Laserfiche WebLink
04/26/2007 15:35 7198460159 JIM TATUM <br />"T'OR TITS AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, THE TATUMS SPECIFICALLY <br />DO NOT RELEASE BASIN OR SAN TSAI3EL ELECTRICAL <br />COOPERATIVE FOR ANY DAMAGES DONE TO` THEIR PROPERTY <br />AND WATER ST:IPPLY AND FAILURE '~O RESTORTr SAME. <br />"litigation"as defined in Exhibit E is: The Nov (CV--2000-009) acrd Case <br />Nn. O.T-CV-38; Case No. DI-CV77, Case No. DICA24X0; Case No. <br />02CAi91S and Case Nn. 03CA0039." Finally, the Board vacated Notice of <br />Violation No. CV-2000-009 WITHOUT T'RE7UDICE. (Tatum Exhibit (1) <br />herein attached.) <br />Both the February 15, 2007 Notice of Violation and the Proposed Decision <br />to Increase Bond cogxectly xe:ference Case Number O1CV26 filed in the Las <br />Animas County District Court as establishing the factual foundation, upon , <br />which MLRB has detetxnined Basin's failure to comply with the required <br />performance standards. <br />2. As previously discussed and cited, the actions taken by MLRB are <br />zzzarldated by the Colorado Coal Mining regulations. The Division is acting <br />in accordance with their mandate to take enforcement action against a <br />permittee when the Division has knowledge of arty violation of a <br />performance standard. The decision, and underlying established facts, in <br />Case No. OlCV25 provided that information. The Tatums have n,ot, nor <br />would they, request or expect MLRB to secure judgments relative to any <br />civil action taken or to be taken by the Tatutrzs. The Tattuns, however, do <br />expect MLRB to ~nforce all of the requirements of the Colorado Coal <br />Mining Regulations Basin has violated two specifxe performance standards <br />of those regulations and MLRB is taking the action necessary t~ address and. <br />correct those violations. <br />3. Colorado Mined Land Rule 4.20.3 (2) (a) "restore, rehabilitate or <br />remove and replace each damaged stnzrnire, feature or value, PROMPTLY <br />after damage is suffered, TO THE CONDITION IT WOULD BE AS IF NO <br />SUBSIDENCE HAT) OCCCTRRED AND REASONABLY FORSEEABLE <br />USES IT WAS CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING BEFORE SUBSIDENCE." <br />Basin/Westmoreland could have chosen the option to repair at the time the <br />subsidence damaue occurred. The regulation requires the pcrnlittee to <br />"promptly" make'~repaixs to the damaged structure or, failing that, to <br />componsate the homeowner in the full amount of the dirninuzion of value <br />resulting from the yiarrzage. The NOV correctly requires Basin to provide <br />3 <br />