Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the blog archivesfor the day Monday, March 12th, 2012.

Forest Service defends road closures at hearing

Federal gov & land grabs, Forestry & USFS

PNP comment: What a bunch of hooey! The public lands must be open to “the public!” Enough Nanny State by the USFS, which is an extremely poor manager of wildlands. Tax payers — take your land back. We pay taxes to pay for salaries of government officials to manage our land and then we are not allowed to use our land? What a bunch of hooey! — Editor Liz Bowen

Latest News from the Associated Press

Mar 12, 8:39 PM EDT

ELKO, Nev. (AP) — A U.S. Forest Service regional official on Monday defended the agency’s decision to close some roads in national forests across the West as an unpopular but necessary response to a rapid increase of off-road vehicle travel.

Regional Forester Harv Forsgren said in testimony prepared for a congressional field hearing in Elko that motor vehicle use has damaged natural and cultural resources.

Forsgren said he is aware the restrictions “may change the way people experience their national forests.” But he said he wants such plans is “an ongoing process” and suggested that officials are willing to modify the plan if circumstances change.

Forsgren oversees 34 million acres of national forest land in Nevada, Utah, western Wyoming, western Colorado and eastern California. He spoke before the House Resources subcommittee on national parks, forests and public lands.

READ it:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NV_FOREST_ROADS_CONGRESSIONAL_HEARING_OROL-?SITE=ORMED&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

No Comments

Newton: Refighting California’s water war

Agriculture - California, California water, Op-ed

L.A. Times

It now looks as if Gov. Jerry Brown intends to finish up this piece of unresolved business.

Opinion By Jim Newton

March 12, 2012

When Gov. Jerry Brown wrapped up his tenure last time through, he left a huge unresolved question for California: In the wake of a failed 1982 initiative to fund the so-called peripheral canal, how would the state distribute and safeguard its water supply?

How to maximize the water supply and allocate it fairly has been debated often in the years since without producing a solution. But it now looks as if Brown intends to finish up this piece of unresolved business.

Earlier this month, state water officials presented him with the basics of a plan that would have profound implications for the future of California, as well as the legacy of its governor. If it is approved by the relevant state and federal agencies and overcomes any legal challenges, it would reroute water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, diverting freshwater around the marshy area that sits below sea level and transporting it, either by tunnel or canal, into the State Water Project, which serves parts of the San Francisco Bay Area and Southern California. The plan calls for extensive habitat restoration as well.

That sounds simple enough, but even the hint of it resurrects an exceptionally divisive debate. In the early 1980s, Brown’s proposal for a peripheral canal — which had much in common with the project now being proposed — split Californians along geographic lines. Wildly popular in Southern California, the idea was reviled in the north. I was in high school in Palo Alto when it first began to circulate; my friends and neighbors could not mention the proposal without deriding it as a Los Angeles “water grab.” Some Northern Californians even advocated splitting the state in two.

Proposition 9, the bond measure that would have paid for the canal, went down to a narrow defeat that highlighted the tensions between north and south. Los Angeles County backed the measure by 61% to 39%; in Northern California, meanwhile, more than 90% of voters in many counties opposed it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-newton-column-water-for-california-20120312-1,0,915789.column?

No Comments

Army Corps Budget Hearing Held, Bay Delta Request is $51.5 Million

Agriculture - California, California water, Federal gov & land grabs, San Joaquin River

PNP comment: This agency needs its budget cut drastically. The budget and its officials are out-of-control. — Editor Liz Bowen

Association of California Water Agencies

Submitted by Kristin Goree on Fri, 03/09/2012 – 3:30pm

The House Energy and Water appropriations subcommittee on March 7 held a hearing to examine President Obama’s FY 2013 budget request for the Army Corps.

Testifying for the Corps was Assistant Secretary of the Army Jo-Ellen Darcy.  The President’s request includes $4.731 billion in discretionary appropriations which represents a reduction of $271 million, or about 5 percent, from the 2012 enacted level.

Within the $4.731 billion recommended appropriations, $1.47 billion is for projects in the Construction account, and $2.398 billion is for activities funded in the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) account.

