2cmorau
Bronze Member
- Nov 8, 2010
- 1,608
- 1,294
- Detector(s) used
- GMT&GM3 Whites MXT Pro, Shadow X5, Fisher 1280, OMG and the TDI
- Primary Interest:
- Prospecting
Letter to Sacramento For Distribution.
Dear Senators, Assembly Members and Political Leaders in the State Of California,I am writing you to shed light on an ongoing scheme that is making its way through the CapitolBuilding in Sacramento.In January of 2015, The Honorable Gilbert Ochoa of the Superior Court in San Bernardino, stated thatthe state's permitting program for a Federally-protected form of mineral recovery is a scheme
1,unenforceable and stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives ofCongress and constitutes a de facto ban on suction dredge mining.
The Honorable Ochoa went on to say, “Fish and Game Code provisions at issue here are unenforceableas preempted by federal mining law.” This was the beginning of the end for California's SB670
2, whichwas signed into law as a “temporary” moratorium on suction dredge mining in the State of California.Six years on, the moratorium has seen a sunset date established3, only to see it removed again4. It isclear to the mining community and to the court system that there is no intention of ever issuing atimely, affordable, and reasonable suction dredge permit again in California. The mining communitysees this as another attempt to over regulate small-scale mining until it chokes out the possibility ofever being feasible. Again, this stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes andobjectives of Congress and constitutes a de facto ban on suction dredge mining.With SB670 at risk, the Sierra Fund put forward a bill to circumvent the Superior Courts' ruling byattempting to change regulating authority from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to theState Water Resources Control Board, and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board byintroducing SB6375. This is nothing more than a shell game to mock the court and Congress, and toperpetuate the de facto ban on mining in violation of 1872 Mining Act6.There is a much larger picture here in regards to SB637. On the surface, it is presented as a WaterQuality Bill. This seems like a great idea. Who doesn't want clean water?On April 22, 2015, it became clear that there is more at play here than just water quality when the billwas again modified. This time, the words “Water Quality” were removed7 from the subject line of thebill. The new version of the bill simply states, “Suction dredge mining: permits.” SB637 is not aboutclean water. SB637 is clearly about regulating and controlling suction dredge mining. SB637 isanother piece to the puzzle designed to preempt Federal Law and keep California miners andprospectors from working their Federal Mining Claims in such a way as was intended by the Congressof the United States.The sponsor of the bill, Elizabeth “Izzy” Martin, CEO of The Sierra Fund, has made it clear that theyare in the process of developing their own mining operation, all the while, sponsoring legislation thatchases the mining community out of the water. The Sierra Fund states on their web site that they intendto sell the aggregate, sand, and gold8 that they recover from their Combie Reservoir project inconjunction with the Nevada Irrigation District. The Sierra Fund have also gone so far as to research aprogram to sell the gold they recover, calling it the “E3 Gold Initiative9”, which stands for“Environmentally sound, Economically viable and Ethically produced”. It is difficult to understandhow chasing the mining community off of their land through legislative means & power is consideredto be “ethical”. The hypocrisy of sponsoring legislation which ultimately puts an end to or diminishesa miners right by frustrating the process with a complex and prohibitive permitting process in order towork his or her mining claim, all the while, The Sierra Fund develops their own mining operation andestablishing a distribution channel, is beyond comprehension. This is clearly a blatant conflict ofinterest and needs to be corrected immediately. This move by The Sierra Fund is also a violation of theSherman Antitrust Act10.The Sierra Fund will tell you that the mining community agitates sediment in the river, increasing thelikelihood of raised mercury levels in fish. They will also tell you that small-scale miners should berequired to get a discharge permit under the Clean Water Act11. A State Water Board study12 will showyou that our equipment captures and removes 98% of the mercury from the waterways. The UnitedStates Supreme Court13 will tell you that we do not discharge any pollutants; thus, there is no need fordredgers, miners and prospectors to have a discharge permit for a sluice box, gold pan or any othersimilar or related materials or equipment. The material coming out of our equipment, and beingredeposited, is the same material that was already in the stream (minus the harmful heavy metals suchas lead, gold and mercury that remain in the sluice box) and therefore cannot be considered a pollutant.Instead, that material is referred to as “Incidental fallback14” by the courts.Considering that Mother Nature will agitate, disrupt and scour the riverbeds this coming Spring, isn't itwise to remove 98% of the mercury from our drinking water while we have that opportunity outside ofspawning seasons and high water events, before it has the chance to move downstream, closer to us?The way we see it, losing 2% of the mercury, which only has a slight possibility of becoming “bioavailable”,is better than leaving 100% of it in place to be dislodged and “bio-available” during highwater events (please see comparison pictures below). If The Sierra Fund suggest they have a plan toremove that mercury, ask them how efficient their current operation is running and at what cost to thetax payers. The Sierra Fund is using millions of tax-payer dollars15 for their one single project, andtheir methods still are not capable of capturing mercury more efficiently than small-scale miner'scurrent equipment. The small-scale mining community is also currently working on some ideasamongst