+menu-


  • Category Archives Diverting Our Tax Dollars
  • 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”?


  • To Kilmer on Forest Plan

    The Bottom line
    How will your Olympic Peninsula Collaborative plan work?
    Are you confident that the US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution has achieved a National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule that will satisfy the conflict “We the people” have with the NGO Environmental Groups?

    The formation of your new partnership is called the Olympic Peninsula Collaborative.

    Can you give the specific “Collaboration Process” that will be used in the context of this partnership?

    Page 21254
    Public Participation: Requirements for public participation (including collaboration) have not changed between the proposed and final rules?

    Please define exactly what collaboration is required in and for public participation?

    Page 21189
    Comments: Collaboration costs.Many respondents supported public participation opportunities in the decision making process. Some respondents felt collaboration will not be cost effective. Some felt that coordination, as mandated by law, is effective and will save time and expense in planning, implementation, and management. They said increased costs for collaboration are foreseeable.

    How was this resolved?

    This is page 21270 definition?
    Collaboration or collaborative process.A structured manner in which a collection of people with diverse interests share knowledge, ideas, and resources while working together in an inclusive
    and cooperative manner toward a common purpose.

    Please explain? Collaboration, in the context of this part, falls within the full spectrum of public engagement described in the Council on Environmental Quality’s publication of October, 2007: Collaboration in NEPA
    —————————————————————————————-

    http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5362536.pdf

    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
    Forest Service
    36 CFR Part 219 RIN 0596–AD02
    National Forest System Land Management Planning
    AGENCY Forest Service, USDA.
    ACTION: Final rule and record of decision

    The 2012 planning rule was published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2012 and became effective on May 9, 2012, 30 days following publication.

    Page 21162 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
    Thru Page 21276 Federal Register/ Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

    115 pages of National Forest System Land Management Planning

    This planning rule sets forth process and content requirements to guide the development,
    amendment, and revision of land management plans to maintain and restore
    NFS land and water ecosystems while providing for ecosystem services and multiple uses.
    The planning rule is designed to ensure that plans provide for the sustainability
    of ecosystems and resources; meet the need for forest restoration and
    conservation, watershed protection, and species diversity and conservation;

    AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST

    TO ASSIST THE AGENCY IN PROVIDING A SUSTAINABLE FLOW OF BENEFITS, SERVICES, AND USES OF NFS LANDS THAT PROVIDE JOBS AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITIES.
    —————————————————————————————

    PART 219—PLANNING
    Subpart A—National Forest System Land
    Management Planning
    Sec.
    219.1 Purpose and applicability.
    219.2 Levels of planning and responsible officials.
    219.3 Role of science in planning.
    ———————————————————-
    This concerns me?
    219.4 Requirements for public participation.
    ———————————————————–
    219.5 Planning framework.
    219.6 Assessment.
    219.7 New plan development or plan revision.
    219.8 Sustainability.
    219.9 Diversity of plant and animal communities.
    219.10 Multiple use.
    219.11 Timber requirements based on the NFMA.
    219.12 Monitoring.
    219.13 Plan amendment and administrative changes.
    219.14 Decision document and planning records.
    219.15 Project and activity consistency with the plan.
    219.16 Public notifications.
    219.17 Effective dates and transition.
    219.18 Severability.
    219.19 Definitions.

    ——————————————————————–
    219.10 Multiple use.
    The management of all the various renewable surface resources of the NFS so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people…
    without impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to
    the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output, consistent with the Multiple-
    Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528–531).
    ————————————————————————————-
    ECOLOGICAL PRODUCTIVITY?
    The capacity of NFS lands and their ecological systems to provide the various renewable resources in certain amounts in perpetuity. For the purposes of this subpart, productivity is an ECOLOGICAL term, PRODUCTIVITY, not an ECONOMIC term.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    Overall Collaboration and Public Involvement Strategy
    The Forest Service partnered with the US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to gather input from various stakeholders on how to build the best possible collaboration and public involvement strategy for the planning rule. (The Institute is a program of the Udall Foundation, an independent federal program based in Tucson, Arizona.) Using what we heard from those interviews, we worked with the Institute to design a comprehensive collaborative strategy for the rulemaking process.

