http://www.agprofessional.com/news/House-rejects-expanding-reach-of-Clean-Water-Act-156956445.html?ref=445

Rich Keller, Editor, Ag Professional  |   June 4, 2012

In what has been described as a win for agricultural interests and rural landowners, the House of Representatives last week refused to include an amendment to the House Energy and Water Appropriations bill that would have allowed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to expand the Clean Water Act enforcement onto private lands not connected to “navigable” water.

The Clean Water Act gives the federal government the authority to regulate the navigable waters of the United States. But House and Senate legislation to support reported Obama administration desire for expanding the act’s definition of waters regulated to all waters, including those on private property, were previously introduced.

An amendment to the House Energy and Water Appropriations bill was offered by Reps. Jim Moran (D-Va.) and John Dingell (D-Mich.) that would have allowed implementation of new Corps’ guidance language, “which would have clarified the use of the Clean Water Act in certain situations, including how it would be administered in cases impacting small headwater streams and important wetlands,” claimed the Trout Unlimited organization in a news release.

Voting against the language in the bill made sure the Administration doesn’t assert federal jurisdiction over “every last drop of water, intruding on individual/property rights, by regulating prairie potholes, drainage ditches, rain gutters, and the like,” contended Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.).

Trout Unlimited tried to twist defeat of expanding the Clean Water Act regulation as being against wildlife habitat, fishermen and hunters. Almost all rural landowners are hunters and/or fishermen, and it isn’t logical that these members of Trout Unlimited would support statements about the bill amendment defeat.

Steve Moyer, Trout Unlimited’s vice president of government affairs, said, “The Clean Water Act is one of the most important conservation tools available to help protect the health of our rivers and streams and the fish and game that depend on healthy watersheds. Without the practical, science-based guidance direction from the Corps of Engineers to on-the-ground practitioners, it’s much more difficult to ensure our clean water and healthy habitat stays that way.

“There’s a direct connection between clean water and our opportunity to hunt and fish—our fish and game need clean water above all else…You can’t have fishable waters if substantial numbers of wetlands and headwater streams go unprotected by the Clean Water Act.”

Trout Unlimited provided no examples of waters becoming polluted because the Clean Water Act reach in recent years hasn’t been expanded to that of private property.

The Agricultural Retailers Association membership has keen interest, along with others in the agricultural community, to keep the Corp of Engineers and federal regulatory authorities from moving forward unilaterally to reverse decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court that has previously limited provisions of the Clean Water Act.

by Staci Grant

Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell has a short window of opportunity to make right a wrongfully denied request for a hearing on an appeal of the “Grizzly Bear Amendment”.

Deputy Regional Forester Jane Cottrell has wrongfully denied a request for a hearing on the Grizzly Bear Amendment.

The Sanders Natural Resource Council (SNRC) had filed a timely and valid appeal of the Amendment on Dec. 23, 2011. On June 1, 2012 the SNRC was formally denied their appeal. Between the filing and now, the SNRC submitted numerous requests for a hearing and supported those requests with a supplemental brief and letters outlining changes in circumstances. Those requests and supplemental information were completely ignored by the Appeal Deciding Officers and subsequently by the Regional Forester. The denial letter did not address any of the SNRC’s concerns.

The “Grizzly Bear Amendment” (Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management Within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones) has been under development since 1983 by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, of which the Forest Service is a dominant member. The first attempt at passing this Amendment, in 2004, was set aside by federal court. The 2nd attempt by the Forest Service was quietly released with a Record of Decision on Nov. 9, 2011.

Federal law makes it clear in many places that the public have every opportunity for their wishes to be clearly heard by agencies making public land use decisions. One such law is:

16 USC 1612 (a) “Adequate notice and opportunity to comment. In exercising his authorities under this subchapter and other laws applicable to the Forest Service, the Secretary, by regulation, shall establish procedures, including public hearings where appropriate, to give the Federal, State, and local governments and the public adequate notice and an opportunity to comment upon the formulation of standards, criteria, and guidelines applicable to Forest Service programs. “

The 28 year long development process of this Amendment, which covers Western Montana, the Idaho Panhandle and the northeast corner of Washington, has been afforded a small survey during the late 1990s plus very limited and sparsely attended public meetings. The survey was not of substantive nature thus no follow up afterward was given to the public. As of today, the owners of private property that has been mapped inside of Forest Service Bear Management Units have not been contacted by the Forest Service. The SNRC has held one public meeting and is scheduled to hold a 2nd meeting on June 7 to provide detailed information to the public regarding future access restrictions on both pubic and private property to be expected if the Amendment is approved.

