Laserfiche WebLink
The Tatunts were not alone in raising Basin's lack of administrative standing to contest <br />vacation of the NOV. 1)MG, the agency chazged with enforcement of the Coloradu Surface Coal <br />Mining Reclamation Act and its impleuteirting regulations, also argued that Basin "has no standing <br />to contest this NOV vacation." Responee of the Division of Minerals and C;eology to Motion of <br />Basix Resaurcec tv Have Notice of Violation Adjudicated ur, 1~+ the Alternative, Vacated Wrth <br />Prejudice at 2. like the Taturns, DMG pointed out that "Basin has benefited from the vacation, <br />because the potential that Basin will have a civil penalty assessed against it and a record of <br />ntmcompliancc wit its permit has been removed." !d. at 3. <br />In response to these express challenges to Basin's right to contest vacation of the NOV, the <br />company appazently presented no evidence whatsoever to support its counsel's claims of injury to <br />interest as the result of DMG's action. Counsel elairned that the Tanuns might abuse the process in <br />the future by brin~ring the identical claim if they do not prevail in the damage suit currently pending <br />in this Court. The Tatums countered by specifically fores+vcaring any intention to do so and by <br />offering to execute written assurances that they would, in fact. bring future administrative <br />proceedings against Basin only if the company failed to satisfy anyjud~nenl that the Tatums might <br />obtain the future. Basin's counsel then conjured up the false specter of federal enforcement action, <br />despite .4nn T arum's withdrawal of her request for such action and disavowal of any intention to <br />renew it in future. <br />Whatever may be said for the creative argument of Basin's counsel, however, arguments arc <br />not evidence. The Board had no evidence before it to substantiaze Basin's standing claims, and <br />-14- <br />