Senate Democrats Declare Water War

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 2011  -  by NUNES STAFF

Last week, the House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing about the San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act. The bill, which is co-authored by valley Republicans Devin Nunes, Kevin McCarthy, and Jeff Denham, generated strong opposition from Democrat lawmakers but has the backing of a re-invigorated Republican Conference and its leadership.

Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy made a rare appearance at the subcommittee hearing in support of the bill and reminded his colleagues that Governor Brown had declared an end to California’s drought. He continued that California’s snow-pack had reached 165% this year but that farmers would not get 100% of their water. “That’s like a company having its best profits ever but telling its employees they will only get 80% of their paycheck,” said McCarthy. “That’s unacceptable.”

Nunes and his allies are seeking to achieve several major changes to the management of California’s water infrastructure. Their plan includes the restoration of a bipartisan agreement known as the Bay-Delta Accord. It also revamps the San Joaquin River restoration, replacing it with an economically responsible and environmentally feasible fishery— saving taxpayers a billion dollars.

Rep. John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove), who had touted the Delta Accord as a model agreement in the 1990s, shifted position dramatically and equated it as a declaration of war with no hope of Senate passage. Shortly after the hearing, California’s Senior Senator Dianne Feinstein told the San Francisco Chronicle, "I strongly oppose this bill, which I believe is dramatic overkill."

During his opening statement, Garemendi decried the bill’s pre-emption of state law saying “this little piece of genius” would end collaboration between state and federal water projects. The bill “makes it virtually impossible,” he said. Westlands representative Tom Birmingham took aim at Garamendi’s interpretation of the bill and corrected him on historic and current operation of the projects. Federal law already pre-empts state law concerning project operations on the Trinity, he reminded the committee, and there was no similar outrage when that pre-emption occurred.

When asked about opposition from Senate Democrats, Nunes said he was disappointed but not surprised. “This is a declaration of war on the only meaningful plan before Congress to solve the San Joaquin Valley water crisis.” Nunes continued that if “California’s senators would change their tune if Congress imposed a 70% reduction on deliveries from Hetch Hetchy. Senator Feinstein would no doubt be happy to hand the City of San Francisco’s water over unconditionally since she thinks it will save the Delta.”

Feinstein transmitted her official opposition to the bill just days after attending a fundraiser at Harris Ranch, which is located in the San Joaquin Valley—only miles from water starved farmland. According to those in attendance, Feinstein committed to working on a solution. “I don’t see how anyone with valley interests in mind can trust them, which is why I have been talking to Senate Republicans,” said Nunes.

Nunes also sought to remind critics that there are many options on the table to gain passage of legislation and that he would be leveraging all of them to aid the San Joaquin Valley. This will undoubtedly keep the bill’s opponents on their toes. House Appropriators have already stripped funding for the San Joaquin River Settlement from the federal budget, a major blow to the plan which is already off schedule and underfunded.

Once lawmakers had completed their opening remarks, testimony was received from local water districts, as well as state and federal representatives. Obama and Brown Administration officials opposed the bill, maintaining their view that the Delta pumps were damaging the ecosystem, impacting a number of species including the smelt, salmon and killer whale. Administration officials also touted the importance of current policies, which they described as balanced, to protect the Delta ecosystem.

Advocates of H.R. 1837 were quick to note, however, that no new evidence was provided to support these conclusions. The disclosure of scientific evidence to support pumping restrictions was made necessary by a U.S. District Court ruling in May. The court determined that the government had failed to base its decisions on science and sent regulators back to the drawing table.

Kole Upton, a Madera farmer and former San Joaquin River Settlement negotiator, rejected Interior’s testimony that current policies were balanced and called for the replacement of the current river restoration plan as envisioned by H.R. 1837. Upton explained that farmers were being subject to a slow death due to water diversions and that broken promises related to the San Joaquin river deal convinced him to seek changes.

The Kern County Water Agency also offered testimony, indicating that H.R. 1837 would restore stability to the Delta and improve water supplies. The agency’s representative, James Beck, said that all water contractors, state and federal, would be protected under the proposed law— supporting Nunes’ contention that his goal is not to harm any water contractors. This testimony undermined one of the key arguments made by bill opponents, which suggest that a small minority would benefit under the bill.

