+menu-


  • Category Archives Federal Environmental Protection Agency
  • Feb 28, 2017 POTUS Executes WOTUS

    PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (POTUS) DONALD J. TRUMP

    SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER ON WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (WOTUS)

    Indeed, Trump Signed an Executive Order to Begin Water Rule Rollback

    In President Trump’s own words, “With today’s executive order I’m directing the EPA to take action paving the way for the elimination of this very destructive and horrible rule,” Trump said.

    “The EPA so-called Waters of the United States rule is one of the worst examples of federal regulation, and it has truly run amok, and is one of the rules most strongly opposed by farmers, ranchers and agricultural workers all across our land,” Trump said. “It’s prohibiting them from being allowed to do what they’re supposed to be doing. It has been a disaster.”

    The rule was signed by President Obama in May of 2015, (the master of several disasters) and went into effect in late August of 2015.

    President Trump’s  Director of Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt was  sworn in on Feb 17, 2017. “They” say….Scott Pruitt is the EPA’s Legal Nemesis

    POTUS Executes WOTUS

    They” say it was a hatchet job.

    “They” say 3000 jobs will be lost at the EPA.

    I say great, 3000 more ways to downsize the government

    —————————————————————

    START HERE… WHERE EVERYTHING FEDERAL STARTS….

    Behind My Back | WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/04/wotuswater-runs-down-hill/

    Posted on September 4, 2015 8:52 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    So, the LAW OF GRAVITY becomes the EPA WOTUS WATER LAW OF THE LAND?

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

    —————————————————————————-

    The EPA is earning a reputation for abuse – The Washington Post

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/…epa-is…abuse/…/gIQAucvzzT_story.html

    May 3, 2012Earlier this year, Mike and Chantell Sackett brought a case against the EPA to the Supreme Court, challenging a “compliance order” …

    ——————————————————-

    Apr 4, 2012 www.nationalreview.com/article/295188

    That subtext to the Sackett opinion is one that the lower courts (who try to avoid being overruled) can read as clearly as EPA.
    Congress should subpoena Al Armendariz, the EPA’s regional administrator, to come explain how this whole fiasco happened.
    ——————————————————
    Apr 25, 2012 – Uploaded by Senator Jim Inhofe

    2010, video  which shows a top EPA official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, using the vivid metaphor of crucifixion to explain EPA’s enforcement tactics for oil and gas producers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze3GB_b7Nuo
    ————————————————————-
     Apr 4, 2012

    The EPA Abuses First, Apologizes Later – | National Review

    www.nationalreview.com/article/295188

    Apr 4, 2012 – EPA can issue emergency orders to anybody. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sackett v. EPA, which insisted that citizens hit with an …

     The EPA Abuses First, Apologizes Later
    April 4, 2012 4:00 AM @Mario_A_Loyola

    The regulatory state’s biggest bully beats up another victim.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/295188

    ————————————————————————-

    May 29, 2012

    Senate Republicans Request Answers on EPAís Sackett … – Inhofe

    www.inhofe.senate.gov/…/senate-republicans-request-answers-on-epais-sackett-comm…

    May 29, 2012Senate Republicans Request Answers on EPA’s Sackett Comments … Post saying that the agency is ‘earning a reputation for abuse.’ EPA …

    Just saying….

    May 29, 2012 The establishment’s GOP asked questions and talked about it

    —————————————————————–

    Sep 4, 2015

    Behind My Back | PLF lawsuit on WOTUS

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/04/plf-lawsuit-on-wotus/

    Sep 4, 2015 – PLF lawsuit on WOTUS Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) lawsuit … www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/12/who-is-protecting–we-the-people/.

    ————————————————

    Feb 11, 2016

    Behind My Back | A Wetland is A WOTUS

    www.behindmyback.org/category/a-wetland-is-a-wotus/

    Feb 11, 2016 – www.behindmyback.org/2016/04/26/let–me–ask–america-a-question/ ….. www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/04/wotus–water-runs-down-hill/.

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

    ————————–

    THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT!
    NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH WATER IS, GRAVITY RUNS WATER DOWN HILL

    WA STATE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND BY THE GRAVITY FED TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT of WOTUS federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS.
    Indeed, WA State Dept. of Ecology “DID”  ADOPT AND DESIGNATE THE SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH ANY BODIES OF WATER, within 4,000 feet of a navigable water, including wetlands near a river, lake, saltwater, or standing water, that (run down hill) can affect waterways (run down hill and) “COULD” affect the environment, that

    SHALL fall under the WOTUS Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Water Act and become subject to EPA review and control.

    —————————————————————–

    The EPA’s enforcement policy and tactics for WETLANDS

    EPA’s abuse of the Sacketts inspires latest thriller by CJ Box

    www.pacificlegal.org › Home › News & Media
    Pacific Legal Foundation

    Mar 12, 2013“EPA is not above the law — that’s the bottom line with the Sacketts‘ Supreme Court victory,” said PLF Principal Attorney Damien Schiff, who …

    ———————————————————–

     EPA’s enforcement tactics for oil and gas producers.

    EPA Official: EPAs “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make …

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze3GB_b7Nuo
    Apr 25, 2012 – Uploaded by Senator Jim Inhofe

    A video from 2010, which shows a top EPA official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, using the vivid metaphor of crucifixion to explain EPA’s enforcement tactics for oil and gas producers.

    Just saying…

    Apr 25, 2012 The establishment’s GOP watched it and talked about it.

    ——————————————————

    On Feb 28, 2017 with the stroke of his pen in President Trump’s own words, “With today’s executive order I’m directing the EPA to take action paving the way for the elimination of this very destructive and horrible rule,” Trump said.

    ———————————————————————

    March 2, 2017 UNDER WOTUS, THE EPA’S  POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT HAS  ABUSED HUNDREDS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS, INCLUDING IMPRISONMENT.

    HOW HORRIBLE IS THAT….

    ——————————————-

    Post on Pie N Politics

    WOTUS overturned! Now pardon Joe Robertson!

    Clean Water ACT – EPA, CORRUPTION, Federal gov & land grabs, President Trump and officials
    On the back of today’s Executive Order, Joe deserves an immediate, unconditional federal pardon.
    ….
    To be Continued…

  • WA State Reform on Wetland Delineation?

    Re: WA State Legislative reform ideas for SMPs and wetlands delineation update?

    Dear Rene’, Hello our/my elected Federal, my elected WA State representative, Clallam County Commissioners,  Mary and Connie,

    I received emails from Rene’ in Eastern WA (full text at the bottom)

    Re: WA State Legislative reform ideas for SMPs and wetlands delineation update?

    A WETLAND IS A WOTUS “Water Of The United States”

    Our Olympia representatives have “NEVER” supported wetlands delineation reform.

    OUR WA State legislators “DID NOT OBJECT” to WOTUS federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS (AND EVEN SOME RELATIVELY DRY LAND)
    Washington State attorney General “DID NOT” file a law suit against WOTUS on behalf of the citizens of WA State.

    ——————————————–

    Wetland delineation is also an element of a “jurisdictional determination. ... A WETLAND IS A WOTUS “water of the United States” and thus regulated under the federal Clean …

    Wetland delineation establishes the existence (location) and physical limits (size) of a wetland for the purposes of federal, state, and local regulations.

    Wetland delineation is also an element of a “jurisdictional determination.” This process identifies which water bodies within a project’s boundaries meet the definition of “waters of the United States.” For more information on this, see the Corps’ of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Guidance Letter 08-02, Jurisdictional Determinations.

    Remember that the Corps, not applicants or their consultants, determines whether or not a wetland is a “water of the United States” and thus regulated under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). If the Corps determines that a wetland is not subject to the CWA, the wetland may still be a “water of the state” and subject to regulation by Ecology as well as by local jurisdictions. Ecology regulates wetlands determined by the Corps to be non-jurisdictional due to their isolation from navigable waters. > More on Isolated Wetlands

    ———————————–

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

    ADOPTION OF DESIGNATIONS OF SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH SHORELINES OF THE STATE (WAC 173-22)

    ———————————————————-

    September 3, 2015

    What’s Up with WOTUS? – News | Agweb.com

    www.agweb.com/…/whatsup-with-wotus-NAA-university-news-release/

    What does the temporary injunction of WOTUS mean for farmers? … What’s Up with WOTUS? September 3, 2015 05:57 AM …

    —————————————————

    September 4, 2015

    PLF lawsuit on WOTUS

    Posted on September 4, 2015 9:46 am by Pearl Rains Hewett
    Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) lawsuit challenges Obama Administration’s new
    “waters of United States” (WOTUS) power grab

    ——————————————————————

    September 4, 2015

    Behind My Back | WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/04/wotuswater-runs-down-hill/

    Posted on September 4, 2015 8:52 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    ———————————————————

    January 22, 2016 THE GOOD NEWS WAS….

    WOTUS rule – PLF Liberty Blog – Pacific Legal Foundation

    blog.pacificlegal.org/tag/wotusrule/

    Congress and Obama clarify their positions on the WOTUS rule, and it doesn’t look good for the President. Posted on January 22, 2016 by Todd Gaziano.

    January 22, 2016 THE BAD NEWS IS…

    PRESIDENT OBAMA VETOED THE LEGISLATION A DAY LATER.

    SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

    REGARDING Legislative reform ideas for WA STATE SMPs and wetlands delineation update?

    The EPA, said it will only honor the injunction in the 13 states that had sued, and will move forward with the rules in the rest of the country.

    ——————————————————————————

    The EPA’s enforcement tactics for WETLANDS

    EPA’s abuse of the Sacketts inspires latest thriller by CJ Box

    www.pacificlegal.org › Home › News & Media
    Pacific Legal Foundation

    Mar 12, 2013 – “EPA is not above the law — that’s the bottom line with the Sacketts‘ Supreme Court victory,” said PLF Principal Attorney Damien Schiff, who …

    ———————————————————–

     EPA’s enforcement tactics for oil and gas producers.

    EPA Official: EPAs “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make …

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze3GB_b7Nuo
    Apr 25, 2012 – Uploaded by Senator Jim Inhofe

    A video from 2010, which shows a top EPA official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, using the vivid metaphor of crucifixion to explain EPA’s enforcement tactics for oil and gas producers.

    ————————————————————————-

    START HERE…

    WHERE EVERYTHING FEDERAL STARTS….

    Behind My Back | WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/04/wotuswater-runs-down-hill/

    Posted on September 4, 2015 8:52 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    So, the LAW OF GRAVITY becomes the EPA WOTUS WATER LAW OF THE LAND?

