Joseph Loyd Buzzard Posts:553 
| 03 Jun 2017 01:58 PM |
|
|
Well Arthur Still spending on the law suit for OR.Been supporting all law suits.
|
|
|
|
ARTHUR WAUGH Advanced Member Posts:967
| 05 Jun 2017 07:26 AM |
|
|
You are right of course. There are two suits in progress yet. The 838 dredging moritorium suit is sitting in the 9th circuit, and there is another on DEQ's 700PM wastewater discharge permit (that is what is required for dredging) That one has been ongoing for years as each year they issue a new permit and tell the court the suit is moot because of the "new" permit. That one is in state supreme court, IIRC.
I had made up stickers for a fund raiser for the 838 suit as well as PLP, so yes support of court actions are still needed and ongoing and will get worse.
|
|
|
|
ARTHUR WAUGHAdvanced Member Posts:967
| 06 Jun 2017 04:10 PM |
|
I just heard back from my state representative......The bill passed as is, so DEQ will be able to charge a $250 application fee (every 5 years as I understand it), and a $250 a year fee for the 700PM dredge (wastewater discharge) permit. Will be up to them where they set the fee, but I would look for the maximum right now.
Still have the waters where dredging was legal in 2016/2017.
That means I am out of the dredge business next year. Not worthwhile to me for that kind of money. And I just got it together last year. |
|
|
|
Trevor Lingbeck Greenhorn Posts:3
| 18 Feb 2018 11:34 PM |
|
I know it's probably a bit late, but I just signed it. There is a public hearing at the beginning of next month regarding the new house bill. |
|
|
|
ARTHUR WAUGHAdvanced Member Posts:967
| 19 Feb 2018 04:35 PM |
|
Missed the meeting of my Salem club last week........what new bill???
Hopefully will be to rein in DEQ, but doubt it.
As of now DEQ is looking at the max fees as listed above......and they only issued 150 odd permits in 2016..... |
|
|
|
Trevor LingbeckGreenhorn Posts:3
| 21 Feb 2018 08:32 PM |
|
Maybe it's not a new bill, I've been seeing it on the state of Oregon water quality website. Here's the link, http://www.oregon.gov/deq...s/Pages/Mining.aspx. if you scroll down there's the public notice pdf that's says when and where. The deq is holding the public hearing to decide if the new modifications to the permit should be changed or left as sb3 wrote them. I think at least worth saying something. The increase in permit cost holds no legitimate reason for being increased so much. I Just don't want to let the government win again.. I'm 26 years old and my wife and are want to do this long term while having a very minimalistic life. I just feel the more we allow them to take from us, the less my generation and my future children's generation will have. |
|
|
|
ARTHUR WAUGHAdvanced Member Posts:967
| 22 Feb 2018 09:40 AM |
|
OK, that's DEQ sorting through SB3. Every 700 PM holder got a certified letter on the hearings. Everyone should submit comments on keeping the fees down, agreed they are outragous as lined out in SB3.
Make no mistake, everyone in every agency in the state wants us out of the water. And even though SB3 set the max at $250 application, and $250 a year for the permit, DEQ is going to use those figures, no matter what.
The very dim light at the end of the nozzle is they might come down somewhat if enough pressure is put on them, but we won't get any help from the legislature, Dems have almost a super majority in both houses, and a governor that is beyond green.
With this, I am now out of the dredging game, just can't justify that kind of money for the return on the time I have available to go mining.
State Police are going to be the enforcement arm, and from the rumors I hear they aren't interested, they have bigger issues to deal with in the big picture, and most county sheriff's aren't that much interested either. There will be a huge number of dredges still running, just like the past few years since SB838. I know there were way more that 150 odd in operation in 2016. |
|
|
|
William HallBuzzard Posts:660
| 22 Feb 2018 03:39 PM |
|
|
Or, as with the state of Calif., they (deq) may just decide not to issue any permits
I speak for a vary small portion of NorCal, rumor is Forest Circus doesnt really care in there jurisdiction, cant speak to local law
Only time I see any of them is in the winter when there arent many peoples around and many roads gated
It's only a matter of time, the cancer is spreading
Washington, Idaho, Colorado are on the list
Arthur is correct, controlling agencies want dredgers out of the water
Bill
|
|
|
|
ARTHUR WAUGHAdvanced Member Posts:967
| 22 Feb 2018 04:29 PM |
|
|
The 700PM permit DEQ issues here is a "wastewater discharge" permit. We don't discharge anything into the water, except what we suck up from the bottom, minus the gold, lead, and mercury. Some say, don't bother with the 700PM, you're not discharging anything.....Like the Supreme Court Judge said back when in a case-if you take a ladle of soup out of the pot and pour it right back in, what other substance other than what was already in the pot are you discharging or adding to it? But won't wver convince the states of it.
