+menu-


  • Category Archives Diverting Our Tax Dollars
  • Ecology’s WA State Drought Response?

    Ecology’s WA State Drought Response?

    Washington Drought 2015 | Washington State Department …

    www.ecy.wa.gov/drought/

    4 days ago – Ecology in drought response for almost half of Washington … 2015 Yakima River Basin Emergency Drought Authorization – Junior water right … an emergency drought authorization in 2005 (or the new property owner if county …

    Last revised: May 11, 2015

    Current Conditions:
    ECOLOGY IN DROUGHT RESPONSE FOR ALMOST HALF OF WASHINGTON

    STATUS: CURRENTLY, 24 OF WASHINGTON’S RIVER BASINS ARE IN A DECLARED DROUGHT EMERGENCY. THIS COVERS 44 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL AREA OF THE STATE.
    >> For information about the process and timeline of events, see Drought declaration process.

    ————————————————————————

    Friday, April 17, 2015

    OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) – Citing projections that say this summer will have the least snowmelt in 64 years, GOV. JAY INSLEE ON FRIDAY EXPANDED THE STATE’S MONTH-OLD DROUGHT EMERGENCY DECLARATION TO COVER 44 PERCENT OF THE STATE.

    Inslee’s announcement more than doubles the number of Washington watershed areas officially considered to be suffering from drought.

    In March, the governor identified 11 watersheds as drought-afflicted – six west of the Cascades and five on the east side. Thirteen more river basins were added Friday to the drought list.

    • There are 62 (WRIA’S) Watersheds in WA State  (complete list below)
    •  24 OF 62 WASHINGTON’S RIVER BASINS ARE IN A DECLARED DROUGHT EMERGENCY

    ———————————————————————————

    Images for Washington watershed drought counties

    ——————————————————————————–

    What can you expect from your  WA State Elected Representatives?

    •  Sequim Gazette  ·  Mar 18, 2015

    DOE OFFICIALS ALREADY HAVE A REQUEST INTO THE LEGISLATURE FOR $9 MILLION FOR DROUGHT RELIEF, Dan Partridge, communications manager for DOE’s Water Resources Program, said.

    As of April 17, Ecology’s request for a $9 million drought relief appropriation was still pending in the Legislature.

    ————————————————————————————

    There are 62 (WRIA’S) Watersheds in WA State

     24 OF 62 WASHINGTON’S RIVER BASINS ARE IN A DECLARED DROUGHT EMERGENCY

    HOW ARE THINGS GOING IN YOUR DROUGHT EMERGENCY COUNTY?

    WHAT IS ECOLOGY’S  RESPONSE TO YOUR WA STATE DROUGHT WATERSHED?

    THIS IS ECOLOGY’S FIRST  DROUGHT RESPONSE, FOR  CLALLAM COUNTY watershed…..

    2015 Dungeness Dry Year Leasing Program FAQs … (full text below)

    —————————————————————

    The local inside story..

    AMANDA CRONIN, WASHINGTON WATER TRUST

    REPORTS THE 2015 DUNGENESS DRY  YEAR LEASING PROGRAM  TO THE DUNGENESS RIVER MANAGEMENT TEAM (DMRT) DRAFT Meeting Notes April 8, 2015

    full text of meeting below

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

    My question and comment

    April 8, 2015 (DMRT) Team Members/Alternates

    IN ATTENDANCE:

    ELECTED DCD DIRECTOR Mary Ellen Winborn, Clallam County

    Cathy Lear, Clallam County EMPLOYEE (alt)

     WHO KNEW? Who reports the Drought Year Leasing Program to the affected CITIZENS in Clallam County?

    WHO KNEW? Who reports the Drought Year Leasing Program to OUR Clallam County  Commissioners?

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

    THE DRY YEAR LEASING PROGRAM Amanda described and REPORTS TO THE(DMRT)  IS ACTUALLY BEING

    FUNDED FROM THE 2012 LEGISLATURE PROVISO FOR DUNGENESS WATER PROJECTS.

    THESE PROVISO FUNDS WILL PAY IRRIGATORS NOT TO WATER FROM AUGUST 15-SEPTEMBER 15

    2015 Dungeness Dry Year Leasing Program

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

    My questions and comment for clarification  to the DROUGHT affected  CITIZENS in Clallam County

     WHO KNEW?

    The legislators gave how much  taxpayers money for funding the PROVISO FOR DUNGENESS WATER PROJECTS

    USING THOSE PROVISO FUNDS WILL PAY IRRIGATORS NOT TO WATER FROM AUGUST 15-SEPTEMBER 15?

     The Drought Year Leasing Program? WHICH WILL PROVIDE $200,000 of taxpayer’s dollars TO IRRIGATION DISTRICT OR COMPANY MEMBERS FOR NOT IRRIGATING, CONTRACTS WILL BE DIRECTLY WITH THE IRRIGATORS?

     WHO KNEW?

    FIRST THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS GETS PAID FOR THEIR WATER RIGHTS?

    THEN THE IRRIGATION /DISTRICTS/ IRRIGATORS GET CONTRACTS AND ARE PAID DIRECTLY FOR NOT IRRIGATING FROM AUGUST 15-SEPTEMBER 15?

     (DMRT) Meeting Notes April 8, 2015

    AMANDA CRONIN, WASHINGTON WATER TRUST  SAID “SINCE WE DON’T KNOW IF THERE WILL BE ANY WATER ANYWAY. I.E., PARTICIPANTS (IRRIGATION DISTRICTS) WILL STILL GET PAID, WHETHER THERE IS WATER TO CONSERVE OR NOT”

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

    THE DROUGHT DESIGNATION BY THE GOVERNOR TRIGGERED THE RELEASE OF DROUGHT EMERGENCY FUNDS.

     HOWEVER the dry year leasing program Amanda described IS ACTUALLY BEING FUNDED FROM THE 2012 LEGISLATURE PROVISO FOR DUNGENESS WATER PROJECTS. THESE PROVISO FUNDS WILL PAY IRRIGATORS NOT TO WATER FROM AUGUST 15-SEPTEMBER 15

    ————————————————————————————————-

     Full text from the Dungeness River Management Team (DRMT) Meeting Notes April 8, 2015

    Dungeness River Audubon Center, Sequim, WA

    Drought Year Leasing Program (AMANDA CRONIN, WASHINGTON WATER TRUST)

    Amanda Cronin reminded the group about previous water leasing programs – one led by the Water Trust in 2009, plus Ecology’s programs from 2001, and 2003-2005. WASHINGTON WATER TRUST WILL MANAGE THE CURRENT PROGRAM, WHICH WILL PROVIDE $200,000 TO IRRIGATION DISTRICT OR COMPANY MEMBERS FOR NOT IRRIGATING. Washington Water Trust has sent solicitation to irrigators, who must respond with bids by 4/15. Funds will go to the lowest bids first, up to a capped amount. This has been found to be the most efficient process. No max price, paying out on a per acre basis. CONTRACTS WILL BE DIRECTLY WITH THE IRRIGATORS.

     Eligibility: must have irrigated 5 acres or more by 2014; member of WUA; no crop limitations, i.e. can be any commercial crop or grass, as long as long as it was irrigated previously; permission from irrigation company or district. Another condition is that they can’t irrigate with another source.

     Scott and Amanda reviewed the process by which the leasing program came about. The drought designation by the GOVERNOR triggered the release of drought emergency funds. However the dry year leasing program Amanda described IS ACTUALLY BEING FUNDED FROM THE 2012 LEGISLATURE PROVISO FOR DUNGENESS WATER PROJECTS. THESE PROVISO FUNDS WILL PAY IRRIGATORS NOT TO WATER FROM AUGUST 15-SEPTEMBER 15 (last month of irrigation season), subject to the eligibility conditions.

      Expect good participation from the irrigators, especially the last two weeks of the irrigation season, SINCE WE DON’T KNOW IF THERE WILL BE ANY WATER ANYWAY. I.E., PARTICIPANTS WILL STILL GET PAID, WHETHER THERE IS WATER TO CONSERVE OR NOT.

     WWT WILL BE MONITORING FOR COMPLIANCE; there were no compliance issues in 2009.

     Ann Soule asked what the irrigators will be giving up by participating? Amanda responded that it equates to a cutting; they will have two instead of three – but also depends on what is being grown.

     Audience question: The lowest bid will be accepted, up to the cap amount? What is the price per acre estimate? In 2009, the average price was $86/acre, with nine participants, and 2.2 cfs conserved. In 2003-2005, average price was $150/acre, with a few more participants and 10 cfs saved. Price depends on nature of crop. Not sure yet what will be offered. An estimate will be made of how much water is being saved by not irrigating. Will use the WA Irrigation Guide to help estimate how much water is needed per crop. Again, not paying for the quantity of water; based on average use.

     In 2009, had $100,000 and spent $32,000. In 2003-2005, spent $200,000.

     Judy Larson asked how did the change go from 2 to 10 cfs saved? Amanda said that in 2003-2005 the duration was 45 days, instead of 30 days, plus more acreage was enrolled.

     Robert Brown asked about enforcement. Amanda reiterated that the Trust will visit all properties, also working with the ditch riders; wouldn’t get paid if caught watering.

     ANN SOULE asked if there was a way to estimate if less water is being diverted at those times.

    Amanda said since it’s not a normal year, predictions will be high. Would need to figure out how to translate that information for an extreme drought year.

    Amanda reminded group about the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding between WUA and Ecology, a landmark agreement which stipulated that no more than 50% of the flow as measured at USGS gage could be diverted. In 2012, the irrigators and Ecology renegotiated, and the MOU was replaced with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which kept the 50% rule and added a requirement for leaving a minimum of 60cfs in the river at all times. The irrigators had been voluntarily abiding by the 60cfs minimum, but made it official in the MOA. This sort of agreement is not common in many places of the state; very forward-thinking of the WUA.

     Scott said the first trigger, then, is when the river is at 120 cfs (50% of that flow is 60cfs). When the flow is below 120 cfs, can’t divert anymore. Will need a drought plan. Scott asked what the action date is for the leases.

    Amanda said the irrigators will get paid, regardless of whether there is water or not.

    Scott asked  the lease rates would get discounted in that case – so that the limited amount of funding could go further.

    Amanda said not able to do that this year; commitment has already been made to the irrigators.

     Audience: What if bid comes in on the higher side; any drought relief for that bidder, such as Ecology’s drought relief funds? AN ECOLOGY REPRESENTATIVE SAID THE REQUEST TO LEGISLATURE IS $9 MILLION, but specific decisions about allocation haven’t been made yet.

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

    •  Sequim Gazette  ·  Mar 18, 2015

    DOE OFFICIALS ALREADY HAVE A REQUEST INTO THE LEGISLATURE FOR $9 MILLION FOR DROUGHT RELIEF, Dan Partridge, communications manager for DOE’s Water Resources Program, said.

    As of April 17, Ecology’s request for a $9 million drought relief appropriation was still pending in the Legislature.

    ————————————————————————————-

    WHO KNEW? Who reports the Drought Year Leasing Program to the affected CITIZENS in Clallam County?

    Complete list of the DMRT TEAM MEMBERS/ALTERNATES IN ATTENDANCE:

    Dungeness River Management Team DRAFT Meeting Notes April 8, 2015

    Dungeness River Audubon Center, Sequim, WA

    TEAM MEMBERS/ALTERNATES IN ATTENDANCE:

    Scott Chitwood, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

    Judy Larson, Protect the Peninsula’s Future

    Robert Brown, Dungeness Beach Association

    Shawn Hines, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe (alt)

    Cathy Lear, Clallam County (alt)

    Robert Beebe, Riverside Property Owner

    Don Hatler, Sports Fisheries

    Mary Ellen Winborn, Clallam County

    Ann Soule, City of Sequim

    Matt Heins, Estuary-Tidelands/Riverside Property Owners

    Michele Canale, North Olympic Land Trust

    Marc McHenry, U.S. Forest Service (advisory)

    Others in Attendance:

    Robert Knapp, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

    —————————————————————-

    Document online

    2015 Dungeness Dry Year Leasing Program FAQs …

    www.washingtonwatertrust.org/2015-dungeness-dry-year-leasing

    To be eligible for the 2015 Dry Year Leasing Program, you must be an active irrigator in one of the seven irrigation districts and companies in the Dungeness …

    Who is eligible?

