The Marsascala mayor has reiterated the council's stand against the proposed aquaculture zone six kilometres offshore, claiming that more fish farms would result in a negative environmental, social and commercial impact.
The Malta Environment and Planning Authority will today decide whether or not to grant a permit for the relocation of tuna farms to the new zone.
The hearing is expected to start at 10.30 a.m. at the Mepa offices in Floriana.
If approved, the project would pave the way for other blue fin tuna operators to set up shop in the area.
"Instead of one area of fish farms, we will have two areas because only the tuna farms will be relocated. The sea bass and sea bream farms, located a few hundred metres offshore, will remain where they are," mayor Charlo Mifsud said.
According to the mayor, the development is bound to contaminate the sea through offal produced by the farms, polluting bathing zones used by Maltese and tourists.
Mr Mifsud said the environment impact statement had not taken into account a number of key issues. "The study did not take into consideration the urine produced by farmed tuna, as well as the possibility that more farms attract sharks or other big fish," he said.
"It seems Marsascala is only considered when it comes to projects that are environmentally harmfull" he said, adding that the locality was surrounded by a power station, a waste recycling and a sewage plant.
The Marsascala Shop Owners' Association wrote to Mepa yesterday warning that the authority, the project proposer (the Fisheries Department), the developers and the environment impact assessment consultants would be held responsible "for any loss of earnings, business and drop in the value of property" if the project is given the green light.
The letter was signed by almost 40 Marsascala shop owners.
The project has also been criticised by environmental NGOs that believe tuna farms contaminate the sea.
The operators feel that moving their farms would not be beneficial. While it is estimated they will have to fork out millions of euros to move, they are not sure whether their farms will be feasible given the depth of the sea in the designated area, expressing doubts on whether any insurance company would issue cover.
During a heated public consultation meeting at the beginning of this month, they called the impact study "inconclusive".
The Rural Affairs and Environment Ministry yesterday condemned the "emotive" statements made during the day and which, it claimed, were "meant to put pressure on Mepa on the eve of the public hearing".
It said such statements were hindering the relocation plans which would better the quality of life of people and the economy, adding that the EIS had taken account of "all" the operations and aspects linked to the aquaculture zone.
According to the government, which has also assumed the role of developer in this case, the zone will have a tuna density per cubic metre which is "much less" than that of existing farms, so the impact of the zone would be even further reduced than it is today.
"There is a possibility that land-based operations related to the relocated farms will be based in the Freeport area, which means that there will be no impact on traffic in Marsascala," the ministry said.
Slaughtered tuna bound for the airport would not go through Marsascala, the government said.