Idahoe case

[ratled]

I hadn't seen this posted yet

ratled

https://www.dredgingtoday.com/2021/06/09/court-suction-dredge-miner-polluted-idaho-river/

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[russau]

Winners had posted this in the "Gold Prospecting " forum a couple of day's ago BUT it needed to be posted a lot so that everyone finds out what is going on.!!

 

[Jim in Idaho]

Sadly, it never should have come to this. That individual shouldn't have been dredging on a river that is critical to the survival of two, or more species of fish. regardless of why the fish are endangered, it's a fact of our lives. He makes all gold prospectors look bad to the general public. That endangers the type of recreation we all enjoy. Sometimes you have to take the macro view, and voluntarily give up your selfish interest in the interests of the overall sport. Go ahead and slam me..I've been here before. Of course, this is nothing but MHO.
Jim

 

[spaghettigold]

Sadly, it never should have come to this. That individual shouldn't have been dredging on a river that is critical to the survival of two, or more species of fish. regardless of why the fish are endangered, it's a fact of our lives. He makes all gold prospectors look bad to the general public. That endangers the type of recreation we all enjoy. Sometimes you have to take the macro view, and voluntarily give up your selfish interest in the interests of the overall sport. Go ahead and slam me..I've been here before. Of course, this is nothing but MHO.
Jim

"...regardless of why the fish are endangered"

Yeah ,and we want you to stop metal detecting because the blue fin tuna is endangered?

 

[Jim in Idaho]

"...regardless of why the fish are endangered"

Yeah ,and we want you to stop metal detecting because the blue fin tuna is endangered?

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic on that one.
Jim

 

[winners58]

actually that section of the Clearwater is only migration for the salmon, it was approved under an Idaho permit, and USFS fish biologist approved the site.
the issue is the Federal NPDES, only moving stream material a few feet that is already in the river does not constitute an addition of a pollutant.

 

[Jim in Idaho]

Yeah...I get that. My point was simply that we're going to lose the dredging battle. Times change, and the public is not behind us on this. How many dredgers are there anymore? I'd think fewer than a couple thousand. No numbers means no power, and the majority of the public still equates dredging with big, ugly piles of rock, and destroyed river valleys. So continuing to fight this is giving prospecting a black eye IMHO. I guess we'll see how it shakes out.
Jim

 

[Clay Diggins]

It appears Shannon or his lawyers prefer drinking to thinking. The addition of a pollutant was never argued in the Idaho case. Instead Shannon argued about permit jurisdiction. I hope they don't appeal and waste more money and time. Here's what the Judge had to say in his decision:

"Neither ICL nor Mr. Poe disputes that the material passing through Mr. Poe's suction dredge and into the South Fork Clearwater River falls within the definition of a "pollutant" under the CWA"

So Shannon agreed dredging caused the introduction of a pollutant to the river but argued the State had no right to regulate their dredge pollution. What's next? Agreeing that miners kill more baby seals but it's OK because they don't need permits?

Let's get this right up front - dredging does not introduce pollution to the stream being dredged. There are dozens of court decisions including two (2) Supreme Court decisions that state if nothing is added to the water from outside the banks there is no pollution to regulate under the CWA (Clean Water Act). Arguing that dredging does pollute but the State doesn't have a right to regulate that pollution is missing the point entirely.

I like Shannon, I think he tries to do the right thing, but in this situation he really sunk his own case with his misunderstanding of the legal definition of water pollution.

Heavy Pans

 

[Jim in Idaho]

Yeah...it really saddens me that the definition of pollutant wasn't brought up. Probably would have made a big difference. And, made a difference in future trials. Sometimes we're our worst enemy. We have to win the public opinion battle, or we're never going to win at trial.
Jim