Great Information and Plan from AMRA for CA Claim Owners

QNCrazy

Hero Member
Sep 30, 2013
537
961
Motherlode, CA
Detector(s) used
Gold Bug Pro
I saw a post from AMRA on FB yesterdays. Being a claim owner myself, I figure it can't hurt to try. If anyone knows how to copy a post from FB to the forum, can you help me out and post it here?

Here is the text from the article:

"Update on California, SB637 and permits for any motorized mining in California:

SB637 was passed and signed into law by Gov. Brown Jan 2nd. It states you need a permit from the CA Water Board who then states you need a 402 or 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Is this confusing yet? It states you can be fined, equipment confiscated and even jailed if you fail to obtain this (unobtainable) permit from them.

We all know the intent of the bill is to delay, delay and delay some more and there is no actual intention to issue permits. As an example, look to the original moratorium on suction dredging back in 2009, it was supposed to expire. Did it? Of course not.

Well, let us describe what we are doing, and it is time to go public with this.

We physically went to the CA Water Board in Rancho Cordova a few weeks ago and met in person with the supervisor in charge of all permitting for the Water Board. Also in this meeting was the Mining Inspector for the State Water Board. We asked them specifically "we are small miners and are here to get our permits to suction dredge our Federal Mining Claims here in California, what do we need to do right now to get one".

A blank look came across their faces. They did state they had "heard" the bill had passed but had zero direction from anyone on implementing this procedure of issuing permits as required by the new law. They were trying to tell everyone to "go to our website and read the frequently asked questions". We know........laughable.

Well, since we were actively involved in trying to stop this horrendous bill along with about 500 of our mining friends, we explained in detail (for over an hour) exactly what the CA Water Board was supposed to do and that is to issue permits for mining. We agreed to meet back with them at a later date once we met with the Army Corps of Engineers.

We then went to the Army Corps of Engineers in Sacramento and met with them in person and filled out the paperwork for a 404 permit/waiver to dredge with a 3" dredge on "The Office" AMRA claim in Mariposa County, as well as several other locations and counties in the state. There are no endangered species, no legacy mercury and no fish in any of these locations. The Army Corps by the way, does not answer to the Department of the Interior and Sally Jewel like the EPA. They answer to the United States Army and they don't appear to be supportive of all this over-regulation. We have requested a waiver and subsequent talks with them have proven to be very favorable that this will happen.

So, after the Army Corps issue's the waiver, we will then go back to the Water Board and demand a permit to dredge and run our mining equipment. When they deny the permit, this exposes this law to be purely prohibitive in nature and blatantly illegal.

We do know there are a few out there who will say "we don't discharge and therefore no permit is needed". Yup, we agree we don't discharge and there is a net removal when a dredge operates. We remove 98% of the mercury (if present) and 99% of the lead, nothing is added. But, this bill, although not passed with the public truly represented (there was 25 to one in opposition to it) was in fact passed, and was in fact signed into law by the Governor. Just saying we don't add pollutants will not stop you from being cited in CA, having your equipment taken and even jailed. Try telling DFG, who is already out there telling miners they can't run anything other than a teeny-tiny shovel and a baby pan to mine, that they cannot cite you because you don't add anything.

If the Water Board issue's permits after we produce a waiver, then lets dredge. If they don't, it will result in litigation and fundamentally, it will be proven this bill is nothing short of a prohibition on mining.

The reason we are making this public, is we encourage everyone to call the Water Board immediately and demand a permit to run your water pump, your dredge, or your highbanker. Here is their number:

(916) 375-6000

Document who you talked to, the date and the content of the conversation (what they told you).