Of the $51.5 million requested for Bay Delta restoration activities, $100,000 is for Yuba Fish Passage, $100,000 for CALFED Coordination, $200,000 for San Pedro Watershed, $1,020,000 for Sac-San Joaquin Delta Island and Levee Study, $300,000 for Sac-San Joaquin Comp Study, $7,500,000 for Hamilton City, $8,000,000 for American River Common Features, $3,000,000 for Sac River Bank Protection, $3,000,000 for Success Dam Remediation, and $28,300,000 for Operations and Maintenance activities.

READ more:

http://www.acwa.com/news/federal-budget/army-corps-budget-hearing-held-bay-delta-request-515-million

No Comments

Feinstein Waves White Flag in Water War

Agriculture - California, California water, Politicians & agencies, Salmon and fish, San Joaquin River, Threats to agriculture

Cal Watchdog

Your eyes on California government–

MARCH 12, 2012

By WAYNE LUSVARDI

In California’s historical water wars force and fraud typically prevail during battle. The consent of the governed only emerges when there is a necessity for peace and compromise.

On March 9. U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., signaled she would seek a deal rather than keep fighting H.R. 1837. That’s the San Joaquin River Valley Water Reliability Act sponsored by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Clovis.  HR 1837 would have repealed Feinstein’s three-year-old H.R. 146, the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act of 2009.  Forget the similar sounding titles to these opposing pieces of legislation.

Feinstein’s H.R. 146 took water from Central Valley farmers to redistribute to commercial and recreational fishing interests in the San Joaquin River; raised water rates for Central Valley farmers to subsidize fishing and recreational “restoration”; and required that renewal of agricultural water contracts had to go through an environmental review for distribution of mitigations to special interests.

The Republican-backed H.R. 1837 would undo all this.

The problem that Feinstein faces is that two of her own generals in the Central Valley Water War defected to the enemy Republicans. The defectors are her fellow Democrats Rep. Jim Costa of Fresno and Dennis Cardoza of Atwater), both representing agricultural parts of the Central Valley of California.

And six other Democratic water warriors in the House representing agricultural areas in other states voted for the Republican bill: Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Larry Kissell of North Carolina, Jim Matheson of Utah and Colin Peterson of Minnesota.

Even Democrat Rep. Jason Altmire, who authored the amendment that broke the stalemate on the Omnibus Lands Act of 2009, voted for the Republic-sponsored H.R. 1837.  Feinstein’s H.R. 146 passed in 2009 as a rider bill on the Omnibus Lands Act.

Unsignable Bill Becomes Signable

Up until last week, falsehoods and political posturing mainly framed the issue of the San Joaquin River in the media. And the mainstream newspaper press bit into the water issue literally and figuratively by hook, line, and sinker.

As recently as Feb. 12, Sen. Feinstein twittered that she opposed H.R. 1837.

On Feb. 17, Feinstein and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., issued a press release stating, “H.R. 1837’s potential for harm to our state cannot be overstated.” But was it harmful when Feinstein took water from farmers in 2009 under HR 146 to give it to fishing, recreational and real estate interests?

The green Bay Institute wrote on Feb. 29 a bulletin entitled, “It’s Back! Extremists Push Legislation in Congress to Gut the Bay Delta Project.” Hmmm.  Only Republicans are “extremists”?

Dan Bacher, editor of Fish Sniffer Magazine, called H.R. 1837 “the Salmon Extinction Bill.”  No mention was made of what land or water rights — riparian, appropriative or “area of origin” — that fishing interests held to demand environmental mitigations for their supposed losses. They wanted water rights created out of legislation and political favoritism. And Feinstein’s H.R. 146 would have given them water rights for fishing and recreation that would have trumped agriculture even during a drought!

Water Grab

Instead of buying land or water rights, fishing and recreational interests want politicians to give it to them in the name of environmental restoration. Environmentalism is just a cover for California’s water wars.  Feinstein’s HR 146 would have created no new water — just redistributed agricultural water to other voting interests and had farmers pay the tab on top of that with higher water rates.  Paraphrasing an Arab proverb: It would have been wiser for Sen. Feinstein to bring some water when going out to redistribute water. But her political party is based on dividing water, not creating new water resources.

Democratic Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Creek, asserted that H.R. 1837 was starting a “water war.”  But that water war had begun three years earlier when Feinstein grabbed water from Central Valley farmers for redistribution to fishing, recreational and real estate interests in the San Joaquin Valley

On Feb 28, President Barack Obama vowed to veto H.R. 1837.

