Union owner disputes bulkhead fine

Union property owner Philip Bayley is challenging $250,000 in fines and $33,492 in mitigation fees assessed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for an illegal bulkhead.

Bayley told the Journal the EPA’s news release about the judgment is “slanderous” because he still has motions before U.S. District Judge David Estudillo, who ruled on the case.

The EPA sued Bayley, his mother, Joan, and their business Big D’s Beach Cabin LLC in 2020 for Clean Water Act violations related to a bulkhead that he says had all required permits.

“Although Mr. Bayley obtained approval from Mason County for the project, he took no steps to comply with federal law,” Estudillo wrote.

Bayley argued that pursuant to state authority, he was released from any judgment due in part to “congressional recognition of state rights and its authority over its lands and waters,” according to a motion to set aside judgment.

Bayley also introduced several new motions after the judgment, including a motion filed March 1 to introduce new evidence, alleging due process violations from the Army Corp falsifying a diagram of his replacement bulkhead, the Justice Department “pretending” the site is a wetland and the EPA’s false CWA wetlands enforcement action, according to court documents.

The EPA responded in a March 15 court filing, calling Bayley’s motions meritless.

“At this point, Mr. Bayley’s litigation conduct is nothing short of vexatious. Mr. Bayley is not entitled to flood this court with paper, wasting Department of Justice resources, every time he comes up with a new way to state an old argument. Nor are such motions an appropriate use of this court’s limited docket,” the motion response states.

The EPA asked Estudillo to order that it does not need to respond to another post-judgment motion from Bayley. Bayley told the Journal the EPA didn’t respond to his motion “because they can’t,” so instead they asked the judge to dismiss it.

‘’How can a state program certified for 50 years by the EPA as being consistent with the CWA authorize someone to do permitted activities that violate the CWA and generate $323+ million in penalties?” Bailey wrote in an email. “Is WA dept. of Ecology and the EPA ultimately responsible? And if there are issues with Washington programs, isn’t it improper to sue a permit holders when the EPA should be suing itself and Washington for approving said programs?” Bayley said.

He said he is planning to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, if his motions are denied.