Laserfiche WebLink
51 Interior Dec. 286 <br />(Cite as: 151 Iaterior Dec. 286, *300, 2000 WL 1740340, **11 (D.O.I.)) <br />Page 12 <br />onsumption or human sanitation, or domestic use. <br />Appellants argue that the water well in question, which was designed to supply <br />water for livestock, provides water for a "domestic use" under the regulation. <br />n the other hand, OSM asserts that use for livestock purposes in this case is <br />~ot domestic use and any diminution in that supply was not a violation of <br />section 720 (a) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. § 1309a(a) (1994). <br />i **12 OSM refers to the following language in the regulatory preamble: <br />OSM concludes that the terms "domestic" and "residential" are intended to <br />nave broader meaning than merely drinking water for human consumption. Rather, <br />these terms reasonably should be understood to include a full range of domestic <br />ses, including irrigation of non-commercial gardens and agricultural fields, <br />~nd use of well and spring water for household purposes other than human <br />consumption. <br />`0 Fed. Reg. 16722, 16723-24 (Mar. 31, 1995). The preamble states that this <br />interpretation of section 720(a) of SMCRA properly extends the statutory <br />requirement for water supply replacement to "private homeowners" who engage in <br />'domestic uses [of water] such as non-commercial farming, gardening and other <br />horticultural activities," as distinguished from commercial and other <br />nondomestic water supply users: <br />Many rural homeowners conduct extensive non-commercial domestic agricultural <br />and horticultural activities, as.an integral and even essential part of a <br />homestead. Failure to require replacement of the water supply needed for such <br />domestic agricultural and horticultural uses would fail to make the residential <br />user whole. <br />4a. <br />OSM asserts that appellants' water supply does not constitute a "drinking, <br />omestic, or residential water supply," within the meaning of *301 section <br />20(a) of SMCRA, because the watering of livestock is a commercial agricultural <br />use of water. <br />~ There is no evidence in the record that appellants used the well in question <br />~`or any purpose after acquiring their property in 1988. However, they stated in <br />their August 1995 request for informal review, that the pasture had been used to <br />IIgold cattle and horses and "[i]f we had water at that location we could again <br />µse this location to hold our cattle and horses * * *." [FN5] (Letter to OSM, <br />dated Aug. 12, 1995, at 2.) Appellants' claim in their SOR at page 5 that "[a]11 <br />our acreage is for domestic use," is belied by their statement in a copy of a <br />letter in the record from appellants to Senator Phil Gramm, dated April 5, 1995, <br />in which they represent that "[o]ur home and ranch in Colorado is a multi- <br />million [dollar] operation * * *." A multi-million dollar operation that <br />~ncludes the pasturing, grazing, and watering of livestock is clearly a <br />commercial operation. <br />Therefore, we must conclude that the well in question did not constitute a <br />drinking, domestic,. or residential water supply," within the meaning of section <br />20 (a) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. ~ 1309a(a) (1994), for which HRI was liable to <br />provide a replacement. [FN6] <br />Likewise, the Facts fail to show a violation of State law as alleged in the <br />?DN. OSM asserts that appellants are only entitled to relief if BRI's <br />underground coal mining operations interfered with a "vested water right," <br />~ Copr. m West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works <br />