PERMFILE111768 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEMO TO GILBERT F, RINDAHL, Director, Reclamation Staff September 15, 1976 Page Two RE: SPECIFICATIOrd AGGREGATES, INC, received the permit, Thus, the Board, if it choses can recognize the permit as a five year one rather than first requiring the inspector to litigate the question. This type of an answer places the burden where it belongs, on the operator. The question as to whether he had a five year permit or not is a legal one and can only be determined by the courts. By notifying him of the problems inherent with his pre- vious permit, the operator is properly forewarned of possible legal attacks on his permit, and the Board doesn't repeat its previous errors of misleading operators by not fully advising them of possible problems. In my opinion, this tactic is the best for the Staff and the Board to take, because it places the decision where it belongs on the operator; yet, it enables the Board to work with the operator re- gardless of which legal theory he wishes to espouse. b. That regardless of whether Specification Aggregates wishes to contend that it has a permit expiring in 1976 or 1979, in my opinion, the Land Stabilization and Reclamation Agreement is effective for all lands affected by its mining operations since April 12, 1971. 2 . BorrDS . The bonds on the operation are in an unacceptable condition. Some of the bond forms contain limitations on the state's rigr.t to en- force the bond which do not conform to the statutory language which has remained unchanged since 1969. Evidently a fifty thou- sand dollar bond was submitted to the Bureau of Mines in April, 1971. The original bond, issued by General Insurance Co. of America is not in the file; however, there are continuation certi- ficates for the years 1972-1975. There is also a one-yesir performance bond from Aetna Casualty and Surety Company i:rom July 21, 1972-73. However, there are no continuation certificates filed on this bond. In October, 1974, the company submitted a sixty-six thousand dollar ($66,000.00) bond from Aetna C~isualty and Surety Company. The bond was to replace the fifty thousand $50,000.00) dollar bond from General Insurance Company. The legal problem is that although the replacement may have been intended by both the Board and the operator to include previously mitred Lands, the new bond did not specifically include the previously mined land and evidently the previous bond was released. In acidition,