More smoke and mirrors from the state.

[Goldwasher]

The water rock and sand from a washplant is not pollution per the epa and case law. You keep quoting dredge and fill ops where the material comes from another place "point source pollution" taking dirt from in or around a watercourse and simply adding water then de-watering said material does not make it a pollutant. Water from a coal mine however is a totally different thing. Again you do not understand your own info.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[chlsbrns]

The water rock and sand from a washplant is not pollution per the epa and case law. You keep quoting dredge and fill ops where the material comes from another place "point source pollution" taking dirt from in or around a watercourse and simply adding water then de-watering said material does not make it a pollutant. Water from a coal mine however is a totally different thing. Again you do not understand your own info.

Why don't you back up your claims with quotes from legal docs and links to the docs?

After all that you have posted/claimed that was proven incorrect I would go out and look at the sky if you said it was blue!

You didn't read the Appeal Courts decisions that I posted in my previous posts. Read them and then tell me that returning sediment from a waterway back to the same waterway is not a violation of the CWA. Also notice the cases cited

 

[chlsbrns]

I dont understand my own info? LoL!

The screenshot is a closeup of the courts decision and multiple case histories. Its the same screenshot that you just replied to and said that rock and sand were not pollution and that the epa and case history back up your statement.

You posted the complete opposite of what you read!

Reintroduction of sediments back into the same waterbody is a violation of the CWA! The appellant court and the epa decisions concur.

Please post a legal doc to back up your claims!

 

[cazisme]

I bet she is hot the crazy liberal ones are always hot.

 

[diverrick]

Oh boy! Where's my pop corn?

 

[rodoconnor]

OMG!!!

 

[The Gilded Lens]

 

[Goldwasher]

all the docs' have been posted here the only one not reading and/or understanding is you.

 

[chlsbrns]

all the docs' have been posted here the only one not reading and/or understanding is you.

Ok you believe that if you want too!

 

[Oakview2]

I just threw up in my mouth

 

[Hefty1]

I just threw up in my mouth

Move over....I just turned green...and don't feel so good....

 

[chlsbrns]

I just threw up in my mouth

I'll bet you did when you read the screenshots of the court decisions that I posted! See that? I was correct from the start!

It must really suck that some girl from the east coast knows so much more than you do!

 

[chlsbrns]

Move over....I just turned green...and don't feel so good....

See my last post!

 

[2cmorau]

does anyone have the link to supreme court turbidity not a polutant ruling i can't seem locate in my save files

 

[chlsbrns]

does anyone have the link to supreme court turbidity not a polutant ruling i can't seem locate in my save files

This: GoldRushU-Supreme Court rules that TURBIDITY is not a pollutant

Thats about the transfer of WATER. It has nothing to do with sediment. The use of the word turbidity was added by the website. A smoke and mirrors think to fool those dumb enough to not see thru it.

 

[chlsbrns]

Maybe this one about stormdrains?

Superior Court Invalidates Numeric Stormwater Limits in California Construction General Permit | AGC News

 

[Hefty1]

All right lady, girl or what ever. You believe what you want to out on the east coast, and please stay there. You mine the way you want to, if you do, with all the permits you want.
I will stay here on the west coast and mine the way I have for the last 30+ yrs.
Don't worry about trying to enlightening us as you have done that just fine...5150
You take care now....and was nice chattin with ya.

 

[Goldwasher]

YUCK......and again do you even read your own links?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Chisbrns STOP talking down to members....

 

[Clay Diggins]

does anyone have the link to supreme court turbidity not a polutant ruling i can't seem locate in my save files

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

The flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the same waterway does not qualify as a "discharge of a pollutant" under the CWA. See South Fla. Water Management Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe, 541 U. S. 95, 109-112 (holding that the transfer of polluted water between "two parts of the same water body" does not constitute a discharge of pollutants under the CWA).

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.