We have an interesting set of Water Regs in Oregon to say the least.

One of them is the 5000 gallon per day or less small miners' exclusion to permit fees...aka NO permit fee due and owing, and 5001 gpd or more is a $300 annual permit fee due and owing level with its own accompanying regs and headaches and filings, ad nauseum.




EDIT: July 24, 2004 It's only 5 months 'til Xmas eve!!! Do you know where your presents are?

PUSH VOLUME CALCS:
Please be forwarned and prepared to understand before reading this next section that: :
1) Oregon WRD considers dredging and highbanking water
"REMOVAL & Diversionary, and as such requires proper permitting in the eyes of the WRD (Water Resources Department--a state agency which has carved up Oregon into 12 water districts.)

2) the smallest of Keene pumps (P100)
matched by Keene with a Briggs and Stratton 3.5HP (MODEL P103)
using a 4" nozzle
can and does exceed the 5000 gallon per day exclusion level where no permits are required from just being run LESS THAN 1 hour just based on
Official Keene Pump Draw chart
on page 28 of the latest Keene 2003 Product Catalog,
...at designed and engineered pump effeciency rating, with NO degradations for age or elevations.

The Pump Draw for that Engine and Pump matched pair from Keene is 150 GPM.

60 min in an hour x 150gpm DRAW =9000 GPH, or legal usage of .55 hours if only drawing water from an regulated Oregon Waterway covered by WRD regulations.

.55 hours??? YES! THAT's 33 minutes of actual dredging or highbanking with a 4" nozzle, with one of Keene's SMALLEST pump and engine combo's just to stay within Oregon's 5000 gpd exclusion from required fee stated permit payment "level."

To be safe, Push Volumetrics on the above pump/engine/nozzle dictates that in stream per day time is reduced to about 10 minutes, guys/gals!!!

And it is my clear understanding that PUSH VOLUME based on mfg pump specs is the metric used to prosecute violators of the 5000 gpd exclusion. Don't take my word for it...call your personal watermaster of YOUR district.

MORE ABOUT PUSH VOLUME:
PUSH VOLUME** Gallons Per Minute is calculated based on INDUSTRY STANDARD slurry density measurements--which takes into account these 4 factors:
A ) particle size,
B ) pump size,
C ) nozzle size, and
D ) aggregate type that one is moving through one's 4" nozzle,....
....a dredger who wishes to work within the confines of Oregon WATER LAW's 5000 gal per day exclusion, has even LESS CLOCK TIME to dredge or highbank in Oregon public waters without the proper minimum $300 permit fee being due and owing.

**Push Volume is the proper mining engineering term for the amount of watery slurry pushed up the nozzle and over the riffles. It is ALWAYS greater than pump DRAW in GPMin/GPHr/GPDay

PUSH VOLUME is a mathematical calc based on INDUSTRY STANDARDS. I am not clear where to get ahold of a set of those "industry standards," but I'm willing to bet WRD / FS / BLM regulators know where to look and how to use those metrics!!!!

Most dredgers/highbankers and placer miners have never heard of Push Volume nor are aware they are subject to this higher VOLUME standard when facing the prospects of being cited or fined for exceeding the Water Resources Department 5000 gpd exclusion as a "hobbyist/recreational" miner.

Spread the word to every Dredger you know who operates in the Oregon Waterways.
The wallet you save, may be your own. :(

LINKS:
OR--DEQ & WATERBOARD LINKS to permits & fees
Oregon DEQ here
http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/search/query...ext+9+documents

Oregon Water Resources Department here:
http://www.wrd.state.or.us/fees/fees2003.pdf

main page to search for Water Rights already extant, statewide, by legal description:
http://www.wrd.state.or.us/publication/forms/index.shtml

Not picking a fight here, just opening up a conversation for clarification.

Clarify this, because I draw fault with what is being implied and here is the troubling part of the whole equation.

A P100 & a P103 will not run a 4" nozzle. Therefore the intake on the pump will be 1.25" and pressurized at the Output.... not increased in volume flow just pressurized.

Nowhere does the equations used clarify whether the equation is using a powerjet or a suction nozzle for statistical purposes and / or whether streambed conditions were used to equate a formula based on what elevational standards?

Second is to assume that the engine and pump are running at what rpm?...Wide open or just idled down.....

Take a 3.5 Motor and a P100 pump and time how long it would take to fill a 9000 gallon swimming pool and you'll find it will be alot longer than 33 minutes using any additional source of water beside city pipes...Heck use a stream nearby to fill the pool and it can be shown that in 33 minutes you'd only be ankle deep and scratching your head.

