Santa Monica Passes West Coast’s First Rights of Nature Ordinance
by: Earth Law Center, Linda Sheehan Posted on: July 08, 2013
Editor’s Note: Santa Monica recently passed an ordinance that elevates its right to enforce its Sustainable City Plan, rights to clean air, water and soil, and the rights of nature above corporate entities’ privileges and powers. Below is a written conversation between Read the Dirt editor Simon Davis-Cohen and Linda Sheehan, Executive Director of Earth Law Center and advocate of the Santa Monica Sustainability Rights Ordinance.
Linda Sheehan: Escalating climate change, accelerating species extinctions, and ongoing environmental degradation signal the need for fundamental change. In response, small communities and nations around the world are adopting governance systems that recognize the inherent rights of nature to exist, thrive, and evolve. Such governance systems reflect both the science and ethics of our intrinsic interconnections with the natural world, and will better guide our behavior toward lives in harmony with the planet.
Simon Davis-Cohen: What prompted Santa Monica to pass the Sustainability Rights Ordinance?
LS: The Ordinance grew out of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United granting even more rights to corporations at the expense of people and nature. Santa Monicans wanted to take action to protect the well-being of the people and environment of Santa Monica generally, and their Sustainable City Plan in particular, from corporate forces that would prevent them from achieving their sustainability goals.
SDC: What are the ramifications of the ordinance?
LS: The ordinance, the first nature’s rights ordinance on the West Coast, joins efforts by communities across the country to protect the health and well-being of their inhabitants and the environment. Santa Monica’s ordinance also establishes a link between a Sustainable City Plan and rights of nature and human rights to a healthy environment, thereby creating a path of implementation of positive change on the ground as a result of the ordinance.
SDC: The ordinance states that the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, National Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental Quality Act “have proven inadequate to provide long-term protection of our rights to clean air, water, and soil, and sustainable food systems, and the rights of natural ecosystems.” Why did the city feel the need to include this disclosure?
LS: The city included this disclosure to clarify the need for a rights-based approach. Current environmental statutes do not acknowledge the inherent rights of the natural world to be healthy, thrive, and evolve. Accordingly, they only slow, rather than reverse, the trend of degradation. A rights-based approach is essential to begin steadily and consistently improving the health of the natural world and we who depend on it.
SDC: The Ordinance calls for the City Council to on a bi-annual basis assess “compliance with the [Sustainability City] Plan’s provisions and with the inherent rights of the people and natural communities of the City of Santa Monica described herein.” Why was it necessary for Santa Monica to hold that “corporate entities, and their directors and managers, do not enjoy special privileges or powers under the law that subordinate the community’s rights to their private interests,” in order to gain the legal power to implement its Sustainable City Plan?
LS: The articulation above clarifies the City’s perspective that if in conflict, corporate rights, as they are currently viewed by the US Supreme Court, cannot trump the local right to self-governance to protect the health and well-being of City residents and their natural environment. So for example, if an energy provider insisted on using hydrofracked gas in place of the renewable energy portfolio that the City had chosen to meet its Sustainable City Plan, the City would be able to make the choice for itself to continue with renewables, rather than have fracked gas forced on them. (That is not currently happening; it is just an example for illustration purposes.)
Photo: Boqiang Liao
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Articles On Community Rights
- May 19 Part 2: Jordan Cove LNG Backers Spend Huge Money to Sway Tiny Oregon County Election
- May 2 Part 1: Oregon County Faces Gas Industry Funding, Lobbyists in Battle to Halt Jordan Cove LNG Project
- Jan 12 For Teachers and Citizens: How to Respond to Federal Immigration Raids
- Jan 5 How To Respond When Your (Local) Government Gets Sued By A Corporation
- May 25 Interview: The Working Class Movement Fighting for Local Authority
- Apr 29 Interview: Challenging Corporations’ ‘Right’ To Grow GMOs in Rural Oregon
- Nov 3 Cancer Clusters Spark Historic Pesticide Vote in Oregon
- Dec 8 The Devil In The Details of Local Law
- Dec 8 Don’t Tread On Us-A Message from Colorado
- Dec 8 Making Sense of Recent Legal History
- Dec 8 Where Push Is Coming To Shove, USA
- Nov 8 The First Big Win for the $15 Movement
- Nov 8 A Legal Definition for ‘Unsustainable Energy’?
- Oct 8 When The State Pushes Back
- Oct 8 This Crow Won’t Fly
- Oct 8 A New County Constitution
- Sep 8 Homeless Bills of Rights-New Narratives
- Sep 8 Colorado Anti-fracking Movement Heating Up!
- Sep 8 Local Initiative Process Gutted
- Aug 8 Obstacles to Asserting Rights
- Aug 8 Benton County, OR Moves Forward with Nation’s Potential First Food Bill of Rights
- Jul 8 Spokane Continues to Fight for the Right to Vote
- Jul 8 Foster Youth Bill of Rights, New Narratives
- Jul 8 Santa Monica Passes West Coast’s First Rights of Nature Ordinance
- Jun 8 Housing Justice: Fighting for Rights
- Jun 8 A Community Rights Ordinance For South Puget Sound
- Jun 8 County Government Writes History, Hydrocarbon Ban is First of its Kind
- Jun 8 Food Bills of Rights and Monsanto-Speech
- Jun 6 GM Wheat Discovered in Oregon, Benton County Continues Work on Food Bill of Rights
- May 8 Does Food Sovereignty Exist in the United States? Food and the Community Rights Movement
- May 8 Washington Community Action Network Talks Rights
- Apr 7 Under the Radar: How a Multinational Corporation Quietly Bought a County-Wide Election
- Apr 2 Day One of the Occupation of Detroit
- Mar 25 Crude Oil Trains Proposed for Grays Harbor, WA: Citizens Challenge Permitting Process
- Mar 18 Middle School Elevates its Rights above Corporations’
- Mar 12 What a Difference a Degree Makes
- Mar 2 The Story of Broadview Heights, Ohio
- Feb 17 Democracy Denied in Small Town, USA
- Feb 4 The View from Plymouth, NH
- Jan 27 Benton County’s Fight to Protect Our Seed Heritage: A Food Bill of Rights
- Jan 16 Fighting for the Right to a Sustainable Food System: Benton County, Oregon
- Jan 6 Rivers and Natural Ecosystems as Rights Bearing Subjects
- Dec 31 Case Study: The Community Right to Sustainable Energy
- Dec 24 Barnstead, NH: Establishing the Community Right to Water and Self-Governance
- Dec 19 New Section: Community Rights
- Sep 23 Changing ‘Fundemental Law’, a Case Study: Bellingham
- Mar 29 The Right to Self-Govern