Flint Michigan: 100,000 residents dead from lead poisoning and may not know it

Flint Michigan: 100,000 residents dead from lead poisoning and may not know it

0122016
0924 am

The near 100,000 residents of Flint Michigan are being poisoned by water purchased by them for consumption.

They are deathly sick and may not know it yet. Lead poisoning is a very serious condition and the state of emergency has not yet been realized.

Leads effect on your body is insidious at first, but the gradual decline and the devastating toll on your body is not often realized for years.

Flints population is comprised mostly of blacks at 57 percent, 37 percent white and 6 percent other. 42 percent live below the poverty line.

The city is facing bankruptcy and poor policy decisions by its officials have compromised their safety.

Perhaps one could reduce that because they are poor and less diverse than other cities, the lead problem could easily be swept under a rug and the hope being this would just go away.

The lead source was identified as a pipe corrosion problem from switching a water source that was more corrosive to the lining of water pipes supplying water to this community.

The Washington Post reported that in “April 2014, Flint stopped getting water from Detroit and began using water from the Flint River. The change was announced in a news release that acknowledged “lingering uncertainty about the quality of the water” and also sought to “dispel myths and promote the truth about the Flint River and its viability as a residential water resource,” assuring the public that the the water would be tested.”

“Residents quickly began complaining of water that smelled or was discolored. Flint began getting water from Detroit again in October, but by that time some residents had been drinking the water for 19 months.”

The integrity of the lead pipe wall has been eroded causing lead to leech freely into the water supply of almost every home in Flint Michigan. This chemical reaction has essentially poisoned every resident of Flint Michigan and created a health crisis not seen on a community since Chernobyl.

Many in local and state government thought this move would assist the city in overcoming mounting debt by saving money. Not a wise move in hindsight.

Lead poisoning by human absorption can be absorbed by inhalation of leaded fumes, think Leaded gas, lead paint in homes and through food and water. The devastating cumulative effect on children is our greatest loss.

According to WHO, the World Health Organization, “Lead is a metal with no known biological benefit to humans. Too much lead can damage various systems of the body including the nervous and reproductive systems and the kidneys, and it can cause high blood pressure and anemia. Lead accumulates in the bones and lead poisoning may be diagnosed from a blue line around the gums. Lead is especially harmful to the developing brains of fetuses and young children and to pregnant women. Lead interferes with the metabolism of calcium and Vitamin D. High blood lead levels in children can cause consequences which may be irreversible including learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and mental retardation. At very high levels, lead can cause convulsions, coma and death.”

An EPA Regional Manager Susan Hedman had stepped down over the lead problem. It has been alleged that the EPA knew of this problem for years and failed to act responsibly to keep residents from harm.

Simply acknowledging that there is a problem does not make the water quality better. Michigan Governor Snyder has offered 38 million to “fix” the problem but I’m afraid the cost will exceed billions.

The protective barrier inside the pipes are corroded and compromised. This must be fixed before anyone can expect lead levels to fall. Currently according to local activist residents the lead tainted water continues to flow at high levels.

Meanwhile, Flint resident will continue to consume, bathe and cook with contaminated water and the devastating effect on their bodies will intensify.

19 plus months of lead consumption will be devastating to this community.

Because there are not dead bodies laying around everywhere this tragedy somehow seems benign and rationally explained away. It looks good in the media. Truth be known 100,000 plus residents of Flint may already be dead and their fate not yet fully realized. The darker tragedy lies just under the surface where social uproar acceptance levels are comfortable.

There has been a cover up in this scenario somewhere and those responsible need not “step down” but held accountable for their actions. The layers will soon be pulled back and the major players will be exposed. The political football has been passed and more and more are becoming aware of this huge health issue.

We may not see the full effect of this incident today, but tomorrow may be devastating.

This community is in grave danger!

Create awareness and alarm, this will spur action.

Sources of information: Please read these publications frequently. Support these sources!

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/lead/en/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/closer-demographics-flint-michigan-36430744

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/01/21/michigan-authorities-debated-responsibility-for-flint-water-crisis-emails-show/

EPA set to garnish your wages for breaking regulations

EPA set to garnish your wages for breaking regulations

07/09/2014
0710 am

The EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, has announced that as of September 2014, it will have the unbridled ability to garnish your wages for environmental infractions.

If this seems odd to you then you had best speak up. Otherwise, breaking an EPA regulation will cost you plenty and they can take it via wage garnishment.

As per link below, According to The Washington Times, the agency announced the plan to enhance its purview last week in a notice in the Federal Register. The notice claimed that federal law allows the EPA to “garnish non-Federal wages to collect delinquent non-tax debts owed the United States without first obtaining a court order.” 

The notice went on to say that the EPA had fast-tracked the new rule, enabling it to take effect September 2. 

1. The EPA said the rule was not subject to review because it was not a “significant regulatory action.”

The EPA has claimed this new authority by citing the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996,  Section 31001(o), which gives all federal agencies the power to conduct administrative wage garnishment, provided that the agency allows for hearings at which debtors to challenge the amount or the terms of repayment schedule. 

.”The EPA also states that, “we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment.” 

“This direct final rule is effective September 2, 2014 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 1, 2014.”

To contact the EPA on this subject please use one of these to post your comments. I was unable find an ability to comment online.

Submit your comments by one of the following methods:

1. Email: jones.anita@epa.gov.

2. Fax: (202) 565-2585.

3. Mail: OCFO-2014-0001; FRL-9910-14-OCFO FPPS c/o Anita Jones, OCFO/OFM/FPPS, Mailcode 2733R, Environmental Protection Agency, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA_FRDOC_0001-15898

The conservative Heritage Foundation claimed that the rule gives the EPA “unbridled discretion” over the process of challenging fines.  David Addington, group vice president for research at Heritage, told the Times that the rule not only puts the burden of proof on the debtor, rather than the agency, but also allows the EPA to decide whether a debtor even gets a chance to present a defense before picking whomever it chooses to serve as a hearing officer.

The amount of money the EPA has collected in fines has increased steadily since President Barack Obama took office. In 2012, the agency took in $252 million in fines, up from just $96 million in 2009. 

Also be conscious of the fact that a growth plan is probably in effect in your community. This Agenda 21 project gives the DOT, the EPA and  HUD full access to your community with all authority rendered to them via your locally elected representatives. 

It’s time to speak up and out about government overreach into your wallets by a truly oppressive regime.

Share this info and by all means comment on the EPA hotline and comment line expressing your distaste for this overreach. Then contact your elected representatives and tell them to stop the EPA from garnishing your wages and taking your hard earned money.