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

    —————————————————————–

    PLF UNDERSTANDS THE GRAVITY OF (WOTUS)

    WOTUS – Pacific Legal Foundation

    https://www.pacificlegal.org/wotus
    —————————————————-

    snippet..

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

    ————————–

    THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT!
    NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH WATER IS, GRAVITY RUNS WATER DOWN HILL

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

    ——————————————————————————

    Full text of emails received from Rene” on this

    Subject: Legislative reform ideas for SMPs and wetlands delineation update
    —– Original Message —–
    From: Appy Holadays Sport Horses
    To: ddashiell@co.stevens.wa.us ; wesm03828@gmail.com
    Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 5:51 PM
    Subject: Legislative reform ideas for SMPs and wetlands delineation update
    Hello Commissioners,

    I would appreciate it if you could forward this email to Steve Parker as well, since I don’t have his email address on hand. As SMPs are starting to be formed in this County, I hope our State can move in this direction, described below, instead. Below are some good ideas I wanted to provide for you to think about, as the State CAPR Director, Glen Morgan has sent this to all the CAPR groups for info.

    We hope to have Glen Morgan and Licensed Hydrogeologist, Steve Neugebauer over here again this spring to help with the SMPs and related issues. If either of you would want to attend, let me know and I will be sure to send you an invitation with time and date.

    In the meantime, we have taken Don’s advice to get the wetland delineation removed from the Potter’s property through licensed hydrogeologist, Steve Neugebauer, and actual “Wetland Specialist”, Rone Brewer who both worked together and provided a complete wetlands determination that was 218 pages in length.

    However, now the Planner is not willing to write the letter that can be recorded with the County that verifies that there is not in fact a wetland on the Potter’s property. While that is the conclusion that you had advised we move toward, the Planner is refusing to cooperate with writing the letter of verification. We would appreciate your help with this issue, as it was your direction that we have been taking and have now completed.

    Apparently Connee Potter has tried a few times to set an appointment with Don, but has not heard back from him yet. So if you could please respond asap, we would like to get this wrapped up.

    Thank You,

    Rene’ Holaday

    Stevens County CAPR, Chapter 15
    —–Forwarded Message—–
    From: Scott Shock
    Sent: Feb 10, 2016 9:55 AM
    To: ‘Cindy Alia’ , Glen Morgan , capr-gov@lists.celestial.com
    Subject: [capr-gov] Legislative reform for shorelines and property rights in Wisconsin

    FYI:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/9/assembly-to-vote-on-water-development-property-rig/

    Assembly approves water development, property rights bills

    By TODD RICHMOND – Associated Press – Tuesday, February 9, 2016

    MADISON, Wis. (AP) – Shoreline property owners would have more leeway to dredge and build structures on bodies of water under legislation the Wisconsin Assembly advanced Tuesday despite concerns from minority Democrats that the proposals would harm the state’s waters.

    The bill would make sweeping changes to statutes and regulations governing construction in water bodies, with one of the biggest changes involving waters designated as areas of special natural resource interests, or ASNRIs.

    Under current law, such areas include waters of significant scientific value that contain endangered or threatened species, wild rice waters, ecologically significant coastal wetlands along Lakes Michigan and Superior and wild or scenic rivers. Construction permits in such areas require builders to meet a long list of standards.

    The bill would remove the requirement that an ASNRI have significant scientific value and prevent the Department of Natural Resources from designated an ASNRI based on scientific value without legislative approval beginning in 2017.

    The legislation also includes changes that would make dredging and filling wetlands easier.

    The bill would create a general permit authorizing shoreline property owners to dredge 25 cubic yards of material from an inland lake and 100 cubic yards of material from outlying waters annually. The DNR’s review of alternatives to filling wetlands would be limited to options consistent with the scope of the project and maintenance work on roadside ditches that affects wetlands could be done without a permit.

    The measure’s authors, Rep. Adam Jarchow of Balsam Lake and Sen. Frank Lasee of De Pere, contend the measure will cut red tape, clarify regulations and puts more power in property owners’ hands. A host of business associations, including Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state’s largest business group, and the Wisconsin Builders Association, support the bill.

    A number of environmental groups, including Clean Wisconsin, the Clean Lakes Alliance and the state’s Sierra Club chapter, oppose it. Assembly Democrats railed against the bill on the chamber floor, warning the measure gives shoreline property owners permission to damage water bodies and aquatic habitats.

    “You do not go into a body of water with a general permit and start dredging things up and think you’re making things better,” Rep. Chris Danou, D-Trempealeau, said. “This is bad for Wisconsin. This is bad for Wisconsin’s outdoor heritage. It will damage things.”

    Republicans control the chamber, thought, and in the end lawmakers adopted the bill on a 57-39 vote. The bill goes next to the state Senate.

    The Assembly also passed another bill Tuesday sponsored by Jarchow and Lasee that would expand property owners’ rights. The measure prohibit counties from imposing development moratoriums, forbid municipalities from blocking property owners from selling or transferring the title to their land and block counties from regulating repairs on structures legally located in shore land setback areas.

    The bill also would require judges to resolve any question about the meaning of a zoning ordinance in favor of property owners. Undeveloped land zoned for residential, commercial or manufacturing use would be taxed at 50 percent of its value.

    The Assembly passed that bill on a 56-39 vote with almost no debate. It now goes to the Senate as well.

    ___

    Follow Todd Richmond on Twitter at https://twitter.com/trichmond1

    Copyright © 2016 The Washington Times, LLC.

    From: Google Alerts [mailto:googlealerts-noreply@google.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 8:07 AM
    To: Scott S. Shock
    Subject: Google Alert – “eminent domain” OR “regulatory taking” OR “property rights” seattle OR “king county” OR washington

    “eminent domain” OR “regulatory taking” OR “property rights” seattle OR “king county” OR washington

    Daily update ⋅ February 10, 2016

    NEWS

    Assembly to vote on water development, property rights bills

    Washington Times

    MADISON, Wis. (AP) – The state Assembly is poised to vote on a pair of bills that would ease water body development regulations and expand …

    Flag as irrelevant

    See more results | Edit this alert

    You have received this email because you have subscribed to Google Alerts.

    Unsubscribe | View all your alerts

    Receive this alert as RSS feed

    Send Feedback

    _______________________________________________
    Capr-gov mailing list
    Capr-gov@lists.celestial.com
    http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/capr-gov

    —————————————————————–

    THIS IS A VERY LONG POST…

    WATER HAS BEEN RUNNING DOWN HILL FOR A VERY, VERY, LONG TIME…

    if you are interested in reading the full 4800 word text go to behindmyback.org

    Continue reading here if you are interested more…

    ———————————————————————————–

    PLF lawsuit on WOTUS

    Posted on September 4, 2015 9:46 am by Pearl Rains Hewett
    Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) lawsuit challenges Obama Administration’s new
    “waters of United States” (WOTUS) power grab

    Judge blocks Obama EPA rule as federal power grab over state waters A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit.
    The EPA, said it will only honor the injunction in the 13 states that had sued, and will move forward with the rules in the rest of the country.

    WA STATE IS NOT PART OF THE Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) WOTUS LAWSUIT

    ———————————————————————————

    Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation …

    www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/9694.html

    ———————————————-

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

    ADOPTION OF DESIGNATIONS OF SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH SHORELINES OF THE STATE (WAC 173-22)
    ———————————————————————————

    What’s Up with WOTUS? – News | Agweb.com

    www.agweb.com/…/whatsup-with-wotus-NAA-university-news-release/

    What does the temporary injunction of WOTUS mean for farmers? … What’s Up with WOTUS? September 3, 2015 05:57 AM …
    Implementation of the Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States” (usually referred to as the WOTUS rule) was set to become effective on August 28, 2015. Several lawsuits were filed by agricultural groups, among others, requesting a preliminary injunction, or order, to halt the rule’s implementation until lawsuits could be settled. Late in the afternoon on August 27, a District Court judge in North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction stopping the WOTUS rule from going into effect for thirteen states, including Nebraska.
    FOR ALL OTHER STATES WHO DIDN’T HAVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS ISSUED, THE RULE TOOK EFFECT AS PLANNED ON AUGUST 28, 2015.

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

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————
    BELOW IS THE LINK TO THE 136 PAGE FEDERAL MANUAL

    Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional

    https://www.fws.gov/…/wetlands/i…
    United States Fish and Wildlife Service
    Jan 10, 1989 – cally Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, EPA’s Wetland Identification … Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation.

    ———————————————————————————–

    full text provided for your convenience

    Behind My Back | WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

    Posted on September 4, 2015 8:52 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    WOTUS Water Runs Down Hill

    So, the LAW OF GRAVITY becomes the EPA WOTUS WATER LAW OF THE LAND?

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

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

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

    (SO DO WETLAND WATERS JUST SEEP DOWNHILL?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    WOTUS – Pacific Legal Foundation

    https://www.pacificlegal.org/wotus
    Pacific Legal Foundation

    The Obama Administration has imposed a new Clean Water Act (CWA) dictate that … PLF attorneys are hard at work developing our legal challenge to this … We will alert you when we file our lawsuit — and keep you posted along the way, …

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

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

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

    The EPA, said it will only honor the injunction in the 13 states that had sued, and will move forward with the rules in the rest of the country.

    —————————————————
    OUR WA State legislators “DID NOT OBJECT” to WOTUS federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS (AND EVEN SOME RELATIVELY DRY LAND)
    Washington State attorney General “DID NOT” file a law suit against WOTUS on behalf of the citizens of WA State.
    A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ————————————————————-

     


  • U.S. Intelligence Now and Then?

    U.S. Intelligence Now and Then?
    May 11, 2013 The U.S. intelligence community is officially made of 17 organizations — There are 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies working on intelligence, counterterrorism, or homeland security in the U.S. — Just the NSA alone is contracting with more than 250 companies on intelligence work, including big names like Northrop Grumman and SAIC.

    ——————————————————-
    Oversight of U.S. intelligence agencies generally falls to the Department of Defense or Congress, LEAVING THE AVERAGE CITIZEN WITH PRECIOUS LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF HOW THEY OPERATE.

    ————————————-
    And, leaving NATO surprised?

    Heimbigner’s latest frustration: “From an alliance perspective, WHAT RUSSIA IS DOING AND THE ABILITY OF RUSSIA TO SURPRISE US ON A VERY CONSISTENT BASIS.”