    To be eligible for the 2015 Dry Year Leasing Program, you must be an active irrigator in one of the seven irrigation districts and companies in the Dungeness Valley:

    • Agnew Irrigation District
    • Clallam Irrigation Association
    • Cline Irrigation District
    • Dungeness Irrigation District
    • Dungeness Irrigation Group
    • Highland Irrigation District
    • Sequim Prairie Tri-Irrigation Company

    In addition, irrigators must have irrigated hay, silage, pasture, turf or other commercial crop on at least 5 acres or more between August 15th and September 15th in 2014 to be eligible to participate in the 2015 Dungeness Dry Year Leasing Program. Irrigators may own or lease the ground they enroll in the 2015 Dry Year Leasing Program. If the ground is leased, permission to participate in the leasing program is required.

    When are bids due?

    Bids will be reviewed if postmarked no later than April 15, 2015, and mailed to:

    Washington Water Trust

    Attn: Dungeness Leasing Program

    1530 Westlake Ave N, Suite 400

    Seattle, WA 98109

    When will irrigators be notified if bids are accepted or not?

    Bidders will be notified if bids were accepted by letters, mailed by Monday April 30th.

    Why do I need permission from the landowner?

    Permission (a signature) from the landowner is required to ensure that the acres accepted into the 2015 leasing program will not be irrigated during August 15-September 15 lease period from any source (ditch, well, etc.), and to confirm that there is a lease agreement with the landowner and the irrigator for the 2015 season. WWT does not need information related to the terms of your land lease agreement.

    How much funding is available for 2015 leases?

    Ecology has allocated $200,000 for the Dungeness 2015 Dry Year Leasing Program. Eligible and accepted bids will be funded until those funds are exhausted.

    Is there a reserve price?

    WWT and Ecology have not established a reserve price (a price per/acre above which they will not pay) for bids. However, bids viewed as too high will not be accepted.

    How will compliance monitoring occur?

    WWT will seek the review of each eligible bid with the respective District or Company. WWT will sign a Monitoring Memorandum of Understanding with irrigation districts and companies. Accepted bids will be formalized with Forbearance Agreements, signed by each leasing participant, which will include language allowing WWT to access the property to confirm that enrolled acres are not being irrigated. WWT will visit the leased acreage 1 week prior to the leasing period, during the first week and again during the last week to ensure compliance.

    If I participate in program, when will checks be issued?

    WWT anticipates that checks will be issued by November 15, 2015.

    Will I jeopardize or relinquish my water rights by not using them if I participate in this program?

    Relinquishment of water rights is triggered for non-use of water rights if non-use occurs for 5 consecutive years. This program is for the last thirty days of the 2015 irrigation season, so it will not contribute to the relinquishment of the leased water rights.

    Where can I get more information about the 2015 Dry Year Leasing Program?

    Please contact Amanda Cronin, 206.914.9282, amanda@washingtonwatertrust.org, or Jason Hatch, 360.328.3166, jhatch@washingtonwatertrust.org.

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

    What can you expect from your elected WA State Representatives?

    • Mar 18, 2015  DOE OFFICIALS REQUESTED  $9 MILLION FROM THE LEGISLATURE FOR DROUGHT RELIEF

    As of April 17, Ecology’s request for a $9 million drought relief appropriation was still pending in the Legislature.

    ——————————————————————

    What can THE 24 DECLARED DROUGHT EMERGENCY WATERSHEDS expect from WA State ECOLOGY?

    2015 Dungeness Dry Year Leasing Program FAQs …

    The DROUGHT RELIEF game is the same just change the name?

    2015 Yakima Dry Year Leasing Program FAQs … (not quite there, yet)

    —————————————————————————————-

    Search begins for water in the Yakima Basin | April 2015 News

    www.ecy.wa.gov › Ecology home › News

    Apr 1, 2015 – Workshops explain ECOLOGY LEASING PROGRAM to support streamflows … irrigators to keep streams from going dry in the upper Yakima River Basin. .

    ———————————————————————————-

    What can you expect from your LOCAL county elected representative?

    WHO KNEW?  WHO KNOWS? WHO REPORTS? the Drought Year Leasing Program to the affected  citizens in YOUR County?

    WHO KNEW?  WHO KNOWS? WHO REPORTS? the Drought Year Leasing Program to YOUR County  Commissioners?

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


  • Part (1) Who’s Planning Our Future?

    Part (1) Who’s Planning Our Future?

    NOT ONE SINGLE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS?

    http://openspacepugetsound.org/people-partners

    PEOPLE INVOLVED IN ROSS?  American Citizens? Not so much

    Who’s Paying for ROSS? American taxpayers, pretty much

    Where are they doing ROSS?  From Washington DC to Washington State

    APPOINTED GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN ROSS? Up to their  eyeballs

    WHO’S INVESTING IN THE GREEN FUTURES MARKET?

    NON GOVERNMENT TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS?

    SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS?

    GLOBAL INVOLVEMENT? WATER INVOLVED? NATURAL RESOURCES?

    WHO’S 100-YEAR PLAN FOR  GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE?

    WHO’S REGIONAL PLAN TO ADVANCE GREEN URBANISM?

    ———————————————————–

    Part (1) Who’s Planning Our Future?

    NOT ONE SINGLE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE OF “WE THE PEOPLE”

    MENTIONED IN THE ROSS PLAN?

    Read it and weep.Of the People? By the People? For the People?

    Draw your own conclusions, Good? Bad? Ugly? Outrageous?

    http://openspacepugetsound.org/people-partners

    ————————–

    WHO IS ROSS?

    ————————————————-

    PEOPLE INVOLVED

    ROSS Project Team

    Nancy Rottle, ROSS Co-Director

    Director, Green Futures Research + Design Lab, University of Washington

    Nancy is a registered landscape architect with over fifteen years of leadership roles in professional practice and eight years teaching at the University of Washington. She has a wide range of practice experience including large scale GIS-based planning and has won numerous awards for research, planning and design. In 2005 she co-directed Open Space Seattle 2100, a planning process to develop a 100-year plan for Seattle’s green infrastructure.

    The University of Washington’s Green Futures Research + Design Lab is the organizational home to the ROSS.

    John Owen, ROSS Co-Director

    AIA, Partner, Makers Architecture, Planning and Urban Design

    John’s experience in urban design, regional and statewide planning spans decades. in that time he has helped the State prepare a new WAC for the Shoreline Management Act, and worked with the Puget Sound Regional Council to develop environmental management in addition to implementing numerous urban design strategies. In addition to his work at Makers, John provides leadership on the Watershed Open Space Strategies work of the ROSS

    Jeff Raker, ROSS Senior Planner

    Jeff has ten years of expertise in regional growth, transportation, and economic development planning. He has provided technical analysis; decision support; and policy development guidance on issues ranging from smart growth in rural areas and transit-oriented development to workforce development and “social capital” initiatives to improve access to cultural organizations. His Masters in Urban & Regional Planning from University of Greenwich & Saxion Universities of Applied Sciences explored the role of regional planning in advancing Green Urbanism. Jeff has led the development and coordination of the ROSS for the past three years

    Ginger Daniel, ROSS Planner – Regional Initiatives

    Ginger has over fifteen years of experience working for governments and non-governmental advocacy organizations to advance large-scale social and environmental change on international, national and local levels. With a Masters in Landscape Architecture from the University of Washington, she also brings green infrastructure planning and design expertise with a focus on social equity. Ginger oversees the ROSS’ open space services approach, regional task forces and communications work.

    Steve Whitney, ROSS Leadership

    As a Program Officer with the Bullitt Foundation, Steve focuses on the protection of natural capital and associated ecosystem services in the major metropolitan regions of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. Prior to joining the Foundation, he spent fourteen years with The Wilderness Society first as director of its National Parks Program in Washington D.C., and later as Northwest Regional Director and Deputy Vice President. Under his direction, the Bullitt Foundation had been an anchor funder for the ROSS.

    Sue Abbott, ROSS Leadership

    Sue has worked with the National Park Service’s Rivers, Trails and Conservation (RTCA) program for over 20 years. Her work specializes in building coalitions and partnerships, designing public outreach strategies, facilitation, organizational development, community visioning, resource assessment, plan development and environmental education and stewardship. The National Park Service generously provides technical assistance to the ROSS project.

    Executive Committee

    Executive Committee Chair

    • Ron Sims, Puget Sound Partnership, Executive Committee

    Committee Members

    • Dave  Somers , Snohomish County, Councilmember
    • Elizabeth Babcock, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Natural Resource Specialist
    • Steve Whitney, The Bullitt Foundation, Program Officer
    • Michael Linde, National Park Service, RTCA Program Manager
    • Ron Shultz, Washington State Conservation Commission, Director of Policy
    • Barb Chamberlain, Bicycle Alliance of Washington, Executive Director
    • Kelly Mann, Urban Land Institute Northwest, Executive Director
    • Howard Frumkin, University of Washington School of Public Health, Dean
    • Kaleen Cottingham, Washington Recreation & Conservation Office, Director
    • Thatcher Bailey, Seattle Parks Foundation, Executive Director
    • Marc Daily, Puget Sound Partnership, Deputy Director
    • Jennifer Eberlien, United States Forest Service, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest Supervisor
    • Charlotte Garrido, Kitsap County, County Commissioner
    • Cynthia Welti, Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, Executive Director
    • Joanna Grist, Washington Wildlife & Recreation Coalition, Executive Director
    • Joe Kane, Washington Association of Land Trusts, Vice President (Executive Director, Nisqually Land Trust)
    • Paul Kundtz, The Trust for Public Land, Washington State Director
    • Christie TRUE, King County Department of Natural Resources &Parks, Director
    • Dennis Canty, American Farmland Trust, Pacific Northwest Regional Director
    • Gene Duvernoy, Forterra, President
    • Brian Boyle, UW School of Forest Resources, NW Environmental Forum Leader
    • Terry Williams, Tulalip Tribes, Fisheries & Natural Resources Commissioner
    • Josh Baldi, WA Department of Ecology, Special Assistant to Director
    • David Fleming, Public Health Seattle-King County, Director
    • Ken Konigsmark, , Rural Resident & Conservation Specialist
    • Andrew Hayes, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Alternate to Peter Goldmark
    • Ryan Dicks, Pierce County, Alternate to Pat McCarthy
    • Lisa Dulude, Snohomish County, Office of Energy & Sustainability
    • Tracy Stanton, Earth Economics, Policy Director & Program Leader

    Technical Advisory Committees (TACs)

    Role: Work Sessions & Targeted Strategy Development for Preliminary Comprehensive Strategy.

