My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE26334
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE26334
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:34:19 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:17:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
7/20/1998
Doc Name
JIM AND ANN TATUMs CITIZENS COMPLAINT
From
ANN TATUM
To
DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
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.
/
2
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
v- <br />WATER WELL ISSUE: <br />22. The state ignored the truth and the fact that Appellants water well was not <br />required to be permitted. The State ignored that fact that the water well was operational <br />in 1984 or 1985. The State ignored the fact that the 1984 report does not state that the <br />water well was non-functional but "not functioning". The airshaft facility and the <br />adjoining longwall mining north of the water well influenced the Appellants water well in <br />190 and 1991. The states position was that the Appellants hadn't used the water well for <br />10 yeazs, therefore the mine could not be held responsible for damaging the well. The <br />State knew that the actual facts were that the mine had damaged and/or influenced <br />Appellants property in 1990 and 1991 a mere 5 - 6 yeazs from the 1984 report and that <br />the water well was not able to operate or produce water after the airshaft was installed on <br />Appellants property and after the longwall mining had occulted on the Appellants <br />northern property line. The State knew that the water well was "grandfathered in thus not <br />requiring permitting and that the mine had agreed to protect all Appellants property in the <br />June 1988 agreement. The state has stated that Appellants had not been harmed by the <br />loss of the water well. Appellants have loss the use of a stock water well. Appellants <br />raise horses and cattle and thusly require water to take care of their stock. <br />Conclusions: <br />The decision rendered by the OSM Regional Director was inappropriate, not <br />based on fact, and therefore should be overturned. Appellants' request that the Board <br />grant whatever additional relief it deems appropriate. Further Appellants request that the <br />Board proceed to issue sanctions against Basin resources, lnc. for their willful and <br />deliberate misrepresentations and dishonesty during the investigation. <br />~l_^ ~~ ` <br />~~~U =J~ ~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.