Laserfiche WebLink
• -32- • <br />catch-up ball, through no fault of your own, and you have an <br />operator in front of you here who you know has applications in, <br />but these are not the issues. The issues are very fundamental <br />and the AG's office has advised you that it's not a policy <br />issue for you. The policy's been set by the legislature. As a <br />matter of fact it's been set twice by the legislature because <br />this identical provision was debated and passed in both the 1973, <br />1976 legislation. It's a very serious issue and really the <br />question, and to put it very crudely- I don't mean any offense- <br />the question for you really is whether the Soard is going to <br />comply with the law, in order to make future operators comply with <br />the law, (let me just) run through what our view of the legality <br />of the situation is. Section 120 is very clear. As the AG has <br />advised in both the July letter and today, it says, "No <br />permit shall be granted." No reasonableness, no discretion. <br />"NO permit shall be granted to any operator currently found in <br />violation." Now, one group of people would like you to read <br />that, I know- Larry, you advanced this idea- as currently mining. <br />That's not what it says. <br />Brown: Why else would they use the word "currently," I mean that makes <br />it very clear. <br />Pring: Ah, if you have a situation where an operator is currently mining, <br />that's a very clear situation and one which would evoke little <br />sympathy, I think, from the Board. The reason the legislature <br />didn't say "currently operating" or "currently mining," which they <br />clearly could have, and it was considered, is because there's <br />another much more important problem, at least from our standpoint, <br />and that's your'middle name, that's the reclamation, that's the <br />