Rights of Nature
Nature is not a resource. It is a community.
We advocate for the recognition of ecological systems as rights-bearing entities — not because it is legally settled, but because the alternative is a framework that has already failed.
The current framework has failed.
Environmental law in the United States treats nature as property — something to be owned, used, and protected only insofar as protection serves human interests. This framework has produced a century of incremental gains and accelerating losses. Species are listed as endangered after populations have already collapsed. Corridors are protected after the development that fragmented them is complete. Wetlands are restored after the hydrology that sustained them has been permanently altered.
The rights-of-nature framework proposes a different starting point: that ecological systems possess interests of their own, that those interests deserve legal recognition, and that the burden of proof in decisions affecting those systems should rest with those proposing harm — not those opposing it.
Intrinsic ecological value
Ecological systems possess value independent of their utility to humans. A coyote corridor has value because it sustains life, maintains predator-prey relationships, and supports the ecological processes that make California habitable — not because humans have decided to protect it.
Predator-prey relationships
Predators are not problems to be managed. They are ecological regulators whose presence shapes the behavior, distribution, and population dynamics of every species in their range. Removing a predator does not produce a simpler system. It produces a different one — usually less stable, less diverse, and more prone to the population explosions that humans then treat as separate crises.
Habitat continuity
A habitat fragment is not a habitat. It is a waiting room. Species that require connected landscapes — coyotes, mountain lions, deer, migratory birds — cannot sustain viable populations in isolated patches, no matter how well-managed those patches are. Corridor connectivity is not an amenity. It is a biological necessity.
The precautionary principle
When the consequences of an action are potentially irreversible — species loss, corridor destruction, population collapse — the burden of proof should rest with those proposing the action, not those opposing it. We do not yet know everything we need to know to make confident decisions about California's ecological future. That uncertainty is an argument for caution, not for inaction.
Restoration and future generations
The ecological systems we inherit are not ours to consume. They belong to the future — human and non-human. Restoration is not charity. It is obligation. Every corridor restored, every predator population stabilized, every wetland protected is a decision made on behalf of generations that cannot yet advocate for themselves.
Environmental justice
The communities that bear the greatest burden of ecological degradation are rarely the communities that made the decisions that caused it. Environmental justice requires that the costs and benefits of ecological decisions be distributed equitably — and that the communities most affected by those decisions have meaningful voice in making them.
Legal landscape
Rights of nature in practice.
From the Whanganui River to the Colorado River, rights-of-nature frameworks are gaining legal traction. These are not hypothetical arguments. They are active legal developments.
Whanganui River, New Zealand
New Zealand enacted legislation granting the Whanganui River legal personhood, recognizing it as "an indivisible and living whole" (Te Awa Tupua). The river is represented by two guardians — one appointed by the Crown, one by Māori — who act in its interests. This is the first river in the world to receive legal personhood through national legislation.
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand — national legislation
- Legal instrument
- Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017
- Current status
- In force
- Limitations and reversals
- Legal personhood is held through two human guardians (one Crown, one Māori) who act on the river's behalf. The Act does not grant the river independent standing to sue; it requires human representatives. Scope is limited to the Whanganui River and its catchment.
- Source
- New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office, Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017, enacted 20 March 2017. Available at legislation.govt.nz.
Ganges and Yamuna Rivers, India
The Uttarakhand High Court declared the Ganges and Yamuna rivers living entities with legal rights, appointing state officials as their legal guardians. The Supreme Court of India stayed the order three months later, citing jurisdictional complexity. The case is frequently cited in rights-of-nature advocacy as an example of judicial recognition, but the order has no current legal force.
- Jurisdiction
- India — Uttarakhand High Court (state level)
- Legal instrument
- Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 126 of 2014, judgment dated 20 March 2017
- Current status
- Stayed — not in force
- Limitations and reversals
- The Supreme Court of India stayed the Uttarakhand High Court order on 7 July 2017 in State of Uttarakhand v. Mohd. Salim. The Supreme Court found that granting legal personhood to rivers flowing through multiple states created unresolvable jurisdictional problems. The legal argument remains active in academic and advocacy contexts but the order has no operative legal effect.
- Source
- Supreme Court of India, State of Uttarakhand v. Mohd. Salim & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5765 of 2017, order dated 7 July 2017. Original High Court order: Uttarakhand High Court, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 126 of 2014, 20 March 2017.
Rights of Nature, Ecuador
Ecuador became the first country to enshrine rights of nature in its constitution, recognizing Pachamama (Mother Earth) as a rights-bearing entity with the right to exist, be maintained, and regenerate. Any person may bring legal action on nature's behalf. Implementation has been uneven — courts have upheld the rights in some cases and declined to apply them in others, particularly where extractive industry interests are involved.
- Jurisdiction
- Ecuador — national constitution
- Legal instrument
- Constitution of Ecuador 2008, Chapter 7 (Rights of Nature), Articles 71–74
- Current status
- In force — with significant implementation gaps
- Limitations and reversals
- Constitutional recognition has not consistently translated into enforceable protection. Courts have applied the rights unevenly. Extractive industries have continued operating in ecologically sensitive areas. The rights are justiciable — any person may bring an action on nature's behalf — but enforcement depends on political will and judicial interpretation. Scholars note a gap between constitutional text and practical protection.
- Source
- Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador 2008, Articles 71–74. English translation available via Political Database of the Americas, Georgetown University. For implementation analysis: Kauffman, C.M. & Martin, P.L. (2017). 'Can Rights of Nature Make Development More Sustainable? Why Some Ecuadorian lawsuits Succeed and Others Fail.' World Development, 92, 130–142.
Colorado River Ecosystem
A lawsuit filed in federal district court on behalf of the Colorado River ecosystem argued for legal personhood and the right to exist, flourish, and regenerate. The case was voluntarily dismissed before the court ruled on standing. No U.S. federal court has recognized legal personhood for a natural entity. The case is significant as an early attempt to establish a legal framework for ecosystem rights in the United States, not as established law.
- Jurisdiction
- United States — federal district court (District of Colorado)
- Legal instrument
- Colorado River Ecosystem v. State of Colorado, No. 1:17-cv-02316 (D. Colo. 2017)
- Current status
- Dismissed — not in force
- Limitations and reversals
- The case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff organization (Deep Green Resistance) in November 2017 before the court ruled on standing. No federal court has recognized legal personhood for a natural entity under U.S. law. The case is cited as an early attempt to establish a legal framework, not as precedent.
- Source
- Colorado River Ecosystem v. State of Colorado, No. 1:17-cv-02316 (D. Colo., filed 25 September 2017, voluntarily dismissed 6 November 2017). PACER case record. See also: Daly, E. & May, J.R. (2018). 'Implementing Environmental Constitutionalism.' Cambridge University Press.
Read the Council's position.
The Coyote Council has reviewed a development proposal affecting a mapped wildlife corridor. Read their positions, disagreements, and proposed action.
Call the Council