND  THE US TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO PAY FOR THE RESTORATION OF LAW AND ORDER IN AMERICA. ( AKA DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY)

    CHICAGO FOURTH OF JULY WEEKEND TOLL: 82 SHOT, 14 OF THEM FATALLY

    ———————————————————————————————–
    SOLUTION?

    START POSTING SIGNS, ON BULLET RIDDEN HOME, LAWNS, BILLBOARDS  AND ON POLICE CARS.

    MAKE AND WEAR T SHIRTS (with pictures of the victims)

    “THOU SHALT NOT KILL”

    Innocent bystanders

    The police

    Gang members

    Each other

    Make your voice heard by US Government (demand accountability from congress ) send emails, picket and post on your websites, send letters to the editor of your newspaper.

    —————————————–

    OR?  JUST DO NOTHING?

    If you always do what you always did? You will always get what you always got.

    ————————————————————————-

    HOW BAD WAS IT?

    CHICAGO FOURTH OF JULY WEEKEND TOLL: 82 SHOT, 14 OF THEM FATALLY

    July 07, 2014 / Written By The Chicago Tribune

    read more at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-fourth-of-july-toll-82-shot-14-of-them-fatally-in-chicago-20140707,0,5439185.story

    The bloodiest stretch of the weekend was a 13-hour period between 2:30 p.m. Sunday and 3:30 a.m. Monday when four people were killed and at least another 26 wounded, many of them in critical condition.

    And the most chaotic scene was in South Chicago, where three people were wounded during a running gun battle.

    It started when someone shot and wounded a couple, then two people fired at the shooter, then there was a chase and shots exchanged and a man sitting on a porch was hit. Responding officers kept cutting each other off on their radios as they reported other gunfire in the area late Sunday night and early Monday morning.

    two woman were shot as they sat outside a two-flat within a block of Garfield Park.

    three people were killed and 10 others wounded. An attack outside a West Englewood salon left two men dead and an East Garfield Park shooting took the life of a 21-year-old woman.

    20 people were shot, one fatally. The man who died had been flashing gang signs in a parking lot in the Clearing neighborhood when someone told him to stop. When the man didn’t, he was shot, police said.

    four people were killed and another 10 wounded.

    ————————————————————————————————

    Live by the sword, die by the sword” is a saying derived from a biblical parable to the effect that if you use violence, or other harsh means, against other people, you can expect to have those same means used against you; “You can expect to become a victim of whatever means you use to get what you want.”

    ——————————————————————————————-

    “Teach Your Children”

    YOU, WHO ARE ON THE ROAD MUST HAVE A CODE THAT YOU CAN LIVE BY.
    And so become yourself because the past is just a good bye.
    Teach your children well, their father’s hell did slowly go by,
    And feed them on your dreams, the one they fix, the one you’ll know by.
    Don’t you ever ask them why, if they told you, you would cry,
    So just look at them and sigh and know they love you.

    and you, of the tender years can’t know the fears that your elders grew by,
    and so please help them with your youth, they seek the truth before they can die.
    Teach your parents well, their children’s hell will slowly go by,
    And feed them on your dreams, the one they fix, the one you’ll know by.
    Don’t you ever ask them why, if they told you, you would cry,
    So just look at them and sigh and know they love you.

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

    Genesis 9:5-6 “WHOEVER SHEDS MAN’S BLOOD, BY MAN HIS BLOOD SHALL BE SHED

     

    Live by the sword, die by the sword” is a saying derived from a biblical parable to the effect that if you use violence, or other harsh means, against other people, you can expect to have those same means used against you; “You can expect to become a victim of whatever means you use to get what you want.”

    If you always do what you always did? You will always get what you always got.

     Exodus 21:22-25 “If men struggle with each other yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined

    “But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

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

    full text

    Scripture. Genesis 1:26-31. God created man and woman in his image. … Implicitly, however, it encourages a positive attitude of ABSOLUTE RESPECT FOR LIFE

     Scripture. Genesis 9:5-6  ”Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. “WHOEVER SHEDS MAN’S BLOOD, BY MAN HIS BLOOD SHALL BE SHED,

     Scripture. Exodus 21:22-25 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. “But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Chicago Warzone

    read more at: http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=latestTVShow

    Noting that Chicago’s gun crimes are concentrated in the black neighborhoods and are mostly gang related, the Factor questioned whether there’s also a cultural problem in play.

    Greenberg pointed out it’s a question of survival for these people because so many of them have guns that you’re either going to be shot at or you’re going to shoot.

    ————————————————————————————————

     

     


  • $14.8 Billion for Restoration

    Sent to Representative Derek Kilmer,

    The bottom line?

    100% of the MARYLAND $14.8 Billion Dollars in storm water runoff tax dollars are MANDATED  to be spent on the “RESTORATION” of the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

    IS WA STATE GOING TO FOLLOW MARYLAND’S LEAD? AND LEGISLATE AND MANDATE ALL OF OUR STORMWATER RUNOFF TAX DOLLARS TO  THE RESTORATION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT?

    RESTORATION OF SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT? vs: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT?

    WHEN ARE OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE GOING TO PRIORITIZE AND START FUNDING THE RESTORATION OF AMERICA’S “SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT.”

    THE EVERYDAY, DAY AFTER DAY, VIOLENT HORRIFYING  “SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT” THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE BEING FORCED TO  LIVE WITH  IN THEIR CITIES AND TOWNS ACROSS THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    Is anyone in congress addressing the Restoration of “Law and Order” to stop the 2014 epidemic of violent crimes against People across the United States Of America?

    Please ask CONGRESS to legislate  American RESTORATION tax  dollars wisely, in a country of the people, by the people, FOR THE PEOPLE.

    Pearl Rains Hewett
    Just a concerned American Grandmother

    ————————————————————

    $14.8 Billion for Restoration
    Posted on June 10, 2014 9:12 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    In the state of Maryland, their elected representatives, legislators, passed a $14.8 BILLION DOLLAR UNFUNDED, EPA MANDATED Rain Tax. (for storm water runoff)

    100% of the $14.8 Billion Dollars in storm water runoff tax dollars are MANDATED to be spent on the “RESTORATION” of the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

    The federal government and, every state legislature, provides restoration funding for the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, spending and granting billions of our American tax dollars.

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

    WA STATE STORMWATER RUNOFF LEGISLATION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS?

    2009-2014 IT’S TIME TO PLAY CATCH UP.

    WHO KNEW?

    SINCE 2009 our legislators, elected representatives have been busy, busy, busy.

    THEY HAVE LEGISLATED, ECOLOGY (DOE) AND A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION TO BE IN CONTROL OF  THE TAXPAYERS FATE, FOR THE FUNDING AND COST OF WA STATE STORMWATER RUNOFF

    Stormwater Technical Resource Center

    The 176 PAGE REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE

    Water Quality Program

    Washington State Department of Ecology

    Olympia, Washington

    http://apwa-wa.org/Uploads/CommitteeFiles/Stormwater/1110009.pdf

    The passage of House Bill 2222 in 2009 set in motion the creation of THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER (Center)that would focus RESOURCES on protecting Washington’s waters through improvements in regional stormwater management.

    The Bill, codified in RCW 90.48.545, directs the state Department of

    Ecology(Ecology)“as funding becomes available… to create a stormwater technical resource center in partnership with a university, nonprofit organization, or other public or private entity to provide tools for stormwater management.

    TO PROVIDE SEED MONEY FOR CREATION OF THE CENTER, ECOLOGY SOLICITED GRANT PROPOSALS

    for a Center that would benefit stormwater management programs across Washington and support NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) stormwater permit programs.