The Industry standards are based on LAB TESTS and not on actual conditions resulting or existing in a natural waterway based on Elevation Conditions ( Sea level vs 8,000' ), Jetting and / or Octane rating , Intake screen size, Intake screen size vs. RPM at motor, Motor Oil viscosity used, Motor wear, Water pump wear.

Industry standards are under Ideal conditions ( Pure silica sand, no black sand, no 2"-4" rocks processed using a suction nozzle to obstruct flow from the nozzle to the recovery unit and cannot or should not ever be expected to be duplicated in real life under any conditions.

I'm sure that the above equations would stand up in court to aunknowing jury but I'd be able to show otherwise and provide doubt in a jury of twelves mind.

What's your take?

On another note:
Suction dredge mining water usage while between the highwater marks and within the wetted perimeter is exempt from all permitting fees. STATE LAW overules a Agency "regulation" of an interpretted law..... :D

Highbanking outside of the Highwatermark or where water cannot effectively return to its natural source will require a water bond as specified, I went into Salem and went the rounds with Bill Higgee from the water resources board and he clearly stated that no permit was needed to dredge ( showed the ORS & OAR Statue LAW to me ) and clarified that any activity within the wetted perimeter was exempt from Bond.

Leave the wet perimeter and consumption issues will be enforced ( your like a farmer then ), stay and keep your water within the wet perimeter and put a smile on your face...leave the wet perimeter and you are diverting the course of flow and will need to file for usage.

Clear enough?

RE: Redpaw: Opening up for clarification what he doesn't like about my Push Volume Post:

I'm not inferring anything, Dave.

I'm stating how mining engineering uses draw volume vs push volume. Sorry buddy, but I stick by my mining engineer.

Part of the reason I do not believe for one nano-second that dredging within the wetted perameter is always permitted by state law is simple:

The Sumpter Dredge and others of that behemoth size would still be operating in Oregon were it not for state laws regulating dredging and what constitutes a permit charge for Consumption and Diversion usage. This implies, of course, that the costs per ounce of dredging activity on that scale were not just economical, but also profitable.

I hear and respect that you went round and round with Higbee in Salem. However, please respectfully hear that you were not asking Pump Draw rating vs Push Volume questions as they applied to the 5000gpd exclusion from buying permit status. Those are the questions I asked, not of WRD, but of Engineers with credentials which I assume WRD and DEQ and other agencies seek to successfully hire in order to manage things such as water resources.

The 5000gpd exclusion is clearly a part of Water Resources Board Regs. And it is Push Volume, not Draw that is used to determine violations of 5000gpd "rule."

It is a shocker for most dredgers to learn they can push more volume than their pump draw rating. It seems illogical on the first glance. However, that is not the case.

Now, let's move to your swimming pool illustration,
let's compare apples to apples shall we, Dave?
The standard in the WRD regs is 5000gpd USE AND DIVERSION, not 9000g swimming pool filling. Of course it would take longer to fill a 9000 pool than a 5000g pool. No question.

However, you will have to take up the engineering rating of the Keene Pump from the chart above with Keene, because that is immutable from where I'm looking.

The last time I heard there were still 60 minutes in an hour to multiply the appropriate Keene column stat from their engineering department and get the gpm
result. That is math isn't subject to interpretation either.

The Keene Engineers chart is THEIR rating, not something I made up.

Furthermore, Keene told me on the phone, that all their pump data was good to 5000 elevations, period.

Guess it is your turn, Redpaw.

Sounds like we're talking apples and oranges to me. I tried to share this info with you on the phone and you hooted at me and the science then. And you are hooting now. I promised to provide the details, and I have. I did not and still DO NOT expect any dredger on the internet to like what I've said. Doesn't change slurry density, the 4 factors that compose it and PUSH VOLUME calcs one iota.

I'm talking SLURRY DENSITY and you haven't addressed that in any of your rebuttals nor have you indicated you discussed Slurry Density and Push Volume with Higbee in Salem . Am I correct?

This is where I think the communication problem between us is:
Slurry density is a mathematical calculation of how much solids a slurry can hold/move under the 4 criteria used above.

SLURRY DENSITY:
is why Push Volume is so critical.
is why Push Volume is so critical in turbidity studies.

I'm trying to keep your collective behinds out of a ringer, Dave, when you all show up to demonstrate whatever to the DEQ.