The term 911 is reserved for emergencies. I believe we are in that type of state today. These plans for change may be in Montana and Northern Idaho today but rest assured if you are not affected today, you will be tomorrow. The plan is called The Grizzly Bear Amendment plan but it really should be called The Access Restriction plan. The 5 Alternatives to the plan fail to follow the law in that the Forest Service has not provided adequate input from the local governments or the public. The Forest Service has decided to blatantly ignore the request for a hearing prior to making a critical decision.

The SNRC has requested a hearing to protect your rights. Any of the alternatives besides Alternaative A will restrict your Forest access. The amount of proposed reduction in road access ranges from 228 miles to 2,222 miles. The risk of miles lost is too great for the SNRC and the public it represents. Imagine leaving your favorite activities such as berry picking, logging, firewood cutting, hunting, hiking, camping, bird watching, snowmobiling and many other recreational activities to chance! The Forest Service has failed to provide adequate maps outlining proposed trail and road closures even though multiple requests have been made. It is clear the Forest Service is attempting to push the Grizzly Bear Amendment plan as quickly and as quietly as possible. If the public and the local governments had been involved in the process, this plan would not have 5 alternatives nor would any changes to a plan take over 20 years wasting tax payers dollars!

As I stated earlier, Chief Tidwell has a option today regarding the Grizzly Bear Amendment. For a short window, until June 16th, he has the authority to request a Discretionary Review which would delay any decision of alternatives and allow for the requested hearings. We need your help! We need your letters demanding the Forest Service follow the law and request the Discretionary Review be done. We need to support the SNRC’s efforts to obtain critical information, hold public hearings and formal responses to the appeals submitted prior to any decisions.

Your letters need to be directed to Chief Tidwell and cc’d to your state representatives, Congressional delegates and your local county commissioners. When sending your letters please include a cover letter urging them to contact Tidwell and to request the Discretionary Review. Please do not delay your letters, it is critical before all access is lost!

Below is the contact information for Chief Tidwell-

Send Regular and Express Mail To:

USDA Forest Service
Attn: Tom Tidwell
201 14th Street SW
Washington, DC 20024

email: ttidwell@fs.fed.us

voice: (202) 205-8439
fax: 202-205-1765

Sincerely,
Staci Grant

Siskiyou County primary results: Criss leading over Cook as District 1 supervisor – Yreka, CA – Siskiyou Daily News

http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/news/x655471012/Siskiyou-County-primary-results-Yreka-hen-measure-passes-Criss-replaces-Cook-as-District-1-supervisor

Siskiyou Daily News

June 6, 2012

Yreka, Calif. — The Siskiyou County Clerk’s Office released election night results Tuesday morning. Clerk Colleen Setzer said the County Clerk’s Office still has 2,418 ballots to process and count. These include vote-by-mail ballots turned in at the polls on Election Day, received in the Clerk’s Office on Election Day, provisional ballots and damaged ballots that need to be duplicated. The numbers as of Wednesday morning were:

