Search our Library

CEA Foundation has taken initial steps to bring a “citizen lawsuit” against Rise under the Clean Water Act in order to compel Rise to address mine drain pollution. According to Ralph Silberstein, President of CEA Foundation, “Our goal is simply to compel Rise to stop polluting the creek, to follow the law and apply for a NPDES [Discharge] Permit. For Immediate Release: September 23, 2024 Contacts : commgr@cea-nc.org MineConcerns@cea-nc.org CEA Foundation PRESS RELEASE CEA Foundation Begins Legal Action Against Rise Gold to Stop Mine Drain Pollution Grass Valley, CA – Local non-profit Community Environmental Advocates Foundation (CEA Foundation) has sent Rise Grass Valley, Inc. a subsidiary of Rise Gold Corp, a Notice of Violation , and is preparing a lawsuit to address contaminated mine water effluent discharging into Wolf Creek. Currently, the Idaho-Maryland Mine discharges contaminated water from several mine drain points directly into the main branch of Wolf Creek, including the Eureka Drain and the East Eureka Drain. The illegal contamination levels were identified in testing done in 2019 by the EPA as well as in Rise Gold’s 2020 Environmental Impact Report. The tests show that the mine effluent exceeds safe values of Arsenic, Lead, Manganese, Barium, and other heavy metals in clear violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CEA Foundation has made efforts to address the ongoing problem since 2021. Following the denial of the Use Permit to reopen the mine by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors on Feb 16, 2024, the plans to temporarily treat mine effluent during mine operations are no longer applicable and there are no provisions for long term treatment. CEA Foundation has taken initial steps to bring a “citizen lawsuit” against Rise under the Clean Water Act in order to compel Rise to address the contamination problem. According to Ralph Silberstein, President of CEA Foundation, “Our goal is simply to compel Rise to stop polluting the creek, to follow the law and apply for a NPDES [Discharge] Permit. This will likely require Rise to build a permanent water treatment facility along Wolf Creek similar to the one for Magenta Drain in Empire Mine State Park.” The Notice of Violation gives Rise 60 days to respond before the lawsuit is filed in the US District Court in Sacramento. (See https://www.cea-nc.org/notice-of-ongoing-violations-and-intent-to-file-a-citizen-suit-under-the-clean-water-act/   ) *** Community Environmental Advocates Foundation (CEA Foundation) performs research, education, and advocacy to promote responsible land use and environmental protection policies in Nevada County. www.cea-nc.org . CEA Foundation is the leader of MineWatch, a campaign that brings together a coalition of nonprofit organizations, residents, and businesses opposed to the mine. www.MineWatchNC.org .

