More smoke and mirrors from the state.

[chlsbrns]

You mean this Supreme Court decision about the addition of pollutants from 2013 2cmorau?


LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

That is the transfer of water only. The Federal Court of Appeals has upheld the decision that re-introduction of materials from the streambed into the water column via dredging and sluicing constitutes the addition of a pollutant and is a violation of the clean water act.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Hefty1]

(6) The term "pollutant" means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. This term does not mean (A) "sewage from vessels" within the meaning of section 1322 of this title; or (B) water, gas, or other material which is
injected into a well to facilitate production of oil or gas, or water derived in association with oil or gas production and disposed of in a well, if the well used either to facilitate production or for disposal purposes is approved by authority of the State in which the well is located, and if such State determines that such injection or disposal will not result in the degradation of ground or surface water resources.


(12) The term "discharge of a pollutant" and the term "discharge of pollutants" each means (A) any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, (B) any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft.


WE DO NOT ADD ANY POLLUTANT!!!

 

[2cmorau]

Thanks Clay, for the life of me could not find it even searching ICMJ,

You mean this Supreme Court decision about the addition of pollutants from 2013 2cmorau?


LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

 

[Hefty1]

In the courts below, as here, the District contended that the C-11 canal and WCA-3 impoundment area are not distinct water bodies at all, but instead are two hydrologically indistinguishable parts of a single water body. The Government agrees with the District on this point, claiming that because the C-11 canal and WCA-3 "share a unique, intimately related, hydrological association," they "can appropriately be viewed, for purposes of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, as parts of a single body of water." Brief for United States in Opposition 13. The Tribe does not dispute that if C-11 and WCA-3 are simply two parts of the same water body, pumping water from one into the other cannot constitute an "addition" of pollutants. As the Second Circuit put it in Trout Unlimited, "f 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." 273 F. 3d, at 492. What the Tribe disputes is the accuracy of the District's factual premise; according to the Tribe, C-11 and WCA-3 are two pots of soup, not one.

 

[Oakview2]

You should take a government class, last I checked the supreme court decisions cannot be overturned by the Court of Appeals. Why do you constantly take screen shots of the DOJ opinion page and present them as settled law?

That is the transfer of water only. The Federal Court of Appeals has upheld the decision that re-introduction of materials from the streambed into the water column via dredging and sluicing constitutes the addition of a pollutant and is a violation of the clean water act.

View attachment 1066787

 

[chlsbrns]

You should take a government class, last I checked the supreme court decisions cannot be overturned by the Court of Appeals. Why do you constantly take screen shots of the DOJ opinion page and present them as settled law?

You really should do a little research before you post. The case cited in my screenshot:

Borden Ranch Partnership v Army Corps of Engineers 537 U.S. 99 (2002)

Is about a farmer who deeply plowed his field. The supreme court did not reach a decision as one judge recused himself and the others tied.

The farmer was fined under the CWA for deep plowing! He wasnt even in water! He disturbed dry soil that was on top of wetlands!

Borden Ranch v. United States Army Corps of Engineers | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

http://books.google.com/books?id=EW...a=X&ei=5u8-VIT6OpOjyAS664DgCA&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAg

The position of the CWA is that if you disturb sediments (in the case of dredging suck up sediments and return them to the water) you are releasing pollutants into the water. It's that simple!

Also, you are claiming there is a Supreme Court decision. If so it can easily be found and linked to, post a link!

 

[Hefty1]

"The position of the CWA is that if you disturb sediments (in the case of dredging suck up sediments and return them to the water) you are releasing pollutants into the water." It's that simple!


If it is that simple, show us WHERE the CWA states that, that their position on you disturbing sediments you are releasing pollutants into the water.


. As the Second Circuit put it in Trout Unlimited, "f 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." 273 F. 3d, at 492.
REPOST...

 

[chlsbrns]

"The position of the CWA is that if you disturb sediments (in the case of dredging suck up sediments and return them to the water) you are releasing pollutants into the water." It's that simple!


If it is that simple, show us WHERE the CWA states that, that their position on you disturbing sediments you are releasing pollutants into the water.


. As the Second Circuit put it in Trout Unlimited, "f 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." 273 F. 3d, at 492.
REPOST...

For the upteenth time... Your pot of soup story Is a case where the moved WATER NOT SEDIMENT!

 

[chlsbrns]

Sediment sand stone mercury and a host of other polutants are UNDER the water in the streambed. When dredged it is added to the water.

 

[rodoconnor]

The material returned to the stream[ from where it came] is always cleaner when run through a dredge. Lead , mercury and of course that dirty ol gold are extracted. No pollutants or toxins added , instead removed. Sediment is soon placed UNDER the water. For a change the Supremes got it right.

 

[Hefty1]

Sediment sand stone mercury and a host of other polutants are UNDER the water in the streambed. When dredged it is added to the water.

Oh come on....do you get your permit every time you cross a stream or river by foot, do fishing people in the rivers get permits, do rafters get permits for sediment disturbance as they embark or disembark the rivers or streams, do families get their permits when they go to the river and let the kids play in it, do Fish and game wardens carry permits to cross the rivers on foot....I could go on and on....oh And I bet MOTHER NATURE has her permit every winter.

 

[Hefty1]

Anyways none of this has to do with placer mining. PERIOD

EPA has NO Authority on Mineral Estates (mining claims) patented or not, on Federal Lands.


That will throw a wrench into this.....

