IIRC, the ruling was to protect the Salton Sea as a mitigation due to other habitat loss (particularly lagoons) pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty. This may unwittingly open the door to a market in "artificial" habitat to mitigate or offset urban impacts by which to re-establish such a use as a property right not to be regarded as the exclusive enterprise of the regulatory/academic/NGO monopoly.
“”I aware aware of this fact as well it was a fact I found curious given the courts determination to preserve it.”
IIRC, the ruling was to protect the Salton Sea as a mitigation due to other habitat loss (particularly lagoons) pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty. This may unwittingly open the door to a market in “artificial” habitat to mitigate or offset urban impacts by which to re-establish such a use as a property right not to be regarded as the exclusive enterprise of the regulatory/academic/NGO monopoly.”
It is indeed interesting how liberal urban areas first vote to create theses rules(both authorized and unauthorized) in both at the State & federal Governments. Then when push comes to shove they try to push off the costs of complying with them to the rest of us.
They take up residency in the most pristine and productive land in the State, then when they destroy that land instead of taking responsibility for their own actions they expect the rest of us to make the sacrifices they refuse to make in order to uphold their beloved standards.
But your right this is a potential market for “artificial” habitat which in itself I don’t have a problem with. What I have a problem with is the rural areas being forced by law to pick up the cost for the same.