Home | Search NHNE

 

 

 

NHNE Fast-Breaking News:
Update on Jim Lord's Navy Report
Sunday, August 22, 1999




"News,
Inspiration,
& Consumer Protection
for Spiritual Seekers"

------------

NHNE Fast-Breaking News Update:
Update on Jim Lord's Navy Report
Sunday, August 22, 1999

------------

Total NHNE Mailing List:
Last Mailing: 2137
This Mailing: 2141

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

CONTENTS:

Quotables

Introduction
By David Sunfellow

The Navy Utility Assessment
By Steve Davis

Recapping All the Information
By Steve Davis

Koskinen Responds to the Lord Report
By John Koskinen

Navy Denies It Expects Y2K Failures
Excerpts from an Associated Press Story

The Disguise
By Gary North

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

QUOTABLES:

"Understand this: Because of the way that this issue was handled by Jim [Lord] (and everyone who took it as a serious analysis of infrastructure readiness) Y2K activism has been seriously damaged. Jim and the others have greatly embarrassed themselves and that embarrassment may ultimately hurt our preparedness efforts. I do not want to be associated with the extremism, nor the opportunism that is so evident in the efforts to hype the Navy report.

"As has been described in great detail by both Peter [de Jager] and me, there is no reason to think that the Navy report was a true assessment of the current or potential condition of the infrastructure. More and more reports are coming out indicating that the Navy never even contacted many of the utilities in question."

--- Steve Davis, 8/22/99, from a post to the Civic Preparedness Discussion List entitled, "Re: This list, the Navy, and our future direction"

http://4hlists.org/scripts/lyris.pl?visit=civicprep&id=93824208

------------

"I know Mr. Lord personally and cannot imagine he would deliberately and maliciously misrepresent the purpose of this document and can only suggest that his 'source' failed to explain to him that the document is a contingency planning tool. It's even possible, I hope likely, that the 'source' who leaked the document was also ignorant of its intent and just incorrectly assumed it was indeed a secret assessment report."

--- Peter de Jager, "The Y2K Pentagon Papers - A Clarification"

http://www.year2000.com/y2kpentagon.html

------------

"Maybe the document really was posted on some obscure Navy site: 'buried in plain site.' It then got pulled. No one will say why. There is no doubt why: it was too explosive, as we have seen in the last 48 hours. The Y2K happy-face brigade is now in full defensive mode. This document the equivalent of the semen-stained dress or the secret White House tapes. This is the big one. Lord's posting of it is the equivalent of Matt Drudge's exposure of the spiked Newsweek article on Monica. This is like Alexander Butterfield's casual remark to the Watergate Senate panel about the secret White House tape recorders. This is what blows the cover off the cover-up...

"The main issue is not this document, any more than the main issue was Miss Lewinsky's dress or the DNA test results. The main issue is what lies behind the Navy report. The urban public utilities that keep millions of people alive are not compliant. Let us not forget this. The vast majority of the world's public utilities are not compliant, even in their 'mission-critical' systems. Do not be sidetracked by the Koskinen side show. The problem we face is the problem the Navy evaluated and ranked: the non compliant status of the cities' public utilities."

---Gary North, 8/21/99, "The Disguise"

http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/5847

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

INTRODUCTION
By David Sunfellow

Three days ago, I sent out a fast-breaking news update concerning "The Pentagon Papers of Y2K" website that Jim Lord created (http://www.jimlord.to/). Many other grassroot organizers/activists around the country also alerted their networks to Lord's website and it wasn't long before an ASSOCIATED PRESS story on the Navy report was picked up by many mainstream newspapers:

"Navy Y2K Report Predicts 'Likely' Utility Outages in Several Cities"
(WASHINGTON POST, 8/20/1999)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-08/20/074l-082099-idx.html

"Navy Predicts Widespread Y2K Failure"
(YAHOO! NEWS, 8/20/1999)
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/19990820/tc/y2k_failures_2.html

"Navy Study Predicts Y2K Utility Failures"
(BERGEN RECORD, 8/20/1999)
http://www.bergen.com/news/y2k199908207.htm

"Navy Foresees Widespread Y2K Utilities Problems"
(FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL, 8/20/1999)
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/daily/detail/0,1136,23000000000105091,00.html

