07/22/2020
We have completed our unified letter of opposition to California's suction dredge permitting scheme (below). Please SHARE this post.
If you are a business, a club, a county or a small-scale miner who mines CA and would like to have your name or business included in this opposition letter, please send us an email to: [email protected]. or reply in the comments to be added.
We strongly urge you to talk to your county or any business who still supports fundamental rights.
Jeanine Townsend, Clerk to the Board
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, CA 95812-2000
Dear State Water Resource Control Board,
We the undersigned are in joint and resolute opposition to the suction dredge draft proposal presented by the California Water Board as a part of the requirements under SB637. Collectively, we represent over 101,500 small-scale miners and mining claim owners in the state of California which this scheme severely and adversely affects.
Reasons for our unified opposition:
1) The activity of suction dredging does not “add” anything to the water column or to a waterway as nothing is introduced that does not already exist in the stream-bed. Of the more than 120 listed pollutants identified by the EPA for their NPDES permitting scheme, suction dredging does not add any of these items as science conclusively proves. When we asked during a recent public Zoom meeting with the CAWB which of the items we “added” the response was “toxicity”. Toxicity is a description of pollutants and is not listed by the EPA as an added pollutant. When asked “how far does this alleged toxicity travel downstream”, the response was “about 500'. Based on the CAWB's own responses, it is impossible for this alleged pollutant to affect any drinking water or reservoir and therefore water quality which impacts others downstream. The CAWB's stance is to regulate something which they don't define and the EPA doesn't acknowledge as a pollutant. The CAWB is creating pollutants they do not define, nor can they enforce under the MOA with the EPA. The activity of suction dredging is “incidental fallback” and is not required to obtain an NPDES permit.
2) The activity of suction dredging removes mercury from the waterways in the state. This is a CAWB admittedly proven fact and one that should be encouraged, not discouraged. As an analogy, it is like saying you should never vacuum your carpet for fear of having a spec of dust land on your coffee table.
3) This has become a political issue and not one which is based on facts or science as required by law. When asked at several of the initial public comment meetings held a few years ago, we asked specifically “how many of you know how a suction dredge works or have seen one”. Not one representative of the California Water Board answered that they knew what a dredge was, or how it operated. The regulating body tasked with determining the fate of over 100,000 small-scale miners valuable mineral deposits on their real property mining claims should not be making life-altering decisions about an activity which is not harmful, does not add pollutants and is a net removal of pollutants if they do not even understand what equipment they are banning. Sierra Fund has the only “approved” dredging operation in the state and receives millions of dollars in grants to dredge under the guise of removing mercury. Suction dredgers generate revenue for the state, remove mercury and do not apply for grants, they support local economies and are part of the life blood to what are the rapidly declining middle class communities in the Mother Lode.
4) Prohibition: two years ago this August, two of us sat down in a closed door meeting with Ms. Sobeck, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Crader and one other. During that meeting Ms. Sobeck said she planned to “prohibit suction dredging activities in some areas”. When asked “what areas”, Ms. Sobeck replied “anywhere there was historical mining because our assumption is they used mercury”. We then asked “have you done studies to prove this assumption on all areas where historical mining took place”, she replied “no”. We then asked “do you plan to test or study all these areas you are prohibiting suction dredging on”, she replied “no”. This entire map of where suction dredging is allowed and prohibited is reprehensible. One can dredge where there is a mercury mine in the desert (where there is rarely water) or dredge in downtown Stockton where there is no gold. But one cannot dredge where the 10's of thousands of mining claims which have valuable mineral deposits of gold are because someone has a gut feeling mercury may, might, possibly have been used. To prohibit an activity because of someone's feelings is tyrannical.
5) Currently anything which is motorized or mechanized is illegal to operate without a CAWB permit. None of the other equipment used for small-scale mining is addressed in this proposal. High bankers, dry washers (which do not require water), small pumps and other motorized or mechanized equipment are not addressed in this proposal. These items must be included in any proposal.
6) We recently proposed a self regulating plan to the CAWB where the small-scale mining community could regulate themselves and meet the requirements under the laws in the state. The goal is for the small-scale mining community to be treated like other industries like sand and gravel and Ag. The small-scale mining community should not be discriminated against and should be afforded the same opportunities as these other industries to keep their properties economically viable. This regulation deprives the small-scale miners of all economically viable use of their real property mining claims.
7) To date there are no documented cases of any fish or aquatic life injured or harmed in the state of California as a result of suction dredging. The CAWB is asserting the belief we "may" harm aquatic life from their toxicity creation theory. Decisions should be made on facts, science, evidence and results from studies, not conjecture, assumptions, feeling and political ideology.
In summary, the entire small-scale mining community in California vociferously and unanimously oppose this political scheme. It destroys property values which we all pay property taxes on. The scheme is unfair, tyrannical in nature and we believe exposes the CAWB to significant legal exposure. Basing a prohibition on an assumption, fabricated theories devoid of facts result in miners properties being rendered worthless because of severe and unwarranted over-regulation which we feel is criminal. Do not approve this scheme, allow the miners to work with the CAWB to adopt a self-regulating alternative as opposed to an all out prohibition as this one is.
American Mining Rights Association (AMRA)
The New 49'ers
The Gold Prospectors Association of America (GPAA)
Keene Engineering
Proline Mining
Delta Gold Diggers
Shasta Miners
French Gulch Mining District
East Fork Mining District
Mariposa Mining District