    In late 2009, ECOLOGY AWARDED FUNDING to the City of Puyallup and its two primary associates: Washington State University (WSU) and the University of Washington(UW). Their charge was to convene an advisory committee to consult on the development and the overall administrative strategy of  a Stormwater Technical Resource Center.

    The ADVISORY COMMITTEE includes representatives from state agencies, local governments, the business community, the environmental community, tribes and the building and development industry.

    ——————————————————-

    THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER

    The Center has been established AS NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION.

    Center staff created a 5-Year Business Plan, (Appendix C), and has started to deliver the following services

    http://apwa-wa.org/Uploads/CommitteeFiles/Stormwater/1110009.pdf

    Ecology (DOE) is working on Funding?

    During the past year, Ecology (DOE) has met with staff from THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER, the Center, and the Advisory Committee to identify FUNDING strategies. While there is still a need for base-level support to grow the Center,

    FUNDING mechanisms for THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER, the Center, include COST REIMBURSEMENT for technical reviews, trainings, MONITORING and other technical resource services. In addition, donations, endowments, BONDS, conferences, membership dues, GRANTS and support from in-kind services and DEDICATED ACCOUNTS are all evaluated in the Business Plan.

    ————————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    100% of the MARYLAND $14.8 Billion Dollars in storm water runoff tax dollars are MANDATED  to be spent on the “RESTORATION” of the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

    IS WA STATE GOING TO FOLLOW MARYLAND’S LEAD? AND LEGISLATE AND MANDATE ALL OF OUR STORMWATER RUNOFF TAX DOLLARS TO  THE RESTORATION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT?

    RESTORATION OF SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT? vs: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT?

    WHEN ARE OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE GOING TO PRIORITIZE AND START FUNDING THE RESTORATION OF AMERICA’S “SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT.”

    THE EVERYDAY, DAY AFTER DAY, VIOLENT HORRIFYING  “SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT” THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE BEING FORCED TO, LIVE WITH  IN THEIR CITIES AND TOWNS ACROSS THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    This entry was posted in Bang for their buck? Restoration, Controlled by Non-Profits?, Cut Federal Funding, Diverting Our Tax Dollars, Economic Impact, Elected Officials, EPA Clean Water Act, EPA UNFUNDED MANDATES, Follow the Money, Goliath’s Restoration Consortium, Government Accountability, If it’s Federal IT’S LOCAL, Learning From History?, Legislated Economic Oppression, Politically Motivated, Senate Hearings on EPA, Taken by the “GRANTED”, The Money’s All Gone?, The We’s who WANT, WA State Dept. of Ecology. Bookmark the permalink.Edit
    The “RESTORATION” Shell GameIn the state of Maryland, their elected representatives, legislators, passed a $14.8 BILLION DOLLAR UNFUNDED, EPA MANDATED Rain Tax. (for storm water runoff)

     100% of the $14.8 Billion Dollars in storm water runoff tax dollars are MANDATED to be spent on the “RESTORATION” of the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

    The federal government and, every state legislature, provides restoration funding for the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, spending and granting billions of our American tax dollars.

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

    WA STATE STORMWATER RUNOFF LEGISLATION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS?

    2009-2014 IT’S TIME TO PLAY CATCH UP.

    WHO KNEW?

    SINCE 2009 our legislators, elected representatives have been busy, busy, busy.

    THEY HAVE LEGISLATED, ECOLOGY (DOE) AND A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION TO BE IN CONTROL OF  THE TAXPAYERS FATE, FOR THE FUNDING AND COST OF WA STATE STORMWATER RUNOFF

    Stormwater Technical Resource Center

    The 176 PAGE REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE

    Water Quality Program

    Washington State Department of Ecology

    Olympia, Washington

     

    http://apwa-wa.org/Uploads/CommitteeFiles/Stormwater/1110009.pdf

    The passage of House Bill 2222 in 2009 set in motion the creation of THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER (Center)that would focus RESOURCES on protecting Washington’s waters through improvements in regional stormwater management.

     

    The Bill, codified in RCW 90.48.545, directs the state Department of

    Ecology(Ecology)“as funding becomes available… to create a stormwater technical resource center in partnership with a university, nonprofit organization, or other public or private entity to provide tools for stormwater management.

     

     

    TO PROVIDE SEED MONEY FOR CREATION OF THE CENTER, ECOLOGY SOLICITED GRANT PROPOSALS

     for a Center that would benefit stormwater management programs across Washington and support NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) stormwater permit programs.

     

    In late 2009, ECOLOGY AWARDED FUNDING to the City of Puyallup and its two primary associates: Washington State University (WSU) and the University of Washington(UW). Their charge was to convene an advisory committee to consult on the development and the overall administrative strategy of  a Stormwater Technical Resource Center.

     

    The ADVISORY COMMITTEE includes representatives from state agencies, local governments, the business community, the environmental community, tribes and the building and development industry.

     

    ——————————————————-

     

    THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER

    The Center has been established AS NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION.

    Center staff created a 5-Year Business Plan, (Appendix C), and has started to deliver the following services

     

    http://apwa-wa.org/Uploads/CommitteeFiles/Stormwater/1110009.pdf

     Ecology (DOE) is working on Funding?

    During the past year, Ecology (DOE) has met with staff from THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER, the Center, and the Advisory Committee to identify FUNDING strategies. While there is still a need for base-level support to grow the Center,

    FUNDING mechanisms for THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER, the Center, include COST REIMBURSEMENT for technical reviews, trainings, MONITORING and other technical resource services. In addition, donations, endowments, BONDS, conferences, membership dues, GRANTS and support from in-kind services and DEDICATED ACCOUNTS are all evaluated in the Business Plan.

    ————————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    100% of the MARYLAND $14.8 Billion Dollars in storm water runoff tax dollars are MANDATED  to be spent on the “RESTORATION” of the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

    IS WA STATE GOING TO FOLLOW MARYLAND’S LEAD? AND LEGISLATE AND MANDATE ALL OF OUR STORMWATER RUNOFF TAX DOLLARS TO  THE RESTORATION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT?

    RESTORATION OF SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT? vs: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT?

    WHEN ARE OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE GOING TO PRIORITIZE AND START FUNDING THE RESTORATION OF AMERICA’S “SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT.”

    THE EVERYDAY, DAY AFTER DAY, VIOLENT HORRIFYING  “SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT” THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE BEING FORCED TO, LIVE WITH  IN THEIR CITIES AND TOWNS ACROSS THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

     


  • The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    A highly convoluted “GAME OF RESTORATION” that  is involving the sleight of many, many hands, in which hundreds of  inverted Federal agencies, WA State agencies, WAC’S and /or other NGO, NUTSHELLS are moved about, and hard working taxpayers must attempt to spot which is the one, of many thousands, with  NGO’S or other government agencies are underneath the “RESTORATION” plan.

     

    WOW!  HOW MANY NUTS CAN YOU GET UNDER ONE RESTORATION SHELL?

    “WE’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING THE MORE THAN 600 PARTNERS TOGETHER,

    designing a unified plan, and making sure money is being spent efficiently, and our region is making progress,” says Gerry O’Keefe, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership.

    In response to this growing environmental crisis, the Washington State legislature created the Puget Sound Partnership a state agency dedicated to identifying, prioritizing, and coordinating efforts to protect and RESTORE PUGET SOUND. Since its founding in 2007, the partnership has collaborated with state and federal agencies, local governments, tribes, businesses, and citizen groups to achieve specific cleanup and restoration goals for Puget Sound.

    ——————————————————————————————

    No doubt with MORE THAN 600 RESTORATION PARTNERS the following is a true statement

    In addition, multiple, overlapping jurisdictions and AUTHORITIES creates challenges for coordinated decision-making and proactive planning.

