Environmental Legislation vs Job loss: What is acceptable?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

When dealing with environmental legislation, what exactly do you feel is the happy medium between protecting the environment and preventing unemployment? I was reading a book on dams, flooding, farming, and environmental legislation, and many people were protesting a dam out west about a decade ago because they were worried it would flood a forest of old growth and also kill a lot of animals at the same time. Further, they did not want it to ruin one of the popular, free-access rafting retreats.

Now, apparently, very few naturalists and ecologists wanted the facility, but the company wanted it there because it would make a nice profit, and the workers wanted it, since they wanted the jobs there. As such, many protestors went out and got the project blocked. Now, I guess the facility could haved gone somewhere else or the people could have found other jobs, but what if they couldn't or what if other places did not want the facility either? This led me to question: how many jobs are worth such a maneauver?

It seems like the interests conflict.

If there are more options, that might make the issue clearer, but it made it sound as if the people either got the job, the area got the power, or they protected the forest/river rafting area.