 

[chlsbrns]

Oh come on....do you get your permit every time you cross a stream or river by foot, do fishing people in the rivers get permits, do rafters get permits for sediment disturbance as they embark or disembark the rivers or streams, do families get their permits when they go to the river and let the kids play in it, do Fish and game wardens carry permits to cross the rivers on foot....I could go on and on....oh And I bet MOTHER NATURE has her permit every winter.

You are saying the above because you do not know what a "POINT SOURCE" is.

 

[chlsbrns]

Anyways none of this has to do with placer mining. PERIOD

EPA has NO Authority on Mineral Estates (mining claims) patented or not, on Federal Lands.


That will throw a wrench into this.....

Hahaha! Funny!

904 F2d 1276 Rybachek v. United States Environmental Protection Agency | OpenJurist

 

[Hefty1]

US Environmental Protection Agency PLEASE READ Appendix C, D below.

Water: Permitting (NPDES)
You are here: Water

Pollution Prevention & Control

Permitting (NPDES)

Mining

Mining

OVERVIEW

There are 3 general categories of mining activities that are regulated by EPA: hardrock mining, non-metals mining and coal mining.
Regulation of the mining sector involves every major EPA program. Mining operations generate tailings and waste rock that must be disposed of, and create wastewater discharges and air emissions. As a result, mining can affect surface and ground water quality, drinking water supplies and air quality. Impacts from operating and abandoned mines can also cause extensive losses of aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
Throughout the western United States there are thousands of miles of mining impacted streams and rivers caused by active and historic mining of metallic ores (e.g., iron, copper, lead, zinc, molybdenum, tungsten) and precious metals (gold, platinum and silver). Similarly, large scale coal mining in the eastern half of the United States has been underway for the past 150 years and the impacts to watersheds from active as well as abandoned coal mines require regulatory oversight to protect these valuable environmental resources. These situations, combined with an increasing population, has made mining issues a priority. The growth in population has intensified the use of aquatic and riparian ecosystems for recreation, and has increased the demand on aquifers for domestic water supply.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires all point source discharges from mining operations be authorized under an NPDES permit, as described in Section 402 of the CWA. The construction of impoundments to serve as repositories for tailings and treatment of waste from mining and mineral processing operations are regulated by Section 404 of the CWA, as well as, Section 402 in the case of discharges from these impoundments into any waters of the United States.
EPA Regional offices have used statutory authority granted by the Clean Water Act (CWA) to regulate all mining activities (i.e., coal, hardrock and non-metals) through the NPDES permits program since the 1970's. Although mining permits are issued by various State agencies, the Office of Water(OW) may review State issued permits to ensure compliance with water quality criteria and ensure that effluent guidelines for ore/coal mining and processing are properly applied to wastewater discharges from these activities.

• U.S. EPA's Hardrock Mining Framework
  • Fact sheet (2 pp, 48K, About PDF)
  • Chapters 1-5 (15 pp, 49K, About PDF)
  • Appendix A: Mining Industry Profile (27 pp, 113K, About PDF)
  • Appendix B: Potential Environmental Impacts of Hardrock Mining (23 pp, 83K, About PDF)
  • Appendix C: Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Tools (69 pp, 211K, About PDF)
  • Appendix D: Other Federal Regulatory Tools (15 pp, 55K, About PDF)
  • Appendix E: Overview of State Regulatory Approaches (7 pp, 27K, About PDF)
  • Appendix F: Selected Methods of Ranking Sites (21 pp, 67K, About PDF)
  • Summary of Comments (37 pp, 117K, About PDF)
• Surface Coal Mining
  • Background on Mountaintop Mining, EPA Region 3
  • 6/11/2009 Memorandum of Understanding Implementing the Interagency Action Plan on Appalachian Surface Coal Mining
  • 4/1/2010 Memorandum: Improving EPA Review of Appalachian Surface Coal Mining Operations Under the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and the Environmental Justice Executive Order
  • 7/13/2010 Review of Clean Water Act §402 Permitting for Surface Coal Mines by Appalachian States (PDF) (82 pp, 1MB, About PDF)

 

[Hefty1]

You are saying the above because you do not know what a "POINT SOURCE" is.

What?

If it is that simple, show us WHERE the CWA states that, that their position on you disturbing sediments you are releasing pollutants into the water.

WAITING>>>

 

[chlsbrns]

What?

If it is that simple, show us WHERE the CWA states that, that their position on you disturbing sediments you are releasing pollutants into the water.

WAITING>>>

Actually the link in your previous post gives a definition of a point source! It's in the second sentence!


NPDES Home | Permitting (NPDES) | US EPA

 

[chlsbrns]

The mining page that you just posted says:

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires all point source discharges from mining operations be authorized under an NPDES permit, as described in Section 402 of the CWA.

The clean water act defines sand stone and dredge spoils as a pollutant.
A point source is basically a pipe or something man made that conveys the sediment/sand/stone/dredge spoils (dredge) into water

 

[2screwed]

I keep telling myself I'm done reading this train wreck because it's at an empasse, but then it pops up as having a new post and i have to click on the link even though it's against my better judgement.

 

[chlsbrns]

I keep telling myself I'm done reading this train wreck because it's at an empasse, but then it pops up as having a new post and i have to click on the link even though it's against my better judgement.

Im going to try and not post the same things over and over again in reply to the same lame comments. Ignoring the law is not going to change anything except to make recreational prospectors/miners look like criminals.

Im going to try and make suggestions such as writting to our representatives asking to change the law. Maybe put limits such as miners processing less than xx yards are exempt.

Anyone... Suggestions?