LANE COUNTY – Lane County voters can expect to see a new measure on the May 19 ballot, called the “Watersheds Bill of Rights,” or Measure #20-373. The measure will allow the community to vote on stronger legal protections for local watersheds and clean water.
The measure is a proposed initiative stemming from a campaign, reflecting a broad grassroots effort in which volunteers gather signatures throughout the county. If passed, Measure 20-373 would position Lane County alongside communities enacting “Rights of Nature” initiatives addressing climate change and industrial pressures.
It aims to grant legal rights to watersheds, wildlife, and ecosystems and to protect natural systems by recognizing their inherent right to exist, flourish, evolve, and regenerate. The measure also affirms residents’ right to clean and affordable water access.
A watershed is an area of land that channels water to rivers, lakes, and oceans. It includes urban areas, farms, forests, roads, commercial, and residential neighborhoods. Nearly all of Lane County is recognized as a watershed.
In support
Rob Dickinson, a member of the Protect Lane County Watersheds Steering Committee and Campaign, said the measure is aimed at stopping harmful corporate activities in watersheds, particularly clear-cut logging and aerial herbicide spraying, which have been linked to health issues. It seeks to protect the environment, public health, and the local economy by promoting sustainable practices.
“A lot of what it’s about is stopping harmful corporate activities that occur in the watershed that end up harming the environment and harming people and also harming our economy,” Dickinson said.
Clearcutting, or clear-cut logging, is a forestry practice where most or all trees in an area are uniformly cut down for timber production. Dickinson explained that after an area has been clear-cut, “they come back through for maybe three years or so, or a number of years, and they spray herbicides to kill any kind of plant material that isn’t a Doug fur.”
In Oregon, herbicide spraying is regulated by the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), and anyone who sprays pesticides or herbicides must be licensed by the ODA. Licensing requirements vary based on the type of pesticide applicator, such as private, commercial, or public.
“It’s bad because those are really internally toxic chemicals that they’re spraying in and around the environment, in the watershed, and it would ultimately have to go somewhere,” Dickinson said. “But they tend not to just stay where they’re put. They drift when they’re spraying from helicopters, and having them go three or four miles is not unheard of at all. Then what happens is that people get them in their system, they breathe them, and then they are much more likely to get, say, cancer or reproductive harm or Parkinson’s or other things.”
The measure, based on rights of nature, could change cultural norms towards more environmentally friendly forestry practices, reducing wildfire risks, and preserving the region’s carbon sink status.
“We are actually learning now that if we have really strong wetlands, they can stop a fire in its tracks. Not every time, but more than if it’s absolutely dry,” said Ernie Niemi, President of Natural Resource Economics.
A 2013 case study from Beyond Toxics revealed that the Oregon Forest Practices Act (OFPA) lacks adequate protections for human health, surface and ground water, and the future survival of protected fish species. OFPA establishes standards for all commercial activities related to the management, establishment, and harvesting of trees on non-federal forestlands.
“Corporations have a tremendous incentive to describe the benefits of what they do and to distract us, even to dissuade us,and give us disinformation about the costs from what they do,” said Niemi. “Up until now, we have generated an improvement in quality of life and an improvement in well-being through nature by killing it,” he said.
“We have pushed nature so far that soon it is going to punch us back because it can’t take it anymore,” Niemi said.
Joe Moll, executive director of the McKenzie River Trust, said regardless of the outcome on May 20, the McKenzie River Trust will continue protecting, connecting, sustaining, and restoring watersheds.
“At the end of the day, we are committed to an approach that acknowledges the gifts we receive from the natural world and our primary responsibility to sustain them for generations to come, and that requires cooperation and compromise at every step,” said Moll.
“Rivers are alive, and we care for them accordingly. We don’t believe the proposed Measure began with, or will result in, increased collaboration, and thus we can’t support it,” Moll said. “We don’t believe that its passage would necessarily be a fist-crushing blow to community development, so we won’t oppose it either. Instead, we will listen closely to what the voters say about the Lane County Watershed Bill of Rights and will look for ways to collaborate accordingly.”
Protect Lane County Watersheds hosts gatherings every third Monday at 6 p.m. via zoom to give updates on the Lane County Watershed Bill of Rights effort.
