Laserfiche WebLink
42 <br />1 protecting state resources, and we would require <br />2 some fix of that if, in fact, it was proven that <br />3 subsidence did cause that damage. So we would have <br />4 gone forward. <br />5 We're also charged with in the coal <br />6 program under the subsidence statute and <br />7 regulations to basically protect citizens from the <br />8 adverse affects of mining due to subsidence. <br />9 Now, in this particular case there was <br />10 no allegation of damage to state resources, per <br />11 se. There was an allegation of damage to a <br />12 structure. The citizen had the right, then, to ask <br />13 for a violation or a violation be pursued or remedy <br />14 be pursued. So we wrote the violation. They also <br />15 had the right to pursue it in court. <br />16 Now, since there was no -- <br />17 MR. MCCULLOH: Actually, both. They can <br />18 go both ways. <br />19 MR. LONG: Right. <br />20 MR. JAVERNICK: They did not have to <br />21 drop the violation to proceed in court. They could <br />22 have pursued a parallel course. <br />23 MR. LONG: I defer to the attorneys on <br />24 that, but anyway so they -- basically we were <br />25 looking at basically a civil matter of potential <br />