+menu-


  • Category Archives The DOE Water Rulers
  • 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


  • EPA Grants and Contracts

    TRUMP FREEZES EPA Grants and Contracts

    Trump moved to block implementation of at least 30 environmental rules finalized in the closing months of President Barack Obama’s term.

    Trump freezes EPA Grants and Contracts.

    THE EPA’S FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST OF $8,600,000.00 BILLION, IN ADDITION $5,000,000.00 MILLION IN STATE GRANT FUNDING IS PROVIDED IN THE WETLANDS

    ———————————————————

    THE EPA’S ACTIVE CONTRACTS LIST 10/26/2016
    DATA PROVIDED BY US EPA OFFICE OF ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT

    NUMBER OF CONTRACTS: 629

    TOTAL CONTRACT OBLIGATION: $6,398,369,335.21

    ACTIVE CONTRACTS BY CONTRACT NUMBER AS OF 10/26/2016

    —————————————————————–

    Here how the EPA grants worked with and through the DOE at a state level.
    ————————————-
    The EPA granted to WA State DOE $100,000.00 for the Shoreline Management Update  (SMP) in a pass through grant)
    EVERY SMP UPDATE IN EVERY COUNTY, IN THE USA WAS GRANTED $$$$ ( AS A PASS THROUGH GRANT)   BY THE EPA, TO  EVERY STATE DOE, TO BE GRANTED TO EVERY COUNTY.
    ——————————————————————————————————

    Fiscal Year 2016 – US EPA

    https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/…/epa_fy_2016_congressional_justification.pdf

    The agency’s FY 2016 budget request of $8.6 billion enables us to ..Many communities are facing multiple pollution problems and are looking for integrated or holistic …. In addition, $5 million in state grant funding is provided in the wetlands.

    EPA Active Contracts Listing | Contracting with EPA | US EPA

    https://www.epa.gov/contracts/epa-active-contractslisting

    Oct 31, 2016 – Listed below, you will find the EPA Active Contracts Listing, which lists of all currently active EPA Contracts. The listing is available by Contract …


  • WA State Reform on Wetland Delineation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————–

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

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

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

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

    ———————————–

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

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

    ———————————————————-

    September 3, 2015

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

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

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

    —————————————————

    September 4, 2015

    PLF lawsuit on WOTUS

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

    ——————————————————————

    September 4, 2015

    Behind My Back | WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

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

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

    ———————————————————

    January 22, 2016 THE GOOD NEWS WAS….

    WOTUS rule – PLF Liberty Blog – Pacific Legal Foundation

    blog.pacificlegal.org/tag/wotusrule/

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

    January 22, 2016 THE BAD NEWS IS…

    PRESIDENT OBAMA VETOED THE LEGISLATION A DAY LATER.

    SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

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

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

    ——————————————————————————

    The EPA’s enforcement tactics for WETLANDS

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

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

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

    ———————————————————–

     EPA’s enforcement tactics for oil and gas producers.

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————-

    START HERE…

    WHERE EVERYTHING FEDERAL STARTS….

    Behind My Back | WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————–

    PLF UNDERSTANDS THE GRAVITY OF (WOTUS)

    WOTUS – Pacific Legal Foundation

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

    snippet..

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

    ————————–

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

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

    ——————————————————————————

    Full text of emails received from Rene” on this

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank You,

    Rene’ Holaday

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

    FYI:

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

    Assembly approves water development, property rights bills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ___

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

    Copyright © 2016 The Washington Times, LLC.

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

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

    Daily update ⋅ February 10, 2016

    NEWS

    Assembly to vote on water development, property rights bills

    Washington Times

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

    Flag as irrelevant

    See more results | Edit this alert

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

    Unsubscribe | View all your alerts

    Receive this alert as RSS feed

    Send Feedback

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

    —————————————————————–

    THIS IS A VERY LONG POST…

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

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

    Continue reading here if you are interested more…

    ———————————————————————————–

    PLF lawsuit on WOTUS

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————

    Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation …

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

    ———————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional

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

    ———————————————————————————–

    full text provided for your convenience

    Behind My Back | WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

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

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

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

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

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

    (SO DO WETLAND WATERS JUST SEEP DOWNHILL?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    WOTUS – Pacific Legal Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ————————————————————-

     


  • 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

     



  • Ecology’s WA State Drought Response?

    Ecology’s WA State Drought Response?

    Washington Drought 2015 | Washington State Department …

    www.ecy.wa.gov/drought/

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

    Last revised: May 11, 2015

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

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

    ————————————————————————

    Friday, April 17, 2015

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————

    Images for Washington watershed drought counties

    ——————————————————————————–

    What can you expect from your  WA State Elected Representatives?

    •  Sequim Gazette  ·  Mar 18, 2015

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

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

    ————————————————————————————

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

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

    HOW ARE THINGS GOING IN YOUR DROUGHT EMERGENCY COUNTY?

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

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

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

    —————————————————————

    The local inside story..

    AMANDA CRONIN, WASHINGTON WATER TRUST

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

    full text of meeting below

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

    My question and comment

    April 8, 2015 (DMRT) Team Members/Alternates

    IN ATTENDANCE:

    ELECTED DCD DIRECTOR Mary Ellen Winborn, Clallam County

    Cathy Lear, Clallam County EMPLOYEE (alt)

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

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

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

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

    FUNDED FROM THE 2012 LEGISLATURE PROVISO FOR DUNGENESS WATER PROJECTS.

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

    2015 Dungeness Dry Year Leasing Program

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

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

     WHO KNEW?

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

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

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

     WHO KNEW?

    FIRST THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS GETS PAID FOR THEIR WATER RIGHTS?

