08-15-2016, 04:05 AM
quote:
Originally posted by pahoated
This judge is looking at her case strictly as a permit compliance case. If she finds the permit process was incomplete, she is going to do the same thing any other judge does with a permit problem -- send them back to the beginning of the permit process and get it right. Very likely, that is going to happen here, TMT Corp will be looking at going all the way back to a new EIS, new negotiations UHH, then starting the 2 to 3 year permit process again. Maybe not, but it looks like what is happening.
You're talking about apples and oranges. The legality of the EIS is out of the purview of these proceedings. That document is legally binding since no one contested it within 60 days of acceptance in 2010.
That being said, Judge Amano could require the CDUP application be redone, but I don't expect that to happen. The original petitioners claim the name on the application is slightly different than what it was 6 years ago, which is a legally weak argument.