Water, Water, everywhere not a drop to drink….

Why do you think that the EPA, Water Quality, Save the fish people, Save the bird people are all on board with water rights and property rights issue. Because that is where the control of the people is. If they have complete control of every drop of water in the nation let alone the world they can control the people. The Agenda is to move people into the cities or more populated areas so they can control how we treat nature there is a move on to get areas of our nation into, ” no walking zones”. These zones are currently called Biospheres. This way the natural environment can thrive (in theory). But it will be about the rich can go do their thing on the no walk zones. This is not a conspiracy theory this is real. Read the whole Agenda 21 booklet, then educate yourself on the UN and their plans.

Every one is kidding themselves if they think that the ecology groups under the guise of  Water quality, EPA, Endangered species act, Air Quality and other governmental organizations are here to help the people live better lives. These organizations have been hijacked by the same people who are taking land from the people. Just look at the Cliven Bundy situation. Don’t just read the story on him, look behind the scenes and see what is happening around him and 100 miles away. Follow the money behind those scenes and you will see what is really happening.

Snake river Idaho

Snake river Idaho

I have actually seen the plan of an ecology group, their plan is to buy up 200 acres both side of the Snake River from mouth to headwaters. They are patient and exacting. They have a plan and they WILL carry out their plan no matter what it takes. They are not ethical about it. They are not honest about it. They, being the NGO’s that work to change nature laws to benefit them.

This is NOT a Right or Left issue. This is not a Carter, Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Clinton or Obama issue. This is a much larger issue. The different administrations have just implemented little pieces. The latest administration is young enough and have been indoctrinated enough, to believe that the save the planet issue is the most important. In order to implement a UN Agenda to the United States there is a constitution standing in the way. So what better to do indoctrinate a generation into thinking that the world leaders know better know how to save the planet, so wipe away the constitution to implement world laws.

Tax the dickens out of urban areas and it will empty out. Fine people for building on their own property and people will not buy land. Regulate what can be grown on your own land and people become leery. Make the land so expensive and no one but the big boys(girls) can buy.

There is a plan and children your children are being indoctrinated into it. The uninformed are being indoctrinated. The ignorant are being indoctrinated. The American people are being kept busy trying to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table are being indoctrinated.

Cities across the nation are doing the sustainable thing to indoctrinate the people into a plan that will control them for the greater good. WHO’S GREATER GOOD? is the question everyone should be asking.  Why did the landslide take place in Washington state and kill people? Why is the Katrina money not rebuilding New Orleans? Why are people still waiting on the money for the devastation of Hurricane Sandy.

Save

Advertisements

Just Compensation…

The original intent of just compensation was exactly that. A Just-ified compensation for an eminent domain-ed property. This meant that going rate for property in the immediate area was paid. All assets of the property were taken into account. Develop-able and, timber, mineral rights, water rights all accounted for a compensatory asset.

Stated in our Constitution in the 5th Amendment that property shall not be taken without just compensation. It does not anywhere says compensation it states “Just Compensation”. Just compensation is “Fair Market Value” .

In today’s environment of takings the buyer seems to think that fair market value is the lowest price they are willing to pay. This is not “Just”. It also is not ethical or morally right. And in the case of big business should never be allowed to happen. The takings that are happening today are immoral done, unethically done and plain not justified. I have first hand knowledge as to how the non-profit groups do this. They will first enter an agreement usually verbally that they are willing to pay a set amount. In our case we set a price for our property. Then the group enters into an appraisal period to see what the “fair market value” is. This value is based on other sales in the are f equal property asset, in simplistic form. In the case or our property the non-profit had been operating in the area for some time and had appraised several other properties in the area lower than actual value which then lowered our property value. These same properties were base on other non-profit purchases. Get the picture. No timber was taken into account as value on the land. No develop-able property was taken into account. No improvements were taken into account.  The value of a potable water creek had no value. River frontage had no value. The barn and house had very little value.

The appraiser that was used  just so happened to be a big donor to the non-profit NGO that wanted our land. The same donor hired appraiser had already appraised other properties in the area. These same properties were used to identify  comparable properties to identify value. I see this as collusion. It may be,  completely legal, to conspire in this manner, but no matter which way you see it, this is still unethical and unfairly using the law to screw the public and TAKE land.

