637 was supposedly just signed

Yes it was signed. California Gov. Brown signs new law to protect rivers, fisheries - KUSI News - San Diego, CA

"SACRAMENTO (KUSI) — California Gov. Jerry Brown Friday signed into law Senate Bill 637 to protect California’s water supplies, wildlife and cultural resources from the damaging effects of destructive hobby gold mining.
The new law requires that all small-scale miners using motorized suction pumps obtain a Clean Water Act Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board before mining in California waterways"

Apparently I was correct when I was continually bashed when I tried to get everyone focused on the CWA and the fact that California would use the act against miners. You all could have gotten together back then and did something instead of bashing me! Oh well! Good luck!

chlsbrns said:
It really doesn't matter what the courts decide in the Rinehart and/or the new 49's case. Neither of them address the Federal Clean Water Act!

The BLM requires compliance with the Act.

As we speak Congress is about to vote to amend the Act. They want to expand from navigable waters to all waters including small streams, ponds and even dry washes.

Do you think that Cali and other states are going to ignore the power of the CWA?
Click to expand...

(Deleted by mod)
 

Last edited by a moderator:
Chlsbrns,stop trying to stir up trouble...
 

BLESS YOUR EVERLOVIN HEART! That's code use your secret decoder ring.

Chlsbrns-
"Apparently I was correct when I was continually bashed when I tried to get everyone focused on the CWA and the fact that California would use the act against miners. You all could have gotten together back then and did something instead of bashing me! Oh well! Good luck!"

People have been working on this from the get go way before your Nov 2014 clairvoyant vision of what none of us worthless miners could comprehend or possibly fathom. Since they wouldn't include the water folks from the beginning it has been well understood this and future litigation was coming. Geez O'Pete- toot toot goes your horn again!
 

Last edited:

This will end in court also!




Water Right Law

Water right law in California and the rest of the West is markedly different from the laws governing water use in the eastern United States.
Seasonal, geographic, and quantitative differences in precipitation caused California’s system to develop into a unique blend of two very different kinds of rights: riparian and appropriative. Other types of rights exist in California as well, among them reserved rights (water set aside by the federal government when it reserves land for the public domain) and pueblo rights (a municipal right based on Spanish and Mexican law).
Riparian rights usually come with owning a parcel of land that is adjacent to a source of water. With statehood, California adopted the English common law familiar to the eastern seaboard; such law also included the riparian doctrine.
A riparian right entitles the landowner to use a correlative share of the water flowing past his or her property. Riparian rights do not require permits, licenses, or government approval, but they apply only to the water which would naturally flow in the stream. Riparian rights do not entitle a water use to divert water to storage in a reservoir for use in the dry season or to use water on land outside of the watershed. Riparian rights remain with the property when it changes hands, although parcels severed from the adjacent water source generally lose their right to the water.
Water right law was set on a different course in 1849, when thousands of fortune seekers flocked to California following the discovery of gold. Water development proceeded on a scale never before witnessed in the United States as these “49ers” built extensive networks of flumes and waterways to work their claims. The water carried in these systems often had to be transported far from the original river or stream. The self-governing, maverick miners applied the same “finders-keepers” rule to water that they did to their mining claims. It belonged to the first miner to assert ownership.
To stake their water claims, the miners developed a system of “posting notice” which signaled the birth of today’s appropriative right system. It allowed others to divert available water from the same river or stream, but their rights existed within a hierarchy of priorities. This “first in time, first in right” principal became an important feature of modern water right law.
In 1850, California entered the Union as the thirty-first state. One of the first actions taken by its lawmakers was to adopt the common law of riparian rights. One year later, the Legislature recognized the appropriative right system as having the force of law. The appropriative right system continued to increase in use as agriculture and population centers blossomed and ownership of land was transferred into private hands.
The conflicting nature of California’s dual water right system prompted numerous legal disputes. Unlike appropriative users, riparian right holders were not required to put water to reasonable and beneficial use. This clash of rights eventually resulted in a constitutional amendment (Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution) that requires all use of water to be “reasonable and beneficial.” These “beneficial uses” have commonly included municipal and industrial uses, irrigation, hydroelectric generation, and livestock watering. More recently, the concept has been broadened to include recreational use, fish and wildlife protection, and enhancement and aesthetic enjoyment.
Up to the early 1900’s appropriators — most of them miners and nonriparian farmers — had simply taken control of and used what water they wanted. Sometimes notice was filed with the county recorder, but no formal permission was required from any administrative or judicial body.
The Water Commission Act of 1914 established today’s permit process. The Act created the agency that later evolved into the State Board and granted it the authority to administer permits and licenses for California’s surface water. The act was the predecessor to today’s water Code provisions governing appropriation.
These post-1914 appropriative rights are governed by the aforementioned hierarchy of priorities developed by the 49ers. In times of shortage the most recent (“junior”) right holder must be the first to discontinue such use; each right’s priority dates to the time the permit application was filed with the State Board. Although pre- and post-1914 appropriative rights are similar, post-1914 rights are subject to a much greater degree of scrutiny and regulation by the Board.
Riparian rights still have a higher priority than appropriative rights. The priorities of riparian right holders generally carry equal weight; during a drought all share the shortage among themselves.
 

