+menu-


  • Category Archives Goliath’s Water Consortium
  • WA DOE $50 Comment Recording Fee?

    WA DOE $50 Public Comment Recording Fee?

    1. Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections. 
    2. All letters of protest will become public record. 
    3. Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable. 
    4. Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611,
    5. within 30 days from June 20, and June 30, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————

    I AM FREELY PROTESTING AND OBJECTING TO THIS $50.00 DOE FEE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT,  AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD,  ON MY WEBSITE.

    ————————————————————-

    TAKE NOTICE STEVENS COUNTY WE MUST  PROTEST OR OBJECT WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    ———————————

    TAKE NOTICE GRANT COUNTY WE  MUST PROTEST OR OBJECT  WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017.

    ————————————————————-

    I GOT MY  PUBLIC NOTICE IN A PRIVATE EMAIL ON TUES JULY 11, 2017

    The email said,  So whatever we can pull together ASAP will be helpful. 

    I SUGGEST WE START HERE….

    EMAIL YOUR, OBJECTIONS, COMMENTS AND PROTESTS  REGARDING THE WA STATE DOE WATER RULERS NEW $50 COMMENT RECORDING FEE,  TAKE NOTICE TO YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY AND CITY.

    INDEED,  EMAIL  OBJECTIONS, COMMENTS  AND PROTESTS  SENT TO YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, ARE LEGALLY RECORDED DOCUMENTATION AND THEY ARE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. 

    ————————————————————————————

    THIS DOE $50.00 FEE  TO PROTEST OR OBJECTION AND  TO RECORD PUBLIC COMMENT UNDER DOE WATER APPLICATION NO. G3-30736 IS NOT SOMETHING NEW.

     IT’S JUST NEW TO VOTING TAXPAYING CITIZEN WATER USERS.

    ———————————————————————

    HOW WA STATE DUE PROCESS ON PUBLIC NOTIFICATION WORKS, OR NOT?

    Somebody found something, and read something in  the Chewelah Independent, a newspaper in Stevens County WA on June 22nd 2017 that was placed by the Dept. of Ecology. 

    Indeed, I got my PUBLIC NOTICE in a private email on Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:57 PM

    OBJECTIONS OR PROTESTS COMMENTS WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    WORD GETS AROUND IN CYBERSPACE (eventually)

    I AM FREELY PROTESTING AND OBJECTING TO THIS $50.00 DOE FEE ON PUBLIC COMMENT MY WEBSITE.

     —– Original Message —–

    From: XXX

    To: XXX

    Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:57 PM

    Subject: SCPRG Update

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, within 30 days from June 20, and June 30, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————-

    WA State DOE From TAXATION TO FEE-DOM

    ——————————————————————————-

    AS IT STOOD ON OCT 26, 2013 , AND AS IT STANDS JULY 12, 2017

    ————————————————————————- 

    OCT 26, 2013 IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T FORCE US TO PAY MORE TAXES?

    WHAT CAN THE GOVERNMENT DO TO TAKE MORE MONEY FROM US?

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

    AND, A DOE $50.00 RECORDING FEE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    OBJECTIONS OR COMMENTS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A $50 RECORDING FEE PAYABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, CASHIERING UNIT, P.O. BOX 47611, OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7611, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————–

    STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY OFFICE OF COLUMBIA RIVER YAKIMA, WA. NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC WATERS TAKE NOTICE: 

    DOE TAKE WATER TAKE NOTICE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————–

    GRANT COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY BOARD AMENDED NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF GROUNDWATER CERTIFICATE 399A(A)

    DOE TAKE WATER TAKE NOTICE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017.

    Protests must be accompanied by a fifty dollar ($50.00) recording fee and filed with the Cashiering Section, State of Washington, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, Washington 98504-7611 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017. #06029/86342 Pub: June 13 & 20, 2017

    —————————————————————————

    STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY OFFICE OF COLUMBIA RIVER YAKIMA, WA

    NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC WATERS TAKE NOTICE:  That STEVENS COUNTY of Colville, WA, on February 11, 2015, under Application No. G3-30736 applied to appropriate public waters, subject to existing rights, from multiple wells in the amount of 3,350 gallons per minute for continuous multiple domestic and industrial supply.

    That source of the proposed appropriation is located with the Colville River Water Resource Inventory Area, Stevens County, Washington.

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, within 30 days from June 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————

    GRANT COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY BOARD AMENDED NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF GROUNDWATER CERTIFICATE 399A(A) TAKE NOTICE: Central Terminals, LLC of Moses Lake has made an APPLICATION FOR CHANGE/TRANSFER of Water Right to add two (2) additional points of withdrawal (POW), for Groundwater Certificate 399A(A). The Board has accepted the applicaiton for active Board review by assigning its number of GRAN-16-10. The Department of Ecology has assigned tracking number CG3-*01104C(A)@2 to this application. That Ground Water Certificate 399A(A) with a priority date of April 18, 1949 has current authorization for 800.0 gallons per minute, 296.1 acre-feet per year, for Continuous Industrial use.

    The current authorized point of withdrawal is located within the NW1/4SW1/4 Section 20, T19N., R29E., W.M., The proposed additional points of withdrawal will be one (1) existing well located within the NW1/4SE1/4 of section 20, T19N., R29E. W.M., and one (1) new well located within the NE1/4NE/4 of Section 29, T19N, R29E. W.M.

    Any interested party may submit comments, objections, and other information to the Board regarding this application. The comments and information may be submitted in writing or verbally at any public meeting of the Board held to discuss or decide on the application. Additionally, the Board will consider written comments or information provided within thirty (30) days from the last date of publication of this notice, said written comments or information to be provided to its office located at 2145 Basin Street SW, Ephrata, WA 98823. Any protests or objections to the approval of this application may be filed with the Department of Ecology and must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.

     Protests must be accompanied by a fifty dollar ($50.00) recording fee and filed with the Cashiering Section, State of Washington, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, Washington 98504-7611 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017. #06029/86342 PUB: JUNE 13 & 20, 2017

    ————————————————————————-

    WA State taxes TAXATION from our elected representative

    DOE FEE INCREASES DO NOT HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE.

    AS IT STOOD ON OCT 26, 2013 , AND AS IT STANDS JULY 12, 2017

    ELECTIONS DO CREATE  OUR LEGISLATORS’

    ————————————————————————- 

    Behind My Back | Fee Fie Foe Fum

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

    Oct 26, 2013 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feefie-foefum. THERE’S LITTLE REASON EVER TO USE IT? This entry was posted in By Hook or By Crook, …

     OCT 26, 2013 IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T FORCE US TO PAY MORE TAXES?

    WHAT CAN THE GOVERNMENT DO TO TAKE MORE MONEY FROM US?

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

    AND, A DOE $50.00 RECORDING FEE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    WA STATE FROM TAXATION TO DOE FEE-DOM

    —————————————————————————————-

    Clallam County citizens  sent in over a thousand objections  on The DOE Dungeness Water Rule and the DOE sent us 500 pages of too bad so sad.

    —————————————————————

    VENGEANCE IS MINE SAITH THE WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE)

    —————————————————————————–

    VENGEANCE IS MINE SAITH WA STATE VOTERS COME ELECTION TIME


  • Public Land Use? Howls of Complaints?

    I received information on, the Public ” HOWLING” on Public Land Use complaints against the feds, in an email from Liz Bowen Pie N Politics in California.

    Public lands ‘listening’ session brings howls of complaints …

    www.deseretnews.com/…/Publiclandslisteningsessionbri
    Deseret News

    15 hours ago – Public landslistening’ session brings howls of complaints against feds.

    17 Comments ». By Amy Joi O’Donoghue, Deseret …

    13 hours ago – Public lands ‘listening’ session brings howls of complaints against feds … Chris Stewart, R-Utah, convened the session in St. George — part of his congressional district — to let county …. Kick the Feds out of our state, period!
    ———————————————————-
    So, I sent a comment to…..

    Dear Senator Lankford,
    I received the following information in an email from a friend in California. It is an on-going country wide issue.
    We the people have no way of resolving this problem, other than forwarding this information to a concerned, responsive, elected representative in WA DC…..
    the bottom line…
    “Congress is really our last, best hope for solving this.”

    Thank you,
    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————
    Then… I made a comment on Pie N Politics website

    Pie N Politics | LizBowen.com

    lizbowen.com/?page_id=393

    Pie N Politics. Like many areas of the United States, citizens in Siskiyou County are finding government regulations are destroying their RIGHTS. This includes …
    ————————————————–
    my comment to Pie N Politics ….
    If you want an elected federal representative to “LISTEN” to your complaints and respond.. Senator Lankford, is your man.
    —————————————–
    Dear Senator Lankford,
    I received the following information in an email from a friend in California. It is an on-going country wide issue.
    We the people have no way of resolving this problem, other than forwarding this information to a concerned, responsive, elected representative in WA DC……
    the bottom line…
    “Congress is really our last, best hope for solving this.”

