+menu-


  • Category Archives The High Cost of Lawsuits
  • SMP Update Concerns to Commissioners

    Oct 13, 2017 You, the elected Commissioners are now, at this late date, concerned about the Public Participation Strategy for the 2017 Clallam County SMP Update.

    You are planning open meetings, asking for public comments, and yes, you are planning the date for a public forum.

    ————————————————————————

    Just noting, 2010: The Clallam County Board of Commissioner’s expects to adopt a final SMP-Update Public Participation Strategy extended to March 16, 2010 @ 10 a.m. at the Board of Clallam County Commissioners Regular Meeting, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington.

    ———————————————————————-

    Part one: Oct 13, 2017 , The history of us, the collective 3000 private shoreline property vested stakeholders? What happened to us between Dec 5, 2009 and Jan 26, 2011?

    Dec 5, 2009. the FIRST  public comment on the SMP Update was submitted and posted.

    Jan 26, 2011  The  SMP  Public participation strategy? The first, by invitation only SMP Update meeting was held  by  ESA Adolfson’s  paid, facilitators Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    Not one of  Clallam County’s elected representatives bothered to attended this meeting. Not, Commissioners’, Tharanger, Chapman, Doherty or DCD director Miller. It was a bureaucrats meeting.

    What you, the elected, don’t know, have been denied access to by bureaucrats,  about SMP Update  600 plus public comments can hurt all Clallam County citizens.

    ——————————————————————————-

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    ·         120509 – DemComm – G  #1  CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

     WHEREAS the nature of amendments to the plan as might be adopted by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners mayor may not adequately protect the quality of local waters from harmful development; and

    WHEREAS participation in the Shoreline Management Plan review process will be open to the public in a series of meetings over the next two years or more;

    THEREFORE be it resolved that the Clallam County Democratic Central Committee appoint a subcommittee of interested members to monitor the progress of the Shoreline Management Plan review, to suggest to the Central Committee communications to the county of the concerns or interests of Democrats in the elements of the plans and any proposed amendments, and to issue quarterly reports on the review process to the Central Committee.

    ·         December 5, 2009

    ————————————————————————-

    Bureaucrats created the final Clallam County Shoreline 2017 SMP Draft Update.

    Oct 13, 2017 I am just one concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property in Clallam County WA.

    However, what happens to one of us, on the Clallam County Shoreline Update (SMP) collectively happens to all 3000 of us.

    The SMP ball is now in your court. and just asking?  have you, the elected collectively, or as  an individual elected official, taken the time (due diligence) to visit and read the SMP public court of opinion,600 plus comments on the Clallam County WA SMP Update?

    What happened to the online 600 plus SMP Update Public Comments? You, the elected, are the now, the ultimate decision maker. Have the SMP Public comments of private property owners been taken into consideration by you as a Clallam County Commissioners in the final stages of SMP Update?

     —————————————————————–

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000? What happened to us?

    Jan 26, 2011, I was a concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property.

    I was one of  thirty (30) selected individuals, to be invited to attend the first Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan Update  (SMP) meeting.

    The meeting was presented by  ESA Adolfson’s  paid facilitators , Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    In spite of the fact that it was a  private public  meeting, by invitation only, sixty (60) concerned citizens showed up and packed the room.

    Not one of  Clallam County’s elected representatives bothered to attended this meeting.

    Not, Commissioners’, Tharanger, Chapman, Doherty or DCD director Miller. It was a bureaucrats meeting.

    When I complained about it at a commissioners public meeting, after the meeting Commissioner Chapman insulted me, and said if I didn’t like the way things were going I should sign up for the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    I did, I was appointed by DCD Miller.

    Cathy Lear said I must read everything. I did and that was when I started making Public SMP Update Comments.

    —————————————————–

    By May 5, 2011,

    I was an angry, concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property and a member of the appointed Citizens Advisory Committee

    050511 – PHewett – G

      #70 We, as a Citizens Advisory Committee, are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.

    —————————————————————————-

    By July 07, 2012, I  was a very frustrated, angry, concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property and  a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee

    July 7, 2012 I was so concerned about the SMP Update I compiled the

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

    I am concerned with, the comment numbers with no comments? The fact that it took me 12 hours to compile the following information?

    Unfortunately the links 2009-2012 SMP public comments  are not  linked to the SMP Update

    Not one of Clallam County elected representative from 2011 is still in office.

    Please note, there is only one county employee, Steve Gray, still employed by Clallam County that is still rewriting and revising the SMP Update. Unless? County employee Cathy Lear is representing someone?

    And, Steve is still being directed  by the ESA Adolfson  paid consultant, facilitator  Margret Clancy.

    Just saying, Margaret Clancy is not legally responsible for whatever content she and Steve decide to put into the SMP Update.

    Just asking? Have Clallam County elected representatives sought or received any legal counsel?

    Am I concerned? YOU BET…

    ARE YOU CONCERNED? Read the 2009-2012 comments, go find and read the 600 plus SMP public comments,. You, the elected, not bureaucrats, are responsible for the fate of Clallam County, you are the ultimate and final SMP Update decision makers.

    SHOULD YOU, THE ELECTED BE CONCERNED?  You decide.

    A concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property in Clallam County WA.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Trustee George C.Rains Sr. Estate

    —————————————————————

    July 07, 2012 COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: undisclosed concerned citizens and elected officials

    Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 10:02 AM

    THE SHORT FORM IS AN EMAIL

    CLICK ON THE TOP LINK TO READ THE FULL 6300 WORD DOCUMENT

    Subject: COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

     

    • TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
    • If you want to read the  full SMP comment? Go to the Clallam County SMP website. Click on Public comments. Identify the comment by using the name and the date (no comment #  is displayed).
    • I am concerned with, the comment numbers with no comments? The fact that it took me 12 hours to compile the following information? If the online Public Comments will be compiled? Read by the decision makers? And if the comments of private property owners will be taken into considereration by the Planning Dept. and the Clallam County Commissioners in the final SMP Update? Public Forums are being scheduled and the private property owners of Clallam County need to be advised.
    • Pearl Rains Hewett concerned member of the DOE SMP Advisory Committee
    • 050511 – PHewett – G
    • #70 We, as a Citizens Advisory Committee, are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.
    •  

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2009-2012

    July:

    ·         070212 – RKonopaski – G

    ·         #284 clarifying the setbacks on marine shorelines?

    June:

    ·         062312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #283 excessive 175-150 + 10 foot setbacks

    ·         061712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #282 DOE private meeting

    ·         061412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #281 150′ wetland setbacks Futurewise and Grays Harbor

    ·         061412 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #280 WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC FUTURE OF CLALLAM COUNTY?

    ·         061112 – PHewett – G

    ·         # 279 See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987). precautionary setbacks

    ·         060912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #278 25  No setback increases See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987).

    ·         060712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #277 Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims. 65% taking violates law

    ·         060312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #276 No taking of private property for public access

    May:

    ·         053012 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #275 RE-DESIGNATE TO FRESHWATER RURAL

    ·         052912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #274 fight back COORDINATION PROCESS 43 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1712

    ·         052412 – RCahill – SMPdraft

    ·         #273 the spirit and intent of the Department of Ecology’s Shore land’s and Environmental Assistance, publication number 09-06-029, shall and should, be changed to may.

    ·         052212 – JBlazer – SED

    ·         #272 The problem… my parcel and the 2 parcels to the south would be hard pressed to build residences that take advantage of the marine view using the 175 ft setback in the proposed designation of Freshwater Conservancy.

    ·         052112 – MBlack – SMPdraft

    ·         #271 The overall concern I have is that you are in fact taking future uses away from private land holders without clearly acknowledging doing so.

    ·         051712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #270 problem SELLING AND BUYING DOE SMP NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    ·         051612 – PHewett – PPS

    ·         #269 SMP Public Forum participation

    ·         051512 – ASoule – SMPdraft

    ·         #268 SMP references to sea level rise

    ·         051212 – PHewett – G

    ·         #267 FORKS SMP PUBLIC FORUM problems  MAY 10, 2012

    ·         051212 – KNorman – SED

    ·         #266 I hope that you will reconsider the classification of these lots based on this information as to do otherwise would be a severe hardship on the owners of the lots and would constitute a “taking” of the land.

    ·         051112 – FutureWise-PPS – SMPdraft

    ·         #265 Clallam County v. Futurewise 7 years + lawsuit Carlsborg. The current SMP updates are an opportunity to significantly improve protection for the straits and the county’s other shorelines.

    ·         050812 – EBowen – G20

    ·         #264  S. Gray to Ed Bowen long overdue Final Draft WRIA 20 Preliminary SMP Elements Report

    ·         050812 – WFlint – SED

    ·         #263  redesignateThe Lower Lyre River should be designated as Freshwater Residential (FRSD), and not Freshwater Conservancy (FC) as it is now proposed.

    ·         050812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #262 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AND THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW DOE has consistently ignored questions asked on SMP comments, posted on the Clallam County SMP Update website, and at SMP Advisory meetings. I am requesting answers to the following questions to comply with the core principles of Due Process and the DOE SMP taking of private property in Clallam County.

    ·         050712 – USFWS – SMPdraft

    ·         #261  The Service strongly supports maintaining the feeder bluffs in their natural functioning condition.

    ·         050612 – PHewett – G

    ·         #260 If it is not recorded with the Clallam County Auditor’s Office it is not on the Property Title. What should be recorded with the Auditor’ s office for Public Record?

    ·         050512 – ESpees – G

    ·         #259 The premise of the SMA/SMP Undate ‘that there is and environmental crisis’ that requires a draconian governmental intervention is bogus.

