Not so fast; it’s not final

Tuesday, Nov. 16th, HLH attorney Kim Ervin Tucker filed a strong defense of our court case challenging the Board of Environmental Protection’s (BEP) decisions to grant Nordic Aquafarms, Inc. (NAF) the state permits needed to build its fish-raising factory in Belfast. We have opposed BEP’s decisions in a “Rule 80C appeal.” At issue is Nordic’s “administrative standing,” i.e., were its permit applications valid in the first place? We maintain they were not. If our challenge is successful, a ruling in our favor will effectively cancel Nordic’s permits.

Since our Rule 80C appeal is a direct attack on its state permits, Nordic filed for a judgment to deny the appeal without considering arguments from either side. Nordic wants to strangle our Rule 80C appeal by arguing that the initial ruling in a related case before Waldo County Superior Court – RE-2019-018 – makes the appeal moot. But the basis for that argument is flimsy, as HLH attorney Kim Ervin Tucker points out in our response.

“Nordic’s motion should be denied because: (i) the Decision and Judgment of the Waldo County Superior Court, entered on October 28, 2021 in RE-2019-18 is not a “final judgment”…; (ii) that decision further bolsters  Petitioners’ argument that the Board’s permit and license approvals must be vacated…; and (iii) the Eckrotes’ conveyance of all their title, right or interest in the lot for which Nordic has sought and obtained permits and licenses, prior to Nordic exercising its 8-6-2018 easement option from the Eckrotes, has rendered Nordic’s claims of administrative standing based on that option moot.” [Emphasis in the original filing.]

Attorney Tucker’s 11-page defense of our Rule 80C appeal explains why Superior Court Justice Michaela Murphy should deny Nordic’s motion and move ahead with the case.