Laserfiche WebLink
-29- <br />that it may indeed have to go to legislative modification to help <br />solve the problem. But in the meantime, there may be a reasonable <br />action that will be challenge--that's-there is no way that we can <br />guarantee in any instance that it won't be challenged, no matter <br />how we act, so that my own personal feeling is that you look for <br />evidence as to the intent on the part of the operator and where <br />they are headed and kind of their motivation in the whole process. <br />Weave that in where you really have situations that is otherwise <br />one which precludes operations essentially, and it appears to be <br />that for not only this operator but for many others in similar <br />situations, so my own thought is that we may progress through <br />and that we ought to be as tight as we can on reclamation stan- <br />dards, which is our first obligation I'm sure; and recognize that <br />we indeed might be challenged on something like this. I tend <br />to favor recognizing 120 and the fact of the potential <br />challenge. My own feeling is that it- what I've heard so far <br />indicates a reasonable approach on the part of the operator <br />there isn't anything that is out of line in the intention there, <br />so that's my own response at this moment, anyway. <br />gown: I would agree with that, because the strict interpretation says <br />that the only way that they can be in compliance is to submit <br />all ten applications on the same date. <br />hard: Twelve, get all of them approved, I think, that's really what I <br />understand... <br />crown: Is that correct? <br />