BRT Lawsuit - Newsday

Suffolk sued over Yaphank land sale

Originally published: September 25, 2012 4:14 PM
Updated: September 25, 2012 9:43 PM
By RICK BRAND  rick.brand@newsday.com

Four Suffolk County residents have filed a lawsuit to block County Executive Steve Bellone from selling 230 acres of surplus county property in Yaphank to expand a local rail hub.

The suit against the $20 million sale claims that the county failed to undergo a required public bidding process to get the highest price for the parcel. The plaintiffs ask the court to nullify the sale approved by the county legislature to Oakland Transportation LLC. The company is a partner in Brookhaven Rail Terminal in Yaphank, which is looking to expand its current site.

The lawsuit comes after dozens of people testified against the sale at a public hearing in Hauppauge. Witnesses said the buyers have refused to say what they plan to do with the property, and expressed concern that the expansion will jam local roads and threaten the Carmans River watershed.

"The county had no authority to dispense with competitive bidding where the statute explicitly mandates that the sale of surplus property must be sold only to the highest bidder," according to the suit filed Tuesday in State Supreme Court. The residents also claim that the $20 million sale "constitutes an illegal gift" at a "give away price far below market value."

County Attorney Dennis Cohen said the suit has "no merit" and that the county will press to have it dismissed. He said the county legislature through local law is allowed to supersede the bidding requirement under state law. "I expect the county will prevail," said legislative counsel George Nolan.

Bellone administration officials have said that the county's real estate consultant, Newmark Knight Frank, solicited more than 100 potential buyers and found "no adequate offers."

Judy White, a spokeswoman for Brookhaven Rail Terminal, said, "We haven't seen the papers so we don't have a comment."

SEQR, Clean Railroads Act, the Oil and Gas Waste Loophole, and Frac Sand

From: Richard Thomas
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 12:27 PM
Subject: SEQR, Clean Railroads Act, the Oil and Gas Waste Loophole, and Frac Sand

Attachments:  BrookhavenRail_CleanRailroadAct.pdf

I would guess that the litigation is the only remedy at this point [now that the Suffolk County Legislature has approved the land sale of the 230 acres Yaphank site].

Perhaps one could file for a stay on the sale until the conclusion of an Article 78 action against the county, citing the failure of the county to do an adequate SEQR.

SEQR is especially important in the case of this land transfer because local governments lose nearly all oversight and control over the use of the property once it is owned by, or leased to, a railroad carrier.  [The current Sills Road Realty 28-acre property is leased to a railroad carrier for $1,000 annually for 30 years.]

"What happens if an agency does not comply with SEQR?

If an agency makes an improper decision or allows a project that is subject to SEQR to start, and fails to undertake a proper review, citizens or groups who can demonstrate that they may be harmed by this failure may take legal action against the agency under Article 78 of the New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules. Project approvals may be rescinded by a court and a new review required under SEQR. New York State's court system has consistently ruled in favor of strong compliance with the provisions of SEQR (see also case law to be posted later)."

Doing anything after "Oakland Transportation Holdings / Nevada 5 Inc / Etc., etc." takes over is likely to be much harder.

To prevent them from making the 231 acres into a solid waste transfer site would depend on litigating under the federal Clean Railroads Act of 2008.

I'm sure Oakland Transportation (and its many associated corporations) has the best lawyers money can buy to fight actions brought against it under that act.

See "Pace Environmental Law Review"
        http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=pelr

Christina Hawkins, How States and Municipalities Can Retain the Power to Regulate Rail Carrier-Owned Solid Waste Transfer Facilities in the Context of the Metro Enviro Transfer, LLC v. Village of Croton-on-Hudson and Buffalo Southern Railroad, Inc. v. Village of Croton-on-Hudson Decisions, 26 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 289 (2009)

Despite its optimistic title, the actual text isn't very encouraging.

The Town of Brookhaven's Law Department certainly doesn't have any experts in federal rail transportation law, and if a solid waste transfer station meant more income from the landfill, Brookhaven Town probably wouldn't be opposed anyway.

The Clean Railroads Act is an attempt by Congress to give some control back to local government and limit STB jurisdiction when a site is used for solid waste transfer.

See http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=304435.