    Even the government is clueless, when it comes to how many nuts are responsible for  planning, authorizing and implementing the RESTORATION SHELL GAME .

    ———————————————————————————————–

    A DECEPTIVE? AND EVASIVE? NGO OR GOVERNMENT ACTION OR PLOY, ESPECIALLY A POLITICAL “GAME OF RESTORATION”  ONE.

    Who knew about this?

    (PSNERP) PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT
    A 373 PAGE REPORT ON THE RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND.

    THIS IS NOT A CASUAL REPORT OF RESTORATION FOR THE SMP UPDATE

    The PSNERP GI study area includes the entire portion of Puget Sound, and the Straits of Juan deFuca and southern Strait of Georgia that occur within the borders of the United States; data is also acquired for water shed drainage areas of Puget Sound rivers that extend into Canada.

     ————————————————————————————————

    Pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922-948),the department of ecology
    Under chapter 43.372 RCW,
    PACIFIC COAST MARINE SPATIAL PLAN (MSP).
    ———————————————————-
    A FEDERAL Part of the PUGET SOUND restoration plan
    FINAL May 2009, GEOSPATIAL METHODOLOGY USED IN THE PSNERP COMPREHENSIVE CHANGE ANALYSIS OF PUGET SOUND

    (PSNERP) PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT
    A 373 PAGE REPORT ON THE RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND

    The PSNERP GI study area includes the entire portion of Puget Sound, and the Straits of Juan deFuca and southern Strait of Georgia that occur within the borders of the United States; data is also acquired for water shed drainage areas of Puget Sound rivers that extend into Canada.

    This is not a casual report of RESTORATION for SMP mitigation.
    ——————————————-
    Pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922-948),the department of ecology
    Under chapter 43.372 RCW,
    PACIFIC COAST MARINE SPATIAL PLAN (MSP).
    Once the MSP is complete, ecology will submit it to the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for its review and APPROVAL for incorporation into
    Washington’s FEDERALLY APPROVED coastal zone management program
    Under the 1972 CONGRESS ENACTED FEDERAL Coastal Zone Management ACT
    ——————————————————-
    Pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922-948),the department of ecology
    PACIFIC COAST MARINE SPATIAL PLAN (MSP).

    In addition, multiple, overlapping jurisdictions and AUTHORITIES creates challenges for coordinated decision-making and proactive planning.
    ————————————————-
    Coastal Zone Management Act – Office of Ocean and Coastal …
    coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/czm/czm_act.html‎

    Congressional Action to Help Manage Our Nation’s Coasts … growth in the coastal zone by passing the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972. The Act …
    ————————————————
    1972 CONGRESS ENACTS FEDERAL Clean water act
    CWA | Civil Enforcement | Compliance and Enforcement | U.S. EPA
    www.epa.gov/Compliance/civil/cwa/index.html‎

     


  • EPA RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND

    IF THE EPA CALCULATES AND MANDATES THE COST OF AN UNFUNDED WA STATE RESTORATION “RAIN TAX” TO CLEAN UP PUGET SOUND?

    AT THE GOING EPA RATE OF $3,304,309.00 @ SQ MI FOR THE EPA MANDATED UNFUNDED RESTORATION OF CHESAPEAKE BAY, for the clean-up of 4479 sq mi of Chesapeake Bay.

    NO PROBLEM, PUGET SOUND (PER) PSP HAS ONLY 2500 SQ MI,

    IT WOULD ONLY BE $8,260,772,500.00  OVER  EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS

    FOR AN EPA UNFUNDED MANDATE “RAIN TAX” RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND

    SIGN ARE POSTED AT THE KINGSTON FERRY TERMINAL

    THE HAND WRITING IS ON THE DOCK.

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

    Mar 21, 2014 – The people in Maryland are PROTESTING THE $14.8 BILLION DOLLAR RESTORATION “RAIN TAX” AN UNFUNDED AND MANDATED BY THE EPA FOR THE RESTORATION OF CHESAPEAKE BAY

    IN MARYLAND, CITIZENS HAVE, ONLY THREE THINGS ARE CERTAIN — DEATH, TAXES AND RAIN

    IN WASHINGTON STATE, CITIZENS HAVE, THINGS THAT ARE CERTAIN  DEATH,TAXES AND RAIN

    AND…  WOW,  

    922,000 acres of restricted public use and access in the WILD Olympic National Park, ONP UN Man and the Biosphere, ONP UN World Heritage Site, taxes, RAIN, fish, the Boldt decision, tribes, instream flows, $2.4 BILLION Dollar Federal Judgment for culverts for fish, 37 rivers in Washington  state designated as National Wild and Scenic, manipulated balding, breeding and seeding of endangered butterflies, reintroduction of endangered species, reintroduction of the sage grouse, critical areas for endangered species, (3) national monuments,San Juan Islands National Monument, Thanks to the Washington state house and senate for uniting to provide $65 million for the WWRP grant program AND ESRP has received and invested $26.5 million in state capital funds and an additional $2.5 million in federal partnership funds in restoration or protection projects.

    PATTY MURRAY WILL BE BACK FOR MORE WILDING IN WA STATE

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

    April 22, 2013 by Pearl Rains Hewett comment

    SHALL THE PEOPLE OF WA STATE START PROTESTING NOW?

    INDEED, TODAY IS APRIL 9, 2014

    WHEN SHALL THE PEOPLE OF WA STATE START PROTESTING?

    INDEED,SIGNS ARE POSTED AT THE KINGSTON FERRY TERMINAL

    THE HAND WRITING IS ON THE DOCK.

    ———————————————————————-

    MARYLAND LAWMAKERS FINALLY CONSIDER REPEALING

    THE SO-CALLED “RAIN TAX”

    www.theblaze.com/…/maryland-lawmakers-finally-consider-rep…

    TheBlaze

    Jan 22, 2014 – Maryland lawmakers in 2012 passed a bill to levy a fine on anything that prevented … meaning many state residents had no choice but to literally pay a tax on rain. … of the STORM WATER MANAGEMENT WATERSHED AND RESTORATION PROGRAM. … THE EPA ESTIMATED THAT THE PROJECT WOULD COST ROUGHLY $14.8 BILLION.


  • The ENABLING ACT February 22, 1889

    Way back then, the Federal Government  and the elected representative gave to and enabled American citizens,  they made  donations of public lands to such states.

     Moving forward 125 years, “We the People” of Washington State, are in a battle with the Federal  and state Governments  and our elected representative struggling to preserve, protect,  maintain the use of,  intent and purpose of the  public lands that were given to us in TRUST.

    We are offended by the crippling and disabling congressional acts, including but not limited to other transgressions, by questionable “Sue and Settle” agreements.

     ——————————————————————–

    PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF TIMBER?

    The designated TRUST land manager? (including all TRUST land)

    INDEED, THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR), as the designated trust land manager, is responsible for the overall stewardship and management of Washington trust lands. This includes MAKING THE ASSETS PRODUCTIVE for current and future generations, GENERATING REVENUE FOR THE BENEFICIARIES, AND ACTING WITH AN UNDIVIDED LOYALTY TO THE BENEFICIARIES. DNR’s mission is to “provide professional, forward looking stewardship of our state lands, natural resources, and environment and to provide leadership IN CREATING A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR THE TRUSTS AND ALL CITIZENS.”

    The state Legislature has a fiduciary duty to manage the lands for the benefit of the beneficiaries

     WHO ARE THE BENEFICIARIES OF TRUST LANDS IN WASHINGTON STATE?


     The beneficiaries of Washington’s trust lands are enumerated in the state’s Enabling Act and Constitution.

