Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />Moreover, the Division's proposed decision to increase the bond is a <br />separate regulatory action from the NOV. It is based on different regulatory <br />requirements. Accordingly, regardless of the outcome of the NOV, this <br />Board should uphold the Division's decision concerning the bond increase. <br />In addition, as to Basin Resources' argument concerning what is required to <br />be included in a bond, the Act specifically provides that after a permit <br />application has been approved, the applicant must file a performance bond <br />conditioned on the "faithful performance of all the requirements of this <br />article and the permit." § 34-33-113(1), C.R.S. (Emphasis added). <br />Section 34-33-121, C.R.S. specifies a performance standard that must be <br />included in the bond: That section states that "[e ach permit issued under <br />this article and relating to underground coal mining shall require the o ep rator <br />to" adopt measures to prevent subsidence from causing material damage to <br />surface lands and that if material damage does occur, the o erator "shall <br />either" repair the damage or compensate the owner in the full amount of the <br />diminution in value resulting from the subsidence. § 34-33-121(2), C.R.S. <br />(Emphasis added).9 As the Court of Appeals found in the Tatum case, the <br />operator is not the orie who chooses which remedy it must perform. Tatum, <br />141 P.3d at 870-71. <br />Moreover, Rule 1.04(105) defines reclamation to mean any activity or <br />procedure required to achieve compliance with a reclamation plan approved <br />under Rule 2.05 including any necessary work required for compliance with <br />the Act and these Rules. 2 CCR 407-2, Rule 1.04(105). In turn, Rule <br />2.05.6(6) specifically includes reclamation requirements concerning <br />subsidence issues. 2':CCR 407-2, Rule 2.05.6(6). <br />Given the requirements of the federal regulations and the provisions of the <br />Coal Act and regulations, the Division properly issued its proposed opinion <br />requiring Basin Resources to increase its bond to include the $622,000, <br />which is the amount that represents the diminution in value to Tatums' <br />residence. Therefore, the Board should uphold the Division's proposed <br />decision. <br />I <br />On March 27, 2007, the Tatums also requested a hearing on the Division's <br />proposed decision. They object to the fact that the Division's proposed <br />9 As stated previously, this performance standard for underground mining operators is separate from the <br />lawsuit a private citizen can bring under § 34-33-135(6), C.R.S. <br />21