Then call the Army Corps of Engineers and ask for a 404 waiver to run your dredge (we recommend a 3 of 4"). They will send you, or direct you to their 404 permit on-line. Fill this out and if you are an AMRA member, list the Office claim (list the creek it is on). If you are a member and would like to list another one of our claims in CA, send us an email and we will help you. [email protected]

If you are a small miner and not an AMRA member, list your Federal Mining Claim.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District · Phone
1325 J St Frnt, Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 557-5100

Document everything, who, what, when, where as you communicate with these people. Remember folks, the Army Corps is NOT the enemy and has actively been working with the small miners.

This is primarily targeted directly at the Water Board. Lets prove they won't issue any permits.

Obviously, there is much, much more going on behind the scenes we are working on, but this is the first step in exposing this horrendous bill for being the prohibition on small mining that it actually is."
 

Upvote 0

Oakview2

Silver Member
Feb 4, 2012
2,807
3,348
Prather CA
Detector(s) used
Whites GMT
Primary Interest:
Other
Clay I don't think they are trying to get a permit, as much as they are trying to establish that this is just a continuance of states shell game of saying permits available, when in fact they are not, and have never intended to be. JMHO
 

OP
OP
QNCrazy

QNCrazy

Hero Member
Sep 30, 2013
537
961
Motherlode, CA
Detector(s) used
Gold Bug Pro
Clay I don't think they are trying to get a permit, as much as they are trying to establish that this is just a continuance of states shell game of saying permits available, when in fact they are not, and have never intended to be. JMHO

That's exactly what AMRA is trying to do by getting all claim owners involved. I don't expect to get a permit, in fact I am 99% sure they will deny it. What is there to lose?

"So, after the Army Corps issue's the waiver, we will then go back to the Water Board and demand a permit to dredge and run our mining equipment. When they deny the permit, this exposes this law to be purely prohibitive in nature and blatantly illegal."
 

Clay Diggins

Silver Member
Nov 14, 2010
4,862
14,180
The Great Southwest
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
I know what their strategy is Oakview. Just skim over stuff like the law and Supreme Court decisions and sign up for illegal regulation to make a point.

Here's a look at the future of the AMRA "plan". In a couple of years of hearings they will "win" and then they will go back and read California, SB637 and see that the actual law was based on an invalid premise. They will then change their strategy and all the miners waiting for the promised permits will scream for their right to be regulated.

Shorter version:
The man says jump through hoops so you jump through hoops to prove that the man has no right to tell you to jump through hoops.

Very California.

Good luck with that "plan".

Heavy Pans
 

OP
OP
QNCrazy

QNCrazy

Hero Member
Sep 30, 2013
537
961
Motherlode, CA
Detector(s) used
Gold Bug Pro
This was updated on the SWRCB January 26, 2016

Clean Water Act Section 401 – Certification and Wetlands Program

Suction Dredge Mining

Now that Senate Bill 637 has taken effect, the State Water Board is receiving a high volume of questions regarding suction dredge permits. This page is intended to provide basic information to answer the most common questions.

Senate Bill 637 amended the Water Code and the Fish and Game Code with regard to suction dredge mining. The Water Boards and the Department of Fish and Wildlife are working collaboratively to implement the Water Code and Fish and Game Code as amended. Information regarding the Water Board's permitting process follows. Information regarding the Department of Fish and Wildlife permitting process is available on its website at:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Suction-Dredge-Permits

Q: What is suction dredge mining?
A: Water Code Section 13172.5 (a) states, 13172.5.(a) defines suction dredge mining as "[. . .] the use of a mechanized or motorized system for removing or assisting in the removal of, or the processing of, material from the bed, bank, or channel of a river, stream, or lake in order to recover minerals." This does not include non-motorized recreational mining activities, including panning for gold.

Q: Do I need a Water Board permit to operate a suction dredge?
A: Yes, you are prohibited from conducting suction dredge mining without approval of the State Water Board or Regional Water Board.

