Wisconsin Just Quietly Disobeyed the Feds to Legalize Hemp Farming Again

Wisconsin just quietly passed a bill that will allow farmers in the state to grow industrial hemp which will inevitably lead to economic growth and a hemp revolution.

Study: Sustainably-Sourced Goods are KEY for Protecting Endangered Species’

Have you ever teared up at a news story about giraffes heading towards extinction? Perhaps you symbolically adopted an elephant to save it from poaching. Your heart is in the right place. But a study released earlier this year highlights the very real damage human consumption does to threatened species and the environment.

The couch you’re sitting on, the smartphone you used to donate money to the African elephant rescue effort – both of these have a negative impact on biodiversity. Even the coffee you brew in the morning takes a toll.

I hate to say it, but unless it is sustainably-sourced, every time you buy something, you’re wrecking the damn planet. Thanks a lot, you … and me.

UN Report: Small Scale Organic is the Only Way to Feed the World

Research published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution illuminates the global hotspots most impacted by goods exported to the United States, China, Japan, and the European Union. The findings show that U.S. consumption is particularly harmful to land species from parts of Southeast Asia and Madagascar, in addition to southern Europe, the Sahel region of Africa, coastal Mexico, Central America, and Central Asia. [1]

Source: Time – Darker purple and green regions indicate the regions where exports to the U.S. most damage biodiversity.

Goods in nearly every store you visit in the U.S. originate in places where monkeys, toads, sea cows, and big cats call home. Elements like coffee and palm oil are elements that animals in shrinking habits need to survive. These resources are used in products made by 15,000 industries globally and consumed in some 187 countries, and an inordinate amount of it is consumed in the U.S. and Europe.

This results in the suffering of more than 6,500 species of wildlife. [2]

Sea cow

Tracking Consumption’s Impact

For the study, researchers evaluated the supply chains of a multitude of different products to trace the effects of goods on 6,800 species listed as threatened by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Supply chains were found to threaten species in a variety of ways, including forestry-destroying habitats, pollution, and urban development. [1]

The researchers laid fairly new global supply-chain databases over the habitats of endangered species listed by the IUCN and BirdLife International. This allowed the team to identify the world’s “threatened biodiversity hot spots,” as they refer to them. [2]

For example, logging in Brazil to make products eventually sold in the U.S. cuts down trees used by red-face spider monkeys. Mangroves off Papua New Guinea – home to diverse plant species and an endangered sea cow – are impacted by the fishery trade and gold mined and destined for Japan.

Red face spider monkey

Daniel Moran, a researcher at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, said:

“Biodiversity hot spots is a well studied topic, and it is known that the last reserves of biodiversity are harbored in a small number of places. Economic pressure, even at the margin and in small increments, exerts pressure at these places. Almost any human pressure at the places, unless very well managed, will have a big impact on species there.”

The researchers wrote that product demand in the U.S. also affects “marine hot spots off the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica and Nicaragua at the mouth of the Orinoco around Trinidad and Tobago.” They went on to say:

“The European Union drives threats [in] hot spots outside Southeast Asia in the islands around Madagascar: Réunion, Mauritius, Seychelles.

Despite much attention on the Amazon rain forest, the U.S. footprint in Brazil is actually greater in southern Brazil, the Brazilian Highlands, where agriculture and grazing are extensive, than inside the Amazon basin, although impacts along the Amazon river itself are high.”

Source: World Wildlife Fund

Humans have moved into animal habitats and now live among them so closely that even the smallest environmental impact can reverberate widely.

The study states:

“For threats driven by U.S. consumption, the 5 percent most intensively affected land area covers 23.6 percent of its total impact on species, and at sea the 5 percent most intensively impacted marine area affects 60.7 percent of threatened species habitats.”

Read: 4 Ways to Heal and Replenish our Damaged Soil and Food Supply

About $66 billion is spent on conservation efforts annually, with 90% of that going to use in developed countries far away from the most endangered locations, the researchers found.

