Do Rivers have Rights?
Should trees have standing? And other questions on the road to personhood.
The memorable title with the double entendre, Should Trees have Standing? is that of a famous article written by Christopher Stone in 1972.1 This article marked the beginning of legal consideration of whether trees and nature have some rights worthy in western legal systems of being represented by a guardian in a court of law or other legal matters. Afterall, in the 1940s, Aldo Leopold wrote in A Sand County Almanac, the foundations of an environmental ethic, or “land ethic”2 that speaks to these rights. One of these points Leopold makes is that we should affirm the the right of species continued existence, and at least sometimes in their natural place of existence.3 While this was a significant step in western civilization to recognize this right, the Native American community (and in general, the indigenous communities of the world) have always understood that nature has a right to exist and that humans are a part of nature, not a conqueror of nature (another point that Leopold claims as his own in A Sand County Almanac). But it is not surprising when scientists discover the same principle on different scientific pathways, so we should not be surprised that this principle of life emerged in different ways of knowing.
The concept of rights of nature was raised in 1972 in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Sierra Club v. Morton, in the dissent by Justice Douglas.4 Justice Douglas wrote:
The critical question of "standing" [Footnote 2/1] would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers, and where injury is the subject of public outrage.5
So he proposes a kind of guardian to represent the best interests of nature. But he also ties it in with the interests of human “where injury is the subject of public outrage.” At the time, this was seen as a radical viewpoint, but now, a half-century later, we are seeing the consideration of ordinances and tribal laws that recognize rights of rivers or other parts of nature.
Rights of Nature for Tribes
Rights of Rivers and other parts of the ecosystem have been recognized by at least eight federally recognized tribes in the United States. While this is not surprising, since this is a western law approach to existing
In November 2025, the Colorado River Tribes passed an ordinance recognizing the rights of the Colorado River. This followed the recognition of rights vested in the river or its personhood:
In 2019, the Yurok Tribe recognized the inherent right to exist, flourish and naturally evolve of the Klamath River.6
In 2020, the Nez Perce Tribal Council passed a resolution recognizing the rights of the Snake River to exist, including the right to flow and to regenerate.7
In 2020, the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin passed a resolution recognizing the rights of the Menominee River to exist and function as a healthy ecosystem.8
In 2026, the Council of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians passed an ordinance recognizing the Longperson or the collective waters that are interconnected. This tribal law established that the interconnected water system is a living relative with the right to exist, flourish, regenerate, and flow freely. 9
Rights of Nature in the States
The people of Toledo Ohio, on February 26, 2019, passed the “Lake Erie Bill of Rights” (LEBOR), through a ballot initiative during a special election.10 On February 27, 2020, a federal judge struck down this law as unconstitutionally vague.11
In 2020, Orange County, Florida amended their charter to recognize the rights of the Wekiva and Econlockhatchee Rivers, passing by 89%.12 However, when litigation was brought using the charter, the state court held that such laws were preempted by the 2020 Florida Waterways Act which prohibits its legal subdivisions from passing rights of nature legislation. Ohio and Idaho have passed similar measures to ensure that rights of nature laws are not passed within their jurisdiction, too.13
In 2023, a bill was introduced in the N.C. Legislature to recognize the rights of the Haw River.14 This bill was introduced by Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Greensboro) but it did not get beyond the Committee. Then in 2024, Rep. Harrison, Cervania and Autry introduced The Rights of the Dan River Ecosystem,15 modeled after the Haw River bill. Neither moved forward. Then in 2025, the same Representatives introduced a bill that combined these rivers in a similarly worded act.16
Dozens of local governments have passed versions of rights of nature ordinances. For example, the City of Everett, Washington, passed a ballot initiative in November 2024 recognizing the right of the Snohomish River watershed to exist.
Final Thoughts
The momentum is building. Efforts to recognize the rights of rivers and networks of water systems over these past fifty years has brought these ideas to the while starting in tribal governments and consistent with tribal traditions; it is now strongly.
This movement is profound in that it has brought western legal jurisprudence to address a problem that can be found in ancient ecological wisdom. By codifying the rights of rivers, tribal nations are not only protecting vital resources but are also challenging the Western “property-based” view of nature that has long dominated global policy. As state legislatures begin to follow suit, we are witnessing the birth of a new way of thinking about water, not solely as property but also as a source of rights to exist.
Ultimately, the momentum behind these laws suggests that the “rights of nature” movement is moving from the fringes of activism into the public thought.
https://a.co/d/055y484R The original essay is cited as, Christopher D. Stone, “Should Trees Have Standing?—Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects,” 45 S. Cal. L. Rev. 450 (1972).
The family has made this term a registered trademark see https://www.aldoleopold.org/about/the-land-ethic
Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (1949, 1987) p. 204 at https://www.uky.edu/~rsand1/china2017/library/Leopold1.pdf
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/727/
Douglas dissent at 405 U. S. 742 (1972).
https://icmagazine.org/the-yurok-nation-just-established-the-rights-of-the-klamath-river/
https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/snake-river-resolution/
https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/recognition-of-the-rights-of-the-menominee-river/
https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/eastern-band-of-cherokee-usa-tribal-resolution-rights-of-the-longperson-watersytem/
https://celdf.org/2019/02/breaking-news-toledo-voters-enact-lake-erie-bill-of-rights/
https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/6789094-Lake-Erie-Bill-of-Rights-Opinion/#document/p1
https://ocfelections.gov/sites/default/files/SiteSectionFiles/Links%20A/forms/2020%20CRC%20Final%20Report.pdf
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/04/1185955974/rights-for-the-rivers-groups-fight-for-recognition-of-natural-entities-legal-rig
https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2023/Bills/House/PDF/H795v1.pdf
https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2023/Bills/House/PDF/H923v1.pdf
/https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2025/Bills/House/PDF/H345v1.pdf