Should Rivers Have Rights? [POLICYbrief]

Should rivers or other natural features be granted "rights" to protect them from environmental harms? Professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University School of Law and Professor Noah Hall of Wayne Law debate whether nature rights can help settle the competing claims of humans over natural resources.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Follow Jonathan Adler on Twitter: @jadler1969
/ jadler1969
Learn more about Jonathan Adler:
law.case.edu/Our-School/Facul...
Follow Noah Hall on Twitter: @lakeslaw
Learn more about Noah Hall:
law.wayne.edu/profile/ay2320
Related Links:
Property in Ecology
www.perc.org/2019/05/17/prope...
Toward a New Horizontal Federalism:
Interstate Water Management in the Great Lakes Region
www.greatlakeslaw.org/blog/fi...
Conservative Principles for Environmental Reform
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...
Differing Views:
Should Rivers Have Rights? A Growing Movement Says It’s About Time
e360.yale.edu/features/should...
Toledo, Ohio, Just Granted Lake Erie the Same Legal Rights as People
www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...
Corporations Have Rights. Why Shouldn’t Rivers?
www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/us...
Rights of Nature: Why it Might Not Save the Entire World
www.iucn.org/news/world-commi...

[@brandondoesstuff2592]

I believe that rivers should have rights because that way, the government and people living along the river are able to press charges if the river is being infringed on.
Also, if companies and firms have rights and considered a “person” under law, why can’t the nature we utilize have that too?

[@MrSquaresville]

Can this be applied to a river that was removed by government in the past?
Can you hold them responsible and have the river restored?
Would it matter if the river had a large population of salmon?

[@PeterPetrakis]

Really?

[@Fergusand]

epic

[@mistersauga716]

You don't need rights for nature to protect it. It just doesn't fit very nicely. A written Constitution can protect nature in the form of substantive provisions that are not nessecarily rights.