Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-zs- <br />a potential problem with 120 or not, and I respect the Board's <br />problem, I sincerely do, and the attorney general's office is <br />very much sympathetic to it, but I believe even as stated by <br />one of the legislators down in Grand Junction, the attorney <br />general's office just cannot rewrite the statute for you. We <br />have to tell you what the law says, and then.... <br />Sullivan: Yeah, I appreciate this... <br />Obernyer: I think that's my point. What I think people, the impression I'm <br />getting is that you're asking us to interpret the statute in a way <br />that would enable you to act the way you want to, and I think that <br />we're trying to say is in this case we think the language is <br />absolutely clear--it was adopted word for word from the previous <br />Act, the 1973 Act. It is my understanding of the legislative <br />history that the legislature felt very strongly about this <br />provision being in effect and that it gives the Board an addi- <br />tional power, and additional control over an operator that you <br />don't have to come in and permit someone if he's engaging in <br />illegal mining activities throughout the rest of the state. I <br />don't know how to respond to your question. We have told what in <br />our opinion the law says, and there is case law that indicates <br />that if you act in violation of the law your acts could be <br />challenged in a court of law. <br />lJard: I think that on many of our actions is obviously the case (mumbled). <br />My own feeling is that it is a rather insurmountable situation if <br />it's followed to the letter, if you really wanted to do that, and <br />