How much control over your property should the federal government have? In “High Court Review of Wetland Case Sought/a,” 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/em 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/strong
“The mud puddle preservation plan/a, by Terence Jeffrey, gives another view of this same issue, that exposes just how far this can go, and how rediculous it can get.