    ———————————————————————
    NATO Caught ‘Surprised’ By Russia’s Move Into Syria …
    www.defenseone.com/…/nato-caught-surprised-russias-move-syria/1207…
    Sep 10, 2015 – Intelligence chief says the alliance members can’t even agree whether Moscow or ISIS is the greater threat — AND THERE’S NOT ENOUGH ISR TO GO …

    ———————————————
    FACT Rear Admiral Brett Heimbigner is currently assigned as the director of INTELLIGENCE, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) …

    ——————————————
    SNIPPETS…
    ONE PROBLEM, Heimbigner said, is there are not enough INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE (ISR) assets to go around:
    “WE HAVE A WOEFUL SHORTAGE OF ISR. WHEN WE GO TO ASK THE NATIONS TO CONTRIBUTE, IT’S ALL COMMITTED AND JUST NOT AVAILABLE.”
    ———————————————————————————
    Hmmm… ALL THINGS CONSIDERED?

    ——————————————–
    POST 9-11 INTELLIGENCE?
    PR Push for Iraq War Preceded Intelligence Findings
    “White Paper” Drafted before NIE even Requested
    National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 254
    Posted – August 22, 2008

    SNIPPET..
    U.S. Intelligence and Iraq WMD
    Compiled and edited by Dr. John Prados
    There was also a source of intelligence failure that flowed not from bad information but from analytical procedures.

    American intelligence knew that Saddam had worked through the 1990s to deceive UN weapons inspectors—they assumed he was hiding his WMDs rather than concealing the lack of them.

    On specific weapons, for example long-range Iraqi missiles, intelligence took a standard accounting approach, and since they could not account for every Iraqi missile, assumed Saddam was hiding a covert force of ballistic missiles.

    U.S. intelligence was coming off a record of underestimating Iraqi WMD progress in the 1980s and now overcompensated in the other direction.
    ————————————————————————————-
    If you want to be an informed American citizen?
    Keep reading….

    These 17 Agencies Make Up The Most Sophisticated Spy …

    www.businessinsider.com/17agencies-of-the-us-intellige…
    Business Insider

    May 11, 2013 – Angela Merkel’s incredible rise from quantum chemist to the world’s most. …. These 17 Agencies Make Up The Most Sophisticated Spy Network In The World … The U.S. intelligence community is vast, composed of 17 distinct …

    ————————————————————–
    SNIPPETS… repeated for emphasis and clarity
    OVERSIGHT OF THESE 17 AGENCIES GENERALLY FALLS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OR CONGRESS, LEAVING THE AVERAGE CITIZEN WITH PRECIOUS LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF HOW THEY OPERATE.
    The U.S. intelligence community is officially made of 17 organizations — There are 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies working on intelligence, counterterrorism, or homeland security in the U.S. — Just the NSA alone is contracting with more than 250 companies on intelligence work, including big names like Northrop Grumman and SAIC.

    ————————————————————
    COMMENT…
    It appears that there is more than “ONE PROBLEM” with U.SA. INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE (ISR)

    When, Rear Admiral Brett Heimbigner the director of INTELLIGENCE, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) …

    SAYS,THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE (ISR) ASSETS TO GO AROUND? AND, IT’S ALL COMMITTED AND JUST NOT AVAILABLE?

    WHAT HAS ALL OF THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE (ISR) BEEN COMMITTED TO?

    REALLY? THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH ASSETS TO GO AROUND ?
    ——————————————————————————————

    These 17 Agencies Make Up The Most Sophisticated Spy …

    www.businessinsider.com/17agencies-of-the-us-intellige…
    Business Insider

    May 11, 2013 – Angela Merkel’s incredible rise from quantum chemist to the world’s most. …. These 17 Agencies Make Up The Most Sophisticated Spy Network In The World … The U.S. intelligence community is vast, composed of 17 distinct …
    ———————————————————————————-
    (1) The U.S. intelligence community is vast, composed of 17 distinct organizations each operating under its own shroud of secrecy.
    Oversight of these agencies generally falls to the Department of Defense or Congress, leaving the average citizen with precious little knowledge of how they operate.
    Funded by largely classified budgets, it’s difficult to assess how much the U.S. annually spends on these clandestine operations, but one 2012 estimate pegs the cost at about $75 billion.
    The following slides highlight the expansive reach of the U.S. intelligence community.
    —————————————————————
    (2) The Central Intelligence Agency spies on foreign governments and organizes covert ops.
    The CIA is the most well-known U.S. spying agency, formed by the passage of the National Security Act of 1947. The agency has its roots with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) that operated during World War II.
    Headquarters: Langley, Va.
    Mission: CIA collects, analyzes, and disseminates intelligence gathered on foreign nations. This comes through signals and human intelligence sources.
    Budget: Classified. On their website, the CIA states, “neither the number of employees nor the size of the Agency’s budget can, at present, be publicly disclosed. A common misconception is that the Agency has an unlimited budget, which is far from true.”
    There have been some slips, however. In 2005, a CIA deputy director inadvertently revealed the annual intelligence budget was $44 billion.
    ————————————————————————–
    (3) The National Security Agency was once so secretive it was jokingly called ‘No Such Agency.’
    The NSA was established in 1952 with a mission primarily dedicated to code breaking, after the Allies’ success in cracking German and Japanese codes during World War II. For a long time, the NSA, which operates under the Dept. of Defense, was not even recognized by the government, commonly referred to as “No Such Agency.”
    Headquarters: Fort Meade, Md.
    Mission: The main functions of the NSA are signals intelligence — intercepting and processing foreign communications, cryptology — cracking codes, and information assurance. IA is, put simply: preventing foreign hackers from getting secret information.
    Budget: Classified. Some estimate the NSA is actually the largest intelligence organization in the world — three times the size of the CIA. The headquarters alone takes up 6.3 million square feet — around the same size as the Pentagon — with 112 acres of parking spaces, reports the Washington Post.
    —————————————————————–
    (4) The Defense Intelligence Agency works to understand what foreign militaries will do before they do it.
    The DIA was established in 1961 with the goal of sharing information collected by the major military intelligence outfits (such as Army or Marine Corps Intelligence). More recently, the DIA has been expanding its overseas spy network to collect first-hand intelligence.
    Headquarters: Washington, D.C.
    Mission: The DIA serves as the lead intelligence agency for the Dept. of Defense, coordinating analysis and collection of intelligence on foreign militaries, in addition to surveillance and reconnaissance operations. The DIA is the common link between military and national intelligence agencies.
    Budget: Classified. The DIA does not reveal budget information, although they do say they have more than 16,500 men and women working for them and are under DoD and congressional oversight.
    ————————————————————————————–
    (5) The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research provides diplomats the necessary tools for effective foreign policy.
    The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) has ties to the Office of Strategic Services from World War II, but was transferred to State after the war. INR now reports directly to the Secretary of State, harnessing intelligence from all sources and offering independent analysis of global events and real-time insight.
    Headquarters: Washington, D.C.
    Mission: This agency serves as the Secretary of State’s primary advisor on intelligence matters, and gives support to other policymakers, ambassadors, and embassy staff.
    Budget: $49 million in 2007, according to documents obtained by FAS.
    ——————————————————————-
    (6) Air Force Intelligence provides reconnaissance for US ground troops.
    Formerly known as the Air Intelligence Agency, the agency is now known as the Air Force ISR — Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance. Air Force intelligence was established in 1948 to get information to troops on the ground, and most recently, the ISR has collected that intelligence from aerial drones.
    Headquarters: Lackland Air Force Base, Texas
    Mission: Air Force ISR collects and analyzes intelligence on foreign nations and hostile forces, both in and out of combat zones. They also conduct electronic and photographic surveillance, and provide weather and mapping data to troops in the field.
    Budget: Unknown. The budget of ISR apparently falls under the Air Force’s Operation & Maintenance budget, which includes other areas outside of the agency’s scope such as flying operations and logistics. That number for 2012, however, was just over $46 million.
    ——————————————————————-
    (7) The FBI’s National Security Branch oversees counterterrorism and intelligence gathering.
    The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Security Branch (NSB) was established in 2005, combining resources that include counterterrorism, counter-intelligence, weapons of mass destruction, and intelligence under a single FBI leader.
    Headquarters: Washington, D.C.
    Mission: Formed after 9/11 and the Iraq WMD commission — when intelligence agencies were not sharing data with each other — the NSB integrates intel on national security and criminal threats from a variety of sources that are often intertwined in order to protect U.S. interests.
    Budget: Total FBI budget was approximately $8.1 billion in 2012, which included an increase of $119 million “to enhance our counterterrorism, computer intrusions, and other programs,” according to their website.
    —————————————————-
    (8) Army Intelligence and Security Command offers essential intel to troops on the battlefield.
    Army intelligence has been around since spies worked for the Continental Army in 1775, but the U.S. Army’s Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) was established in 1977 to become the major unifying command of army intelligence.
    Headquarters: Fort Belvoir, Va.
    Mission: INSCOM provides commanders on the ground with information they may need on the battlefield: intercepted enemy radio communications, maps, ground imagery, and information on force structure and numbers.
    Budget: Unknown. The total military intelligence budget was $21.5 billion in 2012.
    ———————————————————–
    (9) The Department of Energy, Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence gathers information on foreign nuclear weapons.
    Surprisingly, the Energy Department even has an intelligence service. The Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence focuses on technical intelligence on nuclear weapons and nonproliferation, nuclear energy (especially foreign), and energy security.
    Headquarters: Washington, D.C.
    Mission: The Dept. of Energy doesn’t have the ability to conduct foreign intelligence, instead relying on information passed to them by other agencies (such as the CIA or NSA). If it involves weapons of mass destruction, the DoE offers up the analytical expertise.
    Budget: Unknown. Like other government budgets, the intelligence activity is not specifically mentioned, although it may fall under “Atomic Energy Defense Activities” which had a total budget of more than $16 billion in 2012.
    ————————————————————————
    (10) Coast Guard Intelligence provides information on maritime security and homeland defense.
    Coast Guard Intelligence (CGI) was formed in 1915 and now falls under the Dept. of Homeland Security, providing information on maritime and port security, search and rescue, and counter-narcotics.
    Headquarters: Washington, D.C.
    Mission: Although CGI is technically an intelligence agency, its primary mission is as an investigative arm of the Coast Guard. CGI special agents “conduct criminal, counterintelligence and personnel security investigations within the Coast Guard’s area of responsibility,” with the majority being criminal offenses violating military law, according to the Coast Guard’s official website. However, the Coast Guard does have specialists conducting analysis and collection of intelligence.
    Budget: Unknown. Like the Army, the budget has some overlap, although the 2014 budget request includes $60 million for C4ISR systems, an acronym for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance.
    CGI headquarters is relatively small, only employing about 280.
    ——————————————————————————————
    (11) The Treasury’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis collects terrorism and financial intelligence.
    The Office of Intelligence and Analysis is fairly new, established in 2004 by the Intelligence Authorization Act. OIA’s focus is mainly on providing information to combat terrorism and illicit financial transactions.
    Headquarters: Washington, D.C.
    Mission: OIA safeguards the U.S. financial system “against illicit use and combating rogue nations, terrorist facilitators, weapons of mass destruction proliferators, money launderers, drug kingpins, and other national security threats,” according to DNI.
    Budget: Around $340 million.
    ——————————————————————-
    (12) The Drug Enforcement Administration hunts down illegal drugs.
    The DEA has been gathering intelligence for anti-drug operations since its establishment in 1973. The agency collects and provides intelligence to other law enforcement agencies and helps with investigations.
    Headquarters: El Paso, Texas
    Mission: DEA assists local and federal law enforcement in conducting major drug investigations, along with developing “information that leads to seizures and arrests, and provid[ing] policy makers with drug trend information upon which programmatic decisions can be based,” according to their website.
    Budget: $2 billion (total DEA budget in 2013)
    —————————————————————————
    (13) The Marine Corps Intelligence Activity monitors the Corp’s battlefields.
    Like Army intelligence, the Marine Corps provides their own agency to collect and analyze information for troops on the ground. This includes map making, radio intercepts, human intelligence, and counter-intelligence.
    Headquarters: Quantico, Va.
    Mission: The primary function of Marine IA is to give tactical and operational intelligence to battlefield commanders. They also serve as the “go-to” unit for the Commandant of the Marine Corps on understanding intel.
    Budget: Unknown. The total military intelligence budget was $21.5 billion in 2012.
    ——————————————————————————————
    (14) The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency provides advanced mapping for military forces.
    Having its roots from the 1972 formation of the Defense Mapping Agency and formerly known as NIMA, the agency was renamed the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency in 2003. The agency has the task of collecting and understanding Earth’s physical and man-made attributes. Using advanced imagery (mainly from satellites), it was NGA watching Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan.
    Headquarters: Ft. Belvoir, Va.
    Mission: NGA employs cartographers and analysts that collect and generate information about the Earth. This data is used in navigation, national security, military operations, and humanitarian aid efforts.
    Budget: Classified. NGA employs approximately 14,500 government civilians.
    ———————————————————————————
    (15) The National Reconnaissance Office is responsible for America’s spy satellites.
    While the NGA is responsible for gaining information from satellite data, the National Reconnaissance Office — created secretly in 1961 and not acknowledged until 1992 — is in charge with satellite design, building, launch, and maintenance.
    Headquarters: Chantilly, Va.
    Mission: NRO gives its mission as “innovative overhead intelligence systems for national security.” Simply put, the NRO provides their “customers” at the CIA, DoD, and elsewhere with technologically advanced spy satellites.
    Budget: Classified.
    ———————————————————————————-
    (16) The Office of Naval Intelligence provides information on the world’s oceans to sailors everywhere.
    The Office of Naval Intelligence was established in 1882 for “the purpose of collecting and recording naval information” that could be useful in war and peace. Like other military intelligence services, ONI gives maritime commanders information they need on foreign forces.
    Headquarters: Washington, D.C.
    Mission: ONI gathers intelligence and moves it rapidly to decision makers. “We produce maritime intelligence on weapons and technology proliferation and smuggling and illicit maritime activities that directly supports the U.S. Navy, joint war fighters and national decision makers and agencies,” according to their website.
    Budget: Unknown. The total military intelligence budget was $21.5 billion in 2012.
    ——————————————————————————-
    (17) The Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis looks for information on any potential threats to the US.
    The DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis works primarily on homeland threats — collecting and analyzing information, and sharing intelligence with local and federal law enforcement through the use of “fusion centers.”
    Headquarters: Washington, D.C.
    Mission: They work on four main areas: understanding threats through analysis, collecting information relevant to homeland security, sharing that information with the agencies that need it, and managing the homeland security enterprise, according to DNI.
    Budget: Classified. In a Congressional Research Service report, it was noted that “DNI does not publicly disclose details about the intelligence budget, but … reported that the aggregate amount appropriated to the [national intelligence program] for FY2009 was $49.8 billion.”
    ————————————————————————
    The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is where all the intelligence should come together for delivery to the president.
    Established in 2004, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) manages the efforts of the entire U.S. intelligence community. Director James R. Clapper serves as the principal advisor to the president as well as the National Security and Homeland Security Councils.
    Headquarters: Washington, D.C.
    Mission: The DNI has two main missions: to lead intelligence integration, and “forge an intelligence community that delivers the most insightful intelligence possible.”
    Budget: The specifics of the office itself are unknown, but the total aggregate amount for the national intelligence program is more than $48 billion.
    ——————————————————————————-
    the bottom line….
    BONUS: The ‘intelligence state’ has been expanding drastically since 9/11.
    The U.S. intelligence community is officially made of 17 organizations, but there is even more to the story.
    A groundbreaking investigation from the Washington Post found some rather daunting figures:
    — 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies are working on intelligence, counterterrorism, or homeland security in the U.S.
    — Just the NSA alone is contracting with more than 250 companies on intelligence work, including big names like Northrop Grumman and SAIC.
    — Many intelligence agencies are doing redundant work, such as 51 federal and military organizations that track the flow of money in and out of terror networks.
    — One reason why those intelligence budgets are classified: millions of dollars in so-called “ghost money” given to foreign governments.
    —————————————————————————————
    WHO’S PROVIDING THE INTELLIGENCE? AND HOW VALID IS IT?

