More smoke and mirrors from the state.

[diverrick]

I see in the most recent court cases, the state claims it does not speak for the state water board. I believe this is a trick. A simple ploy to hold more control over the issues at hand.

It appears this is a trick to loose in the courts under this current case and still maintain a hold over the dredgers. Here is how it goes.

The state realizes that Brandon has a legal case,and this the state may very well lose this case.

So by excusing the water board, that leaves the water board free to enact what has already been shown to be an onerous fee and regulation, to the point we still could not financially afford to dredge, based on the definition of removing water from the drainage's, or some other method yet to be defined or disclosed.

Why else would the state stand up and make such a blatant statement as that? There is a reason they said that. And the reason benefits them, not us.

It is clear to me this is a ploy that needs to be argued. We are battling the STATE not by each department broken out. They should not be allowed to exclude ANY of the different agencies. Otherwise we would need to sue each and every department separately every time in the future.
They have a plan and we need to be proactive about stopping these methods

 

[Hoser John]

Amen Rick and that's just a part of the game-John

 

[Goldwasher]

Propaganda is at its worst when spread by the people it is designed to fool....The dredge moratorium has nothing to do with the waterboard they are not fighting in the courts....and again Those links to hibanking FAQ's have no merit......notice the word "Might" thrown in there it carries more effect than any any of the other words....HI BANKING IS LEGAL IN CALIFORNIA. no new law or regulation has been put in place THERE IS NO HIBANKING PERMIT there never was....TRY TO CALL THE WATERBOARD AND GET ONE THEY DON'T HAVE IT. As a small scale miner you do not even approach threshold of impact required to need an EIR.... the waterboard will not work with and/or guide you. I'm sure if you try hard enough and make it a point to get involved they will gladly shut you down and take money though you will have to actually help them do so....Why would you. The EPA itself has stated that the water coming out of a powersluice IS NOT POLLUTION!!!!!!!!!! Don't dump muddy water into clean water minimize turbidity if you create any. And please try really hard to find an existing citation for hibanking and post it here......or maybe just go join the CBD and Sierra Conservency and continue helping them to spread false facts and non existing regulations.

 

[fowledup]

Yes either list all that may be a part as litigants, and hope you have enough dough to hang in there one time.....Or expect them to each take a turn at you to wear you down and/or put you in bankruptcy court. Justice costs big money either way. The folks on the front lines of this battle, asking for money aren't crying wolf or trying to turn a profit.

 

[Hefty1]

They cant take away...they can try...the water rights claim owners have.

 

[Tonto]

That's a very astute observation, Diver. By excusing the water board, do you mean the state has asked the court to remove the board from the suit? If the court allows this, it would be after the plaintiff agreed with the state that the water board was only the enforcer of the rules approved by the state, and therefore has no responsibility under the suit since the state passed the rules in question, unless the water board intentionally or negligently violated the law while enforcing the rules. When I read the attachment provided by Hoser John, it was clear to me that the state is effectively prohibiting high banking. The down side of this ruling may be that the judge agrees with the plaintiff, but makes it clear that instead of placing exorbitant fines and fees, the state could simply prohibit high banking, unless it would be in violation of the federally protected right to mine. The question of whether the laws are designed to actually prohibit high-banking is still relevant, and the court, if it finds on behalf of the plaintiff, should address the rules and cause the state to change them, notwithstanding the enforcement by the water board. It's like suing the state patrol because the fine schedule is so onerous that people will stop speeding. Of course, high banking has no public safety considerations, so the argument is not the same at all, yet the outcome is the same. Stop speeding, and stop high banking, or go bankrupt. The state sets the fine schedule, not the water board. The water board presents fine and fee schedules to the legislature, which then either passes them or not based on discussion between the Water Board, Attorney General, and the legislature. Therefore, the legislature is the responsible party. If the judge rules in favor of the plaintiff, his/her decision will necessarily have to address the legal elements of the suit, and make the appropriate changes. Of course, this decision can be appealed by either side of the argument. As a matter of economic strategy, it will save the state and the plaintiff money if members of the water board are excused from the suit. There will be one less layer of bureaucracy to depose. Yet, the legal challenges to the rules will be the same. Were I the plaintiff, I would agree not to depose the water board. It won't change the outcome of the ruling whether or not the members of the board testify. (I'm not an attorney, but I have experience in the legal processes concerning law suits, rule making, and enforcement of them. Those who actually are attorneys may argue with my take on your post.)