    Thank you,
    Pearl Rains Hewett
    ————————
    Sent and received by Team Lankford!
    Thanks
    Thank you for reaching out to Team Lankford! Your form has been successfully submitted. Someone on our team will get back to you as soon as possible.
    ———————————————————————————
    I have three (3) mostly, usually, unconcerned, unresponsive elected representative in WA DC
    Rep. Derek Kilmer, and Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell.
    And, I have three (3) mostly, usually, unconcerned, unresponsive elected representative in WA State
    Rep. Steve Tharinger, Kevin Van De Wege and Senator Jim Hargrove
    And, I have three (3) mostly, usually, unconcerned, unresponsive elected representative, Commissioners in Clallam County WA.

    ————
    I have been, well… sort of howling at all nine (9) of them, mostly D-WA representatives, sending them emails, and asking them questions for years.. about restricted public and private land use, among other things.

    And, all nine (9) of my elected representatives are mostly D-WA, are mostly, usually, unconcerned and unresponsive. period.

    Like, I might as well have been howling at the moon…

    ———————————————————-
    Fortunately, My grandson set up this website for me… registered 2013-01-29.
    Today is 2016-01-23, I’ve spent nearly three years researching, documenting and posting over 650 comments on restricted public and private land use, among other things.
    —————————————————————————–
    Well, Like I said….
    IF YOU WANT AN ELECTED FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVE TO “LISTEN” TO YOUR COMPLAINTS AND RESPOND.. SENATOR LANKFORD, IS YOUR GO TO MAN.
    ———————————————————————-
    My comments matter, as a matter of fact… I even got a Christmas card

    (I know a robo card)

    However, the bottom line on Senator Lankford Christmas card is…
    Stay Connected!
    If you would like more information on these topics or any other legislation currently before the U.S. Senate, please do not hesitate to call my D.C. office at (202) 224-5754. My Oklahoma City office can be reached at (405) 231-4941 and my Tulsa office at (918) 581-7651. You can also follow me on Facebook or Twitter or Instagram for updates on my work in Congress.
    —– Original Message —–
    From: Sen. James Lankford
    To: phew@wavecable.com
    Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 7:20 AM
    Subject: Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

    ————————————————————-

    BACK TO THE HOWLING…

    Public lands ‘listening’ session brings howls of complaints …
    www.deseretnews.com/…/Public-lands-listening-session-bri…

    WHO’S LISTENING?
    Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, Jason Chaffetz R-Utah, Rob Bishop R-Utah, as well as Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Arkansas
    ———————————————————————————
    I received the following information in an email from Liz Bowen Pie N Politics in California.
    full text…
    By Amy Joi O’Donoghue,
    Deseret News
    Published: Friday, Jan. 22 2016 10:00 p.m. MST
    ST. GEORGE — Four U.S. congressmen spent several hours Friday hearing a litany of complaints asserting federal land management agencies are harming families and livelihoods and need to be reigned in — if not eliminated altogether.
    Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, convened the session in St. George — part of his congressional district — to let county leaders and others air their views on federal public lands management in Utah.
    The list of grievances was long: grazing reductions, wild horse and burro overpopulation, agencies colluding with environmental groups in illegal, backdoor meetings, heavy-handed law enforcement tactics and dismissive attitudes by faceless bureaucrats that are harming rural life in Utah.
    “Is there any question or any wonder why people are angry? It seems glaringly obvious to me why people are angry,” Stewart said.
    “It did not used to be this way, and it does not have to be this way in the future.”
    Commissioners from six rural counties in Utah implored Stewart and Reps. Jason Chaffetz and Rob Bishop, R-Utah, as well as Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Arkansas, to fix what’s wrong with the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service, emphasizing they’re at the breaking point.
    “Elected officials have tried to protect their constituents from the overreach the best we can, but it is tough to compete with special interest groups,” said Washington County Commissioner Victor Iverson. “Congress is really our last, best hope for solving this.”
    Iverson and others blasted agencies for “sue and settle” policies that have left Western lands in paralysis for grazing, timber production, ranching and other uses.
    “Range management is more a result of lawsuit than science,” Iverson said. “Special interest groups sue the land management agencies and they agree to settle on terms that do not benefit the general public and are almost never disclosed. … There is an overabundance of failed public policies.”
    Beaver County Commissioner Tammy Pearson described struggling ranchers held hostage by the proliferation of wild horses that are ruining a drought-striken range for cattle, wildlife and other uses.
    Pearson, a rancher herself, said the situation is dire.
    “Producers have exhausted their financial reserves, have lost their faith in federal agencies and have been backed into a corner by those agencies and so-called environmentalists and advocacy groups,”

    she said. “This grief has caused the uprisings that we see in Nevada, Oregon, and quite possibly in Utah.”
    Westerman, who said the BLM does not operate in his state, said it was clear to him there is a problem that has to be addressed.
    “We are all going to have disagreements on something as passionate as how federal public lands are used. It is more the process that I am worried about. Broken promises. Collusion. Lack of trust. Closed door meetings, circumvention of the law and double standards. Those are not the kind of words that are beneficial to our country regardless of what location you are at.”
    Stewart told the crowd he is committed to finding a solution given the realities that are playing out in Utah and elsewhere in the West.
    “You cannot protect Utah families if you don’t give them hope for the future,” he said. “And you can’t give them hope for the future if they feel like the federal government has a boot at their throat.”
    Email: amyjoi@deseretnews.com
    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865646022/Public-lands-listening-session-brings-howls-of-complaints-against-feds.html
    —————————————————————————

    Congressional committee rails on BLM over Washington …

    WOW Snippets, full text below….

    “These issues are not only important to not only Utah, they are important to the whole country,”

    Members of a congressional subcommittee skewered the acting director of the Bureau of Land Management of Utah Friday over a proposed land use plan they say ignores the will of residents and the letter of a 2009 public lands law for Washington County.

    “We are here because Congress is hearing a crescendo of complaints about

    “We are here to get to the bottom of it.”

    BLM tactics and policies across the country, and St. George seems to be a poster child of BLM bad behavior,” said Tom McClintock, R-California and chairman of the House Natural Resources Federal Subcommittee.

    The agency’s preferred action in the land use plan released last year proposes to reduce grazing by 40 percent in those national conservation areas,

    restrict St. George’s access to up to 37 percent of its water

    and does not include a northern transportation corridor through the Red Cliffs area in Washington County, according to critics.

    —————————————————————————-

    Ful ltext

    Congressional committee rails on BLM over Washington …

    www.deseretnews.com/…/Congressionalcommitteerails-on
    Deseret News

    23 hours ago – Congressional committee rails on BLM over Washington County land … about a Bureau of Land Management proposed land use plan they …

    ST. GEORGE — Members of a congressional subcommittee skewered the acting director of the Bureau of Land Management of Utah Friday over a proposed land use plan they say ignores the will of residents and the letter of a 2009 public lands law for Washington County.

    “We are here because Congress is hearing a crescendo of complaints about

    “We are here to get to the bottom of it.”

    The subcommittee convened the rare field hearing after McClintock said they’d heard a litany of complaints over the BLM’s draft resource management plans proposed for the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs National Conservation Areas.

    The plan is being crafted as a result of the 2009 Public Lands Omnibus Act, which McClintock said embodied the spirit of compromise and was held up as a model for locally generated public lands planning across the nation.

    “This subcommittee doesn’t normally hold hearings on individual land use plans. But it appears that the BLM, which administers nearly half of the land area of Washington County, has ignored the will of Congress and thumbed its nose at the people whose taxes support this government and whose livelihoods and quality of life are now directly threatened by it.”

    The agency’s preferred action in the land use plan released last year proposes to reduce grazing by 40 percent in those national conservation areas, restrict St. George’s access to up to 37 percent of its water and does not include a northern transportation corridor through the Red Cliffs area in Washington County, according to critics.

    Washington County Commission Chairman Alan Gardner and St. George Mayor Jon Pike both testified at the hearing — held at the Dixie Convention Center in St. George — that they were left out of BLM’s planning process and surprised at the plan’s components when it was released.

    “I would have expected to have had many discussions with the BLM about all of these issues that have been raised today,” Pike said,

    particularly since they concern water rights.

    “I would have liked to have had those conversations before the plan was released.”

    Acting BLM Utah Director Jenna Whitlock defended her agency and disputed the allegation local elected officials were not involved in the planning stages.

    “We really feel like we have a good record,” she said, adding she believes the proposed plan follows the 2009 law.

    The hearing, which was attended by Utah Reps. Jason Chaffetz, Chris Stewart and Rob Bishop, drew sympathetic comments from Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Arkansas, who said these divisive land issues impact everyone.

