³ÉÈËXÕ¾

Oregonians may soon have a right to a healthy environment.

During a public hearing on March 26, large swaths of the public either voiced their support, or raised concerns, to the Senate Rules Committee in the Oregon Legislature regarding (SJR 28), which could fundamentally change the state’s commitment to the environment.

SJR 28 would refer a ballot measure to Oregon voters in November that would guarantee residents the right to a clean, safe, and healthy environment. If passed in the Oregon Legislature and then by voters, SJR 28 would establish guarantees for “clean air, clean water, thriving ecosystems, and a stable climate system,” among other environment-protecting promises.

“You are in charge of so many kids’ fates,” Joanna Rogers, an 11-year-old Portland resident, told the lawmakers during the hearing, according to . “Please do what you can.”

If the state government doesn’t follow through on this environmental guarantee, Oregonians would have the ability to sue the state government and related agencies. Oregon would become one of four states to make such a legislative promise, behind Montana, New York, and Montana.

Juliana v. United States was the precursor for the environmental rights bill

This legislation stems from a youth climate case filed a decade ago in Eugene, Juliana v. United States.

The plaintiffs were a 21-person group of people under the age of 21—11 from Oregon and 10 from a combination of Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, New York, and Washington. The group wanted to hold the U.S. government accountable for accelerating global climate change, but the case never made it to trial after the Supreme Court declined to throw out a to dismiss the case.

The court held the plaintiffs did not have standing.

Ramifications of SJR 28

While many committee attendees supported the legislation, critics voiced concerns over the subjectivity of the environmental guarantee.

“The terms ‘clean air,’ ‘clean water,’ ‘thriving ecosystems’ and ‘a stable climate’ could be highly subjective and are not defined in the bill,” Sharla Moffett, a lobbyist for Oregon Business & Industry, said at the hearing, according to The Washington State Standard.

Opposition also came from representatives of the Oregon Farm Bureau, Oregon Business & Industry, and Associated Oregon Loggers, among others.

“We see this as a pathway to an endless stream of lawsuits against family farms and ranches,” Lauren Kuenzi, a lobbyist for the Oregon Farm Bureau, told lawmakers at the hearing. “This will put the court in the driver’s seat, allowing them to shape public policy for a lot of industries.”

But the bill’s sponsors hoped to put those worries to bed, stating the Oregon government would be held responsible, not private industries. For example, citizens could sue the Department of State Lands for permitting a new mining operation, but the mining company would not be subject to the suit.

‘Reclaim some of our power’

State Senator Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, is the bill’s chief sponsor. It is co-sponsored by state Senators James Manning Jr., D-Eugene, Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, and Representatives Tom Andersen, D-Salem, Thủy Trần, D-Portland, and Mark Gamba, D-Milwaukie.

“It’s a clever idea. It’s a bold idea,” Gamba said at the hearing. “It allows voters to put an environmental rights amendment into our constitution and reclaim some of our power to stand up to big polluters.”

Follow Frank Sumrall .Ìý³§±ð²Ô»åÌýnews tips here.