President – democrat
Barack Obama: 88.86 percent

President – republican
Mitt Romney: 75.87 percent

President – Libertarian
Gary Johnson – 36.17 percent

U.S. Senator
Dianne Feinstein, D – 35.12 percent

U.S. Representative
Doug La Malfa, R – 49.78 percent

State Senator
Ted Gaines, R – 41.12 percent

State Assembly
Brian Dahle, R – 32.35 percent

District 1 Supervisor
Brandon Criss – 62.61 percent

District 2 Supervisor
Ed Valenzuela – 70.63 percent

District 4 Supervisor
Grace Bennett – 95.35 percent

Yreka City Council
Bryan Foster – 37.30 percent
David Simmen – 32.25 percent

Yreka City Clerk
Liz Casson – 99.08 percent

Yreka City Treasurer
Shella Rhetta Hogan – 98.86 percent

Prop 28 – Legislative term limits
Yes – 59.29 percent

Prop 29 – Cigarette tax
No – 61.87 percent

Measure M – Hens in Yreka
Yes – 52.55 percent

Measure N – City of Dunsmuir Library tax
Yes – 58.19 percent

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

This information and much more that you need to know about the ESA,
the Klamath River Basin, and private property rights can be found at The
Klamath Bucket Brigade’s web site – http://klamathbucketbrigade.org/index.html –
please visit today.

Letter to the editor.

It is sad and frustrating to see our economy in ruins and the price of gas and, yes, diesel fuel so high that families and businesses are being devastated.

Farmers cannot get enough water to grow their crops and small businesses cannot survive because of over regulation in almost every aspect of our lives. Excess regulation has caused over two hundred businesses and over two hundred ten thousand people to leave California last year. California is given the dubious honor of being the worst state in the union in which to do business because of all the excessive regulations.

What is causing this state of affairs? I firmly believe it is the negative effect of the radical environmental groups on our way of life.

Believe it or not, you are actually without your knowledge or permission funding these groups with your hard-earned tax dollars to destroy your way of life.

They are accomplishing their goal in part through the Endangered Species Act. The radical environmental organizations are bent on placing insects including, but not limited to, worms, dung beetles, flies and every other insect or animal known to man on the endangered species list thereby devastating the US economy and the livehood of millions of farmers, ranchers and the general public as a whole.

One of the most powerful extremist organizations in the world is called the Center for Biological Diversity.

Today, the Center for Biological Diversity has an annual budget of over seven million dollars and sixty-two full-time staffers including over twenty attorneys. These attorneys have stayed busy by filing over six hundred lawsuits and countless petitions against the federal government. These lawsuits were filed mostly against the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the US Forest Service.

Both these bloated agencies played “patty cake” with the CBD and, in most cases, stipulated without even going to trial that the CBD was the prevailing party and thereby was awarded attorney fees and costs. It is reported that the CBD has been awarded attorney fees and costs in excess of thirty-seven million dollars thereby enabling them to file even more lawsuits.

Who paid these attorney fees and costs? You did with your hard earned tax dollars without your permission or, in most cases, your knowledge.

Sometimes a rancher or businessman attempting to defend him or herself against these radical environmental groups would find him or herself in a position where he or she was actually paying attorneys on both sides of the litigation.

You and your way of life are the endangered species and you are funding your own demise.

William J. Prater

P.O. Box 23

Clipper Mills CA. 95930

The Fed doesn’t have to hand over anything.  If you are from any of the states west of the Mississippi go to your state archives and do a search on the Admissions act for your state.

Look for any propositions sent back to your sate by congress after the admissions act was signed.  If there were look for specific wording about the legislature getting to write an “ordinance” at the end of the propositions.  Also look for any wording that the “said people” of your state were to “accept or reject”

these propositions, then look for any elections held for the propositions.  Let us know what you find, in the mean time check out our “downloads” page for our evidence of our admissions act and that there was no elections held for the said people to accept or reject these 6 propositions offered from congress.

No election means the legislature of that time accepted for the “said people” instead.  They have no authority to do so and that makes the propositions void on their face.  This act by the legislature is “FRAUD”

and by title 18 Misprision of Felony we have to tell someone in authority that the fraud took place…………….Our Mandate for Government Action on the downloads page is a demand for our legislature to act.  We are exposing the fraud.

The founders intended for all the land within the borders of all the western state to be sold and held in private hands.  The fed Kept the mineral wealth of Oregon and evidence leads to California as the same.

This land must come back to the said people of Oregon.  Yes there should be some public land, but a fraud is a fraud and this must be exposed for what it is.

