Any word from San Bernadino and the dredge case?
- Thread starter Oakview2
- Start date
?
OP
OP
Oakview2
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #3
Update on ongoing suction dredge court case in San Bernardino: Public Lands for the People were in court yesterday for a hearing to enjoin the State water board into the consolidated lawsuits. Judge Ochoas tentative ruling was he denied our petition to enjoin the water board. "disappointing" ,yes. however he has lifted the stay one the legal proceedings and will rule on the federal preemption issues the first week of January 2015. this is... good! We wanted this ruling way back in May 2014!
The State argued for him not to rule until after the State Supreme court has had a chance to look at the Reinhart case. the judge dismissed that pleading and said that he was not sure that the Supreme Court would hear the case and that the Reinhart decision was published and gives him direction. This is also good! We are scheduled to resume the settlement conference January 23, 2015. The lawyers for the state and others who want to take away our Federal rights appeared to be very uncomfortable with the ruling. I think I enjoyed that the most!
PLP will need funding to follow this through asap! join us, we are on the verge of major accomplishments here. Become a member of PLP and lets "TAKE IT BACK AND KEEP IT!" PLP1.org
The State argued for him not to rule until after the State Supreme court has had a chance to look at the Reinhart case. the judge dismissed that pleading and said that he was not sure that the Supreme Court would hear the case and that the Reinhart decision was published and gives him direction. This is also good! We are scheduled to resume the settlement conference January 23, 2015. The lawyers for the state and others who want to take away our Federal rights appeared to be very uncomfortable with the ruling. I think I enjoyed that the most!
PLP will need funding to follow this through asap! join us, we are on the verge of major accomplishments here. Become a member of PLP and lets "TAKE IT BACK AND KEEP IT!" PLP1.org
Jeff95531
Silver Member
- Feb 10, 2013
- 2,625
- 4,094
- Detector(s) used
- Teknetics Alpha 2000
- Primary Interest:
- Prospecting
Like they say, you don't "steer" a large vessel, you just keep nudging it a little. And yes, support PLP with any amount. I just checked and I couldn't find any reference to the anonymous donor who was matching donations till the 31st.
Thanks for keeping us up to speed Oakview!
Thanks for keeping us up to speed Oakview!
OP
OP
Oakview2
Silver Member
goldenIrishman
Silver Member
- Feb 28, 2013
- 3,465
- 6,153
- Detector(s) used
- Fisher / Gold Bug AND the MK-VII eyeballs
- Primary Interest:
- Other
Well after all the grief they've caused I think it's only fitting that they are the ones feeling "uncomfortable" for a change! Everyone writing in and requesting publication of the findings of Brandons' appeal is already paying off!
It is such a shame that our court system is so slow in making decisions of this type. The actions of the State of California have been shameful right from the start to say the very least. This is a prime example of a case that never should have been filed in the first place. In the end the State has done nothing but waste a lot of tax payer money that could have gone to do some real good instead of promoting the agenda of a few "Greenies". Let's all hope that once miners regain their rights to work their claims on federal lands in the most efficient ways, that the state will not be so stupid as to try to take our rights away again. If they do and I was the Judge assigned the case, I'd be giving whoever was dumb enough to file it a major attitude adjustment.
It is such a shame that our court system is so slow in making decisions of this type. The actions of the State of California have been shameful right from the start to say the very least. This is a prime example of a case that never should have been filed in the first place. In the end the State has done nothing but waste a lot of tax payer money that could have gone to do some real good instead of promoting the agenda of a few "Greenies". Let's all hope that once miners regain their rights to work their claims on federal lands in the most efficient ways, that the state will not be so stupid as to try to take our rights away again. If they do and I was the Judge assigned the case, I'd be giving whoever was dumb enough to file it a major attitude adjustment.
OP
OP
Oakview2
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #7
Subject: San Bernardino Report: 12/12/14
Morning Settlement Discussions
When we arrived this morning, the Clerk handed us a tentative ruling from the Judge denying our motion to add in the State Water Board as a defendant, but lifting the stay for the purpose of issuing a decision on the long-pending motions for summary judgment on federal preemption issues. There was a brief discussion about the impacts of this ruling, but it was mostly posturing of no consequence.
