As the accolades come in for this former president, what a kind and patriotic man he was, a war hero, it will forever be embedded in history that he was the one who sold the United States of America down the drain by signing a document, known as Agenda 21, that has forever stripped us of our sovereignty, and our freedom. This treasonous act was completed without any authorization from Congress, an agreement with an organization of despots which holds no allegiance to the foundation of our government.
None of what he did to us by signing this document is being brought forth as a major accomplishment during his tenure, it must still be kept hidden. He alone made the most violent of decisions to act as a traitor to our country with his love of the United Nations and his notion of a new world order, but this will not be recognized as part of his presidential accomplishments, perhaps because it is so evil.
As a former UN ambassador himself, and UN admirer, it is no wonder his most sorrowful mourner is Barrack Hussein Obama, who as a senator, wrote a bill that would have further relinquished our country over to UN dictates. Obviously, this is neither a Republican or Democrat issue, it is a treason issue, and both served as traitors. Yet, in spite of this, he is lovingly remembered, and BHO continues to be idolized.
One can only hope that now GHWB has to face his God, explain why he turned his back on his country, aligned with the most evil of the world, rejected the principles of our government, and ultimately set the stage for furthering our decline. Yes, others are guilty for advancing this agenda with the UN, and in turn will have to face the burden of meeting with their God upon their deaths, but what would have come to pass if GHWB had not signed that paper.
While this post may seem disrespectful, it isn't how we remember those who have passed, any person who acted in such a way as to commit treason against our country does not deserve a respectful goodbye. The only justice is that he must now face his God and answer for what he did to a country whose very foundation begins with the doctrine laid out by God. R.I.P. GHWB.
While conservation initiatives and non-governmental organizations (NGO) have been busy targeting land for conservation, it seems they aren't too busy to now target hunters and bring them into their nest.
The most explicit example is from the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP). As the title suggests, this is a group for conservation which typically means conserving land for non-use. A couple of things to note about this group. First, it is a partner with Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), which is the largest conservation initiative in the west, working to protect habitat and put all land into conservation for restricted use from Yellowstone Park to the Yukon. Secondly, they are putting on a show of support for hunting and opening access to "landlocked public lands". This new tactic includes partnerships with corporations, NGOs, international organizations, land trusts, and government associations, all with similar conservation objectives. TRCP's call for increasing the number of hunters is "...because the implications for conservation are dire...".
Starting with their article, onX and TRCP Partner for Landlocked Public Access, these two groups begin with the premise that they will help increase access for hunters on public land. However, instead of meeting with true hunters they chose to meet with "outdoor media, conservation experts and industry leaders". These are the individuals who will be solving the hunter's problem of access? Their "report" will be taken to Washington D.C. for lobbying on your behalf. However, before they let you read that report they want information on you, so to spare the reader from this, here is the report, which is nothing more than a lobbying campaign for re-authorizing the LWCF. For those not familiar with the Land and Water Conservation Fund, it is a Department of Interior (DOI) funding program for conservation and conservation groups, such as TRCP, who are frightened at the prospect they may lose this money for implementing their conservation goals. While the fund was originally intended for recreational access, it has become a money trough for federal acquisition of land and NGO conservation objectives, even Rep. Bishop recognizes this. What better way to correct this injustice than to initiate a Madison avenue advertising campaign that lures hunter support with a veiled ruse of supporting access to hunting. The LWCF is due to sunset at the end of September this year which is why this rubbish is being pursued so aggressively.
In the article there is reference to a "checkerboard" of land ownership and that statement is significant for the plans being laid on how you will be allowed to hunt. Among other groups, Y2Y, Western Governor's Association (WGA), and Sec. Zinke are all in on the push to create wildlife corridors, which are often designated as protected land. In order to pursue their corridor objectives they must first resolve the checkerboard of land ownership which means, as much as possible, purchasing private land for conservation easements, which, as Rep. Bishop states, often ends up in federal hands. Corridors are used for linkage between protected areas such as national parks, forests, or wilderness areas for "connectivity". One egregious example in Idaho was the Stimpson Lumber conservation easement purchase, Clagstone Meadows. This land, in which Y2Y was involved, was purchased for linkage between protected areas and is now state owned land.
TRCP defines "landlocked" land as "...federally managed lands that cannot be accessed directly from a public road (direct access) and cannot be accessed via adjoining public land by way of a public road (indirect access)." That means in their checkerboard scenario private land is the barrier. Case in point, the article states after analyzing public land data, they determined that access to public land is often inaccessible due to private land as a case in Montana was mentioned. It states they viewed "...a large swath of public land that, due to a strip of private land along the road, is wholly inaccessible to the public." In their scheme, if that private land could be placed into a conservation easement the public land would then be accessible. At least they were honest in identifying who would unlock that land, "...conservation groups and public land management agencies...". They are giving a dubious impression that suddenly there would be access to public land by conservation easements on private land.
The Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network (LCCN) states their work is "...to identify the best places to target conservation and land protection proposals to provide recreational access for hunters, anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts." How does conserved or protected land provide access? In reality it doesn't. Other conservation groups such as the High Divide Collaborative are vested in wildlife conservation with "landscape conservation design" methods, and it isn't for hunting access. It is about conserving land for more controlled, restricted, or banned use and any hunter can testify to the fact their access to hunting is being dramatically reduced and more difficult to access. Hopefully this explains why.
According to the National Conservation Easement Database (click on Idaho), the majority of easements are held by the state, federal government, and NGOs with over 50% having closed access.
Representation by elected officials was the way in which hunting used to be managed through legislation and statutes that determined how state agencies operated. Now those agencies are driven by special interest groups and corporations with no representation of Idaho hunters.
While there is a plethora of other information regarding this issue, the message here is hunters beware. This media blitz by TRCP is nothing more than a covert way in which to make you believe they are advocating for you to increase access on public lands, but is really about using you to support their soon to end, taxpayer funded money stream for their conservation objectives which includes more land placed into conservation and turned over to federal and state hands. None of this increases access but rather contributes and accelerates continued limitations for hunting.
The level of hypocrisy coming from Sec. Zinke could not be more unbelievable. In a recent interview on Brietbart he blasted "...environmental terrorist groups that have not allowed public access..." to public land, not allowed timber harvesting or grazing, then claimed that "...public lands belong to everybody, not just the special interest groups." Have these terrorists not been backed by federal and state laws, including executive and secretarial orders, which have forbidden access and reduced logging and grazing? Do those laws not validate that public land use has been turned over to special interest groups? Doesn't environmentalist objectives include influencing public policy? It isn't environmentalist "policies" causing these problems as he claims, it is the federal government implementing those polices. Who is he trying to fool?
