Power sluice California law question

[sajme]

so I understand the rules and regulations of using a power sluice and the discharge of water and sediment and a permit is needed for land but if I bring my own water in a plastic tote and recirc that water am I breaking any rules. I wouldn’t think so? But what do I know 🫡

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[ratled]

I think of the intent of providing a definition for suction/vacuum dredging was to prevent people from breaking up the system to get around the ban, like previously happened. The law only applies to what is reasonably and commonly understood to be a suction/vacuum dredge. And only applies to the usage of dredges for the removal/processing of materials from river/stream/lake bed/bank/channel for minerals.

If you believe the definition applies to anything in the world that could match the definition and is not commonly understood to be a suction dredge. Then it would be a very vague law, open to selective enforcement and would be unconstitutional. E.g., the definition would apply to a pacemaker, which no one in their right mind would consider a dredge.

This isn’t about thoughts, feelings or interpretations its what is on the books as law. The OP asked a question and winners gave the correct answer. Clay had issues with it as it didn’t specifically state high banker. I get that. We don’t have like the answer but that is the answer

Back when, we tried to have SB 637 enjoined in to the mining cases. The judge allowed us to make a pitch for that as we stated it was the states attempt to work around the current cases.

We stated that a true gold panner drives his truck to the claim and parks within 300 it is in violation of the law as written. Both Melnick and Solomon, AGs for the state, stated they would never take it that far. We said that there were miners currently (then) being hassled for using table top spirals and blue bowls with battery powered bilge pumps. Mattox, lead attorney for DFG/DFW, stated that those are considered covered under 637. We asked what the was the defining line and Mattox didn’t give a clear answer. We tried to get the judge to let us enjoin 637 so we could at least use the federal version of suction dredge and provided him with a copy of the USFS handout that included a schematic of a suction dredge.

We were informed a short time later that 637 would not be enjoined and that we could file a new case against 637…… nobody did.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Goldwasher]

This isn’t about thoughts, feelings or interpretations its what is on the books as law. The OP asked a question and winners gave the correct answer. Clay had issues with it as it didn’t specifically state high banker. I get that. We don’t have like the answer but that is the answer

Back when, we tried to have SB 637 enjoined in to the mining cases. The judge allowed us to make a pitch for that as we stated it was the states attempt to work around the current cases.

We stated that a true gold panner drives his truck to the claim and parks within 300 it is in violation of the law as written. Both Melnick and Solomon, AGs for the state, stated they would never take it that far. We said that there were miners currently (then) being hassled for using table top spirals and blue bowls with battery powered bilge pumps. Mattox, lead attorney for DFG/DFW, stated that those are considered covered under 637. We asked what the was the defining line and Mattox didn’t give a clear answer. We tried to get the judge to let us enjoin 637 so we could at least use the federal version of suction dredge and provided him with a copy of the USFS handout that included a schematic of a suction dredge.

We were informed a short time later that 637 would not be enjoined and that we could file a new case against 637…… nobody did.

Not neccesarily true. I introduced a lobbyist to S. POE. ( worthless tool )they tried to make a seperate clarifacation Bill. Headed by assemblymen Bigelow.
They pussed out and tabled it in commitee.

 

[Clay Diggins]

so I understand the rules and regulations of using a power sluice and the discharge of water and sediment and a permit is needed for land but if I bring my own water in a plastic tote and recirc that water am I breaking any rules. I wouldn’t think so? But what do I know 🫡

To answer your question. You wouldn't be breaking any rules except the rules of experienced miners that small recirculation systems are ineffective for profitable primary gold mining. Save those little recirc systems for concentrates clean up where they can be effective.

Interestingly returning water to the stream it came from is legal and acceptable practice (as long as there are no additions, see Supreme court "ladle" ruling). On the other hand any imported water that escapes from your recirculation system would by definition be classified as a point source pollutant. Why not just use the local stream water so you don't risk introducing foreign material into the waterway?

 

[Azure]

This isn’t about thoughts, feelings or interpretations its what is on the books as law. The OP asked a question and winners gave the correct answer. Clay had issues with it as it didn’t specifically state high banker. I get that. We don’t have like the answer but that is the answer

Back when, we tried to have SB 637 enjoined in to the mining cases. The judge allowed us to make a pitch for that as we stated it was the states attempt to work around the current cases.

We stated that a true gold panner drives his truck to the claim and parks within 300 it is in violation of the law as written. Both Melnick and Solomon, AGs for the state, stated they would never take it that far. We said that there were miners currently (then) being hassled for using table top spirals and blue bowls with battery powered bilge pumps. Mattox, lead attorney for DFG/DFW, stated that those are considered covered under 637. We asked what the was the defining line and Mattox didn’t give a clear answer. We tried to get the judge to let us enjoin 637 so we could at least use the federal version of suction dredge and provided him with a copy of the USFS handout that included a schematic of a suction dredge.

We were informed a short time later that 637 would not be enjoined and that we could file a new case against 637…… nobody did.

I think the law is void then. Anyone else think the vagueness doctrine applies to this law?

Vagueness doctrine​

Definition​

1) A constitutional rule that requires criminal laws to state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable. Criminal laws that violate this requirement are said to be void for vagueness. Vagueness doctrine rests on the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. By requiring fair notice of what is punishable and what is not, vagueness doctrine also helps prevent arbitrary enforcement of the laws.
2) Under vagueness doctrine, a statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges and/or administrators is so extensive that it would lead to arbitrary prosecutions.

 

[Clay Diggins]

I think the law is void then. Anyone else think the vagueness doctrine applies to this law?

What law?

 

[Azure]

What law?

California Code, Fish and Game Code - FGC § 5653 | FindLaw

California Fish and Game Code FGC CA FISH & G Section 5653. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

(g) For purposes of this section and Section 5653.1, the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment, also known as suction dredging, is the use of a mechanized or motorized system for removing or assisting in the removal of, or the processing of, material from the bed, bank, or channel of a river, stream, or lake in order to recover minerals.  This section and Section 5653.1 do not apply to, prohibit, or otherwise restrict nonmotorized recreational mining activities, including panning for gold.

 

[Clay Diggins]

California Code, Fish and Game Code - FGC § 5653 | FindLaw

California Fish and Game Code FGC CA FISH & G Section 5653. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

(g) For purposes of this section and Section 5653.1, the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment, also known as suction dredging, is the use of a mechanized or motorized system for removing or assisting in the removal of, or the processing of, material from the bed, bank, or channel of a river, stream, or lake in order to recover minerals.  This section and Section 5653.1 do not apply to, prohibit, or otherwise restrict nonmotorized recreational mining activities, including panning for gold.

Ah... the dredging "law". I know a lot of people who dredge in California. Seems the law is annulled and ignored by many California miners. It's becomne a matter of personal choice for many.

The reason I questioned "What law" is because this thread is about power sluicing "law". I still haven't seen a law about power sluicing in California. I had hoped you knew of one.

Heavy Pans

 

[Azure]

Ah... the dredging "law". I know a lot of people who dredge in California. Seems the law is annulled and ignored by many California miners. It's becomne a matter of personal choice for many.

The reason I questioned "What law" is because this thread is about power sluicing "law". I still haven't seen a law about power sluicing in California. I had hoped you knew of one.

Heavy Pans

I haven't come across it yet, i'm still looking for law against power pacemakers used to assist removal of minerals.