My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL55322
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL55322
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:40:21 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 10:13:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
8/24/1995
Doc Name
OSM letter
From
OSM
To
JIM TATUM AND ASSOCIATES
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.
/
2
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
iii ~ti~~uiii~~« iii • • <br />IN REPLY REFEP TO <br />United States Department of the Interior <br />OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING <br />Reclamation and Enforcement <br />1999 Broadway, Suite 3320 <br />Denver, Colorado 80202-5733 <br />AUK 2slV ~D <br />o;~, 1995 <br />slop o~ M nera~s ~ G,eo%9Y <br />AUG 2 4 1995 <br />Mr. and Mrs. Jim Tatum <br />Law Offices of Jim Tatum and Associates <br />8703 Bonhomme <br />Houston, Texas 77074 <br />Dear Mr. and Mrs. Tatum: <br />In accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR 842.15, I have <br />conducted an informal review of this agency's action regarding <br />your written complaint of November 30, 1993, as requested in your <br />letter of August 12, 1995, to the Office of Surface Mining <br />Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM). Your complaint concerned the <br />impact of underground mining operations on your water well. On <br />December 7, 1993, a Federal inspection was conducted and Ten-Day <br />Notice No. 93-020-370-000, violation 2 of 3 was issued. In your <br />August 12, 1995, letter you asserted that an operator must take <br />preventative measures to protect a water well, that your well is <br />no longer capable of producing a useable quantity of water, and <br />that under the new Federal regulations, an operator is required <br />to repair an existing well or drill a new one. <br />A review of the record in this case discloses that on June 6, <br />1995, you were advised by the Colorado Division of Minerals and <br />Geology (DMG) that, based on its investigation, while it is <br />likely that the water level in the well was influenced by the <br />adjacent exhaust shaft, (1) the water well was not permitted by <br />the State Engineer's Office, (2) the water right has not been <br />adjudicated, and (3) the operator took measures to minimize the <br />impacts to hydrologic balance in the area of the well. <br />Accordingly, the DMG determined that the operator was not in <br />violation of its permit. <br />You also assert that under the new Federal regulations the <br />operator is required to make you whole by either repairing the <br />existing well or drilling a new one. This argument is misplaced. <br />The new Federal rules that you allude to are found at 30 CFR <br />701.5 and 817.41(j), respectively. The new definition of <br />"drinking, domestic or residential water supply" at 30 CFR 701.5 <br />means "water received from a well or spring and any appurtenant <br />delivery system that provides water for direct human consumption <br />or household use. Wells and springs that serve only <br />agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises are not <br />included except to the extent that water supply is for direct <br />(o`~~~- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.