 

[gold nuggets]

This all seems to follow the same patterns......if they don't like something or realize they overlooked something, they will pass a new law or regulation to cover their butts. Follow the money..... Best politicians money can buy....

 

[diverrick]

Propaganda is at its worst when spread by the people it is designed to fool....The dredge moratorium has nothing to do with the waterboard they are not fighting in the courts....and again Those links to hibanking FAQ's have no merit......notice the word "Might" thrown in there it carries more effect than any any of the other words....HI BANKING IS LEGAL IN CALIFORNIA. no new law or regulation has been put in place THERE IS NO HIBANKING PERMIT there never was....TRY TO CALL THE WATERBOARD AND GET ONE THEY DON'T HAVE IT. As a small scale miner you do not even approach threshold of impact required to need an EIR.... the waterboard will not work with and/or guide you. I'm sure if you try hard enough and make it a point to get involved they will gladly shut you down and take money though you will have to actually help them do so....Why would you. The EPA itself has stated that the water coming out of a power sluice IS NOT POLLUTION!!!!!!!!!! Don't dump muddy water into clean water minimize turbidity if you create any. And please try really hard to find an existing citation for hibanking and post it here......or maybe just go join the CBD and Sierra Conservency and continue helping them to spread false facts and non existing regulations.

Trying to figure out why you think the water board rules as posted by Hoser, have no merit? Those are their rules. They have even taken it a step further by declaring that discharging water and rocks out of a dredge box back into the river is pollution, and Therefore prohibited. So the rocks that were in the river get picked up and run through the box. They were fine going in, but now falling out the backside, they are now pollution, because it is "discharge" into a river or stream Another way to prohibit dredgers, hence the reason they are asking that the water board be left out.
Add to that, that the water board is saying that if you want to pump off water from the river, you need one of them thar permits from them before you do it Doesn't matter that none of the water even leaves the actual river bed, it is still being sucked up and discharged downriver about three or four feet below where it came from. That's where the highbankers are going to be hung up, as well as the dredgers.

 

[cazisme]

So would a dredge like the underwater dragon on bearing sea gold be legal?

 

[chlsbrns]

It says highbanking is not allowed at: Recreational Gold Prospecting

Here it says you need a permit to highbank:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/suction_dredge.shtml

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/suctiondredge/highbank_faq.pdf

 

[NeoTokyo]

nope

 

[Goldwasher]

Call the waterboard and see if they will give you an application.Please post a link to where the waterboard has decided that the scenario you describe is waste. Furthermore post a link to any case or citation regarding said activity. ( PUBLIC INFO IF IT EXISTED) Keep in mind anytime that a small scale miner is slightly harassed it is all over thes and other forums. Yet, not a single case of a miner being busted for hi-banking has reared its head.I know several people who hi-bank. Just two weeks ago some friends were in town. They met a guy( I did to) Bud 72 years young. He had hiked a hibanker out of Salmon Falls. He hiked it in and left him. Blm Ranger ran into his gear that he left to come back for the next day. Did blm bust him for power sluicing?? Did they cite him and set him up for a court battle. No, you know what they told him? Sorry sir you can't leave that overnight unatended.If Bud wanted to Hi-bank he would have to huff his gear in and out... FROM A BLM RANGER!!!!!!!! YOU KNOW THOSE GUYS WHO ARE OUT TO GET US MINERS. Those "RULES" that H.J. linked to were in place before the dredge ban. Howeer after the ban they were spun and spread around to scare people. And unfortunately they were spread mostly by uninformed prospectors. You could never discharge a hi-banker directly into the water you need a settling pond then and now no new rule.....The waterboard is not who gets to say that what comes out the end of your sluice is waste. The E.P.A. would do that. Guess what The E.P.A. says that it is not waste.Not point source pollution. Like you said how could material that was already there be considered pollution? IT IS NOT. Like I said the propaganda is at its worst when spread by those it harms the most. The more miners that tell other miners that you flat out can not Hi-bank the more are going to believe it. Regardless of the fact that not a single new "regulation" has been created that changes anything anyone was doing with a pump. hose, spraybar,and sluice box in the last 30+ years. BLM took the chance to put some words down on paper with the hopes that people would take the bait. I have personally been to the Motherlode field office and they can not produce a single legal pice of paper forbidding you from hi-banking. Water diversion. If you have your water rights as a property owner and the water is for beneficial use divert away......riparian rights....your on your claim or public lands....then in most cases you got them. Fact is under the law there are very few circumstances where you can not run a power sluice. Like I said the key word is " MIGHT". I spoke to George Weldon at length. He agrees. All those folks on club claims Hi-banking in the open right next to the roads all summer and every weekend they agree too.If you want to believe and not Hi-bank then go right ahead that's your choice.

