Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />Although the Tatums have apparently commenced collection actions <br />regarding their judgment against Basin Resources, the operator has not paid <br />any part of the judgment. See Exhibit K, docket sheet from Las Animas <br />County district court showing that the judgment is "unsatisfied." <br />I <br />In a status report dated January 9, 2007 and filed with the court, the Tatums <br />stated Basin Resources had not paid any part of the judgment. Exhibit L. In <br />its January 16, 200, response to this status report, Basin Resources admitted <br />that it has not paid on the judgment. Exhibit M. Consequently, Basin <br />Resources has failed to compensate for the subsidence damage in violation <br />of § 34-33-121 and 2 CCR 407-2, Rule 4.20.3. Accordingly, this Board <br />should uphold the NOV. <br />diminu <br />e to include <br />In a letter dated January 19, 2007, Ann Tatum informed the Division that the <br />federal coal regulations require that if an operator causes material damage, <br />the operator must submit an additional bond in the amount of the decrease in <br />value, in this case $622,000. See 30 C.F.R. 817.121(5). OSM thereafter <br />issued a 732 letters asking whether Colorado's program requires operators to <br />include in their bonds the amount of diminution of value caused by the <br />subsidence. (Attached as Exhibit N). <br />The Coal Program has responded (Exhibit O), and OSM has agreed (Exhibit <br />P), that the Division; s broad statutory and regulatory provisions concerning <br />bonding allow for DBMS to require operators, such as Basin Resources, to <br />include in their bond the amount of the diminution of value. See §§ 34-33- <br />113, C.R.S.; 2 CCR ;407-2, Rule 3. Accordingly, the Division has issued a <br />proposed decision requiring Basin Resources to increase its bond to cover <br />$622,000. (Exhibit Q). <br />Basin Resources argues that it should not be required to increase its bond <br />based on the $622,000 amount because the Board should not uphold the <br />NOV. However, as stated above, the NOV was properly issued by the <br />Division and should be upheld by the Board. <br />s A 732 letter is one issued under 30 C.F.R. 732.17. OSM as the oversight agency has the ability to request <br />information about whether a state's program meets federal standards. <br />20