Via Midcurrent we read that you and i are mistaken to believe that our streams, rivers, and nation’s waterbodies ought to serve a purpose higher than as private toxins dump. But here we run again into Mr. Hume’s is/ought problem. I find it a bit (lest we get carried away) morally represhensible that we could allow private individuals to treat our waterways thusly. But that such tradeoffs as this are allowed to exist at all is the scenario established by our nation’s environmental policies; for example, a farmer’s yield vs. stream habitat. I fall on one side of the moral equation, but it is not i alone who count. We will continue to run into these problems until we clarify the intent of our environmental laws by first, i would argue, clarifying the end to which our resources – streams, trees, wilderness, wildlife, etc. – are to be managed. Multiple use is a fool’s errand, and a stream cannot concurrently serve as a dumping ground and provide clean water and habitat. Which is it?