Water and Arsenic: which came first?

Mike,

Thanks for an excellent response. I know that you have devoted your career and nearly your whole life to this mine. So, I have the faith that you know exactly what you are doing. I hope and pray that we will eventually be able to completely put this whole rats nest behind us.

I continue to have faith in you.

Best Regards,
Fred M. Cain

Fred,
It is my joy to turn on the computer (Forum comes up) and see a new entry, especially yours. My first order of office business is answering your question. Is the Sixteen to One mine discharge violating the law? A straight forward answer….NO, the water (originating from nature’s release as snow or rain) flowing through the rock does not trigger a violation under the California Law known as Porter-Cologne Act. Also known as the California Water Code, Section 7, it was created in 1969. It is the law that governs water quality regulation in California. It was established to protect water quality as well as the beneficial uses of water. Is Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. in violation of a water law? NO!

Over years the water agency made up regulations and as the regulations grew in scope and size they exceed the laws (Porter-Cologne and Clean Water Act) that birthed the concept of water regulations to protect the public. Staff members change but a prevailing power/control persona reflects the agency. The Sixteen is not battling this agency. There may be no acceptable alternative and our very qualified consultant continues working with staff towards a solution. He is experienced and the staff is responding to the facts. There is language in both pieces of legislation (federal Clean Water Act), whereby a fair and impartial judge must lean our way. We believe that the Sixteen, the California people and agency will benefit.

Reasonableness, benefit use and hard data lawfully prevail. What is beneficial use? “The question is one of fact, a very general one, to be left broadly to judgement. The result in any particular case will depend upon the attitude which others, as reasonable people, will take towards the evidence as a whole when presented to them. Reasonable considerations of the “duty of water,” and “beneficial use” are expressed in scientific units: it must not be excessive, examination is made by the facts of each case. The ruling for the duty of water is a matter of proof separately in each case according to the facts put in evidence.

Fred, the answer to your question is no. Below it the appeal I submitted to the State Water Board. In California every person has the right to petition governmental agencies. I chose to exercise this right and wrote the following. First time published. Sorry for a wordy reply but necessary. NO was not enough for you and others to really get it.
Mike

State Water Resources Control Board January 8, 2018
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Members of the Board,
The Porter Cologne Act passed in California legislation as solutions of water quality, conservation, control and utilization. What water issues troubled elected officials, industries and businesses in the 1960’s? Fundamental observations, conditions, predictions and downright speculations contributed to this law. It was justified according to give and take actions by Californians for the benefit of Californians: protected for use and enjoyment by the people of the state. The Legislature declared regulations shall be reasonable, considering all demands made on our water quality and considering the total values involved, beneficial and detrimental economic and social, tangible and intangible. Development projects were growing in scope and size; however the law specifically cites factors of precipitation, topography, population, recreation, agriculture, industry and economics shall apply.

The law established a State Board and regional boards. They shall conform to and implement the policies of Chapter 1, (policy) at all times of the Act. Water quality objectives mean the limits or levels of water quality constituents or characteristics which are established for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses of water. The first item listed for a water quality control plan is: (1) Beneficial uses to be protected. The intent of the Legislature is unequivocal: waste or contamination must create a hazard to the public health through poising or the spread of disease.
One key in the Legislative and administration process was science. Science began and drove concepts and words that eventually were passed by our Senate and Assembly. Science, after all, is knowledge, understood facts or principles. Knowledge is gained by systematic observations, experiment, and reasoning; knowledge is coordinated, arranged, and systematized. Its goal is the prosecution of truth thus known, both in the abstract and as an historical development.

What John Stuart Mill wrote 160 years ago holds true today: “Since all phenomena which have been sufficiently examined are found to take place with regularity, each having certain fixed conditions, positive and negative, on the occurrence of which it invariably happens, mankind has been able to ascertain the conditions of the occurrence of many phenomena. The progress of science mainly consists in ascertaining these conditions. Science is nothing but the finding of analogy, identity in the most remote parts of the subject.” There is no science involved with the enforcement of the current CVRWQCB in Rancho Cordova, California.
In science, you must not talk before you know. In art, you must not talk before you do. In literature, you must not talk before you think. In government all three apply to our public agencies, public employees, elected and appointed officials. Science persists with the knowledge of things, whether ideal or substantial. Art works the modification of substantial things by our substantial power. Literature brings to the mind the modification of ideal things by our ideal power. All are lacking with the Prosecution Team, the Administration Team, most of the Board members and the Executive Team.

The work of the true masters of Science is a perpetual striving after a better and closer knowledge of their environment from the planet on which their lot is cast and the universe in the vastness of which our planet is lost. CVRWQCB execution of the Porter Cologne act has become an illegal taker of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with no sense of support from Science, Art or Literature. It’s good and worthwhile intent turned into a sham, nothing more than a trick put upon the public. It has become evil that lacks any bearing on its expectations. The people should fear the destroying of long standing public and private benefits of our water. If the environment is sought to be defended or pressured for the safety and benefits of Californians, some advocates and some enforcers twist, ignore and lie. It is a sham and the goodness we know and expect will be lost for future generations. The actions I witnessed at the December 8, 2017, public CVRWQCB hearing will alarm Californians as I was alarmed.

Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act is the law. It preempts all other plans, such as the Valley Basin plan. Its importance in Californian’s behaviors patterns the relationships between the Constitution of the United States of American and the Constitution of the State of California. Law has definitions: recognize sham answers, sham defenses, and sham pleas. The entire agenda item on December 8, 2017, was so clearly shameful, in fact, presenting no substantial issue. It is make believe to assert that natural waters traveling through the Alleghany aquifers, above and underground, produce harmful conditions to public health. An historical mantra holds true here in Sacramento: “We must have a case that we do not sham fallacies upon the people for current reason.”

Fear of this material (natural elements for life) and native water precipitating high in the Sierra Nevada mountains is a pretense for hijacking industrial freedom and rights, justify employment for the prosecutors, fatten self-serving appetites, and is illegal, immoral and against both State and Federal Constitutions. “Truth, like gold, lies at the bottom.”

In reference to the degree of specialization on display during this public meeting, the sciences may be arranged as follows:
(A) Mathematics, the study of relations of the parts of hypothetical constructions, involving no observation of facts, but only of the creations of our own minds, having two branches – (1) pure mathematics, where the suppositions are arbitrary and (2) applied mathematics, where the hypothesis as simplifications of real facts – and branching again into (a) mathematical philosophy, as the theory of probabilities, etc.
(b) mathematical physics, as analytical mechanics, etc. and (c) mathematical physics, as political economy.

(B) Philosophy, the examination of and logical analysis of a general body of fact is a science in which reason and history precedes successful dealing with special elements of the universe – branching into (1) logic and (2) metaphysics.

(C) Nomology, the science of the most general laws or uniformities, having two main branches – (1) psychology and (2) general physics.

(D) Chemistry, the determination of physical constants and the study of the different kinds of matter in which these constants differ.

(E) Biology, the study of a peculiar class of substances, the protoplasms, and of the kinds of organisms into which they grow.

(F) Sciences of organization of organisms, embracing (1) physiology, the science of the working of the psychical structures of organs and (2) sociology, the science of psychical unions, especially modes of human society, including ethics, linguistics, politics, etc.

No science was on display by the Prosecution Team, the Advisory Team or other public employees. My wonderment is that the seven board members voted six to one in support of the staff with so little knowledge of what they were voting for. Science is nothing but the finding of analogy, identity in the most remote parts of the subject: water. “The work of the true man of Science is a perpetual striving after a better and closer knowledge of the planet on which his lot is cast, and of the universe in the vastness of which that planet is lost.” –J.N. Lockyer. What science triggers the serious efforts across the spectrum of living in our Golden State? What is the duty of water?
Terms contain some qualification to denote that it must not be excessive are to be based in science. The buzz ‘word’ has become ppb. The word “reasonable” being considerably used in law is not used now in science: reasonable in care and diligence, reasonable in economic evaluations (cost/benefits), reasonable unavoidable. This board lacks an understanding of reason because the staff either fails to know or withholds important information (exculpatory evidence or statements which tend to clear Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. from alleged fault or guilt). The duty of water is found not to be a constant factor for all places but varies with the character of natural surroundings, climatic conditions, diversification of environments and various other conditions.

Kanaka Creek does not present a water quality problem for fish, plant life or aquatic insects. No one suffers a beneficial loss downstream from the ancient 21 portal. During the meeting the question, “What is the full definition of serious?” was brushed aside by staff. The proper action for the Board to take at this meeting was to table the topic and send it back to staff for review and clarification on the issues raised by Operator. The insistence that it could not take this action is weak
I am aggrieved by the action at the December 8, 2017 CVWQCB meeting.

I file this petition for review with the State Water Board.
I hereby attach to this petition by reference the three attachment filed by Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. as support for my request for the petition. I have suffered great financial losses due to the ongoing behavior if CVRWQCB in the Kanaka Creek watershed. I have suffered great mental strain and harassment.

Required Information:
Michael Meister Miller PO Box 941 Alleghany, CA 95910 (530) 287-3224
Sincerely,
Michael M. Miller

California has multiple reputations around the United States. I get phone calls from dozens of states every year and noticed that this past year non Californians are getting aggravated with California’s political and business behaviors.

By choice I reduced comments about our day to day operation on the FORUM. The potential downside interference (jealous or mean self-serving miscreants) outweighs informing Forum readers how excited and proud I am of our current endeavors underground and in the realms of government regulation.

MSHA has taken notice of the sad situation or lack of finding experienced underground miners looking for an inspector job. I agree and wrote a proposal offering the Sixteen to One as a real-life laboratory for hands on training to remedy the problem. Our last quarterly inspection resulted in one paper citation. I received support from small coal miners in the east who are experiencing the same problem with MSHA. A mining engineer wrote me saying these coal miners are familiar with our work to correct the situation.

Yes, groups or individuals don’t like the successes and enjoyment of gold mining. They spread lies, going so far as calling or writing governments with false stories. Water is one area where California regulators are 100% violating state and federal laws in enforcement. From my perspective our situation is moving to correct these injustices. A very competent person took an interest. Our water does not affect the beneficial use of anyone in California. His assistance is gaining this awareness. I spoke with him today; it takes time; our specific situation is known at various levels and known to be benign.

