|
s
<br />IBLA 96-90, 96-91
<br />the Thtum property, and a sink hole near Che Tatian resi-
<br />denoe. [Z/] The Tatum residence was ~cr~p,at,iY ~~ b5'
<br />the subsidence, which was caused by the mini>r3 opPSation.
<br />(Decision at 4.) 'The Judge awarded the lhtlms crnpensatory damage's far the
<br />diminution in value of their property.
<br />In an order dated August 17, 1999, this Board directed the Office
<br />of the Solicitor to respcarl to Exhibit A-15 within 30 days of receipt of
<br />that older. Over 60 days later, ai October 25, 1999, the Board received
<br />a request fran oau>sel for OSM seeking "an exteneirm of time, consisting
<br />of 3 days, until Monday, October 25, 1999," in which to file a response to
<br />the Board's order. On October 29, 1999, the Board received a request frnn
<br />counsel far a seoarl extension of time to file, this time "until Wednesday,
<br />October 27, 1999.".'fie Board received: a. third-requeat-far extenei~ of
<br />time from cotu7sel on Nrnretbps 1, 1999, seeking di1 extension to file "until
<br />Dbvenber 3, 1999." Oamsel did not file any response to cur order'.
<br />By order dated NcvanbPS 12, 1999, the Board denied the requests for
<br />extensicai and ruled that any submission made by cotulsel in response to
<br />August 17, 1999, order after the date of our Nova[ber 12, 1999, order would
<br />not beoane a part of .the record in this case.
<br />'lhe evidence of experts for the State and OSM tends to establish that
<br />acmethisr3 other than subsidence, although there is no agreamnt as to what,
<br />caused the struct,,,ai damage to the TBtums' horse. The Thtums' experts, on
<br />the other hand, appear to.agzee that there is little explanation far the
<br />damage other' than subsi,denoe.
<br />Ftoaever, the Thtums have also presented a copy of Jtu3g~e hWnzanares'
<br />decision which was r+ar]e_*ed fallowing a 6-day hearing in April 1997 durin7
<br />which he heard the testimony of "apprmdm3tely twenty-eight (28) witnesses
<br />acrl received over me hundred 1100) exhibits into. evidence." (~. A-15
<br />at 1.) OSM has not timely respatr]ed to a diziecticai to address the ,~++!~'s
<br />decision. In his decision, the J1~dge found that subsidaloe was the cause
<br />of "CCnBidasable" damage to the 'lhtuns' house.
<br />As stated above in the discussion concernicx3 CIA ~96-90, under
<br />the regulatirs~s gwerninq TIH~T's, an actin ar response by the State regu-
<br />latory.authority that is not arbitrary, capricious. ar an abuse of discre-
<br />tion under the State:pmogr-am is arlaidered."appropriate action" to cause a
<br />Z We find no other reference to a sink hole in the record in this case
<br />other than in Appellants' Response Co Appellee's Original Answer, where
<br />they state at page 3, "[al sinkhole ar depressia- has now appearui just
<br />south of the Tataan's house. This fits the trial testimxiy that asink-
<br />hole ardepression could be expected.in,the event. of soft. floor or pillar
<br />failure.". : . ..... t...'l',:i:::! :i.~l.:'.i.;il.:.:Jl:w1L ,•..1... ..L.'
<br />151,,ffiA .307; .
<br />
|