Not only that, Sec. Zinke himself has contributed to environmental causes with his secretarial orders (SO) starting with his Conservation & Big Game Migration Corridors SO 3362. This order gave the green light to environmental groups for continuing their pursuit in creating migration corridors which they want designated as protected conservation land, meaning those areas would be off limits for recreation and hunting in order to limit wildlife disturbance, and avoiding and minimizing development, all of which are specifically stated in that order. Sec. Zinke is starting his crusade for migration corridors in southwest Wyoming, claiming there can be a balance between development and conservation. The environmentalists don't think so and are fighting that very issue in Casper. You can't have it both ways Sec. Zinke.
Does this not continue limiting access which he so loudly objects to in the interview? Environmental groups such as Backcountry Hunters (BHA) and Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC) understand how their goals are being supported by Sec. Zinke with this SO. The Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC), which these environmentalists belong to, supports the identification of "...priority corridors for conservation..." and holds webinars on how migration corridors are being threatened by humans.
Sec. Zinke, in spite of revoking the activities of the GNLCC and its federal partnerships with environmental groups in SO 3349, immediately turned around and reinstated their activity with the same SO 3362. The GNLCC and all of its partners, including Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG), have very specific goals for corridor designation in their connectivity agenda.
According to Sec. Zinke, these environmentalists conduct "...fund raising on hype...". The truth is, these environmental organizations take advantage of Department of Interior (DOI) funding under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which is used for conservation objectives that align with the environmentalists. Also, the GNLCC was created by the DOI, implemented by the DOI agency U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), and funds environmental groups such as Yellowstone to Yukon. Maybe Sec. Zinke should check with his accounting department. Senators Crapo and Risch, along with Rep. Simpson, are working to make the LWCF fund permanent rather than let it expire at the end of September this year. Environmentalist groups must be thrilled to once again see favor from our elected representatives, and more of your tax dollars going to their objectives.
While Agenda 21, Chapter 15 , called for conservation of land and "biodiversity", Agenda 2030 has taken this conservation agenda to new heights. Goal 15 outlines its plan in target 15.4, "Ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity...", and Indicator 15.4.1, "Coverage by protected areas of important sites for mountain biodiversity...". The creation of corridors by Sec. Zinke for conservation moves us towards more protected areas, exactly what these environmental terrorists want.
Under Agenda 2030 Biodiversity, #197, it is very clear Sec. Zinke is on the path to accomplish what is outlined, the "...importance of the conservation of biodiversity, enhancing habitat connectivity..." and #212 calling for "...greater efforts towards the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity." And why wouldn't he given the DOI is a member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which contributes to United Nations goals for protection of the environment, promotes international environmental law, and uses corridors for conservation. Through his actions it is clear he supports these non-American groups over American citizens while trying to hide his indiscretions by calling environmentalists names.
As a former Navy Seal, which Sec. Zinke so proudly reminds us, perhaps he should be reminded of the oath he took.
He swore to defend the Constitution against all foreign and domestic enemies. It was he who labeled environmentalists what they are, terrorists. By definition, a terrorist is a "...person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." While these environmental terrorists do not engage in violence towards civilians, they do exert violence over our environment, destroying it as Sec. Zinke seems to understand and points out in his interview. That is terrorism. Should Sec. Zinke, since he chose to use this language, instead change his direction towards opposing these domestic environmental terrorists as he swore to do, rather than supporting their activity behind the scenes?
It is just unbelievable.
Sen. Risch proudly announced he is sponsoring a bill with two Democrats that will provide funding for conservation across the U.S.. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (S. 3223) will use money from energy development on federal land and water to fund the Wildlife Conservation Program, to the tune of $1.3 billion annually. What he does not include in his announcement is the back door agenda with that 1.3 billion dollars.
In 2014, the Blue Ribbon Panel (updated brochure) on Sustaining America’s Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources was created by Bass Pro shop founder John Morris, and former Wyoming governor Dave Freudenthal, now known as the Alliance for America's Fish & Wildlife (AAFW) partnership. “The Blue Ribbon Panel includes 26 business and conservation leaders", and “...was convened to evaluate and recommend a more sustainable funding approach to avert a fish and wildlife conservation crisis.” Panel members represent "...the outdoor recreation, retail and manufacturing sector, the energy and automotive industries, private landowners, educational institutions, conservation organizations, sportsmen’s groups and state and federal fish and wildlife agencies.", and their goal is conservation. Other goals include, “...recommendations and policy options on the most sustainable and equitable model to fund conservation of the full array of fish and wildlife species.”, and “...recommending a new funding mechanism to support state fish and wildlife conservation to ensure the sustainability of all fish and wildlife for current and future generations.” BRP is the one who recommended 1.3 billion dollars towards conservation. A conglomerate of corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGO), and government agencies who have decided for you that conservation is what you want. Interestingly, Canada also included 1.3 billion in their budget for species of greatest risk conservation and land protection, how coincidental is that? What corporate entities besides Shell and Toyota are behind this funding? And why?
At the time, BRP also recommended funding State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP) which identifies species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) and conservation efforts to protect them, providing necessary resources for implementing SWAP plans, and proposing oil and mineral extraction companies should turn over part of their proceeds for this endeavor.
The Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) is most likely drooling at this opportunity for funding to integrate their conservation goals into Idaho SWAP plans. The GNLCC is an organization of NGOs, conservation initiatives, land trusts, federal and state government agencies, Canadian governments, and of which Idaho Fish & Game is a member, that was never authorized by Congress, but rather by a memorandum from the Obama Administration. GNLCC's goal is placing as much land as possible into conservation and using linkage zones between protected areas for connectivity. With his bill, Sen. Risch is opening the door for funding to implement SWAP plans in which the GNLCC will then integrate their conservation objectives, without any Idaho citizen involvement. As species and habitat are identified for conservation, so will the land they inhabit require conservation. More land will be declared as needing protection for the sake of the species and with that, more land taken away from Idahoans for use.
Sen. Risch is not a friend to Idahoans, but rather with NGOs and conservation initiatives as seen with the Friends of Scotchman Peaks Wilderness (FSPW) issue. FSPW has been funded by and is also a partner with Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), another GNLCC member, whose interest in Scotchman Peaks is for linkage between the Bitterroot Mountains with their Cabinet-Purcell collaborative project that extends into Canada. With Y2Y's help, FSPW sought wilderness protection for that area in Idaho's panhandle and in 2016 Sen. Risch introduced the Scotchman Peaks Wilderness Act (S.3531) just for that purpose. Essentially, Sen. Risch was supporting the Y2Y agenda with his bill. With the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act he is giving full support to all initiatives and NGOs through their GNLCC partnerships.
No thanks, Sen. Risch. Idahoans expect you to represent those who elected you, not unlawfully created groups whose goals over our land is to erase jurisdictional boundaries and place land into conservation for their connectivity goals. Using corporate money to justify more conservation over land that rightfully belongs to us is very suspicious, just who are you working for? Is there not some conflict of interest here, corporate-government alliances? Perhaps when it comes time for Idahoans to consider who represents them they should consider who you represent.
