ENFORCE32084

• Permit No: C1981013
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 3/9/2007
• Doc Name: Basin NOV and Bond Matters ‎(Faxed)‎
• From: Ann Tatum
• To: DRMS
• Violation No.: CV2007001
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

_ 03/09/2007 11:39 7198460159 JIM TATUM
i
?-
ANN TATUM
129 NORTH COMMERCIAL
'I'li1NIDAD, COLORADO 51082
[phone] Facsimile [phone]
March 9, 2047
VIA FACSIMILE FACSIMILE: (303) 832-810b
Mr. Dave ]3eny
Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safeiy
1313 Sherman Street, Room 315
Denver, Colorado 80203
RE: $asinNOV and Bond Matters
Mr. Berry:
PAGE 02
RECE9VED
.MAR 0 9 2Up1;;,;;: , :.
Division of Fe:.!;}n?atrbn•''
and Saf .
Mioin9. ....ety ;.
I want to extend my gratitude to you and your staff' for the perseverance you have
shown in addressing the subsidence related damage to our home. I know it has been trying
azid difficult at tunes givelx UIe history associated with fills issue. Fiuwcvtr, I ant wlifidcrlt
that we can continue to work together to see this issue through to its successful. conclusion.
To help further that cause, l would offer the following comments on the March ~, X007
correspondence you received from Mr. Scot Anderson regarding NOV-CV- 2007-001 and on
the requirement to post additional bond incorporated in your Mazch 2, 2007 correspondence
to Basin Resources, Inc. i
It is interesting to see that Mr. Anderson believes ~e can personally, and unilaterally,
detetrnine the terms of abatement for a NOV. I believe the regulations empower the
authorized representative, namely you, and not the penniucc as the pel~uu Inspcrllstble fo,
setting the remedial measures necessary to completely abate the noted violation. Mr.
Anderson is correct in lus reading of the regulation relative to its providing options available
to the permittee at the time the subsidence dama8e occurs. However, what he
disingenuously omits from his narrative is the fact that the regulation requires the permittee to
" rom t "make repairs to the damaged structure or, failing that, to compensate the
homeowner in the full amount of the diminution of vale resulting from the damage. As
discussed below, your NOV correctly requires Basin to provide damage related compensation,
and not the unattainable option of repair, as the means to abate the NOV.
The preamble to the .1995 Federal Regulations clearly lays out the rationale why a
permittee is required to promptly repair (if he chooses that option) the damaged structure.
Namely, "the pennittee must fully rehabilitate, restore or replace the damaged structure." The
structure must be restored "to .its premising Capacity, futures, value, and utility." By not
immediately repairing the structure (outside of a limited time extension which may be granted
1