When asked about the allegation that his bill would come at the expense of other water contractors and the environment, Nunes was dismissive. “They are attempting to deceive the public which is the only way they can survive. They think they can obstruct this legislation by dividing California’s embattled water districts and hiding their own financial interests. It won’t work.”

Nunes then described an alliance of convenience between environmental activists, a small number of Delta farmers and salmon fishermen, indicating that each will likely be represented at an additional hearing called by committee Democrats who are attempting to slow passage of the bill. “They have all benefited from the status quo. Delta farmers have been able to hide from reality on their islands, fishermen have filled their pockets with tax dollars, and radical environmentalists have assumed greater control over the state’s water,” said Nunes.

Delta farmers may fear the upending of current water management policies because those policies have to-date placed the financial and operational burdens for Delta restoration on others – primarily south of Delta water contractors. Under current law, little attention has been paid to this small but vocal group of farmers who enjoy unlimited access to the Delta’s fresh water supplies. During panel questioning, Rep. Jeff Denham underscored the uneven burden placed on water contractors by pointing out that San Francisco secures its water via pipeline from Hetch Hetchy, completely bypassing the Delta. This has allowed Bay Area activists to escape the consequences of their actions while forcing others to make sacrifices.

Similarly, elements of the west’s small sport and commercial salmon fishing industries have benefited from the status quo. The 1,722 permit holding fishermen collected hundreds of millions of federal tax dollars from 2007-2009. Nunes calls this money a payoff for their environmental activism, which was enacted under Democratic supermajorities. Several recipients made out with more than half a million dollars, with 213 fishermen walking away with six figure checks. And while some have claimed that the industry is 100% unemployed, regulators documented deliveries of sardine, mackerel, anchovy, squid and other species, effectively refuting the allegation that salmon fishermen are unable to work.

Nunes says that despite controversy generated by these groups, House leaders remain unfazed. A markup and full House consideration will likely follow this summer. Meanwhile, San Joaquin Valley residents have benefited from significant exposure beyond the greater Central Valley. The region’s water crisis has been highlighted nationally and is followed by the Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity and others. In 2009, the Wall Street Journal opined that Central Valley farmers are California’s new endangered species. This prognosis may change if House Republicans succeed.

POSTED BY CONGRESSMAN DEVIN NUNES AT WEDNESDAY, JUNE 08, 2011

Related:

Sean Hannity Travels to California’s Fields – From Country’s Bread Basket to Grapes of Wrath Dust Bowl Over 2” Minnow – Turn on the Water! (Sept 2009)

San Joaquin Valley CA Federally Created Dust Bowl Water Crisis Meeting 

Federally Created Dust Bowl in CA – Another Test Crisis??

Politics and Drought In California from NPR

Feed Me, Obama, Feed Me: The Plan for Food Dependency

What does any would-be tyrant need in order to gain control over the lives of citizens?  Three things come to mind: martial law, socialized medicine, and food dependency.

In at least two of these categories, President Obama has already succeeded.

Martial Law

By way of executive proclamation, President Obama has secured for himself the power to declare martial law in the event of a national "emergency," real or contrived, and without the accountability typically required by the Posse Comitatus Act and the National Emergencies Act of 1976.

This is the legacy of the "conservative" Bush administration.  National emergencies have now been transformed into power-grabbing devices thanks to the virtually unnoticed National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 51.

NSPD 51 empowers the president to co-opt all state and local government authority in the event that he declares a national emergency.  This is a self-declared power not subjugated to the National Emergencies Act of 1976 as in previous directives.

President Obama quickly went beyond NSPD 51, signing an order creating a "Council of Governors" who would be put in charge of declaring martial law.  The directive is in direct violation of Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Act.  This "Council of Governors" answers only to President Obama.

In October of last year, President Obama declared a national emergency in the midst of the much-hyped swine flu crisis.  This declaration was largely overlooked.  By combining his October declaration with the provisions of NSPD 51, President Obama can now be considered virtually uninhibited by Congress and free to flip the switch at any moment.