Source and quotes from this link below. Please visit this site frequently. It has other excellent information for you to enjoy.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/09/epa-claims-it-has-power-to-garnish-wages-without-court-approval/

An example of how the EPA is reaching into the pockets of Americans can be seen in the example given in this link below. Just one story of where this could go. 

A 75,000 dollar a day fine placed on a man and his family for building a pond in his yard, a perceived violation of the Clean Water Act!

http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/03/epa-harasses-americans/

If silence falls on this, we are in for some serious tyranny by a federal agency that will only gain strength at each fine and garnishment levied.

The wage garnishment rule:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2002/03/13/02-5924/administrative-wage-garnishment

EPA to regulate “cow defecation” to enhance water quality downstream

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued new pollution control requirements for large livestock feedlots. The new regulations would allow farm operators to avoid having to get a permit if they agree to not let their farm animals defecate and put “harmful discharges” into nearby waterways.

The new EPA standard calls for a “zero discharge standard” which basically says farmers, on their own merit will develop elaborate and expensive plans to prevent the runoff of “excessive” environmentally damaging nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous to flow into lakes and streams.

Damaging nutrients like phosphorous and Nitrogen? The EPA has agreed to allow farmers to police themselves to not allow their animals to excrete in a normal fashion and have called for zero tolerance? Really?

Can you see the writing on the wall? Farmers regulating themselves with a zero tolerance police to keep manure out of local waterways? In other words, the EPA should have just gone straight to the stricter standard of just fining them for cattle defecation and runoff into nearby streams. Unless there is a quick miracle digestive device created soon, it want happen. I think we can all agree a cow is going to eat and a cow is going to defecate! Self regulation is essentially another type of “tax” on the farmer. Its a pretty sure sign you are going to pay it if your cow is normal. Self regulation only gives you the opportunity to fail so the EPA can step in and enforce the strict regulations.

Enforcing rediculous and stringent federal EPA regulations with stiff fines on a farmer is a sure fire way to ensure failure of that farmer and possibly loss of his or her livelihood and family treasure, their property.

Environmentalist have long complained that animal feedlots , the large operations where hogs and cattle are fattened for slaughter , pollute waterways because of their huge buildup of manure which is piled up and spread across the land.

My first gripe with this is why are we cow towing (joke intended) to environmentalist about an issue that is occuring on my private property and will likely affect my livelihood and way of making a living because they think that their drinking water may have to much nitrogen or phosphorous? The federal government, especially the EPA should have no say so on what I do on my property.

Environmentalist have also been concerned that these “lax “ rules of self governance through the “zero discharge” rule is letting the farmers get off easy! They think that is lax? Ever try to keep cow excrement from flowing down hill after a rain storm?

Eric Shaefer, a former EPA Enforcement Official says “This regulation allows these industrial meat farms to avoid the Clean Water Act all together by certifying that they have taken voluntary action to avoid discharges. Mr Shaefer, we all know what will happen when that EPA enforcer walks on to that piece of property to make sure you are self regulating. Exactly, they will find phosphorus and nitrogen downstream, gauranteed!

EPA officials estimated that the requirements will prevent the release into the streams , lakes and other waterways of 56 million pounds of phosphorous, 110 million pounds of nitrogen and 2 billion pounds of sediment!

I know farm animals are going to defecate, it is going to rain and that rich combination of nitrogen and phosphorus is going to flow downhill into a waterway! Its a given, it’s going to happen. This new regulation comes on the heels of cows milk, hay and dust being determined a pollutant.

You might as well get a credit line at the local bank and digging that proverbial hole. If you plan to do any farming under the over regulating eye of the EPA, you either pay the fines to play or give up the farm and your property rights. Sounds like we need to tell our elected officials how we feel! Call them and tell them to get the EPA of your backs and off your farms!

Source of information:

Directly from the EPA website:
http://www.epa.gov/region9/animalwaste/problem.html

http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/lcwaenf.html

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/20002Q11.TXT?

Eminent Domain and Brownfields: What the future holds.

I just watched the local channel 9 news and saw a bureaucracy run amuck! I just saw Cleveland Mayor Tom Rowland threaten federal or other charges against the citizens of Cleveland and Bradley County for someone informing the community via “flyers” for exercising their right to inform the people of the governments plans for their future.

He also asked that if anyone happens to know who is passing out these “flyers” to notify the police! Wow! I thought we were a few years from being a police state, but I think it is now upon us!

The Mayor of Cleveland asking all citizens to report those informing the community of his plans via Brownfield redevelopment using TIF and eminent domain as a tool of implementation is such a disservice to our community!

Obviously those reporting on this act of tyranny and those in our local government do not know what brownfield Development is or what implications it has on our community. Eminent domain is a frequently used tool of brownfield development often purchasing the people’s property at fair market value then reselling it to developers for a huge profit thus increasing property value thus increasing their property tax that makes it’s way into our budgets every year. Redevelopment is done this way! Our Mayor cannot do all he wants to do downtown without someone losing their property. A huge Tom Rowland Convention center cannot be without someone losing their property.

Many within the machine will argue with you that if someone wants to sell their property then that is their prerogative, I agree! The part that makes my blood boil is that person that was living in that house last year would still be there if not for the Mayors lofty plans to “save the city!” with his tyrannical government.

Assume that same person refuses to sell their property and wants to hang onto it as the mayor suggests they have a right to do. That person will face new land use regs, zoning regs, huge property tax rate increases and God knows whatever else them and the EPA wants to place on them. You did know that brownfield development is a direct project of the EPA, never mind, guess that small fact is being left out of the equation and will require further education to our elected bodies on a different day.

But that person, perhaps of limited income would have great difficulty paying for this newly appraised property and would perhaps lose their property anyway! A vicious circle has started and the fittest and wealthiest survive. This is the plan that the mayor forgets to unveil while wanting to charge you with federal charges!

Often when our elected leaders make decisions that will affect many negatively, they frown upon those civilians that stand against the tyrannical government that is trying to impose these dastardly deeds upon it’s contingent base. Often times it only takes a simple google search to find out what they are up to and they may not even know the content of what they are proposing.

When the public has to inform our elected leaders of the decisions they are making then we are in trouble. At this point and it has been proven time and again, any attempt by a citizen to explain their side, the bureaucrat steps up to the plate and calls it a lie or a conspiracy! This is the simple thing to do and it works in the short time but with time it often doesn’t hold water and the elected official offering his or her version of free spin often looks like the devil incarnate holding a pitch fork that is frequently buried within a citizens chest, sweat on the brow of the bureaucrat holding the forked instrument and shouting “its a lie.”