My biggest concern is the lack of adequate working capital for increasing production to sound economic levels. The dynamics of size are against us and have been for a long time. Management developed a fantastic gold opportunity for someone with a large stash of cash and no comfortable place to put it. It has huge tax advantages, preferential gold return and with recent federal legislation is dynamic in its overall appeal.

Check “Opportunity Zone”, a federal program encouraging investment in low life areas of the United States. Senator Tim Scott from South Carolina is a driver. I wrote and received a reply. The Sacramento Bee , February 24, 2019, printed an article from New York Times about Opportunity Zone. Word is spreading. Alleghany qualifies as one of 8,000 locations in the USA.

Fred, as you know from prior writings, someone must find the Sixteen to One. I’m not going to Washington DC or beyond searching for money. I’m not good at it, and my time is best spent in Alleghany with the mine and office tasks. Also, because of what our directors know about our assets, details will not appear in public. Details will be provided to qualified people, corporations or companies. Qualified is the key word, no fishing allowed.

Because of my knowledge, the wisdom, experience and knowledge of others, I can confidently state. “Our Company has the most proven gold deposit in the world with the fewest working miners, hundred years operating experience (with the library to support it) and a situation to utterly blow the socks off those who choose to see for themselves”. We are motivated to, as President Trump says, “make a deal”. The timing for gold investment arrived yet few will understand.

You are a bright light with your writing on FORUM. Please keep it up. How will and who will help those fortunate, new Limited Partners or new General Partner find this opportunity? All the pieces are in place. This is my invitation: CHECK US OUT: participation in mining gold, gold known in place and acquiring gold in return, real gold. It ain’t no stock deal! Help requested.

John Stossal reports:

Anderson Cooper’s show recently featured a “two-part exclusive” that claims Donald Trump’s EPA director had conspired with the CEO of a mining company to “withdraw environmental restrictions” so the company could dig “the largest open pit mine in the world in an extremely sensitive watershed in wild Alaska.”

The report was enough to horrify any caring person. CNN showed beautiful pictures of colorful salmon swimming in Bristol Bay, and the reporter intoned dramatically, “EPA staffers were shocked to receive this email obtained exclusively by CNN which says ‘we have been directed by the administrator to withdraw restrictions’ … protection of that pristine area was being removed.”

No! A “pristine” area and gorgeous salmon were about to be obliterated by a mine! I would have believed it, except I happened to report on that mine a couple of years ago.

I knew that the real scandal was not EPA director Scott Pruitt’s decision to “withdraw the restrictions”; it was what President Obama’s EPA did to the company’s mining proposal in the first place.

Zealots at the EPA had conspired with rich environmental activists to kill the mine before its environmental impact statement could even be submitted. This was unprecedented.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform later concluded: “EPA employees had inappropriate contact with outside groups and failed to conduct an impartial, fact-based review.”

Now, appropriately, Pruitt undid that censorship of science.
But CNN, implying devious secrecy said, “according to multiple sources, he made that decision without a briefing from any of EPA’s scientists.”

Shocking!

But Pruitt didn’t require opinions from scientists. He didn’t approve the mine. He didn’t make a science decision. He simply followed the law and allowed a company to submit a proposal.
Also, despite CNN’s repeated depictions of salmon on Bristol Bay, it turns out that the proposed mine would not even be on the Bay. It would not even be 10 miles away, or 20 miles away, or even 50 miles. The proposed mine would be about 100 miles away.

Did CNN mention that? No. Never. We asked CNN why. And why not point out that the mining company is just being allowed to start the EPA’s long and arduous environmental review? They didn’t get back to us.
Of course, explaining that wouldn’t fit CNN’s theme: Evil Trump appointee ravages environment.

Their reporter did at least speak with the mine’s CEO, Tom Collier, who tried to explain.
“It’s not a science — it’s a process decision.”
But the reporter, Drew Griffin, wouldn’t budge. He called Collier “a guy who wants to mine gold in an area that many scientists believe will destroy one of the most pristine sockeye salmon sporting grounds in the whole world.”

By the way, Collier isn’t an evil Republican-businessman-nature-destroyer. He’s a Democrat who once ran environment policy for President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. CNN never mentioned that either. Instead, the reporter implied evil collusion: “This looks like the head of a gold mine went to a new administrator and got him to reverse what an entire department had worked on for years.”
Here at least the report was accurate. Obama’s environmental department did try to kill that mine for years. They colluded with groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of America’s wealthiest environment groups.

The NRDC is mostly made up of anti-progress lawyers who want no mines built anywhere. Don’t believe me? I asked NRDC spokesman Bob Deans:

STOSSEL: There are some mines where NRDC says, great, go ahead?

DEANS: It’s not up to us.

STOSSEL: Are there any?
DEANS: It’s not up to us to green light mines…

STOSSEL: Are there any you don’t complain about?

DEANS: Yeah, sure.

So I asked him for some names. He and the NRDC still haven’t provided any.
If these zealots and their sycophants in the media get their way, America will become a place with no mining, no pipelines, no oil drilling, no new … anything.

The acronym used to make fun of anti-development attitudes used to be NIMBY — Not In My Back Yard. Now it’s BANANA: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody.

The EPA limits arsenic in tap water to 10 parts per billion. But levels of this metal may be up to 100 times higher in well water in some areas of the country. Even so, an arsenic level as high as 1,000 parts per billion may not be something to get upset about. Arsenic has actually been approved in high dilution as a safe homeopathic remedy in the U.S. for decades with no ill effects.
But if testing shows your well water contains dangerous levels of arsenic, you should take measures to decontaminate it via aeration or reverse osmosis.

Always on the side of science,

Marc S. Micozzi, M.D., Ph.D.
Insiders’ Cures

Sierra county Superior ‘Court Judge signed the stipulated agreement last week. Company is informed by its
Attorney that the issue is finished.

Michael,

Monthly payments? Monthly payments for what?

R,

Fred M. Cain

Remember discussing the water permitting process and the public meeting to be held? It will take place Thursday February 5, 2015 at 10:30am. The staff proposed a permit with significant reductions in testing, which relates to less costly a process. Water is a hot topic in California. Last January was the driest January recorded. San Francisco had zero rain. Sacramento had .01 of an inch. Alleghany did better but not by much.

California and all states must meet federal water standards. States may write more restrictive regulations up to a point. California is one of those states. You may remember that after a national review, five states rated a “F” for hostilities towards business via regulations. Only one state got an “F” minus. Yes, it was my home state, California. This is not something our governments should be proud of or gloat about. I believe that changes are occurring. The pendulum swung beyond reason and may be moving towards a healthier environment for our state. Working with the staff over the past two years is better than working with staff in 1998, 2003 and 2008, when the permits were reviewed. I remain argumentative about two areas that seem to be in conflict. We have fifteen minutes to make our Sixteen to One points to the Board.

Below is my response to a new mandatory requirement called an Infeasibility Analysis. It will be discussed on Thursday.

February 2, 2015
Gayleen Perreira
Senior Water Resources Control Engineer
NPDES Permitting
Sacramento Office

An infeasibility Analysis for Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. (Company) for underground water leaving an old adit named the 21 tunnel is speculative to evaluate as to complying with the revised limits for drinking water by the federal government. The Company spent much time and money with various suggested methods for public water districts, private water systems and home owner drinking water to reduce arsenic in drinking water. The results caused discoloration and the release of iron into the water. Site conditions contributed to these results. The discharge is remote, difficult to access in winter and inches above the intermittent Kanaka Creek during normal seasons.

With the assistance of the California Water Boards, the Company will continue to explore and test methods to reduce the level of natural arsenic to or below the federal level for drinking water. Here are four ways: (a) introduction of additional water for dilution; (b) pump water for irrigation; (c) identify abnormal isolated influx of arsenic and treat underground; (d) locate natural runoff underground at higher elevations and eliminated flow into Kanaka Creek.

It is believed that the water sources are directly the result of storm water seeping into fractures very close to the old tertiary gravel contact with bedrock. This area has been inaccessible for over eighty years. An exploratory expedition through old workings will be considered as a possibility to catch the water before it enters the 35 miles of underground levels. Perhaps an area of highly mineralized arsenopyrite will be found and can be isolated from surface water runoff, thereby eliminating native arsenic entering surface water.

The Company estimates that two years are required to explore the actual property in order to establish the best management practice for a reduction of arsenic. The Company will continue to explore the scientific or technological industries for a better solution than those known today. Considering the various paths to follow, it is reasonable to expect a significant process that will permanently bring the Company’s property in compliance within drinking water standards, if required, will occur before or in 2020.

Michael Meister Miller,
President

Please take note to read the entries under this topic back to 10/20/14 at 3:41PM.

Reply to Fred: Anyone can comment. The only questionable over limit element is arsenic. Your question about sorely needed water makes sense, common sense. Unfortunately California’s regulatory situation in 2014 is illogical, outdated. Years ago when the environment was under attack from growth, drastic changes were necessary. The California legislature and executive agency leaders are too preoccupied to bring necessary environmental revisions. The levels of arsenic threaten no animal life. The loss of an important industry (gold extraction) threatens Americans.

I just finished a phone conference with Central Water Quality staff regarding the tentative permit. They were very helpful. Now it is the American public’s turn to help. What happens in Alleghany pushes an unpopular agenda. Every shareholder has will be affected by these over-reaching state or federal requirements. I encourage your notification to others and taking the opportunity and time to move our country in a positive direction. It is our choice.

Here is what I learned about ‘designated parties’. Letters will be reviewed by an executive committee with a lawyer. The request must explain the basis for status as a designated party and in particular how the person is directly affected by the discharge. If you read this website and are not a shareholder, you can still qualify. There are always letters from environmental individuals and groups lobbying the water board to thrash productive people (ranchers, farmers, loggers, miners, manufacturers). I know of some who are pathetic souls. Objection in favor of the environment pumps a low ego. Facts and evidence don’t matter. It is not necessary for you to attend the meeting. Letters from all designated parties will go to board members in advance of the meeting. I hope there are hundreds. The water staff has a direct email address for designated party requests, which I will post as soon as I receive it.