    ·         050412 – LMuench – G

    ·         #258 I think you would best be served by showing shrubs as well as trees. Since the graphics are done, what about a red arrow pointing to the trees saying “may be limbed for views.” This is a major issue with shoreline land owners.

    ·         050412 – ESpees – G

    ·         #257 The negative ECONOMIC IMPACT of the DoE imposed SMA/SMP Update for 2012 will be staggering!!!

    ·         050412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #256 Clallam County DOE SMP update, written text, uses our safety and protection as an excuse to take, restrict and control the use/development of our private property.

    ·         050312 – JBettcher – G

    ·         #255 I appreciate the public benefit of a healthy ecosystem but oppose the taking of private property by prohibiting private landowners from applying the best engineering practices to resist natural whims.

    ·         050212 – PHewett – G

    ·         #254 REAL ESTATE LOW MARKET VALUE OF NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    April:

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #253 Increased Ins.FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #252 House Bill 2671  If a county appeals the (DOE) Department of Ecology’s final action on their local shoreline master program and  the appeal is given to the Growth Management Hearings Board?

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #251 No. 87053-5 lawsuit against GMA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    ·         042612 – PHewett -G

    ·         #250 CLALLAM COUNTY- County NEGLECT OF WIRA 20 SMP PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ·         042112 – Spees – G

    ·         #249 this insane outrageous governmental over reach under the thinly veiled cover of saving the environment. The problem now is not the environment.

    ·         042112 – PHewett – G

    ·         #248 PARTIAL DISCLOSURE OF negative SMP IMPACT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ·         041812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #247 The statistics introduced 474 at the last SMP Advisory meeting, on how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings will become non-conforming by the SMP Draft marine 175′, 150′ plus 10′ setbacks, has not been posted on the SMP web site.

    ·         041712 – Port of PA – G

    ·         #246 Excessive buffers Table 4.1 the proposed draft buffer in row “a” should be modified from 100’ to 50’

    March:

    ·         032912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #245 THE MOST UNSCIENTIFIC PARTS OF THE DOE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP ARE, that even with DOE’S 1616 employees and a billion dollar budget.DOE doesn’t have a single analyst capable of compiling and reporting the most important documented/published scientific statistics provided by The Clallam County Inventory and Characteristic reports.

    ·         032612 – PHewett – G

    ·         #244 ESA Adolfson’s consultant’s failure to comply with WA State Law RCW 90.58.100 Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion.

    ·         032512 – PHewett – G20

    ·         #243 WIRA 20 Sol Duc River Reach 80 needs to be re-designated on proposed draft to 3.1.1.4 Freshwater Conservancy (FC)

    ·         032312 – RCrittenden – SMPdraft

    ·         #242 Thus, all regulation is evil by its nature and it is repressive. The best regulations are those that are the least that is necessary to accomplish their intended legitimate purpose. And “legitimate” is not to be broadly construed.

    ·         032212 – PHewett/RCrittenden – G

    ·         #241 Dr. Robert N. Crittenden SMP critical comments, testimony, tables and reviews

    ·         032112 – OEC – SMPdraft

    ·         #240  Change “should” to “shall” ,,,,culverts, and bridges shall be conducted using best practices….

    ·         031712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #239 Who controls PATENT LAND GRANTS ISSUED PRIOR TO STATEHOOD

    ·         031412 – MBarry – G

    ·         #238 These shorelines are critical for wildlife and natural ecological functions. I favor large setbacks. I favor development restrictions

    ·         030912 – PHewett – G/NNL

    ·         #237 Mitigation is for the rich Building Permit 2012-00014 issued to owners, David and Maria Tebow, Battle Creek MI. Two story 4 bedroom house 4770 sq feet, garage 927 sq feet, covered deck 173 sq feet with 19 plumbing drains (Number of Bathrooms?) Setbacks 60/25/25 Project value $486,781.18. the written guarantee bythe Clallam County DCD of no net loss to ecological functions (documented on building permit)

    ·         030512 – ESpees – SMPdraft

    ·         #236 There is no way that these voluminous shoreline land use policies can be understood. It takes no imagination to understand that this process is not ‘due process’ in the taking of beneficial use of our Private Property

    ·         030412 – PHewett – SMPdraft

    ·         #235 DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages) has gone missing, creating law by rule

    ·         030312 – KAhlburg – SMPdraft

    ·         #234 The last sentence runs directly counter to this assurance and needs to be modified or deleted. It otherwise will constitute yet another unfunded mandate burdening the County and “other entities” (which ones?).

    ·         030212 – PHewett – NNL/SMPdraft

    ·         #233 Lake Sutherland is a perfect example of Ecology’s NO NET LOSS.

    ·         With a 35 foot setback since 1976 there is no net loss of ecological function in Lake Sutherland.

    ·         030112 – MarineResourcesCouncil – SMPdraft

    ·         #232 It may also be possible that under certain development conditions, if done to minimize impervious surface and maximize water infiltration, could enhance the function of the buffer and perhaps allow for a narrower buffer.

    February:

    ·         022812 – FutureWise – SMPdraft

    ·         #231 The first half establishes the expected character of shoreline buffers, and is well stated. But the second half goes on to state that only 80% of the buffer vegetation is protected, and that 20% can be used for lawns and other use areas.

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #230 NO NET LOSS MENTIONED In law RCW 36.70A.480 but has never been defined (4) Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areas located within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by department of ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060.

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #229 The policies, goals, and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW and applicable guidelines shall be the sole basis for determining compliance of a shoreline master program

    ·         022712 – WDOE- SMP Statue

    ·         #228 Gordon White letter dated Feb. 27,2012 page 4, disclaimer of creating enforceable state LAW by rule on Page 88 of the WA State Public Trust Doctrine.

    ·         022412 – QuileuteNation – SMPdraft

    ·         #227 TRIBAL comment

    January:

    ·         010312 – LowerElwhaKlalllamTribe – SED

    ·         #226 TRIBAL comment

     

     

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

    SMP Comments 2011:

    December:

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #225 PROBLE  WETLANDS NOT ON SMP MAPS Attachments: Lowell OREGON Local Wetland Inventory Report DRAFT.docx

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #224 Perkins and Coie  Your Request on Tacoma SMP Attachments: 12-13-10 letter to Gary Brackett.pdf; SMA and Public Access.pdf legal paper against SMP taking

    ·         120711 –OlympicEnvironmentalCouncil (OEC) – G

    ·         #223 Sea level  rise and climate change

    ·         120611 – WDOE- ICR20

    ·         #222  Draft WRIA 20 Inventory and Characterization

    November:

    ·         113011 – ESpees – G

    ·         #221 In the WRIA Process and the SMA/SMP Update Process the concept of State regulation of land use based on Feeder Bluffs and Littoral Drift Cells is a False Construct.

    ·         112511 – ESpees – G

    ·         #220 The DoE’s current cram-down of NNL and increased set-backs based on precautionary principle and ‘new understandings of science’ (non-science/non-sense/pseudo-science) should be rejected.

    ·         112411 – ESpees – G

    ·         #219 Impact on all stakeholders It’s content is extremely pertinent to the work we are doing in Clallam County’s SMA/SMP Update.

    ·         111611 – MPfaff-Pierce – SED

    ·         #218 Specifically, I am requesting that you reclassify the entire Whiskey Creek Beach Resort area as Modified Lowland. Right now you are proposing that a short area west of the creek be designated as Modified Lowland and the rest as High Bank.

    ·         111111 – JPetersen – SED

    ·         #217 Many activities would be prohibited without really looking at the specifics.

    ·         111011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #216 This is on the DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages)”Finally, SMP’S, unlike other comprehensive plans, are adopted as WAC’S and become part of the state’s Shoreline Master Program. As such, all local SMP rules, regulations, designations and guidelines BECOME STATE LAW AND ARE ENFORCEABLE. in this manner, protection of public trust resources and uses becomes binding.”

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #215 SMP FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW not the WAC’S

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #214 Court: Washington Supreme Court Docket: 84675-8 Opinion Date: August 18, 2011 Judge: Johnson Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Applicable Law and Analysis. In affirming the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court explained that even though there is significant local government involvement in the creation of SMPs, the process is done in the shadow of the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) control.

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #213 the Shoreline Management Act dictates that the Department of Ecology retains control over the final contents and approval of SMPs. Therefore, SMP regulations are the product of state action and are not subject to RCW 82.02.020.”

    ·         110611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #212 EXCLUDED SMP DOE WAC’S DO NOT BECOME LAW

    ·         110511 – ESpees – NNL

    ·         #211 In keeping with regard to no net loss was unclear and without any foundation.

    ·         110511 – ESpees – G

    ·         #210 The law has recently been perverted by State Agencies to usurp private property rights, an uncompensated State taking by regulation.

    ·         110511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #209 There is no WA State law requiring any taking of private property for public access on the Clallam County SMP Update.

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #208 WHO CAN STOP DOE WAC’S FROM BECOMING STATE LAWS?

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #207 Victory for PLF Whatcom County’s shoreline management rules conflict with state law, which mandates that counties “shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion.” RCW 90.58.100.

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #206 BY Law there is NO mention of the words “imminent or danger or soft armoring” IF THIS WORDING IS USED ON THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT CONTRADICTS WA STATE LAW RCW 90.58.100 Protection of single family residences IT WILL BECOME CLALLAM COUNTY LAW.

    ·         110311 – WDFW – ICR

    ·         #205 A useful tool may be to describe, in general, the range of possible existing conditions within any portion of the shoreline.

    ·

    October:

    ·         103111 – WDOE – ICR

    ·         #204  Not a copy format

    ·         103111 – JLarson – ICR

    ·         #203 I made at last SMP-WG meeting be incorporated into record

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

    ·         # 202 Who’s toes will you be stepping on by using this? Will you be able to notify the private property owners that are inadvertently compromised? Are there any single family residences, in any areas, where you have not specifically provided comment on protection by Law?

