By: Jack Baker
Edited by: Valerie Chu and William Liu
“Should Trees Have Standing?” This provocative question, first posed by Professor Christopher Stone in 1972, challenges conventional legal paradigms by suggesting that nature should have rights. Stone’s essay was published at the height of the American environmental movement and coincided with the enactment of the Clean Water Act (CWA), formally known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, a landmark federal statute designed to protect the nation’s water resources. [1] Despite the promise of such reforms, more than 50 years later, the Midwest still faces environmental degradation, and Indigenous rights are routinely ignored. These persistent problems demand an innovative solution.
Granting personhood to nature would empower vulnerable ecosystems to defend their rights through legal action. The United States federal government should grant legal personhood to the Great Lakes to advance Indigenous rights, reduce pollution, and challenge anthropocentrism.
Currently, crimes against the environment are typically prosecuted in one of two ways. Residents may file class-action lawsuits on behalf of nature, but this approach is frequently unsuccessful as citizens struggle to demonstrate a direct interest in the outcome of the litigation. Thus, regulatory bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are primarily responsible for managing and preserving the Great Lakes. [2] However, these agencies remain underfunded and understaffed, and laws like the CWA limit their ability to address pollution that does not directly contaminate waterways. Environmental personhood would provide a legal avenue for the Great Lakes to advocate for their own protection and reduce their reliance on individuals and underfunded agencies.
In order to effectively demonstrate the liberatory potential of environmental personhood, we turn to Duluth, Minnesota, where the St. Louis River flows into Lake Superior. Known as Gichigami-ziibi in Ojibwe, this river has been classified as one of the “most widely contaminated Superfund sites in the Rust Belt.” [3] Indigenous leaders have granted legal personhood to wild rice, the tribe’s primary food source, to block the construction of an oil pipeline through the Great Lakes ecosystem. [4] While the rice now has standing in tribal courtrooms, the Ojibwe still face legal challenges protecting access to the clean water necessary for its cultivation. This underscores the urgent need for federal intervention.
Blackfeet journalist Abaki Beck defines food sovereignty as “efforts to re-create local, sustainable, and traditional food systems” and an important goal of tribes seeking to combat the negative impacts of settler colonialism. [5] A loss of traditional food sources has been directly linked to an array of mental and physical health issues, including increased rates of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer within Indigenous communities. Furthermore, some scholars argue that “displacement and spiritual disconnection from the land” across the Midwest have created intergenerational trauma among Indigenous people. [6] Environmental personhood offers a path for Indigenous communities seeking to establish food sovereignty to “assume a more active role in advocating and promoting their land-related rights.” [7]
Additionally, the cosmology of Anishinaabe tribes like the Ojibwe emphasizes “reciprocity between humans and nature, rather than a hierarchy that places humans above nature—and some humans above other humans.” [8] Throughout much of the twentieth century, the European imposition of Western religious ideologies in the Americas portrayed Indigenous reverence for nature as uncivilized, significantly contributing to the exploitation of the natural world. [9] Just as the discrediting of tribal knowledge paralleled the rise of ecological destruction, adopting environmental personhood will foster greater respect for Native people and nature alike.
Many Indigenous leaders have raised concerns about using legal reform to combat settler colonialism because they view it as a perpetuation of the very systems that have historically undermined Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination. Despite this, others acknowledge that leveraging Western legal and philosophical frameworks, including a rights-based model, is a necessary but undesirable strategy for addressing issues within the United States’ existing legal system. [10]
Five hundred miles away from Duluth, in Toledo, Ohio, citizens living on the coast of Lake Erie have taken a similar approach. Lake Erie comprises nearly ten thousand square miles of surface freshwater and regularly provides eleven million people with their daily drinking water. [11] In the summer of 2014, a toxic algae bloom spread throughout the lake, primarily caused by agricultural runoff and industrial pollution. [12] Harmful algae blooms have long been prevalent in the western part of Lake Erie and have adversely affected “recreation, tourism, fishing, lakefront property values, and aquatic life” throughout the region. [13] Further inland, unregulated centralized animal feeding operations (CAFOS) in northwestern Ohio have significantly increased the amount of phosphorus in the region’s waterways which, combined with warm weather, often leads to dangerous algae growth. In 2014, algae blooms quickly contaminated the city’s water supply, leaving five hundred thousand residents without access to clean drinking water for multiple days. [14]
In response, a group known as Toledoans for Safe Water pursued the passage of the Lake Erie Bill of Rights (LEBOR), which recognized the “irrevocable rights for the Lake Erie Ecosystem to exist, flourish and naturally evolve” as well as the “right to a healthy environment for the residents of Toledo.” The initiative also sought to “elevate the rights of the community and its natural environment over powers claimed by certain corporations.” [15] In 2019, the measure was put to a vote and passed.
