IT APPEARS THAT WE WON

I'm getting a lot of PMs and emails about this ruling. I wish I could answer all the questions individually but it's probably better to discuss these things publicly. I'll write up some thoughts I have about the impact of this win later. I've got family business today so it will have to wait till then. Just want you to know I'm not ignoring anyone.

I will say this. It's always been lawful to dredge. This decision agrees with that statement.

Would it be wise to run out and dredge today? I'll leave that for later but I would remind you that this single ruling in this set of consolidated cases is not precedence. The case has many issues to be settled yet as well as any appeals. You can not rely on this decision, at this time, to bail you out with another issue in a different venue. That will happen in time, in my opinion, but that time is not now.

Please think of Brandon's journey through this legal system, or the private settlement talks with the State, and consider the possible impact of your actions. The pen is still mightier than the sword and the press is still in the opposition's pocket. Sending things south right now would not make you a hero.

Heavy Pans
 

Well we know that the greenies are going to do everything in their power to keep dredgers out of the water as long as possible. With all of the "connections" they have in the government they can still make things hard for everyone. Most likely they will file something to delay the issuing of permits while they try to think of some other tactic to use against us. It's turned into a constant cycle. They loose on one point and then they try something else.

Maybe if we can get it so that "non-profit" groups with more than a certain number of members can not use the fund available through the EAJA to pay for their legal costs we could level the playing field. If their supporters really want some case files, let them pool their money like miners have had to do! All users of public lands need to put their heads together to find a way to reign in these extremist groups that in truth have no ones interest in mind but their own. As the saying goes, we need to hang together or we're all going to hang separately and most likely from the tallest tree in town.
 

Thank you Clay for taking the time to address this, Your time is greatly appreciated by all of us...
 

Clay is 100% right! As much as many would love to go out and start dredging right away, to do so might cause more harm than good. Just because we miners have won this particular battle in no way means that the war is over. We don't need to be putting the cart before the horse and giving the opposing side more ammo to use against us.
 

Last edited:
Yep I sure wish Jerry could have seen this day! He and PLP worked very hard for it! Reed, I think the man that engraved the sluice is from Chicago. He dredges a lot in Indian. I know him but I just cant recall his name right now. I will remember it just as I log off. if this is the same sluice, I saw it in Indiana at a outing Chuck Lassiter had.
 

russau said:
Yep I sure wish Jerry could have seen this day! He and PLP worked very hard for it! Reed, I think the man that engraved the sluice is from Chicago. He dredges a lot in Indian. I know him but I just cant recall his name right now. I will remember it just as I log off. if this is the same sluice, I saw it in Indiana at a outing Chuck Lassiter had.
Click to expand...

Yea there was a huge post on it when he wanted ideas for the pictures on it back in 2005 on 49ermikes. We sent him in the pics and he did the rest. I ended up winning it for $500+ and then Mike Higby & I turned around and gave it to Dave McCraken to continue making money with it. That pic was from 2006 and I can't tell you how much we made for donations even back then but it was a ton. Then Mike & I put in a couple days at a GPAA show in Redding and we raised a bunch more for the cause as well with some of the profits coming in from Armadillo Mining sales. In other words it has been a long hard fight and it's good to know that my donations along with all everyone's have been well spent :)
 

Reed, you reckon that six still knows its way to the water
 

Attorney James L. Buchal, :icon_thumright::icon_thumright:
I know a few Oregon dredgers that will remember his name!
Could Judge Ochoa make a guest judging in Oregon?:laughing7:
Hear Hear !!!!!
 

I just called everyone that I could and let them know, Man what a great day. :)
 

calnatv, your right on mark, will my wetsuit still fit. I'll make it fit. I will of course adhere to the 1992 regs as always. As I believe the new 2012 regs have crossed the line into absurdity..
 

Just so everyone knows, the court reversed this decision and this no longer applies
Supreme Court finds Los Angeles County liable for stormwater pollution


Hate to be a gloomy gus on such a happy day but want to keep the record straight

ratled
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...
 

Today's ruling did NOT address the cases on the 2012 regs and they are still in affect as the are matter of law. That has yet to heard or settled. PLEASE don't give the opposition any ammunition when we are so close. Today's ruling only affected 2 of the 9 cases in the MSC PLP's case on 5653 and the New 49ers case out Siskiyou Co.

ratled
 

Ratled: Everything you posted is be far pre-dating today so I don't get what you are poking at.
 

NeoTokyo said:
Ratled: Everything you posted is be far pre-dating today so I don't get what you are poking at.
Click to expand...

It was stated in this thread that the SCoUS trumped CWA with the referenced case, I was just pointing out that the cited references was incorrect.. it had nothing to do with today's ruling.... and today's ruling had nothing to do with that.

Today's ruling didn't make the 2012 regs go away, just that the state cannot require a permit then not issue one. The MSC is still in the process in working those detail out.

ratled
 

Last edited:
Ahh ok, thank you for clearing that up.
I cant seem to find the 2012 regulations, might someone have a link to the 2012 and the 1994 regulations that they could share please? :)
 

Last edited:
Last edited:
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: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Simplex Metal Detector

Latest Discussions

Back
Top