Where can a person Highbank in or around Shasta County?

[NeoTokyo]

Heya everyone;

As some of you know I traded my Gold Bug Pro for a Proline 3" Dredge/Highbanker Combo and now I need to figure out where I can use it.

I have no clue where to go to use it or if I have to pay the near $1300 dollar permit even if I dont empty into the water.

I read that no matter what you have to get a permit to highbank, even if it is not going back into the water, how true is this?

Aside from that, where can I go that is open to prospectors to highbank?
Can I highbank on open BLM land or out at Swasey or are there specific area's that I am only allowed to highbank at? (Aside from Claims and private land that I have permission to be on.)

Thanks everyone.


-Eric-

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[rodoconnor]

Neo come up here to Idaho. You can still drdge and HB [ for the time being anyways]. Most of the Snake is open and the Payette has many, many miles as well.

 

[rhartman911]

I am under the understanding (from other highbankers) as long as you are not putting the water directly back into the water you can Highbank . I have gone out twice with mine with no problems. You should have enough hose that you can stay away from being right next to the edge of the water and you can discharge your water into a low spot or use a catch bucket setup (as long as the water has a little time to settle ).
I have not done the catch bucket system yet I am thinking two 50 gallon buckets. As long as you are on Open BLM land or have permission from a private land owner you should be fine. The first time I used it I went out with another person who has been prospecting for awhile and his spot was right next to Hwy 49 (Plymoth, CA area high tourist) we had people stopping taking pictures coming down to talk to us even had Cal Trans stop each and everytime I thought OH GREAT here comes my fine but they where just interested in the 3" highbanker they have never seen one work. My biggest problem is trying to find enough material where I can keep feeding it for awhile so far three of us go out we get five -5 gallon buckets run it stop get more run it stop. I looked in the GPAA members claim book and they dont show any claims in Shasta county they have claims in Trinity--(6), Siskiyou--(5), Plumas--(4) and Butte--(3). So Just be smart where you discharge your water I am not saying we wont get a fine but so far everything is ok
Hope this helps
Ray H

 

[Rdg Sluicer]

I have seen people high banking on Clear Creek. I was looking into it and the more I read the more confused I am... I just went with a bazooka sluice instead.

 

[NeoTokyo]

Thanks for the great info everyone.
As far as clear creek goes, lower clear creek does not allow anything motorized, not sure about the swasey part of clear creek though.

 

[Hoser John]

zero-nyet-natha-cero-nuttn'

 

[vini]

The forest service is using the water resources permit reg in a lot of places now, better check with them as to where...

Are Permits Needed For Highbanking In California? by Scott Harn

Print

According to the latest propaganda from the California State Water Resources Control Board, a permit is necessary for power sluicing or highbanking in the state. This activity has been allowed for decades. It involves the processing of gold-bearing material in a highbanker or power sluice. Water is pumped a short distance from a waterway, with the water being allowed to seep into the ground or evaporate so it doesn’t return to the stream, creek or river.

The Water Board recently posted permitting information on their website that states:

“You can discharge water and waste sediment from your highbanker or power sluice to land but you must first apply for a permit from the Regional Water Board responsible for the area where you’ll be mining. To apply for a permit, you must file a Report of Waste Discharge with the Regional Water Board. You cannot begin mining until the Regional Water Board approves your Report of Waste Discharge and notifies you that either your permit has been issued or that a permit is not required because the discharge will not create or threaten to create a condition of pollution or nuisance. The minimum fee for the permit is $1,120.00 but may be higher depending on the threat the discharge poses to water quality and the complexity of the discharge as determined by the Regional Water Board.” (See www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/suction_dredge.shtml)

The Water Board threatens fines of $10,000 per day for violations!

The agency also states that a “Statement of Diversion and Use” is now necessary even if you have a “riparian water right.”

“If you are diverting water from a riparian parcel for use on that parcel, you must have a riparian water right or be legally entitled to use riparian water rights for the parcel and you must file a Statement of Water Diversion and Use (Statement) with the State Water Resources Control Board’s (State Water Board) Division of Water Rights for each point of diversion. The fee for filing a Statement of Diversion and Use is $50.00.”

