Staff Report
Published Aug. 25, 2009

Two environmental groups that asked a judge to stop work on the new port terminal in North Charleston based their arguments on hyperbole, inaccuracies and “conspiracy doomsday theories,” the S.C. State Ports Authority said in a response filed Monday.

The S.C. Coastal Conservation League “disregards facts, law and reality in fashioning its vision of a post-terminal Charleston to stop this important public interest project,” port lawyers wrote in the response.

The SPA — and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in a separate response — asked the judge to deny the preliminary injunction requested July 20 by the league and the Southern Environmental Law Center.

The two environmental groups said construction of the terminal on the former Navy base should wait for more traffic studies to determine whether Interstate 26 can handle the truck traffic it would generate. They said the project should also wait for a study of rail options that could help prevent interstate gridlock.

Previous coverage

• Law center files motion to halt terminal construction

The motion for an injunction is part of a lawsuit pending in federal court in which the law center sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, claiming the permitting agency erred in its approval of the North Charleston terminal.

In its response filed Monday, the SPA said the environmental groups exaggerated the traffic impact of the terminal, using worst-case scenario traffic figures based on full capacity at buildout.

“The league posits that the only reason I-26 fails in the future is due to additional traffic from the project,” the SPA wrote. “According to the league, I-26 operates perfectly well and needs no improvement before 2025. Nobody else thinks that.”

The SPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said interstate improvements will be needed anyway. They both also said that environmental laws require the corps to consider a project’s environmental impact, which it did, but that other values ultimately can outweigh the environmental costs.

Officials with the Coastal Conservation League said last month that the recent drop in container traffic makes now a good time for the port to re-evaluate its capacity expansion project.

In its response, the SPA said: “Irrespective of the current container traffic volume, the long-term growth needs of the state and the port require expansion, which translates into continued economic benefits and improved prosperity for Charleston and the state of South Carolina and its citizens in both the near and long terms.”

The SPA said it had spent or obligated $104.5 million for the project as of July 31.