Laserfiche WebLink
(•34/10/Z001 PE~:Z~ 713995719; JIIt 1'PTUM ASSOC PAGE 51 <br />house or to compensate the TATUMS for the loss they consequently sustained in the fair <br />mazket value of Solitatio Ranch. <br />20. On or about November 13, 2000, BASIN commenced an administrative proceeding <br />against DMG pursuant to Colo. Rev. Star. § 34-33-124 for review of Notice of Violation <br />No. CV-2000-009 before the BOARA. <br />21. On or about February [2, ZOOI, the TATUMS moved the BOARD to intervene as <br />additional parties defendant in the adt<t»nistrativeproceedtng just described. <br />22. On or about February 21, 2001, based on discovery oC expert witness opinions that <br />BASIN proposed to introduce at the administrative hearing the BOARD had scheduled in <br />connection with review of Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-009, the TATUMS and <br />Dt'~1G jointly moved the BOARD to prohibit BASIN from introducing any opinion <br />evidence that, contrary to the pertindnt findings and conclusions in this Court's December <br />1, 1997, judgment, advanced, implied, or stemmed from the conclusion that coal mine <br />subsidence at the Golden Beagle Mine did not damage Solitario Ranch prior to 1997. <br />23. On or about Mazch 8, 2001, the BOARD entered an. order denying the joint motion to <br />prohibit introduction of BASIN's proposed opinion evidence conflicting with this Court's <br />poor findings and conclusions. <br />24. Also on March 8, 2001, the TATUMS requested that DMG vacate without prejudice <br />Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-009 and allow Ann Tatum to withdraw her request for <br />inspection and enforcement. The TATUMS did not wish to waste their time or resources <br />by proceeding as parties to a fundamentally flawed administrative adjudication, given <br />their statutory option to file a citizen suit directly against BASIN to recover damages as <br />the result of additional coal mine subsidence at Solitatio Ranch. <br />2S. On Mazch 12, 2001, DMG infol~tted the Tatums that the agency had in Fact (a) vacated <br />Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-009, (b} allowed Ann Tattun to wtthdraw her request <br />for inspection and enforcement, and (c) cancelled the hearing previously scheduled on <br />BASIN's request for administrative review of Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-009. <br />26. On or about Mazch 13, 2001, BASIN moved the BOARD to adjudicate Notice of <br />Violation No. CV-2000-009 or to vacate that notice with prejudice. <br />27. BASIPI has never becn, and is ^ot mow, a proponent of Notice of Violation No. CV•2000- <br />009. <br />28. As a matter of law, because BASIN was not a proponent of Notice of Violation No. CV- <br />2000-009 at the time that it requested administrative review of DMG's decision to vacate <br />[hat action, BASIN was ttot a "parson having an interest which is or may be adversely <br />affected by" DMG's decision to vacate that enforcement action. <br />4 <br />