Summary: Measure 20-373 is admirable in its intentions and its goals, and we very much wish we could support it; however, it has far too many problems to be successful. Regrettably, Sierra Club Many Rivers Group cannot support it as written, and we very much hope to see a more workable replacement.

Best of intentions: Measure 20-373 would establish new legal rights for watersheds and allow individual residents to enforce those rights in court.

How it falls short: The measure's authors tell us it intends to hold large businesses responsible for their pollution of our vital watersheds, but the actual language fails to keep to that focus. Because all enforcement is through legal action, any person could sue any business for a perceived violation, creating many unnecessary lawsuits. The measure does not adequately define what would (legally) amount to a violation. As much as we'd like to see strong watershed protections with teeth, Measure 20-373 is unworkable, and may set watershed protection back years as the courts, and possibly the legislature, work through its details.
 

Our decision:

The measure was reviewed, researched and discussed by the Executive Committee of the Many Rivers Group of the Sierra Club. We voted unanimously, with one abstention, that we could not support this measure. We are giving you our analysis for our decision below.

What the Watershed Bill of Rights (Lane County Measure 20-373) says

• The watersheds of Lane County possess the inalienable right to exist, flourish, regenerate and naturally evolve;
• The Citizens of Lane County are responsible to ensure the highest legal protection from degradation, loss of ecological balance and all threats to their health and well-being;
• The people of Lane County have a right to affordable clean water, free from all corporate, government and other business entity activities that infringe on this rights. Individuals are not subject to the restrictions of the measure;
• The measure adopts the existing definition of “pollution” found in ORS 468B.005(5);
• Any citizen of Lane County may bring an action in Circuit Court to eliminate damages by businesses, corporations or nullify government authorization of damaging activities, and/or require Lane County adopt protections or remedial actions even when there is not scientific certainty or full evidence of the risk.
• Any citizen of Lane County may individually intervene in an activity, permitted or not, legal or not, to enforce or defend the provisions of the proposition.
• Any business, corporation or government entity is liable for damages under the measure. There is an additional penalty of 1% of damages, per day for continued violations.
• Lane County and its elected officials and staff are responsible for the defense and enforcement of the measure.

Our Analysis

The measure is admirable in its intentions and its goals. We all want to see greater protection of our watersheds and ecosystems. We all want to protect the purity of our drinking water. But there are problems with this measure, as written, that we believe outweigh the potential benefits. Here are some key examples:

• The language of the measure is vague and over-broad in that it has legal force even when there is only weak evidence of risk of harm to watersheds and ecosystems.
• Small businesses and public utilities would be open to lawsuits, even though the stated intention of the petitioners was to focus on large companies.
• It does not define “affordable” water or what counts as evidence or danger of damage. This could make lawsuits both more expensive and more difficult to win.
• Existing permits by EWEB could come under litigation, along with actions by Federal agencies that are lawful under Federal and State laws. This will likely create legal complications that could be tied up in the courts for years.
• Restoration projects along our creeks and rivers could be stopped or stalled if they create temporary impurities while the work is done. This could lead to frivolous lawsuits to stop much-needed conservation work.
• This measure would establish protections and an entirely new system of enforcement just for Lane County. These kinds of protections would make more sense if they applied state-wide.
• The measure does not spell out who in the Lane County government is responsible for protection and enforcement of the measure, which could be an enormous administrative problem for the County. In addition, enforcement may require a whole new legal/administrative process to review actions within watersheds. There is no method in the measure for generating new funds, or using existing funds to pay for what is likely to be an expensive process of enforcement and review.

In summary, the Many Rivers Group of the Sierra Club believes that this measure is unworkable in its current form. A measure with well defined terms, and State-wide effect would be preferable. We urge everyone to read the full text of the measure and think about the potential consequences.