The National Caucus of Environmental Legislators (NCEL) is a "nonpartisan network of legislative champions to protect, conserve, and improve the natural and human environment" for "advancing sound policy in the states...champions who can advocate on behalf of the environment, develop shared strategies, and educate their colleagues about coalition building and opposition tactics." Participation "is by invitation...regardless of political affiliation", and "does not lobby". Why would they need to lobby if they have legislative members to advance their objectives? After all, the NCEL "empowers state lawmakers to advance a pro-environment and conservation agenda." The NCEL is governed by a Board of Directors.
According to the NCEL website, the following Idaho legislators are members. Rep. Elaine Smith (D) Idaho Minority Caucus Chair; Rep. Ilana Rubel (D) Assistant Minority Leader; Rep. Mat Erpelding (D) House Minority Leader; Rep. Melissa Wintrow (D); Rep. Paulette Jordan (D) NACNCSL Chair of Energy, Environment, Transportation; Rep. Phylis King (D); Rep. Sally Toone (D); Rep. Sue Chew (D); Representative John McCrostie (D); and former Rep. Hy Kloc (D). On the Senate side is Sen. Maryanne Jordan (D) Senate Minority Caucus Chair and Sen. Michelle Stennett Senate Minority Leader. Not one of their legislative biographies mention their NCEL membership.
A few issues NCEL focuses on are Climate and Energy, Conservation, Environmental Health, and Environmental Justice. Part of the NCEL Conservation agenda includes wildlife corridors, land conservation, and support for public lands, with a special poll on what Idahoans think about conservation. NCEL policy options include "interagency coordination", support for "private land conservation" meaning conservation easements, rejecting "state land grabs" and to "establish state parks". Reference is also made for the need to double land conservation by 2030. There is also a link to the Center for Large Landscape Conservation: A Strategic Framework for Policy and Action report regarding wildlife corridors, however that link is broken but the report, written by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy can be found here. This report covers many aspects of large landscape conservation.
These legislators, Rep. Jordan, Rep. Wintrow, former Rep. John Gannon (D), Rep. King, Rep. Erpelding, and Rep. Rubel all signed a letter to President Trump in 2017 opposing his intent to reduce the size of national monuments.
Sen. Jordan, Sen. Stenett, Rep. Kloc, Rep. McCrostie, Rep. Chew, Rep. Erpelding, Rep. Jordan, Rep. King, Rep. Smith, Rep. Toone, Rep. Rubel, Rep. Wintrow, and former Sen. Cherie Buckner-Webb (D), now Assistant Senate Minority Leader, also signed a statement opposing President Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Climate Treaty in 2017.
This all begs the question as to who or what is leading this group of legislators, just how are their issues decided upon? Given the identified issues, it doesn't take much effort to find out.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) "is the leading global environmental authority that sets the global environmental agenda, promotes the coherent implementation of the environmental dimension of sustainable development...and serves as an authoritative advocate for the global environment", providing leadership and partnership in caring for the environment. Their topics include climate change and energy, forests and ecosystems, environmental rights and governance, and of course implementation of the Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Among its many partners for implementation of these objectives, including the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), is the NCEL. However, there is no mention of this partnership on the NCEL website.
So there you have it, UN influence over state polices through our NCEL Idaho legislators. Who are they really representing, the UN or their constitutents? Or perhaps their constituents elect them for the purposes of advancing UN objectives. Does either group know this is happening through their NCEL membership? Fortunately at this point, out of 105 legislators, it is a very small percentage. But, since part of their NCEL responsibility is to "educate their colleagues about coalition building and opposition tactics", how much influence will they have in bringing other legislators into their fold? Another reason to fully investigate all legislators for their activity, including what they hide from the public.
Non-governmental organizations (NGO) are celebrating the introduction of legislation for the "protection and restoration of certain native fish, wildlife, and plant species" on federal land called the Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act. Rep. Donald Beyer tried this before in 2016 and according to Govtrak this new bill only has a 3% chance of passing. The urgency came again following a 2018 United Nations report over mass extinction hysteria. Even though intended for federal land, the caveat includes funding conservation efforts on state and private land that encourages wildlife movement and creating a council to identify priority areas on "non-federal" lands. We all know that "council" would be NGO individuals.
