For the GPAA
|
Ron Kliewer |
California legislators, the California Department of Fish and Game, (now called Fish and Wildlife in an obvious attempt to distance the agency from hunting) the Karuk Tribe as well as other so-called environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, have aligned themselves against a small group of gold miners.
Miners are trying to save their federally granted rights to mine under the 1866 and 1872 Mining Laws and are standing in the gap to protect our American freedoms from further erosion by the actions of taxpayer-funded agencies and bureaucrats. Miners got their day in court with a half-dozen separate legal actions combined into one hearing. About 120 miners showed up to listen to the legal arguments and observe the mood of the court in hopes of dredging this summer.
About 120 miners showed up in force, traveling from every corner of the state, packing the courtroom to standing room only capacity. They are serious about taking back that which was unscrupulously taken from them: the right to mine California's waterways using suction dredges.
Public Lands for the People lawyer David Young argued that dredging is currently prohibited in California, since the state requires a permit to dredge and no permits are being issued. The state tried to argue that dredging was not prohibited but under a moratorium, prompting Judge Gilbert Ochoa to question how the state defines a moratorium, which is supposed to be a temporary ban. When pressed, the state attorney said three requirements must be met to in order to end the ban:
1. An Environmental Impact Report:
Well, for starters a Supplemental EIR, or SEIR, was completed in 2012 and is lacking true unbiased scientific evidence and there was an unbiased EIR completed in 1994 that worked just fine!
2. Establish a dredge permit program and offset the cost through dredge permit fees.
The cost of the program is supposed to be covered by the dredge permit fees that Fish and Wildlife collect. This is an odd requirement since no other programs are held to this standard. It's clearly geared toward prohibiting mining when one considers the proposed limit on dredge permits is 1,500 statewide, first-come, first-served.
As New '49ers attorney James Buchal pointed out, the permits could get bought up by anyone — even dredging opponents, who could purchase them all at 12:01 am the first day and have a permit-burning party. Even if bonafide miners purchased all 1,500 permits, that would leave 2,500 prohibited, by regulation because in the years leading up to the moratorium, there were an average of about 4,000 permits issued. In the 1980s, upwards of 10,000 dredge permits were issued annually in California.
When dredging opponents stated "too many permits would be deleterious to fish," the judge asked how the state arrived at the decision that the number of permits should be limited to 1,500. There was some hemming and hawing, but no real answer based on science. Anyone with any experience dealing with state-run bureaucracies knows they can run up the cost of anything by adding layers of management, regulation and forms to file. They are already stacking up the overhead costs here with the 2012 SEIR. If it is allowed to go into effect, miners will be required to have an agent look at the place they plan to dredge first, forced to keep a daily log of where and how long they dredged and how much material was moved. Miners would not be able to dredge outside of the hours of 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Are you kidding me? Really? Would any other group roll over while this kind of control was forced upon them? I doubt it!
Ochoa indicated he could understand the miners' frustration with the length of the moratorium and asked the state attorney if there was a timeline set for when the requirements would be completed.
"No, Your Honor," was the reply.
This was the intention all along: tangle the legal and factual issues together in a big knot, throw them in a dark legal jungle to die a slow death by delayed court hearings and financial starvation. The miners are paying for both sides of this fight in the form of taxes to the government and legal fees.
3. Require Fish and Wildlife to "fully mitigate" all significant environmental disturbances
The bar is set so high in new EIR that no one is likely able to completely comply. Mercury seems to be a concern the state keeps bringing up, but suction dredge miners remove mercury from streams and rivers along with gravel, gold and other minerals, so the best way to reduce mercury levels is to allow dredging! The latest EIR neglects the fact that dredges do indeed remove mercury and one winter storm can actually stir up more mercury than a generation of dredgers. It has been proven that the annual measured mercury levels were higher in 2012, three years after the ban was imposed. Dredging ceased in 2009. There is actually a closer correlation between high water runoff and higher mercury contamination than any relationship between dredging and elevated levels of mercury. Oh, by the way, a recent study found all fish in California's lakes and streams safe to eat, with mercury levels measured well below the safe limits. Gee, they forgot to mention that one!
Bottom line: The main issue before the court, was whether or not the state can prohibit mining activities, particularly suction dredging, that the federal government has already allowed.
The federal government allows states to reasonably regulate mining, not to prohibit the activity, as the state of California has done and is doing.
The state argues that because other methods of mining, besides dredging are still legal, it's not "prohibiting."
Excuse me, but panning is not mining! Panning is sampling or cleaning up concentrates. There is likely not a piece of ground left where a lone miner could make a living with just a gold pan. Do they think we (and the judge) are so ignorant that we would accept that lame argument?
After about 90 minutes of courtroom antics, the judge said he would make his ruling in about two weeks, but later decided to order a Mandatory Settlement Conference set for June 24. I pray the judge rules according to the facts of the case and doesn't cave in to the whims and emotions of environmentalists, bureaucrats and land rights thieves.
Oh, did I say that out loud? You bet I did!
Ron Kliewer is a longtime LDMA member, PLP member and is listed as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. He is a proponent of preserving mining heritage on his website: www.goldrushu.com. He welcomes comments and can be reached at kliewer1@verizon.net.
Article as featured in the June/July 2014 Pick & Shovel Gazette
.png)
