My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL53435
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL53435
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:38:58 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 8:37:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
11/1/1999
Doc Name
JIM AND ANN TATUM COMPLAINT AGAINST BASIN RESOURCES INC APPEAL OF STATE DECISION CITIZENS COMPLAINT
From
JIM TATUM & ASSOCIATES
To
DMG
Permit Index Doc Type
CITIZEN COMPLAINTS
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
~"~ n <br />loss in the amount of $48,000.00. <br />Ventilation Shaft: As part of the discussions and of the Agreements in May/June <br />1988 between Tatum and Wyoming Fuel, Wyoming Fuel constructed a ventilation shaft on <br />property owned by Tatum. The immediate construction of the shaft was required for safety <br />reasons. The shaft effectively deprived Tatum of the use and benefit of approximately four <br />acres of his land. The fair market value of this four acres at the time of the construction of the <br />ventilation shaft was $4,000.00 per acre. The evidence presented at trial did not establish the <br />existence of a working water well on the property. Tatum should be compensated for the loss <br />of this acreage. The damage and loss to Tatum for this deprivation is $16,000.00. The damage <br />which can be awarded herein is limited to $15,000.00, the amount disclosed in plaintiffs' <br />Amended Disclosure Statement, <br />Attomev Fees: Neither parties' claims or defenses in this case appear to the Court to be <br />groundless, frivolous or vexatious. The trial of this case was difficult for all parties and the <br />Court because of the personal and omotional involvement of the plaintiffs prosecuting their <br />own case, and the defendants' unwillingness to acknowledge (lability on any of the issues. <br />Neither party has shown by a preponderance of the evidence as entitlement to attorney fees. <br />CONCLUSIONS OF <br />1. The June 1,1998 Agreement between Tatum and BRl is enforceable according to its <br />terms. Owners of water rights are free to sell or exchange xheir rights to the use of water. <br />Here, the parties simply agreed that each would use the others' water and, recognizing the <br />effect of priorities, agreed on how to handle the situation when the exchange could not be <br />accomplished bocauae of short~lls. <br />2. Owners of water rights can exchange the use of each others' water subject to the <br />formalities required by law which may includo adjudication of the rights in water court. <br />3. The owner of coal mineral rights is liable for damages caused to property by the <br />operation of their underground coal mining operations. Surface owners are entitled to recover <br />damages caused to their homes by underground coal mining subsidence. Here, ground <br />subsidence by the underground coal mining operation caused structural movement and <br />damage W plaintiffs' residence. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.