Contract a plan?

Louisa County and the two water authorities filed suits against Fluvanna contending that we breached our contract by withholding permits for the pipeline route they preferred. It is that very route that flouted the requirement that it must run west or north of the Columbia CPA, the contract covenant that Nichols claimed is meaningless. Whose side is he on?
The contract was signed more than two years ago. If the parties could not abide by its terms, they had time to amend it. They didn’t. Did Nichols read the contract? Did the Fluvanna County attorney? What about the engineering firm that billed handsomely to design a pipeline that did not conform to contract specifications?
As it stands, Fluvanna granted special use permits for a pipeline route that should never have been approved. Even after the discrepancy was pointed out during a public hearing, supervisors discounted it. The parties could amend the agreement now, but that won’t change the fact that they disregarded requirements of a pact they all agreed to in 2013.
If the landowners whose property rights will be seized for the pipeline can afford to fight eminent domain in court, it will be interesting to note whether the Interjurisdictional agreement covenants restricting the pipeline route are deemed meaningless. A strict judge could throw out the entire project. We’ll have to wait and see.

Related Posts

dewi88 cuanslot dragon77 cuan138 enterslots rajacuan megahoki88 ajaib88 warung168 fit188 pusatwin pusatwin slot tambang88 mahkota88 slot99 emas138