Laserfiche WebLink
'~M TRT.UM 8 RSSOCI.RTES .TEL~71?-995-7191 May 24.95 512 No.007 P.03 <br />May 24, 1995 <br />Page 3 <br />negligence, is the proximate cause of injury. Complicity <br />would be the state of being an accomplice. Is it possible <br />that the State at~d the Federal Government should be held <br />accountable for the misrepresentations of the mine? <br />we, the plaintiffs believed we were protecting our <br />rights, and our property by agreeing to the Hay, 1988, <br />agreement. It would appear however that ALL parties who <br />partook in the actions of the mine, the drafting and <br />enforcement of Stipulation 28, Section 2.05.6 of the Board <br />Regulations, the drafting and enforcement of the Mining <br />Reclamation Act, and the Colorado Regulations for Coal <br />Mining, contributed to the damage we are suffering. such <br />damage would include not only the damage to the actual <br />structure, but the costs we have incurred to resolve this <br />matter. <br />The fact that neither the State nor. the Federal <br />government is willing to address the hydrological questions <br />with regard to this matter would lead one to believe that <br />they, the State and the Federal government, are not taking <br />all possible explanations for the damage to our home into <br />account, Dismissing the movement on the railroad, which has <br />been documented by the mine, as insignificant ie in sharp <br />contrast to the position the 6tate and OSM were taking <br />BEFORE they were provided proof that movement has occurred <br />on the railroad. Initially DMG and OSM made the ascertain <br />that our house. could not be suffering from subsidence since <br />the rail road hadn't moved. Irrefutable proof now exieta <br />that the rail road has moved, however the agencies <br />investigating this issue discard this evidence as <br />meaningless. ' <br />The mine must obtain a written waiver from the owner <br />when the mine is 700 ft. from an occupied dwelling. An <br />interesting requirement which means nothing. The owner has <br />NO PROTECTION. The mine, the state, and the feds, use words <br />like "no subsidence is expected to occur" or "no subsidence <br />is anticipated from mining• within areas of limited (less <br />than Sob) extraction." what about hooding in the mine, <br />soft floors, etc? Obviously not anticipated but can and did <br />occur. <br />Further, 2.05-57 as revised on May 18, 1994, discusses <br />the angle of draw and states the angle of draw COULD EXCEED <br />3o degrees in th:e, area. Please provide me with the angle <br />of draw of the. coal bed underlying my property. <br />Any conclusions based on experience in the East may not <br />be relevant and/or may have to be modified. The lithology in <br /> <br /> <br />