ENFORCE35212 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Steve Renner, Michael Long - 2 - September 16, 1993 Additionally, the notification letter to Grand Mesa Properties does not provide a description of the "Measures to be taken to prevent or control surface effects" (4.20.2(3)). this seems to be a crucial issue in that on August 29, 1985, Grand Mesa Properties write I was quite surprised to learn you will be pulling pillars in three parcels in Section 20 during the next year. .", and, "As stated above, we are very concerned that surface subsidence may decrease the value of our land". Grand Mesa Properties conclude the letter by stating ". I assume we can anticipated receiving the required public notice within a few months." Also, Grand Mesa Properties requested a structural resource inventory. There is no evidence in the MCC package that these concerns were ever resolved, and it seems that the correspondence illustrates the need to strictly adhere to the requirements of Rule 4.20.2. MCC has not produced any specific notice that was sent to the USES regarding undermining of the USFS properties in Sections 20 and 21. They state, however, that the USFS is a regulatory authority, not entitled to the notice provided to aqy other landowner, and that the USES was in fact aware of the undermining as evidenced by their issuance of a special use permit for certain surface activities on the subject properties. Rule 4.20.2 states The mining schedule shall be distributed by mail to all owners of property and residents. The USFS is the manager of public property, and as such is entitled to the required notice. The rule does not provide any exemptions. There may be some merit in the MCC argument that the intent of 4.20.2 was met since a special use permit was apparently granted by the USFS for surface activities above the underground mining areas in question. The MCC package provides an application for the special use permit, but the language in the various correspondence submitted does not indicate that the USFS was notified of specifics as required by Rule 4.20.2. MCC mdy wish to provide additional documents to validate this arguments. Finally, MCC cites C.R.S 13-80-102(i), and certain case law to claim that regardless of any other arguments the applicable statute of limitations has run, and this Division is specifically barred from taking any action. MCC also implies that ". the Division knew of the facts of the violation for nine years, yet refused to take any enforcement action." This argument is one that probably requires a formal legal determination; however, a quick review of the statutes seems to indicate the following. First, CRS 13-80-102(i) may or may not be applicable to this situation. The statute applies to "civil actions". Is our enforcement procedure a "civil action" within the content Article 80? If so, does C.R.S. 13-80-102(i) address this action? It seems that this applies to the prosecution of claims, presumably in a court of law. Additionally, as with any statute of limitation, the time is usually determined to initiate, subject to proof, upon discovery of the situation. In fact, C.R.S. 13-80-108 indicates that " A cause of action for injury to a person, property, reputation, possession, relationship, or status shall be considered to accrue on the date both the injury and its cause are known or should have been known by the exercise of reasonable diligence."