<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PostalCode"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="Street"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="address"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="State"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceType"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceName"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
font-weight:bold;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.subhead1
{font-family:Verdana;
color:black;
font-weight:bold;
font-style:normal;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:16.5pt'><b><font size=3 color=black
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Lengthy,
but worth having, including comments and quotes from laws following story…<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:16.5pt'><b><font size=4 color=black
face=Verdana><span style='font-size:15.0pt;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:
bold'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:16.5pt'><b><font size=4 color=black
face=Verdana><span style='font-size:15.0pt;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:
bold'>State suction-dredging quarrel sourced in Siskiyou mining stretch<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:11.25pt'><b><font size=2 color=black
face=Verdana><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:
bold'>Friday, February 19, 2010<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>By <a
href="mailto:rphelps@ledger-dispatch.com">Roger Phelps</a> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 align=right
width=300 style='width:225.0pt'>
<tr>
<td valign=top style='padding:3.75pt 3.75pt 3.75pt 3.75pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-element:frame'><font size=3 color=black
face=Verdana><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign=top style='padding:3.75pt 3.75pt 3.75pt 3.75pt'><!--Story Ad//--><!--numbanners 504=3--><!-- banner from cache -->
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-element:frame'><font size=3 color=black
face=Verdana><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;color:black'>A years'-long tangle of actions led up to <st1:PlaceName
w:st="on">Amador</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType>'s
recent request to make suction dredging for gold legal in <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">California</st1:place></st1:State> again.<br>
<br>
Both a court injunction and legislation currently bar the practice.<br>
<br>
On Jan. 26, many local miners urged Amador supervisors to request
re-legalization by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. They argued that suction-dredge
mining is a right that can't legally be taken away by either courts or
legislators.<br>
<br>
However, battles in court did influence the sweeping state ban that exist now. <br>
<br>
To protect isolated dredge-mining operations in <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Siskiyou</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType>, the New 49ers Inc. argued in
court that a draft agreement was illegal that would have banned suction
dredging in some, but not all, American Indian salmon fishing grounds on the <st1:place
w:st="on">Klamath River</st1:place>. The New 49ers won, but the victory has
come back to haunt both the group and miners around the state.<br>
<br>
"They did shoot themselves in their own feet," said Glen Spain,
regional director of conservation group Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen.<br>
<br>
In May 2005, the Karuk Tribe, salmon fishers on the <st1:place w:st="on">Klamath
River</st1:place>, sued the state Department of Fish and Game. The suit
charged that the agency must be required to review local dredge-mine permitting
conditions in light of the 1997 listing as "threatened" of the
Klamath coho salmon under the federal Endangered Species Act. <br>
<br>
The New 49ers took the Karuk lawsuit personally. They got wind that Fish and
Game and the Karuks were crafting a settlement to ban suction dredging in many
creeks tributary to the Klamath - but for the most part not in the heavily
gold-bearing, vehicle-accessible river canyon. <br>
<br>
In December 2005, New 49ers lawyers filed a motion to intervene in the Karuk v.
Fish and Game suit. <br>
<br>
"This action not only threatens substantially to interfere with their
productive use of these property rights, but also to destroy their statutory
and regulatory rights of participation - and those of all other interested parties
- in the public decision-making process under the California Environmental
Quality Act and Administrative Procedure Act," the motion argued.<br>
<br>
It was granted in January 2006, stalling the DFG-Karuk settlement agreement. <br>
<br>
McCracken wrote, "Incredible how fast we organized to get competent
attorneys representing our interests in this situation. We should acknowledge
ourselves for doing good in this so far. But it's not over yet."<br>
<br>
Five months later, The New 49ers won the legal ruling they sought. Judge Bonnie
Sabraw held that the DFG-Karuk agreement would effectively "promulgate new
regulations on suction dredging (without observing) requirements of CEQA and
APA."<br>
<br>
So, the possibility for merely a limited ban on suction dredging - in just a
single, isolated area - went away. <br>
<br>
Craig Tucker, spokesman for the Karuk Tribe, said despite the miners' victory,
he believed they used bad judgment in entering the court fight between the
tribe and the state.<br>
<br>
"These guys fight tooth and nail if you're asking for an inch,"
Tucker said. "So, (fishery advocates) said, 'Well, go for a full ban.'
