text:
Water for life, not for profit!
Kennebunk (KKW District)
Kingfield
Rangeley
Shapleigh-Newfield
Towns, other
Category Archives: Features
Select this category to ensure that a post appears on the front/center column of http://defendingwater.net/maine (!)
HELP KILL THE EWC! Action needed now on our bill.
Posted on June 11, 2015 by chris
Help protect Maine people and the environment from unnecessary new transportation infrastructure
(like the East-West Corridor)
Call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to vote, "ought to pass" on LD 1168 today!
Click here for a CONTACT LIST for all Senators and Representatives: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WBJaw1Hvmr0n0DSVVS_CBXA1ug1_lLw0-L26MbrPVdE/pubhtml?usp=gmail
Please take notice: LD 1168 has changed from a focus on eminent domain to a focus on improving the P3 law. There are several reasons for this. Primarily, we want to achieve some protection THIS SESSION. Please contact us to discuss.
New Talking Points for LD 1168
LD 1168 as amended makes some significant improvements to the public-private partnership law for transportation projects (P3) to improve protection of the public interest. This amended bill was a joint effort between Stop the East-West Corridor, the Department of Transportation, and Sen. Paul Davis.
LD 1168 clarifies that P3s must be in accordance with the Sensible Transportation Policy Act (section 73). The P3 should comply with the STPA because it is the guiding statute dictating appropriate transportation development in Maine, with guidelines for protecting the public interest in significant transportation development. That means more safeguards for water resources, farmland, wildlife, natural resources, rural character, tourism, state and municipal resources, and taxpayer money from unnecessary transportation infrastructure like the East-West Corridor.
LD 1168 calls for an annual reporting requirement, which enables some public participation and accountability to lawmakers on authorized P3 projects. Right now, P3 projects only require legislative authorization at a draft stage, and then never need to be seen again. Since P3 projects may use up to 50% taxpayer money and other state resources, ongoing legislative and public oversight is critical.
LD 1168 clarifies that the department may not confer eminent domain power to a private entity. According to the Chief Deputy Attorney General, Linda Pistner, this potential abuse of eminent domain power is currently unclear in Maine State law, so we are fixing that.
To view Maine's existing P3 law, visit: http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/23/title23sec4251.html
To view Maine's Sensible Transportation Policy Act (section 73), visit:
http://legislature.maine.gov/legis/statutes/23/title23sec73.html
To view an amended version of LD 1168, see the attachment.
Thank you for your concern and your support!
Questions? Contact:
Chris Buchanan Jane Crosen
Statewide Coordinator, STEWC Eastern Outreach, STEWC
Maine Coordinator, Defending Water for Life jcrosenmaps(at)gmail(dot)com
chris(at)defendingwater(dot)net (207) 326-4850
For more information about Stop the East-West Corridor and the East-West Corridor proposal in general, please visit: www.stopthecorridor.org
LIKE us on Facebook: Stop the East-West Corridor
Posted in Action Alerts, E/W Legislation, East-West Corridor, Features, Legal, Legal Tools	| Tagged East-West Corridor, east-west highway, LD 1168, Paul Davis, STEWC, Stop the East-West Corridor	| Leave a reply
June 20: Justice for the River II & Alliance for Common Good!
Posted on June 8, 2015 by chris
Posted in Community Rights, East-West Corridor, Events, Features, Grassroots Movements	| Tagged Justice for the River, Penobscot Nation	| Leave a reply
The Historical Continuum: WE ARE ALL PARTICIPANTS IN AN AGE-OLD CLASH OF CULTURES
By Maria Girouard – Penobscot historian.
Panawapskewi ("Penobscot people") are the indigenous people of this territory, and have nurtured a relationship with and maintained a presence on the Penobscot River for thousands of years. We are an ancient riverine people who have survived enormous losses as a result of colonization – displacement of our ancestors, destruction of our fisheries, degradation of the Water, deforestation of traditional hunting grounds, and disruption in our traditional form of governance.
A Colonial Agreement: In exchange for Penobscot alliance in the revolutionary war, colonial government agreed to protect Penobscot territory from encroachment and to preserve Penobscot aboriginal territory for their perpetual use so that traditional sustenance lifeways could be maintained. (Perpetual: meaning forever, never to be changed). This agreement is recorded in the 1775 Congressional Resolves. Following the war, there was a large war debt. Abundant Penobscot resources proved too tantalizing to resist.
Treaties were negotiated: Treaties are nation-to-nation agreements negotiated between sovereigns. The Treaty of 1796 and the Treaties of 1818 and 1820, ceded portions of Penobscot territory but the river and the fisheries were never relinquished. Historical records reveal multiple pleas on deaf ears about destruction of the fisheries and decimation of hunting grounds leading to Penobscot starvation.
Treaties were broken: An 1801 petition to colonial government declared, The Penobscots "feel themselves and their Tribe greatly wronged and injured by a Mr. Winslow and his two sons of Portland erecting a sawmill at the Falls in Penobscot … when the government secured to their Tribe and their descendants the aforesaid island with other islands in the Penobscot River with all their natural rights and privileges, the Fishery was esteemed the most important advantage attached to their island and which no individual could deprive them of – they would therefore humbly request your excellent and honor in your wisdom to prevent an Evil so great as would be the total ruin of the tribe."
In the 1940s, Penobscot Elder Florence Nicola Shay spoke out against the state and broken treaty promises – "The treaties are merely useless pieces of paper today as all promises have been broken… we are a segregated, alienated people and many of us are beginning to feel the weight of the heel that is crushing us to nothingness. We are still in slavery, we are dictated to, and we are made to feel that we do not own our own souls."
A major turning point in tribal-state history: In the 1970s Penobscot & Passamaquoddy tribes sued the State of Maine for theft of aboriginal territory which had left them displaced and impoverished. The 1794 Trade and Non-Intercourse Act, a federal law aimed at curbing massive land grabs, had been ignored. The law required any and all land transactions with an Indian person or tribe be ratified by Congress. Since Maine had become a state in 1820, no land transactions were ratified; therefore, all were null and void. Following a tumultuous decade riddled with overt racial hostility and fear-mongering played out in the press, the State of Maine, the Penobscot Nation and the Passamaquoddy tribes negotiated a settlement agreement resulting in the federal 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act. The Settlement Act was intended to stop the further taking of Indian Territory and to strengthen tribal sovereignty and tribal-state relations, but like all agreements that preceded it, it, too, was broken and little was settled.
Territorial takings are not a thing of the past: In August 2012, Penobscot Chief and Council received a letter from state government asserting an Attorney General's opinion – that the Penobscot Indian Reservation did not include any portion of their ancestral River. An opinion with which Penobscot Nation could never agree. Interestingly, this new opinion was contrary to a previous Attorney General's opinion (AG James Tierney, 1988) which stated that the Penobscot River was reservation territory (?!)
Penobscot Nation v. Mills, is a current U.S. district court case to protect Penobscot fishing rights. It has a large cast of characters! The Penobscot Nation, Maine Attorney General Janet Mills, the United States Department of Justice, and 17 intervening towns and industries up and down the River. Until recently, the case had 18 interveners, but on April 1, 2015, in an amazing act of humanity, the Town of Orono filed a motion to withdraw from the case. After deliberation, their town council admitted to knowing very little about how they got involved; they concluded that their participation was unnecessary, and decided that they did not wish to be in contentious litigation against the Penobscots. The remaining interveners are: the City of Brewer, Town of Bucksport, Covanta Maine, LLC, Town of East Millinocket, Great Northern Paper Company, LLC, Guilford-Sangerville Sanitary District, Town of Howland, Kruger Energy (USA) Inc., Town of Lincoln, Lincoln Pulp and Tissue LLC, Lincoln Sanitary District, Town of Mattawamkeag, Town of Millinocket, Red Shield Acquisition LLC, True Textiles, Inc., Veazie Sewer District, and Verso Paper Corp. Led by Pierce Atwood attorney, Matt Manahan, these interveners are asking a judge to determine that the Penobscot reservation does not include any portion of the Water. The U.S. Department of Justice intervened on behalf of the Penobscots, viewing this as an attempted territorial taking by the State of Maine which they have a duty to protect against.
Confusing an already complex issue: Happening alongside Penobscot Nation v Mills, is a battle between the State and the federal Environmental Protection Agency over water quality in Indian Territory. Last summer, the State of Maine sued the EPA demanding jurisdiction over water quality in Indian Territory. In February 2015, the EPA agreed that according to the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, the State of Maine did in fact have jurisdiction over water quality, but since Penobscots retained an inherent right to sustenance fish, the water quality in their reservation had to be sufficient to safely consume fish. The State has again sued the EPA and stated that they have no intention of complying with the order to clean up the Penobscot.
Gaining Support: Penobscot Nation has gained thousands of allies but could use more! This case has gained the interest and support of numerous social justice and environmental organizations who agree that Maine must cease and desist its aggression. Maine priorities should be elsewhere – not in continued territorial takings and suing for the right to pollute. Together, we are writing our Grandchildren's history (and protecting their Drink). Let's make it a history that will make both them and the ancestors proud!
Let your voices be heard: Call on our state to stop its hostilities and respect tribal fishing rights.
Attorney General Janet T. Mills, 6 State House Station, Augusta, Maine 04333
Governor Paul LePage, Office of the Governor, #1 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333
Find (and write!) your legislators at http://legislature.maine.gov/
"The Penobscots believe that the God of Nature gave them their fisheries, and no man alive has the right to take that away from them…" (historical petition to Massachusetts Colonial Government)
Posted in Community Rights, East-West Corridor, Features, First Nations, Grassroots Movements, Legal, News, Penobscot Nation, Report, Resources, Resources: Research, Reports, Alternatives	| Tagged Janet Mills, Justice for the River, Maria Girouard, Penobscot	| Leave a reply
LD 1168 reconsidered, won unanimous "ought to pass" vote!
On Thursday, June 4, the Judicicary Committee reconsidered our bill, LD 1168, with amendments agreed to by STEWC, the Maine department of transportation, and Sen. Paul Davis, and voted unanimously "ought to pass" on the bill.
In a nuthsell, we chose to use our initial 6-3 win on the original eminent domain bill as a tool to negotiate for protections that actually have a very good chance of becoming law. The Governor had vowed to veto the original bill, and it had a poor chance of getting past the House or Senate in the first place. Instead, we focused on changes to the P3 law as follows:
We have clarified language in the P3 law that states that the P3 must be in accordance with the Sensible Transportation Policy Act (section 73). We believe that this helps protect the public interest. Also, some of the guidelines outlined in the STPA contradict EWC development. We feel that this is a big accomplishment.
In addition, we tried to ask for legislative review and authorization of a P3 proposal at both the draft and final stages, because right now it is only authorized by the legislature at draft stage and never needs to be seen again. We compromised on an annual reporting requirement to the transportation committee which enables some legislative oversight, accountability, and public input ongoing. We believe that if a project went forward and turned out to be a bad project, this bit of transparency would make it much easier to introduce a bill to rescind the authorization of the project.
Finally, the bill clarifies that the department's powers of eminent domain may not be conferred to a private entity, although the department would NOT accept the additional language, "or on behalf of a private entity." This last piece is not really a win for us, because the department taking land by eminent domain on behalf of a private entity is what we already assumed to be the danger. We did not accomplish that protection, and we'll need to keep fighting for that protection under a different administration in the future.
Now we are hoping LD 1168 flies through the Senate and the House and does NOT get vetoed by the Governor. However if it does, we are likely to be able to override the veto and get these important changes to the P3 passed into law. If we had stuck with the previous bill, that would not have been possible.
If Peter Vigue / Cianbro persists in refusing to publically withdraw the project, we can go after the eminent domain issue and the other problems with the P3 during a future administration where we have better chances at success. In the meantime, we will focus on continuing the pressure in other ways.
NOW, please contact your Senators and Representatives and ask them to vote ought to pass on LD 1168! Here is a contact list for all Senators and Representatives:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WBJaw1Hvmr0n0DSVVS_CBXA1ug1_lLw0-L26MbrPVdE/pubhtml?usp=gmail
STEWC's Steering Committee agreed to have a press conference after the House vote, so we'll be monitoring that closely.
The bill now only address the P3 law and the changes are underlined below:
Maine Revised Statutes
Title 23: TRANSPORTATION
Chapter 410: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
4251. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS; TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
1. As used in this subchapter, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.
"Agreement" means a contract between the department and a private entity to create a public-private partnership that allows for private sector participation in the financing, development, operation, management, ownership, leasing or maintenance of a transportation facility and that sets forth rights and obligations of the department and the private entity in that partnership.