What is illegal about putting information out to the public. Let’s just assume that it is off base, which I’m pretty sure it is not because it is sitting squarely on the mayors phrenic nerve or he would not be reacting so strongly.

There is nothing illegal about passing information out in public regardless of it’s harmless content. What TCA code is anyone violating? What code or regulation is being broken? What grounds does a sworn officer, upholding the Costitution, have to arrest anyone? NONE! so please stop using scare tactics to disperse the freedom loving people of this county.

I have not a clue who is placing these “flyers” that have so inflamed our elected body but I can tell you, at present there is not a court in the land that would tell him or her that legally they cannot do that! Not a one! You know why? Because the Constitution of the US states we have freedom of speech and can file grievance with our government at any time we the people feel that it is necessary! Period! End of sentence!

If someone wanted to pass out literature saying the sky is made of mashed potatoes and it’s gonna rain gravy. They have the Constitutional right to say it. Would I like it? Not necessarily! Is it illegal? No? Distasteful or against someones opposing view, perhaps, but not illegal!

Mr Mayor, please attempt to constrain your self from overreacting like a king beheading it’s citizens, it’s highly unecesary to threaten your constituency with federal or other charges for speaking out against your policy! It’s not a flattering road for you to travel!

By Shawna M. Bligh
The Session Law Firm
Kansas City, MO

Eminent domain is often an essential development tool utilized by local governments to acquire contaminated sites and pursue bold Brownfields redevelopment strategies that can be a catalyst for community revitalization. Brownfields are abandoned, idle or under‑used real property where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by the presence or potential presence of environmental contamination. However, using eminent domain for private projects, such as Brownfields redevelopment, is always a divisive issue. This is even more the case since the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

In Kelo, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a city violates the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause if it takes private property, through its powers of eminent domain, and sells it for private development to further the local government’s overall economic growth plan. On June 23, 2005, the court held that local governments could use their powers of eminent domain to take property for private, economic development. The Kelo opinion has prompted an avalanche of legislation at both the federal and state level.

At the federal level, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation, which would withhold, for two years, federal money from state and local governments, which use their powers of eminent domain to take property intended for private, economic development. This legislation, H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, is a direct response to the Kelo decision. H.R. 4128 defines “economic development” as taking private property for commercial, for-profit projects intended to increase tax revenues, the tax base, employment or improve general economic health. H.R. 4128 passed the House on November 3, 2005 by a vote of 376-38, and is currently before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. While hearings have been held on the bill, no legislative action has been scheduled.

Fortunately, a bipartisan amendment, H.AMDT. 612, to H.R. 4128 added an exemption, from the definition of “economic development” for the redevelopment of brownfield sites, as defined in the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfield Revitalization Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-118). The amendment, introduced by Congressman Gary Miller (R-CA) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), would allow cities to responsibly use eminent domain to redevelop brownfield sites. On the House floor, Congressman Miller stated “owners of brownfield sites are frequently unwilling to sell them for fear of cleanup and cost of contamination. Eminent domain can often help break through legal and procedural barriers to the sale of land.”

The United States has more than 450,000 vacant or underused industrial sites as a result of environmental contamination. While not only improving and protecting the environment, cleanup of Brownfields restores the sites to productive use, facilitates job growth, and substantially increases tax revenues for local governments. Additionally, cleanup revitalizes otherwise dormant urban core areas, thus promoting smart growth by taking development pressures off undeveloped, open land. Without eminent domain for redevelopment purposes, local governments would be less likely to redevelop Brownfields because of the liability for all costs and cleanup of the polluted land as the owner and operator of the site. Therefore, it is imperative that eminent domain legislation, at both the state and federal level, include exemptions for Brownfields redevelopment. Without such exemptions, Brownfields redevelopment would be significantly impaired and contaminated lands would sit idle.

At the state level, the Missouri House and Senate have proposed various limitations on the use of eminent domain, and, unfortunately, none of the proposed legislation provides an express Brownfield exemption. Examples of presently proposed limitations include prohibiting the state or local governments from exercising its powers of eminent domain to acquire property for the purpose of economic development; limiting the definition of “blighted areas” under Missouri eminent domain laws; requiring businesses in areas taken by eminent domain to reimburse persons displaced from that area; and even placing a moratorium on the use of eminent domain until 2007.

Missouri has several state Brownfields including the Kansas City Riverfront Development and the St. Louis Arena. The state of Missouri benefits greatly from Brownfields redevelopment and eminent domain is an important tool in these redevelopment areas. Eminent domain was an essential component in the redevelopment of Kansas City’s Central Industrial District. This is the oldest industrial area of the bi-state Kansas City region where the Kansas and Missouri Rivers meet. Blight and fear of contamination threatened to drive away remaining businesses and private investment in the late 1990’s. Efforts to retain a leading business were frustrated by a private owner’s refusal to maintain the site in violation of City codes, which later led to a catastrophic fire that devastated the West 8th Street area. The owner refused to cooperate with City officials who planned to use local, state and federal funds to acquire the ruins and prepare the area for redevelopment. Ultimately, what came to be known as the Lewis & Clark Redevelopment Area Project succeeded, in large part because of the City’s eminent domain powers. Improvements in the area led to over $100 million in private investment, the creation of 421 jobs and retention of more than 1,100 jobs. Without the City’s powers of eminent domain, the many benefits of this Brownfield redevelopment project would have been lost.

The Missouri Brownfield Redevelopment Program is administered by the Department of Economic Development and the Department of Natural Resources. The program’s purpose is to oversee cleanup and provide various financial incentives for the redevelopment of contaminated properties. If the legislature is concerned about the potential misuse of eminent domain powers by municipalities, serious consideration should be given to conferring with the Department to address these concerns while at the same time furthering the goals of this Program.

UN’s LOST Treaty debate begins on floor of US Senate tomorrow

Tomorrow, on the US Senate floor a debate starts that will eventually lead to a vote on the UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty, known internationally as UNCLOS.

As Senators begin their preparation on a vote the UN and Environmentalist await the results. The results of which could have a devastating affect on our economy and our way of life for years to come. If the LOST treaty is ratified this week it will almost be impossible to stop or take away and will squander our nations oil and gas reserve fortunes to many unfriendly countries and deviant regimes.

By essentially giving away our rights to our own seabed to the ISA, a UN International Seabed Authority, we give most of the potential royalties that are “property” of the United States and it’s citizens, worth possibly trillions upon trillions to control of an international body, like the UN.

Redistribution of wealth! The royalties will be passed off to the international UN authorities and dispersed to poorer countries assisting with their poverty, a stated goal of the UN per Agenda 21 and other of it’s many policies.

