Order clears way for Sunset Beach bridge contract

N.C. Department of Transportation officials should decide soon whether to award a contract to build a new Sunset Beach bridge now that a judge has released a written order detailing her reasons for denying a motion to delay the project.

U.S. District Judge Louise W. Flanagan said in a written statement released Wednesday that the plaintiffs asking for a preliminary injunction against construction and planning of a new bridge failed to demonstrate irreparable harm to the environment as a result of the bridge's construction.

The denial was issued Dec. 21, but reasons for the ruling were not discussed at the court hearing.

Transportation Secretary Lyndo Tippett couldn't be reached Wednesday afternoon.

DOT Division Engineer Allen Pope said Wednesday he had not yet heard that the written order was released. He said the DOT was awaiting the written order before proceeding to award a $30.9 million contract to English Construction Co.

"We were waiting on the written decision, and at that point it is up to the secretary to award the contract," Pope said.

A phone call to the plaintiffs' attorney, Jim Maxwell, was not immediately returned Wednesday. Maxwell said earlier this month that the plaintiffs would decide whether to proceed with a trial after reading the written order. The plaintiffs are the Sunset Beach Taxpayers Association, Douglas W. Hix, William A. Ducker, Bonnie Kelley, Nina Marable and the Brunswick Environmental Action Team.

The motion for a preliminary injunction was filed in October, the most recent in a 30-year span of lawsuits and conflicts regarding the replacement of Sunset Beach's single-lane, wooden pontoon bridge.

The plaintiffs alleged that the DOT's proposed plans for a 65-foot-tall bridge connecting the mainland to the island violate the National Environmental Policy Act and the state's Environmental Protection Act.

The plaintiffs also argued that the DOT needed to conduct supplemental environmental studies because of three changes in the DOT's plans involving discharge of pollutants into a canal, construction of an infiltration basin and expansion of the causeway.

But the written order said the plaintiffs failed to show how the environment would be harmed by the DOT's updated plans.

The court found, however, that the DOT and residents and visitors to the island would be significantly harmed if the bridge's construction is further delayed.

"The primary source of harm identified by defendants in this case is the significant safety risk associated with the continued utilization of an antiquated, deteriorating, single-lane pontoon swing bridge," the written order says.

The bridge had unsatisfactory ratings and a record of malfunctions that have kept it closed for extended periods, leaving island residents and visitors stranded and unreachable by fire and emergency services, the order said.

At the December hearing, plaintiffs argued that no one yet has been harmed by malfunctions with the bridge.

But the judge said in the written order that a lack of catastrophe "does not mitigate against the need to take precaution."

The order also said that the DOT would be harmed by escalating costs for construction of the bridge if it were to be further delayed.

The project is expected to be completed in May 2010 if the DOT goes ahead with plans to award the construction contract to English Construction Co.

Shannan Bowen: 755-6307

shannan.bowen@starnewsonline.com