Some states, such as Oregon, have passed corridor legislation, others are studying it. While NGOs hammer the federal government for this type of legislation, they are also targeting state legislators for integration of corridors and connectivity policies into state legislation. Idaho has an action plan as well, identifying areas throughout the state for corridors. But the true plans are laid out by the Craighead Institute, targeting land use plans such as comprehensive plans, local zoning and ordinances, even HOAs for inclusions of such conservation drivel.
The Western Landowners Alliance, based in New Mexico, has similar goals, advancing policies for connected landscapes. Executive Director, Lesli Allison, has started the campaign for convincing private land owners to conserve their "working lands" for migration. Translated it means designed, regulated, and restricted use.
Ms. Allison presented this powerpoint, called Intermingled Public and Private Lands, to the Western Governors Association (WGA) last year, describing her intentions with graphics. Below is the most striking graphic. As the graphic shows, the true agenda behind any corridor type is restricted and highly regulated use on all property types.
The "threats" Ms. Allison identifies in her powerpoint include development, roads, fences, livestock, and energy. Apparently she also thinks land owners are a threat as the process is "led by NGOs, government agencies". So much for her notion of working with private landowners on working lands. Ms. Allison isn't the only one looking at this "working lands" issue, the WGA held a "working lands" roundtable in April this year that included the Nature Conservancy and Bureau of Land Management, but no citizens. In spite of claims that landowners should be involved in the decisions, and listened to, it is really about deceiving them on the true agenda. The graphic shows the true intention.
If a corridor is declared on public land, the committed effort will then be plowing through private, municipal, and state land, extending the corridor from one protected area to another. Corridors, no matter what type, will have protections placed on them for banned or restricted use. As seen in the graphic, the purple shows how corridors provide "connectivity" between protected public land.
WARNING: It is critical that citizens fight any reference to corridors in local land use plans such as comprehensive plans, zoning, and ordinances. If inserted, that language will be a stepping stone for this land use restriction agenda. When it is time for comprehensive plan updates, be actively involved so this does not happen. Also, share this with your elected officials and private property owners with working lands so they understand what is happening.
Lastly, where is all of this coming from? Gary Tabor, Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) president, and Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC) Coordinating Committee member, is also the Specialist Group Leader for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Connectivity Conservation program, the purpose of which is to facilitate species conservation through protected areas. CLLC is also an IUCN member, just type in CLLC. Tabor is bringing IUCN ideology to a local level, through the NLC partnerships that include federal agencies, and it is generally understood that IUCN is a UN partner. Hello Agenda 2030.
Since information seems to mysteriously disappear off the internet once exposed, here is a copy of the powerpoint.
With the slow death of illegal Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC), the regrouping of the organizations that comprised LCCs, and new funding from foundations for continued work, the pursuit of taking land continues.
The Western Governors Association (WGA) was established in 1984 and is comprised of Governors from the western half of the United States including 19 states and 3 US territories. Their mission includes addressing policy and governance issues, advancing "the role of western states in the federal government", and strengthening social and economic factors in the region, including developing policy on natural resources, and the environment.
WGA creates a multitude of "resolutions" and "initiatives", one of which cannot be found on their website, the 2008 Wildlife Corridors Initiative. The initiative eventually established the Western Wildlife Habitat Council, which was responsible for creating the Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT) for data collection. Another tool for data collection by this initiative was the Decision Support System that maps all layers of the environment. Just a brief summary, all of this established the framework for non-governmental organization (NGO) objectives to justify the creation of wildife and other migratory corridors, identifying land for connectivity conservation, which ultimately leads to land that cannot be used and is government controlled.
