Laserfiche WebLink
,- <br />IHIA 96-90, 96-91 <br />D'"[.,'s Dime 5, 1995, Report, states at page 9: "Acoordinr3 to the <br />State Bngineer's Office, a vested water right as it applies to the Tatun <br />winrYnill well, could be either a permitted well ar an adjudicated water <br />right, and the Tattan well is neither." It further stated that in aooor- <br />dance with State Bn3ix~'s Office policy, an unpermitted and unadjudicate3 <br />well that has not been used far 10 years is considered abandoned. "'The <br />Tatum windmill well under auxpat State ~girLeer's Office Policy, would <br />be ornaidered abandoned • + *.° Id. at 10. The record shows that LNG <br />im+estigated the records in the State Bogineer's Office and was unable to <br />uncover a~ records showing that the well was permitted ar that there was <br />airy adjudication of the water rights far the well. <br />the dera-m+~tion that a~»~*'rQ did not have a vested water right <br />sewed as the basis for LNG's oa-clusion that BRI was not x~uired by sec- <br />tion 4.05.15 of 2 Colo. Cade Reps. (1991) to replace the water supply in <br />a~L~*+*=' well. Appellants have pmvided.no. evideru.•e..to the contrary, <br />assexti~ only that LNG's conclusion. "is silly 1~'!T' T1;8 LAW." (9082, ffiA <br />96-90, at • 8.) .. .. .. ~ ; . <br />Appellants have failed to establish arty erg in LNG's derPrm;nwr;rn <br />of in OSM's acceptance of that determination.. Tn his August 24, 1995, <br />decision the Regional bisector stated that he concurred with the DFU's <br />decision not to initiate a Federal inspection ar ta)~ Federal enfan~carestt <br />because LNG's response to the TII,i was appropriate. We hereb~r affirm that <br />decision, as mo3ified, far the follaving reascros. <br />Under the regulations governing TLN's, an acticai or response by the <br />State regulatory authority that is not a~itraxy, capricious, or an abuse <br />of discretion under the State program is considered "appropriate action" <br />to cause a violation to be corrected ar "good cause" for failure to do so. <br />30 C.F.R. § 842.11(b)(iil(B)(2). ThOSe regulations further state that <br />" [a)ppmpriate action includes enfort ar other action a++rw+*-~ ~~ under <br />the State program tO cause the violation to be corrected." 30 C.F.R. <br />§ 842.11(b)(ii)(B)(3). In this case, there was no enforcetpnt or other <br />action by LNG to cause the violation to be corrected. The reason is that <br />17+G famd no violation. Accordingly, OSM should have concluded that IMs's <br />response caistituted "good cause" for failure to false action becan~se, in <br />acooadande with 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(bl(ii~(B)„(4)(i),.under the State prograa <br />the violation did cot exist. SBB ~~ L- & Moses 'naa~ant, 135 IBLA 217, <br />227-28 (1996); P?t+-±~-~ n_ M?rc-t, 133 IFIIA 372, 376-77 (1995). <br />. B. ]ffii~ 96-91 <br />[3) Appellants have argued that the damage to their lame constituted <br />a violation of section 720 (a) of SbIItA, and 30 C.F.R. § 817.]21(c)(2), and <br />