More smoke and mirrors from the state.

[chlsbrns]

Correct Highbanking is not mentioned. Discharging pollutants is mentioned.

The water act uses:
U.S. Code › Title 33 › Chapter 26 › Subchapter V › § 1362
33 U.S. Code § 1362 - Definitions(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.

Miners/claim owners do not have riparian rights. They have rights to the minerals not to the water. The federal gov has riparian rights to water flowing thru federal lands.

The clean water act is a federal law/act.

Miners HAD Appropriative rights at one time. They claimed water much the same as they claimed minerals. That has changed! https://www.c-win.org/appropriative-rights.html
State Water Resources Control Board

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[chlsbrns]

......

 

[chlsbrns]

Again, mining claims give rights to minerals. Water is not considered a mineral so claims give no rights to water.

Riparian rights can be given to OWNERS of the property. Mining claims give rights to minerals the claim owner does not own the land just the minerals on the land.

 

[Clay Diggins]

...

View attachment 1064213

Thanks for sharing Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co., 436 U.S. 604 (1978) chlsbrns.

That case was about whether water was a locatable mineral - not whether miners have a right to the water. As I'm sure you know from the case it's been accepted law since the Broder decision in 1879 that water is not a locatable mineral.
The Supreme Court cleared that difference up right from the beginning of their decision.

If the claim is indeed valid, respondent is not merely entitled to access to the water thereon, but also has exclusive possessory rights to the land and may keep others from making any use of it.

In 1978 the Supreme Court believed that valid claim owners are "entitled to access to water"

It seems your own case agrees with what I have already written. Avoid highbanking without a permit if you wish but please don't base your decision to do so on false claims from an out of control agency.

Heavy Pans

 

[Clay Diggins]

Miners HAD Appropriative rights at one time. They claimed water much the same as they claimed minerals. That has changed! https://www.c-win.org/appropriative-rights.html

From your above quoted page:

They may regulate all water rights that are initiated after 1914, but prior to 1914, the Board is only allowed to investigate problems with older rights.

Miner's water rights were recognized by federal law in 1866. That's 48 years before the 1914 State law. Also riparian owners (Federal government is the largest riparian owner) are exempted by the 1914 Water Act.

Heavy Pans

 

[chlsbrns]

Thanks for sharing Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co., 436 U.S. 604 (1978) chlsbrns.

That case was about whether water was a locatable mineral - not whether miners have a right to the water. As I'm sure you know from the case it's been accepted law since the Broder decision in 1879 that water is not a locatable mineral.
The Supreme Court cleared that difference up right from the beginning of their decision.



In 1978 the Supreme Court believed that valid claim owners are "entitled to access to water"

It seems your own case agrees with what I have already written. Avoid highbanking without a permit if you wish but please don't base your decision to do so on false claims from an out of control agency.

Heavy Pans

Water on Claim 22 was from a drilled well. The court considered it a valuable mineral because it was in a desert...

"In 1962, after respondent had purchased these claims, it discovered water on Claim 22 by drilling a well thereon. This water was used to prepare for commercial sale the sand and gravel removed from some of the 23 claims."

"Since the water at Claim 22 "has an intrinsic value in the desert area," and has additional value at the particular site "as a washing agent for . . . sand and gravel," the court ruled that respondent's "claim for the extraction of [Claim 22's] water is valid."

"The Court of Appeals' suggestion that a claim to water might be validated simply because of the "intrinsic value" of water "in the desert area," 553 F.2d at 1216, makes abuse particularly likely, since the "intrinsic value" theory would substantially lessen a claimant's burden of showing the "valuable" nature of his claim. Seen 4, supra."

Yet AGAIN... Riparian rights belong to those who OWN the property. Mining claims give rights to valuable minerals.

Water could be considered valuable when found underground in a desert.

Heavy Pans to all! Especially to those in California who wwithout a permit can only use pans.

 

[chlsbrns]

Thanks for sharing Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co., 436 U.S. 604 (1978) chlsbrns.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/436/604/case.html
In 1978 the Supreme Court believed that valid claim owners are "entitled to access to water"

Your bold text is so misleading! It is not a quote from the court decision. You combined text from two seperate parts of the courts decision. It is similar to what you claim the state of California does.

 

[diverrick]

Although this topic got way off I have enjoyed reading all of this. I got to go get some popcorn. My assertion was that the State was asking for the water board to be removed, was that I felt they had a plan, to use that in the future somehow against us. If the court disallowed the states request, then we are good. As for this other issue I have no idea. But it has been a fun read for sure.

 

[Clay Diggins]

I'm not so sure it's off topic diverrick. The established fact that miners have a separate and prior right to use water in their mining means that the State Water Board is blowing smoke and they are no threat to miners.

The two issues are the same.

If, as chrlsburns believes, a state agency can make regulations forbidding miners to use water without a permit then they can make hibanking or even dredging "illegal". (There is no such law produced yet but for the sake of argument let's assume the state agency did make such a regulation.)

If, as the Supreme Court and Congress have said, that miners have a right to use the water then the state agency has no teeth. It's just a bluff by the State.

