ONE DEVELOPMENT OR MANY? COURT HEARS “SALAMI SLICING” ARGUMENT OVER ROSEWOOD EXUMA

Sampson Cay judicial review asks whether interconnected parts of a major development should be assessed together.

One of the most important questions now before the Supreme Court in the Rosewood Exuma dispute is whether a major development can be environmentally assessed in separate pieces—or whether regulators must consider its combined impact as one project.

Attorneys for Turtlegrass Resort & Island Club have alleged that the Sampson Cay development was subjected to what environmental law sometimes describes as “project splitting” or “salami slicing.”

Their argument centers on multiple environmental clearances covering different aspects of the development, together with plans for a separate 22-acre solar farm intended to support the resort.

Turtlegrass argues that facilities which are functionally connected should have been considered collectively so regulators and the public could understand the development’s total environmental footprint. Attorneys also argued that significant changes and later documents should have triggered additional public consultation.

Yntegra disputes the allegation and has maintained that the environmental approvals were properly obtained. Its attorneys have also argued that the proposed solar farm came later and has its own environmental approval process.

The court—not either side—will ultimately decide the legality of the approvals.

But the case highlights a larger question facing The Bahamas as increasingly complex resorts, marinas, energy systems and infrastructure projects are proposed across the Family Islands:

Should the environmental impact of a development be measured piece by piece—or should Bahamians be allowed to see and assess the complete picture?

Meaningful environmental review depends on knowing the true scale, location and cumulative effects of what is being proposed.

SOURCES: The Tribune and Eye Witness News, September 29, 2026.