We are a nonpartisan grassroots network of Oregonians who envision a clean, safe, and healthy environment to live, work, and play in – through a transformative amendment to the Oregon Constitution.

OCERA (Oregon Coalition for an Environmental Rights Amendment) is a growing statewide coalition of volunteers and over 30 organizations, working to enshrine the fundamental and enforceable right to a clean, safe, and healthy environment for all people, with particular emphasis on the needs of children and future generations.  We are organized as a PAC to advocate, support, and accept donations for this proposed amendment here.

By placing public health, safety, and sustainability at the forefront, OCERA's mission is to hold governments accountable for preventing environmental harm while promoting restorative practices. The amendment is built on principles of equity and justice, ensuring that no community is treated as a "sacrifice zone" while fostering systemic responses to issues like pollution, climate change, and ecological degradation.

OCERA’s proposal equips citizens with enforceable rights to challenge governmental actions or inactions that jeopardize environmental safety. The initiative is forward-thinking and action-ready, addressing deficiencies in the current legal framework by mandating sustainable solutions and empowering individuals, nonprofits, and other groups to protect public health through litigation. With provisions for cost recovery for prevailing parties, the amendment lowers barriers to environmental justice, creating a powerful mechanism for ensuring that government policies align with the best available science to secure this right for all Oregonians.

The Right to a Healthy Environment (RTHE) was inspired by states with similar constitutional language, including Hawai’i, Pennsylvania and Montana. In Hawai’i, Our Children’s Trust (OCT) and Earthjustice sued on behalf of Hawaiian youth, over the lack of a plan to achieve state carbon pollution reduction goals in transportation. After initial attempts to dismiss, the governor and Dept of Transportation agreed to create a plan under court supervision rather than fight the case.  For any inquiries about the legal mechanics, please email team@oceraunited.org.

Oregon enjoys a reputation of being environmentally friendly, perhaps due to the beauty of what natural resources we still have, but those in the know have a different story to tell.  From harmful amounts of nitrates in groundwater to damaged watersheds, our water is clearly not protected.

In addition to the limited effectiveness of Oregon’s current regulatory system, it also depends heavily on federal environmental laws including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Environmental Protection Agency’s definitions of toxic levels to regulate our air, water, ecosystems, and climate systems.  These bedrock environmental laws could be in severe jeopardy with the new administration’s general approach against effective environmental protection.  Things could get even worse for Oregonians expecting safe and clean water to drink, fish in, etc.

The Environmental Quality Commission adopted a second CPP rule which is more lenient than the first. The court threw out the first CPP on procedural grounds, but it did not rule on the fossil fuel industry’s substantive challenge, which the industry will likely raise against the second.

Even if fully and successfully implemented, the CPP does not address all climate elements in Oregon such as the state transportation plan. The CPP rule relies on a governor’s order that could be repealed by a future governor, whereas a constitutional amendment such as this – which comprehensively addresses any climate issue that affects public health and safety – can only be changed by a vote of the people.

This has not been an issue in other states (HI, PA, MT) with environmental rights provisions in their state constitutions. 

This is not a tort, it is a fundamental constitutional right against bad actions or inaction of the state. Courts will likely consider the time it will take for underfunded and understaffed state agencies to “correct course” to comply with constitutional standards when it awards equitable relief – not monetary damages (an important aspect of floodgates) – to address noncompliance. The beauty of equitable relief is that it empowers the court to find the best solution to the case at issue.

In fact, it is possible that within a short period of time, there may be no need to litigate due to proactive general counsels and government attorneys, reviewing and implementing corrective measures to reduce if not eliminate liability under this amendment.

While standing is clear and open to just about anyone, the clear purpose and intent of the amendment will guide courts to interpret and apply the amendment in accordance with its design – to guard public safety and health interests from harmful (or threateningly harmful) government action or inaction, toward a healthy environment for all.  It is, as of yet, impossible to imagine a scenario in which the amendment could be used for malicious or harmful-but-profitable gain.

Again, the amendment drafters intentionally designed the language with sufficient clarity and guidance to courts so any foreseeable challenge would be appropriately addressed.  If you can come up with a scenario, no matter how far-fetched it may be, please let us know at team@oceraunited.com and we’ll address it.  So far, we’ve been able to answer all concerns – usually revolving around distrust / mistrust in the power dynamics related to politics or corporate greed.  The amendment rises above these issues and will shift such dynamics accordingly.

