The Merc article on the Saltworks and the Army Corps of Engineers really caused some unnecessary confusion. The truth is that the “event” that generated the story was simply the Corps accepting the Saltworks request EXACTLY AS SUBMITTED. The article and headlines suggested there was some big “setback” for the project or that what the Corps did was somehow unwelcome. In fact, the Corps did exactly what Saltworks requested.
After decades of dispute and even litigation about sites like the Saltworks and how federal law applies — OR NOT — to them, Saltworks made a choice to set aside the path of conflict and lawyers and, instead, seek to work with the agencies on the best future for the site. Specifically, we tapped into a standard (though somewhat new) process offered by the Corps throughout the country. Under that process, a landowner who disagrees that federal laws apply to a given site may reserve those objections but nonetheless let the agencies treat the site “as if” it is subject to the laws. The landowner never concedes the question, but lets the agency process a permit application as if the jurisdiction applied.
Neither DMB nor Cargill believe there is a legal basis for the federal agencies to exert control over the site. But as I said, we’d rather talk solutions and the future, not fight over legal minutia.
Also, we are so confident in and proud of the incredible benefits of the 50/50 Balanced Plan, we have no doubt that the plan as submitted is absolutely permit-able under the laws in question.
We weren’t ambushed; quite to the contrary. We appreciate that the Corps started the exact process we asked for.
