Attorneys for Aquafortis Associates LLC (“AQF”) have filed another Motion For Stay of the WLO appeal until June 1st. The motion was filed on April 14th and states that AQF, Pleasant Pond Mill LLC (“PPM”), and the Department of Environmental Protection have been “cooperatively working to resolve the issues that are the subject of Aquafortis’ appeal of the Department of Environmental Protection’s (“DEP”) Water Level Order for Clary Lake Dam (“CLD”), including issues that impede repairs to the CLD.”
The Motion is rather revealing:
“In particular, AquaFortis and PPM have actively sought donations and/or financing for site repair, arranged for an eligible entity to receive potential tax benefits from donations, hosted a dam engineering consultant to assess site damage, and received a quote for the cost to repair CLD, as well as an additional quote for the cost to protect downstream properties by diverting water.”
“On April 7, 2016, counsel for AquaFortis and PPM met with DEP officials and its attorneys to discuss the progress made and apprise the DEP of certain obstacles and opportunities, including cost estimates, related lawsuits, and a possible loan-security interest arrangement with a Maine institution. Based on that meeting, AquaFortis and PPM are taking additional steps to repair CLD. These steps require time, careful coordination, and the untangling of various legal issues. In particular, significant additional time and effort is needed to explore conditions for a possible loan-security interest arrangement that protects possible lending institutions against continued and additional litigation on Clary Lake. Putting the instant litigation on hold would allow AquaFortis and PPM to more intensely focus their efforts on a resolution that restores Clary Lake. There is a limited window of time to address the factors essential to repairing CLD if the repairs are to be made in time to take advantage of fall rains to raise the level of Clary Lake.”
These talks between AQF, PPM, and DEP have been going on since the beginning of March, but until now little has been known about what has been discussed and what is being proposed. I do find the information included in this recent filing heartening and sincerely hope that a permanent resolution of this matter can be found:
The day before this Motion was submitted, the Attorney General’s Office asked the Court to schedule a Status Conference. I assume that this request will be considered upon the resumption of litigation in June: