Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /nfs/c09/h05/mnt/136076/domains/goldgold.com/html/wp-content/themes/suffusion/template-sitemap.php on line 49

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /nfs/c09/h05/mnt/136076/domains/goldgold.com/html/wp-content/themes/suffusion/template-sitemap.php on line 52

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /nfs/c09/h05/mnt/136076/domains/goldgold.com/html/wp-content/themes/suffusion/template-sitemap.php on line 55

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /nfs/c09/h05/mnt/136076/domains/goldgold.com/html/wp-content/themes/suffusion/template-sitemap.php on line 58

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /nfs/c09/h05/mnt/136076/domains/goldgold.com/html/wp-content/themes/suffusion/template-sitemap.php on line 61

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /nfs/c09/h05/mnt/136076/domains/goldgold.com/html/wp-content/themes/suffusion/template-sitemap.php on line 64

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /nfs/c09/h05/mnt/136076/domains/goldgold.com/html/wp-content/themes/suffusion/template-sitemap.php on line 67

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /nfs/c09/h05/mnt/136076/domains/goldgold.com/html/wp-content/themes/suffusion/template-sitemap.php on line 70

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /nfs/c09/h05/mnt/136076/domains/goldgold.com/html/wp-content/themes/suffusion/template-sitemap.php on line 73
» Karuk’s Challenge to California Dredging Regulations 8
Dave Mack

“Here is some further explaination of the Karuk Tribe Lawsuit against the California DFG to change dredging regulations…”

Forum post, 30 March 2006

Hello everyone,

I’m sorry my report on this has taken so long, but I have been reluctant to comment beyond what was reported last week until I could obtain an actual copy of the Amended Stipulation which was submitted to the Court by the Karuks and Department of Fish & Game (DFG).

The hearing that was scheduled last week (23 March) only allowed an hour for all interested persons to present verbal arguments. The Karuks and DFG showed up at the hearing with a “new deal” in the form of an “Amended Stipulation,” which commits DFG to begin a new rule-making process under CEQA within 120 days (4 months). The injunction would expire in one year plus 120 days (unless extended by the Court) with the expectation of having new rules in place by that time. This is referring to the very same or more restrictive regulations which DFG has issued pursuant to the earlier Stipulated Agreement.

My own interpretation of this is that they are basically asking the judge to impose an injunction until DFG undergoes a formal process under CEQA that imposes an equal or greater amount of restriction upon suction dredging as what presently exists within the modified regulations. This solution is a total violation of the CEQA process, because it imposes a mandate upon DFG to arrive at a final outcome, regardless of the science or other factors which DFG is required to consider during a proper CEQA action. What is the use of going through a public process in the first place to examine the science and develop the most reasonable solutions, if DFG and the Karuks have already agreed to what the outcome is going to be? That is backwards!

DFG argued in the hearing that they have met discovery requirements to the miners, because they have allowed us access to all existing information in their files, other than anything having to do with the ongoing litigation. Our attorneys reminded the judge that it is discovery concerning the ongoing litigation which DFG is refusing to provide. They are insisting upon keeping a secret of how they are justifying further restrictive changes upon our industry!

DFG also argued that the miners are really not hurt by the new dredging restrictions, because there are many other places where we can go to prospect for gold. In turn, we argued that land owners and miners who own mineral rights within the affected area will be adversely affected by the changed regulations.

As the time allowed for this hearing was quite short, there was not enough time to fully debate the issues in front of the judge. However, the written briefs which have been submitted to the Court have exhaustively covered all sides of the issues. The key documents in the litigation can be found on the special page we have created for this on our web site.

Our lawyers argued in the hearing that the “new deal” should not be accepted by the Court for the very same reasons the earlier Stipulated Agreement should have been rejected: A State agency does [U]not[/U] have the authority to change industry regulations through a private agreement with an anti-industry group in the first place. Especially without providing [U]any[/U] factual support of its reasons to anyone!

The Court has taken everything under advisement and we assume she will issue a ruling reasonably soon. Stay tuned in, because we will put up a copy of the ruling as soon as one is issued.

I want to thank those of you who have heard my requests for financial contributions to help pay the attorneys that are working so hard for our side. I encourage you to please keep the support coming our way so that we can keep up with continuing costs of this litigation. This is going to be very important in the event we find ourselves needing to file an appeal!

Let’s all keep our fingers crossed for a positive outcome!!

All the best,

Dave Mack

 

Tags