    http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/planningrule/collaboration

    COLLABORATION & PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

    The Forest Service began the planning rule revision process with a commitment to developing a new planning rule that would endure over time. We utilized a transparent and participatory method to accomplish this effort. The 2012 planning rule requires collaboration throughout the planning process.
    This new rule was developed using an open collaborative process, and was refined by nearly 300,000 public comments that were received in response to the proposed rule and draft environmental impact statement. These comments were in addition to the 26,000 comments to the Notice of Intent, which also refined the development of the proposed rule.
    In addition to public comments, the rulemaking process was enhanced by a science forum, regional and national roundtables, national and regional tribal roundtables, Tribal consultation meetings, national and regional public forums, Forest Service employee feedback, and comments posted to the Planning Rule blog. The agency considered all feedback received through these efforts, and used public input, science, and agency expertise to develop the 2012 planning rule.
    Detailed information on the collaboration and public involvement process can be found on the Overall Collaboration and Public Involvement Strategy webpage.
    ——————————————————————————————-
    Overall Collaboration and Public Involvement Strategy

    The Forest Service partnered with the US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to gather input from various stakeholders on how to build the best possible collaboration and public involvement strategy for the planning rule.

    (The Institute is a program of the Udall Foundation, an independent federal program based in Tucson, Arizona.) Using what we heard from those interviews, we worked with the Institute to design a comprehensive collaborative strategy for the rulemaking process. We have used this strategy to identify the following inter-related collaborative activities:
    —————————————————————————————————
    Next Steps and How to Stay Involved
    The 2012 planning rule was published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2012 and became effective on May 9, 2012, 30 days following publication. There are ways for the public to stay engaged in the planning process throughout implementation of the planning rule:
    • Federal Advisory Committee: In January 2012 the Secretary announced a new Federal Advisory Committee to advise the Chief and Secretary on implementation of the planning rule. A total of 21 members were selected. The committee began meeting in September 2012; all committee meetings are open to the public.
    • Directives: The Forest Service is currently developing a set of planning directives to provide further guidance on implementation of the planning rule; the public will have an opportunity to review and comment on those directives.

    • Plan Revisions: A number of national forests and grasslands have begun plan revisions. As individual units begin to implement the planning rule of 2012 and revise their forest plans, we encourage the public to become involved and provide input throughout the planning process on individual forest units.

    Features
    Overall Collaboration and Public Involvement Strategy?

    The Bottom line
    How will your Olympic Peninsula Collaborative plan work?
    Are you confident that the US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution has achieved a Rule that will satisfy the conflict “We the people” have with the NGO Environmental Groups?
    .
    The collaboration strategy for the development of a new planning rule has consisted of national and regional roundtables, a science forum, national and regional public forums, and tribal consultation. Click the above link for further information on this effort.

    Tribal Relations
    In addition to government to government consultation, the Forest Service invited Tribes to participate in the collaborative process for the development of a new National Forest Planning Rule. Visit the Overall Collaboration and Public Involvement Strategy webpage for further information.

    Thank You,
    Pearl Rains Hewett
    A concerned American Grandmother


  • To Kilmer on Defense Budget

    Also sent to Senator Maria Cantwell.
    When things don’t make sense, I research them.
    I am asking that “You” as my representative will read and respond to
    my questions.
    Pearl Rains Hewett
    A concerned American Grandmother
    ———————————————————————————————–
    In Clallam County on Nov. 6, 2013 the Planning Commission received comments from Jim Podlesny and a Mr. Dunn representing the/a “Nature Conservancy Group?” in Olympia WA.
    Questions were asked
    ———————————————
    Mr. Dunn volunteered information.
    My understanding of Mr. Dunn’s comments…
    1. A military base in Calif. wanted to expand.
    2. Some action? taken by a Calif. based LAND TRUST
    3. Resulted in a NNL? settlement? agreement?
    4. When asked, Mr. Dunn denied that mitigation was part of the process.
    5. Federal grant money exchanged hands? for NNL? AND OR OTHER?
    6. The Calif. based LAND TRUST received a FEDERAL GRANT
    7. The money for the 150 acres in Clallam County is from a FEDERAL GRANT?
    —————————————————————————————————
    I verbally requested information from Clallam County (no response)
    ——————————————————————————————–
    That led to,
    “The Butterfly has Landed”
    Posted on November 9, 2013 3:41 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment.
    On behindmyback.org
    ——————————————————————————————————-
    More research led to

