My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE21661
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE21661
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:31:41 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:01:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Name
WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS EXHIBIT A-U
Violation No.
CV2000009
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
130
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1BLr1 96-90R, 96-91R <br />We reject OSM's position in its petition that damage to the Tatums' <br />house was not an i55ue i11 the I'ZG. <br />jTnrLar the regulations at 43 C.E.R. § 4.21(c), reconsideration of a <br />decision may be granted only in extraoz[linaxy dreumstances where, in the <br />judgement of the Director of the office of Hearings and P{~peal or an <br />Appeals Hoard, sufficient reason appears therefor. Wre will pvam~nea Cfl~f's <br />petition in light of this standard. <br />In the petition, 0.Qi states its 2~elief *_hat the Boazrt's decision <br />~yfainc significant errors of .law, the first of which it asserts relates <br />to the fpllowing language from the decision: <br />Yie believe, however, that the present record establishes by <br />a p*PpoTM+n*arx.e of the evidence that a violation did exist. <br />At~ellants have presented a decision issued by a Colorado State <br />wort (James {Jim) Tatum and An•~ Tatum v. Basin Resources, Inc., <br />No. 92 CV 127 (L~c. 1, 1997)) in a case involving than and H.RZ. <br />Although neither *~ nor os<•1 Norse parties to that prooeedis:g, tha <br />~Ylge detetm:ira:d that subsidence caused by BRI's m;^in; operation <br />dial, in fact, damage appellants' residenca. Suc1i a fluding <br />establishes a violation of the Colorado State program under 2 <br />Colo. Code Begs. 4.20, as dted ir. the TfN. <br />151 IBIA at 308. oSM alleges tt+at the Board's statement iaplieS that a <br />mpse finding that stiiosidence-related damage has occurred is sufficient to <br />a _*inriin~ of violation of the state pxvgram. C83 ornztes:ds that the <br />proper standard is rot whether damage has occurred but whether the person <br />who has been subjected to subsidence-related damage has been ~uated <br />!br the damage. 2/ It states that bPrause Judge M~~~a*~res' determined the <br />amount of g~pr~ation due anti Basin paid it, na violation exists. <br />2/ The appla.cable State regulation, 2 Colo. Code Begs. § 4.20.3(2) (7991), <br />specifically provides, in pertinent part, that: <br />Eat: parson s'~:a av~.:d_s u~-rlr'ound mi*it*~g activities whidl <br />result in 5uk~sidence that causes material damage * * * sha11, <br />with respect to each ~~.rface area affected by subsidence: <br />{a) Restore, rehabilitate, or move and replace each <br />damage3 stzuctl;re ~ * * prmptly after damage is suffered, to the <br />amdition it Mould be as if ro subside~e had ocxuzzed * *: <br />(b) Purck:ase the damaged stn:cture * * + for its fair <br />market, presubsidence value ~ * *; or <br />(c) Each parson who o~uC'ts urderg'btmd mining activities <br />will ~Ipensake the owner of any surface structus~e in full amount <br />of the disir:tticn in value resulting frCm subsidence * • *. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.