    “These issues are not only important to not only Utah, they are important to the whole country,” he said, adding that he had read about the controversy 1,000 miles away in his home state. “It appears to me that the law is being ignored, this law passed by Congress. This seems to be a pattern with the BLM. … Do you recognize that you are creating some really bad publicity for the BLM across the country?”

    ———————————————————————–

    I am compelled to insert this comment.

    “If you want to understand why so many people distrust the federal government, this is a good example,” @RepChrisStewart re BLM plans

    ————————————————————————

    And, this  comment.

    Iverson and others blasted agencies for “sue and settle” policies that have left Western lands in paralysis for grazing, timber production, ranching and other uses.

    The issue of “WILD NON-PROFITS”  undue partisan influence on the US government, is not only important to Utah, the “WILD NON-PROFITS” are a threat to the Public use of public  and private land in the whole country.

    ———————————————————————————

    Friday’s hearing was packed with members of the public sporting “Wild Utah” pins who are supportive of BLM’s planning efforts that are designed to conserve the desert tortoise, which was added to the Endangered Species list in 1990 and conserve desert landscapes.

    Paul Van Dam, one of the witnesses who testified at the subcommittee hearing, said the BLM is a responsive agency and was engaged with the public while it crafted its proposed plan.

    ———————————————————–

    Really…”If you want to understand why so many people distrust the federal government, this is a good example,” @RepChrisStewart re BLM plans

    —————————————————-

    “I have dealt with the BLM for a long time,” said Van Dam, who used to head up the grass-roots environmental organization called Citizens for Dixie’s Future. “My experiences are positive.”

    —————————————————————————–

    Sorry, I can’t resist this one..

    no duh… radical non-profits usually do have a positive experience with the BLM

    ———————————————————–
    the bottom line…

    “These issues are not only important to not only Utah, they are important to the whole country,”
    Email your comments to Senator Lankford, Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, Jason Chaffetz R-Utah, Rob Bishop R-Utah, as well as Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Arkansas they are are listening..

    Rep. Chris Stewart told the crowd he is committed to finding a solution given the realities that are playing out in Utah and elsewhere in the West.

    “Congress is really our last, best hope for solving this.”
    Thank you,
    Pearl Rains Hewett


  • Congress Must Act on Water Issues

    Congress Must Act on Water Issues

    May 24, 2014 It takes an act of the U.S. Congress to make SETTLEMENT/QUANTITY (AC-FT/YR) of reserved water rights with Indian tribes.

    ——————–
    Our Federal Elected Representatives, as members of congress, Must Act on Water Issues

    ———————————————————————–

    Today, December 3, 2015 Rep. Greg Walden released a draft water agreement (A 69 PAGE DOCUMENT)
    114TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H.R._______________
    (a) SHORT TITLE
    This Act may be cited as the Klamath Basin Water Recovery and Economic Restoration Act of 2015.

    Rep. Greg Walden PROPOSED DRAFT FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATION IS A PREREQUISITE TO SOLVING LONG TERM WATER ISSUES, On, quantities of Indian Reserved water rights that have not yet been determined or settled by congress.

    INDEED, IT DOES TAKE AN ACT OF THE U.S. CONGRESS TO APPROVE AND IMPLEMENT WATER BASIN AGREEMENTS, TO IMPROVE NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, SUPPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND SUSTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN RIVER BASINS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

    —————————————————————————

    December 3, 2015 NEW POST ON PIE N POLITICS

    SUMMARY OF REP. GREG WALDEN’S 69 PAGE DRAFT KLAMATH LEGISLATION
    WATER CERTAINTY FOR AGRICULTURE: The draft authorizes and implements the water agreements in both the Upper Klamath Basin and the Klamath Project, providing for a long-term and certain water supply for farmers and ranchers.

    POWER CERTAINTY FOR AGRICULTURE:
    The draft directs the federal Bureau of Reclamation to provide affordable power for farmers, ranchers, and communities in the Basin.

    TRANSFER OF FEDERAL FOREST LANDS TO KLAMATH AND SISKIYOU COUNTIES: The draft transfers 100,000 acres of U.S. Forest Service land each to Klamath and Siskiyou counties. The lands would be used for timber production to grow jobs in rural communities and improve forest health.

    TRANSFER OF FEDERAL LANDS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO KLAMATH TRIBES IN EXCHANGE FOR WAIVING SENIOR WATER RIGHTS:

    UNDER THE DRAFT, THE KLAMATH TRIBES WOULD WAIVE THEIR SENIOR WATER RIGHTS CLAIMS.

    IN EXCHANGE, THE TRIBES WOULD RECEIVE 100,000 ACRES OF U.S. FOREST SERVICE LAND FOR TIMBER PRODUCTION ALONG WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS FOR TRIBAL MEMBERS.

    NO FEDERAL DAM REMOVAL: THE DRAFT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE, FUND, OR EXPEDITE FEDERAL DAM REMOVAL. That process is left up to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It also does not create federal liability from dam removal.
    —————————————————————————————-
    Our Federally Elected Representatives for WA State, as members of congress, Must Act on long term solutions to citizens Water Issues.

    Behind My Back | High, Dry and Destitute

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/01/highdry-and-destitute/

    Feb 1, 2015 – High, Dry and Destitute WA State citizens, private property owners and farmers, in Skagit and Clallam County have been left HIGH, DRY AND …

    ———————————————————————

    I am sending this demand to my elected Rep. Derek Kilmer and Senators Murray and Cantwell.

    ————————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | Tribal Water Approved by Congress?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/05/24/tribalwaterapproved-by-congress/

    May 24, 2014 – SETTLEMENTS APPROVED BY CONGRESS Updated August 2011 … (2) Fallon Paiute Shoshone Indian Tribes Water Rights Settlement Act of …

    ——————————————————————————————
    http://www.heraldandnews.com/breaking/walden-releases-draft-water-agreement/article_c2f39ac4-99f5-11e5-8bdc-0f740314a1ce.html?utm_medium
    Liz Bowen | December 3, 2015 at 5:41 pm | Categories: Klamath River & Dams | URL: http://wp.me/p13fnu-6oc


  • Olympic Peninsula OLYMPEX Water Project

    Olympic Peninsula OLYMPEX Water Project

    WOW…NASA IS LAUNCHING A SATELLITE TOGETHER WITH THE NASDA SPACE AGENCY OF JAPAN

    IT’S ALL ABOUT WATER.. the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) over the entire Earth.

    ———————————————
    AND, WOW…..THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA IS AN IDEAL LOCATION to conduct a Ground Validation (GV) campaign for the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM)

    ————————————
    YES Indeed, OLYMPEX  IS THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA WATER PROJECT

    ——————————————————–
    IT’S ALL ABOUT ALL OF OUR WATER ON THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA.

    EVERY SINGLE DROP.
    AND, you better pay attention…One of the most comprehensive ground validation (GV) field campaigns for GPM will be held from November 2015 through February 2016 ON THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST OF THE UNITED STATES.

    UW/OLYMPEX Home Page

    ————————————————————————-
    My tip of the day? A benign email?

    Water is essential to life
    From: Streamkeepers [mailto:Streamkeepers@co.clallam.wa.us]
    Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 2:32 PM (full text at the very bottom)
    —————————————————————–
    WE THE PEOPLE ON THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA ARE BEING TARGETED WITH AN INTERNATIONAL WATER PROJECT CALLED THE GLOBAL PRECIPITATION MEASUREMENT (GPM) PROGRAM.

    Satellite Water Surveillance

    ———————————————————————————
    WHY US?

    BECAUSE? THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA IS AN “IDEAL LOCATION” TO CONDUCT A GV CAMPAIGN FOR GPM.
    It is situated within an active mid-latitude winter storm track in the northwest corner of Washington State. It reliably receives among the highest annual precipitation amounts in North America ranging from over 2500 mm on the coast to about 4000 mm in the mountainous interior.

    —————————————————————
    WHY US?

    BECAUSE? THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA IS AN “IDEAL SIZE” TO CONDUCT A GV CAMPAIGN FOR GPM.
    This unique venue is of an ideal size for A FIELD CAMPAIGN INVOLVING AIRCRAFT, RADARS AND OTHER GROUND-BASED SENSORS.
    Added for clarity of other, a satellite with a dual frequency (Ka and Ku band) radar and passive microwave sensors (10-183 GHz frequencies)

    ——————————————————

    WHY OLYMPEX?

    OLYMPEX will be able to monitor the storm characteristics and processes over the ocean, their modification over complex terrain and the resulting hydrologic impacts.

    WHY OLYMPEX?