     They include Commons Schools, Washington State University, University of Washington, Normal Schools (Evergreen, Eastern, Western and Central Washington State universities), Charitable, Educational, Penal and Reformatory Institutions, the Capital Building Trust, and the citizens of the state. Through the Enabling Act, a  specific acreage of land was endowed and is held in trust for each identified beneficiary. Revenues generated from those lands are deposited into designated accounts within the state Treasury. Guidance on use of these funds is derived from case law, the state Constitution, and state statute.

     Washington Trust Land Beneficiary Funds and Acreage Fund Beneficiary Surface Acres in Fund % Acres

    Total 2,240,692

    COMMON SCHOOLS PUBLIC SCHOOLS (K-12) 1,757,142   78.4%

    Agricultural School Trust Washington State University 71,336 3.2%

    Scientific School Trust Washington State University 82,433 3.7%

    Normal School Trust

    Western Washington University

    Central Washington University

    Eastern Washington University

    Evergreen State College 64,146 2.9%

    University- Original Trust University of Washington 2,893 0.1%

    University- Transfer Trust University of Washington 83,802 3.7%

    Charitable, Educational, Penal and Reformatory Institutions Trust

    Washington State Institutions 69,937 3.1%

    Capitol Building Trust 109,003 4.9%

    Total 2,240,692  100.0%

    AND THE LANDS GRANTED BY THIS SECTION SHALL BE HELD, APPROPRIATED, AND DISPOSED OF EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES HEREIN MENTIONED

    —————————————————————————

    The ENABLING ACT (segments related to WA State)

    Approved February 22, 1889.) [25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676.]

    [PRESIDENT'S PROCLAMATION DECLARING WASHINGTON A STATE: 26 ST. AT LARGE, PROCLAMATIONS, P 10, NOV. 11, 1889.]

     AN ACT to provide for the division of Dakota into two States and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and WASHINGTON to form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and

    TO MAKE DONATIONS OF PUBLIC LANDS TO SUCH STATES.

    SEC. 17.

    THE FOLLOWING GRANTS OF LAND ARE HEREBY MADE, TO WIT:

    TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

    For the establishment and maintenance of

    a scientific school, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND ACRES;

    for State normal schools, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND ACRES;

    for public buildings at the State capital, in addition to the grant hereinbefore made for that purpose, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND ACRES;

    for State charitable, educational, penal, and reformatory institutions, TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND ACRES.

    That the States provided for in this act shall not be entitled to any further or other grants of land for any purpose THAN AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN THIS ACT.

    AND THE LANDS GRANTED BY THIS SECTION SHALL BE HELD, APPROPRIATED, AND DISPOSED OF EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES HEREIN MENTIONED,

    in such manner as the legislatures of the respective States may severally provide.

    ————————————————————————————-

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    That the inhabitants of all that part of the area of the United States now constituting the Territories of Dakota, Montana, and WASHINGTON, as at present described, may become the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and WASHINGTON, respectively, as hereinafter provided.

    SEC. 11. That all lands HEREIN GRANTED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES SHALL be disposed of only at public sale, and at a price not less than ten dollars per acre, the proceeds

    TO CONSTITUTE A PERMANENT SCHOOL FUND, the interest of which ONLY SHALL BE EXPENDED IN THE SUPPORT OF SAID SCHOOLS.

    But said lands may, under such regulations as the legislatures shall prescribe, be leased for periods of not more than five years, in quantities not exceeding one section to any one person or company; and such land shall not be subject to pre-emption, homestead entry, or any other entry under the land laws of the United States, whether surveyed or unsurveyed,

    BUT SHALL BE RESERVED FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES ONLY.

    (2) May 7, 1932:  “With the exception of the lands granted for public buildings, the proceeds from the sale and other permanent disposition of any of the said lands and from every part thereof,

    SHALL CONSTITUTE PERMANENT FUNDS FOR THE SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THE VARIOUS STATE INSTITUTIONS FOR WHICH THE LANDS HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

    Rentals on leased lands, interest on deferred payments on lands sold, interest on funds arising from these lands, and all other actual income, shall be available for the maintenance and support of such schools and institutions. Any State may, however, in its discretion, add a portion of the annual income to the permanent funds.

    (5) June 28, 1952:

    AN ACT To authorize each of the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, and

    WASHINGTON TO POOL MONEYS DERIVED FROM LANDS GRANTED TO IT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND VARIOUS STATE INSTITUTIONS.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    That the fourth paragraph of section 11 of the Act relating to the admission into the Union of the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and WASHINGTON, approved February 22, 1889, as amended (47 Stat. 151), is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: “Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, each of the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, and WASHINGTON may pool the moneys received by it from oil and gas and other mineral leasing of said lands.

    THE MONEYS SO POOLED SHALL BE APPORTIONED AMONG THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THE VARIOUS STATE INSTITUTIONS IN SUCH MANNER THAT THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND EACH OF SUCH INSTITUTIONS SHALL RECEIVE AN AMOUNT WHICH BEARS THE SAME RATIO TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT APPORTIONED AS THE NUMBER OF ACRES

    (including any that may have been disposed of) granted for such public schools or for such institutions bears to the total number of acres (including any that may have been disposed of) granted by this Act. Not less than 50 per centum of each such amount shall be covered into the appropriate permanent fund.” [66 U.S. Statutes at Large c 480 p 283. Approved June 28, 1952.]

    (7) June 30, 1967:

    AN ACT To authorize the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and WASHINGTON to use the income from certain lands for the construction of facilities for State charitable, educational, penal, and reformatory institutions.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the second sentence of the fourth paragraph of section 11 of the Act entitled “An Act to provide for the division of Dakota into two States and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and WASHINGTON to form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and TO MAKE DONATIONS OF PUBLIC LANDS TO SUCH STATES”, approved February 22, 1889 (25 Stat. 676), as amended, is amended to read as follows: “Rentals on leased land,

    PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF TIMBER

    and other crops, interest on deferred payments on land sold, interest on funds arising from these lands, and all other actual income, shall be available for the acquisition and construction of facilities, including the retirement of bonds authorized by law for such purposes, AND FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF SUCH SCHOOLS AND INSTITUTIONS.” [Public Law 90-41. 81 U.S. Statutes at Large p 106. Approved June 30, 1967.]

    (8) October 16, 1970:

    AN ACT To amend section 11 of the Act approved February 22, 1889 (25 Stat. 676) as amended by the Act of May 7, 1932 (47 Stat. 150), and as amended by the Act of April 13, 1948 (62 Stat. 170) relating to the admission to the Union of the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and WASHINGTON, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the second sentence of the first paragraph of section 11 of the Act approved February 22, 1889 (25 Stat. 676), as amended by the Act of May 7, 1932 (47 Stat. 150), is hereby amended to read as follows:

    “Any of the said lands may be exchanged for other lands, public or private, of equal value and as near as may be of equal area,

    but if any of the said lands are exchanged with the UNITED STATES such exchange

    SHALL BE LIMITED TO FEDERAL LANDS THAT ARE SURVEYED, NONMINERAL, UNRESERVED PUBLIC LANDS WITHIN THE STATE, OR ARE RESERVED PUBLIC LANDS WITHIN THE STATE THAT ARE SUBJECT TO EXCHANGE UNDER THE LAWS GOVERNING THE ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH FEDERAL RESERVED PUBLIC LANDS.”

    and that a new paragraph be added immediately following the above, as follows:

    “All exchanges heretofore made under section 11 of the Act approved February 22, 1889 (25 Stat. 676), as amended by the Act approved May 7, 1932 (47 Stat. 150),

    FOR RESERVED PUBLIC LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES THAT WERE SUBJECT TO EXCHANGE UNDER LAW PURSUANT TO WHICH THEY WERE BEING ADMINISTERED AND THE REQUIREMENTS THEREOF HAVE BEEN MET, ARE HEREBY APPROVED TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THOUGH THE LANDS EXCHANGED WERE UNRESERVED PUBLIC LANDS.”

    and that the present paragraph 2 of section 11 be amended to read as follows:

    “The said lands may be leased under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe.” [Public Law 91-463. 84 U.S. Statutes at Large p 987. Approved October 16, 1970.]