    Counterinsurgency (COIN) Intelligence, Surveillance, and …

    www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA543575.pdf

    Feb 23, 2011 – The DSB Advisory Group on Defense Intelligence Task Force on Counter Insurgency. (COIN) Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance …
    A 122 page document from the U.S. Department of Defense
    Feb 23, 2011 – (COIN) Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Operations ….. The lack of a single authoritative definition of COIN is impeding a …
    ——————————————————————————–
    Spying on American Allies an U.S. Citizens?
    ALL’S FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR?

    4 Things To Know About Spying On Allies : Parallels : NPR

    www.npr.org/…/parallels/…/four-things-to-know-about-spying-on-allie

    NPR

    Oct 28, 2013 – Disclosures about the National Security Agency’s spying on U.S. allies, including France and Germany, have sparked outrage in Europe and …

    NPR Oct 28, 2013 – Disclosures that the National Security Agency has spied on U.S. … surveillance: the Brits can spy on our citizens, we can spy on theirs, and then …
    ————————————————————————————

    NSA Spying: A Threat To US Interests? – YaleGlobal Online

    yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/nsaspyingthreatusinterests
    Yale University

    Dec 5, 2013 – Big-data snooping by the NSA and US companies unnerves many Europeans, polls suggest.
    Dec 5, 2013 – Big-data snooping by the NSA and US companies unnerves many … telephone and internet data of citizens in other allied countries even as part of an … The exposure of NSA spying has had an impact on America’s image …
    ——————————————————————

    NSA Fesses Up To Improper Surveillance Of U.S. Citizens

    www.huffingtonpost.com/…/nsa-spying-report_n_6…
    The Huffington Post

    Dec 26, 2014 – While you were drinking eggnog on Christmas Eve, the National Security Agency released hundreds of pages of heavily redacted documents …
    The Huffington Post
    Dec 26, 2014 – … privacy and civil liberties while safeguarding the nation and our allies.” … NSA Spied On Five Politically Active American Citizens, The .
    ——————————————————————————–
    Term. Definition. INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE (ISR) An activity that synchronizes and integrates the planning and operation of sensors, assets, and processing, exploitation, and dissemination systems in direct support of current and future operations.
    ———————————————————————————–
    Oct 8, 2015

    Nato renews pledge amid Russia ‘escalation’ – BBC

    www.bbc.co.uk/…/world-europe-34471…
    British Broadcasting Corporation

    3 days ago – Nato has renewed assurances to defend allies in view of the “escalation of Russian military activities” in Syria, the alliance’s secretary-general …
    43 mins ago – NATO WILL DEFEND YOU, NATO IS ON THE GROUND, NATO IS READY.” He also urged Moscow to … This principle of collective defence commits them to protect each other. On Wednesday, Russia … 8 October 2015 • Russia’s intervention …
    —————————————————————————————–
    COMMENT…..
    As for NATO, Heimbigner described an alliance divided?
    Oct 8, 2015

    Ready or not? NATO determines such action as it deems necessary, FOR THE SYRIAN RUSSIA TURKEY CRISIS, INCLUDING THE USE OF ARMED FORCE, to restore and maintain the security of THE CONFLICT AND CRISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST….

    NATO HAS THE MILITARY CAPACITY (of 28 nation including the U.S.A.) needed to undertake CRISIS- MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS

    Hmmm. Sept. 28, 2015 PRESIDENT OBAMA told the United Nations international body that he commands the most powerful military force on the planet.

    —————————————————
    Sep 10, 2015
    NATO Caught ‘Surprised’ By Russia’s Move Into Syria …
    www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/09/nato-caught…russias…/120764/
    Sep 10, 2015 – INTELLIGENCE chief says the alliance members can’t even agree whether Moscow or ISIS is the greater threat — and there’s not enough ISR to go …
    When Russia sent military forces into Syria last weekend, it caught NATO by surprise and proved that its members can neither stay ahead of threats nor even decide which ones are the most pressing, the ALLIANCE’S INTELLIGENCE DIRECTOR said.
    —————————————————————————————
    Who is NATO’S alliance’s INTELLIGENCE DIRECTOR?
    Major General Joseph T. Guastella, Jr. is the Deputy Chief of Staff, OPERATIONS AND INTELLIGENCE, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), Casteau, Belgium. He is responsible for supervising and directing the SHAPE Comprehensive Crisis Operations Management Center, J2, J3, and J9.
    —————————————————————————-
    “Are we keeping up with threats?…Absolutely not,” said U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Brett Heimbigner Thursday. “The demands for intelligence… to accurately deal with some of these crises is clearly insufficient.”
    ——————————————————————————-
    Who is U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Brett Heimbigner?
    Rear Admiral Brett Heimbigner is currently assigned as the director of INTELLIGENCE, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) …
    ————————————————————————————-
    Heimbigner’s latest frustration: “From an alliance perspective, WHAT RUSSIA IS DOING AND THE ABILITY OF RUSSIA TO SURPRISE US ON A VERY CONSISTENT BASIS.”

