Water quality agency claims vintner’s business improperly cleared Cloverdale land

[mbeckman]

Now we can argue whether or not Rhys actually was treated differently than KJ (or Foley) would have been in the same situation.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/business/ ... executives

[mbeckman]

Also this looks to be bigger much in scale than what Rhys did, apart from the illegal storage of water there were no rights to.

[larry schaffer]

Thank you for posting this. And it should be really interesting to watch. A lot more drama in this than appears on the surface, as this guy had been president of Foley and stepped away just as these charges were being filed.

Note that it took over two years for the information to come out about Rhys, and that we didn't hear anything about it until the fines were announced.

Why are we hearing about this so quickly? That is the question.

[R. Frankel]

Interesting, and yet this report leaves out so much.

Two data points though - this combined with the Rhys penalty/reporting (very similar language and issues) indicate something. Noise? Coincidence? Or does this reflect energetic new leadership at the water board(s) in CA. Trying to make names for themselves or more a ‘holy crap look what people have been getting away with! Let’s make some big examples and get growers to take these laws more seriously’ moment?

[mbeckman]

Interesting, and yet this report leaves out so much.

Two data points though - this combined with the Rhys penalty/reporting (very similar language and issues) indicate something. Noise? Coincidence? Or does this reflect energetic new leadership at the water board(s) in CA. Trying to make names for themselves or more a ‘holy crap look what people have been getting away with! Let’s make some big examples and get growers to take these laws more seriously’ moment?

Here is the report, there seems to be a hefty dose of deceit throughout, and the images look bad.

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoa ... Report.pdf

Not sure about if it is a coincidence, but I had heard people talking as if the pressure was off in recent years from regulators after the fires as there was so much to deal with. Maybe the enforcement arm is catching up on everything they saw happening but couldn't pursue? Repeated satellite imagery seems to have played a big part in both Rhys and now this investigation.

[GregT]

Given Mr. Reimers has had experience in developing vineyards in Sonoma County, he should be aware of required Vineyard Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (VESCO) permits through SCACO.

Former head of KJ and Foley, no way he can say he didn't know. Especially since his business is developing vineyards.

[Neal.Mollen]

Interesting that the CA agency's web address is "waterboards," which I would have thought conjured a less-than-savory image

[Dave McIsaac]

Dagnabbit Truett!!

[Brian Tuite]

Here is the report, there seems to be a hefty dose of deceit throughout, and the images look bad.

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoa ... Report.pdf

Wow, just wow!

[Wes Barton]

Looks like at least a few thousands times the impact of the Rhys project, so I assume the fine will be in the billions, right?

[T Welch]

Dagnabbit Truett!!

Now what did I do?

[P@u1_M3nk3s]

I didn’t see it mentioned but the Rhys violations impacted a designated “wild and scenic river”, the undammed Eel river. Does that affect the fine amount?

[AlexS]

This thread isn't legit until Alan posts.

[Alan Rath]

If he does, I'll be impressed. And a little frightened

[Dave McIsaac]

Dagnabbit Truett!!

Now what did I do?

Oh Ho Ho Ho - don't play the innocent here, M'Lad... we know you are the driving source behind this......

[AlexS]

If he does, I'll be impressed. And a little frightened

Well, I suppose you referring to yourself in the 3rd person was only inevitable

[Alan Rath]

If he does, I'll be impressed. And a little frightened

Well, I suppose you referring to yourself in the 3rd person was only inevitable

Ha, if I'm going to refer to myself, it will be the royal we

[AlexS]

And we totally understand (or not)

[D@vid Bu3ker]

I didn’t see it mentioned but the Rhys violations impacted a designated “wild and scenic river”, the undammed Eel river. Does that affect the fine amount?

Impacted is a stretch, even in reading the report.

[Craig G]

If he does, I'll be impressed. And a little frightened

Well, I suppose you referring to yourself in the 3rd person was only inevitable

Ha, if I'm going to refer to myself, it will be the royal we

Thank you for not explaining the joke, which by the way was a good one.

[Craig G]

Interesting that the CA agency's web address is "waterboards," which I would have thought conjured a less-than-savory image

“We meant to do that.”

[Randy Bowman]

Over the years, certain violations that weren't so easily visible were common. Easier to beg forgiveness than to get permission. A person could spend years and thousands of dollars to remove a tree only to have a neighbor or the Sierra Club take it to the supreme court. When you are caught, it's obvious you can't return the property and trees to their original state. So a hefty fine is in order and that fine is probably cheaper than obtaining permission and fighting environmentalists.

This report is pretty comprehensive. Should be a real big fine, plus heavy expenses to obtain permits. The vineyard is now a viable way to protect the disturbed land. I doubt they will be required to replant trees, clear channels etc., and be denied permission to plant grape vines.

[P@u1_M3nk3s]

I didn’t see it mentioned but the Rhys violations impacted a designated “wild and scenic river”, the undammed Eel river. Does that affect the fine amount?

Impacted is a stretch, even in reading the report.

Whatever your preferred phrasing, the Eel is a designated wild and scenic river. The report states these violations occurred partially within the Eel’s watershed. The topic of this thread deals with violations on a river that is not designated wild and scenic. Does the finding of violations on a designated wild and scenic watershed increase the severity?

[Wes Barton]

I didn’t see it mentioned but the Rhys violations impacted a designated “wild and scenic river”, the undammed Eel river. Does that affect the fine amount?

Impacted is a stretch, even in reading the report.

Whatever your preferred phrasing, the Eel is a designated wild and scenic river. The report states these violations occurred partially within the Eel’s watershed. The topic of this thread deals with violations on a river that is not designated wild and scenic. Does the finding of violations on a designated wild and scenic watershed increase the severity?

True. But, also, with Rhys violation showed the reckless shortcutting with the road construction had the potential to put the watershed at great risk, had there been a major storm event. It also showed actual erosion being immediately captured. My reading is the size of that fine relates to how unacceptable putting that watershed at risk is. Seems appropriate.

This case is quite different. Much greater area. Massive erosion. Reckless damage. Massive actual damage to the watershed. The spirit of doing that scale of a project without permitting is in a different league. The repeated lying to regulators is intolerable. In a fair world this guy will do prison time and have his personal wealth stripped by the fines.

[P@u1_M3nk3s]

Impacted is a stretch, even in reading the report.

Whatever your preferred phrasing, the Eel is a designated wild and scenic river. The report states these violations occurred partially within the Eel’s watershed. The topic of this thread deals with violations on a river that is not designated wild and scenic. Does the finding of violations on a designated wild and scenic watershed increase the severity?

True. But, also, with Rhys violation showed the reckless shortcutting with the road construction had the potential to put the watershed at great risk, had there been a major storm event. It also showed actual erosion being immediately captured. My reading is the size of that fine relates to how unacceptable putting that watershed at risk is. Seems appropriate.

This case is quite different. Much greater area. Massive erosion. Reckless damage. Massive actual damage to the watershed. The spirit of doing that scale of a project without permitting is in a different league. The repeated lying to regulators is intolerable. In a fair world this guy will do prison time and have his personal wealth stripped by the fines.

It will be interesting, to say the least, what penalties the water board will assess.