August 9, 2022 

Water and Arsenic: which came first?


Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 ]

 By Michael Miller

10/22/2014  12:45PM

from the water boards: submit comments on the Tentative NPDES Permit of Public Hearing for Sixteen to One Mine to
 By Michael Miller

10/21/2014  12:40PM

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 Unfortunately California’s regulatory situation in 2014 is illogical, outdated.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.
 By fredmcain

10/21/2014  9:29AM


I have a couple of questions about this.

First of all, if we do not live in California, how can we help? I would want to do what I can anyways.

The second question I have is what kind of contaminants, if any, are in the water in the deepest part of the mine?

I keep hearing and reading about this devastating drought and water shortages in the state. Then something occurred to me. With water in short supply, wouldn’t this be a good time to “dewater” the mine down to the 3,200-foot level? Maybe that water could be sorely needed downstream as long as there are no contaminants in it. Unfortunately, I am not a hydrologist so maybe I’m way off base here.

What do you think?

Fred M. Cain
 By WK

10/20/2014  6:40PM

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.
 By Michael Miller

10/20/2014  3:41PM

HELP HELP HELP HELP …If you can find the time.

The Notice of Public Hearing below has significant meaning for the Sixteen to One mine and all the gold mines in the Western United States. Before any gold mining occurred, the earth formed mineral rich deposits. An associate element to gold is arsenic. Arsenic is broadly distributed and has positive effects on life. It is also a killer in heavy concentrations. Few of these are in inorganic mineral-rich lands. While I have done a great deal of research and held numerous discussions with California’s water staff about the regulations impacting our important industry, their adjustment in attitudes remains marginal, when it comes to a permit for operating. YOU CAN HELP!

Read the notice below and take special interest in the paragraph below “The designated parties for this hearing are as follows:”. Please apply to become a designated party. Many businesses are closing or driven from California. The world knows California has the most egregious unfriendly arbitrary, unnecessary, unreasonable and at times unlawful regulations in the United States.

The major work of preparing a permit falls on the shoulders of the water staff. The heavy players in perpetuating the injustices that have occurred to the sixteen to One mine and many others both in the mining business and non-mining businesses is well documented. The heavy hand of what…Fear? Cowards? Bully? Greed? Stupidity? Jealousy? Ignorance? Disinterest? Laziness? Rests with the politicians and their appointed Boards. The decision regarding the classification of ground water passing through our property will be given to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region in February. The PUBLIC must send notice of participation by November 3, 2014 no later than 5pm in writing.

Instruction are in the Public Notice following this entry. I offer suggestions but recommend you read this topic for background of the issues. People unfamiliar with the Sixteen to One should have an interest in just what is taking place in California. It might be taking place in your state as well. I’m not saying that the regulators are evil, bad or any of the fear, greed etc. cited above. Maybe it is apathy or a lack of motivation to change and correct misguided behavior. You can contact me as well. I will be writing more this week on ideas. MMM
 By Michael Miller

10/20/2014  2:54PM

11020 Sun Center Drive #200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670



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:


5/6 February 2015
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.



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 Interested parties may download the tentative Order and related documents from the Central Valley Water Board's Internet website at 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 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/ Information on meeting and hearing procedures is also•available on the Central Valley Water Board's website at 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
 By bluejay

08/17/2013  1:12PM


Excellent presentation, I couldn't agree with you more.

The world's best learning and projecting computer run by Martin Armstrong stated on April of this year, 2013, the backs of the entrenched politicians has been broken. The transition to, hopefully, much better ones will be back dropped with much screaming and yelling from them as they reach out and attack the people during this period of their demise.

During the period the excessive amount of government employees will significantly be sized down and my guess is the revenue collecting ones will go last which could be
the regulators. Government has imploded itself at its own hands as they regularly do. These guys don't have hardly anything under control, mostly everything is out-of-control and they won't tell you but know it if they are smart. Some of them actually believe their own BS which makes them dangerous to us.

Get ready because "Squeeze The People" will be their mantra until they get kicked out of office.
 By cw3343

08/16/2013  9:43PM

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.
 By fredmcain

08/13/2013  1:55PM


I still tend to think that there might indeed be some pro-business editors at the Wall Street Journal who might be interested in your story. I have subscribed to the WSJ for years and have often seen things like this published.

Just recently they had an article on the California water crisis. The farmers aren't getting enough irrigation water because some kind of turbines in the dams are threatening some kind of small fish on the endangered species list.

I really and truly believe you have a great story that illustrates how our system has run amok.

Fred M. Cain
 By Michael Miller

08/13/2013  11:30AM

Yes, there are paths to take to rid not only the Sixteen from unwarranted duress but enlighten our much needed public agencies to view the surroundings they regulate in a 21st century manner. Unfortunately, I cannot identify the most effective path to dispose of the problem.

My answer to your question is for all those aware of the issues is:THINK HARD INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE BOX.
 By fredmcain

08/13/2013  10:45AM


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?

Fred M. Cain
 By Michael Miller

08/12/2013  12:34PM

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.”
 By LostSierra

08/10/2013  2:44PM

The use of a Sono filter will take all the arsenic out. They are cheap to build. See the net for info on them. Used in Bangladesh to remove arsenic from domestic water.
 By Big Al

08/09/2013  5:28PM

Matt Emrick, Mining Lawyer in Roseville
 By fredmcain

08/09/2013  9:15AM


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.

Fred M. Cain
 By Michael Miller

08/08/2013  10:35AM

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.
 By David I

08/06/2013  10:16PM

Hello Mike,I recommend P.L.P., an you may want to get a hold of Dave Mc Cracken of the new 49ers. He has a good attorney group out of Portland, Oregon fighting the Fish and Wildlife Department over new dredge prohibition regulations. You might look up the Pebble Project in Alaska. They are fighting the E.P.A. over water.
Also Congress is investigating the E.P.A. for settling cases out of court from law suits filed by Environmental groups, with out judicial review. Causing the environmental laws to be more restrictive.
 By Michael Miller

08/06/2013  5:56PM

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.
 By Michael Miller

10/18/2012  2:10PM

Only a small number of the public have been exposed to elemental science as it relates to arsenic, mercury and the earth’s mineral composition. Most only read or hear about toxicity of arsenic and mercury. America’s tax revenue (in short supply) is regularly consumed from fear mongering. The public should be outraged by a gross infringement of morality or decency from the academic, journalistic, political and business predators that grovel in self-serving deceit about these natural elements. For years both found a medical usefulness. Maybe their use was over dosed (read in this subject about HORMESIS dosage and duration). What seems to be lacking throughout our 21st century society is common sense.

Today we posted an article in the NEWS section of this site written by Bob Shoemaker, who lives in our area. Science has disciplines or it would not be called science. Bob is in his 80’s and a person with the background, training and experience to teach us some real stuff about arsenic. I encourage you to click into the NEWS and read about arsenic.
 By martin newkom

10/04/2012  2:56PM

When my grandfather and his
brother operated the Eldorado
Mine according to the family
they used Silver Nitrate on the
separating tables to separate
the gold from the gravel. I guess
nodays that is a sure no-no.

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 ]


© 2022 Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc.
PO Box 909
Alleghany, California 95910

(530) 287-3223      
(530) 287-3455

      Gold Sales:  

(530) 287-3540

Design & development by
L. Kenez