This activity was accomplished without any voice from Idaho citizens. Does anyone remember these activities being brought to Idahoans for consideration, or any legislation for the same? Without going into depth on regionalism, this whole scenario is one fine example of how regionalism works and why it is so evil. Regionalism is a group of unelected individuals making decisions that bypass our representative government at all levels. This conglomerate of Governors, with their "collaborators", have created, built upon, and established policy and direction for states to meet NGO objectives, without any citizen involvement. It is also an absolute erasure of jurisdictional boundaries. For those not familiar with regionalism, better start understanding this is how our government now works, not through representation or as a Republic.
Fast forward to 2019. In the years since 2008, the WGA, federal government, and NGOs have collectively created the framework for migratory corridors, and now all of it just needs to be executed. A celebratory love fest of accomplishments was recently held through the WGA Roundtable.
While several issues were part of the 2019 WGA Western Working Lands Roundtable, only one will be the focus here, Migration Corridors. In each of the issue areas it should be noted the Roundtable consisted only of NGOs and several state and federal agencies, with no citizen representation. That is how regionalism works, and NGOs are gearing up for the assault on state legislators to advance their objectives.
The Migration Corridors panel members included Jim Heffelfinger, Arizona Game & Fish; Paul Ulrich, Jonah Energy, who is also a Nature Conservancy trustee; Matthew Skroch. Pew Charitable Trusts; and David Willms, National Wildlife Federation (NWF). While the video is worth watching, here are some highlights.
The panel essentially described how collared wildlife were used to identify the intensity of where migratory corridors exist, subsequently creating and funding "mapping teams" that have been "embedded" in each state to identify corridors. "Partnerships" between states, federal agencies, NGOs, and industry were emphasized with a paltry nod to involving more land owners. Exaggerated numbers of wildlife vehicle collisions were given for justification of using transportation as a way in which to improve wildlife connectivity. It wasn't just about wildlife corridors however, there was also emphasis on habitat that is needed for wildlife survival. Bottom line on all of this, the agenda has already been predetermined and set.
One of the most pathetic parts was David Willms stating we "didn't know migration routes existed until recently". What rock has he been living under? Ask any person who lives in more rural areas when wildlife migrate and they can tell you the species, time of year, and where. Since NWF is an United Nations NGO, and participant, Mr. Willms presentation was dripping with UN ideology pointing out corridors were an economic and "social responsibility" issue for "future generations". He also claimed "wildlife belong to everybody", "tourists come from all over the world to see wildlife", and world wildlife populations have decreased "50%". The Sage Grouse initiative was cited by Mr. Willms as the "blueprint" for corridors as it protected the habitat, stating it was a success. Perhaps he doesn't understand that poor land management as a result of that initiative resulted in the Soda Fire, destroying thousands of acres of land, not to mention the habitat and the grouse. To suggest this as a blueprint for future corridors is reprehensible, and a ominous threat to Idaho.
During the Roundtable on Coordination Between Federal Agencies, Kristin Thomasgard-Spence from the Department of Defense described their Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration Program (REPI) which buys land easements around military installations, citing "encroachment" as interfering with training. Not to be left out, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services has their own land acquisition program (Pg LA-4), and recently published a federal register notice to collect private data on land owners, including financial information and social security numbers, to be used for future land acquisitions. Of interest also is the panel discussion on Natural Resource Data Management and Landowner Privacy, which included the UN NGO Environmental Defense Fund, discussing the "mistrust" of land owners sharing information about their land, but once "relationships" are developed what wonderful work they can accomplish together. Landowners beware, don't fall for it, don't allow them on your property for data collection, and don't become friends with them.
They aren't fooling anyone, no matter how they fluff it, the goal is taking as much land as possible for government and NGO control.
NGOs are reorganizing, one of which is the Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC), having now become "global" with Idaho as a target, and openly admitting to their UN involvement. CLLC recently announced their partnership with the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators (NCEL). This partnership includes Idaho legislators who can be found here. The CLLC goal is "developing legal policies and provisions to advance corridors and connectivity conservation areas at the international, federal, state, and local level." Get to know those Idaho legislators who are involved in this.