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

     (DMRT) Meeting Notes April 8, 2015

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

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————————————-

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

    Dungeness River Audubon Center, Sequim, WA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    •  Sequim Gazette  ·  Mar 18, 2015

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

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

    ————————————————————————————-

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

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

    Dungeness River Management Team DRAFT Meeting Notes April 8, 2015

    Dungeness River Audubon Center, Sequim, WA

    TEAM MEMBERS/ALTERNATES IN ATTENDANCE:

    Scott Chitwood, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

    Judy Larson, Protect the Peninsula’s Future

    Robert Brown, Dungeness Beach Association

    Shawn Hines, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe (alt)

    Cathy Lear, Clallam County (alt)

    Robert Beebe, Riverside Property Owner

    Don Hatler, Sports Fisheries

    Mary Ellen Winborn, Clallam County

    Ann Soule, City of Sequim

    Matt Heins, Estuary-Tidelands/Riverside Property Owners

    Michele Canale, North Olympic Land Trust

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

    Others in Attendance:

    Robert Knapp, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

    —————————————————————-

    Document online

    2015 Dungeness Dry Year Leasing Program FAQs …

    www.washingtonwatertrust.org/2015-dungeness-dryyearleasing

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

    Who is eligible?

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

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

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

    When are bids due?

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

    Washington Water Trust

    Attn: Dungeness Leasing Program

    1530 Westlake Ave N, Suite 400

    Seattle, WA 98109

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

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

    Why do I need permission from the landowner?

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

    How much funding is available for 2015 leases?

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

    Is there a reserve price?

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

    How will compliance monitoring occur?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What can you expect from your elected WA State Representatives?

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

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

    ——————————————————————

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

    2015 Dungeness Dry Year Leasing Program FAQs …

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

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

    —————————————————————————————-

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————-

    What can you expect from your LOCAL county elected representative?

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

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

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


  • SMP What has Your County got to Lose?

    SMP What has Your  County got to Lose?

    For the record this is my Clallam County

    SMP Public Comment

    What has Clallam County got to lose?

    RCW 90.58.290

    Restrictions as affecting fair market value of property. The restrictions imposed by this chapter shall be considered by the county assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 29.]

    INDEED, ONE MUST CONSIDER  ALL OF THE  RESTRICTIVE SMP  “SHALLS” ON PRIVATE VESTED SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND IN PARTICULAR… THE UNDEVELOPED PRIVATE INVESTMENT SHORELINE PROPERTIES, VIEW, ETC?

    AND, ONE MUST CONSIDER THE VALUE OF PROPERTY  LEFT “HIGH DRY AND DESTITUTE”  BY THE DUNGENESS WATER RULE?

    CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A TAX BASIS OF 11%

    HOW MUCH MORE CRITICAL LAND MASS CAN CLALLAM COUNTY AFFORD TO LOSE AND STILL BE AN ECONOMICALLY VIABLE COUNTY?

    Ad Valorem Tax Dilemma?

    Posted on October 6, 2013 10:19 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    IN CLALLAM COUNTY, INDEED AD VALOREM TAX IS a situation in which PAM RUSHTON, our county assessor, must choose one of two or more UNSATISFACTORY alternatives.

    AN AD VALOREM TAX (Latin for “according to value”) IS A TAX BASED ON THE VALUE OF REAL ESTATE or personal property.

    An ad valorem tax is typically imposed at the time of a transaction(s) (a sales tax or value-added tax (VAT)), BUT IT MAY BE IMPOSED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS (real or personal property tax) or in connection with another significant event (inheritance tax)
    ———————————————————————————-
    The VALUE OF REAL ESTATE (private property)  WITH NO WATER is an extremely taxing DILEMMA IN CLALLAM and SKAGIT COUNTY, and in fact for all tax assessors in WA State.
    ———————————————————————————-
    How much is 20 acres of ZONED farm land worth with WATER?

    How much is 20 acres of ZONED farm land worth with “ZERO” WATER?

    How much is 20 acres of ZONED farm land worth with ONLY 150 GALLONS OF INDOOR WATER USE A DAY?
    ———————————————————————————-
    IN CLALLAM COUNTY, INDEED IT IS a situation in which PAM RUSHTON, our county assessor, must choose one of two or more UNSATISFACTORY alternatives.

    1. DEVALUATE THE REAL ESTATE WITH NO WATER

    2. RAISE THE VALUATION OF REAL ESTATE WITH WATER

    3. CHOOSING BOTH #1 one AND #2 two UNSATISFACTORY alternatives

    4. NOW WITH THE WA STATE SUPREME COURT RULING AGAINST WA STATE AND FOR THE TRIBES?

    5. More DILEMMA? LEGAL ARGUMENTS LEADING TO more UNDESIRABLE CHOICES, in logic, a form of reasoning that, , though valid,

    6. Leads AGAIN to ONE? TWO? OR more? undesirable alternatives.
    —————————————————————————-
    The Bottom line

    The ” VALUE OF REAL ESTATE WITH NO WATER is an extremely taxing DILEMMA IN CLALLAM and SKAGIT COUNTY, and in fact for all tax assessors in WA State.

    Highest and best use

    Highest and Best Use (HBU) is foundational to the appraisal process. It is a process to determine what use produces the highest value for the property. This exercise must usually be done twice: once, under the assumption that the property is vacant; and secondly, as the property is currently improved.

    There are four steps to the process.
    1. The appraiser determines all uses which are legally permissible for the property? Of the uses
    2. Which are legally permissible?
    3. which ones are physically possible? Of those,
    4. Which ones are financially feasible?
    (sometimes referred to as economically supported).

    Of those uses which are feasible, which use is maximally productive for the site. The outcome of this process is the highest and best use for the site.

    A market value appraisal implicitly assumes that a buyer intends to use the property in its highest and best use. This use, therefore, drives the value equation.

    AND, To say nothing of the MAN MADE ECONOMIC DISASTERS for Clallam and Skagit County and the private property owners in those counties?

