Let's be real here, it's probably not "the dudes" who like to fish who will fight this. They will be co-opted by rich waterfront homeowners, who don't want their view "ruined". For a real world example, see how fisherman and environmentalists have been used as pawns by the rich to fight offshore wind off Nantucket.
NIMBYism isn't exactly a hard desire to understand. Do you really want some random person messing with your several-hundred-thousand-dollar investment because it'll probably be good for you in some intangible way at some point in the future?
If you refuse to accept the argument that people should have a say in how their life is changed, can you at least explain why this is a bad thing that doesn't require the context of the ultra-wealthy?
It really depends what the impact actually is. If it's only affecting the view or the recreational value, then sorry, some demands and expectations simply don't scale. And that is also valid for small property owners - there are too many cases of zoning laws that prevent cities from increasing urban density to combat high property prices.
In cases where the reservoir was financed by selling pretty properties at the shore, then the whole thing is a non-starter anyways since the former would make it very easy to just sue the utility company should they touch the lake.
Yes, I should be very clear that I don't want to protect large property owners with thousands of lots trying to protect their investments. That's a point where it's just the business's skill that's in question.
However, most people will only ever buy one house. Or at the very least, they'll only ever own one house at a time (small legal overlaps not withstanding). It's a completely different story. That's all I'm saying.
And I understand from personal experience* that those people don't want a train line, a garbage dumpster, or a facility with toxic fallout being put next to them. But I also think that overly sweeping restrictions can block initiatives with small downsides but overall positive impact on society like building solar panels or wind turbines.
*: the place where I grew up now has a factory next to it. It's unsightly, though it could have been much much worse, and sometimes noisy, but at least my parents at least can now also enjoy remote heating at ok-ish conditions. And it's nothing compared to the major pre-existing road immediately next to their house.
Rich or not, placing your personal interests above the community to the detriment of the community is obviously harmful. In my area specifically it applies to affordable housing. Property owners have turned a blind eye to rising home costs (more equity yay!), enacted policies to prevent higher density affordable housing (among other things) and are now shocked there's no workforce and an aging population.
But hey, whatever saves you another few hundred bucks on your tax bill right?
This is a fine debate to have. Giving someone crap because they're on the other side of this argument (not the strawman of "saving a few hundred bucks on your tax bill", but the more generic idea overall) is what I take issue with. People have different priorities, and "harmful to the community" is a pretty nebulous idea at best.