Environmentalists have said that if the treaty passes and America is able to “tap” into unaccountable unmeasureable “hydrocarbon reserves” thus further degrading our environment with huge carbon loads lawsuits will ensue, further harming our economy and further contributing as a source to spread Americas wealth to the rest of the world against our will. This will only further our economic decline and drastically affect out way of life. Less for us and our economy means less in your pockets.

Our Sovereignty is at stake once again to the UN. No longer can the conspiracy theory negations hold up. We are under attack and if you take a minute to look around you, you will see that the United Nations under the guidance of NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) via PPPs (Private Partnerships) using our local, State and Federal elected officials to implement and vote in the strategies needed to harm our country and spread the wealth to others instead of to where it belongs and that is in the hands of American Citizens.

President Reagan turned this down 30 years ago and our current sitting president is charging full steam ahead to ratify the LOST treaty thus complimenting his commitment to the concepts of Agenda 21 and the eventual turning over our sovereignty to an international body, the UNITED NATIONS.

Notify your individual US SENATORS TODAY and tomorrow! Please do not hesitate! This is crucial and needs immediate attention! Please do not delay! Please tell them not to ratify the LOST treaty.

Tennessee contacts:

Senator Lamar Alexander

Senator Bob Corker

Source of info:
http://heritageaction.com/stoplost/why-the-law-of-the-sea-treaty-is-still-a-bad-idea/

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
• Law of the Sea: UNCLOS—sometimes called the “Law of the Sea Treaty” (or LOST)—established a comprehensive legal regime for navigation and international management of oceanic resources, including the deep seabed.

• President Reagan Refused to Sign: President Ronald Reagan announced that he would not sign UNCLOS shortly after it was adopted in 1982. Reagan stated several objections to it, most of which dealt with its provisions on deep seabed mining. Reagan did, however, support the navigational provisions of UNCLOS, which reflected the customary international law of the sea.

The U.S. Has Much to Lose …
• Another Unaccountable International Bureaucracy: UNCLOS establishes the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a new U.N.-style bureaucracy located in Kingston, Jamaica. As only one of more than 160 countries in the ISA, the U.S. would have limited authority over its decisions regarding the deep seabed. Just like the U.N. General Assembly, proceedings at the ISA would be dominated by anti-U.S. interests.

• Redistribution of U.S. Wealth to the “Developing World”: The U.S. currently enjoys full sovereignty over its entire continental shelf. It can claim all its mineral resources (e.g., oil and gas) and can collect royalty revenue from oil and gas companies for exploitation. If the U.S. joined UNCLOS, Article 82 would require the U.S. to transfer a significant portion of any such royalties to the ISA for “redistribution” to the so-called developing world, including corrupt and despotic regimes.

• Mandatory Dispute Resolution: Under Part XV, the U.S. would be required to engage in mandatory dispute resolution for any claim brought against it by another member of UNCLOS. This may open the U.S. to any number of specious allegations brought by opportunistic nations, including allegations of environmental degradation or polluting the ocean environment with carbon emissions or even from land-based sources.

• U.S. Economic Interests at Risk: UNCLOS claims the deep seabed resources of the oceans as “the common heritage of mankind” and forbids mining unless permission is first received by the ISA, which, of course, takes into account the interests of “developing states” regarding the exploitation of those resources. UNCLOS encourages technology transfers from advanced mining companies to support the mining activities by developing states, which is likely to discourage U.S. companies from participating in such activities.

• The Convention Was Not “Fixed” in 1994: During the early 1990s the deep seabed mining provisions of UNCLOS were renegotiated in the “1994 Agreement.” This addendum to the convention was signed by the Clinton Administration in July 1994. While the 1994 Agreement improved many provisions of the convention, it did not secure “veto” power for the U.S. over the decisions of the ISA.

… and Little to Gain
• Navigation Rights Already Guaranteed: The navigational provisions of UNCLOS reflect long-standing customary international law, under which the U.S. Navy has operated since it was created. The navy has consistently demonstrated its ability to access key strategic straits and archipelagic waters and to protect its high seas freedoms—despite the fact that the U.S. has not ratified UNCLOS.

UN Carbon Map just released from Earth Summit in Rio!

An interactive, color enhanced, “moving map” with details of how our world is not being sustainable has just been released at the United Nations Earth Summit/Rio+20 Conference in Rio de Janiero, Brazil just hours ago!

A carbon map has just been released so you can now graphically “see” your personal carbon footprint and how many tonnes of CO2 you omit and your ranking against the world!

The Carbon Map!
http://www.carbonmap.org/sources.html

Cutting edge technology directly from the United Nations out of Rio! Go to the site above and play around with it, listen to the 1:27 minute audio introduction. It’s quite entertaining to see how the US seems to be the reason that all things are bad in the world as most all of the data is configured to show the US in a bad light! An interesting fact from the Carbon Map: We do have the second highest GDP, second only to the European Union!

Our countries successes must be shown in a negative light! Why? Because this is where a great percentage of the UNs money comes from and where heavy EPA fines will be levied against corporations! Our wealth must be distributed equally to promote social justice in the rest of the world to “eradicate poverty!”

Remember, US success and wealth equals more money to the UN and their partner the International Chamber of Commerce using the EPA fines to grow this bear called Agenda 21/SD21!

This map shows me the level of intensity they are approaching this Earth Summit and forewarns of the devastating impact this Rio+20 conference will have on the world.

We are fixing to see a huge concentrated effort post Rio with a definitive plan to push Agenda 21 into every household in the World, real soon!

We must prep our elected leaders for this expected onslaught! We must get the UN out of the US, we must defund them, we must send strong messages to our local leaders who are allowing consultants to use the local Chambers of Commerce and Planners to adopt Growth plans that are straight out of the book written to specifically implement Agenda 21 locally! JUST ENCOURAGE YOUR ELECTED LEADERS TO SAY NO TO THE UN IN OUR COUNTRY!

Enjoy the map and the explanations below of the map!