    OLYMPEX is ideally suited to quantify the accuracy and sources of variability and uncertainty inherent to GPM measurements in such a varied region.
    ————————————————————————————
    OLYMPEX THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA IDEAL LOCATION WATER PROJECT
    —————————————————————————————
    OUTLINE ON OLYMPEX

    OLYMPEX will be conducted as an integrated validation program that will simultaineously address several GPM goals:

    To address the broad focus of OLYMPEX, the ground validation program will include accurate measurements of all aspects of the hydrological cycle on a range of spatial and temporal scales.

    Specifically, OLYMPEX will monitor and measure the following quantities:

    These requirements will be met with an integrated approach, including:

    ————————————————————–

    THE BOTTOM LINE ON OLYMPEX

    Through this combination of surface-based instrumentation, snowpack monitoring strategies, multi-frequency radars, aircraft satellite simulators, aircraft and surface-based microphysical measurements, hydrologic measurements and numerical model estimates of many of these quantities, OLYMPEX will provide an unprecedented integrated picture of the surface and in-cloud microphysical properties and their variability that can be transferred to wide-range meteorological and topographic conditions.
    ——————————————————————————–

     

    OLYMPEX Summary

    The current Operations Plan is here.
     The NASA Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) program together with the NASDA space agency of Japan will launch a satellite with a dual frequency (Ka and Ku band) radar and passive microwave sensors (10-183 GHz frequencies) for measuring precipitation over the Earth. This satellite will serve as a calibration reference for a constellation of satellites operated by several countries. It is crucial to validate the GPM satellite measurements at various location around the world. The NASA GPM Ground Validation Program is coordinating ground validation field campaigns at key locations. One of the most comprehensive ground validation field campaigns for GPM will be held from November 2015 through February 2016 on the Olympic Peninsula in the Pacific Northwest of the United States.

    ———————————————-

    The primary goal of this campaign, called OLYMPEX, is to validate rain and snow measurements in midlatitude frontal systems moving from ocean to coast to mountains and to determine how remotely sensed measurements of precipitation by GPM can be applied to a range of hydrologic, weather forecasting and climate data.

    ———————————————————-
    The Olympic Peninsula is an ideal location to conduct a GV campaign for GPM. It is situated within an active mid-latitude winter storm track in the northwest corner of Washington State. It reliably receives among the highest annual precipitation amounts in North America ranging from over 2500 mm on the coast to about 4000 mm in the mountainous interior. This unique venue is of an ideal size for a field campaign involving aircraft, radars and other ground-based sensors. OLYMPEX will be able to monitor the storm characteristics and processes over the ocean, their modification over complex terrain and the resulting hydrologic impacts. OLYMPEX is ideally suited to quantify the accuracy and sources of variability and uncertainty inherent to GPM measurements in such a varied region.
    OLYMPEX will be conducted as an integrated validation program that will simultaineously address several GPM goals:
     Physical validation of the precipitation (rain and snow) algorithms for both the GPM MIcrowave Imager (GMI) and Dual-Frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR).
     How precipitation mechanisms in midlatitude frontal systems and their modification by terrain affect GPM rainfall estimation uncertainties.
     Quantifying the accuracy and uncertainty of the GPM precipitation data and its hydrologic applicability.
     Merging numerical modeling and satellite observations to optimize precipitation estimation in hybrid monitoring systems of the future.

    —————————————————————————–
    To address the broad focus of OLYMPEX, the ground validation program will include accurate measurements of all aspects of the hydrological cycle on a range of spatial and temporal scales.

    Specifically, OLYMPEX will monitor and measure the following quantities:
     Seasonal accumulation of the snowpack (in terms of snow water equivalent, or SWE) over the higher terrain, and its variability in the rain/snow transition zone.
     The storm-by-storm liquid and frozen precipitation at multiple sites over the coast, the lowlands, foothills and mountains.
     The upstream meteorological conditions over the Pacific Ocean.
     Brightband variability in height and over ocean, coastal and mountain surfaces.
     Microphysical properties within all sectors of midlatitude storms, before and after their passage over complex terrain.
     Emissivity of a variety of surfaces including the ocean, coastal lowlands, forest and snow-covered mountains.
     River response and runoff.

    ———————————————————————
    These requirements will be met with an integrated approach, including:
     Surface precipitation gauge networks and snowpack monitoring instrumentation.
     Accurate surface measurements of falling liquid and solid precipitation using a combination of radar and gauge instruments.
     Disdrometer networks to measure microphysical properties of falling hydrometeors.
     A suite of scanning, dual-polarization and vertically pointing surface-based radars.
     Satellite-simulator and microphysical measurements from aircraft.
     Stream flow monitoring.
     Use of numerical modeling tuned with ground-based data to estimate microphysical properties of precipitation and accumulated snow on the ground for the more remote areas where it is difficult to obtain direct surface measurements.

    —————————————————————————-

    THE BOTTOM LINE
    Through this combination of surface-based instrumentation, snowpack monitoring strategies, multi-frequency radars, aircraft satellite simulators, aircraft and surface-based microphysical measurements, hydrologic measurements and numerical model estimates of many of these quantities, OLYMPEX will provide an unprecedented integrated picture of the surface and in-cloud microphysical properties and their variability that can be transferred to wide-range meteorological and topographic conditions.

    For questions, contact Lynn McMurdie)

    ———————————————————————-
    My tip of the day? The benign email….
    From: Streamkeepers [mailto:Streamkeepers@co.clallam.wa.us]
    Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 2:32 PM
    Citizen Scientists Needed to Monitor Olympic Precipitation
    Water is essential to life. Our changing climate is making the dry season longer, reducing snowpack in the mountains, and increasing the runoff from rainstorms. New technology promises to help us monitor the amount, timing and type of precipitation. The Olympic Peninsula has been selected as a proving ground to calibrate the instrumentation and interpretation of the data. The project is called OLYMPEX and it is being coordinated by the University of Washington. They are asking for our help in collecting precipitation data; and the more data we can provide to the project, the better the precipitation, snowpack, water supply, runoff, habitat, and flooding information will be in our area. Go here to learn how you can get your rain gauge and where to report your data. The rain gauge cost is about $30.


  • 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.


  • Pie N Politics page (1)

    Pie N Politics page (1)

    Pie N Politics. Like many areas of the United States, citizens in Siskiyou County are finding government regulations are destroying their RIGHTS. This includes …

    Pie N Politics.com was created by the Scott Valley PROTECT OUR WATER (POW), which said “NO” to California Dept. of Fish and Game, when the agency began demanding landowners purchase a PERMIT to use their legally-owned irrigation water. Siskiyou farmers, ranchers and landowners are leaders in this battle.

    This is the statement I found on their website

    Pie N Politics  Like many areas of the United States, citizens in Siskiyou County are finding government regulations are destroying their RIGHTS. This includes Water Rights, Property Rights and Individual Rights. We believe in the Constitutions of the United States and State of California that provide RIGHTS for its citizens. We also believe these RIGHTS are being systematically reduced, which is resulting in tyranny from our governments — at all levels.

    Under the U.S. Constitution, the government should serve the people!

    ——————————————————————————————–

    SOUND FAMILIAR? … in many areas of the United States, citizens are finding government regulations are destroying their RIGHTS……

    Pie N Politics was set up because “Water is Worth Fighting For”

    behindmyback.org was set up because  “When Citizens of the United States of American are afraid of what their government is going to do to them, that is unacceptable to me”

    ———————————————————————————————–

    My grandson set up my website. “behindmyback.org … . is dedicated to investigating, researching,Informing U.S. Citizens of how various government agencies are violating the Constitution, taking away private property rights, and infringing on …

    Another grandson’s comment to me on Stop the Wild Olympics said…

    “Keep on fighting, somebody’s got to.”

    Pie N Politics? Liz Bowen

    Grandma N Politics? Pearl Rains Hewett, behindmyback.org

    ———————————————————————————————–

    When women address issues, they have a more pragmatic approach, dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

    What is the PROBLEM?  Who? What? When? Where? and Why?

    It doesn’t  take much, for a woman to connect the dots and figure it out, it is not just one government problem.

    It is the trickle down effect, both water and fear run downhill from WA DC. to our state level, to our local level and “We the People” are finding government regulations are destroying citizens  RIGHTS. This includes Water Rights, Property Rights and Individual Rights.

    Various government agencies are violating the Constitution, taking away private property rights, and infringing on  our right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness…

    We also believe these RIGHTS are being systematically reduced, which is resulting in tyranny from our governments — AT ALL LEVELS.

    ————————————————————————-

    Jul 1, 2015 – My website, behindmyback.org, is dedicated to investigating, researching, documenting, updating and disseminating critical information to ..

    —————————————————————————————-

    Of course, Women may also be effected and effective with the “mama bear” phenomenon.  A biological bit of “I am woman watch me roar.” Call it the “Mama Bear N Politics”

    I insist on using HUMOR and I love  this description.

    I may seem quiet and reserved, but if you mess with my children, I will break out a level of crazy that will make your nightmares seem like a happy place.

