(November 2025) A recent court decision dealt a blow to local environmental protections, with the judge ruling in favor of powerful development interests seeking to overturn the law. But the fight is far from over. Standing for Nature has announced it will mount an appeal, arguing that the ruling endangers fragile ecosystems and undermines the community’s right to safeguard its natural heritage.
To learn more about the case and what’s next, read the full press release from Standing for Nature.
Legal Battle
For updates on the legal battle between the Master Builder’s Association and Standing for Nature, including a complete list of all the Pleadings, please visit Standing for Nature Takes the Lead in Defending Watershed Legal Standing Initiative
(Updated Aug 26, 2025) As reported by the Everett Herald, the Master Builders Association and others have filed a lawsuit contesting the landmark measure that grants legal rights to the Snohomish River Watershed, and gives the community the ability to protect the health of their local ecosystem directly. We’re a lean nonprofit committed to seeing this through—and with your support, we can bring in top legal talent to uphold the will of the voters.
VOTER MANDATE: In an Everett election that had 74% participation of the voters, the initiative passed with a decisive 57% of the vote. This was in spite of the same developers spending 5x the amount as the initiative campaign to fight it.
Read the full text of the new law Everett Municipal Code – Rights for the Snohomish Watershed
We stand firm in our belief that Initiative 24-03 will withstand this legal scrutiny.
Here’s Why:
LACK OF SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY DOESN’T MEAN LACK OF EVIDENCE OR LOWER BURDEN OF PROOF: The initiative text Section C(4) reads: “Where probable violations of the rights protected in this Ordinance are shown to exist, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for denying or postponing enforcement or defense of these rights.” This doesn’t negate the need for scientific evidence, and it doesn’t change the burden of proof needed for any civil lawsuit: preponderance of the evidence. Instead, it embodies the precautionary principle, allowing proactive measures to protect the watershed when faced with potential threats.
The idea is that if someone can prove there’s harm or the likelihood of harm based on evidence, if they have to wait until there’s absolute scientific certainty, it’s too late. For example, a company pours a new chemical into the river that has some proof of toxicity but studies haven’t yet been published in a journal. If we wait until studies have been done and published to show harm to salmon, it’s too late. The salmon have already been harmed.
The precautionary principle says, we know that it has the potential to harm because of evidence that it could. Before you start dumping chemicals in the river, prove that it WON’T harm the salmon because the evidence is pointing to that it is likely to cause harm.
STRONG LEGAL FOOTING: We’ve carefully crafted this initiative to address potential legal concerns and are confident in its ability to stand up in court. Unlike the Spokane initiative struck down by the Washington State Supreme Court, our measure focuses specifically on the ability for the community to go to court on behalf of the river, which now has legal standing in court. It doesn’t create regulations or interfere with city administrative functions.
The Court’s decision in the Spokane case focused specifically on the part of the measure that referenced the citizens’ right to access water, including the aquifer where they obtained their drinking water, which was in Idaho. The court ruled that was outside the ability of citizens to legislate via the initiative power and interfered with state water rights regulations. Not only does the Everett initiative make no mention of citizens’ rights to water, it has a preemption clause in Section E that says state and federal law preempt the ordinance in a conflict.
DEVELOPERS HAVE NO BASIS FOR THIS LAWSUIT: The ordinance merely creates the ability for the community to bring causes of action if there is harm to the watershed, it doesn’t create any new regulations or involve administrative matters. It also specifically doesn’t conflict with state law.
The plaintiffs cannot prove they will suffer an injury in fact when there aren’t yet any causes of action against them. Nor can they show that the ordinance is too broad when no cases exist yet that could show how the ordinance could be used. There is no way to review the ordinance’s application to imaginary enforcement actions. If they follow state and federal regulations and are confident that their actions won’t harm the watershed, there may never be a case against them. Because if they’re not confident what they are doing won’t harm the watershed, why are they doing it?!
Stay tuned for updates as we continue this important fight for environmental protection and community rights. And check out our Frequently Asked Questions for more information.
Please visit to access all the legal pleadings at Standing for Nature Takes the lead in Defending Watershed Legal Standing Initiative
Please contact us if you’re an attorney who has some insight to share or can assist with litigation! Or donate to our legal fund.
Photo: David Lang on Unsplash
Standing for Nature Fights Back Against Developer Lawsuit
(November 2025) A recent court decision dealt a blow to local environmental protections, with the judge ruling in favor of powerful development interests seeking to overturn the law. But the fight is far from over. Standing for Nature has announced it will mount an appeal, arguing that the ruling endangers fragile ecosystems and undermines the community’s right to safeguard its natural heritage.
To learn more about the case and what’s next, read the full press release from Standing for Nature.
