“We meant to do that.”
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.
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.