Notwithstanding the ruling, we proceeded with the plan of discussing the checklists, and did so until shortly before lunch without the Judge.
The Department had Mr. Stopher describe, at great length, his approach in generating the checklist. He told us that the approach had been to identify those few species that triggered Class A closures, and that if a Class A closure were lifted, there might be other closures. E.g., even if coho were not present, sturgeon might be, which would be associated with a Class D closure from February 1st through June 30th.
He also generally confirmed our suspicion that a biologist would visit a site, and based on historical presence of fish, or assertedly-attractive habitat, identify fish “presence”. I pushed for the Department to identify specific habitat features of interest, and all I got was what we had put on our checklist: redds and pools.
There was also a discussion of the State-sponsored programs to add gravel, construct habitat, etc. The Department and Tribes dismiss the comparison with suction dredging with claims that the State’s habitat restoration projects are carefully engineered. I attempted to push the issue from a more ecological perspective (habitat complexity) and raised the possibility of mitigation, pointing out that the fear was eliminating an area where juveniles could hide from birds, perhaps the miners could pile up a pile of large rocks.
The Department resisted very vigorously any talk of mitigation, arguing that this made the determinations too complicated, and that additional CEQA documentation was required. The Tribe’s position is that mitigation means not operating. I believe that a supplement to the EIS could say that checklist-approved operations would not disturb a non-significance determination, and that if a further FONSI were required, the checklist itself could constitute it.
There was discussion of some of the species the Tribe had added to the checklist. It appears that the bull trout are actually extinct; the suckers are mostly upstream of Iron Gate, where there is assertedly no mining; and the eulachon and the smelt are too far downstream to matter. We stressed that our experience is that they just keep adding more and more species to the list to shut down mining without regard to actual adverse effects.
Mr. Craig Tucker noted that the Tribe had a spreadsheet of streams along the Klamath, and suspected that some of them might not be of interest to gold miners, and suggested it might be productive to see if we could narrow the field of battle by identifying the real areas of conflict. Later, I spoke privately to Ms. Saxton about this, but she seemed resistant. I will renew that effort later.
There was a brief discussion of other issues raised by the checklist, including birds and cultural resources. The Tribe confirmed that such abstract notions as “water quality” were regarded as a cultural resource from their perspective, making that issue a continuing threat. The Department handed us a copy of the Governor’s executive order requiring consultation with Tribes, and said the Department’s checklist had been developed in compliance with that order.
Shortly before lunch, the Department sought an opportunity to speak to the Judge privately, and then the Judge called Mr. Young and I in to see him. It appeared that the Department had wanted a private audience to complain that the Judge’s tentative ruling was encouraging the miners, with particular reference to Mr. Young’s clients, to abandon the settlement process. Mr. Young told the Judge that this was not the case, and that the Judge should go ahead and issue his ruling on the motion for summary judgment. I took the opportunity to tell the Judge about the problems we were having in the morning session, and about the inconsistency between the Department/Tribal position that mere presence of fish was sufficient reason to close the area to mining and the species- or at least population-level impacts required by the statute.
The Hearing
When we returned at 1:30 p.m., I attempted to get the Judge to reconsider his tentative ruling. I highlighted the fact that the Water Board would insist on reconsidering everything we had done, and that it was very wasteful to have to do it twice. I explained that his decision, premised on a statute that required challenges to Water Board action to be brought within 30 days after service of the decision, did not apply because we had never been served, and that the other two statutes he had cited were entirely inapplicable. Most of all, I stressed that his entire tentative ruling had addressed only one of three claims we had proposed to add, and that there was no such short statute of limitations for a declaratory judgment action. The Judge refused to change the ruling. This was quite disappointing.