Socialized Medicine

Whether or not Republicans achieve repeal, a precedent has been set.  It is unlikely that the full damage of ObamaCare can be completely undone without Republican control of the White House.  The U.S. government can now dictate the coverage and benefits of most Americans -- i.e., those on Medicaid, Medicare, and SCHIP, which together account for thirty percent of the population.  In addition, government can punish Americans without insurance with unconstitutional fees and fine employers who refuse to provide every single employee with premium health benefits, making economic recovery unlikely.

In previous articles, I have explained the deadly dimension to ObamaCare as currently construed, demonstrating the serious potential for the mass destruction of human life on the basis of erroneous factors like "hospital readmission."  Who will challenge federal officials with health care at stake?  Who would seriously suggest that health care will not be used as a political weapon?  When the government has all power and no accountability, it has very little reason to use that power responsibly.  Accountability is what makes the American model work.  But accountability is removed with ObamaCare.

The one area where elites have been so far reluctant to venture is food.  Food is the stuff of life.  Control over food would mean direct control over the political decisions of average Americans.  The elites have slipped the slope, passing legislation that will give federal bureaucrats jurisdiction over food "production" -- i.e., who produces food, what kinds of food are produced, and in what quantities.  However, this is not a debate about food regulation or food inspection.  What is taking place is in fact a coup d'état, with dinner tables as the strategic weapons.

Food Dependency

The greatest tyrants in history have used food as a method of control.  To state the obvious, people must eat to live.  By controlling the flow of food to people who side with the political intelligentsia, rule is established.  People may challenge tyranny when they have meat on the table.  But who in their right mind would bite the hands of their benefactors (so called)?

Meet the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), a new legislative proposal designed to centralize control over food stocks to protect Americans from "terror."

The motive may indeed be to protect the food supply from the actions of terrorists, but what about acts of government terror?  Can centralized control by the government protect the people against the whims of human nature?  This question is not being asked by those so in favor of surrendering control of food to an entity that cannot even manage a budget, much less an oil spill or other natural disaster.  Now we are to believe that this same inefficient, broken entity can guarantee the safety of our food?  Something stinks, and it smells like government cheese.  Usually when people ask for power, it is because they want power, regardless of the stated motive.

What good, for example, can be gained from removing the right of Americans to grow their own food, as several of the provisions of the Food Safety Modernization Act do?  The Ninth Amendment arguably guarantees this and other unenumerated rights.  The Ninth Amendment reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

To clarify, how can the rights to life, liberty, and property enshrined in the Constitution exist without the ability of citizens to attend to bodily needs -- i.e., sustenance?

The FSMA doesn't merely wrest control of the food supply from citizens.  Dangerously, the FSMA proceeds to transfer U.S. food sovereignty to the WTO, with one provision reading, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the U.S. is a party."  This provision is significant, since the WTO draws all its food safety standards from the controversial Codex Alimentarius, which is thought by some to be a vast postwar scheme to control the world's population by means of food.  The bottom line vis-à-vis food is that Americans lose control, and foreign bureaucrats gain control.

Even if the alleged motive were legitimate, the FDA already inspects food imports, albeit quite poorly.  The federal government already possesses the necessary power to thwart terrorist contamination of the food supply.  This proposal, then, is not really about protecting food, but instead about controlling food -- and by extension, controlling Americans.  We must resist while the fruits of the field are still here for the picking.

President Obama is willing to shut off the water in a small town in the heart of America's agricultural center.  Might he be willing to stop shipments of food to politically opposed states?

By John Griffing 

Source:  American Thinker

h/t to Anglo

48 Comments on "Feed Me, Obama, Feed Me: The Plan for Food Dependency"

Related:

Federally  Created Dust Bowl in CA – Another Test Crisis??

San Joaquin Valley CA Federally Created Dust Bowl – Water Crisis Meeting

Austria in 1938

Iconic American vs. Reality

Senate Bill S510 Makes it Illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrown Food

In Sunday-evening surprise, Senate unanimously passed food safety bill… really?

