ENFORCE33214 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I1. This Board Has No Jurisdiction to Decide the Merits of Basin's Motion Because Basis is Not Adversely AfYected by DMG's Decision to Vacate 'The only persons tvho aze or may be adversely alPected by DMG's decision to vacate a notice ot'violati~n are the proponents of that noiicc. In this case, the Duly such persotts arc the Tatums. The 1'attuns do not challenge DMCi's decision -indeed, they asked for il. Persons who oppose an enforcement action, as Basin does inthis case, azc never persons who are or may he "adversely affected" by a decision to vacate enforcement action..Aft~7 sll, a decision to vacate returns the opponent of'enforcement action to the neutral position the opponent held before DMG formally demanded that the opponent perform remedial action and pay a civil penalty. As the opponent of former Notice of Violation Nn. CV-2000-009, Basin's attempt to resurrect that enforcement action is nothing more than an attempt to tie UMG's hands with respect to enforcement nction that the agency may find appropriate in the future, when, for exatnple, new facts come to light or Dasin loses to the Tatums in court bttt fails to satisfy the judgment. Ay attempting to resurrect the vacated notice of violation and use it as a straw man for further attack, Aasin is essentially socking an advisory opinion tcom this Board that DMG may never, under any set of facts, take future enli~rcemettt action with respect to subsidence datnage at the "fatums' ranch. That sort of sham litigation is exactly what Congress and the Colorado legislature intended to prevent by allowing only those persons who aze or may be "adversely affected" to seek review of DMG's decisions to vacate enforcement action. The facts also show that Basin has suffered no harm whatsoever ns a result of 1~MG's vacation of'Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-009. DMC'T's action wipes out a civil penalty that the -4-