More smoke and mirrors from the state.

[chlsbrns]

The 1872 mining laws and the Cali constitution give riparian rights to LAND OWNERS. Claim holders do not own the land they have the right to extract minerals.

https://www.google.com/search?q=rip...google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&espv=1&ie=UTF-8

Have you ever applied for a permit?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oakview2]

You obviously HAVE NOT read the 1872 or any other minning laws. Claims by act of congress are granted, real property, secured by a deed and recorded in the county they reside in. It is difficult to have a conversation with you because you obviously are devoid of any knowledge of federal law.

Jefferson Mining District - Mining in Oregon - South West Oregon Mining Association
Mining Law & Mining Rights Learning Center

 

[Goldwasher]

I have the strong sense we are talking to an East Coaster ( no offense Jeff of P.A. I have Penn. genes)...........IT IS REAL PROPERTY IF IT WAS NOT I COULD NOT SELL MY CLAIM.........!!!!!!!!!!! At this point I am having fun knowing I know so much more than this fella.

 

[chlsbrns]

You obviously HAVE NOT read the 1872 or any other minning laws. Claims by act of congress are granted, real property, secured by a deed and recorded in the county they reside in. It is difficult to have a conversation with you because you obviously are devoid of any knowledge of federal law.

Jefferson Mining District - Mining in Oregon - South West Oregon Mining Association
Mining Law & Mining Rights Learning Center

I read enough to know the 1872 mining law says that patented claims have riparian rights. Do you know the difference between patented and unpatented?

The link is an oregon law from 1909.

The problem is not about water rights/use anyway. The problem is discharging into waterways.

They allow mining via pan, drywasher, ect if you want to use something that discharges water you need a permit.

Did you ever apply for a permit?

 

[chlsbrns]

Patented, homestead = owned!

 

[chlsbrns]

Do you know what priority of possession means? If so tell me so I know that you understand what the 1872 mining law is saying.

 

[Goldwasher]

You can not appy as you do not fit the required criteria.......argggghhhhhh thay don't even know what to tell you......I already said I spent hours on the phone......holy cow? why do you even care you don't live in California....you are not going to be hi-banking what is it you are even going for? If you are trying to be right or appear to know what you are talking about you are failing miserably. You obviously don't even read the content of your own links.

 

[chlsbrns]

You can not appy as you do not fit the required criteria.......argggghhhhhh thay don't even know what to tell you......I already said I spent hours on the phone......holy cow? why do you even care you don't live in California....you are not going to be hi-banking what is it you are even going for? If you are trying to be right or appear to know what you are talking about you are failing miserably. You obviously don't even read the content of your own links.

I posted the application (and instruction) for the permit to highbank/discharge.

Why would you spend hours on the phone? You have already posted that no permit is needed! That highbanking was allowed. So why call?

 

[Oakview2]

Patenting, however is not required,and a unpatented claim, remains a fully recongnized possessorsy interst.. You really need to ready the links I provided. The link provided is from the Jefferson Minning district, the most powerful. It has the ability to make its own laws, IF YOU HAD READ ANY OF THE MATERIAL, YOU WOULD KNOW THAT. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOU REFUSE TO READ THE INFORMATION, TELLS ME THAT YOU WISH TO STAY IN THE DARK. THAT IS YOUR CHOICE AND I RESPECT THAT. i AM NOT AND ATTORNEY, BUT I HAVE READ AS MUCH AS I CAN GET MY HANDS ON AND I WILL REFRAIN FROM ANY MORE DISCUSSION UNTIL YOU GET UP TO SPEED.

 

[chlsbrns]

"Provided, further, That nothing in this act shall be construed as affecting or intended to affect or in any way interfere with or modify the laws of the States which lie wholly or in part westward of the ninety-eighth meridian relating to the ownership, control, appropriation, use, and distribution of ground or surface waters within any unpatented mining claim"

43 CFR 3712.1 - Restriction on use of unpatented mining claims. | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[chlsbrns]

Patenting, however is not required,and a unpatented claim, remains a fully recongnized possessorsy interst.. You really need to ready the links I provided. The link provided is from the Jefferson Minning district, the most powerful. It has the ability to make its own laws, IF YOU HAD READ ANY OF THE MATERIAL, YOU WOULD KNOW THAT. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOU REFUSE TO READ THE INFORMATION, TELLS ME THAT YOU WISH TO STAY IN THE DARK. THAT IS YOUR CHOICE AND I RESPECT THAT. i AM NOT AND ATTORNEY, BUT I HAVE READ AS MUCH AS I CAN GET MY HANDS ON AND I WILL REFRAIN FROM ANY MORE DISCUSSION UNTIL YOU GET UP TO SPEED.