    THE DOE WATER RULES, SETTING THE INSTREAM FLOW, THE DUNGENESS WATER RULE AND THE WA WATER TRUST.

    ————————————————————————————-

    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 … category and have previously been posted on “behindmyback.org”.

    —————————————————————————————

    Research and documentation, YOU MAY continue reading, OR NOT,  for
    AD VALOREM TO AD NAUSEAM ….(is a latin term for something unpleasurable that has continued “to [the point of] nausea”.) on my website behindmyback.org.

    Ad Valorem Tax Dilemma?

    Posted on October 6, 2013 10:19 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    ——————————————————————————–

     

     

     

    AD VALOREM
    (tax (latin for “according to value”) is a tax based on the value of real estate or personal property.)

    Property tax
    Main article: Property tax
    A property tax, millage tax is an ad valorem tax that an owner of real estate or other property pays on the value of the property being taxed. There are three species or types of property: Land, Improvements to Land (immovable man made things), and Personal (movable man made things). REAL ESTATE, REAL PROPERTY OR REALTY ARE ALL TERMS FOR THE COMBINATION OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS. The taxing authority requires and/or performs an appraisal of the monetary value of the property, and tax is assessed in proportion to that value. Forms of property tax used vary between countries and jurisdictions.

    Real estate appraisal

    Real estate appraisal, property valuation or land valuation is the process of valuing real property. The value usually sought is the property’s market value. Appraisals are needed because compared to, say, corporate stock, real estate transactions occur very infrequently. Not only that, but every property is different from the next, a factor that doesn’t affect assets like corporate stock.

    Furthermore, all properties differ from each other in their location – which is an important factor in their value. So a centralized Walrasian auction setting can’t exist for the trading of property assets, such as exists to trade corporate stock (i.e. a stock market/exchange).

    This product differentiation and lack of frequent trading, unlike stocks, means that specialist qualified appraisers are needed to advise on the value of a property.

    The appraiser usually provides a written report on this value to his or her client. These reports are used as the basis for mortgage loans, for settling estates and divorces, for tax matters, and so on. Sometimes the appraisal report is used by both parties to set the sale price of the property appraised.

    In some areas, an appraiser doesn’t need a license or any certification to appraise property. Usually, however, most countries or regions require that appraisals be done by a licensed or certified appraiser (in many countries known as a Property Valuer or Land Valuer and in British English as a “valuation surveyor”).

    If the appraiser’s opinion is based on Market Value, then it must also be based on the Highest and Best Use of the real property.

    For mortgage valuations of improved residential property in the US, the appraisal is most often reported on a standardized form, such as the Uniform Residential Appraisal Report.[1] Appraisals of more complex property (e.g. — income producing, raw land) are usually reported in a narrative appraisal report.

    Types of value

    There are several types and definitions of value sought by a real estate appraisal. Some of the most common are:

    •Market value – The price at which an asset would trade in a competitive Walrasian auction setting.

    Market value is usually interchangeable with open market value or fair value. International Valuation Standards (IVS) define:
    Market value – the estimated amount for which an asset or liability should exchange on the valuation date between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s length transaction, after proper marketing and where the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion.

    •Value-in-use, or use value[3] – The net present value (NPV)[4] of a cash flow that an asset generates for a specific owner under a specific use. Value-in-use is the value to one particular user, and may be above or below the market value of a property.

    •Investment value – is the value to one particular investor, and may or may not be higher than the market value of a property. Differences between the investment value of an asset and its market value provide the motivation for buyers or sellers to enter the marketplace.

    International Valuation Standards (IVS) define:
    Investment value – the value of an asset to the owner or a prospective owner for individual investment or operational objectives.

    •Insurable value – is the value of real property covered by an insurance policy. Generally it does not include the site value.

    •Liquidation value – may be analyzed as either a forced liquidation or an orderly liquidation and is a commonly sought standard of value in bankruptcy proceedings. It assumes a seller who is compelled to sell after an exposure period which is less than the market-normal time-frame.

    Price versus value
    There can be differences between what the property is really worth (market value) and what it cost to buy it (price).

    A price paid might not represent that property’s market value. Sometimes, special considerations may have been present, such as a special relationship between the buyer and the seller where one party had control or significant influence over the other party.
    In other cases, the transaction may have been just one of several properties sold or traded between two parties. In such cases, the price paid for any particular piece isn’t its market ‘value’ (with the idea usually being, though, that all the pieces and prices add up to market value of all the parts) but rather its market ‘price’.

    At other times, a buyer may willingly pay a premium price, above the generally-accepted market value, if his subjective valuation of the property (its investment value for him) was higher than the market value. One specific example of this is an owner of a neighboring property who, by combining his own property with the subject property, could obtain economies-of-scale.

    Similar situations sometimes happen in corporate finance. For example, this can occur when a merger or acquisition happens at a price which is higher than the value represented by the price of the underlying stock. The usual explanation for these types of mergers and acquisitions is that ‘the sum is greater than its parts’, since full ownership of a company provides full control of it. This is something that purchasers will sometimes pay a high price for. This situation can happen in real estate purchases too.

    But the most common reason for value differing from price is that either the buyer or the seller is uninformed as to what a property’s market value is but nevertheless agrees on a contract at a certain price which is either too expensive or too cheap. This is unfortunate for one of the two parties. It is the obligation of a Real Property Appraiser to estimate the true market value of a property and not its market price.

    Market value definitions in the USA
    In the US, appraisals are for a certain type of value (e.g., foreclosure value, fair market value, distressed sale value, investment value). The most commonly used definition of value is Market Value. While Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) does not define Market Value, it provides general guidance for how Market Value should be defined:
    a type of value, stated as an opinion, that presumes the transfer or sale of a property as of a certain date, under specific conditions set forth in the definition of the term identified by the appraiser as applicable in an appraisal.

