removing the road would be about the same as the cost of building it. Similarly, Bailey does not argue on appeal that he cannot afford the restoration, but rather contends that the district court should have required more evidence. If Bailey had wished to contest this factor, he should have submitted evidence to the district court. The finding that restoration was within Bailey’s financial means was not clearly erroneous. Bailey also argues that he did not know that the site was wetland before or during the construction of the road. Civil liability under the Clean Water Act is strict, and the government was not required to show that Bailey knew that his act of building a road violated the Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b); see also United States v. Sinskey, 119 F.3d 712, 715-16 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Even assuming that knowledge was required,
holding that the government did not have to prove that the defendant knew that his acts violated the clean water act but merely that he was aware of the conduct that resulted in the permits violation holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act holding that government must merely show that defendant knew that it was a bank that he intended to influence holding that the government must prove the defendant knew of the features of the firearm that brought it within the scope of the act holding that while the government was required to prove that the defendants phone call crossed a state line  the government did not need to prove that the defendant knew of the interstate nexus