What do 1909 Oregon water/mining laws have to do with California?

 

[Oakview2]

Those are NOT Oregon state miining laws, did you read?

 

[chlsbrns]

Are you ignoring my previous post about the lack of water rights on unpatented claims?

 

[Oakview2]

Regulatory statues cannot prempt the rights granted by God and the US Congress. Read the links

 

[chlsbrns]

What I posted is the Federal Code
§3712.1***Restriction on use of unpatented mining claims.

eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations

 

[chlsbrns]

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retriev...6ce212ee1f7131b4&n=pt43.2.3710&r=PART&ty=HTML

CHAPTER II — BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

§3715.5***What standards apply to my use or occupancy?

(a) Your use or occupancy must be reasonably incident. In all uses and occupancies, you must prevent or avoid “unnecessary or undue degradation” of the public lands and resources.

(b) Your uses must conform to all applicable federal and state environmental standards and you must have obtained all required permits before beginning, as required under 43 CFR part 3800. This means getting permits and authorizations and meeting standards required by state and federal law, including, but not limited to, the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251*et seq.), Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401*et seq.), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901*et seq.), as required under 43 CFR part 3800.

 

[Oakview2]

Again BLM regulations DO NOT SUPERCEDE the laws passed by the US Congress. There are NO federal or state permits to acquire. This is my last post to you until you read the law and come out of the darkness.

 

[chlsbrns]

Again BLM regulations DO NOT SUPERCEDE the laws passed by the US Congress. There are NO federal or state permits to acquire. This is my last post to you until you read the law and come out of the darkness.

Are you serious?

Where do you think the laws were quoted from? Do you know what USC stands for? United States Code are laws passed by Congress!

OLRC Home

 

[Clay Diggins]

Are you serious?
Where do you thing the laws were quoted from? Do you know what USC stands for? United States Code are laws passed by Congress!

You might consider learning more about law and regulation before you try to interpret the meanings of what you have read chlsbrns.

The link and quotes you provided were not United States Code, they are not law, they are not even regulations.

The United States Code (USC) is an incomplete compilation of US (federal) laws. It would be a reasonable place to start an understanding of the laws but it is not the law itself - it is just a partial compilation of law. Your link was not to the United States Code.

The Code of Federal Regulations is not law. It is the list of regulations that direct the activities of the executive (presidential) agencies. Your link was not to the Code of Federal Regulations.

The eCFR, which you quoted and linked to, is neither law nor regulation. It is a simplified version of the agency regulations for schoolchildren and incompetent Federal employees.

It's always best to investigate the purpose and effect of government documents before relying on them as law or fact. Here is the introduction to the eCFR you quoted:

The Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) is a currently updated version of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). It is not an official legal edition of the CFR.

By their own words the eCFR is not official nor is it legal. As such it might be unwise to rely on what is written there?

Work on understanding the source of law and regulation and then work on the meaning of the words used in law and you will come to a much better understanding of this subject. Once you do that I'm sure you will understand why the California Water Board handout has no effect in law and is not enforceable.

Heavy Pans

 

[chlsbrns]

You might consider learning more about law and regulation before you try to interpret the meanings of what you have read chlsbrns.

The link and quotes you provided were not United States Code, they are not law, they are not even regulations.

The United States Code (USC) is an incomplete compilation of US (federal) laws. It would be a reasonable place to start an understanding of the laws but it is not the law itself - it is just a partial compilation of law. Your link was not to the United States Code.

The Code of Federal Regulations is not law. It is the list of regulations that direct the activities of the executive (presidential) agencies. Your link was not to the Code of Federal Regulations.

The eCFR, which you quoted and linked to, is neither law nor regulation. It is a simplified version of the agency regulations for schoolchildren and incompetent Federal employees.

It's always best to investigate the purpose and effect of government documents before relying on them as law or fact. Here is the introduction to the eCFR you quoted:



By their own words the eCFR is not official nor is it legal. As such it might be unwise to rely on what is written there?

Work on understanding the source of law and regulation and then work on the meaning of the words used in law and you will come to a much better understanding of this subject. Once you do that I'm sure you will understand why the California Water Board handout has no effect in law and is not enforceable.

Heavy Pans

The United States Code is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. This is a quote from the top of the page at: uscode.house.gov

The same text of the law that I previously posted and linked to from e-cfr. This is the us code/law!

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...relim&granuleId=USC-prelim-title30-section612