We knew they’d have something else in place, we just didn’t know exactly what until they rescinded the White River Blueway designation. So…..Good thing we’re all saddled up!

Rearranging the American Landscape Here in the Heartland!

Rearranging the American Landscape Here in the Heartland!

Seeking to quell a public backlash, the U.S. Department of the Interior dropped the White River [Watershed National Blueway designation] on Wednesday from a new federal program that recognizes conservation and recreation efforts along waterways.Click here for the rest of the ABC News article Feds Rescind White River’s Blueway Designation.

U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) issued this response:
“The Obama Administration’s attempt to establish a new federal designation without the approval of Congress or public input is absolutely unacceptable.  The stakeholders and community members deserve more transparency from their government.  I’m pleased the Obama Administration has withdrawn this designation.”

U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-Ark.) issued this response:
“We all agree that we should work to protect our waterways, but a new federal Blueway program is not necessary to improve the cooperation of federal and state agencies on the management of the White River.  This designation occurred without a formal process – no public comment, lack of transparency from the federal government, and without the broad support of Arkansans.  We are happy to see that Secretary Jewell reviewed the program and heard the concerns of our citizens.”

This IS great news, but don’t celebrate too quickly everyone…  This is like a Pandora’s box, so get prepared.  At the end, this will expose U.N. Agenda 21. 

Another federal agency MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) has been uncovered that involves the National Blueways, and it names the White River/Cache River Watershed as a watershed demonstration pilot!

Please take a few minutes to read this newly-found MOU .  Give it time to upload, and pay attention to the terminology and language used.  We are VERY concerned about what this entails.

Our first question is:  why is the U.S. title not used to identify the agencies at the top of the MOU document?  (National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Army Corps of Engineers)

Notice in Section I. PURPOSE, nowhere is it mentioned that local representatives or public are involved.  It only mentions “the Federal partners”.

In Section II. BACKGROUND, paragraph 1, it has language as follows: “…management approach that can operate across (over the top of?) Federal agency jurisdictions, programs, and authorities.”  (emphasis ours)

Does that mean international intrusion or interference “across” federal jurisdictions and/or authorities?

Paragraph 3 of that section mentions President Obama’s America’s Great Outdoors Initiative (AGO) “which calls for a 21st-Century Conservation Agenda”.  (This is a code name for the environmentalist.  It means Sustainable Development in the 21st Century  under United Nations Agenda 21.)  U.S. Department of Interior Secretarial Order 3323 “Establishment of the America’s Great Outdoors Program” can be found here.  If you’ll notice, Secretarial Order 3323 was implemented right on the heels of Secretarial Order 3321, the order that was just withdrawn.  Thus, we believe that Secretarial Order 3323 should be withdrawn, also!

Paragraph 4 of that section says “To facilitate these shared objectives, the Federal agencies established AGO interagency regional landscape and watershed teams”.  To whom do these teams report?  Who makes up these teams?

It goes on to say “This MOU will formalize the initial Federal agency coordination, including providing a forum for exploring the relationships among existing landscape and watershed-based initiatives.”

The next paragraph states: “While these teams are currently organized under the umbrella of AGO’s demonstration large landscape and water initiative, the need for interagency collaboration and communication transcends any particular initiative.”

Just as we thought, this brings together many different agencies and organizations to implement their environmentalist agenda.

Section IV addresses the mutual benefit and interests of the “signatory Federal partners” which includes “many overlapping and complementary conservation interests” which provides potential for “enhanced cooperation and synergies, especially in the area of large landscape conservation where alignment of multiple resources will result in strategic and effective conservation outcomes.”

In Section V. GUIDING PRINCIPLES, subsection b, it says “…better aligning and leveraging conservation funding and authorities across the executive branch” and concentrating investments.  Again, is that international power over the top of the executive branch?

In Section VI. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, subsection c says “Work to increase the pace of conservation activities applied on working farms, ranches, range land, forests, and waters.”  Subsection d says “Consider ways to increase the availability of voluntary financial incentives for stewardship of working lands and waters and look for opportunities to develop and expand new markets for nature’s ecological services.”

In Section VII. IMPLEMENTATION, the Connecticut River Watershed AND the White River/ Cache River Watersheds are named as WATERSHED DEMONSTRATION PILOTS! Both of these watersheds are listed in the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of  International Importance is connected to the two Blueways designated (the Connecticut River & the White River).  See the information at the end of this email for more details about the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.

The same section in subsection (1) mentions establishing and maintaining “interagency landscape and watershed working groups consisting of representatives at the headquarters and regional levels to provide the leadership necessary to coordinate Federal action in each of the identified landscapes.”  (emphasis ours)  This means NO state or local control or input!

Subsection (2) mentions establishing a “shared vision, metrics, and strategy document for each selected landscape and watershed demonstration area.  The document must outline goals and objectives, as well as an implementation plan.”

Subsection (3) is full of alarming terms and verbiage.  What is the definition of a “landscape partnership”?

