Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />,~ <br />J <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />18 <br />Has any reclamation -- <br />MR. LOPE: On either of these pits? No. <br />MS. WINTER: Is there any hazard onsite? <br />MR. LOYE: No. <br />MS. WINTER: One thing that I notice in <br />all the preceding penalties that we have issued, we have <br />treated the operator and all his pits as a unit. For <br />instance, in the case of Yuma County, there were 31 pits <br />The penalty was $18,000 and only $4,000 was to be paid. <br />I4hen the Jones pit was here, we treated it as a separate <br />entity and now we are treating the [-7ebster. pit as a <br />separate entity. It seems to me in fairness, we ought <br />to be treating them -- we ought to consider that they <br />are one violation by one operator. For instance when <br />Bill Watson was fined, he had two pits and he was fined <br />at one time for both of them. He didn't pa}r anything <br />it turned out. He was fined $2,000 and all of it was <br />suspended until -- pending a permit application. So it <br />seems to be consistent that we ought to consider that <br />a $5,000 fine has already been paid. <br />P4R. BARRY: Margie, I don't think I disagree <br />with where you are going, but I don't think as a rule, <br />we have treated all pits owned and operated by one owner <br />as a unit. We have occasionally done that. I think in <br />my history, it has generally been more the other way <br />cu t~r:+ caRresr rs s +~coc/a r/a. rc~ <br />Crn tl'ua .Shun hunt F~•porrt+. <br />I~00 Ch,rn rAlr Fnad <br />/whvun. Cnlurarld 80/'I <br />i4r 'M1/ v`Rr <br /> <br />