Laserfiche WebLink
RCN. Fi`t' :D. G. &S. `y 4 -26- 7 : 3 :02PwI 71W34601.bJ•-+ <br />• "FOR. THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT THE TATUMS SPECIFICALLY <br />DO NOT .RELEASE BASIN OR SAN ISABEL ELECTRICAL <br />COOPERATIVE FOR ANY DAMAGES DONE TO`.TMIR PROPERTY <br />ANT) WATER SUPPLY AND FAILUR)✓ TO RESTORE SAN E. <br />"Litigation" as defined in Exhibit B is$. The Nov (CV- 2004 -009) and Case <br />No. 01- 0135; Casa No. 01 -CV77, Case No. 01C,42410; Case No. <br />0.20.41915 and Case No. 03CA0039.11 Finally, the Board vacated Notice of <br />Violation No. CV- 2004 -009 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Tatum Exhibit (Y) <br />herein attached.) <br />• <br />Both the February 15, 2007 Notice of Violation and the Proposed Decision. <br />to hicrease Bond correctly reference Case Number 01CV26 filed in the Las <br />Anim.as County Disirict Court as establishing the factual foundation upon <br />which MLRB has determined Basin's failure to comply with the required <br />performance standards. <br />2. As previously discussed and cited, the actions taken by HERB are <br />mandated by the Colorado Coal Mining regulations. The Division is acting <br />in accordance with their mandate to tape enforcement action against a <br />permittee when the Division has knowledge of any violation of a <br />performance standard. The decision, and underlying established facts, in <br />Case No. 01CV26 provided that information. The Tatums, have not, nor <br />would they, request or expect N- ff,RB to secure judgments relative to any <br />civil action taken or to be taken by the Tatums. The Tatums, however, do <br />expect M1,RB to enforce all of the requirements of the Colorado Coal <br />Mining Regulations Basin has violated two specific performance standards <br />of those regulations and NLRB is taking the action necessary to nddress and <br />correct those violations. <br />3. Colorado Mined Land Rule 4.20.3 (2) (a) "restore, rehabilitate or <br />remove and replace each damaged structure, feature or value, PROMPTLY <br />after damage is suffered, TO THE CONDITION IT WOULD BE AS IF NO <br />SUBSIDENCE. HAD OCCURRED AMD REASONABLY 1~ORSEEABLE <br />USES IT WAS CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING BEFORE SUBSIDENC.E." <br />Basinv'Westmoreland could have chosen the option to repair at the time the <br />subsxdenee� damage oecurrcd. The regulation requires the permittee to <br />"promptiy I make 'i repairs to the damaged structure or, failing that, to <br />compcnsate the home eowner in die full anioucat of 01e dirninution of value <br />resulting from the 4amage. The NOV correctly requires Basin to provide <br />3 <br />