Potential bombshell for the state

[Oakview2]

From the New 49ers board, what does it all mean, don't know but could give us some serious financial leverage.

Done a fair amount of research into the "takings" aspect of the dredge ban...
You'll love reading this:

There’s a 400-page document that gets attached to any bonds California wants to issue. Covers things like state property, income and expenditures, pensions, in order to paint an accurate picture of the State’s finances.

Surprisingly, the consolidated dredging cases are mentioned in this document in the litigation section. Says to me they think the legal action is very worrying to them and the costs could be significant to the state.

Here’s an example bond:
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/treasurer/public_finance/official_statements/documents/pdf/OS_List_2013_CalEPA_Building_2013%20Lease_Revenue_Funding_SeriesA.pdf

Scroll down to page 29 of the PDF for the beginning of the State documentation.

Litigation section starts on page 173 of the PDF, or on A-137 of the attachment:
(Any emphasis is mine)

LITIGATION
The state is a party to numerous legal proceedings. The following describes litigation matters that are pending with service of process on the state accomplished and have been identified by the state as having a potentially significant fiscal impact upon the state’s revenues or expenditures. The state makes no representation regarding the likely outcome of these litigation matters.

Then drop down a couple pages, and you’ll find:

In Consolidated Suction Dredge Mining Cases (Karuk Tribe v. DFG) (Alameda, Siskiyou, and San Bernardino County Superior Courts), environmental and mining interests challenge the state’s regulation of suction dredge gold mining. After initially prohibiting such mining in the state except pursuant to a permit issued by the Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly Fish and Game) under specified circumstances, the Legislature subsequently placed a
moratorium on all suction dredging until certain conditions are met by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The cases are coordinated for hearing in San Bernardino County Superior Court (Case No. JCPDS4720). One of these matters, The New 49’ERS, Inc. et al. v. California
Department of Fish and Game, claims that federal law preempts and prohibits state regulation of suction dredge mining on federal land. Plaintiffs, who have pled a class action but have yet to seek certification, claim that as many as 11,000 claims, at a value of $500,000 per claim, have been taken.

[Gold Nuggets]

If things turn out for the better for the claim owners and the state will owe them compensation for the takings.....will the state need to borrow more money from somewhere to pay the claim owners? Or make some sort of deal to give the claims, equipment and whatever back to the owners? Interesting because the state is in really poor financial condition and has trouble just keeping operating from what I understand. Just trying to get some sense of what might happen.............

[Hoser John]

The state has taken 100s of claims along the 46 mile stretch between Trinity Dam and Helena and not 1 red cent to nobody.....base your expectations on the foundations of proven history and not pie in the sky. Same on Merced and many MANY others also. Next August I lose 2 x 40 acres as they RESURVEYED the lands and now my claims are NOT in the creek like the past 22 years but on a cliffside now. If I put down how I really felt I'd be banned for 1,000 years as 6 seasons stolen already and THAT has cost much to many.. John

[LipCa]

John,

Aren't your claims where they were located ON THE GROUND and you can amend the description?

As for the state taking claims and not compensating for them, did no one challenge them? Were they not proven, valid claims?

[Hoser John]

When the TRRP does the claim exams they disalow any dredging and do a mini spot sample and viola no gold adios. This new game is called' SEGREGATION" and your not up against 1 agency but 3 plus the TRRP and the thieves have mixed some from column a-then some b-throw in a little c and then that friggn' TRRP bs. They share the responsibilities in limited amounts,publish notices in backwater papers radical rags noboby reads and procede with lie after lie in public meetings. Even private patented lands with my proven maps since 1869 are being realinged and taken. Lawyered up of coarse but what a deep hole to shovel $100 bills into sic sic sic as they hissed through clenched teeth at that insipid may meeting" You dam miners have too many rights" BLM Geologist Ron the only Geologist who hates miners I ever met. John

[middleforkminer2]

The question I've been asking myself for a long time, is how the state can justify the "blanket" ban state wide? I'm semi retired now & was counting on being able to dredge in order to supplement my S.S. I gave my claim back to the "system" I was so frustrated...if a salmon or steelhead had ever spawned in my stretch of river, it would have been a long time before people ever set foot in North America.

[El Dorado]

Not to mention, they have taken my Patented property away from me too as I can no longer legally dredge on land I own

[Sonoran Dave]

Wow...friggin Nazis. Do what they want whenever they want, to whoever they want. Most places patented land is private land. They can just take it with no compensation? Just...wow.

[Au Seeker]

Wow...friggin Nazis. Do what they want whenever they want, to whoever they want. Most places patented land is private land. They can just take it with no compensation? Just...wow.

I think Steve is saying that since the state will not let him dredge on his patented land, it's almost useless because it's the most effective way or only way that the gold can be mined.

[El Dorado]

That is correct.. It was a dream come true when we were finally able to purchase a piece of property like that. Now that I cannot legally dredge our own property it is like they took it away from us........ I rarely even go there anymore. What is worse, the patent approved by a US President, clearly states I have the right to mine there. I really do love California, but the politics here are all about removing personal freedom (unless you happen to be an illegal alien).

Edited October 29, 2014 by El Dorado

[Sonoran Dave]

Thats sad El D.

Hell...i'd dredge it anyway. I never have been good at doing what I'm told.

[Gold Nuggets]

From what I been hearing and reading, it might not be

too long and dredging might open up again in California.

When it does, I really hope that the unlawful actions of the

various Cali State Agencies, for more than 5 years, are taken

to court for miners losses and sued for compensation.

[boomerlois]

I have said that all along....organize and hit the courts with about 5000 small claim action suits an see how that gets digested. Simple to do, cheap an would be very effective....5K ea suit.