Laserfiche WebLink
IBLA 90-90,96-91 <br />DMG's June 5, 1995, Report, states at page 9: "According to the State Engineer's Once, a vested water right as it <br />applies to the Tatum windmill'well, could be either a permitted well or an adjudicated water right, and the Tat= well is <br />neither." It hither stated that in accordance with State Engineer's Office policy, an unpenmitted and Luhadjudicated well that <br />has riot been used for 10 years; is considered abandoned. "The Tattum windmill well under current State Engineer's Office <br />Policy, would be considered abandoned * * *." Id. at 10. The record shows that DMG investigated the records in the State <br />Engineer's Office and was Linable to uncover any records showing that the well was penmitted or that there was any <br />adiLxiication of the water rights for the well. <br />'Ihe detenmination that appellants did not have a vested water right served as the basis for DMG's concksion drat BRI <br />was not required by section 4.05.15 of 2 Colo. Code Regs. (1991) to replace the water supply in appellants' well. Appellants <br />have provided no evidence to the contrary, asserting only that DMG's conclusion "is simply NOT THE LAW." (SOP, <br />IBLA 96-90, at 8.) <br />Appellants have tailed to establish any error in DMG's determination or in OSM's acceptance of that determination. In <br />his ALigrList 24, 1995, decision the Regional Director stated that he concwred with the DF(7s decision not to initiate a Federal <br />inspection or take Federal enforcement because DMG's response to the TDN was appropriate. We hereby affirm that <br />decision, as modified for the following reasons. <br />Under die regulations governing TDNs. an action or response by the State riegL ilatory aLrdnaity that is not arbitrary, <br />capricious, or an abuse of discretion Linder the State program is considered ' appropriate action" to cause a violation to be <br />corrected or "good cause" for faihrre to do so. 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(bXiiXBX2). "those regulations fiuther state that <br />"[a]ppropriate action inclUdes enforcement or other action audiorized under the State pram to cause the violation to be <br />conected." 30 C.F.R. § 842. I I (bXiiX BX3). In this case, there was no enforcement or other action by DMG to cause the <br />violation to be corrected. The reason is that DMG foLM no violation. Accordingly, OSM should have concluded that <br />DMG's response constituted "good cause" for f UILM to take action because, in accordance with 30 C.F.R. § <br />8,42.11 (bXiiXBX4Xi), Linder the State program the violation did rot exist. See Betty L. & Moses Tennant, 135 IBLA 217, <br />227-28 (1996), Patricia A. Marsh, 133 1 BLA 372,376-77 (1995). <br />B. IBLA 96-91 <br />[3] Appellants have argued that the damage to their home constituted a violation of section 720(a) of SMCRA, and 30 <br />C.F.R. § 817.121(cX2X and <br />151 IBLA 302