ENFORCE34823 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~jY. .. .~ '. ~~ the surface. The new land owner has elected to develop the area for _ residential use, specifically, 35 acre ranch sites. In order to facilitate this use, he began cutting new access roads and altering of surface drainage systems. Portions of the new roads crossed reclaimed area and resulted in the short circuiting of a sediment pond. - These activities were noted during our inspections. No violations were issued because investigations on our part clearly indicated that the violations could not be abated through normal enforcement channels. Specifically, the new surface owner would not allow TBM to enter the property and re-establish the approved drainage. The alleged violations were caused by the new surface owner as part of his development plan and within his rights as a land owner. TBM did not take part in this activity and due to court orders has no ability to exercise any control over the site. Initially, although made aware of the Trinidad Basin Mining obligation in regard to the reclaimed areas, the surface owner was intransigent about any modification of his plans. Through continued discussion with the Division however, the owner has recently expressed a willingness to work out some accomodation with TBM. We are currently acting to bring TBM and the surface owner together to discuss the situation. A meeting has been set for March 30, 1989. We will require both the land owner and TBM to request an amendment to the current Board order to re-designate the land use for the problem area as residential and either remove it from the permit area or modify the drainage control plan. Since the site is under alternative enforcement this issue must go before the Board. This action will cause any violation to be corrected. At this time, the Division sees no more practical way of resolving the issues here. The Division, therefore, maintains that it is taking appropriate action, considering the legal complication and the fact that the site is under alternative enforcement, since the action being taken is authorized under the State program and will cause the violation to be corrected. The Division also maintains that its failure to issue an NOV in regard to the apparent violation cited in TDN X-89-02-244-2 is for good cause. Tne Division has no jurisdiction over what are, in this case, legitimate activities by the owner of the area in question. Should you nave any further questions on the above, please contact me. Sincerely, James C. Stevens Senior Reclamation Specialist JCS/eke 4127E