Laserfiche WebLink
prejudice still stand jto this date. These actions were not affected by the <br />settlement agreemer it. Accordingly, contrary to Basin Resources' argument, <br />the Division is not precluded from issuing the current NOV. <br />Moreover, if Basin Resources' argument were correct, the Division could <br />not enforce its own program despite the fact that the Coal Act allows people <br />to file lawsuits for violations of the Act, and that such violations not only <br />form the basis for a civil suit for damages but a violation of a permittee's <br />obligations under the Act. See §§ 34-33-121 and 135(6), C.R.S. Make no <br />mistake, contrary to Basin Resources' argument, the Division is not <br />attempting to collect a judgment on behalf of the Tatums. Rather, the <br />Division is pursuing this NOV to ensure that Basin Resources complies with <br />its duties as a permlttee to meet statutory and regulatory requirements that <br />mandate that a permttee who causes material damage compensate the <br />homeowner for diminution in value of the residence. § 34-33-121, C.R.S.; 2 <br />CCR 407-2, Rule 4.20. <br />That the finding of material damage from subsidence forms the basis for <br />recovery of a money judgment and the basis for a regulatory violation does <br />not mean that the Division is attempting to aid in the collection of a private <br />party's judgment. Whether and how this judgment gets paid is up to Basin <br />Resources, the Tatums and the court. How Basin Resources, as a permittee, <br />complies with its obligations as a permittee is up to the Division and this <br />Board. <br />A. Tatums v. Basin Resources - Second lawsuit and appeal re: subsi <br />damage <br />While all of the above litigation was pending, the Tatums pursued their <br />action concerning the subsidence that had been the subject of the vacated <br />NOV. On March 22,'2001, the Tatums filed suit against Basin Resources in <br />Las Animas County district court, specifically alleging that Basin <br />Resources' mining operation had caused a second incident of subsidence <br />that caused material damage to their house. The Tatums alleged that <br />material damage within the meaning of Rule 4.20.3 had occurred and <br />therefore established ',a violation by the operator of a rule or regulation <br />within the meaning of § 34-33-135(6), C.R.S.' <br />7 <br />Again, § 34-33-135(6) allows a person who is injured in person or property through the violation by an <br />operator of any rule or regulation or order or permit to bring an action in court for damages. <br />13