Measure 20-373: MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS.
Throughout its 1,500+ words, Measure 20-373 raises more questions than it answers. It’s vague, broad, and poorly-written. Voters are being asked to pass a proposal that doesn’t even have a cost estimate.
Here’s what we DON’T know about 20-373:
1. Who will be sued?
The measure is so broad that it could allow ANY resident to sue ANY local business or local government, including the County, cities, school districts, parks and recreation districts, fire protection districts, library districts, or education service districts. The potential penalties will add up fast, and there is NO MAXIMUM to the penalties.
2. Who will enforce this measure?
The measure does not specify which government agency will be in charge of protecting the watersheds and taking legal action against suspected violators. The Public Works Department? The sheriff? And what other public services will suffer if these public workers must spend time enforcing this new law?
3. How much will this measure cost?
Nobody has done a financial analysis to determine what the measure’s cost to local governments or the taxpayers will be. When local budgets are already getting slashed, we can’t afford to write another blank check. Ultimately this measure will lead to increased taxes, cuts to basic services, or both. Plus, EWEB Commissioners say it could even jack up utility bills for Lane County residents.
VOTE NO on MEASURE 20-373.
There are too many unanswered questions.
(This information furnished by Betsy Schultz, Protect our County.)
As an elected member of the Eugene Water & Electric Board, my responsibility is to ensure our community continues to receive safe, reliable drinking water while responsibly managing the watershed that supplies it. After careful review, the full EWEB Board voted to adopt a formal resolution opposing Measure 20-373.
Protecting clean water is central to EWEB’s mission. For more than a century, our customer-owned utility has worked to safeguard drinking water and responsibly manage the watershed that supplies Eugene and surrounding communities. We already operate under strong environmental protections, including the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and Oregon’s own water protection laws.
Unfortunately, Measure 20-373 introduces broad and unclear legal language that could create serious challenges for utilities like EWEB that are already working every day to protect water quality.
The measure allows lawsuits based on perceived threats to watersheds without clear scientific standards or definitions. That uncertainty could force utilities to conduct additional legal reviews, risk assessments, and litigation defense for routine operations and infrastructure projects—even when those activities fully comply with existing environmental laws.
Those delays and legal costs would not occur in a vacuum. As a customer-owned utility, additional legal risk or operational disruption ultimately affects the ratepayers who rely on us for safe drinking water and reliable service.
Even more concerning, the measure could slow or halt projects designed specifically to protect our watershed and maintain water quality. Instead of strengthening environmental stewardship, it could create barriers to the very work that protects our drinking water.
The EWEB Board voted to oppose Measure 20-373 because we believe environmental protection should be clear, science-based, and coordinated with the laws already in place to safeguard our water.
For the sake of our watershed and the customers we serve, I urge voters to vote NO on Measure 20-373.
John Brown, EWEB Commissioner
(This information furnished by Betsy Schultz, Protect our County.)
As a Lane County Commissioner, one of my most important responsibilities is ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used to deliver the essential services our community depends on. That includes maintaining safe roads and bridges, supporting public safety, investing in behavioral health services, and responding to the complex challenges of homelessness. These are the core functions residents expect their county government to provide.
Measure 20-373 threatens our ability to do that work.
While protecting clean water and healthy ecosystems is a goal we all share, this measure introduces sweeping and unclear legal standards that could expose Lane County to significant litigation. Under the measure, lawsuits could be brought based on alleged threats to watersheds, even without clear scientific standards or evidence of harm.
That kind of legal uncertainty creates serious financial risk for county government. Every lawsuit the county must defend requires time, staff resources, and ultimately, taxpayer dollars.
Lane County is already working hard to address some of our community’s biggest challenges. We are investing in road maintenance and transportation infrastructure, strengthening public safety partnerships, expanding behavioral health services, and supporting coordinated responses to homelessness. These efforts require stable funding and the ability to move projects forward without unnecessary legal barriers.
