The board of directors, without consent, intervened in Ledava's life.

The Republic of Slovenia’s Water Directorate has admitted to making unauthorized interventions along the Ledava River without prior approval from the Nature Protection Agency, sparking public concern over environmental impact. The agency confirmed that work began on the river section near Lendava without consulting the relevant nature protection body, leading to immediate halting of operations after an internal review identified the error. Work on the Ledava River in Lendava started in early August, triggering widespread public reaction. Residents expressed alarm over extensive removal of riparian vegetation and bank erosion, with some calling the action an “ecocide.” Social media posts highlighted fears that the intervention had disrupted aquatic and surrounding habitats. The controversy arose because the project was initiated before obtaining the necessary ecological assessment from the National Agency for Nature Conservation. According to the Water Directorate, the works were carried out to ensure the designed flow capacity of the watercourse and improve flood safety. The affected stretch of the river spans approximately 1,600 meters, from the intake of the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant in Lendava to the bridge near Hotel Lipa. Material removed during the operation is intended for use in the rehabilitation of the high-water embankment in Mur in Benica, where reinforcement and stabilization efforts are ongoing following floods in 2023. The Water Directorate acknowledged that they did not obtain the required opinion from the National Agency for Nature Conservation before starting the work, despite the area's protected status. They cited administrative errors or shortcomings in the process of verifying protected areas as the reason for the oversight. However, they have not yet provided specific data on how much of the planned 1,600-meter section was actually worked on or how many plants and trees were removed without authorization. An internal investigation into the incident is currently underway. The Water Directorate stated that the case will be examined thoroughly to determine the stage at which the procedural mistake occurred and identify contributing factors. Their goal is to assess the actual situation and, if needed, implement additional organizational and procedural measures to enhance oversight and compliance with regulations. They emphasized their commitment to lawful, professional, and responsible execution of water management tasks and cooperation with all relevant institutions in protecting nature and the water environment. Ecologist Polona Pengal of the Revivo organization commented on the situation, describing the lack of prior consultation with the nature protection authority as unacceptable. She noted that mechanisms should be in place to prevent such actions without proper evaluation. Pengal criticized the Water Directorate for being overly independent and not sufficiently considering other institutions or opinions in its work. She argued that collaboration with the National Agency for Nature Conservation could have influenced the approach taken, allowing for more selective and less invasive removal of vegetation while preserving large old trees where possible. Pengal likened riparian vegetation to the skin of a river, emphasizing its critical role in maintaining ecosystem health. She stressed that the presence of native flora contributes significantly to water quality and biodiversity, and its removal without appropriate safeguards poses long-term risks. While she acknowledged the necessity of flood prevention measures, she called for a balanced approach that respects both human and ecological needs. Her comments reflect growing concerns among local communities and environmental groups about the potential consequences of uncoordinated infrastructure projects on natural systems.