But according to the Fresno Bee newspaper, by March 9 Feinstein was in meetings with Republican Rep. Jeff Denham of Turlock to negotiate a halt to the propaganda and water grabbing war.

‘Fire, water and government know nothing of mercy.’

Feinstein and Boxer and their voting block in the U.S. Senate could have killed H.R. 1837, could have rewritten their own bill to send back to the U.S. House or could have done nothing.

But this is an election year.  Feinstein herself is up for re-election. Democrats may not have the votes needed to shoot down H.R. 1837 in the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate.  Or Democrats may need bipartisan support to pass other legislation for jobs bills in their home districts to “bring home the bacon” before the election.

Thus, consent of the governed is emerging only because of political necessity, not out of any concern for a phony Delta “democracy.”  Up until Feinstein offered to call a truce and negotiate a new treaty, the only “democracy” that had emerged was a kleptocratic democracy (a government characterized by rampant greed and corruption).

“Fire, water, and government may know nothing of mercy,” runs a proverb. But hopefully Democrats and Republicans will come to an agreement of the “consent of the governed” in negotiating new terms to California’s historic water social contract between farmers and other interests in California’s perpetual water wars.

Read it:

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/03/11/feinstein-waves-white-flag-in-water-war/

No Comments

Denham, Feinstein seek deal on Calif. water bill

Agriculture - California, California Rivers, California water, Federal gov & land grabs, Politicians & agencies, San Joaquin River

Michael Doyle – Bee Washington Bureau

Friday, Mar. 09, 2012 | 11:23 PM

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers have quietly begun laying groundwork for a California water bill that could pass the Senate and become law.

If it happens, it will be less ambitious than one passed recently by the Republican-controlled House. It’s likely to avoid dramatically rewriting a San Joaquin River restoration plan. And, it’s going to demand some give-and-take from all sides.

“I think we have to be able to work across the aisle to help the San Joaquin Valley,” Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock, said, “and we also have to be able to work across both houses [of Congress].”

In recent days, Denham met with Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein in her Senate office to discuss the California water legislation and other common concerns. Significantly, there will be more meetings to come.

Following next week’s congressional recess, Denham said he will privately be convening again with Feinstein along with Reps. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, and Dennis Cardoza, D-Atwater. Costa and Cardoza were among a handful of Democrats to vote for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act on Feb. 29.

The bill would lengthen irrigation contracts to 40 years, rather than the 25 years currently in place. It would override state law, would increase deliveries to farmers south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and would significantly revise a San Joaquin River restoration plan.

Even as they voted for the controversial House water bill, Costa and Cardoza had stressed the need to collaborate with Feinstein in order to make long-term progress.

“Hopefully, we’ll be able to reach some level of consensus on how we can move forward,” Costa said.

Two House members who aren’t scheduled to join the Feinstein meeting are the bill’s chief House author, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, and the chairman of the House water and power subcommittee, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Elk Grove.

Nunes has not endeared himself to Feinstein, as he has regularly denounced her for being allied with those he calls “radical environmentalists” and members of the “hippie generation.” Last year, he sponsored ads attacking her alleged “hypocrisy” on water issues.

“We have to work together,” Feinstein said, “but it’s difficult when you’re being trashed.”

Nunes, in turn, stresses that he has other, conservative allies in the Senate with whom he can work.

McClintock has not talked to Feinstein about water legislation in the year that he has led the House water and power panel, the senator said, but the congressman’s press secretary, Jennifer Cressy, said in an email that McClintock “respects the independent role of the Senate.”.

“Congressman McClintock is looking forward to participating in the conference process once the Senate has acted,” Cressy said.

The House bill’s provision to change San Joaquin River restoration plans appears to face the stiffest Senate opposition.

Read more here:

http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/03/09/2753980/house-senate-search-out-agreement.html#storylink=cpy

No Comments

Letter: Herger votes to ship our water south

Agriculture - California, CA Congress Wally Herger

Chico Enterprise-Record

Posted:   03/10/2012 12:54:30 AM PST

Rep. Wally Herger ignored the interests of his constituency to cast a party line vote on the San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act.

The legislation authored by San Joaquin Valley Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Tulare, passed the House last week and seeks to guarantee water for agricultural irrigator Westlands Water District, which under current water law holds secondary water rights.

This law will squeeze more water out of Herger’s district and ship it south to Kern County. Herger has decided not to run for re-election.

