Opposition to the scheme that is SB637 in CA

1020 N Street, Suite 160

Sacramento, CA 95814

P.O. Box 94249

Sacramento, CA 94249-00119

Office: 916-319-2096

Fax: 916-319-2196

Committee Member List:

Committee Members	District	Office & Contact Information
Marc Levine (Chair)	Dem – 10	Contact Assembly Member Marc Levine Capitol Office P.O. Box 942849, Room 2141, Sacramento, CA 94249-0010; (916) 319-2010
Frank Bigelow (Vice Chair)	Rep – 05	Contact Assembly Member Frank Bigelow Capitol Office P.O. Box 942849, Room 6027, Sacramento, CA 94249-0005; (916) 319-2005
Matthew Dababneh	Dem – 45	Contact Assembly Member Matthew Dababneh Capitol Office P.O. Box 942849, Room 4112, Sacramento, CA 94249-0045; (916) 319-2045
Brian Dahle	Rep – 01	Contact Assembly Member Brian Dahle Capitol Office P.O. Box 942849, Room 2158, Sacramento, CA 94249-0001; (916) 319-2001
Bill Dodd	Dem – 04	Contact Assembly Member Bill Dodd Capitol Office P.O. Box 942849, Room 2137, Sacramento, CA 94249-0004; (916) 319-2004
Beth Gaines	Rep – 06	Contact Assembly Member Beth Gaines Capitol Office P.O. Box 942849, Room 2130, Sacramento, CA 94249-0006; (916) 319-2006
Cristina Garcia	Dem – 58	Contact Assembly Member Cristina Garcia Capitol Office P.O. Box 942849, Room 2013, Sacramento, CA 94249-0058; (916) 319-2058
Jimmy Gomez	Dem – 51	Contact Assembly Member Jimmy Gomez Capitol Office P.O. Box 942849, Room 2114, Sacramento, CA 94249-0051; (916) 319-2051
Matthew Harper	Rep – 74	Contact Assembly Member Matthew Harper Capitol Office P.O. Box 942849, Room 2002, Sacramento, CA 94249-0074; (916) 319-2074
Patty López	Dem – 39	Contact Assembly Member Patty López Capitol Office P.O. Box 942849, Room 5160, Sacramento, CA 94249-0039; (916) 319-2039
Devon J. Mathis	Rep – 26	Contact Assembly Member Devon J. Mathis Capitol Office P.O. Box 942849, Room 5126, Sacramento, CA 94249-0026; (916) 319-2026
Jose Medina	Dem – 61	Contact Assembly Member Jose Medina Capitol Office P.O. Box 942849, Room 5135, Sacramento, CA 94249-0061; (916) 319-2061
Anthony Rendon	Dem – 63	Contact Assembly Member Anthony Rendon Capitol Office P.O. Box 942849, Room 5136, Sacramento, CA 94249-0063; (916) 319-2063
Rudy Salas, Jr.	Dem – 32	Contact Assembly Member Rudy Salas, Jr. Capitol Office P.O. Box 942849, Room 2188, Sacramento, CA 94249-0032; (916) 319-2032
Das Williams	Dem – 37	Contact Assembly Member Das Williams Capitol Office P.O. Box 942849, Room 4005, Sacramento, CA 94249-0037; (916) 319-2037

Here is AMRA’s letter in opposition to SB637:

To: Assembly member Marc Levine June 30, 2015
Chair, Water, Parks and Wildlife
Capitol Office
P.O. Box 942849, Room 2141, Sacramento, CA 94249-0010