The Department and Tribe argued forcefully that the Judge should not go ahead and issue his decision on the pending motions for summary judgment, because the Supreme Court could be expected to make a decision as to whether or not take the case (and whether to depublish it) within a month. The Judge, however, insisted that he wanted to act while he still had a published decision to back him up, and is working very hard to get the decision out the first week of January. The Tribe sought an opportunity for supplemental briefing concerning the Rinehart decision, but the Judge also refused that, saying that he had read enough briefs on the subject.
Continued Settlement Discussions
Thereafter we went back to the settlement room, where the Judge pressed the Tribe to determine what they meant by “direct and indirect effects” on species, confirming to his satisfaction that mere presenceand perhaps less than thatwas enough to close an area in the Tribe’s view. I renewed my push for clarification of what precise habitat features were of interest, but the Department and Tribe successfully diverted the Judge into an inquiry into the Tribe’s expanded list of species, and we went over some of the morning’s ground again.
I proposed that we focus on the endangered coho, the principal basis for Class A closures in the Klamath Basin, as a useful way to continue the discussion on how we might operate notwithstanding their presence, but the Tribe and Department successfully deflected the Judge into the notion that perhaps each side’s experts should meet about this. Not a lot of progress was made. A further meeting was scheduled for January 23, 2014.
At the end of this shorter session, the Judge took first the Tribe, then the Department, and then Mr. Young and I into his chambers for private discussions. I took the opportunity to stress that the Department has specifically refused, after the hearing, to make any commitment that it wouldn’t just amend the regulations to require a water quality permit, but the Judge was unmoved. We have an important decision to be made as to whether to open up another front in this war through litigation concerning water quality, but my thoughts on that are not appropriately reprinted in a memo that may be publicly circulated.
At Mr. Young’s suggestion, the Court will issue an order requiring at least one telephone conference to continue working on the checklist between now and January 23rd.
James L. Buchal
Murphy & Buchal LLP
3425 SE Yamhill Street, Suite 100
Portland, OR 97214
Phone: 503-227-1011
Fax: 503-573-1939
Morning Settlement Discussions
When we arrived this morning, the Clerk handed us a tentative ruling from the Judge denying our motion to add in the State Water Board as a defendant, but lifting the stay for the purpose of issuing a decision on the long-pending motions for summary judgment on federal preemption issues. There was a brief discussion about the impacts of this ruling, but it was mostly posturing of no consequence.
Notwithstanding the ruling, we proceeded with the plan of discussing the checklists, and did so until shortly before lunch without the Judge.
The Department had Mr. Stopher describe, at great length, his approach in generating the checklist. He told us that the approach had been to identify those few species that triggered Class A closures, and that if a Class A closure were lifted, there might be other closures. E.g., even if coho were not present, sturgeon might be, which would be associated with a Class D closure from February 1st through June 30th.
He also generally confirmed our suspicion that a biologist would visit a site, and based on historical presence of fish, or assertedly-attractive habitat, identify fish “presence”. I pushed for the Department to identify specific habitat features of interest, and all I got was what we had put on our checklist: redds and pools.
There was also a discussion of the State-sponsored programs to add gravel, construct habitat, etc. The Department and Tribes dismiss the comparison with suction dredging with claims that the State’s habitat restoration projects are carefully engineered. I attempted to push the issue from a more ecological perspective (habitat complexity) and raised the possibility of mitigation, pointing out that the fear was eliminating an area where juveniles could hide from birds, perhaps the miners could pile up a pile of large rocks.
The Department resisted very vigorously any talk of mitigation, arguing that this made the determinations too complicated, and that additional CEQA documentation was required. The Tribe’s position is that mitigation means not operating. I believe that a supplement to the EIS could say that checklist-approved operations would not disturb a non-significance determination, and that if a further FONSI were required, the checklist itself could constitute it.
There was discussion of some of the species the Tribe had added to the checklist. It appears that the bull trout are actually extinct; the suckers are mostly upstream of Iron Gate, where there is assertedly no mining; and the eulachon and the smelt are too far downstream to matter. We stressed that our experience is that they just keep adding more and more species to the list to shut down mining without regard to actual adverse effects.
