Recent Comments

    More Information about Smart Meters

    Published December 31, 2011 | By Sue

    More Information about Smart Meters

     

    by Lynn Stuter

     

    Posted 12/31/2011

     

    Recently, an e-mail made the rounds, requesting the names of attorneys with experience in the Smart Grid/Smart Meter fight.  Follows is some information that may be helpful to others in this fight.

    Many companies have received federal grants to help defray the costs of installing Smart Meters.  If you have had a Smart Meter installed, did your electric company receive such a grant?

    If so, were you given the option of opting out?  Or were you told that the Smart Meter would be installed irrespective of your making it very clear that you did not want it?

    16 USC 2621(d)(14)(A) states, with regard to the installation of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) technology (Smart Meters) –

    Not later than 18 months after August 8, 2005, each electric utility shall offer each of its customer classes, and provide individual customers upon customer request, a time-based rate schedule under which the rate charged by the electric utility varies during different time periods and reflects the variance, if any, in the utility’s costs of generating and purchasing electricity at the wholesale level. The time-based rate schedule shall enable the electric consumer to manage energy use and cost through advanced metering and communications technology. (underlining for emphasis)

    “Shall offer” means just that.  It is up to the consumer to accept or reject the offer.

    How do federal grants tie into this fight? Continue reading →

    Posted in Smart Meters | Leave a comment

    Comments on SMP meeting of Nov. 15, 2011

    Published December 4, 2011 | By Sue

    My short form translation of 11/15/11 SMP meeting

    The topic of DUE Process of Law and DOE’S page 88 of the Public Trust Doctrine creating law was about the last topic of discussion.
    My comment, “I have serious issues with page 88.”
    We will be given an opportunity for an hour long discussion with an attorney (of their choice) about this issue.
    The Committee is smaller?
    Posted in Shoreline Mgmt. Plan | Leave a comment

    Commentary on Wild Olympics Campaign

    Published November 27, 2011 | By Sue
    WILD OLYMPICS CAMPAIGN
    TO CLALLAM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, NORM DICKS AND PATTY MURRAY
    The George C. Rains Sr. family has lived in Clallam County for over 90 years.
    In 1986 my father George C. Rains Sr. owned 3000 acres of land in Clallam County.
    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WILD OLYMPICS CAMPAIGN BEING PROPOSED AND THE HISTORIC WILDERNESS OF THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK 
    IS SEVERELY RESTRICTED PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USE OF A MILLION ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND.
     

    Let history speak for it’s self
    Our family owned part of Sol Duc Hot Springs and I lived there for 9 years when I was a girl.
    60 years ago, Minnie Petersen, my mother and I rode on horseback up to the high Divide and picked blue berries.The Olympic National Park 7 lake Basin was wild enough then.
    Our family backpacked to the Olympic National Park 7 Lake Basin 40 summers ago and it was wild enough then.

    THE 1976 UN WORLD HERITAGE SITES AND THE  UN MAN AND THE BIOSPHERE

    What a joke, if we have all of the above, the people will come.

    In 2008 my son took my 2 grandson’s backpacking to the 7 Lake Basin, RESERVATIONS REQUIRED, restricted designated campsite, no campfires and payment required.
    In 2010 my son tried to go backpacking to the 7 Lake Basin with his sons. NO WAY every restricted, limited, designated campsite was FULL. They told him, “If you want to camp in the Olympic National Park high country this is where you can go.” on a million acres of PUBLIC ACCESS LAND?
    Our family visited the Olympic Hot Springs Resort in the 60 years ago, before it was destroyed by the National Park Service.
    I hiked up to the Olympic Hot Springs Resort 35 years ago with my two nieces, 6 naked hikers, and a primitive pool surrounded with piles of human feces.
    Our family lived on Lake Crescent at Barnes Cove for over a year.
    Our family spent a summer at Log Cabin Resort when I was 13 years old.
    I remember the destruction LaPoel resort, the restaurant and the cabins.
    I remember the imminent domain taking of Lake Crescent private homes.
    Why was Jack Olsen’s home and land  taken from him and later occupied by Chief Justice Douglas of the United states supreme Court, and he called it his summer home?
    CLALLAM COUNTY DOES NOT WANT OR NEED, THE loss OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND, THE LOSS of productive timberlands AND the negative impact on the local economy in Clallam County THAT THE WILD OLYMPICS CAMPAIGN WOULD CAUSE.
    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee
    George C. Rains Sr. Estate
    235 W. 5th
    Port Angeles, WA 98362
    read on

    Port Opposes Wild Olympics Campaign

    June 22, 2010

    On June 14, 2010, the Port of Port Angeles’ Board of Commissioners introduced and unanimously passed a resolution in opposition of the Wild Olympics Campaign.  The Wild Olympics Campaign proposes to expand the boundaries of the Olympic National Park (ONP).