    Ecosystems Technical Advisory Committee

    Committee Co-Leads

    • Bob  Feurstenberg, King County, Co-lead
    • Critter Thompson, Independent, Co-lead

    Committee Members

    • George Blomberg, Port of Seattle
    • Gordon Bradley, University of Washington, School of Forest Resources
    • Taylor Carroll, Forterra
    • Dave Cook, Geoengineers
    • Nicole Faghin, Faghin Consulting
    • Keith Folkerts, Kitsap County Natural Resources Division
    • Abby Hook, Hook Knauer LLP
    • Peter Hummel, Anchor QEA
    • Mark Isaacson, King County Water and Land Resources Division
    • Gino Luchetti, King County Department of Natural Resources
    • Tom Murdoch, Adopt-a-Street Foundation
    • Susan O’Neil, Puget Sound Partnership
    • Doug Osterman, Puget Sound Partnership
    • James Rasmussen, Duwmamish River Cleanup Coalition
    • Elaine Somers, USEPA Region 10
    • Kari Stiles, Puget Sound Partnership
    • Jennifer  Thomas, Parametrix
    • Chris  Townsend, Puget Sound Partnership

    Rural and Resource Lands Technical Advisory Committee

    Committee Co-Leads

    • Lauren  Smith, King County Executive’s Office, Co-lead
    • Skip  Swenson, Forterra, Co-lead

    Committee Members

    • Melissa Campbell, PCC Farmland Trust
    • Ryan Dicks, Pierce County
    • Mary Embleton, Cascade Harvest Coalition
    • Leif Fixen, Snohomish Conservation District
    • Joy Garitone, Kistap Conservation District
    • Brock Howell, Futurewise
    • Joe Kane, Nisqually Land Trust
    • Kirk Kirkland, Pierce County Open Space Taskforce
    • Joan Lee, King County Rural and Regional Services Section
    • Bobbi Lindemulder, Snohomish Conservation District
    • Doug McClelland, Washington State Department of Natural Resources and Mountains to Sound Greenway
    • Jay Mirro, King Conservation District
    • Linda  Neunzig, Snohomish County Agricultural Services
    • Rene Skaggs, Pierce Conservation District
    • Sandra Staples-Bortner, Great Peninsula Conservancy
    • Dan Stonington, Northwest Natural Resource Group

    Recreation and Trails Technical Advisory Committee

    Committee Co-Leads

    • Jennifer  Knauer, Hook Knauer LLP, Co-lead
    • Amy  Shumann, Public Health – Seattle + King County, Co-lead

    Committee Members

      • Kevin Brown, King County Parks Division
      • Karen Daubert, Washington Trails Association
      • Martha Droge, National Park Service Pacific West Region
      • Jessica Emerson, King County DNRP
      • Robert Foxworthy, King County DNRP
      • Deborah Hinchey, University of Washington School for Public Health
      • John  Hoey, Trust for Public Land
      • Amalia Leighton, SVR Design
      • Ian  Macek, Washington Department of Transportation
      • Josh Miller, Bicycle Alliance of Washington
      • Jane  Moore, Washington Coalition of Promoting Physical Activity
      • Thomas O’Keefe, American Whitewater
      • Dennis Oost, Kitsap County
      • Chris Overdorf, Elm
      • Lisa  Quinn, Feet First
      • Kimberly Scrivner, Puget Sound Regional Council
      • Tom Teigen, Snohomish County Parks and Recreation
      • Diane Wiatr, City of Tacoma
      • Don Willot, North Kitsap Trails Association
      • James Yap, Snohomish County Parks and Recreation

    Urban and Community Technical Advisory Committee

    Committee Co-Leads Chair

    • Ben Bakkenta, Puget Sound Regional Council, Co-lead
    • Joe  Tovar, TovarPlanning, Co-lead

    Committee Members

    • Gordon  Bradley, University of Washington School of Envirionment and Forest Resources
    • Vicky Clarke, Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council
    • Dan Dewald, City of Bellevue
    • Leif Fixen, Snohomish Conservation District
    • Eric Hanson, Port of Seattle
    • Gwendolyn High, Washington Wildlife & Recreation Coalition
    • John  Hoey, Trust for Public Land
    • Mark  Hoppen, Snohomish Health District
    • Amalia Leighton, SVR Design
    • Joshua Monaghan, King County Conservation District
    • Chip Nevins, City of Seattle Parks Division
    • Rocky Piro, Puget Sound Regional Council
    • Andrea Platt-Dwyer, Seattle Tilth
    • Lauren  Smith, King County Executive’s Office
    • Sean Sykes, NAIOP Sustainable Development Committee
    • Chris Townsend, Puget Sound Partnership
    • Tim  Trohimovich, Futurewise
    • Alison VanGorp, Forterra
    • Julie West, Seattle and King County Public Health

    Regional Challenges Task Forces

    Climate Change Mitigation + Adaptation

    Task Force Chair

    • Rachel Gregg, EcoAdapt

    Task Force Members

    • Paul Fleming, Seattle Public Utilities
    • Hilary Franz, Futurewise
    • Bob Freitag, UW Institute of Hazards Mitigation Planning and Research
    • Lara Hansen, EcoAdapt
    • Lyn Keenan, GeoEngineers
    • Meade Krosby, University of Washington Climate Impacts Group
    • Keith Maw, Independent
    • Eileen Quigley, Climate Solutions
    • Jeff Rice, Puget Sound Institute
    • Nancy Rottle, University of Washington, Green Futures Research and Design Lab
    • Amy Snover, UW Climate Impacts Group
    • Tracy Stanton, Earth Economics
    • Jill Sterett, Sterett Consulting, LLC

    Biodiversity

    Task Force Co-chairs

    • Fred Koontz, Woodland Park Zoo, Co-chair
    • Abby Hook, Hook Knauer, Co-chair

    Task Force Members

    • Kitty Craig, The Wilderness Society
    • Keith Folkerts, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
    • Josh Lawler, University of Washington
    • Lorna Smith, Western Wildlife Outreach
    • Kari Stiles, Puget Sound Partnership
    • Jennifer van der Hoof, King County
    • Jen Watkins, Conservation NW
    • Cynthia Wilkerson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

    Human Health

    • Brian Saelens, Seattle Childrens Research Institute, Co-Chair
    • Leann Andrews, University of Washington, Coordinator

    Task Force Members

    • Kathleen Wolf, UW School of Environmental & Forest Sciences Co-Chair
    • Branden Born, UW Department of Urban Design & Planning
    • Andrew Dannenberg, UW Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences
    • Barbara Wright, Public Health Seattle-King County

    Social Equity

    • Richard Gelb, King County Department of Natural Resources, Co-chair
    • Ginger Daniel, Regional Open Space Strategy, Staff Coordinator

    Contributors to date

    • Steve Hamai, Seattle Public Utilities,  Contributor
    • Rashad Morris, The Bullitt Foundation,  Contributor
    • Skye Schell, Forterra,  Contributor
    • Ben Bakenta, Puget Sound Regional Council,  Contributor

    Economic Development

    • Jeff Raker, Regional Open Space Strategy, Staff Coordinator

    Contributors to date

    • Henry Izumizaki, The Russelll Family Foundation, Contributor
    • Ken Konigsmark,  Contributor
    • Sarah Lee, Puget Sound Regional Council, Contributor
    • Doug Peters, WA Department of Commerce,  Contributor
    • Vikram Sahney, REI,  Contributor
    • Jason Thibideau, Puget Sound Regional Council,  Contributor

    Ecosystem Services and Regional Prioritization

    Committee Chair

    • Tracy Stanton, USFS Urban Waters Partnership, Committee Chair

    Committee Members

    • Dale Blahna, US Forest Service
    • Josh Baldi, WA Department of Ecology
    • David Batker, Earth Economics
    • Fletcher Beaudoin, PSU Institute for Sustainable Solutions & Cascadia Ecosystem Partnership
    • Mark Buckley, ECONorthwest
    • Ginger Daniel, Regional Open Space Strategy
    • Brent Davies, EcoTrust
    • Tom DeLuca, University of Washington
    • Zach Ferdana, The Nature Conservancy
    • Ricahrd Gelb, King County Department of Natural Resources
    • Anne Guerry, University of Washington
    • Kevin Halsey, EcoMetrix Solutions
    • William Labiosa, US Geological Survey
    • Josh Lawler, University of Washington
    • Sara O’Brien, Willamette Partnership
    • Jeff Raker, Regional Open Space Strategy
    • Scott Redman, Puget Sound Partnership
    • Elaine Somers, US Environmental Protection Agency – Region 10
    • Stephanie Suter, Puget Sound Partnership
    • Paula Swedeen, Swedeen Consulting
    • Brian Walsh, Puget Sound Partnership

    Governance and Finance

    Committee Listing, Coming Soon

    Puyallup-White Watershed Advisory Group

    • Leslie Ann Rose, Citizens for a Healthy Bay
    • Jennifer Arnold, Bonneville Environmental Foundation
    • Bryan Bowden, National Park Service
    • Dennis Canty, American Farmland Trust
    • Ryan Dicks, Pierce County Dept. of Sustainability
    • Kimberly Freeman, Pierce County
    • John Garner, Metro Parks & PC Biodiversity Network
    • Andrew  Hayes, Washington Department of Natural Resources
    • Colin Hume, WA Department of Ecology
    • Tom Kantz, Pierce County Surface Water Management
    • Kirk; Kirkland, Forever Green Council
    • Krystal Kyer, Tahoma Audubon
    • Russ; Ladley, Puyallup Tribe
    • Teresa Lewis, Pierce County
    • Ryan Mello, Pierce Conservation District
    • Jane Moore, Forever Green Council
    • Tristan Peter-Contesse, Puget Sound Partnership
    • Jordan Rash, Forterra
    • Lorin Reinelt, King Co. River & Floodplain Mgmt.
    • Dave Seabrook, Puyallup River Watershed Coalition
    • Marianne Seifert, Tacoma-Pierce County Health Dept.
    • Lisa Spurrier, Pierce County Watershed Services
    • Jeffrey; Thomas, Puyallup Tribe
    • Michelle Tirhi, Washington Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
    • Robert Warren, Bonneville Environmental Foundation
    • Sarah Wilcox, Pierce Conservation District

  • The ROSS Approach to Puget Sound

    The ROSS Approach to Puget Sound

    OUR WATER AND TIMBER

     THE REGIONAL OPEN SPACE STRATEGY (ROSS)

     http://openspacepugetsound.org/ross-approach

    LOCAL PRIORITIES IN PUGET SOUND

    At the heart of the ROSS are WATERSHED Open Space Strategies, engaging local stakeholders who know the priorities and challenges of their sub-basins intimately.

    ——————————————————————————-

    Local stakeholders who know the priorities and challenges of their sub-basins intimately?  Skagit and Clallam County.

    Behind My Back | High, Dry and Destitute

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/01/high-dry-and-destitute/

    Feb 1, 2015 – High, Dry and Destitute WA State citizens, private property owners and …

    —————————————————————————–

    REGIONAL ANALYSIS IN PUGET SOUND

    Together, we will analyze and SYNTHESIZE local priorities and regional challenges to plan across traditional jurisdictional and watershed boundary lines for our shared future.

    ——————————————————————–

    THE ROSS APPROACH ON MANAGED  TIMBER  PRODUCTION

     GOT TIMBER?  WANT DNR TO GIVE CLALLAM COUNTY’S TIMBER BACK?

     THE  WASHINGTON  STATE  DEPARTMENT  OF  NATURAL  RESOURCES  HAS  GIS  SPATIAL  DATA  SETS  ABOUT  FOREST  PRACTICES  WHERE  THE  TIMBER  HARVEST  AREAS  CAN  BE  SEEN  IN  POLYGONS.

     BETTER CHECK IT OUT…

    ———————————————————————-

    I Signed up for the ROSS Newsletter!

    I will receive monthly project updates and opportunities to get engaged in the Regional Open Space Strategy.

    ————————————————————————————-

    Informing Conservation Decisions Based on Ecosystem Services

    Managed  timber  production PAGE 9

    In  the  context  of the  ROSS,  we  ATTEMPTED  to  use  the  MODEL  to  assess  general  habitat  rarity  and  quality  within  our  focus  area.

    All  types  of  land  covers  that  were  open  space habitat.

    THREATS  CONSIDERED  IN  THE  MODEL  WERE  ROADS,  HIGHWAY,  TRAILS,  AND  DEVELOPED  LAND.  The  relative  sensitivities  of  land  cover  to  these  THREATS  used  in  the  model  WERE  PLACEHOLDERS  SINCE  CONCLUSIVE  DATA  FOR  THESE  VALUES  COULD  NOT  BE  FOUND.

    Ultimately, we  could  not  run  the  model, even  as  a  trial,  because  of  technical  issues.  The  InVEST software  displayed  an  error  that  the  GIS  data  used  did  not  cover  the  same  geographic  space.

    While  this  was  not  the  case,  our  team  did  not  resolve  the  issue in  time  for  this  report.  Managed  timber  production  model  The  InVEST  timber  model  has  been  developed  to  measure  the  amount  and  volume  of  the  timber  produced  over  a  time  period  and  to  calculate  the  net  present  value  of  that.

    The  amount  of  timber  harvests  from  both  natural  forests  and  managed  plantations  can  be  estimated  by  using  this  model.    The  model  requires vector  GIS  data,  information  about  harvest  levels,  frequency  of  harvest,  costs  of  harvesting  and  management  practices for  each  timber  harvest  parcel.  The  model  can  make  two  types  of  calculations  in  terms  of  the  selected  time  period:  the  timber  parcel  map  can  be  related  either  to  a  current  map  or  to  a  future  scenario  map.

