Weaponized News New World Order politics, economics and current events
By Marcus Ruiz Evans | WeaponizedNews.Com | February 1, 2016
SUMMARY: Sacramento does not pay enough attention to the rural counties of the far north here in California. That is true, and they are right to bring attention to this issue. However, many statements made by the proponents of the idea of the state of Jefferson concerning who is to blame for all of their woes and how Californians don’t care about their issues at all, and that they are very different culturally from the rest of California_ are just not factually true. The point is that if the Californians of the Jefferson movement want to have their real problems fixed – the best thing they could do is work with fellow Californians.
INTRODUCTION –
The California counties that could form the proposed state of Jefferson, say that the main reason they are pushing for their own state separate from California is that the California government does not take their concerns seriously, and that in general, the far northern and very rural counties are routinely ignored by Sacramento. Because of this, they say that they are not able to manage their land as they would like, and as a result they have less jobs, less water, and less access to the land that they live in.
Those are legitimate issues for any Californian to be concerned about, and they have a right and duty to see that their system of bad governance is fixed. However, are they pointing the blame in the right direction?
It is a little difficult to say what counties form the movement to create the state of Jefferson as votes are being taken all of the time and some choose to join and other choose to leave the movement. In general the Jefferson state movement seems to encompass all of the far northern counties that are north of Sacramento county, all the way to the California border with the American state of Oregon.
To, which ever California counties are involved in the movement, please consider the following realities.
FIRST – It is absolutely true that Sacramento has more control over the counties across California than in the past. However, the primary reason for this is that most California counties count on money from Sacramento to pay for their local schools – because the counties are financially dependent on Sacramento for possibly the biggest local service that they provide, it allows Sacramento to be able to wield great influence over the counties. This is especially true of the rural counties that simply don’t have a large amount of developed land to wage property taxes on, which are the main way that schools are paid for in California.
A quick review shows that all of the counties that make up Jefferson voted for Proposition 13, which when passed in 1978 limited property taxes that could be collected by the counties, and this is the main reason experts agree that Sacramento has the disproportionate influence that it does over the counties. So Jefferson voted to create the very situation that they are protesting against.
Despite this it does not seem the proponents of the Jefferson state have mentioned anything about repealing Proposition 13. If they did they would find other Californians from around California who are sympathetic to their goal and would work with them to make this change. This strategy would allow Californians who feel unfranchised in the far northern counties to suddenly find that the rest of California wants to work with them to make their lives better – a far different reality than what the movement has created to date.
SECOND – the Jefferson state group says that they are also interested in leaving California to form a new
state because they are a different culture than California, they are more conservative than liberal California. However, the cities of Jefferson already voted no on leaving and so did every county on the West coast, and the remaining counties on the west coast that have not joined – are solidly Democrat voting not Republican. So it appears that all of the urban areas and all of the Western half of the proposed Jefferson are actually liberal or at least not interested in leaving the culture of California. This adds some complexity and credibility issues to the concept that all Californians in the far north are one type of culture so different and distinct from the rest of the California population.
National Public Radio did an article in 2013, talking about how many conservative Californians had left California because they were tired of the liberal attitude that was bad for business and moved to Colorado because it was more conservative. What happened next was that Colorado started voting more liberal, so much so that the native Colorado voters did not like the new Californians – because they considered them too liberal. These Californians who moved considered themselves conservative – but the rest of Colorado saw them as way too liberal. In California, conservatives consider themselves very different from liberals – but this is an exaggeration. Compared to average Americans all Californians, even the conservative ones are too Californian in culture.
MAP – the counties that could be part of Jefferson
COLORED COUNTY – Could potentially be part of State of Jefferson
PINK COUNTY – Has not rejected the proposal to be part of Jefferson, although may not have voted for
RED COUNTY or DOT – County or city that has officially rejected being part of Jefferson
BLUE COUNTY – Votes democrat
THIRD – Not being able to manage the land that you live next to every day is very frustrating.
However, the question is – who owns the land the counties pushing for Jefferson state live on? Californians who are upset about the way things are run in California now say that they want more control of their land. Turns out that the California government doesn’t actually own the majority of the land that these counties want more control of – the Federal government does. The first two California counties who started the recent movement to create a new state, were Modoc and Siskiyou counties, in 2013. 70% of the land in Modoc county is owned by the Federal government, and 73% in Siskiyou county. Furthermore, 2/3rds of all of the counties that could form Jefferson have over half of their land owned by the Federal government – not California.
LIST – percent of land owned by Federal government in potential counties of Jefferson state
- Trinity 88%
- Sierra 86%
- Plumas 83%
- Siskiyou 70%
- Modoc 73%
- Lassen 65%
- Del Norte 61%
- El Dorado 59%
- Placer 56%
- Nevada 53%
- Lake 53%
- Shasta 52%
- Tehama 34%
- Glenn 33%
- Yuba 22%
- Butte 21%
- Colusa 21%
- Humboldt 21%
- Mendocino 14%
- Sutter 4%
What is interesting is that we know for a fact that many of the California counties in the potential Jefferson state know about this reality already.