"Navy Report Predicts Widespread Y2K Failures for Many Cities"
(SILICON VALLEY NEWS, 8/20/1999)
http://www.sjmercury.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/056886.htm

"Navy Says Y2K Problems 'Likely'"
(EVANSVILLE COURIER & PRESS, 8/20/1999)
http://www.courierpress.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi?/199908/20/+y2k1_news.html+19990820+news

At the same time, an intense behind-the-scenes effort began to find out just how accurate Lord's claims were. John Koskinen, the U.S. Y2K Czar, was immediately contacted about the report by Steve Davis of COALITION 2000 (http://www.coalition2000.org/). Davis posted Koskinen's reply to the Civic Preparedness Discussion List (http://4hlists.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=civicprep&text_mode=0), which is monitored by many of the nation's most active, knowledgeable and well-connected Y2K leaders. Davis followed up Koskinen's post with two posts of his own which described the whole situation. The Navy also jumped into fray backing up Koskinen's claims that the report Lord published was outdated and that current Navy predictions weren't as grim as those contained in the report Lord published. Lord, as far as I know, has yet to comment publicly on what Koskinen and the Navy has said about the report he published.

So where is everything now?

Since Steve Davis does a good job outlining the evolution of this fast-moving story, I will let him provide the blow-by-blow account of what happened. I would, however, encourage you to withhold judgement concerning what Davis and Koskinen have to say until we hear from Lord. As far as I can see, there are grains or truth in everyone's position and all of the facts that shaped this story are probably not yet out on the table for everyone to see.

What are my thoughts on this story? Here are a few things I've been pondering:

1. Many people do not believe the government and others in positions of power and responsibility are being honest. This is creating a profound sense of suspicion and setting the stage for people to react with great fervor when anything comes along that seems to confirm these suspicions. As far as I can see, these suspicions are based on truth -- important information IS being withheld, spin-doctored, and altered. But you and I are probably guilty of the same antics: our beliefs, personal agendas and dysfunctions often doctor the information we encounter and pass on to others. I don't know what can be done about this except to keep a close eye on both fronts: while we are trying to sort out truth from fiction when it comes to others, we also have to keep an eye on our own tendencies to view and spin the information we come across. I think we also need to cultivate a generous sense of compassion for those of us who may, on occasion, fail to be as level-headed and objective as possible or who may be trapped in sensitive situations that make full disclosure difficult.

2. The Internet has emerged as a wild card of extraordinary power. Spreading news of all kinds can take place very quickly and have far-reaching effects in record-breaking time. I've said many times that I think the Internet is playing a profound role in our evolution as a species. Walls, of all kinds, are being torn down. It is becoming increasingly impossible to keep secrets. And perhaps most interesting of all, influence on the Net does not depend primarily on external credentials or positions of power in the real world. Instead, it depends on knowing how to use the Net, on being connected to networks that can spread your message, and, most important of all, having something to say that others find compelling enough to read and share with others. Bottom line: I don't think the powers that be are going to be able to control the flow of information online as effectively as they control the flow of information offline which, in turn, may lead to a lot of sleepless nights for those who are used to managing public perceptions and actions.

3. After all is said and done, we still don't know how serious Y2K is going to be -- and probably won't until all the Y2K trigger dates have come and gone and done whatever mischief they are going to do. What we do know is that deadlines continue to be missed, more money continues to be spent than originally budgeted, those that are most aware of this problem are making increasingly serious attempts to protect themselves and their particular areas of influence from harm, and a great many things -- both good and bad -- are happening behind the scenes that we know very little about. Since bad things "could happen", the wisest course of action still seems to be to be prepared. (As a footnote, Koskinen and troops are planning to revise their current preparedness recommendation from a 3-day winter storm scenario to a 3 to 7 day hurricane scenario. While many grassroots activists believe this is still too little too late, raising the level of concern is, nevertheless, another indication that government circles are, indeed, taking Y2K very seriously -- and we should, too.)

4. Like it or not, we live in profoundly uncertain times. Along with making physical preparations for potential disturbances, it seems clear we need to sharpen our sense of discernment, learn how embrace different viewpoints at the same time, cultivate the ability to ride roller coaster events without losing our heads, and find ways to get along with people who see things very differently than we do. Similarly, as the immovable Y2K deadlines come closer and an increasing number of people realize the seriousness of the situation, I think we can expect more episodes like this in the future. Using the birth process as an analogy, the labor pains have now begun and we can expect them to increase in both frequency and intensity as Y2K moves from theory and speculation to the real world.