 

Mitigation plan for solar farm in Nevada…

So we have some interesting revelations in the Nevada Solar Farm and the information that is on the mitigation plan. First what you must know is in the past when there has been an endangered species located on a piece of land, it has been a big controversy. Usually the “save the whatever bunch” come out in droves. Yet on this issue they have been extremely quiet and extremely absent.

The Desert Tortoise is resident on the land that will be used for the solar farm. They are thriving and doing well. BUT, and here comes the BUT, if the tortoise is relocated the land can be used. Yes I said relocated. In the case of the Spotted owl this species was not relocated in order to log. All logging had to stop. The endangered species act required the logging to no longer take place in the area defined by the “scientists” of the ecology bunch.

So we see the bottom line is that the mitigation fee for a 30 year plan will be $3,000,000.00 yes million.

A mitigation action plan is usually put together by NGO’s, GO’s and public input. Did the public have much if any input to this plan? So where is and how did a national conservation area get identified?

The following is taken directly from the Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone

 

Proposed Mitigation Actions and Locations.

The Gold Butte ACEC is preliminarily recommended as the best recipient location for regional mitigation from the Dry Lake SEZ. This ACEC is located 32 miles (51 km) east of the Dry Lake SEZ

The total cost of affecting the protection of this
ACEC for 30 years, the expected term of a solar development right-of-way, is about $9 million. The
Gold Butte ACEC is about 350,000 acres, and the cost is about $25.92 per acre. The total mitigation fee
expected to be collected for the Dry Lake SEZ if full build-out of the 3,591 developable acres in the
SEZ occurs is approximately $6.6million (see Section 2.6).
Enough for now but ask yourself how much money does it take to save a desert tortoise. How many lively hoods are changed forever so that the Kyoto agreement is complete and how much land in the US has to be taken so that other countries can have enough carbon credits? How much money does conservation really require?
In any given situation when land is involved follow the money. Follow the money and you will find an under current of money that seems endless. Look closely at the mitigation plan, study it and you will find an enormous amount of money flowing into some pockets. It is not a drip it is a flood.

A Message From Shiree Bundy Cox

A Message From Shiree Bundy Cox.

Please read Shiree Bundys message (link above)

Just another attempt to show the public that the land that someone owns is not being stewarded correctly. It is also very lame to say cattle are destroying the land. They did this to Colorado about 30 years ago. Told the public, that cattle were destroying the land. NGO’s (Nature Conservancy) purchased acres and acres of land to steward. Then 30 years later, after putting together large plots of land, they are selling 5 acre plots and operating CATTLE Ranches, with nature conservancy employees. If you purchase a plot, you get the right, to ride one of their horses, on the land. But you will have to build a Nature Conservancy approved “Green Home”.

This is not stewardship, this is, get as many real Americans off the land.

Although Contention, about What Mr. Bundy is or is not doing, is prevalent, there is an underlying agenda. He would not sell his land, for pennies on the dollar. They will now squeeze him in other ways to try and force him to sell or get off the land. If that means put him into poverty. Create an environment of stress, so be it. If he goes bankrupt, even better.  Turn people against him. Make him sound like a crazy person. Manipulate the public with into thinking that they are on the right side of the law and Mr. Bundy is not. All of this is for the greater good.

Mudslide, They knew about it…

Snohomish county knew about what could happen and negligently did not do anything proactively. The county even allowed permits for building new homes. This is GROSS NEGLIGENCE and GROSS INCOMPETENCE.

They knew about it and chose to not spend the money, WHY? Now look at the money they will have to spend. If they had spent the money and put the land into a mitigation bank this would not have killed people.

Yes they knew about the risk back as far as 2002 and more that likely some study done before 2002, paid for by tax dollars. But of course the insidiousness of this knowledge doesn’t is never talked about. Often in an Ecology sensitive area, the groups involved know about a lot of things that could be happening even orchestrating situations so that things can happen. This is so they can study the results. Then play the save the whatever card to keep studying and pushing forward their agenda.

The county chose not to spend upwards to $1.6 million to save lives. SO NOW HOW MUCH WILL THE COUNTY BE SPENDING?  GROSS NEGLIGENCE! INCOMPETENCE! The county of Snohomish should be held accountable! The real estate agents that sold the properties should be held accountable. The engineers who did not speak up loud enough to force a proactive action, should be held accountable! And no one should allow any of these people and organizations to kick the can around to avoid being held accountable.