"Project" means the initial capital development of a transportation facility.
"Proposal" means a conditional offer of a private entity that, after review, negotiation, documentation and legislative approval, may lead to an agreement as provided in this subchapter.
"Transportation facility" means a facility that is or if developed would be within the jurisdiction of the department including a highway, bridge, railroad line, pier, airport, trail, ferry vessel, building or other improvement.
2. This subchapter applies to a proposal or agreement for a private entity to form a public-private partnership when the department estimates that the initial capital cost of a project is $25,000,000 or more or when the proposal includes placing tolls on existing transportation facilities that were not previously subject to tolls. Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit or otherwise affect programs that do not meet the criteria of this subsection.
3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the department is authorized to receive or solicit proposals to form a public-private partnership with respect to a transportation facility. Proposals must be reviewed in accordance with this subchapter. Upon approval of the Legislature as provided in this subchapter, the department may enter into an agreement. All proposals must comply with section 73.
4. Standards for review. Before submitting a proposal to the Legislature for approval the department must find that the proposal meets the following standards.
The purpose of and need for the transportation facility must be consistent with the long-term planning of the department.
The private entity must have the financial, technical and operational capacity to discharge the responsibilities set forth in the proposal cost-effectively and responsibly as determined by the department. This capacity must include, but is not limited to, meeting department prequalification standards for professional engineering services and general contracting.
The proposed transportation facility must be owned, controlled, operated and maintained in a manner satisfactory to the department.
The proposal must be cost-effective in the long term.
The proposal must limit the use of state capital funding to less than 50% of the initial capital cost of the transportation facility and to the extent practicable minimize the use of transportation funding sources such as the Highway Fund, general obligation bonds supported by the Highway Fund, the TransCap Trust Fund under Title 30-A, section 6006-G and program funding provided by the Federal Highway Administration.
If the proposed transportation facility is to be supported by tolls or other user fees, the private entity must provide a traffic and revenue study prepared by an expert acceptable to the department and national bond rating agencies. The private entity must also provide a finance plan consistent with the traffic and revenue study that identifies the proposal costs, revenues by source, financing, major assumptions, internal rate of return on private investments and whether any government funds are assumed to deliver a cost-feasible project and that provides a total cash flow analysis beginning with implementation of the project and extending for the term of the agreement.
The proposal must demonstrate safeguards adequate to ensure that no significant additional costs or service disruptions would be borne by the traveling public and residents of the State if the private entity defaults or cancels the agreement.
The proposal must include a provision that any contractor performing construction work required by the agreement must furnish performance and payment bonds or irrevocable letters of credit in an amount equal to the cost of the construction work. Any action on such a payment bond or irrevocable letter of credit is subject to the requirements of Title 14, section 871, subsection 4.
The proposal and the transportation facility must comply with all requirements of applicable federal, state and local laws and department rules, policies and procedures.
The proposal must identify the law enforcement jurisdictions and responsibilities relative to the transportation facility.
The proposal must provide that all reasonable costs of substantially affected local governments and utilities related to the transportation facility are borne by the private entity or are otherwise provided for to the satisfaction of the department.
5. Proposal and selection processes; solicited and unsolicited. The department may request proposals from private entities for a public-private partnership for a transportation facility or may accept unsolicited proposals pursuant to this subsection.
If the department receives an unsolicited proposal and determines that it meets the standards in this subchapter, the department shall publish a notice of the receipt of the proposal on the department's publicly accessible website or through advertisements in newspapers. If a notice is published exclusively in newspapers, the notice must appear in 2 or more public newspapers circulated wholly or in part in the State and in one public newspaper circulated wholly or in part in the county where the proposed transportation facility is to be located if any such newspaper is circulated in that county. The notice must provide that the department will accept, for 120 days after the initial date of publication, proposals meeting the standards in subsection 4 from other private entities for transportation facilities that satisfy the same basic purpose and need. A copy of the notice must be mailed to each local government in the area affected by the proposal.
After the proposal or proposals have been received, and any public notification period has expired, the department shall rank the proposals in order of preference. In ranking the proposals, the department may consider factors that include, but are not limited to, professional qualifications, general business terms, innovative engineering or cost-reduction terms, finance plans and the need for state funds to deliver the project and discharge the agreement. The department shall undertake negotiations with the private entity submitting the 1st-ranked proposal. If the department is not satisfied with the results of the negotiations, the department may, at its sole discretion, terminate negotiations with that entity and the department may negotiate with the other entities in order of the ranking of their proposals. If only one proposal is received, the department shall negotiate in good faith and, if the department is not satisfied with the results of the negotiations, the department may, at its sole discretion, terminate negotiations.
The department may require that the private entity assume responsibility for all costs incurred by the State or local governments before execution of the agreement, including costs of retaining independent experts to review, analyze and advise the department with respect to the proposal.
6. Tolls; fares. An agreement may authorize the private entity to impose tolls or fares for the use of the transportation facility. The following provisions apply to such an agreement.
The agreement must be consistent with the traffic and revenue study required under subsection 4, paragraph F.
The agreement must ensure that the transportation facility and any related toll facility are properly operated and maintained in accordance with department standards or standards generally accepted in the transportation industry.
The agreement must include provisions governing changes in tolls or fares.
The department may require provisions in the agreement that ensure that a negotiated portion of revenues from a toll-generating or a fare-generating transportation facility is returned to the department over the life of the agreement.
7. Exercise of powers. If the department exercises its power of eminent domain for the development and construction of a transportation facility pursuant to this subchapter and section 73, the department must retain ownership rights and interests taken. The department's powers of eminent domain may not be conferred to a private entity. The State may provide maintenance, law enforcement and other services with respect to a transportation facility owned by a private entity when the agreement provides for reasonable reimbursement for such services.
8. Term of agreement. An agreement may not exceed a term of 50 years unless the Legislature, upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Transportation, approves a longer term.
9. Legislative approval. If the department determines that a public-private partnership proposal and draft agreement meets the standards of this subchapter, the department shall submit to the Legislature a bill that authorizes the agreement. The bill must include a statement that the proposal meets the standards in subsection 4, a summary of the substance of the draft agreement and a description of the nature and amount of state investment, if any, including effects on programmed capital work. Should legislative approval be granted, the department shall report to the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over transportation matters by February 1st of each year as to the status of the project and any substantive changes to the proposal.
10. Information in public record. Except as provided in subsection 10-A, information obtained by the department under this subchapter is a public record pursuant to Title 1, chapter 13, subchapter 1.
10-A. Confidential information. Information submitted to the department relating to a public-private partnership proposal under this subchapter is confidential and not a public record under Title 1, chapter 13, subchapter 1 if the private entity submitting the information designates the information as being only for the confidential use of the department and if:
The information is a trade secret as defined in Title 10, section 1542, subsection 4; or
Disclosure of the information would result in a business or competitive disadvantage, loss of business, invasion of privacy or other significant detriment to the private entity to whom the record belongs or pertains.
If legal action is filed to gain access to the information designated as confidential under this subsection, the private entity must defend its designation and the department shall release the information in accordance with the order of the reviewing court. Failure to defend the designation under this subsection constitutes a waiver of confidentiality by the private entity and the department shall release the information.
11. Report of proposals. By February 1st, annually, the department shall provide to the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over transportation matters a report summarizing all proposals that the department has determined meet the standards of this subchapter or that have been finally rejected during the previous calendar year.
12. The department may adopt rules to implement this subchapter. Rules adopted pursuant to this subsection are routine technical rules as defined in Title 5, chapter 375, subchapter 2-A.
Posted in Action Alerts, E/W Legislation, East-West Corridor, Features, Legal	| Leave a reply
Legislation would put hidden sections of Maine's constitution back into print
Publication of the redacted passages, many involving the state's treaty obligations to its Indian tribes, has been banned for 139 years.
BY COLIN WOODARD STAFF WRITER
cwoodard@pressherald.com | @WoodardColin | 207-791-6317
INDIAN ISLAND — One hundred and thirty-nine years ago, 2,100 words of Maine's Constitution vanished from circulation, although they remained in effect.
The sections, which included the treaty obligations with Indian tribes that Maine agreed to assume as a condition of its separation from Massachusetts in 1820, are still forbidden to be published with the rest of the state's fundamental laws, the result of a constitutional amendment ratified by Maine's people in 1875 and which went into effect the following year.
Rep. Henry Bear wants to see if Maine voters wish to repeal the printing ban on some redacted language in the state's constitution. (Staff photo)
Judges and legal experts remained cognizant of the redacted passages, which are found in pre-1876 copies of the constitution. But for a century, few ordinary citizens or tribal members knew what the passages said.
Now the Maine Legislature is expected to vote soon on a bill that would undo the prohibition on publishing the passages. The bill, sponsored by the Maliseet tribe's representative to the Legislature, Henry Bear, would add a constitutional amendment referendum question to the ballot this November, asking Maine voters if they wish to repeal the printing ban on the redacted constitutional language in Article X, Section 5.
"Right now you can't access that section, even though it remains in force – you won't see it," said Bear, who became the only active tribal representative Tuesday when his Passamaquoddy and Penobscot counterparts renounced their seats in protest over Maine's refusal to compromise on a range of jurisdictional disputes. "I think it's essential that all parts of our constitution are legally publishable," he said.
The section, the state constitution has read since 1876, "shall hereafter be omitted in any printed copies" but "shall remain in full force, as part of the Constitution … with the same effects as if contained in said printed copies."
On Wednesday, a legislative panel recommended in an 11-1 vote that the bill be passed. At a May 19 public hearing, nobody testified in opposition. The bill, L.D. 893, is likely to go to a full floor vote this week.
Legislators on the Judiciary Committee were surprised to learn that part of the state constitution was unprintable, said Sen. Chris Johnson, D-Somerville. "There was a very strong opinion around the table that what is in our constitution should be printed in our constitution," he said.
Bear said he learned of the situation from reading "Unsettled," a 2014 Press Herald/Sunday Telegram series.
The measure is of symbolic importance to Maine's four federally recognized Indian tribes, some of whom were adversely affected for a century by the suppression of the contents of the article enumerating Maine's obligations to them.
It is not known why publication of Section 5 was suppressed. Several other sections of Article X also were stricken, but they were no longer relevant, having prescribed how Maine should convene its first legislature and other one-time procedures. By contrast, the treaty obligations in Section 5 were still in force in 1876, although the state was violating many of them, sometimes flagrantly.
Forgotten text, forgotten duties
The redacted section is the text of the 1816 Act of Separation, the Massachusetts law that allowed the District of Maine to become an independent state. The text includes a section obligating Maine to "assume and perform all the duties of (Massachusetts) towards the Indians within said District of Maine, whether the same arise from treaties or otherwise." It directs Maine to set aside land valued at $30,000 for tribal use, at a time when undeveloped land in Maine sold for between 3 and 4 cents an acre.