One railroad carrier (in February 2011) argued before the STB that the Clean Railroads Act of 2008 doesn't apply when solid waste remains in its "original containers" while under the control of the carrier.  So if the railroad carrier delivers original containers to the Town of Brookhaven, state environmental regulations come into play only after the containers are no longer under the control of the railroad carrier.

Also, there is a HUGE LOOPHOLE in the Clean Railroads Act.  It does not apply to oil and gas waste that is transferred "by or on behalf of" a railroad carrier.

From: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/another_loophole_for_the_oil_a.html,

    Natural Resource Defense Council Staff Blog, Amy Mall's Blog, 14 Dec 2011.

This oil and gas loophole is now having real impacts. According to a recent article from Pennsylvania from Below, the residents of Sunbury, Pennsylvania are discovering what a dirty and risky problem the CRA loophole can be. Without warning to nearby residents or local officials, a company called Moran Industries opened an oil and gas waste transfer facility in January, 2011 at a site with an old rail connection in their neighborhood. Residents report that trucks filled with natural gas production waste now rumble through their neighborhood, where the waste is loaded onto railcars at the site before being transported to Ohio. The material looks like a combination of soil and rock, and has a strong chemical odor. The residents want answers about what is contained in the waste, but have no way of knowing if it contains hazardous chemicals. Given the presence of highly toxic substances in natural gas waste, including the naturally-occurring radioactive materials in Pennsylvania’s natural gas fields, their concern is legitimate.  

Moran claims the site is being operated by or on behalf of Norfolk Southern Railroad. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has been investigating the site for almost a year, but has yet to determine on whose behalf it is being operated. If the DEP finds that Moran Industries is not operating on behalf of a railroad, then the site would be subject to state regulation.  But the DEP has not made any indication when its decision will be made. Meanwhile, trucks full of oil and gas waste continue to unload at the site without oversight. 

Without any state oversight, the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) has jurisdiction over an oil and gas waste transfer site at a railroad facility. But, according to STB staff, the agency doesn’t conduct any environmental analysis or permitting of a facility unless a new rail line is built or an old one is abandoned. So, unless the state decides to regulate, the facility in Sunbury will continue to operate without any oversight whatsoever, and the public has no information about the nature of the waste, how it is being managed, or what measures—if any—ensure the public is protected. 

NRDC has asked EPA to write new rules for all oil and gas waste because the waste can be very toxic--but is currently not subject to any hazardous waste regulations. There should not be any loopholes for this toxic waste, especially in the middle of communities.  All that spending on lobbying seems to be paying off for the oil and gas industry. But it may be costing the residents of Sunbury and similar communities dearly. Congress should close the CRA loophole—along with all other loopholes— for toxic oil and gas waste.

Not only does the STB not conduct any environmental review of an existing facility, I believe it is usually the case that the STB doesn't conduct any environmental review of the expansion of an existing facility, but I need to find where I may have read that.

A federal circuit court in February 2012 has concluded that local oversight is preempted and only the STB has jurisdiction and oversight over the transportation and transloading of "frac sand."

In February 2012, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the ICC Termination Act, 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b)(1), which confers jurisdiction to the STB over “transportation by rail carriers,” applied to a railroad’s transloading operations of “ ‘frac sand’ . . . used in hydraulic fracturing (commonly known as ‘fracking’) at its natural gas wells.” Transloading is the “transfer of commodities between rail cars and trucks, a process used when the ultimate destination of a commodity is not served by a railroad.”

See p. 365 of an article on recent developments in STB preemption cases.

    http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/recent_developments_in_public_utility_communications_and_transportation_industries/2012/railroads.authcheckdam.pdf

Richard

Sad Day for the indigent and for Yaphank and Brookhaven hamlets

It is always dangerous to make predictions.  But I think there is a very high probability the Suffolk County Legislature will rue the day they made these decisions to sell the Suffolk County skilled nursing facility and the 230 acres of pristine wild lands. 

∙ The Suffolk County home was one of the jewels of the county–something all county residents could be truly proud of.