Public disclosure Stillaguamish and Grays River…

Just like the bureaucrats to know of a problem and purposely not fix it. But of course they did the proper studies and they announced the problem. They even told the public about the study. A meeting was held and at the meeting it was announced that a geomorphologist accomplished his study and his finding where that something will happen from the problem. The NGO’s and GO’s do this all of the time.

Now that I have confused you enough or given you an enigma let me tell you a story that will help put all these statements and questions into perspective.

First point of interest all someone must do is a report to the public. Like for instance to make something like a prenuptial agreement legal, activate the legality of the document you must publish it. Make it publicly disclosed.

On any study, done by public funds (tax payer dollars), the study must be published and disclosed to the public.

Now we come to the enigma. Certainly meetings are held to announce that the study has been accomplished and can be found on this or that website or you can pay to have it sent to you. Sounds good so far doesn’t it?

Well, bear with me, a little. When we were in our last months in the Grays River Valley, a study was done by a Geomorphologist. The purpose of the study according to the people living in the valley(those that were paying attention) was to define how the river will live.  The study was done in seeking solutions to the severe flooding that was taking place in the valley. I attended the meeting that announced the Geomorphologist findings.

The Geomorphologist took me aside at the conclusion of the presentation and told me his findings on the Grays River. He announced to me that the river will be “straightened out.” I do not know why he told me unless it was because I wrote for the local paper. I never put this in the local paper. If the river were to straightened out it would take out some homes and severely reduce the property of others. The flooding that will take place when the river does do this will be devastating. It would be okay to those in the know tho because a few homes are okay. It meets the greater good of restoring the salmon to the river. The restoration of salmon habitat is the most important factor. It does not really matter to the “save the whatever groups”. If it meets the need then it was needed to take out some homes.

As long as the report is published somewhere it absolves them of responsibility. After all they “told the public”. Even if the publication is obscure and unreadable with convoluted terms, nothing has to be straight forward.

Urban development is the biggest and worst threat to salmon recovery. This has been clearly stated in all  “salmon recovery plans” across the nation. All means to convince land owners that conservation is the key to sustainable development.

What they won’t tell you is that natural disasters work well in their plans. They have complete plausible deniability when a disaster takes place.

I recommend to anyone who wants to get to the bottom of this disaster that you research what land has been put into perpetuity for stewardship by an eco group.?

RECOMMENDED READING:

http://snohomishcd.org/streams-plants-and-wetlands/CREP_InfoSheet_2sided.pdf

http://snohomishcd.org/streams-plants-and-wetlands/NFWFCURBFlyer.pdf

http://www.snohomishcountywa.gov/1123/Stillaguamish-Watershed-Salmon-Recovery-

 http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/washington/newsroom/the-nature-conservancy-in-washington-nature-conservancy-receives-1-mill.xml

http://www.forterra.org/where_we_work

http://www.conservationregistry.org/projects/111562

 

 

Trade off…

Anytime there is a controversial plan for something related to energy the ecology groups and earth-firsters come out in droves. They will create an environment of controversy enough for the different companies to bend a little. They (big companies) have their own requirements when doing any project. The biggest one is their mitigation plan. In plain English how much land will they set aside to offset the amount of land that they use for their project along with how much land will be affected by doing business. If they don’t buy land outright to put into conservation themselves they may donate the money to a mitigation bank that is being steward’s by a trust (i.e. non-profit). Mitigation banking was established in the early 90’s, to satisfy a U.N. policyon environment. Makes it real easy for big business to satisfy EPA policy just pour some money into a NGO that stewards land???

I saw this take place live on the Columbia River. This issue started with need for the Columbia river to be dredged. The Columbia River normally gets dredged for maintenance. This time was different, they said that the river needed to be dredged deeper than ever before. Now why would it have to be dredged deeper. Then the announcement was made, if 4200 acres of ditched a diked flood plain was returned to the lower Columbia estuary, then it would be safe to dredge the river.

The 4200 acres was to save the salmon. The purchasing of land for salmon recovery took off like a rocket. This would make it sustainable for salmon. (see the word sustainable).  For the next 5 years NGO’s working with GO’s started every project they could dig up, to save the salmon. They also bought land like crazy, (only if they could buy it for nothing) even with unethical business practices, to get it.