The findings could help conservationists better direct resources to address both the source of harmful goods and the markets where they are sold, the team said. [1]

Sources:

[1] Time

[2] The Washington Post

World Wildlife Fund

---

---

About Mike Barrett:
	Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.

These Shoes are Made of Algae, and They Help Clean This Lake in China

More than 2 million people were left scrambling for safe drinking water after China’s Lake Taihu exploded with algae a decade ago, and ever since then, the government has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year trying to solve the problem. One of the most awe-inspiring solutions involves harvesting algae from Lake Taihu before it spreads too far, and turning it into a flexible, rubbery material that is now being used to make shoes. [1]

Lake Taihu has been mostly famous for its out-of-control algae problem over the last 20 years. The water contains a noxious mixture of billions of tons of wastewater, animal waste, and garbage which has flowed unconstrained due to weak regulations. The body of water is intended to provide 30 million people with drinking water, but the blue-green algae kills marine life, and is hard to filter out. [2]

It was in 2007 when nearly 1/3 of the lake was covered in algae, and the government suspended water collection from Taihu, limiting how much bottled water could cost because of price-gouging. Officials also shut down factories surrounding the lake to stem the pollution.

Turning the Algae into Bio-Plastic

A company called Bloom is the creator of a mobile platform which pulls algae from the lake, purifies the water, returns it to the lake, and then turns the algae into a tiny pellet that can be used like a plastic. The goal of Bloom’s founder, Rob Falken, is to replace conventional plastic products, which are usually made from petroleum-based pellets.

Source: Eco Watch

Falken said:

“The end goal is to remove as much of the petroleum feedstock as possible. When you take a waste stream from nature—there naturally but there in such mass because of manmade inputs—we can take that feedstock, that problem, and functionalize it into usable goods that are the exact same quality, indistinguishable, from the status quo that’s out there today.”

The mobile platform uses gentle suction to draw the algae, while filters prevent marine life from being harmed in the process. The harvester also pulls nitrogen and phosphorus from the water, which makes it harder for algae blooms to flourish. Millions of pounds of algae have been pulled from Lake Taihu by Bloom.

Bloom supplies the plastic-like pellets to Vivobarefoot, which turns the pellets into its water-resistant Ultra III shoes. Currently, the shoes are made from petroleum-based ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA). In July 2017, Vivobarefoot will launch a version that is a blend of algae and EVA, instead. One pair of shoes requires cleaning 57 gallons of water. [1]

Source: Fast Company

The current material uses 40% algae and 60% EVA, but Bloom is working on materials that use more algae.

Algae blooms, which thrive in warm water with high carbon concentrations, are becoming a serious problem all over the world due to climate change. In the United States, algae led Florida to declare a state of emergency in 2016 when it spread from Lake Okeechobee to nearby beaches, killing manatees and other aquatic life.

A toxic algae bloom delayed California’s 2015 crabbing season. And in 2014, an algae bloom in the Ohio River in Ohio made drinking water temporarily unsafe for half a million people in Toledo.

The Ultra III shoes could prove to be an effective method of stomping out both petroleum-based products and algae blooms.

Falken says:

“We’ve already got more algae than we’ll ever need. Two companies are helping to clean China’s Lake Taihu by pulling algae from the water, transforming it into pellets, and using those pellets to make shoes.” [2]

Sources:

[1] Fast Company

[2] Eco Watch

---

---

Joseph Tainter: The Collapse Of Complex Societies

By popular demand, we welcome Joseph Tainter, USU professor and author of The Collapse Of Complex Societies (free book download here).

Dr. Tainter sees many of the same unsustainable risks the PeakProsperity.com audience focuses on -- an overleveraged economy, declining net energy per capita, and depleting key resources.

He argues that the sustainability or collapse of a society follows from the success or failure of its problem-solving institutions. His work shows that societies collapse when their investments in social complexity and their energy subsidies reach a point of diminishing marginal returns. From Tainter"s perspective, we are likely already past the tipping point towards collapse but just don’t know it yet:

Sustainability requires that people have the ability and the inclination to think broadly in terms of time and space. In other words, to think broadly in a geographical sense about the world around them, as well as the state of the world as a whole. And also, to think broadly in time in terms of the near and distant future and what resources will be available to our children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren.