It says in (3) b. “Support landscape partnerships … across federal agencies and partners.”  Again, what is a landscape partnership?!  Could it have an international element application upon our American or Arkansas property?

We want our congressional delegates to find out!

It says in (3) c.  “…encourage access for hunting, fishing, hiking, recreation, and other outdoor activities across private working lands and waters.” (emphasis ours)  This is over the top.  The access is accomplished by acquisition private property and conservation easements.

If a landscape partnership is ONLY between the state or federal agency or NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and the stakeholders (organizations that support the Blueway), then NO local government or public input is involved! 

Two important things to remember:
1.  “Watersheds” follow regional boundaries.
2.  “Stakeholders” does not mean property owners or the public.  “Stakeholders” are organizations and agencies
which support the Blueway.

In subsection (4) it mentions convening “periodically, but at least on a quarterly basis, Federal representatives from across the landscapes and watersheds covered by this MOU to review the progress made under this MOU…”  (emphasis ours)  We wonder where or when they will meet, and how we may get a copy of the minutes of the meetings.

Section VIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS is the last part of the MOU before the signature pages.  Subsection D. Principle Contacts mentions a “chair or co-chair of each interagency work team shall be the principle contact under this MOU for that respective landscape conservation area.”  Who will these people be, and to whom do they make themselves accountable?

Why does this MOU have such a strong Agenda for the 21st Century?  This is a code name for the environmentalist.  It means Sustainable Development in the 21st Century .

The first step was the America’s Great Outdoor initiative.

The second step was a nomination (of the White River Watershed area as a National Blueway).

The third step was a designation (Secretary of Interior Salazar did this, but there was a failure to notify everyone – federal/state/local officials and the public).

The fourth step is an alignment – see this MOU IV. STATEMENT OF MUTUAL BENEFIT AND INTERESTS (page 2 of 7 of the MOU ).

If the Blueway designation failed, shouldn’t the alignment fail, too?

*   *   *   *   *

Now, we keep hearing from some people in certain state or federal agencies that this massive conservation effort and the Blueways Systems aren’t tied into U.N. (United Nations) Agenda 21.  However, the more research we do, the more we find that they ARE tied together.

In our research, we came across Ramsar Convention of Wetlands.  This is how they accumulate more wetlands.  Ramsar isn’t a direct U.N. organization, but this is who educates people.

From the 63 page Nomination Document , we have tied the term “Wetlands of International Importance” to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. The National Blueway System is connected to the U.N. (United Nations) via the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and other conventions and international organizations.  Ducks Unlimited and The Nature Conservancy are members of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.


Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

The Blueway System is connected to “The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance” (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

The information below is what we found in our research.  We are continuing to look for more documentation…

Memoranda of understanding and cooperation with other conventions and international organizations

The Convention on Wetlands came into force for the USA on 18 April 1987.  The USA presently has 35 sites designated as Wetlands of International Importance, with a surface area of 1,827,196 hectares.

This is listed for Arkansas

Cache-Lower White Rivers21/11/89; Arkansas; 81,376 ha; 34º40’N 091º11’W. National Wildlife Refuge, Wildlife Management Area, Protected Areas. Half of the site is subject to late winter or spring flooding and permanent water consists of rivers, oxbow lakes, and swamps. Particularly notable for containing the longest continuous expanse of bottomland hardwoods (forested, periodically flooded wetlands) in the Lower Mississippi Valley, with the principal tree species varying according to frequency and duration of inundation. The area is internationally important for numerous species of wintering waterbirds, including up to 10,000 Branta canadensis and up to 100 individuals of the endangered eagle Haliaetus leucocephalus. The site supports numerous species of game and fur-bearing mammals including the endangered bear Ursus americanus. The area is also important for conservation education, outdoor recreation, and scientific research. Ramsar site no. 442. Most recent RIS information: 1993.
Click here for more information.

Tracts acquired for USA Ramsar site.  Ducks Unlimited is taking a lead role in the acquisition and restoration of two tracts of land, including Raft Creek, 4,165 acres, which is part of the White River ecosystem, and the Hatchiecoon tract, consisting of 900 acres, both included within the Cache-Lower White Rivers Ramsar site (81,376 hectares, designated November 1989) in the midwestern state of Arkansas, USA. The two tracts support one of the largest concentrations of wintering waterfowl in Arkansas. Other partners in this public-private cooperative initiative include the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the National Wild Turkey Federation, and numerous private donors. More detail is available in this announcement to the Ramsar Forum. [31/8/00]

The Convention on Wetlands text, as amended in 1982 and 1987

Article 2

1. Each Contracting Party shall designate suitable wetlands within its territory for inclusion in a List of Wetlands of International Importance, hereinafter referred to as “the List” which is maintained by the bureau established under Article 8. The boundaries of each wetland shall be precisely described and also delimited on a map and they may incorporate riparian and coastal zones adjacent to the wetlands, and islands or bodies of marine water deeper than six metres at low tide lying within the wetlands, especially where these have importance as waterfowl habitat.