∙ As reported in this blog, the owners/operators of the Brookhaven rail terminal (BRT), are perhaps the shadiest enterprise ever to have set foot in the county.  And this in a county that has had many shady operators..  It is hard to understand the business logic of locating a rail terminal in the Town of Brookhaven on eastern Long Island (from a rail transport perspective near the end of the world).  It is hard to understand how truck traffic on Long Island will be reduced.  While eastbound truck traffic may be reduced, most of what is rail shipped to Yaphank will have to be transshipped by truck west to Nassau County and NYC.  Where is the reduction in truck traffic there?  Even though the BRT folks have indicated (tongue-in-cheek?) that they are not especially interested in shipping garbage, now with some 300-400 acres under their control (all apparently not subject to any local jurisdictions or control – neither Brookhaven Town, Suffolk County or New York State – it seems inevitable that it will become the regional collection point for the transshipment of garbage off Long Island.  It is said that the BRT will be the largest rail transshipment operation in the United States.

The BRT will either become a huge white elephant headache for Suffolk County and the Town of Brookhaven, or a colossal raping of the Long Island environment including the Carman’s river and our drinking water aquifer.  And in either eventuality, destroy the  hamlet of Yaphank.  All for a relatively small pot of gold.  What were our elected officials thinking?  One can’t help but speculate that someone is on the take –another long-time Long Island tradition.

 

John Deitz 

---

 

Suffolk Legislature OKs sale of Foley nursing home

Originally published: September 13, 2012 5:28 PM
Updated: September 13, 2012 10:38 PM
By RICK BRAND AND LAURA FIGUEROA  rick.brand@newsday.com

Photo credit: Bill Davis | The John J. Foley Skilled Nursing Facility in Yaphank.

Suffolk lawmakers Thursday night approved the $23 million sale of the John J. Foley Skilled Nursing Facility in Yaphank by a slim majority to help close the county's $250 million budget gap.

Legislators also voted 16-2 to approve the $20 million sale of a county parcel in Yaphank for expansion of a rail hub. "Today we took a $43 million step toward balancing Suffolk County's budget," Deputy County Executive Jon Schneider said after the votes.

The 10-7 vote for the nursing home sale came after aides to County Executive Steve Bellone warned that a delay or rejection of the sale would force the administration to present a budget next week that would close the complex by year's end and lay off its 200 employees. The administration also warned lawmakers that if they chose to keep Foley open, a property tax increase of at least 12 percent would be necessary next year.

Backers said the sale will keep the nursing home in operation and its 190 residents in place.

"I'm going to vote to sell because I'd rather not close it and put the people in this room on the unemployment line," Louis D'Amaro (D-North Babylon) said of the crowd, which included many nursing home workers.

But Dan Farrell, president of the Association of Municipal Employees representing nursing home workers, called the vote "pure politics. The county executive put pressure on all of them."

Farrell vowed to challenge the sale in court, claiming that 12 votes are needed to approve the sale and that the sale process was flawed. County and legislative attorneys say only 10 votes are needed. Legis. Edward Romaine (R-Center Moriches), whose wife works at Foley, recused himself from voting.

The vote came after a nearly 21/2 hour debate and a half-hour recess during which the Democratic majority huddled privately with Bellone's chief deputy Regina Calcaterra and county attorney Dennis Cohen.

Earlier in the day, lawmakers had listened to more than 70 people who spoke about the nursing home and the proposed sale of 230 acres in Yaphank to expand a freight rail hub.

Legis. John M. Kennedy Jr. (R-Nesconset) said maintaining a public nursing home was crucial to protecting long-term residents who need custodial care.

"We have people who have worked in Suffolk County, paid taxes in Suffolk County, but when they find themselves down, they get a one-way ticket out of Suffolk County," he said.

Patricia Foley Kuhn, daughter of the late lawmaker John J. Foley, who championed the county's public nursing home, told lawmakers that if the complex is sold, her father's name should be removed.

"If the sale goes through, it will be a sad day for our family," she said. "But it will be even a sadder day for the people of Suffolk County."

Opponents of the rail hub earlier in the day expressed concern that local government would have no way to regulate use of the property because federal rules pre-empt most local control.

Democratic Brookhaven Town board member Connie Kepert called on the lawmakers to table the sale until the county can work out covenants and restrictions, including limits on access to local roads. "We're asking you consider more than dollars and cents, and consider the residents of the community," Kepert said.

Andrew Kaufman, president of Brookhaven Rail Terminal, said, "We're hoping the legislators will be able to sift fact from fiction and come to an informed decision." Kaufman said the project is expected to create 300 jobs, already has produced $40 million in investment and will reap environmental benefits by reducing truck traffic on area highways.