    The  TIMBER  MODEL  can  be  especially  useful  for  ONE  OF  THE ROSS’  KEY  AREAS: “Rural  and  Resource  Lands”.    Since  the  model  gives  as  output  the  amount  and  volume  of  the  timber  produced  over  a  period  of  time  and  that  harvest’s  net  present  value,  it  can  be  beneficial  in  terms  of  calculating the  OPPORTUNITY  costs  of  preserving  a  forestland  or  opening  it  up  for  development.  

    THE  WASHINGTON  STATE  DEPARTMENT  OF  NATURAL  RESOURCES  HAS  GIS  SPATIAL  DATA  SETS  ABOUT  FOREST  PRACTICES  WHERE  THE  TIMBER  HARVEST  AREAS  CAN  BE  SEEN  IN  POLYGONS.  The  information  about  the  volume  of  timber  produced  is  available  too.

    HOWEVER,  in  order  to  be  able  to  run  the  model  other  data  needs  (such  as  frequency  of  harvesting,  percentage  of harvesting,  maintenance  cost,  and  harvesting  cost)  need  to  be  collected  from  the  timber  parcel  owners.

    While  running  trial  of  this  model  we  discovered  that  in  order to  find  the  necessary  data  mentioned  above  to  run  the  model  we  would  need  to  conduct  a  field  study  and  collect  the  information  from  each  parcel  owner.  As  our  time  to  complete  the  study  was  limited, we  could  not  conduct  a  field  study.  It  may  be  POSSIBLE  in  the  future  to use  sustainable  forest  practices  information  to  estimate  for  example  the  frequency  of  timber  harvesting  in  Pierce  County.

    HOWEVER,  we learned  that the  definition  of  sustainable  forest  practices  may  vary  from  one  landowner  to  another  and  that  we  cannot  generalize  one  model  for  each  timber  harvest.

    THUS,  as  a  result  we  could  not  run  the  model.  Figure  6  provides  an  example  for how  the  model  output  can  be  used  in  VISUALIZATION  of  different  scenarios.

    The  last  column  in  the  figure  entitled  “MARKET  VALUE  OF  COMMODITY  PRODUCTION”  includes  the  value  of  the  timber  produced  in  that  area.  The  greenest  color  represents  the  highest  production  of  ecosystem  services  and  the  pinkest  color  represents  the  lowest  value  of  them.  For  example, in  the  conservation  scenario  it  can  be  seen  that  the  market  value  of  the  commodity  produced is  lowest  whereas  carbon  sequestration  has  the  highest  value  in  that  scenario……

    ———————————————————————————-

    OUR WATER And OUR TIMBER, WHO COULD ASK FOR ANYTHING MORE?

    Ask a Silly Question?

    The Butterfly has landed?
    What does the expansion of a military base  have to do with designating 150 acres of Clallam County property to a WA State conservancy group as OPEN SPACE FOR AN ENDANGERED BUTTERFLY?

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

    THE REGIONAL OPEN SPACE STRATEGY (ROSS)

    DRAFT Committee Structure & Organizational Framework

    Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS)

    DRAFT

    Committee Structure & Organizational Framework

    Executive Committee

    Role: Project Guidance & Endorsement of ROSS

    Lead: Ron Sims (PSP Leadership Council)

    Oct 12, 2011 – … Executive Ron Sims to the Puget Sound Partnership Leadership Council.

    Members: PSRC; Decision-Makers in King, Kitsap,

    Pierce, & Snohomish; Land & Resource Conservation

    Agency & Association Directors; MAJOR AGRICULTURE &

    FORESTRY INTERESTS, Large Community Organizations;

    and Supporting Financial Institutions

    ———————————————-

    ROSS Project Team

    Role: Staffing & Coordination

    Lead: Green Futures Lab

    Members: NCLC, National Park

    Service RTCA Program, & The

    Bullitt Foundation.

    ————————————————-

    Steering Committee

    Role: Oversight, Integrated ROSS Development

    Lead: TBD Members:

    Land Trusts; Key National, State, PSRC,

    County, City, Tribe, & Port Staff; Environmental

    Management Orgs.; Advocacy & Community Interests;

    Economic/Workforce Interests; Design & Planning

    Professionals, and Research Institutions

    ———————————————————

    Technical Advisory Committees

    Role: Work Sessions & Issue Paper

    Lead: Bob Feurstenberg

    & TBD Members:, USFS, NPS, TPL, TNC,

    Earth Economics, PSP, Forterra

    PSRC, Research Institutes, etc

    ——————————————————

    Recreation & Trails Advisory Committee

    Role: Work Sessions & Issue Paper

    Lead: Amy Shumann (PHSKC) & Jennifer Knauer(PSP)

    Members:  WSDOT, BAW, CBC, NPS, TPL, SPF, Parks/Recreation &

    Health Depts., Greenways, etc

    —————————————————————–

    Rural & Resource Lands Advisory Committee

    Role: Work Sessions & Issue Paper

    Lead: Lauren Smith (King County) & Skip Swenson (Forterra)

    Members: TPL, TNC, Land Trusts, Farm/Forestry Orgs., Labor, Property Rights, Cons.

    Dists., etc.

    —————————————————–

    Urban & Community Plan Advisory Committee

     Role: Work Sessions & Issue Paper

    Lead: Joe Tovar (Inova) & Ben Bakkenta( PSRC)

    Members: Forterra, ULI, Impact Capital, Great City,

    Tilth, SPF, Groundswell NW, Greenways, etc

    —————————————————————————–

    WATERSHED OPEN SPACE TASKFORCES

    Role: Watershed Open Space Studies.

    Leads:  Associated Watershed Councils & Conservation Districts

    ————————————————————–

    Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS)

    INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL OF THE ATTACHMENTS BELOW

    It’s an extensive partnership of governments and non-profits.

    Implementation of the strategy will require buy-in $$$$$$ And, the power

    They have begun mapping the priority areas to consider for acquisition

    Conservation Decisions Based on Ecosystem Services

    Prepared for the Regional Open Space Strategy of Central Puget Sound

    Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS)

    http://openspacepugetsound.org/ross-approach

    The ROSS approach brings together decision makers, planners, businesses, and individuals with the power to make smart, regional-based, and coordinated decisions to support open space and our future quality of life in the Puget Sound Region. This collaborative effort is stewarded by the University of Washington’s award-winning Green Futures Lab.

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

    I found above plan/strategy in the MRSC publication.  This has to be a part of the desired ARL sweep.  The article says they have begun mapping the priority areas to consider for acquisition (haven’t found them yet).  Implementation of the strategy will require buy-in from an informed citizenry and the support of the regions leaders from both public and private sectors.

    IT’S AN EXTENSIVE PARTNERSHIP OF GOVERNMENTS AND NON-PROFITS.

    http://openspacepugetsound.org/ross-approach

    DRAFT Committee Structure & Organizational Framework

    Introduction to the Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS)

    A Collective Vision

    PRELIMINARY COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY

    Researching and Analyzing Governance Models for UW Green Futures Research + Design Lab

    Informing Conservation Decisions Based on Ecosystem Services

    ————————————————————————————————–

    THIS  EXTENSIVE PARTNERSHIP OF GOVERNMENTS AND NON-PROFITS, HAS BECOME AN ALL TOO FREQUENT PATTERN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    ——————————————————————————————

    This is part of  my comment on the Clallam County New SMP Matrix

    THE NGO, NOTHING TO LOSERS, PILING ONE NGO NON-TAXPAYING  SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPIES COMMENTS,  on top of another NGO non-taxpaying  special interest group comment, all in collusion with, in cahoots with, in partnership,affiliated with, paid for by and with grants and with our tax dollars, from  local, county, state and federal government agencies.

    AND, WITH ALL OF OUR FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL  ELECTED, APPOINTED AND PAID EMPLOYEES IN ALL AGENCIES, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH, IN COLLUSION WITH, IN CAHOOTS WITH, AFFILIATED WITH AND COORDINATING WITH THE GLOBAL, OUT OF TOWNERS, NGO, NOTHING TO LOSERS NON-TAXPAYING  OPPORTUNISTIC SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS.

    Sound familiar?

    —————————————————————————————-

    Indeed, THIS  EXTENSIVE PARTNERSHIP OF GOVERNMENTS AND NON-PROFITS, HAS BECOME AN ALL TOO FREQUENT PATTERN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

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

    A quote from Gerry O’Keefe, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership.

    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.

    Who knew about this? Who knew about ROSS?

    (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.

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

    A quote from Gerry O’Keefe, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/06/09/the-restoration-shell-game/

    Jun 9, 2014 – A highly convoluted “GAME OF RESTORATION” that is involving the … MANY NUTS CAN YOU GET UNDER ONE RESTORATION SHELL?

     


  • U.S. Weather Modification Nov. 1966

    U.S. Weather Modification Nov. 1966

    WEATHER MODIFICATION ICAS Report No. 10a November 1966

    THIS IS A 97 PAGE U.S. GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT

    VIEW FULL DOCUMENT HERE —> http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents/19680002906_1968002906.pdf

    snippets

    Over the past twenty years (from 1946?)  experiments have been conducted on

    weather modification, particularly on the effects of seedinq clouds with

    such materials as – silver iodide crystals.

    1966 There MUST be regulation and control of weather modification activities, especially as those activities increase in magnitude and frequency and become international in scope.

    1966 This is required ESPECIALLY TO PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR PROTECTION AGAINST HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES OF WEATHER MODIFICATION ACTIVITY but also to permit valid experimentation

    ——————————————————————–

    Documents like the one linked above and below need to be shown to those that continue to deny the ongoing climate engineering reality.

    ————————————————————-

    WEATHER MODIFICATION ICAS Report No. 10a November 1966

    A Recommended National Program In WEATHER MODIFICATION

    A Report to the Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences

    by Homer E. Newell

    Associate Administrator for Space Science and Application

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, D.C.

    Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences

    The gradually accumulating evidence of positive results from efforts at

    weather modification led the Committee on Atmospheric Sciences of the

    National Academy of Sciences, in November 1963, to appoint a Panel

    on Weather and Climate Modification “to undertake a deliberate and

    thoughtful review of the present status and activities in this field.

    On June 16, 1964, the Director of the National Science Foundation announced the

     appointment of a Special Commission on Weather Modification. in its review of the

    field, the Commission activated seven subgroups to study the physical, biological, statistical,

    social, international, legal and legislative, and administration and funding aspects of

    weather and climate modification.

    —————————————————————————————–

    This is the comment that prefaced the above.

    Dane Wigington
    geoengineeringwatch.org

    The document contained below is very damning and revealing, I located it in the NASA archives in late October of 2012. It should be a stark wake up call for any that still deny the existence of massive covert weather modification programs which are coordinated by various governments around the world.

    This file report outlines in great detail the existence of expanding US weather modification programs as far back as 1956, a full decade earlier than the date of the document in question. A “special commission” is outlined in this document to coordinate the multiple governmental agencies involved with US weather modification programs as well as independent contractors and universities which the report also mentions. It covers the “management” of international impacts, legal and social ramifications, species disruptions, biological consequences, etc.

    A rapidly increasing mountain of data makes ever more clear that almost none of us alive today have known completely natural weather. That massive covert government programs have been playing “God” with the biosphere for well over 60 years, perhaps even longer. In recent years the scope and scale of these devastating weather modification programs has been ramped up so much that the entire climate system and biosphere is now hanging in the balance.

    The lethal nature of the ongoing “geoengineering” programs can not be overstated. Life on our planet is in freefall for many reasons, but mathematically speaking climate engineering is the greatest assault of all against life on Earth.

    Documents like the one linked below need to be shown to those that continue to deny the ongoing climate engineering reality. With each passing day radical fluctuations in weather continue to accelerate as a direct result of the ongoing geoengineering insanity. Geoengineering must be brought into the light of day and to a halt. Those responsible for the climate engineering programs should be seen criminals that have participated in ecocide and genocide. The corporate media and the “meteorologists” that serve them must also be exposed FOR  THEIR PART IN HIDING THE AEROSOL SPRAYING ASSAULT from public veiw. Each and every one of us are needed to assist in the most critical effort to reach critical mass of awareness, lets make every day count in this battle.

