The Road to Rio is the Road to Hell

Previously we warned you about Governor Lynch’s executive order of 2011.
On Earth Day, Governor Lynch Issued an Executive Order Creating Water Sustainability Commission If you don’t think the UN doesn’t have plans for every blade of grass on this planet, think again. This chunk of information is ONLY about WATER and it’s a fraction of what is on their websites. The UN has plans to control every aspect of your life…this is only a small part of it.

You can also download this file to find out who is behind the UN’s power grab.
FINANCING AGENDA 21 – WORLD BANK

Many local, state, and federal policies for surface water, groundwater, and “transboundary water” are linked to the United Nations Agenda 21 global plan of action for “sustainable development”. Plus, there are other influencing U.N. initiatives — also including policies for oceans/seas — that pre-date UN Agenda 21.

See below to learn about the international water policies and their negative impacts on property rights as well as livelihoods — scroll down for specific state examples.

Remember, this email only focuses on water. There are 39 other UN Agenda 21 chapters that target a myriad of other issues that will affect you.

The good news: growing numbers of people are working to expose and stop UN Agenda 21 . . . and thankfully some elected officials are included (but we need many more! So vet your candidates for elected office — do not support those who will not work to stop the all-encompassing U.N. agendas).

Brackets [ ] used for explanatory info added.

======================
UN & Water (pre-dating Agenda 21)
======================

UN meddling with water issues began long before the 1992 Earth Summit promotion of Agenda 21:

“In 1970, the United Nations (UN) responded to the need for clearer rules governing transboundary waters by requesting the International Law Commission (ILC) to codify and progressively develop the rules applicable to the development and management of international watercourses. For close to three decades, the ILC wrestled with the complex legal issues related to this topic. This work formed finally the foundation for the UN Watercourses Convention.”

“A broader global environmental agenda emerged in the 1970s, appearing most prominently at the 1972 UN Stockholm Conference. The UN pursued its concern over transboundary water issues at the 1977 Mar del Plata Conference, where the Action Plan adopted by the participants contain 11 resolutions and 102 recommendations. However, since then, ‘water’ has become subsumed by the ‘environment’, loosing its relatively distinctive status as a separate area of global concern. Twenty years following the Stockholm Declaration, the ‘environment’ has dominated the global discourse, as was demonstrated clearly by the 1992 Rio Conference on Environment and Development. At that meeting, transboundary water resources were dealt with as only one component of Agenda 21. . . . ”

— Dr. Patricia Wouters, “The Legal Response to International Water Scarcity and Water Conflicts: The UN Watercourses Convention and Beyond” < http://www.africanwater.org/pat_wouters1.htm >

Go here for an extensive timeline containing International Conferences, Treaties and Events starting with 1966: < http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/agenda21.htm >

===========================
Water and the UN Earth Summit Agenda 21
===========================

“International water issues are referenced in Chapter 18 of United Nations Earth Summit Agenda 21 document, entitled Protection of the Quality and Supply of Fresh Water Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches to the Development, Management and Use of Water Resources. Agenda 21 is the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and the plan to implement Rio agreements and guide business and government policies into the 21st century after Rio de Janeiro.” View Chapter 18 of the United Nations Earth Summit Agenda 21

— Manitoba Wildlands < http://manitobawildlands.org/water.htm >

“. . . The Earth Council, formed as a result of the Earth Summit to help ensure implementation of its results, specializes in facilitating such participatory processes at the grass-roots and community level. It has joined with the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives [ICLEI] to undertake a program of assisting communities throughout the world to develop their own ‘local Agenda 21’ based on Rio’s global Agenda 21. So far some 1600 communities have done this, and in all cases water supply and sewage are central Issues.” (Emphasis added)

— Maurice F. Strong, Chairman, The Earth Council. Excerpt from a Keynote address to the North American Water and Environment Congress, Anaheim, California. June 26, 1996.
< http://www.mauricestrong.net/index.php/speeches-remarks3/57-watercongess >

(NOTE: “George Washington Hunt attended a UN Environmental meeting in 1987 and learned how the elitists were privatizing resource. When he discovered, the day before a vote to sell off Boulder, Colorado’s water source to Maurice Strong, Mr. Hunt stayed up all night preparing documents that proved Strong was interested in creating a monopoly (as water is essential for life). Because Mr. Hunt was aware of the nature of privatization and monopolies, which are created through government regulations, he was able to educate the local government and stop the sale of Boulder’s water source.” — Cassandra Anderson, “Water” http://morphcity.com/water )

Monitoring in the mandate of UN-Water
“In 2003, the UN High Level Committee on Programmes (HLCP) established ‘UN-Water as the inter-agency mechanism for follow-up of the WSSD [World Summit on Sustainable Development] water-related decisions and the MDGs [Millennium Development Goals] concerning water’. The scope of UN-Water’s work encompasses all aspects of freshwater, including surface and groundwater resources and the interface between fresh and sea water. It includes freshwater resources, both in terms of their quality and quantity, their development, assessment, management, monitoring and use (including, for example, domestic uses, agriculture and ecosystems requirements). The scope of work of UN-Water also includes sanitation – encompassing both access to and use of sanitation by populations and the interactions between sanitation and freshwater. It further includes water-related disasters, emergencies and other extreme events and their impact on human security.

“UN-Water is the interagency mechanism that promotes coherence in, and coordination of, UN system actions aimed at the implementation of the agenda defined by the Millennium Declaration and the World Summit on Sustainable Development as it relates to its scope of work.”

— Water Monitoring, Mapping Existing Global Systems & Initiatives Background Document – August 2006, Prepared by FAO on behalf of the UN-Water Task Force on Monitoring Stockholm, 21 August 2006, p.8 < http://www.fao.org/nr/water/docs/UNW_MONITORING_REPORT.pdf >

“. . . Agenda 21, . . . stated that ‘Integrated water resources management, including the integration of land and water related aspects, should be carried out at the level of the catchment basin or sub-basin.’ This call has since been echoed in an increasing number of legal and policy instruments at both national and international levels. The river basin approach to the management and development of transboundary water resources was recognized by the 1997 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses and is increasingly influential in international and regional agreements. As noted above, this approach is increasingly embraced in national water legislation and administration . . .”