    Thus, the definition of value used in an appraisal or CMA (Current Market Analysis) analysis and report is a set of assumptions about the market in which the subject property may transact. It affects the choice of comparable data for use in the analysis. It can also affect the method used to value the property. For example, tree value can contribute up to 27% of property value.[5][6]

    Three approaches to value
    There are three traditional groups of methodologies for determining value. These are usually referred to as the “three approaches to value” which are generally independent of each other:

    •The cost approach (the buyer will not pay more for a property than it would cost to purchase an equivalent).

    •The sales comparison approach (comparing a property’s characteristics with those of comparable properties that have recently sold in similar transactions).

    •The income approach (similar to the methods used for financial valuation, securities analysis or bond pricing).

    However, the recent trend of the business tends to be toward the use of a scientific methodology of appraisal which relies on the foundation of quantitative-data,[7] risk, and geographical based approaches.[8][9] Pagourtzi et al. have provided a review on the methods used in the industry by comparison between conventional approaches and advanced ones.[10]

    As mentioned before, an appraiser can generally choose from three approaches to determine value. One or two of these approaches will usually be most applicable, with the other approach or approaches usually being less useful. The appraiser has to think about the “scope of work”, the type of value, the property itself, and the quality and quantity of data available for each approach. No overarching statement can be made that one approach or another is always better than one of the other approaches.

    The appraiser has to think about the way that most buyers usually buy a given type of property. What appraisal method do most buyers use for the type of property being valued? This generally guides the appraiser’s thinking on the best valuation method, in conjunction with the available data. For instance, appraisals of properties that are typically purchased by investors (e.g., skyscrapers, office buildings) may give greater weight to the Income Approach. Buyers interested in purchasing single family residential property would rather compare price, in this case the Sales Comparison Approach (market analysis approach) would be more applicable. The third and final approach to value is the Cost Approach to value. The Cost Approach to value is most useful in determining insurable value, and cost to construct a new structure or building.

    For example, single apartment buildings of a given quality tend to sell at a particular price per apartment. In many of those cases, the sales comparison approach may be more applicable. On the other hand, a multiple-building apartment complex would usually be valued by the income approach, as that would follow how most buyers would value it. As another example, single-family houses are most commonly valued with greatest weighting to the sales comparison approach. However, if a single-family dwelling is in a neighborhood where all or most of the dwellings are rental units, then some variant of the income approach may be more useful. So the choice of valuation method can change depending upon the circumstances, even if the property being valued doesn’t change much.

    The cost approach
    The cost approach was once called the summation approach. The theory is that the value of a property can be estimated by summing the land value and the depreciated value of any improvements. The value of the improvements is often referred to by the abbreviation RCNLD (reproduction cost new less depreciation or replacement cost new less depreciation). Reproduction refers to reproducing an exact replica. Replacement cost refers to the cost of building a house or other improvement which has the same utility, but using modern design, workmanship and materials. In practice, appraisers almost always use replacement cost and then deduct a factor for any functional dis-utility associated with the age of the subject property. An exception to the general rule of using the replacement cost, is for some insurance value appraisals. In those cases, reproduction of the exact asset after the destructive event (fire, etc.) is the goal.
    In most instances when the cost approach is involved, the overall methodology is a hybrid of the cost and sales comparison approaches (representing both the suppliers’ costs and the prices that customers are seeking). For example, the replacement cost to construct a building can be determined by adding the labor, material, and other costs. On the other hand, land values and depreciation must be derived from an analysis of comparable sales data.
    The cost approach is considered most reliable when used on newer structures, but the method tends to become less reliable for older properties. The cost approach is often the only reliable approach when dealing with special use properties (e.g., public assembly, marinas).

    The sales comparison approach
    The sales comparison approach is based primarily on the principle of substitution. This approach assumes a prudent (or rational) individual will pay no more for a property than it would cost to purchase a comparable substitute property. The approach recognizes that a typical buyer will compare asking prices and seek to purchase the property that meets his or her wants and needs for the lowest cost. In developing the sales comparison approach, the appraiser attempts to interpret and measure the actions of parties involved in the marketplace, including buyers, sellers, and investors.
    Data collection methods and valuation process Data is collected on recent sales of properties similar to the subject being valued, called “comparables”. Only SOLD properties may be used in an appraisal and determination of a property’s value, as they represent amounts actually paid or agreed upon for properties. Sources of comparable data include real estate publications, public records, buyers, sellers, real estate brokers and/or agents, appraisers, and so on. Important details of each comparable sale are described in the appraisal report. Since comparable sales aren’t identical to the subject property, adjustments may be made for date of sale, location, style, amenities, square footage, site size, etc. The main idea is to simulate the price that would have been paid if each comparable sale were identical to the subject property. If the comparable is superior to the subject in a factor or aspect, then a downward adjustment is needed for that factor.[clarification needed] Likewise, if the comparable is inferior to the subject in an aspect, then an upward adjustment for that aspect is needed.[clarification needed] The adjustment is somewhat subjective and relies on the Appraiser’s training and experience. From the analysis of the group of adjusted sales prices of the comparable sales, the appraiser selects an indicator of value that is representative of the subject property. It is possible for various Appraisers to chose different indicator of value which ultimately will provide different property value.