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #201 Is this another WAC overstepping it’s authority and the LAW?

    ·         101911 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #200 The concept of no net loss in this State originated with earlier efforts to protect wetlands. In 1989, Governor Booth Gardner signed an Executive Order establishing a statewide goal regarding wetlands protection.

    ·         101811 – JEstes – G

    ·         #199 There are 3,289 shoreline property owners in Clallam County about to be subject to further regulation and restriction on the use of their land.

    ·         101711 – PHewett – G

    ·          #198 Unconstitutional Conditions of  WAC 173-26-191 Some master program policies may not be fully attainable by regulatory means due to the constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property.

    ·         101711 – WSP – ICR20

    ·         #197 Any additional comments on the two Clallam County SMP Inventory and Characterizations Reports are due by October 31, 2011

    ·         101111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #196 WAC’S ARE NOT LAW’S? Guidelines Are Not Law’s? Rules Are Not Law’s?

    ·         100811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #195 WAC 365-195-905 Criteria for determining which information is the best available science

    ·         100611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #194 REMOTE VIEWING AND SPACIAL DATA I did not find a State- of- the art- GSI and remote sensing facility for WA State?

    No b comment for #193?

    ·         100411 – PHewett – G/ICR

    ·         #192 Please bring the SMP Public Comments up to date.

    ·         100311 – JTatom – G

    ·         #191 As a property owner in Clallam County, I cannot imagine that you, as servants of the county, would even consider placing additional restrictions on residents who live near shorelines (marine, rivers, streams and lakes). Already we find ourselves so restricted that we are unable to use large portions

    ·         of our “privately” owned property.

    ·         100111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #190 Is it the intent, of two Elected County Commissioners, that total control of all private property in Clallam County, be given to the Federal Government and the WA State DOE, one way or the other?

    September:

    ·         092611 – PHewett – G/ICR

    ·         #189 Taking of Private Property for Public Access I insist that ESA Adolfson give us the total land acreage of private property that is affected by the SMP Update subject to NO NET LOSS and taking for Public Access.

    ·         092511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #188 private property owners pay for Noxious Weed Control ‐ LMD#2 Lake Sutherland

    There is no #187  public comment?

    ·         092211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #186 SHORELINE RESIDENTS SWAMPED BY REGULATIONS

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #185 I tried to stress the fact that it is not lack of public land, it is the lack of public access to that publically owned land,that is the problem.

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #184 CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTIC REPORT Based on the “Best Available Science?”

    ·         092211 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #183 Tribal comment

    ·         091311 – LowerElwhaKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #182 Tribal comment

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #181 CLALLAM COUNTY SECTION 35.01.150 Real property assessments. PROTECTION FOR LOSS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VALUE?  The restrictions imposed by the Shoreline Master Program shall be considered by the County Assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #180 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT ON SMP Public Forum July 14, 2011 every public comment and question asked.

    ·         090411 – JLewis – CR/ICR

    ·         #179 Public access across our property through our wetlands and over our berm to our private beach would be of great concern to us. Here are some questions and concerns we’d like addressed and you consider amending the provisions for providing public shoreline access:

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #178 The Drift Cells, Littoral Drift, and

    ·         Feeder Bluffs Construct are so much BS/Smoke and Mirrors.

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #177 The Shoreline Master Program Update is rigged. NNL & larger setbacks do not represent the ‘will of the people’. It does not protect the rights of the Citizens.

    ·         090211 – ESpees – G

    ·         #176 I gave my opinion about ‘locking up’ shorelines property based on salmon and endangered species as a pretext

    August:

    ·         083111 – WDNR – ICR

    ·         #175 THREAT? Incidentally, many of the docks and other development may

    ·         encroach onto State owned aquatic lands without proper DNR authorization.

    ·         083111 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

    ·         #174 There is obviously no “ground truthing” of the information in this report.

    ·         083111 – JLWisecup – G

    ·         #173 It lists it as a slide area although for the past 32 years we have had no indication of any land movement or building shift.

    ·         083111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #172 It is more loony insanity being foisted on the Citizens of the State of Washington by a Government and their agents that are out of control.

    ·         083111 – ESpees -G

    ·         171 The SMA/SMP and the WRIA processes are a means of locking up, transferring ownership to the State, and regulating the use of these areas/preventing private economic and other beneficial use of these prime areas.

    ·         082811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #170 SILT DAMAGE FROM ELWHA TO DUNGENESS SPIT?

    ·         082511 – ElwhaMorseMgmtTeam – ICRMaps

    ·         #169  Chris Byrnes commented on the yellow dots off shore (indicating “no appreciable drift”), argued that if it was so small, there wouldn’t be drifting anyway.

    ·         082511 – CoastalWatershedInstitute – ICR

    ·         #168 The characterization needs to be revised to include existing CLALLAM specific information and appropriate relevant recommendations that are in this existing information.

    ·         082511 – DAbbott – G

    ·         #167 I would like to see every effort made to ensure the constitutional rights of private property ownership made by those who have influence in our lawmaking process. These rights have been encroached upon over the years and there is a renewed concern today by many private citizens.

    ·         082411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #166 WA State SMP is requiring Public access on private property at the expense of the property owner.

    There is no comment#164

    There is no comment #163

    ·         081011 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

    ·         #162 I urge you to look at the reach/s or resource issues within all reaches for accuracy, omissions, and errors.

    ·         There is no comment #161

    ·

    ·         081011 – WSP – ICR

    ·         #160 not able to copy

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #159

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #158

    ·          

    ·         080511 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #157 A huge treat to Private Property owners.Wetlands are not included on SMP Update maps showing the areas that are a threat and risk of development.

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #156

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #155

    ·

    ·         080111 – FutureWise – ICR

    ·         #154 The Sierra Club

    July:

    ·         072611 – WASeaGrant – ICR

    ·         #153 Coastal Hazards Specialist

    There is not comment #152

    ·         072211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #151 Fact or Fiction, It is illegal to collect water in a rain barrel?

    ·         The State owns all rainwater?

    ·         072011 – CCPlCom – ICR

    ·         #150 The July Forum attendance was low and those that attended appeared to be struggling with the information presented and the questions to ask.

    There is no comment #149

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #148 Marine and Fresh water reach’s impaired by water temperature for fish recovery

    ·         072011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #147 Freshwater reaches impaired by water temperature (32) Marine reaches impaired by water temperature (6) Contaminated Marine Reaches (5)

    ·         Contaminated Freshwater Reaches (2) plus several

    ·         072011 – ESpees – G

    ·         #146 What the hell does NNL (No Net Loss of ecological function) mean? What is the plan for the amount of setbacks? What is the basis of this vague indefinable policy?

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR20

    ·         #145 On page 5-14 HOKO_RV_05 is not listed. Shore line length 3.8 miles and Reach area 246.40 acres 100% timber

    ·         071711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #144 TOP TEN PUBLIC SMP UPDATE CONCERNS

    ·         071711 – ESpees – G

    ·         #143 Tribes not affected by Shoreline Mgmt. Plan Updates

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #142 the DoE/EPA attempt to strip the Citizens of their private property rights.

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #141 It uses Drift Cells and Littoral Drift as excuses to take away private use and protections of private property. This has to do with ‘feeder bluffs’

    ·         071211 – TSimpson – ICR

    ·         #140 Page 6-12 Needs Correction :Lines 19-22

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #139 COLD ENOUGH? For Salmon Recovery?

    ·         Based on their own reports and data, the amount of tree canopy, logging, development and public access are NOT factors in the impaired water temperature? Perhaps 50 years ago the water WAS cold enough?

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #138 Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name? We should be given the exact location of every specific contaminated site and the full identity of EVERY contaminator.

    ·         071111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #137 Conspicuously absent from the report of the first meeting is an accounting of the economical impact.

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #136 If more public access is needed, it is not the responsibility of Private Property Owner’s to provide it.

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #135 The Clallam County SMP update requires private property owners to give public access to their privately owned marine shorelines, prior to permitting development.

    ·

    ·         No comment # 134

    ·         No comment #133

    ·         No Comment #132

     

     

    .

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

     

    SMP Comments 2011 cont.

    June:

    ·         062811 – JLMcClanahan – G20

    ·          #131 She was very concerned about any potential regulatory changes that would result in the loss of options for using their two parcels in the future.

    ·         062411 – RTMcAvoy – G20

    ·         #130 they are against any such change for the reasons stated herein.

    ·         062411 – DMansfield – G20

    ·         #129 Adamant about no further restrictions on property

    ·         062411 – PCWidden – G20

    ·         #128 Concerns about changing the current SMP status from Rural to Conservancy.

    No comment #127

    ·         062011 – JEstes – G

    ·         #126  detail on how members of the public and affected property owners are being notified

    No Comment # 125

    ·         060611 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #124 local DOE

    ·         060611 – PortofPA – CR

    ·         #123 LIMIT NOT PROHIBIT

    ·         060411 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #122 The salmonid stocks in Clallam County are not limited by freshwater habitat

    ·         060311 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – CR

    ·         #121 Tribal Comment

    ·         060311 – HBell – CR

    ·         #120 This is not required by the RCW nor the WAC. WAC 173-26-241

    ·         060311 – WSP – CR

    ·         #119 State Park comment

    ·         060311 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #118 Local DOE

    ·         060311 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #117 By Dr. Robert N. Crittenden

    ·         060211 – RCrittenden – CR

    ·         #116 the low abundance of these stocks is also being used, to perpetrate the deception that it is caused by habitat loss.

    ·         060211 – JEstes – CR

    ·         #115 the CR is one of several steps the County will take to consider if any existing “policies or regulations need to change.” There must be demonstrated

    ·         need for any changes and all affected landowners should be invited to consider any changes.

