Why EPA says no dredging. A must watch and listen!

[Bejay]

Every dredge miner ought to take the time to watch this: It applies to all the States cases of EPA permitting!

http://oregoncourts.mediasite.com/m...?catalog=7451ecdd-054e-43ee-9f33-8460558f78fe


One must also understand that the States rely on this for the States position against dredging.

Bejay

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[N-Lionberger]

yeesh thats painful listening

 

[Bejay]

It is amazing that not many will take the time to watch how it all goes down. But many want to merely sit by and expect an outcome favorable to themselves. If one wants to understand how the courts conduct themselves; they should watch the video to realize that the arguments are made to judges who are really clueless to things. It is like teaching a two year old to talk and walk. It is up to the teacher to convey something that is clear and understood. But even then...if you are communicating with clueless you are paddling a boat upstream. IMHO


Bejay

 

[Bejay]

So the EPA's argument that small scale dredge operations should be regulated by the EPA instead of the designated lawful regulatory agency "Corps of Army Engineers" is that the tailings of the dredger has been altered because it REMOVED the gold. The EPA contends this is the same as adding off sight pollutant to the mix. If the miners don't win this case then there is no hope...IMHO

Bejay

 

[KevinInColorado]

I’ll just leave this here

 

[benny]

I’ll just leave this here
View attachment 1602097

Dredge tainted rocks would be the ones that aren't sunny-side up?

 

[Goldwasher]

So the EPA's argument that small scale dredge operations should be regulated by the EPA instead of the designated lawful regulatory agency "Corps of Army Engineers" is that the tailings of the dredger has been altered because it REMOVED the gold. The EPA contends this is the same as adding off sight pollutant to the mix. If the miners don't win this case then there is no hope...IMHO

Bejay

ACOE only has jurisdiction over navigable waters. So, they would not be involved in regulating dredges on a majority of rivers and pretty much all streams.

the fact that a boat or canoe can navigate it doesn't make it navigable either.

 

[chlsbrns]

ACOE only has jurisdiction over navigable waters. So, they would not be involved in regulating dreges aon a majority of rivers and pretty much all streams.

the fact that a boat or canoe can navigate it doesn't make it navigable either.

Do you mean the US Army Corps Of Engineers? (USACE)

Sorry but the USACE certainly does have jurisdiction over much more than navigable waters. They have jurisdiction over waters of the United States, including wetlands.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...YABIQFggsMAE&usg=AOvVaw12UOqJYcRu3JVHTIIjO1BT

https://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Jurisdiction-Determinations/

Regional and Programmatic General Permits
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Regulatory Program involves the regulating of discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States

https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/Obtain-a-Permit/

 

[Hefty1]

It is amazing that not many will take the time to watch how it all goes down. But many want to merely sit by and expect an outcome favorable to themselves. If one wants to understand how the courts conduct themselves; they should watch the video to realize that the arguments are made to judges who are really clueless to things. It is like teaching a two year old to talk and walk. It is up to the teacher to convey something that is clear and understood. But even then...if you are communicating with clueless you are paddling a boat upstream. IMHO


Bejay

You know Bejay, I have been to a couple of these supreme court dredging cases hear in sac, ca. And they were so disgusting to watch these so called judges, supposedly listening to both sides. They don't have a clue whats going on.

 

[spaghettigold]

ACOE only has jurisdiction over navigable waters. So, they would not be involved in regulating dreges aon a majority of rivers and pretty much all streams.

the fact that a boat or canoe can navigate it doesn't make it navigable either.

could the court assign authority to ACOE for the process of suction dredging in all types of waters?
Will ACOE be dredgefriendlier?
Could the state continue to harass dredgers with new overregulations if ACOE says it's ok to dredge)

 

[Bejay]

ACOE only has jurisdiction over navigable waters. So, they would not be involved in regulating dreges aon a majority of rivers and pretty much all streams.

the fact that a boat or canoe can navigate it doesn't make it navigable either.

