(Forum post dated 08 May, 2006)

Hello everyone,

Here follows an update even since I wrote the
May newsletter  a few days ago:

The judge's Order  granting Intervention status to miners in the litigation concerning our California dredging regulations was made final on 9 February. This has allowed us to participate in the ongoing litigation. We have created a special page on our web site that includes explanations and the most important documents concerning this case.

We have also submitted a motion for the judge to reject the Stipulation which has been submitted to the Court by DFG and the Karuks to end the litigation. This Stipulation agrees to an injunction preventing DFG from issuing suction dredge permits for the Main Stem of the Salmon River, Elk Creek, Indian Creek and other waterways. The injunction also reduces the dredging season along the Klamath and Scott Rivers to 1 July through 15 September. These are substantial changes to our suction dredge regulations. DFG began implementing them in November of 2005 without so much as a single notice to the mining community or the many other people that will be adversely affected.

The judge's most recent Order has requested supplemental briefing from all the Parties concerning how a very recent appellate decision (Trancas Property Owners Association v. City of Malibu) affects our case. In the Trancas Decision, the appellate court made several important findings that were relevant to our case. For example, the court said, “. . . whatever else it may permit, the exemption cannot be construed to empower a city council to take or agree to take, as part of a non-publicly ratified litigation settlement, action that by substantive law may not be taken without a public hearing and an opportunity for the public to be heard. As a matter of legislative intention and policy, a statute that is part of a law intended to assure public decision-making, except in narrow circumstances, may not be read to authorize circumvention and indeed violation of other laws requiring that decisions be preceded by public hearings, simply because the means and object of the violation are settlement of a lawsuit.” Trancas, 41 Cal. Rptr.3d at 210. While this had to do with a city council bypassing the required public participation under the Brown Act, the very same legal theory concerning the public process requirement also applies to State agencies that are in the process of changing industry regulations.

In the present litigation, DFG’s position is that they can skirt around the provisions of the California Environmental Policy Act (CEQA) by making a court settlement, even though they are arguing in court that they have already been affording adequate protections to fish without making a settlement agreement with the Karuks.

CEQA was implemented to prevent arbitrary and capricious actions from State officials, while providing reasonable protections for the environment.

All parties have already submitted supplemental briefing to the Court. You can find ours on the special web page that I mentioned above. You can also find the Karuk and DFG supplemental briefs there. We have since replied to their supplemental briefs.

Both DFG and the Karuks are still trying to argue that a State agency has the authority to bypass its obligation to include the public by making a private settlement agreement with an anti-industry group that is suing them. Interestingly, the Karuk’s were initially suing DFG for not following the CEQA process. That has evolved into an Agreement between themselves to definitely not follow the CEQA process! We do not see how the judge could go along with this, but we will all have to wait and see what she decides.

The judge could now issue a decision any day. Stay tuned. We will let you know the result as soon as we have it!

All the best,
Dave Mack