Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
Measure 20-373, also called the Lane County Watersheds Bill of Rights, was failing with 63% of voters casting ballots against it, according to early returns Tuesday, May 19.
Eron King, a chief petitioner for the measure, joined nearly 30 people at a downtown Eugene bar when the first results dropped at 8 p.m. To attend the gathering, she drove nearly an hour from Triangle Lake, where she and her family have been neighbors to clear-cuts for almost two decades.
King’s advocacy of the measure — which stated that nature be legally entitled to a pollution-free environment — was her latest effort to defend her family’s home and health from industrial contamination that ranges from pesticide exposure to erosion, she said.
She pulled up her phone shortly after 8 p.m. and saw the measure trailing.
“I’m not surprised,” King said.
That’s because of the amount of money measure opponents spent, she said.
As King and other supporters campaigned for the measure over the last several months, timber companies, business groups and utility officials united in opposition.
The opposing coalition Protect Our County warned the measure could trigger costly litigation and conflict with state and federal law. They raised $400,000, nearly 16 times what the proponents did.
“We’re focused on the results tonight, and grateful that folks understood that a whole bunch of lawsuits for the county was not going to be helpful for anyone,” said Betsy Schultz, organizer with Protect Our County.
But for those on both sides of the ballot measure, the fight is far from over, even if the measure doesn’t pass.
‘Rights of nature’ debate will outlast election
In their campaign, Schultz and other opponents of Measure 20-373 did not dispute the importance of clean water or environmental protections, rather the approach.
The Lane County Watersheds Bill of Rights stems from an international “rights of nature” movement, catalyzed by a 2008 amendment in Ecuador’s constitution, which gave ecosystems basic rights.
Like the principle of basic human rights, the Ecuador law entitled elements of the natural world — such as forests or rivers — to exist and evolve. Those rights are legally enforceable, allowing cases to be brought in court on behalf of nature if they are violated.
Since then, municipalities across the United States have pursued similar laws.
In Lane County, the opposition campaign argued the measure would not legally hold up and that it conflicted with existing federal and state legal frameworks, including laws such as the Clean Water Act. They amplified their arguments, with nearly $130,000 spent on advertising — ranging from social media to mailers.
“I think the folks in Lane County really understood what was at stake here in this measure, once they were educated on the facts, and so we’re really excited about the initial outcome,” Schultz said.
‘Sad day for watersheds’
For King, the opposition’s messaging did not align with how she and her co-campaigners developed the measure through their work with attorneys and their personal experiences in rural communities.
King moved with her family to Triangle Lake, west of Eugene along Highway 36, drawn by the forests’ natural beauty. She said she did not realize the extent to which timber companies, drawn to the same landscape for its commercial value, relied on aerial spraying of herbicides and pesticides across nearby hillsides.
Helicopters dusted her home for years, she said. Historically, chemical mixtures included 2,4-D — one of the ingredients in the Vietnam War-era defoliant Agent Orange — which has been linked to reproductive health risks.
The risks weren’t clear for King and her partner, Justin Workman, until both of their young children started getting bloody noses, coughed for long periods of time, vomited and later became asthmatic.
They went to government leadership for help but didn’t find much.
“Whether it was (Oregon) Department of Environmental Quality, (Environmental Protection Agency), the Board of Forestry, we tried them all. (We) went to all sorts of meetings throughout the state, trying to kind of hound dog them, and you know, get a little time to speak at their meetings and whatnot, so it was an uphill battle the whole time,” Workman said.
Frustrated by that experience, King helped co-found Community Rights Lane County and turned toward changing the law. She became a lead organizer behind a 2018 county-level aerial spray ban that gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, only to later be struck down under state preemption laws after reaching the Oregon Supreme Court.
That loss helped shape the current measure.
King, her fellow chief petitioner Michelle Holman, and others who were pulling for the measure turned to each other in support and hugs Tuesday night.
“It’s a sad day for watersheds, and for those of us who want to protect them and want to protect our kids and grandkids,” Holman said.
But she and King are not giving up, although their next steps remain to be seen.