Some time has passed since exposing the Great Northern Large Landscape Cooperative (GNLCC) and with new events it is time to take another look at just how pervasive, diabolical, and advanced this agenda has become.
As a reminder, in 2010 the Obama administration, via a memorandum, directed the US Department of Interior (DOI) to create large landscape cooperatives. Twenty two cooperatives were created in the US without any congressional authorization. What was not previously revealed is that the Canadian government was included in these cooperatives. As seen in the map below, the GNLCC stretches from Colorado into British Columbia and western Alberta, where the same aggressive methods are being used in both countries, by the same groups and individuals, that puts land into large landscape conservation, including restricted use, for connectivity.
These cooperatives are a "regional" approach to landscape conservation that ignore the boundary between our countries and jurisdictional authority. Meant to be an "international network", the GNLCC covers 300 million acres, a network of U.S. federal agencies, Canadian provincial and federal governments, and conservation initiatives. GNLCC members include Canadian and U.S. land trusts, Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative (Y2YI), Heart of the Rockies (HOR), Crown of the Continent (COC), government agencies such as the Alberta Government, Environment Canada, British Columbia, and our own USFS, USFWS, and USGS. These LCCs were initiated without our knowledge, involvement or consent, or congressional approval and give tremendous authority to conservation initiatives. Concealed from both countries, this is the primary force behind our land being taken from us for our use, and why conservation initiatives have more influence over our governments than us.
Sec. Zinke supports these LCCs. The LCCs were originally created under Secretarial Order (SO) 3289 by Sec. Salazar, then advanced by Sec. Jewell with SO 3330. In 2017, President Trump directed the DOI to revoke "agency actions" by the Obama administration. Sec. Zinke responded with SO 3349 which did revoke SO 3330, stopping all LCC activity. But Sec. Zinke then immediately issued SO 3362, reinstating and expanding LCC activity that he just revoked, omitting citizen involvement except to put fencing up, and allowing conservation initiatives to continue their work with our governments for large landscape conservation, including the creation of corridors. Since that time the conservation initiatives have upped their game, becoming more aggressive with attempts for land use restrictions, hiring more staff to target areas in both countries, expanding their media assault in Canada, and even advertising Idaho Fish & Game jobs. Sec. Zinke even wants to plant his staff into our states with his reorganization to further the conservation agenda.
Basically, GNLCC believes land is "fragmented" by development, impeding the movement of wildlife. Protected areas such as national parks and wilderness areas are "isolated" from each other, meaning the land in between must be placed into conservation so that there is a "link" between the protected areas for "connectivity". Unprotected areas are targeted for linkage using wildlife, habitat, aquatic, riparian, and ecological as the ruse. As an example, the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Idaho Fish & Game, Idaho Transportation Department, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Nature Conservancy participated together in a study to identify linkage areas in 2012. As a GNLCC partner, Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) also works to identify linkage zones. Here is a short video explaining connectivity.
To eliminate fragmentation the GNLCC and its partners target unprotected land with conservation easements, banning use such as for OHV and snowmobile users, and putting land into various categories of corridors such as for wildlife and habitat. If an area can be declared a corridor (pg 11), it is then used as a basis for wildlife movement protection, or what they call a migratory corridor. With that protection comes restricted or banned use, with justification for restrictive land use policies nearby, including how a private property owner can use their land. According to Y2Y, "Areas which are identified as core and connectivity habitat, are the focus of restrictive management practices on public lands, and are the focus of land acquisition and conservation easements on private lands." Once a corridor is designated the next objective by GNLCC partners is extending the corridor to adjacent land, including private property, or procuring a conservation easement, expanding their restrictive land use policies. Anything goes for linkage.
The players are all the same, Harvey Locke, Gary Tabor, Kim Trotter, Candace Batycki, Stephen Lagault, and others from both countries, all work towards achieving GNLCC goals. In this document you will see GNLCC objectives for both countries including obtaining land for protective status, interfering with local land use policies, and restricting energy development. The Government of Alberta - Environment and Sustainable Resource Development is an active participant with the COC which extends from Montana into western Alberta and British Columbia. Targeted areas for connectivity are also mapped out.
Crown Managers Partnership (CMP) members include Alberta Environment and Parks, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). Canadian and U.S. government employees sit on the CMP leadership team and the GNLCC funds them. The CMP has a "Transboundary Conservation Initiative" that does not include involvement by Canadians or Americans.
Both of our governments are working on targeting species at risk, or species of greatest conservation need. The species and their habitat will be used as justification for conservation, taking more land use away from us, and affecting private land owners.
As a partner to the UN participant, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the USFWS, Canadian government, Y2Y, Harvey Locke, and Gary Tabor bring IUCN objectives and ideology back to our countries, one of which is addressing "threats' to wildlife, habitats, wetlands, etc., while advocating for special land protections for different categories and connectivity.
On September 2-3, 2015 the GNLCC held a meeting on their connectivity initiative laying out the larger picture for restricted use and banned access as seen in the box below.
The Cabinet-Purcell Mountain Corridor (CPMC) will be used as a transboundary link connecting wildlife between British Columbia and Idaho. Here are all GNLCC focal areas.
Both Canadians and Americans need to be aware of this GNLCC agenda, coming straight out of the UN, that includes unauthorized partnerships between our governments and conservation initiatives. We have lost all representation by our elected officials, including Sec. Zinke. Our governments are partnering with groups that have specific UN goals to take our land from us, restrict or ban the use of our land, and eventually dictate how we will be allowed to use our land. It is time all of this is exposed for both Canadians and Americans and action taken to confront and stop it.
Nampa citizens recently passed a bond that will pay for upgrades to its wastewater system. The bond authorizes funding up to $165 million dollars with an average sewer rate increase of 16.75% each year over the next 7 years, with "... totals of $279.2M in capital investments between 2018 and 2040.", a fact that was not brought forth to the public. This upgrade requirement is from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) which descends from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As with all other issues going on now, the federal government forces their policies into state policies, in this case it is called state "primacy", by developing "statutes and regulations that are at least as stringent as the federal acts and regulations." which IDEQ did. On June 5, 2018 the EPA officially turned water pollution regulation over to Idaho. This agenda for phosphorous reduction is being implemented in many Idaho cities.
The alleged "threat" is all that dang phosphorous being released into Indian Creek from the Nampa Wastewater Treatment Plant (NWWTP), and concurrent increased temperature from the waste. The EPA is demanding these same upgrades are made in cities across the U.S. based on the Clean Water Act (CWA). IDEQ claims that Indian Creek qualifies for such action because it is a natural stream, therefore falling under the category of a navigable water, which allows them to require the upgraded plant. However, that may not be true.