One of the major problems in sustainability and in this whole question of resources and collapse is that we did not evolve as a species to have this ability to think broadly in time and space. Instead, our ancestors who lived as hunter-gatherers never confronted any challenges that required them to think beyond their locality and the near term(...)

We have developed the most complex society humanity has ever known. And we have maintained it up to this point. I have argued that technological innovation and other kinds of innovation evolve like any other aspect of complexity. The investments in research and development grow increasingly complex and reach diminishing returns. We cannot forever continue to spend more and more on technological innovation when we’ve reached the point of diminishing returns, which I argue we have reached.

Our system of innovation is going to change very significantly over the next twenty to thirty to fifty years or so. By the end of the century, our system of innovation will not be anything like what we know today. It will have to be very different. And it’s likely that innovation is not going to be able to solve our problems as readily as it has done to this point.

The technological optimists have assumed that the productivity of innovation is either constant or increasing. And in fact, what I think my colleagues and I can show is that the productivity of innovation is actually decreasing. What that means is that we will not forever be able to solve resource problems through innovation(...)

And so individuals need to take responsibility for their own ignorance. As I said, our species did not evolve to think broadly in terms of time and space and if we’re going to maintain our way of life, people have to learn to do so. People have to take responsibility for knowing and understanding the predicament that we’re facing. I have argued over the last few years that we need to start teaching early school age children in K to 12 to think differently, to think broadly in terms of time and space – to think historically, to think long-term about the future, to think broadly about what’s going on in the world around us instead of the narrow way – the narrow, local way – that most people live and think. So I put responsibility on individuals to broaden their knowledge.

Click the play button below to listen to Chris" interview with Joseph Tainter (42m:44s).

In the Land of the Free, Sustainable Living is Becoming a Crime

In order for the State to make people believe that “democratic” centralized government is necessary for a functioning society, it must work to keep the people from gaining too much freedom and self-sufficiency.

But technology and information sharing are allowing people, like never before, to break from entrenched power interests that control our money, our economy, our energy, our food, our property – and thus our lives.

For decades the State has partnered with corporate giants – such as the fossil fuel and biotech industries – to maintain the façade of freedom and choice, all the while fleecing the masses. Meanwhile, government employs overt means such as “ordinances” to maintain dependence and thwart the sustainable lifestyle.

As we reported in Nov. 2016, towns and cities across the U.S. are banning tiny homes or severely limiting one of the main reasons for their existence – self-sufficiency. Where tiny homes are allowed, they often must be affixed to the ground in a government-approved fashion and are required to connect to the utility grid.

So, even if someone can power their tiny home with solar energy, they must be ‘connected’ and pay the utility company and government taxes. The State and its corporate partners certainly see the slippery slope to freedom that the masses can gain by harnessing free, clean energy from their rooftop and water from the sky.

Several U.S. states either prohibit rainwater collection or have very strict laws regarding such. While there is a legitimate concern in arid regions about preserving natural streams, does residential rainwater collection (i.e. a 1,000 gallon cistern) actually have any effect on stream water levels? Governments immediately jump to restricting the public’s ability to live self-sufficiently, without providing actual data to justify their actions.

READ MORE:  Since this Cop Attacked a School Girl, Only Ones Facing Jail are the Victim and a Girl Who Filmed It

Solar panels are a bigger target for establishment forces that can only thrive if the masses conform to a centralized grid. States such as Indiana and Nevada are passing bills that are designed to cripple the fast-growing solar industry, while keeping in place the same old favors for fossil fuel interests. Solar energy technology is improving at light speed (pun intended) and prices are crashing due to market forces, meaning that rooftop solar – and self-sufficiency – threatens to upend the long dominance of fossil fuels.

Vegetable gardening is not even immune from State interference. In Miami Shores, a couple was forced to destroy their front yard vegetable garden after government threatened them with a fine of $50 each day it remained.

