State of California has petitioned the Supreme court in Rinehart decision

H&F909ORO

Sr. Member
Dec 26, 2013
410
243
California East Bay
Primary Interest:
Other
I have been watching this thread for a while and still am confused. I get the broad idea of what the state is doing wrong, but could someone specify what is happening in the court room and what the state is doing?

I want to understand, but I don't know any specifics on the case. Yes, I have read the links, but unfortunately I do not understand them very well being a high schooler.

Thanks.
 

Clay Diggins

Silver Member
Nov 14, 2010
4,862
14,181
The Great Southwest
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
It was never my intention to hijack this thread! Sorry about that!

Yes get back to the Brandon case. The sooner his case is over the sooner you will see that even if he wins miners will still lose as the cwa and California's stricter water laws will put an end to dredging.

The CWA is not a player in this case or any other suction dredging case. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that issue twice:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC
Decided January 8, 2013

We granted certiorari on the following question: Under the CWA, does a “discharge of pollutants” occur when polluted water “flows from one portion of a river that is navigable water of the United States, through a concrete channel or other engineered improvement in the river,” and then “into a lower portion of the same river”? Pet. for Cert. i. See 567 U. S. ___ (2012). As noted above, see supra, at 1, the parties, as well as the United States as amicus curiae, agree that the answer to this question is “no.”

That agreement is hardly surprising, for we held in Miccosukee that the transfer of polluted water between “two parts of the same water body” does not constitute a discharge of pollutants under the CWA. 541 U. S., at 109–112. We derived that determination from the CWA’s text, which defines the term “discharge of a pollutant” to mean “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(12) (emphasis added). Under a common understanding of the meaning of the word “add,” no pollutants are “added” to a water body when water is merely transferred between different portions of that water body. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 24 (2002) (“add” means “to join, annex, or unite (as one thing to another) so as to bring about an increase (as in number, size, or importance) or so as to form one aggregate”). “As the Second Circuit [aptly] put it . . . , ‘f one takes a ladle of soup from a pot, lifts it above the pot, and pours it back into the pot, one has not “added” soup or anything else to the pot.’ ” Miccosukee, 541 U. S., at 109–110 (quoting Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. New York, 273 F. 3d 481, 492 (CA2 2001)).


The question of whether State water laws are involved in dredging may become an issue in the future. It's not at issue here. For now it's nothing but a Red Herring. The State is only regulating dredging through the DFW in relation to fish and game at this time. To chase what ifs? when we are winning the battle is counterproductive in my opinion.


Heavy Pans
 

Last edited:

chlsbrns

Bronze Member
Mar 30, 2013
1,636
656
Detector(s) used
Excalibur II
Primary Interest:
Other
Transfering WATER from to the same body of WATER is not the same as disturbing and transfering SEDIMENT.

Read the cwa definitions
 

AzViper

Bronze Member
Sep 30, 2012
2,038
2,250
Arizona - Is there any other state worth visiting
Detector(s) used
Fisher Gold Bug Pro, Nokta FORS Gold, Garrett ATX, Sun Ray Gold Pro Headphones, Royal Pick, Etc.
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
Barry I believe you been down this road with He or She (chlsbrns) as nobody really cares of His or Her opinion a number times. Personally I think He or She seems to always pop up when this case is brought back up in the forums. I suspect He or She is one of the activist trying to derail the system and preach their BS...
 

chlsbrns

Bronze Member
Mar 30, 2013
1,636
656
Detector(s) used
Excalibur II
Primary Interest:
Other
Barry I believe you been down this road with He or She (chlsbrns) as nobody really cares of His or Her opinion a number times. Personally I think He or She seems to always pop up when this case is brought back up in the forums. I suspect He or She is one of the activist trying to derail the system and preach their BS...
Sorry it's not my opinion they are called facts.

Sorry im not an activist trying to derail. I was the one with the guts and will to fight back to protect mining but it appears miners would rather ignore what is starring them in the face and just sit back and do nothing.

Time will tell! I can't say that I will be happy when the forums are full of miners whining when they can no longer mine.
 

H&F909ORO

Sr. Member
Dec 26, 2013
410
243
California East Bay
Primary Interest:
Other
Barry I believe you been down this road with He or She (chlsbrns) as nobody really cares of His or Her opinion a number times. Personally I think He or She seems to always pop up when this case is brought back up in the forums. I suspect He or She is one of the activist trying to derail the system and preach their BS...