    Steps in the sales comparison approach 1. Research the market to obtain information pertaining to sales, and pending sales that are similar to the subject property. 2. Investigate the market data to determine whether they are factually correct and accurate. 3. Determine relevant units of comparison (e.g., sales price per square foot), and develop a comparative analysis for each. 4. Compare the subject and comparable sales according to the elements of comparison and adjust as appropriate. 5. Reconcile the multiple value indications that result from the adjustment (upward or downward) of the comparable sales into a single value indication.
    The income capitalization approach
    Main article: Income approach
    The income capitalization approach (often referred to simply as the “income approach”) is used to value commercial and investment properties. Because it is intended to directly reflect or model the expectations and behaviors of typical market participants, this approach is generally considered the most applicable valuation technique for income-producing properties, where sufficient market data exists.
    In a commercial income-producing property this approach capitalizes an income stream into a value indication. This can be done using revenue multipliers or capitalization rates applied to a Net Operating Income (NOI). Usually, an NOI has been stabilized so as not to place too much weight on a very recent event. An example of this is an unleased building which, technically, has no NOI. A stabilized NOI would assume that the building is leased at a normal rate, and to usual occupancy levels. The Net Operating Income (NOI) is gross potential income (GPI), less vacancy and collection loss (= Effective Gross Income) less operating expenses (but excluding debt service, income taxes, and/or depreciation charges applied by accountants).
    Alternatively, multiple years of net operating income can be valued by a discounted cash flow analysis (DCF) model. The DCF model is widely used to value larger and more expensive income-producing properties, such as large office towers or major shopping centres. This technique applies market-supported yields (or discount rates) to projected future cash flows (such as annual income figures and typically a lump reversion from the eventual sale of the property) to arrive at a present value indication.

    Scope of work
    While USPAP has always required appraisers to identify the scope of work needed to produce credible results, it became clear in recent years that appraisers did not fully understand the process for developing this adequately. In formulating the scope of work for a credible appraisal, the concept of a limited versus complete appraisal and the use of the Departure Rule caused confusion to clients, appraisers, and appraisal reviewers. In order to deal with this, USPAP was updated in 2006 with what came to be known as the Scope of Work project.

    Following this, USPAP eliminated both the Departure Rule and the concept of a limited appraisal, and a new Scope of Work rule was created. In this, appraisers were to identify six key parts of the appraisal problem at the beginning of each assignment:
    • Client and other intended users
    • Intended use of the appraisal and appraisal report
    • Definition of value (e.g., market, foreclosure, investment)
    • Any hypothetical conditions or extraordinary assumptions
    • The effective date of the appraisal analysis
    • The salient features of the subject property
    Based on these factors, the appraiser must identify the scope of work needed, including the methodologies to be used, the extent of investigation, and the applicable approaches to value.

    Currently, minimum standards for scope of work are:
    • Expectations of the client and other users
    • The actions of the appraiser’s peers who carry out similar assignments
    The Scope of Work is the first step in any appraisal process. Without a strictly defined Scope of Work an appraisal’s conclusions may not be viable. By defining the Scope of Work, an appraiser can properly develop a value for a given property for the intended user, and for the intended use of the appraisal. The whole idea of “Scope of Work” is to provide clear expectations and guidelines for all parties as to what the appraisal report does, and doesn’t, cover; and how much work has gone into it.

    Highest and best use
    Main article: Highest and best use
    Highest and Best Use (HBU) is foundational to the appraisal process. It is a process to determine what use produces the highest value for the property. This exercise must usually be done twice: once, under the assumption that the property is vacant; and secondly, as the property is currently improved.

    There are four steps to the process. First, the appraiser determines all uses which are legally permissible for the property. Second, of the uses which are legally permissible, which ones are physically possible. Of those, which ones are financially feasible (sometimes referred to as economically supported).

    Of those uses which are feasible, which use is maximally productive for the site. The outcome of this process is the highest and best use for the site.

    A market value appraisal implicitly assumes that a buyer intends to use the property in its highest and best use. This use, therefore, drives the value equation.

    In more complex appraisal assignments (e.g., contract disputes, litigation, brownfield or contaminated property valuation), the determination of highest and best use may be much more complex, and may need to take into account the various intermediate or temporary uses of the site, the contamination remediation process, and the timing of various legal issues.[12]
    —————————————————————

    HISTORY
    The VAT was invented by a French economist in 1954. Maurice Lauré, joint director of the French tax authority, the Direction générale des impôts, as taxe sur la valeur ajoutée (TVA in French) was first to introduce VAT with effect from 10 April 1954 for large businesses, and extended over time to all business sectors. IN FRANCE, IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE OF STATE FINANCE, ACCOUNTING FOR APPROXIMATELY 45% OF STATE REVENUES.

     


  • AG Request on Instream Flow

    NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION  (complete text below)

     QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a LOCAL PLANNING UNIT VOTES TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO AN EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW RULE? 

    Obligate,  by definition, bind or compel (someone), especially legally or morally.

    The full text of is below, RCW 98.82.080 INSTREAM FLOW COMPONENT –  RULES- REPORT

    —————————————————————————————————

    SECTION V – ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES  THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD

    snippet 3.The Attorneys General of Washington State is elected by popular vote. As the chief attorney for the state, the Attorneys General advises the Governor and state agencies on legal matters, but operates independently of the Governor. Local County and City prosecutors operate independently of the Attorney General’s office.

    ——————————————————————————-

    This is my comment

    It’s not complicated, it’s just another WA State legal conundrum on ECOLOGY’S WATER RULES

    And, it appears to me, that the Attorney General is on a fishing expedition so he can advise the Governor and state agencies on legal matters (like lawsuits)

    ———————————————————————————————–

     THE WORDING IN RCW 90.82.080 IS CONFUSING.

     (it only address’s the “SHALL NOT BE” modified)

    THE QUESTION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL  IS  ON “SHALL  BE” obligated, to be MODIFIED UNDER THIS CHAPTER.

    THE INSTREAMFLOW, ON THE SKAGIT and DUNGENESS RIVERS, HAS ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED BY RULE.

     IS THE  The AG’s question POINTLESS? …  UNTIL WHEN? SOME  LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT by a recorded unanimous vote “REQUEST” the department TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS, the minimum instream flows

    Then legal question then  becomes,

    Does the DOE have the legal authority UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY, to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT, TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS?