The Carbon Map!
(must copy and paste link)

http://www.carbonmap.org/sources.html

Data sources, notes and explanation

Area map

Description: Land area (sq. km)
Definition: Land area is a country’s total area, excluding area under inland water bodies, national claims to continental shelf, and exclusive economic zones. In most cases the definition of inland water bodies includes major rivers and lakes.
Source: Food and Agriculture Organization, electronic files and web site.
World Bank indicator code: AG.LND.TOTL.K2
Notes: Greenland data substituted with figure from data.un.org so that it includes the area under the Greenland Ice Sheet.
Population map

Description: Population, total
Definition: Total population is based on the de facto definition of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship–except for refugees not permanently settled in the country of asylum, who are generally considered part of the population of their country of origin. The values shown are midyear estimates.
Source: (1) United Nations Population Division. 2009. World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision. New York, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (advanced Excel tables). Available at http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp2008/index.htm. (2) Census reports and other statistical publications from national statistical offices, (3) Eurostat: Demographic Statistics, (4) Secretariat of the Pacific Community: Statistics and Demography Programme, (5) U.S. Census Bureau: International Database, and (6) World bank estimates based on the data from the sources above, household surveys conducted by national agencies, Macro International, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and refugees statistics from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
World Bank indicator code: SP.POP.TOTL
Notes: Data for 2010.
Wealth map

Description: Total GDP (PPP, current international $)
Definition: PPP GDP is gross domestic product converted to international dollars using purchasing power parity rates. An international dollar has the same purchasing power over GDP as the U.S. dollar has in the United States. GDP is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. Data are in current international dollars.
Source: World Bank, International Comparison Program database.
World Bank indicator code: NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD
Notes: Most data for 2010, but with some infilling of blanks from 2009.
Extraction map

Description: Potential CO2 emissions from extracted fossil fuels
Definition: Potential CO2 emissions from annual fossil fuels extraction.
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2011, converted to CO2 by Duncan Clark, using the following conversion factors: CO2 figures are based on the following conversion factors: oil, 3.07 tonnes CO2 per tonne; gas, 2.35 tonnes CO2 per tonne of oil equivalent; coal, 3.96 tonnes per tonne of oil equivalent.
Notes: Data for 2010 for significant extractor countries. Data from non-significant extractors have been estimated by diving the remainder for each continent or region between the remaining countries in proportion to their land area.
Emissions map

Description: National CO2 emissions, 2010
Definition: Total emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning and cement production in each nation.
Source: Glen Peters et al., Nature Climate Change 2, 2–4 (2012) doi:10.1038/nclimate1332.
Notes: This dataset was updated in March 2010 by Glen Peters. Missing data for countries with low levels of emissions have been estimated by Duncan Clark by distributing unallocated emissions between countries in proportion to their national GDP (PPP, 2010).
Consumption map

Description: Carbon footprint of all goods and services consumed, 2010
Definition: Total emissions of CO2 (from fossil fuel burning and cement production) released in the provision of goods and services consumed in each nation. This is calculated by subtracted the estimated carbon footprint of exports from each nation and adding the estimated carbon footprint of imports.
Source: Glen Peters et al., Nature Climate Change 2, 2–4 (2012) doi:10.1038/nclimate1332.

Notes: This dataset was updated in March 2010 by Glen Peters. Missing data for countries with small footprints have been estimated by Duncan Clark by distributing unallocated emissions between countries in proportion to their national GDP (PPP, 2010).
Historical map

Description: Cumulative CO2 emissions from energy use
Definition: Total emissions of carbon dioxide from energy provision, 1850–2008.
Source: Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) Version 9.0. (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 2012) (free registration required).
Reserves map

Description: Potential CO2 emissions from fossil fuel reserves
Definition: This dataset estimates how much CO2 would be released if the fossil fuel reserves for each country were extracted and burned. “Reserves” refers to proven oil, coal and gas reserves that could be extracted economically in current conditions.
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2011, converted to CO2 by Duncan Clark using the standard BP conversion factors: CO2 figures are based on the following conversion factors: oil, 3.07 tonnes CO2 per tonne; gas, 2.35 tonnes CO2 per tonne of oil equivalent; coal, 3.96 tonnes per tonne of oil equivalent.
Notes: Data for reserves as of 2010 for countries listed by BP. Data from other countries have been estimated by diving the remainder for each continent or region between the remaining countries in proportion to their land area.
People at risk map

Description: People exposed to droughts, floods and extreme temperatures in 2010
Definition: A drought is an extended period of time characterized by a deficiency in a region’s water supply that is the result of constantly below average precipitation. A drought can lead to losses to agriculture, affect inland navigation and hydropower plants, and cause a lack of drinking water and famine. A flood is a significant rise of water level in a stream, lake, reservoir or coastal region. Extreme temperature events are either cold waves or heat waves. A cold wave can be both a prolonged period of excessively cold weather and the sudden invasion of very cold air over a large area. Along with frost it can cause damage to agriculture, infrastructure, and property. A heat wave is a prolonged period of excessively hot and sometimes also humid weather relative to normal climate patterns of a certain region. Population affected is the number of people injured, left homeless or requiring immediate assistance during a period of emergency resulting from a natural disaster; it can also include displaced or evacuated people.
Source: EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database: http://www.emdat.be, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels (Belgium), World Bank.
World Bank indicator code: EN.CLC.MDAT.ZS * population
Notes: Original dataset was % of population exposed in the period 1990–2009. This has been multiplied by the 2010 population to give an estimate of the people currently exposed.
Sea level map

Description: Population living less than 5m above sea level
Definition: Population below 5m is the total population living in areas where the elevation is 5 meters or less.
Source: Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Place II dataset.
World Bank indicator code: EN.POP.EL5M.ZS * population
Notes: Original dataset was % of population. This has been multiplied by the 2010 population to give an estimate of the total population currently living below 5m.
Poverty map

Description: Population living below $1.25 a day
Definition: Population below $1.25 a day is the percentage of the population living on less than $1.25 a day at 2005 international prices. As a result of revisions in PPP exchange rates, poverty rates for individual countries cannot be compared with poverty rates reported in earlier editions.
Source: World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/jsp/index.jsp).
World Bank indicator code: SI.POV.DDAY * population
Notes: Calculated by multiplying the 2010 population total by the % of population living on less than $1.25 in the most recent year for which data is available.
Emissions change shading

Description: Change in CO2 emissions, 1990–2008
Definition: Carbon dioxide emissions are those stemming from the burning of fossil fuels and the manufacture of cement. They include carbon dioxide produced during consumption of solid, liquid, and gas fuels and gas flaring. Data are in million metric tons.
Source: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States.
World Bank indicator code: EN.ATM.CO2E.KT
Notes: Data for some unavailable countries added in based on estimate from Peters et al (see Consumption source above).
Emissions per person shading

Description: CO2 emissions per capita, 2008
Definition: Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per capita are carbon dioxide emissions divided by midyear population.
Source: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, United States, and World Bank and United Nations population data.
World Bank indicator code: EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
GDP per person shading