The issue is resolved by current Federal Law. There is no ambiguity if one follows the law. It is a regulatory issue: By law who is assigned the oversight. In the end it is the interpretation of the "words" within the language of the law that determine the outcome. Personally I feel the EPA fails to convince the court that its' interpretation is correct. But we will have to wait and see.


The states rely on the EPA and the Clean Water Act as their method of intrusion. If the Federal Gov fails to correctly maintain jurisdiction then the States maintain the incorrect application. If the Federal issue is resolved (dredge spoils language by the courts...the 9th got it wrong) then there is hope. If the Federal law is continued to be applied incorrectly then there is little hope to get the EPA out of the room!



Bejay

 

[Johnnybravo300]

Californians elects leaders that don't follow federal law or the US Constitution.
Your mining rights and even constitutional rights are laughable there and mostly don't exist at all.

Your relying on an unjust, sold out, and corrupt system to regain your rights. Talk about paddling upstream!

American miners have never begged for their freedom from communists. This is history in the making.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Seems like the miner's opposition is spreading misinformation again under another name. I'm guessing the Assembler "Survey" game got boring once everybody learned to ignore the dribbling of BS. Now we've gone from greasy gold pans to making up non existent laws about water to scare miners.

The 2015 EPA definition of "waters of the US" that was made up to include puddles and roadside ditches has never been legal. The courts shot down that BS years ago. The President has issued an order that the EPA no longer use their made up definition and Congress has legislation in conference to pass a law to prevent future Presidents and agencies from making up more BS.

From the EPA:

The definition of "waters of the United States" currently in effect is the definition promulgated in 1986/1988, implemented consistent with subsequent Supreme Court decisions and guidance documents.

The 2015 revised regulatory definition of "waters of the United States" has been stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

In response to this stay, EPA, Department of Army, and Army Corps of Engineers resumed nationwide use of the agencies’ prior regulations defining the term “waters of the United States.”

On February 28, 2017, the President of the United States issued an Executive Order directing EPA and Department of the Army to review and rescind or revise the 2015 Rule.


It's best to put the SEPA actors on ignore or their BS will leave you hopelessly confused. If you combine the current and always legal definition of "waters of the United States" and the two high court decisions telling the EPA that suction dredging is not pollution you will clearly see that there is no legal way for the EPA to prevent or even regulate suction dredge mining.

Or you could believe the drivel being pushed by the anti mining SEPA fish oil survey crowd.

Stick to the facts and you will have all the ammunition you need to close down this EPA nonsense.

Heavy Pans

 

[chlsbrns]

Seems like the miner's opposition is spreading misinformation again under another name. I'm guessing the Assembler "Survey" game got boring once everybody learned to ignore the dribbling of BS. Now we've gone from greasy gold pans to making up non existent laws about water to scare miners.

The 2015 EPA definition of "waters of the US" that was made up to include puddles and roadside ditches has never been legal. The courts shot down that BS years ago. The President has issued an order that the EPA no longer use their made up definition and Congress has legislation in conference to pass a law to prevent future Presidents and agencies from making up more BS.

From the EPA:

The definition of "waters of the United States" currently in effect is the definition promulgated in 1986/1988, implemented consistent with subsequent Supreme Court decisions and guidance documents.

The 2015 revised regulatory definition of "waters of the United States" has been stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

In response to this stay, EPA, Department of Army, and Army Corps of Engineers resumed nationwide use of the agencies’ prior regulations defining the term “waters of the United States.”

On February 28, 2017, the President of the United States issued an Executive Order directing EPA and Department of the Army to review and rescind or revise the 2015 Rule.


It's best to put the SEPA actors on ignore or their BS will leave you hopelessly confused. If you combine the current and always legal definition of "waters of the United States" and the two high court decisions telling the EPA that suction dredging is not pollution you will clearly see that there is no legal way for the EPA to prevent or even regulate suction dredge mining.

Or you could believe the drivel being pushed by the anti mining SEPA fish oil survey crowd.

Stick to the facts and you will have all the ammunition you need to close down this EPA nonsense.

Heavy Pans

Yes let's post facts and correct your usual misinformation!

