Lily Johnson’s guest commentary supporting Measure 20-373, the Lane County Watersheds Bill of Rights, ignores several serious problems that would be created by its passage.

First, any person could sue for the alleged changing of a watershed without any proof of being damaged based upon a reasonable scientific probability. Second, the removal of scientific probability as a causation issue is substantial, because anyone could get on the stand and testify that they thought, for example, soapy water from the dishwasher at a McDonald’s was leaking onto the ground in Florence and, therefore, the Siuslaw River and Pacific Ocean have been fouled.

When I say “anyone,” I mean anyone. In my example, the measure would allow a business’s neighbor to bring an action, and testify that even though they hate the business being close to their house, they saw “at least five gallons of soapy water end up on the ground outside the building.” Based on the language of the measure, such a result is certainly possible.

Our current system of justice requires that there be damage to an individual who has been hurt by another’s actions. This measure upends that system, and would do so only for individuals in Lane County, for actions brought in Lane County. In the above example, could the business owner in Florence be responsible to pay for the cleanup of the Siuslaw River and the Pacific Ocean?! The measure is foolish and should be voted down.

Richard Roseta
Eugene