In 1967, Maine's first Indian affairs commissioner, anthropologist Edward Hinckley, discovered Maine had received $30,000 from Massachusetts in compensation, but the state never actually set aside new land for the tribes. In a letter to the NAACP, Hinckley argued for a public education campaign to promote "the ideas that Indians are people; that Massachusetts considered them so; that Massachusetts' obligations to Indians were important enough to be a condition of Maine's becoming a state and to therefore be included in the constitution."
Hinckley, who went on to a career in child mental health and died in 2012, also called for a constitutional amendment similar to that envisioned by L.D. 893 "for neatness's sake and educational value, if nothing else." The suggestion went nowhere.
By implication, the redacted constitutional passages also required that Maine honor the terms of a 1794 treaty between Massachusetts and the Passamaquoddy tribe, including the management of a trust fund that the Bay State turned over to Maine to manage for the tribe's benefit. In 1968, the Passamaquoddy's attorney, Don Gellers, sued Maine for looting this trust fund, which had been worth $37,471 in 1822, or about $150 million with interest by the mid-1960s.
The day after filing the suit, Gellers was arrested on marijuana possession charges as part of an elaborate conspiracy orchestrated by the state Attorney General's Office; he eventually fled the country, and the tribe's suit collapsed.
If the constitutional commissioners who proposed the 1875 suppression of Section 5 intended to ensure the state's obligations were forgotten, they were successful. Rather than protecting the Indians' trust lands, Maine authorized some tracts to be flooded by dams, others to be annexed for the laying out of highways, and thousands more acres transferred to white owners. In no case was compensation given to the Indians, in violation of treaty obligations. In 1893, Maine courts even ruled that the Passamaquoddy tribe didn't exist because it lacked sovereign powers.
"Maine's attitude towards not recognizing treaties and tribal rights is legendary and it just doesn't shock me that they've been buried somewhere," said the chief of the Penobscot Nation, Kirk Francis. "Those were huge conditions to becoming a state. And so they should be prominently displayed. I think Rep. Bear is right in wanting to get attention to that."
Today: symbolic significance
In testimony before legislators, Penobscot historian Maria Girouard and the executive director of the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission, John Dieffenbacher-Krall, both asserted that the treaties referenced in the text were still in force. They said that the 1980 settlement acts – the result of a compromise agreement by which the tribes agreed to drop a land claims suit for more than half the state in exchange for a cash settlement – did not contain language eliminating the treaties.
Attorney General Janet Mills' office disagreed, citing Section 1731 of the federal settlement act, which states that Maine will enjoy "a general discharge and release of all obligations … arising from any treaty or agreement with, or on behalf of any Indian nation, or tribe or band of Indians or the United States as trustee" to the tribes.
Either way, allowing publication of Article X, Section 5 will have no legal consequence, as the section has always remained in force, even if its contents were hidden from view.
Zach Heiden, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, said he supports the printing of the section. "Maine cannot hope to live up to its historical responsibilities if it does not know its history," he said.
Colin Woodard can be contacted at 791-6317 or at:
cwoodard@pressherald.com
Twitter: WoodardColin
Posted in Community Rights, Features, First Nations, Legal, Maine, News, Passamaquoddy, Penobscot Nation, Statewide, United States	| Tagged Henry Bear, Maine constitution	| Leave a reply
Action time! Next steps on LD 1168!
Posted on May 28, 2015 by chris
LD 1168 was voted "Ought to Pass" by the 127th Legislature's Judiciary Committee by 6 – 3
LD 1168 prevents eminent domain from being used by a private entity, or in certain Public-Private Partnerships (P3) on behalf of a private entity, by amending the Public-Private-Partnership for Transportation Projects Law[1], and the law that restricts eminent domain use[2].
Video of the work session and vote for LD 1168 is located at:
http://youtu.be/-JkymA9rCmE
(thank you Eric Tuttle for videotaping and uploading!)
This was a bipartisan vote with Republicans, Democrats, and one Independent voting in favor.
Any day now, the bill will go before the Senate for possible discussion and a vote. We are encouraged that all the Senators present on the Judiciary Committee voted for the bill, which puts us on good footing going into the Senate vote. Still, please contact your Senator and encourage them to vote "ought to pass" on LD 1168. The vote could happen any day, so call your Senator right away!
If the bill passes the Senate, it will go before the House. We will need a lot of support from all of you to educate your Representatives about the importance of this bill in protecting Maine people from eminent domain takings by the State on behalf of private entities for a transportation facility. Since the bill may be voted on in the Senate anytime now, please start calling your Reps immediately! We especially need support from those of you in Southern Maine.
Here is contact list for all Senators and Representatives:
LD 1168's bill summary states, "This bill prohibits the use of the power of eminent domain for the development, operation, management, ownership, leasing or maintenance of a transportation facility as a public-private partnership project. It also prohibits the use of the power of eminent domain by a private business entity when the entity is involved in a public-private partnership."
To view the entire bill, visit: http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?snum=127&paper=SP0415&PID=0
We highly recommend watching Eric Tuttle's video of the LD 1168 work session because the discussion that unfolded amongst the Judiciary Committee may help you talk to your Senator or Representative. Again, that link is: http://youtu.be/-JkymA9rCmE
We encourage folks to thank Senator Paul Davis, Rep. Ralph Chapman, and these members of the Judiciary Committee for their support: Senator Dave Burns, Senator Chris Johnson, Rep. Barry Hobbins, Rep. Jeff Evangelos, Rep. Phyllis Ginzler, and Rep. Charlotte Warren.
Again, here is contact list for all Senators and Representatives:
(thank you again Eric Tuttle)
Here are some updated talking points
LD 1168 safeguards landowners' rights. Eminent domain is an important tool for State and Local Government to have in order to promote the health, safety, and welfare of its residents; however, eminent domain is a serious power that overrides individual property rights in favor of community rights. Therefore, State and Local Government Entities should use eminent domain only as a last resort, for vetted transportation projects that can be demonstrated to be in the public's best interest, not for corporate profit.
LD 1168 makes it clear that the public interest is the priority interest of concern to State and Local Government when exercising eminent domain power for transportation projects, not expanding corporate or state coffers. Although private entities may be subcontracted by the State or Local Government Entity to fulfill a contract, no public entity should use its eminent domain power to act on behalf of a private entity's transportation development interest, or to further the economic interests of another country that could be the primary beneficiary of the transportation infrastructure.
The proposed East-West Corridor, for example, would allow local territory to be used as a pass-through connecting New Brunswick and Quebec, with primary economic benefits accruing to Canada and profits accruing to foreign investors.
In general, since foreign investment and/or ownership is sometimes part of a private project, state and local eminent domain power should not be used to further these financial interests.
At this time, the P3 law enables new transportation infrastructure development by private entities using taxpayer money and access to eminent domain. LD 1168 amends the P3 to protect farmland, water, and wildlife habitat from eminent domain takings and resulting impacts that are not based in public interest. Everyone needs good food and water to live a healthy life. The growth rate of Maine's young farmers is much higher than anywhere else in the country, 40% versus 1.5%.[3] Maine farmers shouldn't feel threatened by private entities to give up their livelihoods and future food security. Multi-generational farms and the next generation of farmers need as much support as possible. Transportation infrastructure increases risks to water quality, and is likely to result in fragmentation of farmland and wildlife habitat.
Additional protection from eminent domain for transportation projects will help maintain regional stability. When a private entity can access the power of eminent domain for a private transportation project, or unsolicited P3 for a transportation project, as we have learned through experience with the East-West Corridor proposal, many members of the public experience needless trauma, declined economic activity and real estate sales (also known as condemnation blight), and even flight from the region.
This bill closes previously unaddressed loopholes and shortcomings in our law that became apparent when the East-West Corridor proposal came to the table. These are lessons that stretch well beyond the East-West Corridor proposal.
To view Maine's existing eminent domain restrictions law, visit: http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/1/title1ch21.pdf
If you have questions, concerns, or just want to chat about all this, please feel free to contact Chris Buchanan or Jane Crosen:
[1] Maine Revised Statutes Title 23, Part 5, Chapter 410, subchapter 5, subsection 4251. Public-private partnerships; transportation projects
[2] Maine Revised Statutes Title 1, Chapter 21, subsection 816. Limitations on Eminent Domain Authority
[3] In Maine, More Hipsters Choosing Life on the Farm, Jennifer Mitchell, MPBN 12-11-14
Posted in Action Alerts, E/W Legislation, East-West Corridor, Features, Legal	| Tagged P3, PPP, public private partnership	| Leave a reply
Tribes pull Reps. from Maine Legislature and go their own way
Photo by A.J. Higgins MPBN
On Tuesday, May 26, Penobscot and Passamaquoddy leaders pulled their representatives from the Maine Legislature as part of a decision to work together, and follow their own leadership within their territories from here on out. It was an historic moment of bravery and leadership by the Tribes.
Here are two articles:
MPBN, Tribes Pull Reps from Maine Legislature as Sovereignty Issues Come to Boil
The Guardian, Two Native American tribes withdraw from 'paternalistic' Maine legislature
There was a press conference Wednesday afternoon as well and we will continue to post info here.
Posted in Audio, Community Rights, Features, First Nations, Grassroots Movements, Legal, Maine, Multimedia, News, Passamaquoddy, Penobscot Nation, Resources, Statewide, United States	| Tagged Billy Nicholas, Fred Moore, Henry Bear, Kirk Francis, Wayne Mitchell	| Leave a reply
Flotilla on Penobscot River to Support Tribal Territory and Rights
On May 23, 2015, people converged on the Penobscot River in Bangor to show their support of the Penobscot Nation's rights over its ancestral territory- the waters of the Penobscot River. The State of Maine issued a letter to the tribe in 2012, redefining the Penobscot's territory to NOT include the River itself, a direct departure from historical treaties and previous interpretation of treaties and the Land Claims Settlement Act of 1980 by the State of Maine.
Around 150 people were present in boats or on shore to demonstrate their support. Following is a video, news coverage, and photos of the event:
WABI-TV 5
3 minute video by Sass Linneken
photos by the Maine Paparazzi (including photo above)
Posted in Community Rights, East-West Corridor, Events, Features, First Nations, Grassroots Movements, Maine, Multimedia, News, Penobscot Nation, Photo, Resources, Resources: Articles, Blog Spots, Letters, Towns, other, Uncategorized, United States, Video	| Tagged bangor, flotilla, SEEDS for Justice	| Leave a reply
Congress Members Support Penobscot v. Maine in Unprecedented Court Filing
Posted on May 7, 2015 by chris
Rep. Tom Cole: "Some people act as though a treaty signed a hundred or so years ago doesn't exist – yes, it does as long as the parties are still there and there wasn't a time limit placed on it."
Gale Courey Toensing |5/5/15 | Indian Country Today
A group of Congress members has filed a brief in federal court backing the Penobscot Indian Nation's lawsuit against the State of Maine over hunting and fishing rights in the Penobscot River.
It is almost certainly the first time members of Congress have entered a lawsuit in support of an Indian nation's struggle for its sovereign rights against a state and, therefore, sets a precedent.
The amici curiae, or friends of the court, brief was filed April 29 in federal district court in Maine by five members of the Congressional Native American Caucus: Betty McCollum(D-MN), co-chair of the Congressional Native American Caucus with Tom Cole(R-OK), a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation; Raúl M. Grijalva, (D-AZ), vice chair of the Congressional Native American Caucus; Ron Kind(D-WI), vice chair of the Congressional Native American Caucus; and Ben Ray Luján(D-NM), vice chair of the Congressional Native American Caucus.
"As members of the Caucus, amici have focused their legislative efforts on supporting the sovereign rights of, and federal obligations to, tribal nations and villages. A particular focus has been the growth of Native American communities through policies that support tribal political self-determination and economic self-sufficiency," the group writes in its brief. "Amici therefore seek to strengthen the relationships between the United States and Indian tribes through legislation that secures the vital sovereign interests of tribal governments, including the implementation of federal statutes such as the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act(MICSA), which was enacted to protect the rights of the Penobscot Nation and its members to sustenance fishing, hunting, and trapping within its reservation without interference from the State of Maine."
Cole said the Native American caucus tries to stay out of inter-tribal disputes between tribes. "I don't think that's an appropriate place for us to be, but in this case my counterpart Betty McCollum, co-chair of the Native American Caucus, and I both felt the same way – that this was just an egregious case of a state effectively abrogating parts of a treaty."
Sometimes tribes don't defend their rights when they should, Cole said. "We applaud the Penobscots for going to court to defend their rights. The battle they're fighting is not just for themselves. If sovereignty is diminished anywhere it's diminished everywhere. If any of our tribes have their treaties unilaterally altered without the permission, consent and participation it hurts every single tribe in the country. I'm glad they decided to fight it; the least we can do is express our support."