Last edited:
I have to say...

I really don't see the point of "protecting" California's water supplies when it ain't hardly got any to being with.
Assuming this drought continues, the Clean WATER Act might as well be renamed the Clean DIRT Act.

In my opinion, the Government would be better off to find long term, sustainable solutions to its continuing water shortages (some would say "crisis"), and leave the recreational miners alone.

But hey, I live in Florida.
We don't have problems with water here, (Global Warming notwithstanding...)

But we still got problems with politicians!! I guess that is a universal constant.

I will also admit (although I didn't actually do it)...
I was tempted to just let the water run all night in my San Ramon hotel room after having received a $168 ticket for talking on my cell phone in a rental car not equipped with hands-free.
I do understand the issue, but I am a very safe driver. I think the policeman could have easily let me off with a warning, especially since I was from out of state.
But.. NO! I think they target folks like that(?). And I can see where California needs the money to fix their water woes...

Still, doesn't exactly roll-out the welcome mat, if you know what I mean.

OK, I'll jump off the soapbox now. Don't mean to hijaak the thread.
 

fowledup said:
BLESS YOUR EVERLOVIN HEART! That's code use your secret decoder ring.

Chlsbrns-
"Apparently I was correct when I was continually bashed when I tried to get everyone focused on the CWA and the fact that California would use the act against miners. You all could have gotten together back then and did something instead of bashing me! Oh well! Good luck!"

People have been working on this from the get go way before your Nov 2014 clairvoyant vision of what none of us worthless miners could comprehend or possibly fathom. Since they wouldn't include the water folks from the beginning it has been well understood this and future litigation was coming. Geez O'Pete- toot toot goes your horn again!
Click to expand...

I thought that you were ignoring me?

You must not have read the threads and posts that disagreed with me.

Yes I figured that many have been working on the issue from the get go... Any progress?
 

Hefty1 said:

This will end in court also!




Water Right Law

Water right law in California and the rest of the West is markedly different from the laws governing water use in the eastern United States.
Seasonal, geographic, and quantitative differences in precipitation caused California’s system to develop into a unique blend of two very different kinds of rights: riparian and appropriative. Other types of rights exist in California as well, among them reserved rights (water set aside by the federal government when it reserves land for the public domain) and pueblo rights (a municipal right based on Spanish and Mexican law).
Riparian rights usually come with owning a parcel of land that is adjacent to a source of water. With statehood, California adopted the English common law familiar to the eastern seaboard; such law also included the riparian doctrine.
A riparian right entitles the landowner to use a correlative share of the water flowing past his or her property. Riparian rights do not require permits, licenses, or government approval, but they apply only to the water which would naturally flow in the stream. Riparian rights do not entitle a water use to divert water to storage in a reservoir for use in the dry season or to use water on land outside of the watershed. Riparian rights remain with the property when it changes hands, although parcels severed from the adjacent water source generally lose their right to the water.
Water right law was set on a different course in 1849, when thousands of fortune seekers flocked to California following the discovery of gold. Water development proceeded on a scale never before witnessed in the United States as these “49ers” built extensive networks of flumes and waterways to work their claims. The water carried in these systems often had to be transported far from the original river or stream. The self-governing, maverick miners applied the same “finders-keepers” rule to water that they did to their mining claims. It belonged to the first miner to assert ownership.
To stake their water claims, the miners developed a system of “posting notice” which signaled the birth of today’s appropriative right system. It allowed others to divert available water from the same river or stream, but their rights existed within a hierarchy of priorities. This “first in time, first in right” principal became an important feature of modern water right law.
In 1850, California entered the Union as the thirty-first state. One of the first actions taken by its lawmakers was to adopt the common law of riparian rights. One year later, the Legislature recognized the appropriative right system as having the force of law. The appropriative right system continued to increase in use as agriculture and population centers blossomed and ownership of land was transferred into private hands.
The conflicting nature of California’s dual water right system prompted numerous legal disputes. Unlike appropriative users, riparian right holders were not required to put water to reasonable and beneficial use. This clash of rights eventually resulted in a constitutional amendment (Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution) that requires all use of water to be “reasonable and beneficial.” These “beneficial uses” have commonly included municipal and industrial uses, irrigation, hydroelectric generation, and livestock watering. More recently, the concept has been broadened to include recreational use, fish and wildlife protection, and enhancement and aesthetic enjoyment.
Up to the early 1900’s appropriators — most of them miners and nonriparian farmers — had simply taken control of and used what water they wanted. Sometimes notice was filed with the county recorder, but no formal permission was required from any administrative or judicial body.
The Water Commission Act of 1914 established today’s permit process. The Act created the agency that later evolved into the State Board and granted it the authority to administer permits and licenses for California’s surface water. The act was the predecessor to today’s water Code provisions governing appropriation.
These post-1914 appropriative rights are governed by the aforementioned hierarchy of priorities developed by the 49ers. In times of shortage the most recent (“junior”) right holder must be the first to discontinue such use; each right’s priority dates to the time the permit application was filed with the State Board. Although pre- and post-1914 appropriative rights are similar, post-1914 rights are subject to a much greater degree of scrutiny and regulation by the Board.
Riparian rights still have a higher priority than appropriative rights. The priorities of riparian right holders generally carry equal weight; during a drought all share the shortage among themselves.
Click to expand...