Mr. Craig Tucker noted that the Tribe had a spreadsheet of streams along the Klamath, and suspected that some of them might not be of interest to gold miners, and suggested it might be productive to see if we could narrow the field of battle by identifying the real areas of conflict. Later, I spoke privately to Ms. Saxton about this, but she seemed resistant. I will renew that effort later.
There was a brief discussion of other issues raised by the checklist, including birds and cultural resources. The Tribe confirmed that such abstract notions as “water quality” were regarded as a cultural resource from their perspective, making that issue a continuing threat. The Department handed us a copy of the Governor’s executive order requiring consultation with Tribes, and said the Department’s checklist had been developed in compliance with that order.
Shortly before lunch, the Department sought an opportunity to speak to the Judge privately, and then the Judge called Mr. Young and I in to see him. It appeared that the Department had wanted a private audience to complain that the Judge’s tentative ruling was encouraging the miners, with particular reference to Mr. Young’s clients, to abandon the settlement process. Mr. Young told the Judge that this was not the case, and that the Judge should go ahead and issue his ruling on the motion for summary judgment. I took the opportunity to tell the Judge about the problems we were having in the morning session, and about the inconsistency between the Department/Tribal position that mere presence of fish was sufficient reason to close the area to mining and the species- or at least population-level impacts required by the statute.
The Hearing
When we returned at 1:30 p.m., I attempted to get the Judge to reconsider his tentative ruling. I highlighted the fact that the Water Board would insist on reconsidering everything we had done, and that it was very wasteful to have to do it twice. I explained that his decision, premised on a statute that required challenges to Water Board action to be brought within 30 days after service of the decision, did not apply because we had never been served, and that the other two statutes he had cited were entirely inapplicable. Most of all, I stressed that his entire tentative ruling had addressed only one of three claims we had proposed to add, and that there was no such short statute of limitations for a declaratory judgment action. The Judge refused to change the ruling. This was quite disappointing.
The Department and Tribe argued forcefully that the Judge should not go ahead and issue his decision on the pending motions for summary judgment, because the Supreme Court could be expected to make a decision as to whether or not take the case (and whether to depublish it) within a month. The Judge, however, insisted that he wanted to act while he still had a published decision to back him up, and is working very hard to get the decision out the first week of January. The Tribe sought an opportunity for supplemental briefing concerning the Rinehart decision, but the Judge also refused that, saying that he had read enough briefs on the subject.
Continued Settlement Discussions
Thereafter we went back to the settlement room, where the Judge pressed the Tribe to determine what they meant by “direct and indirect effects” on species, confirming to his satisfaction that mere presenceand perhaps less than thatwas enough to close an area in the Tribe’s view. I renewed my push for clarification of what precise habitat features were of interest, but the Department and Tribe successfully diverted the Judge into an inquiry into the Tribe’s expanded list of species, and we went over some of the morning’s ground again.
I proposed that we focus on the endangered coho, the principal basis for Class A closures in the Klamath Basin, as a useful way to continue the discussion on how we might operate notwithstanding their presence, but the Tribe and Department successfully deflected the Judge into the notion that perhaps each side’s experts should meet about this. Not a lot of progress was made. A further meeting was scheduled for January 23, 2014.
At the end of this shorter session, the Judge took first the Tribe, then the Department, and then Mr. Young and I into his chambers for private discussions. I took the opportunity to stress that the Department has specifically refused, after the hearing, to make any commitment that it wouldn’t just amend the regulations to require a water quality permit, but the Judge was unmoved. We have an important decision to be made as to whether to open up another front in this war through litigation concerning water quality, but my thoughts on that are not appropriately reprinted in a memo that may be publicly circulated.
At Mr. Young’s suggestion, the Court will issue an order requiring at least one telephone conference to continue working on the checklist between now and January 23rd.