You should not jump to accusations unless you have proof or solid evidence of him/her being an activist. I have been called an activist on this forum before as well, but I am no such thing being a middle schooler at that time. I mean really? I was using the answers I got for a school project. Ultimately I never even used the answers. I am not saying you are wrong I'm saying that if no one on the forum has ever met this person you are in the right place to speculate it. Considering your observation it could be a possibility.
 

AzViper

Bronze Member
Sep 30, 2012
2,038
2,250
Arizona - Is there any other state worth visiting
Detector(s) used
Fisher Gold Bug Pro, Nokta FORS Gold, Garrett ATX, Sun Ray Gold Pro Headphones, Royal Pick, Etc.
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
Sorry it's not my opinion they are called facts.

Sorry im not an activist trying to derail. I was the one with the guts and will to fight back to protect mining but it appears miners would rather ignore what is starring them in the face and just sit back and do nothing.

Time will tell! I can't say that I will be happy when the forums are full of miners whining when they can no longer mine.

You have it all completely wrong. Clay is highly respected in these forums and if I ever wanted advise on the mining laws I would turn to Barry in a heart beat. He has been at this his entire life in fact mining is his life.
 

Clay Diggins

Silver Member
Nov 14, 2010
4,862
14,181
The Great Southwest
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
Transfering WATER from to the same body of WATER is not the same as disturbing and transfering SEDIMENT.

Read the cwa definitions

The Supreme Court ruled on the movement of polluted water. (There was no "Transfer" - read the ruling) The CWA governs water pollution. If sediment is considered a pollutant then the Supreme Court rulings apply to sediment also. If sediment is not a pollutant then the CWA does not apply.

You are swatting at imaginary flies. This has nothing to do with dredging or Brandon's case. I now agree with AzViper. You appear to be attempting to distract from the topic at hand.

If you feel you have a valid concern why not start a separate thread? If others agree that your theory has merit I'm sure they will join in.
 

chlsbrns

Bronze Member
Mar 30, 2013
1,636
656
Detector(s) used
Excalibur II
Primary Interest:
Other
You have it all completely wrong. Clay is highly respected in these forums and if I ever wanted advise on the mining laws I would turn to Barry in a heart beat. He has been at this his entire life in fact mining is his life.

Mining may be his life but he has shown that he can't comprehend or ignores what he reads.

They have already cracked down on dredgers in Idaho by requiring cwa permit to dredge. California has stricter laws aka the porter cologne act. To think or beleive that California will just sit back and take a loss in the Rinehart case when they can enforce the cwa and the porter cologn act is insanity!


Dredgers Plan to Protest Clean Water Regulations in Idaho's Salmon River ? Idaho Conservation League

Notice where it says: ".After the finalization of the permit in 2013, miners had the opportunity to appeal the decision to the EPA and to address their concerns through the legal system. Although many suction dredge miners were concerned with the new regulations, no objections to the permit were filed."

It's the perfect example of how miners sit back and do nothing to help themself!
 

Last edited:

chlsbrns

Bronze Member
Mar 30, 2013
1,636
656
Detector(s) used
Excalibur II
Primary Interest:
Other
The Supreme Court ruled on the movement of polluted water. (There was no "Transfer" - read the ruling) The CWA governs water pollution. If sediment is considered a pollutant then the Supreme Court rulings apply to sediment also. If sediment is not a pollutant then the CWA does not apply.

You are swatting at imaginary flies. This has nothing to do with dredging or Brandon's case. I now agree with AzViper. You appear to be attempting to distract from the topic at hand.

If you feel you have a valid concern why not start a separate thread? If others agree that your theory has merit I'm sure they will join in.

See my last post showing that dredgers in Idaho are required to get a cwa permit to dredge!
 

Last edited:

chlsbrns

Bronze Member
Mar 30, 2013
1,636
656
Detector(s) used
Excalibur II
Primary Interest:
Other
Clean Water Act, Section 502 General Definitions | Wetlands | US EPA

See #6 the cwa definition of pollutant includes dredge spoil, rock and sand among other things discharged into water.

The term "discharge of a pollutant" and the term "discharge of pollutants" each means (A) any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source

A point sorce is basically a pipe

The term "pollution" means the man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity of water.