— Jim Brobeck, Chico

http://www.chicoer.com/rss/ci_20145541?

No Comments

Northern California water leaders say habitat, water storage linked

Agriculture - California, California Rivers, California water

By HEATHER HACKING — Staff Writer

Posted:   03/09/2012 07:42:27 PM PST

CHICO — Water problems in California aren’t going away any time soon, and the solutions aren’t coming as quickly as anyone could hope.

The Big Room at Sierra Nevada Brewery was filled today for a discussion of the weighty water issues facing the state, and what that means to Northern California.

The meeting was the 20th annual get-together for Northern California Water Association, which works to protect water rights in the region and push for integrated regional planning, among other things.

Several speakers highlighted the complexities of water negotiations, including a slew of bills passed in 2009, the question of when a water bond will ever be on the ballot, continued development of a Delta Plan, water flow criteria, dips in fish populations and politics in general.

A few common themes emerged including the push to balance ecosystem restoration while building more water infrastructure.

A water bond, which has been talked about since 2009, has plans for both.

Amy Brown, NCWA’s lobbyist through DiMare, Van Vleck and Brown, said the most recent polls showed 51 percent support for an $11.4 billion water bond.

The bond was originally intended for a vote in 2010, but pushed back until 2012. Now there is talk of delaying the bond vote until 2014, due to many other money matters planned for the ballot.

Brown was asked whether support for the bond would increase if some of the spending projects were removed. But she said some people support the bond

because it includes habitat restoration, and others because it includes water storage. If you take one of those out, overall support drops, she said.

John Laird was the featured speaker at the meeting. The secretary of the state Natural Resources Agency said these two, sometimes disparate goals contain a “sense of elegance.”

This same push-for-it-all approach is included in the Delta Plan, currently being created through the Delta Stewardship Council, http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/.

The plan calls for “coequal goals” to a provide more reliable water supply for California and protection, restoration, and enhancement of the Delta ecosystem.

“You can’t have habitat protection unless you have water reliability,” Laird commented.

Other water developments, such as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, (to protect endangered species), make this time a “Rubik’s cube of public policy,” Laird said. And yet, the complex issues really do need to be approached simultaneously, he continued.

As one example, Laird said a proposed new reservoir in Northern California might be more than a decade in the future. But in the meantime, the fish populations have the potential to crash. Both still need to be tackled right now, he said.

“If we’re looking at a final deal in the delta it’s going to have to, at some point, have the benefit of storage,” he said.

“The thing that might be an equalizer is storage for the wettest years,” to balance out dry years.

He noted that conservation has had a lot of success in areas like the Monterey Peninsula, particularly Carmel where residents have cut their water use by 38 percent. But now, water reliability is even more important because the water that is used needs to be reliable.

Read more:

http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_20143155/northern-california-water-leaders-say-habitat-water-storage

No Comments

Modesto Irrigation District to consider increasing water rates for farmers

Agriculture - California, California Rivers, California water, Water rights

By John Holland
jholland@modbee.com

Saturday, Mar. 10, 2012

MODESTO — A proposal to increase water rates by nearly 10 percent will return Tuesday to the Modesto Irrigation District board.

Directors will consider launching the process for the increase, which would bring the base charge to $29.50 per acre.

That charge would get farmers an amount of water that varies according to conditions in the Tuolumne River watershed. This year’s allotment is proposed at 3 acre-feet per acre, down from 4 last year because of the dry winter.

An acre-foot covers an acre a foot deep.

Farmers could buy a fourth acre-foot for $14.75 under the proposal. A fifth could be available for $30 on a case-by-case basis for crops needing extra water.

The board was to consider the increase Feb. 28 but ran out of time because of its discussion of proposed water sales to San Francisco.

State law requires that landowners get notice of the proposed increase. It would not go through if a majority of them protested before or at a public hearing, tentatively set for May 8.

The MID for several years has been raising water rates to better cover the cost of operating the system and protecting the district’s rights to the Tuolumne.

The system needs about $110 million worth of work over the next decade, according to the staff. This includes enhanced automation, strengthening or replacement of the flume that carries the main canal over Dry Creek, and capture of water that spills from the canal ends into streams.

“You have to have a system that allows the farmers the flexibility so they can use the water to grow their crops right and more efficiently,” irrigation consultant Charles Burt told the board last month.

The board Tuesday will consider a $250,000 renewal of its contract with the outfit Burt heads, the Irrigation Training and Research Center at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.