From –

Loma Wharton Co-Chair www.theliberators11.org

PNP comment: In the above post, Loma of  www.liberators11.org in Roseburg, Oregon, gives a great explanation regarding USFS. — Editor Liz Bowen

PHOENIX – Another “sagebrush rebellion” is spreading through legislatures in some Western states with a series of formal demands that the federal government hand over title to tens of millions of acres of forests, ranges and other public lands.

Arizona could claim as much as 25 million acres, all federal land in the state except military bases, Indian reservations, national parks and some wilderness areas.

If the federal government fails to comply by the end of 2014, the states say they will begin sending property-tax bills to Washington.

While the original sagebrush rebellion grew out of conflicts over management of federal lands, often as specific as keeping a forest road open, the new takeover movement owes more to tea party politics — with a strong focus on reducing the scope of federal influence and opening land to more users.

Supporters say federal agencies have mismanaged the land and blocked access to natural resources, depriving the states of jobs and revenue from businesses ready to develop those resources. With the state in control, the backers say, loggers could return to forests where endangered species halted work decades ago and miners could regain access to ore outside the Grand Canyon.

“In the last 30 years, the radical environmental policies of these federal agencies have ground those industries to a halt — right into the ground — and almost killed them,” said state Sen. Al Melvin, a Republican from Tucson, Ariz., and sponsor of the land-takeover measure.

Legal experts say the movement is based on a misreading of federal law and the U.S. Constitution and will almost certainly fail to survive court challenges. Conservation groups and other critics say the takeover would threaten iconic landscapes now protected by federal rules.

States are ill-prepared to oversee so much land with the roads, recreation areas and management needs that go along with it, those critics say.

“In an era of apparent fiscal responsibility, why would the state seek billions of dollars of liability and management responsibility to assume ownership over the (25 million) acres or so of parks, forests and public lands in Arizona?” said Matt Skroch, executive director of the Arizona Wilderness Coalition. “It is ill-conceived, it is irresponsible and it makes absolutely no sense.”

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed a package of bills Friday that spells out his state’s intent to reclaim the land, and members of Utah’s congressional delegation have pledged support for the battle in Washington.

In Arizona, a nearly identical bill passed the state Senate and awaits final action in the House. Lawmakers also are weighing several other proposals that attempt to undercut federal influence in land management. A proposed ballot measure would go even further, declaring the state’s sovereignty over its land, air and water.

The future of the land-takeover bill is not clear. Gov. Jan Brewer “believes strongly that the federal government needs to live up to its obligations by actively managing federal lands,” including thinning national forests, said her spokesman, Matthew Benson.

However, he added, “The governor has not questioned the very concept” of who is best able to oversee public lands.

The new sagebrush rebellion appears to do just that, attempting to seize most federal lands. That was the goal, ultimately unsuccessful, of the last rebellion in the late 1970s into the 1990s, when Arizona, Nevada and other states passed legislation seeking to take control of federal lands.

What rankled those rebels and those behind today’s effort is the sheer size of the federal government’s land holdings in the West. In Nevada, the government owns 85% of the state’s total area, according to a 2004 analysis by the federal General Services Administration. In Utah, the total is 57%; in Arizona, 48%.

“We know firsthand what it means to have limited access to and control over our natural resources. It is interfering with our Western way of life,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a Republican who was part of the 1980s takeover attempt and who endorsed the latest proposal earlier this month.

With the support of then-President Ronald Reagan, the 1980s effort, born in Nevada, led to some changes in land management. But the larger movement fizzled, in part because it lost support of many land users, including ranchers and miners, who feared the loss of federal subsidies for grazing rights and mining royalties.

This time, the movement originated in Utah as an avenue to evict the federal government and raise money for schools, and it has advanced furthest there.

“We can’t wait any longer,” said Utah Rep. Ken Ivory, a Republican. “We value these open lands and open spaces, but certainly we’re able to manage the multiple use for a sustained yield of natural resources. Utah will show the nation what it means to be self-reliant.”

In Arizona, the measure calls for the transfer of lands to the state from the federal government. Melvin brought the bill to Arizona after hearing about it late last year from the American Legislative Exchange Council, an organization that often provides state lawmakers with model legislation, written by its own staff.