Q: Can I get a permit from the Water Boards to operate a suction dredge?
A: The State Water Board is evaluating the options available to the Water Boards to address water quality permitting of suction dredge mining projects. As required by Senate Bill 637, the State Water Board will conduct public workshops to solicit stakeholder input prior to selecting a permitting option. To receive notice of future public workshops and other communications from the State Water Board regarding suction dredge mining, you may subscribe to an email notification list by following the link below, choosing the Water Quality list, and selecting "Suction Dredge Mining":
State Water Resources Control Board

Q: Do I need any permits from other agencies?
A: You also need a permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and you may need a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Please see those websites for more information:

CDFW Dredging webpage - https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Suction-Dredge-Permits

USACOE Dredging webpage - San Francisco District > Missions > Dredging Work Permits > Application

This is an exerpt from SB637

"This bill would, after prescribed public hearings and workshops, as specified, authorize the state board or a regional board to adopt waste discharge requirements or a waiver of waste discharge requirements that address water quality impacts of specified issues, specify certain conditions or areas where the discharge of waste or other adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the waters of the state from the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment is prohibited, or prohibit particular use of, or methods of using, vacuum or suction dredge equipment, or any portion thereof, for the extraction of minerals, as specified."

When are these public hearings and workshops going to take place? I haven't been able to find any answers, hopefully someone else can. But it appears to me there is no intention or priority on setting up these hearings causing further delay, delay, and more delay.

This call to action from AMRA might be what is needed to help move things along.
 

Oakview2

Silver Member
Feb 4, 2012
2,807
3,348
Prather CA
Detector(s) used
Whites GMT
Primary Interest:
Other
I have no intention of seeking a permit and advocating my rights uunder the mining laws. Too bad the states contention is not strictly on pollution, as you would think this case would be a slam dunk. But then when does the state bother with the rule of law, or court decisions. Round and round it goes, where it stops, NO ONE KNOWS???:BangHead:???
 

Oakview2

Silver Member
Feb 4, 2012
2,807
3,348
Prather CA
Detector(s) used
Whites GMT
Primary Interest:
Other
I ain't sold mine

How bout you????
 

Attachments

  • 3-1-14 001.JPG
    3-1-14 001.JPG
    89.1 KB · Views: 72
  • 3-1-14 002.JPG
    3-1-14 002.JPG
    87.2 KB · Views: 89
  • 3-1-14 003.JPG
    3-1-14 003.JPG
    91 KB · Views: 88
  • 3-1-14 004.JPG
    3-1-14 004.JPG
    92.3 KB · Views: 85
Last edited:

fowledup

Silver Member
Jul 21, 2013
2,757
5,162
Northern California
Detector(s) used
Whites GMT V/SAT
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
I know what their strategy is Oakview. Just skim over stuff like the law and Supreme Court decisions and sign up for illegal regulation to make a point.

Here's a look at the future of the AMRA "plan". In a couple of years of hearings they will "win" and then they will go back and read California, SB637 and see that the actual law was based on an invalid premise. They will then change their strategy and all the miners waiting for the promised permits will scream for their right to be regulated.

Shorter version:
The man says jump through hoops so you jump through hoops to prove that the man has no right to tell you to jump through hoops.

Very California.

Good luck with that "plan".

Heavy Pans

In all seriousness, what is the appropriate course of action? This isn't just "dredge games" anymore! Without the means of using any motorized equipment on most placer claims, the ability to mine in a profitable manner is gone, I don't need to tell you of all people how that effects the rest of the story. I applaud any and all efforts on our behalf because as we have seen for almost ten years now no single "ah haa" strategy or tactic has worked. The promise of future litigation is a given no matter what win happens. They are going to keep adjusting their strategy and attacking again and again. I'm going to remain a hopeful optimist and take each challenge looking at it in the same manner as Edison did--- "I have not failed, I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work!" or "Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time"
 

SpecJet

Jr. Member
May 8, 2013
83
105
So Cal
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
Yep "waste discharge".

Unanimous decision from the Supreme Court. Read it before you join in the dredge games with California.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.


