It doesn’t seem lawful that the Congress could transfer regulatory authority to an organization – the North American Electric Reliability Corporation that is comprised of utility company associations, utility companies and stakeholder interests that includes both Canadian and Mexican counterparts. Even if they retained the authority of FERC over the American utility companies and Regional Transmission Operators, the tangible and intangible elements of political and economic – and the real power of control of the electric grid makes the retention of authority by FERC kind of a bad joke. But the control of our electric grid is not the only example of the Congress handing over U.S. sovereignty to international organizations. And the authority that has been handed off is being used to wage non‐ military war against us. For example, on June 4, 2014, a local television station did a story about the EPA’s proposed changes to the H20 Act and how it is going to have a negative effect on farmers.
Proposed changes to Clean Water Act could land ag. businesses in hot water
The agency is trying to nix the word “navigable” from the original act, which would in turn allow the EPA to have total jurisdiction over every single water source, down to every puddle and ditch on farmers’ private lands.
As the act currently stands, the EPA only has control over “navigable” resources, which means any large body of water you can navigate upon using a boat, such as the Snake River or even the various reservoirs across the state.
According to Idaho Farm Bureau’s John Thompson, this effort by the EPA is because it hopes to try and make sure sediment and rocks do not end up polluting these navigable water resources as it flows‐in from these smaller ditches and puddles from local farmlands.
Idaho became the 43rd state in 1890. Agriculture has always been a significant part of Idaho’s economy. We have canals running through the state to irrigate the farmland. For 124 years, we’ve managed to muddle through without the EPA and without fouling the water for our downstream neighbors – Oregon and Washington. So why is the EPA now trying to take over our water sources?
I think you find the answer to that question in the first paragraph – the progressive waging of non‐ military war against us. The EPA is a lot like FERC in terms of being a fraud as a domestic agency of the American government. They are implementing international environmental law behind the mask of a domestic agency and it has always been that way by design of the agency since it was created.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed in 1969 and was signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970. The initiative was pushed through Congress by Henry “Scoop” Jackson. An Indiana professor, Lynton K. Caldwell worked with Jackson on the legislation. Caldwell is considered to be the architect NEPA and U.S. environmental policy.
Forging such an institution actually represented the final step in a quick march towards national environmental consciousness. Congress recognized the potency of the issue in late 1969 by passing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This statute recast the government’s role: formerly the conservator of wilderness, it now became the protector of earth, air, land, and water. The law declared Congressional intent to “create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony,” and to “assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.” Henceforth, all federal agencies planning projects bearing on the environment were compelled to submit reports accounting for the likely consequences‐‐the now famous Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). Secondly, NEPA directed the President to assemble in his Cabinet a Council on Environmental Quality. Undersecretary of the Interior Russell E. Train agreed to be its first chairman. The Council’s three members and staff would assist the President by preparing an annual Environmental Quality Report to Congress, gathering data, and advising on policy. Signing the Act with fanfare on New Year’s Day 1970, Nixon observed that he had “become further convinced that the 1970s absolutely must be the years when America pays its debt to the past by reclaiming the purity of its air, its waters, and our living environment. It is,” he said, “literally now or never.”
Implicitly, what this legislation did ‐ as a matter of policy, was to put people in second place behind protection of the environment. Why? Because we live in the environment. It is our habitat. We can’t live without using natural resources and their mission is to protect those resources. The conflict is inherent in the mission. In the history (link above), one of the paragraphs is headed “An Agency for the Environment”. Think about that.
The 1970 legislation didn’t actually create the EPA as an agency. It created the Council for Environmental Quality. The CEQ is an executive branch advisory council.
The CEQ recommended creation of the EPA as an agency to manage the process of Environmental Impact Statements. The jurisdiction of the CEQ and the EPA was only WITHIN the federal government ‐ to ensure that the federal government was cognizant of the environment for their projects and policies.
“Under presidential authority, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issues regulations to Federal agencies regarding the preparation and content of environmental impact statements”. Lynton Caldwell, the National Environmental Policy Act, 1998
NEPA and the implementation of it are deceptively simple. NEPA sets up the policy framework but does not articulate the details. This leaves the details to be defined on the fly. In effect, the CEQ was set up to manage the actions of all federal agencies through the simple mechanism of the Environmental Impact Statement ‐ with the power of life and death of an action based on approval or disapproval of the EIS.
The Office of International Affairs under the EPA umbrella was created in 1970. According to William Ruckelshaus who was the first EPA Administrator, Russell Train who was the Chairman of the CEQ would handle the international aspects of the EPAs mission and Ruckelshaus would handle the domestic affairs. In his oral history of the EPA’s beginnings, Ruckelshaus said the following:
Q: How would you characterize EPA’s early involvement in international environmental affairs?
MR. RUCKELSHAUS: I primarily agreed with Russell Train that he should take over most of the international work. I did go to several conferences, was a delegate to the Stockholm Conference in 1970, and signed some international agreements to help both developed and developing countries with their environmental programs. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, we led the rest of the world in dealing with the environment.