    As for NATO, Heimbigner described an alliance divided: its Baltic and eastern members worry MORE ABOUT RUSSIA, while southern members ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ISLAMIC STATE, whose “growth is exponentially higher than what they anticipated.”

    “In fact, we are now in a situation where, as an alliance (NATO), WE CAN’T EVEN COME UP WITH A COORDINATED THREAT ASSESSMENT OVERALL” because both groups want their concerns to take priority, he said.

    One problem, Heimbigner said, is there are not enough INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE (ISR) assets to go around: “WE HAVE A WOEFUL SHORTAGE OF ISR. WHEN WE GO TO ASK THE NATIONS TO CONTRIBUTE, IT’S ALL COMMITTED AND JUST NOT AVAILABLE.”
    —————————————————————
    the bottom line? What can I say?
    The U.S. Didn’t Have The Intelligence?
    Posted on October 8, 2015 11:55 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    Behind My Back.org


  • Are You an Environmentalist?

    Are You an Environmentalist?

    “Are You an Environmentalist OR DO YOU WORK FOR A LIVING?”: Work and Nature. In Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. William
    Cronon, (editor) New York: W.W. Norton 1995.

    What a Concept in 2015
    “RETHINKING THE HUMAN PLACE IN NATURE”

    (twenty years later)
    It’s a Great place to start..
    —————————————————————
    I received this response on the
    Olympic Peninsula OLYMPEX Water Project
    After emailing out….
    Olympic Peninsula OLYMPEX WHAT ELSE? Project
    (full text below)
    ——————————————————-
    AN INSIDER’S VIEW OF “WHAT ELSE” on the Olympic Peninsula

    ———————————————————
    Thanks Brooke….

    Sharing is caring
    This is a great place to start….

    Landscape and Politics on the Olympic Peninsula – Journal …

    THE LAST BITE. A PENINSULA STUDY? FROM 97

    An interesting outsiders view of Peninsula insiders
    Olympic Pen and Quinault observation, published in 1997, by then undergraduate at UW, during the previous conflicts with environmentalist, logging, resources, spotted owl and social/political conflicts. JUST LIKE READING OUR DAILY NEWS TODAY, yet 97 still seems like yesterday. I wonder what this guy would have to say today, with the Land and Water Grabs, massive Conservation Movements, debris fed Wildland fires, Forest Service Sellout/Lockout of Public Lands, Federal/Tribal Partnership bed down, EW Wilderness Warfare, Jet Pollution
    AND NOW OLYMPEX
    making sure we are UN micro monitored to quench their thirst, from Americas blood. PLUS the surround and attack set up now marking us a military hotspot target, by possible enemy attacks. A bullseye! Boots on the ground will continue to push their way around.
    What would this guy say about our “new” thoroughfare out in the river? Building the “new Floodplain by Design”, creating a “new wetland” after destroying the natural flowing old one. The Congressional puppet show has to prove that “No Child Left Behinder’s” show some worth, by giving those inexperienced “new” graduates a chance to try out their “new learned skills” acquired from “new” computer modeling software and with “new” 21st century “what if” speculations. In some instances incomplete assumptions altogether, can result in unnecessary irreparable damage . Mother nature doesn’t always work in structural regularity or conduct itself by the books. Science? Science has taken on a peculiar detour in definition. “New” science is anything one wants it to be or mean in today’s world. Science doesn’t even need a purpose. A continual never ending study. A curiosity. To either kill the cat or nurture it into a predatory state.
    http://jpe.library.arizona.edu/volume_4/5DARK.PDF

    Brooke

    ——————————————————————————

    A 26 page document

    Landscape and Politics on the Olympic Peninsula – Journal …

    jpe.library.arizona.edu/volume_4/5DARK.PDF
    by A Dark – ‎1997 – ‎Cited by 4 – ‎Related articles

    Vol.4 1997. 1. Landscape and Politics on the … JPE who offered their well-informed criticisms on an earlier draft of this article. 2. Along with areas of New …

    Landscape and Politics on the Olympic Peninsula:
    Social Agendas and Contested Practices in Scientific Forestry

    ———————————————————————-
    READ MORE THE WILD OF  “WHAT ELSE” ON THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA
    A DOCUMENTED INSIDER’S VIEW of the outsiders.

    The Wild Olympics Scam

    www.wildolympicsscam.com/

    stop the wild olympics, agenda 21, land grabs; will devastate rural communities.
    ————————————————————————–

    (full email text) of the OLYMPIC PENINSULA OLYMPEX WHAT ELSE? Project
    To Whom it May Concern

    Just asking? Just Saying….

    DO YOU TRUST THE GOVERNMENT?

    My neighbor asked, “WHAT ELSE are they going to use OLYMPEX for?”

    ARE YOU SMARTER THEN A 5TH GRADER?

    If you connect the dots… THE (GPM) COVERS “JUST” THE ENTIRE EARTH. THE (GV) IS GROUND VALIDATION?

    INDEED….
    THIS NASA SATELLITE TOGETHER WITH THE NASDA SPACE AGENCY OF JAPAN, will serve as a calibration reference for a constellation of SATELLITES operated by SEVERAL COUNTRIES. It is crucial to???? Completing the SATELLITE SURVEILLANCE coverage of the entire Earth?

    THIS UNIQUE VENUE? THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA? IS THE “IDEAL?” OR? “THE ONLY LOCATION” WITH THE “IDEAL SIZE” THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND FOR A FIELD CAMPAIGN INVOLVING AIRCRAFT, RADARS AND OTHER GROUND-BASED SENSORS, AND OTHER? a SATELLITE with a dual frequency (Ka and Ku band) radar and passive microwave sensors (10-183 GHz frequencies)

    DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?

    THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA ELECTRONIC WARFARE GAME PLAN….

    Using similar? OR THE SAME technology? Covering the entire Pacific rim and CONTINUING THE DEVELOPMENT of Menwith Hill in the EU…. FOR completing GLOBAL SATELLITE SURVEILLANCE coverage of the entire Earth?

    THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA ELECTRONIC WARFARE GAME PLAN….

    THIS UNIQUE VENUE? THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA? IS THE ONLY LOCATION WITH THE IDEAL SIZE,THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND FOR A FIELD CAMPAIGN INVOLVING AIRCRAFT, RADARS AND OTHER GROUND-BASED SENSORS.AND other, a satellite with a dual frequency (Ka and Ku band) radar and passive microwave sensors (10-183 GHz frequencies)

    CONSIDERING WHAT SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY HAS BECOME AND THE MULTIPURPOSES THEY ARE USED FOR….

    For the understanding of a reasonable person

    I AM JUST ASKING? IS THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA OLYMPEX “A WHAT ELSE ” MULTIPURPOSE GLOBAL PROJECT?

    Under WHAT ELSE?
    Lois asked….
    Did anyone mention the cost and who is paying for it?
    ———————————————————————-
    Bottom line

    “WHAT ELSE?” INDEED…
    HOW MANY MORE MULTIPURPOSE GLOBAL PROJECTS?
    ARE BEING LEGISLATED AND FUNDED BEHIND OUR BACKS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS?


  • WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

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

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

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

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

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

    (SO DO WETLAND WATERS JUST SEEP DOWNHILL?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • To Rep. Kilmer Electronic Warfare

    To Rep. Kilmer Electronic Warfare

    The following information has been submitted:

    Name: ms Pearl Rains Hewett

    Address: 235 W. 5th St.,
    City/State/Zip: Port Angeles, WA 98362 2811

    E-mail: phew@wavecable.com
    Telephone: (360) 417-9452

    Issue: ENV

    Message Subject:

    Protesting the Navy’s plans for electromagnetic warfare

    ——————————————————————–
    Message Text:

    Derek,

    These are your people in your home town.

    Large crowd protests Navy electronic warfare training plan at PA forum

    Many in the crowd grew upset when they learned the forum was not being recorded and the questions would not be used as part of the comments on the proposal. Instead, officials said questions and comments have to be submitted in writing through the formal comment process.

    Are the Feds just allowing them to blow off steam?

    Last night in Port Angeles, WA. KOMO news was there…

    http://vimeo.com/111189009

    ———————————————————–

    Large crowd protests Navy electronic warfare training plan at PA forum

    —————————————————-

    I sent this comment to friends…

    Good job FOR A LOCAL PROTEST.

    HOWEVER….This is a FEDERAL OFFENSE.

    CITIZENS MUST GO TO THEIR FEDERALLY ELECTED TO BE EFFECTIVE.

    I did not attend….

    I am Pearl Revere… NOT JOAN OF ARC.

    Thanks for the update.

    Pearl

    —————————————————————–

    November 7th, 2014 – 6:15am

    (Port Angeles) – More than a hundred people crammed the Port Angeles city council chambers last night, most protesting the Navy’s plans for electromagnetic warfare training over the west end of the Olympic Peninsula.

    The US Forest Service is considering a permit that would allow the Navy to place radio frequency emitters on mobile trucks in the Olympic National Forest. Forest Service and Navy officials held a public forum on the plan last night. But most of the those attending were strongly opposed, often interrupting the presenters. Every person asking questions was against the idea, echoing previous concerns about the effect of RF in the forest areas.

    The U.S. Pacific Fleet’s Northwest environmental program manager John Mosher says his agency’s environmental assessment for the permit shows it’s safe.

    But many of those asking questions disagreed and asked if current data was used in the study. Questions also covered the amount of noise expected by the increased training. Navy officials say the planes will fly at altitudes higher than 10-thousand feet and there will be no more than a 10 percent increase in activity. Some asked why the Navy doesn’t use an established training area. Navy officials say that would be costly and they area already doing training in this area.

    Many in the crowd grew upset when they learned the forum was not being recorded and the questions would not be used as part of the comments on the proposal. Instead, officials said questions and comments have to be submitted in writing through the formal comment process. The Forest Service is keeping that comment period open until November 28th.

    ————————————————————————

    Please don’t allow your people to protest in vein…

    Protest definition, an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid:

    Still just, a Concerned American Grandmother

    Would you like a response? Y

     


  • International Wars on Electronic Warfare?

    International War on Electronic Warfare?

    As a Canadian (she said, he said) “That was unneighborly”   I object!!

    Has the Canadian government been informed about this exercise?

