if passed, even a gold pan would need a permit, states definition

[2cmorau]

if passed, even a gold pan would need a permit, state's definition

spend five minutes protesting these bills, SB637 and SB209 are going before the Assembly Appropriations committee this Wednesday in room 4202, starting at 0800.
https://ad05.assemblygop.com/resources
>>Alpine County
>>Amador County
>>Calaveras County
>>El Dorado County
>>Madera County
>>Mariposa County
>>Mono County
>>Placer County
>>Tuolumne County
clik on the county and send a response

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Hoser John]

Can ya feel the love yet ? John

 

[2cmorau]

Incidental Fallback
"Incidental Fallback" represents a net withdrawal, not an addition of material. Incidental Fallback cannot be a discharge within the meaning of the Clean Water Acts (CWA) as the CWA only permits and regulates additions. All gold mining suction dredges are designed to withdraw heavy metal (based on their specific gravity) from gravels and soils, it cannot be said that suction dredges add anything within the meaning of the CWA. It is simple math, the difference between addition and subtraction. Those activities that add can require a 401, 402, or 404 permit, those that subtract do not require a permit at all. That is the intent of Congress. The EPA and the Army Corp has for the past 30 years tried to redefine "Incidental Fallback" under a regulated and permitted "redeposit" category, but the courts have found this agency practice invalid on numerous occasions and instructed the EPA and Army Corp to remove their offending regulatory expansion.
To illustrate this point originally in Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 145 F.3d 1399, 1404 (D.C.Cir.1998). The court explained that, "ecause incidental fallback represents a net withdrawal, not an addition, of material, it cannot be a discharge" and questioned "how there can be an addition of dredged material when there is no addition of material." Emphasis added.
And
“This understanding of "discharge" excludes the small-volume incidental discharge that accompanies excavation and landclearing activities. Senator Muskie explained that "the bill tries to free from the threat of regulation those kinds of manmade activities which are sufficiently de minimis as to merit general attention at the State and local level and little or no attention at the State and local level and little or no attention at the national level." Senate Report on S. 1952, 95th Cong., reprinted in 1977 Legis.Hist. at 645. Senator Domenici stated that "we never intended under section 404 that the Corps of Engineers be involved in the daily lives of our farmers, realtors, people involved in forestry, anyone that is moving a little bit of earth anywhere in this country that might have an impact on navigable streams." Senate Debate, id. at 924.
This holding stands today and is reflected from the National Association of Homebuilders v. Corps decision (D.D.C. 2007) invalidating the January 17, 2001, amendments to the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory definition of “discharge of dredged material” (referred to as the “Tulloch II” rule). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have promulgated a joint final rule to amend this definition by conforming the Corps’ and EPA’s regulations to the language of the court’s opinion by deleting language from the regulation that was invalidated.
The State, as mandated by the CWA and funded by federal law, cannot carry out an objective when it conflicts or is inconsistent with express Congressional intent, exemptions, and purpose. See CA Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock 480 U.S. 572. State law is preempted if Congress has evidenced intent to occupy entirely given field (as is the case here) or, where Congress has not entirely displaced state regulation, if state law actually conflicts with federal law. If the State thinks otherwise, the clear legislative history of Congress demonstrates that the state law is federally pre-empted on this matter of "Incidental Fallback"as illustrated previously by Senator Muskie.

 

[Oakview2]

Preach it brother

 

[Goldwasher]

So essential this bill will only allow regulation of the regulate-able....since none of the things we do are regulated by the cwa...and this bill doesn't amend the cwa....then

 

[winners58]

science not hype...
Effects of Small-Scale Gold Dredging on Arsenic, Copper, Lead, and Zinc Concentrations in the Similkameen River
by Johnson, A. and M. Peterschmidt , 2005 Washington State Department of Ecology
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/0503007.html
and Quality assurance of the testing
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/0403108.html

 

[fowledup]

Lest we forget..........

SUCTION DREDGE
CDFW Reminds the Public Suction Dredge Mining Remains Unlawful in California
MAY 5, 2015
Media Contacts:
Patrick Foy, CDFW Law Enforcement Division, (916) 651-6692
Mark Stopher, CDFW Senior Policy Advisor, (530) 225-2275

In 2009, California enacted a statutory moratorium on suction dredge mining throughout the state. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) reminds suction dredge miners the moratorium for use of motorized suction dredge equipment remains in effect. In addition, possession of any such equipment within 100 yards of any river stream or lake also remains unlawful.

Suction dredge mining is a method for vacuuming gravel from rivers, streams or lakes to sort through the sediment produced, usually through a sluice box, to recover gold or other precious metal.

Beginning in 2005 and thereafter with the moratorium taking effect in 2009, several lawsuits were filed to challenge the moratorium and the updated suction dredge regulation adopted by CDFW in 2012. Legal challenges to the regulations and the moratorium are in progress in both the San Bernardino County Superior Court and the California Supreme Court. Unless directed otherwise by the courts through a final order and consistent with CDFW obligations under the California Constitution, wildlife officers will continue to enforce the current prohibition on suction dredge mining in California.

Currently there is some misleading information provided on unofficial Internet websites suggesting the legal matters are resolved, the moratorium is no longer in effect, and miners may lawfully mine using motorized suction dredge equipment in California. This information is inaccurate. CDFW is concerned that this misinformation may lead some miners to return to operating suction dredges where they will be at risk of citation or arrest and possible forfeiture of their equipment.

When the legal procedures conclude, CDFW will notify the public of the final outcome and changes to the law, if any.

More information can be found at http://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Suction-Dredge-Permits.

...........coming soon to a gold pan, sluice, highbanker, and waterway near you! Congratulations Kaliforniastan! How's that saying go- "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!"

 

[2cmorau]

Winners, thanks for the info, will be sending that out to the respective reps

 

[spaghettigold]

studys bookmarked..

 

[nh.nugget]

You say you want a revolution -we all want to change the world --- The BEATTLES!