That's my two cents. Now let's hear from Steve Davis, John Koskinen, the Navy, and never-at-a-loss-for-words, Gary North. Much of this information is redundant, but I wanted to be sure everyone in our network was fully informed about this unfolding drama...

With Love & Best Wishes,
David Sunfellow

P.S. Several of you wrote in asking why you couldn't access Jim Lord's website. Here's a little information from Y2K analyst Michael Hyatt (http://www.michaelhyatt.com/) that explains what happened:

"Jim's website is located on a secure server in Tonga. He did not want someone in the U.S. to shut him down because they didn't like the message. If you get an error message when you try to access the site, keep trying. Jim had over 400,000 hits to his home page yesterday [August 20], and the server has gone down several times since then."

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

THE NAVY UTILITY ASSESSMENT
By Steve Davis
http://www.DavisLogic.com/NavyAssessment.htm

BACKGROUND

On August 19th, 1999 the world was rocked (not really) by Jim Lord's report "Secret Government Study Reveals Massive Y2K Problems in American Cities". According to Jim, the U.S. Navy was keeping horrible secrets from us. Here was the confirmation of our worst fears! But hey, there is always more to the story...

THE REPORT

Jim Lord's report alarmingly suggests that:

-- This information is vital to the well being of tens of millions of American citizens.

-- The federal government is withholding it from the public.

-- One need not be even a mild "doom and gloomer" to realize that failures of the magnitude indicated in this Navy Department study are potentially catastrophic.

-- The lives and health of millions of people are at stake.

-- The national economy is threatened.

-- Our way of life is jeopardized.

-- The national security is at risk.

The report got a lot of attention on the Internet and the story was picked up the same day by the Associated Press. This all moved me to look into this story -- what I found has prompted me to spend some time getting to the bottom of it. Now, in an effort to put this in perspective, here is the rest of the story....

Seems Jim had been given a copy of an official Navy report dated June 1999 and titled, "Master Utility List." While he claims to have gotten the report he says he does not have the detailed information and he is launching a Freedom of Information Act campaign to get it. The report he wrote started with these scary questions:

How many days could New York City survive without water and sewer services? How long would it take to evacuate eight million people in the dead of winter? Would thousands die in the process? Tens of thousands? More? When would the rioting and looting begin? How many National Guard troops would it take to control the largest city in the nation? What unthinkable devastation would be wrought on the global financial system? How might our enemies seize on the ensuing panic and confusion?

Are these the crazed speculations of a Y2K alarmist? Not if you know what the US Navy and Marine Corps know. According to a they believe "total failure is likely" for New York City's water and sewer systems because of Y2K problems. Interesting questions but is there a reason to be so concerned? How accurate is this information? How long would a disruption be if it were to occur? Is this really the big deal that it is made out to be?

THE SKINNY

I was amazed to hear about this grim report and quickly contacted John Koskinen at the President's Council. John already knew about the Navy assessment as he had been contacted by a concerned citizen the week before. According to John, the Navy report referenced by Mr. Lord was not a "Secret Government Study" but was prepared by the Navy as part of its risk assessment for bases and installation. It was publicly available on a web site until a few weeks ago. He has provided me with a copy of the last public version of it dated August 1999. He has given me permission to share it and I am doing so. But first, understand what the background is and please be careful to note the headings and the legend that appears at the end. According to John, the report reflects an attempt by the armed services to begin to collect assessment information about local infrastructures. Like everyone else, the armed services were having a lot of trouble earlier this year getting people to tell them anything.

The ratings for both total and partial "Likelihood of Failure" are on a scale of 0 to 3. These were based on anecdotal information that was updated over time. These rating are intended to be used by navy personnel in preparing contingency plans and do not reflect "the official government assessment". Most significantly, which Jim does not note and may not have known (although he made no inquiries that John knows of ) the instructions were to put a "3" (risk of failure) as the default if information was not available. Earlier this year when base commanders and others were trying to determine the status of local infrastructures here and around the world there wasn't much information available, which is why there were so many "3"s. So, to Jim's credit, the report did look grim.

