Judge lifted Bimini dredge bar despite 'compliance concern'

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Despite expressing “concern” over whether Resorts World Bimini was in “full compliance” with the requirements of its dredging permit, a Supreme Court judge ruled that the developers had made a “prima facie” case that the approval was valid.

In overturning the Privy Council-imposed injunction that had halted dredging off north Bimini for almost a week, Justice Hartman Longley noted that government officials had “sworn” all environmental safeguards were being complied with.

Suggesting that he might have “taken a different view” had Resorts World and the Government been forced to produce “a higher standard of proof”, Justice Longley repeatedly cited the fact that the matter was a preliminary hearing - and not the full Judicial Review - as providing the basis to overturn the injunction.

Referring to submissions by the Bimini Blue Coalition’s attorney, Fred Smith QC, Justice Longley questioned the ‘independence’ of the person hired by the developers to carry out the ‘environmental risk’ study.

Such ‘independence’ was a condition of the dredging permit, and Justice Longley also queried whether the same study should have been completed before dredging started.

Yet, given that it was an ‘interlocutory hearing’, Justice Longley concluded: “On the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that the onus placed on the respondents [government and developers] to establish that the permit is one on which they can rely as valid has been discharged.”

The dredging permit, issued under the Conservation and Protection of the Physical Landscape of the Bahamas Act 1997, was issued and dated May 22, 2014, some eight days after dredging began off north Bimini.

And Justice Longley conceded: “One issue of some concern to me, however, is the question of whether all the conditions of the permit were complied with.”

While the dredge permit imposed no new conditions, Justice Longley noted that it was granted after dredging started and added: “A very substantial amount of dredging had been carried out under the original approvals.

“Indeed, Mr. Smith pointed out that the volume of dredged material was so considerable that the requested amount made in the initial application was fulfilled in that very short period of time.”

Mr Smith pointed out several alleged instances where the dredge permit terms appeared not to have been complied with, findings Justice Longley appeared to agree with.

“In the first case, the [developers] appear to have appointed a person who is the employee of an independent engineering firm that was employed by [Resorts World],” Justice Longley said.

“ Whether that person is truly independent is an issue that has to be addressed on the Judicial Review application. As to the study, the [developers] say they have given an undertaking to conduct the study.

“The way the conditions read, however, it would seem that it ought to have been carried out before the dredging commenced.”

Yet counterbalancing this, the Bahamas Environment, Science and Technology (BEST) Commission had testified that all environmental concerns and approvals had or were being addressed.

“The question of full compliance is the one area that has caused me some concern,” Justice Longley said. “The conditions imposed are numerous and quite rightly so. The environmental impact can be devastating and catastrophic.

“However, the review and management of the project from an environmental point of view is an ongoing process and the director of physical planning has the authority under the Act on giving notice to the developer to suspend or revoke a permit if the built-in monitoring safeguard should fail for whatever reason.”

While there was no evidence to refute this, Justice Longley added: “If the standard of proof was higher at this stage, I might have to take a different view.”

He ruled that Resorts World’s dredge permit was “prima facie valid” and one they could rely on to dredge the seabed, finding that the issues raised by Mr Smith and the Coalition should be kept for the main Judicial review hearing.

The same applied to the latter’s claims of a ‘lack of consultation’ over the dredge permit, as mandated by the conservation and Protection of the Physical Landscape of the Bahamas Act.

Justice Longley found that “it is not mandatory” for the director of physical planning to advertise any dredging permit application and seek feedback from other parties.

“The failure to consult with the applicant was not a violation of the statutory obligation, although it might be a proper issue for Judicial Review,” the judge added.

While continued dredging might render the Bimini Blue Coalition’s action “moot”, Justice Longley said that in light of its failure to provide ‘security’ for the developers’ and government’s legal costs, and the fact Resorts World was losing $160,000 per day on the dredge halt, the interests of justice were best served by the injunction’s removal.

He described the matter as “a difficult case”.

Comments

GrassRoot says...

If it is a difficult case, a full review seems appropriate, but that only makes sense if the continuation of the dredging, rightfully or not, is stopped for now, particularly since the dredging may result in damage to the environment that can not be compensated with money. The wise and right decision would have been to stop the dredging for now. Why not make Genting putting up a bond that guarantees funds for the reversal of the damage done to the reefs as a condition for them continuing the dredging? There would have been many ways for a court to deal with that in a more sensitive manner. This is not as black or white, as both parties are trying to tell us. The People will not understand and not accept decisions by a court that are formalistic and (seemingly) go against common sense. It will further undermine the rule of law in the Bahamas.

