You’ve heard of human rights. But have you heard of . . . river rights?
A court in the South American country of Ecuador ruled that pollution violates the rights of a river. The river in question: the Machángara, which runs through the nation’s capital city, Quito.
This river springs from high in the Andes mountains. Upstream, it’s fresh and clean. But when it hits the city, things get sticky.
About 2.6 million people live in Quito. Many of them live along the Machángara River. Some dump garbage and sewage into the water as it passes through. Many cities treat wastewater to clean it before releasing it back into nature. But in Quito, there’s almost no wastewater treatment.
According to the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, “the river carries away tons of garbage that comes down from gullies and hillsides.”
As a result, the river has experienced low oxygen levels. Aquatic animals need adequate oxygen to thrive.
Quito has a pollution problem. But how to solve it?
Ecuador’s court answers that question with the language of rights. Many countries say people have a right to clean water. But Ecuador’s court says the river has a right to be clean. The officials point to Ecuador’s constitution.
Ecuador’s lawmakers follow a written constitution. The nation has had 20 different constitutions over its history. The latest one was adopted in 2008. This constitution claims that natural features have the right not to be degraded or polluted.
Many Christians believe rights are given to humans by God. The United States Declaration of Independence echoes this idea. It says that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights.” In such a picture, animals and inanimate objects don’t have rights of their own. Instead, people, who bear the image of the Creator, are uniquely granted rights. But people have a responsibility to treat God-given things—animals, resources—with care.
Some philosophers believe rights don’t really exist. Instead, they result from agreements people make with each other. If that’s the case, then who determines which people give rights to inanimate things, like rivers?
The same idea pops up when people discuss the protection of animals. Many people are willing to speak out about “animal rights.” But should humans protect animal life because creatures have rights? Or should they do so because a Creator put them in charge of nurturing creation?
The Quito government has appealed the court’s decision to grant rights to the river. It remains to be seen whether the case will prompt a clean-up plan for the pollution problem.
Why? It’s good to protect nature, but our reasons for doing so should follow God’s creation order and intentions.