October 2011 in Siskiyou county there was a major town hall held to discuss this very concept – that it is the Federal government that owns the overwhelming majority of the far north California counties land and prevents them from having access. This town hall was very well attended and included the Sheriffs of the California counties of Siskiyou, Del Norte, Trinity, Shasta, Plumas, Tehama and Lassen – at least 7 counties had their highest law enforcement authority explain to them that the Federal government owns most of their land. Today all of these counties are considered included in the Jefferson Movement.
The Jefferson movement as it is known today started in September 2013 and was focused on how California alone was the source of all of the counties’ problems. But only two years prior – at least a third of the counties of the Jefferson movement had a different message. What is also interesting is that even after the Jefferson movement started this information was still being stated in the media. In June 2013 (or only a few months before the Jefferson movement started) the Sheriff of El Dorado county said “he’s concerned about the number of complaints his department’s received against the federal officers.” The El Dorado county sheriff’s statement gained a lot of media attention. It is highly likely that all Californians in the counties that form the Jefferson movement heard this. And even after the Jefferson movement started, another Sheriff again reminded Californians of the reality of who actually owns the land. In January 2014, the sheriff of Del Norte county said “He believes that the federal government could be forced to turn over public lands it administers to the new state, which could then monetize its timber stands, mineral wealth and fisheries”
When the law enforcement authorities of almost half of the counties that form the Jefferson movement knew that the Federal government actually owned most of their counties land and informed their citizens, and did so right before and during the birth of and right after the start of the Jefferson movement – then how did the Jefferson movement forget this talking point and instead choose to only lay the blame for all of their problems on the California government? This is curious. Looking at this entire story from a public relations view, it would seem that the counties that form the Jefferson movement knew what the real problem was, had meetings on it, but couldn’t get any traction in the media on it – so they tried a new publicity angle that would be covered in California wide news – that of placing the blame completely on California. Going after the real problem turned out to be more work and so a quick publicly success was chosen instead. The Jefferson movement succeeded in gaining media attention – but not in pursuing steps that would actually solve the problems they correctly identify. This makes sense because as already mentioned, whether they like to admit it or not, the Californians of the far north counties of California are Californian and public relations and being concerned about perception in the media are skills inherent to California culture – so it is highly likely the Jefferson state Californians recognized the need to change their media angle to get more press attention.
Approaching the Federal government to demand that the National Forests be turned over to California and its counties may sound crazy but it is actually very possible – and much more realistic a goal to achieve than trying to leave California – given that the overwhelming majority of Californians do not support the idea of splitting California up when asked in recent polling. Why is trying to take back control of the Federal National Forests a more realistic goal, because there are 58 counties in California, only 20 of which “might” be part of the Jefferson state cause, while there are 38 counties in California that have a National Forest in their county boundaries. Focusing on taking back ownership of National Forests would be an issue that the far north counties of California could team up with an additional 18 more California counties to work on. This would literally double the size of their potential alliance.
Every Californian is concerned about massive forest fires in the National Forests and about the horrible drought we are in. What’s more is that the the highest elected official in California – the Governor, and professors from UC Merced and UC Berkeley, including Dr. Roger C. Bales, an environmental group, and the Federal government itself have all said that the Federal government is not doing a good job managing the National forests because they allow trees to grow too dense. Because of the abnormally high density of forest trees there are more fires (than are normal) and less water flowing down the mountain to be used (than is normal). 38 California counties have a Federal National Forests in their jurisdiction that could be managed better to reduce the chance of that county dealing with a forest fire and producing more water to help with the effects of the drought emergency. These are issues every Californian cares about. Every one of these 38 California counties would be interested in working on this issue. Focusing on taking back ownership of the National Forests ran by the Federal government would find the Jefferson movement literally doubling the size of their movement and finding strong politically established advocates in the highest levels of California government and academic institutions. A very different situation than the one the Jefferson movement finds itself in now.
MAP – California counties with a Federal National Forest in their jurisdiction
While California counties taking back jurisdiction of the Federal National Forests may sound just as radical as forming a new state – it is not. Here are the facts. The Federal government cannot stop any California county from recognizing that they actually (ALREADY) have jurisdiction over the “Federal” National Forests. In 2013 El Dorado County sheriff and the Fresno County Board of Supervisors issued public letters saying that they recognized this understanding of the law – and in the multiple years since these letters have been released there has been no opposition from the Federal government to their public statements, showing that the Federal government knows that this understanding of legal jurisdiction of the National Forests is correct. Furthermore, California University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, Professor (and director of the criminal justice concentration) John E. B. Meyers has also said this is the correct legal interpretation of who (ACTUALLY) has jurisdiction over the National forests.
