“Watershed Bill of Rights” Initiative Fails in Oregon

In Lane County, Ore., an attempt to grant rights to nature — specifically, to grant “watersheds” the right to “exist, flourish, regenerate and naturally evolve, free from contamination and degradation,” was rejected by voters, 63-37.

Why did this attempt fail where nature rights referenda have elsewhere succeeded? Because opponents took it seriously. From the Your Oregon News story:

Rob Dickinson, spokesperson for proponents of the measure, attributed its defeat to the ubiquity of advertisements raising fears about the initiative’s effects.

Betsy Schultz, grass roots coordinator for opponents of the measure, said the healthy fundraising to defeat the measure reflected the strength of the arguments against the initiative.

“Both the breadth of the coalition and the amount of funds that we were able to raise shows the breadth of support that we had versus the proponents,” she said. “It was a broad range all coming together from various political parties, various walks of life, and saying: We might not agree on everything, but this is not going to be good for Lane County. And I think that really resonated with folks.”

This is the way! I am convinced that the nature rights movement has advanced internationally — it is supported by a major science journal, U.N. bureaucrats, the National Geographic Society, etc., resulting in several rivers, glaciers, a mountain, bees, and waves in a bay being granted rights — because too few people with the common sense to oppose the idea have taken the threat seriously. When they do, the proposals come to be seen accurately as irrational and destructive to human thriving.

We can and should enact proper environmental practices. But that can be accomplished without transforming geological features, flora, and fauna into rights-bearing entities — with all the harm and economic disruption such policies could bring.