November 20, 2017 
 Monday 
 
 

Forum
Topic:
Water and Arsenic: which came first?

       

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

 By bluejay

10/08/2011  10:55AM

The Original Sixteen To One Mine has for years been subjected to discrimination by Water Board officials. Who will address that crime?

The bogus regulations that the AG states that have been violated by the Company were never amended when the mill was closed. This is a fact that just will not go away.

The 30 day nonsense holds no water.

It would appear that the Mine is being sued, not for legitimate reasons, but for other possible ulterior motives and, or, an issue only of who and why at the Board didn't dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" in their rule book when the mill was closed.

I have full confidence that an honorable judge will clearly see what is exactly taking here by a corrupt accusing Water Board that is either acting as a rogue entity of injustice or is being used as a tool for stealing by someone behind the curtain.

The U.S. government has had a city below the Denver Airport built for their prominent members in case of a massive impending danger. My question is if mankind is threatened, where will the Sacramento politicians run for cover? Who've got it. Also, it doesn't hurt having a landing strip near-by.
 By Michael Miller

10/07/2011  1:08PM

Hark, hark. Don Russell’s Mountain Messenger article is posted under NEWS on the FORUM. Don was in attendance at the September 23, 2011 hearing. Like most familiar with the facts of the Water agency claim for $2.14 million, he has an opinion. Like Don, his opinions are on the front page of the newspaper.
 By bluejay

09/27/2011  4:17PM

During the time that the reports weren't filed with one State agency, another one had hired a lynch mob to attack us which cost us valuable time and resources in defending ourselves. Forget about mining and the shareholders, we've been selected by the tyrants to pay the salaries of the Water board and to balance the State's seriously out-of-control budget implosion.

No wonder the vast majority of mining companies have no interest in setting up shop in California. For the few that persist like Emgold, Sutter Gold, New Gold and ourselves, I can only wish you well.

Hopefully, the bureaucrats in Sacramento come to their senses in supporting a responsible mining industry instead of stealing their assets and preventing them from attending to their industry work.

I am beside myself why my State representatives choose to ignore my concerns of suspected heavy handed-ness by the Central Water Board. Who is running my State?

It certainly is not the residents who ask for explanations when they suspect some person or political entity is out to destroy their investment.
 By Michael Miller

09/26/2011  6:06PM

I remain confident that the water agency’s motion for summary judgment will not pass the scrutiny of the Court. I expect the ruling to be: Motion Denied.

Cautious and concerned, yes we remain until the decision is filed (the Court has 90 days to make a decision). When presented with an up front question of outcome, spectators in the courtroom said it was obvious that the Water agency loses. A defense and arguments remain; therefore, the Sixteen must have its day to challenge the facts alleged by plaintiff’s $2,145,000 claim of damages to California’s public for not filing 13 reports.

Thanks to all of you who offered your prayers and well wishes. Those voices of support make a difference in our attempt to stop a monstrous injustice.

I apologize for the delay in reporting the results. Our Internet went out Saturday. I was unable to let you know until late today. Tomorrow I’ll dig deeper into this lawsuit and tell you about the most unbelievable position that the Water Board says it has the “policy “ to not do. Friends, the public is in serious danger!
 By cw3343

09/26/2011  2:51PM

What happened on Friday? I am hoping for some good news...
 By REAP

09/24/2011  8:40PM

How did it go? I've been rooting for you!
 By martin newkom

09/23/2011  3:41PM

I think the judge will turn this
Summary Judgement aside. The State
premise is absolutely prepostrous.
 By smithsgold

09/23/2011  1:39PM

Best of Luck today !!!!
 By Rick

09/22/2011  6:59PM

Mag...

Whether or not filters are effective, cheap or or otherwise, to answer your question regarding "constant":

Arsenic levels are ambient upstream and downstream of the Original Sixteen to One Mine due to the natural deposition of arsenopyrite. It is NOT the business of the to remediate a naturally occuring elemental.

IT IS THE BUSINESS of the Original Sixteen to One Mine to fight the spurious allegation that the mine is resposible for such.

Perhaps your suggestion should be deployed a few miles above the Kanaka Creek site. AND, perhaps you should recognize that this private sector business isn't responsible for ambient arsenic levels which have existed there long before man settled there.

YOU SHOULD INSTEAD question why the Water Board thugs are trying to exterminate a private sector entity by Chicago style political motives.
 By Magnum44

09/21/2011  3:30PM

Sorry, but what do you mean by constant? The arsenical sulphides are naturally occurring. Large sono filters would take out the suspended arsenic making a very clean creek. They are passive and use no power. The filter uses gravel, wood and fine ground iron sand. Something like black sand only much finer. Cheap and very effective.
 By martin newkom

09/21/2011  12:09PM

Isn't there some kind of statute
of limitations on the issue?
We will pray!!!
 By Michael Miller

09/21/2011  10:51AM

PLEASE THINK ABOUT COMING TO COURT

Friday, September 23, 2011 at 1:30pm the Superior Court will hear a motion by the California water agency and Attorney General for a Summary Judgment.