    Dear Members of the Canadian Parliament… I live in Victoria… living in Saanich British Columbia…. As a resident of West Vancouver, BC, Canada…. We write to express our extreme disagreement……

    Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental …

    citizensforsafetechnology.org/Pacific-Northwest-ElectronicWarfare-Ran…

    Oct 8, 2014 – Dear Members of the Canadian Parliament, The US Navy plans to do testing of powerful RF devices along the shores of northern Olympic …

    ————————————————————————————–

    Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Excellent Letters written re US Navy testing of in Pacific Northwest

    Below are just some of the excellent letters written today that some of you might find useful in writing your own. Please, take a few minutes and write by the new deadline of Friday, October 31.  If you do so, then there will be the opportunity to have further input in the future.

    Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    To: comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us

    We are a family of six living in Saanich, British Columbia. We write to express our extreme disagreement with the US Navy’s intention to test RF devices along the shores of the northern Olympic Peninsula.

    Both U.S. residents and residents of Canada, not to mention wildlife in an ecologically sensitive area, will be exposed to high frequencies and high levels of radiation. There is absolutely no evidence that such testing is safe for humans, wildlife, or important plant ecosystems. This is an an enormous and foolhardy risk. It brings to mind the nuclear testing conducted in the southwest United States that contaminated much of the United States with radioactive fallout for many years.

    The dangers of EMF radiation are many and real. The prestigious and respected American Academy of Environmental Medicine has made this an area of concern, and recently gave their highest award to Dr. Martin Pall of Washington State University for his research in this area. Dr. Pall has explored how EMFs act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels, and how EMF exposures can cause physiological effects including cancer, oxidative stress and EHS. In addition many physicians are discovering that their patients are experiencing difficulties because of EMF exposure, and Women’s College Hospital in Toronto has recently established a program to educate doctors about this threat, which some public health professionals call the greatest challenge to human health in the twenty-first century.

    Our family does not give our permission for the US Navy to subject our children to this serious health threat. Both the United States and Canada should look to other countries whose standards regarding EMF exposures are much more demanding, and whose forward thinking should lead the way on this issue. We insist that the residents of this area be considered, and that the US Navy be prevented from such testing.

    Forwarded to : Popham.MLA, Lana ; john.horgan.mla@leg.bc.ca; premier@gov.bc.ca; elizabeth.may@greenparty.ca; leader@greenparty.bc.ca; Randall.Garrison@parl.gc.ca; editor@thetyee.ca; Edward Hill ; contact@straight.com

    ____________________________

    To each BC MP:

    Dear Members of the Canadian Parliament,

    The US Navy plans to do testing of powerful RF devices along the shores of northern Olympic Peninsula (Clallum county faces Victoria and BC). The frequencies are high, 4-8 GHz, and signals using these frequencies travel great distances. We very likely will be exposed to high levels of radiation that the military will be testing.

    Comments are being accepted from the public at comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us until Oct. 10. Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA) must be on the subject line.

    The Navy is saying there is no evidence of harm to animals or humans. Independent scientific evidence proves this statement to be incorrect. Inadvertently, but without doubt, the US Navy will be experimenting on Canadians, on our families and on our wildlife.

    Has the Canadian government been informed about this exercise? If so, what was the reaction? If not, there should be a strong objection to such an exercise from taking place in an area where Canadians will be exposed. There is no way to limit exposure to such emissions which have been shown to have dangerous effects, especially on children and fetuses, those with compromised immune systems, and the elderly.

    This must be stopped. This trespass into our environment must not be allowed. I implore you to ask your leaders to contact the US government and demand that our sovereignty and safety be respected.

    Sincerely,

    Sharon Noble

    ______________________

    I am writing in utmost concern for your intention to permit the Olympic National Forest to be used as an electronic warfare testing ground by the US Navy. If passed, this decision will undoubtedly cause irreversible harm to the plants, birds, animals, ecosystems, and humans directly in, and in areas within a several hundred-mile radius of this site.

    Studies conducted by world-class, non-industry-funded scientists show there is NO SAFE level of radiation, and that radiation from all sources is cumulative. Furthermore, a peer-reviewed study published May 7, 2014 in Nature, International Weekly Journal of Science proves the negative effect of EMF on migratory birds. ” So far, no putative effect of anthropogenic electromagnetic noise at intensities below the guidelines adopted by the World Health Organization 1, 2 has withstood the test of independent replication under truly blinded experimental conditions. No effect has therefore been widely accepted as scientifically proven.  Here we show that migratory birds are unable to use their magnetic compass in the presence of urban electromagnetic noise. These fully double-blinded tests document a reproducible effect of anthropogenic electromagnetic noise on the behaviour of an intact vertebrate.”

    In regards to your comment that “There are no conclusive direct hazards to human tissue as a result of electromagnetic radiation, last August the Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine published a paper by Washington State University Professor Emeritus of biochemistry Martin Pall, which documents how EMF affects the flow of voltage-gated calcium channels in our cells. Pall links this change in cellular activity to a plethora of physical ailments. Basing his conclusions on 24 studies, he has this to say about short high-intensity pulses of microwave radiation: ” We know from the nanosecond pulse studies[that these pulses] can be very damaging and act via VGCC activation, with activation continuing long after the pulse has ceased (7). It has been known for over 30 years that short microwave pulses can cause massive cellular damage (57).” EMF has been recognized as a potential carcinogen by the WHO in 2011 (alongside lead and DDT), and scientifically linked to autism (which is up by 33%), skyrocketing ADHD, the disappearing honeybee, and more. Read the literature, and it becomes clear that the potentially harmful effects of EMF exposure are much greater than the thermal (heating) risks current exposure standards attribute to it. In 2011, the Council of Europe (47 countries, 800-million people) urged all of its member nations to “reconsider” their relationship with ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) whose radiation Exposure Limits are almost universally adopted and, instead, observe the limits recommended in the BioInitiative 2007 Report. This report, if adopted, would require Canada and the USA to reduce their radiation Exposure Limits 10,000 times. In section 7 (Technological progress and economic growth at the expense of environment and health protection ) subsection 29 of their 2011 parliamentary report on the potential danger of EMF, the Council of Europe states:

    “…it is most curious, to say the least, that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields.”

    Lastly, neither Lloyds of London nor Swiss Re Insurance will insure against health-related claims attributed to devices emitting non-thermal microwave radiation.

    In light of all of the above, I sincerely hope that reason and prudence will prevail, that you do not permit the testing of these weapons to proceed, but keep the Olympic National Forest as a pristine refuge, a haven for wildlife and for future generations, a place that promotes not destruction and illness, but health, balance, and well being, _______________________________________________________________________

    Dear Mr. Greg Wahl,

    See below my concerns with the future testing of weapons and RF exposure. Please keep me informed of any and all decisions made in this regard and please ensure that my concerns are included in the decision making, as it impacts my life directly. I appreciate your time and effort in ensuring that people’s quality life is protected at all times, never at the expansion of technology or security.

    Sent: October 8, 2014 9:02 PM

    To: comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us
    Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Importance: High

    My name is XXX , I live in Victoria and suffer the daily effect of RF radiation emanating from cell phone, WIFI, cell tower and every devices like microwave etc… and computer in my work place. No one can convince those suffering from these effects that they don’t exist, cause we know the facts and we know they exist. RF radiation is a challenge on our health as we experience them daily. I’ve acquired an RF device to help protect me by making adequate adjustment to my home as to prevent further damage while resting at home. There is a time when as a customer we need to out-way, speed/efficiency against our quality of health and life.

    I do not support anyone bringing danger to my close environment, myself and family, which RF is a danger. WE have a right to protect ourselves. These RF effects are proven scientifically to cause cancer; and I personally don’t need anyone to prove or convince me otherwise, since I experience lots of side effect at first hand, such as the effect of headaches, nausea, sleep deprivation, ringing in the ear, racy heart, chest pressure, sneezing/allergies, my vision having drop way too quickly as they increased Wi-Fi service in my workplace and feeling completely helpless to protect myself, as it’s costing me a fortune in compensating to protect my health and shielding myself from the RF. Meanwhile no one listens, yet those same individuals bringing this new technology are starting to show the same signs I describe but no one bothers to connect the dots, as to work together in stopping this dreadful expenditure for profit and profit only and full harm to your health and quality of life.

    I ask that you reconsider this testing and please do not bring in anymore radiation to our home and environment. All this technology and yet we have less and less freedom and quality of life, the only one seeming to benefit is big business for profits. What’s the use of looking after our health if these test are going to continue destroying us. Contradictory in term, and costly to our Healthcare. I work harder than I ever did when I was younger, and no matter how healthy I try to maintain, there isn’t a day when I’m not having to fight to protect myself not only against RF but against the ignorance perpetuated in our population by our government agency by not providing the truth to the populace and keeping our world inform and safe. Unless you’re planning on killing us, then please take those testing somewhere safe and controlled so that our environment or self aren’t affected. We’ve been working real hard at cultivating bees back at a very slow pace. Everything is linked together. Any damage caused has ripple effect to the masses. Those intelligent enough to understand that, and who are in a role of authority need to protect the planet, and certainly not test to see how far they can go and learn from those testing’s. There has been enough research done already and sufficient proofs have been provided and yet ignored by convenience by those in authority and paid to protect those who pay their services. Who decide who has the authority. Scientists are scientists and too many have spoken and been ignored and continue to be ignored. There is no need for more testing. What more do we need in this world to live happy and peaceful. We don’t need more scientist to do what has been already done and proven and ignored. You do not do research until it fits your bill, you do research to find what action need be taken as to maintain life and quality of life. Refuse to do military or otherwise testing in regard to RF as the risk is already too much. Time to listen and pay attention and protect the planet and every living cellular being on it. I look forward to hear that this project is canceled and look forward to your confirmation of such in support to life in general.

    Thank you for hearing me out and please don’t allow the testing to take place, for everyone’s best interest.

    Best regards,

    ___________________________

    To: ‘comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us
    Cc: ‘gtwahl@fs.fed.us
    Subject: FW: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Importance: High

    From: edgar murdock (name left at request of author)

    To: comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us
    Cc: thomas.mulcair@parl.gc.ca ; greg.kyllo.mla@leg.bc.ca ; john.horgan.mla@leg.bc.ca ; una@citizensforsafetechnology.org ; director@stopsmartmetersbc.ca ; billvanderzalm1@gmail.com ; adrian.dix.mla@leg.bc.ca ; info@oipc.bc.ca ; patrick.wruck@bcuc.com

    Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 8:56 PM

    Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    As a Canadian, but more importantly as a human being and one of millions of innocent victims of whatever protocol the world’s dominant governments & corporations wish to force on the global population, I take great umbrage at the suggestion that this initiative by the US Navy will have no impact on humans. The information offered also points out that the impact to small animals is unknown at this time. There is no mention of the impact on avian or marine wildlife or that of insects, beneficial or otherwise.