The issue is about disturbing sediments and such not about water rights.
 

chlsbrns said:
I thought that you were ignoring me?
Click to expand...

Nope not me. Actually I'm hoping you'll drop the east coast buisness and come out here and save us all!:thumbsup: We sure could use the help. Be in your best interest since we all know what happens here sooner than later spreads to there.
 

Last edited:
chlsbrns said:
I thought that you were ignoring me?

You must not have read the threads and posts that disagreed with me.

Yes I figured that many have been working on the issue from the get go... Any progress?
Click to expand...

Progress? Put your money where you're mouth is... Many of us have spent many thousands of dollars fighting this for the last 10+ years. Even this year many of us are in for another thousand+ and where are you? Put your money in to PLP, WMA, AMRA, NEW49ers, Brandon Reinhardt and help us the most by leaving your mouth out of it.
 

Hefty1 said:
Oh please get a head on your shoulders and learn the laws.
Click to expand...

Thats what you said last time. Last time when I said that Rinehart was wasting time and money that he would win but he would win nothing because the State would use the CWA.

You won! Now you can put in an application, pay a large deposit to find out if you can dredge in that one location. Or you can dredge without any permit. If you get caught you can fight the Federal CWA in Court. With your knowledge of the law they don't stand a chance.
 

Reed Lukens said:
Progress? Put your money where you're mouth is... Many of us have spent many thousands of dollars fighting this for the last 10+ years. Even this year many of us are in for another thousand+ and where are you? Put your money in to PLP, WMA, AMRA, NEW49ers, Brandon Reinhardt and help us the most by leaving your mouth out of it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put my money on a lost cause as stated above. If by some miracle you do beat a CWA case California will use their Porter Cologn Act. It's more restrictive than the CWA.
 

Last edited:
Reed (or anyone)...if the Nation State of California makes it too difficult,
or completely unreasonable to qualify for this permit, would that not again
give us reason for legal action?

Then again, it could be the goal of the state to do just that...keep it
in the courts eternally. With all that state tax payer money to spend,
what do they care? More like job security for some useless eco-wacko
state attorneys.

On another note: Gents (and ladies if it applies): I've recently added
a member to my "Ignore" list, as I'm a bit short-fused lately. Reason
is the members posts irritate me to no end, but now I don't have to
see them. In order to reduce my stress level, I would appreciate it if you
didn't quote the member in your responses.
 

chlsbrns said:
I wouldn't put my money on a lost cause as stated above. If by some miracle you do beat a CWA case California will use their Porter Cologn Act. It's more restrictive than the CWA.
Click to expand...
And we will still keep fighting, just like we have been. You see it as a lost cause, I see it as a battle between right and wrong. When the State breaks the law, we need to fight, not bend over and just consider it a lost cause. We that have been fighting for our rights - will continue fighting just like we have been... for decades now.
 

Last edited:
That's your Jack Ass Democrats in Sacramento at it again. Restrict, restrict , restrict.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Significant Discovery

⬅️ Previous Thread

where it aint

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Steve's Detector Rods

Latest Discussions

Back
Top