" Is life so dear, or peace sweet, as to be purchased at the price of Chains and Slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!"
…Patrick Henry

Agenda 21 UN: The History of Sustainable Development - Connecting the Dots - Funding from Omnibus

Agenda 21, Private Property and National Sovereignty

f you think Agenda 21 is just a conspirarcy theory, I assure you it is not. I, too, once thought this was too incredible to believe and dismissed it as conspiracy theory. but it kept coming to me in different ways; i.e. folks who had attended local government meetings on land use, local commissioners for planning and zoning confronted with a so-called consensus of the community that threatened private property, and many other ways.

That is why I have dedicated the past six months to researching the United Nations policies in Agenda 21 that have been adopted by every level of government in our nation. The information I am providing you is the result of my extensive research to connect the dots to what is happening in my own community.

If we don't mobilize on this issue, we have no chance of stopping it and America will be completely and permanently transformed. Private property will be abolished and all sovereignty will be lost.

You are about to learn how "sustainable development" was born and how it is being implemented all across America.

The concept of sustainable development arose after the 1974 United Nations adoption of a Declaration for the establishment of a "New International Economic Order" .

The document was written by developing countries and called for:

• The regulation of multi-national Corporations
• Authority to nationalize foreign property
• Authority to establish commodity monopolies
• The transfer of technology and technical assistance

The document showed clearly that the delegates to the U.N. General Assembly accepted the idea that governments should virtually control the economy. That equity was the primary objective. This document was largely ignored by developed nations. But many of these U.N. Delegates took these ideas to other U.N. conferences.

For example, the 1976 U.N. conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I).

Here is an excerpt from the Preamble:

"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.  Private land ownership is also the principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, and therefore, contributes to social injustice..."

This preamble sets the stage for 65 pages of very specific land use recommendations. Among the many recommendations are:

• A-1. Redistribute population in accord with resources
• D-1. Government must control the use of land to achieve equitable distribution of resources
• D-2. Control land use through zoning & land-use planning
• D-3. Excessive profits from land use must be recaptured by government
• D-4. Public ownership of land should be used to exercise urban and rural land reform
• D-5. Owner rights should be separated from development rights which should be held by a public authority.

This established the direction of the U.N.'s recommendation.

Among the signers on behalf of the United States were Carla Hills, Secretary of HUD and William Reilly, Conservation Foundation and later the Administrator for the EPA. Also in attendance were:

• Nine agencies of the federal government
• Sierra Club
• National Audubon Society
• Friends of the Earth
• Conservation Foundation
• League of Women Voters

The term "sustainable development" entered the vocabulary during the 1990's and has virtually permeated every facet of American life. The term was first defined in the United Nations 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment & Development called "Our Common Future". The Commission was chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland who was also Vice-Chair of the World Socialist Party.

Our Common Future defines sustainable development to be:

"Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

Sustainable development is illustrated to depict the proper balance between social equity, the environment, and economic development. Note that what is called sustainable is the perfect balance between policies related to these three all-encompassing areas of life.

The United Nations General Assembly asked the World Commission on Environment and Development, also called the Brundtland Commission, to "...propose long term Strategies for achieving sustainable development by the year 2000 and beyond...".

Five years later the plan called Agenda 21 was unveiled at the 1992 Conference on Environment & Development. The conference was chaired by Maurice Strong who was also a member of the Brundtland Commission.

In it's 40 chapters, Agenda 21 addresses virtually every aspect of life. Each chapter presents many policy recommendations that member nations are expected to adopt.

Some of the more important chapters are:

5. Demographics & Sustainability

7. Human Settlements (the foundation for "sustainable communities")

10. Planning & Management of Land

18. Management of Water

30. The role of Business & Industry

38. International Mechanisms & Institutions (are seen to be the coordinators of worldwide sustainable development)

Agenda 21 calls for the creation of:

"...National strategies, plans, policies, and processes which are crucial in achieving a sustainable world."

