Wetlands are stocks of natural resources limited in supply, in the middle of unlimited human wants with multiple uses to society, presenting an economic problem in as far as their rational and sustainable use is concerned. To that end, conflicting recommendations have been forwarded regarding wetland cultivation as a possible land use across the globe and from within the same regions. On one extreme, wetland cultivation has been linked to degradation of wetlands with pure wetland conservation as the prescribed viable and sustainable land use option to society. Closer to reality, partial wetland conversion to crop land has been found compatible with wetland bio-diversity; implying that partial wetland cultivation is the prescribed wetland use option viable and sustainable to societies, a dictum mainly claimed by rural communities. With that conflicting background and based on the “Safe Minimum Standard” approach, a ban on wetland cultivation was maintained in several early environmental policies in Zimbabwe as a basis for legislative protection of wetlands, a position that is still legally binding in current statutes. Contrary to that, rural communities have responded by invading wetlands as a coping strategy in pursuit of the claimed values of wetland cultivation, further conflicting with standing policies. This scenario has managed to “lock” and is currently locking the claimed 1,28 million hectares of wetlands in Zimbabwe in a “legal-operational impasse”, at a cost to the entire nation since no meaningful investment is possible in wetlands when there is a legal conflict.