Heavy Pans

When I first read this case I thought, ahha. This should squash the entire mercury/pollution aspect of the anti-dredging regulations.
"‘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."
This single sentence describes dredging to a T.

Yet, here we are, 3 years later and nothing has changed.
 

Hefty1

Bronze Member
Dec 5, 2010
1,702
1,477
No. 11–460. Argued December 4, 2012—Decided January 8, 2013

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)).
 

Last edited:

Oakview2

Silver Member
Feb 4, 2012
2,807
3,348
Prather CA
Detector(s) used
Whites GMT
Primary Interest:
Other
The plot thickens

The California Supreme Court is reviewing the landmark win which was handed to small-scale gold miners by the Third Appellate Court in the case of California v. Rinehart. Now they have asked for briefing on how California's new water quality law might affect the outcome. This very well may have opened the door to hear our argument that the new water quality law is nothing more than an extension of the State's intent to prohibit mining on the public lands of California; something they do not have the authority to do. Our briefing on the matter was submitted to the California Supreme Court today. You are welcome to read it right here:

http://www.goldgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Rinehart-Letter-Brief-2-16-16.pdf
 

Clay Diggins

Silver Member
Nov 14, 2010
4,862
14,180
The Great Southwest
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
When I first read this case I thought, ahha. This should squash the entire mercury/pollution aspect of the anti-dredging regulations.
"‘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."
This single sentence describes dredging to a T.

Yet, here we are, 3 years later and nothing has changed.


Maybe you are still here 3 years later because no party to a suit has raised the issue? Without a hearing by a court all you have are the futile "takings" suits.

Arguing the wrong issues doesn't mean the cause is lost it just means the case (along with your time and money) is lost. If you keep betting on miners groups (and their lawyers) to save you instead of concentrating on the valid legal issues involved you will continue to lose.

As I've written many times before - support Brandon Reinhart. Brandon has presented valid legal issues.

The new water quality regs all depend on the CWA. The CWA has nothing to do with suction dredging ,as the above Supreme Court ruling demonstrates. Getting a waiver from the ACOE is easy. They will waive you making sandwiches while fishing if you want. The ACOE already knows they have nothing to do with gold dredgers working in the water because the Supreme Court have instructed them twice in the last 15 years.

Winners I appreciate and agree your position on this "plan" but the 404 permit has nothing to do with suction gold mining. Read the regs. Those permits are for mining discharges into the waters of the U.S.

As the Supreme Court keeps ruling (thanks for pointing out Muskogee Hefty :thumbsup:) moving material within a waterway is not a discharge. Words and their meaning matter a lot. Suction dredge miners do not meet the definition of a discharge, their activities are not pollution and they are not a subject of the CWA.

Heavy Pans
 

Clay Diggins

Silver Member
Nov 14, 2010
4,862
14,180
The Great Southwest
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
"What is "Significant Disturbance" for $1000, Alex

The actual term is "Significant Surface Disturbance". It's a rewording of the law (FLPMA) that says:
In managing the public lands the Secretary shall, by regulation or otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.

Here's how the District Court defined the terms:


a reasonable interpretation of the word 'unnecessary' is that which is not necessary for mining.

'Undue' is that which is excessive, improper, immoderate or unwarranted.

Heavy Pans
 

motohed

Hero Member
Dec 27, 2015
670
499
RI
Detector(s) used
XP DEUS , AND OLDER GARRETT'S
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Looks like state and federal run around to me . This will be a no win situation as long as they have our tax dollars to spend against us . I have spent many millon's fighting such litigation . If I had not bothered , I would still have them . You can't fight taxation without representation . I see where Clay is coming from , maybe our children will benifit , but I don't think so . Unless people are voted in with our cause in mind , which will be unlikely , given all the clueless tree huggers .:BangHead: Not too get off topic , but it's amazing how many of them that will pound nails into trees , not knowing that the nails kill the trees anyway , just to stop logging .
 

Last edited:

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Top