Note: The ratification of the Biodiversity Treaty, Agenda 21, was never voted on by Senate after Dr. Michael Coffman presented this map of the proposed development of the "wildlands" under Agenda 21 in the United States.

The areas you see in red represents wilderness reserves which will be off limits to humans. Areas in yellow represents highly regulated buffer zones where human existence will be greatly restricted. The areas in green represent zones for normal use of high density mixed use urban areas. This is where you'll be allowed to live.

Six months after his inauguration, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order #12852 which created the President's Council On Sustainable Development on June 29 1993.

The Council's Membership included:

• Twelve Cabinet-level Federal Officials
• Jonathan Lash, Pres. World Resources Institute
• John Adams, Ex. Dir. National Resources Defense Council
• Dianne Dillon-Ridgley, Pres. Zero Population
• Michelle Perrault, International V.P., Sierra Club
• John C. Sawhill, Pres. The Nature Conservancy
• Jay D. Hair, Pres. World Conservation Union (IUCN)
• Kenneth L. Lay, CEO, Enon Corporation
• William D. Ruckelshaus, Chm., Browning-Ferris Industries & former EPA Administrator

Their purpose was to translate the recommendations set forth in Agenda 21 into public policy administered by the federal government. They created the American version of Agenda 21 called "Sustainable America - A New Consensus".

The ideas that came out of the U.N. conferences mentioned above, are emerging in public policy in the United States.

The Consensus Process -

The most important dimension to the implementation of sustainable development policies.

Using the consensus process, an initiator carefully selects members of the affected group to participate on a decision making committee. The decision making committee never votes. Consensus is the process by which objections to the proposal are extinguished. This is contrary to the democratic process in which the affected group elects representatives. The representatives debate and then vote. The affected group then abides by the decisions. If the affected group is dissatisfied with the decision, they can elect new representatives to reflect their wishes. Using the consensus process, the affected group has no voice in choosing the decision makers.

Sustainable development was brought to America when President Clinton (initiator) initiated the President's Council on Sustainable Development. This decision-making committee began with Agenda 21 as its proposal. Its goal was to translate Agenda 21 into public policy.

An early achievement of the council was the development of 16 "We Believe" statements among which is No. 8.

"We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural, and financial resources in achieving our goals."

This new collaborative process is the "consensus process".

The PCSD operated from 1993 - 1999. Their first major publication was "Sustainable America - A New Consensus". It contained more than 150 policy recommendations taken directly from Agenda 21.

At the eleventh meeting of the council, after the recommendations had been developed, then Secretary of the Dept. Of Commerce, Ron Brown, said that his agency could implement 67% of the recommendations administratively using rule making authority. Other department secretaries reported similar numbers.

Agenda 21 and Private Property

The recommendations covered a wide range of public policies. Among the most important are land use policies. Sustainable America says:

"Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological or aesthetic consequences... The key to overcoming it is through public policies...(p.112)."

The 1990's saw an expansion of government control of land use. In 1997, the federal government already owned about 1/3 of all the land in America. State and local governments owned another 10%. The federal government designated and expanded 21 National Monuments, designated 43 million acres of "roadless" areas, and appropriated millions in grants to states and local governments and land trusts for the purpose of acquiring more private property. These activities were promoted by the land management agencies, all members of the PCSD.

Millions in grants were awarded to the American Planning Association between 1997 - 2000. The EPA and other agencies issued millions more in challenge grants to local governments and organizations for "visioning" projects.

During the 1990's there emerged a rash of visioning projects in towns and cities across the nation. They were typically called something like "Yourtown 2020". They were all the result of the PCSD and funded by grants by an agency of the government who was a member of the PCSD.

The EPA, for example, would issue challenge grants for visioning projects to NGO's (non-government organizations) and to local governments. The grant recipient would designate an initiator who would select the visioning council. Those selected would be politicians, agency bureaucrats, bankers, NGO leaders, and Businessmen. Those selected would be known in advance to support the goals of the initiator and most stand to gain financially from the implementation of the goals.

Smart Growth

To spread this process across the country, the EPA coordinated a Smart Growth Network consisting of dozens of non-government organizations which included:

• American Planning Association
• The Conservation Fund
• The Natural Resources Defense Council
• The Sierra Club

All of these organizations have promoted government control of land use since the 1976 U.N. conference.