The destruction of our Republic with regionalism was given to us by WJ Clinton in 1993 with the establishment of the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) which implemented Agenda 21. Chapter 5 and 4 are rife with NGO and regional collaboration. Federal and state governments, with UN created NGOs, are ONE, a trinity, blessing us by bestowing their gifts of taking more land for greater control. There will never be ANY resolution to ANY land issue until this is exposed, confronted, and eliminated.
A very clear picture is described here about one agenda, how it began, its progression, who is involved, and how it is being accomplished. This is only a small slice of one agenda, there are a malignancy of others. The agenda is set, this is what they are doing, and NOTHING will change until Idahoans awaken to that fact. It is not NGOs, the federal government, or state legislators. It is these three groups working together against you, an oligarchy, that has already become YOUR government, and will continue to do so. It is time to stop sitting back and waiting to see what will be done to us next. Idaho is facing an even more ominous future if nothing is done to address the source of this problem.
Although not completely confirmed, it appears the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) may be on the way out, partially due to lack of continued funding. In a scramble, how will these partnerships between non-governmental organizations (NGO), federal agencies, state agencies, and land trusts continue as a large network to accomplish their large landscape conservation goals?
There are several organizations picking up the pieces and their amassing may be a bigger threat to us than the LCCs. They are reorganizing and in doing so are becoming more aggressive. Everyone needs to become familiar with these organizations, where they do their work, their goals, and who the individual players are.
One of the most concerning is the Center For Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC). Partners include the usual, federal agencies, Western Governor's Association (WGA), large NGOs, even the United Nations (UN). At the helm is Director Gary Tabor, an IUCN participant, Senior Conservationist Rob Ament, and Renee Callahan who promotes public policy. Because public funding for LCCs is drying up, CLLC has now created a "fiscally sponsored" project, the "catalyst fund" to bring in those desperately needed dollars.
Although the catalyst fund was set up by the Network For Landscape Conservation (NLC), Jonathan Peterson from the CLLC is the fund manager. The NLC coordinating committee includes members from the Heart of the Rockies, Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), National Park Service, Nature Conservancy, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Wildlands Network, land trusts, Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, and Gary Tabor. A full list of all NLC partners can be found here, and it ain't pretty. Suffice to say, both CLLC and NLC are pretty much the same individuals and groups.
The catalyst fund is a "five-year national grant program to "accelerate the pace and practice of collaborative conservation at the landscape scale", funded by foundations. While they claim land conservation is "community-grounded", it is well known they mean their NGO partners, not local citizens, and "building capacity" is meant to increase their strength in numbers.
Led by Rob Ament, CLLC has an even more aggressive plan, targeting state legislators and agencies. In order to advance their, and other NGO connectivity goals, the target will be integrating their wildlife corridor agenda into legislation and policy. The WGA already conspired against us with the 2008 Wildlife Corridor Initiative, being used by the CLLC as one justification for their corridor agenda. And why wouldn't they, CLLC served on the WGA working policy groups that led to wildlife policy initiatives in 2010 and 2013, with multiple other NGOs serving as part of the Western Wildlife Habitat Council (pg 8) for initiative implementation. Data collection and mapping were also initiated as part of the agenda. Wildlife corridors are not the end to the saga, eventually there will be mandates for ecological corridors, biodiversity corridors, habitat corridors, riparian corridors, practically any excuse to create one, which will eventually suck up all land for restricted or banned use. In other words, control over land use, and people.
Returning to the Wildlife Connectivity document, CLLC has developed strategies for integration of their objectives into state legislation and policy. The truth is, CLLC has already decided where these wildlife corridors should be in Idaho and will lobby for the appropriate legislation, as well as having their Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG) buddies put them into policy. On page 2 is a map of priority areas, one of which is the US 20/SH87 Complex, located in Island Park (IP), Idaho. In 2016, Y2Y came in full bore with their front group to have three wildlife overpasses built at Targhee Pass based on false wildlife vehicle collision data, but IP citizens fought back, exposed the Y2Y agenda for corridors and connectivity, their embedded relationship with IDFG and the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), and how the overpass decision was pre-determined. In the most recent Environmental Assessment, the overpasses will not be built. Idahoans in other priority areas are encouraged to take note, the same will be tried in your area. As can be seen, attempts to create wildlife corridors are already being conducted.
