Oakview2
Silver Member
From the New 49er board
Done a fair amount of research into the "takings" aspect of the dredge ban...
You'll love reading this:
There’s a 400-page document that gets attached to any bonds California wants to issue. Covers things like state property, income and expenditures, pensions, in order to paint an accurate picture of the State’s finances.
Surprisingly, the consolidated dredging cases are mentioned in this document in the litigation section. Says to me they think the legal action is very worrying to them and the costs could be significant to the state.
Here’s an example bond:
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/tre...ilding_2013 Lease_Revenue_Funding_SeriesA.pdf
Scroll down to page 29 of the PDF for the beginning of the State documentation.
Litigation section starts on page 173 of the PDF, or on A-137 of the attachment:
(Any emphasis is mine)
LITIGATION
The state is a party to numerous legal proceedings. The following describes litigation matters that are pending with service of process on the state accomplished and have been identified by the state as having a potentially significant fiscal impact upon the state’s revenues or expenditures. The state makes no representation regarding the likely outcome of these litigation matters.
Then drop down a couple pages, and you’ll find:
In Consolidated Suction Dredge Mining Cases (Karuk Tribe v. DFG) (Alameda, Siskiyou, and San Bernardino County Superior Courts), environmental and mining interests challenge the state’s regulation of suction dredge gold mining. After initially prohibiting such mining in the state except pursuant to a permit issued by the Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly Fish and Game) under specified circumstances, the Legislature subsequently placed a
moratorium on all suction dredging until certain conditions are met by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The cases are coordinated for hearing in San Bernardino County Superior Court (Case No. JCPDS4720). One of these matters, The New 49’ERS, Inc. et al. v. California
Department of Fish and Game, claims that federal law preempts and prohibits state regulation of suction dredge mining on federal land. Plaintiffs, who have pled a class action but have yet to seek certification, claim that as many as 11,000 claims, at a value of $500,000 per claim, have been taken.
Done a fair amount of research into the "takings" aspect of the dredge ban...
You'll love reading this:
There’s a 400-page document that gets attached to any bonds California wants to issue. Covers things like state property, income and expenditures, pensions, in order to paint an accurate picture of the State’s finances.
Surprisingly, the consolidated dredging cases are mentioned in this document in the litigation section. Says to me they think the legal action is very worrying to them and the costs could be significant to the state.
Here’s an example bond:
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/tre...ilding_2013 Lease_Revenue_Funding_SeriesA.pdf
Scroll down to page 29 of the PDF for the beginning of the State documentation.
Litigation section starts on page 173 of the PDF, or on A-137 of the attachment:
(Any emphasis is mine)
LITIGATION
The state is a party to numerous legal proceedings. The following describes litigation matters that are pending with service of process on the state accomplished and have been identified by the state as having a potentially significant fiscal impact upon the state’s revenues or expenditures. The state makes no representation regarding the likely outcome of these litigation matters.
Then drop down a couple pages, and you’ll find:
In Consolidated Suction Dredge Mining Cases (Karuk Tribe v. DFG) (Alameda, Siskiyou, and San Bernardino County Superior Courts), environmental and mining interests challenge the state’s regulation of suction dredge gold mining. After initially prohibiting such mining in the state except pursuant to a permit issued by the Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly Fish and Game) under specified circumstances, the Legislature subsequently placed a
moratorium on all suction dredging until certain conditions are met by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The cases are coordinated for hearing in San Bernardino County Superior Court (Case No. JCPDS4720). One of these matters, The New 49’ERS, Inc. et al. v. California
Department of Fish and Game, claims that federal law preempts and prohibits state regulation of suction dredge mining on federal land. Plaintiffs, who have pled a class action but have yet to seek certification, claim that as many as 11,000 claims, at a value of $500,000 per claim, have been taken.