However, this contradicts the fact that mining claimants are considered landowners with exclusive rights to possess and use that claim, and miners have “riparian rights” on mining claims that do not require permitting.
​

Real Property​

The fact that mining claimants are landowners with exclusive rights, and their mining claims are real property, is well established:

30 USC § 26 states, “The locators of all mining locations on the public domain so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title, shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations...”

US v. Shumway (9th Circuit Court of Appeals; No. 96-16480) “The owner of a mining or mill site claim does not need a patent, or a vested right to issuance of a patent, to possess and use the property for legitimate mining or milling purposes. A mining or mill site claim is ‘property in the fullest sense of the word.’”

Also in US v. Shumway: “The Supreme Court has established that a mining ‘claim’ is not a claim in the ordinary sense of the word—a mere assertion of a right—but rather is a property interest, which is itself real property in every sense, and not merely an assertion of a right to property.”

Riparian Rights​

The Water Board explains a riparian right on their website and confirms that property owners adjacent to waterways have that right:

“A riparian right entitles the landowner to use a correlative share of the water flowing past his or her property.
Riparian rights do not require permits, licenses, or government approval, but they apply only to the water which would naturally flow in the stream. Riparian rights do not entitle a water use to divert water to storage in a reservoir for use in the dry season or to use water on land outside of the watershed. Riparian rights remain with the property when it changes hands, although parcels severed from the adjacent water source generally lose their right to the water.” (Emphasis added.)

“...Riparian rights are not lost by non-use. A person who has a riparian right, but is not currently using water, has a ‘dormant’ riparian right. He or she can begin using water under that dormant right at any time. If the new riparian use results in a junior water right holder not having enough water, the junior water right holder must decrease his or her diversion and use of water until the senior water right holder has enough water to meet his or her reasonable needs. Riparian right holders on a stream course all have the same priority. If there is not enough water available for competing riparian users, they must share the available supply according to their needs. Generally in this situation, water used for interior domestic purposes, such as drinking, cooking and bathing, has the highest priority.” (See www.swrcb.ca.gov/waterrights/board_info/water_rights_process.shtml)

In 1928, the California Constitution was amended making the exercise of all water rights (both surface and groundwater) subject to a limitation of reasonable and beneficial use. In our view, utilizing water for the purposes of processing gold-bearing gravels through a power sluice or highbanker is a reasonable and beneficial use, and the Water Board confirms this opinion:

“Examples of beneficial uses include domestic use, irrigation, power production, municipal use, mining, industrial use, fish and wildlife preservation, aquaculture, recreation, stockwatering, water quality protection, frost protection (and) heat control.” (www.swrcb.ca.gov/waterrights/board_info/faqs.shtml)

The Water Board further asserts, in their “frequently asked questions” section, that no permit is required if you have a riparian water right:

“If you began using surface water or groundwater from a subterranean stream after 1914, when the State Water Commission Act was enacted, unless you have a riparian right you must apply for and receive approval from the State Water Board before using water.” (Emphasis added. See www.swrcb.ca.gov/waterrights/board_info/faqs.shtml)

Our View​

This is another blatant attempt by the Water Board to stop mining in California with unelected officials promulgating unnecessary regulations and attempting to place new tax burdens on miners.

One of the primary purposes of the Mining Law of 1872 and its subsequent amendments is to promote the exploration and development of valuable mineral deposits in the United States. Despite the amendments that have been made over the years, that purpose has not changed.

It’s obvious that the Water Board is attempting to completely usurp the will of Congress by requiring a permit for simple exploration tasks like power sluicing and highbanking. Moreover, the agency’s requirement of $1,120 is site specific. If a miner went ahead and paid the fee and did not make a discovery at a particular location, he would have to pay another fee when he picked a new location to test! It’s impossible to know if a deposit exists unless you are allowed to process an adequate sample.

There are also no provisions in the Water Board rules that address permitting time frames. Could you imagine the time it would take for the Water Board to review and respond to 200 applications? How about 500, 1,000 or 3,000?

