Laserfiche WebLink
-oc,~r~ay:..r,r•~~La58raat'3166~ .. <br />,~_' . ~' <br />Scotl Andecsoa, Faq. <br />March 14, 2001 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />8042932811; ~ Mar.14=01 11:00, Page 4/4 <br />Jndtted, the course of actior that $asin currently advocates would be faz more wasteful uF <br />everyone's time and resources. If Basin's cuaent motion were m succeed and Basin were then to <br />prevail before the Iv(ne Land Reclamation Board, the company would still face a citizen shit by the <br />Tatu[as in state or federal court. Pursuaat to 30 U.S.f:. § 1276(e), rho outcome of a.l,r,;nistretive <br />proceedings beforethe Buazli could not negatively affect adjudirstion ofthe Tatutns' damage claims. <br />even those based on alleged violations of the Colorado ley*lilatory program. Frankly, the Tatums <br />thought _ artd still think - that they have saved both Basin 2nd themselves a lot of time and money <br />by dceidiag to proceed directly to court rather than I~tigate their claims before the Board. If Basin <br />reflects upon matters for a moment, I believe the company wil{ seethe merit of moving on. <br />Aesia's motion also iacotrecUy suggests that, because ofDMG's decisionto vacate, "Basin <br />would be required m j ettison its work to date." You and I both know first Basis will nos discard nny <br />work on the Tatum case which the company or its experts have perfom~ed to date. Basin will <br />certainly attempt to use the same work for the same purpose in the judicial proceedings that the <br />Tattrms imead to file shortly. To the extent that you and your law htm have expended time on <br />proceedings before the Board, you client gained substarrtial benefits from that work and came out <br />touch better off than it went in. Basin has no adtninistrativevlolation on its history and no civil <br />penalty to pay. It has escaped potenrial liability for the Tatums' administrative costs and expenses. <br />How does that qualify as wasted effort? <br />Thatrosy scenario could change rapidly, however, if Basin does not reconsider and withdraw <br />its current motion before the Board. The Tatums likely will oppose that molion and immediately <br />seek judicial review of any decisioa to grant relief that Hasin requests. If the Tuntms do so and <br />prevail, thry will assiduously pursue an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney <br />aad expert witness fees, against Basin. <br />Tn earn. I respectfully suggest that Basta has uo standing to pursue reinstatement of Notice <br />nF Violation No, CV-2000-D09; the company bas no mason to proceed based on false feats about <br />actions the Taitmts aze prepared to foreswear; and Bastin ultimately has no interest is an pressing for <br />an administrative adjudication that will provide the company no additional relief bayond ttLat it has <br />almsdy obtained cotutesy of the Tatums themselves. Un the Tatums' behal~;l htttnbly urge Basin <br />to reconsider and withdraw the current motion. <br />Sincerely, <br />r' <br />I <br />Walton D. Morris. Jr. <br />Copy tb; <br />Stephen M. Brown, Esq. <br />VO'd 6Z~6 ~ I0, bi ~PVJ 85S£998£0£~xEd <br />