Or let me put this another way:
YOUR AGENDA IS CLEAR: Let us do this dredging thing in Oregon purdy please.
THEIR AGENDA is UNCLEAR according to your efforts to pin them down, AAAAND they "casually mentioned" want to do some "turbidity samples" while they are there.
I believe I'm quoting your GDForum post correctly.

Now who is playing with a full deck (the dredgers) and who has the loaded deck(WRD and DEQ)?

Need I say the obvious: I smell a set up and I'm concerned about it.
BTW...I traded in my backpacker dredge for a Doodlebug Trommel....so this stuff isn't just theoretical to me...it is gut level, in my face this mining season concern.
Guess it's your turn.

Hey all,
I'm still digesting this info, but I fully agree that a dredge moves more water than the pump puts out! Otherwise the nozzle would be closed off, and only pump output would go through the sluice box.

It seems pretty obvious that the key point is the definition of diversion! QJ

Talk to Mark Keene from engineering at Keene and he'll tell something similiar to this:

A highbanker using a p100 pump will not be used to capacity and will only require 40 - 55 gallons of water a minute maximum because your not in need of the capacity of the pump only the volume of the water. The volume is restricted further by the openings in the spray bar and the RPM of the motor at that specific moment. The equation leaves no variable for any of this and is based on Constants.

Turn that same pump into a dredge and you will still not equal the rating of the pump to push the volume required for slurry as indicated by the equation. slurry action does not occur in a dredge hose. You can call it slurry but slurry is a pumped mass.

Slurry is assuming a solid filled motion of gravel inside the main hose like as would be described when pumping concrete...concrete pumps pump the slurry as a solid mass and would be calculated as such and measured as such.

A dredge never could ever handle the same slurry volume as equated by your mining engineers calculations.... the hose would fill solid and no gravel would be moved period.

I'm not doubting a calculation of an engineer, I'm asking under what actual conditions he based his theoretical conclusions on?....pumping straight water is different than pumping a mass of anything

It all may look good on paper, but in the field it will be different based on actual conditions of actual pump output and motor rpm. Nobody I know ever uses their pumps and motors on full throttle and maximum pump output because you'd blow the material clean out the back end of the unit and or result in Pump Cavitation.

I used the supplied numbers from your post to equate the 9000 gpm overlimit as you stated a 3.5 with a P103 is capable of doing.....I disagree with that number and so will Keene Engineering when asking for actual output...They may be rated to do this but it will never happen in real life in the field nor would it be feasible to use a pump in this manner.

Now, let's move to your swimming pool illustration,
let's compare apples to apples shall we, Dave?
The standard in the WRD regs is 5000gpd USE AND DIVERSION, not 9000g swimming pool filling. Of course it would take longer to fill a 9000 pool than a 5000g pool. No question.

To use the 5000 gallon pool to fill using a suction nozzle technique would take even longer. You not going to match or even equal the straight pumping action of a pump alone that will fill the pool if you stick another volume of water to be pushed before it.

Does the velocity of the Main tube in a dredge operate at the same rate of fill that a P103 pump can pump?....no, the main tube of volume at the suction end is being pushed and will be affected by the actions of the differential solids slowing the water being pushed by the pump through the main tube by the pressurized water....which the main tube of differtial solids is a slower moving mass than a Labratory Test or an equation can account for ( unless pumping straight water with no obstructions ).

You will not achieve a standard of suction based on actual conditions of pushed volumes because the suction flow and volume changes as it encounters the various sizes of gravel that is introduced into the suction end. The suction fluctuates constantly at the nozzle end and will rarely if ever be of the same rate of flow as equated on paper....

Clogs form because of different traveling speeds of the mass encountered inside the main tube...they travel at different speeds because of the resistance to flow and the amount of push behind them to move that material efficently through the main tube thus decreasing the actual suction at the nozzle measurably....thus decreasing the volume in the equation considerably.

Ask any dredger if the suction at the nozzle remains at a steady rate, it doesn't because it has to accomodate the variations of differential gravels encountered and this shows the push volume formula is faulty and only looks good on paper using a constant not proportional to moving a mass inside the main tube.

Take a 2" nozzle and put it in a tank of exactly 1"_15/16 ths sized gravel and see how many of these rocks you can suck up before clogging the tube....the more you suck up the less push will be available and then your jammed solid.

great discussion by the way, I'm not looking for an arguement just to show that lab conditions and actual conditions are usually different.