“When our garden was in full production, we had no need to shop for produce. At least 80 percent of our meals were harvested fresh from our garden,” said Hermine Ricketts. “This law crushes our freedom to grow our own healthy food. No one should have to expend time and energy dealing with such nonsense.”

In any reality but the American police state, a front yard vegetable/herb garden would draw respect and admiration. In the corporatocracy, though, buying food produced in centralized factories is preferred.

‘Death by a thousand cuts’ could sum up the strategy of the State to derail the movement toward freedom and self-sufficiency. Everything essential to living is subject to rules and regulations which seems to have a natural tendency toward ever greater restriction.

However, it is entirely possible for an informed populace, armed with technology, to overcome the forces that would keep us dependent on centralized, corrupted systems.

Corporate Sustainability Is An Oxymoron That Does Not Benefit Shareholders Or Employees

Written By: Dr. Bruce Everett and Mark Carr March 21, 2017

Excellent article from CFACT that ridicules Sustainable Development, which is Technocracy. The best way to return to business growth is to shut down the appeasement of the sustainability crowd. ⁃ TN Editor

In recent years, aggressive environmentalists in government and the non-profit sectors have successfully pressured many firms to endorse positions that make no sense for their shareholders, employees or the communities in which they operate. Few businesses would publicly endorse central planning or back restrictions on economic growth. But the rational fear of demonization, boycotts or even legal action by government or advocacy groups has encouraged many businesses to seek compromise by endorsing “sustainability.”

What went wrong? To many business people and to the general public, sustainability is the buzzword for thrift, resourcefulness, and long-term planning. Aren’t such qualities good for businesses and within families? But sustainability has grown into an ideology marked by dark skepticism toward human ingenuity and progress.

The roots of “sustainability” go back to a 1987 UN report, Our Common Future, in which the bureaucrats endorsed the idea that economics is a dismal zero-sum game. Sustainability presumes that using resources now necessarily means having fewer to draw upon in the future, a very dubious assertion. As sustainability became a leading movement in American culture, firms rushed to adopt and brand their “sustainable” business practices. That’s a rational response to their incentive to showcase risk management skills. But much of what goes on in the name of “sustainability” is economically unwise or wasteful.

A Google search for “corporate sustainability report” will generate roughly 110,000 hits. Sustainability has the allure of vagueness. That frees companies to define the word in different ways. Rachelle Peterson and her colleagues at the National Association of Scholars, which see, have shown light into dark corners of the sustainability movement. Many businesses note that sustainability rhymes with “corporate social responsibility.” Unfortunately, this tune never satisfies activists and is thus discordant.

As of this writing in January, 2017, the federal government and many states are transitioning to new political leadership. Should the business community take this opportunity to reconsider its stance on sustainability? Is it time to unwind corporate policies executives justifiably felt they had to take in order to avoid persecution by bureaucrats, the plaintiff bar or aggressive advocates?

We asked that of a senior staffer at a leading energy supplier. The firm initiated programs, entered negotiated settlements and joined organizations, the participation in which didn’t pass the smell test. They did so to get along by going along. To summarize his answer, “We exercise discipline so projects flagged as sustainable really deliver operational benefits. There’s continuous pressure to go into areas where [that breaks down.]” Even that discipline couldn’t keep them free from high-profile experiments on air emissions and related technologies. Some were priced in nine digits but the stakeholders’ benefits vanished. At least one negotiated settlement was worded so an environmental regulator and its activist backers could proclaim they inflicted punishment although the “remediation” was previously initiated as part of evolving operational standards.

ExxonMobil’s experience is instructive. During the late 1990s, at the time of the Kyoto Protocol, Lee Raymond, then Exxon’s CEO, took a strong and principled stance on climate change. He made clear and definitive public statements that the company was opposed to the too speculative climate agenda some parties advocated.  The result was the demonization of the corporation by climate activists. Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil and US Secretary of State-designate, has sought to defuse the controversy by supporting carbon taxes and advertising broadly about ExxonMobil’s research on carbon capture and other technologies.  It’s not at all clear that this approach is helping shareholders, either, because the firm remains a target of fierce criticism and of litigation.

