A
Win for Georgia's Coast
Judges ruling protects Georgia's marsh
PRESS RELEASE
July 10, 2007 -- The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD)
failed to protect the marsh by improperly granting a buffer variance
to a Brunswick developer.
Destruction of the marsh buffer on Aiken Island
Rutting and marsh fill on island
That was the decision of Judge Gatto, a state administrative law
judge, in a suit brought by the Altamaha Riverkeeper (ARK) and Satilla
Riverkeeper (SRK). The ruling (Docket NO: OSAH-BNR-ES-0710689-60-GATTO)
reverses the decision of EPD Director, Carol Couch. According to
court documents, the developer Robert M. Torras, Sr. repeatedly disturbed
the buffer and failed to stabilize the two-acre Aiken Island site
which is being developed into the "Brunswick Landing Marina."
The judge ruled in ARK's (www.altamahariverkeeper.org) and SRK's
favor saying, "The developer failed to provide the EPD Director
with evidence that impacts to the buffer had been avoided or minimized.
Therefore, the Court concludes that the EPD Director improperly granted
a variance application."
ARK began documenting major problems on the site in 2004, including
large areas of marshland fill. In the course of ARK's three-year
investigation, ARK filed numerous complaints with the Coastal Resource
Division of the Department of Natural Resources (CRD) and EPD officials.
According to ARK, the regulatory agencies failed to establish the
correct location of the jurisdiction line (where the marsh meets
the upland). The improper delniation led to the developer bulldozing
the marsh and dumping 126 truckloads of dirt into the marsh.
Altamaha Riverkeeper, James Holland says the suit could have been
avoided. "The EPD and CRD are responsible for protecting our
salt marshes and other natural resources but it took the judges'
ruling to enforce the law. If the state regulators had enforced the
law in the begining instead of playing politics, the environmental
damage could have been avoided. "
Gordon Rogers, the Satilla Riverkeeper agrees. Rogers says " Beginning
in 2004, the EPD regional staff made recommendations that strong
enforcement action should be taken against the developer . This action
would generally require the repair of environmental damage and result
in financial penalties. Instead, the EPD leadership ignored the staff
recommendation which led to continued environmental damage to waters
of the state."
According to Don Stack, Council for the Petitioners, "This
ruling demonstrates what the environmental community has been trying
to prove: the state agencies responsible for environmental protection
are more concerned with economic development than protection and
preservation of our natural resources."
|
