Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ecosystem Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee stalls bill to give watersheds and reefs legal standing after legal concerns
Summary
A joint Senate committee failed to advance SB3323, which would have recognized watersheds and coral reefs as legal persons and allowed citizen enforcement; state attorneys warned the measure could trigger wide-ranging liability and due-process issues dating to statehood.
A joint Senate Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources and Water, Land, and Culture committee considered SB3323 on Feb. 11, a proposal to recognize watersheds and coral-reef ecosystems as legal persons with enforceable rights and to authorize citizen enforcement. The committee voted not to advance the bill after members raised legal and drafting concerns.
The Department of the Attorney General, represented by Deputy AG Alyssa Cowell, told the panel it had submitted testimony in opposition because the bill "opens up liability to the state" and could allow claims "going back to 1959," raising due-process concerns for parties that may have resolved matters administratively or civilly, Cowell said. "It would also pose due process concerns," she added.
Charlie Taylor of the Department of Land and Natural Resources said the agency "supports the intent" of strengthening protections but warned the bill’s current drafting could be read to "restrict almost all commercial fishing activities in the state" if applied literally. "There could be some reading of this that would restrict almost all commercial fishing activities," Taylor said.
Supporters argued the measure would strengthen the public-trust doctrine and provide citizens a pathway to enforce environmental protection when government action falls short. Rights-of-nature advocates said the bill would make ecosystems "representable" in court without ascribing human rights to nature. "This doesn't give human rights to ecosystems. It makes ecosystems representable," Britt Gandolfi, an attorney and rights-of-nature advocate, said.
But legal objections and uncertainty about how enforcement and remedies would operate persuaded enough members to oppose moving the bill forward. During roll-call decision making, the committee recorded multiple "no" votes and determined the measure would not pass at this time; the committee chair said the bill would be continued with technical amendments for further consideration.
Next steps: The committee deferred further action to work on drafting and technical fixes; committee staff will capture recommended changes and return language for future consideration.
Votes and procedural note: The committee did not advance SB3323 after recorded opposition from several members; the chair characterized the discussion as substantive and ordered technical amendments and follow-up work.