Measure 20-373 could also interfere with the county’s ability to implement important elements of our Climate Action Plan. Many climate initiatives involve infrastructure improvements, land management strategies, and environmental restoration work that could be delayed or challenged under the broad legal framework created by this measure.
The result would be more uncertainty, more litigation, and fewer resources available for the services residents depend on.
Lane County residents deserve environmental protection that is thoughtful, science-based, and coordinated with existing laws. Measure 20-373 does not provide that balance.
For these reasons, I urge voters to carefully consider the unintended consequences of this measure and vote NO on Measure 20-373.
Lane County Commissioner Pat Farr
(This information furnished by Betsy Schultz, Protect our County.)
Top 5 Reasons to
VOTE NO
on Measure 20-373
You've probably heard and read about the "Watershed Bill of Rights." There's a lot of arguments from different sources, so here's a rundown of the top reasons to oppose it.
Top 5 reasons to vote against 20-373:
Protect Our County and VOTE NO on 20-373.
(This information furnished by Betsy Schultz, Protect our County.)
Former Eugene Fire Chief Urges No Vote!
During my career in the fire service, my highest priority was the safety of the community. Firefighters work every day to protect lives, property, and the natural resources that make Lane County a remarkable place to live.
Clean water and healthy watersheds are essential to that mission. Protecting them is something I strongly support.
However, Measure 20-373 raises serious concerns for those of us who have worked in public safety.
The measure creates sweeping and unclear legal standards that allow lawsuits based on perceived threats to watersheds—even when there is no clear evidence of environmental harm. Because the language is so broad, routine public safety operations could potentially be subject to litigation.
Firefighters regularly operate heavy equipment, move soil, cut fire lines, clear vegetation, and manage water flows during emergency response and wildfire prevention work. These activities are critical to protecting lives and property, but under the vague legal framework created by Measure 20-373, they could be interpreted as interfering with a watershed’s “rights.”
The last thing emergency responders need during a wildfire, flood response, or disaster recovery effort is the risk that routine lifesaving actions could later become the subject of lawsuits.
Beyond emergency response, the measure could also create costly legal challenges for local governments and agencies that provide essential public safety services. Those costs ultimately come out of the same public budgets that support fire protection, emergency preparedness, and disaster response.
Protecting our environment and protecting our communities should never be placed in opposition to one another. Effective environmental stewardship requires clear laws, sound science, and coordination between agencies that manage land, water, and public safety.
From my perspective as a former fire chief responsible for protecting this community, the measure’s unintended consequences could make it harder—not easier—to keep our community safe.
For those reasons, I urge Lane County voters to vote NO on Measure 20-373.
Former Eugene Fire Chief Randy Groves
(This information furnished by Betsy Schultz, Protect our County.)
Lane County Mayors Urge No Vote
As mayors serving communities across Lane County, we are committed to protecting our region's natural resources while responsibly managing the public services our residents depend on every day. We believe environmental protection should be thoughtful, science-based, and implemented in ways that strengthen our communities.
Measure 20-373 does not meet that standard.
While the goal of protecting watersheds is one we all share, this measure is written so broadly that it creates serious legal and financial risks for local governments. It would allow any individual to file lawsuits against cities, counties, businesses, nonprofits, and utilities based on a perceived violation of newly created "rights" for watersheds and ecosystems. Because these definitions are vague and not tied to established scientific or regulatory standards, routine and legally permitted activities could become targets for costly litigation.
For cities already facing tight budgets and increasing demands on public services, this creates real consequences. Local governments could be forced to spend significant public dollars defending against lawsuits rather than investing in the services our residents rely on - including public safety, infrastructure maintenance, parks, and community programs.
These legal risks would also create uncertainty for housing, infrastructure, and economic development projects that communities across Lane County are working hard to deliver. Projects that improve quality of life, support local jobs, and address our housing shortage could be delayed or halted due to litigation.
We believe our community deserves environmental protections that are grounded in science, coordinated with existing laws, and designed to produce measurable outcomes. Unfortunately, Measure 20-373 does not provide that clarity or certainty.
As local leaders responsible for stewarding taxpayer resources and ensuring essential services continue to operate, we are concerned about the unintended consequences this measure would create.