Anti mining sepa? We actually do mine we are not recreational. Sepa? Got me there I'm clueless as to what sepa is? Assembler survey game? You seem very confused.

Did you see the 2012 date on this?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...YABIQFggsMAE&usg=AOvVaw12UOqJYcRu3JVHTIIjO1BT

You should also read...

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...d-states-recodification-of-pre-existing-rules


https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/

6 February 2018 - EPA and the Army Finalize Rule Adding an Applicability Date to the 2015 "waters of the United States" Rule. The Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of the Army have finalized a rule adding an applicability date to the 2015 Rule defining “waters of the United States.” The 2015 Rule will not be applicable until 6 February 2020 (two years following publication of the applicability date rule in the Federal Register). The Federal Register notice can be found at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pa...eId=FR-2018-02-06&acCode=FR&collectionCode=FR.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-06/html/2018-02429.htm
C. Today's Final Rule

This final rule adds an applicability date to the 2015 Rule such
that it will not be implemented until February 6, 2020. Until the
applicability date of the 2015 Rule and subject to further action by
the agencies, the agencies will continue to implement nationwide the
previous regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States,'' and
will continue to interpret the statutory term ``waters of the United
States'' to mean the waters covered by those regulations, as they are
currently being implemented, consistent with Supreme Court decisions
and practice, and as informed by applicable agency guidance documents
(the 2003 and 2008 guidance documents \1\) as the agencies have been
operating pursuant to the Sixth Circuit's October 9, 2015, order and
the North Dakota district court's injunction. The previous regulatory
definitions the agencies will continue to implement, as informed by the
2003 and 2008 guidance documents, are the EPA and the Corps separate
regulations defining the statutory term ``waters of the United
States,'' which are interpreted identically and have remained largely
unchanged since 1977 (see 42 FR 37122, 37124, 37127 (July 19, 1977)).
During the 1980s, both of these agencies

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pa...eId=FR-2018-02-06&acCode=FR&collectionCode=FR

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army (``the agencies'') are publishing a final rule adding an applicability date to the ``Clean Water Rule: Definition of `Waters of the United States' '' published June 29, 2015 (the ``2015 Rule'') of February 6, 2020. On August 27, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota enjoined the applicability of the 2015 Rule in the 13 States challenging the 2015 Rule in that court. On October 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed the 2015 Rule nationwide pending further action of the court. On January 22, 2018, the Supreme Court held that the courts of appeals do not have original jurisdiction to review challenges to the 2015 Rule. With this final rule, the agencies intend to maintain the status quo by adding an applicability date to the 2015 Rule and thus providing continuity and regulatory certainty for regulated entities, the States and Tribes, and the public while the agencies continue to consider possible revisions to the 2015 Rule.

BTW fish oil is not only an excellent way to capture gold it is also great for brain function! I take it daily!

 

[mikep691]

BTW fish oil is not only an excellent way to capture gold it is also great for brain function! I take it daily!

Likely why there is so much drivel.

 

[seafox]

Gold washer you are right, but the goverment is alwaysa trying to push their reach and they have claimed jurisdiction over all waters that flow into navagatable waters. here in utah the courts haver ruled parts of the weber river navagatable because of of log drives in the 1800s . at one point thew epa claimed any puddle that lasted three days constuted a wetland.

 

[Goldwasher]

Gold washer you are right, but the goverment is alwaysa trying to push their reach and they have claimed jurisdiction over all waters that flow into navagatable waters. here in utah the courts haver ruled parts of the weber river navagatable because of of log drives in the 1800s . at one point thew epa claimed any puddle that lasted three days constuted a wetland.

The executive order takes it back to the long standing definition.

Notice how it's a new thing for Cali to tell you you need a 404 from Acoe

nothings changed yet they try to throw out new hoops.

A suction dredge is not a dredge and fill op you don;t have to get a 404 to go on vacation and dredge on a club claim in a state with open legal dredging.

It's just another way to make it seem like its to much of a pain in the ass to even try.

