OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Library of COALEX Research Reports
COALEX Research Reports are the products of research and analysis conducted on specific issues relating to the regulation of Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. The research is conducted in response to requests for information from State Regulatory Authorities, under a cooperative agreement between the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) and the Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC).
COALEX refers to the Library of Surface Mining Materials maintained by OSM in LEXIS-NEXIS and is a major source for the research.
Each Report includes a list of resources which were sent as attachments to the individual who requested the research. To obtain a copy of the attachments or to obtain any additional information, contact Joyce Zweben Scall by phone at 202-686-9138 or by email at JZScall@aol.com.
COALEX STATE INQUIRY REPORT - 261
Division of Reclamation
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 147
201 W. Main Street
Jasonville, Indiana 47438
TOPIC: Signatures on the 300 foot waiver
INQUIRY: Must the waiver allowing a permittee to mine closer than 300 feet to an occupied dwelling be signed by both parties if the property is jointly owned or is one signature sufficient?
SEARCH RESULTS:The COALEX Library and other materials in LEXIS were used to research this inquiry.
Only one case was identified that had any relevance to the fact situation and issue of this inquiry. In SMITH v NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CABINET (CABINET), 712 SW 2d 951 (Ky Ct App 1986), the court found that the Cabinet had erred in denying an administrative hearing to Muriel Smith, occupant and co-owner of a home, who did not execute a "300-foot waiver". The waiver had been signed by Smith's ex-husband, the nonoccupant and co-owner of the home.
While the court did not issue a ruling on whether the nonoccupant/co-owner of a dwelling may execute a waiver that is sufficient under Kentucky regulations to deprive the occupant/co-owner of the protection of state and federal statutes, it did find that the issue was not a property rights question.
The case was remanded to the Cabinet to take appropriate inspection and enforcement action.
SMITH v NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CABINET (CABINET), 712 SW 2d 951 (Ky Ct App 1986).
Research conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall