|
Senate Committee Passes Bill to Put Moratorium on Suction Dredging
Published on Apr 28, 2009 - 12:00:03 PM
By: The Sierra Fund
SACRAMENTO, 28 April 2009 - California's Senate Natural Resources Committee today passed SB 670 (Wiggins) with bi-partisan support, placing a temporary moratorium on the issuance of recreational suction dredge mining permits by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) until a thorough scientific review of the impacts is completed and regulations are revised. The bill will next go to Senate Appropriations for consideration and approval before going before the full Senate. The bill includes an urgency clause, requiring 2/3 vote to pass in each house, which would result in the law going into effect immediately upon signing by the Governor.
Elizabeth "Izzy" Martin, CEO of The Sierra Fund, testified at the request of Senator Wiggins on the importance of the bill. "In light of the state's budget crisis, we are concerned that funding for the review and rule-making will be slowed down, and the review could take years. We are also concerned that the well-documented impacts of suction dredging on water quality and endangered species will continue while this environmental review is underway, despite evidence of the harm of suction dredging."
Suction dredging disturbs fish habitat, putting endangered species such as Coho salmon and green sturgeon at risk. In addition, repeated government studies have shown that suction dredge activities disturb and mobilize the mercury left behind from gold mine operations.
Gold miners in the 19th century used an estimated 26 million pounds of mercury to extract gold from ore in California, with an estimated 13 million pounds lost to the waters and soils of the Sierra Nevada and Trinity Mountains. Suction dredgers often encounter mercury and gold-mercury amalgam, which tend to fall into the cracks of the riverbed like gold. Dredgers collect the mercury and amalgam, and treat it to release any gold that may have amalgamated with the mercury. They then recover the mercury and usually store it, though some miners dispose of it in an unauthorized manner, such as pouring it back into the river, onto the ground, or in to municipal sewer systems.
Suction dredges re-suspend and "flour" mercury, increasing the surface area and making it more readily available for bacteria to methylate. Methylmercury has been a regulatory concern of the State for years due its known serious effect on human health.
"The rules that govern this practice are woefully outdated," noted Martin. California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) was ordered by the California courts to undergo a CEQA review and rule change as a result of a lawsuit filed in 2005. The courts ordered DFG to complete the review and make appropriate rule changes by July 2008, but DFG has not met this deadline.
The Sierra Fund has worked with the state's leading scientists as part of our Initiative to assess and address the impact of gold mining on our state. Our report, Mining's Toxic Legacy includes research developed by the US Geological Survey as well as SWRCB on the impacts of suction dredging.
The full text of Mining's Toxic Legacy with photos of suction dredging activities can be downloaded from The Sierra Fund's website: www.sierrafund.org/campaigns/mining

In the interest of fostering civil and issue-oriented discourse, YubaNet does not publish reader comments identified by anonymous Internet "handles" (fake user ID names like "farfromthinkin"). Your full and real name will be published with your comment. Your email address will not be shown, unless you specifically "uncheck" the box 'Hide my email.' By submitting a comment you consent to our rules.
Comments
Kathy Lancaster
20 Jul 2009, 14:08
I agree with Rick Solinsky. We are also dredgers and we love to fish. The
two go hand in hand. The amount of dredging we do during the summer does
not hinder any fish or land. There are already laws in place for the
dredgers. We only have a limited amount of time to dredge and we are just
as concerned about any damages to the environment. This bill should not
affect all rivers in California.
Rick Solinsky
04 May 2009, 04:51
Hi Ralph.
I am a suction dredger (for 2 years) and I consider myself a responsible
user of public land. I always keep an neat and orderly workplace and make
sure the forest I leave is always cleaner than when I came. I have to agree
with you on some of your points. There is a miner downstream from me who is
a pig. He has garbage strewn all over the place and obviously has a large
disregard for the environment. However, I have also happened upon campsites
on the side of the road that people driving by seem to think will be a nice
place to dump their garbage. If we ban the miner who is despoiling his
location, shall we also ban the general public from entering the forest,
because of that one person who dumps his garbage on the side of the road?
Why should all responsible users be penalized because of one irresponsible
one?
Some miners are total jerks about crossing their claims. A lot of them are
concerned about people highgrading others are just jerks. Personally, I
have no issues about anyone crossing my claim, and for that matter, even
though I pay for the mineral rights of that property, I don't even mind if
someone pans on my claim. I don't mind sharing my little piece of an
amazing beautiful wilderness. If someone wants to take the effort to find
my claim, who am I to deny them the experience. Since there are one or two
other miner jerks in the wilderness, is it fair to deny me the access to my
claim? Why not prosecute those who break the laws and leave those of us who
respect the outdoor environment alone?
I am a small miner, who has a substantial investment in a job that I truly
enjoy. And in all honesty, I still haven't paid for my equipment. I can
understand strict rules for those operations that deface and change the
landscape- but suction dredge permit regulations are specific enough that
we are severely limited as to what we can do on our claims (and we cannot
change the landscape in any noticeable way).
I don't think the fish mind when I am dredging, because all the fish in the
creek are at the back end of my sluice feeding on the smorgasbord of food
coming off it.
Ms Wiggins and The Sierra Fund want to deny my access to our Federally
granted claims over their opinions that they feel that the EIR supporting
suction dredging is flawed. The fish & Game Department has valid studies
that state dredging does not adversely affect the aquatic environment. If
Ms Wiggins and the Sierra Fund feel that suction dredging negatively
affects the environment, maybe they ought to fund a new study, rather than
indefinitely shutting down suction dredging and waiting for the state to
create another study (in these financially challenging times). The State of
California already has a reputation for being environmentally conservative,
so why do we need another study?
Rather than creating bad blood amongst a wide variety of forest users,
maybe we should all try to work together to find a solution that doesn't
deny anyone the right to use the forest and mutually supports a cleaner
environment. I am a huge fan of the win-win approach to solving a problem-
maybe the Sierra Fund and Ms Wiggins may want to try this tact first.
Ralph N. Hinton
01 May 2009, 21:49
While I do believe that some recreational gold miners are responsible users
of public lands, I have personally observed many instances of inappropriate
actions. Some miners treat public lands as their private property because
they have a mining claim and threaten other campers or anglers who may wish
to use these areas. I have experienced inappropriate firing of guns,
including automatic weapons, to drive off nearby campers. Instances of
environmental damage are frequent as you describe. For these reasons I
fully support your position. There is no good reason that recreational
gold miners should be allowed to file mining claims on public lands as if
they are a commercial operation and they should be subject to environmental
controls just like other public land users.
|