For these reasons, we urge Lane County voters to vote NO on Measure 20-373.
Springfield Mayor Sean VanGordon
Oakridge Mayor Bryan Cutchen
Cottage Grove Mayor Candace Solesbee
Creswell Mayor Nick Smith
Florence Mayor Rob Ward
(This information furnished by Betsy Schultz, Protect our County.)
Current and Former Elected Leaders Urge No Vote!
Throughout our years of public service, we have worked to strengthen our communities through thoughtful policy, responsible governance, and stewardship of the natural resources that make Lane County such a special place to live. Whether supporting strong schools, improving transportation infrastructure, or maintaining our parks, trails, and waterways, we believe public policy should be clear, practical, and grounded in sound science.
Measure 20-373 does not meet that standard.
While the goal of protecting watersheds is one we share, the measure is written with vague and expansive language that creates significant legal uncertainty. It allows lawsuits based on perceived threats to watersheds without clear definitions or scientific standards, opening the door for litigation against businesses, nonprofits, and every level of government.
That uncertainty could have serious consequences for public services and community projects.
Local governments, park districts, and public agencies rely on clear legal frameworks to maintain parks, improve trails, restore habitat, build infrastructure, and provide the services residents depend on every day. Measure 20-373 instead creates a broad legal structure that could delay projects, drain taxpayer resources through lawsuits, and expose routine government activities to costly legal challenges.
Ironically, many of the projects that protect our environment—habitat restoration, stormwater improvements, park maintenance, and watershed stewardship—could face new legal obstacles under this measure.
Protecting our environment is essential. But effective environmental policy must be grounded in science, coordinated with existing laws, and designed to produce measurable results.
Measure 20-373 creates confusion and legal risk without clearly improving environmental protection.
Lane County deserves policies that protect our natural resources while maintaining responsible governance and strong public services.
For these reasons, we urge voters to carefully consider the unintended consequences and vote NO on Measure 20-373.
Former State Senator Lee Beyer
Willamalane Board Member Chris Wig
(This information furnished by Betsy Schultz, Protect our County.)
Protect our watersheds? Absolutely!
20-373? No—the devil is in the details.
In 2019, we used our retirement savings to purchase 39 acres of beautiful forestland in the McKenzie River corridor. We were excited to protect our healthy watershed and contribute clean water to the Mckenzie River, so quickly joined the Pure Water Partners program. Then the Holiday Farm Fire happened and our forestland burned as a result. PWP did an amazing job pivoting to assist us in post-fire riparian restoration, and we were among the beneficiaries of that assistance. As a result, our burned riparian areas experienced little to no erosion and have significantly less invasive vegetation than many areas in the corridor.
20-373 is a danger to post-fire restoration work.
What if someone didn’t like what a restoration project did, the tools it used—or what the results looked like? What if they want us to "leave nature untouched" even if that means our forest never returns in our lifetime? The measure requires only perceived risk of harm, not actual damage or "scientific certainty or full evidence of risk." (Watershed Bill of Rights, Section 2 (d)(2) ) Prevailing parties get their legal fees paid, making it easy to file a lawsuit.
Intent vs Impact To qualify for Emergency Forest Restoration Program cost-share assistance to replant our burned woodland, we had to register with the Farm Service Agency and we file a Farm Schedule with our taxes. Does that make us a small business and open to lawsuits? What about other woodland owning families or sole proprietors that form LLCs for tax purposes? What if someone felt our forest looked "damaged" by our efforts to reduce scotch broom and blackberries and decided we might be causing harm to the watershed? Even an unsuccessful lawsuit could bankrupt us. We could lose our property, our home and our future.
Details matter.
Healthy watersheds: YES!
20-373: NO
The devil's in the details.
Kate McMichael and Teresa Hausser
(This information furnished by Betsy Schultz, Protect our County.)
Follow the Science.
VOTE NO on MEASURE 20-373.
In Oregon, we believe in protecting our natural environment, and we believe Lane County has incredible natural beauty and clean water that is worth protecting. And we also believe in science.