Between April 1, 2006 and April1, 2007, the mine failed to file 13 water monitoring reports. The agency wants $2,145,000 damages and says there are no facts to dispute its claim. If granted the mine will not have had both an administrating hearing or a hearing in a courtroom.

If you are in the area, think about coming to support the mine.
Sincerely, Mike Miller and the crew
 By Rick

04/15/2011  5:51PM

Magnum, perhaps a good start, except:

Arsenic is as arsenopyrite naturally occuring within the geo-structure on the divide, above the Mine as well as below, and to remediate a recurring natural mineral would be contrary to the constant.
 By Magnum44

04/15/2011  9:01AM

Some time back I discovered an arsenic filter on the net called a sono filter. Cheap to make and build. No cost to use. What are needed are industrial/mine size sono filters. It is patented and in widespread use in Bangladesh for making clean/safe water. Based on iron and arsenic's terrific fondness for each other. They bond like mercury and gold. Looked promising. Something to check out and ponder.
 By bluejay

04/05/2011  6:14PM

I just gave Noreen Evans in the Senate from the 2nd District a piece of my mind following a news letter from her reminding the District's voters of all the great things she's doing for us.

I reminded her that she or her staff failed to acknowlege my concerns some months back of the rogue actions that the Water Boards were taking aginst our shareholders.

I suspect I'll never hear from her again. What a waste of time!
 By Michael Miller

04/02/2011  5:01PM

Sierra County refused to pay our invoice for the immediate mandatory reduction in a known toxic discharge-taking place on the Sixteen to One mining claim named Happy Jack. Sierra County said that California’s Water Board refused to pay for remedial work due to financial hardship. We were left in a time sensitive situation and were forced to file a claim for damages before the statue of limitations played a role. The irony is obvious. The hypocrisy of the water agency is apparent. The lack of concern for water quality is clear.

Case management meeting in Superior Court of Sierra County on April 5, 2011. Both Sierra county and the California Regional Water Board, Central Valley in Sacramento are side stepping responsibility for leaking chemically toxic fluids onto the Sixteen to One property.

The irritant with this arrogant under reach by the Water Board and Sierra County towards MTBE’s caused by Sierra County and over reach for native water caused by Mother Nature is that gasoline and diesel have proven adverse effects on water quality while the natural arsenic found in water flowing onto and through our property has never been proven to adversely effect the waters of Kanaka Creek. Gasoline not arsenic is the irritant. Is it just me or do you find this non-sensible?


PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff ORIGINAL SIXTEEN TO ONE MINE, INC. is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a corporation duly organized in 1911 and existing within the State of California with its principle place of business located in Sierra County, California.
2. Plaintiff MICHAEL M MILLER is an individual and resident of Sierra County, State of California, and is suing herein in his individual capacity.
3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that defendant SIERRA COUNTY is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a government entity organized and existing within the State of California with its principle place of business located in Downieville, California.
4. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 15, inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that plaintiffs’ damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by such defendants.
5. Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Does One through Seven are liable for the acts of Sierra County as its alter ego, because Does One through Seven dominated and controlled Sierra County, treated the property, good will or other assets of Sierra County as their own and failed to follow government formalities. From this point forward, any reference to Sierra County includes Does One through Seven.
6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that during all times herein mentioned each of the defendants was the agent and representative of each of the remaining defendants, in suing the things herein alleged was acting within the scope of said agency, and that each of the defendants is thus jointly and severally liable for the damages suffered by plaintiffs.
7. Plaintiff ORIGINAL SIXTEEN TO ONE MINE, INC. is, and at all times herein mentioned was, the owner of mining claims known as the Happy Jack and Happy Jack Extension, located in the Alleghany Mining District, Sierra County, California.
8. Plaintiff MICHAEL M. MILLER is a licensed State of California contractor, Classification A, number 423886, business name Morning Glory Gold Mines.

