What Are Legal Rights of Nature? Explained for Humans.
Who Defends the Great Lakes?
What if they could talk? What would they say to us humans?
Do you think they, the wetlands, forests, wildlife, all species, would say we have been good stewards of the ecosystems we depend on to survive?
Or do you think they would ask why the systems that govern human society willingly allow, and sometimes even mandate, their destruction in the first place?
These questions are at the heart of a growing global movement known as Rights of Nature.
Rights of Nature is a legal and cultural shift that challenges the idea that ecosystems (nature) exist only to serve human profit.
We have partnered with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), to help inform and educate the Great Lakes Basin region on Rights of Nature, and to start the movement to bring this law to all eight states that border the Great Lakes. A Rights of Nature bill, the Great Lakes and States Water Bill of Rights, is currently in the New York State Assembly. We have seven more to go.
We recently started a new podcast and article series called Rights of the Lakes to accomplish just that. This article supports Episode 1 of the podcast that you can watch below. In order to bring about a cultural and legal shift, we first must understand what has been taken from us to bring us to where we are.
In our first episode, I spoke with Tish O’Dell and Ben Price, both Community Rights Pioneers with CELDF. We discussed what Rights of Nature actually means, and why the idea is gaining traction in communities across the United States and the globe.
The Misunderstanding Most People Have
When people first hear the phrase “Rights of Nature,” they often think that it means granting individual rights to a deer, a tree, or a fish. But that is not what the movement is about.
According to Tish O’Dell, the misunderstanding of what Rights of Nature is comes from thinking about nature as individual organisms rather than the living system that it is. Rights of Nature laws are designed to recognize ecosystems as living communities—the Lakes, rivers, forests, watersheds, inland lakes, wetlands, and all the life they support. In the same way the U.S. Bill of Rights protects all people rather than naming specific individuals, Rights of Nature recognizes the rights of ecosystems as a whole.
This distinction matters because under current U.S. law, ecosystems have no legal rights at all. And we humans have no legal recourse to protect them. We like to think that we do, but we do not. And corporations? They are given special permission to pollute.
The Problem with Our Current Legal System Explained
Environmental law as we know it today started in 1969 with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but the first piece of environmental legislation dates back to 1899, with the passing of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Since then, environmental protection in the United States has been solely built on regulation. Not preventing or outright banning pollution, but regulating it. This means that pollution of any kind is not prohibited. We have built a legal system that allows environmental harm (pollution) to stay within the “regulatory threshold” awarded through the permit.
Do you know the old saying give an inch and they’ll take a mile? That seems to be the rule. Because when regulatory thresholds are violated or an “accident” occurs, the regulated body usually gets a slap on the wrist, a small fine, and a scolding of “don’t do that again,” until they do it again, and then it’s rinse and repeat. This is as asinine as it sounds. And we here in the Great Lakes Basin region are paying the price for it, our entire planet is.
Rights of Nature challenges this structure entirely. Instead of regulating pollution it recognizes ecosystems as entities that have the right to exist, flourish, regenerate, and evolve. It gives legal standing to communities and nature against industry and governments that directly harm our ecosystems. Whether it’s through toxic runoff from agriculture using pesticides, industrial extraction, or large-scale infrastructure projects (think data centers and the Line 5 pipeline) that damage ecosystems. It also gives residents the ability to defend the ecosystems they depend on to survive and thrive. And that’s where the conversation becomes even more interesting.
If Corporations Have Rights, Why Not Lakes and Rivers?
One of the biggest challenges Rights of Nature faces—probably the biggest—is corporate personhood. Corporate personhood has been allowed to usurp actual personhood in this country. It dates back to 1886, but it became very powerful with the Supreme Court ruling of Citizens United in 2010. The same law that allows unlimited money in politics and unlimited lobbying to purchase our politicians, also gives seemingly unlimited rights to corporations to harm, pollute, and exploit with impunity. It can even be argued that it’s directly responsible for the dismantling of democracy.
One of the questions that arises through Rights of Nature is: if corporations (entities we do not need to survive) can have legal rights, why can’t lakes and rivers (living ecosystems that we do need to survive)?
Corporate personhood grants corporations many of the same legal protections as humans. In fact, I would argue more. I’ll give an example through an actual case, The Lake Erie Bill of Rights (LEBOR). In summary, this Rights of Nature law was drafted in partnership between Toledoans for Safe Water and CELDF and was passed in 2019 by the citizens of Toledo, Ohio with a 61 percent approval.
The legislation was a result of the toxic algae blooms (developed from pollution) in Lake Erie getting into and contaminating the drinking water for Toledo in 2014. The bill allowed citizens to sue on Lake Erie’s behalf. Proponents argued that the legislation was necessary “because the state had consistently failed to protect Lake Erie from pollution, leaving the city’s water supply vulnerable to contamination.”
