Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
As a lifelong environmentalist, I wish I could support the Lane County Watersheds Bill of Rights initiative. But its language lacks legal powers to override our (flawed) systems of government that give federal and state government powers over local communities.
Oregon Community Rights Network, the organization whose Lane County chapter is behind the measure, failed with three previous measures to overturn state laws permitting helicopter herbicides over corporate clear-cuts. Their 2017 initiative to stop aerial spraying passed in Lincoln County, but was overturned by a county court because this activity is permitted by the state of Oregon.
Banning this activity would require a statewide initiative, an act of the Oregon Legislature, or changing the Oregon Constitution to allow local initiatives to overturn state regulations. Two subsequent initiatives in Lane County were blocked from the ballot because of mistakes in their drafting.
Even if the watersheds measure passes, it will be challenged in court and likely blocked. Water pollution in Lane County is regulated by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which this effort can’t change.
Views about this initiative are not a binary yes or no. The measure correctly states that existing environmental laws and regulations are designed to facilitate continued contamination, not prevent poisoning. Unfortunately, it was not written to be legally enforceable.
The original campaigners against helicopter spraying, the Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides, successfully campaigned to stop aerial spraying over National Forests in the 1980s but have been AWOL about spraying over corporate clear-cuts. A few years ago, the center’s website claimed that a “300-foot” buffer between aerial sprays and creeks would supposedly save salmon from toxic impacts.
In February 2020, 13 environmental groups — including Beyond Toxics, Oregon Wild and Cascadia Wildlands — signed the “Private Forest Accord” with 13 timber companies. Their accord required them to stand down from their campaign for better regulations (they were not advocating for bans). In exchange, timber companies must notify downwinders of spray operations, but being informed does not make the drift less toxic.
I was involved with the successful campaign that prevented the planned West Eugene “Porkway,” which resulted in a “No Build” decision from the Federal Highway Administration in 2007. That effort blended idealistic visions of an energy-efficient society with practical considerations of existing legal requirements.
Many local environmental groups declined to endorse the watersheds measure because of its legal problems. But virtually all are silent about the threats of helicopter herbicide spraying. I suspect if the state of Oregon was controlled by Republicans, liberal environmental groups would be united in calling for an end to this human rights abuse. Their “Private Forest Accord” expires at the end of 2027. I hope these groups will decide to advocate for an end to helicopter spraying in 2028.
Spending time on wild goose chases that lack legal competence diverts finite environmentalist energy. In 2015, State Rep. Paul Holvey, who represented part of Eugene and western Lane County, introduced House Bill 3123, which said “pesticides may not be applied by aircraft.” It would not have fixed all of the problems in our legal systems, but it would have been a tangible improvement for public health and environmental protection. Unfortunately, it was never voted on, and worse, Oregon’s environmental groups ignored it.
For decades, groups in Lane County, Lincoln County, the north coast, the Illinois Valley in southern Oregon and other places have sought an end to aerial sprays. A renewed effort across the state might be able to bridge urban/rural divides, prevent pollution and protect public health.
