Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-40- <br />r~ <br />L <br />getting confused with two things. There is a differentiation <br />for penalties for violating the reclamation law. If there's a <br />violation, if a person operated without a permit under the <br />'73 statute, then the penalty by thatlwhere~ establishes criminal <br />and I refer them to the appropriate district attorney. If there, <br />it's a provision whereby someone has operated without a permit <br />since July 1st of this year then that's within your province <br />and you have the civil penalties, cease and desist and the fines. <br />But legally, and the, my office did a great deal of research on <br />this question, when you have a provision that continued from <br />your'73 Act, or went word-for-word into the '76 Act, then it',s <br />interpreted as being continously in effect from that point and <br />that is why, I'm not saying that you're going back to criminally <br />enforce a provision for the '73 law, I don't think we've ever <br />said that, but I think that continuation word-for-word by the <br />legislature enables you to consider violations under the '73 <br />Act in making your determination. And I think maybe that's a <br />different question, than perhaps what you were saying.... <br />r;rown: It's complicated. <br />Turner: Sure is. <br />[•7ard: Well, I think we either ought to table the motion or to act on it. <br />'['unner: Was there any type of, you know, you mention the word agreement, <br />Dick, that would not be as strong, say, as the 90-day permit <br />