Laserfiche WebLink
<br />13-15). In response to two specific questions Mr. Sadler <br />admitted that he had no thought that dry-wall cracks in his <br />house ware being caused by the gravel operation until he <br />read thy: Mined Land Reclamation Act and thereafter "I sus- <br />pected that maybe that was the case.^ (transcript p. 15). <br />Mr. Sadler's position consists of utter speculation which <br />did not rise high enough in his mind to even think of bring- <br />ing leg.31 action against the persons alleged in the complaint <br />to be d:3maging his home. (Transcript, p. 15.) <br />Rather incrediblyr in support of plaintiffs' charge <br />that thc~ findings of the board were without supporting evi- <br />dence in the record plaintiffs refer to exhibit J. to their <br />motion. This consists of a letter from the LaPlata County <br />Commissioners to the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board <br />in whicYi the commissioners state that there is no zoning <br />ordinance in LaPlata County and in which the commissioners <br />gratuitously suggest that, hopefully, the operation is in <br />violation of state law. <br />Plaintiffs' approach to this case is entirely conceptual <br />and not factual. This is well illustrated by reference to <br />the transcript (p. 15) in which plaintiff Terry Sadler states <br />that his case is based upon a portion of the "affected land" <br />-10- <br />