My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2007-05-10_ENFORCEMENT - C1981013
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Coal
>
C1981013
>
2007-05-10_ENFORCEMENT - C1981013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:16:52 PM
Creation date
8/7/2009 3:58:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
5/10/2007
Doc Name
DRMS Brief in Support of NOV CV2007001, Civil Penalty & Proposed Decision on SI
Violation No.
CV2007001
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
i <br />judgment, the IBLA opinion and its own inspection of the Tatums' home, <br />the Division issued NOV No. CV-2000-009. (Attached as Exhibit Q. The <br />NOV was for failure to prevent adverse effects of mining operations and <br />failure to conduct underground mining activities to prevent subsidence from <br />causing material damage to the surface, to the extent technologically and <br />economically feasible, so as to maintain the value and reasonably <br />foreseeable use of surface lands. The NOV cited 2 CCR 407-2, Rules <br />4.01.1(a) and 4.20.1!. <br />Basin Resources requested a hearing before the Board on the NOV. The <br />company proposed to introduce opinion evidence regarding subsidence that <br />the Tatums and the Division felt was contrary to the prior judgment entered <br />by the court. Therefore, the Division and the Tatums moved to exclude <br />evidence by Basin Resources that subsidence had not occurred to the <br />Tatums' residence. The Board denied such motion. <br />Thereafter, the Tatums decided that instead of going forth with a hearing <br />before the Board, they would pursue a court action under § 34-33-135, <br />C.R.S. Accordingly; they requested that the Division vacate the NOV <br />without prejudice. Given the provisions of the statute that allow a person to <br />sue in court for a violation, the Division agreed to the Tatums' request. On <br />or about March 12, 2001, the Division vacated the NOV without prejudice. <br />(Attached as Exhibit's D). <br />In response, Basin Resources requested that the Board review the Division's <br />vacation and ask the Board to adjudicate the NOV. The Division objected to <br />Basin Resources' motion, stating that the operator had no standing to ask for <br />such a review and that the Division properly vacated the NOV. <br />On March 21, 2001, the Board agreed to Basin Resources' motion and set a <br />hearing for April 25,i 2001. The Board followed its decision with a written <br />order dated April 10.1200 1. The Board ruled that once Basin Resources <br />asked for a hearing on the NOV, the Board's jurisdiction was invoked and <br />the Division could not vacate the NOV without Board approval. The Board <br />reinstated the NOV. <br />The Board's order sparked a number of lawsuits involving the Board, the <br />Division, the Tatums? and Basin Resources. A summary of the lawsuits is <br />provided below. The summary shows why the settlement agreement to <br />which Basin Resources refers does not preclude the Division's issuance of
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.