— S. Hodgson, Land and water — the rights interface, FAO Legislative Study 84, FAO Legal Office, Food and Agriculture Organizationn of the United Nations, Rome 2004, p.53. < ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/y5692e/y5692e00.pdf >

======
Criticisms
======

“As the United Nations restructures itself to become a world government vis-a-vis global governance, it is being formed around the principles of sustainable development as defined by Agenda 21. Signed by the U.S. during the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in 1992, Agenda 21 is a 40-chapter manifesto to reorganize the world using socialist and pantheistic principles to protect Earth.

“Agenda 21 represents a major fundamental change in the role of government in social and land-use policy. Under its concept of sustainability, the primary purpose of government will no longer be to serve the people. Rather, the focus of Agenda 21 is to protect nature from people. Governance will be by consensus among ‘stakeholders and partnerships.’ The concept of elected representation that holds the government accountable to the citizens will be eliminated.”

— Dr. Michael S. Coffman Ph.D., “Separating People from Their Water, NewsWithViews.com, 1/22/04 < http://www.newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike6.htm >

“Agenda 21 encourages governments to form ‘partnerships between public and private sectors and NGO’s, aiming towards improved local capacity to protect water resources’. Here in Texas, non-government organizations (NGO) such as Sierra Club have used litigation under environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act to limit ground water withdrawal to a percentage of annual flow. The Texas legislature has also just recently finalized legislation in response to that litigation which regulates and controls withdrawal of groundwater.”

–Tom McDonnell, “International Implications on Water Use in America,” 3/29/98 < http://sovereignty.net/p/land/Freshwater.htm >

“The report, ’21 Issues for the 21st Century,’ from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Foresight Process, is the culmination of a two-year deliberative process involving 22 core scientists. It is expected to receive considerable attention in the run-up to the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, which will be held in Rio, Brazil, in June [2012]. . . .

But its critics see an agenda lurking in its 60 pages, which call for a complete overhaul of how the world’s food and water are created and distributed — something the report says is “urgently needed” . . .
[ . . . ] The Foresight Report suggests . . . options that include new “constitutional frameworks,” “international protocols” and a “shared vision” for land and water management that essentially rewire existing treaties and governments.

— Kelley Vlahos. “UN to propose planetary regulations of water, food”, FoxNews.com, 3/1/12
< http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/01/un-to-propose-planetary-regulations-water-food/#ixzz1wlbFTE2h >

“. . . the EPA is readying to change the way our American waters are governed. This set off a warning bell for me because the old Clean Water Act of 1972 was destined to become Senate Bill 787, The Clean Water Restoration Act of the 111th Congress, if Democrats had their way. They didn’t, and the bill expired on April 2, 2011 as it languished in the Senate Legislative Committee. Now less than a month later, the EPA is forcing the issue and has apparently decided they will be the decider. In the meantime, the EPA is pulling coal mining permits by the dozens, claiming authority under the Clean Water Act, for companies explicitly following the letter of the law but forced to leave millions of dollars and jobs on the sacrificial alter of the EPA. This isn’t just about coal mining and big industry, it is about your water and your liberty.

The EPA badly wants governance of your backyard pond, and they shall have it through regulation, not law. America, this administration wants all of this country’s water, – that’s ALL OF THIS COUNTRY’S WATER, and it isn’t a small thing. . . .”

— “EPA Grabbing Your Water by Regulation: Feds Want Your Water and They Shall Have it!”, Maggie’s Notebook, 5/1/11
< http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011/05/epa-grabbing-your-water-by-regulation-feds-want-your-water-and-they-shall-have-it/ >

“Local and regional efforts to control water hold that private water usage is causing salt water intrusion, polluted water, and supply shortages. A conglomeration of local and international government and non-government organizations insist that the solution to these problems is to monitor individual water usage under regionalized control. These groups are now in advanced stages of implementing programs that subjugate water use and citizen water rights to regional control by non-elected officials.” [ . . . ]

“While the stated end of creating a ‘sustainable’ water system seems noble in intent, the means rely on subjugating constitutionally protected private property rights to non-elected bureaucrats. Their practices have already resulted in engineered crisis and a degraded environment. The ultimate consequences of political efforts to de-privatize water in the name of sustainable watershed will lead to manufactured shortages, inadequate water supplies for human needs, and will cause further damage to the local ecology.”

— Regionalization of resources by non-elected administrators, Freedom Advocates website < http://www.freedomadvocates.org/issues/private_property/ >

Few Americans realize that many of our federal environmental laws and regulations originate at the international level. These laws have a devastating affect on private property, stripping hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars of land value from rural citizens. Federal documents reveal that agencies have a greater desire to enforce these internationally born socialist laws than to protect and serve the citizens of the United States.

The Endangered Species Act, for instance, is authorized by a number of United Nations administered treaties, not on the enumerated powers of Congress given in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. These treaties include the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Likewise, the RAMSAR Convention of Wetlands is the pattern for much of the federal wetlands regulation even though the Clean Water Act does not even specifically mention wetlands.

Federal agencies have used these treaties, and over 150 others like them, to control the use of private property, ostensibly for the “public good.” Over one hundred of these treaties were ratified after an unsuccessful five-year effort by Morris Udall and environmental organizations to pass federal land use control laws in Congress the early 1970s based on the 1972 publication of The Use of Land: A Citizen’s Policy Guide to Urban Growth. It claimed that land is essential to human survival and that planning its wise use is the best tool to guide growth toward achieving economic benefits and protecting environmental quality. Laurance Rockefeller funded the publication, and William K. Reilly, who later served as EPA Administrator under George Bush, Sr., edited it.

— Michael S. Coffman, PhD, “International Domination of U.S. Enviornnental Law and Private Property”, NewsWithViews, 8/19/03 < http://www.newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike3.htm >

Even before the treaty came before the Senate for ratification, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had already developed a plan to implement the convention’s provisions. According to an EPA internal working document dated August 6, 1993:

Natural resource and environmental agencies… should…develop a joint strategy to help the United States fulfill its existing international obligations (e.g. Convention on Biological Diver­sity).… The executive branch should direct federal agencies to evaluate national policies…in light of international policies and obligations, and to amend national policies to achieve international objectives.

