Laserfiche WebLink
the company, as a matter of law, from showing injury-in-fact as the result of DMG's decision to <br />vacate Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-009. DMG's decision returned Basin to the position it <br />enjoyed prior to issuance of the enforcement action in question: as a result of the decision to vacate <br />Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-009, there is no official allegation that Basin committed a <br />violation of the Coal Act with respect to the Tatums' post-1997 damage. The penalty that DMG <br />initially assessed against Basin has been refunded. DMG has disavowed any present intention to <br />take further enforcement action against Basin with respect to the damage that the Tatums have <br />sustained. That collective result constitutes sll the relief that $asin could have lawfully obtained <br />from an administrative adjudication concerning Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-009. Basin's <br />challenge to the issuance of that enforcement action thus became moot, and the Boazd had no reason <br />whatsoever to conduct an administrative hearing on the subject. <br />Moreover, contraryto Basin's pleadingin this action, an administrative adjudication of Notice <br />of Violation No. CV-2000-009 could not `Yesolve once and for all the issue first raised by the <br />Tatums and pursued by the Board." The law is crystal clear that, although actions of DMG and other <br />state regulatory authorities under the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act <br />("SMCRA") are subject to judicial review in accordance with Stale law, "the availability of such <br />review shall not be construed to limit the operation of rights established in [30 U.S.C. § 7 270 and <br />its state-law counterparts authorizing citizen suits] except as provided therein." 30 U.S.C. § 1276(e). <br />Simply put, administrative adjudication of Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-009 could not have <br />resolved the damage issues that the Tatums raised because such an adjudication -even if it had <br />ended positively for Basin -would not have precluded the Tatums from initiating or pursuing their <br />separate citizen suit against Basin in this Court. See Tatufn v. Basin Resources, lnc., No. OI-CV-26. <br />-7- <br />!l5-d 9l0/Ol0'd OE9-1 955E999EOE 539800538 1Y801VN 100-YV08d EI~ZI 100E-Ei-70V <br />