SB637 back in action

[fowledup]

Bill Text -

This was the fear that I eluded to in my last post on this. The only thing putting the bill in the suspense file did was remove our witnesses and testimony from the equation, and allow them to waltz it thru behind close doors!
For those reading up on the recent water grab by the EPA and potus that think it's all good, take a long hard look at the bill text for SB637, and review previous cases concerning pollutants and discharge (especially those supreme court cases that agree that what we do does not add pollutants or discharge anything additional) than come back educated and tell us it can't or won't effect dredging, sluicing, or any other mining activity concerning water. It would be more accurate to say "it hasn't happened yet". When people say they won't, can't, or wouldn't do that, it never fails that it's exactly what they do next! Folks keep pressing snooze thinking they can stay in dreamland!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Oakview2]

It is much easier to believe that politicians have the peoples intrest at heart, than to examine the facts. To those who think this or the executive order do not effect us, you should put your heads back in the sand.

 

[2cmorau]

sic is the waypeople vote to have less rights
Bill Text - SB-637 Suction dredge mining: permits.

 

[Armchair prospector]

I wonder how much $$$ the government has wasted on this?

 

[Miner49er_2015]

So after reading all the "law":

(e) For purposes of this section, a suction dredge contains any of the following:

(1) A hose that vacuums sediment from a river, stream, or lake.

(2) A motorized pump.

(3) A motorized sluice box.

Would I be wrong to guess that a high banker, using a motorized pump, a motorized sluice box? What's a motorized sluice box? Would that now make a high banker a dredge, if it is within 100 yards of a creek?

If you set your pump in the creek and pumped 100 yards away, the pump is still in the creek, now you are in violation of the new law?

I'm sure that I'm missing something here, or reading this wrong, but who interprets the law? The politicians, the arresting officer, the judge?

 

[fowledup]

From bill text--- Under existing law, the State Water Resources Control Board and the California regional water quality control boards prescribe waste discharge requirements in accordance with the federal Clean Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (state act). The state act, with certain exceptions, requires a waste discharger to file certain information with the appropriate regional board and to pay an annual fee. The state act additionally requires a person, before discharging mining waste, to submit to the regional board a report on the physical and chemical characteristics of the waste that could affect its potential to cause pollution or contamination and a report that evaluates the potential of the mining waste discharge to produce acid mine drainage, the discharge or leaching of heavy metals, or the release of other hazardous substances.

This part is more worrisome, it implies once again that what comes out of your pan, sluice, highbanker, or dredge would be 'mining waste'. This has already been argued, to paraphrase from the court -If one takes a ladle of soup from a pot, holds it above the pot and pours it back into the pot it has not altered the soup in the pot. We are not creating waste period, in fact the only thing we do is remove waste, and the precious metals and gems we seek. How freaken hard of a concept is that to understand. If any miner should sign the permint they are defacto agreeing that we release waste discharge. Back to court we go!

Also the word "motorized" has been removed in the general bill text and placed under the definition as a criteria, meaning gravity dredges or, if they want to get all technical could mean hand suction tubes.

 

[winners58]

sounds like pretty much what is in the Oregon 700pm
http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/wqpermit/docs/General/npdes700pm/permit.pdf

One Big Question to ask is what is going to be the EPA involvement.
for Oregon there is a MOA between the EPA & DEQ
http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/pubs/moas/NPDESMOAEPA201004.pdf

hopefully it wont be a NPDES heres the MOA for California
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/ca-moa-npdes_0.pdf

here's the California Water board the permit for sand and gravel mining, cost $600.00
(186 pages) http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2008/R2-2008-0011.pdf
.

 

[Hoser John]

F'M' all