    “Ask a Silly Question?”
    Posted on November 16, 2013 10:22 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    On behindmyback.org

    The Butterfly has landed? What does the expansion of a military base in Calif. have to do with designating 150 acres of Clallam County property to a WA State conservancy group as open space for an endangered Butterfly?

    THIS IS THE UNBELIEVABLE ANSWER.

    1.Compatible Use Buffer program proves powerful tool for Army …
    www.nationalguard.mil/news/archives/2013/04/042613-Buffer.aspx‎
    Apr 26, 2013 – However, a provision of the 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, later to be known as the Army Compatible Use Buffer program, debuted …
    ————————————————————————————————
    More research led to

    “Defense Grants Sue and Settle”
    Posted on November 18, 2013 12:23 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    On behindmyback.org

    1. Under The Defensive Authorization Spending Bill
    2. To COMPLY with The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
    3. Using the Army Compatible Use Buffer Program
    4. Under THE ARMY SUSTAINABILITY REPORT (ASR)

    5. THE US DEFENSE BUDGET GRANTS SUE AND SETTLE MANDATES

    http://www.klt.org/images/news/FtRileyPost_ACUB_103009.pdf

    ————————————————————

    “The Butterfly has Landed”
    Posted on November 9, 2013 3:41 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment.
    Full text On behindmyback.org
    ————————————————————-
    “Ask a Silly Question?”
    Posted on November 16, 2013 10:22 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    Full text On behindmyback.org
    —————————————————————-
    “Defense Grants Sue and Settle” (complete text sent to Kilmer)
    Posted on November 18, 2013 12:23 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    Full text On behindmyback.org


  • Defense Grants Sue and Settle

    1. Under The Defensive Authorization Spending Bill
    2. To comply with The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
    3. Using the Army Compatible Use Buffer Program
    4. Under THE ARMY SUSTAINABILITY REPORT (ASR)
    5. THE US DEFENSE BUDGET GRANTS SUE AND SETTLE MANDATES

    http://www.klt.org/images/news/FtRileyPost_ACUB_103009.pdf

    The Army Compatible Use Buffer program was authorized in 2003 with THE DEFENSIVE AUTHORIZATION SPENDING BILL.

    This bill gives AUTHORITY to the Department of Defense TO USE MONEY from the Office of the Secretary of defense budget TO SPEND ON LAND

    Off of installations that would be important TO PROTECT FROM DEVELOPMENT.

    ——————————————————————————————

    http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/314343-senate-defense-panel-passes-594b-appropriations-bill

    July 30, 2013, 04:17 pm The Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Defense on Tuesday passed a $594.4 billion bill that keeps Pentagon spending at pre-sequester levels in 2014.

    The bill, which includes $516.4 BILLION IN BASE DEFENSE SPENDING and $77.8 billion in war spending

    How much of the $516.4 billion BASE DEFENSE funding has been designated for granting, spending on the protection of

    THE 1000 “SUE AND SETTLE” designated ENDANGERED SPECIES and their critical habitat?

    THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (Center), based in Tucson, Arizona, is a nonprofit membership organization with approximately 625,000 members and online activists, known for its work protecting endangered species THROUGH LEGAL ACTION

    September 9, 2011 – A federal judge approved the landmark 757 species legal agreement between the Center for Biological Diversity and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

    ————————————————————————————————-
    Army Compatible Use Buffer Program
    ACUBS SUPPORTS THE ARMY’S RESPONSIBILITY AS A FEDERAL AGENCY TO COMPLY USING THE FRAMEWORK AND INDICATORS
    ESTABLISHED UNDER THE GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE (GRI)

    WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, INCLUDING ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT PROTECTION. By working in partnership with conservation organizations, ACUBS CAN COORDINATE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANNING AT THE ECOSYSTEM LEVEL TO ENSURE THAT GREATER BENEFITS ARE REALIZED TOWARDS SPECIES AND HABITAT RECOVERY.
    —————————————————————————————————–
    THE ASR 2007 U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY REPORTS ITS SUSTAINABILITY

    TO.. ON.. BY.. USING .. THE GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE (GRI)
    The Army’s 2007 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT MARKS THE FIRST TIME A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY IS REPORTING ITS SUSTAINABILITY MEASURE USING THE FRAMEWORK AND INDICATORS
    ESTABLISHED UNDER THE GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE (GRI).

    This first annual (ASR) SUSTAINABILITY report is intended
    TO BOTH INFORM AND ENGAGE

    THE ARMY’S PRIMARY SHAREHOLDERS?
    ——————————————————————
    My questions?
    ARE TAXPAYING AMERICAN CITIZENS CONSIDERED SHAREHOLDERS?
    ARE SHAREHOLDERS ALLOWED TO VOTE?
    ARE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS HELD FOR DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC COMMENT?

    July 30, 2013, 04:17 pm The Senate Appropriations subcommittee ON DEFENSE on Tuesday
    passed a $594.4 billion bill

    The bill, which includes
    $516.4 BILLION IN BASE DEFENSE SPENDING
    and $77.8 billion in war spending

    Has the president of the United State of America? and/or our elected representative congress? COMPROMISED AMERICA’S SOVEREIGNTY?
    —————————————————————————————————–
    (continued )THE ASR 2007 U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY REPORTS ITS SUSTAINABILITY
    on their progress to embody the principles of SUSTAINABILITY. It also challenges all members of the Army team to do all they can to learn about SUSTAINABILITY and become active agents for change and innovation in their MISSION AREAS.
    ——————————————————————————————————-
    THE ARMY SUSTAINABILITY REPORT (ASR)

    http://www.asaie.army.mil/Public/ES/netzero/

    • Army Sustainability Report 2007
    The Army’s 2007 Sustainability Report marks THE FIRST TIME A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY IS REPORTING ITS SUSTAINABILITY MEASURE USING THE FRAMEWORK AND INDICATORS ESTABLISHED UNDER THE GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE (GRI). This first annual sustainability report is intended to both inform and engage the Army’s PRIMARY SHAREHOLDERS on their progress to embody the principles of sustainability.

    • Army Sustainability Report 2009
    Published May 2010, this is the second annual ARMY SUSTAINABILITY REPORT (ASR), highlighting army programs and progress in implementing SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES IN 2008.
    • Army Sustainability Report 2010

    Published September 2011, this is the third annual Army sustainability report, highlighting the Army’s achievements in 2009.
    The year 2009 was a watershed year FOR SUSTAINABILITY in the federal government

    With the issuance of EXECUTIVE ORDER (EO) 13514- LEADERSHIP IN ENVIRONMENTAL, Energy, and Economic Performance on 5 Oct 2009.
    —————————————————————
    • Army Sustainability Report 2012
    The Army Sustainability Report 2012 describes the Army’s efforts and progress in 2010 and 2011

    to further integrate SUSTAINABILITY ARMY-WIDE.
    ———————————————————————————-
    The bottom line
    THE ARMY SUSTAINABILITY REPORT (ASR)
    Army Compatible Use Buffer Program

    • Army Sustainability Report 2012
    SUSTAINABILITY ARMY-WIDE.

    • Army Vision for Net Zero, (aka no net loss?) October 2011 (PDF 1.52 MB)
    White Paper providing the Vision for the Army’s Net Zero Installation Initiative, definitions for Net Zero Energy, Water, and Waste, identified installations, and approach.

    INDEED, USING THE FRAMEWORK AND INDICATORS
    ESTABLISHED UNDER THE GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE (GRI)

    PAID FOR WITH TAXPAYERS MONEY IN THE DEFENSIVE AUTHORIZATION SPENDING BILL.

    WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, INCLUDING ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT PROTECTION. By working in partnership with conservation organizations,

    ACUBS CAN COORDINATE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANNING AT THE ECOSYSTEM LEVEL TO ENSURE THAT GREATER BENEFITS ARE REALIZED TOWARDS SPECIES AND HABITAT RECOVERY.
    ———————————————————————————————————
    WHO KNEW?

    The Rise of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) – Harvard Kennedy …
    www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/…/workingpaper_36_brown.pdf‎ (a 48 page report)
    Since its conception in 1999, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has rapidly become the leader among voluntary WORLDWIDE SUSTAINABILITY reporting systems.

    THE RISE OF THE GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE (GRI) / GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
    THE GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE (GRI)
    (excerpts from the 48 page report)

    When it first convened in early 1998, THE STEERING COMMITTEE CONSISTED OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS—THINK TANKS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, investors, accounting
    organizations, the corporate sector, and REPRESENTATIVES FROM UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME, TO SERVE BOTH AS AN ADVISER to the Ceres team, the project’s governing body, and ITS MAIN RESOURCE BASE. It worked jointly with Ceres and the Tellus Institute on every aspect of the GRI development, from research and setting priorities to initiating working groups and development of concepts for different GRI products.

    www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/…/workingpaper_36_brown.pdf‎ (a 48 page report)

    A GRADUAL EVOLUTION OF THE GUIDELINES ENVISIONED BY THE FOUNDERS, WOULD INDEED MATERIALIZE

    this task was impossible to accomplish without experimentation, testing, lengthy consultations and numerous revisions.
    (excerpts from the 48 page report)

    it solidified the GRI’s commitment to,
    Environmental indicators concern environmental performance and impacts, both now and for the future generations. They cover such topics as: resource conservation, waste prevention and management, environmental risk control and restoration, supply chain impacts, waste disposal, recycling, energy conservation, greenhouse gases, biodiversity, water and materials use; renewable energy; and wildlife conservation.

    ——————————————————————————————————–
    Army Compatible Use Buffers (ACUBs) support THE ARMY’S MISSION TO FIGHT AND WIN THE NATION’S WARS.
    WINNING WARS REQUIRES a trained and ready force. Trained and ready Soldiers

    REQUIRE LAND for maneuvers, live fire, testing and other operations. ACUBs establish buffer areas around Army installations to limit effects of encroachment and maximize land inside the installation that can be used to support the installation’s mission.

    ACUBs support the Army’s RESPONSIBILITY AS A FEDERAL AGENCY TO COMPLY WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS,

    INCLUDING ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT PROTECTION. By working in partnership with conservation organizations, ACUBS CAN COORDINATE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANNING AT THE ECOSYSTEM LEVEL
    TO ENSURE THAT GREATER BENEFITS ARE REALIZED TOWARDS SPECIES AND HABITAT RECOVERY.

    ACUBs also support local and regional planning and SUSTAINABILITY efforts by emphasizing partnerships with state and local governments and private conservation organizations to work towards common objectives AND LEVERAGING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDS towards those common goals.
    News & Events

    Army Releases First Annual SUSTAINABILITY Report
    The Army’s 2007 Sustainability Report marks the first time a U.S. government agency is reporting its sustainability measure using the framework and indicators established UNDER THE GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE (GRI). This first annual sustainability report is intended to both inform and engage the Army’s primary shareholders on their progress to embody the principles of sustainability. It also challenges all members of the Army team to do all they can to learn about sustainability and become active agents for change and innovation in their mission areas.

    More than just highlighting success stories,

    The report provides A COMPLETE INDEX TO ALL 87 RECOMMENDED GRI GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE SUSTAINABILITY PERFORMANCE METRICS AND IDENTIFIES IF THE ARMY FULLY OR PARTIALLY REPORTS THE DATA. OF THE 87 GRI RECOMMENDED economic?, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY performance metrics, the Army fully reported data for 33 and partially reported data on another 13. This level of reporting enables the Army to issue this report in ACCORDANCE? with GRI GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE Application Level B.
    DOWNLOAD REPORT >

    ONLY WILLING LANDOWNERS ARE INVOLVED WITH ACUB. NO ONE IS FORCED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM. (more below)

    According to Keating, because it is a voluntary program, all parties recognize that not all landowners would be convinced to participate simply WITH THE PAYMENT FROM A CONSERVATION EASEMENT.

