VOLUME 6, NUMBER 10 - JULY 30, 2001

HOW YOUR LAND IS TAKEN

In the latter part of May, 2001 the Cullman Times printed a notice announcing the public meeting of the Black Warrior Rivershed Committee. The meeting was held June 6, 2001 in the Weiss Room of the Cullman Regional Medical Center. The officials were surprised by the large turn-out for this meeting, there was standing room only and the overflow stood in the hall.

Several e-mail lists had been sent out and notice of the meeting had been published in the Citizens Alert, and The Beacon in addition to all the contacts we could make through The Mustard Seed. The official purpose for the meeting (according to Lynn Wood) was to nominate the "subcommittee" for the northern three counties (Winston, Blount & Cullman) of the Black Warrior Rivershed Committee. This task was not completed due to the inquisitive questions from the public. Little, if any, information had made its way to the general public regarding the meeting, the committee or the purpose behind them.

The officials began by describing how the "committee" was organizing "the subasin committee" to determine how they (the "committee") could help us (the public) voluntarily comply with the Federal Clean Water Action Plan which the Alabama Department of Environmental Management was implementing through the Clean Water Partnership. "Voluntary" was the key word that was repeatedly stressed.

The main points the officials acknowledged, were:

• The "committee" is on a five year rotational program.
  The state of Alabama has been divided into fourteen different watersheds. The Cahaba and the Black Warrior began their five year rotational plan in 1997. The first year is "assessment", the second, "data evaluation planning, NPS (nonpoint source pollution) grant submittal", the third, "data evaluation", the fourth, "plan development", the fifth, "implemen-tation". This process repeats every five years.

• The "committee" has received $600,000.00 +.
  The grant and or gifts were spent by ADEM. They acknowledged only one expenditure from the $600,000.00 +. One official said she had no knowledge of the rest of the funds.

• A "specie inventory" was funded with a portion of the $600,000.00 +.
  A "specie inventory" is taken in the first portion of the "five year rotational program". "Bell Weather" or "key species" are identified and watched closely. In the event their numbers are effected by "human activity", more stringent ordinances/regulations are in store for the watershed in the next five year rotational plan. Of course, if the population voluntarily complies the use of "enforcement" will not be required. Auteng!

• The Alabama Water Watch Association was helping the "committee" through their voluntary water testing program.
  While this is technically true, it was brought out that the "association" is funded by the EPA, ADEM, and Auburn University. The old saw says, "he who pays the piper, calls the tune". This, of course, was not admitted to by any of the officials.
  The water is sampled by the volunteers over a period of time and the information is compiled to make a baseline. Municipalities (city dwellers) are also being measured. The data base being compiled will cover everyone in the state. This program is flying under the public's radar and will drop a bomb of devastating regulations and laws. Already, in Jefferson County a digging permit is required - the cost: $100.

The meeting was essentially over when Lynn Wood, - (introduced as an observer from Jefferson County Environmental) took the floor and talked for the remainder of the meeting. His theme was pollution prevention, and having the authority to prevent the pollution. He was challenged with the fact that since the country was formed, "Old English law" provided that neighboring landowners could bring suit against the polluter for damages and a just judicial system would make the polluter pay proper restitution.

At this point the meeting adjourned. The next meeting to be held July 11.

Those signing the sign-in sheet received a letter through announcing the July 11th. meeting. The time was set for 2:00 p.m. in the Ave. Maria room. The Ave. Maria room is smaller than the Weiss room (draw your own conclusions).

It was clear from reading the agenda that the rules had changed. No longer would individuals be allowed to ask questions and then follow up questions thereby clearing any misconceptions. This meeting would be quite different. The agenda started with Lynn Wood's Call to Order; Welcoming Remarks and Introductions - Lynn Wood; Sub-Basin Action Committee Formation - Lynn Wood; Presentation, Speaker introduction - Robert Harbison; Water Quality in the Black Warrior Upper Sub-Basin - Edwin Calvert; Next Meeting Date - Lynn Wood; Public Comment - Lynn Wood (he timed those that wished to speak).