    IF THE  DOE is “NOT” legally AUTHORIZED,UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY,  to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT.

    Then, yes, under the terms and conditions of RCW 90.82.080 DOE  should be obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

     And, the DOE is obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

      ——————————————————————————————-

      ” IF” the members of LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES REQUEST THE PLANNING UNIT to modify instream flows and unanimous approval of the decision to modify such flow IS  ACHIEVED, THEN THE INSTREAM FLOWS SHALL BE MODIFIED UNDER THIS SECTION;

    THE is DOE obligate to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

     ———————————————————————-

    The legal question is still,

    Does the DOE have the legal authority UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY, to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT, TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS?

     IF THE  DOE is “NOT” legally AUTHORIZED UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY,  to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT.

     Then, yes, under the terms and conditions of RCW 90.82.080 DOE  should be obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

     And, the DOE is obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

    ——————————————————————————————-

     IF THE  DOE is “NOT” legally AUTHORIZED  to “DENY THE REQUEST” ?

     WHO IS LEGALLY AUTHORIZED AND BOUND  UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY,  TO DENY THE TRIBAL REQUEST?

    Washington State/Tribal Government-to-Government Implementation Guidelines

    SECTION V – ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES,  snippet

    2. State Agency Directors: THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD calls for each state agency to develop a plan to implement the government-to-government policy. “Each agency will establish a documented plan of accountability and may establish more detailed implementation procedures in subsequent agreements between tribes and the particular agency.” Some agency directors report directly to the Governor’s office, while some report to an appointed board or commission.

    3. Attorneys General Office: The Attorneys General of Washington State is elected by popular vote. As the chief attorney for the state, the Attorneys General advises the Governor and state agencies on legal matters, but operates independently of the Governor. Local County and City prosecutors operate independently of the Attorney General’s office.

     ———————————————————————————————-

    complete text of


     NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION

    QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a LOCAL PLANNING UNIT VOTES TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO AN EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW RULE? 


                                       WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL

    The Washington Attorney General issues formal published opinions in response to requests by the heads of state agencies, state legislators, and county prosecuting attorneys.  When it appears that individuals outside the Attorney General’s Office have information or expertise that will assist in the preparation of a particular opinion, a summary of that opinion request will be published in the state register.  If you are interested in commenting on this opinion request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office of your interest by March 11, 2015.  This is not the due date by which comments must be received.  However, if you do not notify the Attorney General’s Office of your interest in commenting on this opinion request by this date, the opinion may be issued before your comments have been received.  You may notify the Attorney General’s Office of your intention to comment by e-mail to jeff.even@atg.wa.gov or by writing to the Office of the Attorney General, Solicitor General Division, Attention Jeff Even, Deputy Solicitor General, PO Box 40100, Olympia, Washington 98504-0100.  When you notify the office of your intention to comment, you may be provided with a copy of the opinion request in which you are interested, information about the Attorney General’s Opinion process, information on how to submit your comments, and a due date by which your comments must be received to ensure that they are fully considered.

    The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request(s):

                                                      Opinion Docket No. 15-02-03-Ericksen 

    Request by Doug Ericksen, Senator, District 42

    QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a local planning unit votes to recommend amendments to an existing instream flow rule? 

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

    COMPLETE TEXT OF RCW 98.82.080

    INSTREAM FLOW COMPONENT –  RULES- REPORT

    (1)(a) If the initiating governments choose, by majority vote, to include an instream flow component, it shall be accomplished in the following manner:

    THE HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY RULE

    (i) If minimum instream flows HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED BY RULE for a stream within the management area,

    “UNLESS” the members of the LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT by a recorded unanimous vote REQUEST the department TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS, the minimum instream flows

    SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED UNDER THIS CHAPTER.

    ” IF” the members of LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES REQUEST THE PLANNING UNIT to modify instream flows

    and unanimous approval of the decision to modify such flow IS NOT ACHIEVED, THEN THE INSTREAM FLOWS

    SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED UNDER THIS SECTION;

    —————————————————————————–

    THIS SECTION OF RCW 90.82.080 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE  NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION

    QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a LOCAL PLANNING UNIT VOTES TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO AN EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW RULE? 

    (But it is VERY interesting read)

    THE HAVE NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY minimum streamflows RULE

    (ii) If minimum streamflows HAVE NOT been adopted by rule for a stream within the management area, setting the minimum instream flows

    SHALL BE A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING UNIT.

    The department must attempt to achieve consensus and approval among the members of the planning unit regarding the minimum flows to be adopted by the department.

    APPROVAL IS ACHIEVED IF ALL GOVERNMENT MEMBERS AND TRIBES THAT HAVE BEEN INVITED AND ACCEPTED on the planning unit present for a recorded vote UNANIMOUSLY VOTE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS,

    AND

     ALL NONGOVERNMENTAL MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING UNIT PRESENT FOR THE RECORDED VOTE, “BY A MAJORITY”, VOTE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS.

    (b) The department shall undertake rule making to adopt flows under (a) of this subsection. The department MAY adopt the rules either by the regular rules adoption process provided in chapter 34.05 RCW, the expedited rules adoption process as set forth in RCW 34.05.353,

    OR THROUGH A RULES ADOPTION PROCESS THAT USES PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOTICE PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE.

     Such rules do not constitute significant legislative rules as defined in RCW 34.05.328,

    and do not require the preparation of small business economic impact statements.

    (c) If approval is not achieved within four years of the date the planning unit first receives funds from the department for conducting watershed assessments under RCW 90.82.040,

    the department may promptly initiate rule making under chapter 34.05 RCW to establish flows for those streams and shall have two additional years to establish the instream flows for those streams for which approval is not achieved.