Measure 20-373 is anti-science, plain and simple.
If passed, this measure would allow Lane County residents to file lawsuits even without “scientific certainty or full evidence of the risk.” (Source: Watershed Bill of Rights, Section 2 (d)(2) )
Public policy should be based on science. That’s common sense.
We shouldn’t allow baseless lawsuits to be filed – and even won – based on just the danger of damage to the watershed, without full scientific evidence.
Oregon has a long tradition of active community conversation about how we can use new science and research to protect our environment. Measure 20-373 would be a step backward, putting existing watershed protection projects at risk.
That’s why environmental leaders, EWEB Commissioners, diverse community groups, and a bipartisan group of local elected leaders are coming together to OPPOSE this reckless ballot measure.
Follow the science. Vote NO on Measure 20-373.
(This information furnished by Betsy Schultz, Protect our County.)
We believe healthy watersheds are essential to a healthy community. Protecting the rivers, wetlands, and landscapes that sustain our region is something we take seriously. At the same time, we believe safe, stable, and affordable housing is fundamental to the wellbeing of families and communities.
Measure 20-373 puts those two goals unnecessarily in conflict.
An affordable housing developer works every day to build homes for families, seniors, and individuals who are struggling to find stable housing in Lane County. These projects are carefully planned, legally permitted, and built to meet strict environmental regulations designed to protect water quality and natural resources.
But building housing requires working with the land. It means moving dirt, managing stormwater, installing foundations, creating safe access, and adding necessary infrastructure.
Under Measure 20-373, these normal and legally permitted activities could become grounds for lawsuits. The measure allows any resident of Lane County to sue over alleged violations of a property’s “inalienable rights to naturally exist,” even when there is no clear evidence of environmental harm.
In practice, this means that anyone could attempt to block an affordable housing project simply because construction changes the land in some way.
The result would be predictable: projects delayed, housing costs driven higher, and fewer homes built for the people who need them most.
Ironically, this measure could undermine the kind of thoughtful land stewardship our community actually needs. Responsible housing development today includes stormwater management, energy efficiency, and environmental protections built directly into projects. Those improvements help communities grow while protecting the landscapes around us.
Lane County faces a deep housing shortage that affects working families, seniors, and people experiencing housing instability. At the same time, we all want strong environmental protections.
Measure 20-373 does not effectively achieve either goal.
For these reasons, Emily Reiman, CEO, DevNW urges voters to vote NO on Measure 20-373.
(This information furnished by Betsy Schultz, Protect our County.)
Lane County Farm Bureau urges a NO vote on Measure 20-373.
Farmers and ranchers are among the most dedicated stewards of land and water in Lane County. Our families live on the land we farm, often for generations, and our livelihoods depend on healthy soil, clean water, and thriving watersheds. Protecting these natural resources is not just a value, it is a necessity for agriculture and the rural communities that depend on it.
Measure 20-373 is the wrong approach.
While this measure may sound appealing, the truth is that it exposes farmers, ranchers, foresters, landowners, and other local businesses to costly litigation – even when they are operating responsibly and following existing environmental laws.
Oregon already has strong environmental protections. Farmers operate within these regulations every day while voluntarily investing in conservation practices like riparian restoration, soil health improvements, water efficiency, and habitat protection.
Instead of supporting collaboration and practical conservation, Measure 20-373 invites uncertainty and conflict. This proposal undermines the very people who care for the land the most and drives up costs for local farms and businesses, making it harder to produce food and sustain family operations.
Those costs don’t stop at the farm gate. When agriculture and local businesses face higher costs and legal risks, it affects our entire community through higher food prices, fewer local jobs, and reduced economic stability in rural areas.
Measure 20-373 is bad for Lane County.
We’re fortunate to live in Lane County. Local agriculture helps power our economy, feeds our neighbors, and supports a secure local food supply. Farmers and ranchers are committed partners in protecting our natural resources, and we believe solutions should be practical, science-based, and cooperative.
