On June 29th the Sacramento Bee reported that the newly enacted California state budget extends indefinitely the ban on suction dredge mining within California rivers and streams. A previously enacted ban was due to expire in 2016; the new provision will remain indefinitely unless the in-stream mining program administered by the California Department of Fish & Game can be made "self-supporting" and "unless unavoidable environmental impacts are addressed." While mining advocates deny it, the preponderance of scientific information holds that suction dredge mining degrades salmon habitat and frees highly toxic mercury previously trapped in bottom sediments.
The Bee article quoted mining advocate Rachel Dunn who called the legislature's new moratorium "a scam" and vowed to challenge the budget action in court. It is unlikely, however, that such a lawsuit - if it is filed - would be successful. Like earlier court decisions, the new moratorium rests on solid factual ground: the real risks to fish and humans which suction dredging entails.It has also long been established that governments can charge fees equal to the cost of administering programs serving distinct groups of "users". Similarly, the validity of requiring environmental review for activities with potential to damage water quality and public trust resources including fisheries is well established in both state and federal law.
Suction dredge on the Scott River
Once a common sight, gold dredging has been banned in California since 2009
Defeat and Retaliation
The recent budget action is the latest in a string of defeats for so-called recreational mining. Backed by key state legislators, opponents of dredging have prevented suction dredges from operating in California waters since December 2006.
Prior to the 2006 court injunction and subsequent legislative bans, hundreds of suction dredge miners spent summers living for free on public lands along the Klamath, its tributaries and other California rivers. While camping at one location within national forests has long been limited to a maximum 14-day stay, recreational miners were allowed to camp on national forest land for the entire summer and longer under the supposition that the activity was sanctioned by the 1872 mining law.
Until the Karuk Tribe and its allies challenged it, the US Forest Service and other federal land management agencies accepted the claim that the 1872 mining law allowed unlimited occupancy of suction dredge mining sites on public land. Neither those agencies nor the California Department of Fish & Game performed environmental review to consider impacts from individual in-stream mining operations or from the cumulative impacts when hordes of suction dredge operators congregated in areas where dredging was turning up gold.
While some have long questioned whether the 1872 law - intended to facilitate commercial mining - properly applies to an activity which is recreational, that claim has not yet been litigated. Instead suction dredge approval by the California Department of Fish & Game and by the US Forest Service has been successfully challenged under both the California Environmental Quality Act and the federal Endangered Species Act.
Dredging disturbs streambeds leaving behind unsightly and unstable gravel piles
Victories by the Karuk Tribe and its allies have often been greeted with vitriolic and racist reactions from mining advocates. For example, in June 2009 KlamBlog reported that Dave McCracken - president of the New Forty-Niners mining club - publicly pilloried the Karuk Tribe and long-time Karuk leader Leaf Hillman. In his Siskiyou Daily News editorial, McCracken also parroted wide-spread, local denial of the attempted genocide perpetrated by early miners and settlers against Native American inhabitants of the Klamath River Basin.
In 2009 McCracken's organization - The New Forty-Niners - filed a retaliatory legal petition attacking ceremonial and subsistence salmon fishing as practiced by the Karuk Tribe at Kat-ee-min near the junction of the Salmon and Klamath Rivers. The petition was judged to lack factual basis and was rejected by the State of California.
Genocide and its Denial
While the 2009 KlamBlog reflected on contemporary racism and it's roots, in 2011 we followed up with a summary of historical research documenting the attempted genocide and provided links to primary sources and documents. While it is not taught in most California history classes, the historical record establishes without doubt that organized genocide was attempted in Klamath River Country, and in other locations throughout Northern California, in the years after California was admitted to the union as a "free" state.
Sanctioned by the governor and other authorities, campaigns of "extermination" were organized periodically by California miners and early settlers during the 1850s and 1860s. The objective was to prevent the establishment of reservations for California's original native inhabitants. Many miners and recent white settlers reasoned that if there were no Indians in California there would be no need for reservations.Organized genocide was attempted with the goal of preventing any land from being declared off-limits to miners seeking gold or to settlers seeking land and timber.
Although it is well documented, the attempted genocide against Indigenous natives
is denied today by many in Klamath River County and not taught in local schools
While tens to hundreds of thousands of Native Californians died in the attempted genocide, it was not wholly successful. There were some among the miners and settlers who did not support "extermination". And while dissenters rarely spoke out, they did shelter the few natives they could. Other natives escaped marauding volunteer brigades to hide out in the back country, far from white settlements.
The terror perpetrated against native peoples in the 1850s and 1860s is part of our heritage in Klamath River Country. So long as that heritage is denied, racism will continue to haunt community relations and there can be no real Peace on the River.
Real Leadership
While traditional Indigenous natives along with environmental activists have long decried the arrogant destructiveness of most recreational miners, the current ban is largely due to the single-minded perseverance of one native leader. Leaf Hillman is what the old timers called a "Real Indian". Leaf was born deep within Karuk ancestral territory. As a young man he served in the most important Karuk ceremony - the annual World Renewal at Kat-ee-min - near where the Salmon River joins the Klamath. Leaf's family holds ceremonies in the Orleans District where he lives, within ancestral Karuk territory.
The road to the suction dredge ban has not been an easy one for Leaf Hillman. Since taking on the recreational mining invasion, Hillman has at times been viciously attacked not only by those - like the New Forty-Niners McCracken - who profit from selling "memberships" and equipment to suction dredge enthusiasts, but also by Siskiyou County officials, right wing journalist, and even a few members of his own tribe.
Through the ups and downs, Hillman's resolve has never wavered. And while years ago it looked like the cause was hopeless, it now appears Hillman's quest is headed toward a successful conclusion.
Karuk leader and salmon advocate Leaf Hillman
9 comments:
Very interesting blog, Felice, thanks much.
I agree! Leaf Hillman is a hero, not only for the Karuk Tribe, but also for all good people and good fishermen.
I agree! Leaf Hillman is a hero, not only for the Karuk Tribe, but also for all good people and good fishermen.
Let's get a little bit of clarity with your article. I will take it point by point:
1. If the "preponderance of scientific information holds that suction dredging degrades salmon habitat and frees highly toxic mercury previously trapped in bottom sediments"..... why did a group of anonymous legislators bypass the SEIR findings to secretively push 2 separate bills (attached to the budget process), which had no name, no number, and no oversight until the majority party voted on it to pass it? If the "scientific process" is so obvious, why did legislators do an end run around the EIR process?
As a matter of fact, I defy you to find ANY peer reviewed scientific papers which support your accusations. The reason for the end-run, was because there is no such papers which prove that premise.
2. Your comment ".... It is unlikely, however, that such a lawsuit - if it is filed - would be successful....." I wouldn't be so sure of yourself, as the current lawsuit(s) will easily be defended as soon as an impartial judge take a look at the evidence of an obvious railroad job. CBD already submitted their bill to the State of California for their lawyer time for $500,000- thank you equal access to justice act which allows for environmental non-profits to get reimbursed for filing lawsuits which destroy clean, small mom and pop businesses. You would think that the communities where this "environmental damage is being perpetrated" would support those who are "saving the environment", yet ALL the Supervisors, Sheriffs and community leaders in the affected areas where the mining occurs- they all SUPPORT the small miners.
3. If "Similarly, the validity of requiring environmental review for activities with potential to damage water quality and public trust resources including fisheries is well established in both state and federal law" was truly supported by those who acted to destroy suction dredging, they would have allowed the EIR process to continue, rather than circumventing the whole process.
4. If you could give me the names of those "key state legislators, opponents of dredging have prevented suction dredges from operating in California waters since December 2006", I would appreciate it. When this last trailer bill was going through the channels I had the opportunity to call EVERY state legislator and NOBODY knew anything about it. This bill showed up from nowhere, was authored by no one and surfaced long enough for a key vote and then it disappeared again. If the evidence was so obvious for the support of your premise, how come no one wanted their name on it? Why was it included in a budget bill, when it would have been better suited to be reviewed by everyone in the normal legislative process. How come the miners never had an opportunity to defend their position? (the reason is it didn't surface long enough for anyone other than the author to see it and get the signatures on it)
part 2 to follow
Part 2
5. " Prior to the 2006 court injunction and subsequent legislative bans, hundreds of suction dredge miners spent summers living for free on public lands along the Klamath, its tributaries and other California rivers. While camping at one location within national forests has long been limited to a maximum 14-day stay, recreational miners were allowed to camp on national forest land for the entire summer and longer under the supposition that the activity was sanctioned by the 1872 mining law." Who came up with "recreational dredgers" ....I don't know anyone who does it recreationally. The 1872 mining law allows all sorts of mineral extraction and every mine in the country adheres to it. Why are you focusing your venom on the suction dredgers?
6. "Neither those agencies nor the California Department of Fish & Game performed environmental review to consider impacts from individual in-stream mining operations or from the cumulative impacts when hordes of suction dredge operators congregated in areas where dredging was turning up gold." Not true. There is over 60 years of peer reviewed scientific study by BLM, Army Corp of Engineers, USFS, DFG and other Government entities which prove there is NO long lasting effects to suction dredge mining.
7. "Instead suction dredge approval by the California Department of Fish & Game and by the US Forest Service has been successfully challenged under both the California Environmental Quality Act and the federal Endangered Species Act. " Not so quick. The environmental organization which did the EIR made several erroneous assumptions in order to come to their conclusions. The largest is that since the dredgers were originally thrown off the rivers due to some imaginary emergency mandate, Horizon Environmental chose to create the subsequent EIR as if there had NEVER, EVER BEEN any dredging in the State of California, so they didn't use the 60 years of scientific study that they would have had to try to refute. Since they didn't use the baseline of dredging since 1950, they didn't need to prove anything had changed to need to discontinue dredging. In front of a unbiased judge, this decision will be tossed out.