Local miners keep saying they're going to file based on the (federal) Mining
Law of 1872. If they lose, they're going to screw all the miners in the
country."<br>
<br>
An employee named Joy at The New 49ers would not say whether she believed The
New 49ers' court action had opened the door for the state ban.<br>
<br>
"You'd have to ask Dave (McCracken) that," she said.<br>
<br>
McCracken, she said, is on extended business travel to <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Cambodia</st1:place></st1:country-region>.<br>
<br>
Following the miners' 2006 legal victory over Fish and Game's procedure,
remaining were both the underlying issue - whether suction dredging did or
didn't harm spawning habitat for a federally protected species - and the
likelihood that clever attorneys would continue to craft persuasive arguments
around it. <br>
<br>
In February 2009, the Karuks and conservation groups sued Fish and Game for
"using taxpayer dollars to fund an illegal recreational gold-mining
program." <br>
<br>
Plaintiffs alleged the state spent $1.25 million more per year on the
suction-dredge permit program than it receives in permit fees. <br>
<br>
In June 2009, the non-profit Klamath Riverkeeper filed for an injunction, which
was granted in July, preventing Fish and Game from spending General Fund money
to issue suction-dredging permits. <br>
<br>
Related state legislation, Senate Bill 670, bans suction dredging statewide
until Fish and Game completes an environmental review of the practice.</span></font><font
size=1 color=black face=Verdana><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana;
color:black'><br clear=all>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:9.75pt'><font
size=1 color=black face=Verdana><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</span></font></div>
<table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellpadding=0>
<tr>
<td valign=top style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=1 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold'>Roger Phelps</span></font></b><font
size=1 face=Verdana><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana'><br>
<br>
</span></font><span class=subhead1><b><font size=2 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE</span></font></b></span><font
size=1 face=Verdana><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana'> </span></font><font
size=1 color=black face=Verdana><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
color:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width="100%"
style='width:100.0%'>
<tr>
<td valign=top style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0>
<tr>
<td style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>Fishing Kills Fish<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>just an FYI fishing kills fish
not dredges.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'> - J <span
class=teaserdate>(2/22/2010 7:40:18 PM)</span><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#999999" style='background:#999999;padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'><img border=0 width=1
height=1 id="_x0000_i1027" src="cid:image003.gif@01CAB54E.EFEBB940"><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor=white style='background:white;padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'><img border=0 width=5
height=5 id="_x0000_i1028" src="cid:image004.gif@01CAB54E.EFEBB940"><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>READ THIS<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>General Mining Laws (30 USC §
22 et., seq) <br>
<br>
Grant the following rights to valid unpatented mining claim owners. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"Lands open to purchase by citizens: Except as otherwise provided, all
valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, ...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 ...
under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or
rules of miners in the several mining districts [States], so far as the
same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United
States". 30 USC § 22.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"Under the mining laws a person has a statutory right, consistent with
Departmental regulations, to go upon the open (unappropriated and
unreserved) Federal lands for the purpose of mineral prospecting,
exploration, development, extraction and other uses reasonably incident
thereto." (See 30 U.S.C. § 21-54, 43 C.F.R. § 3809.3-3, 0-6). <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The discovery of a valuable mineral deposit within its limits validates a
mining claim located on public land in conformance with the statute and its
locator acquires an exclusive possessory interest (valid existing private
property rights) in the claim; a form of real property which can be sold,
transferred, mortgaged, or inherited, without infringing the paramount
title of the United States. 30 U.S.C. § 26; Cole v. Ralph, 252 <st1:country-region
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> 286, 295 (1920); Forbes v. Gracey, 94 <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> 762,
767 (1877).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The claimant has the exclusive right to possession and enjoyment of all the
surface included within the lines of the locations, but the <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>
retains title to the land. 30 U.S.C. § 26, 35; Union Oil Co. of <st1:State
w:st="on">California</st1:State> v. Smith, 249 <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region>
337, 349 (1919); Wilbur v. <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region>
ex rel. Krushnic, 1930, 50 S.Ct. 103, 280 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> 306, 74 L.Ed. 445; <st1:State
w:st="on">California</st1:State> Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> 572,
575, 107 S.Ct. 1419, 1422, 94 L.Ed. 2d 577 (1987); Swanson v. Babbitt, 3
F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1993).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
30 U.S.C. § 26 addresses the "locators' rights of possession and
enjoyment" as follows: "The locators of all mining locations on
the public domain so long as they comply with the laws of the United
States, and with State and local regulations not in conflict with the laws
of the United States governing their possessory title, shall have the
exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included
within the lines of their locations."<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
There is no question that reasonable access to a valid mining claim cannot
be denied. 36 C.F.R. § 228.12; see <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> v. James and
Marjorie Collard, 128 IBLA 266, 291 (1994).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
16 U.S.C. § 481, Use of Waters: All waters within boundaries of national
forests may be used for domestic, mining, milling, or irrigation purposes
under the laws of the state wherein such national forests are situated or
under the laws of the United States and the rules and regulations
established thereunder.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Valid federal mining claims are "private property" Freese v.