Regulatory and non-profit environmentalists cannot be kept at bay by companies explaining that their operations are clean, safe and energy-efficient, so their businesses are therefore “sustainable.” Caterpillar, for example, issues a “Sustainability Report” every year, while selling $8 billion annually in mining equipment. Komatsu, another major mining equipment manufacturer, is an active member of the World Business Council on Sustainable Development. Joy Global, also a major US firm in that sector, touts its “sustainability” by noting the low carbon emissions of its factories. A significant share of these companies’ well-earned profits comes from sales to the coal-mining industry, which is by far the largest carbon dioxide emitter in the world. Climate activists don’t want the coal industry made more efficient, they want it gone.

How can a firm keep its license to operate, meeting the expectations of both the broad public and of financial stakeholders? By accepting a few facts about today’s American and global society then pulling back the curtains on the sustainability charade.

Read more at Technocracy News

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies,  foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.   You can donate HERE.

Oregon Rain Man Forced to Destroy Pond: Americans “Not Entitled To Private Property Water Rights”

This article was written by Anonymous and originally published at AnonHQ.

Editor’s Comment: The continued assault against independence and self-sustainability is absolutely eradicating freedom. 2017 would do well to see a resurgence of off grid living and a fight back against the regulatory systems that would restrict how people can live on their own land, and without the need to be dependent upon government or corporations for their livelihood.

Unless that silent war is curbed, people will find that all the freedom talk on the Internet won’t mean anything to a population that needs its own resources and resilience. Preppers should be particularly wary of areas that have cracked down the hardest.

Oregon Couple Told They Have No Water Rights, Forced to Destroy Their Own Pond

by AnonHQ

Remember the Oregon ‘Rain Man’ or Gary Harrington — who was sent to 30 days in Jackson County Jail and slapped with a $1,500 fine for collecting rainwater on his 170-acre property? He was ordered to breach his dams and drain his ponds that held more than 13 million gallons of water, enough to fill 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools.

Now, an Oregon couple faces a similar fate as Gary Harrington because the rain belongs to the overbearing government, because corporate greed claims water is not a human right, and because Americans are not entitled to do what they please on their private property.

The Jackson County Watermaster’s office has told Jon and Sabrina Carey to destroy their 2-acre pond — built 40 years ago, long before they bought the 10-acre property off Butte Falls Highway two and a half years ago — as they don’t have any water rights.

“I basically bought a lemon. That’s how they explained it to me.”

The county had no issues with the pond until Jon sought to grow legal medical cannabis on his property. He was then required to produce proof that he had a viable source of water for cannabis cultivation.

Although the county records clearly show the pond, the Watermaster’s Office claimed the previous owners had not received a permit for the pond so the Careys were now in violation of Oregon regulations — and they would have to shoulder the cost of draining the water. As a result, the Careys stopped using pond water and resorted to trucking in water from Butte Falls for their household and garden needs.

Since the Medford Water Commission has rights to the watershed around Careys’ property — where Medford’s primary source of water, Big Butte Springs, is located — its staff denied Careys request to adopt the pond and treat it as a municipal water source so that the water could be used for emergency firefighting, wildlife habitat and as an additional source for municipal needs.

In spite of the government claiming ownership of rainwater as part of the public water supply, it still rejected the Careys’ plea to treat their pond as part of public property. Mail Tribune reports:

“Water Commission staff found several problems with the Careys’ request, including setting a precedent that could prompt similar requests and weaken state statutes while not meeting the definition of ‘municipal water source’. The staff found it would be very difficult to access the water stored in the pond for municipal reasons, and further monitoring and following up on compliance issues would be difficult and costly for the commission.”

