This is too good to pass up.
What exactly is the drive behind gaining control over the ecosystem? How is it that every microscopic detail is captured under a vague title which is ultimately a concept where every detail has to be managed?
Well, the name given to this concept is called ecosystem services. This is a notion that every ecosystem detail "services" humans. Say what?
While the Portneuf River flooded Pocatello several times over the years, 1910 & 11, 1912, and 1944-45, the 1962-1963 flood was "the greatest ever experienced", "with damage estimated more than $10 million", and declared a disaster area. Pocatelloans actively engaged to protect fellow citizens. The flood was sadly far more widespread than just Pocatello.
Following the massive devastation of those floods the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was brought in to build a concrete channel, also known as a flume, that would control future flooding. Debris build up had also been a problem on the Portneuf from various items being thrown into the river, and bank overgrowth, both creating a bottleneck in the flow. Skunk overflow was even a problem on the banks! All of these issues could be, AND WERE, solved with the channel.
Ok, ok, now we know some Portneuf River history. What does that have to do with ecosystem services?
Allegedly in Pocatello, "people", or 95% of "stakeholders" want the river "restored". Ninety people responded out of a population of approximately 54,000. One third of those respondents work for the government, another one third are environmentalists. That makes 30 people in each group, great survey sample. Restoring “the natural water course of the Portneuf was also highly rated" while maintaining flood control. Are you kidding? Look at the historical facts of letting the river return to its natural water course.
Managing Idaho's Landscapes for Ecosystem Services (MILES) is the group behind changing the Portneuf through their "river vision study" and connecting "people to ecosystem services". Perhaps it would be fair to say the citizens in 1962 were very closely "connected" to the river.
Among other definitions, ecosystem services are defined as benefits that humans derive from the ecosystem. Benefits such as food, air, water, and flood control. Flood control? MILES includes raw materials and medicinal resources, and adds disease control. In this organization's mind, ecosystems act as "regulators" that provide the benefits. But what would the ecosystem be without the additional "social" benefits such as recreation, tourism, mental health, aesthetics and inspiration, and spirituality. Of course habitats are also part of these services while protecting the "genetic diversity". Ergo, these "services" must be restored and protected.
Now it just so happens the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) all promote the fantasy of ecosystem services, naming just a few federal agencies. But the real meat of ecosystem services comes from the United Nations (UN).
The notion of ecosystem services arose out of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), launched by the UN in 2005. On page 1 the definition is pretty much the same as MILES, noting the "ability of ecosystems to deliver services can be assessed" and that "People seek many services from ecosystems". The MEA separates the services into categories (pg 57):
Provisioning - Products obtained from ecosystems
Regulating - Benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes
Cultural - Non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems
Supporting - Services necessary for production of all other ecosystem services.
Still the same as MILES. Somehow the UN equates ecosystem services (pg 78) to "freedoms and choice" and drivers of ecosystems changes are primarily from local, national, and international groups (pg 90). Those 90 survey respondents represent the "local drivers" regarding the Portneuf.
There are some other interesting aspects to this report. On page 7, "The relative influence of individual nation-states has diminished with the growth of power and influence of a far more complex array of institutions, including regional governments, multinational companies, the United Nations, and civil society organizations." A reference to the United States and growing UN influence in our government and over our lives? And how about that corporate influence?
And going back to that tiresome UN social justice theme on page 14, "Unequal access to ecosystem services has often elevated the well-being of small segments of the population at the expense of others."
Without going into the excruciatingly painful details of all the UN organizations, here is a list involved in the MEA, including the United States. As previously noted federal agencies, who all partner with the UN, are also engaged in pushing ecosystem services onto us. Plus, Goal 15.1 in Agenda 2030 is to "... ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services...". And of course, the Portneuf River in southeast Idaho has been declared a basin and "watershed" needing restoration.
Of the three Agenda 21 pillars, social, economic, and environment, two are often integrated, social and economic, referred to as socio-economic. As seen here, the MILES program is part of this integrated concept.
Where is the UN influence coming from in the MILES program? One of its funding sources is the National Science Foundation (NSF). And the NSA actively works with UN organizations. Take the money, push the ideology.
Now, this ecosystem services nonsense would not even be an issue if it weren't for the UN. The UN wants us to believe that disasters of all types are lurking around the corner and immediate action must be taken to address climate change to stave off such destruction. Just one more scare tactic the UN lays on us to justify taking control. The notion that there will be increasing floods is nothing more than a bunch of rubbish, there have always been devastating floods. This Department of Interior report discusses far western state flooding in 1964-1965 stating on page A1, "The floods of December 1964 and January 1965 in the Far Western States were extreme". And this was after the 1962-63 floods. Now how could that be without climate change, isn't the worst to come? Or maybe it was just the fact that the particular climate activities, in combination with the river itself, was just nature doing her thing? Man, in his wisdom, came up with a workable solution, to build a flume only as the river flowed through the city, leaving the river alone to its forces once out of the city. Now because of the UN it all has to be undone. Let those UN supporters go talk to people who suffered through that flood, it is most likely they will get an earful. Ecosystem services? To serve humans? Those citizens were not served by that flood.