Legal Battle
For updates on the legal battle between the Master Builder’s Association and Standing for Nature, including a complete list of all the Pleadings, please visit Standing for Nature Takes the Lead in Defending Watershed Legal Standing Initiative
(Updated Aug 26, 2025) As reported by the Everett Herald, the Master Builders Association and others have filed a lawsuit contesting the landmark measure that grants legal rights to the Snohomish River Watershed, and gives the community the ability to protect the health of their local ecosystem directly. We’re a lean nonprofit committed to seeing this through—and with your support, we can bring in top legal talent to uphold the will of the voters.
DONATE Now to Support Our Work
VOTER MANDATE: In an Everett election that had 74% participation of the voters, the initiative passed with a decisive 57% of the vote. This was in spite of the same developers spending 5x the amount as the initiative campaign to fight it.
Read the full text of the new law Everett Municipal Code – Rights for the Snohomish Watershed
We stand firm in our belief that Initiative 24-03 will withstand this legal scrutiny.
Here’s Why:
LACK OF SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY DOESN’T MEAN LACK OF EVIDENCE OR LOWER BURDEN OF PROOF: The initiative text Section C(4) reads: “Where probable violations of the rights protected in this Ordinance are shown to exist, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for denying or postponing enforcement or defense of these rights.” This doesn’t negate the need for scientific evidence, and it doesn’t change the burden of proof needed for any civil lawsuit: preponderance of the evidence. Instead, it embodies the precautionary principle, allowing proactive measures to protect the watershed when faced with potential threats.
The idea is that if someone can prove there’s harm or the likelihood of harm based on evidence, if they have to wait until there’s absolute scientific certainty, it’s too late. For example, a company pours a new chemical into the river that has some proof of toxicity but studies haven’t yet been published in a journal. If we wait until studies have been done and published to show harm to salmon, it’s too late. The salmon have already been harmed.
The precautionary principle says, we know that it has the potential to harm because of evidence that it could. Before you start dumping chemicals in the river, prove that it WON’T harm the salmon because the evidence is pointing to that it is likely to cause harm.
STRONG LEGAL FOOTING: We’ve carefully crafted this initiative to address potential legal concerns and are confident in its ability to stand up in court. Unlike the Spokane initiative struck down by the Washington State Supreme Court, our measure focuses specifically on the ability for the community to go to court on behalf of the river, which now has legal standing in court. It doesn’t create regulations or interfere with city administrative functions.
The Court’s decision in the Spokane case focused specifically on the part of the measure that referenced the citizens’ right to access water, including the aquifer where they obtained their drinking water, which was in Idaho. The court ruled that was outside the ability of citizens to legislate via the initiative power and interfered with state water rights regulations. Not only does the Everett initiative make no mention of citizens’ rights to water, it has a preemption clause in Section E that says state and federal law preempt the ordinance in a conflict.
DEVELOPERS HAVE NO BASIS FOR THIS LAWSUIT: The ordinance merely creates the ability for the community to bring causes of action if there is harm to the watershed, it doesn’t create any new regulations or involve administrative matters. It also specifically doesn’t conflict with state law.
The plaintiffs cannot prove they will suffer an injury in fact when there aren’t yet any causes of action against them. Nor can they show that the ordinance is too broad when no cases exist yet that could show how the ordinance could be used. There is no way to review the ordinance’s application to imaginary enforcement actions. If they follow state and federal regulations and are confident that their actions won’t harm the watershed, there may never be a case against them. Because if they’re not confident what they are doing won’t harm the watershed, why are they doing it?!
Stay tuned for updates as we continue this important fight for environmental protection and community rights. And check out our Frequently Asked Questions for more information.
Please visit to access all the legal pleadings at Standing for Nature Takes the lead in Defending Watershed Legal Standing Initiative
Please contact us if you’re an attorney who has some insight to share or can assist with litigation! Or donate to our legal fund.
Photo: David Lang on Unsplash
More news and updates
We Brought the Watershed to the Snohomish County Charter Review Commission. Here’s What We Found.
This week, Standing for Washington appeared before the Snohomish County Charter Review Commission to advocate for the creation of an Office of the Watershed Advocate — a charter-level, independent guardian for the Snohomish River Watershed. The Charter Review Commission meets once every ten years. It is one of the most
Standing for Nature to Appeal Ruling Striking Down Everett’s Snohomish River Rights Law
Grassroots organization says the fight is just beginning as it mounts a strong appeal on core legal issues. EVERETT, Washington — Standing for Nature announced today that it will appeal Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Jennifer Langbehn’s decision granting summary judgment against Everett Initiative 24-03, the voter-approved law recognizing legal
Tomorrow, we head to court.
This is more than just a case – it’s the epic Pacific Northwest battle between nature and developers. The Everett Herald captured the essence of this fight and the heart of the argument in their latest article – check it out below.Together we’re standing strong so that people and nature