United States, 639 F.2d 754, 757, 226 Ct.Cl. 252 cert. denied, 454 U.S.
827, 102 S.Ct. 119, 70 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981); Oil Shale Corp. v. Morton, 370
F.Supp. 108, 124 (D.Colo. 1973).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
This possessory interest entitles the claimant to "the right to
extract all minerals from the claim without paying royalties to the <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>."
Swanson v. Babbitt, 3 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1993).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
A locator has the right of possession against all intruders and the right
to protect his possession and to work the land for valuable minerals.
Miller v. Chrisman, 140 <st1:State w:st="on">Cal.</st1:State> 440, 447, 73
Pac. 1083, 74 Pac. 444, <st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">98 Am.
St. Rep. 63</st1:address></st1:Street> (case affirmed 197 <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> 313,
25 Sup. Ct. 468; Weed v. Snook, ubi supra; Merced Oil Mining Co. v.
Patterson, 153 Cal. 624, 625, 96 Pac. 90; s. c., 162 Cal. 358, 361, 122
Pac. 950; McLemore v. Express Oil Co., 158 Cal. 559, 562, 112 Pac. 59, 139
Am. St. Rep. 147., Garthe v. Hart, 73 Cal. 541. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The term "vested mining right" includes both a right established
by use, as well as a right established by permit. (See; TransOceanic Oil
Corporation v. <st1:City w:st="on">Santa Barbara</st1:City> (1948) 85
Cal.App.2d 776; Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName
w:st="on">South</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Coast</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>
Regional Comm'n. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785, 790<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"A permit becomes a vested property right where the permittee has
incurred substantial liabilities and performed substantial work in reliance
on the permit"; Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa Mesa (1992) 6
Cal.App.4th 1519; Hansen Bros. Enterprises v. Board of Supervisors of
Nevada County (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533 ("Hansen").)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The holder of a claim supported by a discovery need not seek patent; his
unpatented mining claim remains a fully recognized possessory right. 30
U.S.C. § 39; <st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region>
v. Locke, 471 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>
84, 86 (1985).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
If a discovery of a "valuable mineral deposit" is made, the claim
can be held indefinitely so long as the annual assessment work is
performed, the necessary filings are made, fees are paid, and a valuable
mineral deposit continues to exist. See Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co.,
371 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>
334, 336, 83 S.Ct. 379, 382, 9 L.Ed. 2d 350 (1963).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Even though title to the fee estate remains in the <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>,
these unpatented mining claims are themselves property protected by the
Fifth Amendment against uncompensated takings. See Best v. Humboldt Placer
Mining Co., 371 <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> 334
(1963); cf. Forbes v. Gracey, 94 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> 762, 766 (1876);
U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5; North American Transportation & Trading Co. v.
U.S., 1918, 53 Ct.Cl. 424, affirmed 40 S.Ct. 518, 253 U.S. 330; United
States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 107, 105 S.Ct. 1785, 1799, 85 L.Ed. 2d 64
(1985); Freese v. <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United
States</st1:place></st1:country-region>, 639 F.2d 754, 757, 226 Ct.Cl.
252, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 827, 102 S.Ct. 119, 70 L.Ed. 2d 103 (1981);
Rybachek v. <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United
States</st1:place></st1:country-region>, 23 Cl.Ct. 222 (1991).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Such an interest may be asserted against the <st1:country-region w:st="on">United
States</st1:country-region> as well as against third parties (see Best v.
Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region>
334, 336 (1963); Gwillim v. Donnellan, 115 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> 45, 50 (1885)) and may not
be taken from the claimant ... without due compensation. See United States
v. North American Transportation & Trading Co., 253 U.S. 330 (1920);
cf. Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"Uncompensated divestment" of a valid unpatented mining claim
would violate the Constitution. Freese v. <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>, 639 F.2d 754,
757, 226 Ct.Cl. 252, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 827, 102 S.Ct. 119, 70 L.Ed. 2d
103 (1981).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
A valid location, though unpatented, is a grant in the nature of an estate
in fee and if such an estate is taken by the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>, just
compensation must be made. See U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5, North American
Transportation & Trading Co. v. <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region>,
1918, 53 Ct.Cl. 424, affirmed 40 S.Ct. 518, 253 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> 330.<br>
<br>
______________________________<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On September 9, 1850, Congress passed an Act for the Admission of
California into the <st1:place w:st="on">Union</st1:place>. 31 Cong. <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Ch.</st1:place></st1:country-region> 50,
September 9, 1850, 9 Stat. 452. In critical part, that Act states as
follows:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the said State of California is
admitted into the Union upon the express condition that the people of said
State, through their legislature or otherwise, shall never interfere with
the primary disposal of the public lands within its limits, and shall pass
no law and do no act whereby the title of the United States to, and right
to dispose of, the same shall be impaired or questioned. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
As such, Congress clearly abrogated, and <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">California</st1:place></st1:State> forever expressly conceded
all rights to control the disposition of how the federal government
disposes of federal public domain lands within its boundaries. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Provisions of SB 670 prohibit all suction dredge gold mining statewide in <st1:State
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">California</st1:place></st1:State>, for an
indefinite period of time. As such, SB 670 suction dredging gold mining ban
is an unlawful constraint on mining claim owners use of federal public
domain in <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">California</st1:place></st1:State>.