Dear Representative Levine,
AMRA is submitting this letter on behalf of the thousands of members and supporters of American Mining Rights Association, a non-profit advocacy association in California which focuses on the small mining community in the United States, and more specifically for this bill, California.
AMRA and its supporters strongly oppose SB637 for the following reasons:
MERCURY
1) Suction dredging removes 98% of the elemental mercury from CA waterways during a dredging operation. (see: Rick Humphreys, Division of Water Quality, California Water Boards, 2005)
2) Many areas in which suction dredging takes place has no mercury whatsoever.
3) There is not one documented case of anyone in the State of California ever being sickened by eating any fish contaminated with mercury in any California stream or river.
4) Mercury toxicity cases have not been prevalent in the Sierra Nevada, even where mercury levels are known to be high — this may be due to mitigating interactions between mercury, lead, arsenic, and other chemicals. (See July 17th, 1981 University of Wisconsin Departments of Poultry Science and Nutritional Sciences study publication: Dietary Interaction Between Methylmercury, Selenium, Arsenic, and Sulfur Amino Acids in Japanese Quail)
5) Supporters of this bill claim that suction dredging methylate’s mercury. This is factually untrue. Suction dredging has been proven, time and again by numerous and exhaustive studies from accredited agencies and organizations, many times using tax payer funds, to remove 98% of the mercury in the California waterways. Methylmercury is not created by the process of suction dredging.
6) Mercury, in the context of mining, may be exempt from classification hazardous waste:
a. 40 CFR §261.4(b)(3) Mining Overburden
b. 40 CFR §261.4(b)(7) Mining and Mineral Processing Wastes (Bevill)
7) Mercury, itself is a valuable mineral subject to location, thus recovering it is by definition mining, and the product is clearly not waste unless it is disposed of improperly.
It is absolutely clear that removing 98% of a potential toxin from a waterway is a benefit to the environment.
FISHERIES AND TRASH REMOVAL
1) Each and every year in which suction dredging has taken place in California waterways has resulted in the “cleaning” of the rivers and streams through the dredging process. Suction dredging removes nearly 100% of the lead lost during fishing and hunting activities. In one day alone (as presented during previous testimony before the EQ Committee) one suction dredger removed 1,200 lbs of lead in one day (Alan Trees).
2) Suction dredgers also remove many other heavy metals in the California waterways such as iron, steel, discarded batteries and other harmful environmental discarded items.
3) Fish habitat is improved by suction dredging. Concretized gravels are loosened by the process of dredging creating excellent spawning grounds which would not be created by Mother Nature. Suction dredging creates “hiding spots” for many aquatic species including fish and provide deeper waters which result in colder and more favorable habitat.
4) Many of us in the small mining community recall the USFS contacting our mining clubs after a large forest fire and asking the miners to “come and dredge to bring the fish back”.
5) The major majority of mining claims which have experienced suction dredging do not contain any anadramous fish (salmon and steelhead). California dams have blocked most of the old spawning grounds of these species.
6) Suction dredging is not, and has not been allowed during any spawning seasons of anadramous fish.
These facts also make it abundantly clear that suction dredging cleans California waterways and create and promote the California fisheries.
DISCHARGE
1) Clean Water Act, Section 502 General Definitions: (12) The term “discharge of a pollutant” and the term “discharge of pollutants” each means (A) any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, (b) any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft.
2) Without an addition, there is no discharge, and thus no basis for NPDES permit or WDR.
3) Material excavated and allowed to return to substantially the same location in literally a matter of seconds is properly defined as “incidental fallback”, which is explicitly exempt from the CWA definition of “Discharge of Dredged Material” (See Clark Pearson’s Incidental Fallback Fact sheet, Pg. 15 of the EQ Binder, and the EPA Tulluch Conforming Decision Q&A).
IMPACTS TO CALIFORNIA’S ECONOMY
1) According to the statistics provided by ICMJ’s Prospecting and Mining Journal, November, 2006, a total of 3,523 suction dredge permit holders spent approximately $8,967 on expenses including groceries, restaurants, camp fees and other living expenses in 2008, for a total of $31,590,741.
2) A total of 3,523 suction dredge permit holders spent approximately $4,304 on gas, oil, equipment maintenance and repairs in 2008, for a total of $15,162,992.
3) A total of 3,523 suction dredge permit holders spend approximately $8,608 on a suction dredge and related equipment every four years for a total of $7,581,496 per year.
4) Six out of 58 California counties collected $1,701,088 in property taxes.
5) The State of California collected $219,213 in dredge permit fees.
6) The known expenditures by suction dredge permit holders in 2008 amounted to approximately $56,255,530.
Rural communities in California have relied on this revenue to sustain their businesses. These same business owners are hurting, and many have had to close their doors as a result of the schemes created to further the attack on suction dredging. Many of these owners are having to alter their plans for their families, their children’s college aspirations and are devastated by this on-going and unnecessary attempt to further the economic destruction of the rural communities.
BETTER OPTIONS
1) Fund studies to help determine best practices for mercury remediation in the process of dredging.
2) Craft legislation which would encourage the removal of mercury from waterways by small-scale operators, including a system for separation from gold and subsequent collection of mercury.
3) Establish volunteer program for miners to assist with remediation and habitat restoration projects, both in and out of the rivers.
4) Investigate use of appropriate techniques and technology to effectively suppress methyl-mercury formation and remove mercury contamination from the environment where possible.
In conclusion, SB637 is a bad bill for California, the rural communities, the poor and those responsible stewards of our public lands, the small miner of California. We strongly urge you, and all members of this committee to vote no on this destructive bill.

Sincerely,

Mr. Shannon Poe
President, AMRA
American Mining Rights Association
PBM #607, 6386 Greeley Hill Rd.
Coulterville CA 95311