Jim apparently did not research this information before going public. Had he done so he may have discovered the scoring methodology and the fact that the report has been updated. The latest report does not look so bad - there are a lot of blanks however. Here is the latest version of the Navy Assessment as html:

http://www.DavisLogic.com/navy.htm

WHERE I AM COMING FROM

Let me first say that I take Y2K as seriously as the next person -- I would not be donating so much of my time on Y2K preparedness if I was not concerned. I am equally concerned about the quality of information used to make our risk assessments. The Internet is a powerful tool to share information and it can be easily used and abused. Case in point, Jim's story.

I feel an overwhelming responsibility to make sure that only the best and most credible information gets wide distribution. I know all the arguments about share it all and let people figure it out for themselves -- I don't buy them. Few people will take the time to ponder and understand these weighty issues. We "commentators" owe the public nothing but our best understanding of these issues.

I have nothing against Jim Lord. I met him a year ago in Boulder and found him to be a rather nice chap. I am also a commentator and on that account we are on equal footing -- but with clearly different opinions and modes of operation. We actually were on a radio show together and had very similar messages but I am not quite as pessimistic as Jim.

Now about John Koskinen. I have had far more interaction and disagreement with John than with Jim. We have not always agreed on things -- I would have liked to see the government take a much more proactive approach on preparedness. However, I have grown to trust John and know him to be a credible and trustworthy source of information. While recent and past Washington embarrassments make it hard to think that you can count on the government to give you the truth, I trust John as a source of information and I know that he has far better information than any of us do.

Having worked with many governments and contingency planners over the past several years I see this as a very plausible explanation and a logical part of the Navy contingency planning process. I am surprised that such a potentially volatile and poorly prepared document was on a web site and I agree with the decision to take it down.

We have often seen contingency plans taken as an admission of "really serious problems are going to occur" when we know that it is only good business to prepare. I am going around the country encouraging such preparations because I understand the fact that there is increased risk. I am also encourage us to prepare. But... let's not assume that the Navy has decided that the world is going to hell in an hand basket!

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

RECAPPING ALL THE INFORMATION
By Steve Davis
Saturday, August 21, 1999
From the Civic Preparedness Discussion List

This has been an interesting topic to be sure. I thought that I would take the time to recap all of the information that I have received to date:

1. This utility assessment information was originally "discovered" on the web by an IT professional doing research. He did not make it public but brought it to the attention of Koskinen/Bennett/Dodd back on August 5 (see http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001HGi).

2. Koskinen was not aware of it before this but quickly checked into it and informed him that the DoD was taking down the site and reviewing it and others to be sure they were appropriate for public access.

3. Mr. Lord got a hold of it, apparently did not try to check into it, and proceeded to use it to create a public furor. The TEOTWAWNI crowd saw it as validation of there worst fears. The administration saw it as a public info crisis. The press reported it without mush fanfare or investigation. They all quickly dealt with it in their own way.

4. The Navy has had a press conference to explain this and now put the latest info back on-line (with more explanation) at http://www.nfesc.navy.mil/y2k/utilinfo/MatrixHeader.html

5. This story is ending as quickly as it started

CONCLUSION: This was an amazing opportunity to get an early view of the kind of crisis communication, public information, and rumor control issues that we will all face in the coming months. (See the Public Information Chapter of the Millennium Management Workbook at http://www.nfesc.navy.mil/y2k/utilinfo/MatrixHeader.html for some good guidance on public info)

SUMMARY: Consider this an exercise. We got to see how rapidly, in the Internet age, good and bad information can be disseminated and how it can be effectively "spun" in any direction. We saw how the media continues to lack in providing in-depth coverage of these issues. And, we saw how important it is to carefully explain and display data so that people who see it can understand it.

We also saw how people will believe whatever they want to regardless of the source.

Those interested in reading more on this can visit my web site at http://www.DavisLogic.com/

Now lets get back to our risk assessments, contingency planning, and preparedness.

Good luck!

Steve Davis, President, DavisLogic
PO Box 394, Simpsonville, MD 21150
(410) 730-5677
http://www.DavisLogic.com/

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

KOSKINEN RESPONDS TO THE LORD REPORT
Posted in the Civic Preparedness Discussion List by Steve Davis
Friday, August 20, 1999

http://4hlists.org/scripts/lyris.pl?visit=civicprep&id=93760371

From John Koskinen:

Good to have a dialogue going here.

