I signed it Brad. Do you have this posted on Facebook, if not could you so that we may share this far and wide.

I have it on my Facebook page, and I have forwarded the link to GPAA Web Content Manager Nicole McCleaf to post on the official GPAA Facebook page.

Sounds good Brad.

signed the petition, this is a grab that reaches much farther than most people think. Thanks Brad for the heads up. Needs to be spread around also.

Finally got puter fixed and signed it.

According to the latest newsletter from my GA Congressman, the EPA has pushed out the regulations
during the Memorial Day weekend to implement the control of all water runoff into all waterways and
lakes. The new rule is suppose to clarify the previous Supreme Court rulings about the EPA Clean Waters Act
definitions of waterways, ponds and wet lands.

President Obama said this about the rules and their clarification:
"“Too many of our waters have been left vulnerable to pollution,”
Obama said in a statement, adding that the federal agencies wrote the rule to
“restore protection for the streams and wetlands that form the foundation of our nation’s water resources,
without getting in the way of farming, ranching, or forestry.

I noticed he didn't mention mining activities or other recreational activities in those waterways.
It does mention permits ($$$) and fines ($$$$$$$$$$$) for activities the EPA and the Corps of Engineers
that violate the new rules.

The GA Congressman, Mr. Woodall, did mention there is a House bill to restrict or overturn the EPA's authority
in implementing any of the new regulations.

I can appreciate the need for clean water and regulations to curb pollution. But, some of the regulations
punish everyone that want to use the waterways in constructive and productive ways without polluting the waters.
EPA figures the best way to stop pollution is to keep everyone away from the water sources.

Most of the "science" at this Agency is based on "Climate Change" and "Global Warming/Cooling".
Most of which based on the reports I have read say Mankind has no chance of changing or stopping.
The Sahara Desert was thriving green area with lakes and other wetlands 12-15 thousand years ago.
The change to a desert was brought on mostly by the Earth's Precession of it's axis.
A complete rotation of which takes 26,000 years. I can see an EPA ruling to stop that !

What was President Nixon thinking when he created this 15,000+ employee monster in 1970?
The EPA does not have Cabinet authority. It has an Administrator appointed by the President who can give them
Cabinet level ranking and the Congress has given it the authority to make rules concerning the Environment.
The EPA seems to like making Rules. But, does not like being told by Congress to remove or stop enforcement
of certain regulations. Even when it is a Law that Congress has passed that says it must cease enforcing. those regulations.
Sounds like certain other U.S. Government Bureaus (BLM, USFS).

Anyway write your Congress person and Senator and ask that they impose more oversight on the EPA' actions.
Local control is a better solution. Your State knows what is best for it's citizens than some agency that thinks
it can influence the Earth's natural processes.

Regards and Happy Trails !
Bob Scarborough P O R (Press On Regardless)

In days coming soon, even the puddle of water in your driveway will be considered EPA water, not yours.


Bill

The Power of Mining Districts

The 1872 Mining Act was Congressional acceptance that miners can make needful federal rules and regulations governing their activities on federally managed lands. Specifically codified under 30 U.S.C. sections 22 and 28. Section 22 states:

“Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, shall be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to become such, under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States.”

Essentially, this is by the miners, for the miners. This grant from Congress enabled miners in their respective mining districts to regulate their own pursuits subject to the laws of the United States. Most of the previous rules and regulation by miners in their respective mining districts were reabsorbed into state law. With the miners choosing to organize the traditional mining districts, they shall have federal supremacy over conflicting state and federal law upon federal lands.

1) The Mining Districts shall override conflicting state and federal laws that stand as obstacles to the full Congressional objective of the 1970 National Minerals, Mining, Reclamation and Policy Act (30 U.S.C. section 21a) and the 1955 Multiple Surface Use Act (30 U.S.C. 612 sections a - b).
2) The Mining Districts shall intervene upon the miner’s written request to resolve conflicts that unreasonably interfere with the miners right to extract, as defined in U.S. v. Shoemaker. Said in another way the miners will police themselves, and the Mining Districts will have the first right to mitigate any claim disputes before going to the Interior Board of Land Appeals or any other federal or state court.
3) The Mining Districts shall be the arbiter of reasonable environmental and safety regulation(s) (see footnote1)
4) And most importantly, the Mining Districts can open the federal land to Multiple – Use by the Public on principles of inclusion rather than the present day exclusions carried out by the extremist environmental lobby groups that work inside and outside all the other various agencies. (See footnote )
Jefferson on Good Government

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits” Thomas Jefferson, 1801

Miners, in their respective Mining Districts have the ability to duly elect representatives to make rules and regulations governing their mining activities (customs of miners) in contrast to executive agencies of today that answer to the whims of the President and the bureaucracy. These duly elected representatives will have a proposed term of 4 years such that they will be accountable to their constituents – the individual miner, just as it worked in the 1800’s. And quite successfully I might add.

