Bejay
Bronze Member
- Mar 10, 2014
- 1,026
- 2,530
- Detector(s) used
-
Whites GMT
Garret fully underwater
- Primary Interest:
- Prospecting
DEQ invites the public to provide comment on the Proposed 700PM National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit Renewal for suction dredges and in-water, non-motorized mineral mining. Public hearings will be held April 21 in Medford, April 22 in Portland and April 24 in Baker City.
Comment Due: Apr 28, 2014, 5 p.m.
Contact: Beth Moore, DEQ Operations, 503-229-6402
More info: Oregon DEQ: Water Quality Permit Program - Mining
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my understanding that Oregon's DEQ is actually an EPA permit (NEPA). With that in mind I would bring forth the following:
Thus the DEQ involvement is unwarranted.
"Navigable Waters of the United States" come under the authority of the EPA. So a State has justifiable involvement with the EPA. But Congress never gave the Executive the power to control in stream sediment - as the Supreme Court continues to point out to the EPA.
The EPA continues to go beyond it's legal authority; when it attempts to control in stream sediment. The Supreme Court has continually reinforced that the EPA lacks the authority. The in stream suction dredge permit is unenforceable. It should be considered that any DEQ permit requirement, of any kind, should lead a path for the DEQ/ EPA permit requirement to be thrown out of any court. Such a DEQ/EPA permit is only applicable for navigable waterways. But IMHO as long as the DEQ/EPA continue to try to permit small scale gold dredging the Federal courts will uphold the fact that the EPA has, and is going beyond its' legal authority.
It should be pointed out that the State of Oregon is allowing the EPA under the guise of the DEQ to go beyond its' legal authority and that should the State continue to follow this unlawful attempt to regulate a form of mining on Federally administered lands; the miners will fight to get this into Federal Court: where, as said before: The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the EPA has no authority to control in stream dredging.
So the task...IMHO.....is to connect the dots and show that the DEQ permit is actually an EPA permit.....(pretty simple to do). That said, the DEQ permit is unwarranted. And the hearings are simply a waste of time.
Bejay
Comment Due: Apr 28, 2014, 5 p.m.
Contact: Beth Moore, DEQ Operations, 503-229-6402
More info: Oregon DEQ: Water Quality Permit Program - Mining
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my understanding that Oregon's DEQ is actually an EPA permit (NEPA). With that in mind I would bring forth the following:
Thus the DEQ involvement is unwarranted.
"Navigable Waters of the United States" come under the authority of the EPA. So a State has justifiable involvement with the EPA. But Congress never gave the Executive the power to control in stream sediment - as the Supreme Court continues to point out to the EPA.
The EPA continues to go beyond it's legal authority; when it attempts to control in stream sediment. The Supreme Court has continually reinforced that the EPA lacks the authority. The in stream suction dredge permit is unenforceable. It should be considered that any DEQ permit requirement, of any kind, should lead a path for the DEQ/ EPA permit requirement to be thrown out of any court. Such a DEQ/EPA permit is only applicable for navigable waterways. But IMHO as long as the DEQ/EPA continue to try to permit small scale gold dredging the Federal courts will uphold the fact that the EPA has, and is going beyond its' legal authority.
It should be pointed out that the State of Oregon is allowing the EPA under the guise of the DEQ to go beyond its' legal authority and that should the State continue to follow this unlawful attempt to regulate a form of mining on Federally administered lands; the miners will fight to get this into Federal Court: where, as said before: The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the EPA has no authority to control in stream dredging.
So the task...IMHO.....is to connect the dots and show that the DEQ permit is actually an EPA permit.....(pretty simple to do). That said, the DEQ permit is unwarranted. And the hearings are simply a waste of time.
Bejay