    ——————————————————————–

    APRIL 19, 2015 WHAT DID HAARP, THE US GOVERNMENT  ”HIGH FREQUENCY “ACTIVE AURORAL” RESEARCH PROGRAM” … DO TO OUR NATURAL WEATHER?

    ——————————————————————-

    In 1966 There MUST be regulation and control of weather modification activities, especially as those activities increase in magnitude and frequency and become international in scope.

     In 1966 This is REQUIRED especially to provide A MECHANISM FOR PROTECTION AGAINST HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES OF WEATHER MODIFICATION ACTIVITY.

    ——————————————————————————————

     APRIL 19, 2015

    WHAT DID HAARP, THE US GOVERNMENT  ”HIGH FREQUENCY “ACTIVE AURORAL” RESEARCH PROGRAM” … DO TO OUR NATURAL WEATHER?

    Its purpose, intent, how long it was held secret? 

    WHAT WENT WRONG WITH HAARP?

    Why did the U.S.  government SHUT it down?

    WHERE THERE HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES OF WEATHER MODIFICATION ACTIVITY?

     1. What did HAARP do?

    2. Did HAARP change the humidity?

    3. Did HAARP change weather?

    4.Did HAARP change the climate?

    5. Did HAARP change the JET STREAM?

    ——————————————————————

    HAS THE U.S.  CONGRESS PROVIDED A MECHANISM FROM 1966 THRU 2015 FOR PROTECTION AGAINST HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES OF WEATHER MODIFICATION ACTIVITY?

    ———————————————————–

    HAARP

    The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program – NRL

    www.nrl.navy.mil/…technology

    United States Naval Research Laboratory

    Information Technology Division … We present a description of the major components of the HAARP Gakona Facility … of the value of THESE FREQUENCIES to the Navy for undersea applications. …. About NRL · Mission · History · Commanding Officer · Director of Research · Reserve Program · Inspector General · NRL Web Sites.

    —————————————————————————

     GOD FORBID THAT ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN COMPLAIN?

      Are they Crazy or WHAT?

    Thousands upon thousands, perhaps even millions? of worldwide observers, are and have been labeled as conspiracy theory nut cases, wearing tinfoil hats.. (don’t ever say the C word)

     Perhaps, the observers  of the spectacularly  changes in the visual sky images of jet streams and contrails, are just suffering from some visual mass hysteria.  And, those crazy people are Ignoring the overall increase in air traffic that has spectacularly changed the visual sky images of jet streams and contrails?

    And, What about those THESE FREQUENCIES to the Navy for undersea applications?

    ————————————————-

    APRIL 19, 2015 WHAT DID HAARP,   “HIGH FREQUENCY “ACTIVE AURORAL” RESEARCH PROGRAM” … DO TO OUR NATURAL WEATHER?

    About that  “ACTIVE AURORAL” ?

    By definition, AURORAL REFERS TO THAT DISPLAY––you might describe it as a show of auroral light. The best known aurora is the aurora borealis, otherwise known as the northern lights.

    THE AURORA BOREALIS A NATURAL ELECTRICAL PHENOMENON characterized by the appearance of streamers of reddish or greenish light in the sky, usually near the northern or southern MAGNETIC pole.

    ———————————————————————

    APRIL 19, 2015 WHAT DID HAARP DO TO OUR “NATURAL” WEATHER?

     A rapidly increasing mountain of data makes ever more clear that ALMOST NONE OF US ALIVE TODAY HAVE KNOWN COMPLETELY NATURAL WEATHER.

     —————————————————————————————

    ‘CLIMATE CHAOS’ IN 2015: Strange Events/Apocalyptic …

    investmentwatchblog.com/climate-chaos-in-2015-strange-eventsapocaly…

    Dec 15, 2014 – Warning: Strange weather events increasing around the world 2015 … Events/Apocalyptic Sounds Increasing Around The World (2014-15).

    —————————————————————————————————

     APRIL 19, 2015

      DID HAARP PLAY A PART IN DESTROYING OUR “NATURAL” WEATHER?

     ——————————————————————-

    WOULD THIS HAVE BEEN THE REAL “NATURAL” WEATHER HORROR STORY?

    Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs)

    Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) reach Earth affecting planetary MAGNETICS, SPARKING GEOMAGNETIC STORMS, shifting ocean AND JET STREAM currents in the Pacific Ring of Fire, creating unusual and EXTREME GLOBAL WEATHER PATTERNS, creating unstoppable Earth changes, and affecting the behavior patterns of all sentient life forms.

    —————————————————————————

     Study finds more evidence for link between wavy jet stream …

    phys.org › Earth › Earth Sciences

    Phys.org

    Feb 18, 2015 – Francis and other researchers say the jet stream’s configuration was a key … This does not bode well for impacts of extreme weather and the … A CLEAR “ATMOSPHERIC” RESPONSE AND LINKING IT TO A PARTICULAR CAUSE MAY TAKE ANOTHER …

     Very wavy jet-stream patterns have been occurring more often since the 1990s, Francis says, and are now affecting weather around the northern hemisphere. This mid-February cold snap, for example, that has left millions of people waking up to below-zero and single-digit temperatures, might not be as deep as some southward dips, called troughs, in the jet stream. But the overall pattern has been around for weeks, and is also responsible for Boston’s record snowfall this winter and the worsening drought in western states.

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-evidence-link-wavy-jet-stream.html#jCp

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

    A CLEAR ATMOSPHERIC RESPONSE AND LINKING IT TO A PARTICULAR CAUSE MAY TAKE ANOTHER …

    READING IN THE U.S. CONGRESS  OF THE A 97 PAGE U.S. GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT WEATHER MODIFICATION ICAS Report No. 10a November 1966

     VIEW FULL DOCUMENT HERE —> http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents/19680002906_1968002906.pdf

    snippets

    Over the past twenty years (from 1946?)  experiments have been conducted on

    weather modification, particularly on the effects of seedinq clouds with

    such materials as – silver iodide crystals.

    1966 There MUST be regulation and control of weather modification activities, especially as those activities increase in magnitude and frequency and become international in scope.

     1966 This is required ESPECIALLY TO PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR PROTECTION AGAINST HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES OF WEATHER MODIFICATION ACTIVITY but also to permit valid experimentation

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

    IF YOU WANT TO READ MORE?

     The following is a huge file with many, many, comments, about naming, monitoring and tracking  those who dare to speak or write about the “C” word conspiracy theory.

    How many conspiracy theory nut cases? wearing tinfoil hats.. that said the “C” word?

     If you’ve got a few hours?

    And, are interested in about a thousand scientific studies on the chemical residue found on the ground.

    British Columbia Chemtrail Alert | Monitoring & tracking the …

    https://britishcolumbiachemtrailalert.wordpress.com/

    Feb 24, 2015 – The theory: The white streaks behind high-flying aircraft are not ….. ionospheric heaters such AS HAARP CAN ALTER THE JET STREAM, pulling down frigid ….. Brian had created what was called The Canadian Chemtrail Petition for ..

    ——————————————————————-

    Let’s not forget about all of those, thousands upon thousands, perhaps even millions worldwide? including observers, in British Columbia,  and California, that have been labeled as conspiracy theory nut cases, wearing tinfoil hats.. (that said the “C” word)

    Perhaps, the observers  of the spectacularly  changes in the visual sky images of jet streams and contrails, are just suffering from SOME VISUAL MASS HYSTERIA.  And, those crazy people are Ignoring the overall increase in air traffic that has spectacularly changed the visual sky images of jet streams and contrails?

    And, What about those THESE FREQUENCIES to the Navy for undersea applications?

     


  • Forget About Draining the Swamp

    Forget About Draining the SWAMP

    The Government alligators have taken over WA STATE WETLANDS

    When you’re up to your butt in alligators, it’s easy to forget that the initial objective was to drain the swamp.

    (idiomatic) When performing a long and complex task, and when you’ve gotten utterly immersed in secondary and tertiary unexpected tangential subtasks, it’s easy to lose sight of the initial objective. This sort of distraction can be particularly problematic if the all-consuming subtask or sub-subtask is not, after all, particularly vital to the original, primary goal, but ends up sucking up time and resources (out of all proportion to its actual importance) only because it seems so urgent.
    ————————————————————————–

    Wetland Program Plan (WPP)

    Final WPP Now Available

    In March 2015, Ecology and the Interagency Work Group finalized the state’s Wetland Program Plan. The plan is a strategic tool, developed and implemented by the state, to articulate what the state seeks to accomplish with the wetland program over time. A strategy is necessary for an effective program that protects wetlands and strives to meet the state’s goal of no net loss and an overall net gain in wetland resources.

    This plan is organized around six core elements: regulation, monitoring and assessment, voluntary restoration and protection, water quality standards, education and outreach, and sustainable financing. These elements are critical to the success of the program. This plan outlines work for a six-year timeframe and sets a longer-term vision for future actions.

    >More background information

    Download the Plan

    State Interagency Work Group

    Many agencies play a role in the protection and management of wetland resources in Washington State, in coordination with local governments and federal partners. Current state partners include the:

    Program Matrix

    During the development of the draft WPP, state agencies on the Interagency Work Group, as well as other agencies with a role in protecting and managing wetlands, were asked to identify aspects of their existing programs that fell within each of the EPA core elements.  The information was compiled into a wetland program matrix.  This matrix served as the baseline from which this plan was developed.

    >Download the Program Matrix

    If you have questions about an agency program, please contact the agency. If you have questions about the matrix in general or the Washington Wetland Program Plan, please contact the plan coordinator (see below).

    Update on Past Planning Efforts

    State Wetland Integration Strategy and Mitigation that Works Forum Report

    There were two major planning efforts in the past that provided direction and context for developing this plan: the State Wetland Integration Strategy (SWIS, 1994) and the Mitigation that Works Forum report (2008). These guiding documents have shaped the state’s wetland program and demonstrate the importance and value of long-term planning and agency coordination. We will be posting an overview of the recommendations and implementation actions of SWIS and the Making Mitigation Work Report on this web page. For each action, we will include an update on the status, current priority, and if and where it is included in the Wetland Program Plan action tables. In progress, please check back.

    Contact

    Susan Buis
    (360) 407-7653
    susan.buis@ecy.wa.gov

    ————————————————————————————————-

    This is a major policy change especially with the NEW “all wet areas are connected” science synthesis proposed by EPA.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    Meanwhile, the ABSOLUTE WETTEST PLACES IN THE CONTINENTAL United States are located in the Pacific Northwest, with Washington State’s Aberdeen Reservoir taking the top spot with an average yearly precipitation of 130.6 inches (3317mm).

    http://usatravel.about.com/od/Weather/ss/Wettest-Places-in-the-USA.htm

    SO? IF YOU LIVE IN WA STATE, THE  ABSOLUTELY WETTEST PLACES IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES? AND  YOU’VE GOT ALL OF YOUR MUD PUDDLES, CONNECTED TO ALL OF YOUR WETLANDS AND THEY ARE ALL CONNECTED TO ALL OF THE WET AREAS ON YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY?

    WHEN ARE OUR WA STATE  ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES GOING TO START ACTING, REACTING AND OBJECTING TO THE FAIRNESS OF THE EPA WASHINGTON WETLAND PLAN FOR THE  ABSOLUTELY WETTEST PLACES IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES?

    Washington State Senate

    APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE — LIMITATIONS … 42.36.080, Disqualification based on doctrine — Time limitation for raising challenge. 42.36.

    • Municipal Research and Services Center

      Feb 5, 2015 – Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine in Washington State, MRSC Report no.11 Rev., April 2011.

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

    SO? THE EPA FUNDED/GRANTED (taxpayer money) FOR THE WASHINGTON WETLAND PLAN?
    WHO IS GOING TO FUND THE ECONOMIC DISASTER THAT FOLLOWS?