Once the organized Mining Districts take shape, the Minerals and Mining Advisory Council (MMAC) can and will submit to Congress for a budget for the administrative functions and clarifications of the Mining District’s relationship with the other federal and state agencies. The MMAC website will have a resource section which explains what your fundamental rights are as miners. The claim owners in those districts elect all the miners that represent the districts and upper tiers - nobody is appointed.

Presently, MMAC has developed a draft bill called the Minerals & Mining Regulatory Reform Act – A Clear Path Respecting Mining Rights and handed it to the Congressional House Subcommittee on Natural Resources. This preliminary notice from MMAC to Congress is open for more discussion but covers and fixes many of the problems the mining industry face that has hit most miners especially hard. There are severe ambiguities in law that need to be clarified that stand as obstacles to the accomplishment of the National Minerals, Mining and Reclamation Policy Act of 1970 (codified under 30 U.S.C. 21a).

The MMAC will need the active participation by every miner, every mining organization, every claim holder and any other group that shares the multiple – use principles of our public lands. The tasks before us are for Americans that strive for accountability, self-determination, and for laws that are for and by the people. It could be said that miners can shine the light on the proper role of government in the darkest of tunnels.

The Mineral & Mining Advisory Council website is:
www.mmacusa.org


Ben Franklin once was asked to comment about our newly formed government of the United States of America and he said: “It’s a republic, madam – if you can keep it”.
Now I ask the miners of today, we have the Mining Districts - can we keep and run them?

Clark Pearson
Northern Director, PLP

Everyone needs to get involved with "PLP" and "MMAC" - they are fighting for all of our rights including "Water Rights". I am an administrator for Alaska if you have any questions/suggestions. Mac

FYI

The MMAC bill covers this problem for miners in their Mining District.

Clark



-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Rachel Thomas
Sent: Dec 31, 2015 7:42 AM
To: Rachel Thomas
Subject: Supreme Court must give landowners right to challenge Corps



http://www.wallowa.com/wc...t-to-challenge-corps



Supreme Court must give landowners right to challenge Corps

Published: December 29, 2015 3:48PM

The Supreme Court must give landowners the right to challenge deterimination that their property is subject to the Clean Water Act.



The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take a case that will determine whether landowners can challenge in court a regulatory determination that their properties are subject to the Clean Water Act.

The government contends, and is backed by the 9th and 5th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, that a regulatory determination by the Corps of Engineers that a property is subject to Clean Water Act restrictions is merely advisory in nature, and is not a final agency decision subject to litigation.

The 8th Circuit reached the opposite conclusion last year, setting up a clear conflict to be settled by the Supreme Court.

For farmers, ranchers and other landowners, the stakes are high. Regulatory requirements and restrictions under the act are expensive and can severely limit the owner’s property rights. Property owners should have the right to challenge a jurisdictional determination.

The government says landowners who disagree with a jurisdictional determination can go ahead with a planned project without a permit and then fight the determination when the government brings an enforcement action.

Or, the landowner can apply for the necessary permits. If the permit is denied or the landowner disagrees with the government’s findings, the landowner can file suit.

Neither of these are practical options.

A landowner would be foolish to expend capital and proceed without a permit if the Corps of Engineers has determined jurisdiction, whether that ruling is a final determination or merely advisory.

Having determined a landowner needs a permit, by whatever means, the Corps will certainly follow with an enforcement action if a landowner proceeds. Win or lose, the landowner will be saddled with the expense of defending his action. And should he lose, the government can pile on ruinous fines and penalties, and perhaps criminal charges.

Should the landowner acquiesce to the Corps’ determination, he submits to a costly, time-consuming process. If the permit is denied, or there is an issue with the terms, the litigating landowner walks into court having already conceded that the Corps has jurisdiction.

The Corps may consider its determinations advisory in nature, but the same can be said of a rattlesnake shaking its tail. Either are ignored only at great peril.

The rattlesnake’s warning can be appreciated for its honesty, while the Corps’ is veiled by semantics. Having been warned, the landowner will certainly feel the sting of the Corps’ strike.

The Corps’ determinations are final by any standard of common sense. As such, they should be allowed to be challenged in court without the landowner first being placed in legal or financial jeopardy.

We are confidant the high court will agree.