I am not talking about Utopia when I am afraid that the legal system might cease to "work". If for example 90% of murder could not been detected and proofed anymore I foresee havy damage to society. As people can get killed by environmental degradation this is not as far fetched an example as it sounds.
I already stated that I don't see how the state can solve the problem either. But because nobody has found a solution yet -state of free market - the problem can't be ignored by labelling a save environment an utopia.
Now you stretch the term "implicit" a bit. Where do I have used the term "always"? I have run into quite a lot of people who presented panaceas - etatist and free market supports - but where did I claim that they are all the same?
I do not personally dislike lawyers or environmental experts; I dislike the idea of a technocracy. If large parts of our affairs become dependent on legal and scientific experts, and if disputes can only be settled by expert assessments (instead of a logic which all people can follow) than there is a lot of room for corruption and for instrumentalizing environmental problems.
Water flows in a river. so, he is not polluting your water. poisoning your fish gives you rights to restitution. placing your fish farm in a river does expose it to undue risk. A makeshift pond may be more managable.