|
IBT~F196-90, 96-91
<br />the Tatum property, and a sink hole near the Tatum resi-
<br />dence. LZ/] The Tatum residence was considerably damaged by
<br />the subsidence, which was caused by the mining operation.
<br />(Decisicai at 4.) Z41e Judge awarded the Tatums Carpensatory damages for the
<br />diminution in value of their property.
<br />In an order dated August 17, 1999, this Board directed the Office
<br />of the Solicitor to respond to Ekhibit A-15 within 30 days of receipt of
<br />that order. Over 60 days later, on October 25, 1999, the Board received
<br />a request frun counsel for OSM seeking "an extension of time, consisting
<br />of 3 days, until Monday, October 25, 1999," in which to file a response to
<br />the Board's order. On October 29, 1999, the Board received a request frLltt
<br />counsel for a second extension of time to file, this time "until Wednesday,
<br />October 27, 1999." .The Board received: a. third-request for extension of
<br />time fr*,a[t camsel on Naveitbes 1, 1999, seeking dIl extension to file "until
<br />Nava~ber 3, 1999." Counsel did not file any respca~se to our order.
<br />By order dated November 12, 1999, the Board denied the requests for
<br />extension and ruled that any sutmission made by camsel in respcrose to
<br />August 17, 1999, order after the date of our November 12, 1999, order would
<br />not beams a part of the record in this case.
<br />Ttie evidence of experts for the State and OSM tends to establish that
<br />srnething other than subsidence, although there is no agrean?nt as to what,
<br />caused the structural damage to the Tatums' house. The Tatums' experts, on
<br />the other hand, appear to. agree that there is little explanation for the
<br />damage other than subsidence.
<br />However, the Tatums have also presented a Dopy of Judge Manzanares'
<br />decision which was rtmL?*ed followirx3 a 6-day hearing in April 1997 during
<br />which he heard the testimcary of "approadttately twenty-eight (28) witnesses
<br />and received over one hundred (100) exhibits into. evidence." (FSdi. A-15
<br />at 1.) OSM has not timely responded to a direction to address the Judge's
<br />decision. In his decision, the Judge faun that subsidence was the cause
<br />of "considerable" damage to the Tatums' horse.
<br />AS stated above in the discussion crmrorn;r,g IBIA 96-90, under
<br />the regulations governing TLBJ's, an action or response by the State regu-
<br />latory .authority that is not arbitrary, capriciws, or an abuse of discre-
<br />tion under the State.ps+ogr-am is ca~sidered.,"apQropriate acticm" to cause a
<br />~ We furl no other reference to a sink hole in the record in this case
<br />other than in Appellants' RespcsLSe to Appellee's Original Answer, where
<br />they state at page 3, "[a] sinkhole or depression has now appeared just
<br />south of the Tatum's horse. This fits the trial testimony thst a sink-
<br />hole or depression could be expected.in,the event. of soft. floor or pillar
<br />failure." s.~tr;;: _:~ .., ~ . y...
<br />151,,aiL~A°,307,
<br />
|