As it clearly conflicts with the federal mandate that states cannot pass
law or regulation "inconsistent" with, or that
"impairs" 30 USC § 22.<br>
<br>
_____________<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The application of the General Mining Law to national forests was
specifically affirmed by Congress in the Organic Act, which makes the
national forests "subject to entry under the existing mining law of
the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>
and the rules and regulations applying thereto." 16 U.S.C. § 482; see
Wilderness Soc'y v. Dombeck,168 F.3d 367, 374 (9th Cir. 1999). <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The Organic Act also allows the Secretary of Agriculture to make rules
regulating the "occupancy and use [of National Forest land]n" 16
U.S.C. § 551. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Nothing in the Organic Act, however, "shall be construed as
prohibiting . . . any person from entering upon such national forests for
all proper and lawful purposes, including that of prospecting, locating,
and developing the mineral resources thereof." 16 U.S.C. § 478.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
While the Secretary of Agriculture may reasonably regulate mining on
National Forest land to protect surface resources, the authority to manage
the mineral estate on all federal land is vested in the Secretary of the
Interior. See 16 U.S.C. § 472 (transferring power from Secretary of the
Interior to make laws regarding National Forest reserves, but
"excepting such laws as affect" the prospecting and entering of
such lands); see also Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334, 336
(1963)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Additionally, while the Mining of Act of 1872 originally expressed no
legislative intent, Congress declared its intent to retain and manage the surface
resources of located unpatented mining claims when it passed the Multiple
Use Mining Act. <st1:State w:st="on">California</st1:State> Coastal, 480 <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> at
582.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for managing the mineral
resources on federal lands and the USFS (under the Secretary of
Agriculture) is responsible for the management of surface impacts of mining
on federal lands. Id at 585. Both FLPMA and the National Forest Management
Act pre-empt the "extension of state land plans onto unpatented mining
claims in national forest lands." Id<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701-1782),
requires the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to
develop and implement land use plans for the various public lands. This Act
specifically gives the Secretary of the Interior the discretion to preempt
state and local land use plans if they are inconsistent with the federal
development scheme. 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The policies contained in FLPMA explicitly state that the management,
protection, disposition and disposal/withdrawal of federal lands is vested
in the federal government and not with the state. In short, a state cannot
dictate to the federal government, or a federal agency what specific land
uses are or are not allowed on federal lands.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The SB 670 suction dredge gold mining prohibition on valid mining claims,
on federal public domain lands, also clearly conflict with other major
federal mandates. Including the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Federal</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Land</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. §1701 et seq.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
FLPMA 43 U. S. C. § 1702. Definitions (e) The term "public lands"
means any land and interest in land owned by the <st1:country-region w:st="on">United
States</st1:country-region> within the several States ... without regard
to how the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>
acquired ownership.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
(j) The term "withdrawal" means withholding an area of Federal
land from settlement, sale, location, or entry, under some or all of the
general land laws, for the purpose of limiting activities under those laws
in order to maintain other public values in the area or reserving the area
for a particular public purpose or program;<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
FLPMA 43 U.S.C. §1712 (e) (3) Withdrawals made pursuant to section 204 of
this Act [43 USCS Sec. 1714] may be used in carrying out management
decisions, but public lands shall be removed from or restored to the
operation of the Mining Law of 1872, . . . only by withdrawal action
pursuant to section 204 [43 USCS Sec. 1714] or other action pursuant to
applicable law: <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
FLPMA 43 U.S.C. § 1732(b)... "no provision of this section or any
other section of this Act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or
impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act, including, but
not limited to, rights of ingress and egress". FLPMA § 302(b).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Less than 5,000 acres of federal public domain lands may only be withdrawn
from entry, occupation and use under The General Mining Laws by the
Secretary of Interior. More than 5,000 acres can only be withdrawn with the
explicit consent of Congress pursuit to provisions of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. §1701 et seq.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Provisions of SB 670 not only "limit" mining activity on federal
public domain lands, they expressly prohibit such activities. As such, SB
670 mining prohibitions constitute a "withdrawal" pursuant to
FLMPA. The point being, only the Secretary of the Interior, or Congress may
make such withdrawals. Clearly, no state has any authority make federal
public domain land withdrawals.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Public land under the ownership of the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>. "The power
over the disposition of such land and the minerals contained therein is in
Congress and not in the states". (McLemore v. Express Oil Co. (1910)
158 Cal. 559, 562; Moore v. Smaw (1861) 17 Cal. 199, 218-219.) <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
