Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Four Legislations to Ban Chem Trails and Geo Engineering.

Here are four pieces of legislation. The first was created for the town of Suffolk New York. With a little tweaking, it can be redrafted for your city county or state. The second is a citizens bill for Maui.  The third is for Mount Shasta and the 4th is for congress. Also at this website you can find references to government bills that did pass that allow for the spraying of barium and aluminum on the people, an outrageous violation of other rights we hold dear. http://stopsprayingcalifornia.com/Chemtrail_Legislation.php

I encourage everyone to join the network of concerned citizens who will sign petitions and collect signatures themselves, distributing the workload required for a signature drive, to qualify this initiative and others you care about for the ballot. Go to http://www.ActivismTruth.com to connect.

A great resource to learn about the reality of the harm government Geo-engineering has on our planet is from Edward G. Griffen's films:

What in the World are They Spraying?
Why in the World are They Spraying?  


LOCAL LAW NO. _____-2011, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
A LOCAL LAW TO PROTECT AIR QUALITY IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE OF THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, as follows:
Section 1. Legislative Intent.
This Legislature hereby finds and determines that Suffolk County is a leader in environmental protection and has several programs to protect soil and groundwater from contamination.
This Legislature also finds and determines that air pollution is another environmental issue that can impact the health and safety of County residents and may also contaminate soil and groundwater.
This Legislature further finds and determines that concerns have been raised that business and government entities may be discharging polluting chemicals, including barium, sulfur, salts, and aluminum oxide, into the air, which may impact weather and other environmental elements.
This Legislature finds that such particulates eventually fall from the atmosphere, exposing the public to these air pollutants and, upon landing, may contaminate soil and water.
This Legislature determines that County residents may be exposed to these chemicals while they are in the atmosphere, which can cause respiratory and other health problems.
This Legislature also finds that, to protect County residents from potential harm, any person who plans to discharge these chemicals into the airspace over Suffolk County should first file an Environmental Impact Statement with and receive approval from the Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Quality.
Therefore, the purpose of this law is to require any person who plans to discharge sulfur, barium, salts or aluminum oxide into the airspace above the County of Suffolk to file a complete Environmental Impact Statement with the County prior to taking such action.
Section 2. Definitions.
As used in this law, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: “PERSON” shall mean any natural person, individual, corporation, unincorporated association, proprietorship, firm, partnership, joint venture, joint stock association, or other entity or business of any kind.
Section 3. Requirements.
Any person who plans to discharge sulfur, barium, salts or aluminum oxide into the airspace above the County of Suffolk must file a completed environmental impact form, as established in Section 4 of this law, with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Quality and with the Clerk of the Suffolk County Legislature and receive the approval of the Division of Environmental Quality prior to engaging in such discharge.
Section 4. Form Established.
The Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Quality is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to develop an environmental impact form to be used by persons wishing to discharge sulfur, barium, salts or aluminum oxide into the airspace above the County of Suffolk. Such form shall require applicants to detail the nature and purpose of their proposed discharge and any potential environmental and/or public health impacts that may result from such discharge.
Section 5. Exemption.
The requirements set forth in this law shall not apply to any person engaging in aerosol spraying for agricultural or vector control purposes.
Section 6. Penalties.
A. Any person who violates any provision of this law shall be liable for a civil penalty of up to $2,500 for an initial violation, with a fine of $5,000 for each subsequent violation.
B. Any civil penalty may only be assessed by the Commissioner of Health Services following a hearing and opportunity for an alleged violator to be heard.
Section 7. Rules and Regulations.
The Commissioner of the County Department of Health Services is hereby authorized and empowered to issue and promulgate such rules and regulations as he or she deems necessary to implement and carry out the provisions of this law. Section 8. Applicability.
This law shall apply to all actions occurring on or after the effective date of this law.
Section 9. Severability.
If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this law or the application thereof to any person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such order or judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this law, or in its application to the person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance directly involved in the controversy in which such order or judgment shall be rendered.
Section 10. SEQRA Determination.
This Legislature, being the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) lead agency, hereby finds and determines that this law constitutes a Type II action pursuant to Section 617.5(c)(20), (21), and/or (27) of Title 6 of the NEW YORK CODE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS (6 NYCRR) and within the meaning of Section 8-0109(2) of the NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW as a promulgation of regulations, rules, policies, procedures, and legislative decisions in connection with continuing agency administration, management and information collection. The Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is hereby directed to circulate any appropriate SEQRA notices of determination of non-applicability or non-significance in accordance with this law.
Section 11. Effective Date.
This law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the Office of the Secretary of State.

Here is the bill for Maui.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTY OF MAUI:
Title. The rules and regulations of this Article shall be known as the “MAUI CLEAN SKY ORDINANCE.”
Authority. The rules herein are established pursuant to the provisions of Section 4-5iii of the Charter of the County and in accordance with Hawaii Constitution provisions, specifically Article XI, Section 1 on Conservation and Development of Resourcesiv and Article XI, Section 9 on Environmental Rights.v
Purpose. The preservation, protection, and conservation of the natural environment in the County of Maui, including but not limited to water, soil and air quality, is one of the greatest concerns of its government and its people.  Pollution and contamination of the land, air, and water supply is unacceptable because of the adverse effects on the health, safety and welfare of the people of the County and the natural environment, especially when the effects and reversibility are unknown.
Therefore, it is the purpose and intent of this ordinance to regulate the disbursement of aerosols, chemicals or any particulate matter into the skies above or around Maui, other than those byproducts and standard emissions of industry, agriculture, commerce and transportation that are both properly disclosed and approved by applicable governmental agencies. There is currently inadequate research on the collateral effects such disbursements may have on the health of the people and the environment.
Therefore, the purpose of this law is to require any person, firm, corporation, agency, or entity that intends on discharging or disbursing such aerosols, chemicals or any particulate matter, to file a complete Environmental Impact Statement with the County, in a form prescribed by the County, and obtain written and informed approval from the County prior to taking such action.

Findings.
A. The people of the County of Maui recognize that various organizations, both governmental and nongovernmental, propose the global disbursement of aerosols and other particulates into the atmosphere for the stated goal of countering the negative effects of global warming – a process labeled with various terms, including but not limited to: “geoengineering,” “climate engineering,” “climate remediation,” and/or “solar radiation management.”vi

B. The people of the County of Maui find that there is increasingly more information, studies, and reports indicating that such geoengineering efforts have been proposed and may be currently occurring.vii

C. The people of the County of Maui further find that studies show that disbursements from stratospheric aerosol geoengineering and other such programs may contain potentially harmful substances with many known and unknown health and environmental consequences, which may contaminate the air, water, soil and people of Maui County.viii

D. The people of the County of Maui conclude that any such program that may result in potentially adverse health and environmental implications must obtain the informed consent of the people of Maui County.  Such informed consent mush be legally obtained by filing an Environmental Impact Statement with, and receiving approval from, the Maui County Council.

Proposed Law:
A.  Prohibited Activities: 
Except as described under subsection B, it is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, agency, or entity to:

1)  Use any type of aircraft or other self-propelled or buoyant airborne object, or any other land-based, air-based, or water-based device or vehicle to disburse aerosols, chemicals, or any particulate matter into the airspace above or around Maui County that may enter the breathing atmosphere, the rain, or the soils of Maui County; or

2) Engage in any act of geoengineering, climate engineering, or any other act related to the climate manipulation of Maui County; or

3)Engage in any activity that is intended to alter the weather or the sunlight of Maui County.

B.  Exceptions:
1) Nothing in this chapter prohibits any act stated in Subsection A, so long as the person, firm, corporation, agency or entity has first submitted an Environmental Impact Statement to the Maui County Council, in a form prescribed by the County Council or its designee, and has received written informed approval from the Maui County Council; and

2)  Nothing in this chapter prohibits any act stated in Subsection A, so long as the disbursements are the byproducts and emissions of industry, agriculture, commerce and transportation that are both properly disclosed and approved by applicable governmental agencies.

Form Established.  The County Council is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to develop an Environmental Impact Statement Form to be used by persons, firms, corporations, agencies or entities wishing to perform any disbursements, climate altering activities, weather modification, or geoengineering, as discussed in this chapter.

Penalty.  Any person, firm, corporation, agency or entity who knowingly violates this Title shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both. The continuance of any such violation shall be deemed a new violation for each day of such continuance. In addition, the County Attorney may institute an action to prevent, restrain, correct, or abate any violation of this Title and seek such relief by way of injunction or otherwise, as may be proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in order to fully effectuate the purposes of this Title.

