Laserfiche WebLink
Furthermore, the Division argued that the settlement agreement did not preclude it from <br />enforcing its own rules and regulations: the fact remained that Basin had violated the Act <br />by failing to compensate the Tatums for the diminution in value of their residence, as <br />required by Section 34-33-121(2)(a)(In(B) of the Act and Coal Regulations Rule <br />4.20.3(2)(b)(ii) and as set forth in the NOV. The Division azgued that the NOV and the <br />civil penalties were permissible exercises of Division authority. <br />9. Based on the evidence presented, including the parties' briefs and oral azguments offered <br />at the hearing, it is appropriate for the Board to uphold the Division's actions in assessing <br />civil penalties. The civil penalties were assessed for a violation that was properly issued <br />by the Division. The settlement agreement entered into by the parties did not preclude the <br />Division from bringing future enforcement actions. Even if the settlement argument was <br />interpreted to preclude an enforcement action based on the earlier NOV, it is noted that the <br />prior NOV in this matter referred to a different, but related, Coal Regulation. The <br />Division's authority to bring future enforcement actions was preserved by the District <br />Court in Tatums v. MLRB, O1 CV 038 and in Basin Resources v. MLRB et al., O1 CV 077 <br />when the court issued a final order vacating the eazlier NOV without prejudice. This <br />matter was decided by the District Court prior to the settlement agreement. <br />Basin Civil Penalty Appeal, C-1981-013 <br />