Posted 3 June 2014, 1:45 p.m. Suggest removal

Friend says...

Let the dredging restart! Enough said.

Posted 3 June 2014, 2:29 p.m. Suggest removal

BiminiRick says...

Let's the fools speak! Everyone deserves an opinion...even the ignorant!

Posted 3 June 2014, 8:51 p.m. Suggest removal

ikorky says...

seriously ...enough with the crap...bringforth a new and more powerful economy in Bimini..more jobs, more money, more business more opportunity...

Posted 4 June 2014, 1:16 a.m. Suggest removal

BiminiRick says...

Ever been to Bimini? For the tourist it is all about the water, the fishing, the diving. Destroy that...then what? Think they gonna come to gamble? Florida has more gambling options than Vegas. BTW, 99% of the "more money" is going into Genting's pocket (and some well connected politicians I suspect). You're going to sell your birthright for a dollar today? And you wonder why they think we Bahamians are stupid...then take advantage of us

Posted 4 June 2014, 12:43 p.m. Suggest removal

GrassRoot says...

Big name investors operate a wander circus, they come, buy everybody, shine for a moment, move on and leave a mess behind. There is nothing sustained about the Gentings business model in Bimini.

Posted 4 June 2014, 1:50 p.m. Suggest removal

birdiestrachan says...

It is to bad Fred Smith did not have this concern when the dredging was done in the Exuma Sea Park in my view that was a sacred place. and he did boast about how much money it cost the investors when he stopped the Bakers Bay Development. Fred is a rich man. Persons in Bimini only want to put bread on their tables. allow them to be the ones to choose what is good for them and not outsiders like Fred Smith. Bakers Bay Development was completed in spite of his interference.

Posted 3 June 2014, 4 p.m. Suggest removal

BiminiRick says...

Hey Birdie,
You made the point. "Allow THEM to be the ones to choose what is good for them and not outsiders..." like Perry Christie and Obie Wilchcombe. The people of Bimini HAVE NOT been consulted. Their wishes HAVE NOT been considered. EVERY decision made on this project was made PRIOR to the population and even local government on Bimini even being informed. In about three months, everything was smoothed into place. Any where else in the world, this would have taken YEARS of environmental study and recommendations. But here in the Bahamas, gubmen say erryting good in three months! Three months for a project that will radically alter the ecology and character of Bimini! Day ain't even tell nobody till erryting was in already place. The government of the Bahamas has a long history of deciding in Nassau what is good for the rest of the Bahamas WITHOUT so much as cursory consultation with those involved. PLP or FNM...these bums need to go. Or, as I always say...you get what you vote for.

Posted 3 June 2014, 8:49 p.m. Suggest removal

killemwitdakno says...

"government officials had “sworn” all environmental safeguards were being complied with." So where is the local EIA expert in this who should have been called into court ? That proves there wasn't consultation over the dredge permit, as mandated by the conservation and Protection of the Physical Landscape of the Bahamas Act. The judge cannot determine in a hearing that a higher standard of proof was in compliance. Bring in the person whom the [developers] appear to have appointed who is the employee of an independent engineering firm that was employed by [Resorts World] in the first place. When was that first place? **1997?** .

"also queried whether the same study should have been completed before dredging started."
This isn't a query , this is how it's supposed to go. Who queries whether They'll see if an island is going to flood only after they done hack at it's borders.

If the Conservation and Protection of the Physical Landscape of the Bahamas Act **1997 was the same year as the majority of this EIA** , then both need to be fully updated.

What "built-in monitoring safeguard"?? a LEVY???? We don't do that ugly shyt along our beach. If this is a physical safeguard set to protect against a high tide then **they know it's a hazard that's why they have to put a breach/levy**. Anyone can bust that levy in extreme weather if they feel like. Why would you put a contraption that isn't menace proof. Why the hell would our goverment invite a "BIO WARFARE" risk (Nottage) ??? $2 million a week on this alone and you guys can't ensure safety. GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE.

(if they were worried about bio warfare they wouldn't give a fashion mogul a stem cell mall)

You mean Prime Feces

Posted 4 June 2014, 11:57 a.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment