The River That Lost Its Rights

A Step Back From Environmental Madness

Nederland, Colorado, about 15 miles west of Boulder, witnessed a contentious issue unfold when an environmental group, Save the World’s Rivers, influenced local authorities to pass the Rights of Nature Resolution. This resolution granted inanimate natural objects, such as local creeks, independent rights to thrive and flourish, similar to human rights.

Nederland wanted to build a dam to create a reservoir to address the ongoing water shortage in Colorado. Save the World’s Rivers objected to the proposal, arguing that the earlier decision to give rights to a creek was binding and that the creek was more important than a dam. Therefore, it fought the initiative because fighting the construction of all dams is part of its work.

However, the community was overwhelmingly in favor of reversing this decision once the consequences of the Rights of Nature Resolution became evident. Assigning “rights” to an inanimate object like a creek was met with strong resistance. This underscored the importance of considering policies that benefit both the good of nature and man’s needs, and nothing could be more fundamental than providing water.

The local water board repealed the Rights of Nature Resolution so they could proceed with building a dam amid opposition from Save the World’s Rivers. The original decision was not legally binding, and the town voted unanimously to overturn it, citing deception by the group’s founder, Gary Wockner. Wockner essentially claimed there were other options and that the creek had rights that trumped the local need for a dam.

The local water commission argued against a one-sided approach to water management, favoring the balance of environmental concerns with basic societal needs while emphasizing the benefits of dams. They contended that responsible resource allocation is essential for a community’s well-being, a duty bestowed upon us by God for wise stewardship. Furthermore, dam projects play a vital role in communities, providing jobs and essential resources such as water, electricity and legitimate recreation. Furthermore, most sane people agree that creeks have no rights.

Nederland’s decision to repeal the Rights of Nature Resolution for watersheds reflects a shift towards safeguarding water security in the face of growing environmental tyranny. The town, led by Mayor Bill Gilbin, raised concerns over the potential misuse of resolutions by environmental groups like Save the World’s Rivers that seek to impose unbalanced restrictions on the use of natural resources.

The reversal of the initial decision asserts the town’s stance against extreme pressures, advocated and carried out by environmental zealots. Nederland has reinforced its commitment to supporting reasonable policy and water resource management by prioritizing residents’ legitimate rights over creek entitlements.

During court proceedings, Save the World’s Rivers Executive Director and Founder Gary Wockner argued that the water court’s objections regarding the Nederland dam were unrelated to the Rights of Nature Resolution. The town’s objections were entirely related! The crux of the matter is that creeks do not have rights; only people do, and the people of Nederland wanted a dam. He dismissed claims of deception and emphasized that opposing dams aligns with the organization’s principles.

This situation underscores the need for transparency and honesty from the environmental movement, which is unlikely to happen as they continue to push for the rights of inanimate objects to the detriment of mankind. In light of recent developments, some board members are considering drafting new environmental protection policies independent of environmental organizations.

The board of trustees from Nederland cautioned other Colorado towns against similar debacles by advising them to carefully consider the consequences of Rights of Nature Resolution initiatives by radical environmentalists to avoid conflicts of this nature.

Radical environmentalists have gone beyond assigning rights to animals; now, they want to give rights to “Mother Earth.” This is the logical consequence of illogical premises. If a being belongs to a species incapable of free moral judgment, it is not entitled to rights. Given the lack of this capacity in the vegetable and mineral kingdoms, it follows that a creek cannot possess rights and the town of Nederland has every right to build a dam if it so wishes.