When you suck sand/stone/mercury/ect from under the water and discharge it into the water you are violating the cwa
 

Last edited:

Oakview2

Silver Member
Feb 4, 2012
2,807
3,348
Prather CA
Detector(s) used
Whites GMT
Primary Interest:
Other
There was a large number of dredgers that openly dredged the Salmon, notified the EPA, worked for over a month with their state issued permit and not one was cited. Their is a distinct difference between regulatory statues and laws passed by the US Congress. Back to civics class for you.


http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/07/02/3263107_protest-held-over-mining-regulations.html?rh=1

PS... AMRA dredged their claims for two weeks after the protest and sent certified letters to the EPA challenging them to cite them, and they drove by, but refused to stop.
 

Last edited:

Clay Diggins

Silver Member
Nov 14, 2010
4,862
14,181
The Great Southwest
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
Does this mean we might see the day that dredging is allowed on fed claims in ca?

Yes jvan, soon. The fat lady is about to sing.

Although it may seem like an eternity to Brandon. He's the one doing the heavy lifting. Thanks again Brandon, I've been there and I know how wearing all this can be, your efforts are greatly appreciated! :thumbsup:

Heavy Pans... and soon Heavy Cleanouts :laughing7:
 

Hefty1

Bronze Member
Dec 5, 2010
1,702
1,477
Yes jvan, soon. The fat lady is about to sing.

Although it may seem like an eternity to Brandon. He's the one doing the heavy lifting. Thanks again Brandon, I've been there and I know how wearing all this can be, your efforts are greatly appreciated! :thumbsup:

Heavy Pans... and soon Heavy Cleanouts :laughing7:


Ditto!
 

chlsbrns

Bronze Member
Mar 30, 2013
1,636
656
Detector(s) used
Excalibur II
Primary Interest:
Other
I've been speeding since I've had a drivers license and have never gotten a speeding ticket.

Just lucky....but that shows how stupid you are being........

As for growing a set....come on out here to Cal....I want to see your set!

I have always represented myself in court and have never lost! I've gone against large well known firms and won! How? By doing what the State of CA is doing! Drain the funds of the opponent! I motion the court to death! If I lose a motion I file a motion for reconsideration! Sooner or later my opponent can no longer pay and they lose!

It's the same that large companies do when they steal a patent. The company gets sued by the patent holder. Sooner or later (usually sooner) the patent holder can no longer afford or pay for representation. When they can't answer a motion or are no longer represented they lose!
CA is going to do the same to Rinehart. If by chance Rimehart can comtinue to be represented and wins the State will use the cwa and/or the porter cologn act. Again the big $$$ will have to be spent to fight.
 

chlsbrns

Bronze Member
Mar 30, 2013
1,636
656
Detector(s) used
Excalibur II
Primary Interest:
Other
So, you're saying that instead of actually trying to decide a case on the merits of the law, you practice lawfare?

I've never sued anyone they sued me thinking that they could drain me of my funds to win when I was in the right. Guess what? They didn't know that I was more then capable of representing myself and would do onto them what they wanted to do to me!
 

enamel7

Gold Member
Apr 16, 2005
6,384
2,546
North Carolina
Detector(s) used
Garrett AT Gold
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
I get it. Let's make this simple. In your first post you stated that the mining couldn't violate any state laws. What you fail to mention is the rest of the paragraph, which states unless the state regs interfere with the Federal law. Please don't pick and choose what parts you want to follow and then ignore the rest.
This is in response to chisbrn's original post.
 

chlsbrns

Bronze Member
Mar 30, 2013
1,636
656
Detector(s) used
Excalibur II
Primary Interest:
Other
I get it. Let's make this simple. In your first post you stated that the mining couldn't violate any state laws. What you fail to mention is the rest of the paragraph, which states unless the state regs interfere with the Federal law. Please don't pick and choose what parts you want to follow and then ignore the rest.
This is in response to chisbrn's original post.

Let me make it simple for the third time!

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/g...me-court-rinehart-decision-3.html#post4270592

What I posted and what the mining act says is...

". SEC. 3. That the locators of all mining locations heretofore made, or which shall hereafter be made, on any mineral veln, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain, their heirs and assigns, where no adverse claim exists at the passage of this act, so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with said laws of the United States governing their possessory title."

"not in conflict with said laws of the United States governing their possessory title.".

US Laws pertaining to their right to possess!
 

Last edited:

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Discussions

Top