Administrative rules.  The Director of Environmental Management may adopt administrative rules to implement this chapter, pursuant to Chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes.

Administrative enforcement.  In lieu of or in addition to, enforcement by criminal prosecution, the Director of Environmental Management may enforce this chapter pursuant to section 19.530.030ix of this code, relating to administrative enforcement.

Severability. If any portion of this code, or its application to any person or circumstance, shall be held unconstitutional or invalid, the remainder of this code and the application of such portion to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect 10 days after recorded with the Maui County Clerk.

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND  LEGALITY:

Deputy Corporation Counsel County of Maui

DATED AT WAILUKU, MAUI, HAWAII, this ___________________.

_________________, CHAIR of the Council of the County of Maui

_________________, COUNTY CLERK, County of Maui

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing BILL NO. __________)

REFERENCES
i Maui County, Hawaii, Code of Ordinances, Title 20 – Environmental Protection.
ii “Section 4-2. Introduction, Consideration and Passage of Ordinances and Resolutions.
  1. Every proposed ordinance shall be initiated as a bill and shall be passed after two readings on separate days.
  2. Except as otherwise provided by law, resolutions may be adopted on one reading.
  3.  Upon the request of three members of the council, a public hearing shall be held on any proposed ordinance or resolution.
  4. Digests of all bills which pass first reading and the votes thereon shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the county at least three (3) days before final reading.
  5. After passage all bills shall be promptly advertised once by title only in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, with the ayes and noes.
  6. Should the council find by a two-thirds vote of its entire membership the existence of an emergency threatening life, health, or property due to a public calamity, the council may waive all of the requirements of this section pertaining to procedure, except all votes shall be recorded. Every emergency ordinance, including any amendments made therein after its adoption, shall automatically stand repealed on the ninety-first (91st) day following the date on which it became effective. The council may prescribe by rule procedures for emergency meetings of its membership to be held by conference telephone or similar communication equipment in the event of public calamity.
  7. Resolutions authorizing proceedings in eminent domain shall be adopted as provided by law.
  8.  Bills and resolutions may be passed on first reading by council members and passed on second reading by their successors.”

iii “Section 4-5. Codification of Ordinances.
  1. The council shall cause any codification of all of the ordinances of the county heretofore prepared and published to be revised and updated at least biennially.
  2. Prior to passage of a bill providing for the adoption of a uniform code not less than three copies of the uniform code shall be filed for use and examination by the public in the office of the county clerk at least sixty (60) days prior to passage thereof.”

iv “For the benefit of present and future generations, the State and its political subdivisions shall conserve and protect Hawaii’s natural beauty and all natural resources, including land, water, air, minerals and energy sources, and shall promote the development and utilization of these resources in a manner consistent with their conservation and in furtherance of the self-sufficiency of the State.”
v “Each person has the right to a clean and healthful environment, as defined by laws relating to environmental quality, including control of pollution and conservation, protection and enhancement of natural resources. Any person may enforce this right against any party, public or private, through appropriate legal proceedings, subject to reasonable limitations and regulation as provided by law.”
vi See David Victor, et al., Geoengineering: Workshop on Unilateral Planetary Scale Geoengineering (Council on Foreign Relations, May 5, 2008), archived online at:
http://www.cfr.org/projects/world/geoengineering-workshop-on-unilateral-planetaryscale-geoengineering/pr1364
See also David Victor, et al., The Geoengineering Option: A Last Resort Against Global Warming (Foreign Affairs Magazine. Council on Foreign Relations, March/April 2009), archived online at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64829/david-g-victor-mgranger-morgan-jay-apt-john-steinbruner-and-kat/the-geoengineering-option
See also Stop Emitting CO2 or Geoengineering Could Be Our Only Hope (Royal Institute, August 28, 2009), archived online at: http://royalsociety.org/Stop-emittingCO2-or-geoengineering-could-be-our-only-hope/
See also Geoengineering the Climate: Science Governance and Uncertainty (Royal Society, September 1, 2009), archived online at:
http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/
See also Geoengineering – Taking Control of Our Planet’s Climate (Royal Institute, November 8-9, 2010), archived online at:
http://royalsociety.org/events/2010/geoengineering/
See also Lee Lane, et al., Workshop Report on Managing Solar Radiation (NASA, April 2007), archived online at:
http://event.arc.nasa.gov/main/home/reports/SolarRadiationCP.pdf
See also Vergano, Dan, Can Geoengineering Put the Freeze on Global Warming? (USA Today, February 25, 2011), archived online at:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2011-02-25geoengineering25_CV_N.htm
See also Kunzig, Robert. Geoengineering: How To Cool Earth—At A Price Scientific American. October 20, 2008), archived online at:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=geoengineering-how-to-cool-earth
?See also Erika Engelhaupt, Engineering a Cooler Earth: Researchers brainstorm a radical ways to counter climate change (Science News, June 5, 2010, pp 16-20) archived online at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/78635966/Engineering-a-Cooler-Earth??See also The Regulation of Geoengineering (UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Fifth Report Session 2009-2010), archived online at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/221.pdf??See also Us House of Representitives and UK Parliament House of Commons Joint Statement on Geoengineering 2010, archived online at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/22111.htm??See also J. J. Blackstock et al., Climate Engineering Responses to Climate Emergencies (Novim, 2009), archived online at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.5140
?vii See Task Force on Climate Remediation Research (The Bipartisan Policy Center, October 2011), archived online at:
http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20Climate%20Remediation%20 Final%20Report.pdf
See also International Consortium of NGOs Calls for Coordinated Action on Geoengineering Research (Royal Institute, December 2, 2011), archived online at:
http://royalsociety.org/news/srmgi-report-2011/
See also Zabarenko, Deborah, Geo-engineering: A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Come? (Reuters, December 9, 2011), archived online at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/09/us-climate-geoengineeringidUSTRE7B81Y820111209
viiiSee What In The World Are They Spraying? (Truth Media Productions, 2010), archived online at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
See also Climate Change 2007: Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007), archived online at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/spmsspm-c.html
(“Geo-engineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere, or blocking sunlight by bringing material into the upper atmosphere, remain largely speculative and unproven, and with the risk of unknown side-effects.”)
ix “19.530.030 -Administrative enforcement. In lieu of, or in addition to, enforcement by criminal prosecution, if the director of public works, the director of environmental management, the director of water supply, or the planning director determines that any persons are violating any provision of titles 8, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19 and 20 of this code, any rules adopted thereunder, or any permit issued thereto, the director may have the person served, by mail or personal delivery, with a notice of violation and order pursuant to this chapter and such administrative rules as the director may adopt.
A. Contents of the notice of violation. The notice shall include at least the following information:
  1. Date of the notice;
  2. The name and address of the person noticed;
  3. The section number of the provision or rule, or the number of the permit which has been violated;
  4. The nature of the violation; and
  5. The location and time of the violation.

B. Contents of the order.
1. The order may require the person to do any or all of the following:
  1.             a. Cease and desist from the violation;
  2.             b. Correct the violation at the person’s own expense before a date specified in the order;
  3.             c. Pay a civil fine not to exceed $1,000.00 in the manner, at the place, and before the date specified in the order;
  4.             d. Pay a civil fine not to exceed $1,000.00 per day for each day in which the violation persists, in the manner and at the time and place specified in the order; and
  5.             e. Pay a civil fine not to exceed one percent of the project cost as provided in Section 20.08.260.E.2 of this code.

2. The order shall advise the person that the order shall become final thirty days after the date of its mailing or delivery. The order shall also advise that the director’s action may be appealed to the board of variances and appeals.
C. Effects of order; right to appeal. The provisions of the order issued by the director of public works, the director of environmental management, the director of water supply, or the planning director under this section shall become final thirty days after the date of the mailing or delivery of the order. The person may appeal the order to the board of variances and appeals as provided for in this article. However, an appeal to the board of variances and appeals shall not stay any provision of the order.
D. Collection of unpaid civil fines. In addition to any other procedures for the collection of civil fines available to the County by law or rules of the court, the County may add unpaid civil fines as herein defined to any County taxes, fees or charges except for residential water or sewer charges.
E. Judicial enforcement of order. The director of public works, the director of environmental management, the director of water supply, or the planning director may institute a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction for the enforcement of any order issued pursuant to this section. Where the civil action has been instituted to enforce the civil fine imposed by said order, the director or agency need only show that the notice of violation and order were served, that a civil fine was imposed, the amount of the civil fine imposed, and that the fine imposed has not been appealed in a timely manner nor paid.”

Third, here is the bill for Mt. Shasta California.