Later that year, just months after Toledo residents voted in favor of granting legal personhood to Lake Erie, Ohio’s state government passed a law prohibiting the LEBOR’s implementation. [16] Additionally, a local farm quickly sued the city in an attempt, claiming that Toledo’s new ordinance was unconstitutional. Unsurprisingly, a federal judge agreed, writing that the policy “sounds powerful but has no practical meaning.” [17] Hidden inside of his eight-page opinion, however, lies an opportunity for the federal government to take action: even though the LEBOR is terminally unenforceable, Congress should respond by granting legal personhood to the Great Lakes.
Finally, environmental personhood would represent a large shift away from existing anthropocentric legal paradigms. Extractive values, which justify the exploitation of nature, are deeply embedded within Western legal and political institutions and exasperate climate change. [18] These values treat nature as separate and apart from humanity, justifying eco-managerialism, and even when the EPA regulates human activity, its application of existing environmental laws actively legitimizes harm to vital ecosystems. Essentially, the EPA’s role involves the performative conservation of certain ecosystems alongside the desultory legalization of exploitative practices deemed acceptable or necessary for human development. [19]
Time and time again, however, granting rights to nature has reshaped how Western societies understand the environment. As legal scholars have asserted, the “adoption of a rights discourse [is] essential to ensure the protection of the environment because until an entity receives rights, humans fail to see it as anything but a ‘thing’ to be exploited.” [20] In short, to ensure a sustainable future, it is crucial to recognize and implement ecocentric political tools like environmental personhood.
Environmental personhood has already been successfully implemented in various countries, including Bolivia, Colombia, and Bangladesh. In 2017, after extensive negotiations between community members, tribal leaders, and New Zealand’s government, the Whanganui River was granted legal personhood. [21] Similarly, Ecuador amended its constitution to guarantee legal rights to the environment in response to pollution caused by American oil companies. [22]
While some argue that the expansion of legal personhood for the environment would be unprecedented, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, during Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), Justice William Douglas of the Supreme Court wrote that standing can and should be conferred upon vulnerable ecosystems. [23] Justice Douglas’ dissenting opinion clearly provides a “workable mechanism to identify a proxy for nature’s legal personhood” and could serve as the basis for environmental personhood in the United States. [24] Additionally, extending rights to those previously deemed undeserving of them has been an important part of American jurisprudence. Personhood has been extended to enslaved Africans and women, and notably, the Supreme Court expanded rights to corporations in 1886, setting a legal precedent for the expansion of rights to nonhuman entities. [25]
Granting personhood to the Great Lakes would not just be a legal reform—it would be a profound recognition of nature’s intrinsic value. This reform would simultaneously combat settler colonialism, reduce pollution, and challenge anthropocentrism. In elevating ecosystems to the status of rights-bearers, policymakers can and should acknowledge that the Great Lakes are not a resource to be exploited, but a sacred life force that deserves protection. In short, the future of our entire planet—and the generations that will inherit it—depends on our willingness to reimagine environmental law.
Notes:
Chistopher D. Stone, “Should Trees Have Standing—Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects,” Southern California Law Review, vol. 45, 1972, pp. 450-501.
Stacey J. Schaefer, “The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy,” George Washington Journal of Energy and Environmental Law, vol. 9, no. 2, 2018, p. 73.