*******
Your right on the setup for the turbidity situation, It could happen according to the scenario and we actually are discussing your posts in emails as a valid point and wanted to say thank you for thinking about those situations of "swimmer turbidity" and "rafting turbidity"

So can we expect you to come and save our ignorant butts?, I'm more than offering you a position to come join in and help us.

I'd be disappointed if you can't make it and will look forward to you being there.....Please...pretty please.....with sugar on it....come on.....you can make it......Please...

is that enough begging?...so you can make it right !!!!!!

It was said:
Part of the reason I do not believe for one nano-second that dredging within the wetted perameter is always permitted by state law is simple:

I never said that it is permitted , I said it is EXEMPTED as per State Statue from fees....look it up

A p103 pump and a Briggs 3.5 will not operate a 4" nozzle, it will only operate a 2.5'" at best and with little depth achieved. That flaws the equation right there.

The equation does not account for placement of the pump relative to the waters current level. The harder the pump has to lift the water up into the pump and higher results in less effiency of the pump output and bogs down the motor rpm as well..

You may be able to draw water up into your pump from a water level 14 -20 feet lower than the pump and motor but you will not acheive the same output from the pump as a result nor be able to push the same volume of water used in the equation......

it just won't work.

Hi, Redpaw. Good to see your thinking cap is perched squarely on that handsome head o'yours.

Only have a few minutes to post a couple of items for your further consideration since you made some very good points.

Now that we've established push volume always exceeds draw, here's another part to that line o'thinking.

Since, as you point out, dredging is not a steady sucking event so to speak but could best be described as by bursts and spurts or as the engineers call it "uncontrolled feed" as we seek to poke around and find material to run over our riffles, (except for Vortexx Rex who just lays that puppy on the ground and shovels the world into that gapping inlet ),

... it is important for you guys who are going to be there with DEQ to have already calculated in advance the volume of water in your sluice box at any one time (aka sluice width x depth of water --which obviously can't exceed depth of side rails on sluice-- times length of sluice) and calculate the volumetric amount of DRY material running through it. Yes, not wet material, but dry.

If the overseers come up with any number higher than 12-15% solids, for example a
P180 pump with a 3" Nozzle going through and plopping out the other end, then they are pulling your chain, okay?

12-15% solids is max by volume that situation should hold, based as you pointed out on pump effeciency, the ratio of the inlet to the outlet diameter, the impeller speed and the TYPE of impeller. Of course, altitude and head expressed in feet is another variable.

Don't let them do a one size fits all deal on you all that day, okay? Sounds to me like you've got that part wired, frankly.

Now...
here's my other two concerns.

1)
Please spend some time with your legal description and the URL in the top post so that you have already researched on line by legal, the person / company / corporation / forest district...whomever owns the water rights and for what purpose on that claim you be demonstrating from, okay?

main page to search for Water Rights already extant, statewide, by legal description:
http://www.wrd.state.or.us/publication/forms/index.shtml

The coding is NOT easy to decipher and I never have found a legend. You'll be visiting with your district watermaster to decipher some of that code stuff.
It's possible that no one will even bring it up. But I want you guys the best informed, most conscientious miners out there. Don't wear your marrying and burying suit, tho'....that looks like yer trying a little too hard.

Print it out and have it with you. You can bet in the little stack of papers in the State Boy's front truck seat, will be that information!! Don't want you to get caught with your gawrsh shucks face on because you don't know before you get there and they tell you that you forgot something.

If you can find those first water rights peeps, try your darnedest to locate and contact them for "permission" prior to the big demo day, k?

2)
get a supply of sterile Urine sample bottles and sample every increment they sample,
okay?

Don't forget to have someone perform recon (with camera?) above you so that you know what the upstream situation is. Might get a weather report also for the week before so that you can document rainfall or any other natural event in that watershed above you prior to the big event.

Later...gotta run.
Megan

those are some very good points to be aware of!!! bettter to have than have not!

Another valid point again Megan, points well taken !!.

I did the research and found their are no water rights granted on this segment of river for 4 miles in every direction going back through the last 20 years of records.

There are no agricultural areas, nor diversion points listed and here's how I did the work using your ideas that gave up a legend along with:

I clicked the link you provided:
Water Resources - Oregon
Chose Water rights maps:
Create Water Right Map and Taxlots from records
Inputed the Correct Townships,Ranges, sections:
Insert Townships and information to be shown

**Note**
Towards the lower right hand corner, make sure you choose the highest resolution for clarity. ( You can also export the info into a shapefile for use with ESRI, Globalmapper, ARCInfo etc. )

Within seconds the page ( after clicking "submit" ) will load and you MUST write down the next steps to take to go retrieve the file you requested ( takes seconds ) and although the page says a email will be sent to notify you when your file is complete...it is really there already and waiting for you...