According to this 2015 document, A History of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, in 1915 Reclamation Service engineers were contracted to "... construct a system of 11 deep surface drains...", one of which included Indian Creek. The construction was on "...ephemeral creeks..." which means they were intermittent, filling with water after the snow melt, then becoming dry (pg 7, 10). Because of this man made construction, the water in Indian Creek is artificially manipulated into a drain. Most of the Indian Creek channel is a natural watershed drainage that has developed over a long period of time, and is actually an agricultural drain. If Indian Creek was reverted back to its original state from being a drain, it would once again become ephemeral, and not a stream as IDEQ claims.
One of the benefits from NWWTP releasing the treated wastewater into Indian Creek is the phosphorus. As an element of an irrigation system, Indian Creek provides irrigation to our local farmers. Plants thrive on phosphorous. By the end of the irrigation season, all of that phosphorous has been used by agriculture and none of it ends up in the Boise river, as IDEQ claims. This "reuse" of wastewater thus complies with IDEQ promotion of reusing wastewater for other benefits.
Ron Harriman wrote an excellent article that explains the dynamics of Indian Creek and why it should be classified as an agricultural drain, not a stream, and more details about the issue.
Larry Olmsted wrote an interesting report which explains the phosphorous issue in more detail.
In order to circumvent this phosphate reduction requirement, the city of Boise created the Dixie Drain Water Treatment Facility in Canyon County, at $100 million less than the cost of improving their sewage treatment plants for phosphorous removal. The Dixie Drain was established to clean the drain water before it enters the Boise river to offset the phosphorous that Boise is discharging into the Boise river, leaving high levels of phosphorous in the Boise River above the drain.
Discharge from the NWWTP contains phosphorous, an agricultural nutrient, and flows into Indian Creek. The last irrigation district is Riverside, which utilizes all the water from Indian creek during the 7-8 month irrigation season, leaving 4-8 CFS (rate of flow) of phosphorous-free water draining into the Snake River. In the remaining 5 winter months the water flows into the Boise River but is still in compliance for temperature and phosphorous. Water flow continues on to the Brownlee Reservoir which is protected from phosphorus by its removal during passage of water through the Riverside irrigation system.
At issue also is the water temperature which IDEQ claims should be 55.4F with a maximum of 71.6 for healthy salmonoid spawning. However, it has been shown that the primary cause of the rise in water temperature is from solar heating, not from the NWWTP. Spawning begins in March when the water is coolest, which is unrelated to the NWWTP, however IDEQ believes spawning is affected by the water discharge temperature. Water from the Wilson Drain is at 59 F year around, and the seepage is from 52-56 F. making the overall temperature somewhere in the middle. Further details can be found in the Harriman report.
Another aspect of this project is restoration. IDEQ is required to "restore" degraded waters as found under the Clean Water Act (CWA). How can an agricultural drain be restored to something it never was? The reason for constructing Indian Creek into a drainage system was damage caused from spring runoffs and previously built irrigation systems. As irrigation systems expanded in the early 1900's, stagnant pools of swamp water from water continually being applied to farmlands ruined thousands of acres of farm land (Pg 7). Alkali also invaded the seeped lands destroying plant life. To solve the problem engineers designed "... a drainage system that would dig deeper into the land’s natural depressions to relieve these excess flows and direct them back to the Boise River." Water was diverted for the purposes of drainage. Since Indian Creek was never a water body that supported aquatic life, there is nothing to restore other than reverting it back to a field of stagnant water. IDAPA 58.01.02.200.06 states, "“Surface waters of the state shall be free from excess nutrients that can cause visible slime growths or other nuisance aquatic growths impairing designated beneficial uses”. Clearly Indian Creek would violate this regulation if restored to its beginning.
There are several points why the NWWTP upgrades should not occur:
Nampa citizens are being asked to fund a project that should not go forward. Many issues have not been addressed regarding Indian Creek and it is the responsibility of the Nampa Council and Mayor to fully address them. IDEQ is also accountable to Nampa citizens and should immediately require further investigation into the origins of Indian Creek for reclassification. An Environmental Information Document (EID) is being created by the contracted construction company, Brown & Caldwell. The EID is a basic assessment of potential impacts on a project similar to an Environmental Assessment. There are significant impacts with this project including the long term costs to citizens, phosphorous reduction impacts on agriculture, and money being used to restore a stream that never existed. Contact the Mayor and IDEQ, let them know you want these issues addressed before any further action is taken on this project. For more technical details read the Harriman and Olmsted reports.
This whole agenda originates with United Nations (UN) Agenda 21/2030 through their partnership with the EPA, being enforced upon cities across the U.S., and is part of their sustainable development platform. The longer term UN goal is to save phosphorous for other uses which will implement six of the Agenda 2030 sustainable development goals, and the NWWTP is just beginning the first stages for this. Not only is the UN figuring out how wastewater can be cleaned for reuse, they are also targeting how the phosphorus can be collected. Nampa has been hearing the Mayor speak to the importance of reuse, she has obviously been led to believe it. But the truth is, we are already reusing the water for the benefit of agriculture. For the future, what to anticipate next, just follow the UN, it always explains what they are going to do to us next.
In addition to reinstating large conservation cooperatives (LCC) after revoking them through his Secretarial Order 3349, Sec. Zinke now has grand plans to reorganize the Department of Interior (DOI) which will further erode state sovereignty.
The essence of reorganizing is redrawing "regional" boundaries and moving employees out of D.C. into those regions for closer "collaboration" with states for streamlining DOI efficiency. There have been some accusations that he is gutting the DOI.
DOI regional boundaries as of December 22, 2017 are outlined in the map below.
Sec. Zinke initially reorganized departmental regions based on watersheds and ecosystems, reducing 40 regions down to 13. The first revised regional map based on that concept is below. Montana had specific issues with the state being cut in half by these boundaries.
The Western Governors Association (WGA) objected to the watershed, ecosystem idea for boundaries, writing a letter to him requesting regional boundaries were based instead on state boundaries. Given one of his initial reasoning for reorganization was partly based on working more closely with states, it is ironic that he failed in the first step to create these boundaries with WGA involvement. What does that tell you? WGA also commended him on "...your addition of the goal of improving coordination among federal, state and local agencies...". That is an interesting statement as federal law has specific coordination requirements for local governments which is different from federal and state coordination. Multiple other associations joined with the WGA and signed the letter to Zinke. Oddly enough, as a result, Sec. Zinke decided to refine his regional boundaries more closely along state lines as seen below. The WGA was "gratified" with the new map.
Many questions have arisen with the new DOI plan. Sec. Zinke's plan is to assign an Interior Regional Director (IRD) in each region, whose responsibility will include coordination of missions and administrative functions between bureaus within the region. While special consultation with Tribes is mentioned, there is no mention of consultation with local governments or citizens.
