More smoke and mirrors from the state.

[chlsbrns]

How do links that point out miners are not in the wrong....and courts and leo's who are wrong don't get to just do what they want without miners standing their ground, prove any point you are trying to make. Or, support your opinion of law and obvious limited knowledge of legal placer mining in California?

Legal placer mining in California requires permitting if water is used. Throughout this thread you have said no permit is needed. You really need to get your story straight you are talking out both sides of your mouth.

Can you see how absurd your statement is? That I have limited knowledge?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Hefty1]

Legal placer mining in California requires permitting if water is used. NO it does not!

Define "Legal placer mining"


[h=2][/h]

 

[chlsbrns]

Legal placer mining in California requires permitting if water is used. NO it does not!

Define "Legal placer mining"


[h=2][/h]

Ok yes you can use water to pan. No dredging is allowed. If you want to highbank you need at least one permit. I posted the permit and instructions.

Violations:
http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/criminal-provisions-clean-water-act#directdischarge

I assume they are busy enforcing the Clean Water Act on bigger mining operation and wont be long before the go after the little guy.
https://www.google.com/search?q=vio...olating+clean+water+act&tbm=nws&sboxchip=News

 

[timberjack]

The supreme court has ruled that if you are sucking up material from the river and discharging the same material into the river that is not a violation of the cwa. ,,,,,,,,if you dip a ladel into a pot of soup and take a ladel full out then dump it back into the same pot you have not changed the soup,,,,,,same with the cwa,,,,,,,the e.p.a has tried to twist the law in the past and been spanked by the court...mission creep is what all agencies are after more power,,,,,,study the laws carefully and don't believe the hype....

 

[chlsbrns]

The supreme court has ruled that if you are sucking up material from the river and discharging the same material into the river that is not a violation of the cwa. ,,,,,,,,if you dip a ladel into a pot of soup and take a ladel full out then dump it back into the same pot you have not changed the soup,,,,,,same with the cwa,,,,,,,the e.p.a has tried to twist the law in the past and been spanked by the court...mission creep is what all agencies are after more power,,,,,,study the laws carefully and don't believe the hype....

The case that I read said the transfer of water it did not inclide sediment. Can you provide a link to a news article or the actual case? If not its probably just twisted babble from those who wear blinders.

 

[Hefty1]

Ok yes you can use water to pan. No dredging is allowed. If you want to highbank you need at least one permit. I posted the permit and instructions.

Violations:
Criminal Provisions of the Clean Water Act | Enforcement | US EPA

I assume they are busy enforcing the Clean Water Act on bigger mining operation and wont be long before the go after the little guy.
https://www.google.com/search?q=vio...olating+clean+water+act&tbm=nws&sboxchip=News

SO WHAT POLLUTION WOULD HIGH BANKING BE PUTTING INTO THE WATERS YOU NEED TO CATCH UP ON THE MINING LAWS.

 

[chlsbrns]

SO WHAT POLLUTION WOULD HIGH BANKING BE PUTTING INTO THE WATERS YOU NEED TO CATCH UP ON THE MINING LAWS.

Sediment!

You really need to get your info from verifiable sources and stop paying attention to gold washers.

"In the Virginia case, the EPA established a TMDL that limited the flow rate of storm water into a creek in order to regulate the amount of sediment in the creek. Both parties agreed that sediment was a pollutant and storm water was not"

Recent Decisions Limiting Government Attempts to Regulate Under the Clean Water Act

 

[Clay Diggins]

TWO Supreme Court decisions - both stating clearly that water and sediment from the same waterway is not pollution:

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT v. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE (2003)

L.A. County Flood Control District v. NRDC (2013)

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded for further proceedings. The Court reiterated its Miccosukee Tribe holding that a transfer of polluted water between two parts of the same water body is not a discharge of pollutants under the CWA. To constitute a “discharge of pollutants,” the Court explained, an “addition” of a pollutant into navigable waters from a “point source” must occur: i.e., the transfer of water must be “meaningfully distinct.”

10 years apart - same issue same decision. The EPA just can't seem to follow the rules no matter who points out their error. This is not the only issue they have lost to the Supreme Court more than once.

As long as you live in fear of agencies overstepping their authority you will not have freedom or justice. As long as you continue to spread their misinformation and rely on ignorance and fear you are part of the problem.