In opposition
If Measure #20-373 passes, it would allow individuals to sue businesses, corporations, or government agencies for infringing on the watershed rights. The county would be responsible for enforcing and defending the new law, and violators could be ordered to restore damaged watersheds.
“For other perspectives, the Eugene and Springfield Chamber of Commerce groups have been outspoken against the measure and its potential impacts to local business,” Ray Balstad, a community engagement coordinator for the Upper Willamette Stewardship Network, said.
Last Tuesday, the Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce hosted a Chamber Roundtable event, where Chamber president and CEO Vonnie Mikkelsen provided an overview of the measure. The Chamber is part of a community coalition opposing the measure due to concerns about the broad legal framework it proposes and the uncertainty it could create for businesses, nonprofits, and public agencies operating in Lane County.
“The Chamber operates under a board-adopted legislative and policy agenda advocacy work, and allows us to take positions and provide perspective on issues that align with those priorities,” said Paige Walters, senior director. “Our leaders’ advisory and our board have been tracking the Watersheds Bill of Rights since it emerged as an initiative petition several years ago, and as the measure was developed and the opposition campaign was formalized, our board voted to formally endorse the opposition effort.”
Mikkelsen said the measure would effectively declare personage rights to watersheds and could create a new bill of rights that supersedes current state, federal, or international law.
“It provides for private right of action lawsuits by any individual against a government, business, or nonprofit, on behalf of watersheds, and it can apply to even currently routine or legally permitted activity,” she said. “The measure legally could create conflicts within existing environmental law and regulatory systems governing water quality and watershed management. It doesn’t clearly define how those rights would be interpreted, legally enforced, or reconciled within those existing laws, and basically for unlimited monetary penalties.”
According to The Chamber, public, private, and nonprofit entities can be sued, including schools, hospitals, parks, wildfire mitigation, and more.
“Everything is written so broadly and vaguely, everything’s at stake,” Mikkelsen said. “The key concerns for many of our public safety responses are wildfire mitigation, the tools that they have available for them, not only preventative, but also restorative, and to fight and manage those wildfires could all be a risk,” she said.
One of the top five concerns The Chamber has about the measure is liability exposure, claiming the measure would lead to a flood of lawsuits.
“This is directly all of our problems. It’s your problem,” Mikkelsen said. “If it’s not your business or your neighborhood or your park district or your street washers or your utility board, it is the cost of this behind that which you will pay as taxpayers.”
Fiscal exposure is another key concern. A slideshow presentation at the event read, “There is no limit to what this could cost local governments and taxpayers. There’s no process to estimate damages, so it’s basically a blank check to whoever files a lawsuit.”
“This is the law of Lane County if it were to pass, and it should be enforced by Lane County staff and elected officials. Of course, there’s no funding mechanism identified or allocated,” Mikkelsen said. “There’s no financial analysis that comes behind the proposal.”
Mikkelsen also said that if passed, the measure would have a cascading impact on the community, leading to higher prices and utility bills. Lawsuits will cost local businesses, who can then pass higher prices to consumers. Utility commissioners say it could lead to higher water bills for residents, Mikkelsen said.
Mikkelsen said another top concern is the risk to essential services, noting the measure that forces cuts to critical services like public safety. The final risk The Chamber presented about the measure was about good governance exposure.
“It exposes all of our elected boards, public boards, to the liability of doing what they’re charged with doing for their community while managing the fiscal strain that they’re under already, as well as the legal risk, and also providing the services that we’re really proud and thankful that they provide.”
Although Willamalane Park and Recreation has not taken an official stance on the measure, Mikkelsen shared that Willamalane Board Member Chris Wig and Former State Senator Lee Beyer wrote in opposition of the measure in a voters pamphlet statement.
“While the goal of protecting watersheds is one we share, the measure is written with vague and expansive language that creates significant legal uncertainty. It allows lawsuits based on perceived threats to watersheds without clear definitions or scientific standards, opening the door for litigation against businesses, nonprofits, and every level of government,” they wrote.
Michael Wargo, Willamalane Director, also shared his thoughts.
“We’re watching it very closely, like we do a lot of measures,” said Wargo. “It’s something that would be very important to us, and we would be impacted by it, but we don’t have an official stance.”
