Lake Erie Bill of Rights is changing environmental law
by Colleen Carroll
The city of Toledo made headlines with an unprecedented ballot vote last February and is currently working to keep that vote valid.
The Lake Erie Bill of Rights has been through a rough track the past few years and is facing a new obstacle in the new year.
The Lake Erie Bill of rights was born on a cocktail napkin among concerned residents after a rights of nature presentation, said Markie Miller organizer for Toledoans for Safe Water.
“The 2014 water crisis was the catalyst for all of this,” said Miller, referencing the water shut off to 500,000 Toledo residents due to the toxic algal bloom that covered the Western Basin of Lake Erie.
“The community was tired of this, it’s our water bill that was going up and we wanted to take back our community.”
The Bill was challenged at most every turn even after the measure collected over 10,500 signatures to send the proposal to the general election ballot. From there the Bill was rejected by the Lucas County Board of Elections, Toledoans for Safe Water appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court where it was denied again. The Bill was finally placed on the City of Toledo special election ballot with a unanimous vote and passed with 61%.
“This has kind of flipped my world upside down,” Miller said. “We’ve not had an easy journey; we’ve been stopped at every point and lost at every turn. It’s remarkable and we’ve just kept on going.”
Miller says she was frustrated after graduating with an environmental science degree and being funneled to work for the same agencies who were turning a blind eye to the issues she was protesting.
“It was frustrating after protesting the Dakota pipeline and the next week being told to go work for the same agency that put the pipeline there,” Miller said. “I want to do environmental work but not this.”
Miller says the Lake Erie Bill of rights received a lot of opposition from the state and big corporations as well as a challenge presented by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, presented as legislation in the budget bill that prohibits bringing legal actions in defense of nature or the ecosystem.
“Because it is a bill that seeks to revoke corporate rights, that’s where the challenge comes in,” Miller said. “The Clean Water act says you can’t pollute the water unless you have a permit, which all of the corporations do, this challenges that.”
Rights of Nature is not a new concept says Dr. Christopher Banks, associate law professor at Kent State University. In 2006 Tamaqua borough in Pennsylvania’s coal region passed a local ordinance that stated a right of nature, specifically to protect against toxic sewage dumping. It was the first law of its kind to be passed in the United States.
Dr. Banks also mentioned a case in the Western side of the country called Juliana V. United States. The lawsuit was brought forth by kids in Oregon which made its way to the Federal district court of Oregon in 2016, where it passed, but was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The plaintiff’s argument is that greenhouse gas emissions and pollution have harmed their right to life and violated their rights.
Dr. Banks says the issue with the Lake Erie Bill of Rights would be a matter of justiciability, concerns of whether the courts have the ability to make a ruling on the issue or not.
Miller says the way to push these protective laws is to first involve the community in the issues.
“You change the culture and then you change the law,” Miller said. “You only get the law on your side after you get the people on your side.”
The bill was passed in the special election on February 26th, on February 27th a lawsuit was filed against the Bill citing it as unconstitutional.
“We knew it was going to happen,” Miller said. “It was just shocking that the bill hadn’t even been fully written into law before it happened.”
Miller says that shaking the legal system like this has resulted in support from around the globe especially as environmental issues become more critical damaging worldwide.
“You can look at it as breaking the law or as changing the law,” Miller said. “However we don’t have time with environmental issues.”
Oral arguments for the trial are scheduled for January 28th.
