Second attack on mining in Oregon coming. Governor’s Final Report

[winners58]

SB838 Governor’s Final Report (NEDC & RRK)
http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/PERMITS/docs/SB 838 report - final 11-28.pdf

Appendices
http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/PERMITS/docs/SB 838 Appendices A, B and C.pdf

Maps
http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/PERMITS/docs/Appendix D-- Relevant Maps.pdf

this isn't regulation this is land-use control.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[oregonmp03]

This is what's in the senate now right? Not what's been approved but what's been proposed. Anyone know what the if they'll be extending the DEQ 700-PM permits past Dec. 31, 2014 or be doing something different?

 

[winners58]

Right its the proposed regulatory framework that will be going through the Oregon legislation
http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/Pages/SB 838 Study Group.aspx

about the 700pm
DEQ will NOT have the renewed 700PM permit ready to issue or be effective on January 1, 2015.
If you have permit coverage in 2014 and want to continue operating under the current 700PM permit
until the effective date of the renewed 700PM permit (spring 2015), you must complete and submit the application form to DEQ.
Current NPDES 700PM General Permit Expires Dec. 31, 2014

DEQ must receive your application no later than December 31, 2014. No annual fee and surcharge are required.
The application form is available by clicking on the link below.

FOR EXTENDED COVERAGE IN 2015 - NO FEE OR SURCHAGE REQUIRED
http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/wqpermit/docs/general/npdes700pm/700PMapp.pdf

DEQ Mining; Oregon DEQ: Water Quality Permit Program - Mining

 

[Bejay]

[Quote}I. DEFINITION OF TERMS and ACRONYMS As an initial matter, it is important to clarify the types of mining considered by the study group and subject to the proposed revised regulatory framework set forth in this report. SB 838 Section 8 expressly directed the study group to study mining that uses "any form of motorized equipment" to extract precious metals from placer deposits that are located in the bed or banks of Oregon’s waters or upland placer deposits that may involve discharges to waters or removal or disturbance of streamside vegetation.[End Quote] (I would also assume the reference to discharges/vegetation to reference that same "Oregon Waterway"

At first glance one would believe the State of Oregon hit a home run. But the above written language appears to me to be lacking authority. Number one: Oregon does not own the water!....pretty simple to understand that!....The Feds retained the water for all the public....not specifically the States' public. And the Feds Granted the use of the water to the miner not the State. The land underneath the Federal lands waterways remains the Feds. Number Two: Oregon does have authority over navigable waterways and the lands underneath/adjacent to those navigable waterways.

So by SB838's own "language definition" the proposed State Law is in error of enforcement. Granted a State Trooper will issue the citation. But by mere examination of the definition I would even find it hard to believe a State Court could uphold an alleged dredge violation. IMHO (at first glance)

I am sure many people in the mining community will find extensive errors on behalf of the State. But I believe it may be easiest to have challenges by miners focus on singular specific issues.

The critical habitat issue of adronomous species of fish may play some relevance but even that would have to be supported by Federal Jurisdiction IMHO. Then of course we have the scenic waterways issue. But I believe such scenic waterway classification would have be done on a case by case consideration.

Lots of stuff for consideration in SB838.

I asked my son in law (a major with a state hwy patrol) about States passing laws that are simply not lawful (conflicting with Federal law and even the Constitution) His answer was the politicians do it all the time and get hammered for it......having to revoke the law after Federal Intervention because of the general public raising an uproar. ( I doubt if the States legal staff was hired to oppose the Governor and his cronies)

But once the law (as written) is in place and enforcement begins there are many such enforcement issues that will surface. For instance the State can NOT limit the number of permits! So once a miner is denied or not able to obtain a permit that said miner is "harmed" and can seek resolve. I did note that DEQ is a major player. But even the language used by DEQ is in error and open to challenge....as a supreme court justice has already rendered an opinion that dredge discharge is NOT a pollutant! There are actually TWO U.S. Supreme Court rulings that state that in stream sediment is neither pollution nor is it a point source.

Oh well. I Guess miners will either buy into this "hogwash" or stand up and be heard. Not all that simple to do....but a necessity! But in my opinion each case/challenge must focus on single issues of law that afford the Oregon miner the opportunity to win a challenge. Again the Rhinehart case is a very good example. His case was very inexpensive compared to the previous PLP case. And unlike the PLP case the Rhinehart case focused on one singular issue: "preemption" ! By expanding the challenge to include extensive "OTHER" law issues that may miss the mark and thus could NEVER get to a higher court because of the muddled nature of the challenge! IMHO

One thing is for sure. A miner better be knowledgeable of mining law/rules/regs/gov polices before merely getting an attorney and taking on a challenge.......without such knowledge one may be led astray.....not all attorneys are skilled in mining law and such. IMHO (as I know of a few miners who actually pled guilty to charges they were NOT charged with)....and they had attorneys!

I know miners will be waiting to see who steps up into the batters box and hits a home run! I hope many take up the task! I know it is important! I hate to discuss such issues on the net....as many unwelcome people will be watching!