The Water Board is attempting to use the EPA Clean Water Act and NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permitting as their authority. But the sampling done by a miner within the ordinary high water mark and processed within that same area does not constitute the introduction of a pollutant. The materials that were already within the area will remain within the area.

Can the State of California legally require a permit for highbanking or power sluicing on a mining claim? In our view, the answer is “no.” A mining claim that includes a waterway is private property with riparian rights. If the miner is ensuring that his activities are “reasonably incident” to prospecting, mining or processing operations and the miner fills in his holes, this should satisfy the requirement to avoid “unnecessary or undue degradation” under 43 CFR §3809.415. And, as stated above, there is an obvious conflict with Congressional intent and no introduction of a pollutant.

How about on public lands that are open to claiming but not currently under claim? We also believe the answer to this question is “no.” The Mining Law of 1872 (USC 30 Chapter 2 § 22 ) states “...all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, shall be free and open to exploration...”

Processing samples through a highbanker or power sluice is exploration. Again, as long as the miner is ensuring that his activities are “reasonably incident” to prospecting, mining or processing operations and the miner fills in his exploration holes, this should satisfy the requirement to avoid “unnecessary or undue degradation” under 43 CFR §3809.415

And, can they legally charge you $50 and require you to file a Statement of Diversion and Use? I don’t know the answer to this one, but we are looking into it. We’d like to hear your opinion. Please drop us a note at:

ICMJ
Re: Highbanking Permits
PO Box 2260
Aptos, CA 95001

 

[vini]

“You can discharge water and waste sediment from your highbanker or power sluice to land but you must first apply for a permit

 

[vini]

“You can discharge water and waste sediment from your highbanker or power sluice to land

prohibit you from discharging water and waste sediment from your highbanker or power sluice to an area such that it may enter a stream, river, lake, or other surface water body without a permit

Ok so instream, i don't see any where that there regs do not allow IN STREAM, GO FOR IT

 

[Hoser John]

CLEAR CREEK FROM THE WHISKEYTOWN DAM TO THE RIVER IS A PRESERVE DO AND DIE. Environutz up the wazoo-law bs don't matter as every square inch coveted like no other by 4 agencies who cruise constantly-Go north of shasta dam as far as possible from the sac as even the creeks to the point of inception still taboo under cantara spill bs promulgation. Shoulda kept that gb---John

 

[NeoTokyo]

Thanks for the great info Vini.


John, yep, already knew about the Clear Creek preserve, some of it is private and some is Whiskeytown NRA.
I dont agree about keeping the gold bug though, you tell me how many chances you get to trade something that costs $650 dollars for something that costs $3000.
I can always buy another Gold bug fairly cheap with Ray's help which I plan on doing.

I talked to Eric at the Redding BLM office and he says that the Swasey area is open to highbanking though and that the Swasey area of clear creek may also be open to highbanking, I will find out this week but I am not going to hold my breath.

 

[Hoser John]

Office idjets don't know squat-talk to Mr.Riley or Root as they are enforcement rangers and the ones who will more than gladly ticket and haul you and your equipment away. Go to office and pick up rules as stated-MINERAL COLLECTION,MINING AND ENGINES SPECIFICALLY ILLEGAL. Huge signs there at Swasey,Horesetown,Clear Creek overlook and on and on.There are multiple reserves there and I am very aware of all private landowners along the watercoarse as friends constantly talk to them as family friends and other bud is maintence man for multiple properties along the water coarse. hahahaha-have a ball-John

 

[Oakview2]

Neo

There was a landmark watercase in which the state was trying to say that water that ranchers were pulling out of the river and then returning was in fact pollutants. The state lost this case recently in court and in my non attorney opinion will take the teeth out of any water resource luncacy. I can't remember the case but it was posted on this board somewhere not that long ago.

 

[Oakview2]

Here is one of them

Judge says water is not pollution

and then this

LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY UPDATE
ICMJ Prospecting and Mining Journal, February 2013, page 3.