APPENDIX I. FULL TEXT of the ORDINANCE
Initiative Measure to be Submitted Directly to the Voters
The people of the City of Mt. Shasta do ordain as follows:
AN ORDINANCE
City of Mt. Shasta, California
AN ORDINANCE TO ASSERT AND SECURE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF THE
CITY OF MT. SHASTA TO NATURAL WATER SYSTEMS AND CYCLES THROUGH
THE EXERCISE OF COMMUNITY SELF-GOVERNMENT BY ENUMERATING CERTAIN
RIGHTS HELD BY THE PEOPLE AND NATURAL COMMUNITY AND PROHIBITING
ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD DENY THOSE RIGHTS; BY PROTECTING THE HEALTH,
SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE
CITY OF MT. SHASTA; BY BANNING CORPORATIONS FROM ENGAGING IN WEATHER
MANIPULATION; BY ESTABLISHING STRICT LIABILITY AND BURDEN OF PROOF
STANDARDS FOR CHEMICAL TRESPASS; BY BANNING CORPORATIONS FROM
ENGAGING IN WATER WITHDRAWAL FOR EXPORT AND SALE OUTSIDE THE CITY;
BY REMOVING CLAIMS TO LEGAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS FROM CORPORATIONS
THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO SUBORDINATE THE PEOPLE AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE CITY OF MT. SHASTA TO THE WILL OF A FEW; AND BY RECOGNIZING
AND ENFORCING THE RIGHTS OF RESIDENTS TO DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF
NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Section 1. Preamble, Name and Purpose
Section 1.1: Preamble
WHEREAS Mount Shasta is considered one of Earth’s seven sacred mountains, serving as a global
destination and refuge for fresh air and clean water; and
WHEREAS Mount Shasta serves headwaters to the critical Sacramento River, providing 75% of
Northern California’s water; and
WHEREAS pristine spring water is Mount Shasta’s most valuable natural asset and continually ranks
among the top three in state and national water quality contests; and
WHEREAS atmospheric, surface and ground waters are intricately connected, they are currently
vulnerable to mismanagement under separate jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS objective scientific studies proving sustainable thresholds for groundwater extraction
from Mount Shasta’s volcanic hydrogeology are non-existent, while two multinational corporations
extract and export undisclosed amounts of Shasta water from their respective basins; and
WHEREAS the water bottling industry increases reliance upon fossil fuels, creating excessive nonbiodegradable
waste and carbon emissions; and
WHEREAS comprehensive, objective scientific studies proving the safety and efficacy of cloud
seeding are non-existent, the State of California allows private corporations to cloud seed without
regulation, while regulating municipal entities that experiment with cloud seeding; and
WHEREAS anecdotal evidence indicates that cloud seeding produces catastrophic weather events;
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 77
including lightening, floods, crippling snow loads and drought in regions where cloud seeding is
conducted; and
WHEREAS the people and natural environment of Mount Shasta have no protection against chemical
trespass from cloud seeding; and
WHEREAS Mount Shasta’s average decrease in annual snow pack and precipitation leads to surface
and groundwater depletion, thereby increasing risk of toxicity, forest fires, drought, species extinction,
desertification and reduced property values; and
WHEREAS human survival on planet earth relies upon local, state and national governments to
respond proportionately to the challenges of climate change by employing conservative natural
resource policies that respect biological systems; and
WHEREAS regulatory policies function to limit, rather than prevent environmental damage and
the time has come to prohibit, not mitigate, continued needless environmental destruction; and
WHEREAS conservative natural resource policies have been proven to stimulate green, local, innovative,
resilient, sustainable commerce; and
THEREFORE be it ordained that the people of the City of Mt. Shasta do hereby declare our rights
and responsibility to preserve watershed integrity as the foundation for environmental and
economic security, by enacting the Mount Shasta Community Water Rights & Self-Government
Ordinance.
Section 1.2: Name
This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the “City of Mt. Shasta Community Water
Rights and Self-Government Ordinance.”
Section 1.3: Purpose
One purpose of this Ordinance is to recognize and protect the inalienable rights of residents of the
City of Mt. Shasta, including but not limited to those enumerated in this Ordinance, particularly
the Right to Natural Water Systems and Cycles, to Self-Government in the place of residence, to
Self, to a Healthy Environment, to Home and Livelihood, and to Cultural Heritage.
Another purpose of this Ordinance is to recognize and protect the inalienable rights of the natural
environment of the City of Mt. Shasta, including the right to exist and flourish, free from damage
caused by alteration of natural water systems and cycles or introduction of toxic and potentially
toxic substances. Disturbing natural water cycles, including rainfall, the recharging of aquifers,
and interfering with access to water by human and natural communities are explicit prohibitions
imposed by this Ordinance, to protect Rights.
A further purpose of this Ordinance is to recognize that it is an inviolate, fundamental, and inalienable
right of each person residing within the City of Mt. Shasta to be free from involuntary invasions
of their bodies by the application of corporate chemicals into the environment as a result of
the violation of the provisions of this Ordinance.
The people of the City of Mt. Shasta understand that certain activities controlled by large corporations
have and continue to cause damage to climate, weather, water systems, the soil and air, and
that it is the people’s responsibility to prohibit behavior that they deem to be destructive of the
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 78
natural and human environment within the jurisdictions where they enjoy self-governing rights.
The people of the City of Mt. Shasta understand that responsibility for remedying or simply enduring
harmful effects brought about by modifications to weather, the introduction of toxins into
the environment, and the privatization of water, is borne predominantly by the public. State and
federal authorities regularly sanction damaging industrial and corporate behavior, and state and
federal lawmakers and courts exercise preemptive authority over community attempts to prohibit
harmful corporate behavior locally. The people of the City of Mt. Shasta recognize that they are
forced to endure or attempt to repair the harm to their environment that they have no commensurate
authority to prevent, under current state and federal law. The people of the City of Mt. Shasta
adopt this Ordinance to correct that error.
While the State of California and the federal government have bestowed legal protections and
immunities upon corporations and those who benefit from them, they have concurrently disallowed
the people from making those persons reaping financial benefits from harmful corporate
activities bear responsibility for damage inflicted. In light of this fundamental denial of the right
of the people to self-determination, the interference with ecosystems’ right to exist and flourish,
the denial of peoples’ freedom from chemical trespass, the denial of peoples’ right to natural
water cycles, and the denial of the right to demand restitution for harms, the City of Mt. Shasta,
under authority of the people, subordinates corporations to the rights and self-governance of the
people, prohibits corporations from violating rights, and to achieve the purposes herein outlined,
enacts this Ordinance.
Section 2.Statements of Law
All Rights delineated in this Ordinance, and all provisions, findings and purposes of this Ordinance,
without exception, are self-executing and legally enforceable.
Section 2.1: The Right of the People and Ecosystem to Natural Water Cycles
Section 2.1.1: Right to Water. All residents, natural communities and ecosystems in
the City of Mt. Shasta possess a fundamental and inalienable right to sustainably
access, use, consume, and preserve water drawn from natural water cycles that
provide water necessary to sustain life within the City.
Section 2.1.1.1: It shall be unlawful for any corporation to engage in cloud
seeding or weather modification within the City of Mt. Shasta. It shall be
unlawful for any person to assist a corporation to engage in cloud seeding or
weather modification within the City of Mt. Shasta.
Section 2.1.1.2: It shall be unlawful for any director, officer, owner, or manager
of a corporation to use a corporation to engage in cloud seeding or weather
modification within the City of Mt. Shasta.
Section 2.1.1.3: Corporations and persons using corporations to engage in
activities prohibited by this Ordinance in a neighboring municipality, county
or state shall be strictly liable for all violations of the rights of residents, ecosystems
and natural communities; for all harms caused to ecosystems and natural
communities, and for all harms caused to the health, safety, and welfare of the
residents of the City of Mt. Shasta from those activities.
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 79
Section 2.1.1.4: The deposition of toxic substances or potentially toxic substances
within the body of any resident of the City of Mt. Shasta, or into any
natural community or ecosystem, which results from corporate cloud seeding
or weather modification, whether engaged in, within or beyond the City of Mt.
Shasta, is declared a form of trespass and is hereby prohibited.
Section 2.1.1.5: It shall be unlawful for any corporation to engage in water
withdrawal in the City of Mt. Shasta. It shall be unlawful for any person to assist
a corporation to engage in water withdrawal in the City of Mt. Shasta.
Section 2.1.1.6: It shall be unlawful for any director, officer, owner, or manager
of a corporation to use a corporation to engage in water withdrawal within the
City of Mt. Shasta.
Section 2.1.1.6.1: Exceptions. The people of the City of Mt. Shasta hereby
allow the following exceptions to the Statements of Law contained within
Section 2.1.1.5, or 2.1.1.6 of this Ordinance:
(1) Municipal authorities established under the laws of the State of
California engaged in water withdrawals providing water only to residential
and commercial users within the City of Mt. Shasta;
(2) Nonprofit educational and charitable corporations organized under
state non-profit corporation law, qualified under §501(c)(3) of the federal
Tax Code, which do not sell water withdrawn within the City of Mt.
