Laserfiche WebLink
1 9 <br />1 filed by the Tatums and the responses by the <br />2 board's attorney and by Basin Resources' attorney. <br />3 And apparently at the hearing one of the <br />4 matters that was discussed was whether Basin had <br />5 standing to bring the motion for reconsideration <br />6 after -- or the motion to -- to reinstate the <br />7 vacated NOV, and that was an issue that was argued <br />8 to the board. <br />9 The board's order didn't specifically <br />10 address the standing issue of Basin as to whether <br />11 it was an adversely affected party, but apparently <br />1 12 it was argued to the Court, and Court made a <br />j 13 finding in its temporary stay that that was an <br />~ 14 issue before it and that it appeared that the <br />15 Tatums would prevail on that issue. In other <br />} 16 words, that Basin did not have standing to contest <br />17 the vacation of the NOV because it was not an <br />18 adversely affected party as required by the statute <br />19 and the regulations. <br />20 And since that was briefed to the board <br />i <br />21 and argued to the board at the hearing, I think it <br />,I 22 was covered by implication, although not expressly, <br />23 by the board's order initially, and I believe that <br />' 24 that is something that is at issue now and should <br />25 be dealt with now since it's in the Court's order <br />