 

 

 

 

 

Yaphank, NY "Brookhaven Rail Terminal: Rural India Supporting Trust

From: Richard Thomas

Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 1:11 AM

Subject: Rural India Supporting Trust

The "Rural India Supporting Trust, Indu Rawat Trustee," has the same address (38955 Hills Tech Dr, Farmington Hills, MI) as the company that makes the 5-Hour Energy drink, and the same address as Oakland Transportation Holdings LLC and Brookhaven Terminal Operations LLC.

   See: http://nccsweb.urban.org/PubApps/showVals.php?ein=266163668

You can also see the charity's Income Tax filing.  The latest, for 2010, was filed in August 2011. 

In 2009, the charity had $623,708,909.00 in contributions.  In 2010, there were no contributions received, but the charity made $56,795,492.00 in investment income and $364,297,004.00 income from "sales of assets other than inventory."

Indu Rawat is the Trustee and K. Pathak, SN Kumar Sharma, and Madhu Aswal are directors.

    See: http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/266/266163668/266163668_201012_990.pdf

I now know how "Oakland Transportation Holdings" got its name. 

Farmington Hills, Michigan, is in Oakland County.

Here are some companies that have the same address in Farmington Hills, Michigan:

        Rural India Supporting Trust, Indu Rawat Trustee

        Innovation Ventures, LLC (established in 2000, incorporated in Michigan)

        Living Essentials, LLC (established in 2008, incorporated in Michigan) --- the makers of 5-Hour Energy

        ETC Capital, LLC (Ted Mills, Managing Director; Alan Gocha, Managing Director)

        Michigan One Funding LLC (Ted Mills, registered agent, 03/06/2009)

        Micro Dose Life Sciences

        Oakland Law Group Pllc

        Nevada Challenger LLC (owns the company aircraft)

        Pikeville Leasing, LLC

        Millard Leasing, LLC dba Black Rock Coal, LLC

        Oakland Transportation Holdings LLC

        GTR Leasing, LLC (Ted Mills, Managing Director)

        GTR Leasing Investment One, LLC (Ted Mills, registered agent, 03/03/2009)

        US Rail Holdings (established 2009)

        US Rail of NY LLC (Ted Mills, President; Leslie E. Savoye, General Manager, lsavoye@oaklandtransportation.net )

        Brookhaven Rail LLC

        Brookhaven Terminal Operations LLC (09/2011)

        Brookhaven Rail Freight Services LLC (Articles of Organization filed 09/12/2011 in New York State, but address Farmington Hills, MI)

        Brookhaven Eastern Holdings LLC (registered agent: Oakland Law Group, 08/24/2011, filing state: NY; qualifying state: MI)

       

The only company not in Michigan seems to be Nevada 5, Inc., which has a 98% equity interest in Oakland Transportation Holdings LLC and controls the Brookhaven companies.

Nevada 5 Inc. was formed 04/01/2009, and all the officers (president, secretary, treasurer, and director) are Manoj Bhargava, 38955 Hills Tech Drive, Farmington Hills, MI.

The address of Nevada 5 Inc. is 6100 Neil Road Suite 500, Reno, NV,  and the address of its registered agent is the Corporation Trust Company, 311 S Division St, Carson City, NV, which is just the address for "service of process."  Actually, both addresses appear to be merely for "service of process."

Richard

"We'll use "state-of-the-art" containers when we transport the solid waste." [?]

From: Richard Thomas

Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:56 PM
Subject: We'll use 'state-of-the-art' containers when we transport the solid waste.

Attachments:  BrookhavenRail_GTR_OaklandTransHoldings.pdf

I noticed the following little paragraph in today’s Newsday story:

Andrew Kaufman, president of Brookhaven Terminal Operations, said if the depot was asked in the future to move solid waste, it would do so in accordance with all federal regulations and use state-of-the-art containers that are both water and air tight, preventing any unpleasant odors from escaping.

These "state-of-the-art" containers are probably like the "state-of-the-art" landfill liners Brookhaven residents were promised would never leak.

And there is the tricky part of getting the solid waste into the water and air-tight container.  I'm pretty sure they will need to take off the lid for that.

Wait! Wait!

I thought there was a signed legal agreement between the Town of Brookhaven and US Rail.

U. S. Rail's settlement with Brookhaven Town says it won't be handling any waste products:

U S Rail also has specifically agreed to not handle solid waste at the BRT site.  In its “Stipulation of Settlement” with the Town of Brookhaven, U S Rail has agreed that “operations at the Property shall not include the collection, sorting, separation, processing (including but not limited to, baling, crushing, compacting and shredding), incineration, treatment, management, disposal, transport or transfer of solid waste and construction and demolition debris unless required under federal law or regulations.”

I can't imagine any federal law or regulation that would require a railway company to transport solid waste.

Oh, but that was a settlement between U S Rail and the Town of Brookhaven. 

U S Rail Corporation sold its interest in the BRT site to a related company, GTR Leasing and changed the name of its Brookhaven operation from "U S Rail of NY LLC" to "Brookhaven Rail."

Oakland Transportation Holdings then acquired an equity interest in Brookhaven Rail and acquired GTR Leasing. 

Nevada 5, in turn, owns 98% of the equity in Oakland Transportation Holdings of Farmington Hills, Michigan.

So I guess the any agreement between the Town of Brookhaven and U S Rail is moot, as U S Rail Corp of Ohio is no longer involved, if it still exists.

Or maybe the agreement applied only to the BRT site. 

The new 230 acres is clearly not "the BRT site" so there aren't any restrictions on its use---unless covenants are attached to the sale.

Besides, the name in the Newsday article was "Brookhaven Terminal Operations." 

"Brookhaven Terminal Operations LLC" is also based in Farmington Hills, Michigan.  (The names change every couple of months.)

While they were at it, they also created the following new companies in Farmington Hills, Michigan:

    Brookhaven Rail Freight Services LLC

    Brookhaven Eastern Holdings LLC

All three have the same address.

The lease of $1,000 annually that was to be paid by U S Rail to Sills Realty, however, was transferred to the new owners.

It's too bad the "Stipulation of Settlement" with U S Rail is ineffective, since it played a major role in the Final Environmental Assessment of the Surface Transportation Board's Section of Environmental Analysis, which allowed U S Rail to build its railroad in Yaphank in the first place.

See p. 8 of http://yaphankcivic.org/uploads/Final_Environmental_Assessment_8.20.2010.pdf

U S Rail also has specifically agreed to not handle solid waste at the BRT site.

But that Final Environmental Assessment document also touted how the U S Rail project would reduce truck traffic to the two asphalt plants, when it turns out, it actually increases truck traffic.

It seems odd that the Section for Environmental Analysis didn't bother to look up the distance of the two asphalt plants from the barge terminals currently be used for delivering the aggregate and compare the length of the trips from the BRT versus the length of the trips from the barge terminals. 

If they had, they would have seen that the justification for building the rail terminal, providing crushed stone aggregate to two asphalt plants by rail and reducing truck traffic, did not reduce truck traffic at all, but instead greatly increased it.

The (faulty) Final Environmental Assessment was based solely on the delivery and transloading of stone aggregate.  The assessment said the rail cars would return empty.  No other freight was considered.

Richard

Deputy Suffolk County Executive Says Don't Bother Coming to Protest Land Sale Unless You're Coming with a $20 Million Check

The Suffolk County Deputy County Executive, Jon Schneider, says that you shouldn't bother coming to Hauppauge to protest the sale of 230 acres to Oakland Transportation Holdings on Thursday unless you're coming with a $20 million check.

 If you don't have a check for $20 million, the Deputy County Executive suggests you stay home.

 Ah, another public servant demonstrating his expert skills in communicating with Suffolk County citizens.

 Hamlet Reporter

---

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/push-to-sell-land-for-yaphank-rail-depot-1.3993669

Push to sell land for Yaphank rail depot

September 11, 2012 by SARAH CRICHTON / sarah.crichton@newsday.com

Thursday is make or break for the $20 million sale of Suffolk County land for an expansion of the rail depot at Yaphank.
Several legislators said Tuesday they still had reservations about how they would vote on the resolution for the sale of the 230 acres to operators of the Brookhaven Rail Terminal.
But deputy county executive Jon Schneider said the county would have to lay off the equivalent of "approximately 300 people" if the sale, which is expected to bring $19.335 million into county coffers after commissions are taken off, does not occur.
"There is no give in this budget -- we don't have any money," Schneider said Tuesday, adding most county legislators understood they had already approved the land as surplus, included the sale's proceeds in this year's operating budget and accepted "getting trucks off the road is a good thing."
Legis. Ed Romaine (R-Center Moriches), who is running for Brookhaven Town supervisor, said he still had not decided how to vote. "I have serious concerns about how the land was offered for sale and what will happen after the sale," he said, noting there are "positives" in reducing truck traffic.
Legis. Rick Montano (D-Brentwood), who is running for State Senate, said he too has yet to decide. "I'm concerned that potential increases in the transfer of garbage could result and that, with some other environmental issues, need to be looked at."
Legis. Kate Browning (WF-Shirley), whose district includes Yaphank, echoed those concerns but also wants to see more community input if the sale proceeds. "I think an advisory community board, that includes all parties, is the way to address a lot of these concerns."
Andrew Kaufman, president of Brookhaven Terminal Operations, said Tuesday the rail yard had worked with the community in the past and would "absolutely participate in an advisory board."
Legislators are expecting Queens residents to testify at Thursday's meeting, concerned the Yaphank operation will eventually be used to transport garbage that must pass through their neighborhood.
A contingent of residents from Queens addressed Suffolk's ways and means committee hearing on the issue late last month, expressing opposition to an increase in rail freight across Long Island in general.
Kaufman said if the depot was asked in the future to move solid waste, it would do so in accordance with all federal regulations and use state-of-the-art containers that are both water and air tight, preventing any unpleasant odors from escaping.
Said Schneider: "Unless those folks from Queens are coming out with a $20 million check for the county, I would suggest they stay home."
< back to article

What is the real motivation behind the Brookhaven Rail Terminal?

What is the real motivation behind the Brookhaven Rail Terminal?

We are led to believe that the terminal will reduce truck traffic and  therefore has environmental benefit.  The claimed purpose is to transport aggregate for two asphalt plants–one in East Setauket and the other in Deer Park.  But analysis suggests that it will likely have just the opposite effect, perhaps increasing truck traffic on local roads 7.7 times (see http://brookhavensouthhaven.blogspot.com/2012/09/more-getting-railroaded.html and http://brookhavensouthhaven.blogspot.com/2012/09/us-rail-and-strange-story-of-railroad.html.)

 As a business model, making sense of the BRT is hard to  figure out.  Why is all this money being invested in a rail terminal way out east?  Where are the investors expecting to make money?  And why are some 200+ additional acres needed by the developing companies? 

 I would like to suggest that the money to be made is not in what is being transported onto Long Island, but what could be transported off the island.

 SAND.  And we all know we have plenty of that.

The site has been placed under the jurisdiction of the Federal Surface Transportation Board, removing it from local control. They are claiming that they are building an intermodal rail terminal.   “Site preparation” (they would probably not call it mining) has already required the removal of large quantities of sand.  They are purchasing from the county an additional 231 acres for $20 million. 

 What are the economics of SAND?

 An internet search reveals that the average PROFIT on mining sand is about $25/ton (at the rail head).  I assume “profit” is after all the costs of production, including land purchases.  BRT “site preparation,” requiring the removal 10 feet of sand on 200 acres, yields a profit of $81,675,000.  If they go 20 feet deep, the profit is $163,350,000.  Now this is a back of an envelope calculation, and I admittedly know nothing about the economics of sand mining.  But I suspect a smoke screen has been put up, designed to direct our attention away from their real motivations.

 The County appears to have been bamboozled into selling 231 acres for only $20 million.  And note, the resolution of sale, gives to the buyer “All mineral and/or air rights to the premises.” (Article I., Section 1-1, Paragraph C.  http://brookhavensouthhaven.org/blog/land%20sale%20agreement.pdf).  I do not find any covenants that would restrict removal of sand (how could there be–it’s just “site preparation”).

 John Deitz

1 acre = 43,560 sq. ft.

1 cu ft sand = 75-100 lbs

1 acre-ft sand = 3,267,000 lbs or 16,335 tons

Average profit in sand mining = ~$25/ton

1 acre-ft sand yields a profit = ~$408,375

200 acres, 1 ft. deep yields profit of $8,167,500

200 acres, 10 ft. deep yields profit of $81,675,000

200 acres, 20 ft. deep yields profit of $163,350,000.