Shasta outside of the City of Mt. Shasta;
(3) Utility corporations operating under valid and express contractual
provisions in agreements entered into between the City of Mt. Shasta
and those utility corporations, for the provision of service within the
City of Mt. Shasta;
(4) Corporations operating under valid and express contractual provisions
in agreements entered into between persons in the City of Mt.
Shasta and those corporations, when the withdrawn water is used
solely for on-site residential, household, agricultural, or commercial use
within the City of Mt. Shasta, provided that such commercial use does
not involve the withdrawal of water for export and sale outside of the
City of Mt. Shasta, or involve the purchase of water withdrawn from the
City of Mt. Shasta for export and sale outside of the City.
(5) Corporations operating under valid and express contractual provisions
in agreements entered into between persons in the City of Mt.
Shasta and those corporations, when the withdrawn water is used for
the manufacture of beverages within the City of Mt. Shasta, provided
that such commercial use does not involve the withdrawal of water for
export and sale, either in bulk or packaged as water, outside of the City
of Mt. Shasta.
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 80
Section 2.2: The Right of the People to Self-Government
Section 2.2.1: Right to Community Self-Government. All residents of the City of Mt.
Shasta possess the fundamental and inalienable right to participate in a form of
government in the community where they live which guarantees them authority
to use, assert and enforce plenary governing power over questions of law that affect
their lives, families, environment, quality of life, health, safety and welfare. That
right includes the right to exercise un-preempted legislative authority through the
government closest to them. All governing authority is and shall remain inherent
in the people affected by governing decisions, and all legitimate governments are
founded on the people’s authority and consent. The recognition, protection and
enforcement of the rights enumerated in this Ordinance are rooted in the foundation
of valid government; law gains its legitimacy when it serves this purpose.
Section 2.2.1.2: The foundation for the making and adoption of this law is
the people’s fundamental and inalienable right to govern themselves in the
community where they live, and thereby secure their rights to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness. Any attempts to use other units and levels of government
to preempt, amend, alter, or overturn this Ordinance, or parts of this
Ordinance, shall require the City Council to hold public meetings that explore
the adoption of measures to overcome the usurpation and protect the ability
of residents to exercise their fundamental and inalienable right to self-government.
Section 2.2.1.3: To ensure that the rights of the people to make self-governing
decisions are never subordinated to the privileges of a few, within the City of
Mt. Shasta corporate entities and their directors and managers shall not enjoy
special powers or protections under the law, nor shall any class of people
enjoy such privileges, protections or powers. Corporations and other business
entities shall not be deemed to possess any legal rights, privileges, powers, or
protections which would enable those entities to avoid the enforcement of,
nullify provisions of, or violate the rights enumerated in this Ordinance.
Section 2.2.1.3.1 Corporate Privilege: Within the City of Mt. Shasta, corporations
that violate the provisions of this Ordinance shall not be “persons”
under the United States or California Constitutions, or under the laws of
the United States, California, or the City of Mt. Shasta, and so shall not have
the rights of persons under those constitutions and laws. Nor shall they
be afforded the protections of the Contracts Clause or Commerce Clause
of the United States Constitution, or similar provisions from the California
Constitution, within the City of Mt. Shasta, nor shall those corporations
possess the authority to enforce State or federal preemptive law against
the people of the City of Mt. Shasta. Corporations shall not be afforded the
protections of any international agreement or treaty which would enable
the corporation to nullify local laws adopted by the City of Mt. Shasta or
the people of the City of Mt. Shasta.
Section 2.2.1.3.2 Corporations as State Actors: Corporations chartered by
government acquire their being, their authority, and their ability to act
from the State. Within the City of Mt. Shasta, corporations shall be prohibited
from denying the rights of residents and natural communities and shall
be civilly and criminally liable for any such deprivation or denial of rights.
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 81
Section 2.2.1.3.3 Future Profits Not Property: Within the City of Mt. Shasta,
corporate claims to “future lost profits” as a result of the enactment,
implementation or enforcement of this Ordinance shall not be considered
property interests under the law and thus shall not be recoverable by
corporations seeking those damages as a result of the enforcement of this
Ordinance within the City.
Section 2.2.1.4: Any permit, license, privilege or charter issued to any person or
any corporation, the use of which would violate the prohibitions and provisions
of this Ordinance or deprive any City resident, natural community, or
ecosystem of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by this Ordinance,
the California Constitution, the United States Constitution, or other laws, shall
be deemed invalid within the City of Mt. Shasta. Additionally, any employee,
agent or representative of government who issues a permit, license, privilege
or charter which results in the violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or
deprives any City resident, natural community, or ecosystem of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by this Ordinance, the California Constitution,
the United States Constitution, or other laws, shall be liable to the party injured
and shall be responsible for payment of compensatory and punitive damages
and all costs of litigation, including, without limitation, expert and attorney’s
fees. Compensatory and punitive damages paid to remedy the violation of the
rights of natural communities and ecosystems shall be paid to the City of Mt.
Shasta for restoration of those natural communities and ecosystems.
Section 2.2.2: People as Sovereign. The City of Mt. Shasta shall be the governing
authority responsible to, and governed by, the residents of the City. Use of the “City
of Mt. Shasta” municipal corporation by the sovereign people of the City to make
law shall not be construed to limit or surrender the sovereign authority or immunities
of the people to a municipal corporation, or to the State, which are subordinate
to them in all respects at all times. The people at all times enjoy and retain an
inalienable and indefeasible right to self-governance in the community where they
reside.
Section 2.2.2.1: Nullification of Official Rights Denial. The authority of the State
of California to enforce any State law that removes authority from the people
of the City of Mt. Shasta to decide the future of their community, and to protect
the health, safety, welfare, environment and quality of life of City residents,
natural communities, and ecosystems, shall be deemed null within the City of
Mt. Shasta.
Section 2.2.3: Authority to Enact This Ordinance. The residents of the City of Mt.
Shasta have legitimate power and authority to use the municipality known as the
“City of Mt. Shasta” as their convenient instrument for asserting their right to community
self-government, and in accord with that authority and right they enact
this Ordinance.
Section 2.2.3.1: Authority: This Ordinance is also enacted pursuant to the authority
of the City of Mt. Shasta, as recognized by all relevant Federal and State
laws and their corresponding regulations, and by the inherent right of the
citizens of the City of Mt. Shasta to self-government, including, without limitation,
the following:
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 82
The Declaration of Independence, which declares that people are born with
“certain inalienable rights” and that governments are instituted among people
to secure those rights;
The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which declares that “The powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;”
The California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, which declares that “All people
are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these
are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting
property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy;”
The California Constitution, Article 1, Section 24, which declares that “Rights
guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by
the United States Constitution;”
The California Constitution, Article I, Section 24, which further provides that
“This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others
retained by the people;”
The California Constitution, Article II, Section 1, which asserts that “All political
power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection,
security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the
public good may require;”
The California Constitution, Article XI, Section 5 (a), which declares that “City
charters adopted pursuant to this Constitution shall supersede any existing
charter, and with respect to municipal affairs shall supersede all laws inconsistent
therewith;”
The California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7, which declares that “A county
or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and
other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws;”
The California Constitution, Article XI, Section 11(a), which declares that “The
Legislature may not delegate to a private person or body power to make, control,
appropriate, supervise, or interfere with county or municipal corporation
improvements, money, or property, or to levy taxes or assessments, or perform
municipal functions.”
Section 2.2.3.2 Interpretation: Anyone interpreting, implementing, or applying
this Ordinance shall give priority to the findings and purposes stated in Section
1 over such considerations as economy, eminent domain, efficiency, national
security and scheduling factors.
Section 2.2.3.3: Administration: This Ordinance shall be administered by the
City of Mt. Shasta.
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 83
Section 2.3: Enumerated Rights of the People within this Community