Remember that in the last meeting (June 6) the officials freely answered all questions. In this meeting, "questions posed will be addressed during the next meeting." That's right, there would be no answers from the officials at this meeting. The agenda also stipulated that "speakers may not yield time to another speaker."

In spite of this restriction the "committee" did divulge some information. For instance, Lynn Wood's relationship to the "committee" was never revealed until one person made it clear that Mr. Wood is the Chairman of the "committee" and the "committees" "facilitator," Mary Bestor Grant, was the appointed vicechair. Both acknowledge their positions.

During the comment period the following points were brought out:

• The goals of the "committee" were not established by the "committee."
  In forming the "committee" ADEM also established their goals. Check out ADEM's website for their fact sheet at http://www.adem.state.al.us/EnviroProtect/WatershedMan/watman/cleanwat/manplan.htm - this link no longer works - 6/22/05

• Goal one - to restore and protect the Warrior River Basin through a stakeholder involvement.
  Before "protection" can be afforded an inventory of the rivershed must be taken. The $600,000.00 plus was utilized to take the inventory. This was acknowledged in the June 6 meeting.

• Protection requires some type of regulations i.e. "Buffers"
  In other areas of the country including Helena and Trussville, Alabama "buffers" ordinances are already on the books.

• To utilize any portion of the "buffer", even private property owners must pay a "mitigation" fee.
  The normal "mitigation" fee is a three to one ratio. If a landowner wanted to use one acre of his land that lies within the "buffer" his mitigation fee would be $75,000.00 per acre.

• "Committees" similar to the one being organized have broad powers granted to them.
  The Catawba rivershed in North Carolina has the right to set the "mitigation" fee at any amount they deem necessary. Their "committee" may refuse a request from landowners making his land worthless. The verbatim rules may be viewed at http://www.ucrla.org/. Look on the left side of the home page and scroll down until you see buffer and mitigation rules.

• Goal one stipulates "restoration"
  Restoration is defined by the EPA in their recently published "Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes and Practices". The 650 page book is available on line at http://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration. "Ecological restoration is the process of returning an ecosystem as closely as possible to predisturbance conditions and functions." This calls for the establishment of a riverbasin area that has removed all traces of European man.

At the end of the meeting while everyone was milling around, the chairman, Lynn Wood was asked - what are the coming dates for the middle basin, Walker and Jefferson Counties? He replied; "there is a meeting scheduled for tomorrow July 12, in Jasper.

Question: Why didn't you announce that in this meeting?

Answer: I forgot.

Question: Why did the mail out notice for this meeting, not include a notice for the July 12, meeting in Jasper?

Answer: I thought it did?

Question: Will you change the meeting time to the evening as requested by those in attendance?

Answer: I don't know, I'' have to check.

If Alabama's course, follows North Carolina, we can expect that some piece of legislation will be passed giving the "committees" political power which, at this point, they do not have. Or the path might take the course of "homerule" the much lauded solution for all problems. The path taken, in the end, is of little consequence. It is the results that count, proud leaders and ignorant followers will reap what they have sewn.

In this battle of ideas, there are signs of hope from a public that has been kept in the dark. Georgia has had 650 people attend the same type of meetings in the northeast corner of the state. North Carolina had 500, and when officials at their meeting sought to limit the time the speakers could address the crowd, they were quickly out voted.

Can we tie these watershed actions to the United Nations?

Yes, the United Nations in 1998 submitted a series of questions dealing with the United States compliance with the Convention on Wetlands.

Question 2.1 asks:

"Has a National Wetland Policy/Strategy/Action Plan been developed, or is one being developed or planned for the near future?"

To which, Jamie Rappaport Clark, Director USFWS in part replies:

"Yes....The U.S. Government Clean Water Action Plan integrates wetland conservation into "geographic-based planning programs, including the watershed approach, and other planning programs that address coastal resources, habitat, floodplains and river corridors, and management of water resources and public lands....."