Make sure that all of you get the associated text file that accompanies the Image you asked for as it will explain just how to interpret the data processed ( easy to follow ) and print it out as well.

Megan, THANKS Alot for covering our concerns.

Rp

Nice work, Dave.

RE: only last 20 years...I think that is not back far enough. The water rights gig in my area go back as far as 1930s.

Did you get to the screen that shows a series of boxes with "X's" in the appropriate ones?

If not, then you may be missing the screen to which I refer. I've got the written notes from visiting with my watermaster on how to get to that "X in boxes" screen that takes you all the way back dang near to statehood years.

It should be noted that there may be a discrepancy between data entry policies between water districts as far as how many years get entered into their computerization from those little cards.

I was told point blank out here, to not rely upon the computer record totally, but to always get ahold of the watermaster and ask to see the HANDWRITTEN CARDS filed by legal description with their various notations and chicken scratchings thanks to various clerks over the decades.

Just thot I'd mention this 20 year thing might not be back far enough on your claim, Redpaw.

In this state, a water right is granted in perpetuity until relinquished willingly or vacated by some type of legislative action. Remember how many shocked miners and ranchers lost their Kalamth Basin water rights at the stroke of a pen?

Please, purdy please CYA and check the handwritten cards and then ask for copies of those cards. They'll look at you strange, but let'em...it's OUR water, not some bureaucrat's shoed in pointed shitkickers, plaid shirt and jeans, glowering from their side of the counter and feeling smug.

Glad to help.
Megan

Bill Higbee at the Salem Water Resources Board told me that the new legislation just passed is voiding the water rights of any person that has not actively maintained the water right for 5 years.

In other words, if you have not used your water right in 5 years, it is gone and you must re-apply and then you're still placed as the last in line when a drought or other natural cause occurs. You do not get your priority back as you originally held.

Those holding water rights before you are then granted your place in line and you'll have to wait to see what you "may" get.

I took notes from the in-office meetings and was blown away with their assumption of control, but I at least made them realize we are exempted from fees when normal operating standards are followed.

The OWRD will not allow ( their words ) the pumping of water out of the stream channel with out permit. I went there to get new legislation for these ideas:

Below Highwater mark water usage when Mining = Exempt for any GPM

25' from current water level or highwater mark in elevation = Exempt for any GPM

200' from the wetted perimeter and below the Highwater mark =Exempt from any GPM

The reasoning behind the last one ( 200' rule ) proposed was to be able to pump water in a wide riverbed or valley over to your location and yet the water will still be entrained within the perimeter of the waterway...basically a Highbanker issue

I've seen some really wide streches of riverbed that are well over 500' wide and only have a narrow brook that runs through them....thus the 200' rule

Mr. Higbee stated that he felt that was a sound proposal and if we wrote it up it would be presented to the legislature for consideration and amendent.

Higbee stated that most watermasters should acknowledge the non-consumptive uses of water for mining and regularly do not feel the need to enforce the issues currently on the books.

So who wants to write legislation for a Water Right Amendment ??....

What a BEAUTIFUL example of the "state" changing its mind and with the swoop of a pen, erasing some pecking order they don't like.

WOW! Thanks for that update. That's pretty sickening. Have they "written the rules" yet about what constitutes "maintaining" a water right?

Sounds to me like another money grab. You DID get your BLM postcard in the mail today about the hike in fees, yes? :o :o :o

Your turn

Yes Dear I did,
it was a little 3 x 5 card with my name on it and the new fees on the back laid out and tabulated.

I'll keep on the Water Rights legislation if I know it will be supported by the mining community and they can accept the proposed changes......

I was too blown away when He stated that and I swear he stated that it was based on ( or going to be based on ) yearly or seasonal usage....( consistent use ?? ) ....I hate politics.

A water right for a Mining Claim when applied for as small scale operations should be exempt period...nada zip zilch....

Would it shock you to hear that less than a handful of people are interested in meeting with DEQ and helping to help the mining community?.

tag your it.

Hey all,
Less than a handfull will still be a handful for the DEQ! A couple MRT members, brother Roseburgers at that should be able to handle a few DEQ lookie-lews!

Thanks for the info Megan, it will come in handy! QJ