    SEC. 13. That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of public lands lying within said States which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said States into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same,

    SHALL BE PAID TO THE SAID STATES, TO BE USED AS A PERMANENT FUND, THE INTEREST OF WHICH ONLY SHALL BE EXPENDED FOR THE SUPPORT OF COMMON SCHOOLS WITHIN SAID STATES, respectively.

    SEC. 14. That the lands granted to the Territories of Dakota and Montana by the act of February eighteenth, eighteen hundred and eighty-one, entitled “An act to grant lands to Dakota, Montana, Arizona, Idaho, and Wyoming for university purposes,” are hereby vested in the States of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana, respectively, if such States are admitted into the Union, as provided in this act, to the extent of the full quantity of seventy-two sections to each of said States, and any portion of said lands that may not have been selected by either of said Territories of Dakota or Montana may be selected by the respective States aforesaid; but said act of February eighteenth, eighteen hundred and eighty-one, shall be so amended as to provide that none of said lands shall be sold for less than ten dollars per acre,

    AND THE PROCEEDS SHALL CONSTITUTE A PERMANENT FUND TO BE SAFELY INVESTED AND HELD BY SAID STATES SEVERALLY,

    and the income thereof be used exclusively for university purposes.

    AND SUCH QUANTITY OF THE LANDS AUTHORIZED BY THE FOURTH SECTION OF THE ACT OF JULY SEVENTEENTH, EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY-FOUR, TO BE RESERVED FOR UNIVERSITY PURPOSES IN THE TERRITORY OF WASHINGTON,

    as, together with the lands confirmed to the vendees of the Territory by the act of March fourteenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-four, will make the full quantity of seventy-two entire sections,

    ARE HEREBY GRANTED IN LIKE MANNER TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR THE PURPOSES OF A UNIVERSITY IN SAID STATE.

    None of the lands granted in this section shall be sold at less than ten dollars per acre; but said lands may be leased in the same manner as provided in section eleven of this act.

    THE SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, AND UNIVERSITIES PROVIDED FOR IN THIS ACT SHALL FOREVER REMAIN UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE SAID STATES,

    RESPECTIVELY, AND NO PART OF THE PROCEEDS ARISING FROM THE SALE OR DISPOSAL OF ANY LANDS HEREIN GRANTED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES SHALL BE USED FOR THE SUPPORT OF ANY SECTARIAN OR DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOL, COLLEGE, OR UNIVERSITY.

    The section of land granted by the act of June sixteenth, eighteen hundred and eighty, to the Territory of Dakota, FOR AN ASYLUM FOR THE INSANE shall, upon the admission of said State of South Dakota into the Union, become the property of said State.

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

    SEC. 17. That in lieu of the grant of land for purposes of internal improvement made to new States by the eighth section of the act of September fourth, eighteen hundred and forty-one, which act is hereby repealed as to the States provided for by this act, AND IN LIEU OF ANY CLAIM OR DEMAND BY THE SAID STATES, or either of them, under the act of September twenty-eighth, eighteen hundred and fifty, and section twenty-four hundred and seventy-nine of the Revised Statutes, making a grant of swamp and overflowed lands to certain States, which grant it is hereby declared is not extended to the States provided for in this act, and in lieu of any grant of saline lands to said States,

    THE FOLLOWING GRANTS OF LAND ARE HEREBY MADE, TO WIT:

    TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

    For the establishment and maintenance of a scientific school, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND ACRES;

    for State normal schools, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND ACRES;

    for public buildings at the State capital, in addition to the grant hereinbefore made for that purpose, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND ACRES;

    for State charitable, educational, penal, and reformatory institutions, TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND ACRES.

    That the States provided for in this act shall not be entitled to any further or other grants of land for any purpose

    THAN AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN THIS ACT.

    AND THE LANDS GRANTED BY THIS SECTION SHALL BE HELD, APPROPRIATED, AND DISPOSED OF EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES HEREIN MENTIONED,

    in such manner as the legislatures of the respective States may severally provide.

    SEC. 18. That all mineral lands shall be exempted from the grants made by this act. But if sections sixteen and thirty-six, or any subdivisions or portion of any smallest subdivision thereof in any township shall be found by the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO BE MINERAL LANDS, said States are hereby authorized and empowered to select, in legal subdivisions, an equal quantity of other unappropriated lands in said States, in lieu thereof,

    FOR THE USE AND THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMON SCHOOLS OF SAID STATES.

    SEC. 19. That all lands granted in quantity or as indemnity by this act shall be selected, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior,

    FROM THE SURVEYED, UNRESERVED, AND UNAPPROPRIATED PUBLIC LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE RESPECTIVE STATES ENTITLED THERETO.

    And there shall be deducted from the number of acres of land donated by this act for specific objects to said States the number of acres in each heretofore donated by Congress to said Territories for similar objects.

    SEC. 25. THAT ALL ACTS OR PARTS OF ACTS IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, WHETHER PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF SAID TERRITORIES OR BY CONGRESS, ARE HEREBY REPEALED.

    Approved, February 22, 1889. [25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676.]

    http://www.leg.wa.gov/History/State/Pages/enabling.aspx

    Washington Trust Lands & Education Funding

    As new states entered the union, Congress made

    land grants to those states to provide support for a

    variety of public institutions, principally public

    schools. The amount of land, the purpose for the

    lands and conditions for sale and use were embodied

    in an Enabling Act. The terms set by Congress, and

    outlined in the Enabling Act, were accepted by the

    state when the people ratified a state constitution

    that contained provisions guiding the state’s use of

    these lands. Unlike public lands, state trust lands are

    publicly owned lands that are held in trust by the

    state for specifically designated beneficiaries. As

    trustees, the state Legislature has a fiduciary duty to

    manage the lands for the benefit of the beneficiaries

    of the trust grant. These lands are managed for a

    diverse range of uses to meet that responsibility

    generating revenue for the designated beneficiaries,

    today and for future generations

    ——————————————————————————–

     

    TRUST LANDS IN WASHINGTON ARE MANAGED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL

    RESOURCES, WHICH IS OVERSEEN BY A COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS.

    The Department of Natural Resources statutorily consists of the Commissioner of

    Public Lands, the Board of Natural Resources and the Department of Natural

    Resources. The Board of Natural Resources is composed of six members: the

    Governor or the Governor’s designee, the Superintendent of Public Instruction,

    the Commissioner of Public Lands, the Dean of the College of Forest

    Resources at the University of Washington, the Dean of the College of

    Agriculture, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences at Washington State

    University, and a representative of the counties that contain State Forest Board

    purchase or transfer forest lands.

    ——————————————————————————————

    The Department of Natural Resources (DNR), as the designated trust land manager, is responsible for the overall stewardship and management of Washington trust lands. This includes making the assets productive for current and future generations, generating revenue for the beneficiaries, and acting with an undivided loyalty to the beneficiaries. DNR’s mission is to “provide professional, forward looking stewardship of our state lands, natural resources, and environment and to provide leadership in creating a sustainable future for the trusts and all citizens.”

     

    Who are the beneficiaries of trust lands in Washington?

    The beneficiaries of Washington’s trust lands are enumerated in the state’s Enabling Act and Constitution.