I'm betting the Supreme Court and Congress are going to come out ahead on this one just like they have for more than 150 years.

Heavy Pans

 

[Clay Diggins]

Your bold text is so misleading! It is not a quote from the court decision. You combined text from two seperate parts of the courts decision. It is similar to what you claim the state of California does.

That is an exact unedited quote from the Supreme Court's unanimous decision. The link to the full case was provided in my earlier post.

Heavy Pans

 

[chlsbrns]

Although this topic got way off I have enjoyed reading all of this. I got to go get some popcorn. My assertion was that the State was asking for the water board to be removed, was that I felt they had a plan, to use that in the future somehow against us. If the court disallowed the states request, then we are good. As for this other issue I have no idea. But it has been a fun read for sure.

If you read the federal clean water act they direct the states to create boards to enforce the act. The reality of this is that this is not just a california thing. Any state can choose to enforce the letter of the law and do the same as California

 

[chlsbrns]

I'm not so sure it's off topic diverrick. The established fact that miners have a separate and prior right to use water in their mining means that the State Water Board is blowing smoke and they are no threat to miners.

The two issues are the same.

If, as chrlsburns believes, a state agency can make regulations forbidding miners to use water without a permit then they can make hibanking or even dredging "illegal". (There is no such law produced yet but for the sake of argument let's assume the state agency did make such a regulation.)

If, as the Supreme Court and Congress have said, that miners have a right to use the water then the state agency has no teeth. It's just a bluff by the State.

I'm betting the Supreme Court and Congress are going to come out ahead on this one just like they have for more than 150 years.

Heavy Pans

The supreme court and congress have not said that miners have a right to use water. Thats not the issue anyway. Its not about using water. The water acts forbid DISCHARGE into waterways.

 

[chlsbrns]

That is an exact unedited quote from the Supreme Court's unanimous decision. The link to the full case was provided in my earlier post.

Heavy Pans

No it isn't a direct quote. Post the link and quote again. This time make the complete quote bold. Dont make a statememt and then post a quote as if it was all said together.

 

[chlsbrns]

Search California's Porter Cologn Act for... Mining waste...

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf

And then tell everyone what you are allowed to do. Take notice of the part where they determine if water discharged to dry ground will affect groundwater in addition to all of the other regulations about surface waters.

 

[Oakview2]

You cannot prempt federal law by state regulation. There are hundreds of cases heard by the supreme court on the issue of federal premption. The 1872 Minning law cannot be prempted by Federal buearcrats ether. That law was enacted by the US Congress, not bloated appointed official. You should read the State Constituition, Article X s over s 2. "Guarantees the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the conservation of such waters is to be excercised with a view to the reasonalbe and beneficial use thereof in the intrest of the people and for the public welfare. Use of water for minning is a beneficial use protected under the California State Constitution.

 

[Oakview2]

The right to water or the use or flow of water in and from any natural stream or watercourse in this state is and shall be limited to such water as shall be reasonably required for the the benficial use to be served

 

[chlsbrns]

You cannot prempt federal law by state regulation. There are hundreds of cases heard by the supreme court on the issue of federal premption. The 1872 Minning law cannot be prempted by Federal buearcrats ether. That law was enacted by the US Congress, not bloated appointed official. You should read the State Constituition, Article X s over s 2. "Guarantees the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the conservation of such waters is to be excercised with a view to the reasonalbe and beneficial use thereof in the intrest of the people and for the public welfare. Use of water for minning is a beneficial use protected under the California State Constitution.

You can mine but you cant discharge into surfacewater or contaminate groundwater. You can mine after obtaining a permit or just Use a drywasher.

The people in our Country went from revolting over a tea tax to sheeple. No balls! They have let politician's control us for so long that they forgot that politicians are supposed to represent us. Until a large majority of people grow a set we are going to be controled.

We aren't free anymore we are controlled!

 

[Oakview2]

You need to spend a lot more time reading the federal minning laws and less attention to what state beuaracrats have threatened. Just try and get a discharge permit for a highbanker, it doesn't exist. It has been debunked many times over by Western Minning Alliance, ICMJ, AMRA. According to these morons in Sacramento, every time it rains you would be polluting the groundwater or discharging into surfacewater. This is a farce, always has been always will be. This is exactly why the State tried to discharge State Water Board from the San Bernadino lawsuit, and they LOST, Judge Ochoa denied.

 

[chlsbrns]

I just breezed thru the mining act of 1872. It appears that only patented claims have rights to water.

California is getting around the 1872 act by regulating what is discharged back into the water. Cali is anal about everything! Polution standards, small engines, ect.

Organize and protest! Good luck with that as you will find that very few will participate. It's still worth a try!

I agree 100% with your argument that according to them rain would be a violation of the water acts. Clearly dredging does more good than harm.

You are up against politicians that are mindless and controlled by $$$!

 

[Oakview2]

I challenge you to get a water discharge permit for highbanking in this state. If you read the above passages from the State constituition is grants up riparian rights, as well as the 1872 minning laws.