Laserfiche WebLink
~C <br />I <br />case, the Board cannot proceed to conduct a t;eanne en t}:e reinsated NOV the next <br />day, l~lart:h 22, 2001 as requested by Basin {Motion at . }. Because DMG has vacated <br />the NOV, any decision by the Board to require DMG to reinstate the NOV is a new <br />action, requiring that the Board follow the 30 day non:: requirement establshed is <br />the Co:otado Adtninis>;ative procedures Act, § 24-4.105, C.RS, or at least the five <br />day notice requirement established is the Act, § 34-33-12a(b), C.RS. prior to <br /> <br />More irrrponantly, Basi-t Resources has no standing to contest this NOV <br />vacation, and the Board therefore should deny the motion. DMG is the administrative <br />agency charged with enforcing the Act and the Rules. § 34-33-123, C.R S. The <br />Board is an appellate administrative body charged with reviewing DMG enforcement <br />actions. § 34-33-124, C.RS. When requested by someone who has been "adversely <br />affected" by ecal minute operations, DMG's must conduct an inspection end <br />thereafter irsritute appropriate enforcement, tf watrartted. § 34-33-12(7), C.R.S. a-td <br />Rule 5.02.5 Hae, Ms. T:.*tun, the landowner apparently adversely a~'ected by <br />continuing subsidrnee, requested the inspection, DMG inspected, and based on iw1s. <br />Tatttm's representations of continuing subsidence-related damage, the ? 997 cotter <br />ruling in James and Ann Tatum v. Basin Resources, Inc., NA. 92 CV 1'-7 (D.Ct., Cry <br />of Las Animas, Dec. 1, 1997) in favor of the Tatums regarding subsidence-related <br />damage and the recent U.S. Department of the Interor Board of Land A?peals <br />(IBLA) decisions to the same e:fect, Jim and .Ann Tawn,151 IBLA 286, 306-30' <br />(January =, 2000) and Jim and Ann Tctutn (On Reconsiderationl, IBLA 9o-90R and <br />96-91 R {July 26.2000) , D11G issued the NOV. <br />