There is nothing in the IDFG 2018-2021 Strategic plan for wildlife corridors or connectivity, this is one policy CLLC will want changed, along with State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP) for integration of wildlife corridors. Following are a few of those CLLC strategies.
"Delegate a state agency to develop...a wildlife corridor identification process, using "best available science" for criteria. As previously noted CLLC has already identified the corridors and developed their science for identification, it is already a done deal. IDFG employee Gregg Servheen, Wildlife Program Coordinator, has been in on this from the beginning, to suggest delegating a state agency for this agenda is ludicrous. NGOs will lobby legislators to "establish state policy to guide the management of identified corridors". But as seen above, there will be no need for guidance, it will be convincing legislators to put their already determined management into legislation.
"The state agency responsible for this program should have the autonomy to evaluate and apply site-specific management and work cooperatively with stakeholders. In addition to state agency-initiated corridor identification, the legislation might also include a process for the public to submit a petition to designate a corridor." IDFG will be the state agency since they are already involved, and are already autonomous as an executive agency overseen by a Governor appointed commission. Since wildlife have already been "...declared to be the property of the state of Idaho", that leaves Idahoans out of any decisions. The petition rubbish is for NGO members to create, giving a false appearance that there is public support for this corridor agenda. It has been done by them before on other issues, and is another reason for the capacity building.
"Legislators can require relevant state agencies to conduct statewide connectivity analyses using the best available science." Connectivity studies have already been conducted on wildlife linkage areas on Idaho roads and by American Wildlands. Wildlife corridors are used as linkage points between existing protected areas for connectivity.
"State legislation could include a provision that directs a state’s wildlife authority responsible for the SWAP to develop a revision that formally recognizes habitat connectivity as a priority as well as includes actionable management items to identify and conserve wildlife corridors." CLLC knows dang well IDFG is responsible for SWAP which is considered a "living" document that can be updated as new data becomes available, how convenient for the CLLC agenda. While connectivity is currently addressed in different SWAP sections, it is yet to be a priority, which is a CLLC goal.
"State agencies governing the management of wildlife, transportation, and energy should be required to develop BMPs for habitat connectivity. In areas where habitat corridors have been identified, these BMPs should be legally binding to ensure that habitat connectivity and wildlife movement are preserved." "State legislators could direct relevant state agencies to develop BMPs to protect habitat connectivity and wildlife movement for all activities permitted on state lands that are likely to otherwise result in environmental harm." Another area that has already been implemented between IDFG and ITD, and enhanced through the ITD Ecological approach agreement with the Federal Highway Administration, which just happens to be a CLLC partner as well. Once again Rob Ament and Gregg Servheen are involved.
"There are many potential policy approaches to encouraging conservation action on private lands. The most well-known approach is a conservation easement...". Within the McArthur Lake Wildlife Corridor aggressive action has already taken land for easements by federal and Idaho agencies in partnerships with NGOs. Forever prohibiting land use is the goal with wildlife corridors.
"Authorize state agencies to institute public-private partnerships...fund state programs to engage citizens in citizen-science projects...that need additional data for decision-making around connectivity policymaking...request information from citizens...to help inform where wildlife corridors exist...". IDFG is already moving towards corporatism, aided by federal legislation. The "citizen-science" actually references the IDFG Idaho Master Naturalist program which partners with Y2Y, and since the data has already been collected for connectivity corridor linkages, the stage has been set to feed it to legislators. Other data collection is already in place through the IFWIS, a member of NatureServe, with a special category for land management and conservation which is not accessible to the general public. The Great Northern LCC already created the Decision Support System (DSS) called Data Basin, in which Gregg Servheen participated with his "best science".
There is a rather large section in the connectivity document for wildlife corridor funding through general fund appropriations, constitutional amendments, federal and foundation initiatives, and conservation banking, claiming that all of this enjoys "wide citizen support". They mean themselves.
