ENFORCE35557

• Permit No: C1981013
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 1/5/2001
• Doc Name: BASIN RESOURCES INC NOV CV-2000-009 EXHIBITS FOR ASSESSMENT CONFERENCE
• Violation No.: CV2000009
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

RC1~ BY : D. G. &S.
Ifl-?U- a :1:?uP~\I all:} 281 6:IF.:}~
U. G. K.S.: N :}

,.
IHLA 96-90R, 96-91R
surface structures and related property as called for by sutute was done."
Ia.tLat aaplaint, °.he Tatums also inrorporated by reference a letter to
033`dated November 18, 1993, ir. which Jim Tatum asserted that rlo
signifipnt damage or cracking occurred in their house until after ffitI
a~mei7ced work lzldEr Chair pZOperty. In that Novelber 18, 1993, letter, he
also expressed frustration in dealing with the State of Colorado,
Departorent Of Natural Resources, Diaisior, of *~ ^' n; Arid Geology (II~1
DST at first took the position that r1a mining had taken place in
Close proximity to the Ynusa. The first assertions of ~;~*~*+~-•
fz'all the hone were grossly in error or l~it_-ve. 1~ has ignozed
the. Colorado laws regarriinq ',,he safeguards to be used in mining
urxler structures ctrl nothing hoe been done about the mining
ar:pany ignoring such laws. ~ now is trying to blame the
stn~ctuz-al failure of the house an ridiculous or nonexistent
causes. In shor'C II~ has acted in a mam~er that strongly
suggests that their role is to justify wrcasgful acts and the
resulting damage by the mining oo~an,ies.
On DQOetnbes 7, 1993, in re ~+~~ to the citizen's CrnplaiSSt, CSM
issued TDY NO. 93-020-370-005 to I2~, 1.i:ttinq three violations of Colorado
State progsdm standards. TtaQ TBi described the violations as a failure t0
properly cenriuCt a subsidence survey, subsidence monitoring, and a
st>k+sidenoe oaattol plan for the Tattms' property, in violation of sections
2.05.6(6) and 4.20 of 2 Colo. Code Aegs. (1991) Niolati.on 1): failure to
control adverse cnnsequencrs to a water well eon the property Violation 2)~
atoll failure to provide a detailed operations plezt o! the proposed for
actual) 1adergmuni workings as it related to the Tatum property Violation
3). Cn December 20, 1993, D~ responded to alleged Violations 1 and 3
asserting that 8AI had not violated State standa].'cLs.
fl1 Etibalary 4, 1994, fo71o•.+i.ng the receipt of further arltoaaatioa from
~, the Albuquerque Field Office (AEC51, fit, informed ~ that it
mnsir]ered its response to Violations 1 sad 3 to ba "appropriate." By
letter dated December 2, 1994, the Tatums requested informal review,
putsuaat to 30 C.E.R. 5 8G2.15(a), of that part of the AF'0's klebruary 1994
decision relating to violations 1 and 3. The Deputy Director, f>gl,
ackcnwledged this request in a January 18, 1995, "interim responsQ,"
-,trenein he also stated that "the Colorado I>•T has made a flan anmi.tmrnt to
promptly take the lead in ~+~*; , a thotouc~ tecta~ical investigatiom to
de*~*+n~^~ whether Bsain Fasource's ia~derglv}aui mining operations have
ittpacted the water level in your Well aryl have caused subsiderice-zelated
damage to your property." FiQ stated that upon ooag~].eti-oa of II~'s
tac3tnical investigation and review of ~equert actives taken by 1241, CSt!
would notify then of its decd.sirm on the violations.
In its petition, Coil alleges that Violation 1 of the TIN in this case
2