Here is why that it is – the majority of the land that the Federal government claims to own in California are called National Forests. These look like just clumps of pine trees to the uneducated viewer. However, National Forests are very different from National Parks, which are also clumps of pine trees located around California. The difference is that what the Federal government calls the National Parks are preserves of land under the Federal department of the Interior, where the Federal government is saying they have the right to protect these lands forever. National Forests are under the administration of the Federal Department of Agriculture. This is key – because the name difference and what Federal administration oversees these lands says a lot. The Federal department of Agriculture is a resource oversight administration – meaning its goal is to help and advise. Because the forests are under the department of agriculture what this means is that trees in what are called National Forests are a resource to harvest – like all other agricultural products. Trees in National Parks are to be preserved and never harvested.
The Federal government only has an advisory role concerning the National Forests and is only allowed to manage them at the continued allowance of the counties and state where they reside. How do we know this – because the Federal government said so in a report called: “Inventory report on jurisdiction status of Federal areas within the states as of June 30 1962″ by the General services administration, under the order of President Eisenhower, and released on September 3 1964. This report is an inventory of all Federal land and identifies jurisdiction over the land. On page 106 and 107, the National Forests found in the Republic of California are listed as code 4, which the report states means that the land as far as the Federal government is concerned is “Proprietorial Interest Only. This term is applied to those instances wherein the Federal Government has acquired some right or title to an area in a State, but has not obtained any measure of the State’s authority over the area.” This means that California owns the land, and the Federal government can manage it at the allowance of California and its counties. This is why the Federal government never contested what the highest legal authority of Fresno county and the highest legal authority of El Dorado county said. National Parks on the other side, are not listed as code 4 in this report and are owned by the Federal government.
To repeat the big idea – there are 58 counties in California and 38 (or 2/3rds of all of the counties of California) have a National Forest in them. If far north counties of California that form the Jefferson movement (11 – 20 California counties) worked with the other 18 counties that are not part of the Jefferson movement but that have National Forests in their jurisdiction – it would create a movement that (a) was made up of the majority of the California counties and (b) was actually was focused on the real source of who is preventing the far north California counties from managing their land. A very different situation than the current reality of the Jefferson movement.
It is also relatively easy to create this new movement. Have every county sheriff and every county board of supervisors of all 38 counties in California that are affected, issue letters that simply repeat (read copy and paste) the letters already issued by the sheriff of El Dorado County and the Board of Supervisors of Fresno County – and then send all of those letters to the highest legal authority in California – the California office of legislative council (OLC) otherwise known as the California Legislative council (not to be confused with the California legislative analyst office). The OLC provides legal interpretations to the California government of what is actually legal so that elected officials can know the legality of all of the laws that they propose or want to propose. While this resource is primarily designed to aid elected officials it is open to all Californians and could be used to review the letters from 2/3rds of the county governments of California and under the sheer weight of so many county letters would be forced to concede that this understanding of the law is correct. When this agency makes this statement it is the equivalent of saying the Republic of California itself understands that it owns the land in the National Forests and not the Federal government. It is perfectly legal to do this and it would only take some networking.
Copies of both letters and links to the articles reporting them and the text of both letters for easy copying and pasting are provided at the end of the references.
CONCLUSION –
The big take away for Californians of the far northern part of California is that the statement that rural counties have no power to influence things in the Republic of California’s is not fair. In 1997, California passed Senate Bill 45, which was proposed by senator Quentin Kopp and modified the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to allow for 75% of the funding to go to the counties and only 25% of the main source of funding for all transportation in California to be under the control of Sacramento. Read, California counties voted to take away existing power to Sacramento and give it back to the locals. California is the only part of the United States of America that has this much regional, or local empowerment in transportation funding. This bill was a huge empowerment action for the rural counties of California.
SB 45 happened because counties in California worked together so that there were enough counties to force the legislature to enact this law. Point is that if the counties of Jefferson work with other California counties – real change that makes a big difference in their quality of life is actually possible.
If you are interested in other ideas on how Californians can work together as a team to make life better, see the free book available for download below
Marcus Ruiz Evans, is the author of “California’s Next Century 2.0” and co-author of the new book “California’s future: your guide to independence”, has studied international trade for the last 10 years, is the Research Director for Yes California.org and is a member of the California Economic Summit “workforce development action team”. All opinions expressed are his own.
DOWNLOAD YOUR “FREE” COPY OF OUR BOOK: http://www.yescalifornia.org/cf_2016
REFERENCES
Californians overwhelmingly do not support the idea of splitting up the California Republic
Field Poll
Release #2456
By Mark DiCamillo and Mervin Field
Release Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013
http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2456.pdf
“The results show that only one in four voters (25%) back the idea of having these counties break away from California to form a new state”
All Californians have a common culture – even if conservative Californians don’t think so
How California Is Turning The Rest Of The West Blue
Alan Greenblatt
NPR
August 29, 2013
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/08/29/216150644/how-california-is-turning-the-rest-of-the-west-blue
“What may be ironic is the fact that most of the people leaving California are relatively conservative — by California standards.”