In addition to analyzing how he could interject his agenda into federal policy, Rob Ament also reviewed federal policy progress for connectivity. Since there is increasing federal support for wildlife corridors via Sec. Zinke Secretarial Order 3362, and the reintroduced Wildlife Corridor Act, Mr. Ament may be right. The Sierra Club helped write the legislation, along with other NGO support (Y2Y, ICL, GYC among them).
The truth is, CLLC and the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) have already created the "best science" to justify where wildlife corridors should be in Idaho, it is just a matter of telling legislators and IDFG where they want them, without consideration of Idaho citizens, or local jurisdictional authority. However, since IDFG was paid to inform the public, one should assume Idahoans already know. Mentioned in the NWF document are "Proposed wildlife crossings", one way in which corridors can be created using exaggerated wildlife vehicle collision data.
It is never about land protection or conservation, it is about taking control over land use. Citizens in Ventura, California understand this as they fought land use restrictions with their wildlife corridor, and lost. Not only do their restrictions involve rezoning 30% of land, it also devalues the land, destroys the agriculture sector, and increases fire risks. For all Idahoans, let this be a lesson to learn if wildlife corridors are imposed, the same set up for this garbage is in play here.
Idaho does have a statute that is suppose to protect private property rights in local land use planning, however NGOs are already taking a look at local zoning and land use ordinances for conservation design changes. Idahoans may want to consider working with county commissioners to integrate a ban on wildlife corridor designation in local land use policies before the NGOs get to them.
Potential NGO lobbyists for this CLLC agenda include Rialin Flores, Conservation Voters for Idaho; Suzanne Stone, Defenders of Wildlife (DOW); Jonathan Oppenheimer, Idaho Conservation League (ICL); Brian Brooks, Idaho Wildlife Federation (IWF); Willam Whelan, The Nature Conservancy (TNC); and Michael Gibson, Trout Unlimited (TU), all of which, except one, are Y2Y partners, which partners with CLLC.
In 2015, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) launched the connectivity conservation project, "which will provide policy and legislative tools and resources to national governments, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders." A UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) was set up with the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN WCPA), a CLLC partner. Their partners include "national governments", but who needs that partnership when you have Gary Tabor doing the work for them at a state level.
The Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group, of which CLLC provides support along with the IUCN, wants to protect 50% of natures land mass, interfere with transportation projects to execute their goals with Rob Ament as a member of the working group, all the while using corridors for connectivity. Remembering CLLC Director Gary Tabor is an IUCN member, he is also Vice Chair of the WCPA Connectivity Conservation Working Group, bringing the UN right to your front door. These facts are why the CLLC and NLC regrouping is more threatening to us than the LCCs.
Yep, no need to worry folks, just sit back and relax. The UN, NGOs, individuals, and the government have this all figured out for you, where you can live. how you can use your private property, and how Idaho should be reconfigured for animals. Representation by local officials is no longer needed so don't worry about practicing self-governance, or functioning as a Republic, there is no conspiratorial shadow government operating here, or a deep state. Local county authority over land use has and will continue to be completely obliterated by these well thought out agendas, especially when the legislature has been infiltrated by NGO representatives. It is all transparent.
Perhaps we would all be wise to remember the sacrifices made by our Founders, who so deeply understood tyrannical governments, and the price of freedom. At what cost is freedom?
The federal government has increasingly been engaging in public-private partnerships (P3) as a way in which to fund projects. A huge portion of these partnerships involves conservation and land use, but not to the advantage of Idahoans. Rep. Simpson was previously involved in the Boulder-White Clouds designation as a wilderness and actively engaged with the Idaho Conservation League to get that accomplished. Aside from his alliance with non-governmental organizations (NGO), who they themselves are heavily financed by foundations, he is now taking a direct turn to corporate troughs for their endless pit of money, money that is often used to suck up land for non-use, known as syndicated conservation easements.