    The impact on humans is quite well-known. This denial, in the light of a mountain of evidence to the contrary by respected, independent medical personnel and research scientists world-wide with absolutely nothing to gain career-wise or financially, is a downright abrogation of responsibility by the American military and its cohorts.

    There is world-wide concern that the biologic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic low-frequency radiation such as wi-fi and microwave cellular radiation and that emitted by the so-called smart meter and smart grid protocols, is cumulative and considered to be carcinogenic by the WHO and many other health organizations, although not recognized as such by the ridiculously inadequate standards set by Health Canada and the United States FCC, EPA and FDA agencies.

    The politicians, military personnel and corporate entities who, for whatever iniquitous reasons, are attempting to apply Guinea pig status to the population of all living creatures in this geographical quadrant and to use the Pacific Northwest habitat as a testing ground for EMF warfare is an unconscionable, egregious and reprehensible act of aggression to the Nth degree. My mind boggles and my entire psyche reels at the thought.

    MK-ULTRA and the CIA’s Project Pandora and other such nefarious programs by virtue of the Freedom of Information Act are well-known efforts of the US Military to control mankind and it seems to me that this Environmental Assessment is another step in the directed energy experiment designed to bring ordinary people to their knees.

    Please, please when coming to a decision in this matter consider the humanitarian issues at stake here. Apply the Precautionary Principle diligently and with respect to the unwary citizens of both the United States and Canada and remember that accountability goes with the position and if the results are adverse and pernicious to any degree, those promoting the program must all also bear the guilt of the consequences.

    Respectfully submitted,
    _________________________

    Sent: October 8, 2014 10:17 PM
    To: comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us
    Subject: Weapons testing off the Olympic Peninsula

    I object!! Not only does RF destroy marine life, it destroys all life. I am already electrosensitive and don’t need or want any more electromagnetic pollution affecting my body. The USAF have known since WW2 that this stuff is deadly; the Russians proved it by irradiating the US embassy in Moscow, remember? What more do you need to know?

    Stop the psychopathic behaviour before you kill the entire planet.

    __________________________

    Sent: October 8, 2014 9:21 PM
    To: comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us
    Cc: Jerry Flynn; ralph.sultan.mla@leg.bc.ca; weston.J@parl.gc.ca

    Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Ladies and gentlemen;

    As a resident of West Vancouver, BC, Canada I am alarmed at the proposed RF tests by the US military on the Olympic Peninsula.

    I have a medically diagnosed condition of electro hyper sensitivity to all electromagnetic radiation, even at very low frequencies, well within what Canada and the US claim to be harmless.

    Today several thousand independent scientific studies call for lowering the allowable levels currently part of standards and emitted by cell towers, and other wireless technologies.

    While these tests may be facing away from American cities,you seem to forget that most of BC’s population lives precisely along the border. This is, as i understand it, the precise direction in which the radiation will be fired.

    Please remember: We are also human, and do not deserve to be showered with military strength radiation!

    I strongly object to having my family and myself treated as collateral damage to the US military experiments! Or should that be experimental rats?

    I hope the US Navy can find a different location for their tests, or better still abandon them altogether. Surely enough is known about the damaging effects of this technology after decades of testing it. . . .

    For your information I am enclosing a powerpoint presentation by Captain (ret.) Jerry Flynn of the Canadian navy, who worked for 22 years in radiological warfare.
    __________________________

    From: Dennis and Sharon Noble dsnoble@shaw.ca
    Sent: October 9, 2014 11:33 AM
    To: ‘comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us’
    Cc: ‘gtwahl@fs.fed.us‘; Christy Clark (premier@gov.bc.ca); John Horgan. Leader NDP; ‘Elizabeth.May@parl.gc.ca‘; randall.garrison@parl.gc.ca; Alex – Riding 1 Atamanenko

    Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    I am writing with regard to the US Navy plan to establish a training facility in Northern Washington dedicated to Electronic Warfare. According to information provided, the environmental assessment says:

    “The purpose is to train to deny the enemy “all possible frequencies of electromagnetic radiation (i.e. electromagnetic energy) for use in such applications as communication systems, navigation systems and defense related systems and components,” and

    “There are no conclusive direct hazards to human tissue as a result of electromagnetic radiation.

    “Links to DNA fragmentation, leukemia, and cancer due to intermittent exposure to extremely high levels of electromagnetic radiation are speculative; study data are inconsistent and insufficient at this time”. While it might be argued that there is no “conclusive” evidence of direct hazard to human health, there is a multitude of independent peer-reviewed studies and reports by world renowned scientists that show that prolonged exposure to even low levels of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is extremely harmful, especially to those most vulnerable: fetuses and children, those with impaired immune systems, and the elderly, and wildlife.

    Even 60 years ago the US military knew the significant danger associated with EMR, recognizing its potential as a military weapon. It therefore is confusing that the US military today denies this science. Further it is of interest that in their documents they admit this radiation “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” living creatures.

    The public deserves to have access to information explaining the effects. An effect is either harmful or beneficial. Is the US Navy saying that exposure to manmade, unnatural radiation is beneficial?

    With regard to the transmitters which will be on the northern tip of the Olympic Peninsula, these transmitters plus the associated military equipment (satellites, planes, mobile transmitters) are within a few miles of a major Canadian city, Victoria, British Columbia. Were the Federal and Provincial governments advised of the plans to build a permanent training facility with weapons grade transmitters? Did they agree to allow military weapons to be pointed at a friendly country? Why was Northern Washington selected, rather than an inhospitable location like Death Valley?

    I wish to express my deepest concern about this plan, and ask to be granted standing in order to provide additional information during future considerations.

    Sincerely
    Sharon Noble

    Read On

    read more at, http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/Pacific-Northwest-Electronic-Warfare-Range-Environmental-Assessment-EA,95,4035

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

    I submit this as an additional objection and comment on the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A  2014 UPDATED ASSESSMENT ON THE  BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC  RADIATION (RADIOWAVES AND MICROWAVES) IS DOCUMENTED AND FULL DISCLOSURE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE AMERICAN AND CANADIAN  PUBLIC.

     Pearl Rains Hewett


  • The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

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

     

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————————

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————————–

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

    Who knew about this?

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

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

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

     ————————————————————————————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

     


  • EPA Merely? Requires?

    EPA MERELY? ONLY? requires property owners TO GET AN EPA PERMIT?
    A private property owner will MERELY? ONLY? spend 788 days and MERELY? ONLY? spend $271,596 working with federal authorities

    TO GET AN EPA PERMIT?

    (MERELY? ONLY? a TEMPORARY FINANCIAL setback?)

    Another study showed that projects abandoned due to an
    INABILITY TO GET SECTION 404 PERMITS COST AMERICANS SOME $45 BILLION IN 1990.

    (MERELY? ONLY? a PERMANENT? $45 BILLION DOLLAR FINANCIAL setback?)

    EPA the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corp of Engineers, the two entities that administer the CWA, MERELY? ONLY? COST AMERICANS SOME $45 BILLION IN 1990.

    (MERELY? ONLY? a PERMANENT? FINANCIAL setback?)

    Bottom line
    How much MORE? WILL IT MERELY? ONLY? cost Americans in the future if this ABUSE of EPA Power IS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE?
    ——————————————————————–

    SACKETT V. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    How much did it cost the SACKETT’s in this ABUSE of EPA Power?

    (Was this MERELY? ONLY? a TEMPORARY SETBACK to the SACKETT’s?)
    —————————————————————–

    SACKETT V. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    Case | PLF and the Sacketts: an important win at the Supreme Court …
    www.pacificlegal.org › … › Issues & Cases › Environmental Regulations‎
    SACKETT V. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Contact: Damien M. Schiff … Mike and Chantell Sackett, of Priest Lake, Idaho, who were told by EPA — and by …

    ———————————————————

    How much did it cost the SACKETT’s in this ABUSE of EPA Power?

    EPA ISSUED A “COMPLIANCE” ORDER, demanding that the Sacketts stop construction, remove the gravel and return the land to EPA’s liking. Moving the gravel would cost $27,000 — more than what the Sacketts paid for the land.
    ——————————————————–

    “BULLYING – that’s what the EPA does. They came into our lives, TOOK OUR PROPERTY, put us in limbo, told us we can’t do anything with it, and then threatened us with fines.” — Chantell Sackett, The Washington Times
    ——————————————————
    “The EPA used BULLYING and THREATS of terrifying fines, and has MADE OUR LIFE HELL FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS. Now the Supreme Court has come to our rescue.” — MIKE SACKETT, LA Times
    ——————————————————-
    “Federal agencies are OUT OF CONTROL. The grant of virtually unlimited power with no accountability has gone to the heads of some unelected bureaucrats, and nowhere is that more true than at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).” — The Washington Times
    —————————————————————
    “EPA is not above the law. That’s the bottom line with today’s ruling.” — PLF Principal Attorney Damien Schiff, CNN
    —————————————————————
    “There is no reason to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into ‘voluntary compliance’ without the opportunity for judicial review.” — Justice Antonin Scalia, New York Times
    —————————————————————
    “Real relief REQUIRES CONGRESS to do what it should have done in the first place: provide a reasonably clear rule regarding the reach of the Clean Water Act.” — Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., New York Times
    —————————————————————
    “As this nightmare went on, we rubbed our eyes and started to wonder if we were LIVING IN SOME TOTALITARIAN COUNTRY.” — MIKE SACKETT, The Christian Science Monitor

    How much MORE? WILL IT MERELY? ONLY? cost Americans in the future if this ABUSE of EPA Power IS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE?
    ——————————————————–
    This posting was inspired by The Liberty and Property Rights Coalition is committed to promoting and preserving Constitutional rights to liberty and property in public policy and the law.

    —————————————————————–
    EPA study could be used to expand each over non-Clean Water Act waters

    Federal regulators may be able to assert Clean Water Act jurisdiction over more waters and wetlands than are now protected on the basis of a draft scientific study that links all streams and certain wetlands with larger, downstream navigable waters, attorneys and policy analysts say.

