Laserfiche WebLink
• -z~- <br />it, it is only the Board that may find an operator in violation of <br />the mining act. Now we are faced with this situation of trying to <br />get particularly I think sand and gravel operators in compliance. <br />Unless the Board was to make the finding, for example, on the <br />Nielson operation, that they were not in compliance, now let us <br />assume here that they do have 8 operations that have not yet <br />been permitted and we are confronted with this one today. We <br />have not yet found that (the) other nine, for example, are in <br />violation. What I'm saying here is, can we, could we, on this <br />basis go ahead and approve the permit which is submitted to us <br />today and in order to take up this other slack say that we are <br />aware that you do have other operations in existence or potential <br />operations and that before any other mining may be done on this <br />that you've got this 90 days that we were talking about at the <br />last meeting to get these applications permitted. <br />Obernyer: My problem....you could do that, obviously, you're the Board and <br />you're the one that makes the decision. If you are asking me whe- <br />ther or not it would be upheld if you were challenged in the <br />courts--that's where I have my doubts as to the legality of your <br />action. It is my understanding of 1065 that the Board has to make <br />a finding that the application complies, .that the application <br />would be in compliance, that the approval of the application would <br />be in compliance with this statute and all other state, local and <br />federal laws and regulations. I think that 120 is there, I think <br />it's staring the Board in the face. I think that the Board has to <br />make its determination as far as whether or not it`s going to issue <br />a permit when it has knowledge of a violation...has knowledge of <br />