California counties of the Jefferson movement knew about who actually owned their land.
California’s grumpy secessionists of the far north
By Peter Laufer
LA Times
January 09 2014
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/09/opinion/la-oe-laufer-jefferson-california-secession-20140109
El Dorado County Sheriff Strips Forest Service Of State-Law Enforcement Power
CBS News
June 21, 2013
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/06/21/el-dorado-county-sheriff-strips-forest-service-of-state-law-enforcement-power/
“We asked law professor John Myers if the sheriff’s actions can supersede the feds.
“Looks to me as though the sheriff can do this,” he said.”
Sheriffs Stand TALL for the Constitution
Robert Exter
Uploaded on Oct 29, 2011
“Here are eight county sheriffs from Northern CA and Southern OR speaking on at panel at the Defend Rural America event October 22, 2011 in Yreka. Despite the low media coverage there were about 700 people in attendance from all over California, Oregon and as far away as Wyoming.
The sheriffs made it perfectly clear that they are the last line of defense for their citizens and given authority by the 10th Amendment”
Counties that form the proposed state of Jefferson
Jefferson (proposed Pacific state)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_%28proposed_Pacific_state%29
How the Jefferson counties (of California) voted in 1992
Perspectives on the State of Jefferson
Editor: Matthew A. Derrick
HUMBOLDT JOURNAL OF SOCIAL RELATIONS—ISSUE 36, 2014
http://www2.humboldt.edu/hjsr/issues/issue%2036/01_HJSR_36_Perspectives_State_of_Jefferson_FULL_ISSUE.pdf
State of Jefferson brings three more California counties on board
By Alexei Koseff
Sacramento Bee
January 15, 2015
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article6684729.html#storylink=cpy
Jeffersonians rally for independence at the California Capitol
By Alexei Koseff
Sacramento Bee
August 28, 2014
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article2608052.html#storylink=cpy
State of Jefferson, Keep It California make their cases at Nevada County Supervisors’ meeting
Keri Brenner
The Union
May 13, 2015
http://www.theunion.com/news/16315295-113/state-of-jefferson-keep-it-california-make-their
Modoc becomes second California county to back secession drive
By Lee Romney
Los Angeles Times
September 25, 2013
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/25/local/la-me-ln-modoc-county-secession-20130925
State of Jefferson takes root in Glenn County
By Heather Hacking
Chicoer
January 21 2014
http://www.chicoer.com/general-news/20140121/state-of-jefferson-takes-root-in-glenn-county/2
Northern California County Board Votes For Secession From State
CBS news
September 4, 2013
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/09/04/northern-california-county-board-votes-for-secession-from-state/
Counties and areas that have officially rejected being part of Jefferson
Redding City Council rejects “State of Jefferson” proposal
By Kelli Saam
ABC news
October 02 2013
http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/redding-city-council-rejects-state-of-jefferson-proposal/22230558
Anderson council tables vote on Jefferson
By Joe Szydlowski
Redding Record Searchlight
January 05 2016
http://www.redding.com/news/anderson/anderson-council-tables-vote-on-jefferson-289beeb8-f503-4d27-e053-0100007f1736-364339171.html
Local Officials Mock, Reverse Decision on State of Jefferson
by Michelle Moons
Breitbart
December 17 2015
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/12/17/local-officials-mock-reverse-decision-state-jefferson/
Trinity County Board of Supervisors Say “NO” to State of Jefferson
By Keep It California PAC
Yuba net
September 18 2015
http://yubanet.com/california/Trinity-County-Board-of-Supervisors-Say-NO-to-State-of-Jefferson.php#.Vo2cOfkrKWg
“Keep It California spokesman, Kevin Hendrick commended the Trinity Board of Supervisors for exercising due diligence in evaluating the financial impacts of separating from California. “You have enough information to know that the State of Jefferson is not a viable proposition for Trinity County.” Hendrick said, “It simply defies logic to suggest that you can cluster all of the poorest counties in California and somehow end up with a prosperous new state.””
Sierra County BOS adopt resolution declining to join the “State of Jefferson”
By Keep It California PAC
Yuba Net
January 5 2016
http://yubanet.com/regional/Sierra-County-BOS-adopt-resolution-declining-to-join-the-State-of-Jefferson.php#.Vo2dKfkrKWg
State of Jefferson: 2 of 3 Northern California secession measures defeated
Associated Press
June 4 2014
http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_25896757/2-3-northern-california-secession-measures-defeated
State of Jefferson stalls in Butte County
By Colin Steiner
June 10 2014
ABC news
http://www.krcrtv.com/news/politics/state-of-jefferson-stalls-in-butte-county/26428064
Humbolt and Mendocino counties are liberal
Population and registered voters
Humboldt County, California
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt_County,_California
Population and registered voters
Mendocino County, California
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendocino_County,_California
Counties that would form Jefferson voted for Proposition 13
California Proposition 13 (1978)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%281978%29
Proposition 13 is what made Sacramento have so much power over local regions
Challenge to Prop. 13
LA Times
January 22, 1989
http://articles.latimes.com/1989-01-22/opinion/op-1195_1_property-taxes
“Proposition 13 also has centralized fiscal authority in Sacramento, where local authorities unable to raise property-tax revenues have looked for bailouts.”
