HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail from Clarence Hasty 06.03.08 New Era & Reso 08-24 Page I of 2
Moghannam, Kathleen
From: Clarence Hasty [hastytom@gotsky.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 7:12 PM
To: Kirk, Maureen; Connelly, Bill; Moghannam, Kathleen; Josiassen, Curt; Dolan, Jane
Subject: In the Matter of the New Era Mine and Planning Commission Resolution 08-24
TO THE BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
In the Matter of the New Era Mine and Planning Commission Resolution
08-24
Honored Supervisors Connelly, Dolan,Josiassen, Kirk,and Yamaguchi:
Laws are established by democratic institutions, not to take away freedom, but to insure equal
sharing by citizens of the liberties provided by the mutual society. Commercial, political and special
interests sometimes get in the way of this equality of freedoms for individual citizens. In the case of
the New Era Mine under consideration by the Butte County Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors, the residents of the Dry Creek area ask that the elected officials and civil authorities of
Butte County assure us that our personal and environmental well-being have, at the least, equal
importance as the commercial interests involved in these issues.
The technical and legal arguments for and against the Planning Commission Resolution 08-24 are
fully documented and not restated here. However, I would like to describe my personal observation
that the New Era Mine and its management have exhibited a disdain for the law and disregard for its
neighbors and the environment. These indictments are supported by a number of facts, but the
primary one is that the current operation started up in 2007 without approval from the County and in
spite of a caution from the responsible County authorities that the original mining permit issued in
1982 might be invalid. Their significant intrusion into the environment of the Dry Creek canyon came
with no notice to, and little exhibited concern for the neighboring residents. The New Era Mine has
taken an old mining permit, issued in a different environmental era 26 years ago, interpreted it in their
own way to justify their massive operation of today, and have proceeded unilaterally. This arrogant
action is an affront to my sensibilities and respect for the authority of the County, State and Federal
laws that 1, as a voter, have sanctioned. To me, the New Era Mine exhibits an attitude of"scoff at the
law"and a strategy of"catch me if you can...."
Well, they have been caught. It took citizen complaints to alert the County and State regulatory
agencies. The New Era Mine has now been inspected, cited and brought before the Planning
Commission, and asked to do the right thing by order of Resolution 08-24. Any mitigating actions
taken to-date by the Now Era Mine for compliance to regulations and citizen complaints seem to be
"after the fact" and not pro-active as one would expect from a commercial entity interested in being a
good neighbor.
IV
If we continue to argue over parochial interpretations of the disputed 1982 mining Q4CW W le
1,f�fflVRTA
#WN
Wool'
Op
.OVn1B,CALiFOR1fA
6/4/20OR OROVILLEXALIFOR14A