Who could achieve standing or win a case with these criteria?
The judge’s Recommended Order applied the wrong standard
as to whether the pipeline is in the public interest (Exception 25),
applied an incorrect standard of proof (Exception 16),
ignored the additional protections due the Outstanding Florida Waters
of the Suwannee and Santa Fe Rivers
(Exception 17),
and
ignored evidence that the granting of a Sovereign Submerged Lands Easement
would adversely affect the lands under those rivers
(Exception 19), not to mention the Floridan Aquifer.
In alleging WWALS does not have standing, the judge ignored a case previously
cited by FDEP
(Exception 23),
and added an unprecedented factor of “potential injury”
that would prevent associations from ever achieving standing unless they could prove the ultimate facts of the case
(Exception 14).
Did the judge really mean to imply FDEP’s and Sabal Trail’s own witnesses were not competent when they upon questioning provided testimony that FDEP failed to acquire reasonable assurances that the issuance of an environmental resource permit and easement on sovereign submerged lands would not be contrary to the “public interest” (Exception 15)?
If those public servants’ testimony wasn’t competent, how can those same personnel be competent to evaluate permit applications?
These are just a few of the 25 exceptions filed Monday 28 December 2015
by WWALS Counsel William R. Wohlsifer and Leighanne C. Boone.
See also the WWALS video of Attorney Wohlsifer’s concluding statement in the hearing.
Here is
PDF of the judge’s Recommended Order
and
PDF of the WWALS Exceptions.
Below is the text of those exceptions. Continue reading →
through the heart of the Florida Springs Heartland, wrote a Practicing Geologist WWALS member to FERC, following up on his
testimony in WWALS v Sabal Trail & FDEP.