Agriculture provides family-wage jobs, keeps rural communities strong, and helps preserve the working landscapes that make this region special.
Protecting watersheds matters, but this proposal risks harming the farmers, families, and communities who already work every day to protect them.
Please vote NO on Measure 20-373.
(This information furnished by Shane Ruddell, Lane County Farm Buraeu.)
Oregon is #1 in sustainable forestry
Working Forests PROTECT water quality
We are an organization representing forestry companies who collaborated in 2022 WITH OREGON’S MOST PROMINENT ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS to make the most dramatic expansion of water quality protections for Oregon’s working forests in fifty years.
These changes came after more than a year of cooperatively reviewing the latest science to develop new laws known as the Private Forest Accord.
As a result, Oregon has THE MOST ADVANCED WATER QUALITY PROTECTIONS FOR FORESTRY in the nation.
These new protections provide cold, clean water in forest streams, safeguarding drinking water quality and native fish habitat in the face of climate change. Oregon’s forest practice laws contain more than 100 individual regulations for water quality protection including:
WHAT’S GOOD FOR FISH IS GOOD FOR PEOPLE.
For a full list of all the organizations who participated in the Private Forest Accord visit:
ofic.com/policy/private-forest-accord
Measure 20-373 is UNECESSARY
Even before the Private Forest Accord overhauled water quality protections, stream monitoring data throughout the state confirms Oregon’s extensive forest protection laws effectively protect water. Working forests dominate the McKenzie watershed and year after year EWEB reports their drinking water “meets or exceeds all state and federal drinking water health standards” and is listed as an “Outstanding Performer” by Oregon Health Authority.
We are proud that Oregon’s private working forests have the most advanced protections for drinking water on the west coast.
Vote NO on 20-373
Oregon Forest Industries Council
(This information furnished by Betsy Schultz, Protect our County.)
MEASURE 20-373
=
NEIGHBORS SUING NEIGHBORS
Measure 20-373 would open the door to countless new lawsuits against local businesses and local government. That means neighbors suing neighbors, out-of-control attorney bills, limitless penalties, and legal risk for all of Lane County.
This measure is extremely broad. It would allow any Lane County resident to sue their neighbors’ small businesses if they feel watersheds are being damaged – EVEN WITHOUT “SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY OR FULL EVIDENCE OF RISK.” This is reckless, it’s anti-scientific, and it will cost Lane County residents millions.
That’s why we must VOTE NO on 20-373.
Neighbors could sue neighbors for even petty grievances, creating needless expensive lawsuits. Almost everywhere in Lane County is part of a watershed, so few places are safe.
Small business owners washing their trucks in their driveway, landscapers caring for lawns and gardens, and Lane County’s family farmers would all be at legal risk for accusations of damaging watersheds.
School districts, parks districts, education service districts, and fire protection districts could even be sued for routine vehicle maintenance or regular groundskeeping.
If a court finds someone liable for damaging a watershed, they would be on the hook to pay 1% of the total cost to fully restore the watershed EVERY DAY until repaired, without limit.
Measure 20-373
=
Limitless Lawsuits.
VOTE NO.
(This information furnished by Betsy Schultz, Protect our County.)
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
Measure 20-373
A Citizens’ Jury Voted 13–10 Against This Measure
This argument presents findings from an AI-simulated Citizens’ Initiative Review — a proven Oregon democratic process in which randomly selected residents study a measure, hear expert testimony, and issue public findings. Actual CIR panels are established in Oregon state law; this simulation applies the same methodology using publicly available sources. Full simulation at cir.ElectionByJury.org/lane-watershed-2026
A 23-member panel reflecting Lane County’s demographics deliberated for five days on Measure 20-373. The jury voted 13–10 against the measure — not because they oppose clean water, but because they concluded this law cannot achieve it.
What the jury unanimously agreed on:
Why the majority voted NO:
The measure never defines what conduct violates watershed rights, what “naturally exist, flourish, and regenerate” requires in practice, or what baseline watersheds should be restored to. It would expose farmers, ranchers, and small businesses to open-ended citizen lawsuits while costing Lane County taxpayers money to defend a law that legal experts agree will be struck down.