Read more:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-26/states-rights-federal-land/53786490/1

PNP comment: We agree. — Editor Liz Bowen

The Obama administration is no friend of farmers, and the recent stunt involving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sending spy planes over the state of Nebraska to keep an eye on where cows drop their patties is the latest example of overreach by an administration that is bent on controlling every aspect of our lives, but farming in particular.

According to the Lincoln Journal Star, the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality has been overseeing the health of Nebraska’s waters for more than 30 years, and its director, Mike Linder, says he’s not sure why the flyovers are taking place. Why let the states do for themselves what our all-knowing, all-seeing government can do for them?

At an agricultural conference in November 2011 keynote speaker and environmental attorney, Harriet Hageman, warned “The EPA is one of the most insidious organizations in the US.” and is “a prime example of regulation without representation.”

Farmers and ranchers have similar concerns about Obama’s U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). During a bus tour across rural America last summer, Obama was confronted time and again by ranchers and farmers concerned that unsubstantiated regulation was regulating them out of business. According to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, proposed USDA regulations “would cost 114,000 jobs nationwide and increase retail meat prices more than three percent.” A statistic likely lost on a president whose discriminating palate includes $100 steaks.

Certainly no one can forget the USDA’s attempt to impose a Christmas tree “tax” (fee) to “improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.” Bah humbug.

Last fall, the Department of Labor (DOL) attempted to regulate the relationship shared between parents and their kids on family farms. According to Politico, the proposed rule would have prohibited those under age 16 from manual labor like stall cleaning using a shovel and using a battery-operated screwdriver. When I was a kid, this type of manual labor was called Saturday morning chores. The bill also limited exposure to sunlight based upon wind speed and humidity as well as participation in 4-H clubs. And Mrs. Obama wonders why our kids are so fat.

Last but not least, the Department of Transportation (DOT) proposed a rule that would reclassify all farm vehicles as commercial motor vehicles meaning anyone driving a tractor or operating certain farm equipment would require a commercial driver’s license. Never mind the fact that many farm workers are migrant workers who do not qualify for drivers’ licenses, let alone commercial drivers’ licenses.

Admittedly, farmers have their hands dirty in this corner they find themselves backed into. Farming subsidies almost invite the government to meddle in an industry it plays such a big role in propping up. But farms are not just part of the fabric of this country; American farms provide much needed food aid to the third world. When you apply bureaucratic pressure to any industry, you run the risk of driving those same workers out of the industry, which becomes self-defeating.

Government control of the farming industry is illustrative of the Obama Administration which operates more like a dictatorship than a representative democracy. Whether it’s farming, healthcare, the auto industry or energy production, there is no amount of government intervention and overreach that can replace good, old-fashioned American ingenuity and hard work.

PNP comment: This statement was send to me and I agree with it. Not sure who to attribute it to, so thank you to whomever. — Editor Liz Bowen

Since the Forest service isn’t interested in cleaning the forests how about if the County government received the funds for California and we hired all displaced, low income workers, people on State aid and any one who wants a job such as out of work loggers, miners and the such.

March 17, 2010

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today chaired a hearing on the President’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget request for the U.S. Forest Service. Senator Feinstein chairs the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies. U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell was the primary witness.

During the hearing, Chairman Feinstein touched on the following topics: the Forest Service’s proposed new Integrated Resource Restoration account, firefighting and prevention budgets, Quincy Library Group, and other Forest Service operating programs.

Following are Senator Feinstein’s remarks prepared for delivery:

“Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  On behalf of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I welcome you to our hearing on the Fiscal Year 2011 budget request for the U.S. Forest Service.

I’m pleased to welcome Tom Tidwell, the new Chief of the Forest Service.

Chief Tidwell, this is the first time you’ve had the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee, so I want to say how much I am looking forward to working with you.   And given all the changes proposed in your budget request, it’s clear that we have a lot to discuss.

The President’s request provides $5.38 billion for the Forest Service, an increase of $61 million, or 1 percent, over the Fiscal Year 2010 enacted level.

Despite the constraints reflected in this budget, I am pleased to see a number of important programs receive increases.

