SB 637 not moving forward this session

winners58

winners58

Bronze Member
Apr 4, 2013
1,729
4,060
Oregon
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Someone needs to rub his nose in the pile of BS that is in this bill. And show him the way out of the house.
 

Another Update;

At 4:45pm the assembly leader requested a special meeting of the natural resources committee for tomorrow WEDS 9/9 to hear SB637.
 

Well, I wouldn't panic until they start enacting draconian measures against dry sluicing.
And even then, not because it disrupts the hobby, but because it'll mean California ran out of WATER!!

Yikes!
 

Izzy got it into comittee....fax email and call the reps....they're trying to sneak it in
 

Curious to know in what capacity she is acting under. I was under the impression that there were laws against that sort of thing.
 

She's a lobbyist and the Ceo of the Sierra Fund she has our money and no problem using it against us........I must say she doesn't look like she enjoys the outdoors all that much!!...other than her organic farm that is....
https://www.sierrafund.org/about/board-and-staff/imartin/....[URL="https://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/izzy-under-assault/content?oid=13249"][URL="https://www.sierrafund.org/about/board-and-staff/imartin/"]https://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/izzy-under-assault/content?oid=13249[/URL].......[URL="https://www.sierrafund.org/about/board-and-staff/imartin/....https://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/izzy-under-assault/content?oid=13249"]http://www.theunion.com/news/6229480-113/martin-sierra-state-yuba#[/URL]....[/URL][URL="https://www.sierrafund.org/about/board-and-staff/imartin/....https://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/izzy-under-assault/content?oid=13249.......http://www.theunion.com/news/6229480-113/martin-sierra-state-yuba"]http://www.npr.org/2013/01/28/170060636/new-gold-rush-has-little-luster-for-some-in-the-golden-state[/URL]..........
 

Another sh*ty plan by the greenies.
 

Mind numbing update, Chris Giorgi who has testified in every one of the cases and was to testify tommorow before the Natural Resources committee, had his vehicle broken into, and all his materials for the committee including the clothes he was to wear were stolen from his vehicle in Rocklin, smash and grab, there is no limit to how low our enemies will go. jmho
 

Last edited:
In my opinion, this was no happen stance occurance. Just like secretly calling Izzy to testify, after the bill was shelved. This is dirty, and goes all the way to the top. They consider themselves the ruling class, and they are above the law when it comes to their mission to under the guise of protecting mother earth. In reality, they are building they political capital, and their powerbase.
 

yea I just read on MCN. they didn't get his tablet it turns out. But, they did take his clothes and paperwork. I hope they get some video or something. They never mentioned where it took place. Interesting point coming up is the amount of lobbying on behalf of the sierra fund can make them lose their 501c. We need to all send in the official complaint forms...Lobbying........Bummer when you read it however is that AMRA actions would be considered lobbying because they ask you to contact your reps.....damned if you do damned if you don't:BangHead:.......

back to Chris' situation....I also typically believe there is no such thing as coincidence in theses situations but, we can't lose focus on the task at hand don't get caught putting to much energy into a witchhunt of our own.
 

Looks like more backroom deals and underhanded methods from Izzy and her cronies. They are going to try to ram this through no matter what. The Sierra Fund needs to loose their NFP status. If that were to happen, I wonder how hard they'd be fighting for the forest........
 

SEC. 2. Section 5653 of the Fish and Game Code is amended to read:
(b)(1)"(B) ... and a permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in accordance with Sections 401 and 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. Secs. 1341 and 1344, respectively) to use vacuum or suction dredge equipment."

Was this required in the original permitting process?
 

WELL HERE IT IS.

Attached is the text of the final amended version of SB 637. It's pretty
grim for any type of miner, but we're consulting with Buchal, PLP and
New 49ers to determine the path ahead once it passes, obviously we'll be
legally challenging it.