 

[chlsbrns]

You didnt click the links?

“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."

"Those links to hibanking FAQ's have no merit......notice the word "Might" thrown in there it carries more effect than any any of the other words"

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/suctiondredge/highbank_faq.pdf
Where do you see "might"?

 

[chlsbrns]

Call the waterboard and see if they will give you an application.

Here is the application:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb...s/clean_water_act_401/docs/401application.pdf

And instructions:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb...an_water_act_401/docs/401instructions2app.pdf

 

[Goldwasher]

Give you an application to hi-bank that application is not for that.Still getting caught up fellas. Hi banking does not qualify....Hi-banking is not dredged or fill.....Just wondering at what point you are discharging waste into the waters of the state?? At most you may need the notice of diversion. Porter cologne and the clean water act have exisited for years. BEFORE these no hi-banking threads began. Nothing changed. They are trying to get you on the books. Once you are when will they stop asking for more fees? It's DFG who uses the word "Might" they are the first in line to try and get you to fall for it. I want links to hi-banking tickets.....regulations court cases. Not information that I am well aware of.

 

[chlsbrns]

Why do you keep saying "discharging waste"?

The regulating authority specifically states highbanking so why are you insisting that the regs do not apply to highbanking?

First you claimed (twice) that the faq used the word might now its the DFG? Show me please!

Is it possible that highbanking "may result in a discharge to a waterbody?" (a discharge not specifically a waste discharge) I think "a" discharge is possible.

Read the first line: Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board

Does highbanking involve " the removal" of soil near a water body? Read the answer to the question "who needs certification" at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahon...rams/clean_water_act_401/docs/401pamphlet.pdf

And again did you read the first question and the answers at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/suctiondredge/highbank_faq.pdf

 

[Goldwasher]

Read the actual Acts that state the laws not the brief description provided by the water board and DFG site.The acts that existed for years and have not changed. The laws that are the reason that people at Roaring camp, GPAA outings, LDMA properties....Mothelode GoldHounds......New 49ers.....and countless other people have been hi-banking in the open for decades....WITHOUT CHANGE TO ANY LAW... even though these links would make it appear so!!!!! I spent hours on the phone doing the run around from the permit side to the waste discharge side. Typical red tape. Call them tell them you want to move two yards of material a day. With a two inch pump, at 150 gpm per minute for two hours. With a break to fill up on gas and run again. Ask them if that application you linked is required for your operation, tell them you don't believe it is necessary. Wait to be transferred...enjoy explaining what hi-banking even is. Years ago I went into a mining store and I asked about a hi-banker. The owner (I figure) jumped on me about using the term hi-banker. He related that it was a power sluice. To be careful because the rangers would trick me and if they asked if I was hi-banking to say NO!!!!!! Because it was a trap I was to say I was power sluicing....because HI-banking was technically illegal!!!!! I'm not trying to be a jerk or a smart alek...or a know it all fellas .I don't want to be offensive or tick you guys off. Be dismissive or appear ignorant. There is just more to it and I have actually looked into it quite a bit. I am just apart time Prospector however and not a lawyer so I should back of on anything that seems like legal advice. I can only promise you that I am not the only one who knows there is more to it than is being shown to you via these agencies public information sites.

 

[Goldwasher]

Another thing to recognize since these acts existed pre dredge ban. YOU WERE NEVER EVER REQUIRED TO HAVE ANY OF THESE PERMITS OR CERTIFACATIONS!!!! even though you were creating turbidity, even though you were technically diverting water and were according to a previous post discharging waste according to the ater board .. All you needed was a dredge permit. It was not pressure from the waterboard or e.p.a. that created the ban it was local politics.

 

[chlsbrns]

......
You are talking but not posting links to back up your statements.

I believe what I read from a governing body over what people say.

 

[chlsbrns]

Read the actual Acts that state the laws not the brief description provided by the water board and DFG site.The acts that existed for years and have not changed.

...WITHOUT CHANGE TO ANY LAW... even though these links would make it appear so!!!!

This is the complete act including... "complete text with 12-28-2012 revisions, effective 1 January 2013"

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf

And the federal clean water act including...[Updated to include 2011 Amendments]

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/fedwaterpollutioncontrolact.pdf

Both links are at: State Water Resources Control Board