Description: GDP per capita, 2010
Definition: GDP per capita based on purchasing power parity (PPP). PPP GDP is gross domestic product converted to international dollars using purchasing power parity rates. An international dollar has the same purchasing power over GDP as the U.S. dollar has in the United States. GDP at purchaser’s prices is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. Data are in current international dollars.
Source: World Bank, International Comparison Program database.
World Bank indicator code: NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD
Notes: Data from 2010 with limited gap-filling from 2009.
Population growth shading

Description: GDP per capita, 2010
Definition: Annual population growth rate for year t is the exponential rate of growth of midyear population from year t-1 to t, expressed as a percentage . Population is based on the de facto definition of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship – except for refugees not permanently settled in the country of asylum, who are generally considered part of the population of the country of origin.
Source: Derived from total population. Population source: (1) United Nations Population Division. 2009. World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision. New York, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (advanced Excel tables). Available at http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp2008/index.htm. (2) Census reports and other statistical publications from national statistical offices, (3) Eurostat: Demographic Statistics, (4) Secretariat of the Pacific Community: Statistics and Demography Programme, (5) U.S. Census Bureau: International Database, and (6) World bank estimates based on the data from the sources above, household surveys conducted by national agencies, Macro International, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and refugees statistics from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
World Bank indicator code: SP.POP.GROW

SB 2122- Sen. Rand Paul needs our help fighting Agenda 21 in Bradley County!

I hear every day that I wish we knew of a way we could stop Agenda 21! Well, here is how! We now have Senators, State Representatives and a few local guys fighting this with all they got! We must show our support for these patriots who are putting it all on the line! Many are indeed getting backlash when they make this stand! The Chamber of Commerce comes down on them, the Mayors chew on them and the little minions of all come after them for not towing the line!

One thing that is evident with these that are making a stand is they are doing it for their country not for their stinking party! We have done party favors to the point of nausea!

Karen Bracken, a patriot friend of mine is driving this effort! She seems tireless in her fight! Let’s stand with her and Rand and make this town hall a success! Register at the sites below! I’m sorry you have to paste and copy the addresses! My blog site is free so it doesnt come with all the bells and whistles!

Enroll now and let’s listen to Rand map out his plan for his bill to hopefully disable the EPA and the United Nations and halt their involvement in our very fortunate country! We have worked very hard to make our country great and we at not about to go down without a fight!

Senator Rand Paul needs our help.  I know you will all agree that Senator Paul has been a true advocate for liberty and has been a true ally to the grass roots movement.  It is now time to show our appreciation and help Senator Paul.  He has written a bill (S.2122) and if passed it will put a crimp in the overreach of the EPA.  I have attached the entire bill, a one page summary and a section by section summary.  

JOIN the Telephone Town Hall:

Senator Rand Paul Town Hall Registration Link:

https://registration.broadnet.us/event_registration.php?pid=266&fbs=_teleforum&sig=61244910dd7ce770198feef63e97d9c0d261c8d604b3972fe641ecae8605b81b

The Town Hall is on March 13th at 6pm Pacific Time/9m Eastern Time. Please help us get as many people on this call as possible!!! We need Patriot Groups across the country to get on this  call!!!

Senator Paul will explain the importance of this bill and how we can help him get this bill passed.  So be ready to put a plan of action in place to help support Senator Paul.  We all have worked so hard at a local level trying to stop the assault on our property rights and the tenants of Agenda 21.  How many times have we heard/said  “If only DC would help us?”  Well we have a chance to show DC the Tea Party is alive, well and stronger than ever while at the same time we can be a part of history and take the EPA down a peg or two.

The conference bridge has unlimited call in ports so spread this to everyone you know.  Lets make this TOWN HALL invitation go VIRAL.  PLEASE send the Town Hall flyer to EVERYONE you know.  Post on Facebook, Twitter and as an event in your MeetUp/Website.  Please send to your entire membership.  

NOTE:  The number you use during the registration will be the number used to connect you to the Town Hall.  If you miss the call you will not be able to join the Town Hall.

Senator Rand Paul Town Hall Registration Link:

https://registration.broadnet.us/event_registration.php?pid=266&fbs=_teleforum&sig=61244910dd7ce770198feef63e97d9c0d261c8d604b3972fe641ecae8605b81b

Sustainable development, a new EPA tool

Our Mayor of Bradley County and our City Mayor have made it possible for the EPA, DOT and HUD to have full reign on our community by joining with ICLEI out of Chattanooga in support of the Regional Growth Plan to promote sustainability!

Not a single vote was cast by a single member of our elected body in our region or county! All they had to do was say yes to have them in here to regulate the fool out of us!

We no longer live in a community that relies upon it’s elected bodies to set policy for our county! We are now being ruled by an NGO(Non Governmental Organization) or some type of appointed member of a committee stocked full of beneficial parties that will rule in favor of their best interest!

We have lost our way when a constitutional republic fails to stand and govern by the will of the people! And on the other hand it’s we the people that are remaining silent so that it can happen as they wish!

I have been warning you of Executive Order 13575! Obama has set into place a way to regulate most of our society and take what liberties you have away! Look back on previous blogs about this EO! It will once again show you what was in the works back then and today with very little fanfare what the plan is for the future

This story below is confirming what we knew 6 months ago! These tiny steps turn into reality while securing yet another notch in Obamas proverbial belt on his way to a forced sustainable world using the EPA as his guide!

Sustainable development: latest tool for expanding EPA’s empire 
A corrupted National Research Council gives EPA power to regulate waterways via zoning and limit farming choices in the name of “sustainability”