In 2020, federal judge, Jack Zouhary, invalidated the law citing that it was unconstitutionally vague, unenforceable, and exceeded municipal power. In translation, “constitutionally vague” means that the law violated the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the 14th Amendment that is widely believed to give personhood to corporations. Drewes Farms Partnership filed a lawsuit against the City of Toledo the day after the vote, claiming the law threatened their business.
In short, Drewes Farms Partnership was given permission to pollute the water of Lake Erie through industrial runoff for their own profit, while the actual citizens of Toledo were told they had to sacrifice their drinking water for Drewes Farm’s profit. We will talk about LEBOR in depth in Episode 2 of Rights of the Lakes.
The idea of giving legal protection to ecosystems is portrayed as radical to some. But as you read in the LEBOR example, it’s far from radical. It’s where responsibility begins.
O’Dell says most everyday people understand the concept immediately. When communities hear that corporations have rights but the lakes and rivers they depend on do not, the imbalance becomes obvious.
The pushback tends to come from industries doing the polluting, like Drewes Farms, lobbyists, and legal institutions that benefit from the current system (status quo). O’Dell also states that many larger environmental groups are against Rights of Nature becoming law. Their arguments usually center around shifting power away from regulatory agencies (that allow pollution to certain thresholds) and moving it to the courts based on community complaints and lawsuits. Many also believe it’s unenforceable, the same argument Judge Zouhary stated in his ruling.
But history shows us something entirely different. It shows us that every major expansion of rights—from civil rights to labor rights—was once labeled “radical” before becoming accepted law. Rights of Nature are no different in that respect. Where it differs is that we need our ecosystems for survival as a species. All species do.
The Truth We Often Forget
The main argument that Rights of Nature brings to the table is a common sense one:
Humans are not separate from nature. We are nature.
And though we may be the most consciously aware, we are not the smartest part of nature.
Ben Price offers the example of trees. Trees produce bark. Humans do not and cannot produce bark. Trees produce oxygen that we humans need to breathe to survive. Humans do not and cannot produce oxygen. There are a number of untold examples of what nature creates that we humans benefit from for survival—and regardless of how much money we have, we cannot recreate on our own.
Price also lends another example, one that explains definitively how we humans are nature. The human body is mostly made of water. That water comes from somewhere. Humans and other species do not generate the water that we need for survival. So wherever your drinking water comes from, you are part of that water’s ecosystem.
The Great Lakes provide drinking water for over 40 million people and an untold number of species. So for the 40 million of us who call the Great Lakes Basin region home, a significant portion of our body is literally made from these waters. We are part of their living ecosystems. The same holds true for the air we breathe and the soil that grows our food. In simple terms,
destroying the ecosystem is ultimately self-destruction.
The concept is simple, but modern capitalist culture has largely forgotten it. Or maybe capitalism simply dismisses it and says, let someone else worry about it in another generation. Profits are far more important.
Our Western legal system is built on the idea that humans are separate from nature and superior to it. That it is ours to exploit and pillage and do with what we please. This philosophy has shaped every industry, including property law. It’s even become the worldview. But this worldview is now colliding head on with our ecological reality. We are in an existential crisis when it comes to the survival of our ecosystems. Not only here in the Great Lakes Basin region, but throughout the world. Climate change, accelerated through our love affair with unfettered production that generates pollution, is starting to crack everything wide open.
The Role of Profit
The question begs: if harming ecosystems ultimately harms people and threatens our survival, then why do our laws allow it?
We saw it above through the example with Drewes Farms: profit.
Our ecosystems are too often treated as assets that can be extracted, sold, and monetized. Our forests become timber. Our Great Lakes water becomes a commodity. Land becomes real estate to be sold to developers. But as Price explains, the economic value extracted from ecosystem destruction is often temporary, while the damage left behind can last for generations. In many cases, communities are left with polluted water as evidenced above with Toledo (also ask Flint, MI), degraded or poisoned land, and collapsing ecosystems long after corporations and politicians have moved on.
Dr. Seuss’ book The Lorax comes to mind with Ben’s explanation. I have an everlasting image of the Lorax standing in a forest littered with the stumps of all the trees cut down for industry greed. When I was young, I couldn’t understand why anyone would destroy the trees that create oxygen for us to breathe.
Today, I find myself standing on the shores of Lake Huron amongst the algal blooms from industrial destruction that keep myself and my dog from frolicking in the waves and feeling much the same. It is beyond me why we are allowing industry to destroy what we need to survive for profit we do not benefit from. We should be demanding better as communities that depend on these Lakes to survive.
It also leaves me with the conclusion that destruction will continue until enough of us change our relationship with nature and care enough to stand up to industry and the political lie that willingly gives personhood to corporations.
And this is exactly what Rights of Nature laws do. They rebalance the equation by arming us with the awareness, understanding, and the tools to fight back against corporate personhood and all the destruction that comes with it.
Indigenous Knowledge and Right Relationship with Nature
One of the most important perspectives that Price gave during our podcast comes from Indigenous communities. From our native Indigenous cultures right here in the United States and others around the world, the idea that humans are part of the natural world is not a revolutionary one. It is simply their reality.
