IT APPEARS THAT WE WON

I dredge with a conventional dredge and with a bore hole dredge.

I do not wear blinders I live in reality.
 

First a BIG BIG thank you to those in the law suits and those representing and supporting them- YOU ALL ARE WHY THIS HAPPENING! Your Karma banks are overflowing!

Trying to stay calm, although the neighbors are probably wondering why I'm yohooing like it's the new year.

What can we expect next as far as the water board, and others, Will there be/ can there be appeals, etc? Or is this truly a done deal and we can start doing oil changes and gas them puppies up!. Dredge this year?

2Cmorau- Told ya yesterday was a good day! Good day indeed, mark that one on the calendar!
 

US Supreme Court: Transfers within Waterway Do Not Require NPDES Permits
Added 01-11-13
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Jan. 8, 2013 that discharging polluted water from one part of a waterway to another part of the same waterway does not require an NPDES permit under the Clean Water Act. The case is Los Angeles Flood Control District v. NRDC.
The Supreme Court's ruling reverses a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had held that the Los Angeles County Flood Control District violated its discharge permit by channeling polluted stormwater from concrete-lined to unlined portions of the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers.
The Supreme Court granted review solely on the issue of whether water flowing from one portion of a river through an artificial channel into another portion of the same river constituted a discharge subject to Clean Water Act permitting requirements.
The court's decision reaffirmed that the transfer of polluted water between two parts of the same water body does not constitute a discharge of pollutants under the act, citing its 2004 decision in South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S. 95, 105, 58 ERC 1001 (2004).
Quoting from a Second Circuit opinion, the Supreme Court said, “If one takes a ladle of soup from a pot, lifts it above the pot, and pours it back into the pot, one has not 'added' soup or anything else to the pot.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court wrote, “no discharge of pollutants occurs when water, rather than being removed and then returned to a water body, simply flows from one portion of the water body to another.”
We hold, therefore, that the flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the very same waterway does not qualify as a discharge of pollutants under the CWA,” the Supreme Court wrote.
 

Don't confuse the wolf with facts

2cmorau said:
US Supreme Court: Transfers within Waterway Do Not Require NPDES Permits
Added 01-11-13
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Jan. 8, 2013 that discharging polluted water from one part of a waterway to another part of the same waterway does not require an NPDES permit under the Clean Water Act. The case is Los Angeles Flood Control District v. NRDC.
The Supreme Court's ruling reverses a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had held that the Los Angeles County Flood Control District violated its discharge permit by channeling polluted stormwater from concrete-lined to unlined portions of the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers.
The Supreme Court granted review solely on the issue of whether water flowing from one portion of a river through an artificial channel into another portion of the same river constituted a discharge subject to Clean Water Act permitting requirements.
The court's decision reaffirmed that the transfer of polluted water between two parts of the same water body does not constitute a discharge of pollutants under the act, citing its 2004 decision in South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S. 95, 105, 58 ERC 1001 (2004).
Quoting from a Second Circuit opinion, the Supreme Court said, “If one takes a ladle of soup from a pot, lifts it above the pot, and pours it back into the pot, one has not 'added' soup or anything else to the pot.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court wrote, “no discharge of pollutants occurs when water, rather than being removed and then returned to a water body, simply flows from one portion of the water body to another.”
We hold, therefore, that the flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the very same waterway does not qualify as a discharge of pollutants under the CWA,” the Supreme Court wrote.
Click to expand...
 

2cmorau said:
US Supreme Court: Transfers within Waterway Do Not Require NPDES Permits
Added 01-11-13
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Jan. 8, 2013 that discharging polluted water from one part of a waterway to another part of the same waterway does not require an NPDES permit under the Clean Water Act. The case is Los Angeles Flood Control District v. NRDC.
The Supreme Court's ruling reverses a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had held that the Los Angeles County Flood Control District violated its discharge permit by channeling polluted stormwater from concrete-lined to unlined portions of the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers.
The Supreme Court granted review solely on the issue of whether water flowing from one portion of a river through an artificial channel into another portion of the same river constituted a discharge subject to Clean Water Act permitting requirements.
The court's decision reaffirmed that the transfer of polluted water between two parts of the same water body does not constitute a discharge of pollutants under the act, citing its 2004 decision in South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S. 95, 105, 58 ERC 1001 (2004).
Quoting from a Second Circuit opinion, the Supreme Court said, “If one takes a ladle of soup from a pot, lifts it above the pot, and pours it back into the pot, one has not 'added' soup or anything else to the pot.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court wrote, “no discharge of pollutants occurs when water, rather than being removed and then returned to a water body, simply flows from one portion of the water body to another.”
We hold, therefore, that the flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the very same waterway does not qualify as a discharge of pollutants under the CWA,” the Supreme Court wrote.
Click to expand...

Rather than argue the difference between discharging "WATER" and discharging "SEDIMENT" AGAIN I'll wait to see what happens when dredgers apply for permits.
 

Just finished reading the entire document, and it sure appears
to me that it was a home run for the small scale miners.

Be vigilant, however, as me thinks this is not over yet. There
will be more battles in the future, no doubt.

No doubt they'll be a few thousand ultra-greenies crying in their
Chablis tonight because real miners will be back in the forests.
Those folks are nothing but elitists who believe the forests are
under their personal care, and that their dogma should be omnipotent.

Well....
elitistssuck.jpg~original
 

This is just fantastic news! Judge Ochoa got it right! Thanks and congratulations to Brandon Rhinehart, James Buchal, Kimble, PLP, New 49ers and everyone else involved!! Great Day!!
 

So I guess the next question is when can we get in the water????
 

Great News :) We will miss all of those that didn't make it to the end like Jerry Hobbs and Dennis Robinett pictured with Frank Sullivan and I with the Karuk Sluice that we won and re-donated to the cause. I don't remember who made the sluice maybe one of you guys can remember or chime in :) A great win.

DSCF0007.JPG

The 49er's Victory Sluice
 

Last edited:
chlsbrns- All I can say is; Bless your heart little man, bless your everloving miner hating heart! Now I implore you, please remove yourself and your threadkilling ways for one stinking day and let us enjoy this moment in peace!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Last edited:
So, no permits needed no posted regs. I can go dredge? Does this effectively lift the moratorium? Or are there more steps? this settled all six cases and makes the Rinehart case null and void?
 

Goldwasher said:
So, no permits needed no posted regs. I can go dredge? Does this effectively lift the moratorium? Or are there more steps? this settled all six cases and makes the Rinehart case null and void?
Click to expand...

Jarrod read my mind, same question I have... Waiting for Clay/Barry to shed some light on this as he is one that understands this legal jargon better than the bulk of us.
 

Go miners!
 

Regs will have to be negotiated, I think, but it does say in the ruling that no miners can prosecuted for dredging when no permits are available. This in my opinion, is the first of many battles, but federal preemeption has precedent in this state, and in the federal courts. We have hopefully provided a road map for surrounding states. Clay and others and attorneys will most likely have the true meaning and the depth of this win. But for right now, I am having a real problem wiping this s&*t eating grin off of my face


Goldwasher said:
So, no permits needed no posted regs. I can go dredge? Does this effectively lift the moratorium? Or are there more steps? this settled all six cases and makes the Rinehart case null and void?
Click to expand...
 

There still working on the dredge regulations ie. next hearing 1/23/15
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

OCHOA RULES

⬅️ Previous Thread

Come this summer

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Simplex Metal Detector

Latest Discussions

Back
Top