Opinion ID: 1241589
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Subsidence Damages Under the Energy Policy Act

Text: As we stated, in Schultz we rejected the plaintiffs' argument that a change in federal law protected them from subsidence damage. However, in the instant case the appellants argue that more recent changes to federal law made by The Energy Policy Act entitle them to recovery for their damages. SMCRA now provides: Underground coal mining operations conducted after October 24, 1992, shall comply with each of the following requirements: (1) Promptly repair, or compensate for, material damage resulting from subsidence caused to any occupied residential dwelling and structures related thereto, or non-commercial building due to underground coal mining operations. Repair of damage shall include rehabilitation, restoration, or replacement of the damaged occupied residential dwelling and structures related thereto, or non-commercial building. Compensation shall be provided to the owner of the damaged occupied residential dwelling and structures related thereto or non-commercial building and shall be in the full amount of the diminution in value resulting from the subsidence. Compensation may be accomplished by the purchase, prior to mining, of a noncancellable premiumprepaid insurance policy. 30 U.S.C. § 1309a (1992). Although the statute is silent as to the effect waivers may have on the outcome of a dispute, the one federal case directly on point, also authored by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, clarifies the issue: We previously upheld the government's limitation of the obligation to repair or compensate for damage to structures only to the extent required by state law, see National Wildlife Fed'n v. Lujan, 928 F.2d at 457-59, in part because the Mining Act at the time did not explicitly impose an obligation to compensate for such damage, see id. at 458 n. 3. The Energy Policy Act imposes just such an obligation on its face. See 30 U.S.C. § 1309a(a)(1) (Compensation shall be provided to the owner of the damaged occupied residential dwelling and structures related thereto or non-commercial building and shall be in the full amount of the diminution in value resulting from the subsidence. ) (emphasis added). It is therefore wholly consistent with the statuteindeed it might even be mandatedfor the Secretary to require the mining companies further to compensate landowners for damages to which the new federal law entitled them. National Mining Association v. Babbitt, 172 F.3d 906, 916-17 (D.C.Cir.1999). We agree with appellants that the federal law has developed since Schultz and Lujan II, with respect to damage to residential dwellings and non-commercial buildings. However, in the case before us, there is no allegation that the mining activity damaged an occupied residential dwelling or non-commercial building. Appellants make the argument that the language of the federal Energy Policy Act effectively creates a strict liability standard for subsidence damage to any surface structure. However, in light of the specific language in the federal legislation, and because the dispute before us concerns a commercial rock crusher, we decline to apply the Babbitt decision to the facts of this case. [12] D.