8. I am not sure where you are coming up with genocide, but you may want to note that it was the US Government which wanted the native americans exterminated, not the miners. The miners were just mining. Am I guilty because my great-great grandfater was from Germany and maybe some of his other descendants were nazis who may have killed jews? Come on! I think your anger is a bit misdirected.
I don't know Leif Hillman, so I cannot comment.
Obviously you have your bias, and my guess is the facts are not something that you research. There needs to be the other side of the story and we will see if this response ever sees the light of day.
Thank you for the opportunity.
Anonymous is right: I write KlamBlog and I am biased: I think suction dredge mining has no place on our public lands and waters.
That bias is based on 40 years of observation...not only of the impact of suction dredges on our streams but also of the social and on-land impacts of these so-called "recreational miners" who in my book are actually freeloading "WRECKrecreational" pseudo-miners.
And enough of this "peer reviewed science" bull. Peer review is no guarantee of good scientific method or of solid scientific judgement one way or the other.
When I write about something I look at the available science and i make my judgements; the blog has links to some of that information.
Furthermore, anyone reading this blog can use their search engine to get and evaluate the information for themselves.
In my view it appears clear and conclusive that dredging mobilizes mercury trapped in sediments and that some of that mercury escapes capture and presents a toxic risk downstream.
I do agree with "Anonymous" that "There needs to be the other side of the story" and so readers have his/her two long comments.
"Anonymous" is welcome for the opportunity; I just wish he/she would use his/her real name!
Felice- Is my name that important? I don't dredge in the Klamath, and as a matter of fact I have never been there. My claims are in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada.
I have no personal experience of what it is like to live or work near a "club claim", so I have no idea if there extra issues involved with dealing with a bunch of miners who don't live locally or even have a sense of ownership of their own mining claim.
What I do know is that I have 3 mining claims totaling over 2 miles of creek and I consider myself "a good neighbor". Even though I have no neighbors nearby, I take extra measures to ensure that any effect I create in the water doesn't travel downstream to ruin some other outdoor user's experience.
I think you are a bit jaded thinking that all miners want to destroy the environment (as are most of the people who support the environmental groups). Most of the small miners are concerned about the environment and that is one of the reasons we are out there. We enjoy the out of doors just like those who go fishing or hiking- the difference is we get to go diving and to see even more lifeforms in their natural environment.
I have been dredging for over 10 years and the amount of mercury I have found wouldn't fit on my small fingernail. I'm sure there are superfund sites throughout the state, but why do I have to make unreasonable mitigation's for my area if there is no mercury? And one other point- find me one shred of evidence that shows any sort of health affects of anyone due to natural mercury in the rivers- there isn't any. In most cases (in my area) the mercury toxicity is negated via the naturally occurring selenium found in the waterways- it binds up with the elemental mercury and makes it non-toxic.
If you start wearing our shoes, you quickly see that this industry has been railroaded. It is like you entered the "twilight zone" where up is down and down is sideways.
Why is it that only gold suction dredging is outlawed? Other forms of suction dredging using the same equipment to do so is ok, but if you are a gold suction dredger you cannot mine. On the yuba river it is perfectly ok for the local utility to dredge a local dam (and disturb merucry) and cloud up the river for 40 miles for over 3 days, but if I get out there with my 4" dredge and make the water muddy fo 10 feet in my hole, I am damaging the environment? Really?
Dear Anonymous, it is unfortunate that real miners have been taken off the water because of the lack of responsibility of those who are selling access to claims by hordes of "recreational miners". Prior to the advent of abuses to our rivers and streams by these folks, local communities in Klamath Country supported the real miners.... those who live in our communities and who mine to make a living...not for "recreation."
It is the disregard for local people, local culture and the local environment that turned many of us against suction dredge mining.
As I stated in the post, I would like to see so-called recreational mining challenged as not covered by the 1872 mining law which was intended to facilitate real mining...not recreation. If successful, that would eliminate most of the problems and real miners would not need to suffer because of the excesses of hobby miners and those who sell so many recreational mining memberships that our streams and public lands become subject to significant degradation.
Felice- perhaps you can illustrate for me what your issues are with the "hobbists" (are you talking New 49'ers or GPAA?), as I am unsure that is what you are referring to as far as your issues with the small miners.
In my instance I "own" over 2 miles of a very remote creek which is posion oak and rattlesnake infested. I NEVER see anyone out there- even though its rugged beauty is unbelievable, it is extremely difficult to get to. I don't live at the claim and only come in on weekends, so the amount of use my 2 miles gets is maybe 20 days a year, working maybe 10 feet in length of the creek. Not exactly a watershed damaging event- that is what is so ridiculous about these regs.
So please educate me about your issues with the mining groups.
Post a Comment