You may have heard of the Smart Grid. The Department of Energy is trying to roll this out. Some elements are beneficial, such as automated Smart Meters, which allows the power company to read the meters remotely, without having to send someone walking up to each subscriber's house to read the meter directly. Features to manage generation capacity, and route power automatically is a plus. It saves energy and improves efficiency. 

A key feature of the smart grid is automation technology that lets the utility adjust and control each individual device or millions of devices from a central location. ~ DOE Website

In short, giving government the ability to control our thermostats, our dish washers, our laundry machines, etc. centrally, remotely. That's what oppression is all about, Charlie Brown. You wouldn't willingly allow government agents into your house to set your thermostat, but the effect is the same. The only reason they're not doing that now is that our appliances haven't been fitted with "the other half" of the wireless equipment needed to control them. Watch for "Energy Star" appliances in the coming years that take the ability to control it from you, and give it to government. The front panel controls will allow you to make "suggestions" to your appliance. The real control will be at the central office.

And listen to her daddy's song, we believe that we can't be wrong
Ohhh we believe that we can't be wrong ~ Paul McCartney

We received an email about how smart meters have caused health problems where they have been installed. This is the same stuff we hear about cell phones, and Wi-Fi (it all uses similar wireless technology). An important scientific principle is, "correlation does not imply causation". In other words, it may be merely coincidence. There is no theoretical reason to believe smart meters cause this any more than cell phones and Wi-Fi do, and there is no controlled scientific study that I am aware of that would confirm or deny it (just like global warming). We have a smart meter on our house, and we have no health problems due to it, but again, it is all anecdotal.

The GPT project, which is being proposed by Pacific International Terminals, Inc., is a multi-user import and export marina terminal for bulk, break-bulk, and other marine cargoes. The project will include new rail loop tracks, covered and open terminal storage areas, and a pier and trestle connection to the terminal storage area. The property is located between the BP Refinery to the north and the INTALCO facility to the south. The project area is located in the Cherry Point Industrial Urban Growth Area (UGA), which is zoned for heavy-impact industrial land use. The property is also designated as part of the Cherry Point Management Area, under the Whatcom County's Shoreline Management Program. The facility is located within the Cherry Point State Aquatic Reserve south of Birch Bay.

The scoping period for the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Gateway Pacific Terminal and Custer Spur modifications begins on September 24 and will conclude on January 21, 2013. During the scoping process, the Co-Lead Agencies, Whatcom County, the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, are interested in your comments on:

• Reasonable range of alternatives
• Potentially affected resources and extent of analysis for those resources
• Significant unavoidable adverse impacts
• Measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate effects of the proposals

GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS
c/o CH2M Hill
1100 112th Avenue Northeast, Suite 400
Bellevue, WA 98004

"EPA had previously issued an edict that would cut the flow of water into the creek by nearly half, in an effort to address the sediment flow on the bottom of the creek.  In regulating the flow rate of stormwater into the creek, the agency was trying to regulate water itself as a pollutant, rather than the sediment. The attorney general challenged the EPA's action as exceeding the agency's legal authority to regulate pollutants under the Clean Water Act (CWA). These restrictions also would have diverted public funds that could be spent more effectively on stream restoration for Accotink Creek and other waterways in the region.

Judge Liam O'Grady agreed with co-plaintiffs VDOT (represented by the attorney general) and Fairfax County, saying in his ruling that federal law simply does not grant EPA the authority it claims. The Clean Water Act gives the EPA the authority to establish TMDLs - Total Maximum Daily Loads - regulating maximum acceptable levels of pollutants that may be discharged on a daily basis into a particular waterway. The problem for the EPA is that water is not a pollutant under the CWA.  "The Court sees no ambiguity in the wording of [the federal Clean Water Act].  EPA is charged with establishing TMDLs for the appropriate pollutants; that does not give them the authority to regulate nonpollutants," O'Grady said.

"EPA's thinking here was that if Congress didn't explicitly prohibit the agency from doing something, that meant it could, in fact, do it," said Cuccinelli. "Logic like that would lead the EPA to conclude that if Congress didn't prohibit it from invading Mexico, it had the authority to invade Mexico.  This incredibly flawed thinking would have allowed the agency to dramatically expand its power at its own unlimited discretion. Today, the court said otherwise."

EPA also claimed that it could regulate water flow because it was a surrogate measure for regulating sediment.  To that argument, Judge O'Grady responded, "EPA may not regulate something over which it has no statutorily granted power... as a proxy for something over which it is granted power."  He continued, "If the sediment levels in Accotink Creek have become dangerously high, what better way to address the problem than by limiting the amount of sediment permitted in the creek?"

"Stormwater runoff is not a pollutant, so EPA is not authorized to regulate it," O'Grady said.

"EPA was literally treating water itself--the very substance the Clean Water Act was created to protect--as a pollutant," the attorney general noted. "This EPA mandate would have been expensive, cumbersome, and incredibly difficult to implement. And it was likely to do more harm than good, as its effectiveness was unproven and it would have diverted hundreds of millions of dollars Fairfax County was already targeting for more effective methods of sediment control."

A copy of the court's opinion can be found here.

January 15th     The overall conceptual park plan and the recreation aspects of the plan for the Lake Whatcom lands.

January 29th     Forestry consideration when the county controls these forest. What type of forest management plans and how to implement by the county? Councilman's Crawford proposal to keep some of the area available for forest management.

February 12th   A fiscal discussion of the proposed reconveyance.