GENERAL37420 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IBIR 96-90, 96-91 section 720 (a) of SM3tA, because the watP~"T ' of livestock is a ~rercial agriwltural use of avatar. Zbese is no evidence in the record that appellants used Che well in questice~ for arry purpose after a~,;rin; their property in 1988. Haaever, they stated in their August 1995 request for infonzal. review, that the pasture had been used to hold cattle aryl horses and "(i]f we had water at that location we could again use this location to hold our cattle and bosses * + + " 5/ (letter to OSNI, dated Aug. 12, 1995, at 2.) Appel- lants' claim in their S~2 at page 5 that "[a]11 arr acreage is far dares- tic use," is belied by their statem3-t in a copy of a letter in the recozd from appellants to Senatar Phil Gramm, dated April 5, 1995, in which they repxespnt that "[o]ur home and ranch in Ooloraclo is a multi-million (dol- lar] operation • + + " A milli-million dollar operation that includes the pasturing; grazixr3,.and watering of livestock-is clearly-a•mmercial oppsatiai. . Zherefore, we mist oarclude that the well in question did not consti- tute a "ch:'inkisg, domestic, ar residential water supply," within the mean- ing of section 720 (a) of S:KRA, 30 U.S.C. § 1309a(a) (1994), for which BRI was liable to provide a replaoem°<st. 5/ Li]~wise, the facts fail to shag a violation of State law as alleged in the TII'T. OSN) asserts that appellants are ot-ly entitled to relief if F42I's Lusdergran'id coal mining operations interfered with a "vested water right," because, under 2 Colo. Code Begs. § 4.05.]5 (1991), replaoet[ent is only xegn~ired fora "vested water right." (Answer at 14_) DPI notes that IIyC had already deterrtrined, as set forth in its J1me 6, 1995, letter, that appellants had no such right in the water fmn their well and that, since it was reaacnable on its face, DID car.entitled to defer to that intezpre- Cat1C41. (AnbZVer at 14-15, r,~ R[t~l"»~ & M~; , 1 M;n;m Qj._y_ ~M, 132 IBLA at 89-90, 102 I.D. at 16-17.) OS44 asserts that, absent a vested water right, Ll~,prr~perly decided that HRI had not vioiated the State rpgulatics-. 5 D~ stated that the well was located within a "fenced-in pasture of abort 11 acres in size," but that the ccedition of the pasture, including "(s)ome" knocJaed-dawn fencing and 'h~any" fence pasts rotten at the base, indicated that it had not been "recently use3 for grazing." (June 1995 L1+G Report at 2 . ) Ft/ Given cur conclusion, we need not decide whether ~2I's acticros resulted in a "dismraition" of appellants' water supply fran the well. Although DPG's Jiu~e 6, 1995, letter to OSM states that "it is likely that the water level in the well was influenced by the adjacent tuxL?~-~+~ wvririrgs and exhaust shaft," the attached report states that "[t]here has been no damn- stration to the DivisicAl that there has been damage (a lces of beneficial use.)" (June 1995 IING Report at 9.) It contirnred: "[A] possible draradown cause3 by mining does: not necessarily mean. that the water right has been -151jffiA,301;.