Get educated. Learn what your rights are.

Heavy pans

 

[chlsbrns]

TWO Supreme Court decisions - both stating clearly that water and sediment from the same waterway is not pollution:

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT v. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE (2003)

L.A. County Flood Control District v. NRDC (2013)



10 years apart - same issue same decision. The EPA just can't seem to follow the rules no matter who points out their error. This is not the only issue they have lost to the Supreme Court more than once.

As long as you live in fear of agencies overstepping their authority you will not have freedom or justice. As long as you continue to spread their misinformation and rely on ignorance and fear you are part of the problem.

Get educated. Learn what your rights are.

Heavy pans

Thanks for making my point!

Show me where either article mentions "SEDIMENT". Neither article mentions sediment! Compare apples to apples! There is a difference between transfering water and transfering sediment.

 

[Clay Diggins]

I'm beginning to think you could care less about miner's rights chlsbrns. Is it really all about arguing with you?

READ the cases. BOTH of them are about sediment as pollution. In both of them the Supreme Court ruled against the concept that water and sediment from the same stream were pollution.

 

[chlsbrns]

I'm beginning to think you could care less about miner's rights chlsbrns. Is it really all about arguing with you?

READ the cases. BOTH of them are about sediment as pollution. In both of them the Supreme Court ruled against the concept that water and sediment from the same stream were pollution.

Ok so show me where either of the articles use the word SEDIMENT

No im all for the miners and prefer that they would see what they are dealing with instead of ignoring the facts. If a doctor said that you have cancer and you ignore it and do not get treatment what happens?

 

[delnorter]

My son and I right out in the open, within sight of the highway, for 3 days last summer, highbanking into a settling pond area. Fish and Game, Forest Service as well as the rest of the world drove by. No visits and no problems. Many many rafters (professional outfits) pass by. All were interested in our operation. We were friendly and open with our results. A great problem free outing.



Northwest California by the way and pumping from the river.

 

[chlsbrns]

I was speeding yesterday and sped right past a police officer. He didn't pull me over so I should assume that speeding is allowed?

 

[Oakview2]

Bingo, we have a winner.

I'm beginning to think you could care less about miner's rights chlsbrns. Is it really all about arguing with you?

READ the cases. BOTH of them are about sediment as pollution. In both of them the Supreme Court ruled against the concept that water and sediment from the same stream were pollution.

 

[chlsbrns]

Bingo, we have a winner.

It amazes me how blind some people can be. Come out of the darknes!

 

[delnorter]

Just finished loading and hooking up the camp trailer for a week of panning, highbanking, bazooka sluiceing and buck hunting in the same area. Right out in the open!

Wish me luck?
Thanks,
Mike

 

[chlsbrns]

Good luck! I hope that you are successful hunting, that you get a lot of gold and that you are not fined thousands of dollars for ignoring the law!

 

[Hefty1]

It amazes me how blind some people can be. Come out of the darknes!

Look in the mirror...that be you!

 

[Hefty1]

Show us 1 case where one was fined for using water high banking....PLEASE.

 

[Goldwasher]

I didn't post any wrong information. Funny thing is every case you cite is irrelevant or just backs up what we're saying. And every thing else you are just cherry picking out of context. Its kind of sad your lack of comprehension. Like I said at the beginning and hefty is saying now there has been no citation given to anyone for hi-banking. There are thousands of miners who do it year round in California. In the open and no one has gotten a permit or ticket.There are certain steps to follow and you are perfectly legal. washplants are legal as well. even then you need to deal with N.O.I and P.O.O. only once you meet a certain threshold of surface disturbance. Even when the BLM says on their site that hi-banking isn't casual use they are wrong and over stepping.Roaring Camp Gold, Goldmining Camp On The Mokulmne River CA http://www.goldprospectors.org/community/events/LDMA-Digs?EventId=ITALIANBAR1410&Category=LDMADIG The Italian bar dig was the weekend of the ninth. There we're numerous Hi-bankers running. According to you each of them would require a permit. This dig and more have been happening for decades. Advertised openly every year thousands of participants out in the open. Never ever has anyone need a permit. legal here legal everywhere NO LOOPHOLE NEEDED. Just the backing of the law.