I will present evidence to the Board that the presumed adverse effects of the ground water are overstated. It is important to point out that the property owner does not treat or impact the quality of the water flowing through its land. This is an unavoidable situation. We could be pear farmers growing in Alleghany. Would the pear farmer be required to obtain a water permit and conduct numerous water analyses? A logical response to water regulators is to ask, why doesn’t every parking lot land owner test the water runoff and pay a permit fee? Perhaps it is our business, mining. The existence of the Sixteen to One mine causes zero nuisance or harm to all beneficial users of water. The law regulating waters in America were passed to protect water, a vital element for life. I support responsible enforcement of governmental regulations. Anything you can do helps overcome ignorance from otherwise smart and informed people.

It sounds like the water regulators have a desk, but not enough useful work to justify their pay. Accordingly they unwittingly overreach and make trouble. To other bureaucrats this looks like they are actually working. This is a widespread problem in all levels of government.

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
11020 Sun Center Drive #200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
concerning

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS (WDR)
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT NO.CA0081809
For
ORIGINAL SIXTEEN TO ONE MINE, INC.
SIXTEEN TO ONE MINE SIERRA COUNTY

Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. (Discharger) is the owner and operator of the Sixteen to One Mine, located at 506 Miners Street, in Alleghany, California. The Sixteen to One Mine is an operating hard rock gold mine. Untreated mine drainage from the Sixteen to One Mine is discharged at Discharge Point 001 (at the 21 TunnelPortal) to Kanaka Creek, a water of the United States, tributary to the Middle Yuba, Yuba, Feather, and Sacramento Rivers. •The proposed Order contains new effluent limits for antimony, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, and nickel, and continues existing effluent limits for arsenic and other constituents to protect the beneficial uses of Kanaka Creek.

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) will consider issuing new Waste Discharge Requirements for the facility. •

A public hearing concerning this matter will be held during the Central Valley Water Board meeting scheduled for:

DATE: TIME: PLACE:

5/6 February 2015
8:30a.m.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Room
11020 Sun Center Drive, #200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

The designated parties for this hearing are as follows:

• Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. Representatives

Only designated parties will have these rights: to call and examine witnesses; to introduce exhibits; to cross-examine opposing witnesses; to impeach any witness; and to rebut the evidence against him or her. All other persons wishing to testify or provide comments are interested persons and not designated parties. Such interested persons may request status as a designated party for purposes of this hearing by submitting such request in writing to the Central Valley Water Board no later than 5:00 p..on 3 November 2014. The request must explain the basis for status as a designated party and in particular how the person is directly affected by the discharge.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ORIGINAL SIXTEEN TO ONE MINE, INC. SIXTEEN TO ONE MINE
SIERRA COUNTY

-2-

Persons wishing to comment on this noticed hearing item shall submit testimony, evidence, if any, and/or comments in writing to the Central Valley Water Board no later than 5:00 p.m. on
3 November 2014. Written evidence or comments submitted after 5:00 p.m. on
3 November 2014 will not be accepted and will not be incorporated into the administrative record absent a ruling by the Chair. Any party requesting to submit late materials must demonstrate good cause for the late submission, and the Chair must find that accepting the late submission will not prejudice the Central Valley Water Board or any Designated Party. ••

All designated parties and interested persons may speak at the Central Valley Water Board meeting, and are expected to orally summarize their written submittals. Oral testimony and cross examination will be limited in time by the Board Chair.

Anyone having questions regarding the hearing item should contact Elizabeth Thayer at (€)16) 464,4671 or beth.thayer@waterboards.ca.gov. Interested parties may download the tentative Order and related documents from the Central Valley Water Board’s Internet website at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/tentative_orders/. Copies of these documents can also be obtained by contacting or visiting the Central Valley Water Board’s office at 11020 Sun Center Drive, #200, Rancho Cordova, California 95670-6114 weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The final meeting agenda will be available at http://www.waterboards.ca.govfcentralvalleyfboard_infofmeetingsf at least 10 days before the meeting. The agenda will provide the specific date the Board Meeting will be held for this item, indicate the anticipated order of all agenda items, and may include staff revisions to the proposed order{s).

The procedures governing Central Valley Water Board meetings may be found at Title 23, California Code of Regulations, Section 647 et seq. imd are available upon request. Hearings before the CentralValley Water Board are not conducted pursuant to Government Code section 11500 et seq. The procedures may be obtained by accessing http:f/www.waterboards.ca.govflaws_regulationsf. Information on meeting and hearing procedures is also•available on the Central Valley Water Board’s website at http://www.waterboards.ca.govfcentralvalleyfboard_infofmeetingsfmtgprocd.shtml or by contacting any one of the Central Valley Water Board’s offices. Questions regarding such procedures should be directed to Ms. Kiran Lanfranchi-Rizzardi at (916) 4644839.

The hearing facilities will be accessible to persons with disabilities. Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact Ms. Kiran Lanfranchi-Rizzardi at (916) 464,4839 at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. TTY users may contact the California Relay Service at 1-800-735-2929 or voice line at 1-800-735-2922.

Please bring the above information to the attention of anyone you know who would be interested in this matter.

KENNETH D. LANDAU, Assistant Executive Officer

2 October 2014

Mike has a good point. Regulators are gonna regulate, it could be as simple as that.

