How weakening of water protections affect us all, here and abroad
The recent weakening of water protection in Chattanooga’s stormwater ordinance favors homebuilders over water quality despite numerous citizen objections based on engineering and scientific knowledge.
The process allowed homebuilder profit at the expense of water quality. It begs at least two questions: Do streams have rights? Should they be given legal rights as has been done with corporations?
Apparently, Chattanooga’s answer is no, but in Ecuador it’s yes. That country has just written a new constitution giving nature the legal “right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution”. It mandates that the government take “precaution and restriction measures in all activities that can lead to the extinction of species, the destruction of the ecosystems or the permanent alteration of the natural cycles.”
In New Zealand, the Whanganui River and Te Urewera National Park were designated as legal persons with guardians appointed. These guardians have a legal mandate to assure that the rights of those ecosystems are protected in perpetuity including biological diversity, ecological integrity, and the cultural heritage.
In the U.S., Tamaqua Borough, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania passed a local ordinance in 2006 that stopped sewage sludge dumping and included a provision recognizing the rights of natural communities to flourish. Four years later, Pittsburgh became the first major U.S. municipality to recognize rights of nature.
In Colorado, a lawsuit was filed against the state of Colorado seeking to win Colorado River personhood. For years, people have been withdrawing too much water until the river hardly reaches the ocean as it used to. Doesn’t a river have the right to a minimum flow of water? This case was withdrawn after the state leveled sanctions against the law firm bringing the case.
We do have the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts providing some protection for the environment, but they treat nature as property only. These existing laws only regulate how much can be exploited. Every permit gives permission to pollute and thus, in some sense, legalizes environmental harm.
Streams, especially in urbanizing areas such as Chattanooga, are not healthier. The endangered species in South Chickamauga Creek will suffer. The current laws in an overpopulated and climate-constrained world are inadequate. Rights of nature laws would work to separate water and other ecosystem rights from property rights.
According to the Boulder Rights of Nature website, the rights of nature movement embodies the principle that ecosystems and natural communities are not merely property to be owned, but are entities that have an independent right to exist and flourish. Every member of the Earth community has the right to fulfill, to its full potential, its role in the community of life.
While legal nature personhood may seem like a strange concept, it is actually a very old idea. In ancient Rome judges realized that biological principles were independent of laws of men. Indigenous cultures imagine a circle of life of which they are a connected part. They see land and water as sacred, living relatives, ancestors, and places of origin. Many Eastern religions assume the interconnectedness of all of nature’s elements, including humans.
In this way of thinking, no one owns property. It belongs to all Life. Humans are not separate from or superior to the natural world. Nature is part of a community to which we belong and are unequivocally connected for our very existence. If nature were to become a legal person, we would work to make sure it received equal treatment under the law.
That provides justice to correct imbalances in our treatment of nature and promote harmony—not a bad goal for this season.
Sandra Kurtz is an environmental community activist, chair of the South Chickamauga Creek Greenway Alliance, and is presently working through the Urban Century Institute. You can visit her website to learn more at enviroedu.net