Cole said he agreed with some tribal leaders who think the Penobscot case might turn out to be as significant for east coast tribes as the "fish wars" of the 1960s and 1970s led by the late Nisquallyleader Billy Frank Jr. were to the west coast tribes. At that time protesters held "fish-ins" at traditional fishing locations aimed specifically at asserting their treaty-protected fishing rights and, more broadly, their resistance to being culturally assimilated into American society.
RELATED: The Fire That Was Billy Frank Jr.; Indian Country's Greatest Defender
"Some people act as though a treaty signed a hundred or so years ago doesn't exist – yes, it does as long as the parties are still there and there wasn't a time limit placed on it," Cole said. "After all, land was given up in exchange for guarantees and those guarantees have to hold. The history of the United States in terms of holding up its side of treaties is not very commendable."
The Penobscot case is not a partisan issue, Cole said; it's an issue in which Congress needs to uphold its obligations and the trust responsibilities toward the tribe.
PenobscotChief Kirk Francis told ICTMN that the Nation is "extremely honored and excited that congress has weighed in on this very important case." He said he was unaware of any other case in which members of Congress supported a tribe against a state. "I think this is truly historic and shows the level of seriousness with which they take these issues of protecting basic tribal cultural rights around attempted territorial removal and extinguishing fishing rights."
The lawsuit – Penobscot Nation v. State of Maine, Maine Attorney General Janet Millsand two other state officials– was filed in August, 2012, in response to the state's assertion that the Nation has jurisdiction and regulatory authority over hunting and fishing only on its reservation islands and not in the "Main Stem" of the Penobscot River. The river flows around 60 miles north of Indian Island where the Penobscot Nation's government is located and most of its citizens live. The Nation owns numerous islands in the Main Stem as well as hundreds of thousands of acres of land elsewhere in the state as a result of the 1980 MICSA and its state companion, the 1980 Maine Implementing Act(MIA). The river is central to the Nation's identity and culture, Francis said recently. "This river is simply who we are. It's the very core of our identity as a people and it's simply the most important thing in the Penobscot Nation's life," he said.
Mills did not respond to a request for comment.
A year after the Nation filed the lawsuit, the federal government's Department of Justice (DoJ) at the Nation's request entered the case both as an intervener on the Penobscot Nation's behalf and as a plaintiff filing a separate action against the state of Maine.
RELATED: Penobscot Nation Sues State Over Settlement-Protected Hunting and Fishing Rights
RELATED: Feds Join Penobscot Suit against State of Maine on Fishing Rights
RELATED: Ceremony – and Eagles – Mark Beginning of Veazie Dam Removal
The amici brief outlines three principles that "must" inform the interpretation of statutes regulating Indian nations: (1) that Congress reserves Indian lands to assist and protect Indians and intends that the reservation is also seen to favor and protect Indians; (2) that Congress drafts legislation against the longstanding Indian canon of construction, which requires courts to interpret ambiguities in Indian-related legislation in favor of Indians; and (3) when the U.S. acts as a trustee to settle a dispute over an Indian nation's aboriginal property and fishing rights, it expects the court to act as a partner in fulfilling the federal government's "solemn trust responsibilities."
Congress plainly intended to include the Penobscot River within the Penobscot Reservation when it ratified Maine's Act to Implement the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, and so did the State of Maine until recently, the amici wrote in their brief. "The State now contends that Congress, in drafting the Settlement Act, intended to harm the Penobscot Nation by persuading it to cede historically tribal land to the State, while preserving its sustenance fishing rights in name only by diminishing tribal land to include only the dry land of the islands in question," the brief says. "But this interpretation cannot be squared with Congress's intent to draft a statute that fulfills its trust responsibilities to the Penobscot Nation. Congress plainly intended to protect the Penobscot Nation's right to fish for anadromous fish in the Penobscot River and therefore included the Main Stem of the Penobscot River, which contains the only anadromous fish available to the Tribe, within the Penobscot Reservation."
Requests for summary judgment from the Penobscot Nation, the DoJ and the state are pending. The amici brief urges the court to grant summary judgment to the Nation.
Francis said he hopes all tribes' nation-to-nation trust relationships with the federal government will be protected. He praised the Congressional Native American Caucus members for their activism. "They truly have proven their commitment to these issues," Francs said. "For us this is such a scary and stressful time – having our rights and territory attacked – and this at the very least tells us in a very relevant and important way that we are not alone."
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/05/05/congress-members-support-penobscot-v-maine-unprecedented-court-filing-160253
Posted in Community Rights, East-West Corridor, Features, First Nations, Legal, Maine, News, Penobscot Nation, Resources: Articles, Blog Spots, Letters, United States	| Tagged Chief Kirk Francis, Native American Caucus	| Leave a reply
Updates on LD 1168 & STEWC Testimony
Note to readers: There are two email postings listed first, and then STEWC's Testimony on LD 1168 is listed last.
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Chris Buchanan <chris(at)defendingwater(dot)net> wrote:
I hope everyone enjoyed the beautiful weekend! I was up in Sangerville yesterday and everything seemed so alive. I love seeing the yard sales starting up again. I hope everyone's appreciating the sunshine as much as I am!
I wanted to follow up on the previous email about LD 1168 with the reminder that you may still submit written testimony to the Judiciary Committee and call, meet, or email them about the bill before the work session on May 12.
You may build off of the suggestions I made to them in my testimony, use the talking points, or speak from your heart about your own experience with eminent domain, especially the misuse of eminent domain for a transportation project.
Attached are the same resources I've sent before, hoping that it's helpful.
Also, for those of you who read my testimony and noticed that I referenced MDOT's statewide outreach coordinators who are supposedly being employed by us (taxpayers) to receive ideas, I was intending to attach the MDOT handout as well but the file is too large, so please give a shout if you want to take a look. You can also find it on the MDOT website.
peace, Chris
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Chris Buchanan <chris(at)defendingwater(dot)net> wrote:
Thanks to those of you who submitted testimony and/or came to the State House yesterday to testify on LD 1168 to prevent eminent domain from being used by a private entity through a public private partnership.
My sense was that the committee listened closely to our testimony and is interested in doing something with this bill during the work session. This is a stark contrast to the mostly unresponsive and seemingly disinterested tranportation committee on LD 506, in my opinion.
The work session will be May 12 at 5pm in the Judiciary Committee, Room 438 of the State House. During the work session, members must ask members of the audience to comment, there is no open public comment. I am going to make an effort to meet with a couple committee members before the work session and I am hoping they invite me to provide additional information.
I have asked members of the group, "Maine Matters," to videotape the session. It is the time they deliberate and make a decision, and therefore important to record for accountability and learning purposes.
Here is the link where everyone's testimony will be posted on LD 1168. They are behind, so it's not up yet. I will attach my testimony on behalf of STEWC for those of you interested and encourage others to do so. The only testimony against the bill before the committee was by Nina Fisher of the MDOT.
Have a great weekend everyone and hope to see many of you at the steering committee meeting next week!
Remember anybody can post relevant info about the Corridor to this list, (except for articles unless you provide a description) by emailing your info directly to: stop_the_east_west_corridor@lists.riseup.net
no corridor, no compromise! Chris
Stop the East-West Corridor
www.stopthecorridor.org
Testimony in Favor of LD 1168 April 30, 2015
Dear Senator Burns, Representative Hobbins, and Honorable Members of the Judiciary Committee,
Thank you for hearing our comments today on LD 1168. My name is Chris Buchanan, I live in Belgrade, and I am testifying in favor of LD 1168 as the Statewide Coordinator of Stop the East-West Corridor. Stop the East-West Corridor, or STEWC, is a resource and communication hub for a decentralized coalition of Maine residents and organizations who share a multitude of concerns about the private or public-private East-West Corridor proposal that has been introduced to communities around the State and in New Brunswick by Cianbro CEO Peter Vigue and Cianbro Project Manager Darryl Brown.
We have also received permission from the Maine Association of Planners to express their support for LD 1168. They are unable to provide testimony due to resource constraints.
We are grateful for Senator Davis's leadership and commitment to the desires of his constituents to provide protection from eminent domain for a transportation project like the East-West Corridor. The Corridor is unfounded in public planning or public need, and is in fact hugely unpopular. Abbot, Charleston, Dexter, Dover-Foxcroft, Garland, Monson, Parkman, and Sangerville, eight communities, have now passed a local ordinance, be it a moratorium, referendum, local-self governance, or land use ordinance, to develop local protection. These actions clearly demonstrate a sense of vulnerability and the need for adequate state policy.
As it stands, the only existing legal statute that may authorize development of the Corridor is the Public-Private-Partnership law for Transportation Projects, Title 23 §4251, which is why we continue to address the shortcomings in this law.
Eminent domain powers for significant transportation projects should be limited to government agencies acting on behalf of the public. While LD 1168 effectively seeks to provide this protection, I have been informed by Maine Department of Transportation legislative liaison Nina Fisher that the Department wants to maintain eminent domain authority for private entities under the Public-Private-Partnership Law (Title 23, §4251). Although we disagree for several reasons and ask this committee to make the changes outlined by LD 1168, we also want to offer the Committee the option to simply eliminate unsolicited proposals from 23 §4251, ensuring that all PPPs are solicited by the Department.
Maine's Sensible Transportation Policy Act (STPA, Title 23 §73) is the guiding law for transportation planning, development, and maintenance in our State. However, the PPP law created a parallel legal pathway for significant transportation development that sidesteps the STPA. Although 23 §4251 sec. 4-I states that a PPP "must comply with…applicable…state…laws…", sec. 3 states, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law…". The PPP is an explicit provision of law that defines a different process. Also, the two laws blatantly contradict each other in both their reporting requirements (transparent vs. confidential), and public input process (lengthy public input to the Department vs. one public hearing before the Transportation Committee). The PPP also allows leveraging of up to 50% public taxpayer subsidy, and eminent domain powers to private entities for solicited and unsolicited proposals. If the legal pathway for unsolicited proposals were eliminated, only proposals initiated by the Department could access the extensive powers listed above, including eminent domain.
The Department's Deputy Commissioner, Jon Nass, expressed concern about eliminating unsolicited proposals in his testimony before the Transportation Committee earlier this session on LD 506, stating that, "Unsolicited, industry based ideas are key to the PPP law. MaineDOT appreciates good ideas regardless of where they originate."
The suggestion that eliminating a legal pathway for unsolicited proposals is the same as eliminating private-sector ideas is simply inaccurate and misleading. No proposed or existing laws prohibit consideration of private-sector ideas. On the contrary, the Department has regional outreach coordinators responsible for receiving unsolicited ideas from all over the State, outlined in their brochure, enclosed. Regardless of its origin, the Department may pursue a viable idea that is grounded in Department planning and supported by stakeholders through the PPP statute by soliciting proposals. Eliminating unsolicited proposals in the PPP will ensure that eminent domain may only be used on projects that have gone through an appropriate accountability process with Department oversight.
Several of these points are also clearly stated in Rep. Ralph Chapman's letter to the Transportation Committee for the work session on LD 506, which is enclosed in your packet.
If the Department remains concerned about eliminating unsolicited proposals from 23 §4251 for the reasons they have expressed, we suggest simply adding the language, to 23 §4251 sec. 2 stating, "Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit the department from receiving ideas, or to prohibit or otherwise affect programs that do not meet the criteria of this subsection." Enclosed in our testimony is a draft to reflect these suggestions.
We urge you to vote ought to pass on LD 1168, or consider this alternate proposal. Thank you very much for your time. I would be happy to answer questions or discuss details with members of this committee at any time.
Chris Buchanan
Statewide Coordinator, Stop the East-West Corridor www.stopthecorridor.org
chris(at)defendingwater(d0t)net
Posted in E/W Legislation, East-West Corridor, Features, Grassroots Movements, Legal	| Tagged Maine Department of Transportation, MDOT, Paul Davis	| Leave a reply
Nestle: A Defeat and a Victory May 14, 2016
Commission Handling Dozens of Petitions to Opt Out of Expedited Wind Development February 25, 2016
Judge rules Penobscot Nation reservation does not include river's waters December 17, 2015
Sunlight Media Collective Releases Documentary on the Battle Over Contested Penobscot River Territory September 25, 2015
Escalation in Penbscot River Battle: ACT NOW September 8, 2015
Maine Fair Trade Campaign
POWWR Protecting Our Water and Wildlife Resources in Shapleigh and Newfield
Protect Wells' Water
Save Our H20 Save Our Water
Defending Water in Washington


