Waldo Mining District's video series on Oregon mining regulations

winners58

winners58

Bronze Member
Apr 4, 2013
1,729
4,060
Oregon
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Waldo Mining District's series on Oregon mining regulations, with Tom Kitchar and Josh Bohmker.
Tom and Josh shot two more segments yesterday on the current round of Oregon court cases that will be online in the coming weeks.
(These videos are aptly put together by Waldo Sec. Sarah Bohmker who has graciously contributed her time and talent to putting them together).
.

.
and on SB 3 suction dredge ban

.
What is Public Land
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Well done presentations. These two cases have a lot to do with future motorized placer mining and State/EPA permitting.....(not just in Oregon but other States as well). It makes a lot of sense that the mining community would prevail. But it is all up to the courts and the arguments they hear.

Bejay
 

May 10th is just around the corner this week. Looking forward to hearing the results of the case being heard and ruled upon! Wishful thinking to say the least! I will say the brief is very thorough IMHO.... and presents a lot history supporting the miners.

Bejay
 

32084771_493908901011832_5451594721728135168_n.jpg
http://www.waldominingdistrict.org/
Eastern Oregon Mining Association
.
Miners Oregon Supreme Court hearing this Thursday May 10th at 1:30 pm for the DEQ 700 NPDES permit required to suction dredge in Oregon streams.
Location: Located close to Oregon Capitol.
State Street and 12th Street area.
• Address: 1163 State St, Salem, OR 97301
• Phone: (503) 986-5555
• Website: http://www.courts.oregon.gov/Supreme/Pages/index.aspx
For those who would like the GPS coordinates
44.937586, -123.027655

Tom Kitchar president of Waldo Mining Association notified me our attorney James Buchal arranged to have extra room to accommodate miners who wish to attend the DEQ 700 NPDES suction dredge permit hearing. Our attorney would like miners to show this court we are serious about a fair hearing for this permit. DEQ since about 2010 has been able to keep miners from having a fair hearing by issuing a new 700 NPDES permit each time our permit litigation comes before the court system making our court case moot each time. At least now the Oregon Supreme Court has decided to give some credibility to our case without making it moot. It is possible the Oregon Supreme Court may remand this case back to a lower court for a fair hearing instead of making our case moot even though DEQ just issued their new 2018 700 NPDES suction dredge permit. Miners need to stop DEQ from gaming the courts system.

Merit Briefs here: https://web.courts.oregon.gov/recor...44a4d30971542360882581d40000eaa3?OpenDocument
 

Last edited:
Today is the day! At least I hope so! Fingers are crossed but I have many doubts! This has much to do about Calif; as well as Wash and Idaho as well. If the Calif ban keeps advancing State by State the future looks very bleak indeed. But if by chance Oregon can halt the anti advance and win there remains hope.

Bejay
 

Last edited:
Bejay said:
Today is the day! At least I hope so! Fingers are crossed but I have many doubts! This has much to do about Calif; as well as Wash and Idaho as well. If the Calif ban keeps advancing State by State the future looks very bleak indeed. But if by chance Oregon can halt the anti advance and win there remains hope.

Bejay
Click to expand...
Share the words.
Thanks
 

After listening to most of the arguments:
If the “State” is contending that there is “Two or more discharges” with one being the “Processing with altering the fill” and another has something to do with “Navigabilty” with the last “Discharge” has something to do with the “Plume going beyond 300 feet” that may fall under “Environmental discharge”.
Is the list of “Agencies” now growing in size or is one part going to be “Monitored by Federal Agencies” and the rest going to be “Monitored by State Agencies”?

By the way no talk about the "Claim of Mineral deposits" unless this one missed it in the first 14 minutes.
Now have a chance to listen to the first 14 minutes:

After listening to the first 23 minutes the appearance is that the topic "Materials" can only be "Minerals in Character" with the question as to if anything is added.
No talk about a "Discovery" that can help establish a "Foundation in mining law" about "Minerals in Character" vs. "Mineral deposits".
This is like talking about oranges and not apples.
If there is only talk about oranges then when is the "Foundation" of apples going to be addressed if ever?

Most people "Dredging" thinks that there is just one discharge. The "State" has made it clear that there is "Two or more discharges" to be monitored from the "Dredging process". Sounds like there can only be a "Minerals in Character" with the "Discharge" output.
 

Last edited:
The "State" will contend that "Mining" "In Stream" will not be stopped as one can still go out with shovels, picks, and pans (even under water) to get the "Mineral deposits" as long as the "Plume discharge is not over 300 feet in the water". This will not be practical to do for the most part.
 

the states argument is based on EPA/state agency deference and referencing outdated Tulloch II rules,
also see NMA v. Army Corps of Engineers and Home Builders v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
they are saying it magically changes the composition of the dredged material to turbid process wastewater.

its not, it does not change the character it's all just dredged and fill material
the case the EPA has has used in the past is Rybachek v. EPA
that case was large miners using washplant, trommel, dragline and bucketline dredges dumping directly into the stream.

the case they referenced as needing a Corps 404 dredge & fill and a 402 NPDES was
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
that was the unusual case that that may have required both the 404 & 402 permits

in a small suction dredge nothing is processed, it goes in the hose and drops out the back, the heavy's settle in the riffles,
there is no need for a NPDES that is for sewage sludge or possibly Ore processing, not for moving a small amount of rock and gravel
 

Last edited:
Just asking so the "Discharge" of any "Mineral in character" material is the source of the "Any pollutant" in the above "Cases" and the "Mineral deposit" is what is retained?
 

Any feed back on just how many "Discharges" the "State" now considers is coming out the end of a sluice box?
 

Here is the latest skinney as I understand it on what has been happening:

The Oregon Supreme Court heard the arguments in May and is not bound to reach a timely summary judgement. By holding off a ruling on the issue it gives the State of Oregon time to "rewrite the ban law", which in turn makes the whole case moot. Just another political maneuver to curtail dredging in Oregon.


Like many in Oregon I was hopeful for a summary judgement making the case that Oregon's ban is unlawful. No such luck. Just more of the same political crud.


Bejay
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Alaska Treasure Hunters

⬅️ Previous Thread

Looking for advice on sluice

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Latest Discussions

Back
Top