The source for my information was the Office of the Secretary of Defense. I was comfortable with the validity of the information because, as I noted in one of my responses, the site had been brought to my attention in early August by a member of the public who couldn't figure out what all the numbers meant. I don't have the specific site for you but the material was taken down to update it and make clearer the distinction between assessments of real risks as opposed to presumptions based on the difficulty of obtaining information. The material will be back in the public domain in the near future. In the meantime, it's significant that between the time of the alleged June report and the material on the site in August, many of the "3's" had been downgraded.

My basic problem with all of this is that people should at least check with someone in reasonable authority before claiming to the world that there's a deep and secret conspiracy to mislead not only the public but troops of the United States armed services. In this case, I think that Mr. Lord has been misled by his sources.

I appreciate your pursuing the matter. For your information, here's the text of a message I sent to one of my friends who had taken Mr. Lord's advice and was sending his article to everyone they knew. (This was not Steve Davis who had the courtesy, as usual, to ask me for my side of the story.)

------------

Before you send information to everyone you know, you should check to see what you can determine about the validity of the report. Unfortunately, Mr. Lord did not do that either.

The short of the story is that the information Jim Lord has released today with great fanfare was on a web site accessible by the public until August 10. (It was actually brought to my attention by a member of the public who had some questions about it.) So there hasn't been any suppression of disturbing evidence. Throughout the earlier months, updates were regularly sent throughout the Navy which was probably what Mr. Lord's "June report" was. The report went up on the web at the request of a Navy workshop since many fleet users wanted to facilitate access to the most current data. (The document was taken down so that it could be updated and the information more clearly explained since people found it hard to understand.)

Second, the ratings were based on anecdotal information that was updated over time. Most significantly, which Mr. Lord does not note and may not have known (although he made no inquiries that I know of ) the instructions were to put a "3" (risk of failure) as the default if information was not available. Earlier this year when base commanders and others were trying to determine the status of local infrastructures here and around the world there wasn't much information available, which is why there were so many "3"s.

The lack of local information was one of the reasons we launched our "Community Conversations" initiative in May and why DoD has a related initiative they have asked all their base commanders to lead in their local communities, either by supporting the community's own conversation or helping to organize one in the absence of any other facilitators.

Third, the people the leadership at DoD and the services care most about are their troops. The advice, which Mr. Lord finds inconsistent, which was sent to the troops by the Secretary of the Navy -- which is anything but alarmist -- reflects the low level of risks from Y2K as seen by the department leadership. (But they did recommend personal preparedness and continue to do so.)

Finally, in response to requests, here is the report as it was last available to the public on August 10. While it is much less exciting than the "June report" cited by Mr. Lord, it should still be borne in mind that the scoring was:

0 = not likely to occur
1 = occurrence improbable
2 = occurrence probable
3 = occurrence is likely to occur OR no information

As we move through the fall, we have enough interesting and important matters to pursue that we don't have to also be making mountains out of public molehills. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would send this memo along to all those you sent your earlier message.

Many thanks. I look forward to seeing you again soon.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

NAVY DENIES IT EXPECTS Y2K FAILURES
By Robert Burns
AP Military Writer
Friday, August 20, 1999

Excerpts:

Although the Navy has not verified that all cities and communities near its installations are fully prepared for the Y2K problem, its survey of local utilities is showing a steady improvement, said Rear Adm. Louis M. Smith.

"I don't think we have a problem with utilities," Smith, commander of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, told reporters at a hastily called Pentagon news conference.

The Navy also issued a statement saying, "There are no indications of likely widespread failures of water, electricity, gas or sewer."

The Navy is compiling a database to track the probability of Y2K problems with electric power, water, natural gas and sewer services in communities near Navy and Marine Corps installations. A recent version of the report showed that partial failures in electric utilities were probable or likely in communities that serve nearly 60 Navy and Marine Corps installations.

Smith said that reflected a "worst-case scenario" in which those utilities whose Y2K preparedness was unknown to the Navy were assumed to be likely problems. The most recent version of the database, dated Aug. 19 and including more complete data, showed about 20 likely problem utilities, he said.

In its own assessment of Y2K readiness, the White House recently concluded that national electrical failures are "highly unlikely." It also called disruptions in water service "increasingly unlikely." Smith said the Navy's assessment is "right in sync" with the White House's.

The Navy had posted its database on the Internet but took it down because of what it considered inaccurate and misleading reports of what the data means. Rear Adm. Thomas Jurkowsky said the database would be put back on the Internet with accompanying text explaining the data.

Complete story:
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WAPO/19990820/V000890-082099-idx
.html

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

THE DISGUISE
By Gary North

http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/5847

One of the strategies used by every bureaucracy at one time or another is to consider making a major but unpopular change in policy, or to consider the effects of some trend that threatens the survival of the bureaucracy. This proposed policy change or study of impending doom poses major risks to the developers. Somebody outside the inner circle may find out about it. So, these incriminating documents are disguised. They are put in a form that can be dismissed later as "tentative," or "theoretical," or "tools for discussion." The disguise is crucial. If an incriminating document is discovered by the press or the shareholders or the voters, it can be shrugged off. "Nothing to it."

The Navy document that was posted by Jim Lord did not wear any disguise. That is why the PR flaks are in panic mode. The document posted by Lord makes rational assessments. It does not say "everything is going to fail," contrary to Mr. de Jager's description of a phantom first draft of the document. On the contrary, it sets forth three categories of cities at risk. Then it calmly breaks down the risks into four failure categories: electricity, water, gas, sewers. Then it makes estimates of each of these for every city. Each city is different. This is cold, careful, rational planning for disaster.

Where is the evidence that this is a "worst-case scenario" document? If it were, there would be only one category of failure: total. The document is the opposite of a worst-case scenario document. It has multiple risk factors and multiple causation. This is a calm, carefully organized planning document by military experts who are trained to make life-and-death judgments.

This disaster assessment has a reason for its existence: to see what may be facing Navy units in 2000. It does not assess all cities. It assesses those with Navy facilities in them.

The PR brigade is now frantically trying to stitch together a retroactive disguise for the version of the report posted by Lord. They are trying to say that it was just a kind of academic exercise. Koskinen/Davis/de Jager say that the Navy was saying: "Let's play contingency planning," as if contingency planning were some kind of game. They think we will not notice the obvious: Contingency planning in the final year before a looming disaster strikes is deadly serious. There is no time for play-pretend scenarios.

To the White House's PR flak, I say: I trust the U.S. Navy more than I trust a "fix-it" lawyer. To the Canadian ex-programmer, I say: I trust the U.S. Navy to assess its risks more than I trust you assess mine.

Maybe the document really was posted on some obscure Navy site: "buried in plain site." It then got pulled. No one will say why. There is no doubt why: it was too explosive, as we have seen in the last 48 hours. The Y2K happy-face brigade is now in full defensive mode. This document the equivalent of the semen-stained dress or the secret White House tapes. This is the big one. Lord's posting of it is the equivalent of Matt Drudge's exposure of the spiked Newsweek article on Monica. This is like Alexander Butterfield's casual remark to the Watergate Senate panel about the secret White House tape recorders. This is what blows the cover off the cover-up...

The main issue is not this document, any more than the main issue was Miss Lewinsky's dress or the DNA test results. The main issue is what lies behind the Navy report. The urban public utilities that keep millions of people alive are not compliant. Let us not forget this. The vast majority of the world's public utilities are not compliant, even in their "mission-critical" systems. Do not be sidetracked by the Koskinen side show. The problem we face is the problem the Navy evaluated and ranked: the non compliant status of the cities' public utilities.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

David Sunfellow
Founder & Publisher
NewHeavenNewEarth (NHNE)

NHNE:
eMail: nhne@nhne.com
Web: http://www.nhne.com/
Phone: (928) 282-6120
Fax: (815) 346-1492

Subscribe:
send a blank message to nhnelist-on@mail-list.com

Current NHNE Posts:
http://dispatch.mail-list.com/archives/nhnelist/

Want to support NHNE?
http://www.nhne.com/main/donations.html

wild2k:
eMail: wild2k@wild2k.com
Web: http://www.wild2k.com/

Regular Mail:
P.O. Box 2242
Sedona, AZ USA 86339


 

 

 

Return to NHNE Fast-Breaking News & Updates Archive

 

 

 


Home | Top | Search NHNE