Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />~~. <br />IBLP, 96-90, 96-91 <br />moverer-ts and will, in fact, provide a clear anti prnrwimced <br />manifestation of even minor subsidence. <br />(Letter to Appellants, dated May 23, 1995, at 4.) He later explained the <br />absence of any evidence of distress in the foundation on the basis that the <br />foundation and the overlying adobe structure had moved in tandem, but'that <br />the distress was exhibited only in the relatively fragile adobe structure <br />and not in the foundation: <br />[B]ecause of the laic of tensile capacity arr3 reinforcing <br />within adobe structures, they will quicJcly and sometimes <br />dramatically exhibit cracking and separation distress if the <br />original building geometry is distorted. Tk~like cornrentional <br />reinforced concrete, steel or timber structures which have <br />an ability to resist, bridge or redistribute loads, and thus <br />minimize visible signs of distress, adobe structures imredi-~ <br />ately tell you if something is moving. <br />(Memorandum to Appellants, dated. June 30, 1995, at 3-4.) In his May 23, <br />1995, letter to appellants, Reins stated at page 4 that he agreed with <br />the opinion of the Tatums' other consultants that mine subsidence was the <br />"likely reasmi for much of the damage to the house." In his subsequent <br />June 30, 1995, he stated at page 3: <br />Apparently, the underlying promise which promQts Mr. <br />Penileton to reject the notion that subsidence has occurred is <br />that there is no known famdation distress. In our practice <br />we routinely observe foundatic¢~ systems that exhibit no sig- <br />nificant distress despite pr~oimced (many inches) heave or <br />settlement. In this particular instance we estimate that the <br />famdation trovaients are not particularly substantial. As <br />such, the faundati~ system for the house is simply "going <br />along for the ride." <br />Following ccnpletion of briefing in the case, the Tatums filed <br />with the Board on February 26, 1998, a supplem°ntal exhibit, designated <br />by then as Exhibit A-15, in support of their position that mine subsi- <br />dence caused damage to their hone and that 09N acted i~[properly in fiiY3ing <br />LNG's response to the TL1nI to be appropriate. That exhibit is a «~P5' of <br />a decision issued oul Dece[ber 1, 1997, by the District Court, County of <br />Les Animas, Colorado, in the matter Styled .T a (Tirol Tatinn rvi Tm '1`at~nn <br />v. Basin Rern,rres. Inc., No. 92 CV 127. Therein, District Judge Jesse <br />MamanaYng fgpyi~ intar alias that <br />[e]vidence at trial established that extensive u~p' j+**+~n~ <br />coal mining operations were ccnhicted near, and under the <br />plaintiffs['] property line and within 300 feet of their resi- <br />dence. Subsidence was evident in various locations on the <br />Tatum Prvpexty, including the railroad tracks running through <br />151 IBId~ 306 <br />