Laserfiche WebLink
• -34- • <br />closes its eyes and declines to make a finding that the operator is <br />in violation with unreclaimed lands that should have been permitted, <br />can you go ahead and grant the permit? No, that's the "hear. no <br />evil, see no evil" approach. Section 115, remember, requires that <br />before you can grant any permit, or deny any permit, that one of <br />the first things you have to do in §115 is determine that that <br />operator is in compliance with state laws. So you can't avoid <br />making a finding, particularly when there is, on the record, <br />evidence from your own staff that there are one, you know, <br />operations in violations of 120. It seems to me that the Board has, <br />I'd like to conclude this thought, you have three very positive, <br />strong enforcement levers. One is 120, you can't just tell <br />operator, "I'm sorry we can't grant 'em permits until you have <br />enforceable reclamation plans and bonds for all of your operations <br />that qualify." The second is your ability to use cease and desist <br />powers which you've already used this summer to shut down operations, <br />and the third is your ability to levy fines up to $1,000 a day in <br />a situation like this. Unreciaimed land that should have been <br />permitted without a reclamation plan or bond, every day it sits <br />there, could, in your discretion, cost the operator anywhere from <br />$100 to. $1,000. <br />Drown: Under the '73 statute? <br />Pring: Under yourown statute right now. <br />Rindahl: '76. <br />Pring: Under the '73 statute (it was criminal]... <br />