Waldo MD Letter to U.S. Dept. of Justice & the Solicitor General regarding the Rineha

[ratled]

Waldo MD Letter to U.S. Dept. of Justice & the Solicitor General regarding the Rineha

Jim Foley posted for this for Tom Kitchar, President of the Waldo Mining District. It is a letter that Waldo Mining District sent to The Dept. of Justice and Solicitor General. It is rather lengthy and very informative. It is so long rather than try and post it here I'll just post the link

THANKS Waldo MD and everyone for their support!

ratled

The New 49'ers :: Gold Prospecting :: Letter to U.S. Dept. of Justice & the Solicitor General regarding the Rinehart

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[chlsbrns]

The Federal Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 is the oldest federal environmental law in the United States. The Act makes it a misdemeanor to discharge refuse matter of any kind into the navigable waters, or tributaries thereof, of the United States without a permit; this specific provision is known as the Refuse Act. The Rivers and Harbors Act also makes it a misdemeanor to excavate, fill, or alter the course, condition, or capacity of any port, harbor, channel, or other areas within the reach of the Act without a permit.

The letter in the op says California banned mining. They didn't ban mining. Dredging is one form of mining just like hydraulic mining is one form of mining.

 

[ratled]

"The ordinance's de facto ban on mining on federal land acts as a clear obstacle to the accomplishment of the Congressional purposes and objectives embodied in the Mining Act. Congress has encouraged exploration and mining of valuable mineral deposits located on federal land and has granted certain rights to those who discover such minerals. Federal law also encourages the economical extraction and use of these minerals. The ordinance completely frustrates the accomplishment of these federally encouraged activities. A local government cannot prohibit a lawful use of the sovereign's land that the superior sovereign itself permits and encourages. To do so offends both the Property Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution. The ordinance is prohibitory, not regulatory, in its fundamental character."

 

[jog]

The Federal Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 is the oldest federal environmental law in the United States. The Act makes it a misdemeanor to discharge refuse matter of any kind into the navigable waters, or tributaries thereof, of the United States without a permit; this specific provision is known as the Refuse Act. The Rivers and Harbors Act also makes it a misdemeanor to excavate, fill, or alter the course, condition, or capacity of any port, harbor, channel, or other areas within the reach of the Act without a permit.

The letter in the op says California banned mining. They didn't ban mining. Dredging is one form of mining just like hydraulic mining is one form of mining.

The key words here are Navigable waterways!

Sent from my SM-G920V using TreasureNet.com mobile app

 

[chlsbrns]

The key words here are Navigable waterways!

Sent from my SM-G920V using TreasureNet.com mobile app

"navigable waters, or tributaries"

You all are where you are at because you wear blinders and see only what you want to see!

 

[et1955]

Refuse, Defined as " food waste, scraps, or garbage " how does that apply to mining ?

 

[Bejay]

The Waldo Letter is very well put.

I thought it might be interesting to see how a State (in this case Oregon) might come to feel they have water rights over the "miner": who was Granted those exclusive rights to water per the Federal Mining Laws. In other words where does the State of Oregon get the idea they can halt placer mining......from where is their projected authority derived? Now the following is from the current Oregon Law Book of Water Resources. [/BFrom the 2010 Oregon Law Book:
537.334 Findings.
The people of the State of Oregon find and declare that:
(1) Public uses (of water) are beneficial uses.
(2) The recognition of an in-stream water right under ORS 537.336 to 537.348 shall not diminish the public’s rights in the ownership and control of the waters of this state or the public trust therein. The establishment of an in-stream water right under the provisions of ORS 537.332 to 537.360 "shall not take away or impair any permitted, certificated or "decreed right" (do you suppose the Federal Grant is a decreed right?) which [" is a legislative grant, and being given by act of congress, is equivalent to a patent from the United States to the same."] to any waters or to the use of any waters vested prior to the date the instream
water right is established pursuant to the provisions of ORS 537.332 to 537.360." [1987 c.859 §3]
537.335
Wow....that is pretty dynamic let's look further
Then on page 152:
APPROPRIATION OF WATER FOR MINING AND ELECTRIC POWER
UNDER the Oregon 1899 ACT
541.110 Use of water to develop mineral resources and furnish power. The use of the water of the lakes and running streams of Oregon for the purpose of developing the mineral resources of the state and to furnish electric power for all purposes, is declared to be a public and beneficial use and a public necessity. Subject to the provisions of the Water Rights Act (as defined in ORS 537.010), the right to divert unappropriated waters of any such lakes or streams or such public and beneficial use is "granted".
NOW NOTE THAT THE ABOVE REFERENCES THE Oregon Water Law of 1899.
If you study the Oregon Water Resource law you will be very surprised to see that the current legislative actions have compromised the very laws governing the State of Oregon.

Additionally when Oregon was Granted Statehood the Federal Government retained the ownership of the water for the public and only granted the State the right to see it used equitably.

Bejay

 

[winners58]

SOUTH DAKOTA MINING ASSOCIATION, INC.; Homestake Mining Company
V. LAWRENCE COUNTY, Jack Cole, Intervenor-Appellant.
Preemption
Having determined that the plaintiffs' preemption claim is ripe, we now address Cole's challenge to the
district court's order declaring the Lawrence County ordinance preempted by federal law and enjoining its
enforcement. Cole argues that the Lawrence County ordinance is not preempted by the Federal Mining
Act because the ordinance is a reasonable environmental regulation of mining on federal lands.
Specifically, Cole claims that because the ordinance only bans one type of mining, surface metal mining,
and does so only within a limited area, the ordinance does not prevent the accomplishment of the purposes
and objectives of federal mining law. [FN4]

FN4. We note that Cole also urges us to remand the case to the district court to allow
further discovery regarding the purposes and policies underlying the ordinance. We reject this argument
because these purposes and policies are immaterial to the preemption analysis here.
See Perez v. Campbell, (holding that "any state legislation which frustrates the full effectiveness
of federal law is rendered invalid by the Supremacy Clause" regardless of the underlying purpose of its enactors).

South Dakota Mining Ass'n v. Lawrence County, 977 F. Supp. 1396 (D.S.D. 1997) :: Justia