How Proposition 13 began to screw us over the years, and how to fix it!
By J M Ivler
Orange Juice Blog
June 29 2014
How Proposition 13 began to screw us over the years, and how to fix it!
“Some are so ill-thought-out that they achieve the opposite of their intent: for all its small-government pretensions, Proposition 13 ended up centralising California’s finances, shifting them from local to state government”
The perils of extreme democracy
The Economist
April 20th 2011
http://www.economist.com/node/18586520
Local Control Funding Formula Overview
California department of Education
Last Reviewed December 11 2015
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
Dan Walters: Ed activists question schools’ use of ‘local control’ money
By Dan Walters
Napa Valley register
September 06 2015
http://napavalleyregister.com/news/opinion/editorial/dan-walters-ed-activists-question-schools-use-of-local-control/article_7a3516c0-cd2f-524d-a28d-27cb4252c550.html
8.3 Who Pays: Where California’s Public School Funds Come From
Ed 100
Accessed January 22 2015
http://ed100.org/support/whopays/
State-Local Reform
Whats Next California
Uploaded on Sep 8, 2011
http://www.nextca.org/topics/entry/state-local-reform
“Defining the problem in California: Local governments in California are often much more dependent on money from the state than is true elsewhere. This is particularly the case with counties and school and community college districts”
“Much of this dynamic is the result of state budget decisions and voter-approved initiatives, most notably the landmark Proposition 13”
“Many believe that problems in the state and local relationship today still reflect the fact that local officials don’t have the flexibility or authority to properly perform their jobs because their services are too dependent on uncertain funding and strict regulation from the state. They also say the structure makes it more difficult to hold officials accountable when things aren’t working. Local officials often blame the state because it sets so many rules and provides so much of the money.”
Counties that form Jefferson have most of their land owned by the Federal government not California
Rural Californians sympathize with protesters’ goals in Oregon standoff
By Ryan Sabalow, Dale Kasler and Phillip Reese
Sacramento Bee
January 9, 2016
http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article53922925.html
El Dorado County Sheriff recognizes that the Federal government does not have jurisdiction of the forests
El Dorado County Sheriff Strips Forest Service Of State-Law Enforcement Power
CBS News
June 21, 2013
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/06/21/el-dorado-county-sheriff-strips-forest-service-of-state-law-enforcement-power/
Fresno County Board of Supervisors recognizes that the Federal government does not have jurisdiction of the forests
Subject: December 10 2013, Agenda Item number 6 – Resolutions relating
to Fire Hazard Conditions, roads, rights of way, and routes of travel
on United States Forest Service of Bureau of Land Management Lands
by the County of Fresno, Board of Supervisors, Inter Office Memo
December 5 2013
Many Californians and the Federal government recognize that the Federal government is not managing the National Forests well and this causes more and larger forest fires and reduced water
Jerry Brown declares emergency for dying trees
David Siders
Sacramento Bee
October 30 2015
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article41962989.html#storylink=cpy
“Lamenting “the worst epidemic of tree mortality” in the state’s modern history, Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday sought federal aid to remove dead trees from California forests and called for more controlled burns to reduce the risk of wildfire.”
“The Healthy Forest Restoration Act”
President G.W. Bush
December 3, 2003
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-108hr1904enr/pdf/BILLS-108hr1904enr.pdf
“An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Sierran Mixed-Conifer Forests; General Technical Report PSW-GTR-220.”
Malcolm North, Peter Stine, Kevin O’Hara, William Zielinski,Scott Stephens
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific SouthWest Research Station
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5400288.pdf
– a healthy forest has an average of 120-209 trees per acre (the Sierra National forest is on a slope – 209 trees at the bottom of the slope and 120 trees where the slope is steeper at the top of the slope)
– Currently Sierra National Forest (under Fed control) has 600 trees per acre everywhere.
“State of the Sierra Nevada forest”
B.J. Kirwan, Jim Branham, Joan Keegan
Sierra Nevada Conservancy
2014
http://www.sierranevada.ca.gov/our-work/docs/StateOfSierraForestsRptWeb.pdf
-says that Sierra Nevada forests fires become more “extreme” and grow larger in size since the last 20 years.
