Committee hears hours of testimony on proposed constitutional right to a clean, safe and healthy environment

Senate Joint Resolution 28 would refer to voters a proposed constitutional amendment establishing a fundamental right to “a clean, safe, and healthy environment,” and would allow persons to seek declaratory or equitable relief against state action or inaction that permits harm or the threat of harm to public health and safety, committee staff told the Senate Committee on Rules on March 25.

"Senate Joint Resolution 28 proposes an amendment to the Oregon constitution to establish a fundamental right to a clean, safe, and healthy environment," Leslie, a committee staff member, said when she summarized the measure. She told the committee the dash-1 amendment specifies that the right may include, but is not limited to, clean air and water, a thriving ecosystem, and a stable climate system, and that the state must conserve public natural resources "against substantial impairment."

Proponents told the committee the amendment would strengthen environmental protections and give communities legal tools when existing laws or regulatory action fall short. Senator Jeff Golden (Senate District 3) said the amendment would help future generations, arguing lawmakers should ask whether policies preserve conditions for grandchildren. "Let's pass SJR 28," Golden said.

Representative Mark Gamba (House District 41), a co-sponsor, said the amendment is a way for voters to "hold us accountable" and act on the climate crisis. "My kids, your kids, everyone's kids deserve a functioning planet to thrive on," he said. Representative Tom Anderson (House District 19) described a long record of advocacy dating back to the first Earth Day and urged action now.

Maya Van Rossum, an environmental attorney with Green Amendments for the Generations, testified about legal experience in Pennsylvania, New York and Montana and said constitutional protections in those states have been used to address contaminants and avoid costly harms. "Amendments of this kind have not supported any frivolous litigation in any of the states where they currently exist," she said, adding that most years see only three to 10 cases nationally that make it to the courts under similar amendments.

Youth and community witnesses described impacts from wildfire smoke, heat, and pollution; several said the amendment would provide recourse for future generations. Matt Dos Santos of Our Children's Trust, a legal nonprofit representing youth plaintiffs in climate cases, said Oregon courts previously acknowledged climate harms but said they lacked a constitutional right to enforce — a gap SJR 28 would fill.

Opponents included trade and industry groups that argued the amendment’s language is vague and could lead to litigation and regulatory uncertainty. Lauren Kenzie of the Oregon Farm Bureau said SJR 28 "is a pathway to an endless stream of lawsuits against family farms and ranches." Mike Fries of Food Northwest said he expected the amendment "would impact pretty much all of my clients" and said permitting uncertainty could harm recruitment and investment. Sharla Moffat of Oregon Business & Industry warned that equating environmental rights with other fundamental rights could subject government action to the highest legal standard and complicate decisions about housing, healthcare and infrastructure.

Other critics raised housing and permitting concerns. Jody Hack of the Oregon Home Builders Association said the measure "would have a chilling effect on housing production," arguing that constitutional environmental rights could empower litigation that delays projects and increases costs. Several industry witnesses described potential effects on capital investment and permitting timelines.

Senator Golden closed by addressing a recurring concern from opponents: that the amendment would allow suits against private parties. "There is no chance that this amendment would lead to suits against private parties and companies of any kind," Golden said, explaining that constitutional duties fall on government and public agencies to uphold rights. The committee took extensive testimony and closed the hearing; no vote was recorded on March 25.