Careys’ attorney, Sarah Liljefelt, who filed a request with Jackson County to provide the couple a permit to store water, says:

“The reservoir on Ms. Carey’s property, though small, is one of the largest in the area. In the past, the pond has been used for fire suppression and is accessible to fire trucks from Butte Falls Highway. The pond is an important source of water for beavers, otters, elk, deer, bear, mountain lion, bobcat, bald eagle osprey, great blue heron, snowy egret, Canada geese and the western pond turtle.”

The utter insanity of it all. This is another example of America, land of the free https://t.co/2nj2Q6dJZP

— Gordon Vick (@flashgordonv) December 26, 2016

The couple have agreed to not use the pond water for their household and garden needs and keep the pond for wildlife, fire suppression and for any purpose specified by the Medford Water Commission. They’ve also agreed to reduce the size of the pond from about 12 acre feet of water to 9.2 acre feet; execute an easement to the city of Medfore to flood the property, access the reservoir, and cause the reservoir to be drained any time the city deems necessary; and assume all costs associated with permitting, construction, maintenance and liability. However, the Medford Water Commission is unmoved.

“I’m terrified right now… I am trying to work with the various government agencies to resolve this issue so the property doesn’t lose one of its most valuable assets. We’re just trying to do it by the rules. I’m trying to cooperate.”

The couple recently received support from firefighting agencies that need the water for wildfires. A letter from the Oregon Department of Forestry to the Water Commission supported retaining the reservoir to help suppress wildfires and provide enough water for a multiday operation. Neal Laugle, state aviation manager for ODF, wrote:

“I would like to urge the Medford Water Commission to consider keeping the reservoir in place at its current capacity for the purpose of providing a long-term water source for wildland firefighting. Without the water, it could increase the length of a wildfire fight and could lead to more destructive wildfires.”

—-

AnonHQ is an independent and investigative news organization run by people of the Anonymous collective. Our goal here is to bring the people of the world important, modern daily news regarding topics from around the globe.

h/t The Daily Sheeple

Related Reads

Rainwater Collection Being Criminalized in U.S. To Solidify Total Government Dependence

Court Officials Who Jailed a Veteran for Living Off-Grid Were “Just Doing Their Jobs”

Tiny Homes Banned in U.S. at Increasing Rate as Govt Criminalizes Sustainable Living

Oregon Man Sentenced to 30 Days in Jail — for Collecting Rainwater on His Property

Alabama City Suing Couple to Get Back on the Grid, Threatens Arrest

Government Destroys Couple’s Rights Over Rainwater: “If You’re Honest, They Take Everything Away”

This article was written by Claire Bernish and originally published at The Free Thought Project.

Editor’s Comment: With each passing year, there are more and more challenges to personal property and individual sovereignty. Despite the resilience it lends to our national security, the government has proven again and again that it wishes to clamp down on the ability to prep, survive and self-sustain off grid, and without the need for the system’s supply chain.

You can hardly build your own place, grow your own food, collect your own water or take care of yourself without the intervention of those in authority. There is need to push back against this continued intrusion of our lives.

Couple Forced to Destroy 40yo Pond on Their Own Property Because Govt Owns The Rainwater

by Claire Bernish

Butte Falls, OR — An Oregon couple has been told they must destroy a 2-acre pond on their land — the property’s most attractive feature — because the government said so.

Although Jon and Sabrina Carey purchased the 10-acre property near Butte Falls two and a half years ago, the pond has been in place for 40 years — but that fact doesn’t matter to the Jackson County Watermaster’s Office.

“I basically bought a lemon,” said Jon, who became teary-eyed at the edge of the partially ice-covered body of water being targeted by government, in an interview with the Mail Tribune. “That’s how they explained it to me.”

But the couple desperately wants to keep the stunning longstanding feature in tact, so, as the Mail Tribune reports, the Careys have “pleaded with the Medford Water Commission to adopt the pond and treat it as a municipal water source, something Jackson County Watermaster Larry Menteer has opposed because of the precedent it would set.

“The Water Commission has rights to the watershed around the Careys’ property, where dozens, if not hundreds, of ponds are located, as well as Medford’s primary source of water, Big Butte Springs.”