text:
Brandon Carr Named Cowboys' Walter Payton Award Nominee
This is the second straight year Carr has won the honor
Published Dec 3, 2015 at 11:21 AM
For the second consecutive year, Brandon Carr has been named the Dallas Cowboys' nominee for the Walter Payton Man of the Year award, which honors players who achieve excellence on the field, while contributing to the community through volunteer and charity work off the field.
"It's ultimately part of your legacy, combining both on and off the field," Carr said, per the Dallas Morning News. "Truly off the field is where you really make your mark, I believe, changing lives, leaving a lasting impression on people. They see you with a helmet on and they just think of you as an athlete or a hard-bodied individual, but we all have passions. We all have things we would like to inspire others with. Foundations would be one.
"It kind of deals with the connotation that we're just jocks. We also care about our communities and care about making an impact on them in a positive way."
The last Cowboy to win the award was Jason Witten in 2012 and, before that, Troy Aikman in 1997. Panthers' linebacker Thomas Davis won the honor last year.
Read More Cowboys-Related Stories Here

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
El río Albuera, también llamado arroyo de la Albuera, rivera de los Limonetes y rivera de Nogales, es un río del suroeste de la península ibérica perteneciente a la cuenca hidrográfica del Guadiana, que transcurre por la provincia de Badajoz (España).

