Standing for Washington is gearing up to defend Everett Initiative 24-03 against a recent legal challenge by developers. 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.
DONATE now to support the legal effort to fight this lawsuit!
We stand firm in our belief that Initiative 24-03 will withstand this legal scrutiny. Here’s why:
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. We expect the City of Everett to honor the will of its citizens by vigorously defending this voter-approved initiative in court.
LACK OF SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY DOESN’T MEAN LACK OF EVIDENCE: 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. 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 never harm the watershed, there may never be a case against them.
The Snohomish River is not only a vital resource for the people of Everett, it is one of the most important watersheds in Washington state.
As we prepare to intervene in this lawsuit, we’re calling on our supporters to help fund our legal efforts. Your contributions will be crucial in defending the rights of the Snohomish River Watershed and upholding the democratic will of Everett’s voters.
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.
Photo: David Lang on Unsplash
Standing for Washington Fights Back Against Developer Lawsuit
Standing for Washington is gearing up to defend Everett Initiative 24-03 against a recent legal challenge by developers. 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.
DONATE now to support the legal effort to fight this lawsuit!
We stand firm in our belief that Initiative 24-03 will withstand this legal scrutiny. Here’s why:
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. We expect the City of Everett to honor the will of its citizens by vigorously defending this voter-approved initiative in court.
LACK OF SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY DOESN’T MEAN LACK OF EVIDENCE: 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. 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 never harm the watershed, there may never be a case against them.
The Snohomish River is not only a vital resource for the people of Everett, it is one of the most important watersheds in Washington state.
As we prepare to intervene in this lawsuit, we’re calling on our supporters to help fund our legal efforts. Your contributions will be crucial in defending the rights of the Snohomish River Watershed and upholding the democratic will of Everett’s voters.
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.
Photo: David Lang on Unsplash
More news and updates
Can a river have rights? Everett is finding out
SOUNDSIDE, KUOW (NPR) Standing for Washington was interviewed by Soundside, a podcast on NPR Seattle affiliate KUOW, for a story on the passage of Everett Initiative 24-03. In Everett, voters approved Initiative 24-03, granting the Snohomish River watershed legal rights, such as the right to exist, flow, and regenerate. This
A River in Washington State Now Has Enforceable Legal Rights
INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS, Summary: Voters in the city of Everett chose to grant the Snohomish River watershed rights to exist, regenerate and flourish as part of a November ballot initiative. In a historic move, Everett, Washington, granted enforceable legal rights to the Snohomish River watershed, marking a major step forward
Everett Voters Grant Legal Rights to Their Watershed – Redefining the Future of Environmental Protection
PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 3, 2024 EVERETT, Washington — In a historic move for environmental protection in the Pacific Northwest, Everett voters have approved Initiative 24-03, making the city the first in Washington state to grant legally enforceable rights to a natural ecosystem. The measure, which passed with