Currently in the Ulster County Legislative Committee for Energy, Environment and Sustainability, a bill is being crafted with the help of the County Executive’s Office to designate “personhood” to the Wallkill River and the Esopus and Rondout Creeks and watershed. The bill appears to convey additional rights to these bodies of water and effectively deputizes any citizen or organization (local or not) to advocate on their behalf for protection.

This legislation goes well beyond current environmental laws and into uncharted territory. Should Ulster pass such a law, it would join a tiny group of very progressive places around the world, such as the Whanganui River, deemed sacred by the Maori in New Zealand, and the Klamath River, recognized with personhood by the Yurok Tribe in Oregon in 2019. It would create huge legal challenges and controversies, including coming into conflict with existing laws regarding property rights and resource use.

According to the chief sponsor of the bill, County Legislator Chris Hewitt, “with the recent Green Amendment addition to the New York State Constitution, we are told that we have a right to clean air and water. However, we don't have enough guidance on what that means, no real legislation that makes that possible. This local law is intended to give some real weight to the Green Amendment, so that we can have the right to swim in our local rivers.” Hewitt also cited the inability to eat fish right from our local waterways as a reason to recognize the rights of individual bodies of water.

The idea that rivers, trees, rocks and animals have spirits is ancient and global. The Greeks believed in mythical wood, sea and river nymphs. Among indigenous peoples of the Pacific, they believe in a supernatural force called mana, and is inherent in people, objects and places. And many Native American tribes hold a deep reverence for water and consider rivers, lakes and other bodies of water as sacred and inhabited by spirits. These belief systems are referred to broadly as animism by anthropologists; it’s most commonly found in pre-industrial societies. It’s a belief system that posits that all natural things, including animals, plants, inanimate objects and even natural phenomena, possess a spiritual essence or soul. It's not a single religion, but rather a perspective that underlies many different cultures and belief systems worldwide. Animism emphasizes the interconnectedness of all things and the importance of respecting and interacting with the spiritual world. It’s an old idea that’s currently popular in environmental circles, and the movement in the U.S. culturally appropriates Native American belief systems in its defense.

The environmental personhood movement seeks to shift our relationship with nature from one of exploitation to one of recognition and respect. It’s the inevitable next step in the march towards a philosophy birthed mid-last century called Deep Ecology. Deep Ecology seeks to shift our thinking away from a human-centered approach to the world and replace it with "biocentric egalitarianism,” where nature is granted the same moral consideration as humans. The biosphere, rather than human well-being, becomes the focus of value. While often glossed over or no longer overtly stated, these ideas still profoundly impact contemporary environmental advocacy. But as one might imagine, this ideology comes into direct conflict in an industrial and industry-reliant society.

The idea of conveying “personhood” to a creek, or any inanimate object, is a very complex thicket to work through. Key issues include figuring out the scope of a river's rights and duties, such as whether a river is liable for flooding. This involves applying a human concept like personhood to a natural entity. Enforcement and governance are also a challenge, as it's unclear who represents the river's interests and how decisions are made and enforced. There are many hurdles like jurisdictional disputes and unclear enforcement mechanisms. And conflicts of interest can also arise if economic development clashes with a river's interests when government officials are appointed as guardians. Even the naming rights for a river could be called into question.

If we are going to grant personhood to parts of our environment, why limit ourselves to local creeks and rivers? Why not assign personhood to Overlook Mountain in Woodstock — a spiritual place in which some believe sits one of the Earth’s chakras. Or what about forests, rocks and megaliths? And if humans are a part of Earth’s biosphere, what about all things that humans make? If a bird and its nest or beaver and its dam are alive with personhood and spirit, could the Ashokan possess a spirit? Can our landfills receive personhood rights? I bet the Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency would like to know.

Although Legislator Hewitt said local development should not be affected by this law because developers are already required to follow environmental guidance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, I’m not so sure. If Ulster County passes a bill giving legal personhood to the entire watershed of the county (effectively all the county), I think every developer would pause and wonder what the ramifications this creates for any kind of project. Granting legal personhood could complicate property ownership and raise questions about who has the right to use or develop natural resources. If this bill were passed, it would certainly put Ulster at a competitive disadvantage to our neighbors for any land-use initiative such as housing, infrastructure and farming. It will drive up local costs for everything due to the new and perhaps infinite layers of litigation and regulation. I could envision every creek and river having its own attorney and guardian to protect its interests.

There is another complicating issue at hand: the enshrinement of faith and belief systems into our legal frameworks. There is no way to prove or disprove the personhood of a creek, rock or tree — belief is an act of faith. Our Constitution seeks to separate church and state and does not endorse any faith or belief system. Science is usually the main arbiter of reason in a court of law. We must rely on non-secular methods in our legal system since it can be equally applied to fairly arbitrate civic issues, such as pollution and clean water, versus the methods of belief and faith. If someone believes that the Rondout Creek is a person and spirit, that is fine by me. But if they wish to use their belief system as reason to infringe on the legal actions of others, that is a direction forewarned by astronomer and author Carl Sagan:

“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness ... ” — Carl Sagan, “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark,” 1995.