    ·         060211 – SForde – G

    ·         #114 Which one of my individual rights are you protecting with the Shoreline Master Plan and/or any updates to it? The answer: Nonein fact, you are violating them.

    ·         060211 – QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #113 Tribal comment

    ·         060211 – CRogers – CR

    ·         #112 -Page 4 typo error

    ·         060211  –  QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #111 Tribal comment

    ·         060111 – AStevenson – CR

    ·         #110 a marked up PDF of the Consistency Review

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #109 SMP Update – SMP Update Rigged Process

    No comment #108

    ·         060111 – PHewett – G #107

    ·         TOTALITARIAN: by definition(concerned with) arrogating (to the state and the ruling party) all rights and liberty of every choice, including those normally belonging to individuals, etc.

    ·         060111 – MTWalker – G

    ·         #106 The SMP should be rejected in all it’s forms. It erodes our rights and freedoms, does not comply with and is in fact contrary to the Constitution, is poorly written, poorly organized, vague, and its objectives are ambiguous/obscure.

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #105 Tribes Not Affected

    May:

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #104 The SMP erodes our rights and freedoms

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #103 The NNL Policy, larger setbacks and buffers, and new forced public access to private property will further erode our freedoms.

    ·         053111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #102 Green Point, group. 35 were invited and 17 showed up plus Dave Hannah was there to answer questions on bluff stability. Of the 17 only one was aware of SMP or said they had been contacted about forums.

    ·         053111 – PHewett – G / CR

    ·         #101 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack

    ·         052911 – ESpees – G

    ·         #100 Adopting the NNL Policy and enlargement of current buffers is making bad policy worse.

    ·         052911 – PHewett – G

    ·         #99 SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Many of the problems that were the REASON that the public voted for the original Shore Line Management Act have already been corrected.

    ·         052811 – ESpees – G

    ·         #98 The DoE, an unelected State agency, is making radical policy based on the new State religion of earth worship.

    ·         052811 – RHale – G

    ·         #97 SMP’S are nothing more than a new version of a death panel and a method for which to take property rights of state Registered/ Deeded and “taxed” owners.

    ·         052711 – ESpees – G

    #96 Article 1. Section 1. Of the Washington State Constitution

    Political Power: All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

    052711 – PHewett – G

    #95 WA State DOE Budget is A THOUSAND MILLION IS A BILLION written AS $1,034.0 Million (the Doe can’t even write it as a BILLION)

    ·         052611 – MGentry – G

    ·         #94 I reported to Steve and Sheila only one of the group of 20 we met with had received notices like this. Can you determine why?

    No comment #93

    ·         052111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #92 Directing and identifying how our Clallam County Officials can withhold permits to private property owner’s because the State can’t legally or constitutionally regulate our private property at a state level.

    No comment #91

    ·         051811 – JPetersen – CR

    ·         #90 One of the items that should be addressed in the new shoreline program is the relative inaccuracy of the Critical Areas maps in regards to Meander Hazard Zones.

    ·         051811 – NOTAC – CR

    ·         #89 MANY comments on the Consistency Review

    No comment #88

    No comment #87

    No comment #86

    No comment #85

    No comment #84

    No comment #83

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #82 WA The Supreme Court has granted review in several additional cases against the SMP this month.Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning, et al. v. Whatcom County, et al., No. 84675-8.

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #81 United States Supreme Court RULES An environmental restriction on property development that serves no environmental purpose is unjustifiable.

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #80 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack

    No comment #79

    No comment #78

    ·         051011 – TSummer – G

    ·         #77 No privacy on private beach I have met some extremely rude people who confront me and won’t leave my backyard because they believe the beach SHOULD BE public.

    ·         050611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #76 Clallam County SMP has/will taken the value of private property located in critical areas, setbacks, buffer zones and shorelines and is legally controlling and regulating the removal of all vegetation on all private property located in critical areas, setbacks, buffer zones.

    ·         050611 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #75 TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS Statistics taken from Clallam County future land use map 79.2 % of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND 17.1% or less of Clallam County is PRIVATE PROPERTY 3.7% other

    No comment #74

    No comment #73

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #72 LAKE SUTHERLAND RCW 90.24.010 Petition to regulate flow

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #71 Oregon Voters May Require Compensation for Damage to Land Value Due to Regulations

    ·         050511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #70 We, as a committee are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.

    ·

    April:

    ·         042611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #69 Since, all of the SMP public comments are being held private?

    I guess we will have to find a way to make our privatized, public

    comments PUBLIC?

    ·         042311 – MBlack – G

    ·         #68 This is crazy-making and counterproductive. Please pick one that can be defined.

    ·         042011 – KAhlburg – G

    ·         #67 Public comments

    ·         041811 – QuileuteNation – G

    ·         #66 Tribal Comment

    ·         041411 – RColby – G

    No comment #65

    No comment #64

    No comment #63

    ·         #62 We are still suffering under the Good Ole Boys mentality out here because in Clallam bay one property owner is using his lands for staging a scrap metal yard right next to Charlie creek.

    ·         041411 – TSimpson – G

    ·         #61  To mandate setbacks is arbitrary. Each site is different.

    ·         041211 – BBrennan – G

    ·         #60  We are in the process of evaluating the existing well and have had utilities reconnected to the property. Over the next few years we hope to see these projects come to fruition, but are concerned that shoreline setback changes could impede our progress.

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #59 hand written

    ·         041111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #58 hand written

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #57 Hand written

    ·         041111 – RMorris – G

    ·         #56 same as #57 hand written

    ·         041111 – NMessmer – G

    ·         #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·         041011 – RMorris – G

    ·         #54 I would really like to see a ban on the use of yard-related herbicides and pesticides within buffer zones near aquatic areas.

    No comment #53

    No comment #52

    ·         04 –11- RMorris – G

    ·         #51 #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·

    March:

    ·         031511- PHewett – G

    ·         #50  Summary  was not representative of the meeting I attended on Jan. 26, 2011. There was no mention of Lake Sutherland and the outpour of concern by the private property owners.

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

    ·         #49 My first look at the report is that is looks good.

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

    ·         #48 Is the Clallam County MRC research and data bases being used in this work?

    No comment #47

    ·         031411 – MGentry – G

    ·         #46 I would be really interested in knowing what portion of the population actually has even an elementary understanding of what’s going on with this planning process, the decisions being made and how those will affect the common citizen.

    ·         031111- JWare – G

    ·         #45 Thank you for providing the opportunity to participate and learn more about the Clallam County Shoreline Master Plan.

    No comment #44

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #43 Indian Tribes Role in Local Watershed Planning (ESHB 2514)

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #42 INVITATION TO ALL PERSONS RCW 90.58.130

    No comment #41

    February:

    ·         021711 – MLangley – G

    ·         #40 PRO SMP but Too often shoreline owners bear the burden of inconsiderate visitors.

    ·         021511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #39  My son listened to me complain for days about the SMP and illegal trespass by DFW on our land, then he gave me some invaluable advise. If you have a complaint? CLIMB THE LADDER!

    ·         020211 – RBrown – G

    ·         #38 Sorry I couldn’t make it to the latest SMP focus group

    January:

    ·         012611 – MBoutelle – G

    ·         #36 hand written erosion problem

    No comment #35

    No comment #34

    No comment #33

    No comment #32

    ·         012111 – CAbrass – G

    ·         #31 One of our concerns is the lack of guidelines and drainage requirements for new housing development above the level of waterfront property.

    ·         011811 – DJones – G

    ·         #30 I received a phone call today reporting that a man is going around Lake Sutherland taking photos of the docks. His response was that it is for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)Update.

    2010:

    The Clallam County Board of Commissioner’s expects to adopt a final SMP-Update Public Participation Strategy extended to March 16, 2010 @ 10 a.m. at the Board of Clallam County Commissioners Regular Meeting, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington.

    No comment #29

    No comment #28

    No comment #27

    No comment #26

    ·         110810 – WDNR – G

    ·         #25 Please include myself and Hugo Flores as contacts for the WA DNR and

    ·         include us in any mailings regarding your future planning efforts.

    No comment #24

    ·         080510 – PSP – G

    ·         #23 PSP

    No comment #22

    No comment #21

    No comment #20

    No comment #19

    No comment #18

    No comment #17

    ·         031010 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #16  SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030910 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #15 We talked about how to include the transient or tourist public in the outreach strategy

     

    No comment #14

    No comment #13

     

    ·         030810 – LMuench – PPS

    ·         #12 SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030410 – QuileuteNation – PPS

    ·         #11 Tribal comment, I am thinking the person who drafted it just

    ·         looked at state requirements and did not go beyond that

    No comment #10

    No comment #9

    No comment #8

    No comment #7

    No comment #6

    No comment #5

    ·         022410 – FutureWise – PPS

    ·         #4 The very nature of this product is about public participation. Some

    ·         description of it is needed, including how it is intended to be used in the SMP.

    No comment #3

    ·         020910 – JMarrs – PPS

    ·         #2 I am pleased with the emphasis I see on making the process open and transparent.

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    ·         120509 – DemComm – G  #1  CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

     WHEREAS the nature of amendments to the plan as might be adopted by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners mayor may not adequately protect the quality of local waters from harmful development; and

    WHEREAS participation in the Shoreline Management Plan review process will be open to the public in a series of meetings over the next two years or more;

    THEREFORE be it resolved that the Clallam County Democratic Central Committee appoint a subcommittee of interested members to monitor the progress of the Shoreline Management Plan review, to suggest to the Central Committee communications to the county of the concerns or interests of Democrats in the elements of the plans and any proposed amendments, and to issue quarterly reports on the review process to the Central Committee.

