More smoke and mirrors from the state.

[chlsbrns]

Look in the mirror...that be you!

Why would a blind person look in a mirror?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[chlsbrns]

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

Show me a law that says you can highbank. I've posted numerous federal and Cali State laws that do not allow discharge without a permit.

 

[chlsbrns]

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.

One link that you posted says that they provide water for 3 hours daily. 1 1/2 hours in the morn and 1 1/2 hours in the afternoon. Why?

The other link has a video of people highbanking into a large deep water hole. Why?

The sites also say you can dredge. You should start posting to let everyone know that dredging is allowed! You say so right?

 

[cazisme]

Just goes to show you that you cant argue with an insane person. Ooops that is discriminatory in CALI now I meant mentally unbalanced.

 

[chlsbrns]

Show me a law that says you can highbank. I've posted numerous federal and Cali State laws that do not allow discharge without a permit.

This says that you can highbank!

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/d...392-more-smoke-mirrors-state.html#post4203735

 

[chlsbrns]

State Water Resources Control Board

What is a riparian right?

A riparian water right is a right to use the natural flow of water on riparian land. Riparian land is land that touches a lake, river, stream, or creek. Land that is in the public domain does not have riparian rights. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management manages public domain land.

 

[Aufisher]

Do you really believe that claim holders have riparian rights?

Private Property OWNERS (can possibly) have riparian rights. Claims are not private property owned by citizens. Prospectors are people they are not privately owned land.

Listen to yourself

 

[Hefty1]

WOW! Might be to far gone......

 

[Aufisher]

I'm thinking about getting a few claims so I can re - rout that creek into my own lake. Then I can sell the water to anyone!!!

 

[chlsbrns]

Listen to yourself

You really can't comprehend what you read can you?

Both of my posts say the same thing! BLM land is public domain land. Claims are on BLM land/public domain land. Public domain land does not have riparian rights.

The 1872 mining act also states that unpatented claims do not have water rights

 

[Oakview2]

Minning claims are no longer in the public domain, being from the east I can see why you wouldn't understand that, but can't understand why you can't read the the minning laws. Minning claims are secured by a deed of trust, and instrument that cannot be excercised in the public domain.

 

[chlsbrns]

Minning claims are no longer in the public domain, being from the east I can see why you wouldn't understand that, but can't understand why you can't read the the minning laws. Minning claims are secured by a deed of trust, and instrument that cannot be excercised in the public domain.

Your the last person who should be discussing legal issues. Do me a favor post quotes with links whenever you post about legal issues. It will save a lot of time being that you won't be able to verify what you say.

Solid Minerals
Federal land and mineral ownership is divided into two types: Public Domain and acquired. Public Domain lands have always been in Federal ownership, while acquired lands were purchased by the government from private individuals.

Where
Only public domain minerals are locatable minerals (those minerals that have never left federal ownership). Reconveyed minerals are considered public domain minerals under the mining laws. Mining claims cannot be staked on acquired minerals; a prospecting permit (43 CFR 3500) is required to prospect for acquired minerals.


Ouachita National Forest - Land & Resources Management

Locatable Minerals: Mining Claims on Public Domain Lands
The authority for hardrock exploration and mining for locatable metallic and other minerals on public domain status lands stems from the General Mining Law of 1872 (17 Stat. 91, as amended). Under that authority, a person (referred to as the claimant) must physically locate a mining claim on the ground, file a location notice with the County Recorder's Office in the county which the claim is located and also file the location notice with the USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) accompanied by the appropriate filing fee.

 

[Hefty1]

The 1872 mining act also states that unpatented claims do not have water rights

Now you got to show me that! I want you to show us that!

 

[chlsbrns]

The 1872 mining act also states that unpatented claims do not have water rights

Now you got to show me that! I want you to show us that!

I already did numerous times!

 

[Hefty1]

I already did numerous times!

So sorry, I must have missed them. Would you please post them again? Thanks in advance.

 

[chlsbrns]

So sorry, I must have missed them. Would you please post them again? Thanks in advance.

No!

 

[Goldwasher]

One link that you posted says that they provide water for 3 hours daily. 1 1/2 hours in the morn and 1 1/2 hours in the afternoon. Why?

The other link has a video of people highbanking into a large deep water hole. Why?

The sites also say you can dredge. You should start posting to let everyone know that dredging is allowed! You say so right?

