ENFORCE34390 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ r regarding the rule of subsidence in causing the initial damage to the Tatums' residence. The Board denied that motion, making cleaz that it intended, in essence, to retry the question of whether coal mine subsidencx could ever have damaged Solitario. Rather than continue with a lengthy administrative hearing that was very likely to produce a fatally flawed result, the Tatums exercised their statutory option to abandon administrative proceedings in favor of filing and prosecuting a citizen suit for damages pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. 34-33-135(6). They asked DMG to vacate the NOV and allow Ann Tatum to withdraw her request fot administrative enforcement action. DMG weed to do so, and consequently cancelled the administrative hearing on the NOV scheduled for March 22, 2001. Basin then filed a document styled as a "motion" to adjudicate the NOV, DMG's decision to vacate that measure notwithstanding. Under Colorado law, Basin's motion constituted a separate request that the Board review DMG's decision to vacate the NOV. Cnlo. Rev. Slat. § 34-33- ]24(I)(a) (`'any person having an interest which is or stay be adversely affected by ...say modification, vacation, or termination of [an NOV] may request review thereof by the boazd ... ") The Roard notified the Tatums and DMG that it would consider Basin's new pleading on March 2] , 2001, one day before the previously scheduled -but then cancelled - hearing on Basin's challenge to the NUV. Recognizing the sepazate nature of this second proceeding, the Tatums filed a new and limited motion to intervene for the purpose of contesting the Board's jtrrisdictinn to address Basin's new pleading. The Tatums made clear that, in light of~ DMG's decision to vacate the NOV, they nu loncer wished to participate in any proceeding on Basin's challenge to that action. The Board voted to accept the Tatums' position that Basin's objection to DMG's decision to vacate the NOV -5-