The Battle in Oregon - Update

Post Reply
Mythicalminer
Copper Miner
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:21 am
Location: Cave Junction, OR
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 14 times

The Battle in Oregon - Update

Post by Mythicalminer » Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:50 am

A RAY OF HOPE FOR THE NEW YEAR: For those that don't know, in 2014 Oregon followed California's lead to stop suction dredge (and other) mining (by passing Senate Bill 838 (SB 838)), which called for a 5 year Moratorium starting Jan. 2016 on the use of "all motorized placer mining equipment" used "in-stream" and within 300 feet of all streams designated by the Dept. of State Lands as "Essential Salmon Habitat" (ESH).

NOTE: 80-90% of the gold bearing streams in Oregon are designated as ESH.

In 2015, after the Legislature failed to amend or revoke SB 838, the Waldo & Galice Mining Districts of Josephine Co, OR retained James Buchal to file a Complaint (BOHMKER (et al) V. OREGON) against SB 838 in Federal Court (Medford District).

ROUND 1: A Hearing was held Feb. 18, 2016 in Medford, OR, and on March 29th Magistrate Mark Clarke issued his decision upholding SB 838, stating that banning all motorized equipment was not prohibiting mining as miners could still work by hand.

ROUND 2: We then filed an Appeal in the U.S. 9th Circuit (Portland); and after months of replying to many amicus briefs filed by CA&WA, the U.S. DOJ, and a coalition of "law professors" (all supporting the States ban on mining); and after Oregon repealed SB 838 and replaced it with Senate Bill 3 (SB 3) -- [SB 3 repealed all of SB 838, and then placed a permanent prohibition on the use of any or all motorized in-stream placer mining equipment in ESH streams. This forced another round of Briefs that the Miner's case was not moot (as SB 3 was the same as SB 838 only worse - PERMANENT).., and the court agreed] -- a Hearing was held in the U.S. 9th Circuit on March 3, 2018, in Portland, OR.

On Sept. 12, the court issued it's 2-1 Decision upholding the Medford court's decision stating that SB 3 was "reasonable restriction to protect the environment", was not a "Land Use Plan", and did not prohibit "all mining" as miners were free to mine by hand, or go all the non-ESH streams (as if there's gold everywhere).

On Sept. 24, 2018, the Miners filed a Request for an "en banc" (whole court) re-hearing by the U.S. 9th Circuit.
On Oct. 27, 2018, the U.S. 9th Circuit DENIED our request...

ROUND 3: ...OPENING THE DOOR TO THE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

Our case is very similar to the earlier cases in CA (such as Rinehart) - at least as far as the abuse of the Mining Law goes and State authority over mining without the complication of being a Defendant, or the politics in State Courts.

Our filing is due towards the end of January . . . and then we wait to see if the high court will accept our Petition and hear our case.

All hope is not lost... we have many allies and friends including The New 49ers Gold Prospecting Association (who made a very generous donation to our Legal Fund). We are expecting amicus briefs in support of mining from Pacific Legal Foundation, Mountain States Legal Foundation, and hopefully others.

It has taken us years to get to this point, and many $1,000's of dollars... and we've finally got to the doorstep of the one court that can turn all this anti-mining legislation around.

We are the Proverbial "IT" . . . for all the marbles (at least for years to come).

Wish us luck . . . and even better please support our efforts.
For more information on how you can make a donation, enter our upcoming Drawing, along with more information regarding the litigation (including copies of all Briefs & Decisions) please visit us at: www.waldominingdistrict.org

AND HAPPY NEW YEAR!

*** Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world.
Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has!" *** (Margaret Mead)
User avatar
Jim_Alaska
Site Admin
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 1:14 am
Location: Northern California
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 21 times
Contact:

Re: The Battle in Oregon - Update

Post by Jim_Alaska » Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:27 am

Good post and information Tom. We'll wait eagerly for any further progress.
Jim_Alaska
Administrator

jfoley@sisqtel.net
Mythicalminer
Copper Miner
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:21 am
Location: Cave Junction, OR
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: The Battle in Oregon - Update

Post by Mythicalminer » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:30 pm

OREGON UPDATE: This last week was spent going through 3 drafts of the Petition to SCOTUS... which will go to the printer Monday, Jan. 14 (petitions to SCOTUS have to be printed as a book).

Our Petition looks great, if this doesn't get their attention (and a hearing), then there is no justice or rule of law. Once the petition is filed we will post a copy on the Waldo Mining District website for all to see. Our attorney, James Buchal did a amazing job putting it all together.