Sacramento has become a bloated, fat, and out of control myriad of too many agencies, boards, commissions, working groups, departments, bureaus, and their ilk. There are a lot of middle manager types that have to strive to come up with new rules and regulations in order to justify their own department and/or job security. If they do not constantly come up with new nonsensical preposterous ideas they might get downsized or merged into another entity.

Why do they do this? BECAUSE THEY CAN. The only real power they have is their ability to say NO, and they use it as much as possible.

How to solve the issue? I have no idea – but it may help to find someone who is very familiar with the upper-level State procedures and process. This individual would understand the inner workings of State bureaucracy and how to work with it, and not necessarily against it.

Michael,

Good post. But my question is, what can we shareholders (or other interested parties) residing outside California do to help with this? Is there anything we can do?

Regards,
Fred M. Cain

Your theories have merit. Many informed or casually curious people are confused about the nature of the legal problem we face. Who is driving this corrupt legal claim for $2 million in damages to Californians? What groups maintain, advocate and see social progress by shutting down our resource industries?

The issue is not arsenic pollution and degradation to the environment of Kanaka Creek. Kanaka Creek is as healthy as most high Sierra Nevada Mountain water courses. Those polluted are due to human waste from too much poop or industrial toxic waste unnatural to the surroundings. So what are the issues driving our Sacramento government employees to sue Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. for $2,000,000?

I believe it was driven by angry or jealous or guilty or ignorant or malicious or arrogant individuals both working at the water agencies or not. Their actions are in the past and date back to 1993. But this is 2013, and the claims of legal misbehavior were filed in Sierra County Superior Court May of 2009.

My theory has merit. There is a serious problem in California’s execution of the law. I am sure that some individuals now employed in Sacramento realize that pursuing this claim for $2 million is not right, not good behavior or even beneficial to Californians. But they may suffer job relate economic consequences if expressing this view.

They should be saying, “Wow, something is wrong here. Yes, thirteen monthly reports were not filed, but this defendant should not have been required to perform those 1,400 tests per year. The reason for the initial requirement was due to the milling of ore, which produced a waste product. Once the mill ceased operation in 1998, the testing requirements should have been reduced to meet the actual circumstances at the mine site. Not only did my fellow water bureaucrats fail to adjust the testing in 1998, but they failed to adjust the requirement in the following two permit renewals (2003 and 2008). They fucked up and now I am asked to protect their errors.”

So the problem is: how can a poorly reasoned lawsuit be set aside if you work as a governmental public servant. For this result, I visited Governor Jerry Brown and met with one of his chief advisers. I also made myself available to the Chairman of the Water Board and staff. I do not suggest that all public servants realize the mistake and want to settle this aggression. I feel that those I spoke with sensed the inequity of the law, its definition and more, but nothing has changed!

Those angry or jealous or guilty or ignorant or malicious or arrogant individuals smell the blood of a wounded wolf. So I am asking you to find the mechanism to stop these predators and aid those who know this lawsuit is wrong. Will the wolf survive? Ask Los Lobos. Let’s address the causes and call them out. Let’s expose this inane behavior and allow them to say, “Well, a mistake was made. I for one want to correct it. Set aside this lawsuit right now.”

Michael,

I have my own idea and theory as to what is driving a lot of this stuff. First of all, I want to say that I agree with everything you posted on this but it’s just that I suspect there is something deeper cooking down below the surface.

It is simply this: Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council, both of which are very powerful in California, subscribe to a strong ideology that there should be *NO* mining or logging in the National Forests. Period. They want all extraction businesses terminated in the National Forests.

Therefore, I strongly suspect that this whole thing over arsenic in the waste water is nothing more than a guise or an excuse to close the mine. That is their objective in my opinion. Shut the Original Sixteen To One Mine down along with any other mines still operating in the National Forest.

This might also explain the fine over the lack of reports. It appears crazy on the surface but when you think of their deeper logic (end mining in the Forest) then it all begins to make sense, doesn’t it?

Would a class action lawsuit on our part make a difference? Beats me. I can’t answer that but I tend to be pessimistic about it. Part of the problem is that these environmental groups have a good chunk of popular public opinion on their side and they know it.

So, what to do? I think we need to get our word out and educate the public more and you have already done that quite a bit with some of your YouTube videos. Still, it would be nice if we could do more. I think there are some editors at the Wall Street Journal that might be interested in your story.

The sad and bitter ironic fact is that underground gold mining – especially the kind of traditional mining you’re doing with cars and tracks – is remarkably “environmentally friendly”. By pushing for their damned wind turbines, the environmental groups themselves are probably contributing to far greater environmental damage than the Original Sixteen To One could ever do. Yes, ironic indeed.

Regards,
Fred M. Cain

Thanks David for the suggestion. While numerous misguided enforcements of environmental situations occur, ours has single issues important to address. Joining an effort in progress, seems not the best way for the Sixteen to One to redirect the enforcement levied against us. My wish is: gain power for change with a cross section of groups and individuals, who realize that problems exist and have yet to get involved in solutions.

One single issue is the uncontestable fact that those responsible for issuing a permit failed to follow the law and its procedures for determining the level of testing required. The mine quit running the mill in 1998, but for three permit renewals the water staff did not take that into determining the number of tests it required. Another single issue is that the lawsuit’s bitch is for not filing 13 monthly reports. There has been zero harm to Kanaka Creek or the People of California, who are the Plaintiffs!