Shockingly, the EPA strategy called for federal agencies to evaluate national policies and to change them to conform to international objectives. Amending national policy is a Constitutional responsibility of the U.S. Congress, not the executive branch, and certainly not federal agencies. Yet certain bureaucrats believe their responsibility to international objectives superceded the U.S. Constitution and their mandate to serve the American people.

— Michael S. Coffman, PhD, “International Domination of U.S. Enviornnental Law and Private Property”, NewsWithViews, 8/19/03 < http://www.newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike3.htm >

The CWI’s 1998 Clean Water Action Plan called for obliterating five thousand miles of roads every year on federal land, and setting aside a whopping “two million miles of conservation buffers on agricultural lands.” The potential impact of this program is enormous. The Department of Agriculture’s Stream Corridor Plan calls for the width of these conservation corridors to equal a river’s 100-year flood plain, which could be many miles wide. Even a 100-foot buffer strip along two million miles totals seventy-six thousand square miles (forty-eight million acres), an area equivalent to the entire state of Nebraska!

Similarly, the AHR also makes it clear that the program will likely impact “entire watersheds” by a designation of just a portion of the river as an American Heritage River. Technically, the entire Mississippi River watershed, cover­ing 40 percent of America, is now under the AHR program! In a giant step to impose federal land use controls, the CWI targets one-thousand watersheds as “critical rural water­sheds” for special assistance to “comply with applic­able standards” that are consistent with goals for “watershed and basin level planning.”

Promoted as a plan to reinvent government, both the AHR and CWI are touted as “ground up, …community based” efforts under the control of local people. In fact, each step is under the top down control of the feds. By defin­ition, a River Community under the AHR is “self-defined by the members of the community.” In the CWI, it is called a Watershed Council. These councils are unaccountable to the people who are affected by their policy decisions. Yet, they have the power to withhold monies from communities that do not toe the federal line, while rewarding those that do.

The Clinton Administration carried out the concept of eco­system management was one-step further when it attempted to impose federal control over the entire Pacific Northwest when it attempted to impose the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. If it is ever fully imple­mented, the federal government would control harvesting, mining, viewsheds and development on public and private land over the entire Columbia River basin from the Cascades to Canada in the north, to Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in the east, to Utah and Nevada in the South.

— Michael S. Coffman, PhD, “International Domination of U.S. Enviornnental Law and Private Property”, NewsWithViews, 8/19/03 < http://www.newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike3.htm >

===============================
The UN Agenda 21 impact on surface water,
groundwater and “transboundary waters” in the U.S.
===============================

[CALIFORNIA] NGO Involved With California Property Owners Water Rights – Part 1
Gary Cadd | Uploaded by ReddingPatriots on Feb 24, 2012
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKbZMwpUVCo&feature=relmfu

http://ShastaCoordination.com – The government is planning on decreasing our water usage. A non governmental organization (NGO), which is referred to as regional government, is planning regulations to change our water uses within the Sacramento River Watershed which includes Shasta County. Note: Even if you live somewhere else, there’s a good chance the same situation exists.

[ARIZONA] Showdown at the H2O Corral
Ann O’Neill | CNN | 5/10/12
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/10/us/tombstone-water-fight/index.html?section=cnn_latest

Excerpt: Tombstone, population 1,400, is suing the federal government — and it is likely to be a landmark legal battle. [ . . . ]
The city sits in the desert but gets most of its water from springs in the Huachuca Mountains. Some of the springs are in a wilderness area protected by the U.S. Forest Service. From the Huachucas, the water runs 26 miles east to Tombstone through one of the longest gravity-fed water systems in the country.
Tombstone’s water line was damaged in last year’s massive Monument fire. The city says the feds are blocking emergency repairs that are critical to its survival.

[ALABAMA] Baldwin County commissioners warn of subversive ‘Agenda 21’ initiative
Connie Baggett | Press-Register | 6/5/12
http://blog.al.com/live/2012/06/baldwin_commissioners_warn_of.html

Excerpt: “We are all for protecting the environment,” [Baldwin County Commissioner] Burt said, “but this is something that has seeped in amongst us. I don’t think we need the United Nations to tell us what to do.”
He said, “We’ve got the EPA taking over the country. If the Senate approves (Agenda 21), they can come into New York City or wherever a raindrop falls and tell us what to do.”
Under Agenda 21, he said, the U.S. Supreme Court will give way to the international court located in The Hague [in the Netherlands].

[COLORADO] FARMER PANIC! CROPS DIE AS GOV’T BLOCKS WELLS
Big Brother refuses to allow citizens to rescue harvest
Jack Minor | World Net Daily | date?
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/farmer-panic-crops-die-as-govt-blocks-wells/

Excerpt: GREELEY, Colo. – Farmers in Colorado are watching their fields dry up amid one of the worst droughts in the state’s history.
But just a few feet beneath them, the water is so plentiful it’s flooding basements and causing septic systems to overflow.

Yet the government will not permit farmers to pump the water to save their crops.
[ . . . ] Many of the farmers have wells that draw groundwater for use in situations like this. But in 2006, the Colorado Supreme Court ordered 440 wells shut down and curtailed the pumping of another 1,000.
[ . . . ] Despite the rising ground-water levels, officials still refuse to let the farmers turn on their wells, and that means many farmers will be out of water in the next few weeks.

[FLORIDA] Southerland, Gulf Fishermen Cry ‘War’ over Fishing Regulations
Zayida Baker | 6/2/12
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/news/southerland-gulf-fishermen-cry-war-over-fishing-regulations/

Excerpt: Rep. Steve Southerland, R-Fla., and many Florida fishermen oppose restrictive federal fishing regulations they say are patterned after Agenda 21, the UN’s all-encompassing plan for globally centralized wealth-redistribution and environmental regulations.

