The normal and correct way to make corporations "pay their fair share" is taxes. The defense department getting involved in amature-bait-tackle-and-fishing stuff is beyond "clumsy and imperfect". It's ineffecient. It's not how the system should be, and we can do better.
First of all, the US is largely inefficient at taxing corporations and seemingly wedded to a political system that seeks to ensure it remains this way.
Secondly, income tax only taxes, well, taxable income... It is not meant to directly compensate for environmental damage by a business, which will happen as long as that business operates and whether that business makes taxable income or not.
In the case of SpaceX, I'm not sure what net monetary contribution to the state or nations' coffers they would offer.
They are mostly dependent on government funding and contracts for survival. The proportion of launches paid for by private entities is minimal. Most of their missions are either for NASA and the USSF or for Starlink, which they pay for themselves. Starship is so far not commercially operated and therefore produces no taxable income at all. Even if and when it starts operating, it will likely also mostly be used for Starlink and NASA missions.
Depending on the accounting they are using, it is quite likely that SpaceX is not contributing much (if anything) to the local or federal government, and certainly not enough to fund for the environmental conservation required because of their presence.
The system may well be improved, but asking environmentally damaging businesses to compensate their communities outside of the normal taxation schemes is not unusual at all and happens all around the World.
Once again, what has been asked of them is a fraction of bupkis in the greater scheme of things. I can't fathom how anyone would find this unfair unless the underlying conviction is that businesses should be allowed to do as they please with the environment with no interference from the community they operate in and profit from.
I know they will have an impact on the environment, that's why I said mitigate. I still hold that the EA should just be about the environment and nothing else. I don't see how supplying tackle has anything to do with the environmental impact of SpaceX. Government overreach at its finest, in my opinion.
The cost of directly mitigating their impact on the environment would be much greater than what they have been asked to do. How is the government over-reaching if they are essentially letting them get away with environmental degradation and community disruptions for next to nothing? The FAA's ruling has to be the most pro-business compromise I have ever seen given the circumstances. I can't understand how anyone would see this as anything other than a win for SpaceX...