Second Battle for the Bay begins in Superior Court June 21st. Fierce fighting against salmon tankfarming menace in Belfast to reach critical point

Attorneys for two bay defender groups have joined forces in a combined effort to fend off invading Norwegian corporadoes threatening Belfast Bay.   From June 21-24 their case, the "Matter of Mabee and Grace v. Nordic Aquafarms, Inc" (14pg pdf), will be tried before Justice Robert E. Murray in Belfast Superior Court.

At the above link, read the conservationists' brief to Superior Court in Belfast 

At trial,  Plaintiffe Upstream Watch (“Upstream”), Plaintiffs Jeffrey Mabee and Judith Grace (“Mabee/Grace”), and Friends Of the Harriet L. Hartley Conservation Area (“Friends”) will prove that: 

(i) the easterly boundary of Janet and Richard Eckrotes’ (collectively, “Eckrotes”) [...] is the high water mark of Penobscot Bay; and

(ii) the intertidal land abutting the Morgan’s, 1 Eckrotes’, and Schweikerts’ upland was initially retained by Harriet L. Hartley at the time of the conveyance of upland to Fred Poor and then subsequently conveyed to William and Pauline Butler (collectively, “Butlers”) in 1950.  Mabee/Grace now own the intertidal land that adjoins their upland,  and the upland properties now owned by Morgan, the Eckrotes, and the Schweikerts. 2

NORDIC WILL RESPOND

Nordic will argue that: 

(i) the phrase “along high-water mark of Penobscot Bay” in the 1946 Hartley-to-Poor deed3 and the 1964 Bells-to-Grady deed is a “call to the water” that actually means the low water mark of Penobscot Bay which did not cause a severing of the upland from the intertidal flats; and

 (ii) the Eckrotes always understood that they owned the intertidal land on which their lot fronts. However, neither the Eckrotes nor Party-inInterest Morgan—whose waterfront boundary is primarily derived from the same Hartley-to-Poor deed—have proof of title to this intertidal land beyond the speculations and erroneous legal interpretations offered by Nordic, previously rejected by this Court in its June 4, 2020 Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 

We'll keep an eye on this fast moving fight.