An environmental group in Colorado has learned that strong-arming policies that are actively detrimental to the local community is a losing strategy.
Especially when that group had lobbied to give “rights” to an inanimate object.
Namely, a creek.
As reported by KUNC-FM, this saga began in 2021 in the town of Nederland, about 15 miles west of Boulder, when an outside environmental group called Save the World’s Rivers successfully influenced the local government to pass the “Rights of Nature Resolution.”
This resolution declared that natural structures, such as the local creek, were independent entities with their own rights to exist and flourish, like human beings.
This year, Nederland followed up on that resolution by appointing two “guardians” for the stretch of Middle Boulder Creek that flowed through the town, identified by The Colorado Sun as Alan Apt, a former Nederland town board member, and Rich Orman, a retired prosector.
However, the local government decided to repeal the resolution when Save the World’s Rivers opposed Nederland’s plans to build a dam in the creek for a reservoir.
Though the resolution had not been exactly legally binding in the first place, the town unanimously voted to repeal the resolution on Tuesday, with board members saying they had been misled by the group and its leader, Gary Wockner, the Sun reported.
Wockner, of course, self-righteously disputed that, telling the outlet, “If I was concealing and tricking towns, I am a pathetic trickster.”
The effort to grant “rights of nature” to Boulder Creek through Nederland as a legacy for generations to come lasted less than three years. The human guardians appointed to voice those rights lasted less than five months.https://t.co/mt0cJNm166
— The Colorado Sun (@ColoradoSun) May 12, 2024
The problem the town faced was that Colorado in general has been facing a water crisis for some time now, and the dam would help Nederland supply its citizens with water directly.
As Wesley J. Smith explained in National Review on Wednesday, human flourishing cannot be made subordinate to environmental causes such as opposing all dams forever, for any reason.
“The traditional approach to environmental law permits nuanced policies that balance human need with responsible husbandry.” Smith wrote. “Sometimes, that severely restricts human activities, sometimes not. But once nature has ‘rights,’ all such nuance is crushed.”
Dams have been quite beneficial for modern communities overall, providing both electricity and fresh water.
God appointed humanity as stewards of his creation, and, therefore, those in charge must balance the responsible allocation of resources with projects that contribute to the good of the community.
These situations require nuance that men like Wockner — who declared, “Dams destroy rivers. That’s what they do” — simply do not have.
As Mayor Bill Gilbin wrote in a Tuesday memo, the town became concerned the resolution advocated by Save the World’s Rivers “may be being used in ways that the Town did not understand or anticipate at the time of adoption, and in ways that could jeopardize the Town’s water security.”
Should waterways be given rights?
Nederland decided the creek did not have rights equal or superior to those of residents, despite claims by extreme environmentalists such as Wockner.
The town was perfectly within its rights to repeal the resolution strong-armed into existence by this environmentalist Harold Hill.
Perhaps now the mayor and other officials will be more wary of well-funded activists trying to influence their policies.