    ·         December 5, 2009

     REMEMBER… This is just 

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000? What happened to us?

    To be Continued….

    Behind My Back | SMP Public Comment # 160

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/11/smp-public-comment-160/

    SMP Public Comment # 160 Posted on February 11, 2015 1:01 pm by … … No Clallam County elected representatives attended this meeting. Thirty (30) people …

    ——————————————————————————

    Behind My Back | SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/03/23/smp-and-other-matrix-mumbo-jumbo/

    (OF THE 617 WRITTEN SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON THE SMP WEBSITE?) … OR ORAL COMMENT INCLUDED IN THE “NEW SMP 160+ MATRIX”? … There is no accountability as to what Clallam County government agency or other …. UNDER AN EXPEDITED RULE- MAKING … full text on behindmyback.org.

    ———————————————————————-

    19 Unresolved SMP Issues AN SMP Public … – Clallam County

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/635_PHewett.pdf

    Jul 4, 2015 – On 19 unresolved SMP issues that went to the Planning … The 19 unresolved SMP issues on July 10, 2012 ….. Of …www.behindmyback.org.

    The bottom line…..

     REMEMBER… This is just 

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000?

    You the elected are responsible for what happens to all of us.


  • $10 Billion From the Judgment Fund

    SUE AND SETTLE FOR BILLIONS FROM THE JUDGMENT FUND

    BETWEEN 2013 AND 2015, THE (OBAMA) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAID MORE THAN $10 BILLION IN JUDGMENT FUND AWARDS WITH SCANT TRANSPARENCY OR OVERSIGHT.

    ———————————————————

    A $5 billion lawsuit filed by a NON PROFIT  insurer against the Obama administration for a program implemented under Obamacare is raising questions about the use of a fund available for settlements with the government and

    whether Congress can, and should, intervene.

    —————————————————————–

    Who knew? I’d never heard of “THE JUDGMENT FUND” until I read the September 16, 2016, Lankford Letter on the Iran settlement. Click here to open this e-mail in its own browser window

    “The Obama administration has a history of using “THE JUDGMENT FUND ” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “They cannot be trusted to properly defend the lawsuit.”

    ————————————————————————————

    The Judgment Fund: History, Administration, and Common Usage

    —————————————————

    other snippet

    “THE JUDGMENT FUND ” was established in 1956 to relieve Congress of the burden of appropriating money for judgments on a case-by-case basis.

    Initially, the fund had a payment limit of $100,000.

    Since 1977, however, there has been no limit on payment size. Congress has amended the judgment fund numerous times since, according to the testimony of Neal Kinkof, professor of law at Georgia State University.

    Jan 8, 2017 Whether the GOP Congress can, and should, intervene?

    Good Lord, Mr. Ford…. WHAT THE DEMOCRAT’S U.S. CONGRESS CREATED IN 1977, LET THE REPUBLICAN’S 2017  CONGRESS PUT ASUNDER.

    ———————————————————————————-

    Von Spakovsky, who worked at the Justice Department during President George W. Bush’s administration, specifically warned of the White House’s history of “SUE AND SETTLE CASES,” which he said allows parties to circumvent federal statutes and regulations and receive large sums of money through settlements with the government.

     Jeffery Axelrad from George Washington University said in written testimony that the identity of fund recipients is not available when judgment fund statistics are compiled.
         “Likewise, the amount paid to attorneys and the identity of the attorneys is not currently available,” he added. “This information is central to knowing whether THE JUDGMENT FUND is, or is not, being abused.”

    A $5 billion lawsuit filed by a nonprofit insurer against the Obama administration for a program implemented under Obamacare is raising questions about the use of a fund available for settlements with the government and whether Congress can, and should, intervene.

    The $5 billion it’s seeking, the money would come from THE JUDGMENT FUND an indefinite appropriation created by Congress and administered by the Department of Treasury.

    ——————————————————–

    April 12, 2012 The federal government will pay more than $1 billion to settle a series of lawsuits brought by American Indian tribes over mismanagement of tribal money and trust lands, under a settlement announced Wednesday.

    MONEY FOR THE TRIBES’ SETTLEMENTS ALREADY HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED UNDER A CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED JUDGMENT FUND

    Negotiations continue on dozens of other cases.

    An appeals court this week upheld a $3.4 billion class action lawsuit settlement concerning the mismanagement of government trust funds for hundreds of thousands of Native Americans, ruling that it was fair, reasonable and adequate.

    The Cobell v. Salazar settlement is one of the largest class actions ever filed against the United States, and accused the federal government of mismanaging money owed to Native Americans under trust funds. The alleged mismanagement dated as far back as the 1880s.

    ———————————————————————-

    “They’re getting political friends to sue them and settle without going to Congress,” he said.

    A $5 billion lawsuit filed by a nonprofit insurer against the Obama administration for a program implemented under Obamacare is raising questions about the use of a fund available for settlements with the government and whether Congress can, and should, intervene.

    According to legal experts, if the Obama administration decided to settle its class action lawsuit with Health Republic Insurance of Oregon, one of 23 co-ops started under Obamacare, and other insurers for all or part of the $5 billion it’s seeking, the money would come from THE JUDGMENT FUND an indefinite appropriation created by Congress and administered by the Department of Treasury.

    Health Republic Insurance of Oregon’s lawsuit was filed on behalf of insurers participating in Obamacare’s risk corridor program, and specifically those who did not receive the full amount of money requested through it.

    “In this case, the argument is the statute requires the government to pay out for the risk corridors, but Congress refused to appropriate the money to do that and therefore the court is going to have to award a judgment since the administration, under the direction of Congress, is violating the law,” Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, told The Daily Signal of the lawsuit.

    “And therefore the money has to come out of THE JUDGMENT FUND that the Court of Claims has to award a judgment against the federal government, which is appropriated money,” he continued.

    The Obama administration’s use of THE JUDGMENT FUND has come under fire in recent years, particularly after it was reported the Justice Department used the fund to pay billions to farmers who alleged discrimination by the Department of Agriculture, circumventing Congress.

    (Really? Just asking, using THE JUDGMENT FUND to settle discrimination lawsuits from black, Native American, Hispanic and female farmers is a valid use of the fund. )

    “The Obama administration has a history of using THE JUDGMENT FUND,” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “They cannot be trusted to properly defend the lawsuit.”

    Von Spakovsky, who worked at the Justice Department during President George W. Bush’s administration, specifically warned of the White House’s history of “SUE AND SETTLE CASES,”” which he said allows parties to circumvent federal statutes and regulations and receive large sums of money through settlements with the government.

    “They’re getting political friends to sue them and settle without going to Congress,” he said.

    A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said the agency is reviewing the complaint, but had no further comment.

    ——————————————————————–

    Reported Sep 8, 2016 Iran Settlement

    The $1.3 billion came from a fund administered by the Treasury Department for settling litigation claims. THE JUDGMENT FUND IS TAXPAYER MONEY THAT CONGRESS HAS PERMANENTLY APPROVED IN THE EVENT IT’S NEEDED, ALLOWING THE PRESIDENT TO BYPASS DIRECT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL TO MAKE A SETTLEMENT. The U.S. previously paid out $278 million in Iran-related claims by using the fund in 1991.

    —————————————————–

    Lankford Letter The Judgment Fund to Iran

    Sep 16, 2016 – The Judgment Fund: History, Administration, and Common Usage. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42835.pdf. Federation of …. In 1993, President Bill Clinton appointed James Lee Witt as FEMA Director. In 1996, the agency …

    Sept 16, 2016 Lankford Letter The Judgment Fund to Iran

    Who knew? I’d never heard of “THE JUDGMENT FUND” until I read the Lankford Letter.

    HOW DOES THE JUDGMENT FUND OPERATE TODAY?

    BY DEFINITION, IT REQUIRES NO FURTHER CONGRESSIONAL ACTION AND DOES NOT EXPIRE AT THE CLOSE OF ANY FISCAL YEAR.

    THE APPROPRIATION MAKES AN “UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF FUNDS” AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT OF CERTAIN JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

    NEGOTIATED AND AGREED TO BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Senators Fischer and Lankford Introduce Bill to Expose Taxpayer Funds Transferred to Iran

    http://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/7/senators-fischer-and-lankford-introduce-bill-to-expose-taxpayer-funds-transferred-to-iran

    ———————————————————–

    CNS – Legal Experts Defend Big US Payment to Iran

    www.courthousenews.com/2016/09/…/legal-experts-defend-big-us-payment-to-iran.h…

    Sep 7, 2016 – Congress has amended THE JUDGMENT FUND numerous times since, according to the testimony of Neal … 5, to account for $1.3 billion in interest.

    ——————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | FEDERAL ISSUES AND REFORM

    www.behindmyback.org/category/federal-issues-and-reform/
    Sep 16, 2016

    ——————————————————————–

    Obamacare Insurers Could Get Money From Government Fund

    dailysignal.com/…/obamacare-insurers-could-get-billions-from-controversial-govern…

    Mar 16, 2016 – The Obama administration’s use of THE JUDGMENT FUND has been the subject of … Health Republic Insurance of Oregon filed a $5 billion class action lawsuit … If the lawsuit leads to a settlement, the money could come from THE JUDGMENT FUND ….. It was upheld by the Supreme Court on June 28, 2012.

    ——————————————————

    Good grief, we live in a country where anybody can sue anybody for “whatever”

    When everybody in the world sues the US government for  “whatever” reason in the world….

