Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ryberg
Sorry, not that well connected! And now that you mention it, I don't remember seeing or hearing in any of the recent reports such details along those lines. However the implication (if for no other reason than by omission of any others) was pretty clearly that the court was upholding the ruling of PROFEPA (read EPA), which focused on a principal and secondary reason:
principal: failure to include mention of nearby coral reefs in the EIS that was submitted by the owners (or those they hired to do the study) as part of the application/approval process for the project in the first place
secondary: reported use of the pier for refueling or other fuel-related transport in violation of the restrictions established for its use upon approval of the project
So pretty substantive, if that is in fact what this latest injunction rejection was based on.
Steve
|
No doubt that's on the merits! My Lord, what's with these people?!!
They casually failed to address the reefs in the EIS??!!!! Unbelievable.