Southerland, who serves on the House Natural Resources Committee’s Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs Subcommittee, marina manager Pam Anderson, and Captain Bob Zales, who runs boats for recreational fishers out of Panama City, discussed difficulties with current regulations under the 2007 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and planned regulations under President Obama’s National Oceans Policy. [ . . . ]

Southerland, who fishes in the Gulf himself, told Tea Party Patriots in a video interview that “There’s a real war going on right now, . . . a very sinister effort out there to cut off the fisheries, to shrink our seasons, and to use bad data and bad research to create the fear that our fisheries are dwindling.”

[GEORGIA] 2011-2012 Regular Session – HB 225 Agriculture; state promote sustainable agriculture; provide
The language of this bill parallels the language of UN Agenda 21 UN Promoting Sustainable Agriculture & Rural Development
http://www.electtherightcandidate.us/Issues/GA_HB_225_and_UN_Agenda_21.html

[IDAHO] Agenda 21: Sackett v EPA Case on Supreme Court Docket Tomorrow
January 8, 2012
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/agenda-21-sackett-v-epa-case-on-supreme-court-docket-tomorrow/

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYf2qSW_yRk
In 2005 Mike and Chantell Sackett purchased a vacant lot in a fully built-out portion of property along the shores of Priest Lake, in northern Idaho, with the ideas of building a modest 3-bedroom home. In 2007, they started work, but were forced to stop when the EPA claimed they were filling a wetland without a permit.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rge_kq8cQTs&feature=bf_prev&list=PLD74EB3740965E38E
Oral argument was held this week at the United States Supreme Court in the Pacific Legal Foundation property rights case of Sackett v. United States Environmental Protection Agency. In this high-profile litigation, PLF seeks to establish that property owners have a right to appeal to court when EPA effectively seizes control of their property by declaring it “wetlands” under the Clean Water Act. www.pacificlegal.org/Sackett

Court documents for Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency d
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sackett-et-vir-v-environmental-protection-agency-et-al/

[CALIFORNIA, TEXAS, PENNSYLVANIA, ILLINOIS, MISSOURI, WASHINGTON]
Environmentalists attacking rural property through septic systems
Joyce Morrieson | NewsWithViews | 8/22/06
http://www.newswithviews.com/Morrison/joyce37.htm

Excerpt: Property owners in most states have been fighting legislation requiring monitoring and metering of private wells. Washington, California, Texas, Pennsylvania and numerous states are proposing or have passed legislation that would control private water systems. Septic system legislation appears to be the backdoor to accomplish this goal.

[MISSISSIPPI] MDEQ drops efforts to change water regulations
David A. Farrell, Item Staff Writer, The Picayune Item 1/28/12
http://picayuneitem.com/local/x431313481/MDEQ-drops-efforts-to-change-water-regulations

Excerpt: The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality has backed off implementing changes in water regulations that would affect the state’s six southernmost counties, Robbie Wilbur, MDEQ communications director told the Picayune Item on Friday, confirming rumors that have been circulating to that effect.
[ . . . ]
MDEQ officials, after the hearing at Pearl River Community College in Poplarville on Oct. 25, put off a decision on the proposals. Environmental agency officials later said they were delaying the decision until after Jan. 1. Sources said MDEQ officials were surprised at the opposition to the proposed change in regulations. The decision would have been made by the seven-member commission that runs DEQ.

The opposition came mostly from rural water association officials who claimed the five county utility authorities in Mississippi’s boot heel were pushing into their bailiwicks and setting the stage to absorb their customer base. . . .

[NEW YORK] NY Water Authority CEO testifies:
Ban private wells and impose rationing
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP9aCWGVAO4

Description: At this public hearing, the Chairman of SCWA request state authority to force people to leave their private wells and have them connect under force of law to their water mains. The chairman also asks for authority to penalize those “who do not cooperate”

[NEVADA] Is a mining company giving the shaft to farmers and ranchers?
Debbie Coffey | 2011
http://ppjg.me/2011/05/03/is-a-mining-company-giving-the-shaft-to-farmers-and-ranchers/

Mining companies are buying up ranches left and right, just to get the water rights. Then all they have to do is get a permit to change the use from irrigation to mining. Once appropriated, the water rights are not available for any other development, even if the mine never opens, unless the mine is willing to sell the water rights.

At a Nevada Division of Water Resources hearing in December, 2010, an admirable group of Nevada farmers and ranchers, who’ve had water rights in their families for generations, protested the appropriation of water rights of Kobeh Valley Ranch, owned by mining company General Moly. General Moly wants to change the use of water rights on Kobeh Valley Ranch from irrigation to mining for their Mt.Hope mine. This is in addition to other water rights General Moly has already purchased from other farms surrounding the valley.

[N.CAROLINA] Video: http://www.sovereignty.net/Library/pipingmad.htm

[N.CAROLINA] Gov. Easley’s plan requires registration and monthly reporting
Karen McMahan | Carolina Journal, Statewide Ed. April 2008 • Vol. 17, No. 4, p.4
http://www.johnlocke.org/acrobat/cjPrintEdition/cj-apr2008-web.pdf

Excerpt: At the end of February, aides from the governor’s office met with lawmakers, including members of the state Senate’s Agriculture, Environment, and Natural Resources Committee, to discuss drought relief. According to Rep. Bill Faison, D-Orange, one of the governor’s aides, Franklin Freeman, said the proposal “could include the monitoring of private well-water users by metering and fining.”

[N.CAROLINA] Water World [commentary]
Richard Wagner | Carolina Journal, Statewide Ed. April 2008 • Vol. 17, No. 4, p.24
http://www.johnlocke.org/acrobat/cjPrintEdition/cj-apr2008-web.pdf

Excerpt: [Governor] Easley’s grand scheme, announced March 11, would usurp local-government power and grant the governor’s office sweeping authority to monitor and control all sources of water, including private wells and ponds, in the state. Some of the language, such as that calling for conservation-based pricing and for regular testing of pipes to detect leaks, in the governor’s plan seems reasonable.
On the other hand, the overall ramifications of Easley’s plan would be Orwellian. The governor proposes using high-tech gadgetry to spy on citizens. North Carolinians already are feeling the effects of noncompliance. Citizens can receive hefty fines, and jail time in some cases. [ . . . ]
More is involved than the pretense Easley espoused in asking the General Assembly to give him that authority. For years it has been the dream of radical environmentalists — and the politicians they influence — to control infrastructure. If this unholy alliance is allowed to control water — and electricity, transportation, and public access to land, as the extremists are trying to do under other programs — it can manipulate citizens like puppets.
Easley is merely Richard aping Agenda 21, the U.N.’s 1992 blueprint for global transformation in the 21st century. . . .