Ideas welcomed.

Most entries under this topic offer fact, thought and opinion about specific properties of water and its qualities. Water has become the buzz word for speculations. The time for reality dialog about naturally occurring minerals and elements is past due. Precious wealth of time and money continues to chase phantom claims propagated by difficult groups and individuals to define their motives. The obvious is for money but many are just plain ignorant people of the subject. It is troublesome because most of the people are intelligent. But, it must end. The arsenic levels in the water traveling through our property harms nothing. A much more logical agreement supports that it is healthy!

I write today after reading “Clips from Alleghany” on August 5 by fredmcain. I agree that one place to make a difference is to stop the aiding and abetting by California’s water/public servants who support water nonsense. The issues are grander than saving the Sixteen to One. There is an endangered species larger than our miners. It is all those in our domestic, natural resource industries and the ethics of extraction. America, you are getting screwed! Americans are paying more for the use of our natural necessities than necessary and the overcharges are going to nonproductive people. It is easy to broaden these observations, but I prefer to work on solutions. So, let’s go.

At the June Annual Shareholder Meeting I presented an idea that challenges the legality of a willful, negligent and non-legal filing for monetary damages exceeding $2 million. Those individuals who initiated this lawsuit were encouraged by nonprofit organizations or individuals who have no clue about the specific issues at the Sixteen to One; however, the employees, public servants, working under control of the Central Regional Water Quality Control Board cannot hide behind ignorance. Neither can the Board. Water is their job!

Here is how all Americans can affect change. It is called a class action suit. Following is information to consider:

As with so many other issues, California is on the cutting edge of the class-action boom. The Supreme Court, like its predecessors, has shown no hesitation in developing its own class-action jurisprudence incorporating principles of federal class action law in some cases and departing markedly from federal practice in other respects.
Statutory and common law foundations of California class action law: Federal rule of Civil Procedure 23
The primary statutory authority for class actions in California is Code of Civil Procedure 382. It provides that: “When the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous and it is impracticable to bring them all in before the court, one or more may sue or defend for the benefit of all.”
California Rules of Court, Rules 3760.3771 governs motion practice, class notice, the settlement approval process and discovery against class members, among other topics. In California, class certification requirements are found in the case law. Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court, 34 Cal. 4th 319, 326 (2004). The plaintiff must establish the existence of “an ascertainable class” and a “well defined community of interest among class members.”
Requirements: (1) Predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class. Id.
Plaintiffs are required to show that class treatment would “provide substantial benefits” to both the courts and the litigants.
Trial courts are permitted to look to federal class action law in the absence of a relevant state law precedent; Rule 23(b) has often been used as that guide.
Consumer class actions in California are governs by their own statute, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code 1781. The CLRA includes specific certification requirements… as well as detailed provisions about the method and content of the class notice.
There are several areas where California law differs from federal law. These differences suggest that California is a somewhat more hospitable forum for class actions than federal court.
1. Public Policy Favoring Class Actions – California law has “a public policy which encourages the use of the class actions device.” Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court, 34 Cal. 4th 319, 326 (2004). To effectuate that public policy, trial courts have “an obligation to consider the use of… innovation procedural tools proposed by a party to certify a manageable class” and are urged to be “procedurally innovative.” Id. At 339. Federal law carries no similar imprimatur for the class action.
2. No Dispositive Motions Prior to Class Certification.
3. No Merits Review As Part of Certification – California courts “view the question of certification as essentially a procedural one that does not ask whether an action is legally or factually meritorious.” Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., 23 Cal, 4th 429 (200)
4. Opt-In Procedure Prohibited
5. Interlocutory Appeals from Class Certification Orders
6. Depositions of Unnamed Class Members
7. Injunctive Relief Prior to Certification
8. Tolling of Individual Claims
9. Costs of Class Notice – Under California law, the court may direct either party to pay for the costs of the notice. Cal. Rule of Court 3.766(c). While a plaintiff ordinarily bears the cost and burden of providing notice, the court may shift the costs if the defendants conduct has complicated the identification and notice process. Hypertouch, Inc. v. Superior Court, 128 Cal. App. 4th 1527, 1553 (2005)
10. Availability of Attorney’s Fees – the California high court reaffirmed that a party may be entitled to attorney’s fees where the lawsuit has been a “catalyst in motivating the defendants to provide… the relief sought,” even if the prevailing party has not yet obtained any affirmative relief in litigation.
The availability of fees bases upon a “catalyst” theory is particularly important in injunctive relief class actions, such as environmental or governmental reform cases. California has also taken a different approach to the calculation of statutory attorneys’ fees based upon the lodestar method, permitting enhancements for risk, while the federal law prohibits the use of risk multipliers.