    To achieve these benefits with the program, ACUB ESTABLISHED A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE KANSAS LAND TRUST.
    That entity handles all of the real estate transactions. KANSAS LAND TRUST ACTUALLY OWNS THE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS THAT ARE PURCHASED. It is their responsibility to make sure the restrictions put into the easement are followed. If the restrictions are not followed, it is Kansas Land Trust’s responsibility to make the land owner abide by the restrictions that are made as a condition on the deed.

    THE PARCELS OF LAND CAN SELL FROM PERSON TO PERSON BUT THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE LAND GO WITH IT.

    BASICALLY WHAT THE LAND OWNER IS ASKED TO DO IS SELL THEIR DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS,

    Keating said.Land owners hold several rights including: mineral rights, water rights, and development rights, etc. What land owners who participate in the ACUB program are asked to do is sell their development rights.

    “WHAT WE’RE ASKING THEM TO DO, FROM ALL THOSE RIGHTS THEY OWN, IS TAKE THE DEVELOPMENT AND NO LONGER HAVE IT.

    THAT’S THE RIGHT THAT THE KANSAS LAND TRUST HOLDS,” KEATING SAID

    Army Sustainability Video Now Available
    The Offices of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment) and

    the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management have produced an Army sustainability training video titled “Sustain the Mission – Secure the Future”.

    The Secretary of the Army, Chief of Staff of the Army, and Sergeant Major of the Army appear in the video.

    The purpose of the video is to educate viewers on the concept of sustainability and how it relates to the Army Strategy for the Environment. The target audience includes Army leaders at all levels and installation staff members across all functional areas.
    READ MORE >

    IF IT’S FEDERAL IT IS LOCAL

    Fort Carson’s Growth Creates Opportunities
    There is no doubt about it, Fort Carson is growing. As additional new units and Soldiers make their way to Fort Carson, planning for significant growth is of critical importance to the installation and the people living and working here.

    It is easy to plan things from a short-term perspective, but such planning can end up requiring more work and costs down the road if not done sustainably and with a long-range view. As part of its sustainability goals, Fort Carson recently adopted “Smart Growth” principles in master planning to prepare for the growth of the installation.
    READ MORE >

    Army Compatible Use Buffer Program (ACUB)
     Veterans enlisted to fight for environment, The Olympian. March 25, 2007
     Army Preserves A Testing Ground By Saving A Farm, Washington Post. March 19, 2007; Page. D1.


  • Wall Street Journal p.11

    A version of this article appeared October 4, 2013, on page A11 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: USING ‘SUE AND SETTLE’ TO THWART OIL AND GAS DRILLERS. (prompted by the)
    —————————————————————–
    “SUNSHINE FOR REGULATORY DECREES AND SETTLEMENTS ACT OF 2013″
    ——————————————————————–
    SUE AND SETTLE – US Chamber of Commerce

    SUE AND SETTLE: REGULATING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
    www.uschamber.com/sites/…/reports/SUEANDSETTLEREPORT-Final.p…‎
    33 See CLOUDED WATERS: A Senate Report Exposing the High Cost of EPA’s Water Regulations and Their Impacts on State and. Local Budgets, U.S. Senate …

    ——————————————————————–
    A DOCUMENTED 49 page expose NAMING the NAMES OF THE APPOINTED FEDERAL AGENCIES PRACTICING Sue and Settle: Behind Closed Doors AND Regulating THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

    The Wall Street Journal article on October 4, 2013 inspired this article
    By Stephen Moore: Using ‘Sue and Settle’ to Thwart Oil and Gas Drillers (continued below)

    THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT IS BEING EMPLOYED MORE THAN EVER TO BLOCK DEVELOPMENT.
    ——————————————————

    ONE GLARING EXAMPLE OF THE DEPT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)
    www.sueandsettle.com uschamber.com/sites/default/files/reports/SUEANDSETTLEREPORT-Final.pdf08-00689
    —————————-
    10,346 ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND designated as CRITICAL HABITAT FOR A FROG?

    pdf08-00689
    (D. Ariz.)
    Settled:
    4/29/2009
    WildEarth Guardians v.
    Kempthorne
    DOI
    CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION
    for the Chiricahua leopard frog
    Result
    : DOI under the Bush administration listed the leopard frog as
    threatened under the Endangered Species Act but declined to designate a critical habitat because doing so would not be “prudent,” as is permitted by the Endangered Species Act.

