Suppose that at trial, Hanousek argued that he should not be convicted because he was not aware of the requirements of the CWA. Would this defense be successful? Why or why not?

Suppose that at trial, Hanousek argued that he should not be convicted because he was not aware of the requirements of the CWA - This defense would not be successful. Because he was responsible for maintaining safety and look after the whole construction of railway track and surrounding marine facilities.

Explanation:

Hanousek was worked for Pacific and Arctic railway and navigation company. He was the main responsible person to take care of the running construction of railway track and its surrounding marine life. So when due to new project, digging started on the surface by its sister company the underlying pipe line get affected and discharged large quantity of oil into marine water.

As a road master Hanousek should be aware about every work which is undertaken or will start near his ongoing project. That he was not. So its one kind of violation of clean water act.