Laserfiche WebLink
I. <br />In the decision in the above-captioned case, Jim & Ann <br />Tatum, 151 IBLA 286 (January 5, 2000), the Board discussed the <br />factual and procedural background to this matter in a <br />comprehensive and detailed manner. The Petitioner believes that <br />the Board's discussion in its decision fairly states the relevant <br />background of this case. In the interest of brevity, the <br />Petitioner will not needlessly re-state the background of this <br />case in this pleading. <br />II. DISCUSSION <br />In its decision, the Board affirmed the decision of OSM not <br />to order a Federal inspection pursuant to OSM TDN (Ten Day <br />Notice) No. 93-020-370-005, violation 2 (IBLA docket number 96- <br />90). This portion of the TDN concerned alleged subsidence damage <br />to the Appellants' water well. 151 IBLA 286, 308. The Board, <br />however, vacated the decision of OSM not to order a Federal <br />inspection pursuant to OSM TDN No. 93-020-370-005, violations 1 <br />and 3, and remanded the matter to OSM for appropriate action <br />(IBLA docket number 96-91). Id. This portion of the TDN <br />concerned the alleged subsidence-related violations by the coal <br />mine operator in question, Basin Resources, Inc. (BRI). <br />The petitioner believes that Board's decision in IBLA 96-91 <br />contains significant errors of law. In the interest of justice, <br />the Petitioner humbly and respectfully requests that the Board <br />reconsider its decision in light of the following discussion. <br />Error 1 <br />At 151 IBLA 286, 308, the Board states the following: <br />Although neither DMG nor OSM were parties to [the State <br />court case between the Appellants and BRI], the Judge <br />determined that subsidence caused by BRI's mining <br />operation did, in fact, damage appellants' residence. <br />Such a finding establishes a violation of the Colorado <br />State program under 2 Colo. Code Regs. 4.20, as cited <br />in the TDN. <br />The Petitioner respectfully suggests to the Board that this <br />statement of the standard for judging when a violation of the <br />Colorado State program has occurred is incorrect. This statement <br />implies that merely finding that subsidence-related damage has <br />2 <br />