My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE104313
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE104313
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:57:35 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 11:02:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1976027
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
11/18/1976
Section_Exhibit Name
TRANSCRIPT OF NOVEMBER 18 1976 MEETING OF COLORADO MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
122
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />-38- • <br />the COSC and all the other so-called consumer groups, if you <br />will, even knew there was a problem. we feel strongly that <br />there needs to be good, if needs to be interpreted as a completely <br />unreasonable, then I think the association would not have any <br />position except to have to reverse themselves, oppose these <br />laws and try for the repeal <br />[card: Any other comments from the public? Larry? <br />Drown: I still can't, can't agree with this strict interpretation for <br />two reasons. I don't agree with the interpretation itself, and <br />secondly, I don't think we can agree with it simply because of <br />the morass of problems it would create. They cannot, it's an <br />untenable situation to ask them to submit eight applications <br />simultaneously to comply with the law. It seems like it to me. <br />And now maybe we should define this a little bit better, our <br />statute began on July 1, 1976. We cannot enforce the '73 <br />statute. All right, so that maybe any mining that has occurred <br />since July 1, 1976, say it occurred during the July of this year, <br />then stopped. In the case of Nielson, and this is purely <br />hypothetical, maybe then by the strict interpretation, we could <br />not grant this permit, but we have no evidence that says that <br />they were mining after this statute came into effect. I just <br />don't agree with it all the way around. <br />Ward: Bob? <br />'Purner: I'd like to throw out a suggestion although there's nothing in <br />the law which covers this, that rather than issuing a life of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.