Laserfiche WebLink
`J <br />determined by the Board <br />yes. <br />-23- • <br />The ones that have permits have bonds, <br />'eurner: And that's the two that Mark mentioned. <br />Rindahl: Yes. <br />~4ard: Lynn? <br />Obernyer: Pu•. Brown, I just would respectfully call to your attention the <br />language of Section 34-32-120 which does not say "currently <br />found to be mining," it says "currently found to be in violation <br />of the provisions of this article with respect to any operation <br />in the state." It does not tie it down to the term "mining <br />operation," and then we've again respectfully submitted to you <br />previously that this would mean that a permit could not issue <br />if they were currently mining OR without a permit OR if they had <br />not filed and obtained approval of a reclamation plan and a bond <br />for acreage which was mined without a permit. <br />Drown: That would mean to me that many, many mines in the state could <br />never be permitted then. Correct? <br />Obernyer: Unless they all came in at one time with everything. <br />Brown: No, they were previously in violation, therefore they cannot be <br />permitted. That's what you just said. <br />Obernyer: No, what we're saying to you is that it certainly can be cleared <br />