“Forests and Water in the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Watershed Ecosystem Enhancement Project”
Roger C. Bales, John J. Battles, Yihsu Chen, Martha H. Conklin, Eric Holst, Kevin L. O’Hara, Philip Saksa, William Stewart
UC Merced Sierra Nevada Research Institute
UC Berkeley Center for Forestry
Environmental DefenseFund
November 29, 2011
http://ucanr.edu/sites/cff/files/146199.pdf
-Currently CA gets 60% THE MAJORITY of its water from the Sierra Nevada forest.
-If you thin out the trees from 600 – 120/209 you can increase the water provided to farms and cities by almost 10% to maybe even more than 10%
“Tahoe Conservation Purchase”
Matthew Hose
California Planning & Development Report, California In Brief Vol. 30 No. 8
August 24 2015
http://www.cp-dr.com/node/3780
“By thinning about 25 to 50 percent of the trees in many of these areas, UC Merced Professor Roger Bales said, the amount of water flowing into streams could increase from 9 to 16 percent. Sierra-wide, that could increase the water running off by 500,000 to 1 million acre feet a year, enough for up to 5 million people for a year.”
California actually owns the Forests that the Federal government falsely claims
THIS IS THE REPORT THAT SAYS CALIFORNIA HAS JURISDICTION NOT THE FED GOV
“Inventory report on jurisdiction status of Federal areas within the states as of June 30 1962” General services administration September 3 1964
WHAT LAND CALIFORNIA HAS CONTROL OVER STARTS PAGE 74-115
- Pages 106 and 107 list National Forests and National Monuments as code 4.
- Page 7 (Pdf #) explains what each code means: Code 4 definition is provided as: “Proprietorial Interest Only. This term is applied to those instances wherein the Federal Government has acquired some right or title to an area in a State, but has not obtained any measure of the State’s authority over the area.”
COMPARE THIS TO THE OTHER JURISDICTIONAL CODES
1 – Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction .. “State concerned has not reserved to itself the right to exercise any of the authority..”
2 – Concurrent Legislative Jurisdiction .. “State concerned has reserved to itself the right to exercise, concurrently with the United States, all of the same authority.”
3 – Partial Legislative Jurisdiction ..”Instances wherein the Federal Government has been granted for exercise by it over an area in a state certain of the state’s authority..”
LEGAL INTERPRETATION
What this means is that code 4 means that the state has jurisdiction over that property and controls it – not the Federal government, and the Federal government can say little to nothing about it. We know this because codes 1 – 3 explain who the state could share authority of the Federal government or not have much or any authority over a property in comparison to the Federal government.
SOURCES WHERE THIS REPORT IS AVAILABLE:
Montana Legislature – copy
http://leg.mt.gov/content/Committees/Interim/2013-2014/EQC/Committee-Topics/sj-15/matrix-references/federal-land-jurisdiction-report.pdf
United States deparment of agriculture, National Agricultural library – copy
http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/catalog/17138
Google books – copy
https://books.google.com/books/about/Inventory_Report_on_Jurisdictional_Statu.html?id=r_dkPwAACAAJ
Stanford University library – copy
https://catalog.stanford.edu/view/1776419
Waybackmachine – copy
https://archive.org/stream/federalrealperso1962unit/federalrealperso1962unit_djvu.txt
Federal responses to claim that California actually owns the National Forests – None refute the Eisenhower Report or say El Dorado or Fresno county can’t do what they did.
2013 – Fed response to El Dorado Sheriff: Not – you can’t do that – they just said we don’t like that. BIG DIFFERENCE
U.S. Forest Chief Responds To El Dorado County Sheriff Banning Feds Enforcing State Laws
CBS news
July 16, 2013
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/07/16/u-s-forest-chief-responds-to-el-dorado-county-sheriff-banning-feds-enforcing-state-laws/
2015 – When things don’t go his way – same Fed official is arguing to “cut funds to fight forest fires in CA”
Forest Service Chief Reviews Fire Season, Calls for Two-Part Solution to Fire Budget
News Release – Release No. 0283.15
U.S. Department of Agriculture
October 8 2015
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2015/10/0283.xml&contentidonly=true
2015 – Same Fed official said that “litigation is not what is stopping logging in forests”
http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/logging-litigation-myths-debunked/article_e204df4a-cdb3-55c8-9177-e0355747b92d.html
“Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data”
Congressional Research Service
February 8, 2012
SUMMARY:
http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/federal-land-management-states
ACTUAL REPORT:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwiv49HfhLTIAhXEMYgKHSaGBCs&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffas.org%2Fsgp%2Fcrs%2Fmisc%2FR42346.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGtmMTLmm0mCVJaJat5FNpPXb-7tw&sig2=pd6r2Q01rXOhgu7NC1dgPw
47,797,533 Acres claimed by Fed gov in California
47.7% Percent of CA land claimed by Fed gov – pg 4
SMOKING GUN 1:
The Eisenhower report is not mentioned in this review by Federal experts at all – even though it is a Federal report.