The following is an excerpt from a book written by Caldwell, published in 1998, titled The National Environmental Policy Act: An Agenda for the Future (Pages 97‐98):
The scope and substance of national foreign policy reflect changes in beliefs, values, and economies which have been occurring in industrialized countries during the past quarter‐century. Issues once regarded as strictly with a nation’s internal affairs (e.g. civil rights, labor policies, status of women, drug traffic, and the environment) have now become potential subjects of international inquiry and negotiation. They involve present and future activities of United States agencies at home and abroad. NEPA, properly interpreted, could guide reconciliation between domestic environmental, economic, and political values and priorities, along with international concerns and commitments.
NEPA by law is supplementary to the missions and mandates of all U.S. Federal agencies. The most celebrated (or, to some troublesome) provision of NEPA is the requirement of an environmental impact statement addressing any major effect on the environment of proposed legislation or administrative action. According to Nicholas C. Yost, who was general counsel to the CEQ under President Carter, NEPA‐ like legislation “has now been adopted in the national laws of more than 83 countries,” making NEPA probably “the most imitated U.S. law in history”.
The latter third of the twentieth century has seen the rapid “globalization” of economic activities, and communications, of military “peacekeeping,” mass migrations of people, and of environmental impacts and concerns. The establishment of the United Nations and of numerous specialized agencies with international missions, along with the growth of national foreign aid programs, has resulted in an expanding and diversifying international law and policy infrastructure. ￼￼
The significance as it pertains to the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 as domestic policy is that the mechanisms for following the edicts of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) are built into the framework of the domestic environmental organization within the U.S. government itself. There is no need to write a white paper telling federal, state and local agencies to implement Agenda 21 because Agenda 21 policies are integral (i.e. the mission) within the CEQ and EPA and WITHIN EVERY AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT because of the design of NEPA.
UNEP was created as a result of the 1970 Stockholm Conference. The ultimate output from the conference was the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment. A copy of their 40th year anniversary history is available on their website. The following is from that history – emphasis added:
The Stockholm Conference had agreed on a Declaration with an associated set of Principles. It had agreed on an Action Plan of 109 recommendations: the world’s first tentative blueprint for planetary environmental management. Its scope was enormous, calling for global cooperation to monitor the biosphere, safeguard ecosystems, curb marine pollution, improve housing in poor countries, collect genetic samples, protect whales and other endangered species, study energy needs and sources, aid population planning, conserve soils and forests and fisheries, promote environmental education and training and information exchange, and adapt trade and aid policies so as to share equitably the burdens of environmental protection. Page 27
Another quote from this 40‐year history is the following:
“The Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, taken together with the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development agreed in June 1992, now has pride of place among the ever‐growing corpus of international law relating to the environment.” Page 17
And this one:
The World Bank, itself a Specialized Agency of the United Nations, though with a rather special statute and status, was increasingly active in the field of environment. As Robert McNamara, the World Bank Group’s President, would later point out in his speech to the Stockholm conference: “Our experience is that environmental protection can be built into development projects as competently and successfully as any other requisite element.” The Bank, Mr. McNamara said, didn’t limit its operations simply to the environment side of development projects. “It finances many projects that are specifically directed at environmental goals — urban water supply and sewerage treatment, for example, as well as soil erosion control, and water resources management.”17 Page 15
The significance of those quotes will become apparent within the rest of this story but the point for now is that the United Nations has so many specialized agencies that it’s hard to keep track of them. It’s like trying to keep track of a band of gypsies in a clothing store. They are all going in different directions but they all have a single mission.
At the bottom of page 113, the report says that through the early to the mid 1970’s Germany was concerned that the environmental program was not focusing enough attention on international initiatives for the conservation of nature. In particular, they were concerned about migratory birds. Obviously, migratory birds cross borders. What happens next is a classic example of promoting one idea for one purpose without revealing the real underlying purpose.
Willy Brandt was the Chancellor of West Germany at the time. Brandt strongly supported the reunification of East and West Germany. He resigned in 1974 when it was discovered that he had an East German spy in his cabinet. Note: reference to the Helsinki Final Act. In 1977, Robert McNamara, then President of the World Bank suggested the establishment of a commission with Willy Brandt as the Chairman. The name of the Commission was the Independent Commission on International Development. The Commission began work in 1977 and published their report in 1980. It was titled A Programme of Survival although it is most commonly referred to as North‐South: A Programme of Survival.
The significance of this Commission cannot be appreciated without an understanding of the organization of the world system of policy development. Because of that, I’ve pulled out a section of the report that gives a good overview of the international institutions – along with the people involved in this commission. Of special note, on page 215, the Commission wrote:
UN Secretary‐General Kurt Waldheim showed great interest in the formation of this Independent Commission, and agreed that he would receive the first copy of the Commission’s Report.
Katharine Graham, Washington Post
Peter G. Peterson, Chairman of the Board of Lehman Brothers
Eminent Persons – invited to testify: Harlan Cleveland, USA Henry Kissinger, USA
Read more… http://www.abeldanger.net