Laserfiche WebLink
In direct violation of the November 12, 1999, order, OSM has petitioned the Boazd to <br />reconsider its decision in the Ta[um's appeal solely on grounds arising out ofthe state court decision. <br />Specifically, OSM first argues that the state court decision establishes that Basin Resources, Inc. <br />("BRI") has fully compensated the Tatums for subsidence damage done to their home and thus <br />precludes a finding that BRI violated any provision of the approved Colorado state regulatory <br />program. Then, pursuing a completely inconsistent tack, OSM chazges that the Board erred in even <br />considering the state court decision because it post-dates the Regional Director's informal review <br />decision. <br />Nothing prohibited OSM from making either or both of these arguments in response to the <br />Board's August 17, 1999, order. Each argument states precisely the sort of position on the state <br />court decision that the Board expressly elicited from OSM. As the agency's reconsideration petition <br />demonstrates, neither argument is complex or difficult to state. Together the arguments span only <br />five pages. OSM has no excuse whatsoever for not having filed a brief stating these arguments <br />within the time the Boazd allowed. Having failed to meet even its own suggested deadlines for <br />stating a position on the state court decision, OSM should not be permitted to attack the Board's <br />subsequent disposition of this appeal on grounds the agency should have presented during the <br />Board's original consideration. See Dugan Production Co.,117IBLA 153 (1990). This is especially <br />so because the Board-has barred the agency from submitting further pleadings on the subject. The <br />Tatums urge the Board to enforce its November 12, 1999, order and dismiss OSM's petition out of <br />hand. <br />3 <br />