This is a review of existing laws – it is not a declaration of a law itself.
Therefore laws/policies that were actually made (Eisenhower) trump this data review (aka Eisnehower report overrules this data review)
SMOKING GUN 2:
THIS REPORT LIES: FOREST FIRES IN CA ARE INCREASING – BUT IT IS NOT BECAUSE THE FED GOV HAS ALLOWED TO DENSE OF TREES TO OCCUR AND UNDERBRUSH TO BUILD UP
AND THIS REPORT OMITS THAT 2003 HEALTHY FORESTS SAYS TO REDUCE DENSITY OF TREES WHILE MENTIONING THE REPORT
“Severe forest fires in and around Yellowstone National
Park in 1988 have been followed by more frequent severe wildfire seasons. The causes are widely
attributed to poor logging practices (particularly harvesting the large pines and leaving the less
tolerant firs), overgrazing, and fire control (which eliminated natural degradation of some
biomass), all of which have led to a substantial increase in flammable biomass in western
forests.39 These concerns led the Clinton Administration to propose a national fire plan in 2000,
the Bush Administration to propose a Healthy Forests Initiative in 2002, and Congress to enact
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.” – pg 20
QUOTE FROM FED REPORT:
“Severe forest fires in and around Yellowstone National
Park in 1988 have been followed by more frequent severe wildfire seasons. The causes are widely
attributed to poor logging practices (particularly harvesting the large pines and leaving the less
tolerant firs), overgrazing, and fire control (which eliminated natural degradation of some
biomass), all of which have led to a substantial increase in flammable biomass in western
forests.39 These concerns led the Clinton Administration to propose a national fire plan in 2000,
the Bush Administration to propose a Healthy Forests Initiative in 2002, and Congress to enact
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.” – pg 20
REFERENCES FOR THAT STATEMENT:
39 See Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West, ed. R.N. Sampson, D.L. Adams, and M. Enzer (New
York: Food Products Press, 1994); see also CRS Report RS20822, Forest Ecosystem Health: An Overview, by Ross W.
Gorte.
40 See http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/overview/.
41 See CRS Report R41691, Forest Management for Resilience and Adaptation, by Ross W. Gorte.
Pg 20
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf
NOTE:
QUOTE FROM REPORT DOES NOT MENTION TOO HIGH A DENSITY AS AN ISSUE AT ALL
YET THE REFERENCES LISTED IN THE REPORT – DIRECTLY SAY THAT
WHY WAS THE CONCEPT OF DENSITY MISSED WHEN THE REFERENCES SELECTED BY THE FED GOV MENTION DENSITY?
Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West,
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr267/rm_gtr267_053_062.pdf
“Forest Health in the Inland West,” held in Boise, Idaho, omliiied the nature of the emergency. Participants concluded that over-dense tree stands … were the primary, underlying causes of deteriorating forest health” pg 54
Forest Ecosystem Health: An Overview, by Ross W.Gorte.
http://www.iatp.org/files/Forest_Ecosystem_Health_An_Overview.htm
“The Nature of the Problem. Despite the differences in focus, most observers agree that there are forest health problems, generally associated with very high levels of biomass (live and dead vegetation); concerns about and possible treatments to reduce this biomass is the focus of this report. These high biomass accumulations are of concern for several reasons.”
SMOKING GUN 3: THIS REPORT ADMITS THAT FEDERAL LANDS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO.
“… federal acquisition of additional territory through the Louisiana Purchase in
1803, the Oregon Compromise with England in 1846, and cession of lands by treaty after the
Mexican War in 1848.4” – pg 2
SMOKING GUN 4:
THIS INTERPRETATION IS NOT CORRECT – CONGRESS SAID THE PUBLIC LANDS WOULD REMAIN GENERALLY IN FEDERAL CONTROL UNLESS IT IS DETERMINED THAT
RELINQUISHING THE LAND WOULD SERVE THE NATIONAL INTEREST
“1934 Taylor Grazing Act, some western Members of Congress acknowledged the poor prospects
for relinquishing federal lands to the states, but language included in the act left disposal as a
possibility. It was not until the enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (FLPMA) that Congress expressly declared that the remaining public domain lands
generally would remain in federal ownership.” – pg 3
Proof:
1976 FLPMA REPORT:
http://www.blm.gov/flpma/FLPMA.pdf (pg 64)
ACTUAL LAW THAT PASSED: 1976 Public Law 94-579, 90 Stat. 2743
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-90/pdf/STATUTE-90-Pg2743.pdf
“(1) the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless as
a result of the land use planning procedure provided for in this
Act, it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve
the national interest;”
RESOURCES
California Legislative Counsel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Legislative_Counsel
Website of the Legislative Counsel of California
http://legislativecounsel.ca.gov/
El Dorado County Sheriff recognizes that the Federal government does not have jurisdiction of the forests
El Dorado County Sheriff Strips Forest Service Of State-Law Enforcement Power
CBS News
June 21, 2013
Fresno County Board of Supervisors recognizes that the Federal government does not have jurisdiction of the forests
Subject: December 10 2013, Agenda Item number 6 – Resolutions relating
to Fire Hazard Conditions, roads, rights of way, and routes of travel
on United States Forest Service of Bureau of Land Management Lands
by the County of Fresno, Board of Supervisors, Inter Office Memo
December 5 2013
El Dorado County, California
Sheriff John D’Agostini
June 17 2013
To:
US Department of Agriculture Forest Service
TEXT OF THAT LETTER:
This letter is regarding the Cooperative Law Enforcement Agreement between the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office and the Pacific Southwest Region of the USDA Forest Service. California Penal Code Section 830.8(a) limits the authority of the Forest Service criminal investigators and law enforcement officers to exercise powers of arrest of a California peace officer and to enforce California statutes without the written consent of the Sheriff or the Chief of Police in whose jurisdiction they are assigned.
