Please help our hobby by contacting your state
senators and representatives and telling them of your opposition to AB-1032, which will
seriously curtail suction dredging in California!
The bill comes up for review on June 26th, 2007 and time is of the essence!
The
following letter was drafted by one of our fellow members, who is well versed in the
letter of the law, and outlines our feelings here at the Club!
Dear Senator
Steinberg:
The purpose of this letter is to oppose AB-1032 and to explain why this bill
is not in the long term best interests of California's aquatic
environment. I speak to this issue because I have been a life long
environmentalist and at times an activist (VP of Hastings Environmental Law
Society 1971 - 1973; 1st place winner of American Trial Lawyers Assn.
Environmental Essay Competition 1972; pro bono work for Kent and Claire
Dedrich 1971 -1975 to save San Bruno Mountain; expert historian work for
State of California [with Greg Taylor and Jay Shavelson]1973 -1974 in
Westbay tideland litigation involving 10,000 acres of SF Bay; San Gabriel
River Clean Up Volunteer 1999 - present, Battery recycling Coordinator for
PCSC 1999 - present; Board Member of LA Co. Community Youth Gang Services
1990 - 1994 involved in Operation Clean Sweep with Eddie Olmos after Rodney
King riots in 1992; Santa Monica Bay cleanup volunteer 1988 - 1998).
Not all proposed legislation that appears environmentally friendly at first
blush actually is. AB-1032, although well intended, falls in that category.
AB-1032 involves the consideration of bipartisan issues. The following are
reasons for rejecting it as being too extreme, too counterproductive and too
insensitive to the rights of a small, insular group:
1. LONG TERM PROBLEM FACING CALIFORNIA
A USGS 2005 publication estimated that somewhat more than 5,000 tons of
elemental mercury were dumped into California's waterways during the
early days of gold mining Mercury Contamination from Historical Gold
Mining in California, Nov. 2005, by Charles Alpers, Michael Hunerlach,
Jason May and Roger Hothem). The article points out that this elemental
mercury, after being subjected to a complex series of conditions, may be
converted into toxic methylmercury which, in turn, can find its way into the
food chain. Assuming the validity of the statements contained in this
article, it is clear that until substantial quantities of elemental mercury
are removed from California's rivers, then all future generations of
Californians will face an ever increasing degradation of its water and food
quality. This is so because elemental mercury is the source of all toxic
forms of mercury that biomagnify over time into the food chain.
2. WHAT IS BEING DONE ABOUT THE PROBLEM?
The California EPA Water Board conducted a public hearing workshop on June
12, 2007 in Sacramento. I was present and learned from the testimony of
several speakers that operators of small scale suction dredges each year
remove environmentally significant quantities of elemental mercury and of
mercury contaminated gold and other heavy metals. I was distressed to learn
that these individuals were forced to store these harmful substances on
their private premises BECAUSE UNLIKE OREGON AND WASHINGTON, CALIFORNIA HAS
NO PUBLICIZED DESIGNATED SITES FOR THE RECYCLING OF TOXIC MERCURY! I also
learned that the state agencies of California do not remove a single gram of
elemental mercury from California's river systems! The irony of this
situation would be laughable if not so terribly sad. AB-1032 does not
assist in solving this problem because instead of helping the environment by
promoting the only known efforts that actually result in a reduction of the
ultimate problem, AB-1032
creates new barriers that will prevent or delay the cleanup from
proceeding.
3. AB-1032 IS CONTRARY TO FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES
Both the federal and state constitutions guarantee individuals the right to
pursue life, liberty and happiness. Until the government establishes that
an activity is harmful, citizens are entitled to pursue their livelihoods
and interests. AB-1032 stands this principle on its head because it creates
a presumption that suction dredging is harmful (in the face of prior
scientific studies and conclusions to the contrary) and imposes upon a state
entity the duty to prove a negative -- that suction dredging is not harmful.
If enacted into law, many of the little people in California, the
artisans and such who make jewelry from natural nuggets, will be cut off
from an historic source of these nuggets.
4. DREDGING GOLD NUGGETS IS ONE OF THE FEW EXISTING ORGANICALLY SOUND
MINING STRATEGIES
The gold rings that many of us wear on our fingers are precious to us. Most
Californians would not want to swap them for rings made of plastic or wood.
The same can be said of gold jewelry mementos. There is nothing inherently
evil about personal use gold objects. Many people are particularly fond of
natural gold jewelry and California is one of the leading producers of this
type of jewelry. But where is the gold to come from? The fact is that
dredging for natural gold nuggets, compared to other mining methods, is
among the most benign to the environment. The cyanide heap leach methods
associated with open pit or hardrock mines produce toxic waste products that
ultimately find their way into the water supply. The smelting of gold
bearing tellurides, selenides and sulfides produces highly toxic waste
products that go off as gases into the atmosphere and then enter the river
systems via natural precipitation. Suction dredging does none of that.