    The Environmental Protection Agency’s draft study finds that all tributary streams, including perennial and the previously unprotected intermittent and ephemeral streams, are physically, chemically and biologically connected to downstream rivers.
    (Bloomberg BNA)

    ——————————————————————

    February 2012 • No. 0030
    Clean Water Act Abuse: Wetlands
    Protection Under Section 404
    The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted in 1972 to “to restore and
    maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of the nation’s
    rivers, lakes, and streams.2 But for years federal regulators have used the
    CWA to relentlessly expand their reach over both land and water use.
    One particularly controversial example is the use of the CWA’s Section 404,
    which covers wetlands.
    A plain reading of Section 404 gives no indication of federal jurisdiction over wetlands.

    The statute MERELY requires property owners TO GET A PERMIT

    before they discharge “dredged or fill material into navigable waters.”3 The
    CWA defines navigable waters as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.”
    4
    WETLANDS ARE NEVER MENTIONED.
    Nevertheless, years of legal battles have allowed federal environmental
    regulators to expand their jurisdiction to include wetlands, mainly by:
    1) Interpreting “navigable waters” to include wetlands (even if they are not
    “navigable” by any stretch of the imagination), and
    2) Prohibiting many more activities on wetlands besides filling them with sand or dredged material.
    “NAVIGABLE WATERS” AND THE EXPANSION OF FEDERAL REGULATION
    The Constitution’s “commerce clause” allows the federal government to regulate only interstate commerce; any activities that occur entirely within a state (“intrastate”) and do not have a significant impact on interstate commerce must be LEFT TO THE STATES TO REGULATE.
    To avoid running afoul of this CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION, the CWA was designed to regulate only “navigable waters” of the United States – waterways that are involved in interstate commerce via activities like boat traffic. It is not clear that wetlands fall under this definition, but federal regulators have included wetlands in several CWA implementing regulations anyways in their quest to expand their jurisdictional reach.

    In 2006, the Supreme Court halted this expansion, arguing in
    Rapanos v. United States
    that the Constitution called for some limit to the CWA’s regulatory reach. John Rapanos faced criminal charges for filling in a marsh that was entirely on his own land in Midland, Michigan in order to build a mall. Filling in this wetland, even though it had no significant nexus to any navigable waterway, violated the CWA according to federal regulators.
    The Supreme Court reversed the charges, with Justice Scalia remarking that federal regulators had “stretched the term ‘waters of the United States’ beyond parody.” The CWA could not be used to restrict activity on private property like that owned by Mr. Rapanos because it was not directly connected to “navigable waters” (and thus interstate commerce).
    5
    However, a recently released guidance document from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corp of Engineers, the two entities that administer the CWA, carefully circumvents the Rapanos decision and again attempts
    to expand regulators’ jurisdiction to include isolated wetlands or anything resembling a wetland.
    6
    This has set off considerable backlash from conservative lawmakers and various legal scholars.
    QUICK FACTS NOTABLE& QUOTABLE
    • The average applicant hoping to develop his or her own property that contains a
    wetland will spend 788days and $271,596 working with federal authorities to do so.

    “EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act…
    knows no bounds, as the agency sees nearly every body of water in the United States no matter
    how insignificant, as potentially falling within its reach.”
    –SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R-OK)
    1
    americansforprosperityfoundation.com/needtoknow
    Americans for Prosperity Foundation’s “Need to Know” informational series explores current events
    andrecent scholarship on public policy issues from af ree-market economics perspective.
    A full list of“Need to Know”briefings is available at
    www.Americans For Prosperity Foundation.com/NeedToKnow.
    ©2012Americans for Prosperity Foundation. All Rights Resrved.
    Endnotes:
    SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAND PUBLIC WORKS
    SEPA Water Permitting Guidance Widely Extends Federal Bureaucracy Over Water Bodies
    (April 27, 2011) (online at http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.
    cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=98e0c58b-802a-23ad-4772-89859656e00d&Region_
    id=&Issue_id=).
    2. Federal Water Pollution Control Act
    (“Clean Water Act”), Sec. 101 (33 U.S.C. 1251) (hereinafter “CWA”).
    3. CWA, Sec. 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344).
    4. CWA, Sec. 502(7) (33 U.S.C. 1362).
    5. Rapanos v. United States
    , 547 U.S. 715 (2006).
    6. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

    Draft Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act
    (April 2011) (online at http://www.epa.gov/indian/pdf/wous_guid-ance_4-2011.pdf).
    7. Avoyelles Sportmen’s League, Inc. v. Marsh
    , 715 F2d 897 (5th Cir. 1983) (online at http://www.wetlands.com/fed/avoyelle.htm);
    Save our Community v. EPA , 741 F. Supp 605 (N.d. Texas 1990) (online at http://www.wetlands.com/fed/
    socvepa1.htm); Richard Miniter, ‘WETLANDS’ SEND MAN UP THE RIVER, INSIGHT ON THE NEWS,
    vol. 8, No. 50 (decem-ber 1992) (online at http://richardminiter.com/pdf/19921214-art-insight.pdf).
    8. Benjamin Barr, Muddy Waters: Deconstructing the Clean Water Act in Arizona, THEgOldWATERINSTITUTE
    (January 29, 2008) (online at http://goldwaterinstitute.org/sites/default/files/Muddy.pdf).
    Prohibiting More Than Just Dumping Dirt?
    Regulators have also done much more than prohibit the “discharge of dredged or fill material”
    into wetlands, as the statute says. In a number of cases they have also banned activities that
    might discharge pollutants into or otherwise incidentally disturb the wetland, under the
    assumption that any pollution coming into contact with wet soil will eventually make its way
    into navigable waterways through ground water flows. Federal courts have been complicit,
    concluding that clearing wetlands for agricultural production, draining or otherwise altering
    wetlands, or even creating new wetlands on private land all violate Section 404.
    7
    Effects on Private Property Rights and the Economy
    When environmental regulations like these prevent private property owners from building
    housing or commercial real estate, clearing and cultivating for agriculture, or extracting natural
    resources on their own land, this causes a severe deterioration in the value of their property.
    Imagine the frustration of buying a plot of land only to have the land rendered unusable by
    OVER-ZEALOUS FEDERAL REGULATORS.
    Thankfully, there are Constitutional protections to safeguard property owners from regulators. Courts have ruled that when the federal government regulates private property so intensively that it essentially prohibits any valuable use for the landowner, these “REGULATORY TAKINGS” make the property owner eligible for “JUST COMPENSATION” from the government under the Fifth Amendment.
    In other words, if the federal government completely destroys property’s value in the name of
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, they must pay the owner for it just the same as if they
    had taken it outright.
    Unfortunately, court cases like these are often drawn-out and ultimately fruitless affairs, wasting property owners’ time and money.
    In the end, property owners’ primary recourse is to apply for a permit and cross their fingers
    that the government will approve it. But this is an arduous process and often results in failure.
    One study found that the average applicant hoping to develop his or her own wetland property
    will spend 788 days and $271,596 working with federal authorities to do so; another study showed that projects abandoned due to an inability to get Section 404 permits
    COST AMERICANS SOME $45 BILLION IN 1990.
    8
    Those compliance costs and lost opportunities represent a significant barrier standing in the way of activities that productively contribute to our economy. americansforprosperityfoundation.com/needtoknow
    Environmental regulations’ strict requirements can cause serious damage to private property values.


  • Kilmer response on HR 1526

    Dear Pearl Rains,

    Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

    As someone who was born and raised on the Peninsula, I fully understand how access our natural environment shapes us. I grew up in Port Angeles and there wasn’t a summer of my childhood that didn’t involve going up to Hurricane Ridge or fishing with my dad or my brothers. Those experiences had a profound effect on me, and we owe it to the generations that have come before and that will come after to protect the home that’s been left in our care.

    At the same time, the other experience I had growing up in Port Angeles was watching a town whose lifeblood was the timber industry experience economic hardship. As the local economy suffered, I watched as my friends’ parents lost their jobs, businesses closed down, and it became harder for families to give their kids the kind of experience I had growing up in such a special place. This experience motivated me to pursue a career in economic development to help communities and the families in them get back on their feet.

    I came to the House of Representatives to fight for hard-working families across our region. I know just how hard our communities have been hit by the changes in the timber industry. It is important to me that we get folks back to work and strengthen rural communities.

    I’m supportive of finding ways to sustainably increase harvest levels and increase the health of our forests. In fact, I have joined Representatives Schrader (Ore.), Gosar (Ariz.), and Noem (N. D.) to form the bi-partisan Healthy Forest Caucus as a means to engage with my colleagues in the House of Representatives on the timber issues that affect our region’s economy.

    While I think it is geared toward addressing a legitimate issue, I have serious concerns about H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act sponsored by Rep. Doc Hastings (Wash.). This legislation would undermine core environmental laws, reduce opportunities for stakeholder input and pathways to consensus, and leave our region without a legitimate plan to help us adequately balance multiple forest uses.

    Our region has some of the most pristine land and waters in our country. Protecting those resources while balancing the needs of resource-dependent communities and industries has been an issue our region has struggled with for decades.

    Since taking office, I have been working closely with both sides of this issue. I am firmly convinced that we can protect forest health and get people back to work.

    I do not believe bypassing the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act as laid out in H.R. 1526 is the only way – or even the best way – to do this.

    Setting harvest levels by legislative mandate rather than by sound science sets a dangerous precedent and could lead to the destruction of long and hard fought agreements throughout the country.

    These decisions must be made with scientific analysis and stakeholder involvement. The approach H.R. 1526 takes does not encourage consensus around federal land management and does not promote a path to a mutually agreeable resolution. H.R. 1526 would only further root stakeholders in oppositional positions. In my view, we should pursue a path forward that will reduce lawsuits. I want to see more work for folks in the timber industry – not more work for lawyers. With that in mind, I voted against this bill.

    Despite my opposition, the legislation passed 244 – 173 and is now pending action in the Senate.

    While I recognize the complexity of forest interests on the Peninsula, I am dedicated to working with the timber and environmental community to find a way to grow timber jobs and conserve our resources. It may not be an easy task, but it is a task to which I am dedicated.

    I encourage you to continue to share your views with me on this topic or any other issue. Thank you for reaching out. It is an honor to serve as your representative.

    Sincerely,

    Derek Kilmer
    Member of Congress

    ——————————————————————————–

    Sign up for Representative Derek Kilmer’s E-Memo
    Click here to receive our bi-weekly email update about Congress.

    Improve Government Efficiency
    If you see opportunities in which your tax dollars can be used more efficiently or effectively, let me know here.

    Please do not reply to this email. The mailbox is unattended.
    To share your thoughts please visit my webpage.