My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE24076
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE24076
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:33:03 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:36:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
2/22/2000
Doc Name
THE TATUMS OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND REQUEST FOR STAY
Violation No.
TD1993020370005TV3
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.
/
8
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
clarifying a potentially confusing statement of the law. Accordingly, Powderhom provides no <br />justification for OSM's petition. <br />Instead of alleging that the Board overlooked a "material fact of crucial importance" or stated <br />the governing law in a confusing manner, OSM quarrels with the Boazd's finding that a <br />preponderance of evidence in the record shows that BRI violated 2 Colo. Code Regs. 4.20 because <br />it establishes that "subsidence caused by BRI's mining operation did, in fact, damage [the Tatum's] <br />residence." Alternatively, OSM azgues that the Board erred in considering the state court decision <br />because, although it was based on the same evidence the Regional Director considered, the state <br />court decision post-dates the Regional Director's informal review decision. <br />OSM's fust azgument lacks any merit whatsoever. Even if OSM were correct in azguing that <br />the relevant regulation is violated only when an operator fails to pay full compensation to a <br />homeowner for subsidence damage - a point the Tatums adamantly dispute -the administrative <br />record in this case shows that at the time of the Regional Director's informal review decision, BRI <br />had failed to provide any compensation to the Tatums for the damage that coal mine subsidence had <br />done to their home. Where a coal operator denies causing subsidence damage to an landowner's <br />home and thus compels the landowner to seek judicial remedy, the coal operator plainly violates the <br />regulatory duty to "compensate the owner of any structure in the full amount of the diminution in <br />value resulting fromsubsidence." If the landowner subsequently prevails in court and collects on <br />a judgment, OSM may have grounds to terminate the violation, but the agency may not refuse to <br />write the violation in the first place. <br />Even in cases such as this one, wherejudicial remedy outpaces the Boazd's decision on the <br />existence of a violation, it is important foc at least two reasons that OSM issue a notice of violation <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.