Would it not be somewhat
hypocritical to continue to possess gold rings or other jewelry while
decrying the efforts of a handful of artisans or collectors who obtain
natural gold nuggets from the rivers?
5. THE AMOUNT OF TURBIDITY CAUSED BY SUCTION DREDGES IS MINUSCULE AND IS
DWARFED BY OTHER COMMON CAUSES
Even a fly fisherman causes some turbidity in the water. So do river
rafters and bathers. The environmental question is how to measure, and thus
determine, whether any particular turbidity output significantly reduces
water quality. There are two astronomically huge causes of turbidity, one
natural and one non-natural: natural precipitation and non-natural large
scale water releases from reservoirs. Natural rain storms result in three
causes of sedimentation and the stirring of sedimentation: (1) run-off that
imports silt and contaminants (including cattle feces, hormones, antibiotics
and toxic chemicals) from surrounding areas into the river itself, (2) an
increase in river volume (pressure) and (3) an increase in river velocity
which, at times of peak rainfall, causes the entire contents of rivers --
huge boulders and all else -- to move and bounce along the bedrock of the
river and which turn the river brown its entire length for weeks at a time.
Reservoir releases occur
during the hot summer months in some rivers to stimulate upstream salmon
migration. These releases are measured in thousands of acre feet. They
churn up a sediment plume over a hundred miles long for many days in a row.
They both increase river volume and river velocity. Suction dredges do not
import any silt into the river because their small engines only are capable
of taking up a few yards of gravel per hour and this same gravel (less the
heavy metals) is returned back into the same river from which it came. They
are incapable of adding volume to the river. Nor can they cause an increase
in river velocity. They do create a minor turbidity plume that is quite
localized and transitory. There is not one non-speculative study that
demonstrates an adverse effect on river water quality caused by suction
dredges. In the face of this evidence, should the California Legislature
create a presumption that dredging is such a threat that no dredging can be
allowed unless the Fish &
Game Commission first conducts studies that must prove no adverse effect?
This would be the very same Commission that authorized the mass poisoning of
several California streams and lakes. This appears to be a very narrow
minded and not a bipartisan approach at all.
6. THE FISH THEMSELVES PREFER FRESHLY DREDGED, CLEAN GRAVELS FOR NESTING
Anyone who has taken the time to observe nesting salmon could not help but
notice that the salmon literally fight each other for the privilege of
creating a their nest on recently dredged gravel bars. Why is this so? Can
it be that the fish have survival instincts that tell them their eggs will
have a better chance at survival if laid in well oxygenated gravels as
opposed to silty places that harbor funguses and bacteria? Fish can't
talk, but their body language speaks volumes about how suction dredges
benefit, rather than threaten, endangered as well as other aquatic species.
7. OTHER BENEFITS RESULT TO FISH AND AMPHIBIANS FROM SUCTION DREDGING
Aside from the long term benefits of mercury and toxic metal removal to
aquatic life, there are other notable spin-offs from suction dredging. One
is the creation of deep, cool pools that constitute a summer weather refuge
for fish, reptiles and amphibians. It is well documented that heat kills
aquatic life. Another benefit is aeration of the water during hot periods
when the water is less capable of holding dissolved oxygen.
8. COMPARED TO OTHER COMMON ACTIVITIES, SUCTION DREDGING HAS MUCH LESS
IMPACT ON THE WELL BEING OF ENDANGERED AMPHIBIANS AND FISH
Amphibians lay long strings of eggs at the edges of rivers and streams many
feet -- even yards -- long. A suction dredger only utilizes a very small
portion of the bank to access the dredge area out in the river or stream.
Fly fishermen, on the other hand, wade through mile upon mile of river,
stream and creek. In the process they are much more likely to disturb and
rip free these long strings of amphibian eggs than suction dredge operators.
Additionally, the object of fishing is to catch fish. Thus, the end result
of fishing either is the death, the injury or the disturbance of fish. The
Department of Fish and Game itself has deliberately killed by poisoning
virtually every species of fish, reptiles and amphibians in several
California waterways. Dredging does none of these things. Dredging is not
now permitted during salmon spawning seasons. AB-1032 has no basis in fact
for being enacted into law.
9. CONCLUSION
The California Senate should reject AB-1032. Additionally, the California
Legislature should demonstrate leadership by enacting new laws that create
an organizational structure and easily accessible means for the recycling of
elemental mercury and similar toxic metals. Other laws are needed to
encourage and protect small scale suction dredge operators in the removal of
toxic wastes from California\'d5s rivers. Best of all, the State of
California itself should get involved in cleaning up the river systems.
This is not a function that should only be pursued as a matter of private
discretion, but should be a comprehensive program that is overseen by the
state itself.
Thank you for taking the time to consider all the points raised in this
letter. I am copying other members of the Senate Natural Resources and
Water Committee of which you are the chair and would like an opportunity to
speak in opposition to AB-1032 at the upcoming public hearing June 26th in
Sacramento, if at all possible.
Sincerely yours,
Martin H. Milas
|