    Hmmm… I have three children, ten grandchildren and eight great grandchildren and the government is messing with their future.

    ————————————————————————————–

    What is the PROBLEM?  Who? What? When? Where? and Why?

    One thing leads to another, Pie N Politics website  may have started with water, but,  I found this posted by them online.

    And, the good news on this day, is

    Veterans Adminstration employee charged with falsifying medical records

    Veterans & soldiers

    Department of Justice
    U.S. Attorney’s Office
    Southern District of Georgia
    ________________________________________
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Friday, July 17, 2015

    VA Employee Charged With Falsifying Medical Records Of Numerous Veterans

    AUGUSTA, GA: A 50-count indictment, unsealed today in federal court, has charged Cathedral Henderson, 50, a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employee and the former Chief of Fee Basis over non-VA Care at the Charlie Norwood VA Medical Center in Augusta, Georgia, with crimes related to his alleged falsification of the medical records of numerous VA patients. The indictment alleges that Henderson terminated unresolved consults – medical appointments that had not been scheduled or completed – by falsely stating in VA patients’ medical records that “services have been completed or patient refused services.”
    United States Attorney Edward Tarver stated, “The crimes alleged in this indictment are troubling. Our VA officials and employees are entrusted with the health and welfare of some of the most honorable and vulnerable in our nation – our veterans. Patients, doctors, nurses and hospitals rely heavily upon the truth and accuracy of our permanent medical records. The intentional falsification of veterans’ medical records is a serious offense and will not be tolerated.”
    Assistant Inspector General for Investigations Quentin G. Aucoin stated, “The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) vigorously investigates allegations regarding VA employees who alter medical records with false statements in order to conceal unfulfilled consults for medical procedures. These alleged actions give the appearance that medical care was rendered or, in some cases, the appearance that veterans declined medical care. Alterations of medical records and false statements in these records needlessly expose patients to harm and also undermine the integrity of VA data relied upon by VA decision-makers, who oversee and manage operations.”
    Henderson has been charged with 50 counts of making false statements. If convicted, Henderson faces a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on each count. An indictment is only an accusation and is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is entitled to a fair trial, during which it will be the Government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
    The case was investigated by Special Agents from the VA-OIG’s Office of Investigations, with assistance from clinical staff in the VA-OIG’s Office of Healthcare Inspections. Assistant United States Attorney Lamont Belk is prosecuting the case on behalf of the United States. Any questions should be directed to First Assistant United States Attorney James D. Durham at (912) 201-2547.

    USAO – Georgia, Southern District
    Updated July 21, 2015

    —————————————————————————-

     As the Editor of Pie N Politics Liz Bowen said…. In a previous Quote…

    Boy this sure didn’t make the news! —

    Assistant United States Attorney Lamont Belk is prosecuting the case on behalf of the United States. Any questions should be directed to First Assistant United States Attorney James D. Durham at (912) 201-2547.

    —————————————————————-

    Never underestimate the power of cyberspace

    Word gets around in cyberspace, round and round and round it goes and where it stops nobody knows.

    Pie N Politics » An observation on “WILD” from Pearl Rains …

    pienpolitics.com/?p=9958

    An observation on “WILD” from Pearl Rains Hewett. May 17, 2012. Federal gov & land grabs. WILD OLYMPICS over 300 million are deprived the full use and …

    Over three years later this “WILD” observation  is still going round and round and round in cyberspace

    I highly recommend this website.

     


  • Past and Present Drought in WA State

    History of Droughts in Washington State

    An interesting read on WA State DROUGHT PLANS

    BEFORE THE INSTREAM FLOW RULES.

    History of Droughts in Washington State_1977.pdf  A 43 page document

    ———————————————————————————–

    PRESENT DROUGHT PLANS FOR CITIZENS IN WA STATE?

    AFTER THE INSTREAM FLOW RULES?

    May 24, 2015  The WA statewide drought emergency PLAN?.

    Hmmm…  LAWMAKERS have yet to act on DOE’s request for $9.6 million in drought relief funds. The request came in late March, weeks after legislators began putting together spending plans.

    UPDATE: WHAT’S THE HOLDUP ON THE $9.6 MILLION IN DROUGHT RELIEF FUNDS?

    What’s the problem?

    WATER FOR CITIZENS IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR…

    IT’S A VALUE JUDGMENT

    At a drought committee meeting Monday, Honeyford reminded Stanford that he had been willing to embrace Stanford’s drought preparation bill in exchange for the House approving legislation to let the city of Lynden draw water from the Nooksack River in Whatcom County.

    Tribes and environmental groups oppose the bill, which passed the Senate.

    ————————————————————————-

    THE “CITIZENS  REVIEW” OF ECOLOGY’S DROUGHT PLANS IN WA STATE?

    What YOU can expect at a COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUM?

    This  Report by Lois Krafsky-Perry
    for Citizen Review
    Posted Saturday, May 23, 2015

    Sequim/Dungeness community listens to drought concerns

    IT’S A MUST READ

    http://citizenreviewonline.org/sequimdungeness-community-listens-to-drought-concerns/

    CITIZENS REVIEW  is an online  resource for disseminating critical information to keep citizens informed

    —————————————————————————————————

    AS PROVIDED ABOVE BY LOIS…

    We the people have partners too….

    My website, behindmyback.org,  is dedicated to investigating, researching, documenting, UPDATING and disseminating critical information to help keep American citizens informed by posting and reporting things they don’t know. This is just one chapter in the book of revelations by Pearl Revere.

    ————————————————————————————————

     A 43 page document History of Droughts in Washington State_1977.pdf

    MEDIA Drought alert Sun., Feb. 6, 1977  

    WOW! THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    Dear Reader: On February 16, 1977, Governor Dixy Lee Ray established the “Governor’s … drought occurrences in the State of Washington since 1900. Various.

    OCR Text

    Northwest Officials ponder energy outlook By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Some nfflntnla HUn n*a« nn n_.. «-L. nn«<m.»». .i~-i_i_n.. M .-. THE DAILY NEWS—21 Angeles, Wash., Sun., Feb. 6, 1977

    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Nervous government weather- watchers are mobilizing for battle should a Pacific Northwest drought short-circuit electric power and whither crops this spring. Homeowners may be asked — or forced — to reduce their electrical use. During Christmas, Seattle City Light asked its 370,000 customers not to use outdoor decorative lighting. Further sacrifices may be around the corner if a serious drought occurs.

    —————————————————————————-

    MEDIA COVERAGE?   2015 WA STATE DROUGHT?  

    NOT SO MUCH..

    CAPITAL PRESS  Published:  

    Their full media report is  here

    Washington’s late reaction to drought revives legislation …

    www.capitalpress.com/Washington/…/washingtons-late-react

    Capital Press May 14, 2015 – A House bill to revise how the state prepares for a drought sank in the Senate, but may resurface in the special session.

    ——————————————————————————-

    Ecology’s  current drought report is sort of an interesting reading.

    Last revised: May 22, 2015

    Washington Drought 2015 | Washington State Department …

    www.ecy.wa.gov/drought/

    3 days ago – Washington State Weekly Drought Update – Office of Washington State … Current Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) % of Normal – View Map …

    ——————————————————–

    And more history…. a response from Ecology

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Marti, Jeff (ECY)

    To: pearl hewett

    Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 5:23 PM

    Subject: RE: History of Droughts in Washington State

    Pearl, good sleuthing.   1977 was indeed a bad drought year, which triggered the (still ongoing) Yakima water rights adjudication.

    Here’s a couple more reports that you might find interesting.

    Jeff

    ————————————

    Jeff Marti

    Water Resources Program

    360-407-6627

    jeff.marti@ecy.wa.gov

    2005 Drought Response Report to the Legislature

    www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0611001.html

    • 2005 Drought Response Report to the Legislature … While it is generally viewed as a climate anomaly, in fact drought is the dry part of the normal climate cycle.

    Drought Response 2001: Report to the Legislature

    www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0111017.html

    Author(s), Curt Hart. Description, This legislative report outlines how the state agencies responsible for managing Washington’s emergency drought activities .

    ——————————————————————————-

    History of Droughts in Washington State 1900 to 1977 etc…

    Title History of Droughts in Washington State
    Publication Type Report
    Year of Publication 1977
    Authors Staff, GAHEWEC
    Keywords climate, droughts, environment, historic, history, washington, water
    Title History of Droughts in Washington State
    Publication Type Report
    Year of Publication 1977
    Authors Staff, GAHEWEC
    Keywords climate, droughts, environment, historic, history, washington, water

     



  • Are You A Normal Person?

    Are You A Normal Person?

    The is a DIRECT QUOTE OF ECOLOGY’S ANSWER  to a basic question.

    Aren’t people more important than fish?

    IF YOU’RE A NORMAL PERSON, YOU’D ANSWER “YES, PEOPLE USUALLY ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH.”