The other issue is turbidity, but look at any waterway after a good storm and it runs Swiss Miss brown, but we're told...oh that's nature, and it won't kill fish like the 20 foot plume that is a couple of feet wide that we might kick up.
Been lawsuit ongoing for many years over th permit, and every year when they issue new permits, they tell the courts the siut is moot because they don't issue "that" permit anymore.
|
|
|
|
William HallBuzzard Posts:660
| 23 Feb 2018 03:54 PM |
|
|
Of course "they" dont want to hear what doesnt support "their" agenda
Calif had/has some of the same issues with turbidity, but would not listen to what science had to say about it, it didnt support their agenda
As you have pointed out "they" want dredgers/people off and out of the waters
Yep, same excuses
There arent enough of us that care to make a run at states suing them, they tie it up, deflect, postpone until "we" are to old to care or cant remember LOL
Bill
|
|
|
|
Trevor LingbeckGreenhorn Posts:3
| 23 Feb 2018 11:57 PM |
|
|
Well again, as I said in my first comment. I'm only 26. I know where my country is headed and it terrifies me. It's my generations turn to step up to bat and prevent further loss of rights. Do you guys remember the gentleman here in Oregon who built a house on blm and lived in it in order to protest the blm land grab overreach? He won his law suit because it was the only was way he could effectively protest and was protected under his first amendment right. So, why not protest the deq's new ridiculously expensive permit fees by dredging without permits? Just make it an active protest. Peaceful of course. No militias or anything, just calm, civilized, peaceful protest. We have science to back up the effectiveness of suction dredging, we have the legal right to do so, and the legal right to protest restrictions.
|
|
|
|
ARTHUR WAUGHAdvanced Member Posts:967
| 10 Jul 2019 07:22 PM |
|
|
Oregon DEQ has come up with a new one now. They are under court order to do a TMDL for mercury in the Willamette basin. They have looked at the permits issued and have a few in the Row River drainage (the old Bohemia Mining District). Plenty of natural mercury up there, as well as some legacy mercury from the 1930's. They are citing 2 studies on Dorena and Cottage Grove lakes, but there is no mention of dredging in either, just flood events.
They are going to push for a 303d listing for mercury in all tributaries to those two lakes to ban dredging, as approved by the court, even though we capture mercury along with other heavy metals. Look for dredges to be banned starting next year. Since they couldn't get us out of the water with either 838 or SB3 on the ESH issue, now they will do it administratively with a 303d listing. Quartzville will be the next thing on their agenda, wait and see. When they get up there, it will affect 3 GPAA claims and a couple of clubs and numerous individuals who hold claims.
This will affect two of the GPAA claims, above Dorena lake, as well as several clubs and individuals.
Comments are due to DEQ by around the 1st of Sept. You can search their website for information on what is going on, and how to comment.
|
|
|
|
Robert Murata New Member Posts:50
| 10 Jul 2019 10:00 PM |
|
|
I do not understand how the state has jurisdiction on federal lands, CA already stepping on my federal claim rights.
|
|
|
|
Robert MurataNew Member Posts:50
| 10 Jul 2019 10:00 PM |
|
|
I do not understand how the state has jurisdiction on federal lands, CA already stepping on my federal claim rights.
|
|
|
|
ARTHUR WAUGHAdvanced Member Posts:967
| 11 Jul 2019 10:59 AM |
|
|
While the ground/mineral rights or just the mineral rights might belong to the feds, most states claim the waters, along with the water rights. Doesn't make much sense, since the feds can declare a river as "Wild and Scenic".....Same with wildlife, states set hunting/fishing seasons and limits, but the feds declare "threatened/endangered" and set recovery plans. (Most states also have their own "T&E" lists).
|
|
|
|