    The Port Commission opposes this campaign because the proposed expansion would add approximately 37,000 acres of productive private and Department of Natural Resources land to the ONP.  The Campaign also would convert 145,000 acres of USDA Forest Service Olympic National Forest to Wilderness Designation and create 200 more miles of Wild and Scenic River Designation.

    The Commission is concerned about the loss of productive timberlands and the negative impact on the local economy in Clallam County.   The Port’s Executive Director Jeff Robb said, “I encourage all residents of Clallam County to get informed about this campaign and consider the potential impacts to our community and economy.”

     

    Posted in Olympic Nat'l Park | Leave a comment

    Recap of the Nov. 15th, 2011 SMP meeting

    Published November 17, 2011 | By Sue


    as reported by Pearl Rains-Hewitt, member of the Committee

    The topic of DUE Process of Law and DOE’S page 88 of the Public Trust Doctrine creating law was about the last topic of discussion.

    My comment, “I have serious issues with page 88.”
    We will be given an opportunity for an hour long discussion with an attorney (of their choice) about this issue.
    The Committee is smaller?
    Harry Bell, Jay Pedersen, Karl Spees and I were vocally defending, objecting, enlightening, informing,recommending, suggesting and arguing private property, constitutional rights, scientific procedures and the Shoreline Environmental Designations (SED’S).
    Jay Petersen’s public comment on the SED’S was copied and given to us. (Not posted on line?)
    He made 4 good points.
    1. Prohibited, he prefers conditional use
    2. No SED’S on the west end?
    3. He supports the existing 35 foot buffer on Lake Sutherland
    4. What is exempt should be discussed.
    Harry Bell’s made comments about using practical visual and technological judgment on critical areas, slopes and flood plains as done successfully by the logging industry for the last 20 years. (as any reasonable person would)
    Questions and comments about the bloated size of DOE flood plains.
    Comments from a tribal representative on private property regulations (they are not affected by the SMP)
    Someone demanding regulation on Three Crabs private property lots. (that may be considered illegal, unconstitutional or a taking, by WA State Law.)
    With regard to the protection of single family residence, the words “Imminent Danger” will be stricken from the Clallam County SMP per Margaret Clancy.
    Conspicuous in it’s absence, no mention of the taking of private property for public access.
    NO NET LOSS was the a low item on the agenda. (not discussed)
    Jim Kramer implied that my SMP comments are/were “What I think” (as opposed to what I document). We argued about what is RULE and what is LAW.
    I will keep you informed as to the time and date, so anyone who is interested, and would like to attend the following DOE rationalization meeting may do so.
    The topic of DUE Process Law and DOE’S page 88 of the Public Trust Doctrine creating law.
    My comment, “I have serious issues with page 88.”
    We will be given an opportunity for an hour long discussion with an attorney (of their choice) about this issue. Since Jim Kramer is not an EXPERT on this.
    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee
    George C. Rains Sr. Estate
    Member SMP Advisory Committee
    Posted in Shoreline Mgmt. Plan | Leave a comment

    Published November 16, 2011 | By Sue

    Pearl Rains-Hewitt used the Freedom of Information Act to request work session information from the Clallam County Commissioners & Administrator for the period 2010 to 11/2011.

     

    Here are the questionnaires submitted to work session from the Department Health and Human Services for the period 2010 to present.  (Click here – pdf format)

    Posted in Follow the Money | Leave a comment

    WAC 173-18-090 Clallam County Streams

    Published November 9, 2011 | By Sue

    Clallam County streams

    Pearl

    WAC 173-18-090

    		 No agency filings affecting this section since 2003

    Clallam County.

    Streams (rivers) Continue reading →

    Posted in Dungeness River, Lake Sutherland, RCWs | Tagged | Leave a comment

    WAC 173-20-120 Clallam County lakes

    Published November 9, 2011 | By Sue

    WAC 173-20-120

    		 No agency filings affecting this section since 2003

    Lakes coming under purview of chapter 90.58 RCW — Clallam County lakes.
    Location Section Name Area

    (Acres)

    		 Use
    (1) T29N-R14W 20 A/B Wentworth Lk. 53.8 R
    (2) T30N-R7W 15-G Aldwell Lk. 320.8 P,R
    (3) T30N-R8W 22-Q Sutherland Lk. 360.8 R
    (4) T30N-R12W 9-J/K Beaver Lk. 36.3 R
    (5) T30N-R13W 35-E Pleasant Lk. 486.0 R
    (6) T30N-R14W 16-L Dickey Lk. 527.0 R
    (7) T31N-R15W 12-W1/2 Elk Lk. 59.0 R
    (8) T31N-R15W 18-E/M Seafield Lk. 22.0 R

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030, 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 85-09-043 (Order DE 85-05), § 173-20-120, filed 4/15/85; Order DE 76-16, § 173-20-120, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 72-14, § 173-20-120, filed 6/30/72.]

     

    Submitted by Pearl Rains-Hewitt

    (

    Found on line 11/08/11
    Pearl)
    Posted in Lake Sutherland, RCWs | Leave a comment

    EXCLUDED SMP DOE WAC’S DO NOT BECOME LAW

    Published November 7, 2011 | By Sue

    Letter addressed to Sheila Roark-Miller, elected Director of the Department of Community Development:

     

    This is very important with regard to the Clallam County SMP Update.

     

    This ison the DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages)
    Finally, SMPs, unlike other comprehensive plans,

    are adopted as WAC’S and become part of the state’s Shoreline Master Program.

    As such, all local SMP rules, regulations, designations and guidelines

    BECOME STATE LAW AND ARE ENFORCEABLE.
    in this manner, protection of public trust resources and uses becomes binding.

     

    If an SMP DOE WAC is excluded from the SMP UPDATE

    IT DOES NOT BECOME LAW.

    If an SMP DOE WAC is not written into the SMP UPDATE

    IT DOES NOT BECOME LAW.

     

    It is within your power,  as our elected official, to EXCLUDE/REMOVE WAC’S from the Clallam County SMP update.

     

    I resent the fact that this is vital SMP information is HIDDEN on page 88 of the DOE Public Trust Doctrine website.

     

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Estate

    Member SMP Advisory Committee

     

    Posted in Shoreline Mgmt. Plan | Leave a comment

    SMP and WA STATE SUPREME COURT

    Published November 6, 2011 | By Sue

    My comment on the SMP Update

    by Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Estate

    Member SMP Advisory Committee

    This is how Judge Johnson Washington State Supreme Court explains the role of local government in the SMP.

    (Taken out of context)

    The Supreme Court explained that even though there is significant local government involvement in the creation of SMPs, the process is done in the shadow of the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) control.

    Involvement of local jurisdiction in the SMP process is merely a benevolent gesture by the state.

    Court confirmed that Whatcom County’s SMP was not the product of local government,

    Read on if you are interested. Continue reading →

    Posted in Shoreline Mgmt. Plan | Leave a comment

    2011 Budget – “Environmental Programs” get at leat $2.5 million

    Published November 2, 2011 | By Sue

    Read on if you are interested

    This is taken out of context
    posted by Pearl Rains-Hewitt

    NOTE THE AMOUNT FOR “ENVIRONMENTAL” PROGRAMS….

    The Full Clallam County Budget 2011 is online.

    Public Works – Carlsborg Sewer Project

    This is listed as a part of the 2011 budget?

    But there is no expenditures information?

     

    Health and Human Services ‐ Environmental Health

    00100.511.

    expenditures $1,218,865

     

    2011 Community Development ‐ Planning

    00100.334.

    expenditures  $1,021,439

     

    2011 Community Development ‐ Dungeness Estuarine

    Capital Projects

    30601.331.

    expenditures  $826,596

     

     2011 Community Development ‐ Environmental Quality

    00100.332.

    expenditures  $1,659,882

    Posted in Follow the Money | Leave a comment
    ← Older posts

    Resources

    County Commission Meetings -
    Agendas / Back Up Documents

    Home | About | Contact

    Copyright © 2011 Citizen's Review. All Rights Reserved.

    Designed by Dynamic Graphics Website Development.