And the suits can't be trusted to do that.

Hey, if damming up the Grand Canyon in order to irrigate enough farmland to feed the world is necessary, I say go for it. All the natural beauty and wildlife is worth sacrificing if it means feeding the world's hungry. But I really don't give a shit if we need more cheap water to keep the golf courses green in LA.

Every construction, development, agricultural, mining or industrial project that threatens some portion of the environment must be evaluated with a careful cost/benefit analysis, one that takes into account the entire cost/benefit ratio. Sure, we can't live anywhere without causing some damage, after all, even bears must shit in the woods. But the individuals who profit from these activities must be able to help pay to mitigate the damage, or to help the land recover, or to just wait until we really need that resource.

I think I may have still been editing my comment while you were typing yours. You might want to re-read it.