Here's the main points of what it does:

(1) Ends the dredging ban by stating all significant effects other than
water quality are considered fully mitigated.
(2) States you must have a Water Quality permit prior to applying for a
dredge permit. There is no process to obtain this permit and it's likely
it may take years to establish a process.
(3) You can assume the water quality permit will be specific to a
certain site, it won't be statewide, and it's issued only to an
individual that applies, not for a whole river.
(4) Based on discussions in committees it's clear any river which is
303(d) listed as "impaired" under EPA rules will not receive a permit.
This includes all of the forks of the Yuba, American and Feather as well
as the Klamath.
(5) Affirms the 2012 regulations are legal and reinstates them as the
regulations. Also prevents legal challenge to them.
(6) Redefines a suction dredge as something that uses any part of a
dredge which would include using only the hose by itself.
(7) Requires a permit for anything related to a dredge which would
include high bankers, power sluices or hydro forces
(8) Requires the executive director of the water board to sign every
permit personally.
(9) Requires a CEQA review prior to issuing any permit and requires the
water board to hold public meetings and involve Indian tribes prior to
issuing any suction dredge permit.
(10) Redefines the standard CDFW will use prior to issuing a permit from
"deleterious" to fish to "significant effects" on fish or wildlife.
There is no definition of what "significant effect" means.

SB 637 was sponsored and written by Izzy Martin of the Sierra Fund. Her
unregistered lobbying activities have been extensive.

If people are tired of Izzy Martin and her attacks on all mining then
they need to fill out and send in the attached complaint forms to the
California Fair Political Activities Committee and the IRS.
 

What's your source on this?

ratled
 

OPENING ARGUMENTS FILED
Many people who get the newsletter just want to know what’s going on in the legal fight. A lot. The Obama Administration just filed a brief in the Rinehart case supporting the State’s position to ban dredging forever. No surpriset here.
We spent the weekend working with the attorney preparing the final briefings for submission. Our final court documents were due today, August 31st. We are impressed with our attorney, James Buchal who worked the entire weekend and well past midnight every night to get the brief findings done.
We couldn’t mention the attorney’s work without expressing our thanks to Dave McCracken and the New 49ers for allowing us to share their attorney and legal costs. This reduces both our costs and the New 49er costs, and ultimately means less money we have to try and raise.
Due today is our opening argument on the challenge to the environmental impact report and the remaining arguments in the other cases, as well as Keith Walker’s opening argument.
Virtually the entire month of August was spent in writing and editing these briefings and they represent the future of mining California.
If you want a copy of the final briefing you can email us, and we’ll send you a copy. It represents almost three years of work researching and reading. We had to read every CEQA appeals case published; virtually every single report referenced in the EIR, and we had to go through the administrative record which consisted of over 100,000pagesofdocuments.
To call this case complex would be an understatement, but you must realize we’re up against what we consider a giant fraud. We challenge, in our briefing, the process they used to ban dredging. We believe we’ve laid out a
strong case for why the EIR was a fraud and was designed to reach an outcome based on political pressure, not based on science.
However, it’s likely we just racked up another $10,000 in legal bills over the past few weeks, and we need some support.Our support comes entirely from you.
There’s only a handful of us doing this research and writing these briefings, and we’re working with a single lawyer,but the legal bills add up quickly.
The good news is we have an end date. January 20 Th will be the hearing and we’ll win or lose. If we win the State has said they’ll appeal the ruling, if we lose, then we collectively have a decision to make on how to proceed.
This legal fight has been expensive, and we’re still short on paying our previous legal bills. Thanks to everyone who has contributed or purchased something to help us fund the fight.Not one dollar goes to any thing but paying legal expenses.
All the cases will be heard on the 20th of January, and all the decisions will follow shortly after that.
What happens with small scale mining in California hangs in the balance with how well we’ve presented our arguments,and how well were searched our position.
Even if you’re not a dredger this court case will have significant impacts on your future mining. If we allow the State to arbitrarily determine what is a major environmental effect, without regards to the truth or science, then this same approach will be used by the environmentalists to continue to shutdown mining.
If you appreciate what we’re doing, we’d sure appreciate some help paying our legal bills
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Take that!!

⬅️ Previous Thread

This is bound to be interesting

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Latest Discussions

Back
Top