Remember Woodie Guthrie’s “This Land is Your Land?” Well you better lace up your cancelin’ shoes, because the title alone is caps lock OFFENSIVE. Why; you might reasonably and rationally ask? Isn’t that the most fork-mashed and digestible of all milquetoast protest songs? Wrong, you fascist. Obviously [sic] no one can own land. This is 2024. Land, water, and anything else is alive and has inalienable rights, remember?

Rapidly blinking virtue signals like this are the results of the “rights of nature” movement. At a cursory perusal of the documents produced by this campaign, anyone with a meager level of environmental stewardship  might nod with approval. Anglers, biologists, and any considerate individual can easily get behind anything that might assure that those in power “maintain flow sufficient in quantity to maintain ecosystem health” and avoid “unreasonable pollution.” (Why they left an allowance for reasonable pollution did cross my mind.) These and a half dozen other give-a-hoot statements in Nederland, Colorado’s Resolution 2021-11(A) seem like common sense.

Then you read this watershed (pun intended) chestnut:

The Creek and its encompassing Watershed, and the living and other things existing naturally therein, exist and function as an integrated and interdependent system of natural communities and are therefore understood, respected, and recognized in this Resolution as a living entity, possessing fundamental and inalienable rights.

Italics mine. Unless fonts possess fundamental and inalienable rights now, too.

Before you click away in annoyance at what may appear to be a right-wing missive, may I remind you that there is now close to a decade of content on this website that champions ecological stewardship. When it comes to environmental matters, I don’t subscribe to some kind of no-enemies-to-the-right doctrine. I’m an equal opportunity baloney siren, calling out those conservatives and Bible believing Christians who reject the clear mandate to steward  creation. And horn tooting as it may sound, my feet have been in streams and my money is where my mouth is. I could even pull the “In fact, some of my best friends are Loraxes” card if I wanted to.

But back to Section 1 of Resolution 2021-11(A). A pragmatic sentiment, even if it sounds as groovy as a 60’s folk anthem, should not be the foundation for life.

I have already talked about the “rights of nature” movement in a podcast (here). Essentially, there are plenty of well-meaning folks that seek to protect natural resources by granting them the same rights that people or, at a minimum, corporations enjoy. Since natural resources exist sans voice, human beings are inserted as representative legal proxies. The goal is to set up a system wherein just as you can’t literally murder someone with impunity, you can’t allegorically murder something. In one sense, it has worked quite well. Allegorical murders, the ones perpetrated by statues and math,  cause more mainstream media pearl clutching than  the kind of murder that leads to 600k+ deaths a year.

Once more, the intentions are good but the underlying presuppositions are flawed. Those flaws are biting the movement’s proponents in their own living hindparts. In fact,  this resolution is dying on the vine in lovely Nederland. The abstract legal, philosophical, and practical basis of the statement seeking to protect Boulder Creek have made it assailable for those interested in dam construction. The magic wand of mother earth did not issue some kind of powerful hex. Rather, a bunch of pink glitter poofed out the end resulting in nothing more than an angry janitor. And neither he nor I are fans of dams.

Granting a watershed inalienable rights raises a few questions. By what standard? Who granted the granters the ability and authority to grant? The category error of assigning humanity and nature qualitative equality is an epistemological sinkhole. And sinkholes aren’t discriminating when it comes to sucking in anything and everything they touch. What gives your molecules the right to tell my molecules that they can’t interact with river molecules? In a completely materialistic universe, says who? is the lingering question.

Empirical data used to be the standard. But empirical data assumes some constants, some objective truths. 21st century man (whatever that may be) has no need for objectivity. The Nederland resolution illustrates this subjectivity in the line stating that “the Creek also sustains the Town and its people by providing the municipal water supply as a basic necessity for life… providing Town residents with immediate access to the rejuvenating powers of Nature.” Not to poke fun at the idea, but who decided that drinking the water and absorbing the rejuvenating powers are on the right side of the line in the sand? They like water and they like good vibes. I don’t blame them. I do wonder if they have asked for consent and if Boulder Creek has responded in the affirmative.

The real problem with confusing stuff with people is that it ends up devaluing both. While the rights of nature movement may appear to be the polar opposite of strip mining, it actually accomplishes the very same thing. Abuse and unrestrained love aren’t that dissimilar. Both throw off the shackles of absolutes and dignity. Following your heart is just the emotive version of might makes right. There is a standard and there is a Giver of that standard. Without all of it, we’re untethered to truth and our folk songs sound more than a bit out of tune.

There is something more than discordant about trying to save the world by worshipping a golden  globe. They cast it from the precious metals they mined and molded it with their wonderfully designed hands. So the next day they rose early and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink and rose up to play. Meanwhile, the town of Nederland put in permits to build a dam.