Contaminated water containing unsafe levels of Arsenic, Lead, Barium, Chromium, and other hazardous metals is continuously draining out of the Idaho-Maryland Mine into Wolf Creek, in violation of the Clean Water Act. Read this opinion piece in The Union . Ralph Silberstein: Rise Gold is responsible for ongoing Idaho-Maryland Mine pollution November 20, 2024 Ralph Silberstein, President CEA Foundation Currently, contaminated water containing unsafe levels of Arsenic, Lead, Barium, Chromium, and other hazardous metals is continuously draining out of the Idaho-Maryland Mine into Wolf Creek, in violation of the Clean Water Act. A Nov. 9 op-ed in The Union by David Watkinson, the former CEO of Emgold Mining Co., criticized the efforts by CEA Foundation to compel Rise Gold to get a Discharge Permit (NPDES), the first step in remediating the problem. The Watkinson op-ed contained numerous invalid statements. For example, Watkinson states: “The action may well be moot because the discharge from the mine does not occur on property owned by Rise.” In fact, as is well documented in the mine’s own hydrology studies, the discharge comes from the Idaho-Maryland Mine. And, as the holder of the mineral rights, Rise is responsible. This is almost identical to the situation with the Magenta Drain at Memorial Park. The owner of the mineral rights in that case was Newmont Co., a real mining company. Newmont was found liable for the pollution even though the surface property was owned by others. Watkinson also insinuated that CEA, or CEA’s predecessor CLAIM, has known about the ongoing pollution since 2008 and only took action now to hurt Rise financially. In fact, CEA learned of the pollution from the 2020 Hydrology study for Rise’s draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and promptly submitted comments identifying that the draft EIR failed to adequately address this polluting effluent. However, Rise completely ignored these comments and continued to incorrectly characterize the mine’s water quality. This is one of many reasons why the final EIR was not certified by Nevada County. Watkinson then laments that Rise lacks the financial resources to build and maintain a water treatment plant, suggesting that, due to CEA’s actions, the “cleanup costs will be borne by government agencies funded by taxes and also by local residents and businesses who happen to own the mineral rights under their properties, not by Rise.” This is blatant scaremongering. Rise may wish that property owners in the area would have to pay for the cleanup, but the liability rests with Rise. Rise has also withdrawn from their Voluntary Agreement with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to clean up the 56 acre Centennial Site, which may cause the EPA to resume classification of the site under the super-fund program. A significant amount of resources have been used by Rise to prepare a draft Final Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The next step was to make final revisions so that the RAP can be accepted by the DTSC, a key step towards getting the site cleaned up. But instead of completing that milestone, Rise has directed its funds and energy into futile lawsuits against Nevada County. Unless the cleanup is completed, the land has little value. Apparently, Rise intends to abandon the Centennial property. Rise’s financial problems are basically self-inflicted, in large part due to the fact that Rise is suing Nevada County over the County’s denial of Rise’s “vested right to mine” claim and Use Permit application. The vested rights claim is particularly ludicrous, as a vested right requires that the mine has been operating continuously. But the Idaho-Maryland Mine shut down in 1956 and has not been mined since. Additionally, in an illogical self-defeating action, presumably to raise more money for those lawsuits, Rise has listed its “Lumber Mill Site” properties along Brunswick Road for sale. If Rise sells the land, then even with a vested rights or Use Permit victory, Rise would still not be able to go forward with their mine project, which requires the Lumber Mill Site lands for the processing facilities. I wonder if the investors in this corporation even know what is going on? Watkinson suggests that Rise may go bankrupt and, laughably, that CEA’s action to require a NPDES Discharge Permit is the cause, and yet Rise seems to remain in a state of denial, obsessed with improbable lawsuits. It seems that what Watkinson is really hoping for is that the community will allow Rise to walk away from its ongoing pollution responsibilities while it funds salaries and expensive lawyers in their endless legal pursuits. CEA’s position is clear: Rise should begin fulfilling its responsibilities under the Clean Water Act, get a Discharge Permit, and stop polluting our precious water.