    (2)(a) Notwithstanding RCW 90.03.345, minimum instream flows set under this section for rivers or streams that do not have existing minimum instream flow levels set by rule of the department shall have a priority date of two years after funding is first received from the department under RCW 90.82.040, unless determined otherwise by a unanimous vote of the members of the planning unit but in no instance may it be later than the effective date of the rule adopting such flow.

    (b) Any increase to an existing minimum instream flow set by rule of the department shall have a priority date of two years after funding is first received for planning in the WRIA or multi-WRIA area from the department under RCW 90.82.040 and the priority date of the portion of the minimum instream flow previously established by rule shall retain its priority date as established under RCW 90.03.345.

    (c) Any existing minimum instream flow set by rule of the department that is reduced shall retain its original date of priority as established by RCW 90.03.345 for the revised amount of the minimum instream flow level.

    (3) Before setting minimum instream flows under this section, the department shall engage in government-to-government consultation with affected tribes in the management area regarding the setting of such flows.

    (4) Nothing in this chapter either: (a) Affects the department’s authority to establish flow requirements or other conditions under RCW 90.48.260 or the federal clean water act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq.) for the licensing or relicensing of a hydroelectric power project under the federal power act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 791 et seq.); or (b) affects or impairs existing instream flow requirements and other conditions in a current license for a hydroelectric power project licensed under the federal power act.

    (5) If the planning unit is unable to obtain unanimity under subsection (1) of this section, the department MAY adopt rules setting such flows.

    (6) The department shall report annually to the appropriate legislative standing committees on the progress of instream flows being set under this chapter, as well as progress toward setting instream flows in those watersheds not being planned under this chapter. The report shall be made by December 1, 2003, and by December 1st of each subsequent year.

    [2003 1st sp.s. c 4 § 4; 1998 c 247 § 4.]

    Notes:

         Findings — 2003 1st sp.s. c 4: See note following RCW 90.82.040.

     


  • High, Dry and Destitute

    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 WA State DOE WATER RULES.

    DESTITUTE  by definition, WITHOUT THE BASIC NECESSITIES OF LIFE.

    Our Elected Representative “MUST” Legalize Citizen’s Water Rights.

    Water, is our lifeblood. It is used to grow food and to grow cities. It provides power to run our homes, factories, and businesses.

    PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL WA STATE ENTITIES CONCERNED WITH CITIZENS WATER RIGHTS

    Our WA State elected legislators need to hear how Ecology’s Destitute/Destitution is impacting your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, in the United States of America.

    DESTITUTE,  by definition, WITHOUT THE BASIC NECESSITIES OF LIFE.

    DESTITUTION, by definition poverty so extreme that one lacks the means to provide for oneself.

    ——————————————————————————-

    Our Elected Representative MUST Legalize Citizen’s Water Rights,

    OR, THEY SHALL  leave our DESTITUTE  private property owners, citizens, no choice, but to continue to “duke it out”  in court with EXPENSIVE CITIZEN FUNDED LAWSUITS against the WA State DOE.

    If you have not signed the petition requesting the Washington State Legislature to provide the Skagit Watershed with water, please do!  They are seeing the signatures and reading your comments.

     —– Original Message —–

    From: Zachary Barborinas

    The Department of Ecology is tasked to regulate water for ALL citizens of the state and they have not done their job. Rural farmers and landowners need legislative action to reinstate basic legal access to water to ease the economic hardships and uncertainty before them because of this unconstitutional action. 

    For those of you unable to make it, please provide comments for the Legislature so they see these bills are supported.  They need to hear about how this is impacting you!

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Ecology’s Skagit and Dungeness Water Rule

    They need to hear about how this is impacting you!

    WA State Legislated Intent?

    Posted on March 21, 2013 1:02 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    ——————————————————————–

    An introduction to a series by Pearl Rains Hewett
    Deprived Of Our Water

    Posted on February 13, 2013 12:35 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    DEPRIVED OF OUR WATER RIGHTS AND OUR RIGHT TO WATER

    An introduction to a series by Pearl Rains Hewett
    “behindmyback.org” – CLOUDED WATERS

    DEPRIVED OF OUR WATER
    BY THE APPOINTED FEDERAL – STATE AGENCIES – TRIBAL TREATY -TAPPED
    This series of on the taking and depravation of our water rights will report, document and expose the many ways we the people are being deprived not only of our water right, but to our right to water.

    —————————————————————-

    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY (DOE)
    It will examine and document the many parts that appointed State agencies, the WA State DOE specifically plays in the deprivation of our water private and riparian rights in Counties in WA State. It will question both the DUE PROCESS of LAW and competency of the WA State DOE in creating and imposing and the WA Rules in WA State. The topics of DOE coerced monopoly and Commodity trading will also be discussed

    THE DUNGENESS WATER RULE
    Any and all OTHER related documented information that fit under this category and have previously been posted on “behindmyback.org”

    PUBLIC COMMENT
    It will address the documents the nearly 1000 public comments sent to the WA State DOE on the Dungeness Water Rule from the people of Clallam County and the mote effective that those comments had on the decision of the DOE Appointed State Agency. Why did we bother with nearly 1000 comments? When all we got back was 525 pages of response from DOE and no change in The Dungeness Water Rule.

    —————————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | “Ecology Sucks”

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/04/15/ecologysucks/

    Apr 15, 2013 – “Ecology Sucks” And, the rest of the story. The local news papers did report that I said it. WHAT THE LOCAL NEWSPAPERS DID NOT REPORT …

    —————————————————————————————-

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Zachary Barborinas

    There is a long road ahead, but only our continued pressure will get us closer to a solution

    Furthermore, if you have not signed the petition requesting the Washington State Legislature to provide the Skagit Watershed with water, please do!  They are seeing the signatures and reading your comments.

