Laserfiche WebLink
Coal Regulations Rule 4.20.3(2)(b)(ii). Both the statute and the regulation set forth the <br />obligations of an underground coal mine operator if material damage to occupied <br />residential dwellings results from subsidence caused by underground coal mining <br />operations. In such an event, the operator must "promptly repair the damage by <br />rehabilitating, restoring, or replacing the damaged occupied residential dwelling and <br />related structures ...; or ... [c]ompensate the owner for in the full amount of the diminution <br />of value resulting from the subsidence...." C.R.S. § 34-33-121(2)(a)(II)(B); Coal <br />Regulations Rule 4.20.3(2)(b)(ii). The NOV cited Basin's "failure to compensate the <br />owner ... in the full amount of the diminution in value resulting from subsidence."= Basin <br />had 90 days to abate the violation. <br />Basin filed a Petition for Review and Motion to Consolidate all three matters on or about <br />Apri123, 2007. In an accompanying Statement of Reasons for its position, Basin aggued <br />that the NOV should be vacated because all matters related to the alleged subsidence, <br />including any enforcement actions, were resolved by a settlement agreement between the <br />parties (including the Board). <br />S. The Tatums filed responsive pleadings to both the Petition for Review and the Statement <br />of Reasons filed by Basin.' In response to Basin's Petition for Review, the Tatums argued <br />that the abatement period for the NOV expired on May 15, 2007, and that none of the <br />reasons for granting extensions in the Coal Regulations applied. In response to Basin's <br />Z In Jim and Ann Tatum v. Basin Resources, Inc., O1CV26, Las Animas County Dishict Court awarded the Tatums <br />$622,000.00 in damages measured as the value of their property with subsidence and the value of their property <br />without subsidence. The judgment was appealed and was affumed by the Colorado Court of Appeals in Tatum v. <br />Basin Resources, Inc., 141 P.3d 863 (2006). In that decision, the Coutt of Appeals held that Basin did not have the <br />right to choose the repair option over the payment-for-datnages option. The Colorado Supreme Court denied <br />certiorari. <br />' Under the Act, a person "having an interest which is or may be adversely affected by [a notice of violation] ... or <br />by any modification, vacation or termination of such notice ... may request review thereof by the board within <br />ninety days after [he issuance of [he notice ...." Section 34-33-124(1)(a), C.R.S. <br />Basin NOV Appeal, C-1981-013 <br />