A regulation (a de facto closure) which removes [public domain lands] from
its prior use, or from mineral entry, is a withdrawal within the meaning of
the Federal Land Planning and Management Act of 1976, (FLPMA). It
"operates to remove lands from public use" and, as such,
constitutes a "withdrawal" subject to FLPMA. (Mountain States
Legal Foundation v. Andrus, (D.C. (Wyo.) 1980) 499 F.Supp. 383; FLPMA
§204(c); 43 USCA §1714(c); FLPMA §103(j); 43 USCA §1702(j).) <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
State jurisdiction over federal land "does not extend to any matter
that is not consistent with full power in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> to protect its
lands, to control their use and to prescribe in what manner others may
acquire rights in them." <st1:State w:st="on">Utah</st1:State> Power,
243 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>
at 404. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
If Congress so chooses, federal legislation, together with the policies and
objectives encompassed therein, necessarily override and preempt
conflicting state laws, policies, and objectives under the Constitution's
Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. See Kleppe, 426 <st1:country-region
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> at 543 ("'A different rule would
place the public domain of the <st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region>
completely at the mercy of [the State]'" (quoting Camfield v. <st1:country-region
w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region>, 167 <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> 518,
526 (1897)). <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
When a State through its entities or officials voluntarily elects to
participate in a federal program knowing that a consequence of
participation is a waiver of immunity from suit, the State's waiver of
immunity is just as much an "intentional relinquishment or abandonment
of a known right or privilege" (College Sav., 527 U.S. at 682) as a
waiver that is expressly embodied in state law.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Congress has authority under the Constitution to condition state access to
a federal program or benefit on a waiver of the State's immunity from suit,
federal law determines the consequences of the State's voluntary actions,
and any state effort to negate that condition through reliance on state law
would be preempted by the Supremacy Clause. <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Lawrence</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> v. Lead-Deadwood Sch. Dist.
No. 40-1, 469 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>
256, 257-258 (1985)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
A State may not simultaneously accept the benefits of a federal program and
fail to comply with the conditions upon which those benefits are extended.
Townsend v. Swank, 404 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>
282, 286 (1971) (state rule that conflicts with the conditions on which
federal funds are offered is "invalid under the Supremacy
Clause").<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It is absolutely established that a valid unpatented placer mining claim is
in fact a Statutory Federal Grant of "private property" derived
from 30 U.S.C. § 21-54. All unpatented placer mining claims situated in <st1:State
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">California</st1:place></st1:State> are on
federally owned lands, under jurisdiction of the USFS, or BLM. Otherwise
none would exist, as federal land is the only place an unpatented mining
claim can be initiated, and held.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
As long as the Federal government retains title, the federal interest in
providing free access to its own land in order to promote mining is
sufficient to preempt any state law that fundamentally bans such use. Thus
under standard preemption analysis any state legislation, or regulation
that conflicts with this overriding federal , must fail.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Under the Supremacy Clause, any state law that conflicts with a federal law
is preempted. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> 1 (1824). Any state
legislation which frustrates the full effectiveness of federal law is
rendered invalid by the Supremacy Clause" regardless of the underlying
purpose of its enactors, Perez v. Campbell, 402 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> 637, 651-52, 91 S.Ct.
1704, 29 L.Ed.2d 233 (1971).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
A conflict exists if a party cannot comply with both state law and federal
law. In addition, even in the absence of a direct conflict between state
and federal law, a conflict exists if the state law is an obstacle to the
accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of
Congress. Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council, 530 <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> 363,
372-73 (2000).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
In determining whether a state law is a sufficient obstacle, the courts
examine the federal statute as a whole and identify its purpose and
intended effects and then determine the impact of the challenged law on
congressional intent. State law can be pre-empted in either of two general
ways. If Congress evidences an intent to occupy a given field, any state
law falling within that field is pre-empted. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
If Congress has not entirely displaced state regulation over the matter in
question, state law is still pre-empted to the extent it actually conflicts
with federal law, that is, when it is impossible to comply with both state
and federal law, or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the
accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. <st1:State
w:st="on">California</st1:State> Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> 572,
581 (1987)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
State regulations are permissible on federal lands only to the extent they
are not inconsistent with or in conflict with the <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>.
