DFG’s LATEST AMENDMENTS TO THE SUCTION DREDGE REGULATIONS:
SYNOPSIS of KEY EVENTS, July 6, 2007
On December 9, 2005, the California Department of Fish and Game, (DFG), informally, amended the Suction Dredge Regulations, (specifically, 14 CCR 228(b)(1)), to delete the provision that allows one to apply for a special permit to operate a suction dredge in either a closed water or during a closed season. They claimed they could do this with a mere notice on their Web Page because, in their opinion, that Regulation is in conflict with its enabling statute, (the Statute that allows DFG to close waters to suction dredging); Cal Fish & Game Code § 5653. A regulation is in conflict with a statute when the two are not in agreement. When this happens the regulation must give way to the statute.
On May 26, 2006, Walt Eason sued DFG to compel them to comply with the California Administrative Procedures Act for their Amendment of 14 CCR 228, amongst other things.
On February 13, 2007, Judge Lloyd Connelly, in that suit, and, in overruling DFG’s Demurrer, in part, found that DFG, for their informal amendment to the Suction Dredge Regulations (14 CCR 228), failed to comply with the California Administrative Procedures Act. This suit is still pending. Motion for Summary Judgment is scheduled to be heard on September 14, 2007.
On May 1, 2007, DFG, again, amended the Suction Dredge Regulations (14 CCR 228(b)(1)), to delete the provision that allows one to apply for a special permit to operate a suction dredge in either a closed water or during a closed season. This time they attempted to comply with the California Administrative Procedures Act by first submitting their Amendment to the Office of Administrative Law, (OAL), for review.
On May 23, 2007, DFG informed Judge Lloyd Connelly, in the pending suit Walt Eason has against them, that they were going to move to dismiss the action because, as they claimed, it was moot because they had amended 14 CCR 228 on May 1, 2007.
On May 30 and May 31, 2007, Walt Eason provided public comments, to both DFG and OAL, pointing out the many illegalities of DFG’s latest, (May 1, 2006), Amendment to 14 CCR 228. He was the only person to oppose DFG’s latest, (May 1, 2006), Amendment to 14 CCR 228. This isn’t because he is the only one that cares. It is because DFG kept it a secret from everyone else.
On June 8, 2007, DFG told Judge Lloyd Connelly, at the scheduled Case Management Conference in the action Walt Eason has against them, that they were going to withdraw their latest, (May 1, 2006), Amendment to 14 CCR 228 because of some of Walt Eason’s public comments opposing it.
On June 11, 2007, DFG, formally, withdrew their latest, (May 1, 2006), Amendment to 14 CCR 228.
Walter Eason
SEE COPIES OF FILINGS AT:
Equal Access To Justice