How much control over your property should the federal government have?
In
"High
Court Review of Wetland Case Sought," the Supreme Court is being
asked to look at a case in which a man as been sentenced to time in
prison for filling in some wetlands he owns. Two concerns here, 1)does
the 1972 Clean Water Act protect wet lands that are unconnected to
navigable water, and 2)should the federal government be involved in this
at all? Conservation is all well and good, we are called to exercise
responsibility in our use of the world and its resources, not to
wantonly destroy it. Thus many times, conservationists are raising
legitimate points along with utter nonsense. The trick is to figure out
where the nonsense starts (and ends), and what role the federal
government can and should have in preventing extremes on both ends from
happening. I'm tempted to say that the federal government does have
some say in this, as watershed areas, rivers, and such often
extend beyond the bounds of a state, much less a local government.
Still, I do not like to see the federal government deciding that you
can't use land you own. If they are going to declare it unusable land,
there should be some offer to make it a park or preserve involved. On
the other hand, part of me thinks that we'll end up where the only parks
will be the unusable lands, as larger and larger areas are pushing for
development.
Update: 12:22
"The
mud puddle preservation plan, by Terence Jeffrey, gives another view
of this same issue, that exposes just how far this can go, and how
rediculous it can get.