In each of the communities where visioning councils were established, their starting proposal was the recommendations of the PCSD. Their objective was to:

• Present PCSD recommendations as local goals for the community
• Through the consensus process, remove any objections that might arise
• Develop specific recommendations to achieve goals

The result became the "Yourtown 2020 Plan of Action".

This process takes typically 12 - 18 months during which the local initiator begins to issue press releases and to involve local media to introduce the idea of building a sustainable community. The idea is to build so much public support for the sustainable community as defined by the "Yourtown 2020 Plan of Action", that elected officials will have no choice but to rubber stamp it.

Funding continues to flow from government agencies to local governments and non-government organizations for the purpose of implementing sustainable development. For example, HUD's Sustainable Community Regional Planning has recently awarded nearly $100 million for innovative regional planning proposals.

Hundreds of NGO's were funded to launch the "visioning process" in communities across the country. An NGO (initiator) will begin the visioning process by carefully selecting representatives from various stakeholder groups (environment, business, education, agriculture, government) to serve as the visioning committee or council. Those chosen to serve on this council are well-vetted and known to support the goals of sustainable development.

The visioning process consists of series of meetings in which a trained facilitator leads the group of stakeholder representatives, to suggest goals for the community that will create the best possible future. These suggestions are typically written on a chalkboard, then organized into categories.

Since Agenda 21's 40 chapters and the hundreds of policy recommendations from the PCSD cover virtually every aspect of human existence, the visioning councils' ideas are easily organized into categories addressed by sustainable development documents.

Once the goals are identified and organized, the next step is to develop consensus. Consensus is NOT agreement. Consensus is the absence of expressed opposition. Testimony by attendees of such a meeting reveals that objections are put off by the facilitator. The questions are never answered and the objections are never made public and all are dismissed, ignored, or discredited.

Agenda 21 is the Bible for Sustainable Development as outlined in its four sections:

Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions (8 Chapters)
Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development (14 Chapters)
Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups (10 Chapters)
Section IV: Means of Implementation (8 Chapters)

The Quest for Eutopia

The PCSD's Sustainable America is a revised version of Agenda 21 that focuses directly on transforming domestic policy to implement the recommendations of Agenda 21. To bring about the perfect balance between the environment, the economy, and social equity (redistribution of wealth) in all developments.

Ironically, most of the people involved with the process have never heard of Agenda 21 or Sustainable America. But the sponsoring NGO or agency knows exactly what it is and what his role is in implementing its policies.

That's why every recommendation in the final land use development plan and the procedure for developing the plan can be traced back to the recommendations in Agenda 21 and Sustainable America.

ICLEI, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, is an international association of local governments as well as national and regional local government organizations who have made a commitment to sustainable development.

ICLEI provides technical consulting, training, and information services to build capacity, share knowledge, and support local government in the implementation of sustainable development at the local level. Their basic premise is that locally designed initiatives can provide an effective and cost-efficient way to achieve local, national, and global sustainability objectives.

There are 609 dues-paying members (counties/cities) of ICLEI in the United States. There are 18 members (counties/cities) in Virginia.

ICMA, International City/County Management Association, is an organization of professional local government leaders building sustainable communities worldwide. The ICMA partners and works in concert with ICLEI.

ICMA provides technical and management assistance, training, and information resources in the areas of performance measurement, ethics education and training, community and economic development, environmental management, technology, and other topics to its members and the broader local government community.

The American Planning Association is one of many members of the PCSD. They partner with ICLEI & ICMA in the implementation of sustainable development. The APA published "Managing Growth and Development in Virginia: A Review of the Tools Available to Localities" to provide the tools necessary to implement sustainable development in Virginia.

The Renaissance Planning Group is an urban planning firm. They played a critical role in Florida's "Forever Program". The Forever Program is Florida's premier conservation and recreation lands acquisition program. Florida Forever is the largest public land acquisition program of its kind in the United States. With approximately 9.8 million acres of conservation land in Florida, more than 2.4 million acres were purchased under the Florida Forever and P2000 programs.

