Archive for americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org mining, mining law, prospector, mining claim, 1865, 1866, 1872, legal, illegal, government, policy, administrative, mineral, grant, right, forest, service, BLM, DEQ, wild, scenic, hobby, gold, placer, hard, rock, hardrock, dredging, highbanking
 


       americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> General
cowboy444

I met with my Lawyer 10-23-12

I met with Mr. Spicer on 10-23-12 about my ongoing citation for pollution and pollution not having a NPDES 700PM permit.

As soon as Mr. Spicer entered his demurrer into the case, the prosecution dropped the charge of pollution because the Rogue River IS NOT a wild and scenic river and hasn't been since 1978 but it seems that everyone believes it is still Wild and Scenic. They dropped the charges so that that knowledge would not get out to the general public. There are people who own land along the river but they were not allowed to do anything with their property because of the W&S status of the river. If they want to push it they should be able to build now that I've opened the can of worms.

Mr. Spicer also showed me his next tactic for getting me exonerated of the charge of not having the NPDES 700PM permit. It's listed under 541 us 105 and 106 which basically states that there is no pollution without something from the outside of the river system being introduced into the river system. I'll do a little more research and get the exact wording to post here later.
I'm still due in court on October 31st at 9:00am but again this is just to make my plea and set a date for the trial. I thank all of you for your support and well wishes.

cowboy444
NCrossman

Sweet! Congrats!  Now if only I could get a lawyer that listens to me.  hmmm...
beebarjay

Cowboy444......glad some positive outcome has resulted and hope that you are successful in your further proceedings.  Keep us posted and appreciate your effort.

bejay
Wallrat

Is this what you meant? It comes from a Writ of Certiorari in a Florida case. See page 20 of the PDF document, section E.

http://www.eswr.com/docs/courts/ussc/01-196/FOEpetition.pdf

E. EPA’s Water Transfers Rule. After briefing
in respondents’ Eleventh Circuit appeal was
complete, EPA issued a regulation in essentially the
form proposed two years earlier, exempting “water
transfers” from the NPDES permitting requirement.
73 Fed. Reg. 33697 (June 13, 2008). In the
preamble, EPA explained that “the United States
has taken the position that the Clean Water Act
generally does not subject water transfers to the
NPDES program,” and quoted from the United
States’ Eleventh Circuit brief in this case:
When the statutory definition of “‘navigable
waters”’—i.e., “the waters of the United States,”
33 U.S.C. 1362(7)—is inserted in place of
“navigable waters,” 33 U.S.C. 1362(12) provides
that NPDES applies only to the “addition of any
pollutant to the waters of the United States.”
Given the broad definition of “pollutant,”
transferred (and receiving) water will always
contain intrinsic pollutants, but the pollutants in
transferred water are already in “the waters of
the United States” before, during, and after the
water transfer. Thus, there is no “addition”;
nothing is being added “to” “the waters of the
United States” by virtue of the water transfer,
because the pollutant at issue is already part of
“the waters of the United States” to begin with.

And here the relevant Federal Register (73 Fed. Reg. 33697):  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-06-13/pdf/E8-13360.pdf
cowboy444

Thanks, Wallrat

I copied your post and e-mailed it to my Lawyer.

I'll post again on Wednesday after I get out of court.

cowboy444
Wallrat

Cowboy, here's another interesting pdf for you: http://www.bdlaw.com/assets/attachments/288.pdf

       americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> General
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home