    They include Commons Schools, Washington State University, University of Washington, Normal Schools (Evergreen, Eastern, Western and Central Washington State universities), Charitable, Educational, Penal and Reformatory Institutions, the Capital Building Trust, and the citizens of the state. Through the Enabling Act, a  specific acreage of land was endowed and is held in trust for each identified beneficiary. Revenues generated from those lands are deposited into designated accounts within the state Treasury. Guidance on use of these funds is derived from case law, the state Constitution, and state statute.

     

    —————————————————————————

    Which brings us to this, for another time and another other posting

    https://dnrc.mt.gov/Trust/PDFs/TrustLandArticle.pdf

    These cases appear to indicate that a trustee has little discretion to manage for general

    benefits outside of the beneficiary. However, strict scrutiny of the Washington and Montana constitutions has led some to question for whom trust lands are to be managed.

    The Enabling Act of 1889, under which Washington and Montana were admitted to the

    Union, states: “That upon admission of each of said states into the Union, sections

    numbered 16 and 36 in every township of said proposed states…are hereby granted to said states for the support of common schools

    Even though the Enabling Act of 1889 specifies that land grants be managed to support common schools, states may have slightly different constitutional provisions. In Washington, and

    similarly in Montana, the state Constitution says “all lands granted [under the Enabling Act of 1889] are

    held in trust for all the people .” Article X of the Montana Constitution states: “All lands of the state…granted by Congress …shall be  public lands of the state. They shall be held intrust for the people…for the respective purposes for which they have been or may be granted.

    Any doubt that state trust lands must be utilized solely for the financial support of the trust beneficiary vanished in 1999 when the Montana Supreme Court issued its opinion in Montanans for Responsible Use of the School Trust v. State of Montana, commonly known as the Montrust  case. The court held that any statute affecting state trust lands must be “consistent with the constitutional mandates of the trust and the state’s fiduciary duties as a trustee.” The court also confirmed that the state’s management of trust lands would be judged by principles applicable to private trusts and described that duty as follows:

    “When a party undertakes the obligation of a trustee to receive money or property for transfer to another, he takes with it the duty of undivided loyalty to the beneficiary of the trust. The undivided loyalty of a trustee is jealously insisted on by the courts, which require a standard with a ‘punctilio of an honor the most sensitive.’ A trustee must act with the utmost good faith towards the beneficiary, and may not act in his own interest, or in the interest of a third person

    In Montana, Whereas most of the public’s association with state trust lands revolves around recreational use and hunting, the mandate for management of trust lands extends far beyond recreation or agricultural production. The Montana Constitution confers to the

    Board of Land Commissioners the authority “to direct, control, lease, exchange, and sell school lands and lands which have been or may be granted for the support and benefit of the various state educational institutions, under such regulations and restrictions as may be projects that maintain open space, recreational opportunities, and traditional resource management activities

    http://www.leg.wa.gov/History/State/Pages/enabling.aspx

    ——————————————————————————————-

    Supreme Court of Montana.

    MONTANANS FOR the RESPONSIBLE USE OF the SCHOOL TRUST, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Scott DARKENWALD, Treasurer of the State of Montana; State Board of Land Commissioners, Montana Board of Investments, and Bud Clinch, Director of the Department of Natural Resources & Conservation, Defendants and Respondents.

    No. 04-027.

    Argued Feb. 2, 2005. — August 09, 2005


  • The Dam Shame Of Flooding

    Derek,

    I posted this on my website last year.
    Flooding is a Dam Shame
    Posted on June 28, 2013 7:31 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    ——————————————————————————–

    Why has Congress spent ALL of it’s time FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS? TAKING AND USING taxpayer dollars? to legislate and fund the NGO’s “Sue and Settle” global agenda on the environment?, “WILDING?” the United States of America, to protect scenic rivers and views?, and to SAVE AND PROTECT endangered species,TAKING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE NATURAL RESOURCE LAND TO PROVIDE Critical Habitat for endangered species,created manipulated balding, breeding, seeding and trans location of endangered plants and animals?

    IN A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE? FOR THE PEOPLE? BY THE PEOPLE?

    WHO IS PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

    Why has congress FAILED TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN “PEOPLE” FROM the LOSS OF HUMAN LIFE AND PROPERTY DESTRUCTION, AKA “HABITAT FOR HUMANITY” FROM THE DAMN MISERY OF PROVEN, CONTROLLABLE DAM FLOODING?

    The increase on FEMA flood insurance is a DAM shame on Congress.

    Pearl Rains Hewett
    —————————————————————–

    Flooding is a Dam Shame
    Posted on June 28, 2013 7:31 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    FLOODING IS A DAM SHAME

    DROUGHT IS A DAM SHAME

    CHINA WAS SO DAM SMART THAT THEY BUILT THE BIGGEST DAM IN THE WORLD.

    HE WHO CONTROLS THE WATER CONTROLS THE WORLD?

    IN THE USA THE GOVERNMENT WAS AND IS SO DAM STUPID THEY DECIDED THAT HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER WAS NOT DAM CLEAN, DAM CHEAP, DAM RENEWABLE DAM ENERGY, NOT DAM FLOOD CONTROL AND NOT DAM DROUGHT AND DAM PROPERTY LOSS PREVENTION.

    THE DAM CHINESE GOVERNMENT IS SO DAM SMART THEY WORK IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE DAM PEOPLE.

    THE CHINESE DAM PREVENTS THE DAM LOSS OF LIFE, BILLIONS OF DAM DOLLARS IN PROPERTY DAMAGE, PROVIDES DAM CHEAP, DAM CLEAN, DAM RENEWABLE, DAM ENERGY AND HELPS KEEP THEIR DAM ECONOMY STRONG.

    THE CHINESE DAM CONTROLS THE DAM WATER RELEASES THE DAM WATER TO ELIMINATE THE DAM DROUGHTS

    WHAT PART OF THIS DAM CHINESE POLICY DOES THE DAM US GOVERNMENT NOT UNDERSTAND?

    THE US GOVERNMENT IS SO DAM DUMB THEY WORK FOR THE DAM LOBBYIST AND THE DAM SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. SAVE THE DAM SALMON AT WHAT COST?

    THE BEST DAM INTEREST OF THE DAM PEOPLE IN THE USA BE DAMMED

    AS DICTATED BY THE DAM US GOVERNMENT

    THE DAM PEOPLE IN THE DAM USA ARE FLOODED AND CLEANING UP THE DAM WATER DAMAGE FOR SIX DAM MONTHS OF THE YEAR.

    THE DAM PEOPLE IN THE USA SUFFER THE DAM DROUGHT FOR THE OTHER SIX DAM MONTHS OF THE YEAR

    THE CHINESE DAM CONCEPT IS TO BUILD AND KEEP DAMS TO PROVIDE CLEAN RENEWABLE ELECTRIC POWER, CONTROL THE DAM WATER AND PREVENT THE DAM FLOODING AND RELEASE THE DAM WATER TO PREVENT DROUGHT

    THE USA DAM POLICY CREATES LOSS OF DAM LIFE, DAM MISERY AND DAM SUFFERING FOR MILLIONS OF DAM AMERICANS EVERY DAM YEAR.
    This entry was posted in Economic Impact, FEDERAL ISSUES AND REFORM, The We’s who WANT,


  • NSA’s Gotta YOTTABYTE?

    WHAT’S A YOTTABTYE?
    The prefix: yotta (used in units of measurement) denoting a factor of 10 ten to 24th power. 1 followed by 24 zeros

    The NSA data center in Utah will be up and running by the end of September
    Much has been written about JUST HOW MUCH DATA THAT FACILITY MIGHT HOLD, with estimates ranging from “yottabytes” (in Wired) to “5 zettabytes” (on NPR)

    HOW BIG IS A YOTTABYTE?

