1995-04-14_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

Home Browse Search

• (3 /2-4 c' 2Ly ti -y � .L v er P e %, _ ! ` • approved in May, 1991 had become moot by the passage of time and - (\ J plc changed circumstances_. The Board thus ordered that modifications, e,.av were to be addressed by the Division and the permittee, Resources r,1.t,f/ The Board did not execute an order based upon the August 1992 Board meeting until October, 1992. That order directed compliance with the Schedule, but failed to reflect the Board's earlier --7774- 0 a Pt IL ' w' f e v e �L c fr ,L ,1977' f 'L- vi , r / ' V 4 7 /-'i a instruction that modifications to the Schedule were to be made by the uivision and Resources. Furthermore, the undisputed facts > v� v � r ti v � � ti ( 'fit j H J The Schedule originally directed reclamation to begin June 1, show that no such modifications to the Schedule were made, despite Resources' request for them. See e.g„ 24, 1992 etter Da" ` T 4 -tr- € n c r dl 7'4 , ,S from Robert Delaney to Michael Long, Director of the Division, attached as Attachment G to Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. h 1992. Clearly, neither Resources, nor the defendants as its purported agents, could comply with a Schedule that ordered N reclamation to begin some months before the Board even implemented N. circumstances at the time. the Schedule was moot at the time the Board attempted to implement 7 V. it, and was never thereafter modified by the Board or the Division to comport with the changed circumstances, the Court finds as a soy. .J(�\ matter of law that there was no valid, existing order with which al^ v�J the Schedule nor was that even contemplated under the Because the undisputed facts show that a s` 1 the defendants had failed to comply at the time that the complaint herein was filed. Without such an order, moreover, there is no ZT'd 99E## WUTT:0T S66T 'bT NdH 9220T1Z 20 T :01 Ip��pu:WO�id