Laserfiche WebLink
plaeed'a new iuterpretatr:on the Agtaeazent, stopped perfornw~~, and interfered with Tatums <br />use cftheir w „ .mug the assistance of legal counsel, acrd state and l©cal water <br />_~ o~crals ~ot.~nds,=~,at ihe,~: breacf~ed its Ag~exa;x~nt vnth Tatum axid; sought <br />..reasons lriciud~n an -- ` bei~rre#ation tii avoid honoring the E~i~,e~s.iiac::i '~v~eudatst took .^ <br />g:. _ aw m .. <br />actions ~viiici:lu~.'iu2 ~'a~a.w"".`~FdriyiiYitrg Tats:m of the use of ttrcir water during~the summers of <br />1994, 1995, I996:sd~:199'7~:.Tatunas losses ~nci~ude loss of lmy crop each summer and loss of <br />grazing pasturc`each suniiixeir' Ilamages for loss of use of thzi: , rt~~r .3:~ ~-+g these su~or <br />g 7.'^°°.^iY fin <br />seenoins is aa,vis •."n'1; _:-:~cr which totals $32,000.UO. I?efend~:t h_ eel ~s <br />Agrei,.-u~lt aid i~ ding so has caused r3amage to Tattto~ I"at~tm is also entitled to sTecific <br />pnforcemeat ofthe Agreement according to ifs terms; That is, the. cu;~;^~~_ w~~_l~ariyP cx tivrte* <br />emir M*igauon seasua; i~iat it is available. The Court xecogaizas ~ ad},~d?ca+:on in tl,e water <br />court may be resluired to accamplisb: the Agreemettts' objective. ~ <br />""'°-Aareemeti6~'0 Exehat,~e Water Rights-Consolidated Ditch: Plaintiffs have failed to <br />show b a ofthe evidence the existence of theix claim that tl~v had ::~ , <br />.. <br />Agre~~t fo ex waun` vu 'u'-.~ ^.~olidabed 1?itcb, although tliw-s ~x~ evideYcp; of some <br />agreenaent;cavalving tine italic, or vs„, ofwattxs to irrigate dre Tones acreage. Plaintiffs have <br />failed to prove b?' a prepanclerrance of the evidence, the eadsteii-:e of this cxohaage or sale of <br />Y~ <br />--- Subsidence Issue: ,Evidence at trial established that eXtensive undergrcxsad caal t:-::u:.g <br />operations were conducted r~tr, soli ~d~ i3.~ r%i3rti~ PxoFectY line and within. 3~p feet ~f <br />theirtesidene~ Subsidence was evitleut iu :•~ious tocadons on the Tatum yropecty, izrc tiding <br />the tatlroad-roracks r~mni»g through the Tatum property, and a sink hole near the Tatt~*n <br />residence. This" arum residarce Was wuSiS::.:~;,iy •,-~~ed by die subsidence, `vhicli w~ <br />caused by the mining oprra#ion" Ta~xms slid not cause nor wutributc to the damage in any <br />wsv. Damages to the residence include the cost of past repairs and cost affufi~~~ -~;.~_.:; ~ ~~ <br />have caused a diminution ofi'value of etc pr:,p;,~;.y. ; have spent $14,500.OG ~,i:e:,ir,'~.'.b <br />repairs to rite properly nun wi:? be r:~ '_rca !r -~~nA asldiiiOrral sums tU completely restore the <br />existing damage caused by the subside.,ce. 'l~+e fair rwanc~-t value of the property hav been <br />a;m;n7a}tot~ },y subsidence damage. The fair mazicet value of the property according to <br />testimony provided ac trial it $26~ n"~ nn- 1 i e Mme *estiJZtony showed that, but.far the <br />ex;eteaoe of the ve~.lation shat3, the tack of a warkino well near the veutilatiatr shalt, ana rue <br />Subsidence damage, the fair market value would to $325,000.00. Twenty percent of fire <br />diminution in value is attrinur~e6 iowc own ~, a w..riang vVC1L Plaintiffs havo, thus, suffered a <br />9a asad __ wnlt~l wit •'^„~.~ <br />65I09b86LL 5L:5i L00Z/Z0/b0 <br />