I am terminating the agreement and giving 30 days written notice as required. Effective Monday July 22 2013, the cooperative agreement will no longer exist. Forest Service criminal investigators and law enforcement officers will not have my consent or authorization to exercise the powers of arrest of a California peace officer, and will not have my consent or authorization to enforce state and local laws within the unincorporated areas of El Dorado County.
Also effective Monday July 22 2013, the Sheriff’s office will no longer accept evidence submitted by USDA criminal investigators or law enforcement officers.
Sincerely,
Signed_________________
Fresno County, California
Board of Supervisors, Chair: Henry Perea
Issued December 5 2013
TEXT OF THAT RESOLUTION:
Before the board of supervisors of the county of Fresno state of California.
In the matter of Sierra and Sequoia National Forests
Resolution declaring an emergency in Fresno county, California due to degraded forest conditions and imminent threat from catastrophic fires and extreme drought
WHEREAS, overly dense forests lead to catastrophic fires that destroy wildlife, ecosystems and local economies leading to social disruption, and
WHEREAS, it is the responsibility and within the scope of authority of the Board of Supervisors of Fresno County (“County”) to exercise powers necessary and proper to protect public safety, health, promote public prosperity and improve the morals, order, comfort and convenience of the inhabitants of the County pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of laws of this state; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of County is required to exercise those powers necessary and proper to provide for the safety, preserve the health, and promote the prosperity and welfare of County in appropriate instances; and
WHEREAS, degraded conditions in the County forest threaten the health, safety, welfare, and prosperity of County residents, families, and businesses due to federal mismanagement driven by ill-advised environmental policies; and
WHEREAS, Multiple-use Management, Timber Sales and Livestock Grazing are being curtailed due to federal mismanagement drive by ill-advised environmental policies to the point of causing greatly diminished health to our forests, and catastrophic health, safety, welfare and economic affects to County residents, businesses, lives, and property.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Board of Supervisors declares a State of Emergency and Disaster to exist in and around the County’s forest communities; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Board of Supervisors hereby formally calls upon state and Federal officials to take immediate action to eliminate hazardous conditions in and around the County’s communities; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Board of Supervisors hereby directs state and Federal officials in cooperation with Fresno County to take such actions as are necessary to clear and thin undergrowth and to remove or log trees within the area of the disaster, and to assess all attendant costs to those agencies charged with wise management of our forests and whose neglect has caused the dangerous conditions therein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution be called immediately to the attention of the Secretary of Agriculture, California’s Congressional Delegation, Governor Brown, the California Legislature, and the California division of Emergency Management; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Governor of the state of California and the California division of Emergency Management are hereby called upon in the name of the state of California to declare a State of Emergency and Disaster in the County and its national forests effected by severe drought conditions, high fire danger and actual or penitential catastrophic losses caused by wild fires
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the United States Forest Service personnel are hereby called upon to immediately respond to the communication, consultation and coordination with, and provide immediate notification to, County of all their activities, programs, planning, NEPA processes, etc. having as their object to abate first and flooding dangers in County; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Board of Supervisors calls upon the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Congress, the California legislature, and the California Governor’s office to immediately provide emergency funding to accomplish tree thinning, timber sales, dead tree removal, fuel-load reduction and livestock grazing to protect affected areas from catastrophic wildfire; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Board of Supervisor calls upon state and Federal officials to immediately coordinate a meeting to address the issues raised by this resolution; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Board of Supervisors calls upon the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Congress to conduct an investigation to determine why the requirements of County, state, and Federal ordinance, laws and regulations are not being routinely foolwi9nd in relations to public safety, recreation, wildfire and economic issues of County forest lands and other Federally managed lands and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that failing in a timely and adequate response to the above directions, it is the responsibility of the Freson County Board of Supervisors to take such action as is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents, within the scope of its authority.
THE FOREGOING was passed and adopted by the following vote of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Fresno on the _______day of _____________year