Emily Levang, “Can We Protect Nature by Giving It Legal Rights?” Ensia, Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, 4 Feb. 2020, ensia.com/articles/legal-rights-of-nature/.
Ruby Russell, “Rights of nature: Indigenous traditions become law,” Deutsche Welle, 2 May 2020, dw.com/environment-nature-rights-indigenous-activism-legal-personhood/a-52186866.
Abaki Beck, “How One Tribe Is Fighting for Their Food Culture in the Face of Climate Change,” Talk Poverty, 27 Feb. 2019, talkpoverty.org/2019/02/27/tribal-food-sovereignty-climate-change/index.html.
Abaki Beck, “How One Tribe Is Fighting for Their Food Culture in the Face of Climate Change,” Talk Poverty, 27 Feb. 2019, talkpoverty.org/2019/02/27/tribal-food-sovereignty-climate-change/index.html.
Sequoia L. Butler, “‘I AM THE RIVER, THE RIVER IS ME’: How Environmental Personhood Can Protect Tribal Food Sources,” Wisconsin International Law Journal, vol. 38, no. 1, 2020, pp. 79–107.
Emily Levang, “Can We Protect Nature by Giving It Legal Rights?” Ensia, Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, 4 Feb. 2020, ensia.com/articles/legal-rights-of-nature/.
Eduardo Galeano, “Nature is Not Mute,” The Progressive, vol. 72, no. 8, Aug. 2008, p. 19.
Ruby Russell, “Rights of nature: Indigenous traditions become law,” Deutsche Welle, 2 May 2020, dw.com/environment-nature-rights-indigenous-activism-legal-personhood/a-52186866.
Daniel McGraw, “Fighting Pollution: Toledo Residents Want Personhood Status for Lake Erie,” The Guardian, 19 Feb. 2019, theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/19/lake-erie-pollution-personhood-status-toledo/
Jason Daley, “Toledo, Ohio, Just Granted Lake Erie the Same Legal Rights as People,” Smithsonian Magazine, 1 Mar. 2019, smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/toledo-ohio-just-granted-lake-erie-same-legal-rights-people-180971603/.
Kenneth Kilbert, “Lake Erie Bill of Rights: Legally Flawed but Nonetheless Important,” Jurist, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, 14 Mar. 2019, jurist.org/commentary/2019/03/kenneth-kilbert-lebor-important/.
Jason Daley, “Toledo, Ohio, Just Granted Lake Erie the Same Legal Rights as People,” Smithsonian Magazine, 1 Mar. 2019, smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/toledo-ohio-just-granted-lake-erie-same-legal-rights-people-180971603/.
Nicole Pallotta, “Federal Judge Strikes Down 'Lake Erie Bill of Rights',” Animal Legal Defense Fund, 29 Mar. 2021, aldf.org/article/federal-judge-strikes-down-lake-erie-bill-of-rights/.
Dana Zartner, “How Giving Legal Rights to Nature Could Help Reduce Toxic Algae Blooms in Lake Erie,” The Conversation, Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, 7 Aug. 2021, theconversation.com/how-giving-legal-rights-to-nature-could-help-reduce-toxic-algae-blooms-in-lake-erie-115351.
Nicole Pallotta, “Federal Judge Strikes Down 'Lake Erie Bill of Rights',” Animal Legal Defense Fund, 29 Mar. 2021, aldf.org/article/federal-judge-strikes-down-lake-erie-bill-of-rights/.
Justine Townsend, et al, “Rights for Nature: How Granting a River 'Personhood' Could Help Protect It,” The Conversation, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 3 June 2021, theconversation.com/rights-for-nature-how-granting-a-river-personhood-could-help-protect-it-157117.
Simon Davis-Cohen and Kai Huschke, “The EPA Has Abandoned Its Duty To Protect the Environment. 'Rights of Nature' Laws Can Fill the Void,” In These Times, 18 Nov. 2024, inthesetimes.com/article/trump-epa-covid-19-environmental-law-rights-of-nature-air-water-pollution.