    Washington State Wetland Program Plan – Access Washington

    https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/…/1406005.html
    WorkSource

    Washington State Wetland Program Plan … VIEW NOW: Acrobat PDF format (Number of pages: 115) (Publication Size: 4391KB) Core Elements Action Tables

    ———————————————————————————-

    Summary of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Quick Links

    2 USC §1501 et seq (1995)

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) was enacted to avoid imposing unfunded federal mandates on state, local, and tribal governments (SLTG), or the private sector. Most of UMRA’s provisions apply to proposed and final rules:

    • for which a general notice of proposed rule making was published, and
    • that include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure of funds by state, local, or tribal governments (SLTG), in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year.

    If a rule meets these conditions, the agency must:

    • Prepare a written statement that includes:
      • the legal authority for the rule,
      • a cost-benefit assessment,
      • a description of the macro-economic effects, and
      • a summary of SLTG concerns and how they were addressed.
    • Consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and select the least costly, least burdensome, or most cost-effective option that achieves the objectives of the rule, or explain why the agency did not make such a choice.
    • Consult with elected officers of SLTG (or their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf) to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of proposed rules containing significant federal intergovernmental mandates.

    Section 203 of UMRA applies to all regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Before establishing a requirement that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, §203 requires federal agencies to develop a plan to:

    • provide notice of the requirements to potentially affected small governments;
    • enable officials of small governments to provide meaningful and timely input for any proposal containing significant federal intergovernmental mandates; and
    • inform, educate, and advise small governments on compliance with the requirements.

     


  • SB 5916 A New “FEE” for All

    SB  5916 A New WA State Legislated “FEE” for All PRIVATE BUSINESSES

    Senate Bill 5916: Enacting the tourism marketing act
    Substitute offered in the Senate on April 2, 2015, replaces the North American Industry Classification System codes with specific descriptions of the businesses that comprise the tourism sectors that will be assessed annual fees.
    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=168233

    THIS IS A ISSUE OF STATEWIDE CONCERN.

    IF YOU HAVE, OWN OR  RUN A PRIVATE BUSINESS IN WA STATE? 

    —————————————————————————-

    The program, SENATE WAYS & MEANS for purposes of this subsection,

    “TAXABLE AMOUNT” MEANS THE GROSS INCOME OF THE BUSINESS as defined in  RCW 82.04.080 and GROSS INCOME as defined in RCW 82.16.010

    REMEMBER THIS NEW WA STATE  “FEE” FOR ALL BUSINESS’S IS NOT A TAX

    It’s just another RUSE  by WA State Legislators to take more local money from our local business’s, remove more money from our local economy  and give it to the WE’S WHO WANT

    THE FEES AND CHARGES IMPOSED IN THIS CHAPTER

    WILL BRING DIRECT BENEFITS TO THOSE PAYING THE FEES AND CHARGES?

     BY BRINGING MORE TOURISTS INTO THE STATE WHO WILL PATRONIZE THE PARTICIPATING BUSINESSES.

    —————————————————————–

    LOCAL BUSINESSES SUBJECT TO THE FEES? GET A PROMISE OF MORE TOURIST INCOME?

     ———————————————————-

    WHAT WA STATE LEGISLATION SB 5916  REALLY DOES WITH THE INCOME FROM THE LOCAL BUSINESS FEES $$$?

    THE WE’S WHO WANT MUST-SHALL GET THEIR SHARE  OF ALL INCOME RECEIVED.

     Please take the time to read the entire SB 5916.

    What WA state does with the $$$ is way down at the bottom. (it is an outrage)

     WITH WA STATE GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE?  ( A LEGISLATED ACT SB 5916) IN COLLECTING THESE FUNDS

     BY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES SENATE BILL 5916: ENACTING THE TOURISM MARKETING ACT

    BY THE “AUTHORITY” MEANS THE “NEW”WASHINGTON TOURISM MARKETING AUTHORITY

     ALL INCOME RECEIVED from investment of the treasurer’s trust fund must be set aside in an account IN THE TREASURY TRUST FUND TO BE KNOWN AS THE INVESTMENT INCOME ACCOUNT.

    THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS AND FUNDS “MUST RECEIVE” THEIR PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF EARNINGS BASED UPON EACH ACCOUNT’S OR FUND’S.

    THE WE’S WHO WANT MUST-SHALL GET THEIR SHARE  OF ALL INCOME RECEIVED.

    ————————————————————————————–

    SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIONS OF THE BUSINESSES THAT COMPRISE THE TOURISM SECTORS THAT WILL BE ASSESSED ANNUAL FEES. based on their  “TAXABLE AMOUNT” MEANS THE GROSS INCOME OF THE BUSINESS

    “ASSESSED SECTORS” MEANS BUSINESSES IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING INDUSTRY SECTORS:

    (a)LODGING;

     (b) FOOD SERVICE, ATTRACTIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT, RETAIL, TRANSPORTATION.

     ”Attractions and entertainment” means businesses whose primary business activity in this state is

    (a)Producing LIVE PRESENTATIONS INVOLVING THE PERFORMANCE OF ACTORS, ACTRESSES, SINGERS, DANCERS, MUSICAL GROUPS, OR OTHER PERFORMING ARTISTS;

    (b) Operating a professional or SEMIPROFESSIONAL TEAM OR CLUB PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN PARTICIPATING IN LIVE SPORTING EVENTS before a paying audience;

    (c)  Operating any kind of RACETRACK or the presenting or promoting of RACING EVENTS HELD AT A RACETRACK;

    (d) Organizing, promoting, or managing PERFORMING ARTS PRODUCTIONS; SPORTING EVENTS; and similar events, such as FAIRS, CONCERTS, AND FESTIVALS;

    (e) Representing or managing creative and PERFORMING ARTISTS, ATHLETES, ENTERTAINERS, or other public figures;

    (f) The preservation and EXHIBITION OF OBJECTS of historical, cultural, or educational value

     (g) The preservation and EXHIBITION OF SITES, BUILDINGS, FORTS, or communities that describe events or persons of particular historical Interest;

     (h)The preservation and EXHIBITION OF live plant or animal life displays;

     (i)The preservation and EXHIBITION OF natural areas or settings;

     (j)Operating an AMUSEMENT PARK, THEME PARK, WATER PARK, or similar facility;

     (k) Operating an AMUSEMENT ARCADE OR PARLOR, INCLUDING A BILLIARDS PARLOR;

     (l) Operating A GOLF COURSE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC;

     (m)Operating a DRIVING RANGE OR MINIATURE GOLF FACILITY;

     (n)Operating a DOWNHILL OR CROSS-COUNTRY SKIING AREA, INCLUDING OPERATING EQUIPMENT SUCH AS SKI LIFTS AND TOWS;

     (o) Acting as A TRAVEL AGENT OR TOUR OPERATOR taxable under RCW 82.04.260(5);

     (p) Engaging in the business of OPERATING CONTESTS OF CHANCE taxable under RCW 82.04.285;

     (q) OPERATING A “MARINA,” WHICH MEANS PROVIDING DOCKING OR STORAGE FACILITIES PRIMARILY OR EXCLUSIVELY FOR PLEASURE CRAFT OWNERS, WITH OR WITHOUT ANY RELATED ACTIVITIES, SUCH AS RETAILING FUEL AND MARINE SUPPLIES, AND REPAIRING, MAINTAINING, OR RENTING PLEASURE CRAFT.

    ————————————————————————————–

    THE PURPOSE OF THIS NEW WA STATE  “FEE” FOR ALL ON BUSINESS’S?

    THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT IS TO ESTABLISH THE FRAMEWORK AND FUNDING FOR A STATEWIDE TOURISM MARKETING PROGRAM. 2SSB 5916 to have a structure that includes significant, stable, LONG-TERM FUNDING, and it should be implemented and managed by the tourism industry.

    THE SOURCE OF FUNDS SHOULD BE FROM MAJOR SECTORS OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY WITH GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE IN COLLECTING THESE FUNDS IMPLEMENTED IN AN EXPEDITIOUS MANNER BY TOURISM PROFESSIONALS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

    —————————————————————————————-

    SENATE BILL 5916 FUNDING FOR A STATEWIDE TOURISM MARKETING PROGRAM?

     

    BASED ON THE “MYTH” OF CLALLAM COUNTY INCREASED TOURISM?

    IS A widely held but MISTAKEN belief,
    IT IS Something that is fictitious or NONEXISTENT, but whose existence is widely believed in.
    IT IS A set of idealized or glamorized ideas and stories surrounding a particular phenomenon or CONCEPT.

    Behind My Back | Clallam County $$$ Prospectus

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/05/19/clallam-county-prospectus/

    May 19, 2013 – THE “MYTH” OF CLALLAM COUNTY INCREASED TOURISM When GAS and FERRY cost is OVER $100.

    ———————————————————————————————-

    Senate Bill 5916: Enacting the tourism marketing act
    Substitute offered in the Senate on April 2, 2015, replaces the North American Industry Classification System codes with specific descriptions of the businesses that comprise the tourism sectors that will be assessed annual fees.
    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=168233

    AN ACT Relating to tourism marketing; reenacting and amending RCW 43.79A.040; adding a new section to chapter 82.04 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 44.28 RCW; adding a new chapter to Title 43 RCW; adding a new chapter to Title 82 RCW; providing an effective date; providing an expiration date; and declaring an emergency.

    —————————————————————————————

    IT’S COMPLICATED, YOU HAVE TO READ IT TO BELIEVE IT.

    ————————————————————————–

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

    NEW SECTION.

    Sec. 1. FINDINGS

    PURPOSE. (1)The legislature finds that the tourism industry is the fourth largest economic sector in the state of Washington. Since 2011 there have been no general funds committed to statewide tourism marketing and Washington is the only state without a state tourism office. Before 2011, the amount of funds appropriated to statewide tourism marketing were not significant and in fact, Washington ranked forty-eighth in state tourism funding. Washington has significant attractions and activities for tourists, including many natural outdoor assets that draw visitors to mountains, waterways, parks, and open spaces. THERE SHOULD BE A PROGRAM TO PUBLICIZE THESE ASSETS AND ACTIVITIES THAT IS IMPLEMENTED IN AN EXPEDITIOUS MANNER BY TOURISM PROFESSIONALS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

    (2) The purpose of this act is to establish the framework and FUNDING FOR A STATEWIDE TOURISM MARKETING PROGRAM. The program needs S-2906.2

    SECOND SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5916

    State of Washington

    64th Legislature

    2015 Regular Session

    By Senate Ways & Means (originally sponsored by Senators Brown,

    Chase, Angel, Kohl-Welles, Hatfield, Benton, and McAuliffe)

    READ FIRST TIME 04/02/15.

    p. 1 2SSB 5916 to have a structure that includes significant, stable, long-term funding, and it should be implemented and managed by the tourism industry.

    The source of funds should be from major sectors of the tourism industry WITH GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE IN COLLECTING THESE FUNDS and providing accountability for their expenditure.

    THE FEES AND CHARGES IMPOSED IN THIS CHAPTER WILL BRING DIRECT BENEFITS TO THOSE PAYING THE FEES AND CHARGES BY BRINGING MORE TOURISTS INTO THE STATE WHO WILL PATRONIZE THE PARTICIPATING BUSINESSES.

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

    The bottom line

    REMEMBER THIS NEW WA STATE  “FEE” FOR ALL PRIVATE BUSINESS’S IS NOT A TAX

    It’s just another RUSE  by WA State Legislators to take more local money from our local business’s, remove more money from our local economy  and GIVE IT TO THE WE’S WHO WANT

    ——————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | Fee Fie Foe Fum

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foe-fum/

    Oct 26, 2013 – “Fee-fi-fo-fum” is the first line of a historical quatrain famous for its use in the classic English fairy … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee-fie-foe-fum.

    REMEMBER A “FEE” IS NOT A TAX
    AND, A TOLL IS JUST A FEE
    AND, A SERVICE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A CHARGE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A FARE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    FEE FEE FIE FIE FOE FOE FUM…..

     


  • Living in Law-Law Land?

    Living in Law- Law Land?

    LIVING IN WA STATE LAW-LAW,  LA-LA LAND?

