Another View of "Takings"

It seems to me that a neighbor's action that adversely affects the quiet enjoyment of one's property is the basis for a tort claim for money damages. In this scenario, the government does not actively appropriate property for a public use or purpose, so taking is not an issue. If, on the other hand, the government bans an activity as being inherently dangerous to public health and safety, there would likewise be no taking because the activity never should be conducted in the first place. The fact that property was leased with the intent to conduct a dangerous activity does not mean the activity should be allowed when the time comes to exercise the lease-rights. Property rights are not absolute; activities may be restricted or banned depending on circumstances that can be substantiated. Pumping fracking fluid at very high pressure through karst is inherently dangerous because it cannot be done without significant likelihood that one or more casing joints or cementing of the casings will fail and cause irreperable damage to underground water flows. This matter should be about the water first, and property rights and leaseholder rights second.