Nicola Pain and Rachel Pepper, “Can Personhood Protect the Environment? Affording Legal Rights to Nature,” Fordham International Law Journal, vol. 45, no. 2, 2021, pp. 315–377.
Dana Zartner, “How Giving Legal Rights to Nature Could Help Reduce Toxic Algae Blooms in Lake Erie,” The Conversation, Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, 7 Aug. 2021, theconversation.com/how-giving-legal-rights-to-nature-could-help-reduce-toxic-algae-blooms-in-lake-erie-115351.
Eduardo Galeano, “Nature is Not Mute,” The Progressive, vol. 72, no. 8, Aug. 2008, p. 19.
Caroline McDonough, “Will the River Ever Get a Chance To Speak? Standing Up For the Legal Rights Of Nature,” Villanova Environmental Law Journal, vol. 31, no. 1, 27 Jan. 2020, pp. 143–164.
Stacey J. Schaefer, “The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy,” George Washington Journal of Energy and Environmental Law, vol. 9, no. 2, 2018, p. 73.
Eduardo Galeano, “Nature is Not Mute,” The Progressive, vol. 72, no. 8, Aug. 2008, p. 19.
Bibliography:
Beck, Abaki. “How One Tribe Is Fighting for Their Food Culture in the Face of Climate Change.” Talk Poverty, 27 Feb. 2019, talkpoverty.org. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.
Butler, Sequoia L. “‘I AM THE RIVER, THE RIVER IS ME’: How Environmental Personhood Can Protect Tribal Food Sources.” Wisconsin International Law Journal, vol. 38, no. 1, 2020, pp. 79–107.
Daley, Jason. “Toledo, Ohio, Just Granted Lake Erie the Same Legal Rights as People.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Magazine, 1 Mar. 2019, smithsonianmag.com. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.
Davis-Cohen, Simon, and Kai Huschke. "The EPA Has Abandoned Its Duty To Protect the Environment. 'Rights of Nature' Laws Can Fill the Void," In These Times, 18 Nov. 2024.
Galeano, Eduardo. "Nature is Not Mute." The Progressive, vol. 72, no. 8, Aug. 2008, p. 19.
Kilbert, Kenneth. “Lake Erie Bill of Rights: Legally Flawed but Nonetheless Important.” Jurist, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, 14 Mar. 2019, jurist.org. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.
Levang, Emily. “Can We Protect Nature by Giving It Legal Rights?” Ensia, Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, 4 Feb. 2020, ensia.com. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.
McDonough, Caroline. “Will the River Ever Get a Chance To Speak? Standing Up For the Legal Rights Of Nature.” Villanova Environmental Law Journal, vol. 31, no. 1, 27 Jan. 2020, pp. 143–164.
McGraw, Daniel. “Fighting Pollution: Toledo Residents Want Personhood Status for Lake Erie.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 19 Feb. 2019, theguardian.com. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.
Pain, Nicola, and Rachel Pepper. “Can Personhood Protect the Environment? Affording Legal Rights to Nature.” Fordham International Law Journal, vol. 45, no. 2, 2021, pp. 315–377.
Pallotta, Nicole. “Federal Judge Strikes Down 'Lake Erie Bill of Rights'.” Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Legal Defense Fund, 29 Mar. 2021, adlf.org. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.
Russell, Ruby. “Rights of Nature: Can Indigenous Traditions Shape Environmental Law?” DW.com, Deutsche Welle, 2 May 2020, dw.com. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.
Shaefer, Stacy J. “The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy.” George Washington Journal of Energy and Environmental Law, vol. 9, no. 2, 2018, pp. 70–86.
Stone, Christopher D. “Should Trees Have Standing—Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects.” Southern California Law Review, vol. 45, 1972, pp. 450-501.
Townsend, Justine, et al. “Rights for Nature: How Granting a River 'Personhood' Could Help Protect It.” The Conversation, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 3 June 2021, theconversation.com. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.
Zartner, Dana. “How Giving Legal Rights to Nature Could Help Reduce Toxic Algae Blooms in Lake Erie.” The Conversation, Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, 7 Aug. 2021, theconversation.com. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.