Drawing boundaries along watersheds was the original intent, however the new state boundary alignment does not necessarily change that intent, "...new regional watershed-based boundaries are often adjusted to line up with the nearest state boundaries."
As Sec. Zinke explains in this video, his thoughts about placing land into federal protection as did Theodore Roosevelt, and John Wesley Powell's notion of land preservation and conservation, should give a clear picture of what he intends to do. Sec. Zinke adds to this with his intent to create wildlife corridors which would also cross state boundaries.
The problem with reorganizing along ecosystems and watersheds is that there is no defined boundary between federal, state, and private land. Unlike a specific tree line or boundary that can be drawn on land as it is now, an ecosystem often has no clear boundaries due to it flowing into another ecosystem, therefore an ecosystem must be managed as it has an ever flowing connection with everything. As seen in the map below, there is no clearly defined boundary between the ecosystem elements and watersheds, they are continuous and connected. Disrupting one part affects the rest. Ecotone is a term used to describe transitions between different ecosystems but is not necessarily a boundary.
According to environmentalists, no boundaries exist in landscapes because of connectivity, and boundaries such as county and state lines that define us become irrelevant. That is essentially what Sec. Zinke is planning, creating large regional ecosystems that includes connectivity between them, providing ecosystem management, and crossing over all jurisdictional boundaries. If an ecosystem needs restoration, flowing into another over state or private land, how will Sec. Zinke manage that? If consulting and collaborating with states, it seems that the IRD will possibly need to interfere with state sovereignty for ecosystem restoration and protection.
As noted in Secretarial Order 3362, Sec. Zinke wants to "...harmonize State fish and game management and Federal land management of big game winter range and corridors.", and establish "...a clear direction forward with each State...". He wants to plant federal agents in each state to help bind us further together with the federal government. Where did he formulate the idea that the DOI determines the forward direction of our state? Our Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves.
As a International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) member, Sec. Zinke will most likely bind us to their notion of ecosystems and managing them through DOI agencies. The IUCN already has a Red List of Ecosystems with categories and criteria for micromanagement on restoration and protection.
As yet, this reorganization has not been approved by Congress. If you would like to provide feedback on this reorganization, you can contact the DOI here. Let Sec. Zinke know that we have sovereignty and do not want the federal government coming to our state for harmonization between state and federal policies, and that Idahoans will decide how our land is managed.
It is understood that all conservation initiatives and non-governmental organizations (NGO) are attached to Washington D.C., they hob nob together, make their devious plans in partnership, and leave us out.
With the exposure of activity behind the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC), Yellowstone 2 Yukon (Y2Y), High Divide (HD), Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC), and others behind their conservation and connectivity agenda, Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Ryan Zinke has now incorporated them into the DOI workforce. Created by DOI Secretarial Order 3289 and implemented by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), these initiatives partner through the GNLCC, and it is a distinct probability that the DOI was advised of this exposure and investigated it. What better way to solve this exposure problem than to wave a magic wand and create a Secretarial Order (SO) that gives the GNLCC de facto authority to continue operating. Even the Greater Yellowstone Coalition understands this.
On February 9, 2018, while attending the Western Conservation and Hunting Expo in Salt Lake City, Utah, Sec. Zinke announced his SO 3362, which is meant to "...improve habitat quality and western big game winter range and migration corridors for antelope, elk, and mule deer."..."...expand opportunities for big-game hunting by improving priority habitats...", foster "...collaboration with states and private landowners and...ensure that robust big game populations continue to exist."...and "...help establish better migration corridors...". What a bunch of crock. In spite of all the lauding of his accomplishments on the DOI site, Sec. Zinke just pulverized anything positive for Idahoans with this SO. This SO isn't about access to hunting, it is about putting land into conservation which leads to control over land use.
As "partners", the DOI agencies USFWS and National Park Service (NPS) give conservation initiatives authority in the GNLCC. Primary objectives of the GNLCC are conservation of large landscapes and creation of corridors for connectivity. Essentially, Zinke just gave full authority to the GNLCC to continue in spite of the fact he revoked LCCs with SO 3349, which were created by SO 3289, and then advanced with SO 3330. SO 3362 essentially reinstates and expands what he just revoked as a directive that still has no legislative authority.
There are several key sections of the SO 3362 that require scrutiny.
Sec. 1 Purpose. This Order directs appropriate bureaus within the Department of the Interior (Department) to work in close partnership with the states of...Idaho...to enhance and improve the quality of...migration corridor habitat on Federal lands...that recognizes state authority to conserve and manage big-game species and respects private property rights.
Our Republic does not include federal partnerships with states, states are sovereign. Nowhere does this SO state that citizens or local governments are involved in these decisions, or those who would be the most impacted by land use changes. Private property is a right and protected by the Fifth Amendment and Idaho law, it is not something that can just be "respected" by a federal agency. If the DOI truly recognizes state authority then why the "partnering"?
Page two states, "...it is crucial that the Department take action to harmonize State fish and game management and Federal land management of big-game winter range and corridors...if landowners are interested and willing, conservation may occur through voluntary agreements."
Translated this means federal policy will become state policy, "harmonize". As a DOI program, the GNLCC is also being used to incorporate their objectives into State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP), and while landowners may be duped into "voluntary" agreements for conservation, initiatives work to get those conservation land use policies into local comprehensive plans, which will eventually become mandatory.
3c "Within 180 days, develop a proposed categorical exclusion for proposed projects that utilize common practices solely intended to enhance or restore habitat for species such as sage grouse and/or mule deer...". This essentially gives authority to maneuver around NEPA requirements, one of which is public participation.
Sec. 4.a.(1) ...identify an individual to serve as the “Coordinator” for the Department. The Coordinator will work closely with appropriate States, Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and/or associations to identify active programs focused on...migration corridors.
Again there is no citizen or local government involvement and the "and/or associations" is clearly referencing the DOI created GNLCC. This SO cements their authority and now drags in state agencies whose role up to this time has been fairly hidden in the GNLCC. Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG) will more than likely be playing a larger role in the federal agenda for placing land into conservation.
4.b.(1) With respect to activities at the State level...identify one person...to serve as the Liaison...will schedule a meeting with the respective State fish and wildlife agency...work in close partnership with the State on...migration corridor conservation.
Take note of that "conservation" wording. This is a Freudian slip by Zinke, the SO is really targeting land conservation, not improving big game hunting. IDFG already has a wildlife conservation program, one for "landowners", and a Habitat Improvement Program for private land owners. Now a federal "Liaison" will be interfering in these state programs.
4.b.(4) Assess State wildlife agency data regarding wildlife migrations early in the planning process for land use plans and significant project-level actions that bureaus develop.... As previously stated, the goal will be harmonizing federal planning with state planning, we will be living under federal policy "that bureaus develop".