Section 2.3.2: Right to a Healthy Environment. All residents and persons within the
City of Mt. Shasta possess a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthy environment,
which includes the right to unpolluted air, water, soils, flora, and fauna,
the right to a natural environmental climate unaltered by human intervention, and
the right to protect the rights of natural communities and ecosystems, of which
each resident is both intrinsically a part and upon which all are dependent.
Section 2.3.3: Right to Self. All residents and persons living within the City of Mt.
Shasta possess a fundamental and inalienable right to the integrity of their bodies,
and to be free from unwanted invasions of their bodies by manufactured chemicals
and toxins, including but not limited to, toxic substances and potentially toxic
substances.
Section 2.3.3.1: The deposition, by corporations in violation of the provisions
of this ordinance, of toxic substances or potentially toxic substances within the
body of any resident of the City of Mt. Shasta, or into any natural community or
ecosystem, is declared a form of trespass and is hereby prohibited.
Section 2.3.3.2: Persons owning or managing corporations which manufacture,
generate, sell, transport, apply, or dispose of, toxic or potentially toxic substances,
which are detected within the body of any resident of the City of Mt.
Shasta or within any natural community or ecosystem within the City, having
violated the provisions of this Ordinance, shall be deemed culpable parties,
along with the corporation itself, for the recovery of trespass damages, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, and the instatement of permanent
injunctive relief. If more than one corporation manufactured or generated the
detected substance, persons owning and managing those corporations, along
with the corporations themselves, shall be held jointly and severally liable for
those damages, in addition to being subject to injunctive relief.
Section 2.3.3.3: Corporations manufacturing, using, selling or generating toxic
or potentially toxic substances in violation of the provisions of this Ordinance
that are detected within the body of a City resident shall provide information
about the manufacture or generation of those substances to the municipality
sufficient for a determination by the municipality of the culpability of that
particular corporation for the manufacturing or generation of a particular toxic
or potentially toxic substance.
Section 2.3.3.4: It shall be the duty of the City to protect the right of City residents,
natural communities and ecosystems to be free from trespass under the
provisions of this Ordinance, and to obtain damages for any violation of that
right. If the presence of toxic and/or potentially toxic substance is detected
within the body of any City resident, or within a natural community or ecosystem
within the City, the municipality shall initiate litigation to recover trespass,
compensatory, and punitive damages – and permanent injunctive relief - from
all culpable parties. If a significant number of City residents have been similarly
trespassed against, the municipality shall select representative plaintiffs
and file a class action lawsuit on behalf of all City residents to recover trespass,
compensatory, and punitive damages – and permanent injunctive relief - from
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 84
all culpable parties. City residents retain all individual legal rights to pursue
damages and relief.
Section 2.3.3.5: Persons or corporations engaged in activities prohibited by
this Ordinance shall be strictly liable for the deposition of toxic substances and
potentially toxic substances into the bodies of residents of the City and within
natural communities and ecosystems within the City. Culpable parties shall
be deemed strictly liable if one of their toxic or potentially toxic substances
or chemical compounds is discovered within the body of a City resident or
into any natural community or ecosystem within the City. The municipality’s
showing of the existence of that substance or chemical compound within the
body of a resident living in the City or within a natural community or ecosystems
within the City, and the municipality’s showing that the Defendant(s)
are responsible for the manufacture, generation, sale, or deposition of that
substance within the City, shall constitute a prime facie showing of causation
under a strict liability standard. Current and future damages resulting from the
culpable parties’ trespass shall be assumed, and the burden of proof shall shift
to the culpable parties for a showing that the substance or chemical compound
could not cause harm or contribute to causing harm, either alone or in
combination with other factors, or that the culpable parties are not responsible
for the trespass of that particular substance into the body of residents of
the City or within a natural community or ecosystems within the City.
Section 2.3.3.6: The City of Mt. Shasta shall select a laboratory with expertise
in the testing for toxic substances and potentially toxic substances and chemical
compounds associated with weather modification, and other substances
including, but not limited to, those listed in the Definitions Section of this
Ordinance. The City shall provide financial resources for the first ten residents,
determined by postage mark, who request in writing to be tested for the
presence of toxic substances and potentially toxic substances and chemical
compounds within their bodies, and make all reasonable efforts to provide
financial resources for the testing of additional residents.
Section 2.4: The Rights of Natural Communities and Ecosystems
Section 2.4.1: Rights of Natural Communities. Natural communities and ecosystems,
including, but not limited to, wetlands, streams, rivers, aquifers, clouds, and other
water systems, possess inalienable and fundamental rights to exist, flourish and
naturally evolve within the City of Mt. Shasta. Consequently, no private claim to
ownership of natural communities, whole ecosystems or the genetic material of
any organism shall be recognized within the City of Mt. Shasta.
Section 2.4.1.1: It shall be unlawful for any corporation or its directors, officers,
owners, or managers to interfere with the existence and flourishing of natural
communities or ecosystems, or to cause damage to those natural communities
and ecosystems. Such interference shall include, but not be limited to, the
deposition of toxic substances and potentially toxic substances into natural
communities and ecosystems in the City, the extraction of “resources” and the
manipulation of elements of the environment that affect the ability of natural
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 85
communities to exist, flourish and evolve. The City of Mt. Shasta, along with
any resident of the City, shall have standing to seek declaratory, injunctive, and
compensatory relief for damages caused to natural communities and ecosystems
within the City, regardless of the relation of those natural communities
and ecosystems to City residents or the City itself. City residents, natural communities,
and ecosystems shall be considered to be “persons” for purposes of
the enforcement of the civil rights of those residents, natural communities, and
ecosystems.
Section 2.4.1.2: Corporations and persons using corporations to engage in
activities prohibited by this Ordinance in a neighboring municipality, county
or state shall be strictly liable for all harms caused to the health, safety, and
welfare of the residents of the City of Mt. Shasta from those activities, and for
all harms caused to ecosystems and natural communities within the City of Mt.
Shasta.
Section 3: Definitions
The following terms shall have the meanings defined in this section wherever they are used in this
Ordinance.
Cause damage to natural communities and ecosystems: This term and equivalent terms
shall include but not be limited to alteration, removal, destruction, eradication, or other
actions inflicted upon natural communities and ecosystems, in whole or in part, that bring
about the cessation of the ability of natural communities and ecosystems to exist and
flourish independent of human intervention.
City: The City of Mt. Shasta in Siskiyou County, California, its City Council, or its representatives
or agents.
City resident: A natural person who maintains a primary residence within the City of Mt.
Shasta.
Cloud Seeding: The spraying, spreading, injection, incorporation, introduction or deposition
by any means, of substances by a corporation or an agent of a corporation, into the atmosphere,
onto a land surface, body of water, air space, residential area, structure, fixture,
public space, or natural feature within the City which would have the effect of inducing or
suppressing precipitation from clouds or the atmosphere.
Corporation: Any corporation organized under the laws of any state of the United States or
under the laws of any country. The term shall also include any limited partnership, limited
liability partnership, business trust, or limited liability company organized under the laws
of any state of the United States or under the laws of any country, and any other business
entity that possesses State-conferred limited liability attributes for its owners, directors,
officers, and/or managers. The term shall also include any business entity in which one or
more owners or partners is a corporation or other entity in which owners, directors, officers
and/or managers possess limited liability attributes. The term does not include the
municipality of the City of Mt. Shasta.
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 86
Culpable Parties: Persons owning or managing corporations which manufacture, generate,
transport, sell, dispose of, or by any means apply toxic or potentially toxic substances detected
within the body of any resident of the City of Mt. Shasta or within any natural community
or ecosystem within the City, as a result of the violation of the prohibitions of this
ordinance. This term shall also refer to government agencies, agents, and other entities
that permit, license or empower a corporation to violate the provisions of this Ordinance.
Deposition: The placement of a toxic chemical or potentially toxic chemical within the body
of a person. The act of deposition shall be assumed if a toxic chemical or potentially toxic
chemical is detected within the body of a person.
Ecosystem: The term shall include but not be limited to, wetlands, streams, rivers, aquifers,
and other water systems, as well as all naturally occurring habitats that sustain wildlife,
flora and fauna, soil-dwelling or aquatic organisms.