Ecosystem services is a warped falsehood, reversing how humans really care for the environment, we service it. We care for the environment when mother nature becomes destructive, not only to itself, but also to us. If the Portneuf had been allowed to once again run wild after the floods there would have been further massive environmental destruction along with destruction to humans. Pocatello citizens took care of their own, the way it should be, not from outside UN or government influences dictating decisions or how lives should be lived.
If Idahoans believe that the UN has no influence in their lives, it is right at their back door, they had better wake up. Idaho is under siege, it has blatantly been taken over, with more to come.
Water is a major component of ecosystems and inextricably links together every organism. The ecosystem cannot survive without water. Ecosystem water sources include aquifers, wetlands, riparian, rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, puddles left from rain, and watersheds.
A watershed is defined as an entire region draining into a river, river system, or other body of water, or an area of land that includes a particular river or lake and all the rivers, streams, etc., that flow into it. It includes all sources of water. A synonym for watershed is basin, the numerous watersheds make up the basin. Idaho has 92 watersheds and your area can be searched here or here.
Ecosystems, by their very nature, are dependent on watersheds for survival. If the watershed, or basin, is impaired, the ecosystem, and every part of it dies.
There are some Bureau of Land Management (BLM) watershed programs in Idaho, the Upper Salmon Basin, Owyhee County, and the Hawley Creek watershed. These projects focused on protecting fish. The Forest Service (FS) also engages in watershed programs such as in Coeur d' Alene. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gets into the watershed act at Tepee Creek and Bear Valley Creek. In a Watershed Restoration Partnership the USFS and BLM gave the Nez Perce Tribe 7.5 million dollars to protect and restore watersheds. Here is a 2011 FS map showing watershed conditions in Idaho and other Idaho watershed programs listed by the EPA.
Idahoans have come together creating groups on watershed issues such as the Henry's Fork Watershed Council and North Fork Coeur d' Alene River Watershed Advisory Group.
The USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan 2015-2020, Objective D focuses on restoring watersheds with a Watershed Condition Framework. This framework starts with classifying watershed conditions, prioritizing for restoration, developing a plan, implementing integrated projects, tracking those projects, then verifying accomplishment. Through their National Best Management Practices Program, the FS also has National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands booklet with extensive information on aquatic ecosystems starting on page 19 and another for riparian areas.
The EPA has a 400 page document for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters. Management practices include conserving, protecting, and restoring watersheds (pg 231); focus areas in agriculture, forests, and urban areas (pg 233-236, 241); more protective/restrictive practices than state regulations (pg 286); and of course monitoring all land use practices (pg 298).
Notice that most of these plans center around restoration and protection. There is a reason for that.
This FS document outlines its commitment to the UN and Agenda 21 by "Continuing large-scale watershed projects, involving mixed ownership jurisdictions and diverse partners, to achieve sustainable conservation and related development".
In 20011 the EPA signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to protect and conserve the environment, share common goals and objectives, cooperate with other nations to protect the environment globally, support environmental laws and regulatory instruments, with an ultimate goal for transitioning to a green economy. The EPA has a whole program devoted to watersheds as water is a high priority for UN control.
Department of Interior (DOI) agencies such as the USGS and USFWS work with the UN, and the DOI itself belongs to several UN organizations, including international. Commitment to the UN means implementing their objectives. And several UN organizations have objectives on watersheds.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) works with the DOI on an international basis with an international forum on watershed management, page 13.
The World Bank, which actively works with the UN, has been focused on water issues for some time, creating a Watershed Management, Approaches, Policies, and Operations report in 2008, financing watershed projects since the 1970s (ix).
Agenda 21, Chapter 18, is devoted to water. Objectives include assessment and data gathering on water sources, conservation, restoration, and water planning and management, not only through government polices, but internationally as well. Chapter 13 also promotes watershed development.
So it is easy to see how the federal government and the UN have been actively working on gathering the necessary data since Agenda 21 implementation in the United States. Enough data has been gathered to implement watershed plans and seize control over watersheds. If a watershed is restored it must be protected from further harm so keep people out, and if it does not need restoration it must be conserved and protected from harm, so keep people out. These plans are so successful that it has even Idahoans have been duped to engage in the deception.
Bottom line, watersheds are just the beginning of how our water is being pursued for control, serving the UN race to global governance.
This website is non-partisan and is solely dedicated to removing the harmful controls placed on our state and nation through Agenda 21 and its associated programs. We invite all Idahoans to join us in this fight for freedom!