The need for rate increases on farmers could be much less if the MID goes through with the controversial water sales to San Francisco.

The city already taps the Tuolumne for its 2.5 million customers in four Bay Area counties. It is looking for as much as 27,500 acre-feet annually — about a seventh of what the MID delivers to its farmers in an average year — to meet growing demand.

The district plans to free up this water with conservation projects on its system.

The first sale of about 2,200 acre-feet could go before the board in a few weeks. Officials said the price will start at about $700 per acre-foot — about 100 times what farmers paid last year — and escalate in future years.

Proponents say the sales could pay for system improvements and would not involve the underlying water rights or endanger the MID during drought.

Some critics want the water used for farming. Others want it to go into the lower Tuolumne to benefit fish.

The MID directors will meet at 9 a.m. in the district’s boardroom, 1231 11th St.

Bee staff writer John Holland can be reached at jholland@modbee.com or (209) 578-2385.

AT A GLANCE

MID water rates*

1998 – $11.10

1999 – $12.20

2000 – $13.40

2001 – $13.90

2002 – $13.90

2003 – $15.30

2004 – $17.00

2005 – $18.70

2006 – $20.50

2007 – $21.50

2008 – $23.50

2009 – $25.50

2010 – $27.00

2011 – $27.00

2012 – $29.50**

*The charge per acre for the base allotment of water to farmers, which varies each year depending on the snowpack. Water in excess of the allotment is sold at a higher price.

**proposed

Source: Modesto Irrigation District

Read more here:

http://www.modbee.com/2012/03/10/2107326/mid-to-consider-increasing-water.html#storylink=cpy

1 Comment

Enviro group may sue to remove Lake Shastina’s dam in Siskiyou County

Agriculture - California, California water, Dams other than Klamath, Greenies & grant $, Property rights, Salmon and fish, Shasta River, Siskiyou County, Threats to agriculture

PNP comment:  It is time for land owners in Shasta Valley to say “NO” to the Greenies. Scott Valley POW will help you. Call President Liz Bowen at 467-3515.

An environmental group has issued notice it intends to sue a Montague water district over Dwinnell Dam, the barrier that blocks the Shasta River and forms the reservoir that gives the Siskiyou County community of Lake Shastina its name.

Erica Terence, conservation and executive director of Orleans-based Klamath Riverkeeper, said today the dam blocks 20 percent of traditional Shasta-run coho salmon spawning habitat.

“We really want the water conservation district to find a way to operate that will meet the biological needs of these coho salmon,” Terence said.

That may mean the dam needs to come down, or the Montague Water Conservation District can come up with a solution, like a fish passage around the dam or other habitat improvements, to ensure coho get to their native spawning grounds, Terence said.

She acknowledged the suit won’t be popular with homeowners in the area, many of whom bought property in the town a few miles north of Weed to be on or near the lake.

READ it at:

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/mar/12/enviro-group-may-sue-remove-lake-shastinas-dam-sis/

No Comments

We must fight this: Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to buy private land and convert it into gov ownership

American Land Rights, Federal gov & land grabs, Greenies & grant $

  Land Rights Network

American Land Rights Association

PO Box 400 – Battle Ground, WA 98604

Phone: 360-687-3087 – Fax: 360-687-2973

E-mail: alra@pacifier.com

Web Address: http://www.landrights.org

Legislative Office: 507 Seward Square SE – Washington, DC 20003

Massive LWCF (CARA) Land Acquisition Funding Passes Senate

*Urgent Action Required. This is an all out call to action NOW!*

* *

Stop The LWCF Transportation Bill Land Grab, Go To www.landrights.org for details.

*The Problem: (The Solutions are listed below)*

The Senate just passed an Amendment to the Transportation Bill that added the Restore Act. The Restore Act provides billions of dollars of the Gulf Oil Spill penalty money to the Gulf States but it also *adds billions of dollars to the Land and Water Conservation Fund

(LWCF) to buy private land and convert it into government ownership.*

*It is CARA all over again.* In a historic vote, the Senate added the Nelson LWCF Amendment (Restore Act) to the Senate Transportation Bill and takes billions of dollars of the Gulf Oil Penalty Money and gives it to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). *This is an attack on Rural America. It is an attack on you. The LWCF is used to buy private land. *

* *

*Go to Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn* and all other social networking sites to get this issue networked out quickly. You can stop this huge land grab and put the money to reducing the deficit and creating jobs.