Many people believe that environmental protections mean restrictions on your ability to do what you want on your land, but that’s a common misunderstanding.  Property rights are a “bundle of rights” such as the right to use, exclude, transfer, enjoy, and control various aspects of your land in accordance with the law (such as zoning codes).  There is no such thing as a right to pollute, especially if it negatively affects your neighbors or the interests of others “downstream,” literally or figuratively.

The right WILL, however, help protect YOUR use and enjoyment (and value) of your property by protecting it from harmful activities of others.

There are very few fossil fuel jobs left in Oregon, under 5,000, while renewable generation and other green industries are growing. In 2022, there were 65,763 jobs in clean energy in Oregon, including 7,532 electric transmission and distribution-grid jobs.  This amendment would further protect and promote a just transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy in Oregon.

Oregon is home to incredible farmers and ranchers statewide, who are some of the best stewards in the state.  They know the land and how things work.  The Right to a Healthy Environment helps protect their right to farm and ranch as it ensures their soils, crops, irrigation water, and/or livestock are protected from dangerous toxins and other threats upstream, uphill, or in the air.  In fact, the Right to a Healthy Environment directly aligns with the Right-to-Farm law, as they both ensure practices are “generally accepted, reasonable, and prudent” for all concerned.

Additionally, more stable weather patterns would benefit agriculture worldwide, to include Oregon farmers and ranchers.  As climate resilience programs grow as this amendment helps promote them, farmers and ranchers may even find more opportunities, tax breaks, or incentives in such things as sequestering carbon, implementing regenerative practices, etc.

In the big picture, having a clear line in the sand against practices that harm people’s safety or health creates more predictability in the market and helps to level the playing field between responsible (usually family) farmers / ranchers and the larger (sometimes foreign) corporate holdings that are less attached to the land or the effects of their operations on Oregonians.

Timber is a large and complex industry with mixed reviews.  Whatever side you come down on, the amendment is simply there to draw a clear line in the sand against harms to public safety and health.  So, like all other industries, the responsible actors will be more competitive and successful in the market while the less responsible ones (harming or threatening to harm people’s health or safety) will likely need to shift their business model to become a constitutionally-compliant, good neighbor.

From the climate crisis viewpoint, timber production is already being harmed by longer dry seasons, more insect infestations, wildfires, and an inability to grow trees well due to hotter, drier summers.

Many fear that any environmental restraint will trigger more of the same “NIMBY” (Not In My Back Yard) decisions to relocate polluting activities in communities and areas that have less political / financial power to fight back.  This IS CURRENTLY a common occurrence in the status quo / business-as-usual, where many communities are victimized and unable to access environmental justice. They’re considered “sacrifice zones.”  Environmental rights amendments such as these (considered “Green Amendments” by Maya van Rossum of Green Amendments for the Generations, who coined the term) would put an end to sacrifice zones because EVERY person would have the fundamental, enforceable right to fight back.

Regarding the NIMBY issue, "That hasn't happened yet anywhere, to my knowledge," according to Michael B. Gerrard, the Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice and Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School.  He added “Judges have a great deal of discretion in how they implement the green amendments.  If they felt that addressing an environmental problem in one place might lead to creation of a sacrifice zone somewhere else, I think most judges would be very reluctant to do that.”​

OCERA will have a dual strategy to qualify the ballot through both (1) a legislative referral process happening in the 2025 session and (2) a signature-gathering citizens’ initiative process.  These efforts are mutually beneficial in helping to spread awareness and support, and with robust grassroots power, strategic partnerships, and a little elbow grease, we can get this across the finish line.

The co-chief sponsors include Senators Golden and Manning and Representatives Gamba and Andersen.  Many legislators have indicated they’d step up as co-sponsors and / or vote in support of the measure. 

As the Right to a Healthy Environment is a nonpartisan issue with cross-partisan appeal, we have been and continue to reach out to all legislators.  We’ve provided informational materials and have requested meetings “across the aisle” to ensure the leaders of all Oregonians understand the need for and benefits from this constitutional amendment.