4.b.5(iii) working cooperatively with private landowners and State highway departments to achieve permissive fencing measures, including potentially modifying (via smooth wire), removing (if no longer necessary), or seasonally adapting (seasonal lay down) fencing if proven to impede movement of big game through migration corridors;
Zinke just gave the GNLCC and conservation initiatives the authority to continue their camaraderie with the Idaho Transportation Department for integration of wildlife overpasses and fencing, forcing wildlife into different migratory paths, both which lead to the creation of a wildlife corridor and ultimate land use control.
4.b.5(iv) avoiding development in the most crucial winter range or migration corridors during sensitive seasons;
4.b.5(v) minimizing development that would fragment winter range and primary migration corridors;.
There it is, the truth, the goal is restricting use or banning land development within or adjacent to a migratory corridor.
4.d.(3) Consult with State wildlife agencies and bureaus to ensure land use plans are consistent...to one another along the entire wildlife corridor...where...migration corridors span jurisdictional boundaries.
Zinke is referring to local comprehensive or land use plans, and jurisdictional boundaries includes private property. It is critical that citizens engage with elected officials on comprehensive plans, ensuring no reference is made to corridor protection or conservation. If local land use plans do not reference these then federal policy for corridors and conservation will be inconsistent with local policy and the feds will have more difficulty proceeding with conservation policies until consistency is reached. Coordination is in federal law, written into USFS, BLM, and FHA (23 CFR 774.5) laws, that coordination shall occur between the federal and local governments to ensure consistency between land use policies. It is not consulting, cooperating, or collaborating because coordination puts the local government on an equal footing with the feds, not subordinate. The feds do not like this law, they would like to just mow over local governments and us with their plans, without coordination, The 10th Amendment guarantees this protection for states and its citizens and recently the Idaho Senate addressed the coordination requirement in SJM103.
4.b.5(i) Habitat management goals and associated actions as they are associated with big game winter range and migration corridors;
This statement references the creation of other corridors which can include riparian, biodiversity, or ecosystems, potentially expanding federal control over land use because these habitat types extend from public land into state and private land. An example is his reference to "sagebrush ecosystems...other ecotypes...and sagebrush landscapes". Migration corridors require other types of corridors that support wildlife. A habitat management example is the Sage Grouse, of which sage brush protection was needed for its habitat. Translated, "Habitat Management" means conservation or protection. Not only will SWAP plans be used as they identify species and habitat of greatest conservation need, but Zinke also plans to use the Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT) as a mapping tool for land use (4.c.).
The subject of the SO is "Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors". In that title where does it indicate the SO will "...expand opportunities for big-game hunting by improving priority habitats...". Priority habitats are those typically protected for a game species as in the Sage Grouse example. What is meant by "improved" priority habitats? Corralling wildlife with fencing and forcing them into different migratory paths? Moving all humans and development out of the way? Creating pseudo corridors that already exist and which already cross private property without any problems?
The Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network (LCCN), of which the GNLCC is a member, is actively involved with the UN NGO, International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN), bringing IUCN ideology back to us. Gary Tabor is a partner with the GNLCC through his Center For Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) and works as Specialist Group Leader for the IUCN. Rob Ament is also a IUCN member and contributes IUCN ideology to the GNLCC.
Below are two short videos from the IUCN website, part of a series of modules on Protected Area Law (PAL). In the first video you will find the similarities (voluntary conservation, creating corridors, protect migration routes) between the SO and how it advances IUCN objectives for connectivity. When referencing protected areas, an example is the agenda currently underway to connect Island Park to Yellowstone National Park for an extension of protected land, using wildlife overpasses as the basis for a corridor. Sec. Zinke is using an SO to achieve IUCN objectives. And why wouldn't he, the DOI and USFWS partner with the IUCN, gives your tax dollar to them, while assisting with the implementation of Agenda 21.
Starting at minute marker 5:22 is Yellowstone 2 Yukon promoting IUCN ideology for connectivity.
This West Is Our West has an excellent article, written by Clifford C. Nichols, Is Zinke 'Migration Corridors' order the Endangered Species Act on Steroids? His article brings out some other pertinent points on the SO.
Sec. Zinke isn't fooling anyone. His goal is conservation and control over land use. It is appalling that all of this activity is hidden from us, stripping us of our "consent of the governed" role. Without any federal law he is sanctioning an expanded, behind the scenes, directive that further erodes our right to local representation and state sovereignty. Sec. Zinke, Idahoans have not given consent to your SO 3362.
For several years there has been much emphasis for a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education foisted upon our youth. The question arose, why so much emphasis in these educational areas, especially at the expense of other important, and needed, educational subjects? Although any industry could be used as an example for why a STEM education is promoted, agriculture is a pretty easy case study that explains STEM.
The agricultural industry, including your local farmers, provides food production not only for local needs, but often for regional and perhaps in some cases, global needs. Who doesn't need food? As populations increased, food production became more sophisticated in meeting those increased food needs. Advances in plant health, machinery, and harvesting have kept us well fed. Over time, irrigation methods have also changed to water crops in a more efficient manner. With STEM, a whole new ominous plan is now progressing for crop production.
According to some, the most efficient watering method for crops is drip irrigation. A machine delivers water right on top of or at the plant root at scheduled times, supplying the required amount of water, nutrients, and fertilizer needed for healthy growth while reducing water run off and evaporation. The larger the crop, the larger and more complicated the machine.
There are some drawbacks to drip irrigation including cost, as high as $10k for 1 acre, maintenance requirements, plus the potential for clogging, damage from environmental factors, and restricted water distribution.
According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the average Idaho farm is 486 acres. At $10k per acre, that means an average Idaho farmer would need to fork over 4 million dollars to install a drip irrigation system. Or, according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a drip irrigation system requiring pumps can be installed for as little as $1800 to $2500 an acre with additional costs to operate and manage it. For the Idaho farmer the cost is now down from $875k to a little over $ 1 million.
Using drip irrigation as just one example, STEM education fields are necessary for its operation.
No longer can we rely on a farmer, whose experience goes back multiple generations, who understands the land in ways that are not taught in a book, we must now have college educated science experts leading the way on plant management, even though those experts may have never worked a piece of land in their lives. Agribusiness Companies, sometimes called Corporate Farming, require different types of science "experts", or technocrats, determining nutrient and fertilizer amounts needed in drip irrigation for crop production as an example. Thus, agriculture is just one type of science emphasized in STEM. This could imply that current and past generations of farmers have never understood any of this science, even though they have been exemplary in feeding us for decades without a science degree. Workers educated in computer science are also needed, who else will manage all those fancy machine programs?