* *

Please send an e-mail to ccushman@pacifier.com <mailto:ccushman@pacifier.com>  to let us know what you did or a copy of what you sent. That will help give us more ideas.

* *

*—–From Energy and Environment Newsletter:* “The result is an amendment that supporters now say would provide perhaps the largest-ever federal boost to conservation and environmental efforts in the nation.”

 “This could be the biggest infusion of conservation dollars in history,” said Joshua Saks, legislative director for the National Wildlife Federation. “This would be a remarkable achievement.”

*What’s wrong with the LWCF Amendment to the Transportation Bill (Restore Act)?*

—–A. *It doubles funding for the LWCF adding $700 million for each of the next two years.*

—–B. Extends the LWCF until 2022 from the present law of 2015.

—–C. *It funds a CARA like Land Acquisition Trust Fund that will be a threat to all private property owners and Rural America for many

years.*

—–D. *None of this money will be used to create jobs.*

—–E. *None of this money will be used to reduce the deficit.*

—–F. The LWCF money will be a dagger in heart of the economy.

—–G. A fully funded LWCF is an all out attack on Rural America.

—–H. A fully funded LWCF is an attack on local communities.

—–I. Inholders and landowners are in grave danger.

—–J. The LWCF Restore Act will lead to a massive expansion of Federal lands thereby reducing your access and use. The green groups will work to get the new Federal lands into Wilderness status.

*Solution: (Action Items)*

The Senate must still vote on the full Transportation Bill including the Restore Act (LWCF) funds this week.

—–1. Deluge both your Senators immediately to oppose the full Transportation Bill that includes the Restore Act and the huge multi-billion dollar LWCF land acquisition funding. *It is CARA all over again. *The Senate is expected to vote on the full bill Tuesday or Wednesday of this week. It could be delayed.

Call, fax and e-mail your Senators every day this week to bury them in contacts. Look below to see how your Senator voted on the Restore Act Amendment that included the LWCF land acquisition funding. The vote results are at the bottom of this e-mail.

When you call, make sure your Senators know you know how they voted.

If your Senator voted against the Restore Amendment, thank him and urge him to block the Senate Transportation bill any way they can.

They have lots of ways in the Senate.

Call any Senator at (202) 224-3121. Ask for the staff person who handles the Transportation Bill. Ask for his or her e-mail. Do not make threats. Be respectful. But make sure your Senators understand that the Senate Transportation bill is an attack on Rural America and all landowners if it includes the LWCF (Land and Water Conservation

Fund) in the final version.

Ask your Senators to promise to vote against the Transportation Bill when it comes to the Senate floor this week if it includes the LWCF.

Call every day this week.

—–2. Deluge your Congressman with calls. Call any Congressman at

(202) 225-3121. You must make his or her phone come off the hook.

Make sure he or she understands that you will remember this vote in November.

Ask him or her to oppose any version of the Transportation bill that has LWCF land acquisition funding inside. The Restore Act has already passed the House in a separate bill. But it can still be stopped by the House.

If the Senate Transportation Bill (With Restore and LWCF inside) passes the Senate it is likely the House will vote on the Senate bill instead of passing their own bill. *That would be a disaster. * *Call speaker of the House John Boehner at (202) 225-3121 *to urge him to pass a Transportation Bill without any LWCF funding.

The Restore Act has already passed the House. So if the House votes on the Senate bill there may be no Conference Committee. It is critical that your Congressman add Amendments to the Transportation bill to force it into a House-Senate Conference Committee. ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) drilling bill would be a good choice.

The House will not be in session this week. That gives you time to contact your Congressman when he or she comes home as well as call their Washington, DC office at (202) 225-3121.

Your Congressman will likely be in your district this week (March 12-18). Find out where he or she will be and go to any public meetings being held. Call at the numbers above to find out.

You must jump on your Congressman quickly and keep the pressure on for the next two weeks. It takes time, but it will save you a lot of suffering later. So call, call and call again.

You Must Stop the Transportation Bill in the House.

You must get your Congressman to oppose the Senate passed version when it comes to the House.

—–3. Go to Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and all other social networking sites to get this issue networked out quickly. You can stop this huge land grab and put the money to reducing the deficit and creating jobs.

No Comments
« Older Posts