When it comes to environmental and preservation protections, governments can sometimes get carried away.  The federal government is often criticized for its far-reaching regulations, but smaller agencies are sometimes just as aggressive.

A new ordinance in a small city on the Coast is a good example of that over-reach. Officials in D’Iberville are now requiring developers and homeowners who cut protected trees to plant several more or pay the city to plant and take care of the trees for a year.

Mike Mullins, public works director and city arborist, told The Sun Herald newspaper that a protected tree 8 inches in diameter must be replaced with 12 trees. A 14-inch diameter protected tree would cost three trees plus three more for every 2 inches, requiring that 21 new trees be planted.

The city’s original tree ordinance adopted in 1992 designated oaks, magnolia, cypress, sycamore and cedars as protected trees. Under the new ordinance, oak was changed to live oak trees and cypress to bald cypress.

It seems property rights don’t mean much in D’Iberville. While governments can and should at times regulate environmental issues, this seems over the top. For example: if someone cuts down a 40-inch tree that may have been growing for centuries, the property owner must replant 63 trees. One developer who couldn’t plan around a protected magnolia tree cut the tree and a check to the city for $17,000, The Associated Press reported.

That’s a hefty price to pay, and obviously the city hopes the ordinance is a deterrent to tree-cutting.  But why is cutting a tree on private property the city’s business in the first place?  The city requires a permit to cut any tree with a trunk circumference of 18 inches when measured five feet above ground level.

We’re guessing there’s a fee attached to that permit, meaning the city benefits monetarily from the ordinance.

If property owners don’t want to bother with planting and caring for the replacement trees, the city will do it for them — at a cost of $100 per tree.

Failure to follow the ordinance is a misdemeanor, which could involve a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 90 days, or both.

While city leaders likely had good intentions when passing the ordinance, it’s clearly an over-reach. Government is at its best when it leaves law-abiding citizens alone, and at its worst when it seeks to get involved in every aspect of their lives.