Watering crops includes drip irrigation systems and other types of technology, such as sensors and other devices, expanding the need for STEM educated workers in engineering and computer sciences. Agricultural technology is for the sole purpose of conserving natural resources, especially water, and boosting production, thus feeding the global population which is anticipated to explode in the next few decades, at least according to some folks. This cost of technology may be enough to end the survival of small farms. Not only is the technology expensive, there is the long term cost of hiring those technocrats to operate it.
Mechanical, civil, electrical, and chemical engineers can be used in agriculture. Different engineers are needed to design machinery, manage land and water use, conserve and store food, consider atmospheric science (no more Farmer's Almanac), manage soil, plant and harvest crops, manage waste, design experiments...these are just a few tasks requiring engineers in agriculture.
As for math, "...the increasing complexity of agricultural technology makes it mandatory that workers"... have the necessary math skills. These math skills may include include land locations, conversion, weights and other types of measurements, yield estimates, calculation of growing days, costs, chemical or nutrient calculations, and certainly calculating water use in the most efficient method possible. There is also more sophisticated agricultural economics, know as agronomics, which focuses on the increase in food production and distribution. How did farmers accomplish the same without that math degree?
In agriculture, the farmer is being forced to move to scientific production through the use of advanced science and technology, sophisticated engineering, and calculated methods on food production, all requiring more workers educated in STEM fields. All fields are needed to just manage a drip irrigation system which might be cost prohibitive for the farmer.
According to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), farming is now called "sustainable" agriculture for raising farm income, promoting environmentalism, increasing the quality of life, and increasing food production. It is also their desire to "improve the quality of surface water and groundwater resources". "Sustainable agriculture" actually came from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a United Nations (UN) non-governmental organization (NGO). Promoting and implementing UN goals are NGO obligations, in this case sustainable development (SD), which is also known as Agenda 21.
Agenda 21, Chapter 14, is devoted to agriculture. The goal is transforming agricultural practices to reduce waste and conserve resources. As UN organizational partners, the United Nations Environmental Program and Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO), focus on an "Activity Cluster" by “Creating the enabling conditions for uptake of sustainable production practices at the national level and through the building of partnerships”. The Agri-Food Task Force was created in 2010 with specific goals to overtake agricultural practices by 2022, of course with participation by our federal government. As part of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, the US Department of Agriculture has been implementing Agenda 21 since 1993, and is now implementing the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).
Returning to irrigation, the goal is to squeeze out and utilize every drop of water in a sustainable manner and scientifically manage plant growth. Through its partnership with UNEP to implement Agenda 2030 SDG, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will mandate regulatory actions, forcing farmers out of business. Regulations such as requiring clean water prior to application on crops, pest and dust management, even regulating livestock, all for sustainable agriculture in line with the UN. Scientists support this as well by creating technology such as water recovery machines which add nutrients back into used water, requiring STEM educated workers. Idaho might be a particular target for requirements to change to other technologies because of its agricultural water use. The UN promotes drip irrigation, their business partner, Yamaha, even creating the technology for it.
With the expense for technology, ballooning requirement for scientific expertise, regulations, and brainwashing on the UN sustainable agriculture concept, farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to survive. Sustainable agriculture and food security are UN fallacies based on overpopulation and man-made climate change myths. The true goal is corporatism, forcing the death of farming for agri-corporations which have the finances to move in and take over our food production and supply. Monsanto, Noble, Mosaic, Nestle, DuPont, and General Mills are just a few agricultural corporations that join hands with the UN, often merging to advance their monopolies and push the local farmer out. These monopolies also lead to significant power, influence, and control over our food supply. Corporations have the financial resources to move food production towards the STEM principles and meet regulatory demands, along with bank investments in water, such as Citigroup, Goldman Sachs (14)(17), JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley. The World Bank thinks investment in water is great.
The UN uses climate change as justification for SD, and technocracy, the control of governments and society by science experts, to implement it. "Best practices and evidence based" are terms that insinuate only science holds the answers. As farms are destroyed by the inability to afford regulatory and technological demands imposed by our government in partnership with the UN, UN business partners are ready to take over, implementing SD practices for the UN. The UN is the primary force behind a STEM education to meet those corporate workforce needs, even providing resources for STEM and using it for social change. It is through the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) partnership with the UN that SD was integrated into education, which now includes STEM. The United Nations Educational and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) even has learning objectives for teaching SDGs. As stated in this video, the Western Governor's Association, of which Governor Otter is a member, is in support of "...aligning education and training with industry needs...". This is exactly the purpose of STEM which is part of the UN objectives for corporatism. Pick your industry, the same STEM rubbish is being integrated into those as well.
The trajectory has been the UN, in partnership with our government and corporations, leading us to a STEM education emphasis, which in turn will be used to oust our local farmers, with our food supply eventually being fully controlled by corporations, most of whom partner with the UN. Sound crazy? Well, others have written about it. There is also the question of whether an actual shortage of engineers and scientists exist. Starting on page 26 of this 2017 Congressional Research Service report, it summarizes why a true shortage may not exist. With the UN driving the agenda these facts are hidden. Meanwhile, Idaho children are being surrendered to this deceit, denied the right to an education that provides truth and balance in all subjects for a strong foundation, and robs them of self determination.
It would behoove the Idaho Legislature, Board of Education, and State Board of Education to give serious thought to really understanding the deceitful background behind STEM, and the direction they are taking Idaho children. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are loaded with SD ideology. References to climate change in the NGSS have been removed by the Idaho House, it is now up to the Senate to support the House in that decision. Incorporating climate change back into the standards is just advancing UN ideology and objectives. In fact, it would be impressive if our legislature would eliminate NGSS along with Common Core altogether, have Idahoans create its own standards and curriculum, and focus on teaching students the truth while giving them the freedom to make decisions about their future, rather than it being determined for them.
Aside from the possibility that north Idaho Avista customers will be under a Canadian electric utility, Hydro One, there is a far more serious problem in that a U.S. electrical grid will be run by a foreign country.
Hydro One is a Canadian electricity transmission and distribution service provider. Even though Hydro One is a private company, up until 2015 the Government of Ontario held 100% of its shares, at which time the government decided to sell up to 60% shares to raise money for infrastructure improvements. One concern expressed at that time was the possibility of foreign investments, which did happen with the Bahrain Gulf International Bank (GIB) holding approximately 93k shares. As of May, 2017 Ontario held the remaining 49.9% shares.
In July, 2017 Hydro One bought the American energy company Avista for $5.3 billion U.S. dollars as part of their plan "to grow our business to become a North American leader", creating "one of the largest regulated utilities in North America." Avista will be allowed to "keep its existing corporate headquarters... and continue to operate as a stand-alone utility in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska." Scott Morris, Avista president, likes this deal because of future "opportunities in a consolidating industry landscape for the benefit of our customers.” Morris also stated, "The partnership largely allows Avista to preserve how it does business with its customers, enables it to continue to pursue technological innovation, and permits it to take advantage of operating efficiencies and shared best practices".