James L. Buchal
Murphy & Buchal LLP
3425 SE Yamhill Street, Suite 100
Portland, OR 97214
Phone: 503-227-1011
Fax: 503-573-1939
Bejay
Bronze Member
- Mar 10, 2014
- 1,026
- 2,530
- Detector(s) used
- Whites GMT
Garret fully underwater
- Primary Interest:
- Prospecting
It would be my contention that the Federal Listing of a Species is just that: Federal Listing! Such Federal Listing even preempts state jurisdiction. The State Fish and Game can manage the TAKING of game species, but limitations exist per preemption. Such preemption is the crux of the Rhinehart case...and rightfully so. Attempting to appease the State per "fisheries" negating the Federal authority of management on Federally administered public lands is "My god, what a waste, for what?".........when such management lies within the jurisdiction of Federal agencies.....such as USFS and BLM. Both Federal agencies have biologists and even the USFWS for such management oversight!
Bejay
Bejay
augoldminer
Sr. Member
- Jan 7, 2013
- 328
- 324
- Detector(s) used
- gold master V-sat
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
I found where miners are not allowed to dredge but the state IS ALLOWING the tree huggers to dredge.
Dredging - The Fox Guarding the Henhouse, or Big Gov Takings? | In El Dorado County News & Events
I still can not see how this is allowed under the anti dredging law even with special permits and without public hearings.
the dredgers in the state should get a injunction against this group.
Dredging - The Fox Guarding the Henhouse, or Big Gov Takings? | In El Dorado County News & Events
I still can not see how this is allowed under the anti dredging law even with special permits and without public hearings.
the dredgers in the state should get a injunction against this group.
Bejay
Bronze Member
- Mar 10, 2014
- 1,026
- 2,530
- Detector(s) used
- Whites GMT
Garret fully underwater
- Primary Interest:
- Prospecting
Well Hefty I was in fact proving your point! Continuing an argument with the State about fisheries management is in fact a "waste of time". Federal Endangered fish management on Federally administered public lands does in fact preempt State management of "Takings"....which is factually managed by the State(s). If the Feds want to manage locatable mineral resource issues per the EIS (protection of endangered species) they will and can do that. It is not up to the States to take on that task.
As you know Hefty: Federal "ACTS" are "LAWS" which in fact can be, and are often administered under oversight by agencies like the BLM....USFS......USFWS etc etc.
Since when can a State over ride Federal law? (Yes I know we see it with the Hemp issue). Personally I would take issue with a State court trying to preempt mining law (granted rights) as well as fish management on Federally administered public lands. Entering into mediating discussions per fisheries is a red herring IMHO!
No need to get side tracked and steered off course. The Rhinehart issue is precisely "PREEMPTION" ....Plain and simple.
Bejay
As you know Hefty: Federal "ACTS" are "LAWS" which in fact can be, and are often administered under oversight by agencies like the BLM....USFS......USFWS etc etc.
Since when can a State over ride Federal law? (Yes I know we see it with the Hemp issue). Personally I would take issue with a State court trying to preempt mining law (granted rights) as well as fish management on Federally administered public lands. Entering into mediating discussions per fisheries is a red herring IMHO!
No need to get side tracked and steered off course. The Rhinehart issue is precisely "PREEMPTION" ....Plain and simple.
Bejay
Bejay
Bronze Member
- Mar 10, 2014
- 1,026
- 2,530
- Detector(s) used
- Whites GMT
Garret fully underwater
- Primary Interest:
- Prospecting
If one gives thought to the State's fish issue one would have to bring forth the "illegal taking" (harvest) of game fish. This of course could be because of a multitude of reasons: no fishing license or snagging or etc. The State can enforce game "taking/harvest" rules. Rhinehart was not cited for the illegal harvest/taking of a game fish.........so why go there?
Of course the issue might be valid IF the State could prove that "dredging" resulted in "Taking". For that to happen PROOF would have to be provided and I believe INTENT would even have to exist. IMHO On public administered Federal Lands all other matters regarding "protected" fish falls under the existing jurisdiction of USFS, BLM, & USFWS.