With save the salmon moneys 4200 acres did not have to be purchased, as long as 4200 acres of floodplain were returned to the lower Columbia estuary. Often times this meant buying a piece of land and creating a flood plain that also flooded other Peoples land.  This accomplished big business moved in and announced the building of a Liquid Natural Gas terminal(for the loading and discharging LNG in bulk). The LNG ships needed the river to be deeper. The land that was flooded all on the Washington side of the river. And FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)chose the location on the Oregon side , for the terminal. Trade off, Trade off, Trade off.

The mitigation plan complete for the LNG terminal and how much land would be affected by the LNG ships as well as the operation of business at the terminal. All is safe for the fish and everything is then sustainable.

Watch out Montanans here it comes…takings

The recent controversy over the sage grouse. Yes Montana will finally feel the effects of takings. Taking land. Just like the Spotted owl and the salmon, all land that even shows an inkling of evidence, that the bird has been or is on your land, will make your land a target to take. I know first hand how the NGO’s will take this information and run with it, leaving you, the land owner, holding the bag. These organizations will use the policies against any land owner to bully, shove and kick you off of your land in order to accomplish the “greater good”.

If you are a nominal rancher/farmer you are the first target. As I said before the nominal ranch/farm is one that is under 100 acres. The environmental groups like: The Nature conservancy, The Columbia Land Trust,Wild Rockies Alliance, American Wild Lands, Clark Fork Coalitions, Wild Rockies, Five Valleys Land Trust, Montana Land Reliance, and many others. These organizations started out with good intentions yet the ultimate goal is to tell people what they can and cannot do on their own land. If you, as a land owner walk to your own drum, they will dog you and fight you with everything they have at their disposal until you give in. These organizations fight dirty, they will value you off your land (one way) they will tax you off your land (two) or they will policy and fine you off your land.

Yes these types of policies will cost you and cost you dearly.

The ultimate goal is to take everyone but the real, real big boys off the land. The world wide agenda. “Get them off their land” one way or another.

If you the land owner don’t think this will happen, go ahead jump in bed with them, Don’t complain when they come and tell you that your 200 head of cattle cannot graze on the federal land anymore. “After all you want to save the sage grouse habitat don’t you?” If this is not enough of a warning to you then you need to read principle 6, 7 and 8 of Agenda 21 from the UN Earth Summit in RIO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Declaration_on_Environment_and_Development

Agenda 21 is  the world organization method of moving people from their land in order for sustainable development. After all who gives a hoot about lifestyles and generational ownership, history, facts and the American way of life, as long as what they do is in line with the UN charter of sustainable development, sustainable resources, sustainable agriculture,sustainable biology, sustainable science, anything that meats the needs of Agenda 21

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/economy-environment-at-stake-in-fate-of-endangered-sage-grouse/article_b4f9036d-ed08-51de-a84d-7d6b437f13f0.html

Many farmers and ranchers have had knowledge of how best to take care of the land, passed on to them by their previous generations. The different government and non government organizations need to listen to them. The one thing that keeps them from listening is the generational knowledge is never in the textbooks and it is not on the sustainable development lists. The science is different now.? Really, is it? Maybe with all the new technology  and junk science on global warming and climate change it is different but does it really work? Ask yourself what really works?

Water rights….

While we the American people have been focused on Obama Care or whatever care you call it, the ecology people have been hard at work maneuvering to take our water rights.

My husband and I always talked about the fact that none of the endangered species acts, regarding salmon, was never about the fish. The hidden agenda was controlling the water rights of the American people,

If this growing agenda and movement withing the GO’s continue, you and I will have to pay for every drop of water that flows on our lands.

The control of every drop of water is evidenced in the “Rain Tax”:

In 2010 the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency ordered Maryland to reduce storm-water runoff into the Chesapeake Bay so that nitrogen levels fall 22 percent and phosphorus falls 15 percent from current amounts. The price tag: $14.8 billion.

And where do we get the $14.8 billion? By taxing so-called “impervious surfaces,” anything that prevents rain water from seeping into the earth (roofs, driveways, patios, sidewalks, etc.) thereby causing storm water run off. In other words, a rain tax.

