control plan the plan was to be a permitted and madison county approved construction began in the spring of two thousand pieces let's head to the record shows to follow a plan and so far  ruling was simply that it could be mentioned and you could not go into any detail with respect to that issue so at that point the court having made a final decision about whether to submit  undisputed congress players will argue that there were things that could have been done her first says that the silt fences were inappropriate in certain places him and that there were certain other things that could have been done  in this case not my who'd done this before to prepare a strong order to action plan and michael testified the prevention expertise is provided by the engineering firm the contractors role is to anything to take under the weather conditions because the record shows that in their in those years it was heater hot and dry in which case the cvs wouldn't germany or was too wet and they washed away but the fact is they did the best they could under those circumstances and to use to sustain a world community and in this situation i think we would be unconscionable in addition to the compensatory damages argument if you argue that because your clients and didn't you are responsible for all the silt they shouldn't have to pay to remove all the silt to make sure i understand there was expert testimony however to perform the mechanic will type of the removal in order to remove any of that you have to remove all of that and there was testimony about what that would cost and that's essentially what the jury awarded so i couldn't they do that  we have to accept the jury's germination that that was the both practical way to do it but even if we do the offending food i have to paint it entirely wrong and the jury was instructed that with i'm not sure if it was the language about the design features if you've seen the video then you know that they did not design features that captured the wrong or the water so they developed and at this proposed intensity so it so that in two thousand and six long before the big rains right rick norco hit over the cinema letter saying your somewhere areas and the non intrusive to this lake we can't do that we have to destroy the lake to save the lake and the defendants chose that approach and the jury heard all about and that approach happens to cost four hundred  quiet enjoyment which was three hundred twenty five thousand so apparently they're not challenging five hundred sixty five thousand dollars of the jury's verdict so i'm relieved to know that however the jury was correct in giving us four the plan they just follow the plan they did not follow the plan and that's where the problem comes it they didn't follow their own plan because they didn't know how to follow their own plan you look at their still senses and you look at their testimony they're going see this is in concentrated  person whose handwriting you see in every pore order when i run into the corridor exactly what is going on the very first word what do i ask for and here in calculations to determine the power size of your detention basin so that we can stop the silt from coming into the lake and how long does it take me to even give those calculations that are ordered in the first order another order another or you finally see you finally see the forcing me to represent it we don't get this are going to contractor is supposed to unilaterally change the plan and you actually know how to modify the plan unilaterally follow early manual the contractor under the testimony has a right to assume that the plant remember last time and used to always say we can do better well we did all of them and even though they could've done better it one way or another the level of culpability shown on this record is simply not sufficient