    A YOTTABYTE IS A SEPTILLION BYTES
    SO LARGE THAT NO ONE HAS YET COINED A TERM … this means that INFORMATION COLLECTED either via prism-like programs ..

    HOW BIG IS A SEPTILLION?

    A SEPTILLION IS 10 to the 24th power with 24 ZEROS
    1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

    WHY WOULD NSA NEED A FACILITY TO HOLD THAT MUCH COLLECTED DATA?
    WHY WOULD NSA COLLECT THAT MUCH DATA?
    ————————————————————-

    Jul 24, 2013 – A guide from Cisco explains that a yottabyte = 1,000 zettabytes = 1,000,000 … Cleversafe is the only company that can deliver on this requirement today. …

    MEANING THAT THE NSA’S ABILITY TO STORE INFORMATION WILL ONLY INCREASE.
    ————————————————————————–
    MEANING THAT? INDEED, NSA WILL BE COLLECTING THAT MUCH MORE DATA?
    AND, What NSA can’t do now, it will certainly be able to do in a half decade.
    ———————————————————-

    The bottom line
    IS THIS ANOTHER typical government program “WHERE MORE IS BETTER”?
    This process can be continued indefinitely, but SOMEONE has to stop THE EXPONENTIAL GROWTH AND DEBT OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT somewhere.
    THE NATIONAL DEBT IS OVER $17.2 TRILLION DOLLARS
    A TRILLION 1,000,000,000,000 10 to the 12th power and it has 12 zeros

    —————————————————————————————-

    This process can be continued indefinitely, but one has to stop somewhere. The name centillion (n = 100) has appeared in many dictionaries. A CENTILLION IS 10 to the 303 power (1 FOLLOWED BY 303 ZEROES) in the American system and a whopping 10 to the 600 power (1 followed by 600 zeroes) in the European system.

    JUST KEEP ADDING ZEROS

    A MILLION 1,000,000 HAS 6 ZEROS

    A BILLION 1,000,000,000 10 to the 9

    THE GREEK-BASED PROPOSED NAME FOR A BILLION WAS “GILLION” (who knew?)

    A TRILLION 1,000,000,000,000 10 to the 12th power and it has 12 zeros

    JUST KEEP ADDING ZEROS

    A SEPTILLION IS 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 24th power) with 24 zeros
    ——————————————————————————————

    Names for Large Numbers
    How Many? A Dictionary of Units of Measurement
    © Russ Rowlett and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

    (see the full table at)

    http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/large.html

    n = 103n = American
    3 109 billion (10 to the 9th power= 1 followed by 9 zeros) a “GILLION” IN GREEK
    4 1012 trillion
    5 1015 quadrillion
    6 1018 quintillion
    7 1021 SEXTILLION
    8 1024 septillion (10 to the 24th power= 1 followed by 24 zeros)
    9 1027 octillion
    10 1030 nonillion
    11 1033 decillion
    12 1036 undecillion
    13 1039 duodecillion
    14 1042 tredecillion
    15 1045 quattuordecillion
    16 1048 quindecillion
    17 1051 sexdecillion
    18 1054 septendecillion
    19 1057 octodecillion
    20 1060 novemdecillion
    21 1063 vigintillion
    22 1066 unvigintillion
    23 1069 duovigintillion
    24 1072 trevigintillion
    25 1075 quattuorvigintillion
    26 1078 quinvigintillion
    27 1081 sexvigintillion
    28 1084 septenvigintillion
    29 1087 octovigintillion
    30 1090 novemvigintillion
    31 1093 trigintillion
    32 1096 untrigintillion
    33 1099 duotrigintillion (10 to the 99th power= 1 followed by 99 zeros)

    This process can be continued indefinitely, but one has to stop somewhere. The name centillion (n = 100) has appeared in many dictionaries. A centillion is 10303 (1 followed by 303 zeroes) in the American system and a whopping 10600 (1 followed by 600 zeroes) in the European system.
    —————————————————————————

    The bottom line
    This is a typical government program “WHERE MORE IS BETTER”
    This process can be continued indefinitely, but SOMEONE has to stop THE EXPONENTIAL GROWTH AND DEBT OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT somewhere.
    THE NATIONAL DEBT IS OVER $17.2 TRILLION DOLLARS (count those zeros)
    A TRILLION 1,000,000,000,000 10 to the 12th power and it has 12 zeros
    THE NATIONAL DEBT? $17,200,000,000,000.00 DOLLARS

    THE GREEK-BASED PROPOSED NAME FOR A BILLION WAS “GILLION”

    The Greeks had it right for the understanding of a reasonable person.
    A BILLION MIGHT AS WELL BE A GILLION TO ME

    IN FACT THE NEED FOR NSA’s YOTTABYTE IS ALL GREEK TO ME!
    ——————————————————————————————————–

    Documentation on NSA’s YOTTABYTE

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/07/24/blueprints-of-nsa-data-center-in-utah-suggest-its-storage-capacity-is-less-impressive-than-thought/

    Welcome to The Not-So Private Parts where technology & privacy collide
    Kashmir Hill Forbes Staff

    The NSA data center in Utah will be up and running by the end of September
    Much has been written about JUST HOW MUCH DATA THAT FACILITY MIGHT HOLD, with estimates ranging from “yottabytes” (in Wired) to “5 zettabytes” (on NPR), A.K.A. words that you probably can’t pronounce that translate to “a lot.”

    The prefix: yotta (used in units of measurement) denoting a factor of 10 ten to 24th power. 1 followed by 24 zeros 1

    A guide from Cisco explains that

    a yottabyte = 1,000 zettabytes = 1,000,000 exabytes = 1 billion pettabytes = 1 trillion terabytes.
    —————————————————————————————————–
    Just to make that perfectly clear? On how much DATA that NSA DATA CENTER might hold
    A yottabyte = 1,000 zettabytes
    A zettabytes = 1,000,000 exabytes
    1,000,000 exabytes = 1 BILLION pettabytes
    1 BILLION pettabytes = 1 TRILLION terabytes.

    For some sense of scale, you would need 400 TERABYTES to hold all of the books ever written in any language.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/07/24/blueprints-of-nsa-data-center-in-utah-suggest-its-storage-capacity-is-less-impressive-than-thought/

    —————————————————————————————————-
    • Blueprints Of NSA’s Ridiculously Expensive Data Center In Utah …
    www.forbes.com/…/blueprints-of-nsa-data-center-in-utah-sugge…‎
    by Kashmir Hill – in 3,773 Google+ circles
    Jul 24, 2013 – A guide from Cisco explains that a yottabyte = 1,000 zettabytes = 1,000,000 … Cleversafe is the only company that can deliver on this requirement today. … MEANING THAT THE NSA’S ABILITY TO STORE INFORMATION WILL ONLY INCREASE.

    ——————————————————————-

    • The NSA’s Massive Utah Data Center Won’t Store Anything Close To …
    techcrunch.com/…/the-nsas-massive-utah-data-center-wont-store-anythin…‎
    Jul 24, 2013 – (A yottabyte is a septillion bytes—so large that no one has yet coined a term … This means that information collected either via PRISM-like programs … What the NSA can’t do now, it will certainly be able to do in a half decade.


  • The Butterfly Saga part (3)

    A recorded Public Comment to Clallam County on ENDANGERED LAND USE (prior to passage)

    Public Comment on Current Use Assessment CUA2013-01 for Property ID 073019-11000

    152 acres change from “Forest” designation to “Open Space” designation

    The staff report refers to a Conservation Easement as the highest public benefit, per the Warranty Deed AF#2013-1290241

    However, no conservation easement can be found as a condition of the mentioned Warranty Deed (within the Deed or as an attachment).