    WildEarth Guardians SUED to challenge this
    decision, and the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S DOI settled the case.
    The terms of the settlement provided that DOI would reconsider its prudency determination.

    On March 20, 2012, DOI finalized a rule that reversed its
    prudency decision and designated approximately 10,346 acres as critical habitat for the Chiracahua leopard frog.
    ——————————————————————–
    WAKE UP AND SMELL THE STENCH OF APPEASMENT
    Take the time to goggle and read the 49 page EXPOSE
    49 pages of TRUTH on the lawsuits, A DOCUMENTED WHO’S SUING WHO? AND WHO’S SETTLING?
    GRAPHS AND CHARTS documenting where the thousands OF NEW REGULATIONS FROM THE CLEAN WATER AND CLEAN AIR ACTS ORIGINATED.

    Sue and Settle: BEHIND OUR BACKS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND THREATENING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
    ————————————————————-

    SEIRRA CLUB IS #1 PROFITING FROM SUE AND SETTLE
    Storm water run off?
    Chesapeake Bay restoration?
    Haze and particulates?

    DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHERE THESE EPA UNFUNDED MANDATES CAME FROM?
    DID CONGRESS LEGISLATE? DEBATE? VOTE? PASS? AND AUTHORIZE?
    —————————————————————

    SUE AND SETTLE – US Chamber of Commerce
    The lead authors and the project team are from the U.S. Chamber Environment, Technology &
    Regulatory Affairs Division.
    Recognition
    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce thanks William Yeatman, assistant director of the Center for
    Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, for helping us formulate an
    additional methodology and THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DATABASE OF SUE AND SETTLE CASES. The database was used to check the validity of, and supplement, the Chamber’s database of cases.
    ——————————————————————–

    By Stephen Moore: Using ‘Sue and Settle’ to Thwart Oil and Gas Drillers (continued)

    THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT IS BEING EMPLOYED MORE THAN EVER TO BLOCK DEVELOPMENT.

    By Stephen Moore: Oklahoma City
    Last week the U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE and an environmental advocacy group agreed to a legal settlement that will place nine species—including the Panama City crayfish, moccasin shell mussel and boreal toad—on the fast track for placement on the endangered species list. It is only the latest of many such listings.

    The Center for Biological Diversity has petitioned Fish and Wildlife to designate some 250 species as endangered since 2008. Many of CBD’s petitions—and lawsuits—are still in the pipeline. About 97% of the species that are designated as endangered never move off the list.

    Next March, FISH AND WILDLIFE will make a determination about whether to add the lesser prairie chicken, found in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Kansas to the list.

    Harold Hamm, president of Continental Resources, says that the habitat for the prairie chicken overlaps “some of the most promising land for oil and gas leases in the country.”

    Many Westerners suspect that this environmental activism isn’t only or even mostly about saving species and obscure subspecies.

    Instead, it is about restricting land use on hundreds of thousands of acres of private and state land.

    The concern is that if these species are listed as endangered, their habitat could be placed off limits for economic development.

    Associated Press
    The lesser prairie chicken, near Laverne, Okla.

    In the 1980s, ENVIRONMENTALISTS successfully used a listing of
    the Northern Spotted Owl as threatened to cripple the timber industry in Oregon and Washington, throwing many thousands out of jobs.

    This is the playbook now being used by groups like the CBD—which boasts on its website of its desire to end most oil and gas production in the United States.

    Since taking office, the Obama administration and its green allies inside and outside federal agencies have been making expanded use of a tactic called “SUE AND SETTLE” to issue new and expensive regulations.

