LC2125_DRAFT_2013_Regular_Session.pdf (62KB)
Amazon Forum Fav đź‘Ť
Last edited:
Upvote
0
gn, - It certainly will make it easier for us in Ca.! I don't want to sound like doomsday, but only emphasize what a monster you are fighting. We thought
naively, that presenting facts, evidence, and fair play would take the day. We got steamrolled. If you have "all hands on deck" working together, as one
unit, there's a chance - we didn't. The speed in which the enviros rammed thru their agenda, took our breath away.
While doing some research on the "public comments" part of the process, I came across a draft document that listed comments from hundreds of miners.
Some desk jockey at Fish and Game was making notations like "spelling, unclear, etc." When I scanned down further, I saw a comment from a LAW FIRM
representing pro enviro view (friends of the river - FOR) The comments began something like "Jones and Jones, Attorneys at Law on behalf of our client, FOR
we present the following.....blah blah". There was a BOLD notation beside this entry saying "what do we do about this?", "this should be looked into"?
We, in Ca. found out later there was virtually no consideration given to the little guys. It was all about power and influence. I pray you guys are not
as naive as we were.
Jeffro, you got to cut HJ a little slack - I had same reaction till I went back into ancient posts here, and also researched his involvement trying to save dredging
for more than 15 years. He's a good man but gets a little squirrely when dredge bans come up, don't blame him till you know how hard he fought, and how
much pain there is. For instance, John was the only dredger to enter the public input process with multiple pages of evidence
back up with factual references - must have spent several weeks and significant money to get it into final form for submission
and that's just for starters.
From: | Kerby Jackson <[email protected]> View Contact |
poster-SB401-338.pdf (19KB) |
To help respond to the anti-mining legislation threat in Oregon to all mining law beneficiaries: Thanks to Tom Quintal, government liaison of Willamette Valley Mining Association, for putting this together for any one wanting to respond. Below are some bullet points to write letters, phone, email or fax the Oregon legislators regarding the new anti-mining bills. The Senate Environment & Resources committee will be hearing SB115, SB401 and SB370 in this committee. Here's the framework of a letter or email. Make sure to put in the required info and use the bullet points as a guide but come up with your own if you can as well. Make the communication your statement, not a form response. Communications should begin to be accepted on these bills beginning next week starting around the February 5th after the Legislative Session starts. Red below is for instruction. Attention Senate Environment and Resources Committee Attention: To SB115, SB401 and SB370 Please make this letter part of the public record. If you write a letter state to make the letter part of the public record, as shown above. Dear Senator Dingfelder, you can send this email/letter, fax or use it to phone to every member on the committee and every legislative member. I OPPOSE the following bills SB115, SB401 and SB370 and ask this email be made as part of the public record. Dear Senator Dingfelder: All of the bills listed will cause financial hardship including mineral trespass for Oregon citizens with respect to our 1872 mining rights and Oregon mining law. SB401 in particular will cause a "Takings" for some of Oregon's most valuable placer mining streams with active Federal mining claims. SB401 will also eliminate future mining claims with respect to the new proposed Oregon Scenic Waters. Oregon already has 19 Oregon Scenic Waters including Waldo Lake. Please be aware with the proposed Oregon Scenic Waters addition Oregon cannot afford a "Takings" class action lawsuit from hundreds of Oregon Federal claim owners. If you write a letter or email I would list your name and address. John Doe 123 Santa Clause St. Salem, Oregon 97317 phone number could be optional. cc: Here are the folks that need immediate letters, emails, faxes and phone calls to their individual offices. Senator Jackie Dingfelder Party: D District: 23 Capitol Phone: 503-986-1723 District Phone: 503-493-2804 Capitol Address: 900 Court St NE, S-407, Salem, OR, 97301 District Office Address: PO Box 13432, Portland, OR, 97213 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/dingfelder Senator Alan Olsen p Party: R District: 20 Capitol Phone: 503-986-1720 District Phone: 503-936-8605 Capitol Address: 900 Court St NE, S-425, Salem, OR, 97301 District Office Address: PO Box 820, Canby, OR, 97013 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/olsen Senator Alan Bates Party: D District: 3 Capitol Phone: 503-986-1703 District Phone: 541-282-6502 Capitol Address: 900 Court St NE, S-205, Salem, OR, 97301 District Office Address: 2859 State Street #101, Medford, OR, 97504 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/bates Senator Bill Hansell Party: R District: 29 Capitol Phone: 503-986-1729 Capitol Address: 900 Court St NE, S-423, Salem, OR, 97301 Email: [email protected] Interim Email:[email protected] Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/hansell Senator Mark Hass Party: D District: 14 Capitol Phone: 503-986-1714 Capitol Address: 900 Court St NE, S-207, Salem, OR, 97301 District Office Address: PO Box 536, Beaverton, OR, 97075 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/hass |
Bullitt Points against SB 401 1. The State of Oregon does not have the authority to take private property by establishing a “Scenic easement” one-forth mile from the bank of any river without either the consent of the owner, or without compensation. Establishing a scenic easement is a taking of private property or lands managed by the Federal Government, for public use without first offering compensation under the Oregon Constitution (Article I Section 18). 2. The “right to control the use of related adjacent land” and air space above for future uses that are currently lawful are outside the authority of the State of Oregon, and especially so with no offer of compensation. (Article I Section 18 Oregon Constitution and the Fifth Amendment U.S. Constitution) 3. Mining in all of its forms are the intended use and rights of the citizens; it “shall be free and open” to prospecting, exploring, locating and occupying and purchasing the valuable mineral deposit, which includes the surface in lands open to mineral entry and belonging to the Federal Government. (30 USC 22, 26 & 35) 4. Under the Supremacy Clause, any state law that conflicts with a federal law is preempted. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). Any state legislation which frustrates the full effectiveness of federal law is rendered invalid by the Supremacy Clause, regardless of the underlying purpose of its enactors, Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637, 651-52, 91 S.Ct. 1704 20 L. Ed.2d 233 (1971). Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that the “…Constitution and Laws of the United State…shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” 5. The current scenic waterways statutes conflict with Federal Law governing use of federal lands, specifically prohibiting placer mining. SB 401 not only adds several more waterways to the conflicting law, but also compounds the existing problems by adding an improper savings clause that does not save the future right of use of property by the owner. 6. SB 401 cannot legally apply to “removal or fill activity”, because the gravels in such waterways in the public lands belong to the upland owner, which includes the mining claimant. 7. Certain water rights to use the lakes and running streams were “hereby granted” by the State of Oregon as a “public necessity” and a “beneficial use” for mining purposes (1899 Act) and partly codified in ORS 541.110 and cannot be denied or require permitting to the mining claimant. The State granted that right away. 8. SB 401 or any previous statutes governing the scenic waterway cannot restrict the public use of roads, railroads or utilities constructed within any creeks and rivers or “waterways”, especially RS 2477 right of ways, for maintenance and access to minerals on federal lands also see Oregon Constitution Article I, Section 18, which are “necessary to promote the transportation of raw products of mine or farm or forest or water for beneficial use or drainage is necessary to the development and welfare of the state…” 9. An emergency has not been established.
| |||