And the Careys aren’t the only people in the watershed who’ve had difficulties with, well, ‘the government’s’ water.

Eagle Point resident Gary Harrington spent 90 days in jail for illegally harboring some 13 million gallons of illicit rainwater — that’s enough rain to fill around 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools.

Harrington masterfully crafted several ponds on his property — even building docks for one, and stocking it with largemouth bass — but his insistence the water would assist in fire control and prevention didn’t satisfy the government, since a “1925 state law dictates that the water belongs to the Medford Water Commission.”

As Mother Nature Network’s Matt Hickman reported in 2012,

The bigger story here is that rainwater collection is indeed kosher in Oregon, provided that you’re capturing it from an artificial, impervious surface such as a rooftop with the assistance of rainwater barrels. But an extensive reservoir set-up complete with 10- and 20-foot-tall dams is verboten without the proper, state-issued water-right permits — after all, Oregon law dictates that water is a publicly owned resource — and Harrington did not possess said permits.

Harrington and the Oregon Water Resources Department waged an extended battle over the ponds, and at one point, it was ruled he would be allowed to keep everything in place — but that decision was backtracked in less than one year.

Ultimately, “Rain Man,” as he came to be called, found himself charged with nine misdemeanors, spent three months behind bars, and had to shell out $1,500 in fines — and was ordered to destroy the dams and drain all the ponds.

Harrington’s case might have been infinitely more complex than the Careys’ — considering the large volume of water and infrastructure he’d put in place — but they share the same theme of overbearing government and arguably wholly unnecessary law versus the right of people to do as they please with their property.

“When you’re honest, they take everything away from you,” said Sabrina Carey, who inspected country records — which plainly showed the pond — before they purchased the property.

Going by the book might have been the ‘fatal’ error for the couple, however, since the county didn’t take issue with the pond until Jon sought to grow legal medical cannabis on the land and had to prove there was a viable source of water for the grow operation.

According to the Watermaster’s Office, the previous owners had not received a permit for the pond, so the Careys were now in violation of Oregon regulations — and they would have to shoulder the cost of draining the water.

In an effort to prove the pond is legitimate and persuade county government to allow it to remain on the property, the couple stopped using it — even though the well on their land had run dry — and began shipping in the water for daily living and gardening from nearly Butte Falls.

They’ve also had no choice but to hire attorney Sarah Liljefelt, who filed a request with Jackson County to provide a permit for them to store water, stating, “The reservoir on Ms. Carey’s property, though small, is one of the largest in the area.”

As the Mail Tribune notes, “Liljefelt said the pond is an important source of water for beavers, otters, elk, deer, bear, mountain lion, bobcat, bald eagle osprey, great blue heron, snowy egret, Canada geese and the western pond turtle.”

By all appearances, the large pool of water does more good for the environment than if it weren’t there at all — during their fight with the State, the Careys even suggested it be used for fire control and prevention, like Harrington did, as the pond is easily accessible by fire crews.

But the county has displayed only nonsensical obstinance on the issue.

“This pond seems to be doing way more public good than not being here. Why, now, is it so important to be removed?” Jon lamented.

Indeed, the 40-year-old man doesn’t even profit from the medical cannabis grown on the land he and his wife own, as he literally gives the crop — free of charge — to friends.

“I don’t make anything out of this,” he said.

Members of the Water Commission disagree on whether this is an issue worth fighting over at all, but as the Mail Tribune reports,

Water Commission staff found several problems with the Careys’ request, including setting a precedent that could prompt similar requests and weaken state statutes while not meeting the definition of ‘municipal water source.’ The staff found it would be very difficult to access the water stored in the pond for municipal reasons, and further monitoring and following up on compliance issues would be difficult and costly for the commission.

However, the commission also failed to state why this should be a matter for the government in the first place — why punitive bureaucracy needs to meddle with a pond on private property, serving as a valuable ecosystem, that poses no threat to anyone or anything, and isn’t even an eyesore, must be destroyed.