Engage in Water Withdrawal: The term shall include, but not be limited to, the physical extraction
of water from subsurface aquifers or surface bodies of water and the buying and/
or selling of water that has been extracted within the City of Mt. Shasta outside the City.
Exist and flourish: The term shall include but not be limited to, the ability of natural communities
and ecosystems to sustain and continue to exercise natural tendencies to promote
life, reproduction, non-synthetic interactions and interdependencies among proliferating
and diverse organisms; the term shall also include the ability of natural communities and
ecosystems to establish and sustain indefinitely the natural processes and evolutionary
tendencies that promote well-being among flora, fauna, aquatic life, and the ecosystems
upon which their mutual benefit depends.
Natural Communities: Wildlife, flora, fauna, soil-dwelling, aerial, and aquatic organisms, as
well as humans and human communities that have established sustainable interdependencies
within a proliferating and diverse matrix of organisms, within a natural ecosystem.
Natural Water System: The term shall include but not be limited to the natural and unmanaged
circulation of water between atmosphere, land, and sea by evaporation, precipitation,
and percolation through soils and rocks.
Ordinance: City of Mt. Shasta Community Water Rights and Self-Government Ordinance.
Person: A natural person, or an association of natural persons that does not qualify as a
corporation under this Ordinance.
Rights of Natural Communities: This term and its equivalents shall include, but not be limited
to, the inalienable and fundamental rights of natural communities and ecosystems to
exist, flourish and naturally evolve. The term shall also include the right to be free from corporate
activities that cause damage to natural communities and ecosystems, the deposition
of toxic substances and potentially toxic substances, the extraction of “resources” and
the manipulation of elements of the environment that affect the ability of natural communities
and ecosystems to exist, flourish and evolve.
Self Government: The inalienable and legitimate authority of the people of the City of Mt.
Shasta to decide as a community the future of their community, and to protect the health,
safety, welfare, environment and quality of life of City residents, natural communities, and
ecosystems, free from preemptive usurpations and constrained only by the rights of natural
persons, natural communities and ecosystems.
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 87
Substantially Owned or Controlled: A person, corporation, or other entity substantially owns
or controls another person, corporation, or other entity if it has the ability to evade the
intent of Section 4.6 of this Ordinance by using that person, corporation, or other entity to
violate the provisions of this Ordinance in the City of Mt. Shasta.
Sustainable Interdependencies: Co-existence of human and non-human organisms and
communities, where human health and survival can be maintained and where human
activities do not cause damage to natural communities and ecosystems.
Toxic substances and potentially toxic substances: The phrase shall include all substances
that have been found to cause or are suspected of causing adverse effects to animals,
humans, or ecosystems, including those chemicals, chemical compounds, sources of radiation,
and all other substances deemed to be mutagenic, neurotoxic, carcinogenic, teratogenic,
reproductive or developmental toxicants, or any other toxic chemical or hazardous
substance identified by the City of Mt. Shasta by resolution as subject to this Ordinance.
The phrase shall specifically include, but shall not be limited to, silver iodide.
Trespass: As used within this Ordinance, the deposition of toxic or potentially toxic substances,
as defined in this Ordinance, which are detected within a human body, natural
community or ecosystem.
Weather Modification/Weather Manipulation: These terms shall include any activity which
intentionally changes natural weather and climate conditions that would affect the quality
and character of the atmosphere, precipitation, temperature, available water supplies or
related aspects of the natural environment, and shall include but not be limited to cloud
seeding.
Section 4: Enforcement
Section 4.1: The City of Mt. Shasta shall enforce this Ordinance by an action brought before
a court of competent jurisdiction.
Section 4.2: Any person, corporation, or other entity that violates any provision of this
Ordinance shall be guilty of a summary offense and, upon conviction thereof by a court of
competent jurisdiction, shall be sentenced to pay the maximum allowable fine for firsttime
and for each subsequent violation, and shall be imprisoned to the extent allowed by
law.
Section 4.3: A separate offense shall arise for each day or portion thereof in which a violation
occurs and for each section of this Ordinance that is found to be violated.
Section 4.4: The City of Mt. Shasta may also enforce this Ordinance through an action
in equity brought in a court of competent jurisdiction. In such an action, the City of Mt.
Shasta shall be entitled to recover all costs of litigation, including, without limitation, expert
and attorney’s fees and all related costs.
Section 4.5: All monies collected for violation of this Ordinance shall be paid to the Treasurer
of the City of Mt. Shasta.
Section 4.6: Any person, corporation, or other entity chartered, permitted or licensed by
the State, or acting under authority of the State or any government agency, that violates,
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 88
or is convicted of violating this Ordinance, two or more times shall be permanently prohibited
from business activities in the City of Mt. Shasta .This prohibition applies to that
person’s, corporation’s, or other entity’s parent, sister, and successor companies, subsidiaries,
and alter egos, and to any person, corporation, or other entity substantially owned or
controlled by the person, corporation, or other entity (including its officers, directors, or
owners) that twice violates this Ordinance, and to any person, corporation, or other entity
that substantially owns or controls the person, corporation, or other entity that twice violates
this Ordinance.
Section 4.7: Any City resident or group of resident, not a corporation, shall have the authority
to enforce this Ordinance through an action in equity brought in a court of competent
jurisdiction. In such an action, the resident shall be entitled to recover all costs of
litigation, including, without limitation, expert and attorney’s fees, as well as any damages,
compensatory or punitive.
Section 5: Civil Rights Enforcement
Section 5.1: Any person acting under the authority of a permit issued by a government
agency, any corporation operating under a state charter, any person acting on behalf of
the State or any government agency, or acting under the authority of the state, or any
director, officer, owner, or manager of a corporation operating under a state charter, who
deprives any City resident, natural community, or ecosystem of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by this Ordinance, the California Constitution, the United States
Constitution, or other laws, shall be liable to the party injured and shall be responsible
for payment of compensatory and punitive damages and all costs of litigation, including,
without limitation, expert and attorney’s fees. Compensatory and punitive damages paid
to remedy the violation of the rights of natural communities and ecosystems shall be paid
to the City of Mt. Shasta for restoration of those natural communities and ecosystems.
Section 5.2: Any City resident shall have standing and authority to bring an action under
this Ordinance’s civil rights provisions, or under state and federal civil rights laws, for violations
of the rights of natural communities, ecosystems, and City residents, as recognized
by this Ordinance.
Section 6: Enactment
Pursuant to California Election Code, Section 9214, the City Council, is advised and requested to
submit this Ordinance immediately to a vote of the people at a special election.
Section 7: Effective Date
This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its enactment.
Section 8: Severability
The provisions of this Ordinance are severable. If any court of competent jurisdiction decides that
any section, clause, sentence, part, or provision of this Ordinance is illegal, invalid, or unconstitutional,
such decision shall not affect, impair, or invalidate any of the remaining sections, clauses,
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 89
sentences, parts, or provisions of the Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Mt. Shasta hereby
declares that in the event of such a decision, and the determination that the court’s ruling is legitimate,
it would have enacted this Ordinance even without the section, clause, sentence, part, or
provision that the court decides is illegal, invalid, or unconstitutional.
Section 9: Repealer
All inconsistent provisions of prior Ordinances adopted by the City of Mt. Shasta are hereby repealed,
but only to the extent necessary to remedy the inconsistency.
ENACTED AND ORDAINED this ___ day of __________, 2009.
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 90
APPENDIX II. Anatomy of the Ordinance
The City of Mt. Shasta Community Water Rights and Self-Government Ordinance
ANATOMY of the ORDINANCE
Section 1. Preamble, Name and Purpose: Gives the reasons for enacting the ordinance, tells
the name by which the Ordinance will be referred and summarizes the reasons the Ordinance is
needed.
Section 1.1 Preamble (“Whereas” statements)
Section 1.2 Name “City of Mt. Shasta Community Water Rights and Self-Government
Ordinance
Section 1.3 Purpose Recognize and protect the inalienable rights of residents of the City
of Mt. Shasta, including but not limited to the Right to Natural Water Systems and Cycles,
to Self-Government in the place of residence, to Self, to a Healthy Environment, to Home
and Livelihood, and to Cultural Heritage.
Section 2. Statements of Law: Enumerates Rights, and asserts prohibitions necessary for the
upholding of those Rights.
Section 2.1: The Right of the People and Ecosystem to Natural Water Cycles
Section 2.1.1: Right to Water. Asserts right of residents to access, use and preserve
water from natural sources and water cycles, and asserts rights that protect the
natural environment within Shasta City.
Section 2.1.1.1: Prohibits corporate cloud seeding
Section 2.1.1.2: Prohibits people from using corporations to engage in cloud
seeding in Mt. Shasta.