If this doesn't work, nothing will.
oregon101
Prospector
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:02 am
Location: Portland Oregon
Has thanked: 4 times

Re: The Battle in Oregon - Update

Post by oregon101 » Mon Jan 14, 2019 5:42 pm

So right now in Oregon we are not allowed to even Tromel material from a water bank? - I know you mentioned some permit requirements but this new law has me confused.
I am trying to understand if I can use a Tromel. - Sandy River - is what I would like to do -
I am looking at the Fox Trommel
https://www.goldfoxusa.com/

"SECTION 2 OF SB 838 CALLS FOR A “FIVE YEAR MORATORIUM ON THE USE OF ALL MOTORIZED PLACER MINING EQUIPMENT” IN:

1) ALL STREAMS DESIGNATED ESSENTIAL SALMON HABITAT (ESH), OR HAVE NATIVE BULL TROUT OR LAMPREY EELS; AND

2) 100 YARDS TO EITHER SIDE OF ESH+ STREAMS FROM THE NORMAL HIGH-WATER MARK IF OPERATIONS WILL DISTURB STREAMSIDE VEGETATION IN A MANNER THAT WILL EFFECT WATER QUALITY.

“Motorized Equipment” includes any internal combustion or stream engine, electric motors including battery operated pumps, gold wheels, mini-concentrators, etc..

No Pumps, No Dredges, No Hi-Bankers, No Power Sluices, No backhoes, No excavators, No trommels or washplants, No air-compressors (for breathing underwater) = NO MINING!"

Mythicalminer wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:30 pm
OREGON UPDATE: This last week was spent going through 3 drafts of the Petition to SCOTUS... which will go to the printer Monday, Jan. 14 (petitions to SCOTUS have to be printed as a book).

Our Petition looks great, if this doesn't get their attention (and a hearing), then there is no justice or rule of law. Once the petition is filed we will post a copy on the Waldo Mining District website for all to see. Our attorney, James Buchal did a amazing job putting it all together.

If this doesn't work, nothing will.
Mythicalminer
Copper Miner
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:21 am
Location: Cave Junction, OR
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: The Battle in Oregon - Update

Post by Mythicalminer » Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:56 am

Oregon 101: Not sure what you mean by "Tromel material from a water bank". If you mean from right at the water's edge, that's frowned on even if all processing is done onshore with holding ponds... as it supposedly de-stabilizes the banks.

If you mean trommeling material far enough away from the water so as to not effect the water (stream) that normally is permittable - if you can get a permit.

As far as SB 838 goes (and it's moratorium on upland placer mining), SB 3 totally repealed ALL of SB 838. And SB 3 only effects motorized placer mining "in-stream" if in ESH areas/streams.

If you are in a stream segment closed to in-stream motorized placer mining you cannot operate any type of motorized equipment... which is taken to mean by the state agencies as anything that is not human powered. You could operate a crank-turned (by hand) trommel, but you still can not operate a motorized pump if mining "in-stream" in those areas.

Yes, it's CRAZY. The laws were written and passed by people that knew nothing about mining, the mining law, the effects of mining, etc.; but instead relied on the input of environmental orgs claiming dredging "destroys" the streams - without any proof.
Inspector
Iron Miner
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2018 5:23 am
Location: Central California
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The Battle in Oregon - Update

Post by Inspector » Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:08 pm

Hey,
Thanks for the info and updates.

Yes, it's CRAZY. The laws were written and passed by people that knew nothing about mining, the mining law, the effects of mining, etc.; but instead relied on the input of environmental orgs claiming dredging "destroys" the streams - without any proof.

I live in the Golden State and...I...hear...an...echo...
"A vote is like a rifle, its usefulness depends on the character of the user."
Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
mendoAu
Iron Miner
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:27 am
Location: SW Oregon
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: The Battle in Oregon - Update

Post by mendoAu » Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:40 am


As far as SB 838 goes (and it's moratorium on upland placer mining), SB 3 totally repealed ALL of SB 838. And SB 3 only effects motorized placer mining "in-stream" if in ESH areas/streams.


I'm going to have to re-read SB3. Are you saying that the 100yard offset does not exist?
Mythicalminer
Copper Miner
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:21 am
Location: Cave Junction, OR
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: The Battle in Oregon - Update

Post by Mythicalminer » Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:43 am

CORRECT... SB 3 REPEALED ALL OF SB 838; and all SB 3 does is prohibit "in-stream motorized mining" in ESH streams
Post Reply