Besides a trailer home and dilapidated house, the pond is the only thing of value on their acreage, and, obviously, as Sabrina said, “We didn’t buy it for the double-wide.”

She told the Mail Tribune the pond should have been registered with the Oregon Water Resources Department nine years ago, but the owners at that time did not reside on the property and didn’t do so.

They have even offered to reduce the pond’s size, allow officials to inspect it when necessary, and have provided a draft easement to the commission in hopes of allowing the prized water feature to remain intact — thus far to no avail.

“We’re just trying to do it by the rules,” Sabrina explained. “I’m trying to cooperate.”

In 2012, Gary Harrington had already been through years of conflict with government officials over illicit water — and provided CNSNews with stronger sentiment on the topic:

When something is wrong, you just, as an American citizen, you have to put your foot down and say, ‘This is wrong; you just can’t take away anymore of my rights and from here on in, I’m going to fight it.’

That government feels entitled to not only something located on private property, but that people should not be allowed to collect rain, is everything wrong with excessive government — and the overregulation of daily life.

This article was written by Claire Bernish and originally published at The Free Thought Project.

PepsiCo Sets Significant Health and Environmental Targets

It’s going to take nearly a decade, but PepsiCo, the second largest food and beverage company in the world, is going to reduce sugar, salt, and fat in all of its beverages and snack products.

With a 2025 deadline, the company says it’s making the changes to all of its product lines including Pepsi, Gatorade (which recently launched an organic version) Quaker oatmeal products, and Lay’s potato chips. The move is in efforts to respond to the “needs of society”—most specifically the increasing demand for cleaner foods and beverages.

“To succeed in today’s volatile and changing world, corporations must do three things exceedingly well: focus on delivering strong financial performance, do it in a way that is sustainable over time and be responsive to the needs of society,” PepsiCo Chairman and CEO Indra Nooyi said in a statement. “The first ten years of PepsiCo’s Performance with Purpose journey have demonstrated what is possible when a company does well by also doing good. We have created significant shareholder value, while taking important steps to address environmental, health and social priorities all around the world.”

Among its goals, PepsiCo says it’s targeting a maximum of 100-calories per 12-ounces coming from added sugars in at least two-thirds of its beverages. Currently, it’s about forty percent—a 12-ounce can of Pepsi-Cola contains 150 calories, reports the Wall Street Journal.

The move follows 2020 targets set by the company in 2009.

“Added sugars rose 4% between 2006 and 2015, compared with the company’s 25% reduction target for 2020,” reports the Wall Street Journal. “PepsiCo has cut sodium by 12% and saturated fat by 3% over the same period. It said in 2009 it wanted to cut sodium and saturated fat by 25% and 15%, respectively.”

Like other food and beverage companies, PepsiCo has recently seen an increase in cleaner products known as “everyday nutrition”—those that boast whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.

“PepsiCo’s journey is far from complete,” said Nooyi, “and our new goals are designed to build on our progress and broaden our efforts.”

In addition to the product reformulations, PepsiCo also announced environmental targets that include improved water usage, food waste management, and a 20 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

PepsiCo joins other leading food and beverage companies reformulating products, sourcing cleaner ingredients, and setting sustainability targets, including McDonald’s, Nestlé, and Coca-Cola.

Find Jill on Twitter and Instagram

Related on Organic Authority

Getting Health Advice from Big Soda? New Study Says Yes
Berkeley’s Soda Tax Just Killed the Soda Industry2016
Bottled Water Taps More Sales than Soda, Bottle Recycling Still Dangerously Low

Tags:
healthy food, obesity, sustainability

Related News

Jill Ettinger

Jill Ettinger is a Los Angeles-based journalist and editor focused on the global food system and how it intersects with our cultural traditions, diet preferences, health, and politics. She is the senior editor for sister websites OrganicAuthority.com and EcoSalon.com, and works as a research associate and editor with the Cornucopia Institute, the organic industry watchdog group. Jill has been featured in The Huffington Post, MTV, Reality Sandwich, and Eat Drink Better. Twitter @jillettinger | www.jillettinger.com.