Brubaker v. Board of County Comm 'rs, <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">El Paso</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType>, 652 P.2d 1050, 1058 (<st1:State
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Colo.</st1:place></st1:State> 1982).
However, not all state regulation of mining claims is permissible, and
state laws prohibiting activities authorized under federal mining laws are
not permissible. <st1:State w:st="on">South Dakota</st1:State> Mining Ass
'n v. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Lawrence</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>, 977 F.Supp
1396, 1403 (D.S.D. 1997).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Small scale suction dredging is the primary exploration, and production
method for recovering placer gold on valid placer mining claims over
federal public domain lands, open to mineral entry under the General Mining
Laws (30 USC § 22 et., seq). The vast majority of all small scale suction
dredge gold mining in <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">California</st1:place></st1:State>
takes place on unpatented, or patented mining claims situated on or within
federal public domain lands. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
With only rare exception, small scale suction dredging is the only viable
environmentally friendly means that ordinary men have to economically
benefit from right to mine (private property rights) granted to them under
30 USC § 22. Indisputably, 30 USC § 22 is a federal land [mining claim]
disposal law, including a grant to the owner, the right to mine applicable
minerals therein.<br>
<br>
______________________________<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
California SB 670, effective August 6, 2009<br>
<br>
SECTION 1. <br>
<br>
Section 5653.1 is added to the Fish and Game Code, to read: <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
5653.1. (a) The issuance of permits to operate vacuum or suction dredge
equipment is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code)
and permits may only be issued, and vacuum or suction dredge mining may
only occur as authorized by any existing permit, if the department has
caused to be prepared, and certified the completion of, an environmental
impact report for the project pursuant to the court order and consent
judgment entered in the case of Karuk Tribe of California et al. v.
California Department of Fish and Game et al., Alameda County Superior
Court Case No. RG 05211597. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
(b) Notwithstanding Section 5653, the use of any vacuum or suction dredge
equipment in any river, stream, or lake of this state is prohibited until
the director certifies to the Secretary of State that all of the following
have occurred: <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
(1) The department has completed the environmental review of its existing
suction dredge mining regulations, as ordered by the court in the case of
Karuk Tribe of California et al. v. California Department of Fish and Game
et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG 05211597. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
(2) The department has transmitted for filing with the Secretary of State
pursuant to Section 11343 of the Government Code, a certified copy of new
regulations adopted, as necessary, pursuant to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with
Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
(3) The new regulations described in paragraph (2) are operative. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
(c) The Legislature finds and declares that this section, as added during
the 2009-10 Regular Session, applies solely to vacuum and suction dredging
activities conducted for instream mining purposes. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
This section does not expand or provide new authority for the department to
close or regulate suction dredging conducted for regular maintenance of
energy or water supply management infrastructure, flood control, or
navigational purposes governed by other state or federal law. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
(d) This section does not prohibit or restrict nonmotorized recreational
mining activities, including panning for gold.<br>
<br>
_________________________________<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
1. Plainly, in granting <st1:State w:st="on">California</st1:State>
statehood, Congress clearly abrogated, and <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">California</st1:place></st1:State> forever expressly conceded
all rights to control the disposition of how the federal government
manages, and disposes of federal public domain lands within its boundaries.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
2. Unquestionably, the Federal General Mining Laws (30 USC § 22 et., seq)
open all applicable federal public domain lands to mineral entry,
occupation, mining use as a statutory right expressly granted to U.S.
citizens.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
3. Indisputably, the Federal General Mining Laws (30 USC § 22 ) mandate
States regulatory authority is expressly limited to regulations "not
inconsistent with the laws of the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>". <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
4. Irrefutably, by multiple express Acts of Congress the authority to
manage the mineral estate and/or mining operations on all federal land is
vested in the Secretary of the Interior (BLM) and/or in National Forests by
the Secretary of Agriculture (USFS). <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
5. Incontrovertibly, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and the
National Forest Management Act pre-empt the "extension of state land
plans onto unpatented mining claims ." <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
6. Unmistakably, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act expressly
precludes states from making any "withdrawal" of Federal public
domain lands from application of the General Mining Law. As States have no
authority to preempt Federal law.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
7. Certainly, valid unpatented mining claims are 'private property",
although such use is limited to mining, and uses reasonably incident
thereto. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
8. Clearly, all valid unpatented mining claims, and their viable economic
use are fully protected from uncompensated "taking" by provision
of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article 1, § 19
of California's Constitution. <br>
<br>
______________<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Given the insurmountable magnitude of express Federal statutory protections
granted by Federal law, regarding valid unpatented mining claims. As well
as voluminous Supreme Court case law verifying those same protections, and
fully validating associated mining rights. Without doubt, SB 670 will be
struck down in Federal Court, as being in direct conflict with, and
preempted by multiple provisions of overriding Federal law.<br>
<br>
________________<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Furthermore, SB 670 legislation contains NO "savings" or
"severability" clause. As such, if any part of it is struck down,
what remains is also. Meaning, all of SB 670 is void, as if it never
existed. As a consequence of that, suction dredging in <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">California</st1:place></st1:State> would no longer be a
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) "project".<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'> - Jim Aubert <span
class=teaserdate>(2/21/2010 2:30:24 PM)</span><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#999999" style='background:#999999;padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'><img border=0 width=1
height=1 id="_x0000_i1029" src="cid:image003.gif@01CAB54E.EFEBB940"><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor=white style='background:white;padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'><img border=0 width=5
height=5 id="_x0000_i1030" src="cid:image004.gif@01CAB54E.EFEBB940"><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>KARUK TRIBE HAS NO FISHING
RIGHTS<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3 color=black
face=Verdana><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>Karuk Tribe
does not have a federally-recognized or protected fishing right on the
Klamath River, or anywhere else in <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">California</st1:place></st1:State>.