February 27, 2012by BONNER COHEN, PH. D.
Determined to concentrate power in the hands of largely unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington, Obama administration officials have devised a new scheme to justify expanding the regulatory reach of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 
At the request of EPA, the National Research Council (NRC) issued a report last August laying out an “operational framework for integrating sustainability as one of the key drivers within the regulatory responsibilities of EPA.”  Referencing a little-noticed Obama Executive Order (13514) from 2009, the NRC report adopts the President’s definition of sustainability contained in the order.  Under that definition, sustainability means “to create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.” 
Founded in 1916, the NRC is currently administered by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineers, and the Institute for Medicine. In developing the “operational framework” for future EPA policies, the NRC cited the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act‘s (NEPA) use of the word sustainability in describing the federal government’s approach to the environment.  “That policy is what is now described as sustainable development,” the NRC notes.
It has often been said that “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.”  The same holds true for sustainable development.  The term – never defined with any precision – has been a mainstay of the United Nations, environmental organizations, and, increasingly, federal, state and local governments.   A growing number of corporations – eager to parade their green credentials – frequently claim their products and technologies are “sustainable,” without ever telling the public what is meant by the term.  Sustainable development is also a pillar of Agenda 21.  Adopted at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, Agenda 21 is described by the UN Division on Sustainable Development as “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations Systems, Governments and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts (sic) on the environment.”
The lack of any clear understanding of what is and is not sustainable bestows a huge amount of discretionary power in the hands of regulators and other government officials acting in accordance with a term whose meaning is withheld from the public.  Small wonder that Wendell Cox, Ronald Utt, and Brett Schaefer of the Heritage Foundation have warned that Agenda 21/sustainable development in the hands of EPA “would significantly expand the role of government in economic decision-making, impede development and economic growth, and undermine individual choice and policy flexibility in local communities.  Opponents should be concerned about efforts by the U.S. government to implement these policies, both nationally and locally.”
“EPA is already engaged in many projects that further sustainability aims, but the adoption of this framework  — implemented in stages – will lead to a growing body of experiences and successes with sustainability,” Bernard Goldstein, occupation health professor at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School for Public Health, told The Daily Caller (Aug. 4, 2011).  Goldstein, who chaired the NRC panels that drew up EPA’s sustainability framework, added that, “To the extent that the laws permit, working with other agencies EPA should be able to incorporate [sustainability] using this framework.”
That effort is already well underway.  In June 2010, for example, the Obama administration, by way of an executive order, launched its Ocean Policy Initiative (OPI).  The OPI will subject America’s waterways – oceans, rivers, bays, and the Great Lakes plus coastal and even inland areas – to federal zoning.  Under the scheme, these areas will be managed according to “coastal and marine spatial planning.”  As an unnamed administration official told the Los Angeles Times (July 19, 2010), “This sets the nation on the path of much more comprehensive planning to both conservation and sustainable use of resources.”
Similarly, the administration, on June 9, 2011, announced the creation via Executive Order 13575 of the White House Rural Council.  Like the Ocean Policy Initiative, the Rural Council is composed of more than two dozen federal agencies whose objective is to “enhance the federal engagement in rural communities.”  The executive order states that, “Strong sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years to come.”
But it will be bureaucrats in Washington — working hand-in-glove with environmental groups, suppliers of renewable energy, and other political allies — who will determine what is sustainable down on the farm.  This massive expansion of the powers of the administrative regulatory state is taking place without the consent of Congress, state and local officials, much less the residents of rural America.

Supreme Court Justices Blast EPA For Thwarting Couple From Building On Protected Wetlands

Thank God there are still a few conservative judges rendering bold decisions in America. Judge Antoine Scalia ruled in a case recently that the EPA cannot keep a couple from building a house on their own land because of established “wetlands.”

This family, the Sacketts, attempting to live out the American Dream, work hard, buy a piece of land then build a nice house on that private property which they own!

Well that dream was almost foiled by the EPA stepping in and saying NO you can’t build on that piece of property you bought because it has had some flooding problems in the past! That dirt you have piled up there where you were going to build your house must be removed so the water can flow naturally!

Bradley County is doing a very expensive and expansive “flood plain study” real soon! After this study is done with I’m sure EPA and DOT oversight, definite flood plains will be established! Doesn’t seem so bad does it? After all we need to know where it is flooding, right? Well the flood plains are going to be places you cannot build upon! These will be wetlands, soon to be inhabitable! Does this not send any “red alerts” out? Does this seem alarming to anyone? Gaurantee you it will happen! And the flood plain can be as big and broad as any of our paid federal stooges want it to be! So if they want a piece of land they take it! They make it a wetland, unbuildable! Unbelievable!

Bradley County and Cleveland your mayors x 2 are giving us away to federal regulators! They both have moved toward this goal of grabbing your land with obviously no consequences for their actions!

I am in shock at the lack of forethought and inactivity among our political leaders that are not trying to stop this madness. The thoughts of someone trying to claim your private property with federal regulations should be enough to mount a full court press against the EPA, but I get nothing! No reaction whatsoever, just silence while they pile on more and more strangulating regulations almost everyday!

These local guys love the little bit of money they get in federal grants! They think this is a good thing! To spend your money which we do not have to spend in a very down economy!

Read below the story of the Sacketts and the struggles they face just because they want to build a house on their property! When you are done reading, go back and place your name there in place of the Sacketts with your own name!

Supreme Court Justices Blast EPA For Thwarting Couple From Building On Protected Wetlands
by AP | Jan. 9, 2012, 4:55 PM | 4,596
WASHINGTON (AP) — Several conservative members of the Supreme Court criticized the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday for heavy-handed enforcement of rules affecting homeowners after the government told an Idaho couple they can’t challenge an order declaring their future home site a “protected wetlands.”
Justice Antonin Scalia assailed the “high-handedness” of the environmental agency when dealing with private property, and Justice Samuel Alito described some of the EPA’s actions as “outrageous,” arguing that most people would say “this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States.”
The EPA said that Mike and Chantell Sackett illegally filled in most of their 0.63-acre lot with dirt and rocks in preparation for building a home. The agency said the property is a wetlands that cannot be disturbed without a permit. The Sacketts had none.
The couple, who attended the Supreme Court arguments, said they had no reason to suspect there were wetlands on their property. They paid $23,000 for their property in 2005 and decided two years later to build a three-bedroom home. Workers spent three days filling in just under a half-acre of land.
Three EPA officials showed up, said they believed the land was wetlands, asked for a permit and told the workers to stop. Six months later, the EPA sent the order that triggered the court case. The Sacketts wanted to challenge that order, but lower courts have said that they cannot.
The EPA issues nearly 3,000 administrative compliance orders a year that call on alleged violators of environmental laws to stop what they’re doing and repair the harm they’ve caused. Major business groups, homebuilders, road builders and agricultural interests all have joined the Sacketts in urging the court to make it easier to contest EPA compliance orders issued under several environmental laws.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wondered how far the Supreme Court should go in a ruling, noting that government agencies often threaten citations when people don’t comply with the law. “Health inspectors go into restaurants all the time and say: ‘Unless you fix this, I’m going to give you a citation.’ Fire inspectors, the same thing,” he said.
The Sacketts’ lawyer, Damien M. Schiff, argued that they weren’t trying to take away EPA’s power. Environmental groups say a purpose of the orders is to make it easier to negotiate a resolution without a protracted legal fight.
“Let EPA administer the act and issue compliance orders,” Schiff said. “But let’s also give homeowners a fair shake, too. Let them have their day in court to contest what the agency has done.”
Alito leveled some of the strongest criticism against the EPA, noting that the Sacketts had to wait until the EPA sued them to even challenge the idea that there were wetlands on their property.
“You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: ‘You have filled in wetlands, so you can’t build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to,'” Alito said. “You have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don’t do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000. And by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you.”
Chief Justice John Roberts said that because of the potential fines, few people are going to challenge the EPA’s determinations.
“Because of the administrative compliance order, you’re really never going to be put to the test, because most land owners aren’t going to say, ‘I’m going to risk the $37,000 a day,” Roberts said. “All EPA has to do is make whatever finding it wants, and realize that in 99 percent of the cases, it’s never going to be put to the test.”
The EPA’s normal procedure is to contact the homeowner before issuing a compliance order, Justice Department lawyer Malcolm Stewart said. A wetlands biologist has also confirmed to The Associated Press that he advised the Sacketts in May 2007 that their property was a wetlands and that there were wetlands on three sides of their land. The Sacketts say that in 2010, other wetlands consultants examined their land and concluded that the first one was wrong.
If the Sacketts “had wanted a judicial resolution of the coverage question without subjecting themselves to potential penalties, they could have filed a permit application before discharging, they could have gotten review there. All we’re saying is they can’t discharge fill, wait to see whether EPA notices, and then insist upon immediate judicial review if EPA notices and objects,” Stewart said.