Looking further.....Most notably!!....the case law the State used to support their authority cites "greenie" court case wins. I doubt if OTHER case law was used to counter what the Governor and his political cronies wanted!
Bejay

 

[Clay Diggins]

...But in my opinion each case/challenge must focus on single issues of law that afford the Oregon miner the opportunity to win a challenge. Again the Rhinehart case is a very good example. His case was very inexpensive compared to the previous PLP case. And unlike the PLP case the Rhinehart case focused on one singular issue: "preemption" ! By expanding the challenge to include extensive "OTHER" law issues that may miss the mark and thus could NEVER get to a higher court because of the muddled nature of the challenge! IMHO...
Bejay

BINGO! Give the man a prize.

Using a "shotgun" approach to challenging a State's authority is more about lawyers gaining long term employment than any effort to obtain justice.

Keep the issues clear and don't get distracted by the details. Brandon's case is a perfect example of the proper way to challenge non existent authority.

Thanks Bejay for making the issues clear. I really hope others will listen.

Barry

 

[oregonmp03]

As a newly returned miner, the Oregon laws are daunting to say the least and I simply want to follow the laws while being able to get the gold. Unfortunately the laws are so convoluted that half the time I'm not sure if I'm right or wrong. I recently found out one of the places that I though would be productive was a patented homestead that had be reclaimed by the federal government so I quit going there. I have no idea if I can actually mine there but the fact that I don't want some asshat law enforcement officer saying I can't keeps me from going back. I just want to enjoy my time out in the wilderness without orrying that some hippie in Portland or some law enforcement who may or may not know the law popping up randomly saying I'm doing it wrong.

 

[Bejay]

As a newly returned miner, the Oregon laws are daunting to say the least and I simply want to follow the laws while being able to get the gold. Unfortunately the laws are so convoluted that half the time I'm not sure if I'm right or wrong. I recently found out one of the places that I though would be productive was a patented homestead that had be reclaimed by the federal government so I quit going there. I have no idea if I can actually mine there but the fact that I don't want some asshat law enforcement officer saying I can't keeps me from going back. I just want to enjoy my time out in the wilderness without orrying that some hippie in Portland or some law enforcement who may or may not know the law popping up randomly saying I'm doing it wrong.

"a patented homestead that had be reclaimed by the federal government" So does that mean it was removed from mineral entry?

I think ALL miners want to go out and find gold without being hassled by someone or some agency rep. But miners today MUST learn how to stand up for the rule of law and proper agency oversight/authority. Without such knowledge one is left to the wims of each and every District office or agency....and most often they (Gov Agencies) don't even understand or rightfully interpret their own policy language or US Code.

Knowledge is a necessity today. Weekend warriors (what I like to term apprentice miners) are most likely the ones who fail to realize the importance of learning how to really be a miner....and that learning encompasses a lot more than just panning today. In most cases those who start out as weekend warriors learn enough to eventually have their own claim; but have given up their Federal Granted rights (Mineral Estate Grant).. because they accepted and participated in the Contractual State Permit Process.

Bejay

 

[oregonmp03]

To answer your question, yes it was removed from mineral entry

 

[Bejay]

SB838 Governor’s Final Report (NEDC & RRK)
http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/PERMITS/docs/SB 838 report - final 11-28.pdf

Appendices
http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/PERMITS/docs/SB 838 Appendices A, B and C.pdf



Maps
http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/PERMITS/docs/Appendix D-- Relevant Maps.pdf

this isn't regulation this is land-use control.

I was reminded by a good friend of the following after reading the links legal justification posted on the States' web page:

"Keep in mind this is a legal opinion from the chief counsel to a department head. It is not a legal document. It is an internal legal opinion requested by a department head who just had her regulations shot down. Do you see anything but a dancing bear trying to distract from the fact that the prior legal advice to that department head was declared bullcrud by the courts? Restating their losing argument is probably all they had at this point. I doubt they have any more now."

"Just like in California, department heads with an agenda are eager to get legal opinions that say they can do whatever they want. When that junk gets challenged directly on the issue of authority, as in Brandon's case, the State lawyers are left with nothing but the same bogus legal arguments to bring before the courts. In the long run the real law does win out. In the short run the incompetent brown nosing state lawyers pull all the dirty tricks they can to drag the court expenses and time into infinity. In the long run they are exposed for the bad lawyers they are giving bad legal advice to regulatory departments".

I would offer again that the Rhinehart Case is ever so important. And getting the opinion of the Calif court published can play a critical role in how/if SB838 may or may not become law. There is no doubt Oregon's Governor and his political cronies have an appointed legal staff that are puppets to the agenda.

Bejay

 

[Hoser John]

Their(Oregon bureauratz) over convalution is NOT a solution. Single issue with further assistance of The Pacific Legal Foundation is the only answer. Swinging that sword in too broad a arch does not work as proven time after time after time. Look at the death of dredging in cali and the insipid shotgun tactics utilized in kalif and 6 years of failures. 1 honest miner on a legal federal recognized mining claim with 1 single issue works as no distractions to sidestep the real issue.......John