This fact was confirmed by the Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs in a
1994 memorandum. The Associate Solicitor concluded that there was "no
evidence that the Karuk's fishery is conducted pursuant to federally
reserved Indian fishing rights." Memorandum from Michael J. Anderson
to Bill Shake, Fish and Wildlife Service, March 7, 1994. The Associate
Solicitor's review found no treaties, federal statutes or executive orders
that would form the basis for a claim that the Karuk Tribe's fishery is
based on federally-reserved rights, nor was any evidence found of an
"historic reservation or trust lands set aside for fishery
purposes." Land purchased and put into trust at Ishi Pishi does not
qualify as establishment of reserved fishing rights.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'> - Jim Aubert <span
class=teaserdate>(2/21/2010 2:10:52 PM)</span><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#999999" style='background:#999999;padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'><img border=0 width=1
height=1 id="_x0000_i1031" src="cid:image003.gif@01CAB54E.EFEBB940"><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor=white style='background:white;padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'><img border=0 width=5
height=5 id="_x0000_i1032" src="cid:image004.gif@01CAB54E.EFEBB940"><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>Fair reporting<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>What has happened to fair
reporting in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>?
The only reason this ban is in place is because there is no such thing as
fair reporting today. This is a one sided article trying to blame a group
trying to defend itself against non stop attacks from an opponent. Mr.
Phelps, you should be ashamed for printing such a biased article. This is
nothing more than another attempt at the "divide and conquer" technique
to pit miners against miners on the issue of the dredging ban.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The article should have been titled "A few self serving individuals
have been successful in getting dredging banned after over six years of non
stop legal attacks"<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The article should have mentioned how they did this using scientific
hypothesis, that had no unbiased scientific studies done to back up those
hypothesis, to claim that it is possible that there "might be harm
being done to protected species". That those hypothesis they put forth
are in fact in total contradiction to the multiple unbiased studies that
have already been done on suction dredging. That the conclusion of multiple
studies done to date is that suction dredging as performed within the
regulations CDF&G had already imposed on this industry resulted in an
impact that was so small it can barely be measured. That by getting other
environmental groups to support their cause, and by using the clout of
Indian gaming revenue, where able to get a ban against this industry by the
State legislature.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
That the current state ban has had an economic impact to this state in the
hundred of millions of dollars, resulting in the failure of many
businesses, both small and large, and that there are many people who relied
on this industry to support and feed their families.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
That the opponents of dredging could have waited for the CDF&G EIR
study to be completed to see if in fact there was harm being done, but
rather chose themselves to keep up this non stop legal attack against this
industry and create the financial harm this ban has caused.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
That this ban in fact has not helped any protected species, and in fact is
allowing the spread of heavy metal pollution caused by others, both past
and present, to be continually spread by natural high water events. That
the suction dredgers where the only group of people removing these heavy
metal pollutants from the environment. That the equipment used by suction
dredgers removes over 98% of the heavy metal pollutants that pass through a
dredge. Dredgers do not add any pollutants to the waterway, the pollutants
are already there and are being continually disturbed and spread around by
natural high water processes. With this dredging ban, the removal of those
heavy metal pollutants has stopped, and the huge positive impact of the
removal of those pollutants from our water ways and from being able to
enter the food chain has stopped also. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It should be mentioned that the non stop legal attacks by those self
serving few have continued even after there was an agreement made in a
previous legal case that these people would stop their attacks, and in fact
they have not honored that agreement.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
That those self serving few and their supporters have in fact used nothing
other than puffery and outright untruths to create an emotional response in
people to help support their cause based on "saving the
environment" when in fact their actions have actually stopped the
environmentally positive benefits of suction dredging, of which there are
many. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
A prime example is the opponents of dredging like to say that dredging can
harm fish eggs. Of course that is true, and they gain great support for
their cause from others concerned about the environment when they say
things like that, but what they fail to mention is that under the
regulations imposed by CDF&G, dredgers were never allowed to dredge
when the fish eggs were present. There are seasonal restrictions that were
already in place to prevent that harm. All of the "scientific
points" the opponents of dredging use for the emotional response to
"save the environment" have been taken into consideration in the