    SB 5129 – Concerning overriding considerations of the public interest in management of the waters of the state.

    SB 5135 – Ensuring that certain existing water uses are not subject to interruption.

    SB 5136 – Repealing an instream flow rule and adopting a new instream flow rule.

    SB 5491 – Maintaining reservations of water for certain future uses.

    Petitioning Washington State House and 15 others

    This petition will be delivered to:

    Washington State House

    Washington State Senate

    Washington Governor

    District 40

    Senator Kevin Ranker

    District 40

    Rep. Kristine Lytton

    District 40

    Rep. Jeff Morris

    District 10

    Senator Barbara Bailey

    District 10

    Rep. Norma Smith

    District 10

    Rep. Dave Hayes

    District 39

    Senator Kirk Pearson

    District 39

    Rep. Dan Kristiansen

    District 39

    Rep. Elizabeth Scott

    District 42

    Senator Doug Ericksen

    District 42

    Rep. Jason Overstreet

    District 42

    Rep. Vincent Buys

    Governor Inslee’s Chief of Staff

    Joby Shimonmura

    Washington State Legislature: Provide Water for Rural Landowners in Skagit Watershed

    Zachary Barborinas

    United States

    Legal access to well water has been eliminated for rural farmers and landowners in the Skagit River Basin, the 3rd largest watershed on the West Coast. A result so unbalanced and scientifically unsupported amongst our abundant resources, it has left over 6,000 landowners without any legal source of water, including 475 homes already built and occupied. The Department of Ecology is tasked to regulate water for ALL citizens of the state and they have not done their job. Rural farmers and landowners need legislative action to reinstate basic legal access to water to ease the economic hardships and uncertainty before them because of this unconstitutional action.

    Please help support rural farmers and landowners by signing this petition. You will be asking Washington state legislators to legislatively amend the 2001 Instream Flow Rule to provide water to 6,000 rural citizens in the Skagit Watershed.

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Zachary Barborinas

    To: Skagit Watershed

    Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 11:45 AM

    Subject: Senate Hearing for Skagit Watershed

    Yesterday’s Senate hearing provided a tremendous opportunity to see support from many different perspectives. Thank you to everyone that were able to make it to Olympia. There is a long road ahead, but only our continued pressure will get us closer to a solution. For those of you unable to make it, please provide comments for the Legislature so they see these bills are supported.  They need to hear about how this is impacting you!

    1. SB 5129 – Concerning overriding considerations of the public interest in management of the waters of the state.
    2. SB 5131 – Concerning the Skagit instream flow rule.
    3. SB 5407 – Concerning existing lots and the Skagit instream flow rule.
    4. SB 5134 – Concerning base flows and minimum instream flows.
    5. SB 5135 – Ensuring that certain existing water uses are not subject to interruption.
    6. SB 5136 – Repealing an instream flow rule and adopting a new instream flow rule.
    7. SB 5491 – Maintaining reservations of water for certain future uses.

     

    Furthermore, if you have not signed the petition requesting the Washington State Legislature to provide the Skagit Watershed with water, please do!  They are seeing the signatures and reading your comments.

    Have a good weekend!  Go Hawks!

    Regards,

    Zachary J. Barborinas

    Just Water Alliance

    www.justwateralliance.org

     


  • Legislated Crackdown on DOE?

    Legislated Crackdown on DOE?

     Please note that the following legislative actions have been taken.

    House Bill 1202: Providing that an administrative rule or policy of the department of ecology may be abrogated by act of the governor or either house of the legislature
    Introduced by Rep. Elizabeth Scott (Monroe) (R) on January 15, 2015, For Bill Information, please click HERE.
    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=166246

    ——————————————————————–

    WOW! DON’T YOU JUST LOVE THAT WORD

    ABROGATE, abrogated repeal or do away with (a law, right, or formal agreement) repeal, revoke, rescind, repudiate, overturn, annul; More?

    ————————————————–

    House Bill 1233: Specifying that the ability to withdraw a certain amount of groundwater for domestic purposes without first obtaining a permit from the department of ecology is not subject to relinquishment through nonuse
    Introduced by Rep. Bruce Chandler (Granger) (R) on January 15, 2015, For Bill Information, please click HERE.
    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=166277

    ——————————————————————

    House Bill 1203: Limiting the enforcement of administrative rules and policies
    Introduced by Rep. Elizabeth Scott (Monroe) (R) on January 15, 2015, For Bill Information, please click HERE.
    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=166247

    ——————————————————————

    House Bill 1204: Limiting the enforcement of policies of the department of ecology
    Introduced by Rep. Elizabeth Scott (Monroe) (R) on January 15, 2015, For Bill Information, please click HERE.
    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=166248

    ——————————————————————–

    House Bill 1200: Limiting the enforcement of policies of the department of fish and wildlife and providing for abrogation of policies by act of the governor or either house of the legislature
    Introduced by Rep. Elizabeth Scott (Monroe) (R) on January 15, 2015, For Bill Information, please click HERE.
    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=166244

    —————————————————————————-

    House Bill 1201: Providing that an administrative rule may be abrogated by act of the governor or either house of the legislature
    Introduced by Rep. Elizabeth Scott (Monroe) (R) on January 15, 2015, For Bill Information, please click HERE.
    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=166245

    —————————————————————–

    House Bill 1202: Providing that an administrative rule or policy of the department of ecology may be abrogated by act of the governor or either house of the legislature
    Introduced by Rep. Elizabeth Scott (Monroe) (R) on January 15, 2015, For Bill Information, please click HERE.
    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=166246

    ——————————————————————————————-

    THERE IS  REALLY A LONG LIST (A quick read provided the above)

    SORRY, THE CLICK HERE DOES NOT WORK

    Read more at http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=165801

    for legislative actions, and their impact on issues of local and state wide concern.

    Thank Lois for providing this http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=165801