ENFORCE29878

• Permit No: C1981013
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 5/30/2007
• Doc Name: NOV Draft Order ‎(Faxed)‎
• From: Ann Tatum
• To: Office of the Attorney General
• Violation No.: CV2007001
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

:~.
May 30, 2007
ANN TATIIM
129 NORTH COM1V1)ERCIA,L STREET
TRINIDAD, COLORADO 81082
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Mr. Tyson Powell
Office of the Attorney General
1525 Sherman Street, 5m Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203
1tE: Bash NOV DRAFT ORDER
Mr. Pawed:
REGE~vE~
MA`I 3 p 10p1~on.
~1v,M n. 9 a d Sa a<`1
Facsimile [phone]
Thank you far sending us the three Drafts of the Board's Proposed Orders
resnl6ng from the May 16. 2007 hearing.
As I remember the Board's ruling there was absolutely no mention or reference
made by the Board to the amount required to abate the NUV. The NUV and additional
performance bond are two separate and distinct performance issues.
It was the position of the State that the Bond should include pre judgment
intcrest. The Board did not order 1;3asin to pay the pre judgment interest nn the bond
amount.
Neither Basin, nor the State inquired of the Board as to the amount necessary to
abate thel NOV and as such we oppose the $622,000.00 amount. 'The NOV Correctly
requires Basin to abate same pursuant to the Judgment, $622,000.00 plus pre and pant
judgment interest. The language im the February 12, 2007 NOV states: Portion of the
Opcmtiun lu WLicfi Tlus Notice Applies; "Mine-related damage to the Tatum residence
as determined by the Las Animas District Court Case, Number O1CV26, and as upheld by
the Colorado Court o£ Appeals Case No. 03CA075." The District Court awarded interest
at 8%, compounded annually, as a part of the mine-related damage. The State argued that
post judgment interest could not be included in the bond. No argument was made by any
party as to what amount would be considered to abate the NUV. Certainly, considering
the State's position with regard to the band, that same should include the pre judgment
interest, it is unreasonable to believe that abatement of the NOV should be Icss than that
amount.
1 believe it would be appropriate to include the opinion from the Colorado Court
o£Appeals that dealt with the operator not having the right to decide the course of action
that must be taken once subsidence has been confirmed. The opinion states it is the right
of the property owner to choose whether they want the property repaired or they want to
be compensated, Please refer to Ms. Linden with regard to this.
Z0 39Cd Wflltil WIP 65L09b86TL 65~bL L00Z/0E/50