Sen. Risch and Idaho Fish & Game have also turned to corporate money to fund conservation. It seems Rep. Simpson has adopted that approach. Along with Rep. Kilmer (D-WA), Rep. Simpson introduced the Land and National Park Deferred Maintenance (LAND) Act. Federal "investment" using corporate profits? Using energy revenues, this bill would "...permanently reauthorize LWCF and create new dedicated funding to address the maintenance backlog at National Parks and other public lands.". The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was allowed to expire September 30, 2018, and for good reason. As Rep. Bishop points out, the original LWCF intent was to “preserve, develop and ensure access to outdoor recreation facilities" splitting money between state funding and federal land acquisition, with 60 percent going to states. Because of intense lobbying by environmental groups, the majority of that money now goes to the federal government for land acquisition, having added another 5 million acres of land under federal control.
Corporatism over our lands advanced after Bass Pro founder John L. Morris, with other corporate and NGO friends, created the Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) in 2014 to fund State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP), which targets species and habitats for conservation, for 1.3 billion. The same 1.3 billion dollars keeps popping up in other legislation. Restore Our Parks and Public Lands Act, introduced in 2018, also addresses the same maintenance backlog of parks, with the same 1.3 billion, in addition to Rep. Simpson's and Sen. Risch's bills. President Trump even previously budgeted Department of Interior money from sales of energy resources on public land for park maintenance backlog in 2018, and again this year. A full accounting of the Department of Interior 2019 budget can be found here. If corporate money is used for these activities, who has control over the land and how it is used? Will our national parks become corporate dens? Environmental groups are thrilled to potentially have their trough restored, regardless of which bill succeeds or where the money comes from.
It should be no surprise that P3 "investments" are increasing. Throughout Agenda 21 are references to creating P3's for Sustainable Development (SD) implementation. NGOs such as Yellowstone to Yukon are heavily funded by foundations and governments, admit to corporate funding, and are even allowed to accept foreign funding for SD. If energy revenues are used for maintenance backlog, what will be the payoff for the corporation in advertising and product distribution? Concern about corporate involvement from corporate donations has already been raised, just how much corporate control will there be through the influence of a P3? What concerns will there be with large sums of money that rebuild infrastructure? Who will get the sweetest deal? How much advertising will be allowed with slogans like, "This eco-restroom was proudly restored by Shell"? We have already seen our sports stadiums being renamed in the honor of some corporation, will this become the direction for our parks? National Parks have a permitting process for commercial activities with requirements on allowed activities. What constraints will be created for corporate financing though a P3?
Below is a short video on Agenda 21 P3. Or a slightly longer version is here.
Agenda 2030 is no exception for P3, if anything it is an advancement. Keeping in mind that the United Nations (UN) has partnerships with major corporations to implement SD, a.k.a. Agenda 21/2030, it is the natural course for them to use these partnerships as an avenue to integrate their agenda into governments with P3. Because of the SD goals for changing our infrastructure, corporate funding becomes necessary, at least according to the UN, even holding conferences on it. This is a natural way in which to fund and advance their agenda, the caveat for money acquisition is corporate SD requirements, and so very sadly, our elected officials fall for it. Or do they know about it and agree? With P3s, the UN is directing us into corporatism, where our country will be run by corporations through our government, and they have a plan just for that, Vision 2050, it is all laid out on what the world will look like with corporate governance.
Why, Why, Why do we continually fail to remove traitors of our Constitution from elected office? Why are we not able to come together enough for a force that will end this continued destruction of our sovereignty? We cannot continue to haplessly stand by and allow this to happen. President Trump says America will never be a socialist country, yet everything now continues to lead us that way, and in some cases we are already there. P3s are just another way in which it is being done.
Contact Rep. Simpson and let him know you vehemently oppose his bill that destroys our sovereignty, that we do not want corporations funding our public lands, that the LWCF should not be renewed due to its use as a government trough for accruing more land, and if he chooses to not listen to his constituents every effort will be made to remove him from office at the next election, or sooner by recall. Pass this on to everyone you know, have them pass it on. It doesn't just affect Idahoans, it will affect every citizen in America.
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.
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.
Update: 2019 Because Idaho has a statute that forbids other state ownership of utilities, this case was settled in court.
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!