FAQ

First, let's talk about some of the wrong, uninformed and disingenuous things you might have heard about Measure 20-373. The opposition will always rely on fear tactics rather than indisputable facts. Always, Follow the Money!

1. What do “cuts in services” have to do with protecting our watersheds?

Claims that this measure would automatically result in "service cuts" have no demonstrated basis. Voters should ask for evidence, not speculation. If anything, this alarmist framing suggests concern about accountability rather than concern for the public. Isn’t it funny that the Chamber of Commerce is leading the opposition to an environmental protection campaign?

2. There’s no process to estimate damages.

There is nothing unusual about courts determining remedies when rights are violated. That’s a routine function of the judicial system. Damages are not “one size fits all” — they are assessed case by case, based on the severity of harm and the facts involved. Suggesting otherwise misrepresents how the legal system works and fuels unnecessary fear. 
Read the Ordinance - Section 3 Enforcement

3.This measure is vague and poorly written. (our favorite opposition argument!)

The proposal is not vague — it’s fundamental.

Framing these protections as “vague” attempts to create doubt where the principle of watershed protection is straightforward and widely understood. All fundamental rights are broad by design so they can respond to new threats. This law clearly states that "harms” are incurred by corporations, government and business entities, not individual county residents.
Lane County residents will not be sued under this law.

4. The measure rejects public policy and science.

History shows that industry interests have influenced or distorted “accepted science” to postpone accountability (think tobacco). The measure ensures that uncertainty cannot be used as a delay tactic when evidence of harm exists. Acting on strong evidence of risk does not undermine science; it reflects responsible governance. This measure does not reject science; it reinforces sound science.

5. This measure is “dangerously unclear” and likely “unconstitutional".

Current laws regulate pollution rather than prohibit it outright. Toxic chemicals in our watersheds and water supplies pose measurable risks to communities. The real danger is pollution, not protection. It is reasonable to promote stronger protections that are long overdue to safeguard public health and the environment. There are 668 reported Nature protective initiatives in 60 countries, including 179 in the US, according to the EcoJurisprudence Monitor.

Now, back to the FAQs...

This bill is a rights of nature initiative that provides legal protection for nature via giving rights to our watersheds.

It will:
a)  Secure legal rights for all watersheds within Lane County to exist, flourish, and naturally evolve including sustainable recharge, sufficient flows to protect native fish, and clean water unpolluted by corporate or governmental activities;
b)  Secure residents’ rights to accessible, clean, and affordable domestic drinking water free of harmful contamination;
c)  Prohibit corporations and government from violating these stated rights;
d)  Secure the right of residents to enforce these rights against corporations, government, or other business entities engaging in activities that violate these rights;
e) requires the government to adopt protective and effective measures to prevent and/or remedy actual and potential violation of the rights declared within this ordinance, even when there is not scientific certainty of the risk.

  1. f)  Establish liability for damages to the watershed in proportion to the cost of restoration, and establish penalties for continuing violations in proportion to the cost of restoration;

  2. f)  Provide protection and compensation for employees for reporting violations to the rights secured.

Actually, Lane County watersheds have lots of problems, but are not adequately monitored in order to know how bad it actually is. The much touted McKenzie River is being progressively degraded, visually showing problems like algae blooms and oil slicks. It now even has mercury contamination and other signs of serious problems and current regulations and protections are largely unenforced. Most other Lane County rivers are even worse off. Additionally, many rural Lane County residents do not have clean sources of drinking water that aren't contaminated with sediments, nitrates, pesticides and other toxins.

“Watershed” means the water and land area that drains rain, snow, and groundwater into a single outlet, such as rivers, creeks, lakes, wetlands, aquifers and oceans.  A watershed may be only a few acres as in small ponds or hundreds of square miles as in rivers. All watersheds can be divided into smaller sub-watersheds.

Rights of Nature is a doctrine and global movement that advocates for ecosystems such as rivers, lakes, and mountains to bear legal rights in the same, or at least a similar, manner as human beings.
* According to the doctrine, an ecosystem is entitled to legal personhood status and thereby has the right to defend itself in a court of law against environmental harms caused by human action, including human-related climate change.
* Because humans are part of, interconnected with, and dependent on the natural world, how legal systems protect rights of nature is necessary to our own human survival.

The living world has a right to exist, thrive and evolve – and our legal system needs to be transformed to respect this reality. By recognizing the rights of watersheds, human activities will have to change to become more sustainable. We will have to be supportive of regenerative life on every level within all Lane County watersheds. The survival of life on the planet depends on we humans recognizing rights of nature! We humans are the only ones with a “legal system”, and how our legal system protects nature matters in our own human survival. We humans are absolutely dependent on nature for our life and our existence!

Not really, as our environmental laws are part of our regulatory system which regulates our activism more than protecting our environment.  These laws implicitly allow pollution (how many parts per million, etc.) instead of banning pollution altogether. And the constitution is a document of property and commerce, so nature has no inherent rights itself, only those who own the land on which the contested natural environment is located have rights – the way slaves had no rights, but their owners had rights over their bodies.

No, they don’t. But we do need to rethink some of our activities and limit our most destructive practices – and industrial societies need to rethink our attitude towards what we can demand from our finite planet. Recognizing Rights of Nature does not stop human activities. It instead places them in the context of a healthy relationship where the survival of the natural world we depend on for our own existence is not threatened by our activities.

Oregon's state government is largely under the influence of big campaign money. Corporate interests dominate the legislature and it's willingness to protect our watersheds. The timber industry is the largest source of watershed degradation in the state. Efforts to improve their logging practices to decrease watershed damage are continually rebuffed by the legislature. This watershed bill of rights is based in promoting local democracy and our right on a local level to protect our watersheds when the state legislature won't. It affirms our right to protect nature's right to flourish, regenerate and naturally evolve in Lane County.

In our current Oregon political climate, we can’t wait on political leaders who have consistently failed to protect our watersheds to finally do something effective. Climate change is coming upon us swiftly, as witnessed by decreasing rain and snow-pack, and longer droughts. Our so called “leaders” have failed to address it locally and regionally. We can do our part, and our local efforts do matter. We need to use peaceful, democratic and effective means – such as new local laws – to assert community rights and nature's rights that counter the dominance of corporate/ wealth profiteering interests at all levels. Our re-claiming democracy needs to start at the local level, where we have the most influence, and where we can more effectively counter those who favor treating us as a resource colony to extract wealth off of, and favor profits over people.

Yes it is. Our community rights efforts are part of a growing worldwide effort to establish laws that protect nature. These laws can protect rivers, watersheds, individual species or broader ecosystems. For example: a) municipalities in the U.S., including Pittsburgh, Toledo, and Santa Monica, have recently passed Rights of Nature laws to help protect human and non-human communities. b) Ecuador, Bolivia and Mexico City now protect Rights of Nature in their constitutions. c) New Zealand treaty agreements have declared a river, national park, and sacred mountain as legal entities with “all the rights of a legal person.” and d) the White Earth Band of Ojibwe in Minnesota which adopted the Rights of Manoomin (wild rice) law in December 2018 to help protect it from polluted water.

Recent responses