Federally administered lands are simply just that: Federally Administered!......not State Administered Lands. Although some State lands do exist!
But one must simply address the issue before the court: Dredging Without a State permit....not fishing without a license. Too often court cases end up straying from the simple charge(s).....and a defendant even ends up pleading guilty to something he/she was not even charged with!
So here in Oregon we are seeing similar issues. Lets take the DSL free permit...........Division of State Lands. Simply by the name given the "State Agency"; one realizes it is not the Division of Federal Lands. The Division of State Lands is just that....STATE Lands. So why do they require this "free permit" for mining on Federally Administered public lands?
Of course the answer is because the State can and does say you are required to have it. What state court case can be cited challenging Oregon on this? None that I know of. What miner has been cited/ticketed for not having the DSL permit? Right....a miner who actually ended up getting an attorney who had the miner plead guilty to a charge he was not even charged with.
Much can be said about the willingness of miners to just "go along". But the "straw that broke the camels back" has already been harvested and ready to load on the camel.....SB838. Make NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT ........somehow/sometime soon the State of Oregon will fall prey to the same "preemption issue" unfolding in Calif. Failure to win based on preemption will simply be because litigation went astray. Again IMHO. I am not an attorney and I am simply a miner. I am simply able to watch from afar. But if I had legal representation I would be diligent to point out my point of view.
Bejay
Of course the issue might be valid IF the State could prove that "dredging" resulted in "Taking". For that to happen PROOF would have to be provided and I believe INTENT would even have to exist. IMHO On public administered Federal Lands all other matters regarding "protected" fish falls under the existing jurisdiction of USFS, BLM, & USFWS.
Federally administered lands are simply just that: Federally Administered!......not State Administered Lands. Although some State lands do exist!
But one must simply address the issue before the court: Dredging Without a State permit....not fishing without a license. Too often court cases end up straying from the simple charge(s).....and a defendant even ends up pleading guilty to something he/she was not even charged with!
So here in Oregon we are seeing similar issues. Lets take the DSL free permit...........Division of State Lands. Simply by the name given the "State Agency"; one realizes it is not the Division of Federal Lands. The Division of State Lands is just that....STATE Lands. So why do they require this "free permit" for mining on Federally Administered public lands?
Of course the answer is because the State can and does say you are required to have it. What state court case can be cited challenging Oregon on this? None that I know of. What miner has been cited/ticketed for not having the DSL permit? Right....a miner who actually ended up getting an attorney who had the miner plead guilty to a charge he was not even charged with.
Much can be said about the willingness of miners to just "go along". But the "straw that broke the camels back" has already been harvested and ready to load on the camel.....SB838. Make NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT ........somehow/sometime soon the State of Oregon will fall prey to the same "preemption issue" unfolding in Calif. Failure to win based on preemption will simply be because litigation went astray. Again IMHO. I am not an attorney and I am simply a miner. I am simply able to watch from afar. But if I had legal representation I would be diligent to point out my point of view.
Bejay
OP
OP
Oakview2
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #15
Had some claim mates that were cited this summer, and they siezed their dredge, this fall after the season, the reg they cited for seizure was a poaching reg, when disclosed in a hearing, the DA recanted and issued a order for the release of their rig, but FG mission was accomplished, it kept them out of the water from May to November. FG and the state of CA and now Oregon have gone rouge, and their end justifies any means possible. The only thing that stops this is a shot fired over the bow, class action suit or arrest and prosecution under Tilte 18 Section 242. There must be consequences for their illegal actions. JMHO
russau
Gold Member
The wheels have been HEAVILY GREASED and paybacks to the wacoenviromentalists persist!
Top Member Reactions
-
3424 -
1940 -
1877 -
1121 -
1070 -
995 -
868 -
854 -
851 -
749 -
736 -
675 -
648 -
567 -
504 -
455 -
444 -
412 -
398 -
396
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
-
THE Random Chat Thread - AKA "The RCT" - No shirt or shoes required - Open 24 / 7
- Latest: Treasure_Hunter
-