Sovereign boundaries between countries are now nothing more than an industry landscape? Ontario sits on the border from Minnesota to New York, now northwest states are part of this landscape?
According to Daiene Vernile, Member of Provincial Parliament, the Ontario Energy Board will set rates and Ontario will retain regulatory control. She better get together with Scott Morris, there seems to be a disconnect between their understanding of the deal. Wow, American electricity rates under a foreign country. Avista shareholders approved the deal November 21, 2017 but Avista is already being investigated for "potential breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Board of Directors". The deal requires the approval of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) and per this October 5, 2017 Order Avista promises no increased rate hikes and better service, Avista stock will be purchased by Hydro One, and August 14, 2018 is the final date of closure on the deal. On the other hand IPUC must find that "the transaction is consistent with the public interest". How is selling an Idaho utility out to a foreign country or allowing a foreign country determine what rates an Idahoan pays for electricity consistent with public interest? Entangling our electrical assets with foreigners has been going on for some time, such as the San Diego Gas & Electric entering into a "partnership" with the Russian Federation in 2010.
As part of the deal Hydro One will now also own Avista dams including the Upper Falls, Monroe Street, Nine Mile, Little Falls, and Long Lake dams in Washington and the Cabinet Gorge and Post Falls dams in Idaho, found on this map.
Rates were already rising prior to the selling of Ontario shares. Dismantling Ontario Hydro created a $38.1 billion debt, paid off by ratepayers through the “debt retirement fee” which was removed in 2016. However, Ontario residents continued paying higher rates, attributed to an oversupply of power, the cost of green energy such as wind and solar, and poor government management. Ontario recently took action to reduce rates while continuing reduced rate programs for those in certain categories ensuring "greater fairness". Hydro One has a history of poor billing service and was also ordered to cut administrative costs this year. In 2016 an audit revealed customers were overcharged $37 billion. Is this the type of financial mismanagement now being brought to Idahoans? Hydro One intends to continue buying U.S. electric companies which could potentially put them in control of all Pacific Northwest electrical coverage.
The way in which our energy is regulated is complex and only a few examples are given here. The most disturbing aspect of this transaction is the advancement of the Department of Energy's (DOE) intent to "harmonize" the Electricity Sectors across North America, which means "fully integrating energy policies" between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and integrating electrical grids. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is a "not-for-profit international regulatory authority whose mission is to assure the reliability and security of the bulk power system in North America.", and whose "jurisdiction includes users, owners, and operators of the bulk power system..." which stretches from Baja Mexico, through the United States, into Canada. Here is the NERC map. Idaho is located in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) region. Hydro One is located in the Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC). Integrating our electrical grid with Canada has been advancing since at least 2012.
Electrical grids are separated into three areas, generation (hydropower, renewable, coal), transmission (lines that carry electricity), and distribution (electricity delivered customers). The WECC Bulk Power System (BPS) includes transmission equipment which generate and deliver electricity across North America but does not include local distribution systems. Below is a BPS graphic. NERC has a delegation agreement with WECC to ensure WECC reliability standards are met and advance NERC reliability standards, which are international.
WECC Committee members include individuals from Avista, Bonneville Power, Idaho Power, Canada, Arizona, California, the BLM, and others. They also develop and implement "Regional Reliability Standards and Regional Criteria for the Western Interconnection" which includes Canada and Mexico standards. The Board of Directors are not elected by Idahoans to represent them and their electricity needs. As in so many other issues, the United States is being broken up into regions and subregions, erasing all sovereignty, whose representation is being obliterated by individuals who are not elected by us but who have authority to make decisions about our lives, and then regulate us under international standards. The United States is being transformed into a borderless country.
One Department of Energy (DOE) goal is integrating renewable energy. Coincidentally, representatives of UNIDO and UNEP have served on advisory committees to this goal (iv)(116) as both of these United Nations (UN) organizations support energy integration. The UN Department of Economic Social Affairs (DESA) also wants "International Electric Power Grid Interconnections". DOE has joined hands with the UN in their Sustainable Energy For All (SE4ALL) program, implementing Agenda 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goal 7, enhancing "international cooperation" (7.A), and "foreign direct investment in financial transfer for infrastructure and technology" (7.B.1).
In Agenda 21, DESA was assigned the responsibility to "...undertake the task of directing system-wide coordination and integration of environmental and developmental aspects of United Nations policies and programmes..." (38.10). Chapter 30, Strengthening The Role Of Business And Industry, also addresses the need for "cleaner production, cooperation, and partnerships" (30.1), to "mix laws and standards with industry" (30.8), and "facilitate exchange of technology" (30.23), which Hydro One supports. Chapter 31, Scientific and Technological Community, commands promotion of "regional cooperation, expanding international and regional agreements" (31.4bc), and promoting "international acceptance of codes of practice and guidelines relating to science and technology" that is "recognized by the society as a whole" (31.9). These UN objectives are advanced by the DOE and the deal between Avista and Hydro One.
Why doesn't the federal government just quit pretending, announce we are being run by UN dictates, and admit to all of their UN partnerships?
Canada is a global partner to UN Sustainable Development which Hydro One follows in their Corporate Social Responsibility program, a UN program concocted to redistribute wealth. Avista has its own "Corporate Governance" model it follows which is another fabricated UN ruse. Now Idahoans will be dragged further into this obscene activity, along with Hydro One "green values". Ontario hydropower is generated by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and its employees receive a "portion of their pay in Hydro One stock as part of a new contract settlement." Avista customers will now be subsidizing those pension plans, another way to redistribute wealth per Agenda 21. Hydro One comes with massive financial problems, what better way to fix them than to redistribute the debt to Idahoans.
One frightening factor about this electrical integration is the interconnected electrical grid systems. All electricity in the western states could be completely obliterated by an attack, rather than one grid being destroyed while the remaining separate grids would be protected. Another concern is the Columbia River Treaty. While one agreement in the original Columbia River Treaty was Canada storing water for release to the United States for hydropower, now with Hydro One in control of U.S. dams, how will this influence the re-negotiations currently taking place, especially with their UN alliance? Do Idahoans have a voice in anything, or will we just continue being subjected to the influences and decisions by foreigners and the UN?
Avista customers might want to give consideration to filing an injunction. Surely there are potential harms that will come with Hydro One, especially financial, along with other factors that are clearly not in the public interest. Why should Idahoans pay for foreign infrastructure projects or pension plans? Are there no laws that protect our sovereignty? Does this deal not violate the very foundation of our Republic? The evidence is here, the DOE and UN intend to internationalize our electrical grids, it will be only a matter of time before we see more foreign takeovers of Idaho grids to fully achieve their agenda.
Patrick Wood has more information on electrical grid integration here, and fellow Idahoan, Vicky Davis has more information on NERC and smart meters here.
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!