The Indigenous relationship with the environment is not defined by ownership, as it is in Western culture. It is defined by responsibility to our ecosystems. They do not separate their survival from Mother Earth.
Indigenous cultures do not need laws to enforce their relationship with nature. It is already embedded in their traditions, values, and teachings that they pass down through generations. The real challenge comes from whether Western societies are willing to undergo the cultural shift required to see the world the same way.
For the past 250 years, the culture built in the United States has rejected it—and to our own detriment. In fact, our country was built on the rejection of being one with nature. But Rights of Nature laws attempt to bring that “right relationship” with nature to the awareness and understanding of non-indigenous people.
As Price states, “We are our own worst enemies. We (Western culture) raise our children to be parasites on the Earth. We raise our children, in many ways, to be good little cancer cells for planet Earth. And, do we really want that?”
Sometimes, we must suffer greatly before we see what has always been right in front of us.
The Cultural Shift We Need
Though Rights of Nature are a set of laws, the framework requires a cultural shift, as mentioned above.
Since their foundation, Western societies have been taught to see nature as something separate, something to manage, regulate, and exploit. But ecosystems are not machines. In fact, we treat our machines better than we treat our ecosystems. When a machine breaks, we fix it. When nature breaks, far too many call it a “hoax,” and industry says let science figure it out while rejecting the science that does.
But here is the important thing to remember: ecosystems are living systems. And they work in ways we do not always understand. Human survival depends on their health and regeneration. The cultural shift required is both philosophical and practical. We humans must recognize that protecting our ecosystems is human progress. Because if they die, we die. There is no way around it.
Why This Matters for the Great Lakes
For those of us living in the Great Lakes Basin region—all 40 million of us—the stakes could not be higher. We are facing insurmountable threats.
The Great Lakes hold 21 percent of the world’s fresh surface water and upwards of 89 percent of North America’s fresh surface water. They are critical to the survival of all of us and an untold number of species. But this is where their health currently stands:
All five lakes are experiencing toxic algal blooms from industrial pollution, including agricultural runoff. Yes, even in Lake Superior. Climate change has warmed her up to the point where algal blooms can now thrive.
Industrial pollution is spilling into the Great Lakes. Over 22 million pounds of plastic are entering the Basin annually. This includes microplastics. Concentrations of it sometimes exceed that of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
Legacy industrial contaminants such as PCBs, mercury, and other heavy metals are still detected in sediments. PFAS (forever chemicals) are also showing up. This leads to regular fish consumption advisories throughout the Great Lakes.
Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and other unregulated chemicals are increasingly showing up in her waters.
We have 23 “Areas of Concern” within the Great Lakes Basin region. View the Remediation and Restoration Project Table for full details.
Blue Triton (formerly Nestlé’), and nearly 100 other companies siphon millions of gallons of groundwater from the Great Lakes Basin region annually and they are doing it for nearly free and with permission from the states of Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Ontario, Canada. It is a literal cash cow for them at our expense. Many low- and middle-class families pay more for home water use than the companies that siphon our water and sell it back to the public at huge markups (6,666 times more per gallon). In Michigan, these companies pay a measly $2,000 application fee and an annual administrative fee of just $200 to profit in the billions off of our water. Other states and Canada also require similar minimal fees.
The Great Lakes Compact prohibits most diversions of water out of the Basin, but it exempts small containers (less than 5.7 gallons), allowing these companies to bottle at source and sell the water outside the region. If eight states can come together to craft this legislation, they can come together to craft Rights of Nature legislation to actually protect the Great Lakes. The “unenforceable” argument becomes immediately moot.
We will talk more in upcoming episodes about emerging pressures from energy and data center infrastructure on the Great Lakes. These pressures are massive and cause a whole host of dangers to us humans and our ecosystems. They are going to get the attention they deserve.
With all of these mounting challenges that are producing an existential threat to our Great Lakes, the question begs: Are the regulations we are forced to rely on capable of protecting the ecosystems we depend on, or do we need an entirely new framework?
As evidenced above, the current state of the Great Lakes screams that we need an entirely new framework.
What You Should Take Away From This
During our podcast, I asked Tish O’Dell what listeners should take away from this discussion. Her answer:
We are not separate from nature. we are nature. we are part of the living ecosystems where we live.
This is so very important to internalize, as Indigenous peoples already have: The health of the ecosystems around us determines the health of our communities, our bodies, and our future.
Recognizing that truth is the first step toward building a culture that reflects that. And in doing so, our laws will evolve to do the same. Because in the end, whether we like it or not, nature will have the last word. Do not doubt that. Nature does not care about our feelings. She does not care about our profits. And even though we are a part of her, she is far more powerful than we humans can ever hope to be.
Watch our Podcast: Rights of the Lakes – Episode 1: Who Defends the Great Lakes?
Be sure to Subscribe, Like, and Share to help us reach more people.
Watch our Introductory: Rights of the Lakes – Episode 0: Who Controls the Great Lakes?