[TENNESSEE] Agenda 21, Ch. 18: Bradley County Flood Plain Study, $300,000 dollars so far
Donny Harwood | Bradley County News | 1/6/12
http://bradleycountynews.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/agenda-21-ch-18-bradley-county-flood-plain-study-300-000-dollars-so-far/

Excerpt: The City of Cleveland has decided that we need to spend 300,000 dollars and perhaps the county getting involved up to 600,000 to establish that “ring around our tub!” Many well paid engineers from perhaps from DOT and or the Army Corps of Engineers will come in for a few days, we put them up in a nice motel, feed them and in exchange they tell is where our “ring around the tub is” and we give them our 600,000 dollars right! A few months later we receive a few hundred thousand in federal grants and everyone is happy! Right! Not so simple!

Now comes the scary part! We now have an established flood zone! A place where no one can live! That area is solely dependent on the results of this study! That area in Bradley County will be arguably anywhere they want it to be! Are the Wildlands projects or buffer zones where people will not live, ever, starting to make sense now! . . .

[ARKANSAS] Central Arkansas Water UN Agenda 21 Final Vote
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCYjcVyVPpY

Description: The Central Arkansas Water Commission held a “public forum” on Monday at 3:30pm about the Lake Maumelle Watershed Plan. The meeting was in a room too small for the usual crowd that goes to public forum meetings and of course the time didn’t allow for most people to get off work to attend. The CAW is appointed by the City of Little Rock and North Little Rock. The meeting only lasted until 5:00pm. The Watershed Plan will before the Pulaski County Planning Commission on 11/22/11 in the Quorum Court Building at 2:30pm

[CALIFORNIA] Water Wars – Part 3
Cassandra Anderson | Unfiltered News | 6/10/09
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?214115-Agenda-21-Water-Wars!&s=d81f8dee40ad6f60f05e88c3e01957a3

WATER WARS AND THE ‘ENDANGERED’ WESTERN STATES
Cassandra Anderson | Unfiltered News | 3/3/10
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNwateendangeredstates2.html

Excerpt: The Endangered Species Act is corrupt and a tool used for collectivist control. You will recall that a whopping 48% of deliverable water is is used for “environmental” purposes by the federal government (most of it is runs off into the Pacific Ocean) and only 41% goes to agriculture. Despite 3 years of increased water restrictions, the Delta Smelt populations continue to fall: the federal Endangered Species Act “solutions” are not working. This “water shortage” game was played in the Klamath Basin, on the border of California and Oregon in 2001. Here is an excerpt from Dr. Michael Coffman’s article about this incident and the Endangered Species Act:
“Fourteen hundred farmers owning 200,000 acres in the Klamath River Basin of southern Oregon and Northern California were denied their water rights during the summer of 2001 because of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Nearly $200 million of life savings and hard work were wiped out instantly as the farmers were left with essentially worthless land. Federal environmental regulations like the ESA have destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of people, closed entire communities, and confiscated hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars of private property — all in the name of protecting the environment. Michael Kelley of the Washington Post Writers Group describes the brutality of the ESA in the July 11, 2001, issue of MSNBC:
“The Endangered Species Act…has been exploited by environmental groups who have forged from it a weapon in their agenda to force humans out of lands they wish to see returned to a pre-human state. Never has this been made more nakedly, brutally clear than in the battle of Klamath Falls. Congress could not pass the ESA using the Constitutional powers of Article 1, Section 8. Instead, they used five international treaties and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. The ESA even extols the fact that it cedes sovereignty to the international community by saying its purpose is to ‘develop and maintain conservation programs which meet national and international standards.’ In a very real way, U.S. citizens are going to prison, paying thousands of dollars in fines and, in some cases, stripped of their life savings because of international treaties.”(2)

[OHIO] U.N. Agenda 21 and Stealing Ohio Water Rights
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcRN72CPpLc
Agenda 21 U.N. to steal our water
Re: Great Lakes Water Compact, Ohio water
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCkGyMGovqg&feature=related

[OREGON] Impossible new water standards just an excuse for another tax
Tax the air, tax the water: Mitigation rights for impossible new water standards (based on specious science) are nothing more than a tax scheme – the water version of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system.
Sen. Doug Whitsett (R-Klamath Falls) | 6/18/11
http://oregoncatalyst.com/10192-impossible-water-standards-excuse-tax.html

Excerpt: The Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) adopted, by Administrative Rule, new Oregon water quality standards for human toxics that are ten times more stringent than anywhere else in the United States, or for that matter, anywhere else on the planet.

Compliance with the water quality standards adopted by the EQC will be virtually impossible. In many situations the new standards exceed the normal background levels. Water diverted from a stream, or pumped from a well, that naturally exceeds the concentration of any alleged pollutant cannot be returned to any water body without being treated to meet the new draconian standards. Moreover, it is our understanding that no known water treatment technology exists to treat water to achieve some of the standards.

[CALIFORNIA, OREGON] Klamath Basin Crisis
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/klamath/index.htm

Excerpt: On May 7 Klamath Basin farmers and ranchers, whose way of life is being exterminated as a result of federal interpretations of the Endangered Species Act, formed a symbolic bucket brigade to dramatize their plight. Bucket brigades have been a symbol of unified community action against threatened disaster throughout the history of the American West.

The 1,400 farms located in Siskiyou and Modoc County, California, and Klamath County in Oregon, were homesteaded, in part, by veterans of WWI and WWII at the special invitation of a grateful nation. These veterans were enticed with the promise of a rich irrigated land in which they could invest their blood, sweat and tears.