Curso
La cabecera del Albuera se encuentra entre los término municipales de La Parra y Salvatierra de los Barros. En su tramo alto, donde también es llamado rivera de Nogales, discurre en dirección noroeste hasta la localdad de La Albuera, donde cambia de rumbo en dirección norte y también de nombre, pues pasa a llamarse rivera de los Limonetes hasta su desembocadura en la margen izquierda del río Guadiana dentro del término de Badajoz.

Sus aguas están embalsadas en el embalse de Nogales.

Historia
En las orillas del río Albuera se libró el día 24 de febrero de 1479 una crucial batalla de la Guerra de Sucesión Castellana donde las tropas portuguesas fueron derrotadas.

Flora y fauna
Casi todo el curso del Albuera y su afluente el regato de la Bejaran conforma la Zona Especial de Conservación (ZEC) "Rivera de los Limonetes-Nogales", la cual cuenta con una gran extensión de fresnedas mediterráneas que se desarrollan a lo largo de aproximadamente un 40% del cauce, desde el núcleo municipal de La Albuera hasta el límite norte del lugar. Estas formaciones, que presentan buen estado de conservación, con árboles de portes considerables y vegetación arbustiva y herbácea de ribera asociada, están consideradas como "Fresneda Notable de Extremadura". También cuenta con uno de los mejores adelfares del sur de Badajoz, que tanto por su estado de conservación como por su extensión y antigüedad, están consideradas "Adelfar Notable de Extremadura". ADemás, en el tramo medio de la ZEC se distribuyen especies endémicas como la Galega cirujanoi.

Véase también
 Anexo:Ríos de la cuenca del Guadiana

Referencias

Bibliografía
 Pavón Soldevilla, I.: La Arqueología y su divulgación en Badajoz durante la Dictadura de Primo de Rivera: la labor de Virgilio Viniegra Vera (1925-1930, Revista de estudios extremeños, ISSN 0210-2854, Vol. 73, Nº 3, 2017, págs. 2479-2566.
 Fernández Rodríguez, M. y Martínez Peñas, L.: La guerra y el nacimiento del Estado Moderno, Asociación Veritas para el Estudio de la Historia, el Derecho y las Instituciones, Valladolid 2014. ISBN 978-84-616-8611-7.
 Junta de Extremadura: Plan de Gestión de la ZEC "Rivera de los Limonetes-Nogales".

Enlaces externos

Afluentes del Guadiana de Extremadura
Ríos de la provincia de Badajoz

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


West Ham ended their first season back in the Premier League as Kevin Nolan's hat trick helped them to see off Reading in the final game of the season at Anfield.
Man of the Match…Kevin Nolan: He may not have the legs anymore but Nolan still retains an incredible prowess in front of goal. Looked the most likely West Ham player to score on the day and it was little wonder he ended up with a treble.
Flop of the Match…Alex McCarthy: Curse of the England call-up? This was a shocker from McCarthy just days after he was called up to the Three Lions squad for the first time and was at fault for West Ham's first when he smashed a clearance straight at Carroll. Although, in his defence, the striker is difficult target to miss.


RUPS specializes in manufacturing Sterilization Rolls and Peelable Pouches of uncoated paper, coated paper and Tyvek. Its expertise also lies in manufacturing Foil to Foil and Film to Film peel-able pouches. Gusseted Leading manufacturer of medical sterilization packaging for decades. pouches and rolls are some of our unique products. It is one of the few companies in the world and the only one in India to make gusseted rolls and pouches of irregular shapes. The company also offers lidding stocks for blister packing for medicaldevices.


Music starts off well and works great to get me in the mood for the game, some transitions may be a little bit loud. Had to adjust volume to 50%.
The animation of the character could be better but it's w/e as it dosn't impact the gameplay.
Level 2 - Mechanic: Jumping, I was dissapointed that the blue line didn't killed me like i though it would. Why would i jump when i just can fall down and walk the blue line. Jumping s«physics work fine though.
Level 3 - The inicial test of holding the right mouse should be adjusted to the left. Camera work is good. I just fell of the platform because i tryed to use space to jump instead of w. Why can't i jump with space bar i wonder?
Level 4 - New mechanic(gun),i just noticed that the upper body follows the mouse and the lower body the arrow keys, it looks really weird when you walk one way but your upper body is facing the other. No point of having a vertical platform sequence where i can just fall all the way down to safety. i think you could have put some traps to force me to take the moving square platforms. Got the gun, swapping the controls is nice. Is this why you didn't use space bar to jump?
Level 5 - Test level to make sure i understand the gun mechanic.
Level 6 - Died once, felt more like a timming test than a gun mechanic test.
Level 7 - New mechanic: Other Objects interacting with my usage of the gun. Not hard to pass.
Level 8 - New mechanic: Picking objetcs with the gun. Level difficulty increased from prior level.
Level 9 - This is a level where you have to manage your timming with the gun to the it right. It tests accuracy and timming.
Level 10 - i was expecting a level where you had to abuse the gun like this. As in " well sometimes chief you have to use the gun even in sittuations that may put you in danger, your mastery with this gun will make you pas the challenge" i liked this one a lot.


text:
It's Not a Date
By Heather Blackmore
Falling in love is the hardest business of all.
Entrepreneur and innovator Kadrienne Davenport gets results. A demanding executive and stickler for punctuality, Kade throws herself into work to avoid hurting anyone, convinced she only causes pain to those she loves.
When Jennifer Spencer meets an incognito Kade at a conference, sparks fly. But when Kade unexpectedly becomes her boss, Jen's problems multiply. The company she founded is going broke, her grandmother's dementia is worsening, and her attraction to Kade—her difficult, brilliant, charismatic mentor—is growing.
Kade's desire to keep things professional between them is in Jen's best interest. Yet what's in Kade's best interest…is Jen.
Cover Artist: Tammy Sedick
Tags Workplace Romance
Words 85,000
eBook Paperback Audiobook
For Money or Love
Workplace Romance
Financial gap/Class disparity
Jessica Spaulding works for Magnate, her father's multi-billion-dollar investment firm. But her life of privilege comes at a high personal cost, requiring her to keep aspects of herself under wraps.
Magnate's new intern, TJ Blake, leads by example. The sole guardian of her teenage sister, TJ juggles work, graduate school, and debt, never taking "something for nothing."
As TJ discovers there's more to Jess than she lets on, her pride and notions about wealth run headlong against her growing feelings for Jess. Jess starts falling for TJ but doubts she's principled enough for her. When Jess uncovers a dark secret, will she do the right thing, even if it means losing everything—including any chance at love?
Until You
By B.D. Grayson
Good girls/Bad girls
Friends & Community
Between Friends | Book 1
Friends to Lovers Romance
Alex Whiddon is a product of her environment. She was raised in foster care, moved from home to home, and never had anyone in her life who chose, or fate allowed, to stay. She has a small group of close friends, but love only leads to getting hurt and isn't worth the risk.
New to town, Ashley McMillan asks her coworker Sarah where she can meet people and maybe even that someone special she's determined to find. When Sarah takes her out to introduce her around, Ashley is smitten with the sexy bartender Alex and fits right in with all of Alex's and Sarah's friends. Although the attraction is immediate, it doesn't take long for Ashley to realize just how untouchable Alex truly is. It's definitely a terrible idea to fall for Alex, everyone agrees, but sometimes love finds you no matter how hard you try to escape.
Join Alex, Ashley, and the whole gang as their lives collide, their relationships deepen, and their friendship makes anything possible.
$9.99 PRE ORDER
Love and Other Rare Birds
By Angie Williams
Women in Uniform
Ornithologist Dr. Jaime Grice doesn't have time for romance. She's spent her life living up to her biologist-turned-conservative-senator father's idea of who she should be. When she discovers that a bird thought to be extinct has been sighted in Alaska, Jaime seizes the opportunity to finally step out of her father's shadow and make her career her own.
Working as a park ranger in Alaska's largest national wilderness, all Rowan Fleming wants is to escape the stress of her failed marriage in the lower forty-eight. She needs solitude to heal her broken heart, so being ordered to act as a guide for an entitled senator's daughter isn't exactly a walk in the park.
Jaime and Rowan couldn't be more different, but as the landscape grows treacherous and remote, they're forced to work together to find the elusive bird. Three arguments, two whispered confessions, and one rogue bear later, they're beginning to suspect love isn't extinct, after all.
Worth a Fortune
By Sam Ledel
Reunion Romance
In the aftermath of the Second World War, Harriet Browning has thrived as the heiress to a lumber fortune, living lavishly among New York's elite. Her father's death reveals unexpected financial woes, and Harriet is left to face a sudden, harsh reality.
Ava Clark threw herself into the war effort when her brothers enlisted. Suddenly, the war is over, and she's without a cause and a job. An ad for a personal secretary from Harriet—the woman she loved more than a decade before—surprises Ava and proves impossible to resist.
Harriet only wanted an assistant for a few months—someone to help sort out the mess her parents left. She never bargained for the woman who got away to show up at her front door.
Sol Cycle
By Kimberly Cooper Griffin
Ang Kennedy used to love riding a bike, but now spends all her time chasing paychecks and lofty titles. When her latest ambition to move into the big corner office unexpectedly falls through, she realizes she was chasing someone else's dream and quits her job. Unsure what she really wants in life, Ang returns to the one thing that used to make her happy: her bike.
Krista Ólafsdóttir dreamed of owning her own bicycle shop since she first started to shadow her uncle at his store. There's nothing like the freedom of riding. Her uncle retires and the bike shop became hers, but she finds that running a business is a lot more complicated than she expects.
An encounter in a park brings Ang and Krista together, but when Ang attempts to help Krista go spectacularly wrong, their passion for each other might not be enough to see them to the finish line.
By Carsen Taite
Courting Danger Romance | Book 2
When gunshots ring out in Judge Nina Aguilar's courtroom, every one of her regrets flashes before her eyes. One of those regrets—her first love—reappears in her life in the most surprising way, and everything about their reunion signals that falling for Franco again would be a dangerous move. Even though she's still as stunning and brilliant as Nina remembers.
Attorney Franco Rossi vowed she'd never return to Dallas, but when an old friend's son is accused of murder, she books the next flight. Her homecoming triggers bitter memories, but learning the only woman she's ever truly loved is the judge assigned to the case really throws her. Franco is convinced she and Nina have no future, yet chemistry and circumstance keep bringing them together. Will history, good and bad, repeat itself?
They'll have a chance to find out if they survive the danger headed their way.
The romance was good, the writing is solid
By Netgalley.com
on Aug 11, 2018 08:08
This is the second book I have read by Blackmore. I enjoyed them both...The romance was good, the writing is solid, and by the end I was happy with the book. Worth picking up.
Reviewed by Amanda Wikel
An excellent book
on Aug 5, 2018 01:08
...All in all, an excellent book that turns lots of office romance tropes around and thoroughly reinvents and re-examines them.
Reviewed by Sandra Marlow
A fun and heart warming romance
on Jun 18, 2018 10:06
...It's Not a Date is a modern romance where family obligation, business, and trust issues all come into play. For me, this made the characters and the story more belivable- because we all have at least one of these things complicating our lives at some point. Kade's childhood has made her blame hersdelf for things outside her control, and made her rigid in many ways. Jen focuses on the love and good in her life, but does not want to lose her company or her ailing grandmother as she struggles to balance everything. I enjoyed many of the secondary characters as much as the struggling couple, and loved that each had a support system and trials of their own as they struggled with what they want, need, and how to get there. Both Kade and Jen had emotional journeys along the way, and I think Kade had huge changes and revelations as she grew through the story. I think the growth and development of the characters was extremely well done and tugged at my heart just as much as any of the romantic journey. I look forward to reading more from this author, particularly if she continues writing such well developed and dynamic characters.
It's Not a Date was a fun and heart warming romance. I enjoyed Kade's journey to find love and trust, in herself as much as for Jen. A well written story with characters that left me hoping for their future long after the book was over.
Reviewed by Sharon Tyler
A very enjoyable read
on May 28, 2018 11:05
A very enjoyable read with two strong businesswomen as leads. I enjoyed reading about the world of venture capital and start ups, which I knew nothing about. There was great chemistry between Kade and Jen and I especially enjoyed the first chapters set in Hawaii. I look forward to the author's next book.
Reviewed by Melina Bickard
Read this book
Read this book. That would be my entire review, but NetGalley is forcing me to write more, so here goes.
You are about to meet Jennifer and Kade, their attraction is so scorching you will feel waves of heat radiating off the page. And while the sex between them is as steamy as one would dream of, the way their relationship develops is equally satisfying and makes for a worthwhile read.
Reviewed by Jeimy Gonzalez
The Bold Strokes Team
Publish with
©Copyright 2022 by Bold Strokes Books. All Rights Reserved.