    HOWEVER, the issue of instream flow isn’t that simple.  It actually boils down to a “VALUE JUDGMENT” of what we want our world to look like.

    ————————————————————————

    VALUE JUDGMENT by definition

    An assessment of a person, situation, or event. The term is often restricted to assessments that reveal the values of the person making the assessment rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

    ——————————————————————————–

    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY  Answers to your basic questions,

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isf101.html

    ————————————————————————————————-

    ARE INSTREAM FLOWS ALL ABOUT PROTECTING FISH? WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE?

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

    SO? WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE?

    ARE YOU A NORMAL PERSON?

     By definition.. NORMAL is also used to describe individual behaviour that CONFORMS TO THE MOST COMMON BEHAVIOUR IN SOCIETY (known as conformity). Definitions of normality vary by person, time, place, and situation – it changes along with changing societal standards and norms.

    —————————————————————-

    ARE PEOPLE USUALLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH?

    By definition.. USUALLY?

    1. Commonly encountered, experienced, or observed

    2. Regularly or customarily used

    3. In CONFORMITY with regular practice or procedure:

    ———————————————————————————

    ARE PEOPLE  MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH?

    USUALLY…….

    By definition.. HOWEVER

    1. In spite of that

    2. nevertheless

    3.  by whatever means

    4.  in whatever manner

    ——————————————————————

    It actually boils down to aVALUE JUDGMENT” (by definition)

    An assessment of a person, situation, or event. The term is often restricted TO ASSESSMENTS THAT REVEAL THE VALUES OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSESSMENT rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

    ———————————————————————————

    THE VALUES OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSESSMENT?

     WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY VALUES FISH BEFORE PEOPLE?

     —————————————————————————

    Hmmm… THE $$$ VALUES  OF EARTH ECONOMICS ?

    devoted to promoting ecosystem health and ecological economics

    ———————————————————————-

    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY

    Introduction to Instream Flows and Instream Flow Rules
    Answers to your basic questions,

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isf101.html

    ———————————————————————————

    What was the question?

    Are instream flows all about protecting fish? What about people?

    What was ECOLOGY’S Answer?

    Isn’t instream flow really an issue of “water for fish” vs. “water for people”?  Aren’t people more important than fish?  If you’re a normal person, you’d answer “yes, people usually are more important than fish.”  However, the issue of instream flow isn’t that simple.  It actually boils down to a value judgment of what we want our world to look like.  Fish are in fact just one of many organisms that live in streams but they often offer a gauge of overall environmental health.

     Instream flow is an issue of water and river management – seeking ways to maintain healthy, diverse ecosystems that contribute to a high quality of life while sustaining our basic life functions and economies.  Accomplishing this goal is never easy, as it involves integration of scientific knowledge and societal demands within a set of legal limitations.

    But informed and effective instream flow management should afford a healthy, enjoyable existence for people while maintaining healthy, diverse aquatic resources.   It’s much more complicated than “keeping a little water in the creek for the fish.”

    Instream Flow Council

    ————————————————————————————–

    WA STATE ELECTED LEGISLATORS VALUE JUDGMENT?

     INSTREAM FLOW IS AN ISSUE OF WATER FOR CITIZENS

    An assessment of a person, situation, or event. THE TERM IS OFTEN RESTRICTED TO ASSESSMENTS THAT REVEAL THE VALUES OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSESSMENT rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

    —————————————————————-

    THE OBJECTIVE REALITIES OF WHAT IS BEING ASSESSED?

    Start here

    EVEN,  BEFORE GOVERNOR INSLEE’S WA STATE DROUGHT DECLARATION

    INSTREAM FLOW WAS AN ISSUE OF WATER FOR CITIZENS

    ——————————————————–

    Behind My Back | High, Dry and Destitute

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/01/highdry-and-destitute/

    Feb 1, 2015 – High, Dry and Destitute WA State citizens, private property owners and farmers, in Skagit and Clallam County have been left HIGH, DRY AND 

    DESTITUTE  by definition, WITHOUT THE BASIC NECESSITIES OF LIFE.

    ———————————————————————————-

    WHAT’S NEXT?

    AFTER, GOVERNOR INSLEE’S WA STATE DROUGHT DECLARATION?

    INSTREAM FLOW IS NOW A  CRITICAL ISSUE OF WATER FOR CITIZENS

    —————————————————-

    WHAT’S NEXT?

    Community Drought Forum

    May 21, 2015

    6:00-8:30PM

    Guy Cole Convention Center

    202 North Blake Avenue, Sequim, WA 98382

     ————————————————————-

    Please GO PUBLIC with this.

    Invite every “CITIZEN” that is critically affected by

    Ecology’s WA State Drought Response?

    2015 Dungeness Dry Year Leasing Program FAQs

    GOT QUESTIONS? WANT ANSWERS?

    PLEASE  attend this Clallam County Community Drought Forum

    JEFF MARTI DROUGHT COORDINATOR WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WILL BE THERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

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

    ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT ECOLOGY’S WATER VALUE JUDGMENT?

    GOT QUESTIONS? WANT ANSWERS?

    WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WRAC)

    Meetings are normally attended by about FORTY PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT STATE AGENCIES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, WATER UTILITIES, INDIAN TRIBES, ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, CONSULTANTS, LAW FIRMS AND OTHER WATER STAKEHOLDERS. 

     GOT QUESTIONS? WANT ANSWERS?

    CONTACT

    Chris Anderson
    Department of Ecology, Water Resources Program
    e-mail: chris.anderson@ecy.wa.gov
    Phone: 360-407-6634

     


  • WA Drought Tribes Fish and Water

    INFLUENCE ON WA STATE ECOLOGYS (DOE) DROUGHT RESPONSE?

    The chain of circumstantial evidence…..

    1. ALL 24 Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA’s)  IN WA STATE THAT HAVE BEEN “DECLARED AS DROUGHT EMERGENCY” Have a SALMON RECOVERY PLAN.

    2. 1998 MOU ECOLOGY WILL SERVE AS THE …. COORDINATION BETWEEN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND SALMON RECOVERY:

    3.  DROUGHT LAWS and Rules. Chapter 43.83B RCW – Water Supply Facilities. Law which gives THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AUTHORITY TO RESPOND TO A DROUGHT …

    4.RCW 43.83B.410  DROUGHT CONDITIONS — Withdrawals and diversions — Orders, authority granted.

    5. Upon the issuance of an order under RCW 43.83B.405, THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY IS EMPOWERED …..

    ——————————————————————————————

    RCW 43.83B.410  DROUGHT CONDITIONS

    The department of ECOLOGY may issue such withdrawal authorization WHEN, AFTER INVESTIGATION AND AFTER PROVIDING APPROPRIATE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL BODIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT

    Just asking?

    IS CLALLAM COUNTY GOVERNMENT AN “APPROPRIATE” LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL BODY?

    WAS CLALLAM COUNTY GOVERNMENT  GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT?
    ————————————————————————————————

    RCW 43.83B.405

    Drought conditions — Withdrawals and diversions — Orders, procedure.

    (1) Whenever it appears to the department of ecology that a drought condition either exists or is forecast to occur within the state or portions thereof, the department of ecology is authorized to issue orders, pursuant to rules previously adopted, to implement the powers as set forth in RCW 43.83B.410 through 43.83B.420.

    THE DEPARTMENT SHALL, IMMEDIATELY UPON THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER UNDER THIS SECTION, CAUSE SAID ORDER TO BE PUBLISHED IN NEWSPAPERS OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE AREAS OF THE STATE TO WHICH THE ORDER RELATES.

    PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL (A) CONSULT WITH AND OBTAIN THE VIEWS OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES IDENTIFIED IN THE DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN periodically revised by the department pursuant to RCW 43.83B.410(4), and (b) obtain the written approval of the governor. Orders issued under this section shall be deemed orders for the purposes of chapter 34.05 RCW.

    (2) Any order issued under subsection (1) of this section shall contain a termination date for the order. The termination date shall be not later than one calendar year from the date the order is issued. Although the department may, with the written approval of the governor, change the termination date by amending the order, no such amendment or series of amendments may have the effect of extending its termination to a date which is later than two calendar years after the issuance of the order.

    (3) The provisions of subsection (2) of this section do not preclude the issuance of more than one order under subsection (1) of this section for different areas of the state or sequentially for the same area as the need arises for such an order or orders.

    [1989 c 171 § 2.] Notes:     Severability — 1989 c 171: See note following RCW 43.83B.400

    ————————————————————————

    RCW 43.83B.410  DROUGHT CONDITIONS — Withdrawals and diversions — Orders, authority granted.