Local residents are now in shock at the decision by the federal government to completely shut off the irrigation water that serves more than 90% of the farmers. The decision, based on inflated claims to minimum lake levels and downstream flows for threatened fish, leaves no water to allocate to the other 6,000 water users, including several major National Wildlife Refuges hosting migratory waterfowl. With the lakes and reservoirs currently brimming with water, it is difficult for these small family farmers and ranchers not to feel betrayed and abandoned by their government. . . .

Klamath Basin Water Crisis
http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/

[TEXAS] John Bush of Texans for Accountable Government Exposes Agenda 21 to Austin City Council
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h-lTRxKu3A&feature=player_embedded

[UTAH, CALIFORNIA, WASHINGTON] Insidious Agenda 21
Published: 4/7/2012 5:43 PM | Last update: 4/7/2012 5:43 PM

Excerpt: Senior citizen Betty Perry of Orem, Utah, was arrested by Neighborhood Preservation officers for violating a city code – failure to water her lawn.

Farmers in Washington state are battling with the Environmental Protection Agency to save their farmland from “pesticide buffer zones.” California’s San Joaquin Valley, the “Salad Bowl of America,” was transformed into a dustbowl when the EPA pressured Congress to strangle the valley’s water supply on behalf of a minnow, the Delta smelt.

[WASHINGTON] EPA Usurping Privately Owned Farmland for Agenda 21 Buffer Zones
Susanne Posel | Occupy Corporatism | 3/18/12
http://occupycorporatism.com/epa-usurping-privately-owned-farmland-for-agenda-21-buffer-zones/

Excerpt: The EPA is adding regulations that could force farmers to shut down. Lisa Jackson, administrator for the EPA, wants to implement buffer zones around waterways to protect them from pesticides. In order to create them, the EPA is taking land owned by farmers.

Buffer zones are areas that Agenda 21 has designated as not inhabitable for humans. This is detailed under the Wildlands Project. These lands would be reserved as wilderness, with connecting corridors. The Wildlands Project seeks to determine the majority of America as core reserves or buffer zones.

In one example, NOAA in partnership with the EPA wants to establish 500 ft buffer zones along all the waterways in the state of Washington. They claim that this will save the water from exposure to pesticides used by farmers in the surrounding areas. The Department of Agriculture in the state of Washington has tested these waterways. They have shown they are not contaminated with pesticides, herbicide or fungicide. However, since these tests were not conducted by NOAA or the EPA, those findings are being ignored and the attempt to usurp farming land goes on. The farmers would be restricted to not using these areas of their own land to farm. The EPA would essentially restrict 61% of the usable farming land and severely limiting food production by these small farms.

[WASHINGTON] Water Wars / Property Rights | The Olympia Tea Party
http://www.olympiateaparty.com/tea_press.html

==========================
Oceans and Law of the Sea
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm
————————————
The following is excerpted from an email — On May 25, 2012, at 8:19 AM, edadvoc wrote:
Subject: Oceans and Law of the Sea United Nations.. the truth
Date: May 25, 2012 8:19:34 AM MST

[ . . . ] The UN Treaty was negotiated under the auspices off the UN. The proof is in the pudding.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_30years.htm

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also called the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea treaty, is the international agreement that resulted from the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place from 1973 through 1982. The Law of the Sea Convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world’s oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. The Convention, concluded in 1982, replaced four 1958 treaties. UNCLOS came into force in 1994, a year after Guyana became the 60th state to sign the treaty.[1] To date, 162 countries and the European Community have joined in the Convention. However, it is uncertain as to what extent the Convention codifies customary international law.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/new_developments_and_recent_adds.htm

http://www.itlos.org/

===

More on property rights (including water rights issues): go here < http://thearizonasentinel.com/2012/05/12/tombstone-arizona-and-the-federal-agencies-short-memory-they-only-way-to-stop-them-is-to-terminate-the-agency/ > scroll down to “Analysis of Hage v. United States”:

========
DOCUMENTS
========

[UN-Water] Water Monitoring
Mapping Existing Global Systems & Initiatives Background Document – August 2006
Prepared by FAO on behalf of the UN-Water Task Force on Monitoring Stockholm, 21 August 2006
http://www.fao.org/nr/water/docs/UNW_MONITORING_REPORT.pdf

Excerpt: List of UN-Water members and partners

UN-Water is the inter-agency mechanism that promotes coherence and coordination of UN system actions aimed at the implementation of the agenda defined by the Millennium Declaration and the 2002 World Summit on SustainableDevelopment as it relates to its scope of work.

The Members of UN-Water are presented below in alphabetical order
UN members:
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
IFAD International Fund of Agricultural Development
UNCBD United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity
UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNDESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-Water Secretariat)
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNECA United Nations Economic Commission for Africa
UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
UNECLAC United Nations Economic Comm. for Latin America and the Caribbean
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNESCWA United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia
UN-Habitat United Nations Human Settlements Programme
UNHCR United Nations High Commission for Refugees
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization
UNISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
UNU United Nations University
WHO World Health Organization (UN-Water Chair)
WMO World Metrological Organization
World Bank

Partners:
GWP Global Water Partnership
IAH International Association of Hydrogeologists
IAHS International Association of Hydrological Sciences
IPTRID International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage
IWA International water Association
PSI Public Service International
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
WWC World Water Council

[UN-Water] Water on the Road to Rio+20 and the way forward
http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/pdf/water_on_the_road_to_rio_and_way_forward.pdf

Excerpt: The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) is one of the most important events in the UN agenda. The first conference or ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 summoned representatives of almost all the nations of the world to create a shared vision for reconciling economic growth with environmental protection and building a more equal world. Sustainable development was officially launched into the mainstream. Several conferences later and twenty years on, governments and participants from around the globe will gather again in Rio de Janeiro on 4-6 June 2012 to mark the 20th Anniversary of the Rio Earth Summit.

Excerpt p.4-5:
Rio+20 will focus on two themes: (1) how to build a green economy which delivers sustainable development and lifts people out of poverty; and (2) how to improve the institutional framework and international coordination for sustainable development. The emerging concept of the green economy has shaped much of the discussions in the preparation for Rio+20.
The green economy is, simply put, the practical and operational framework that will serve to implement the three pillars of sustainable development (environmental, economic and social). The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) define a green economy as one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. The green economy concept has already served an important purpose: acting as a catalyst and rallying individual, national and international actors to work together towards a common vision. While it is evident that ‘business-as-usual’ is not working, articulating the details of a green economy and identifying possible pathways to get there will be a major task for the Rio+20 Summit.

