Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums
GeoJack

Gas Powered Pump

Recommended Posts

Under new state law effective January 1, 2016, the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment is defined to mean the use of a mechanized or motorized system for removing or assisting in the removal of, or the processing of, material from the bed, bank, or channel of a river, stream, or lake in order to recover minerals.

Non-mechanized in using a sluice. So you can set a sluice up in stream but you can't use an electric pump to pull the water up for a Gold Cube?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, El Dorado county. Just missed F&G, close at 4:30. tomorrow's call. Claim downstream has been using a gas pump to move water to the sluice but I don't do stuff because someone else has. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would talk to the warden for your area and get it in writing.... not someone in the office.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember the a group, I think the new 49ers pushing suctioning the material into a bucket, and then lugging the material to a sluice located separately.  They were able to do that for a few months until that law passed.

LipCa--Do F&G actually put stuff like that in writing for the average Joe's question? Seems to me there answer would be to send a copy of the regs and refer them to a lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just it.... They may say "we'd never cite you for that" but maybe they could if they felt like it. No, they won't put it in writing. But maybe ask for their business card. write a few notes on it, date, etc. Let them know you are doing it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Working through F&G this morning, even the young guy I spoke to was a little confused with the regs and reasons. He was on our side.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking of maybe pulling water from the creek into a recirc system. That way the pump would not be part of the "process".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. As it currently reads, don't look for gold near water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, GeoJack said:

Thinking of maybe pulling water from the creek into a recirc system. That way the pump would not be part of the "process".

There's a regulation about "diverting" water....

There are laws that cover virtually everything...even taking a dump....don't "stop and squat"....even if it's properly buried...

I understand you WANTING to stay within the letter of the law, but it's virtually impossible if you're planning on washing rocks....the good news is that LEOs are spread pretty thin, MOST don't care, and they'll generally only come looking for you if they receive a complaint.....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, LipCa said:

Let's hope not...the way I read it, just submitting the COMPLETE permit APPLICATION would be near impossible....you'd need the Army Corps of Engineers and the State Water Resources to sign off on just the application....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried using a solar panel running a small 12 volt pump for my highbanker and the ranger told me its a mechanical process of sucking water from river....California..the land of fruits and nuts..former hippies running our state , what do you expect...:nutty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California leads the world in environment concerns and efforts to correct problems, even if some don't appreciate all that our state has done, it is possible your children, grand children and great grandchildren will appreciate it. Agreed, this situation is over the top but most of what our state leads in, others follow.

I don't think a blanket statement that all environmental efforts led by California are bad.

As a former and present "hippy" I take exception to your comment. I think associating the term to anyone concerned with the environment is a weak argument.

I'm not happy about the situation and will support any efforts to undo this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Middlefork.... As I read it, the only thing that is changing is the definition of suction dredging.  All you are referring to is already passed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, GeoJack said:

California leads the world in environment concerns and efforts to correct problems, even if some don't appreciate all that our state has done

Jack...everything a dredge moves, is already in the water...what "environmental concerns" are they addressing by making dredging/highbanking against the law???.....NONE!!!  And exactly how is making it illegal, an "effort to correct" a problem that doesn't exist???

Edited by middleforkminer2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, LipCa said:

Middlefork.... As I read it, the only thing that is changing is the definition of suction dredging.  All you are referring to is already passed.

Well, it's been a few years since I had a dredge permit....I seen the writing on the wall when they passed the moratorium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been a few years since you could get one :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

going on 11 years sic sic sic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I questioned the guy from F&G mentioning that a couple of people shoveling gravel into a sluice is going to create as much if not more turbidity. He agreed and couldn't answer why using a pump made such a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, GeoJack said:

I questioned the guy from F&G mentioning that a couple of people shoveling gravel into a sluice is going to create as much if not more turbidity. He agreed and couldn't answer why using a pump made such a difference.

It ain't about using a pump....it ain't about using a dredge....it ain't about the "turbidity" of the water....if you could create wealth by snapping your fingers, they'd create a law against snapping your fingers....unless they could regulate it and profit from it....it's about control.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame that the state can't split into two or more pieces.  The conservative part and the liberal part.  Then the liberals could prevent dredging in the cities and the conservatives could dredge in less populated areas of the state. I would even support creating two liberal states and one conservative state, and that would keep the balance between conservatives and liberals nearly 50 / 50.  I think the two liberal states would be tiny landwise, but heavily populated.  The conservative state would have most of the land.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, chrisski said:

It's a shame that the state can't split into two or more pieces.  The conservative part and the liberal part.  Then the liberals could prevent dredging in the cities and the conservatives could dredge in less populated areas of the state. I would even support creating two liberal states and one conservative state, and that would keep the balance between conservatives and liberals nearly 50 / 50.  I think the two liberal states would be tiny landwise, but heavily populated.  The conservative state would have most of the land.

LOL, Liberals don't think like that.   To them What is theirs is their's alone and what is yours is theirs too. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, chrisski said:

It's a shame that the state can't split into two or more pieces.  The conservative part and the liberal part.  Then the liberals could prevent dredging in the cities and the conservatives could dredge in less populated areas of the state. I would even support creating two liberal states and one conservative state, and that would keep the balance between conservatives and liberals nearly 50 / 50.  I think the two liberal states would be tiny landwise, but heavily populated.  The conservative state would have most of the land.

 

6 hours ago, homefire said:

LOL, Liberals don't think like that.   To them What is theirs is their's alone and what is yours is theirs too. 

Yep I agree!

The "entitled" will not let the state be split up, unfortunately they are the majority in California in a small area of the state sitting in their "castles" looking down on all the peons and thusly controlling the entire state and the undeserving peons, they would have enough votes and pull to bring in the National Guard/State Troopers/USNFS and any other LEOs you can imagine to to root out the evil doers trying to take away "thier" land and GOD forbid the evil doers think it's their land or dare step foot on "their" land!!! :2mo5pow:

  • Like 1
  • well done 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2018 at 6:03 AM, chrisski said:

It's a shame that the state can't split into two or more pieces.  The conservative part and the liberal part.  Then the liberals could prevent dredging in the cities and the conservatives could dredge in less populated areas of the state. I would even support creating two liberal states and one conservative state, and that would keep the balance between conservatives and liberals nearly 50 / 50.  I think the two liberal states would be tiny landwise, but heavily populated.  The conservative state would have most of the land.

If you look at a political map of the USA it is already that way (and so are the districts within the state), no need to spit up California, just pick your red spot and move. I've always said, if you don't like the politics, get elected. Either that or order some cheese to go with the whine. lol

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×