ourselves which would make our equipment even more efficient at capturing mercury.If the moratorium on suction dredge mining were lifted tomorrow, based on the number of dredgingpermits issued16 annually prior to the moratorium, the State of California could easily have 3000-4000permitted volunteers across the state, removing the mercury from waterways, building & improvingfish habitat17, and stimulating local economies, all at no cost to the taxpayer. In fact, thesedredgers/volunteers will purchase a dredging permit from the state at a reasonable cost, such as wasdone prior to the moratorium, and the state would actually generate revenue from the program. That'sright, there wouldn't be an absurd cost to the tax payer and several thousand units would begin to cleanthe state watersheds, cleaning up the toxic legacy mercury that was left behind from over a hundredyears ago and the naturally occurring mercury as well. If the sole concern of The Sierra Fund isremoving the mercury from the waterways, wouldn't it have been more prudent and economical topartner with the mining community instead of working against it with SB637?Izzy knows how effective the mining community is. She has testified to personally collecting over200lbs of mercury from the mining community and others during a mercury drop off program18 inNevada County. The Sierra Fund's very own Dr. Carrie Monohan testified on April 29th, 2015 that themercury recovery program was "stopped because it was so successful." It is highly suspicious whenThe Sierra Fund systematically removes miners from their mining claims through exhaustion fromerroneous legislation & pending litigation, and then turns around and receives grant money (our veryown tax dollars) to do the same thing small-scale miners were previously doing at no cost to the Stateor taxpayer.SB637 is not about the environment, nor is it a water quality bill. It is another piece of the puzzlewhich will enable Izzy Martin and The Sierra Fund to hold a monopoly in the state of California (andpossibly beyond) on dredging for gold, all the while, receiving grant money. Once The Sierra Fund hasrendered our mining claims to be essentially useless to us due to over-regulation, the small-scalemining community believes they will then move on to take and process the minerals held within themining claims. It appears to us that they plan to double-dip by taking and selling our minerals, and bytaking our tax dollars in order to do so. These claims are considered to be our legal, real property,which we pay property taxes on and work to maintain specific standards in accordance with the Bureauof Land Management. Each of us currently views this intention of The Sierra Fund as mineral trespassand a takings, which is a Grand Theft Felony (see California Penal Code 487d below).California Penal Codes:484. (a) Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry,
lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shallfraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him orher, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false orfraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person ofmoney, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procuresothers to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile characterand by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and therebyfraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property orobtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft.
487d.Every person who feloniously steals, takes, and carries away,
or attempts to take, steal, and carry from any mining claim, tunnel,sluice, undercurrent, riffle box, or sulfurate machine, another'sgold dust, amalgam, or quicksilver is guilty of grand theft and ispunishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section1170.
Simply put, SB637 is an illegal scheme which is viewed as unenforceable by the courts, and stands asan obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. SB637 alsoconstitutes a
de facto ban on suction dredge mining. SB637 creates a monopoly that is in directconflict with the Sherman Antitrust Act. SB637 attempts to burden the small-scale mining communitywith an unreasonably expensive series of permits, while at the same time, allowing The Sierra Fundand the Nevada Irrigation District to develop their own dredging program. Furthermore, this type ofscheme is a Felony on the scale of Grand Theft, punishable by imprisonment.On behalf of all the suction dredge miners in the State of California (and beyond), and on behalf of allof the prospectors, miners, artisan jewelers, small business owners, veterans, clubs, groups,organizations and every pursuer of Life, Liberty & Freedom, I implore you to kindly refuse the passageof this most corrupt and illegal bill, SB637.Thank you.To learn more about SB637, please see Stop SB 637
1 OchoaSee bottom of page 19:
2 SB670
3 Sunset date of SB670Please see top of page 12:
AB 120 (Budget Committee), Chapter 133, Statutes of 2011, aresources budget trailer bill, extended the prohibition onsuction dredge mining until 2016 and required DFW to create afee structure to cover all administrative costs of the permitprogram.
4 Removal of sunset date on SB670Please see top of page 12:
SB 1018 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 39,Statutes of 2012, also a budget trailer bill, eliminated the2016 sunset on the moratorium on issuance of suction dredgepermits.
5 SB637
6 1872 Mining Act
7 “Water Quality” removed from subject of bill
8 TSF selling aggregate, sand and gold
9 E3 Gold Initiative
10 Sherman Antitrust Act
11 Clean Water Act
12 State Water Board study
13 US Supreme CourtPlease see page 22 regarding introducing a pollutant:
14 Incidental Fallback
15 TSF cost of Combie programPlease see page 27: (TOTAL PROJECT COST = $6,881,080)
16 Dredge permits issued prior moratoriumPlease see page 14 for historical figures on dredging permits in California:
17 Improving Fish HabitatPlease see Volume 1, Section III:
18 Milk RunPlease see page 5 at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B63UoFj_e33HbHZzaTJ1U0JDNFE/view
Last edited:
Upvote
0
F.O.G.s Thankyou!
