SB 637 not moving forward this session

2cmorau said:
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.
Click to expand...

So it went from this http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVersionsCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB637 the night before to the above in less than 12 hours? BS, sounds like it was planned to go down like this, they backdoored it.
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!
Last edited:
not getting thier attention, but this good, and a starting point
California State Senator Tom Berryhill Says the Legislature is Looking at a Ban on Suction Dredge Mining.
July 8, 2015 - Eureka! Gold was discovered and California exploded into existence. Since that time, miners have continued to search for gold either by panning, sluicing, or--until 2009--suction dredging.
As it stands now, the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) no longer issues suction dredge permits. Like so many misguided government policies, what started out as a temporary moratorium in 2009, which allowed DFW time to conduct an environmental review of suction dredging, has morphed into a long-term ban.
Mining enthusiasts challenged the state’s ability to ban mining on federal lands and won--a decision the state is now appealing to the California Supreme Court. Now, environmentalists are pushing a legislative end-run around the court’s decision in the event that the ban is overturned.
Senate Bill 637 (SB 637) recently passed the Senate and is awaiting a hearing in the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife. I voted against this bill in the Senate and hope it is defeated in the Assembly.
At a minimum SB 637 would severely restrict and possibly ban suction dredge mining. The legislation would require the approval of various state and federal water quality agencies before the DFW would be allowed to issue a permit for vacuum or suction dredge mining. It also would require the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) or regional water boards to adopt waste discharge requirements for suction dredge mining--actions that would severely restrict mining.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has shown suction dredging has no significant long-term impact on fish or invertebrates and that sediment shifts or channel reconfiguration is insignificant as long as nozzle size is limited to six inches. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers found that “…below a certain size…the effects of suction dredging are so small and so short-term [that they do] not warrant…regulations being imposed…."
Evidence from three studies by Regional Water Quality Control boards between 2005-2014 indicate that mercury in historical gold mining areas has not been an issue and that mercury levels in wildlife in these mining areas were well below EPA thresholds.
In fact, the ban may actually increase mercury levels in gold mining rivers. U.S. Geological Survey data has suggested that mercury levels in rivers where gold is mined have actually increased since 2009, when the suction dredging moratorium took effect, because suction dredge mining removes, rather than deposits, mercury from rivers.
This de facto ban on suction dredge mining is another blow to the economies of rural areas. Slowly but surely coastal elites, with little understanding or interest in rural communities, are regulating away any chance rural economies have to thrive. Whether it is fishing, foresting, or mining, polices, such as the ban on dredge mining have severe economic ramifications on small communities—many of which have few well-paying jobs outside the mining industry or tourism. Businesses depend on the money generated by these industries to make ends meet. I would hope policy makers would actually look at the facts before allowing SB 637 to become law.
Source: Senator Tom Berryhill
 

just passed in the assembly...
 

Last edited:
It was complete and total BS. :(
 

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