Matthew Stead, known locally as the Ukulele Man of Ross, is a full time ukulele tutor and performer. Having taught many hundreds of students over the years, Matthew has amassed a wealth of experience and is able to pass on his knowledge with enthusiasm and expertise.
DBS checked and RGT Registered, he is able to tutor students and submit them for their Ukulele Grades. These are accredited and even offer UCAS points.
Matthew teaches over 50 students every week, spreading a love of the ukulele and music, locally and beyond.
He makes music accessible and exciting for everyone and teach all levels and ages. As well as at the Uke Room he teaches at John Kyrle High School in Ross as well as at uke events globally.
His latest pupil to take Grade One achieved an incredible 95% Pass with Distinction.
Steven Sproat, one of the UKs most well known ukulele performers (he taught Frank Skinner how to play and is the author of top selling ukulele tuition books) named Matthew in his Absolute Admiration section in the latest edition of National Uke Magazine.
Matthew's last two ukulele albums received much acclaim and have led to performances at the award winning Grand Northern Ukulele Festival, The Ukulele Festival of Great Britain and The Ukulele Festival of Scotland as well as many others. His music has been played globally and on Radio One in the UK.
Matthew has led workshops at ukulele clubs throughout the UK and at festivals including The Grand Northern Ukulele Festival and Parbulele.


Every. Single. American. Including President Trump, Colin Kaepernick, and my brothers in arms overseas who are wondering, "what in the hell is going on back there?" I'm sitting in the same chair, in the same apartment that I sat in almost a year ago when I wrote an open letter to Colin Kaepernick. We're told to pick a side, there's a line drawn in the sand http://www.atlantafalconsauthorizedstore.com/matt-schaub-jersey-elite "are you with us or against us?" It's just not who we are, or at least who we're supposed to be; we're supposed to be better than that, we're Americans. This doesn't even seem to be about right or wrong, but more about right or left.
We repeat mantras to ourselves like, "no matter what I will never ever surrenderEarlier this week I sat down with a group of five Combat Arms and Special Operations Veterans. The round table discussed our individual feelings http://www.authenticcanadiens.com/doug-harvey-jersey_c-484.html on the flag, the anthem, and the players who knelt when it was played. We all had very different takes, but what surprised me most at the end of the discussion was that we all agreed on one thing. Colin Kaepernick and President Trump should be the ones uniting our country together. Wait...what? I know it sounds crazy, but maybe that's exactly what we need to see. Maybe that's how we start to heal. Two men sit in a room and talk, simple as that.
So please, no more lines in the sand, not at home, not among our people. No more choosing sides, no more "for or against." I believe our Veterans will be called upon to lead the way in healing the Authentic Mel Blount Jersey world and solving its problems; right now our country needs that more than I can remember. So I'll be here, standing in the radical middle, doing what I can to continue fighting for those that can't fight for themselves. Let'Earlier this week I sat Authentic Mel Blount Jersey down with a group of five Combat Arms and Special Operations Veterans. The round table discussed our individual feelings on the flag, the anthem, and the players who knelt when it was played. We all had very different takes, but what surprised me most at the end of the discussion was that we all agreed on one thing. Colin Kaepernick and President Trump should be the ones uniting our country together. Wait...what? I know it sounds crazy, but maybe that's exactly what we need to see. Maybe that's how we start to heal. Two men sit in a room and talk, simple as that.
That's how it all started with Colin and I, neither of Authentic Mel Blount Jersey us knew that kneeling would be the result of our conversation. Colin wanted to sit, I wanted him to stand, and so we found a common ground on a knee alongside his teammates. I believe that progress and real change happens in this world when you reach across the divide, you build a bridge, you swallow your pride, you open your mind, you embrace what you don't understand, and ultimately you surrender.


text:
Contestant from South Africa wins Miss Universe
by: Kandee Ferrell
Posted: Nov 26, 2017 / 10:19 PM EST / Updated: Nov 26, 2017 / 10:19 PM EST
LAS VEGAS (AP) – The Latest on the 2017 edition of the Miss Universe pageant taking place in Las Vegas (all times local):
The woman representing South Africa has won has won the Miss Universe crown.
Demi-Leigh Nel-Peters, who recently earned a business management degree, was crowned Sunday during the event that took place at The AXIS theater at Planet Hollywood casino-resort on the Las Vegas Strip.
The runner-up was Miss Colombia Laura Gonzalez. The second runner-up was Miss Jamaica Davina Bennett.
Ninety-two women from around the world participated in the decades-old competition. This year's edition had the most contestants ever.
The 22-year-old Nel-Peters has earned a yearlong salary, a luxury apartment in New York City for the duration of her reign and more prizes.
Last year, Iris Mittenaere from France was crowned when the pageant took place in the Philippines.
Women representing Jamaica, Colombia and South Africa are the last contestants on this year's Miss Universe pageant.
The pageant on Sunday kicked off with 92 contestants, which were eliminated by stages that included geographic division, swimsuit and evening gown modeling, and a round of questions.
The annual pageant is airing live on FOX from The AXIS theater at Planet Hollywood casino-resort in Las Vegas. This year's competition had more contestants than ever before.
The 21-year-old Davina Bennett is representing Jamaica. The representative of Colombia is 22-year-old Laura Gonzalez. South Africa is being represented by 22-year-old Demi-Leigh Nel-Peters.
The winner will go home with a yearlong salary, a luxury apartment in New York City for the duration of her reign and more prizes.
Only five women are still in the running for the Miss Universe crown.
The field of contestants was narrowed down Sunday, after 10 women modeled their evening gowns while Grammy-Award winner Fergie performed her new song "A Little Work."
The remaining contestants represent South Africa, Thailand, Venezuela, Jamaica and Colombia.
This year's edition of the annual pageant is airing live on FOX from The AXIS theater at Planet Hollywood casino-resort in Las Vegas.
The five contestants will be asked questions during the next stage of the competition.
Ten finalists have been chosen in the Miss Universe pageant.
Six women were not selected to move on Sunday after the swimsuit portion of the competition, which is filmed live at The AXIS theater at Planet Hollywood casino-resort in Las Vegas.
The U.S. representative Kara McCullough, of Washington, D.C., modeled a two-piece bikini and made the top 10.
The other finalists represent Venezuela, Philippines, Canada, South Africa, Spain, Brazil, Colombia, Thailand and Jamaica.
Host Steve Harvey has poked fun at his 2015 botched Miss Universe crowning throughout the night.
Three days after people in the U.S. celebrated Thanksgiving, Harvey told the audience he is "grateful for the Oscars," referring to the best-picture flub at this year's Academy Awards.
The competition is down to 16 women.
The Miss Universe pageant has eliminated 76 contestants after separating the women by geographic region for the first time during the show airing live on Fox from The AXIS theater at Planet Hollywood casino-resort in Las Vegas.
The women representing Thailand, Sri Lanka, Ghana and South Africa were chosen to move forward in the competition for the Africa and Asian Pacific region.
Representatives from Spain, Ireland, Croatia and Great Britain have advanced from the Europe group.
Meanwhile, Colombia, Canada, Brazil and the U.S. will continue in the pageant after being picked from the Americas region.
The wild cards went to Venezuela, Jamaica, China and Philippines.
The winner goes home with a yearlong salary, a luxury apartment in New York City for the duration of her reign and more prizes.
This year's edition of the Miss Universe pageant has separated contestants by geographic region for the first time.
The 92 women on Sunday were divided into three regions: Americas, Europe, and Africa and Asian Pacific. Four contestants from each region are guaranteed to advance to the finals. Four other women regardless of region will also move forward in the competition.
This year's pageant has more contestants than ever before. Host Steve Harvey says Cambodia, Laos and Nepal are being represented for the first time in the show.
The decades-old competition is airing live on Fox from The AXIS theater at Planet Hollywood casino-resort in Las Vegas.
Grammy-Award winner Fergie and Rachel Platten, best known for her 2015 hit "Fight Song," are scheduled to perform during the show.
The 2017 edition of the Miss Universe pageant has begun in Las Vegas.
More than 90 women are taking part in the decades-old competition airing live on Fox from The AXIS theater at Planet Hollywood casino-resort. Members of the audience waved flags from dozens of countries as the showed kicked off.
Steve Harvey has returned as the show's host despite botching the 2015 Miss Universe crowning. Grammy-Award winner Fergie and Rachel Platten, best known for her 2015 hit "Fight Song," are scheduled to perform during the show.
The 92 women include representatives from Iraq, Austria, Japan and Venezuela. This is the largest Miss Universe in the pageant's history.
The U.S. is being represented by Washington D.C.'s Kara McCullough.
Current Miss Universe Iris Mittenaere from France will crown her successor.
More than 90 women from around the world are set to take the stage in the Miss Universe pageant.
A new Miss Universe will be crowned Sunday, when the contest returns to Las Vegas.
Ninety-two women will take part in decades-old pageant that will air live at 7 p.m. EST on Fox from The AXIS theater at Planet Hollywood casino-resort.
Steve Harvey returns as the show's host despite botching the 2015 Miss Universe crowning. Grammy-Award winner Fergie and Rachel Platten, best known for her 2015 hit "Fight Song," are scheduled to perform during the show.
This year's judges include YouTube star Lele Pons and former judge on "America's Next Top Model" Jay Manuel.
Kara McCullough of Washington, D.C. is representing the U.S.