The minority’s view:
Ten jurors voted YES, arguing that regulatory failure demands action even through imperfect tools, and that symbolic passage pressures state and federal reform.
Both sides agreed: Lane County’s water deserves protection. This measure is not the right vehicle.
cir.ElectionByJury.org/lane-watershed-2026
(This information furnished by Clay Shentrup.)
Measure 20-373 would harm small business
Small businesses are the lifeblood of our communities. They are the family-owned shops on Main Street, the local restaurants where neighbors gather, the contractors who build our homes, and the entrepreneurs creating jobs and opportunity across our Lane County. Every day, these businesses invest in our communities, support local charities, and help make our cities vibrant places to live and work.
The Eugene and Springfield Chambers of Commerce exist to support those businesses and the employees and families who depend on them. We also believe strongly in protecting the natural environment that makes our region such a special place to live.
Unfortunately, Measure 20-373 would harm small business while having little positive impact on the environment.
While the intent of protecting watersheds is a goal we share, this measure is written so broadly that it creates serious uncertainty for businesses, local governments, and community institutions across Lane County. By establishing vague “rights” for watersheds and allowing private lawsuits based on alleged violations, the measure opens the door to costly litigation over routine and legally permitted activities.
That uncertainty could have far-reaching consequences for our local economy. Businesses large and small rely on clear and predictable rules in order to invest, create jobs, and grow. Measure 20-373 instead introduces legal ambiguity that could delay or halt projects, discourage investment, and make it more difficult for employers to operate in our community.
The measure could also increase costs for essential services and infrastructure by exposing public agencies, utilities, and community partners to lawsuits and legal challenges. Those costs ultimately affect everyone who lives and works in Lane County.
Strong environmental protection is essential, and it must be grounded in science, coordinated with existing laws, and designed to produce measurable results. Measure 20-373 does not provide that clarity.
For these reasons, the Eugene and Springfield Chambers of Commerce urge voters to vote NO on Measure 20-373.
Vonnie Mickleson and Brittany Quick-Warner
(This information furnished by Betsy Schultz, Protect our County.)
Housing Advocates Urge No Vote!
Better Housing Together was founded to help Lane County address its housing crisis through collaboration, environmental stewardship, and smart urban development. We advocate for sustainable, walkable neighborhoods and well-designed infill housing because compact, efficient communities reduce climate impacts, protect working lands, and make the best use of existing infrastructure.
We strongly support science-based environmental protection. However, Measure 20-373 is not grounded in clear scientific standards and creates sweeping legal uncertainty that would undermine, rather than advance, responsible community planning.
The measure establishes an extraordinarily broad private right of action allowing lawsuits based on alleged harm to vaguely defined watershed “rights.” In practice, this would expose housing providers, local governments, nonprofits, and community partners to costly and unpredictable litigation over routine, legally permitted activities. That uncertainty directly threatens the production of the diverse and attainable housing our region urgently needs.
Lane County already faces a severe housing shortage affecting working families, seniors, and young people across our community. Over many years of housing advocacy, we have seen how rules intended for worthy purposes can sometimes be used as tools to delay or block much-needed housing. Measure 20-373 would create yet another avenue for litigation that could be used to stop or stall housing projects, making it even harder to address our affordability crisis.
Policies that create open-ended legal risk for homebuilding and infrastructure ultimately make it more difficult to deliver the homes our neighbors need.
Just as importantly, Measure 20-373 does not provide measurable, science-based environmental outcomes. Effective environmental policy requires clear standards, accountability, and alignment with existing regulatory frameworks. This measure instead creates confusion, conflict, and costly litigation without demonstrating meaningful environmental benefit.
Lane County deserves both strong environmental stewardship and abundant, attainable housing. Better Housing Together believes we can—and must—achieve both through thoughtful, evidence-based policy.
For these reasons, Better Housing Together urges a NO vote on Measure 20-373.
(This information furnished by Betsy Schultz, Protect our County.)