Excerpt p.6-7: Addressing the water challenge requires the removal of barriers and the creation of institutional mechanisms to facilitate the transfer and adoption of technology, water conservation, improved irrigation methods, the promotion of water reuse and efficiency improvements. To reverse the degradation of freshwater ecosystems, improved governance is needed which defines property rights, incorporates the full cost of water into decision making, and allocates water to the environment. There are many barriers to achieving a green economy, including lack of institutional capacity, information, and access to finance. A range of approaches for overcoming these barriers will be needed, from investments, capacity development, and structural reforms, to technology policies and incentive systems.

[UNITED NATIONS] Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development
Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August – 4 September 2002
A/CONF.199/20* United Nations • New York, 2002
* Reissued for technical reasons.
http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs/131302_wssd_report_reissued.pdf

[WORLD BANK] Financing Agenda 21: FRESHWATER [February, 1994]
A paper prepared for The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development
by John Briscoe and Mike Garn
The preparation of this paper was funded jointly by the United Nations Developmnent Programme and the World Bank. (see attachment)

Excerpt: This paper takes the point of view that “financing the freshwater activities of Agenda 21” is principally a challenge of developing appropriate institutional and financial arrangements. . . .

Excerpt p.29: . . . the Chapter on Freshwater (Chapter 18) of Agenda 21 comprises long list of unreachable and unfundable targets, with no fewer than 184 activities advocated in this chapter alone!

[From OECD website] Financing water and sanitation Key issues in increasing resources to the sector
A Water Aid briefing paper written by
S. Annamraju, B.Calaguas & E.Gutierrez November 2001
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/55/2552051.pdf

Excerpt p.14: Agenda 21 (see later section) estimated the additional cost of achieving water security at US$56 billion per year, while the World Bank suggests that between US$600 and US$800 billion is needed over the next 25 years for universal water and sanitation needs to be met.

Excerpt p.21: Financing water supply and sanitation under Agenda 21

The World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 will review the progress of Agenda 21, which is the global plan of action on environment and development. Chapter 18 of Agenda 21 deals primarily with managing and protecting freshwater. Freshwater issues are expected to be one of the key areas of focus and review for this next summit. . . .

Agenda 21 has called for specific increases in resource needs for water and sanitation and water resources management in general, amongst other priorities. These resource allocations are to be prioritised under the framework of national strategies for sustainable development. . . . .

[UNESCO] RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT AND THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE: IN NEED OF A LITTLE HELP
Sarah Hendry, Lecturer in Law, UNESCO Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science, University of Dundee
The Journal of Water Law published by Lawtext Publishing Limited
http://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10588/987/Hendry%20001.pdf?sequence=2

Excerpt p. 151:
IWRM [Integrated water resources management] has been an international policy goal since at least 1992, and is expressed in Agenda 21,7 and more recently, the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation.8 It is being implemented in many parts of the world; the WFD is only one, albeit a comprehensive and sophisticated, example of a legislative framework for this type of approach to managing water.9 This concept of an integrated approach, and the need to work with a diverse range of disciplines and interested parties, has been a staple part of the field work of engineers, hydrologists and physical geographers for decades.10 Many states are imple- menting their international commitments by reforming their legal structures for water resources management. Nonetheless, widespread recognition of the concept is relatively modern and in many places, not just the developing world, it has proved both complex and expensive to put into practice. This has led some to cast doubt on its efficacy, or at least whether other, operational aspects of water reform (particularly the reform of water rights and allocations, the most politically and socially sensitive area) would be a better use of scarce resources.11 Law is one of the disciplines that has a role to play in IWRM, and in recent years has acquired more prominence, both in creating structures for IWRM and in the reform of the operational areas, especially water rights and water quality.

Most commentators accept the desirability of an integrated approach, and some argue that IWRM has attained the status of a legal norm.12 If nothing else, it provides a framework whereby policy-makers in other related areas, such as land-use planning in its broadest sense, will be required to recognise the impacts of wider land-use patterns and socio-economic activities on the water resource, and gives those policy-makers the data on which to make the necessary tradeoffs between economic, social and environmental needs. In turn, this requires stakeholder understanding and acceptance of the science behind the law. If, as is usually the case, the IWRM process results in some plan or strategy being formed, this will provide the opportunity to make those tradeoffs explicit and to set out challenging, but realistic, targets and goals. One element of the development of an IWRM approach and one which is a particular focus of HELP is the relationship between science and law into policy. As new scientific understanding develops, for example in hydrology or water quality, this new knowledge needs to be incorporated effectively into the legal regimes.

7 `Agenda 21 An Agenda for the 21st Century’ A/Conf 152/126 para 18.3. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21 toc.htm#sec2 (21 January 2009).
8 UN `Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development’ (2002) A/Conf 199/20 incorporating the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation para 26 available at http://www.un.org/esa/sust dev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POIToc.htm (21 January 2009). 9 For a comparative analysis looking at Scotland, England, Queensland and South Africa, see Hendry `Integrated Water Resource Management: Comparative Frameworks for Reform’ (2006) 17 WL 47±60.
10 S Saha, C Barrow (eds) River Basin Planning Theory and Practice (J Wiley and Sons London 1981).
11 FAO Legislative Series 92 Modern Water Rights Theory and Practice (FAO Rome 2006) ch 5.
12 S Salman, D Bradlow Regulatory Frameworks for Water Resources Management (World Bank Washington DC 2006) s 3.2.

Excerpt p.151-152:

THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE ROLE OF UNESCO

The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) is one of 25 UN agencies working on water.20 These agencies each address different parts of the water problem, social and environmental, while working together in a partnership, UN-Water, which recognises the complexity of the problem. UN-Water has four specific programmes: the World Water Assessment Programme, the UN-Water Decade Programme on Capacity Development, the UN-Water Decade Programme on Advocacy and Communication, and the WHO-UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme on Water and Sanitation. The World Water Assessment Programme has inter alia produced the World Water Development Reports, the third of which was released at the Fifth World Water Forum in Istanbul in March 2009.21 UN-Water also engages with many non-UN partners, working in time-limited programmes and task groups. The Third World Water Development Report will recognise the role of law and governance in water management.

