The Scoop on Dirt
Jones (2006) finds microbes found in the soil to be critical in maintaining the soil. These microbes have multiple functions in the soil. Jones notes that soil microbes are critical in recycling carbon. Apparently, the soil contains twice as much carbon as that which is found in the atmosphere. These microbes help in binding the carbon in the soil, which in return helps maintain the soil structure. Without carbon, the soil would crumble making it almost impossible for plants to thrive, microbes and other living organisms in the soil to exist in such an environment. Water and air would be limited and thus affecting the health of the soil in general.
Microbes play a critical role in recycling dead animal and plant matter (Jones, 2006). Without these microbes and their critical function, no animal or plant, which has died or shed its leaves, would ever decay. This would lead to a pile up of plants and animals leading to littering of the environment. The function of microbes on dead plants and animal matter leads to conversion of inherent nutrients, which in return edify the soil and thus completing the nutrition cycle (Ashman and Puri, 2002).
Research by Kertesz and Mirleau (2004) indicate that microbes are essential in bonding sulphur to carbon in the soil to form inorganic sulphate. This is followed by microbes conducting rapid immobilization of this sulphate to form sulphate esters and carbon-bound sulphur. Although research is yet to identify any particular microbial species responsible for conversion and recycling of sulphur, evidence indicate that the rate of sulphur conversion is dependent on the number of microbes in the soil and their rate of metabolism.
The Fifth Amendment and Taking without Compensation
The case between Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc. versus Florida Department of Environmental Protection experienced a scenario of taking without compensation for environmental reason (Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc. [SBRI], 2014). Following consistent erosion of the beaches, Florida fashioned the Beach and Shore Preservation Act (“BSPA” whose main function was to look for means to restore critically eroded beaches throughout Florida State (SBRI, 2014). The Supreme Court ruled that the BSPA was constitutional since it adhered to laid out guidelines especially the environmental protection program (SBRI, 2014).
The ruling was based on a number of Florida-law principles. First, all submerged lands adjacent to beachfront property was the property of the state and thus provides the state with the right to fill that land. Secondly, the Florida State holds the right to expose land that was initially submerged even if this restoration initiative causes interruption to property owners of the beachfronts that are in contact with the water.
I feel that the “taking” was justifiable because the principle governing this takeover has been in existence prior to the takeover. The beachfront owners assumed ownership of a state land...