The Commonwealth of Virginia and Agenda 21

In 2007, the Virginia state legislature passed HB 3202 mandating that counties with the prescribed growth rate establish high density urban development areas.

To date, 67 counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia are required to implement the very same policies called for in Agenda 21's biodiversity plan. This requirement by the state forces local governments to compromise your private property through rezoning measures called for in the Smart Growth program for sustainable development.

The comprehensive land use plan is being steered by planning groups under the guise of "protecting the environment" through manipulation by facilitated stakeholder consensus councils. Though their meetings are open to the public, they are void of any public input. The predetermined outcome severely restricts land use and compromises private property ownership in an already distressed market.

The Renaissance Planning Group is currently working with APA and ICMA to implement the policies of Agenda 21 and Sustainable America and to meet the requirements of HB 3202 in Virginia. If successful, this is what Virginia and the surrounding states will look like on the biodiversity map.

The Renaissance Planning Groups's current project is creating the vision and development of Chesterfield County's Comprehensive Land-Use Plan. Their local stakeholder representative group is called the "steering committee". You can find more information on the "visioning process", comprehensive land use plan, countrywide plan, steering committee, and the process here. Research reveals that this process is typical of the process in every county in Virginia.

Videos of most, but not all, of their "Steering Committee" meetings can be found here. In viewing the videos, one can see that while the facilitator seems genuinely sincere in wanting to address concerns and answer questions that arise, he really never does.

The Greening of Education

Agenda 21 calls for environment and sustainable development principles to be put at the core of the curriculum K-12. There was a recent survey of the progress of "The Greening Virginia Program K-12"in 12 of the 134 school districts in Virginia.

Here is the report on Greening Virginia Colleges and Universities.

Greening Programs are at the core of the curriculum at every level of education nationwide as required by the policies set forth by the U.S. Department of Education.

Resources for more Greening Virginia (sustainable development) Projects can be found here.

Despite the Senate's refusal to ratify the Biodiversity Treaty in 1994, the Agenda 21 policies called for by the convention, are being implemented nationwide. No matter where you live, rest assured Agenda 21 policies are being implemented in your community.

SPECIAL NOTE: Credit for the research behind the creation of this paper goes to VA C4L Director of Research, Amy Strong, and her research team.

Right Side News

Omnibus will fund millions to Agenda 21 projects

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 4:09:39 PM · by wheresmyusa · 16 replies

Senate.gov ^ | 12/14/2010 | U.S. Senate

Not only is the Food Safety Modernization Act in the Omnibus Bill (pg. 1685), it also authorizes MILLIONS in spending on sustainable agriculture and sustainable development. Following is the most blatant example:

Pg. 1589

Of the amounts made available under this heading, 9 $150,000,000 shall be made available for a Sustainable Communities Initiative to improve regional planning ef forts that integrate housing and transportation decisions, and increase the capacity to improve land use and zoning: Provided, That grants under such Initiative may only be made to metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), rural planning organizations, States or other units of general local government, Indian tribes, and housing-, economic development- or transportation-related nonprofit organizations:

Provided further, That $100,000,000 shall be for Regional Integrated Planning Grants to support the linking of transportation and land use planning:

Provided further, That not less than $25,000,000 of the funding made available for Regional Integrated Planning Grants shall be awarded to metropolitan areas of less than 500,000:

Provided further, That $40,000,000 shall be for Community Challenge Planning Grants to foster reform and reduce barriers to achieve affordable, economically vital, and sustainable communities

(Excerpt) Read more at appropriations.senate.gov ...