A recent US Supreme Court ruling regarding the transfer of "pollutants" from one portion of a river to another is a win for miners.
The Natural Resources Defense Council sued the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, alleging the county was polluting a stream when it took polluted water from one portion of a river and transferred it to another portion of the same river through a concrete channel.
The Ninth Circuit had ruled that the water transfer violated the Clean Water Act. In a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit.
The Court stated, "...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). 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."A link to the decision is available on our website under the Legislative and Regulatory Update column for February 2013.
One of the major regulatory tools agencies have used against in-stream placer miners-and suction dredgers in particular-has been struck down by this decision!
Other courts have also blocked overzealous water regulators In Virginia, District Judge Liam O'Grady ruled that the EPA exceeded its authority by attempting to regulate storm water runoff as a pollutant
And in Siskiyou County, California, Superior Court Judge Karen Dixon found that the California Department of Fish & Game overstepped its authority by requiring permits for farmers and ranchers to take water from the Shasta and Scott Rivers​

 

[Fullpan]

I bet the "remobilizing" of mercury during dredging falls under this decision too. The 2% of elemental mercury that is not captured by modern dredges is
just pollution that was moved a few feet and returned to the same waterway, right? That was one of the "boogey-man" fear tactics used as justification
for the moratorium.

 

[NeoTokyo]

Thanks for posting that Oakview, I have seen it before but I had a chance to really read again (Last time my girls were driving me crazy lol)

Fullpan Very true.

John, you dont have to be so condescending when you share info, it is hard enough to read your posts as it is.
I simply said what info I had already found out.
I already know about all of the other area's limitations.

As we speak the Master Title Plats are being pulled to see what is allowed out that way.
If the Master Title Plats says I can highbank there then Mr. Riley and Mr. Root wont mind if I highbank there because I will be within the rules and regs.

 

[Hoser John]

***** ***** ***** facts are facts, condensending like Todd also right??and everyone else right hahahahahaha now THATS condensending as the truth is the truth even when not liked and that law bs does NOT include preserves/reserves/historical sites etc etc etc so nuttn' but blue sky and bs to convalute a extremely ez and simple fact. Some areas you can do NUTTN' as in national recreation areas such as Whiskeytown,buy a insipid permit and pan with no tools whatsoever,even tweezers for gods sake -yaaaa I'm mining NOT-John

 

[Goldwasher]

 

[Goldwasher]

Condescending= talking down to someone in an unnecessary way. Condensending......not even a word but maybe it means when you stop condensing something

. see the period to the left? that is a grain of salt in Binary

 

[NeoTokyo]

Thanks for the support pville.

Ok the master title plats say Clear Creek is withdrawn in the swasey area BUT everything east of the creek and Mule ridge is OPEN OPEN OPEN!

Swasey is NOT a withdrawn area, it is simply a rec area set aside by BLM and has portions that go through a withdrawn area ie. along Clear Creek.

Also John, you are only partially correct about Whiskeytown NRA, you CAN have scoops/shovels up to 4" wide x 8" long.

I just happen to have one of the $1 dollar gold panning cards here, let me type it out for you.

Permitted:
* Recreational gold panning using a gold pan and digging tool with blade not larger than 4" wide x 8" long within the confines of any flowing stream unless designated closed by the Superintendent.

Prohibited:
* Utilization of a suction device, crevice cleaner, screen separator, view box, sluice box, rocker, dredge or any mechanical or hydraulic device, or skin diving equipment such as snorkel, mask, or wetsuit.
* Use of any toxic substance or chemical, including mercury.
* Panning outside the confines of the existing water levels, or digging into stream banks, or disturbing ground surfaces, or undermining vegetation, historic features or bridge abutment.

Title 36 CFR - Sec. 7.91 (d)


At least I went to the source to figure out what we can do, BLM and Josh Root gave the OK, what more do you want?
If you are scared just carry the Master title plat with you and talk to the Officer out there first, Josh Root.

Now you will do one of two things, either not reply to the thread and act like this never happened or you will get on here and blow your top some more because you surely wont do the 3rd HORRIBLE AND UNHEARD OF THING and simply say "Oh gee whiz, you were right Eric, sorry I harped at ya."