The Coastal Conservation League (CCL) continues its objection and delaying tactics regarding the International Drive Paving Project in Horry County, a project direly needed by the residents along the Highway 90 corridor portion of the County.
Early this year, the League, through its legal arm, the South Carolina Environmental Law Project (SCELP), brought a request for contested case hearing before the South Carolina Administrative Law Court. On July 7, Judge Ralph King Anderson rendered his decision in the case. He ruled that CCL failed the burden of proof in every one of at least nine (9) arguments they put before him.
Of greatest importance to the residents, was Judge Anderson’s ruling that: “The proposed road will significantly improve the health and safety of a substantial part of the County’s population by:
allowing quicker access by emergency responders;
• allowing quicker access for them to trauma centers, emergency rooms, and other critical health services; and
• improving firefighting capabilities and hurricane evacuation.”
Yet, despite the Court’s overwhelming repudiation of CCL’s arguments and expression of the public need for this roadway, listen to the response from CCL and their legal team:
Amy Armstrong, SCELP attorney for CCL, in a WPDE interview, “we want him (Judge Anderson) to reconsider.” And if he doesn’t, Armstrong says they’ll appeal again.
Nancy Cave, North Coast Director for CCL, in a televised interview, quote “we expected this decision” This statement begs the question, if you expected to lose in a court of law, why did you bring the case in the first place? Is this what your contributors expect – spending tens of thousands of dollars on a case you have no expectation of winning? If you didn’t expect to win, what is the real motive behind these actions?
Dana Beach, Executive Director of CCL in the Sun News, July 15: “The Judge failed to rule on two key points: the extent to which construction will protect or improve water quality, and whether the project complies with policies on fill material”. Mr. Beach is obviously oblivious to Judge Andersons ruling. “Water quality” is referenced fifty two (52) times in the written decision.