Section 2.1.1.3: Makes anyone engaging in prohibited cloud seeding activities
in a neighboring municipality culpable for damages in Shasta City.
Section 2.1.1.4: Prohibits Chemical Trespass resulting from prohibited cloud
seeding activities.
Section 2.1.1.5: Prohibits corporate water withdrawals, with certain exceptions.
Section 2.1.1.6: Prohibits people from using corporations to engage in water
withdrawal within the City of Mt. Shasta.
Section 2.1.1.6.1: Exceptions
(1) Municipal authorities
(2) Nonprofit corporations
(3) Utility corporations
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 91
(4) Corporations under City contract
(5) Corporations manufacturing beverages other than bottled water
Section 2.2: The Right of the People to Self-Government
Section 2.2.1: Right to Community Self-Government. People in the City have a right
to participate in decision-making on issues that affect them, their families, environment
and quality of life.
Section 2.2.1.2: Obligation of the municipality to defend the people’s inalienable
right to self-government and convene community meetings to decide on
action if that right is violated.
Section 2.2.1.3: Strips corporations of certain legal rights and protections that
could be used to challenge the provisions or enforcement of this Ordinance.
Section 2.2.1.3.1 Corporate Privilege: Corporations that violate the prohibitions
of the ordinance are not “persons” with constitutional protections.
Section 2.2.1.3.2 Corporations as State Actors: Because the state creates all
corporations, they are instruments or “creatures” of the state, and the state
is responsible for their actions.
Section 2.2.1.3.3 Future Profits Not Property: Corporations can’t claim that
money they have not yet earned is property to which they have a legal
claim.
Section 2.2.1.4: Removes legitimacy from any permit or license issued by government
that would violate the prohibitions of the ordinance or violate rights
of human and natural communities to water.
Section 2.2.2: People as Sovereign. The people of Shasta City are not subordinate
to the municipality. The City is not their master; they are the governing authority
within the City.
Section 2.2.2.1 Nullification of Official Rights Denial: Since we are born with
unalienable rights and they exist even before constitutions and laws, any state
law that would have the effect of depriving the people in Mt. Shasta of their
self-governing right to protect their community and environment is null and
void.
Section 2.2.3: Authority to Enact This Ordinance. The residents of Shasta City have
legitimate power and authority to use the municipality to assert Rights and enact
laws.
Section 2.2.3.1: Authority: outlines CA and U.S. constitutional authority for the
adoption of this Ordinance.
Section 2.2.3.2 Interpretation: The Ordinance is to be interpreted according to
Purposes in Section 1.
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 92
Section 2.2.3.3: Administration: This Ordinance shall be administered by the
City of Shasta.
Section 2.3: Enumerated Rights of the People within this Community
Section 2.3.2: Right to a Healthy Environment. Including unpolluted air, water, soil,
and the right to protect natural communities and ecosystems.
Section 2.3.3: Right to Self. The Right to be free from poisoning.
Section 2.3.3.1: Chemical poisoning of people and ecosystems declared a form
of trespass, and prohibited when it results from a violation of the prohibitions
against cloud seeding and water withdrawals.
Section 2.3.3.2: People involved with corporate chemical trespass are culpable
parties, liable for damages if they have violated the prohibitions of the ordinance.
Section 2.3.3.3: Corporations violating the Ordinance must provide information
about the toxic substances.
Section 2.3.3.4: Obliges the City to initiate litigation to recover trespass, compensatory,
and punitive damages – and permanent injunctive relief - from all
culpable parties that violate the prohibitions of the ordinance.
Section 2.3.3.5: Establishes a strict burden of proof standard for violators of the
specific prohibitions of the Ordinance.
Section 2.3.3.6: Allows the City of Shasta to select a laboratory and requires the
City to test up to ten residents who request testing to detect toxic substances
and chemical compounds associated with cloud seeding activities (weather
modification).
Section 2.4: The Rights of Natural Communities and Ecosystems
Section 2.4.1: Rights of Natural Communities. Natural communities and ecosystems
possess inalienable and fundamental rights to exist, flourish and naturally evolve
within the City of Shasta.
Section 2.4.1.1: Makes it unlawful for any corporation or its directors, officers,
owners, or managers to interfere with the existence and flourishing of natural
communities or ecosystems, or to cause damage to those natural communities
and ecosystems by violating this Ordinance.
Section 2.4.1.2: Corporations and persons using corporations to engage in
activities prohibited by this Ordinance in a neighboring municipality are held
strictly liable for harms caused to residents and ecosystems within the City of
Shasta.
Section 3. Definitions: Lists definitions for terms as they will be used in this Ordinance.
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 93
Section 4. Enforcement: provides for monetary fines for violation of the Ordinance, and provides
a mechanism for citizen enforcement of the Ordinance.
Section 4.1: Defines the way the City will enforce the Ordinance: by an action brought
before the appropriate court.
Section 4.2: Defines unlawful violation of the Ordinance as action taken by people or corporations
who violate the prohibitions of the Ordinance and imposes the maximum fine
allowed by established law.
Section 4.3: Every day that a law-breaker continues to break the law will be counted as a
separate violation, and fines will be assessed for each violation.
Section 4.4: The City Council has the option, but is not obligated to enforce the Ordinance
through an equity law suit, in which the City could ask the court for recovery of expenses
related to the suit.
Section 4.5: Fines collected for violations go to the City Treasurer.
Section 4.6: Prohibits law-breakers who violate the cloud seeding or water-withdrawal
prohibitions who are convicted of those crimes two or more times from continuing to do
business in the City.
Section 4.7: Authorizes City residents to ask a local court to enforce the Ordinance and ask
for recovery of court costs.
Section 5. Civil Rights Enforcement: Provides for monetary fines, including punitive damages,
for the violation of the Rights of people and ecosystems, and provides for citizen enforcement of
these provisions.
Section 5.1: Establishes responsibility for the violation of rights by corporations and government
officials who deprive any City resident, natural community, or ecosystem of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by this Ordinance, the California Constitution, the
United States Constitution, or other laws.
Section 5.2: Authorizes City residents to sue for the legal protection of the rights enumerated
in this Ordinance, and to stand as advocates in court to protect the rights of natural
communities and ecosystems.
Section 6. Enactment: Advises the City Council of Mt. Shasta to submit the Ordinance to the
people of the City for a vote.
Section 7. Effective Date: Makes the Ordinance effective immediately upon the vote of the
people.
Section 8: Severability: Provides that striking of one section by a court will not invalidate other
sections of the law.
Section 9: Repealer: Repeals existing City laws to the extent they are inconsistent with this Ordinance.
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 94
APPENDIX III. Cloud Seeding
Background
The first significant “precipitation enhancement” program in California began in 1948 on Bishop
Creek in the Owens River basin for California Electric Power Co. Precipitation enhancement, also
known as “cloud seeding,” has been practiced in several California river basins since the early 1950s.
Most projects are along the central and southern Sierra Nevada with some in the coast ranges. The
projects use silver iodide as the active cloud-seeding agent, supplemented at times by dry ice for
aerial seeding. The silver iodide is often applied from ground generators but can also be applied
from airplanes. Occasionally other agents, such as liquid propane, have been used. Recently, some
projects have also been applying hygroscopic materials (substances that take up water from the
air) as supplemental seeding agents (DWR 2005).
Appeal
In California, all precipitation enhancement projects are intended to increase water supply or
hydroelectric power (DWR 2008). The draft of the 2009 California Water Plan Update (DWR 2008)
introduced the new PG&E McCloud-Pit cloud seeding project. If successful, PG&E predicts that
the project would yield an estimated maximum additional 5% to their McCloud-Pit hydropower
project (DWR 2008). While the efficacy of cloud seeding has not been scientifically proven (see
Concerns), the associated costs – given the potential for increased hydropower generation and
associated revenue – are relatively low. Average costs for cloud seeding are generally less than
$20 per acre-foot per year. Unlike other large scale resource management practices with potential
environmental impacts, where costs would also include environmental impact review under The
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), corporate cloud seeding is largely unregulated at the
State level, and at present, requires no extensive review. Additionally, state law says that water
gained from cloud seeding is treated the same as natural supply in regard to water rights. (DWR
2005).
Concerns and Potential Impacts
Poorly understood
Despite cloud seeding’s long history in California, the practice itself is poorly understood and its
effects are largely unknown. No complete and rigorous comprehensive study has been made of
all of California’s precipitation enhancement projects (DWR 2005). Part of the reason for this is that
it is difficult to target seeding materials to the right place in the clouds at the right time, and there
is an incomplete understanding of how effective operators are in their targeting practices (DWR
2005).
In the fall of 2003, the National Research Council released a report entitled “Critical Issues in Weather
Modification Research,” which examined the status of the science underlying weather modification
in the U.S. This report concluded that there was no conclusive scientific proof of the efficacy
of weather modification (DWR 2005). Also noteworthy among the research concerning the effectiveness
for its intended goal of precipitation enhancement are reports published in Science (one
