Laserfiche WebLink
_ 03/09/2007 <br />e~ - ~ <br />Mr. Dave ferry <br />Division of Reclamation. Mining and Safety <br />Mazch 4; 2007 <br />Page 2 <br />PAGE 03 <br />___ <br />based on tertiary settlement or adjacent mining, none of which are applicable to this case) the <br />damaged structure is left open to deterioration to the pvinc W11GIG ll becuulns 11111JVSS3111e for <br />any party to repair that structure to the full extent required by the regulation. This is where <br />we fmd ourselves today. <br />Tile damage to rnlr home occurred in the late 1980's and again prior to March, 2001. <br />Basin refused to repair our home at that time. In fact, even with the final Coloradq Supreme <br />Court tilling of August 30, 2006, they refused to address the damage to our home under any <br />scenario, until you issued your NOV. Over the last 10 years our home has continued to <br />deteriorate to the extent that the dirinution of value is now well over $650,000. Iht other <br />words it is a "total loss". We believe chef al flue late date neither 1]asiu, por anyone else, <br />could possibly repair our borne to the extent envisioned by the regulation. As such, Basin <br />through its rccalcitranoe has forfeited the repair option found within the regulation find is only <br />left with the requirement to compensate us for the diminution of value. That value has been <br />set. by the aforementioned Supreme Court case. <br />Finally, concurrent with his determination of the abatement measure Mr. Anderson <br />also requests that DRMS assist Basin in the design and implementation o£ a repair plan. Even <br />if repair were a viable option in this case, which as noted above we would categorically deny, <br />L7IZM5 cannot be involved zn formulating arty type of "xcpair plan" regarding subsidence <br />related damage. As stated in the preamble to the 1995 Federal Regulations, the pregaration of <br />repair estimates is to be done on a case-by case basis through negotiafionS between the <br />permittee and homeowner with the regulatory authority approving the negotiated reclamation <br />measures. Therefore, not only would DMRS be utilizing scarce public funds col relieve a <br />regulatory burden of the petlnittee but it would put itself in a potential conflict df interest <br />position iui that it would have to approve its own repair designs. <br />As for the need to increase the current bond amount for the Basin Resources permit, I <br />would have the fo110wing comments. The fact that a violation of Colorado regulations <br />addressing subsidence related damage was established pursuant to the 1997 Colorado District <br />Court decision and the subsequent January, 2000 Interior Rnard of Land Appeals decision. <br />As such, Basin found itself obligated to comply with at least two separate acid distinct <br />performance standards dealing with subsidence caused damage. One of these was the need to <br />increase the amount of bond to cover anticipated costs of repair or compensation. <br />Once again, I would turn to the preamble to the 1995 Federal'Regulations to vblaill a <br />clear reading of the intent behind the requirement to increase the bond. First, the need to <br />increase the bond is specifil;ally ued to the date of subsidctlcc damage. It must be increased, <br />in the appropriate amount, na later than 90 dove from the date o£ occurrence Iunless the <br />permittee ha: repaired or compensated within that timeframe nr a very limited anp justified <br />extension has been granted by the regulatory authority for reasons that are not applicable to <br />I <br />