    Groups like CBD and WildEarth Guardians, for example, petition Fish and Wildlife to list a species as endangered.
    Other environmental groups use a similar tactic to get new water and air regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency.

    Then, sometimes the very same day, the environmental groups file a lawsuit against Fish and Wildlife or the EPA to force the government to act—arguing that the regulatory process is too slow.

    Amos Eno, a former Fish and Wildlife Service official who worked to save the grizzly bear and the condor, is critical of the tactic. Mr. Eno, who now runs Resources First, says the money wasted on these lawsuits could be used on conservation efforts to actually save species from extinction.

    Because the federal agencies include former employees of green organizations, sue and settle can be a collaborative, not adversarial, process.

    The agency may be only too happy to sign a consent DECREE THAT COURTS THEN RUBBER STAMP. OFTEN, STATE AND INDUSTRY OFFICIALS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENTS HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN.

    Increasingly, sue and settle is how rules are made in Washington. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has found that more than 60 times in the last four years the EPA agreed to settlements with environmental groups to pass regulations that in some cases impose tens of billions of dollars of costs on industry and land owners.

    The feds have even paid green groups millions of dollars in legal fees for the favor of suing the government.
    The Obama administration didn’t invent sue and settle, but the pace has increased dramatically since 2009—an era that Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt calls

    “SUE AND SETTLE ON STEROIDS.”

    Last September Mr. Pruitt and 11 state attorneys general presented a Freedom of Information Act request to investigate the communications between the Obama administration and environmental litigants. Their suspicion is that the two are secretly working hand in hand to grease the process of regulating industries it doesn’t like. A year has passed, but the EPA has refused to fully comply.

    This summer Mr. Pruitt has joined with the other attorneys general—including from Texas and Utah—

    TO SUE THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO COMPLY WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.

    Mr. Pruitt also believes that sue and settle “is an end run around the Administrative Procedures Act.” This is the law that governs how regulations are promulgated, and requires among other things transparency and a reliance on science to justify new rules. “An administration which claims to only want to ‘follow the science’ has exploited a litigation mechanism to enact new rules imposed on us without reviewing the science,” Mr. Pruitt says.

    The attorneys general also cite new EPA REGIONAL HAZE RULES—which came into being because of sue and settle—that could raise electricity costs in their states by as much as 20%. On behalf of his fellow attorneys general, Mr. Pruitt says that “we’re very worried that under Obama sue and settle will be used by the EPA to issue new regulations on fracking.” This could kneecap the oil and gas boom in Western states.

    In its report “SUE AND SETTLE: REGULATING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has counted more than 100 new major rules “with estimated compliance costs of more than $100 million annually” that arose from this tactic. The result is a giant tax on the economy brought to you by the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund

    WITH LITTLE OR NO INPUT OR OVERSIGHT FROM CONGRESS.

    Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) and Rep. Doug Collins (R., Ga.) have introduced
    “SUNSHINE FOR REGULATORY DECREES AND SETTLEMENTS ACT OF 2013″
    that would require all proposed consent decrees to be posted for 60 days for public comment before being filed with a court—and allow affected parties to challenge them.
    MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN BOTH PARTIES who are worried about the Obama regulatory assault will need to take corrective action if they have ANY HOPE OF A TRUE ECONOMIC TURNAROUND.

    Mr. Moore is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.

    • Stephen Moore: Using ‘Sue and Settle’ to Thwart Oil and Gas Drillers
    Wall Street Journal ‎- 5 days ago
    In The Wall Street Journal, Stephen Moore writes that THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT IS BEING EMPLOYED MORE THAN EVER TO BLOCK DEVELOPMENT.
    ———————————————-

    QUOTATIONS TO PONDER ON PUBLIC SERVANTS

    It may serve for a great lesson of humiliation to mankind to behold the habits and passions of men trampling over interest, friendship, honour, and their own personal safety, as well as that of their country.

    When our betters tell us they are our humble servants, but understand us to be their slaves.

    Civility, intended to make us easy, is employed in laying chains and fetters upon us, in debarring us of our wishes, and in crossing our most reasonable desires.
    Jonathan Swift.

    ——————————————————————-