UNESCO’s scientific mission includes the International Hydrological Programme (IHP).22 The IHP, UNESCO’s international scientific cooperative programme in water research, water resources management, education and capacity-building, is now in its seventh strategic planning phase, from 2008±2013. The 7th strategic plan has five key themes: Adapting to Global Change; Water Governance for Sustainability; Ecohydrology; Water and Life Support; and Water and Education. The IHP is a vehicle for governments, scientific and professional organisations, and other stakeholders to work together on both the scientific and social aspects of better water management. Under the auspices of UNESCO, a Category 2 Centre has for the first time been established at the University of Dundee, specialising in water law and the relationship between law, policy and science, and is actively engaged in the HELP programme as well as other IHP activities, again recognising the role of law as one part of the change agenda. The IHP has a number of associated programmes, including two cross-cutting programmes that affect all aspects of the work of the IHP, HELP and Flow Regimes from International Experimental and Network Data (FRIEND).

FRIEND is intended to improve knowledge and understanding of hydrology at a regional level by the exchange of data and techniques, and is based on expertise in the water sciences.23 The HELP pro- gramme, which is the focus of this article, is a little different. It offers insights into good practice for water management that include, but go beyond, scientific analysis, and it includes multi-dimensional stakeholder activities as a core part of IWRM.

====================
DOCUMENTS — NATION SPECIFIC
====================

Some examples from other nations:

[Australia] Our Community Our Future: A Guide to Local Agenda 21
Commonwealth of Australia 1999
http://a21l.qc.ca/web/document/our_community_our_future.pdf

[China] LOCAL AUTHORITY INITIATIVES IN SUPPORT OF AGENDA 21 – CHINA
AREA STUDIES – CHINA: REGIONAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW – Vol. II – Local Authority Initiatives in Support of Agenda 21 – China – Zhou Hailin
http://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C16/E1-54-29.pdf

Excerpt: The Local Agenda 21 concept was formulated and launched by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) in 1991 as a framework for local governments worldwide to engage in implementing the outcomes of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). ICLEI, along with partner national and international local government associations and organizations (LGOs), championed the Local Agenda 21 concept during the 1991-1992 UNCED preparatory process. These efforts led to the integration of the Local Agenda 21 concept in the main outcome of UNCED, Agenda 21.
Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 contains a direct call to all local governments to create their own strategies and plans for sustainable development. The local authorities were given a key role to play in making sustainable development happen. These Local Agenda 21 should translate the principles and mandates of Agenda 21 into concrete service strategies for each local community. Chapter 28 states that:

Because so many of the problems and solutions being addressed by Agenda 21 have their roots in local activities, the participation and cooperation of local authorities will be a determining factor in fulfilling its objectives. Local authorities construct, operate and maintain economic, social and environmental infrastructure, oversee planning processes, establish local environmental policies and regulations, and assist in implementing national and subnational environmental policies. As the level of governance closest to the people, they play a vital role in educating, mobilizing and responding to the public to promote sustainable development.

[Granada] “Sustainable Water Management through Common Responsibility enhancement in Mediterranean River Basins”
Analysis of Local Agenda 21 application in the province of Granada
http://www.waterincore.eu/deliverables/04_01_05_en.pdf

Excerpt p.2:
The Water In Core project falls within Axis 2 of the MED programme, funded by the European Regional Development Fund and lasting from June 2009–May 2012.

The project consists of the design, application and dissemination of a methodological framework to integrate the Local Agenda 21 principles into the management of water resources in Mediterranean catchment areas.

To this end, it is necessary to focus on identifying water- management (WM) practices and policies and on the current situation regarding the application of Local Agenda 21 in the various participating regions.

[Denmark] http://www.petus.eu.com/graphics/case_67.pdf

Excerpt: Short description of the case
The case describes new types of collaboration methods on groundwater protection. Water co-operations are a general method that are implemented in many areas in DK as the water provision often consists of many small user owned water works.
The specific case focuses on the water co-operation between the Copenhagen Energy (water section) and the local water works in the municipality of Slangerup. As groundwater pollution is a growing problem all partners are interested in collaboration in protecting the groundwater resources. The co-operation is a frame for collaboration between the very different actors. The water co-operations are voluntary, based on the need to expand the effort for groundwater protection.
Why was the case chosen? This is an example on new types of collaboration projects between actors involved in groundwater protection, where new methods are being developed and called for (partnering / process-tool)
To which PETUS key-problem is this case study related? The water resource quality and availability (6.1.), Management of conception of urban water infrastructures (6.2), and sustainable water management in cities (6.3.)

[Albania] Agenda 21 in Ballsh
This document was prepared by Ballsh Municipality with the support of UNDP’s Capacity 21 Project and the technical expertise of Sally Kelling and Sotir Dhamo from CoPlan.
http://www.lgp-undp.org.al/download/guidelines/Agenda-21.pdf

[Barcelona] Agenda 21
http://www.bcn.es/publicacions/b_mm/abmm59/abmm_59.htm

[European Union] Green Week 2012
Wastewater reuse in the EU – an alternative supply to overcome water scarcity | 24 May 2012
John Mangion, Member of the Environment Planning Commission Malta Environment and Planning Authority
http://www.greenweek-2012.eu/sites/default/files/4-9_mangion.pdf

Excerpt: Waste-water reuse – an example of environmentally sustainable technology (EST)
ESTs are defined in Chapter 34 of Agenda 21 as technologies which are less polluting and which promote the recycling of waste in an environmentally friendly manner.
ESTs play key role in integrated water resources development as recognised in Chapter 18 of Agenda 21 which:

• Sets efficient water-use programmes as a primary objective to achieve sustainable resource utilisation, and
• Recommends the development of new alternative sources, amongst which, is wastewater re-use and recycling

—
Research by D. Niwa