Laserfiche WebLink
A review of the files shows that these disputes go as far back as 1993. DMG has played an active <br />part in reviewing most of the allegations contained in the complaint. MCC has done some repairs <br />to roads and to the cabin at the direction of DMG. The Mautz' also reference a payment for <br />diminished value for damage to the cabin, but they are not satisfied with the result. It is also <br />alleged that damage is still occurring. There does not appear to be a written agreement between <br />the parties that defines the payment. It is unclear if the payment was for damages to the cabin For <br />that point in time, for any future damage that may occur, or as a partial compensation For <br />damages. <br />It is clear that MCC has responsibility under the approved Colorado program for surface impacts <br />resultant from subsidence. However, it has been my experience that complaints of this nature may <br />at some point extend beyond the purview of a regulatory authority. Because of that experience, I <br />wish to state at the beginning of this complaint investigation that the DMG and the Mined Land <br />Reclamation Board are limited by section 2.03.6(3); <br />Nothing in 2.03 shall be construed as vesting the Division or Board thejurisdiction <br />to adjudicate property rights disputes. <br />Ten-Day Notice (TDN) 97-140-370-001, TV 2, was issued as a result of this review. Violation 1 <br />is for the subsidence impacts to surface lands regulated by the Colorado program. Violation 2 is <br />for the right of entry. <br />A copy of this report and Ten-Day Notice was hand delivered to DMG on July, 1997, at 3, ~A <br />l~ <br />~~~ . dG ~~C~/L <br />l F <br />,,'~ 2 ~ <br />'~ ,~ <br />f ~~P'd~s ~9~ <br />~ 660 <br />°G, <br />