The United Nations asks:

"What are/will be its main features?"

"....A key element of the Action Plan is a new cooperative approach to watershed protection in which state, tribal, federal and local governments, and the public identify watersheds with critical management needs...."

The full report, which deals with the "Wetland Convention" (Ramsar Conventions) may be viewed at the United Nations Website http://www.ramsar.org/cop7_nr_usa.htm

The preceding was written by Don Casey who attended both meetings and who was largely responsible for bringing out much of what the "committee" would have preferred remain hidden.

The establishment of these watershed committees is conforming to the ideas that were behind president Clinton's Heritage Rivers program. Once the waterways are declared endangered and the environmentalist cries are broadcast across the public spectrum by our controlled media, the public outcry for "safe" water is a license for the governmental control over the watersheds, the Constitution be damned!

This expansion of the Clean Waters Act did not wend its way through Congress, it was an Al Gore edict to the bureaucrats to rewrite the regulations.

Having spent many years working for the government, I am reasonably familiar with how regulations can take on a life of their own, the final result having little or nothing to do with congressional intent. These days it seems even the Congress no longer cares whether its intent is followed or not.

I'd like to quote a bit from an article that appeared on theglobeandmail.com on July 3, 2001. The article carries the by-line:

ALISON GARWOOD-JONES
Special to The Globe and Mail
Saturday, June 23, 2001

"...the study of cows, cow pies and flowing water has become scientifically hot.

"This is in no small measure due to the voice of Ann Clark, a professor of plant agriculture at the University of Guelph, whose research is proposing a fundamental rethinking of how cows and streams can co-exist. Her solution? Stop fencing the cattle out and let them cross the water to greener pastures.

"'Everyone says they've seen cows shitting in streams,' she says, 'but it's too broad a generalization.' Clark has been studying the behaviour of cows and their effect on stream ecosystems for several years and has concluded that the classical (and costly) solution involving long lines of barbed wire is mostly an unnecessary expense that ignores what cows actually do.

"From 1997 to 1999, Clark was part of a team of scientists who set out to investigate cattle habits and their impact on streams. Over a period of eight years, they covered six counties in Ontario collecting data from pasture walks on eight beef-producing farms.

"The team found that even when cows had unfenced access to streams, they returned with astonishing regularity to the same crossing points, as if to marked territory. Fewer than five per cent of the cows deposited manure directly into the water while under observation.

"'That's the central surprising thing to come out of this research,' says Clark, who now insists that cows are less likely to threaten water by direct defecation than by stirring up sediment with their hooves that is full of harmful pathogens. Laying down reinforcement at the cows' preferred crossing points, she says, could achieve the same degree of water protection, much more cheaply, than fencing.

"Cows stand for hours in ponds, where the only thing they contaminate is their own drinking water. But when it comes to flowing waterways, which could transport bacteria downstream to municipal wells, Clark says, the animals don't dally. They target their preferred crossing point and spend an average of only one to three minutes, once or twice a day, actually "in" the water (with at least one hoof)."

This article goes on to debate the issue of fencing Vs walkways that will move the cows through the streams more rapidly, offering financially strapped farmers an alternative to the high cost of building and maintaining fences.

Cow patties are not the only source of pollution control we will be facing however. Once we have the watershed committees in place and the legislature has voted them authority to issue regulations with the force of law behind them, all sorts of pollutants will appear on their forbidden roster.

Bureaucrats will suddenly become chemists (as they have become weather forecasters moaning over global warming), and any insecticide or herbicide that might have some harmful impact on the environment will be banned.

While water pollution is an area we should all have some concern for, what is happening here in Alabama, in Georgia, in North Carolina and all across the nation is not really about water pollution. It is about grant money and building bureaucracies to oversee the conduct of the people... it is about government control... and eventually about the loss of the nation's sovereignty and the citizen's liberty. It is about the New World Order and Global Governance under the guise of Sustainable Development.

We are in a war for the heart and soul of America and the American way of life and ninety percent of the troops are asleep on watch.