The EPA ordered Maryland to raise the money (an unfunded mandate), Maryland ordered its 10 largest counties to raise the money (another unfunded mandate) and, now, each of those counties is putting a local rain tax in place by July 1.[via the The Gazette]:

Another move by the EPA to force different entities to control water. A move to control every drop of water all across  the country.

The state law is kind of squishy. It can be spent to build and maintain stream and wetland restoration projects. And, of course, a lot of it will go to “monitoring, inspection, enforcement, review of storm-water management plans and permit applications and mapping of impervious surfaces.” In other words, hiring more bureaucrats to administer the rain tax program.

It can also be spent on “public education and outreach” (whatever that means) and on “grants to nonprofit organizations” (i.e. to the greenies who pushed the tax through the various levels of government).

Yet the tax does not apply to government entities only private citizens, no-profits and religious properties.

This local compact is not just in your backyard, it is nationwide. This is a larger agenda from the UN. The ultimate goal is to control the people. If you control the water you control the people. We all know water is important to sustain life. Our bodies are made up of 57% water. Big business operate under different rules than you and I do. If they add the right taxes to the ecology movement can utilize the water resource anyway they want.(If it is beneficial and sustainable anything is okay).

In the meantime the government manipulates the press to focus on a single controversy so the American people do not pay attention to how property rights,  water rights, and other freedom rights are being taken away.

The untouchable subject….

I find really fascinating that not many people are paying attention let alone commenting on this subject. The subject is how the Eco (Ecology Groups) are just rounding up land all over this country and best of all using taxpayer money to do it. Oh yes everyone will tell you that all of it is not taxpayer money and yes we should take care of the planet, because after all they (?) know how to do it.

Now I ask you who is they? Why do they know how to take care of the planet better than a multi- generational farmer or rancher. Back some 30 some years ago The Nature Conservancy decided that ranchers in Colorado did not really know how to take care of the land. So, they decided that nominal ranches ( under 100 acres should be taken away and put under the conservator ship of themselves. They, meaning the Nature Conservancy and other such groups had the better education, knowledge and know how to take care of the land. They told the unsuspecting public that the cattle were destroying the land and it, needed to be put into conservation in perpetuity. This is an important point so pay attention.

Leap forward to approximately 2002 (30 some years later). I came across some information that described land you could BUY. Yes, purchase it for your own personal use, but there were stipulations to the purchase. You could buy 5 acres, you would be able to enjoy 5000 acres at your leisure. You could call down to a barn and have a horse readied for you to ride. When you were done you could return the horse to the barn and they would take care of the horse, free of charge because of course your purchased 5 acres. You could build, with the stipulation, that it was a “GREEN” approved house. You could even join in the cattle ranching enterprise if you were so inclined. Here’s the rub: The barn operations where Nature Conservancy employees, the approval for a “GREEN” house was thru Nature Conservancy and the cattle that were running the 5000 acres were owned by, yes you got it, The Nature Conservancy.

I ask you why kick the cattle ranchers off of their land, explain that the land would be saved in perpetuity and then later sell some of the land and operate a working cattle ranch on the very same land? In Perpetuity means: endless or indefinitely long duration or existence; eternity. definition from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perpetuity. All land that is picked up by an ecology group is taken as perpetual conservation land and is not intended for resale by said group. The group purchasing the land is after all a NON-PROFIT organization. These groups are out to save land for themselves not the people They see as a religious thing to do. They see it as their duty to take it away from you because you own it. They see it as a parental right to the planet. They also see it as a guardianship to the animals. Since animals have no human voice they will speak for them.

These groups will always tell you they will not deal with unwilling sellers. but time and time again if they get away with it they will take it however they can. There is a network of people in this country that have an unlimited supply of money that will goo to great lengths to get land into the hands of their revered group of conservators.

There is a town really it is becoming a big city in southwest Washington that successfully  implemented a tax on its people. This tax money is given to the ecology groups in the area for its own use. Whether it be for “purchasing land” or purchasing development rights or rehabilitating habitat. It is freely given to them by the local government. Some people in this same town also feel that it is their religious duty to tithe 10% of their income to the local ECO group.

No one wants to touch this. If it does not happen in my back yard it ain’t happenin’ seems to be the prevailing attitude of many. People all over the country are waking up to the government failing us why are they not waking up to the real takings of land from the people.

More to come…..