    Definition of LA-LA LAND from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, a euphoric dreamlike mental state DETACHED FROM THE HARSHER REALITIES OF LIFE.

    ——————————————————————————————

    WHO’S? LEGISLATING IN WA STATE  LAW- LAW, LA-LA  LAND?

    WOW, 107 LEGISLATORS /LAWMAKERS HAVE INTRODUCED 2,200 LAWMAKING MEASURES?

    The Washington State Legislature is a bicameral body with 49 members in the Senate and 98 members in the House of Representatives.

    ——————————————–

    From: WashingtonVotes.org News <wavotes@wavotes.org>
    Date: Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:32 PM

    On this 33rd day of this year’s 105-day legislative session, lawmakers have introduced more than 2,200 measures

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

    WHO’S VOTING on more than 2,200 measures  IN LAW- LAW, LA-LA LAND?

    our  147 WA State elected representative (aka our 147 public servants)

    How many of the 147 legislators are  detached from the harsher realities of life, and legislating in a euphoric dreamlike mental state?

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

    These 147 legislators took an oath of office, to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,

     NOT TO “HOLD US UP”  

    by legislating and dumping more taxes and 2200 more lawmaking measures  on the already beleaguered WA STATE AMERICAN TAXPAYING CITIZENS.

    —————————————————————————

    How Stupid do these WA STATE  LAW- LAW, LA-LA  legislators  think we are?

    Do they think, American Citizens ARE SO Stupid, WE LACK COMPREHENSION  AND WE ARE TOO DUMB TO FIGURE OUT WHAT’S GOING ON?

    Behind My Back | By Hook or By Crook

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/16/by-hook-or-by-crook/

    Oct 16, 2013 – Suggestion number one is that ‘by hook or by crook‘ derives from the custom in mediaeval England of ALLOWING PEASANTS TO TAKE FROM …

    ————————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | Fee Fie Foe Fum

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foe-fum/

    Oct 26, 2013 – FEE, FEE? FIE, FIE? FOE, FOE? FUM? (By archaic definition and word origin) EVEN IN ARCHAIC … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee-fie-foe-fum.

    ————————————————————————

    ONE EXAMPLE (from an email)

    To a WA State Representative,

    You went on air and essentially referred to taxpayers of this state as children who need you to make decisions for them; that even when those decisions were unpopular, they were still the right decision.

    Your ill-spoken comments are offensive.  How dare you insinuate that you know better than the hard-working people of this state, what they need.  How dare you insinuate these people are children who need your guidance on what is best.  How insulting, how offensive, how demeaning.  You are obviously on a power trip that serves not one taxpayer of this state well.

    —————————————————————————————-

    How Stupid do these WA STATE  LAW- LAW, LA-LA  legislators  think we are?

    Do they think, American Citizens ARE SO Stupid, WE LACK COMPREHENSION  AND WE ARE TOO DUMB TO FIGURE OUT WHAT’S GOING ON?

    How Stupid ARE THESE WA STATE  LAW- LAW, LA-LA  legislators?  

    Full Definition of STUPID

    from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

    slow of mind

    given to unintelligent decisions or acts

    acting in an unintelligent or careless manner

    lacking intelligence or reason

    dulled in feeling or sensation

    marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting

    lacking interest or point

    —————————————————————————

    How uninformed are the voters that voted for them, and elected them?

    HOW STUPID ARE THE WA STATE VOTERS THAT ELECTED THEM?

    —————————————————————————————-

    A full Synonym Discussion of STUPID

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid

    stupid, dull, dense, crass, dumb, mean lacking in power to absorb ideas or impressions stupid implies a slow-witted or dazed state of mind that may be either congenital or temporary <stupid students just keeping the seats warm> <stupid with drink>.dull, suggests a slow or sluggish mind such as results from disease, depression, or shock <monotonous work that leaves the mind dull>. dense implies a thickheaded imperviousness to ideas <too dense to take a hint>. crass suggests a grossness of mind precluding discrimination or delicacy <a crass, materialistic people>. dumb, applies to an exasperating obtuseness or LACK OF COMPREHENSION <TOO DUMB TO FIGURE OUT WHAT’S GOING ON>.

     


  • Comments-Objections to PSNERP

    Comments-Objections to (PSNERP)

    I strongly oppose the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem “RESTORATION” Project (PSNERP) and, in my opinion, it should be irrevocably terminated immediately.

    IT’S FEDERAL, IT’S STATE, IT’S OUR MONEY

    AND,  IT’S THE ENTIRE PUGET SOUND

    THE FOLLOWING ARE WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS ON PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT (PSNERP)

    ————————————————————————————

    Subject: FW: Skagit CAPR Chapter: FW: submittal of PSNERP written comment

    From: Kathy Mitchell
    Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at 6:13 PM
    To: <nearshore@usace.army.mil>
    Subject: PSNERP Projects Comment

    ——————————————————

    From: Roger Mitchell
    Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 2:56 PM
    To: Nearshore@usace.army.mil
    Subject: submittal of PSNERP written comment

    ——————————————————————————

    Subject: FW: submittal For Clallam County of PSNERP written objection

    From: Pearl Rains Hewett
    Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2015
    To: Nearshore@usace.army.mil
    Subject: submittal of PSNERP Clallam County written objection

    ————————————————————————————————-

    My PSNERP written public comments and objections PLUS…..

    The fact that these ideas were churned out by the Puget Sound Partnership and by the Envisioning people at OSU, is no surprise.

    —————————————————————————-

    My written comment on the SHADY? history of the Puget Sound Partnership

    In May 2010, auditors found the partnership “circumvented state contracting laws, exceeded its purchasing authority and made unallowable purchases with public funds,” incurring “costs without clear public benefit.”

    scroll down for more

    ——————————————————————-

    My written comments on RESTORATION….. period

    Behind My Back | RED FLAG WARNING Page 2

    www.behindmyback.org/category/red-flag-warning/page/2/

    Apr 9, 2014 – EPA RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND … the cost of an unfunded WA STATE RESTORATION “RAIN TAX” TO CLEAN UP PUGET SOUND? ….. Goggle behindmyback.org for the full text of “Sue and Settle Sucks”

    —————————————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/06/09/the-restoration-shell-game/

    Jun 9, 2014 – A highly convoluted GAME OF RESTORATION that is involving the … MANY NUTS CAN YOU GET UNDER ONE RESTORATION SHELL?

    ———————————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | $14.8 Billion for Restoration

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/06/10/14-8-billion-for-restoration/

    Jun 10, 2014 – http://apwa-wa.org/Uploads/CommitteeFiles/Stormwater/1110009.pdf … The “RESTORATION” Shell Game In the state of Maryland, their elected representatives, legislators, passed a $14.8 …. The “RESTORATIONShell Game.

    ———————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | Bang for their buck? Restoration

    www.behindmyback.org/category/bang-for-their-buck-restoration/

    Dec 3, 2014 – www.behindmyback.org/2013/07/14/surfrider-foundation/ …… for planning, authorizing and implementing the RESTORATION SHELL GAME .

    ————————————————————————-

    INDEED, while we’re RESTORING

    While we’re in the “RESTORATION” business I’d like a few things restored, too:

    Behind My Back | American Restoration of Law and Order

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/…/american-restoration-of-law-and-order/

    Jun 11, 2014 – American Restoration of Law and Order? OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY IN AMERICA?

    ——————————————————————————

    Behind My Back | Senate Hearings on EPA

    www.behindmyback.org/category/senate-hearings-on-epa/

    Sep 1, 2014 - GIVE “STATE’S SOVEREIGNTY” BACK TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! … http://heartland.org/policy-documents/replacing-environmental-protection- ….. Is anyone in congress addressing the Restoration of “Law and …

    ————————————————————————–

    THE HISTORY OF PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP 2007-2010

    read the complete text at

    Behind My Back | The Bad News On Kilmer

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/08/31/the-bad-news-on-kilmer/

    Aug 31, 2013 – US. Reps Kilmer and Heck promise to continue the work of Norm Dicks on behalf of WETLANDS, SHORELINES By ROB CARSON — Staff writer …

    “Everyone was scratching everyone’s back with this PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP,” said Republican state Sen. Mark Schoesler, who has been a vocal critic of the partnership. “They were banking on daddy Dicks to bring money home, and then his son squandered it.

    ”PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP” May 2010
    In May 2010, auditors found the partnership “circumvented state contracting laws, exceeded its purchasing authority and made unallowable purchases with public funds,” incurring “costs without clear public benefit.”

    ———————————————————————————

    I Pearl Rains Hewett, submit and concur, with the following PSNERP Projects comments. ——————————————————————————————————

    From: Kathy Mitchell
    Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at 6:13 PM
    To: <nearshore@usace.army.mil>
    Subject: PSNERP Projects Comment

    C/O: Nancy C. Gleason

    USACOE

    CENWS-EN-ER

    POB 3755

    Seattle, WA 98124-3755

    nearshore@usace.army.mil

    The PSNERP projects, especially those for Skagit County, must be abandoned; the enormous waste of tax dollars for these ill-conceived and harmful projects to precious farmland under the guise of flimsy reasoning and faulty assumptions is wrong.

    The fact that the concept for these unneeded and unnecessary projects got this far, especially with such an outrageous price tag, is a disgrace. These proposed projects would necessarily cause ruination of thousands of acres farmland, and more than likely cause unforeseen and unintended consequences to those and adjacent lands.

    Furthermore, in my opinion, the fact that these ideas were churned out by the Puget Sound Partnership and by the Envisioning people at OSU, is no surprise; both groups are well known for their inferior, ideology-based recommendations rather than sound work based on pertinent, fact-based science, on appropriate field work, and on site-specific work.  Since when do they ‘know all’ and ‘see all’ about what restoration really means for areas they really know nothing about?  As a classically trained geologist, I do know that the land is in a constant state of flux and that these people’s notions of exactly what ‘snapshot in time’ to use as this golden state of restoration is laughable.  Do we go back 30 years?  Go back 300 years?  Go back 3,000 years?  Go back 3 Million years? Erosion, sedimentation, and associated processes are dynamic – the land will change over time.

    Finally, I am appalled and quite dismayed that the Army Corps of Engineers has had anything to do with this wasteful boondoggle.

    Sincerely,

    Kathy Mitchell

    1155 Chuckanut Ridge Drive

    Bow, WA 98232

    ——————————————————————————-

    From: Roger Mitchell
    Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 2:56 PM
    To: Nearshore@usace.army.mil
    Subject: submittal of PSNERP written comment

     

    Written Comment on Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP)

    Roger H. Mitchell, Bow, Washington

    I strongly oppose the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) and, in my opinion, it should be irrevocably terminated immediately.

    Opinion:

    The entire premise for PSNERP is scientifically flawed, ideologically driven, and just another veiled attempt to socially engineer and control the lives of private property owners. At it’s best, PSNERP is a government make-work program; at it’s worst PSNERP is merely another chapter in irresponsible environmentalism run amok.

    Procedurally, this proposed project has been seriously flawed. There are significant inconsistencies and discrepancies between pugetsoundnearshore.org’s website and the website at nws.usace.army.mil. Discrepancies include different numbers of affected acres and in cost projections. If the goal was to confuse the public then, for once, government has succeeded. Why are we just getting to comment now on something that has been proceeding for years ? Why and how are we now being “steamrollered” into supporting this proposal in what appears to be a predetermined outcome that, once gain, bears little resemblance to the “consent of the governed?

    The proposed project is at odds with RCW 36.70A – the Growth Management Act (GMA). PSNERP will cause destruction and loss of farmland and rural business that is contrary to GMA mandates.  Some ideologues have relentlessly made it more and more difficult for farmers to grow the crops that feed the rest of us. Why let PSNERP add to the decline of farmland, farming, and farmers ? Any PSNERP proposed project must show, in detail, how it complies with the GMA. Thus far, that demonstration of compliance has been disregarded, overlooked, or intentionally omitted in PSNERP proposals.