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

The Ramsar mission

The Convention’s mission is “the conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local and national actions and international cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development throughout the world”.

The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, called the Ramsar Convention, is an intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources.

The Ramsar Convention is the only global environmental treaty that deals with a particular ecosystem. The treaty was adopted in the Iranian city of Ramsar in 1971 and the Convention’s member countries cover all geographic regions of the planet.

Memorandum of Cooperation  between The Secretariat of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971 and The Nature Conservancy

Ramsar/MAB Joint Programme of Work between The Secretariat of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971 and the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Progammea

Memorandum of Cooperation  between The Secretariat of the Convention on Wetlands and Ducks Unlimited, Inc.

Memorandum of Cooperation between The Secretariat of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and The Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971)

There are a lot more, but Ramsar Convention on Wetlands ties Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited,  UNESCO Man and the Biosphere to the National Blueway System.  (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization)

Ramsar Convention Manual, 6th edition  http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/lib/manual6-2013-e.pdf

Handbook 1 Wise use of Wetlands Ramsar Handbook 4th edition  http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/lib/hbk4-01.pdf

Handbook 2 National Wetland Policies Ramsar Handbook 4th edition  http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/lib/hbk4-02.pdf
Other Ramsar Convention Handbooks  are available here.

  1. It is my belief that the White River Blueway fiasco was nothing more than testing the waters, and “allowing” us to think we were successful in defeating it. This is just my opinion, but I am concerned about the possibility of this being crammed down our throats on an “international” ( read: U.N.) level, with ultimately no recourse through our elected “representatives”. I pray I am wrong. Regardless, I truly appreciate the efforts you have put into this battle. Some of us DO pay attention.. Thank you, Doreen and Bob!

  2. Myself says:

    What are you smoking?

  3. […] Published Here: https://prcnews.org/2013/07/05/pandoras-box-in-the-white-river-watershed/ […]

  4. roberta4949 says:

    I was just wondering why do they want to have and hold all the lands so bad to go through the trouble of all these rules and changes and passing this or that resolution and planning and fighting against opposers and such, what is it they hope to gain that is so important for them to go through all this trouble? couldn’t they just use the power of the purse to force their hand get it over with instead of beating around the bush and contradicting themselves? I mean in china they are just going out into the rural areas and forcing people by the hundreds of thousands to go into the cities so they can get control of the lands, why all this dog and pony shows and foot stamping and bull horning to get all the property? I mean we are at the mercy of thefiat money system, most people have been indoctrinated into submission to the gov no matter what it asks, and yet they keep all this posturing and selective bullying, I just don’t understand it.? most people will give up wiht out a fight, only a small number of people will fight back, so what is this really about? any ideas? or is my understanding of the situaiton way off?

  5. H_C says:

    This is about 2 bills. I have left only what pertains to SG21:

    ALERT from Missouri
    From Ike Skelton:*

    *I’ve gotten word the governor vetoed our anti agenda 21 bill SB265. *

    *The bill passed both chambers with enough votes to override a veto. We
    will need to ask folks to stick to their vote. *


    The veto by Gov. Nixon of SB265 will necessitate an organized effort to
    “encourage” our legislators to hold the line on their votes in favor of the
    bill. MOPP will be forwarding more information about how we can most
    effectively accomplish this with phone calls, faxes, emails and visits to
    Jeff City. The “veto session” will take place in September.

    ….so once again…STAY TUNED!

    Mo. Gov. Nixon vetoes billl against Agenda 21 Associated Press

    Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed a pair of bills Monday that he said targeted
    imaginary problems pertaining to federal holidays and United Nation’s
    policies, but which he said could have been costly to local communities.

    One would have forbidden governments from enacting policies
    traceable to Agenda 21, a nonbinding resolution adopted in 1992 by the
    United Nations that encouraged sustainable development.

    “While the problems these bills ostensibly aim to fight are only
    imaginary, the headaches they could create for local governments would be
    very real and costly,” Nixon, a Democrat, said in a news release
    announcing the vetoes. “The new and unnecessary mandates imposed by these
    bills would have infringed on the rights of local communities and prompted
    a flood of frivolous litigation.”

    …addressing Agenda 21, could have forced city councils and other governmental entities to undertake a “bizarre and burdensome analysis” to determine if a zoning ordinance or local policy was traceable to the U.N. resolution.

    Agenda 21, which got its title by a reference to the 21st century, was
    signed by 178 nations and encourages changes in global consumption,
    management and conservation practices.
    But Nixon said it doesn’t mandate anything “and not a single pejorative action in Missouri has been tied to it.”
    “It is fundamentally misguided and unnecessary to require local government officials to become international law experts in order to perform their duties,”
    Nixon wrote in his veto message.

    Agenda 21 bill is SB265.

    Legislature: http://www.moga.mo.gov
    Governor: http://www.gov.mo.gov

  6. fisherman says:

    I’ve been neutral, it seems a lot of to do about nothing. I do think your group has found the designation to be a godsend.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s