Why only three hours...Most likely a business ploy so you don't run the whole pile you buy. Not because of diversion issue don't get excited. That set up is if you want to hi-bank under an easy up with a scoop of material provided. You are free to roam Roaring Camp set up your hi banker and dig to your hearts content, and keep what you find. From the LDMA link that big hole is a settling pond. It is within eye site of the river and perfectly legal.As it has been for decades. Same as if you set up on your claim. Which is managed by BLM not solely on BLM land as you falsely stated. Again you have posted more links and do not even have the basic understanding of the information you post.

 

[chlsbrns]

Why only three hours...Most likely a business ploy so you don't run the pile you buy. Not because of diversion issue don't get excited. That set up is if you want to hi-bank under an easy up with a scoop of material provided. You are free to roam Roaring Camp set up your hi banker and dig to your hearts content, and keep what you find. From the LDMA link that big hole is a settling pond. It is within eye site of the river and perfectly legal.As it has been for decades. Same as if you set up on your claim. Which is managed by BLM not solely on BLM land as you falsely stated. Again you have posted more links and do not even have the basic understanding of the information you post.

Lame...

 

[Oakview2]

He can't post it, cause he has never read it or can't understand it. When rights have attached as a result of a valid location, the land becomes segregated from the public domain and the property of the locator; and the title to the land is held in trust for the claimant unti patent. Noyes v. Mantle, 127 US. 348.351; Dahl v Raunheim, 132 US 260, 262;Gillis v Downey, 85 Fed. 483, 487

There are so many of these same references in the Minning laws, too bad you don't spend the time to read them. The effect of a grant by the Unites States of the of right of present and exclusive possesion. Public Domain CANNOT be secured by a Deed, something you cannot or refuse to admitt. Once again you continue to confuse the laws passed by the United States congress with regulations passed by political appointees. These continue to be struck down, like the Rinehart dredge case is about to be, struck down by the third court of appeals.

 

[Clay Diggins]

You really can't comprehend what you read can you?
Both of my posts say the same thing! BLM land is public domain land. Claims are on BLM land/public domain land. Public domain land does not have riparian rights.
The 1872 mining act also states that unpatented claims do not have water rights

The 1872 mining act does not state that unpatented claims do not have water rights. There is nothing in that Act that says anything like that.

Here is a link to the entire text of the 1872 Mining Act. Those here can read for themselves and see that you are incorrect.

Federal riparian rights are long recognized in the law. All of the riparian rights in every state but the original 13 colonies, Florida, Hawaii and Texas come from the patents granted by the Federal government. The Supreme Court in Camfield v. United States had this to say about Federal Riparian Rights.

Of course, the United States, with respect to the lands owned by it throughout the western territories, has a status at least equal to that of any proprietor of private lands. Accordingly, those incidents of riparian title which at common law pertain to lands in private ownership, pertain also to land in federal ownership. The consequence is that the United States, in its western territories, fully as much as any riparian owner in Massachussets or Pennsylvania, has the right to receive the continued natural flow of the streams on its
land.

There are many more such Supreme Court rulings through the years and they all state that the Federal government has riparian and appropriation rights to the water.

If you could still doubt that claim owners have a superior riparian right as well as a prior superior appropriation water right that dates to the original 1866 Act of Congress read this Supreme Court decision:

When the Federal Government withdraws it land from the public domain and reserves it for a federal purpose (like the mineral grant), the Government, by implication, reserves appurtenant water then unappropriated to the extent needed to accomplish the purpose of the reservation. In so doing the United States acquires a reserved right in unappropriated water which vests on the date of the reservation and is superior to the rights of future appropriators. Reservation of water rights is empowered by the Commerce Clause, Art. I, § 8, which permits federal regulation of navigable streams, and the Property Clause, Art. IV, § 3, which permits federal regulation of federal lands.
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States (1976)

If we stick to the law and court decisions the handout by the water board is clearly in error. Rights to the water on federal lands are clearly granted to miners and easily predate and supercede any agency handouts or even regulations or state laws (there are none) that say otherwise.

No law, no court decisions not even any agency regulations have been presented that in any way prohibit miners highbanking on federal mineral lands. None. Nothing. Just one little state agency handout that is clearly in error, has no basis in law and has never even been attempted as an enforceable regulation. Why? because there is no law to charge someone with.