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 95
of the two top ranked Scientific journals) by Kerr (1982, 2000) which point to only a very few cases
where success was believed to be measurable in a combined period of over 50 years.
Silver Toxicity
Similarly, research on the potential toxic effects of Silver (AgI) from cloud seeding is also very sparse.
However, accumulation of AgI in the environment from cloud seeding operations has been well
documented elsewhere. In 1996, the U.S. National Biological Service published a biological contaminant
hazard report focused on silver. The report specifically identifies cloud seeding operations as
a cause for elevated silver concentrations in both non-biological material and biota in cloud seeded
areas (Eisler 1996). Specifically, in rural areas, silver levels in non-biological materials were one to
two orders of magnitude higher in cloud seeded areas than in non-cloud seeded areas (Eisler 1996).
Elevated levels were also found in the bone, tissue and organs of trout in cloud seeded areas (Eisler
1996). The U.S. NBS report also addresses the general toxicity of silver, as well as its potential for
transformation and remobilization once introduced to the environment calling its ionic form “one of
the most toxic metals known to aquatic organisms in laboratory testing” (Eisler 1996).
Research on the potential for transformation of silver (and silver iodide specifically) in the environment
as well as its potential for synergistic effects in the presence of other compounds has been
around for quite some time. Two studies from the mid 1970s investigated the impact of AgI from
cloud seeding, and specifically examined the potential for both AgI impact on soil processes, and
the potential for AgI transformation in soils (Klein and Sokol 1974, and Klein and Molise 1975). In
the concluding lines of the first of these studies, the authors remark that
“…it is necessary to consider free [Ag] ion effects on microbial processes in soil
even if at low and transient levels. The full significance of these silver modification
reactions for prediction of long-term ecological effects of weather modificationderived
silver remains to be determined” (Klein and Sokol 1974).
Klein and Molise (1975) also address the potential for silver transformation in the environment.
Findings from this study confirmed biological impacts from silver toxicity (Klein and Molise 1975).
Though the impacts detected here were at silver levels above those levels known at the time
(i.e. 30+ years ago) to accumulate as the result of cloud seeding activities, the researchers urged
continued study in this area to examine the long term effects of silver exposure, as well as the
potential for increased environmental accumulation with time (Klein and Molise 1975). Examples
of further study in this area since that time include Hatte (1999) who did a review of silver transformations
in the environment, finding that aquatic invertebrates were most susceptible to silver
toxicity, and Reutova (2001) who found that synergistic effects from AgI in combination with other
compounds were possible, and specifically that the presence of Copper Iodide (CuI) significantly
increased the mutagenic potential of AgI.
Unfortunately, the body of research on the potential for remobilization and transformation of silver
introduced into the environment by cloud seeding operations has (again, unfortunately) been
all but ignored in the limited environmental impact evaluation of cloud seeding operations in the
state of California (and the associated documentation). These key constituents of silver toxicity
risk do not factor into the recent Draft 2009 California Water Plan Update (DWR 2008) or into the
chapter devoted to precipitation enhancement in the 2005 DWR California Water Plan Update
(DWR 2005). In fact, the latter states that “silver compounds have a relatively low order of toxicity”
(a statement which stands in stark contrast to the information in Eisler (1996) as well as a large
body of other work on the toxicity of silver to aquatic organisms (Morgan et al 1995; Nebecker et al
1983, Wood et al 1994, 1995, 1996a, 1996b) ).
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 96
The available research suggests the likelihood of accumulation of toxic silver compounds in the
environment and the associated potential for a range of poorly understood impacts. However, the
majority of the existing research concerning these critical issues has been essentially ignored by
the limited private, state, and federal agency-driven environmental impact investigation that has
occurred for California cloud seeding programs. The draft of Draft California Water Plan Update
(DWR 2008) that introduced the new PG&E McCloud-Pit cloud seeding project based its discussion
of the potential for environmental toxicity from silver released during cloud seeding (and conclusion
of non-toxicity) on two research efforts by the Bureau of Land Management, the most current
of which is over 25 years old (DWR 2008; SCPP 1981). Unfortunately, most of the key discoveries
about the sub-lethal impacts of low levels toxins in the environment on humans and on ecosystems
have been made in the last 10-15 years and that is only increasing. Interestingly, the limited
current research that is mentioned in the Water Plan Update consists primarily of findings from
sediment monitoring PG&E performed in the vicinity of some of their existing programs that demonstrate
multiple instances of low level AgI accumulation in the environment (DWR 2008). Unfortunately,
these studies are not actually referenced in the water plan update, only mentioned.
Altered hydrologic cycle
The least understood – but perhaps most disconcerting of the potential affects of cloud seeding –
is alteration to the regional hydrologic cycle that are unpredicted and or unintended. To date, no
conclusive research exists evaluating the risks of “downstream effects” from cloud seeding operations,
including effects from current operations on neighboring regions, effects from proliferation
of operations within a geographic area, or carrying capacity for a given landscape and climate
before different thresholds of downstream effects occur. Typically, questions like these would be
among those necessitating a thorough investigation under CEQA as a component of and Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). As a result of Cloud Seeding being largely unregulated at the state
level, and not subject to environmental review, the degree of impact to water supply in neighboring
regions, or seasonal and long term weather patterns remains unknown.
Mt. Shasta Water Rights: Who Decides? 97
References
CA DWR. 1991. Final Supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement: Prototype project to
augment snow pack by cloud seeding using ground based dispensers in Plumas and Sierra counties.
State of California. 228p.
CA DWR. 2005. Precipitation Enhancement - Chapter 14 in California Water Plan Update 2005 –
Volume 2: Resource Management Strategies 7p.
CA DWR. 2008. Precipitation Enhancement - Chapter [#] in California Water Plan Update 2009 –
Volume 2: Resource Management Strategies 9p.
Eisler, R. 1996 Silver Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. National
Biological Service, Contaminant Hazard Reviews - Biological Report 32. 63p.
Kerr, R.A. 1982. Cloud Seeding: One Success in 35 Years. Science 217: 519-521
Kerr, R.A. 2000. Weather Modification: Salted Clouds Pour More Rain On Mexico. Science 289:
2263-2264.
Klein, D.A. and R.A, Sokol. 1974. Cloud seeding for snow augmentation: Land Use Ramifications of
Residual Silver Iodide Nucleating Agents.
Klein, D.A. and E.M. Molise. 1975. Ecological Ramifications of Silver Iodide Nucleating Agent Accumulation
in a Semi-Arid Grassland Environement. Journal of Applied Meteorology 14: 673-680.
Morgan, L. J., F. Galvez, R. F. Munger, C. M. Wood, and R. Henry. 1995. The physiological effects of acute
silver exposure in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). In A. W. Andren and T. W. Bober, organizers.
Transport, fate and effects of silver in the environment. Abstracts of 3rd international conference. 6-9
August 1995, Washington, D.C. University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, Madison.
Nebeker, A. V, C. K. McAuliffe, R. Mshar, and D. G. Stevens. 1983. Toxicity of silver to steelhead and
rainbow trout, fathead minnows and Daphnia magna. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
2:95-104.
Ratte, H.T. 1999. Bioaccumulation and toxicity of silver compounds: a review. Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry 18: 89-108.
Reutova, N.V. 2001. Analysis of the Mutagenic Potential of Copper Compounds and Modification
of their Effect by Silver Iodide. Russian Journal of Genetics 37: 500-505
Sierra Cooperative Pilot Project, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact,
USBR, Denver, 1981.
USDA, CADWR. Joint Environmental Impact Statement, Environmental Impact Report: Prototype
Project to Augment Snowpack by Cloudseeding Using Ground Based Dispensers in Plumas and
Sierra Counties. Sate of California. 219p.
Wood, C. M., C. Hogstrand, F. Galvez, and R. S. Munger. 1996a. The physiology of waterborne silver
toxicity in freshwater rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): 1. The effects of ionic Ag+ . Aquatic
Toxicology. 35:93-10

Finally, here is a bill for congress that a constitutional lawyer could tell you could be changed for the state or city level ballot initiative. 

Sec. 1520a. - Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents
A. Prohibited activities
The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract) -
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.
B. Exceptions - Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.
C. Informed consent required
The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.
D. Prior notice to Congress
Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by those committees.
E. ''Biological agent'' defined
In this section, the term ''biological agent'' means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing -
(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;
(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or
(3) deleterious alteration of the environment


I feel that once we can have an investigation, when we find the fact that Aluminum and Poisons are being sprayed on us, there should be some consequences for the military, including life in prison for those who know it would be deadly but did it anyways. What justice would be just! Detoxes for everyone who was sprayed? Put them in jail! Shrink the military, there needs to be oversight on these things! What do you think?