INTRODUCTION

9. This action is brought, in part, pursuant to the provisions of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Wat. Code 13000-14958). Plaintiffs seek (1) civil damages and penalties pursuant to Water Code 13002 (e); (2) relief to halt violations of the Porter-cologne Water Quality Control Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean water Act ) 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387; and (3) abatement of an alleged, continuing public nuisance arising from the portal of the Happy Jack mining claim.
10. Plaintiff ORIGINAL SIXTEEN TO ONE MINE, INC. is, and at all times herein mentioned was, in various times and changing conditions operating pursuant to authority granted by the Porter-Cologne Act with regard to either mine waste or surface water drainage; however at no time prior to the discovery of toxic water from the Happy Jack was plaintiff aware of water contaminated with Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) or other fossil fuels on its property.
11. Concern over water contamination caused by the gasoline additive MTBE has raised new questions concerning the desirability of using the additive as a means of producing cleaner burning fuel. MTBE is used by most refiners to produce the reformulated gasoline (RFG) required under the Clean Air Act in portions of 17 states and the District of Columbia. It is credited with producing marked reductions in carbon monoxide emissions; RFG has also reduced the volatile organic compounds that react with other pollutants to form smog. Over the last few years, however, incidents of drinking water contamination by MTBE, particularly in California, have raised concerns and led to calls for restrictions on its use. In March 1999, Governor Davis of California ordered a phase-out of MTBE use in the state by December 31, 2002. Ten other states, including New York, have subsequently enacted limits or phase-outs of the substance.
12. The main environmental risk of MTBE is that it gives water an unpleasant taste at very low concentrations, and thus can easily render large quantities of groundwater non-potable. MTBE is often introduced into water-supply aquifers by leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) at gasoline stations. Although USTs are much better constructed now than in the 1980s, accidental releases still take place because of the very large number of USTs. The high solubility and persistence of MTBE cause it to travel faster and farther than many other components of gasoline when released into an aquifer. It is also released when gasoline-containing MTBE is spilled onto the ground. Because it is water soluble, it easily moves through soil, polluting both surface and groundwater.
13. Fossil fuels such as diesel and gasoline leaked from underground storage tanks owned and controlled by Sierra County hereinafter referred to as the Alleghany Barn into an abandoned mine working hereinafter referred to as the Happy Jack.
14. The levels of pollutants are greater than what is allowed by federal or state laws as determined through water testing conducted by Sierra County and the Central Region Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB).
15. CRWQCB requires that known pollutants such as those leaked from the Alleghany Barn receive immediate mediation in order to lessen damage to the environment or public health
16. Defendants failed to take meaningful or substantial steps necessary to reduce, contain or eliminate the pollution from the Happy Jack onto Plaintiff’s property.
17. Plaintiff Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc entered into an agreement with Plaintiff Michael Miller to take meaningful and substantial steps necessary to reduce, contain and influence the water pollution.
18. Plaintiff Miller performed such work, which accomplished a significant and substantial reduction in water pollutant discharge according to laboratory tests conducted Sierra County and CRWQCB.
19. On February 2, 2009, Plaintiff Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. filed a “Claim for Money or Damaged Against the County of Sierra” with the County Clerk. On March 4, 2009, the County Clerk notified Plaintiff Original Sixteen to One that the County of Sierra rejected the claim on March 3, 2009. This lawsuit is filed timely according to the instructions of the Notice of Rejection citing Government Code Section 945.6.
 By Michael Miller

03/23/2011  5:07PM

Just talked with Klaus Kolb, attorney for Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc who is defending accusations by water regulators of wrongful behavior . The Attorney General office sent Superior Court of Sierra County a Request for Dismissal of the Second, Third, Fourth and “Fifth Causes of Action in the lawsuit it filed in Sierra County. Again this dismissal is filed without prejudice.(See below)

How should we react to this second request?

The letter to Klaus also says, "Regardless of this dismissal, the Board expects Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. to comply with its obligations under California Water Code and the federal Clean Water Act, including submitting an appropriate report of waste discharge."
 By Michael Miller

03/23/2011  12:17PM

The Attorney General filed a Request for Dismissal of Michael M Miller on March 17, 2011 (copy received March 22, 2011). It asked the Clerk of the Court to "Please dismiss this action without prejudice". No reasons were given. What are your thoughts by the request as to the qualification “Without Prejudice” if any?
 By bluejay

03/22/2011  12:16AM

Does anyone really believe that a group of elementary students would require a milling operation to continue their water testing after the mill was closed, if they had a kid's day in Sacramento and were in charge when the mill shut-down?

Can you just visualize the Water Board telling them all that they had just made a mistake?

Is there any wonder today why students of higher education have little to no regard for authority?
 By martin newkom

03/20/2011  1:44PM

I wonder if it would be beneficial
to file a claim with State Bar
against those CDAA attorneys.

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

 

  
 
© 2017 Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc.
PO Box 909
Alleghany, California 95910
 

Phone:   
Fax:
E-mail:
 
(530) 287-3223      
(530) 287-3455
corp@origsix.com
 

      Gold Sales:  


(530) 287-3540

goldsales@origsix.com
 



Design & development by
L. Kenez