Posted 2/28/2013
Posted on February 1, 2013 9:58 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
behindmyback.org.
To Port Angeles WA COUNCIL MEMBERS from Pearl Rains-Hewett
Regarding my Feb.2013 utility bill
Why are you charging me water related costs of over $90.00 a month for $1.91 of water usage?
The answer is very simple, as written in this US Senate report. These EPA mandates are sent to the state.
Then WA state passes them on to the city of Port Angeles and in turn, you pass the costs of the EPA mandates on to we the people.
Clouded Waters EPA
UNITED STATES SENATE REPORT
Clouded Waters:
A Senate Report Exposing the High Cost of EPA’s Water Regulations and Their Impacts on State and Local Budgets
United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
This new, top down approach to regulating water is imposing huge financial costs without local input or any assurance of water quality improvements. The total cost for states, cities, industry, agriculture, utilities, and rate payers will be tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars. These are more expensive programs and unfunded federal mandates at a time when States don’t have the money to comply.
Water quality decisions need to be returned to the States and local governments, like the CWA intended. That is the most effective way “to see a huge leap forward in water quality” for future generations.
This report examines the impacts on state and local governments of several water regulations that EPA is, or will shortly be, implementing: new water quality criteria in Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) for geographic locations, new stormwater rules, and the new Pesticide General Permit (PGP). These rules carry with them significant unfunded mandates that will cost state and local governments tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars.
Importantly, these new rules are not the outcome of legislation or rigorous scientific findings, but a direct result of a number of lawsuits with environmentalists. The agreements to regulate often did not include any meaningful opportunity for input from state and local entities.
Minority Staff
Released: June 30, 2011
——————————
My original email Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:40 PM
was addressed to the Port Angeles City Council
It was received by the office of City Manager Dan McKeen
3:45 pm Mon. Feb. 11,2013 I went to City Hall
City Manager Dan McKeen was not available to speak with me
Teresa Pierce passed me off to Byron Olson
Byron Olson had previously passed my email off to Rick Hostetler
I asked to speak with Byron Olson
Teresa Pierce checked and Byron Olson was too busy to speak with me
Byron Olson and Teresa Pierce again passed me, back to Customer Services Rick Hostetler
Rick was very nice to the old lady that did not understand her utility bill.
After Rick and I discussed things… Rick had some understanding of the intent of my original email.
And asked if? suggested that? I speak with Byron Olson.
5:00 pm Mon. Feb. 13 2013 Byron Olson was too busy to speak with me.
Mayor Cherie Kidd
Deputy Mayor Brad Collins, – Sissi P. Bruch, PhD
Dan Di Guilio, – Patrick Downie, – Max Mania, – Brooke Nelson
MY ORIGIONAL EMAIL
—– Original Message —–
From:pearl hewett
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:40 PM
Subject: Port Angeles newly expanded utility bill
To Port Angeles COUNCIL MEMBERS: Regarding my Feb. utility bill
Why are you charging me water related costs of over $90.00 a month for $1.91 of water usage?
Mayor Cherie Kidd,
Deputy Mayor Brad Collins, – Sissi P. Bruch, PhD
– Dan Di Guilio, – Patrick Downie, – Max Mania, – Brooke Nelson
I feel as a recipient of your newly expanded utility bill, and Port Angeles resident I am entitled to the following
UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON of my utility bill
The intent of a party can be determined by examining THE UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON, after consideration is given to all relevant circumstances of the case including the negotiations, any practices the parties have established between themselves, USAGES and any SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT of the parties.[9] The reasonable person (historically reasonable man) is one of many tools for explaining the law/rule to a jury.
UNDERSTANDING ability to grasp the meaning, the ability to perceive and explain the meaning or the nature of something
USAGES the act of using something, the way something is used, or the extent to which something is used.
The standard SHOULD also hold that each person/government law or appointed agency owes a duty to behave as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances.
Indeed, not only, do I not understand the addition of many new costs.
I am fully uninformed as to the due process your council used to arrive at the costs.
THE DUE PROCESS USED to create and implement my utility bill
THE LITTLE WORD “DUE”
Andrew T. Hyman *
I. INTRODUCTION
(this complete document is available on line)
The Fifth [1] and Fourteenth [2] Amendments bar the government from depriving
anyone of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Justice Joseph Bradley once said that “we are entitled, under the fourteenth
amendment, not only to see that there is some process of law, but ‘due
process of law,’ provided by the State law when a citizen is deprived….”
[72] Justice Bradley was correct, in the sense that a mere portion of legal process will
not be allowed, when more is required by positive law. Failure to provide all process that
is due may not normally be treated as harmless error, according to the Due Process
Clause, and statutes may not normally treat it as such.
(this complete document is available on line)
The Supreme Court has in recent decades added increasingly
stringent due process restraints on Congress and the states, pursuant to its
mistakes in Hurtado. With regard to procedural law, the Court has developed a test for
determining what process is “due” by balancing three factors:
(1) the nature and weight of the private interest affected, [page 31]
(2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of this interest using existing procedures
compared with alternative or additional procedures, and
(3) the government’s concern with both the interest involved and the procedures
used to regulate it.
[73] Unfortunately, the rationale of a majority (or supermajority) of the people’s
representatives is not even a factor here, much less a determinative factor of what
procedure is “due.” Likewise for substantive law,
the general position of the Court is now that when a fundamental interest is at
stake involving life, liberty, or property, then the state must have a “compelling”
objective, and its statute must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective.
In cases involving non-fundamental interests, the state must have a “legitimate”
objective, and a statute must be rationally related to achieving that objective.
I have owned my home in Port Angeles for over 35 years.
I am a senior citizen on social security
My personal budget is balanced.
Why am I being tossed over a financial cliff in my own home?
Has the city council made any provision for water related cost and financial assistance for low income individuals?
Pearl Rains Hewett
Port Angeles WA 98362