Laserfiche WebLink
IBLA 96-90,96-91 <br />section 720(a) of SMCRA, because the watering of livestock is a commercial agricultural use of water. <br />There is no evidence in the record that appellants used the well in question for any purpose after acquiring their <br />property in 1988. However, they stated iri their August 1995 request for infonnal review, that the pasture had been used to <br />Iwld cattle and horses and "[i]f we had water at that location we could again use this location to hold our cattle and horses <br />* *." 51 (Letter to OSM, dated Aug. 12, 1995, at 2.) Appellants' claim in their SOR at page 5 that "[a]II our acreage is for <br />domestic use " is belied by their statement in a copy of a letter in the record from appellants to Senator Phil Gramm, dated <br />April 5, 1995, in which they represent that "[o]ur home and ranch in Colorado is a multi-million [dollar] operation * * *." A <br />multi-mil lion dollar operation that includes the pasturing grazing, and watering of livestock is clearly a commercial <br />operation. <br />Therefore, we must conclude that the well in question did not constitute a "drinking domestic, or residential water <br />supply," within the meaning of section 72((a) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. § 1309a(a) (1994), for which BRI was liable to <br />provide a replacement 6? <br />Likewise, the facts fail to show a violation of State law as alleged in the TDN. OSM asserts that appellants are only <br />entitled to relief if BRI's underground coal mining operations interfered with a "vested water right," because, under 2 Colo. <br />Code Rep. § 4.05.15 (1991), replacement is only required for a "vested water right" (Answer at 14.) OSM notes that <br />DMG had already detennined, as set forth in its June 6, 1995, letter, that appellants had no such right in the water from their <br />well and that, since it was reasonable on its face, DFO was entitled to defer to that interpretation. (Answer at 14-15, citing <br />Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co v ( SM, 132 IBLA at 89-90,102 I.D. at 16-17.) OSM asserts that, absent a vested <br />water riot, DMG properly decided that BRI had not violated the State regulation. <br />51 DMG stated that the well was located within a "fenced-in pasture of about I 1 acres in size," but that the condition of the <br />pasture, including "[s]ome" knocked-down fencing and "many" fence posts rotten at the base, indicated that it had not been <br />recently used for grazing" (Jurie 1995 DMG Report at 2.) <br />61 Given our conclusion, we need not decide whether BRI's actions resulted in a "diminution" ofappellants' water supply <br />from the well. Although DMG's June 6, 1995, letter to OSM states that "it is likely that the water level in the well was <br />influenced by the adjacent underground workings and exhaust shaft;" the attached report states that "[t]here has been no <br />demonstration to the Division that there has been damage (a loss of beneficial use.)" (June 1995 DMG Report at 9.) It <br />continued: "[A] possible drawdown caused by mining does not necessarily mean that the water right has been injured." Id. <br />151 IBLA 3 01