ENFORCE21661

• Permit No: C1981013
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Name: WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS EXHIBIT A-U
• Violation No.: CV2000009
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

KCt tlY: U. G.&S. 10-gp- 0 8:1uP\I
:10:1 ?J I .i3F:)- 0.G. &S. : q J

IBLA 96-90R, 96-91R
surface stztsctt_res and related property as celled for by sutute was die."
In.that ar¢plainC, the Tatums also :nrnrporated by reference a letter to
06tfi"dated November 18, 1993, ir. which Jim Tatum asserted that no
sicptiificant damage or cracking ocarrred in their house until after ffitI
crQmellced work ter tt:ei.r property. In that November 18, 1993, letter, he
also expresst~i frustration in dealing with the State of Coloracb,
i]epar~t~nt of Natural Resources, Aivisior. of bIi.n'*+~; and Geology (II~T,)
IIS dt first took the position that n0 mining had taken place in
close prwcin+ity to the house. The first assertions of ~+~'~TM'~
fran the house were grossly in error or untzue. I24G has igrnrecl
the. Colorado laws regaz~ding ~~he safe;,*ds to be used in mining
tinder structures atxi rnthinq has been dare about the mining
ca;q~any ignoring such laws. ~i now i5 trying to blame the
structural failure of the house on ridla~lous or nonexistent
causes. 7n short II~ has acted in a manner that strongly
suggests that their mle is to justify wrongful acts and the
resulting damage by the mining companies.
Cn Decanber 7, 1993, in response to the citizen's oo~laint, ~i
issued TIN NO. 93-020-370-005 to Rte, listing three violations oP Colorado
State pzvgram sra,,.a~r,;e, The TLN described the violations as a failure to
properly Pict a st~sidence survey, subsidence monitoring, a~i a
subsidence oontml plan for the TatuoLS' property, in violation of sections
2.05.6(6) and 4.20 of 2 Colo. Code Regs. (1991) (Violation 1): failure to
ccattml adv~xse c.~sequences to a Hater well ~ the px~oerty (Vialdticvr 2) ~
arxi failure to pmvida a detailed operations plan of the proposed for
actual) tauiargrrnmd workings as it related to the Tatum property Niolatim
3) , On Deca~ober 20, 1993, 12~ respcmded to alleged Violations 1 and 3
asserting that ERI had rat violated State sta.-rlarcU.
On February 4, 1994, following the receipt of further information fzrm
Dom, the Albuquerque Field Office (AtU), CE4wt, informed It4u that it
considered its response to Violations i arxi 3 to be "appropriate." By
letter dated Deo®ber 2, 1994, the Tatlaas requested informs]. review,
pursuant to 30 C.F.R. § 842.15(a), of that part of the AE'0's Flebruazy 1994
decision relating to Violations 1 and 3. The Deputy Director, C@4,
acknowledged this request in a January 18, 1995, "interim response,"
wherein he also stated that "the Colorado R'Iv has made a fiutt oacaoitment to
pra~tly t8]ce the lead in ccaxt?.r*;*+~ a thorough technical investigation to
detezmirae whether Basin FaSOtrtti2'e vndettarptaui mini ~ operations have
ittpacted the water level in your cell and have caused subsidence-related
damage to your property." He stated that upon completion of II4t<'s
techav cal investigation and review of sutueGuert actions taken by >24;, 03i
wou]-d cwtify then of its decision oar the violations.
IIl its petiti~, 0.41 alleges that Violation 1 of the TLN in this case