New Bill in California

[Goldwasher]

I know the guy who lobbied the Senator to to help craft this bill

He is the guy GoldenMojo and I rafted with early summer I posted a thread.

He used to lobby for the building trades got the fever. I sold him a used bazooka at my shop. We hit it off.

I introduced him to Shannon Poe. He has decided to start his own firm and lobby for small scale miners


PRO BONO!!!!!

Your welcome

Some typos and wording I'm gonna give him feed back on. It is nice to see some proactive work being done at the capitol on our behalf.

Bill Text - SB-1222 Use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment.


Please call your Congressman and tell them you want them to support this Bill

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[mendoAu]

What the heck does this bill do to help remove gold on established claims??/
"This bill would instead provide that the above-described prohibitions and requirements do not apply to, prohibit, or otherwise restrict any equipment that does not transport mineral bearing material through a suction or nozzle."

 

[Assembler]

What the heck does this bill do to help remove gold on established claims??/
"This bill would instead provide that the above-described prohibitions and requirements do not apply to, prohibit, or otherwise restrict any equipment that does not transport mineral bearing material through a suction or nozzle."

By pass the "Mineral deposit / claims / location process" and "Administrate by permission papers" for all dredging.

 

[RobertF]

What the heck does this bill do to help remove gold on established claims??/
"This bill would instead provide that the above-described prohibitions and requirements do not apply to, prohibit, or otherwise restrict any equipment that does not transport mineral bearing material through a suction or nozzle."

Current SB637 wording makes any use of a motor around a creekbed illegal if used for mining, including highbanking, and supposedly at least one drywasher has been harassed under it. The state decided they'd redefine what suction dredging meant to fit what they wanted.

This new bill, SB1222 would make the suction dredging bill apply to just that, suction dredges. So dredging would still be illegal for the time being, pending the permits, but highbanking would be back on.

 

[Assembler]

.
View attachment 1559784
The Underwater Power Sluice that Jay Myers designed. Photo: Jim Yerby
RIP Jay Myers

By passing the nozzle is one good idea that has not been talked about very much. Thanks Winners58.

 

[Assembler]

Current SB637 wording makes any use of a motor around a creekbed illegal if used for mining, including highbanking, and supposedly at least one drywasher has been harassed under it. The state decided they'd redefine what suction dredging meant to fit what they wanted.

This new bill, SB1222 would make the suction dredging bill apply to just that, suction dredges. So dredging would still be illegal for the time being, pending the permits, but highbanking would be back on.

This one is now up on this topic. Thanks for pointing this out to everyone RobertF. Under the creekbed is a different matter.

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

Not to high jack, but additional legislative efforts going on.
Any constructive comments on this?

https://www.icmj.com/magazine/article/plp-to-address-needs-of-small-miners-with-proposed-amendment-3791//

 

[Assembler]

Not to high jack, but additional legislative efforts going on.
Any constructive comments on this?

https://www.icmj.com/magazine/article/plp-to-address-needs-of-small-miners-with-proposed-amendment-3791//

Constructive comments can come to light when the wording comes out that is being used. Thanks for the interesting link and keep us updated.

 

[spaghettigold]

so if this bill passes,gravity dredging would be illegal?

 

[RobertF]

so if this bill passes,gravity dredging would be illegal?

Yes, the material still passes through a nozzle.

 

[Goldwasher]

so if this bill passes,gravity dredging would be illegal?

I will be speaking with the lobbyist. The wording will get changed. I caught that too. its a mistaken way of wording it.

 

[Goldwasher]

What the heck does this bill do to help remove gold on established claims??/
"This bill would instead provide that the above-described prohibitions and requirements do not apply to, prohibit, or otherwise restrict any equipment that does not transport mineral bearing material through a suction or nozzle."

As the bill is worded now it is being used nad passed down by agencies and their LEO's that any form of motorized mining is prohibited.

This bill is to put in law a clarification that a dredge is a dredge and a hibanker,crackvac, drywasher isn't.

We shouldn't have to clarify as we know what a dredge is. BUT... this is the way the other side restricts things.



Its like banning laser guns..... then saying in the law that a Laser gun is any thing that has a barrel and a trigger.


Theres a reason the definition of what a "dredge" is was changed at the last minute when sb 637 was being passed through commities

 

[Goldwasher]

Not to high jack, but additional legislative efforts going on.
Any constructive comments on this?

https://www.icmj.com/magazine/artic...f-small-miners-with-proposed-amendment-3791//

No hijack.. good info.