 

[rick.ther]

Correct me if I am wrong, but did any one catch the guy from EPA said that it didn't matter what this court said, they would continue anyway under state law? here I might be corrected but since when did state law trump federal law? isn't the core a federal agency? And by the way, just because you take a marshmallow out of my hot chocolate, it still the same

 

[Rail Dawg]

Yes let's post facts and correct your usual misinformation!

Anti mining sepa? We actually do mine we are not recreational. Sepa? Got me there I'm clueless as to what sepa is? Assembler survey game? You seem very confused.

Did you see the 2012 date on this?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...YABIQFggsMAE&usg=AOvVaw12UOqJYcRu3JVHTIIjO1BT

You should also read...

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...d-states-recodification-of-pre-existing-rules


https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/

6 February 2018 - EPA and the Army Finalize Rule Adding an Applicability Date to the 2015 "waters of the United States" Rule. The Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of the Army have finalized a rule adding an applicability date to the 2015 Rule defining “waters of the United States.” The 2015 Rule will not be applicable until 6 February 2020 (two years following publication of the applicability date rule in the Federal Register). The Federal Register notice can be found at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pa...eId=FR-2018-02-06&acCode=FR&collectionCode=FR.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-06/html/2018-02429.htm
C. Today's Final Rule

This final rule adds an applicability date to the 2015 Rule such
that it will not be implemented until February 6, 2020. Until the
applicability date of the 2015 Rule and subject to further action by
the agencies, the agencies will continue to implement nationwide the
previous regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States,'' and
will continue to interpret the statutory term ``waters of the United
States'' to mean the waters covered by those regulations, as they are
currently being implemented, consistent with Supreme Court decisions
and practice, and as informed by applicable agency guidance documents
(the 2003 and 2008 guidance documents \1\) as the agencies have been
operating pursuant to the Sixth Circuit's October 9, 2015, order and
the North Dakota district court's injunction. The previous regulatory
definitions the agencies will continue to implement, as informed by the
2003 and 2008 guidance documents, are the EPA and the Corps separate
regulations defining the statutory term ``waters of the United
States,'' which are interpreted identically and have remained largely
unchanged since 1977 (see 42 FR 37122, 37124, 37127 (July 19, 1977)).
During the 1980s, both of these agencies

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pa...eId=FR-2018-02-06&acCode=FR&collectionCode=FR

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army (``the agencies'') are publishing a final rule adding an applicability date to the ``Clean Water Rule: Definition of `Waters of the United States' '' published June 29, 2015 (the ``2015 Rule'') of February 6, 2020. On August 27, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota enjoined the applicability of the 2015 Rule in the 13 States challenging the 2015 Rule in that court. On October 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed the 2015 Rule nationwide pending further action of the court. On January 22, 2018, the Supreme Court held that the courts of appeals do not have original jurisdiction to review challenges to the 2015 Rule. With this final rule, the agencies intend to maintain the status quo by adding an applicability date to the 2015 Rule and thus providing continuity and regulatory certainty for regulated entities, the States and Tribes, and the public while the agencies continue to consider possible revisions to the 2015 Rule.

BTW fish oil is not only an excellent way to capture gold it is also great for brain function! I take it daily!

Chlsbrns you seem like an internet bully lol!

Clay Diggins has my full respect.

Let’s just say some others here... don’t.

 

[Reed Lukens]

Correct me if I am wrong, but did any one catch the guy from EPA said that it didn't matter what this court said, they would continue anyway under state law? here I might be corrected but since when did state law trump federal law? isn't the core a federal agency? And by the way, just because you take a marshmallow out of my hot chocolate, it still the same

Exactly and basically he was saying that the state DEQ didn't care about what was being said because... the Oregon DEQ are an enforcement wing of EPA via an MOU. Ultimately, they act as an EPA proxy inside Oregon. Don't be deceived by their pitiful little attempt to make it sound otherwise or to let them deflect from the fact that it's DEQ's staff who are responsible and this is why the case is listed with the Oregon DEQ as defendants... as I learned yesterday from Kirby J.