|
I73LA 96-90, 96-91
<br />section 720 (a) of SM32P., because the watering of livestock is a cannercial
<br />agricultural use of water.
<br />There is no evidence in the record that appellants used the well in
<br />question for any purpose after acquiring their property in 1988. I-IOaever,
<br />they stated in their August 1995 request for infornal. review, that the
<br />pasture had been used to hold cattle arxi horses and "[i]f we had water
<br />at that location we could again use this location to hold our cattle and
<br />ho=ses * * * " 5/ (Letter to OSM, dated Aug. 12, 1995, at 2.) Appel-
<br />lants' claim in their SOR at page 5 that "[a]11 cur acreage is for dares-
<br />tic use," is belied by their state;rent in a copy of a letter in the record
<br />from appellants to Senator Phil Grartm, dated April 5, 1995, in which they
<br />represent that "[o]ur bare and ranch in Colorado is amulti-million [dol-
<br />lar] operation * * *." Amilli-million dollar operation that includes
<br />the pasturing; grazing, and watering of livestock-is clearly a-oa~mes+cia].
<br />operation.
<br />Therefore, we must ccmclude that the well in question did not consti-
<br />tute a "~T~nkino, domestic, or residential water supply," within the mean-
<br />i~ of section 720 (a) of SM32A, 30 U.S.C. § 1309a(a) (1994), for which 13RI
<br />was liable to prnvide a replacement. ~/
<br />Likewise, the facts fail to show a violation of State law as alleged
<br />in the TIYdI. OSM asserts that appellants are curly entitled to relief if
<br />ffiti's ~'*+~P+*TM**~*~ coal mining operations interfereli with a "vested water
<br />right," because, under 2 Colo. Code Reps. § 4.05.15 (1991), replacerent is
<br />curly ,wn,; red fora "vested water right . " (Answer at 14 .) CH'7 notes that
<br />LNG had already detPmm~n~, as set forth in its June 6, 1995, letter, that
<br />appellants had no such right in the water frrm their well and that, since
<br />it was reasonable on its face, DFD was entitled to defer to that interpre-
<br />tation. (Answer at 14-15, r~ P;ttch~,r= & Midway Coal Min11a Co. v.
<br />~qy, 132 II3LA at 89-90, 102 I.D. at 16-17.) OSM asserts that, absent a
<br />vested water right, LNG,propesly decided that 13RI had not violated the
<br />State regulation.
<br />5 ING stated that the well was located within a "fenced-in pasture of
<br />about 11 acres in size," but that the condition of the pasture, including
<br />"[s]ore" knocked-down fencing and "many" fence posts rotten at the base,
<br />indicated that it had not been "recently used for grazing." (June 1995
<br />LNG Report at 2.)
<br />~/ Given our conclusion, we need not decide whether ]3RI's actions resulted
<br />in a "diminution" of appellants' water supply from the well. Although
<br />LNG's June 6, 1995, letter to 0.47 states that "it is likely that the water
<br />level in the well was influenced by the adjacent und?m*+-~~*~ wor7sings a~
<br />exhaust shaft," the attached report states that "[t]here has been no dem~-
<br />stration to the Division that there has been damage (a loss of beneficial
<br />use.)" (June 1995 LNG Report at 9.) It continued: "[A] possible drawdown
<br />caused by mining does. not necessarily mean that the water right has been
<br />injured." Isi- . ..~; , {:~ ~., .. •_.. :.:,c:'. ... .. .
<br />151•jtg[A,.301:~ ,
<br />
|