Post #7

p. 1579

Provided further, That of the
3 amounts provided under this heading, up to $90,000,000
4 may be available for a demonstration of the Choice Neigh
5 borhoods Initiative (subject to such section 24 except as
6 otherwise specified under the provisos for this demonstra
7 tion under this heading) for the transformation, rehabili
8 tation and replacement housing needs of both public and
9 HUD-assisted housing and to transform neighborhoods of
10 poverty into functioning, sustainable mixed income neigh
11 borhoods with appropriate services, public assets, trans
12 portation and access to jobs and schools, including public
13 schools, community schools and charter schools: Provided
14 further, That for this demonstration, funds may also be
15 used for the conversion of vacant or foreclosed properties
16 to affordable housing: Provided further, That use of funds
17 made available for this demonstration under this heading
18 shall not be deemed to be public housing notwithstanding
19 section 3(b)(1) of such Act: Provided further, That grant
20 ees shall commit to an additional period of affordability,
21 determined by the Secretary, but not fewer than 20 years:
22 Provided further, That grantees shall undertake com
23 prehensive local planning with input from residents and
24 the community:

p. 1590

1 Community Challenge Planning Grants to foster reform
2 and reduce barriers to achieve affordable, economically
3 vital, and sustainable communities: Provided further, That
4 before funding is made available for Regional Integrated
5 Planning Grants or Community Challenge Planning
6 Grants, the Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary
7 of Transportation, shall submit a plan to the House and
8 Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Senate Com
9 mittee on Banking and Urban Affairs, and the House
10 Committee on Financial Services detailing any changes to
11 the grant criteria or performance measures by which the
12 success of grantees will be measured that were first estab
13 lished in fiscal year 2010: Provided further, That the Sec
14 retary will consult with the Secretary of Transportation
15 in evaluating grant proposals: Provided further, That up
16 to $10,000,000 shall be for a joint Department of Housing
17 and Urban Development and Department of Transpor
18 tation research effort that shall include a rigorous evalua
19 tion of the Regional Integrated Planning Grants and Com
20 munity Challenge Planning Grants programs, as well as
21 to provide funding for a clearinghouse and capacity build
22 ing efforts: Provided further, That of the amounts made
23 available under this heading, $25,000,000 shall be made
24 available for the Rural Innovation Fund for grants to In
25 dian tribes, State housing finance agencies, State community...

P. 1854

1 ‘‘SEC. 405. NATIONAL FOOD SAFETY TRAINING, EDUCATION,
2 EXTENSION, OUTREACH, AND TECHNICAL AS
3 SISTANCE PROGRAM.
4 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall award
5 grants under this section to carry out the competitive
6 grant program established under section 1012(d) of the
7 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, pursuant to any
8 memoranda of understanding entered into under such sec
9 tion.
10 ‘‘(b) INTEGRATED APPROACH.—The grant program
11 described under subsection (a) shall be carried out under
12 this section in a manner that facilitates the integration
13 of food safety standards and guidance with the variety of
14 agricultural production systems, encompassing conven
15 tional, sustainable, organic, conservation, and environ
16 mental practices.
17 ‘‘(c) PRIORITY.—In awarding grants under this sec
18 tion, the Secretary shall give priority to projects that tar
19 get small- and medium-sized farms, beginning farmers, so
20 cially disadvantaged farmers, small processors, or small
21 fresh fruit and vegetable merchant wholesalers.
22 ‘‘(d) PROGRAM COORDINATION.—
23 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall coordi
24 nate implementation of the grant program under
25 this section with the National Integrated Food Safe
26 ty Initiative.

POST #10

p. 1426

1 CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMS
2 SEC. 7076. (a) IN GENERAL.—Of the funds appro
3 priated by this Act, up to $1,476,550,000 may be made
4 available for programs and activities to—
5 (1) reduce, mitigate, and sequester greenhouse
6 gases that contribute to global climate change;
7 (2) support climate change adaptation; and
8 (3) protect biodiversity, including wildlife, trop
9 ical forests, and other critical landscapes.
10 (b) USES OF CLEAN ENERGY FUNDING.—Funds ap
11 propriated by this Act under the headings ‘‘Development
12 Assistance’’, ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’, and ‘‘Assistance
13 for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia’’ for clean energy
14 programs and activities, may be made available only to
15 support and promote the sustainable use of renewable en
16 ergy technologies and end-use energy efficiency tech
17 nologies, carbon sequestration, and carbon accounting.

Video:  NOW Plan to Kill 90% of World’s Population