In particular, the budget request provides a total of $2.64 billion for all wildland fire activities, an increase of $129 million over the enacted level.  That’s a 5 percent increase.   Within that amount, hazardous fuels reduction activities are funded at $349 million, roughly equal to this year’s level.

The budget also proposes $1.59 billion to fund operations for the nation’s forests and grasslands, a 2 percent increase.

State and private forestry programs receive a 4 percent increase, for a total of $321 million.  And land acquisition programs increase by 16 percent, for a total of $74 million.

There are also a number of program cuts.

Funding for construction and maintenance of facilities, roads and trails is cut by 21 percent compared to the enacted level, for a total of $438 million.

Most notably, road construction and maintenance is cut by 31 percent, for a total of $164 million. This cut comes despite the fact that the Service reports a $3 billion backlog in road maintenance as part of its budget request.

Finally, funding for State and volunteer fire assistance programs is slashed by 29 percent, for a total of $57 million.

Turning to the details, I’d like to focus in particular on two major changes that are part of this request.   One is the proposal to combine several of the agency’s land management programs into a new Integrated Resource Restoration account.  The other is a major restructuring of the agency’s fire preparedness and suppression accounts.

Starting with wildland fire programs, the budget requests a total of $1.5 billion for fire suppression activities. That’s an increase of $90 million – or 6 percent – over the enacted level.

That amount includes $1.2 billion as part of fire suppression account and $333 million that has been shifted to the preparedness account.

For years, the Forest Service has been charging a portion of its preparedness costs to the fire suppression account, hiding the true cost of the agency’s readiness needs.   I am pleased to see this Administration shift funds to properly pay for these activities within the preparedness account – where they belong.

All told, the budget requests $1 billion for firefighter salaries, training and equipment, a 49 percent increase compared to 2010.

While I do support the level provided in this budget for fire suppression, I am concerned that this request divides firefighting funds into three overly complicated accounts.  The request includes:

• $595 million for base fire suppression programs;

• $291 million for the FLAME Fund – passed by Congress last year –  which the Secretary can use to cover the cost of fighting large wildfires; and

• $282 million for a third account – the Wildland Fire Contingency Reserve – which is a reserve fund that can only be accessed by Presidential declaration.

I’m afraid I just don’t understand the need to have three separate fire suppression accounts, so I look forward to having the chance to discuss your proposal further.

An even more significant change in this budget is the proposal to merge three National Forest System programs to create a new, $694 million dollar line item called the ‘Integrated Resource Restoration’ program.

I understand that the Administration has proposed this initiative to provide flexibility to fund restoration work it plans to do on the ground.  However, I’m concerned that the budget request leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

First, I would like to talk about why the Administration feels such a significant restructuring of the budget is necessary to accomplish your restoration goals.  I am concerned that collapsing three programs into one huge new account would reduce transparency and accountability regarding how program dollars are spent.

I’d also like to discuss how the Forest Service proposes to allocate funds for this new initiative – particularly how the agency plans to implement a new, $50 million dollar Priority Watersheds and Jobs Stabilization initiative to fund large-scale restoration projects and create jobs in rural communities.

Finally, I’d like to discuss the impact that these proposed changes will have on the availability of timber supply from national forests.   Chief Tidwell, I am hoping you can provide some clarity on exactly how much timber the Forest Service plans to produce in Fiscal Year 2011.  I’d also like to talk about how your agency plans to implement such a large increase in the use of stewardship contracting.

These are important questions which I hope you and your staff will help us work through as we begin the process of drafting an appropriations bill.   I also look forward to discussing a number of issues that are important to national forests in California this morning. Now I’d like to turn to my Ranking Member, Senator Alexander, for any comments that he wishes to make.”

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

* *

For more go to:  http://www.landrights.org/

*Do You Want The EPA &Corps In Your Backyard?*

Do you want the EPA & Corps jurisdiction over all forest roads?

If Not, Here’s Why You Need The

*“Preserve The Waters Of The US Act” (S-2245)*

Below are action items to protect your water and your land as well as roads on Federal land. But first, read this:

* *

—–The EPA wants to lift the ban that prevents Washington, DC bureaucrats from regulating non-navigable waters.

