Eron King and Justin Workman worry about timber companies spraying chemicals near their home.
For nearly two decades, they've lived in rural Lane County down the road from Triangle Lake, at the place where two creeks meet.
On a rainy March day, dogs barked and bounded around their property. A rooster crowed above the constant sound of rushing water.
Standing in their yard, King and Workman recalled watching helicopters spray herbicide onto the clear-cut timberland that surrounds them.
“Our first one was out of our kid’s bedroom window, right over here, looking at the hillside,” said Workman.
“It's loud. If they are close enough, you can definitely hear the helicopter,” said King. “And if you're unlucky, you'll start smelling it.”
In 2011, the couple said their urine tested positive for two herbicides, as did samples from dozens of other nearby residents.
One of the compounds they say they found was atrazine, which the World Health Organization says is “probably” carcinogenic to humans.
However, Workman said it was too risky to sue, since they may have lost and had to pay the defense’s attorney's fees. And besides, he said, they feel Oregon’s forestry laws were stacked against them.
“You can't say, ‘oh, this is in my urine. I'm going to sue him.’ You can't do that out here. You have to prove it,” said Workman. “And even the investigation couldn't prove it. They kept saying, not enough evidence to say that this is from logging. It could be from your exposure of driving to town.”
King said it’s been more than a decade since companies stopped aerial sprays in this area. But she said she’s still worried about grounded spraying and long-term health impacts.
Now, the couple is backing a ballot measure they say could help communities like theirs fight back.
But they've faced pushback from opponents who say the policy is poorly written and could hurt businesses it was never designed to.
The measure
This May, Lane County voters will decide whether to approve Measure 20-373, which would create what supporters are calling a “Watersheds Bill of Rights.”
A watershed, as defined by the measure, is all the land and the water that drains into rivers, lakes, the ocean and similar natural features in Lane County.
Under this law, these areas, as well as their ecosystems and “natural communities,” would be given the right to exist and flourish. That includes having clean water free from pollution.
“This is all about having standing,” said King, who is a chief petitioner for the initiative. “Being able to represent nature in court, to be able to protect it.”
Lane County would be asked to enforce these rights, and the public could also sue on behalf of a watershed. If they oppose a project that’s been approved by a government, they could ask a court to nullify that agreement.
If a company or government is found to have violated the rules, they’d have to pay the costs to reverse the damage to the ecosystem. And they’d be fined an additional 1% of that cost for each day they failed to stop the impairment after it was reported.
Michelle Holman, another chief petitioner, said this could serve as an alternative to an aerial spray ban, which the Oregon Supreme Court has previously found to be preempted by state law.
Holman said it could help local communities fight attempts by companies to build data centers.
“The government isn't doing a very good job of protecting us from corporate harm,” said Holman. “And these practices, while legal, are unjust.”
The debate
However, opponents say the measure is too broad. They argue it would lead to a flood of lawsuits, cost the county for enforcement, and scare away businesses.
“Even folks who are long-time environmental supporters, they understand that the devil is in the details,” said Brittany Quick-Warner with the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce and the Protect Our County campaign. “The way that an ordinance is written and the way that it's implemented in a community really matters.”
Critics argue the measure could be used to block housing developments or wildfire mitigation efforts.
They point to one particular phrase in the text, which says the public can force governments to take protective measures even when there’s not “scientific certainty or full evidence of the risk.”
Quick-Warner said it would be too easy for a person to challenge a neighbor’s activity based on their individual ideas about the environmental impact.
Betsy Schultz, a contracted advocate for Protect Our County, said she’s concerned that the measure ignores previous government approval.
“If it's a building permit, or if it's a permit from the DEQ or the EPA, you're still potentially liable, which creates just so much uncertainty and room for risk and expense throughout the community,” said Schultz.
A volunteer for the supporters’ campaign, Rob Dickinson, said opponents are being misleading around where the language about “scientific certainty” is placed in the measure. He said it doesn't affect the standard to prove a company or a government’s liability in court.
Dickinson said Oregon already has laws to discourage frivolous lawsuits, and liability protections for firefighting.
The measure states that it can’t be preempted by less protective state, federal or international law. But Dickinson said it’s unlikely that this will hold up universally in court.
“I'm certainly confident that the courts will not allow this law to be used negatively against small actors and small farmers,” said Dickinson.
Holman, the chief petitioner, argued a bill of rights is meant to be broad, so they can be applied in a range of cases. She said it will be up to the courts and the county to shape it in practice.
“The provisions for how they will be enforced are up to the folks that get paid the big bucks for running our county,” said Holman. “So we leave it to them. We know that's how that process is supposed to work.”
However, Quick-Warner with Protect Our County said there’s also no guarantee the measure will be used the way supporters intend.
“It wouldn't become more clear until lawsuits started to get filed and the courts decided how to implement this,” she said. “That's just a bad way to create public policy locally when you're talking about voters having to determine ‘yes or no, does this work for our community?’”
So far, multiple mayors in the county have come out against the initiative, including Sean VanGordon of Springfield.
Eugene Water & Electric Board’s Commissioners also voted to oppose it, saying it could open the utility up to potential liability.
Meanwhile, several prominent environmental organizations haven’t publicly taken a position. Some of them may be unable to due to an earlier agreement with the forestry industry, which prevents them from advocating for an aerial spay ban for several years.
Beyond Toxics was one of those groups that signed that agreement. Its spokesperson, Emily Matlock, told KLCC by email that this measure falls into a “gray area” around those advocacy restrictions.