    Restrictions within the warranty deed consistent with a mentioned Cooperative Agreement between the US Army and the Nature Conservancy.

    Clallam County is not a party to that Cooperative Agreement

    The Cooperative Agreement is not a component of the recorded Warranty Deed

    The public is not privileged to said Cooperative Agreement

    Section 3 of the Warranty Deed, subject to the property being used in a manner that is not consistent with the Cooperative Agreement, shall transfer to the US Army all or a portion of the property.

    The county’s protections under CCC 27.08 will not be obtainable if the Federal government becomes the Grantee/owner.

    The Federal government could manage the land outside the intent of a conservation easement. It’s feasible the Federal government wouldn’t be bound to continue even the intent of the cooperative agreement.

    If the Federal government became the owner, and did not maintain the intent of a conservation easement, the county would receive no benefit to removing the designation because the Federal government doesn’t pay property taxes anyway.

    The applicant is an out of state organization; what protections will the county maintain without assurances the county and state would have with the owner being in-state.

    There is no plan made available as to how this property will be managed by the organization, what will be their focus in its management and how will they manage the resources?

    How will their land practices contribute to the Landslide Hazard, manage to preclude a mass wasting or become a hazard contributor to adjacent properties? Such as not reforesting the landscape.

    The property is enclosed within the confines on all four sides by timber/forest designated lands. It has no public road network.

    In the applicants rational to apply for the acquisition funding under the US Army program it’s cited to preclude development; how is this a public benefit when these lands are within a forest designation, what is the likelihood development would even take place near/long term?

    Given this general area is a manage forest, taking this 152 acres out of that overall management of the area has the high likelihood of having an EFFECT ON THE ADJACENT FOREST. What is the PUBLIC BENEFIT of reducing a productive/harvestable forest?

    There is potential the use of this land will influence the management of the adjacent WDNR (on three sides) lands, and the possibility of AFFECTING THE HARVEST REVENUES the county would be a beneficiary to. This is contradictory to it being a PUBLIC BENEFIT in terms of the county.

    An Open Space designation will create a patchwork of land designations, just when WDNR is completing land exchanges to remove the patchwork of designations that already occur across the county. That PUBLIC BENEFIT will be reversed in such a change.

    The state/county would receive public benefit leaving the designation as forest/timber with the revenues and taxes received during any future harvest. The staff analysis could have done a comparison on this potential future harvest revenue.

    A $94 annual revenue benefit is not a realistic PUBLIC BENEFIT; it is essential this county shore up its revenues.

    A 90% reduction in land valuation IS NOT A PUBLIC BENEFIT

    The Clallam County Planning Commission held the required public hearing but did not take/offer to take public testimony.

    A public hearing is not a planned function of the Board of County Commissioners in this process; therefore NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY HAS OR WILL BE TAKEN IN REGARDS TO THIS APPLICATION

    The Board’s resolution being considered is not factual because section 6 is not correct, in regards to public testimony.

    I have to call in to question why land acquisition for the purpose of preserving the land in its natural, scenic, open condition to maintain its ecological, historical, visual and educational values is being applied by the US ARMY IN CLALLAM COUNTY, far from its military installations or other operational holdings/reservations.

    If this is for the purpose of mitigation for those afar installations (and possibly OUT OF STATE GIVEN THE ORGANIZATION THAT RECEIVED THE ACQUISITION FUNDING) why impact forest revenues for the public benefit of those outside the area? This is NOT A PUBLIC BENEFIT for those in the county.

    This has the appearance of locking the land AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC, as an example: how will this area be considered for allowing access for hunting…whereas the forest owners have a history of allowing hunting on their property…but WILL THIS OUT OF STATE ORGANIZATION have the same relationship with the public? And the Cooperative Agreement (not seen or provided) MAY HAVE ALL KINDS OF NON-PUBLIC BENEFIT ramifications such as “REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ARMY…shall be permitted at all reasonable times to inspect the Property.” Another government agency keeping its thumb on the pulse of the landscape.

    This sets a precedence of another taking of the sustainability of this region, to maintain its self-sufficiency.

    I request you do not approve this application. Keep this land in forest designation.

    ——————————————————————————-


  • The Pockets of Sue and Settle

    The Pocket Gopher, for one. The Pockets that that have been picked using Sue and Settle? The NGO’S that are raking in millions and costing taxpayers billions of dollars by suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Endangered Species Act, including paying the legal expenses to the environmental groups.
    —————————————–
    TARGETING The DEEP POCKETS of the EPA and USFWS?

    DEEP POCKETS – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_pocket‎
    In the context of a lawsuit, the DEEP POCKETS is often the target defendant, even when the true (moral) culpability is with another party because the DEEP POCKETS has … MONEY to pay a verdict.
    ———————————————————————————————————–
    The EMPTY POCKETS of “We The People” the collective financial destitution and despair caused by EPA and USFWS Sue and Settle agreements
    —————————————————————-
    The pockets of government deception?

    12 States Sue EPA over Clean Air Records – Governing
    www.governing.com/…/12-States-Sue-EPA-over-Clean-Air-Records.htm…‎
    Twelve states are suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for not complying with their public-records requests for information on the implementation of …
    ———————————————————————————————
    The NGO’s that Sued, settled and pocketed $$$ agreements of the Clean Water Act?
    Raking in millions and costing taxpayers billions of dollars?

    The NGO’s that Sued, settled and pocketed $$$ agreements of the Clean Air Act?
    Raking in millions and costing taxpayers billions of dollars?

    The NGO’s that Sued, settled pocketed $$$ agreements of the Endangered Species Act?
    Raking in millions and costing taxpayers billions of dollars?
    ———————————————————————————————-

    The pockets of Public and Private “NO MAN’S LAND” created by Sue and Settle?

    Pockets of the collective financial destitution and despair caused by EPA and USFWS Sue and Settle agreements, ruling unfunded mandates?

    Remember the of financial destitution and despair caused in the timber industry by the Pockets of endangered Spotted Owls?

    OK, now multiply the pockets of Financial destitution and Despair, that SHALL be caused by using Sue and Settle agreements, with over 2000 pockets of endangered species, now listed in the United States Of America.

    The pockets of NGO Sue and Settle agreements, collective Impact on “We the People” and America?
    PRICELESS? by definition, impossible to put a value on, worth more that can be calculated in terms of money.

    Indeed, the collective impact of Financial Destitution and Despair to “We the People” caused by the pockets of Sue and Settle agreements, is impossible to put a value on and cannot be calculated simply in terms of money.
    —————————————————————————————————–
    Google behindmyback.org Sue and Settle for documentation and comments
    also Google behindmyback.org endangered butterfly for more….
    ———————————————————————————————-
    Sue-And-Settle Nets Environmentalist Groups Billions | Tom …
    tomremington.com/2013/05/23/sue-and-settle-nets-environmentalist-gro…‎

    /2013/05/23/sue-and-settle-nets-environmentalist-groups-billions/
    Now we have “Sue-and-Settle”. According to Jillian Kay Melchior at National Review Online, environmentalist groups are raking in millions and costing taxpayers billions of dollars by suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), only to have the EPA “settle” the case, therefore bypassing Congressional scrutiny and of course keeping actions out of sight of the public, while blaming the courts.
    When environmental groups petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to list so many species under protection of the Endangered Species Act, that it is impossible for the USFWS to address all of these requests. Under the rules of EAJA, if the USFWS does not address each request in a timely manner, government coughs up all the legal expenses to the environmental groups. It’s a giant cash cow.

    Bottom line
    WHY WOULD ANY REASONABLE PERSON SAY THAT “SUE AND SETTLE SUCKS”?