    Among the many problems with PSNERP and its many clones is that the instigators are never held accountable for their mistakes and failures. They play with other people’s money or, in this case, other people’s properties. Essentially they have no “skin in the game”. Ten years from now, when PSNERP has failed to do anything positive, and has had numerous, negative, unintended consequences, do you think the current PSNERPers are going to say, “Gee; I’m sorry ‘bout that PSNERP thing and wasting that Billion dollars. Do you want your refund in cash or a check ?”

    Actions:

    The EIS should be withdrawn. My preference would be to abandon this proposal and not waste another taxpayer dollar on it.

    There needs to be a true cost/benefit analysis. We’re talking about potential misappropriation and misapplication of taxpayer dollars. Without an honest cost benefit study, the public cannot properly determine whether the proposed project is acceptable or worthy of full funding, partial funding, or, my personal favorite, no funding at all.

    Let’s have a little chat about “restoration” and unanswered questions:

    re·store

    rəˈstôr/

    verb:  return (someone or something) to a former condition, place, or position.

    res·to·ra·tion

    ˌrestəˈrāSH(ə)n/

    noun:  the action of returning something to a former owner, place, or condition

    So, I ask you, where are the answers to the following “restoration” questions ?

    1.       Apparently there is a specific time and condition to which we should presumptively “restore”. How do we know that that chosen time and condition was, in fact, optimal or better in any way relative to the current time and condition ?

    2.       Who actually knows the details and dynamics of that presumptively chosen optimal time and condition to which PSNERPers would have us restore to from current conditions ?

    3.    Who gets to make the determination of what time and condition we are restoring to ?

    4.       Even if the PSNERP proposal could be determined to be either good or bad, who has decreed who has the authority to decide for all of the rest of us whether the proposal is good?

    5.       The issue is “restoration” projects; these projects do not exist in a vacuum — they affect other people, locations, and conditions as well. Worldviews, movements, and projects — these things all have consequences. What are PSNERP’s costs in resources (time & taxpayer dollars) and what other possible projects and programs will PSNERP preclude ?

    6.       What are the unintended consequences of the proposed PSNERP projects ? Forces result from interactions. The proposed PSNERP projects are interactive forces. Newton’s Third Law of Motions reminds us that For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. When you poke the balloon in one place it pops out in another. When PSNERP projects “poke” the balloon of status quo, what is going to pop out elsewhere as a result ?

    7.       Does anyone at PSNERP realize that the earth’s geology, biology, and ecology have been in a constant state of change since their very inceptions and will continue to change for infinity ? How incredibly arrogant, condescending, and egocentric of some to think they can determine exactly what is “best” in terms of time or condition for any of these dynamic, natural processes.

    8.       By what criteria has someone determined that current conditions are not “best” and has chosen the particular, proposed, “restore to” slice of time and conditions as better or optimal?

    9.       Purportedly, PSNERP is, like detrimental instream flow rules, all about salmon. Why are some people so wrapped up in attempting to “protect” one particular species (salmonids) to the detriment of others ? Who chose salmonids over other worthy species (including humans) who are left to compete, unassisted and unprotected, in the Darwinian battle with the rest of us ? We call it, “life”.

    PSNERP proposals have not provided good or acceptable answers to any of the above questions.

    Fallacies:

    PSNERP is yet another exercise in governmental fallacious reasoning. Fallacies can be divided into categories according to the epistemological factors that cause the error:

    The reasoning is invalid but is presented as if it were a valid argument

    • The argument has an unjustified premise
    • Some relevant evidence has been ignored or suppressed

     

    The PSNERP proposal has all of these fallacies. But, just be sure, PSNERP also has the types of fallacies listed below:

    False Dilemma

    A proposal that unfairly presents too few choices and then implies that a choice must be made among this short menu of choices

    False Cause

    Improperly concluding that one thing is a cause of another.

    Reversing Causation

    Drawing an improper conclusion about causation due to a causal assumption that reverses cause and effect.

    Unfalsifiability (Untestability)

    This error in explanation occurs when the explanation contains a claim that is not falsifiable, because there is no way to check on the claim. That is, there would be no way to show the claim to be false if it were false. There is no null hypothesis.

    And the environmentalist ideologue’s perennial favorite:

    Scare Tactic

    Terrorizing people in order to give them a reason for believing that you are correct.

    By the way, while we’re “restoring”:

    While we’re in the “restoration” business I’d like a few things restored, too:

    I’d like my inherent, natural property rights restored.

    • I’d like my pursuit of happiness restored by not being constantly barraged with yet another manic, trumped up, Chicken Little environmental “crisis” that needs to be “mitigated”.
    • I’d like my Washington State government restored to what the state’s founders intended in

    that calls for “consent of the governed”.

    Will it help if I ask nicely ?

    Please ! Stop wasting our time, money, and goodwill. PSNERP is wrong for many, may reasons; it should be irrevocably terminated immediately.

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

    —– Original Message —–

    From:

    Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 12:37 PM

    Subject: FW: Skagit CAPR Chapter: FW: submittal of PSNERP written comment

    ———————————————————————————–


     


  • The Enabling Act March 1933

    The Enabling Act March 1933

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

    THE FORMAL TITLE FOR THE ENABLING ACT WAS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————————–

    The Enabling Act March 1933 – History Learning Site

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

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

    THE ENABLING ACT ALLOWED HITLER TO RULE BY HIMSELF.

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

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

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

    THE SUBJECT OF EDUCATION

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

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

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

     

    A BILL FOR THE MORE GENERAL DIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE

    THOMAS JEFFERSON (1779)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    THIS IS HOW WA STATE WORKS ON THE SUBJECT OF EDUCATION

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

    Supreme Court finds Legislature in contempt on education …

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

    The Seattle Times

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

    ————————————————————————

    Read more on Public Education

    Behind My Back | The ENABLING ACT February 22, 1889

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

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

    ———————————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

     ENGLISH, AND AMERICAN HISTORY.

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

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

     

    ——————————————————————–

    Read more on the history of Public Education

    The Beginnings of Public Education

    in Virginia, 1776-1860

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

     


  • WA State Parks Sloppy Accounting

    WA State Parks Sloppy Accounting

    During fiscal 2013, State Parks had more than $34 million in revenues, of which $11.6 million was collected at the parks and $5.5 MILLION FROM SALES OF THE DISCOVER PASS.

    Now that money’s all gone? Unaccounted for?

    Oct. 9, 2014  AUDITOR: STATE PARKS MUST CORRECT “SLOPPY” ACCOUNTING METHODS

    By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS, Associated Press Published: Oct 9, 2014 at 11:01 AM PDT

    SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) – The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission needs to do a better job of accounting for money spent on motor vehicle fuel and for its Discover Passes and other park revenues, the Washington State Auditor’s Office said Thursday.

    GOV. JAY INSLEE  must be held accountable

    And the WA State Legislators MUST DENY THIS.
    September 25, 2014  GOV. JAY INSLEE TO CONSIDER $100 MILLION PLAN TO FUND STATE PARKS

    BY Tim Haeck  on September 25, 2014

    ———————————————————————————————

    If WA State Parks can’t account for $34 MILLION with their SLOPPY ACCOUNTING METHODS?

    How could the ways and means committee even begin to consider giving WA State Parks another $100 MILLION?

    The WA State Legislator is accountable to the people in WA State, let them be accountable, for  the ” MUST CORRECT”,  WA STATE PARKS “SLOPPY” ACCOUNTING METHODS. Before another penny of “TAXPAYER MONEY” is appropriate by ANY  means, including  ANY increase in ANY TAX or PARK FEES.

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

    Oct. 9, 2014  AUDITOR: STATE PARKS MUST CORRECT “SLOPPY” ACCOUNTING METHODS

    snippet

    DISCOVER PASSES, State Parks does not have written procedures to ensure the proper tracking of passes printed or distributed; does not maintain a daily log stating the number of passes sold; and does not reconcile the number of passes sold to deposit SLIPS TO ENSURE THAT ALL REVENUES WERE DEPOSITED.

    The audit also found that in collecting cash, the agency had no controls to ensure all funds collected through secured boxes were deposited; had only one person collecting cash from boxes at park locations; and did not consistently make deposits in a timely manner.

    That raised the danger that revenue collected could be misappropriated and that theft would not be quickly identified, the audit said.

    In another finding, the report said that, from July 2012 to July 2013, State Parks spent more than $1 million to purchase fuel, including $660,000 on individual fuel cards.

    ——————————————————————————————

    COMPLETE TEXT

    Auditor: State Parks must correct sloppy accounting methods

    By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS, Associated Press Published: Oct 9, 2014 at 11:01 AM PDT

    SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) – The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission needs to do a better job of accounting for money spent on motor vehicle fuel and for its Discover Passes and other park revenues, the Washington State Auditor’s Office said Thursday.

    “The Commission must be able to account for its use of public funds and ensure its stewardship of the lands, waters and historic places entrusted to it,” Auditor Troy Kelley said in a press release.

    The auditor’s office criticized the handling of money generated by sales of the Discover Pass, which allows purchasers to access any state-managed park by paying an annual fee. This is the first audit since the Discover Pass was created.

    During fiscal 2013, State Parks had more than $34 million in revenues, of which $11.6 million was collected at the parks and $5.5 million from sales of the Discover Pass.

    The auditor’s office looked at financial procedures at a sample of seven state parks. It found that in relation to Discover Passes, State Parks does not have written procedures to ensure the proper tracking of passes printed or distributed; does not maintain a daily log stating the number of passes sold; and does not reconcile the number of passes sold to deposit slips to ensure that all revenues were deposited.

    The audit also found that in collecting cash, the agency had no controls to ensure all funds collected through secured boxes were deposited; had only one person collecting cash from boxes at park locations; and did not consistently make deposits in a timely manner.

    That raised the danger that revenue collected could be misappropriated and that theft would not be quickly identified, the audit said.

    State Parks concurred with the auditor’s finding, which both parties blamed in part on staff reductions in recent years. State Parks said it had requested funding for an internal auditor in its 2015 budget request, and had taken steps to ensure deposits were made within required time frames.

    State Parks has also started conducting reviews of financial activity in individual parks, and is assessing controls for cash receipts and sales of the Discover Pass.

    In another finding, the report said that, from July 2012 to July 2013, State Parks spent more than $1 million to purchase fuel, including $660,000 on individual fuel cards.

    But the agency has no written policies or procedures on the use of fuel cards; does not reconcile individual receipts kept by state park locations to the monthly fuel card statements; and does not compare vehicle usage and mileage logs to fuel card statements.

    The auditor’s office said the problems increase the risk that inappropriate use of fuel could occur and not be identified in a timely manner, making the commission vulnerable to misappropriation, misuse or loss.

    State Parks said it would accept the auditor’s recommendations to develop written policies on fuel card usage and reconcile monthly fuel card statements to individual receipts and mileage logs.

    ———————————————————————————————

    HOW MUCH INCOME FROM THE DISCOVERY PASS?

    The audit also found that in collecting cash, the agency had no controls to ensure all funds collected through secured boxes were deposited; had only one person collecting cash from boxes at park locations; and did not consistently make deposits in a timely manner.

    That raised the danger that revenue collected could be misappropriated and that theft would not be quickly identified, the audit said.

    ————————————————-
    The auditors called  this “sloppy accounting”

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

    DISCOVERY PASS INCOME?  

    State budget analyst and task force member Jim Cahill said THE DISCOVER PASS has helped, but hasn’t gotten them all the way there.

    “It has not fully replaced all of the funding that’s been lost during budget reductions in 2007-’09,” he said.

    The governor’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Parks and Outdoor Recreation’s final report recommended three funding sources for parks including an excise tax on travel trailers and motor homes, diversion of money from a watercraft excise tax and a sales tax on bottled water.

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

    Auditor: State Parks must correct sloppy accounting methods

    By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS, Associated Press Published: Oct 9, 2014 at 11:01 AM PDT

    SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) – The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission needs to do a better job of accounting for money spent on motor vehicle fuel and FOR ITS DISCOVER PASSES AND OTHER PARK REVENUES, THE WASHINGTON STATE AUDITOR’S OFFICE SAID THURSDAY.

    ————————————————————————————–

    The auditors called  this “sloppy accounting”

    Is “sloppy accounting” an oxymoron?

    An oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines two contradictory terms. ..