regulations already imposed on this industry by CDF&G. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I would like to make this point one more time, the opponents of dredging
have been unable to provide one bit of scientific proof in any court of
law, that dredging as was regulated by CDF&G was causing any harm to
any protected species. The only thing they have been able to do in court is
make hypothesis that there "might" be harm being done. That
statement could in fact be made against anything anybody does in all
aspects of life. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
This ban in fact is against state and federal law, and was imposed without
due process, and that there are currently multiple legal cases pending on
this issue.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Call a spade a spade, but don't blame an industry group trying to defend
itself against non stop attacks for the actions of those who refuse to stop
attacking.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
This is my opinion of what has happened here. I for one think that the New
49ers should be applauded for their efforts.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Mark Chestnut<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'> - Mark Chestnut <span
class=teaserdate>(2/21/2010 1:18:57 PM)</span><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#999999" style='background:#999999;padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'><img border=0 width=1
height=1 id="_x0000_i1033" src="cid:image003.gif@01CAB54E.EFEBB940"><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor=white style='background:white;padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'><img border=0 width=5
height=5 id="_x0000_i1034" src="cid:image004.gif@01CAB54E.EFEBB940"><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>Good Article<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr height=61 style='height:45.9pt'>
<td height=61 style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in;height:45.9pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>Your article is good but not
go into the depth it needs at describing the failure of CDFG to do what was
ordered of them in the beginning. Had they done their job, much of this
litigation could have been avoided or a coordinated approach could have
taken place. <br>
<br>
When a bully is caught, everyone wants to point the fingers at the other
guy. <br>
<br>
The Karuk Tribe is not a problem. Only some of the self chosen people who
are running them ruff shod are. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The miners are not a problem. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Only some of the County, State and non elected officials that have personal
agendas against them are.<br>
<br>
The State of <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">California</st1:place></st1:State>
is in terrible hurt because of the way the legislative agents have
mismanaged their jobs. <br>
<br>
Good honest people are bailing out of the state every day because of the
poor state management.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
By the time people wake up and change the state reps, it may be too late.
It is time to put the blame in the right places.<br>
<br>
Thank You<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Verdana><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;font-weight:bold'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;font-weight:bold'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:PersonName w:st="on"><em><i><font size=3 color=gray
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:gray'>Byron
Leydecker</span></font></i></em></st1:PersonName><em><i><font color=gray
face="Times New Roman"><span style='color:gray'>, JcT, Chair</span></font></i></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><i><font size=3 color=gray face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:gray'>Friends of <st1:place w:st="on">Trinity
River</st1:place></span></font></i></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:address w:st="on"><st1:Street w:st="on"><em><i><font
size=3 color=gray face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:gray'>PO Box</span></font></i></em></st1:Street><em><i><font
color=gray face="Times New Roman"><span style='color:gray'> 2327</span></font></i></em></st1:address><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><em><i><font
size=3 color=gray face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:gray'>Mill Valley</span></font></i></em></st1:City><em><i><font
color=gray face="Times New Roman"><span style='color:gray'>, <st1:State w:st="on">CA</st1:State>
<st1:PostalCode w:st="on">94942-2327</st1:PostalCode></span></font></i></em></st1:place><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><i><font size=3 color=gray face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:gray'>415 383 4810 Land/Fax (Call first to Fax) </span></font></i></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><i><font size=3 color=gray face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:gray'>415 519 4810 <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Mobile</st1:place></st1:City></span></font></i></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><i><u><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><a href="mailto:bwl3@comcast.net">bwl3@comcast.net</a></span></font></u></i></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><i><u><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><a
href="mailto:bleydecker@stanfordalumni.org">bleydecker@stanfordalumni.org</a></span></font></u></i></em><em><i><font
color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span style='color:blue'> </span></font></i></em><em><i><font
color=gray face="Times New Roman"><span style='color:gray'>(Secondary)</span></font></i></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><i><u><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><a href="http://www.fotr.org/">www.fotr.org</a>
</span></font></u></i></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>