    And, congress won’t appropriate funds to pay for “whatever”

    The billions and billions of dollars are  paid out of  THE JUDGMENT FUND for “whatever”

    For the last 40 years 1977-2017 the billions of dollars in settlements for  “whatever” came out of  AMERICAN TAXPAYERS POCKETS

    The bottom line

    IF CONGRESS BROKE IT…

    THE 2017 REPUBLICAN CONGRESS CAN FIX “WHATEVER” WE THE PEOPLE WANT

    AND THAT INCLUDES OBAMACARE


  • Lankford Letter The Judgment Fund to Iran

    Sept 16, 2016 Lankford Letter The Judgment Fund to Iran

    Who knew? I’d never heard of “The Judgment Fund” until I read the Lankford Letter.

    HOW DOES THE JUDGMENT FUND OPERATE TODAY?

    BY DEFINITION, IT REQUIRES NO FURTHER CONGRESSIONAL ACTION AND DOES NOT EXPIRE AT THE CLOSE OF ANY FISCAL YEAR.

    THE APPROPRIATION MAKES AN “UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF FUNDS” AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT OF CERTAIN JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

    NEGOTIATED AND AGREED TO BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

    ————————————————

    From: Sen. James Lankford

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 8:49 AM

    Subject: Lankford Letter

    Tax money to the Iranian military

    snippet

    This is a bigger issue than a single payment, no matter how large. The cash money sent to Iran changes our historic foreign policy of isolating Iran as the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and it sets a new precedent for sending money to foreign governments from the long-established Judgment Fund. To deal with the long-term precedent, I authored a bill to limit the future use of THE JUDGMENT FUND and make sure no future president can transfer American tax dollars to a nation that sponsors terrorism. 

    Click here to open this e-mail in its own browser window   Click here to open a plain text version of this email

    —————————————————————–

    JUL 14, 2016  RE: THE JUDGMENT FUND (click on the link)

    Senators Fischer and Lankford Introduce Bill to Expose Taxpayer Funds Transferred to Iran

    ————————————————————-

    After spending nearly five  hours, researching, reading and documenting

    A 19 PAGE DOCUMENT BY CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

    The Judgment Fund (or Fund) is a permanent appropriation enacted by Congress in 1956. The Fund is an unlimited amount of money set aside to pay judgments against the United States.

    The Judgment Fund: History, Administration, and Common Usage

    https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42835.pdf

    Federation of American Scientists Mar 7, 2013 – In the 113th Congress, the Judgment Fund Transparency Act of 2013 ( …. The U.S. government has sovereign immunity, meaning it cannot be …

    HOW DOES THE JUDGMENT FUND OPERATE TODAY?

    BY DEFINITION, IT REQUIRES NO FURTHER CONGRESSIONAL ACTION AND DOES NOT EXPIRE AT THE CLOSE OF ANY FISCAL YEAR.

    THE APPROPRIATION MAKES AN “UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF FUNDS” AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT OF CERTAIN JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

    NEGOTIATED AND AGREED TO BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

    PAY FOR JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FROM STATE AND FOREIGN TRIBUNALS SUBJECT TO CERTIFICATION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

     IT IS ONLY ACCESSIBLE WHEN THE UNITED STATES HAS WAIVED ITS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

    —————————————————————————-

    JUL 14, 2016  RE: THE JUDGMENT FUND (click on the link)

    Senators Fischer and Lankford Introduce Bill to Expose Taxpayer Funds Transferred to Iran

    Legislation Will Allow Americans to Track Payments to Foreign Nations

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – This morning, U.S. Senators Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) introduced legislation to track taxpayer-funded payments to foreign nations and prevent harmful transactions from happening in the future. The bill, known as the

    JUDGMENT FUND TRANSPARENCY AND TERRORISM FINANCING PREVENTION ACT,

     expands upon legislation that Senator Fischer introduced last year with Senator Cory Gardner (R-Colo.). It would require a public accounting of the taxpayer funds that are distributed out of the Judgment Fund.

    Senator Fischer released the following statement:

    “Hardworking American families have every right to see exactly how their tax dollars are being spent, especially when used to fund hostile enemies of the United States. That is why I’m proud to join Senator Lankford to offer a new version of the Judgment Fund Transparency Act, which includes greater oversight of taxpayer-funded payments to foreign nations. More transparency leads to greater accountability and through this bill, we can hold our government to task for their actions. We should not be in the business of providing funds to state sponsors of terrorism.”

    Senator Lankford released the following statement:

    “One year after the Iran Nuclear agreement, we still have the same concerns with Iran as before. Their secrecy is disconcerting and they continue to be spread terrorism and a radical Islamist ideology around the region. President Obama’s billion-dollar payment to Iran in January, which we now know is funding Iran’s military expansion, is an appalling example of Executive Branch governance.

    “The bill Senator Fischer and I have introduced will provide the American public with necessary details of this dangerous billion-dollar payment and ensure that no taxpayer dollars are ever again used to fund the extremist and violent ambitions of rogue nations like Iran.  Subsidizing Iran’s military is perhaps the worst use of taxpayer dollars ever by an American president.”

    —————————————————————————————-

    Hague Claims Tribunal Settlement – US Department of State

    www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2016/…/251338.ht…

    United States Department of State Jan 17, 2016 – The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague. This specific claim was in …

    IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLOSED $400 MILLION CASH HAGUE SETTLEMENT WITH IRAN,

    UPDATED ON SEP 7, 2016 TO $1.7 BILLION IN CASH HAGUE SETTLEMENT WITH IRAN

    US made $1.7 billion transfer to Iran in foreign cash, Treasury says …

    www.foxnews.com/…/us-made-1-7-billion-transfer-to-iran-in-foreign…

    Fox News Channel Sep 7, 2016 – A Treasury spokeswoman told the Associated Press the cash payments …. @cntstdthepain – Iran was seeking $10 billion in today’s dollars.

    ———————————————————————–

    YEP…. AND, IN ADDITION TO THAT

    WE HAVE “U.S. FOREIGN AID FUNDING” FOR HUMANITARIAN AND MILITARY ASSISTANCE.

    “Hardworking American families have every right to see exactly how their tax dollars are being spent, especially when used to fund hostile enemies of the United States.

    WHO IS GOING TO. INTRODUCED LEGISLATION TO TRACK DANGEROUS BILLION-DOLLAR  TAXPAYER-FUNDED FOREIGN AID PAYMENTS TO FOREIGN NATIONS AND PREVENT HARMFUL U.S. FOREIGN AID FUNDING OF HUMANITARIAN AND MILITARY ASSISTANCE FROM ENDING UP IN THE HANDS OF STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM.

     That is why I’m proud to join (PRESIDENT TRUMP)  to offer a new version of the

     FOREIGN AID FUND TRANSPARENCY AND TERRORISM FINANCING PREVENTION ACT  

    which includes greater oversight of taxpayer-funded payments to foreign nations. More transparency leads to greater accountability and through this bill, we can hold our government to task for their actions. We should not be in the business of providing funds to state sponsors of terrorism.”

    ——————————————————————————

    HOW DOES THE FOREIGN AID FUNDING OPERATE TODAY?

     U.S. FOREIGN (AID) RELATIONS AND AFFAIRS, SENATE AND HOUSE FUNDING FOREIGN AID PROGRAMS AS WELL AS FUNDING ARMS SALES AND TRAINING FOR NATIONAL ALLIES?.

     THE UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS is a standing committee of the … THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE IS GENERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING (BUT NOT ADMINISTERING) and funding foreign aid programs as well as funding arms sales and training for national allies.

     GENERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING?

    ————————————————————————

    THE U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS is a standing committee of the …has jurisdiction over BILLS AND INVESTIGATIONS related to the foreign affairs of the United States.

     BILLS AND INVESTIGATIONS?

    —————————————————————-

     INVESTIGATION ON WHO DELIVERS?

    Delivery of Foreign Assistance

    What Executive Branch Agencies Implement Foreign Aid

    Programs?

    U.S. Agency for International Development

    U.S. Department of Defense

    U.S. Department of State

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

    U.S. Department of the Treasury

    MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION

    ——————————————————

    The Millennium Challenge Account

    http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/developingnations/millennium.html

    This is historical material, “frozen in time.” The web site is no longer updated and links to external web sites and some internal pages will not work.

    March 14, 2002 “Today, I call for a new compact for global development, defined by new ACCOUNTABILITY for both rich and poor nations alike,” STATES PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH IN HIS ADDRESS AT THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK IN WASHINGTON, D.C. MARCH 14, 2002. Accompanying the President: the lead singer of U2, Bono; Cardinal McCarrick and WORLDBANK PRESIDENT JIM WOLFENSOHN.

    —————————————————————

    INVESTIGATION ON WHO DELIVERS?

    WHO ENSURES ACCOUNTABILITY FOR MEASURABLE RESULTS?

    MCC IS AN INDEPENDENT U.S. GOVERNMENT FOREIGN AID AGENCY

    PROVIDES ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE THROUGH A COMPETITIVE SELECTION PROCESS TO DEVELOPING NATIONS …

    ADMINISTRATION  THE MCA WILL BE ADMINISTERED BY A NEW GOVERNMENT CORPORATION DESIGNED TO SUPPORT INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES

    AND TO ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR MEASURABLE RESULTS.

    THE CORPORATION WILL BE SUPERVISED BY A BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMPOSED OF CABINET LEVEL OFFICIALS.

    THE SECRETARY OF STATE WILL BE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. (JOHN KERRY)

    THE CEO OF THE MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION WILL BE NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT (OBAMA) AND CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE.

    The following 16 indicators (WITH SOURCES), CHOSEN because of the relative quality and objectivity of their data, country coverage, public availability, and correlation with growth and poverty reduction, WILL BE USED TO ASSESS NATIONAL PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO GOVERNING JUSTLY, INVESTING IN PEOPLE, and encouraging economic freedom.