Environmentalist: No more fishing along California’s 1,100 mile coastline

Hot off the press! The environmentalist are taking off strong on the first day of the year as they have secured the coastline from these awful recreational and commercial fishermen that are “destroying the coastline.”

Three of five regions in California are closed to any fishing for perpetuity (forever)! 1,100 miles of coastline, mostly in southern California!

No other stated reason than they want to protect the “underwater parks” and to restock the fish supply! That was it! Based on what? Wasted false and inaccurate scientific data?

What if they just decide to do this anywhere? Let’s say Bradley County! No fishing in the lakes! Starting tomorrow! Think anybody would care? I can tell you by past examples of federal intrusion into our lives our elected officials will not say a word, because they fear they will fall out of favor with the givers of grant money! During the last love fest over the Chattanooga Regional Growth Plan, they cut off anything that may dangle from their mid section!

Why do we allow this? I gaurantee you we are not to far off from the day when we will not be able to fish our waterways! The EPA is all over us now! It is just a matter of time and when they do!

When that day comes and it will, and it makes you really mad, make four phone calls immediately when you have to hang up the pole and tackle! First call me and say “you said it was coming, just because my childish ego wants you to know I knew! Second call should be to your mayors x 2 and the elected councils and commissions and say “why did you remain silent and complicit?” , third call to our State Representatives Kevin Brooks, Eric Watson and Mike Bell and say “why didn’t you stop this while it was still in it’s infancy and was that little bit of grant money worth our freedom!”, fourth call to your momma, cause you are going to need a shoulder to cry on!

Limits on coastal fishing take effect

COUNTY: Waters off Peninsula are among newly protected areas.
By Melissa Pamer, Staff Writer
Posted: 01/01/2012 01:00:00 AM PST
Updated: 01/01/2012 09:56:59 AM PST

Part of Point Dume off Malibu, where a canyon and kelp reef provide a fish nursery, will be protected under a new law. (Michael Owen Baker / Staff Photographer)

Starting today, fishing will be halted or limited in some 15 percent of Southern California’s most bountiful ocean waters under a new landmark environmental protection initiative.

From Point Conception in Santa Barbara County south to the Mexico border, more than 350 square miles of open sea will become state marine protected areas. These underwater parks, the result of a long-running planning process that often pitted fishermen against environmentalists in a passionate tug-of-war, are meant to protect crucial marine habitat and boost fish stocks.

Los Angeles County will see two marine protected areas on the edges of Santa Monica Bay: off Point Vicente and Abalone Cove on the Palos Verdes Peninsula and off Point Dume in Malibu.

“It’s hugely important,” said Sarah Sikich, coastal resources director with the environmental advocacy group Heal the Bay. “We’re very excited that the MPAs that have been worked on so deeply over the past several years in Southern California are finally taking effect.”

But most fishermen aren’t so excited.

Joel Greenberg, chairman of the Southern California chapter of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, said there’s broad reaction among recreational and commercial fishermen to the new MPAs.
“There’s everything from `Oh, my bacon didn’t get fried’ to real misery because their best fishing grounds appear to be closed for perpetuity,” Greenberg said.

A longtime fisherman, Greenberg maintains that despite dozens of public meetings, the process in the end was “top down” – meaning the closures were imposed by state officials despite the outcry of many fishermen.

Sikich and Greenberg were among 60-plus stakeholders who began meeting in 2008 to debate, draw and redraw boundaries of proposed closure areas as part of the implementation of a 1999 law called the Marine Life Protection Act. Meetings of a committee overseeing the process sometimes drew more than 1,000 attendees.

In December 2010, the state Fish and Game Commission approved boundaries for MPAs in the South Coast region, the third of five regions along the state’s 1,100-mile coastline to undergo the process. Densely populated and heavily used, the Southern California coast proved especially contentious.

The final decision, approved on a split vote and billed as a compromise between fishing and environmental groups, left some unsatisfied. Overall, 37 new protected areas were established, extending to the edge of state waters, 3 miles from the coastline.

Battles were intense over Rocky Point on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, a prime fishing spot that has some of the most pristine habitat in Southern California, and over Point Dume, where a submarine canyon and kelp reef provide a fish nursery and rich waters for anglers.

Ultimately, Rocky Point was left open while a less productive area off the Peninsula will be protected.

About 15 square miles off Point Vicente will be closed to fishing; an adjacent 5 square-mile conservation area at Abalone Cove will allow some spearfishing and take of squid, as well as some commercial fishing.

Greenberg questioned whether the state would create a “poacher’s haven” by creating additional responsibilities for fish and wildlife wardens without providing new funding and resources.

Jordan Traverso, a spokeswoman for the Department of Fish and Game, said there are 75 wildlife officers in Southern California, along with three large patrol boats and fleet of skiffs. Patrols are deployed to best protect state resources, she said.

Beginning today, enforcement is at the discretion of wardens and can range from a warning to arrest, depending on the situation, she said. Fishermen, she said, are generally “self-regulating.”

Witnesses to poaching or polluting are encouraged to call the department’s confidential tip line at 888-DFG-CALTIP.

“We’ve done our best with outreach,” Traverso said. “I’m sure that there will be different challenges. I don’t think we have any expectations of things that can’t be overcome through education.”

Funding for wildlife enforcement in Gov. Jerry Brown’s 2012 budget will be unveiled in coming weeks.