On January 9, 2026, Rise Gold’s long-delayed lawsuit seeking vested rights to reopen the Idaho-Maryland Mine will be heard for the first time in Nevada County Superior Court. The case centers on whether decades of closure, bankruptcy, and inactivity extinguished any historic mining rights—an argument strongly disputed by the County following its unanimous denial of Rise’s claims. For Immediate Release: December 31, 2025 Contacts : CEA Foundation commgr@cea-nc.org PRESS RELEASE Rise Gold’s Vested Rights Lawsuit First Hearing Pending Grass Valley, CA - Rise Gold's long delayed legal battle to win vested rights claims for the Idaho-Maryland Mine is headed for a first day in court. Following the unanimous denials of both a Vested Rights claim and a Use Permit by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors, Rise responded with a lawsuit in May of 2024 seeking to overturn both decisions. Now, after lengthy delays, the vested rights issue is being addressed, and both parties have submitted briefs outlining their respective arguments. The claim that the court will determine is this– does Rise, as the current owner of the Idaho-Maryland mine, have a vested right (i.e., a historical right) to conduct mining operations? And if Rise does have a vested right, then what is the “scope” of that right? The Origin of Vested Rights What is a Vested Property Right? A vested right is a legally protected entitlement to continue existing operations after development code changes are introduced that would restrict it. In this case, when the County of Nevada formally adopted an initial comprehensive zoning ordinance on October 10, 1954, a vested property right likely would have allowed the mine to continue operating based on pre-existing, legal, and now “non-conforming” property uses. The Idaho-Maryland Mines Corporation (the corporate owner of the Idaho-Maryland Mine in October 1954) had a pre-existing, legal property use suddenly rendered “non-conforming” under the then new zoning ordinance. Therefore, the owner at that time may have been entitled to a Vested Property Right to continue mining at that time. Were the Vested Rights Maintained? The history of mining at the site becomes relevant to a vested rights claim. All mining and milling of gold halted at the IM Mine by December 27, 1955. The IM Mine was closed in 1956; all mining operations ceased at that time. All mining equipment was auctioned off in 1957. The property owner went bankrupt in 1962. In 1963 the entire mine property was auctioned off, sold to William and Marian Ghidotti. Rise states that a combination of intent and various activities after 1962 (after the Idaho-Maryland Mines Corporation declared bankruptcy) preserved the rights.   For example, Rise argues that processing of mine waste on the Centennial site in 1980 demonstrates operations which maintained the vested rights. When the Ghidottis sought and were granted a Use Permit in 1980 for the ongoing gravel operations there, Rise claims that “[the county] agreed that mining had been taking place in 1954—which is all that is required to determine that a vested right exists”. Rebutting the claim that the County recognized a vested right in 1980, the County flatly denies any such recognition was granted: “No County entity determined any “vested rights” in 1980.” The County further argues that permits issued after 1962 show no vested rights were believed to exist, and adds that the County-approved Use Permits in 1980 “explicitly forbade underground mining.” Nevertheless, Rise maintains that “The County did recognize in writing that mining activities are “an existing, non-conforming use” at the property”. Furthermore, Rise claims there was no intent or act of abandonment of the gold mining business; that the sale of some of the surface parcels did not materially affect the business of gold mining, because of the retention of mineral rights, which preserved mining potential. Rise relies heavily on the 1996 legal case “Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Nevada County Board of Supervisors” for legal precedent. In that case, a long period of inactivity on one site at the Hansen land holdings was determined to not constitute abandonment, and that since Hansen intended to remove aggregate feedstock from that site in the future, the vested rights persisted. The County has countered that the Hansen Brothers case involved a business that did not close or liquidate, but continued some operations. They further note that this was an aggregate business, not a mineral extraction sub-surface mining operation. For this reason, the County claims that this case law is not applicable to the Rise Gold case. The County notes that underground mining ceased in 1956 and never resumed, and therefore any vested rights that might have been valid at that time were abandoned. The County additionally cites cessation of mining, closure of the business, auction of the properties, flooding of the mine, and decades of inactivity as clear evidence of abandonment. Regarding the sale of some of the surface parcels, while retaining subsurface mineral rights, the County says this shows typical real estate investment, not a further intent to continue the business of gold mining. The County also argues that the sale undermines Rise’s own theory: “So even if a vested right once existed, the sale to, and ownership by, Mountain Enterprises amounts to abandonment as to those parcels.” Regarding the scope of the claimed Vested Property Right, Rise asserts that the right covers all operations involved in mining across 2,560 subsurface acres. The County seeks to limit any vested property right to activities actually occurring in October 1954 on a site specific basis, and contests some of the operations that Rise claims to document. Of course, the scope of the right is only relevant if the court first determines that a Vested Property Right existed, and has been transferred though a chain of ownership to the current owner, Rise Grass Valley, Inc. A Long Legal Battle Looms Rise Gold has repeatedly signaled that if the vested rights claim is denied, it will appeal and seek a higher court. Embedded within Rise’s claims are statements such as “...constitutional rights do not simply expire over time; they must be knowingly and affirmatively abandoned.” and “The vested right to mine at the Idaho-Maryland Mine is constitutionally protected by the takings clause guarantees of the United States and California Constitutions.” The Rise case relies upon the Hansen case which states ‘Abandonment of a nonconforming use involves both an intent to abandon and “an overt act,...”.’ Interestingly, the County cites the same case law as Rise, but illustrates that the text continues on: ‘Abandonment of a nonconforming use involves both an intent to abandon and “an overt act, or failure to act, …”.’ Considering the perceived intentions of Rise Gold, it seems possible that it will be years before this case is finally settled. The next step in this legal odyssey will take place January 9, 2026, when the Nevada County Superior Court will hold the first hearing for the Rise Grass Valley versus County of Nevada case. It will be interesting to see where it all ends. *** About CEA Foundation: Community Environmental Advocates Foundation (CEA Foundation) performs research, education, and advocacy to promote responsible land use and environmental protection policies in Nevada County. CEA Foundation is the leader of MineWatch, a campaign that brings together a coalition of nonprofit organizations, residents, and businesses opposed to the Idaho-Maryland Mine.

Item List

My Items I'm a title. Click here to edit me.

Got 15 minutes? Sit back and listen to a MineWatch volunteer talk about why the community is so concerned about the proposed reopening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine. WaTCH THE VIDEO Ready to learn more about why our community is so concerned about the proposed reopening of the Idaho-Maryland Mine? Sit back, relax, and listen to a MineWatch volunteer give a 15 minute presentation that spells it out. You can also ask for a volunteer to come present to your business or neighborhood group. Just send an email to mineconcerns@cea-nc.org . become a minewatcher Join our newsletter for updates . Subscribe