    Upon the issuance of an order under RCW 43.83B.405, THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY IS EMPOWERED TO:

    (1)(a) Authorize emergency withdrawal of public surface and ground waters, including dead storage within reservoirs, on a temporary basis AND AUTHORIZE ASSOCIATED PHYSICAL WORKS WHICH MAY BE EITHER TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT. The termination date for the authority to make such an emergency withdrawal may not be later than the termination date of the order issued under RCW 43.83B.405 under which the power to authorize the withdrawal is established.

    The department of ECOLOGY may issue such withdrawal authorization when, after investigation and after providing appropriate FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL BODIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT, the following are found:

    (i) The waters proposed for withdrawal are to be used for a beneficial use involving a previously established activity or purpose;

    (ii) The previously established activity or purpose was furnished water through rights applicable to the use of a public body of water that cannot be exercised due to the lack of water arising from natural drought conditions; and

    (iii) THE PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL WILL NOT REDUCE FLOWS OR LEVELS BELOW ESSENTIAL MINIMUMS NECESSARY (A) TO ASSURE THE MAINTENANCE OF FISHERIES REQUIREMENTS, AND (B) TO PROTECT FEDERAL AND STATE INTERESTS INCLUDING, AMONG OTHERS, POWER GENERATION, NAVIGATION, AND EXISTING WATER RIGHTS;

    (b) All withdrawal authorizations issued under this section SHALL CONTAIN PROVISIONS THAT ALLOW FOR TERMINATION OF WITHDRAWALS, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WHENEVER WITHDRAWALS WILL CONFLICT WITH FLOWS AND LEVELS as provided in (a)(iii) of this subsection. Domestic and irrigation uses of public surface and ground waters shall be given priority in determining “beneficial uses.” As to water withdrawal and associated works authorized under this subsection, the requirements of chapter 43.21C RCW and public bidding requirements as otherwise provided by law are waived and inapplicable. All state and local agencies with authority to issue permits or other authorizations for such works shall, to the extent possible, expedite the processing of the permits or authorizations in keeping with the emergency nature of the requests and shall provide a decision to the applicant within fifteen calendar days of the date of application. All state departments or other agencies having jurisdiction over state or other public lands, if such lands are necessary to effectuate the withdrawal authorizations issued under this subsection, shall provide short-term easements or other appropriate property interest upon the payment of the fair market value. This mandate shall not apply to any lands of the state that are reserved for a special purpose or use that cannot properly be carried out if the property interest were conveyed;

    (2) Approve a temporary change in purpose, place of use, or point of diversion, consistent with existing state policy allowing transfer or lease of waters between willing parties, as provided for in RCW 90.03.380, 90.03.390, and 90.44.100.

    HOWEVER, COMPLIANCE WITH ANY REQUIREMENTS OF (A) NOTICE OF NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION OF THESE SECTIONS OR (B) THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT, CHAPTER 43.21C RCW, IS NOT REQUIRED WHEN SUCH CHANGES ARE NECESSARY TO RESPOND TO DROUGHT CONDITIONS AS DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY.

    An approval of a temporary change of a water right as authorized under this subsection is not admissible as evidence in either supporting or contesting the validity of water claims in State of Washington, Department of Ecology v. Acquavella, Yakima county superior court number 77-2-01484-5 or any similar proceeding where the existence of a water right is at issue.

    (3) Employ additional persons for specified terms of time, consistent with the term of a drought condition, as are necessary to ensure the successful performance of the activities associated with implementing the emergency drought program of this chapter.

    (4) Revise the drought contingency plan previously developed by the department; and

    (5) Acquire needed emergency drought-related equipment.

    [1989 c 171 § 3.]

    Notes: Severability — 1989 c 171: See note following RCW 43.83B.400

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

    When Jeff  Marti, Drought Coordinator for DOE (360-407-6627). was asked, how much influence do TRIBES have in the drought decision-making process.

    He said, “Absolutely none”!

    ———————————————————————-

    The chain of circumstantial evidence…..

    That’s like asking  how much influence did the TRIBES have on the Boldt decision?

    And, how much influence did the TRIBES have on the removal of the Elwha River Dams?

    And, how much influence did the TRIBES have on the 1998: SALMON RECOVERY PLAN?

    And, how much influence did the TRIBES have on the instreamflow?

    —————————————————————————-

    Washington State’s Salmon Recovery Network (online report)

    15 YEARS AGO, THE STATE OF WASHINGTON AND THE 29 TREATY TRIBES, CO-MANAGERS OF THE SALMON RESOURCE, SUPPORTED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW REGIONAL SALMON RECOVERY ORGANIZATIONS TO GUIDE LOCALLY-DRIVEN SALMON RECOVERY.

    Most certainly, the tribes and the fish have much to do with ECOLOGY’S WA States Drought Response.

    —————————————————————————————–

    1998: WA STATE SALMON RECOVERY PLANNING

    Memorandum of Understanding – ESHB 2514 and ESHB 2496

    www.ecy.wa.gov/Watershed/misc/MOU.html

    Memorandum of Understanding for the Coordinated Implementation of Chapter 247, … Laws of 1998: Salmon Recovery Planning (Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2496) By … For watershed management planning, ECOLOGY WILL SERVE AS THE …. COORDINATION BETWEEN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND SALMON RECOVERY:.

    —————————————————————————————-

    Washington State’s Salmon Recovery Network (cont.)

    Our success is a result of salmon recovery being implemented by local jurisdictions, conservation districts, TRIBAL NATIONS, REGIONAL FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT GROUPS, STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS, AND DOZENS OF LOCAL NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS relying on the volunteer hours of thousands of Washington citizens across the state.

    The benefits to all of Washington’s citizens are clear: cleaner water, less flooding, more productive farmland, improved bridges and roads, healthier forests and rivers and shorelines, more productive wildlife habitat, and improved opportunities for sustainable fishing and outdoor recreation.

    THIS WORK ENABLES US TO HONOR OUR COMMITMENT TO TRIBAL TREATY FISHING RIGHTS.

    Together, our efforts form a network for salmon recovery across our state, rebuilding and strengthening our fish, water, and land resources today to maintain what we love about the Pacific Northwest into the future.

    TOGETHER, WE ARE BUILDING THE FUTURE WE WANT FOR OUR CHILDREN.

    Read more for details about the Network

    http://www.stateofsalmon.wa.gov/

    ———————————————————————————————

    WHO’S BUILDING THE WATER FUTURE THAT CITIZENS WANT FOR THEIR CHILDREN?

    THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT, social context, socialtural context, or milieu, refers to THE IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL SETTING IN WHICH PEOPLE LIVE OR IN WHICH SOMETHING HAPPENS OR DEVELOPS. It includes the culture that the individual was educated or lives in, and the people and institutions with whom they interact.

    ————————————————————————————–

    THE NUTS AND THE BOLDT’S OF IT?

    NO MORE FISH BEFORE PEOPLE.

    ——————————————————————–

    UPON THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER UNDER RCW 43.83B.405, THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY IS EMPOWERED


  • Part (2) Who’s Planning Our Future?

    Part (2) Who’s Planning Our Future?

    WHO’S  CONTROLLING OUR  WATER?

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)

    ——————————————————————————-

    DO YOU HAVE VESTED WATER RIGHTS?

    ARE YOU VESTED  IN THE WATER FUTURES MARKET?

    CONCERNED?

    READ THIS UPDATE ON WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH THE FUTURE OF OUR WATER

    What’s happening in WA DC… Read the updates APR 28, 2015  from Congress, get the facts, GET informed and contact your federal ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

    This expansion of federal regulatory power will have serious consequences for the Nation’s economy, threaten jobs, invite costly litigation, and significantly restrict the ability of landowners to make decisions about their property and the rights of state and local governments to plan for their own development.

     Twice, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed this federal-state partnership when it told the Agencies that there are limits to federal jurisdiction under the CWA, and that they had gone too far in asserting their authority.

     ——————————————————————————————–

    H.R. 1732—Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 …

    https://rules.house.gov/bill/…/hr1

    United States House of Representatives

    Apr 28, 2015 – H.R. 1732Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 … Rules Committee Hearing H.R. 1732, H.J.Res. 43, and Conference Report to …

    ——————————————————————————————

    H.R.1732 – Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 114th Congress (2015-2016) | Get alerts

    A SUMMARY IS IN PROGRESS

    ———————————————————————————————-

    H.R.5078 – Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014 113th Congress (2013-2014)

    Major Recorded Votes:

    09/09/2014 : Passed House

    ————————————————————————————–

    Fact Sheet: H.R. 1732, “The Regulatory Integrity Protection …

    www.nlc.org/…/Regulatory/WOTUS%20Fact%…

    National League of Cities

    Page 1 of 2. Fact Sheet: H.R. 1732, “The Regulatory Integrity Protection Act”. Background Information. • In April 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency ..

