Reclamation Suction Dredging Change in 2026?

Hello Friends!

Public Lands for the People (PLP) wants to give a heads up to its members of the very real possibility that the California State laws surrounding dredging will be changing in 2026.  Right now, as of this writing PLP has heard several rumors that the State may repeal Fish & Game code 5653.8 if some miners continue misusing it for mining purposes.  As you may recall the Clements case was voluntarily dismissed earlier this year in April by the Siskiyou District Attorney and the Superior court Judge after Clements provided his partnership agreement for reclamation purposes and Fish & Game code 5653.8.  Clements was then recharged for the same violation a couple months later.  While PLP believes that he will prevail once again, we have some reservations about his new legal approach with an unnamed mining club.  Clements has finally filed a motion to dismiss using Fish & Game code 5653.8 along with his partnership agreement, but now the moving legal papers sets forth that it was for mining purposes – which is exactly what PLP warns its members not to do.  Doing so will motivate the State to repeal Fish & Game code 5653.8.  We fear that even if Clements wins, the State will then repeal Fish & Game code 5653.8.  So far, the CA Fish & Wildlife has not posted a proposed rulemaking change to 5653.8 on their website.  In order to better protect our PLP members going forward starting January, PLP may discontinue issuing the existing suction dredge guide cards for California or Oregon members.  PLP is working on a new and better legal pathway that will roll out in the summer of 2026 that will not be so subject to the whims of State agencies and should work for CA, OR, WA, and ID if they continue to regulate in a prohibitive manner.

 

PLP has seen a couple articles recently that purport to be able to explain PLP’s reclamation dredging guidelines.  Unfortunately, both articles were written without even reaching out to PLP but instead switched to the CA Fish & Wildlife narrative that all dredging has been banned in the state of CA – which is patently false.

If both reporters had reached out to PLP or simply typed into AI on the subject of PLP dredge guide they would have found a rather good overview of the subject.  Here is what AI says on PLP’s dredge guide:

 

“PLP suction dredge reclamation” refers to the advocacy and guidance provided by the organization Public Lands For The People (PLP) for responsible, legal gold mining using suction dredges, with a focus on incorporating reclamation (land improvement) as a recognized part of the mining process and federal law. PLP promotes a specific guide for using suction dredges in a way that is less harmful to the environment, aiming to demonstrate that such activities can be done legally and without “cut[ting] corners” in reclamation.

What is PLP?

• Public Lands For The People (PLP): is an organization that advocates for miners’ rights and promotes the legal and responsible use of mining equipment.
• PLP believes in integrating reclamation (improving the land after mining) as an essential component of mining, aligning with the U.S. Mineral Policy Act of 1970.
• They have developed and distributed a CA Suction Dredge Guide that provides guidance to members on how to legally and responsibly operate suction dredges in California.

Why “Reclamation”?

• Legality and Policy:

The U.S. Mineral Policy Act of 1970 promotes both mining and reclamation industries, stating that reclamation is an “improvement of labor to the land” and qualifies as assessment work under the 1872 Mining Law.

• Responsible Mining:

PLP stresses that responsible mining includes reclamation and discourages shortcuts that lead to citations and penalties.

Current Legal Status in California

• Prohibition:

Suction dredging is unlawful in California’s rivers, streams, and lakes under state law, enacted in 2016.

• Federal vs. State Jurisdiction:

PLP has been working to establish federal preemption over dredging on federal lands, arguing that state laws, such as California’s, create a de facto ban and conflict with federal mining laws.

• Legal Challenges:

PLP has won federal preemption lawsuits, and its members are attempting to pursue legal avenues to resume suction dredge mining through the framework of reclamation.

The “PLP Suction Dredge Reclamation” Concept

• Demonstrating Legal Use:

PLP aims to demonstrate to the public and government agencies how to use suction dredges responsibly for the specific purpose of reclamation, which could involve using dredged material for erosion control or land restoration.

• Member Support:

The organization supports its members, who are attempting to legally resume suction dredging by emphasizing the importance of following the PLP guide and adhering to reclamation practices to avoid penalties.

• Focus on the Future:

PLP continues to work in Washington, D.C., to pass legislation that would codify the Trump administration’s agenda for streamlining mining regulations and provide a more permanent solution for the mining community.

• Legally dredging in California waterways through reclamation

May 13, 2025 — success of PLP’s guide cards, and it is not a reason to cut corners and just suction dredge mine and not do the reclamation.

Dive deeper in AI Mode

Public Lands for the People (PLP) uses the term “reclamation” to advocate for a form of suction dredging they claim legally removes pollutants like mercury and debris from waterways without requiring a state permit. This reclamation dredging is a contentious legal strategy aimed at allowing suction dredging, which is otherwise prohibited in California.

How PLP defines “reclamation”

• Removal of pollutants: PLP’s definition of reclamation is the removal of materials lost during older, less efficient mining practices, including mercury, lead weights, and other debris. They contend that by cleaning the environment, their dredging efforts do not fall under the typical regulations for mining activities.
• Compliance with federal law: PLP argues their reclamation dredging is in compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and does not constitute a discharge of pollutants that requires a permit from California agencies.

The legal strategy

The PLP’s approach is designed to navigate California’s strict laws that ban motorized suction dredging. The legal basis for their strategy includes:

• Contesting state authority: By framing suction dredging as reclamation, PLP challenges California’s ability to regulate or prohibit the activity on federal lands.
• Focusing on federal regulations: PLP has pursued federal preemption, arguing that federal regulations should supersede state laws that are prohibitive to small-scale mining.
• Achieving legal victories: PLP publicizes legal victories for its members. For instance, in April 2025, a PLP member won a case involving a citation for reclamation suction dredging, which PLP presented as a successful test of its strategy.

The controversy

Despite PLP’s legal wins and claims of environmental cleanup, the practice of suction dredge reclamation remains controversial.

• Opposing viewpoints: Environmental groups, such as the Sierra Fund, have argued that suction dredging can release toxins like mercury that settle on the riverbed, posing a threat to both wildlife and humans.
• State opposition: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has maintained a statewide prohibition on suction dredging and does not authorize permits for the activity.
• Misuse of guidance: PLP warns its members that those who misuse its reclamation dredging guide could still face citations and have their equipment confiscated, especially if their actions are perceived as mining rather than reclamation.

 

 

 

 

PLP helps member get their dredge back here is his story

During my 2025 river reclamation dredging season, I had my dredge confiscated by the USFS. I did not know at the time that the USFS had absconded with it until the local Dept. of Fish and Game warden called me to tell me it was USFS who took it. The DFG warden did not want to talk about the “case”, but I did manage to tell him that I was in a reclamation partnership (using the PLP guide) and that I was removing garbage from the river and not “mining” for gold or other minerals. When I was speaking with the DFG warden, I maintained a calm and reasonable tone and we had a nice chat. I let him know of the Siskiyou County precedent where a dredger was cited for violating CDF code 5653 and the fact it was dismissed as the dredger was complying with 5653.8.

After speaking to the DFG warden, I called the USFS office in the Northern California county I was working in and tried to get an answer as to why and under what authority did the USFS take my equipment from a 22-year-old mining claim and a 20-year-old Notice of Intent I had filed with USFS? The minerals officer told me that the LEO took it thinking it was abandoned—despite my name on the mining claim sign near where the dredge was located! I said it was not abandoned, and I was cleaning up the river with the dredge. Also, the dredge had a large sign on the pontoon that said RECLAMATION IN PROGRESS. The minerals officer had heard of reclamation dredging but was never contacted by the LEO before the dredge was taken. I had to call and text the minerals officer and various other USFS personnel to try to get this dredge back as the LEO had no legal authority to remove it from my mining claim. This process took a month and even though the USFS District ranger from another area said that there was a meeting and it was agreed that my dredge would be returned to me, the LEO would not return my phone calls. It took me flagging down a USFS truck on the street to get him to call the LEO who took it. I was escorted to the holding yard where this LEO was waiting. We had a 30-minute chat about what I was doing and what happened, and he let me pick up the dredge. During this conversation, I was calm and respectful to the USFS personnel. Our chat was very professional in tone. So, I took the dredge and promptly dropped back on my claim and finished the reclamation season.

Throughout this ordeal, I was in contact with PLP Northern Director Clark Pearson and his advice was very helpful in navigating the quagmire I was in. I notified Clark after every conversation with the USFS and the DFG warden. I tried my best to follow his advice and listen to his direction on how to deal with these government entities. The main takeaway from Clark was that we need to be respectful and calm when talking with the USFS and DFG people.

The other idea Clark imparted to me was that if we do not know our rights, we will lose them. Throughout this situation, I became aware of the USFS regulations and was very comfortable telling the USFS personnel about their own regulations that they failed to follow.

 

If you like the work PLP does, please help PLP help you, and join or renew today to know how to effectively and professionally counter the agencies while making Prospecting, Mining and Reclamation Great Again!

 

 

 

Your PLP Board of Directors

 

The original. No compromise.  Standing 35 years strong for Multiple Use on Public Land “RIGHTS”!