Grassroots efforts to save our Great Salt Lake
While traditional cultures have always viewed the natural world and other-than-human creatures as kin, not property, legally, rights-of-nature is a new concept. As Elisabeth Robson writes, "only in a society separated from nature does 'Rights-of-Nature' make sense." Enacting rights-of-nature would transform western legal systems to reflect traditional cultures' wisdom-- which safeguarded ecosystems until the Industrial Age.
Rights-of-nature laws would grant nature's defenders the ability to challenge in court conduct that harms nature. Utah citizens could sue the Great Salt Lake's offenders with claims that irrigation, diversion, and pollution violate its rights. They could ask courts to ban these activities, to protect the Lake, and to order those responsible for harm to pay for the Lake's regeneration.
In 2023, a grassroots group, Save Our Great Salt Lake, drafted a resolution for the rights of Great Salt Lake. It declares that the Great Salt Lake is "a living entity, possessing fundamental rights-- "including "the right to continued existence, the right to a water level sufficient to maintain ecosystem health, the right to sustain natural biodiversity, and the right to support a healthy balanced ecosystem."
The rights listed in Save Our Great Salt Lake's resolution are similar to "legal persons'" rights. Under American law, human individuals and corporations are legal persons with constitutional rights; and they can hold water rights. If anyone attempts to revoke those water rights (a corporation's property), a corporation can invoke the 5th Amendment's prohibition on seizure of property.
Granting legal personhood to the Great Salt Lake would conflict with water rights holders' rights to consume and harm the Great Salt Lake. If an individual or group sued over water holders' rights, the judge would quickly dismiss the case and possibly sanction petitioners for wasting the court's and the corporations' time. (In 2017, when I joined a lawsuit against Colorado's Attorney General for violating the Colorado River's rights, the judge threatened our group with sanctions. Rather than risk losing his license to practice law, our lead attorney withdrew the case.)
Efforts to protect Lake Erie
In August, 2014, at the peak of summer heat, an algae bloom in Lake Erie turned off water taps in Toledo, Ohio for four days. Over the next several years, residents gathered signatures and got the Lake Erie Bill of Rights (LEBOR) on the ballot.
In 2019, 61% of voters voted in favor of LEBOR.
Ohio's legislators responded with House Bill 166, which declares that "No person, on behalf of or representing nature or an ecosystem, shall bring an action in any Ohio court." Effectively, the state of Ohio banned rights-of-nature.
In 2021, a federal court also struck LEBOR down.
Lake Erie will likely experience another algae bloom. Since 2014, more of its fish have died every year. More mammals-- including dogs-- have died from drinking or swimming in Lake Erie's water.
Banning rights-of-nature
In March 2024, to protect property owners' rights, Utah's State Legislature enacted and Governor Spencer Cox signed into law House Bill 249. It states: "a governmental entity may not grant legal personhood to, nor recognize legal personhood in"a body of water, land"a plant" or "a nonhuman animal." Essentially, HB 249 makes rights-of-nature illegal in Utah. Of course, Utah corporations remain legal persons.
Florida's legislature has also banned rights-of-nature.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