    ————————————————————————————–

    Fact Sheet: H.R. 1732

    “The Regulatory Integrity Protection Act”

    Background Information

    · In April 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) proposed a rule that would redefine “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Agencies assert this rule merely “clarifies” the scope of federal CWA jurisdiction over waters in the United States. In reality, however, this rule goes beyond merely clarifying the scope of federal jurisdiction under CWA programs; it  increases the scope of the CWA’s jurisdiction over more waters, and undermines the role of the states as partners and co-regulators of the Nation’s waters.

    · The federal-state partnership Congress intended to establish under the CWA has been successful for the past four decades because of the recognition that not all waters need to be subject to federal jurisdiction and that states should have the primary responsibility of regulating waters within their individual boundaries.

    · Twice, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed this federal-state partnership when it told the Agencies that there are limits to federal jurisdiction under the CWA, and that they had gone too far in asserting their authority.

    · Nevertheless, the Agencies have proposed the rule that would redefine the scope of waters subject to federal jurisdiction under the CWA.

    · Substantial flaws in the process to develop the rule have plagued the rulemaking from the beginning. The sequence and timing of the actions that the federal Agencies have taken to develop this rule undermine the credibility of the rule and the process to develop it. Among other things, state and local governments and the regulated community all have expressed concern that the Agencies have failed to consult with them in the development of the rule.

    · There is concern that the Agencies’ push to unilaterally broaden the scope of the CWA threatens to undermine the federal-state partnership and erode state authority by granting sweeping new federal jurisdiction to waters never intended for federal regulation under the CWA.

    · This expansion of federal regulatory power will have serious consequences for the Nation’s economy, threaten jobs, invite costly litigation, and significantly restrict the ability of landowners to make decisions about their property and the rights of state and local governments to plan for their own development.

     

    Summary

    .· When developing the new proposed rule the Agencies must take into consideration all of the comments received on the rule, the economic analysis of the rule, and the connectivity study which was used as the basis for the rule. They must also

    solicit recommendations from and consult with state and local officials, stakeholders, and other interested parties on how to define “Waters of the United States” and prepare a new regulatory proposal that is consistent with Supreme Court rulings, the feedback from the public comments and recommendations from the state and local officials, stakeholders, and others.

    · The bill requires that the Agencies engage in outreach to stakeholders, including holding a federalism consultation with the states and local governments. The Agencies are instructed to seek to reach consensus with the states and local governments on defining “Waters of the United States,” maintain the Federal–

    State partnership in implementing the Clean Water Act, and take into consideration state and local input regarding geography, hydrology, and legal frameworks.

    · The bill requires that the Agencies engage in outreach to stakeholders, including holding a federalism consultation with the states and local governments. The Agencies are instructed to seek to reach consensus with the states and local governments on defining “Waters of the United States,” maintain the Federal–

    State partnership in implementing the Clean Water Act, and take into consideration state and local input regarding geography, hydrology, and legal frameworks.

    · The Agencies are also to consult with and solicit recommendations from stakeholders that represent a broad range of perspectives who could be impacted either directly or indirectly by the new rule. The Agencies are to promote transparency in these processes by making all of the communications, records and documents available to the public, and prepare a report that responds to the comments received and provides a detailed explanation of how the Agencies have used the comments and stakeholder processes in the new rule.

    #####

    ————————————————————————————————-

    history snippet

    Congress (2013-2014) H.R. 5078 addresses what is yet another example of a disturbing pattern of an imperial presidency that seeks to use brute force and executive action while ignoring Congress.

    The bill also requires the EPA and the Corps to engage in a federalism consultation with the states and local governments by

    Jointly consulting with relevant state and local officials to formulate recommendations for a consensus regulatory proposal that would identify the scope of waters to be covered under the Clean Water Act, and those waters to be reserved for the states to determine how to regulate.  The proposal would need to be consistent with the applicable rulings of the United States Supreme Court.

    ———————————————————————————–

    H.R.1732 – 114th Congress (2015-2016): Regulatory …

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1732

    Apr 13, 2015 – Summary of H.R.1732 – 114th Congress (2015-2016): Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015.

    H.R.1732 – Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015114th Congress (2015-2016) | Get alerts

    Bill

    Sponsor:

    Rep. Shuster, Bill [R-PA-9] (Introduced 04/13/2015)

    Committees:

    House – Transportation and Infrastructure

    Committee Reports:

    H. Rept. 114-93

    Latest Action:

    04/29/2015 Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 231 Reported to House. Resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 1732, the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 11, and H.J. Res. 43.

    Tracker:

    Summary: H.R.1732 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)

    All Bill Information

    A SUMMARY IS IN PROGRESS.

    ———————————————————————————————

    Now, through a new rule proposed in April, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION has sought to bypass the legislative process and achieve the same expansionist agenda through agency guidance and the executive branch’s regulatory process

    ———————————————————————————————

     H.R.5078 – Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014 113th Congress (2013-2014)

    Sponsor:

    Rep. Southerland, Steve II [R-FL-2] (Introduced 07/11/2014)

    Committees:

    House – Transportation and Infrastructure

    Committee Reports:

    House Report 113-568; House Report 113-568,Part 2

    Latest Action:

    09/11/2014 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 559.

    Major Recorded Votes:

    09/09/2014 : Passed House

    Summary: H.R.5078 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

    There are 3 summaries for this bill.

    Bill summaries are authored by CRS.

    Shown Here:
    Passed House without amendment (09/09/2014)

    (This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)

    Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014 – Prohibits the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from:

    • developing, finalizing, adopting, implementing, applying, administering, or enforcing the proposed rule entitled, “Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ Under the Clean Water Act,” issued on April 21, 2014, or the proposed guidance entitled, “Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected By the Clean Water Act,” dated February 17, 2012; or
    • using the proposed rule or proposed guidance, any successor document, or any substantially similar proposed rule or guidance as the basis for any rulemaking or decision regarding the scope or enforcement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act).

    Requires the Army Corps and the EPA to withdraw the interpretive rule entitled, “Notice of Availability Regarding the Exemption from Permitting Under Section 404(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act to Certain Agricultural Conservation Practices,” issued on April 21, 2014.

    Requires the Army Corps and the EPA to: (1) consult with relevant state and local officials to develop recommendations for a regulatory proposal that would identify the scope of waters covered under the Clean Water Act and the scope of waters not covered; (2) provide for the public review and comment of a draft report that includes a recommendation only if consensus has been reached with regard to the recommendation among the Army Corps, the EPA, and state and local officials; (3) publish a final report; and (4) report to Congress on the recommendation

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5078

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

    History , Washington, DC, Jul 11, 2014

    Legislation to Prevent Federal Overreach in Regulation of Nation’s Waters Introduced by Committee Leaders

    http://transportation.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=387572

    Bill to be Considered at Committee Markup Next Week

    Washington, DC, Jul 11, 2014 | Jim Billimoria, Justin Harclerode (202) 225-9446

    Bipartisan legislation to uphold the federal-state partnership to regulate the Nation’s waters and prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers from implementing a rule that broadens the scope of the Clean Water Act and expands the federal government’s regulatory power was introduced in the House today by Transportation and Infrastructure Committee leaders.

     

    The Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act (H.R. 5078) is sponsored by U.S. Rep. Steve Southerland, and is cosponsored by Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA), Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Bob Gibbs (R-OH), and a bipartisan group of additional Members of the House.  A Committee markup scheduled for 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, July 16, 2014 will include H.R. 5078.

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

    Shuster & Gibbs Statement on Regulatory Integrity Protection Act

    VETO THREAT

    Washington, DC, Apr 30 | Jim Billimoria, Justin Harclerode (202) 225-9446

    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) and Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Bob Gibbs (R-OH) released the following joint statement in response to the Administration’s veto threat of H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act, a bill that stops the Administration’s flawed Waters of the United States (WOTUS) proposed rule that would give the federal government unprecedented authority to regulate virtually any place that water flows in the United States:

    “The Administration’s proposed rule is opposed by at least 32 states.  The rule is opposed by the Nation’s large cities, smaller cities, counties, towns, and townships.  The rule is opposed by the majority of the regulated community – our farmers, homebuilders, businesses, manufacturers, and many others.  More than one million comments have been filed on this proposed rule, with approximately 70% of the substantive comments requesting the rule be withdrawn or significantly modified.  It’s important for the House to stand up for and recognize the concerns and rights of state and local governments, business owners and farmers, and landowners and private citizens.  The Administration’s veto threat is just the latest example of its determination to seize more power, federalize all waters, and regulate land use around the country.”

    H.R. 1732 requires the EPA and the Corps of Engineers to restart the rulemaking process, this time consulting with state and local governments and other stakeholders and taking into account their concerns.  The House may vote on the bill as soon as tomorrow.

     

    The bottom line

    What’s happening in WA DC… Read the updates APR 28, 2015  from Congress, get the facts, GET informed and contact your federal ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.