Much better than any contribution assembler is going to make in this thread....so annoying

 

[mytimetoshine]

Legalese is not one of my strengths. Pertaining to existing laws and the "new bill", .. does the regulation or "ban" on suction dredging mean all miming through a nozel even if it man or nature powered? My understanding is sucker tubes are currently ok even thought they do the same thing as a "dredge" albeit on a much smaller scale and gravity fed larger systems were acceptable?
The reason i ask is i have designs for a prototype that im hoping is currently legal under existing law. Im trying to walk a fine line and i need better understanding of our existing tyrannical laws.

 

[Assembler]

Legalese is not one of my strengths. Pertaining to existing laws and the "new bill", .. does the regulation or "ban" on suction dredging mean all miming through a nozel even if it man or nature powered? My understanding is sucker tubes are currently ok even thought they do the same thing as a "dredge" albeit on a much smaller scale and gravity fed larger systems were ?
The reason i ask is i have deaigns for a prototype that im hoping is currently legal under existing law. Im trying to walk a fine line and i need better understanding of exisisting our existing tyrannical laws.

This may be answered by what ever wording comes out to start with. Maybe there will be wording to the effect of volume of water. Time will tell.

 

[mendoAu]

There's been allot of water under the bridge but didn' the first bill (sb670 maybe) make it illegal to have a suction nozzle within the bounderies. It would be nice to highbank legally again but if nozzles are banned you would be restricted to buckets and shovels. Perhaps a small win but in the long run I'd rather see at the very least to allow motorized/jet nozzled highbankers back on the scene.

 

[mendoAu]

Does this mean that the "motorized" 100 yard restriction be resended:

13172.5. (a) For purposes of this section, the use of any vacuum or suction dredge equipment, also known as suction dredging, is 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 equipment means the use of any equipment that removes minerals and water in conjunction to process and recover minerals. This section does not apply to, prohibit, or otherwise restrict nonmotorized recreational mining activities, including panning for gold. any equipment that does not transport mineral bearing material through a suction or nozzle.

This would open up once again the use of small washplants within that 100yd area.

 

[Goldwasher]

Eric we all know that a hand dredge isn't a dredge and my "opinion" is obviously 637 didn't outlaw them. Though you never know what someone will say in the field.

I personally am willing to risk a run in though I understand why some one wouldn't. I'm willing to risk a run in with more than a pvc sucker though so well...


In regards to the wording and potential affect on currently "legal" activities, I promise this feed back has already been passed on and anymore will be also.

The people doing this in are in no way trying to affect anything already unaffected by sb637. They are open to feedback.

Baby steps, thanks for the input

 

[Goldwasher]

There's been allot of water under the bridge but didn' the first bill (sb670 maybe) make it illegal to have a suction nozzle within the bounderies. It would be nice to highbank legally again but if nozzles are banned you would be restricted to buckets and shovels. Perhaps a small win but in the long run I'd rather see at the very least to allow motorized/jet nozzled highbankers back on the scene.

Even before sb sb637 a hibanker combo was considered a dredge if it was used instream. Though a "powersluice" could be run instream fed with a shovel with no permit.

Go figure


I think they hate hoses, lol

 

[Assembler]

The exact wording of the usury "Permit":

the department shall issue a permit upon the payment, in the case of a resident, of a base fee of twenty-five dollars ($25), as adjusted under Section 713, when an onsite investigation of the project size is not deemed necessary by the department, and a base fee of one hundred thirty dollars ($130), as adjusted under Section 713, when the department deems that an onsite investigation is necessary. Except as provided in paragraph (2), in the case of a nonresident, the base fee shall be one hundred dollars ($100), as adjusted under Section 713, when an onsite investigation is not deemed necessary, and a base fee of two hundred twenty dollars ($220), as adjusted under Section 713, when an onsite investigation is deemed necessary.
(2) The department may adjust the base fees for a permit described in this subdivision to an amount sufficient to cover all reasonable costs of the department in regulating suction dredging activities.
(e) It is unlawful to possess a vacuum or suction dredge in areas, or in or within 100 yards of waters, that are closed to the use of vacuum or suction dredges.

There appears to be no cap in the above wording for the "Administration fees" to cover all reasonable costs of the department in regulating suction dredging.