—–Lifting the navigable ban, passed by Congress to protect families, small businesses and farmers from federal bureaucrats seizing their water or their land, would devastate economic and recreational activity as well as small communities across the U.S.

——You need to insist that Congress not remove the requirement set by Congress in the original Clean Water Act that said the EPA and Corps *can only regulate “navigable waters”*. The EPA and Corps want to eliminate the word “navigable” and give the EPA and Corps jurisdiction over “all waters of the United States and all activities affecting all waters of the United States.”

—–If the ban is lifted, when it rains, your backyard or farm becomes a minefield of Washington red tape and taxes.

—–If you’re a farmer, when it rains, your backyard becomes a bonanza for Washington, DC bureaucrats to go on your property to force you from doing activities like building a swimming pool, installing a bird bath, running rainwater away from your home, irrigating your fields, installing stock watering ponds and many more.

—–If you’re a suburban homeowner, when it rains, the water in your backyard allows Washington, DC bureaucrats on your property to block you from doing basic things without a permit that can cost thousands of dollars and long delays causing great damage.

—–Congress blocked attempts by former Congressman James Oberstar

(D-MN) and former Senator Russ Feingold (R-MN) from passing the Clean Water Restoration Act, which would have lifted the “navigable”

ban. As with the EPA and Corp, Oberstar and Feingold tried to remove the word “navigable” from the Clean Water Act.

—–Despite Congress not changing the law, the Obama EPA and Army Corps of Engineers are attempting to remove this key protection for families, small business and farmers by issuing an internal guidance document to agency bureaucrats telling them it is now OK to regulate non-navigable waters on people’s property throughout the United States. The Obama folks seem to care less about how they are ignoring two Supreme Court decisions.

—–The Preserve The Waters of the US Act (S-2245) would stop Washington overreach and block any further attempt to issue “guidance” to agency bureaucrats that says it is OK to regulate non-navigable water in people’s backyards and farms.

*Preserve the waters of the u.s. Act (S-2245)*

*Purpose:* To preserve existing rights and responsibilities with respect to waters of the U.S.

* *

*Background:* In May 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued draft guidance on “Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act.”

http://pioneer.olivesoftware.com/Olive/ODE/HeraldandNews/

Jim Cook ousted as Siskiyou supervisor 

Criss leads race by 2-1 margin 

By LEE JUILLERAT

H&N Regional Editor

June 6, 2012

     Brandon Criss unseated incumbent Jim Cook in Tuesday’s Siskiyou County Supervisor District 1 election.

   Based on early returns, Criss, who lives in Macdoel , was outpolling Cook by nearly a two to one margin, 792 to 481.

   “I’m ecstatic,” Criss said Tuesday night.

   He credited a “great campaign team” and strategy. Criss launched his campaign in May 2011 throughout his district, which includes portions of the Tulelake Basin and Butte Valley.

   “I was door-to-door shaking hands, standing out in front of the post offices,” he said of his campaign strategy. Criss also said he emphasized to voters throughout his large geographic district that he will represent all areas of his district, including the Shasta Valley and McCloud areas. “I’m committed to representing the entire district. The goal is to represent the whole district.”

   Criss said one of his immediate priorities will be opposing the Klamath Basin Restoration  Agreement, which calls for removal of four Klamath River dams. He also pledged to advocate water supplies for Tulelake Basin irrigators.

   “It’s been an honor and a pleasure to serve the constituents of District 1,” Cook said Monday night.

   Two other incumbent supervisors in areas outside the Klamath Basin were re-elected. District 4 Supervisor Grace Bennett of Yreka was unopposed while District 2 Supervisor Ed Valenzuela of Mount Shasta City easily withstood a challenge from Dan Dorsey by taking more than 70 percent of the early returns.

   City Council elections for Dorris and Tulelake will be held in November.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

This information and much more that you need to know about the ESA,
the Klamath River Basin, and private property rights can be found at The
Klamath Bucket Brigade’s web site – http://klamathbucketbrigade.org/index.html –
please visit today.