Questions for your thoughts and responses:
What are common or general interests to meet the standard of California Code of Civil Procedure #382 as defined above?
Who qualifies and how broad can qualification be considered to meet “the existence of an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest among class members?”
How will plaintiffs show that class treatment would “provide substantial benefits” to both the court and the litigants?
My initial look into the success of a class action lawsuit is positive. The above questions are open for your creative ideas. Send no money. Like the mining operation, we are exploring right now.
I am certain the loss of utilizing our country’s natural resources is a loss experienced by all Americans. Whether the activity is in Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Florida Arkansas or Missouri, all are losing quality of life and suffering economic losses due to the out of control abuses in the execution of environmental laws. I want to join a class action suit but cannot be its leader.
MMM
_____________________________________________________________________________

Rarely have I repeated submitted a document or message on our web site. I break this after listening to the debate between two men, one of which will be our president. Both seem to realize that the American society needs regulations. I agree. Both recognized the federal regulations have gone beyond value and actually stunt improving our country and its people. I agree. What the federal EPA does or not does must stop when the action, inaction or results are politically driven. Natural resource producers exist in the infantry trenches of EPA battles. While the Sixteen to One has no impact on federal commerce, it impacts our depressed rural environment. I will venture into speculation and say that a successful Sixteen to One will positively impact California in economic ways (without hurting non-human life).

Following is an article posted in this topic on December2, 2010. I have some additional information to add after you read the article.

Toxicologist Edward Calabrese finds that what does not kill you can make you stronger.
All things are poison and nothing is without poison. It is the dose that makes a thing a poison,” declared the wandering Renaissance physician-surgeon Paracelsus. University of Massachusetts toxicologist Edward Calabrese has a possible amendment to Paracelsus’ dictum: Low doses of poisons may be good for you.

Calabrese speculates that evolution has given our bodies and cells the ability to repair them. Low exposures to toxins stimulate these biological repair mechanisms and lead them to fix the damage caused by the toxin—and even to repair some of the normal background damage as well. In other words, exposure to low levels of toxins provides “a very modest overcompensation to a little damage.”. Hormesis is an effect where a toxic substance acts like a stimulant in small doses.

There is even a forthcoming study that shows that exposure to low levels of arsenic protects against cancer. Calabrese’s arguments are more than just a scientific curiosity. They have political relevance as well. Modern toxicology has generally assumed that there is no safe dose for carcinogens. The regulations based on this belief assume a linear dose/response relationship for toxins—that is, if a lot of something is bad for you, even a little bit is bad for you.

This faith in a linear dose/response relationship has been codified in various federal regulations such as those promulgated by the EPA. The result has been a relentless and costly effort to reduce our exposure to even the smallest quantities of allegedly toxic molecules in the hopes of reducing rates of cancer and birth defects.

“The real significance of the hormetic model in the conflict over threshold versus linear response models is of course that if hormesis could be unequivocally demonstrated as universal then it would establish a bona fide threshold for carcinogenic effects,” writes Calabrese in the journal Mutation Research. “This would immediately discredit the many uses of linearity models to estimate cancer risk.” In other words, it would mean that federal regulations are wasting lots of money trying to solve a non-existent problem—and even stifling possible positive effects.

Calabrese believes that is time for the EPA and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to commission the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and/or the Institute of Medicine to evaluate hormesis and its application to regulatory science. If the NAS agrees that hormesis is a universal effect, incorporating it into EPA and FDA standards would improve how cancer risk assessment is done and reduce the costs of regulation.

Who knows? Perhaps one day you’ll be popping an arsenic pill to ward off skin cancer. End article.

Late September of 2011, the Santa Cruz Sentinel published an article by Marilynn Marchione, Associated Press, titled in bold print: FDA disputed TV doc’s warning on apple juice risk. Dr. Mehmet Oz said “that trace amounts of arsenic in many apple juice products pose a health concern.” Dr. Richard Besser, a pediatrician and former acting head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scolded Oz on Thursday on ABC’s “Good Morning America” show for scaring consumers with what Besser called an “extremely irresponsible” report, like “yelling ‘FIRE!’ in a movie theater.”
“Organic arsenic is essentially harmless,” the FDA agency says, and it passes through the body quickly. The issue: arsenic is naturally present in water, air, food, and soil in organic and inorganic forms, according to the FDA. Inorganic arsenic is the type found in pesticides and consuming it at high levels or over a long period can cause concern. Kelp, a health store supplement, is high is arsenic.
“There is no evidence of any public health risk from drinking these juices. And FDA has been testing them for years.” An independent lab agreed with the FDA’s contention that the form of arsenic matters. End Sentinel article.

Californians are in a battle for scientific respect from many regulatory agencies. Air and water are the most prevalent policing agencies. I say police because they can write citations, levy penalties and establish tax schedules. And they have the power to allege criminal behavior as misdemeanors and felonies. They have done much to improve the quality of life in California. They have done much to harm the quality of life for Californians. Water agencies are doing much harm to Sixteen to One and an important Californian industry…gold mining. Californians should file a class action lawsuit against the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region and Does 1 through 50. It is not difficult to find applicable causes of action from its behavior. Legal relief is not merely a frivolous attempt to extort money from a hapless defendant.
Hormesis (dosage and duration/ cellular response) is a scientific theorem capable of rising from the ashes in popular recognition as did the Phoenix. Phi Alpha.

I have a cousin who for 18 years
was a district Court Judge in
Reno Nevada. After he retired he
was a visiting judge and there-
after a trial master for a while.
He played it square and did not
go back into private practice and
hence did not subject himself to
scrutiny on issues as we have
learned about the recent jurist
who is now an attorney for a
certain large water district.