“My client is accused of throwing waste into the water but there has been no water for 60 years, since we filled in this plot when we drained the marshes.
» This Thursday, in his pleading, the lawyer for Jean-Michel L., earthmoving contractor in Cauffry (Oise), castigates the proceedings initiated by the prosecution.
The 59-year-old man was tried by the Beauvais court for abandoning large quantities of waste in surface or underground water.
In March 2022, the Cauffry town hall contacted the French Biodiversity Office (OFB) for a problem linked to the width of the banks and the flow of the watercourse which crosses the territory of the municipality.
The OFB noted a deposit of 690 m3 of inert materials on a plot classified as a wetland belonging to Jean-Michel L. The case was deliberated on March 28, the prosecutor requested a fine of 1,000 euros.
“The victim is the environment”
Jean-Michel L. is in total opposition to the alleged facts.
“In no case have I blocked the gap,” he asserts at the bar of the court.
I stored inert materials, sand, earth, gravel, which I used according to the needs of my sites.
This land belongs to my family and was abandoned for 25 years.
I created an embankment three m high and 50 m long, the other deposits are older and correspond to the time when the marsh was drained.
»
After the events, he claimed to have removed the embankments without delay.
“It took me four weeks to evacuate the 500 m3,” he says.
I moved a lot of it into my career.
There is nothing more to blame me for, I did the right thing.
»
Read alsoVillers-Saint-Paul chemical platform: an NGO warns of the increase in eternal pollutants in the Oise
The problem is that during its last on-site observation, on February 15, the OFB noted that there was still “a water flow problem.
» “The operation carried out by the defendant is not entirely satisfactory in ecological terms,” explains the OFB representative to the court.
There is a 75 cm step of embankment which prevents water from draining.
He withdrew only part, without control and without following specifications established by an expert.
» “I was never told that I had to do this,” says the defendant.
I took off what I put on.
»
The prosecutor recalled that when “an environmental offense is committed, the victim is the environment and the only objective is to repair the damage.
» “There was an alternative to prosecution which the gentleman unfortunately refused,” he continues.
When we recognize that we have deposited backfill, we remove it under the competent eye of an expert.
We don't just say I've cleared it, move on, there's nothing to see!
»
Also read Who destroyed this Oisian site sheltering 66 protected species?
In court, entrepreneurs blame each other
The entrepreneur's lawyer persists.
“He is accused of an offense but the fill he deposited was on earth even if the plot was administratively classified as a wetland.
»