    GOVERNING JUSTLY:

    CIVIL LIBERTIES (FREEDOM HOUSE)

    POLITICAL RIGHTS (FREEDOM HOUSE)

    VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY (WORLD BANK INSTITUTE)

    GOVERNMENT EFFECTIVENESS (WORLD BANK INSTITUTE)

    RULE OF LAW (WORLD BANK INSTITUTE)

    CONTROL OF CORRUPTION (WORLD BANK INSTITUTE)

    Investing in People:

    Public Primary Education Spending as Percent of GDP (World Bank/national sources)

    Primary Education Completion Rate (World Bank/national sources)

    Public Expenditures on Health as Percent of GDP (World Bank/national sources)

    Immunization Rates: DPT and Measles (World Bank/UN/national sources)

    ————————————————————————-

    Just asking is MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION an independent regulatory agency, as defined below?

    UNLIKE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES, independent regulatory agencies are not subject to basic analytical requirements. BECAUSE OF THIS, INDEPENDENT REGULATORY AGENCIES DO NOT CONDUCT RIGOROUS COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OR CUMULATIVE EFFECT EVALUATION.

    And? Other agencies?

    ——————————————————-

    What Are the Different Forms in Which Assistance Is Provided?

    Cash Transfers

    Equipment and Commodities

    Economic Infrastructure

    Training

    Expertise

    Small Grants

    ———————————————————————————–

    The Judgment Fund, which is administered by the Treasury Department, is used to pay for certain court judgments and settlements against the federal government. Between 2013 and 2015, the federal government paid more than $10 billion in Judgment Fund awards with scant transparency or oversight.

    This fund has continued to come under increased scrutiny, as it is allowed to allocate unlimited funds to cover government liability in lawsuits and is not subject to the annual appropriations process. The Judgement Fund Transparency Act would provide hardworking taxpayers and members of Congress the ability to see exactly how tax dollars are being spent on these litigation expenses.

    In February of 2015, The Washington Examiner published an editorial praising Senator Fischer’s bill:

    “Senators Cory Gardner, R-Colo., and Deb Fischer, R-Neb., are co-sponsoring a bill that would fix this problem and bring transparency to the Judgment Fund, the treasury account that pays judgments and settlements to plaintiffs. The Judgment Fund Transparency Act is just two pages long. It simply requires the Treasury Department to make public through its website the details of every payment the fund makes… The bill deserves broad bipartisan support. For anyone who believes in government transparency, it’s a no-brainer.”

    Click here to view text of the bill.

    Permalink: http://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/7/senators-fischer-and-lankford-introduce-bill-to-expose-taxpayer-funds-transferred-to-iran


  • 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

     


  • Confront? Question? Demand?

    Confront? Question? Demand?

    Why do  I  personally bother to attend and speak out at  Rep. Derek Kilmer’s Town Hall Meetings?

    Someone’s  GOT TO DO IT … speak  out publicly, in front of the local news media on THE FEDERAL UNMENTIONABLES.

    Someone’s  got to  confronted him with the evidence, ask the hard questions, compel him to face or consider something and  demand answers.

    As our elected rep. in WA DC Rep. Derek Kilmer is responsible to us.

    WHAT WILL  KILMER  DO IN RESPONSE TO

    THE FEDERAL UNMENTIONABLES?

    1. The ISIS terrorist attacks, 62% of Americans are VERY CONCERNED?

    2.  How Is he going to VOTE to prevent the Olympic Peninsula Electronic WAR GAMES. from destroying our entire coastline of public land? And, the entire coastline from Alaska to Mexico?

    3.   How Is he going to VOTE on the FINANCIAL immigration  Crisis? Dec 3, 2014 – Seventeen states filed a joint lawsuit in federal court Wednesday to try blocking President Barack Obama’s executive order on immigration.

    4.  How is he going to VOTE to reform the Obamacare debacle?

    5. Is he going to address the economic crisis created by SUE AND SETTLE?  (ESA)  taking of public and private land, in violation of the Administrate Procedure Act

    6. Is he going to demand JUSTICE from the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT?

    7.  Is he going to support the return of individual states Sovereignty, to the States, of the United States of America? So we can “MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS”

    8. Rep Kilmer put it in writing,  I’ll continue my fight during this Congress to put our government back in the hands of “We the People.”

    —————————————————————————————-

     OK, REP. KILMER, THIS IS WHAT WE THE PEOPLE WANT?

    WHAT REPRESENTATIVE FEEDBACK ARE WE GOING TO GET FROM YOU?

    We the People of the United States, in Order to RE-FORM a more perfect Union,

    MUST RE- ESTABLISH The  Constitution of  the United States of America.

    MUST RE-ESTABLISH JUSTICE,

    MUST INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

    MUST PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE

    MUST PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE

    MUST RE-SECURE the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

    We do ordain and MUST INSIST ON  the RE-ESTABLISHMENT of the Constitution for the United States of America.

    ————————————————————————————

    Rep. Kilmer Newsletter, below,  states,  I’ll be holding six town hall meetings so I can hear directly from you elected Rep. Kilmer will be holding six town hall meetings so I can hear directly from you. I want to stress these town halls are open to the public, and I encourage everyone to attend.

    It’s time to bring sanity back?

    Despite the overall dysfunction?

    I’ll continue my fight during this Congress to put our government back in the hands of “We the People.”

    Make the government more transparent and responsive?

    ————————————————————

    I, personally, SHALL continue my fight to put our federal, state and local governments  accountable and back in the hands of “We the People.”

    Even if I have to go it alone, with my boots on the ground and making public comments  at public forums.

    And, on my website behindmyback.org  in cyberspace

     


  • Tribal Water Approved by Congress?

    Tribal Reserved Water Right Settlements

     It takes an act of the  US Congress to make SETTLEMENT/QUANTITY (AC-FT/YR) of reserved water rights with Indian tribes.

     

    SETTLEMENTS APPROVED BY CONGRESS Updated August 2011

     SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OF SETTLEMENT/QUANTITY (AC-FT/YR)

     ——————————————————————

    Indeed,

     

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

     

    In States, the tribes demand quantities of  instream flow water, to be reserved for the fish?

     ON, quantities of Indian Reserved water rights that have not yet been determined or settled, BY AN ACT OF U.S. CONGRESS?

     

     See the attachment for the

    (request an email copy of the attachment phew@wavecable.com)

     

    SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OF SETTLEMENT/QUANTITY (AC-FT/YR)

     

    This is the list of Congressional Acts  of Indian Water Rights Settlements

    1) Ak-Chin Indian Water Rights Settlement Act final 2000

     

     

    (2) Fallon Paiute Shoshone Indian Tribes Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990

     

     

    (3) Fort Hall Indian Water Rights Act of 1990

     

     

    (4) Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990

     

     

    (5) Jicarilla Apache Tribe Water Settlement Act of 1992

     

     

    (6) Northern Cheyenne Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 1992

     

     

     

    (7) Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988

     

     

    (8) San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act

     

     

    (9) San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988

     

     

    (10) Seminole Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1987

     

     

    (11) Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act

     

     

    (12) Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Act

     

     

     

    (13) Ute Indian Rights Settlement Act of 1992

     

     

    (14) Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 1994

     

     

    (15) Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 1999

     

     

    (16) Shivwits Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Water Rights Settlement Act

     

     

    (17) Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000

     

     

    (18) Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003

     

     

    (19) Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004

     

     

    (20) Snake River Water Rights Act of 2004

     

     

    (21) Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Settlement Act

     

     

    (22) Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act (Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project/Navajo Nation Water Rights)

     

     

    (23) Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley Water Rights Settlement Act

     

     

     (24) Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010

     

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

     

    Let us climb the ladder of responsibility, to the U.S. Congress for failure to “ACTon Tribe Water Rights Settlements

     

    That has caused  the TRIBES and WA State DOE, to have expensive, taxpayer paid lawsuits,  in the WA State.

     

    AND, as a result of these TRIBES and WA State DOE, expensive, taxpayer paid lawsuits, in WA State? 

     

    Private property owners and farmers, in Skagit County and Clallam County, our citizens,  have been left HIGH AND DRY by the WA State DOE.

     

    Thus,leaving private property owners, citizens, no choice, but to “duke it out”  in court with EXPENSIVE PRIVATE LAWSUITS against the WA State DOE. 

     


  • EPA Sued and Settled

    INDEED THE EPA SUED, THE EPA SETTLED AND MARIA CANTWELL DOCUMENTED
    THAT THE “SUE AND SETTLE” LEGAL SETTLEMENT AND RULE CREATED BY AND FOR THE EPA UNFUNDED MANDATE DID RESULT IN THE $14.8 BILLION DOLLAR MARYLAND RAIN TAX.

    IT WAS NOT A RESULT OF LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS, BUT WAS IN FACT CAUSED BY AN EPA SETTLEMENT.
    ——————————————————–
    The bottom line

    DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY FROM CONGRESS AND A RESPONSE TO the “SUE AND SETTLE” THREAT TO THE US ECONOMY ON MORE THAN 3 MILLION BUSINESSES OF ALL SIZES, SECTORS, AND REGIONS, AS WELL AS STATE AND LOCAL CHAMBERS AND INDUSTRY. ASSOCIATIONS that are represented by the US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
    ————————————————————

    AS documented by UNITED STATES SENATOR MARIA CANTWELL

    Dear Ms. Hewett,

    Thank you for contacting me about federal stormwater standards. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.
    FOLLOWING A 2010 LEGAL SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE EPA AND THE CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION (FOWLER V. EPA),

    THE EPA AGREED TO CREATE A NEW FEDERAL STORMWATER RULE.

    The RULE will create performance standards for stormwater discharges at both newly developed and redeveloped sites, broaden the EPA’s oversight of Chesapeake Bay stormwater permits and set a standard for the total maximum daily discharge.

