Bejay
Bronze Member
- Mar 10, 2014
- 1,026
- 2,530
- Detector(s) used
- Whites GMT
Garret fully underwater
- Primary Interest:
- Prospecting
As I see it:
So, we assume that States have the right to require permits for dredging. With this assumption comes the fact that States can therefore dictate how many permits are issued, the cost, and OTHER such requirements. Then of course if the State decides to not even issue dredge permits there is the assumption that dredging has been halted altogether. Then of course the issue of EPA permits disguised as state DEQ permits comes into play as well if we see states bring forth that requirement.
If a State decides to "NOT ISSUE" any dredge permits the question then becomes: "Did They Halt Dredging?". For all means a purposes to the small scale miner the answer to this is of course yes: As this is what we see in Calif.
However the reality of it is: The State did not ban dredging, as in all likelihood they know that the supreme Court has often ruled that "STATES CAN NOT BAN A FORM OF MINING ON FEDERAL LANDS OPEN TO MINERAL EXPLORATION"; and so their attempt to legislate such a law banning dredging would be overturned.
So what they do is try to regulate dredging by issuing permits. The acceptance of this regulatory authority becomes the issue. If the mining community's "court challenge" attempts to argue "ban" herein lies the difficulty. How does one get into Federal Court and utilize law(s) saying that miners can mine the public domain if a state contends they are not stopping mining, but rather regulating a specific action. In State courts the argument will simply revolve around the regulatory authority of the State.
The question simply becomes one of: "Does A State Have A Right To Regulate a Federally granted right to mine and utilize the water for such?" But the State avoids the issue of "Ban" for the simple reason they can not ban it.
Maybe this will give some insight on what is happening and why this issue is so contentious. Unless someone can give me a case, IMHO The Supreme Court has not ruled that States don't have the right to regulate mining issues that are deemed harmful to "its" resources. When the States were given statehood the water rights were retained by the Federal Government and given to the public. BUT the states were given the right to regulate its' (water) equitable use. There is that word REGULATE!
. So what might the mining communities successful challenge in court be?
Bejay
So, we assume that States have the right to require permits for dredging. With this assumption comes the fact that States can therefore dictate how many permits are issued, the cost, and OTHER such requirements. Then of course if the State decides to not even issue dredge permits there is the assumption that dredging has been halted altogether. Then of course the issue of EPA permits disguised as state DEQ permits comes into play as well if we see states bring forth that requirement.
If a State decides to "NOT ISSUE" any dredge permits the question then becomes: "Did They Halt Dredging?". For all means a purposes to the small scale miner the answer to this is of course yes: As this is what we see in Calif.
However the reality of it is: The State did not ban dredging, as in all likelihood they know that the supreme Court has often ruled that "STATES CAN NOT BAN A FORM OF MINING ON FEDERAL LANDS OPEN TO MINERAL EXPLORATION"; and so their attempt to legislate such a law banning dredging would be overturned.
So what they do is try to regulate dredging by issuing permits. The acceptance of this regulatory authority becomes the issue. If the mining community's "court challenge" attempts to argue "ban" herein lies the difficulty. How does one get into Federal Court and utilize law(s) saying that miners can mine the public domain if a state contends they are not stopping mining, but rather regulating a specific action. In State courts the argument will simply revolve around the regulatory authority of the State.
The question simply becomes one of: "Does A State Have A Right To Regulate a Federally granted right to mine and utilize the water for such?" But the State avoids the issue of "Ban" for the simple reason they can not ban it.
Maybe this will give some insight on what is happening and why this issue is so contentious. Unless someone can give me a case, IMHO The Supreme Court has not ruled that States don't have the right to regulate mining issues that are deemed harmful to "its" resources. When the States were given statehood the water rights were retained by the Federal Government and given to the public. BUT the states were given the right to regulate its' (water) equitable use. There is that word REGULATE!
. So what might the mining communities successful challenge in court be?
Bejay
Amazon Forum Fav 👍
Last edited:
