Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ti <br />~" <br />J. Fett, Esq. <br />Page 2 <br />settlement. Naturally, such a settlement would specify an appro- <br />priate deadline for Mr. Strohecker to remove the conveyor and <br />would require Mr. Strohecker to repair any damage caused by the <br />removal. <br />The action to dispose of conflicting claims to the conveyor is <br />not, in any way, related to the enforcement action taken by the <br />MLRD under NOV No. C-91-010. The enforcement action was taken <br />for failure to design, construct and maintain sediment control <br />structures necessary to provide protection for topsoil, vegeta- <br />tion and the hydrologic balance, and for failure to contain sedi- <br />ment. It is unfortunate that Mr. Lamoreux construed our conver- <br />sations last summer to relieve the Bank of the obligation to <br />maintain the site in compliance with applicable regulations. <br />That was certainly not my intent. My conversations with Mr. <br />Lamoreux were limited to the issue of removing the conveyor with- <br />out exposing the Bank to a claim for conversion. <br />The MLRD would like to put this misunderstanding behind us and <br />proceed with a final settlement of the district court action as <br />outlined above. Such a settlement would be separate and apart <br />from December 10 proposed settlement agreement concerning NOV No. <br />9C-91-010. I will await your concurrence with this approach <br />before proposing a settlement agreement. <br />Please contact me if you would like to discuss this matter fur- <br />ther. <br />Sincerely, <br />FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL <br />~/7cc.Jt~ ~_, <br />FRANK R. J SON <br />Assistant ttorney General <br />Natural Resources Section <br />(303) 620-4700 <br />FJ <br />cc: Steve Renner, MLRD <br />David Berry, MLRD <br />Harry Ranney, MLRD <br />