    The RULE will also potentially increase the number of cities regulated as Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, which can include underground pipes, roads with drainage pipes, gutters and ditches. Prior to developing the proposed stormwater rules, the EPA sought input from stakeholders in public forums. The EPA expects to finalize the RULE by December 10, 2014.

    Sincerely,
    Maria Cantwell
    United States Senator
    —————————————————————–
    ‘SUE AND SETTLE’ THREATENS BUSINESS | U.S. Chamber of Commerce

    www.uschamber.com/feed/sue-and-settle-threatens-business‎
    This tactic is called “sue and settle,” a name coined by Rep. Colin Peterson (D-MN).

    SUE AND SETTLE – US Chamber of Commerce

    THE U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IS THE WORLD’S LARGEST BUSINESS FEDERATION REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF MORE THAN 3 MILLION BUSINESSES OF ALL SIZES, SECTORS, AND REGIONS, AS WELL AS STATE AND LOCAL CHAMBERS AND INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS.

    additional methodology and the development of a database of sue and settle cases. The … Appendix A: Methodology I for Identifying Sue and Settle Cases. 46.www.uschamber.com/sites/default/…/SUEANDSETTLEREPORT-Final.p…‎
    —————————————————————–
    HOW LONG HAS CONGRESS TOTALLY IGNORED
    the “SUE AND SETTLE” THREAT TO THE US ECONOMY ON MORE THAN 3 MILLION BUSINESSES OF ALL SIZES, SECTORS, AND REGIONS, AS WELL AS STATE AND LOCAL CHAMBERS AND INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS that are represented by the US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
    ———————————————————————
    I Goggled online…. “CONGRESS HELPING SMALL BUSINESS”

    WELCOME TO THE HOUSE SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE WEBSITE.
    http://smallbusiness.house.gov/

    Chairman Sam Graves and his fellow Committee members ARE FOCUSED? ON RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES FACED BY OUR NATION’S SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES.

    CONGRESS contemplating SMALL TWEAKS tweaks to help small businesses?
    —————————————————————
    FOCUSED ON? RESPONDING TO CHALLENGES?

    HOW ABOUT FOCUSING ON DOCUMENTED THREATS?

    ‘SUE AND SETTLE’ THREATENS BUSINESS | U.S. Chamber of Commerce
    www.uschamber.com/feed/sue-and-settle-threatens-business‎
    ——————————————————————
    I have been RIDICULED for

    “Doing what I can, with what I have, where I am.”

    I have three (3) federal elected representatives
    MARIA CANTWELL
    PATTY MURRAY
    AND DEREK KILMER

    I have been RIDICULED because I send comments and ask question.

    I have been CHASTISED for disseminating the written response.

    I am guilty of attending Public forums and town hall meeting.
    And as an American CITIZEN I defend my right to
    “Do what I can, with what I have, where I am.”
    ————————————————————–
    I DID ATTEND THE SEQUIM TOWN HALL MEETING Nov. 1, 2013

    I DID PLACE A PRINT OUT OF THE FOLLOWING 54 PAGE DOCUMENT IN DEREK KILMERS HAND.

    SUE AND SETTLE – US Chamber of Commerce
    www.uschamber.com/sites/default/…/SUEANDSETTLEREPORT-Final.p…‎
    additional methodology and the development of a database of sue and settle cases. The … Appendix A: Methodology I for Identifying Sue and Settle Cases. 46.

    I shall request that Derek Kilmer present a copy of the document TO THE HOUSE SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE WEBSITE.
    http://smallbusiness.house.gov/
    ——————————————————————
    My intent?
    Is to INFORM and REQUIRE more than “CONGRESS CONTEMPLATING SMALL TWEAKS TO HELP SMALL BUSINESSES” …

    Based on documentation.

    ‘SUE AND SETTLE’ THREATENS BUSINESS | U.S. Chamber of Commerce
    www.uschamber.com/feed/sue-and-settle-threatens-business‎

    The bottom line

    DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY FROM CONGRESS AND A RESPONSE TO the “SUE AND SETTLE” THREAT TO THE US ECONOMY ON MORE THAN 3 MILLION BUSINESSES OF ALL SIZES, SECTORS, AND REGIONS, AS WELL AS STATE AND LOCAL CHAMBERS AND INDUSTRY. ASSOCIATIONS that are represented by the US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

    ———————————————
    OCT 24, 2013
    Behind My Back | Sue and Settle
    www.behindmyback.org/category/sue-and-settle/‎
    Oct 24, 2013 – SUE AND SETTLE? CREATED THE EPA UNFUNDED MANDATE FOR THE $14.8 BILLION DOLLAR MARYLAND RAIN TAX. SEE THE “US …
    ——————————————————————–


  • Tolling I – 90 Bridge

    THE MONEY’S ALL GONE?
    2013 WSDOT IS GOING TO TOLL the I-90 BRIDGE
    $1.3 BILLION
    WSDOT Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond favors tolling I-90 and tolling in general. She argues that other sources of paying for big transportation projects are gone. The state is counting on tolls to fund $1 billion of the $4.6 billion 520 project. Tolling is considered a reliable option for transportation funding and tolls could be extended to I-90 soon.

    WSDOT – THE MONEY’S ALL GONE? REALLY? WHERE DID IT GO?
    Taxpayers paid BILLIONS for big transportation projects?
    Taxpayers paid BILLIONS to maintain and preserve our existing highway system.
    WHERE DID THOSE BILLIONS GO?
    WSDOT $1.5 BILLION FOR FISH CULVERTS?

    Why DID WA STATE Government DIVERT our tax dollars?
    TO AVOID FEDERAL LITIGATION.
    Who juggles the books? The WA State Office of Financial Management?
    WHO LEGISLATED Robbing Peter to pay Paul?

    And, WSDOT INTENDS to collect a toll on the I-90 to make up for the $1.5 Billion dollars spent on fish culverts.

    PEOPLE FIGHT BACK ON TOLLING ON I -90 BRIDGE
    Feb 4, 2013 Big TV news story …. WSDOT needs $1.3 BILLION, FOR? …. WSDOT highway and roads maintenance ?

    Subject: WA STATE $1.5 billion CULVERTS FOR FISH PASSAGE
    CULVERTS FOR FISH PASSAGE ON HIGHWAY 520 – WA State

    Another federal judge is presiding over a Tribal lawsuit to enforce the state’s obligation to actively protect fish habitat.

    The cost to implement repairs and provide fish with a smooth and unobstructed water flow may exceed $1.5 billion. (cost estimate in 2007-2009?)
    The Tribes want the culverts fixed within two decades, but WA State lawyers say that would cost $165 million every two years (cost estimate in 2007- 2009?) — 10 times what the state spends fixing culverts now. The state’s alternative plans wouldn’t likely change the costs, but the work would take 50 or more years to complete.

    Why did WA STATE Government doing THIS?
    TO AVOID FEDERAL LITIGATION

    NATIVE AMERICAN LEGAL UPDATE
    Posted on October 21, 2009 by Greg Guedel

    TRIBES SUE TO IMPROVE FISH HABITAT

    Culvert for Fish Passage (ADF&G)
    In a landmark 1974 ruling, U.S. District Judge George Boldt ruled Tribes located near Puget Sound in Washington State hold treaty rights to half the region’s fish resources. Thirty-five years later, another federal judge is presiding over a Tribal lawsuit to enforce the state’s obligation to actively protect fish habitat. “The judge has already found that there’s a treaty right to protect fish habitat,” said Robert Anderson, director of the University of Washington’s Native American Law Center. The question now is “how far the federal courts are willing to go to compel that result?”

    U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez ruled in 2007 that treaty rights required the state to take action to enhance salmon runs and fish habitat. He urged the state and Tribes to work together on solutions, but negotiations proved fruitless. More than 1,000 culverts between the Columbia River and British Columbia, most of them owned by the Washington Department of Transportation, are presently blocking or limiting access by fish to hundreds of miles of streams. The cost to implement repairs and provide fish with a smooth and unobstructed water flow may exceed $1.5 billion.

    “The problem is the cost is just huge,” Washington State Department of Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond said. “We already don’t have enough money to maintain and preserve our existing highway system.” The Tribes want the culverts fixed within two decades, but state lawyers say that would cost $165 million every two years — 10 times what the state spends fixing culverts now. The state’s alternative plans wouldn’t likely change the costs, but the work would take 50 or more years to complete.

    SJEL website; Such litigation includes the pending federal “Culverts” litigation brought by the Treaty Tribes to compel the State of Washington to repair, replace, or remove “culverts” that are impeding fish passage, and to protect fish passage in the construction of “new culverts”.

    Ask yourself?
    If my personal budget is balanced.
    Why am I being knocked off a financial cliff inside my own home, by the governments mismanagement of spending debt?

    Why are we being taxed, tolled and fee’d to death? And no matter how much money the government takes from us? There is a still a huge economic problem in our country, state and county? Remove our dams and lakes? Take our water rights? Take our property rights?
    Why don’t we have enough money, for law enforcement to protect us? To educate our children? To keep Medicare?

    WHY ARE THEY DOING THIS?
    Who juggles the books? The WA State Office of Financial Management?
    Who is legislating Robbing Peter to pay Paul?

    An educated guess? WA State FEARS legal battles with tribes, WA State can’t afford to fight the legal issues on the 1855 Point No Point Treaty and the Boldt Decision.

    WA STATE WSDOT $1.5 BILLION FOR TRIBAL FISH CULVERTS, PLUS ON GOING TRIBAL AND OTHER LAWSUITS, AND THE WA STATE DOE, WA STATE WATER RULES, TRIBAL INSTREAM FLOW, SHORELINE MANAGEMENT UPDATES etc…..