It is irrefutable that the construction industry is in need of a highly technological construction method or system for the simple aim of giving it a push it deserves. In Malaysia this technologically enhanced method is known as the Indutrialised Building System (IBS). Concerted efforts have been made for the past decade by various responsible parties especially by the government. Therefore, the IBS 'Road Map' 2003–2010 was introduced and now continues with the IBS 'road map' 2011-2015. However, its performance is still at its infancy, which target is only at an initial stage. This study seeks to identify and analyse the factor of the IBS' system's supply chain flexibility as a factor on the success of the system itself. It has been a suspicion that there exists a condition and situation where the supply chain is too rigid and is not flexible in fulfilling the needs and demands of the IBS development in Malaysia. This inflexible situation has brought about a broad range of problems and has stood in the way of the development of the industrialised building system, despite it being introduced since 1964, or 49 years ago. Flexibility in the IBS supply chain is very important and is associated with other industries like transportation, manufacturing industry, and others. Up until now, we have yet to discover any special studies related to the flexibility in the IBS supply chain in this country. Responding to this challenge, this research is hoped to be able to provide sufficient feedback to the solution to the IBS supply chain flexibility issue. The researcher is confident that the poor system flow of supply chain has impeded the advancement of the Industrialised Building System that has long been open to debate.


text:
Friends of the Columbia Gorge
Friends of the Columbia Gorge is the only non-profit organization dedicated entirely to protecting the Columbia Gorge. With a staff of 17, offices in Portland and Hood River,…
Friends of the Historic Columbia River Highway
Friends of the Historic Columbia River Highway support the restoration and reconnection of the historic highway through the Columbia River Gorge. Our vision is to restore and preserve…
Friends of the Oregon Trail Regional Museum
The mission of the Baker Heritage Museum is to conserve artifacts of historical Baker County, to educate the public about the development of the area, to preserve local…
Since our founding in 1989, thousands of volunteers have helped us plant over 600,000 trees and native plants in natural areas throughout the Pacific Northwest and in neighborhoods from Eugene…
Halprin Landscape Conservancy
Hillsboro Community Foundation
Institute For Archaeological Studies
We are dedicated to research and to education. Unbiased research is critical to correctly interpreting the past, and communicating those results to the public is the foundation toward…
Jacksonville Woodlands Association
The Jacksonville Woodlands Association is caring for our natural and cultural history so that all may experience our city's gold rush heritage. In 1989, alarmed by the prospect…
Klamath Wingwatchers Inc
Lake Oswego Preservation Society
The Lake Oswego Preservation Society's mission is: To support Lake Oswego's historic fabric through advocacy and education. We testify on behalf of threatened Landmarks and have taken our…
Lewis & Clark Trail Heritage Foundation – Oregon Chapter
To preserve and interpret the trial that the Corps of Discover used, lead by Captain Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, across the unknown continent of North America.…
Lower Columbia Preservation Society
The LCPS Mission is to preserve, protect, and promote the historic architecture in the Lower Columbia region. These structures are important assets that contribute to the area's history,…


Brussels, 18 July 2017 – Earlier today, the expected provisional endorsement on the outcomes of last trilogue was taken off the agenda of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. Even though the last compromise text took several of the organic movement's concerns into account, it continues to present a number of potential implementation problems. These issues will need to be solved by the involved parties before the final official approval in the Council and the Parliament in autumn.
The representatives of three EU Institutions – the Commission, the Maltese Presidency of the Council and the Parliament's negotiating team – reached a provisional agreement on the text for a new organic regulation during the trilogue of 28 June. This agreement still needs the approval of the 28 National Agriculture Ministers (now expected in October) and of both the Parliament's Agriculture Committee (expected in October) and of the whole Parliament (expected at the end of the year/beginning of 2018).


text:
GLRA1 gene
glycine receptor alpha 1
The GLRA1 gene provides instructions for making one part, the alpha (α)1 subunit, of the glycine receptor protein. The glycine receptor is embedded in the membrane of nerve cells (neurons) in the spinal cord and the part of the brain that is connected to the spinal cord (the brainstem). The glycine receptor is made up of five subunits: two α1 subunits and three beta (β) subunits. The β subunit is produced from a different gene.
Receptor proteins have specific sites into which certain other molecules, called ligands, fit like keys into locks. Together, ligands and their receptors trigger signals that affect cell development and function. The ligand for the glycine receptor is the protein building block (amino acid) glycine. This molecule also acts as a neurotransmitter, which is a chemical messenger that transmits signals in the nervous system.
When glycine attaches (binds) to the glycine receptor, the receptor opens to allow negatively charged chlorine atoms (chloride ions) to enter the neuron. This influx of chloride ions reduces the neurons's ability to transmit signals to other neurons. Because they stop (inhibit) signaling, glycine receptors are known as inhibitory receptors.
Hereditary hyperekplexia
More than 60 mutations in the GLRA1 gene have been found to cause hereditary hyperekplexia. This condition is most often seen in infants who experience increased muscle tone (hypertonia) and an exaggerated startle reaction to unexpected stimuli, especially loud noises. The startle reaction can trigger a brief period of rigidity and immobility, and in some cases, infants stop breathing. Most GLRA1 gene mutations change single amino acids in the α1 subunit of the glycine receptor protein. The most common mutation replaces the amino acid arginine with the amino acid leucine at protein position 271 (written as Arg271Leu or R271L).
GLRA1 gene mutations that cause hereditary hyperekplexia impair the ability of the glycine receptor protein to respond to the ligand glycine. Some GLRA1 gene mutations alter the structure of the glycine receptor, which can prevent the receptor from opening or cause it to open without the presence of glycine. Other mutations prevent the receptor from reaching the cell membrane. When the glycine receptor is dysfunctional or missing, chloride ions enter the cell when they are not needed or cannot enter the cell at all. The resulting increase in cell signaling in the spinal cord and brainstem likely causes the abnormal muscle movements, exaggerated startle reaction, and other signs and symptoms of hereditary hyperekplexia.
Cytogenetic Location: 5q33.1, which is the long (q) arm of chromosome 5 at position 33.1
Molecular Location: base pairs 151,822,513 to 151,924,851 on chromosome 5 (Homo sapiens Updated Annotation Release 109.20191205, GRCh38.p13) (NCBI)
GLRA1_HUMAN
glycine receptor, alpha 1
glycine receptor, alpha 1 isoform 1 precursor
STHE
Basic Neurochemistry (sixth edition, 1999): Glycine Receptors
Molecular Biology of the Cell (fourth edition, 2002): Chemical Synapses Can Be Excitatory or Inhibitory
Molecular Cell Biology (fourth edition, 2000): GABA- and Glycine-Gated Cl- Channels Are Found at Many Inhibitory Synapses
Washington University, St. Louis: Neuromuscular Disease Center
Hereditary Hyperekplexia Overview
Tests of GLRA1
GLYCINE RECEPTOR, ALPHA-1 SUBUNIT
Bode A, Wood SE, Mullins JG, Keramidas A, Cushion TD, Thomas RH, Pickrell WO, Drew CJ, Masri A, Jones EA, Vassallo G, Born AP, Alehan F, Aharoni S, Bannasch G, Bartsch M, Kara B, Krause A, Karam EG, Matta S, Jain V, Mandel H, Freilinger M, Graham GE, Hobson E, Chatfield S, Vincent-Delorme C, Rahme JE, Afawi Z, Berkovic SF, Howell OW, Vanbellinghen JF, Rees MI, Chung SK, Lynch JW. New hyperekplexia mutations provide insight into glycine receptor assembly, trafficking, and activation mechanisms. J Biol Chem. 2013 Nov 22;288(47):33745-59. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M113.509240. Epub 2013 Oct 9.
Citation on PubMed or Free article on PubMed Central
OMIM: GLYCINE RECEPTOR, ALPHA-1 SUBUNIT
Harvey RJ, Topf M, Harvey K, Rees MI. The genetics of hyperekplexia: more than startle! Trends Genet. 2008 Sep;24(9):439-47. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2008.06.005. Epub 2008 Aug 15. Review.
Masri A, Chung SK, Rees MI. Hyperekplexia: Report on phenotype and genotype of 16 Jordanian patients. Brain Dev. 2017 Apr;39(4):306-311. doi: 10.1016/j.braindev.2016.10.010. Epub 2016 Nov 11.
Tijssen MAJ, Rees MI. Hyperekplexia. 2007 Jul 31 [updated 2012 Oct 4]. In: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Wallace SE, Amemiya A, Bean LJH, Bird TD, Ledbetter N, Mefford HC, Smith RJH, Stephens K, editors. GeneReviews® [Internet]. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993-2017. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1260/
Villmann C, Oertel J, Melzer N, Becker CM. Recessive hyperekplexia mutations of the glycine receptor alpha1 subunit affect cell surface integration and stability. J Neurochem. 2009 Nov;111(3):837-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2009.06372.x. Epub 2009 Sep 1.
Zhang Y, Bode A, Nguyen B, Keramidas A, Lynch JW. Investigating the Mechanism by Which Gain-of-function Mutations to the α1 Glycine Receptor Cause Hyperekplexia. J Biol Chem. 2016 Jul 15;291(29):15332-41. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M116.728592. Epub 2016 May 18.
Reviewed: May 2018