In part, the “Rights of Nature for Boulder Creek” declaration recognized that, within town limits, the creek and its watershed are “living” entities possessing “fundamental and inalienable rights,” such as to exist, to be restored, and to provide an adequate habitat to native wildlife. 

The Rights of Nature/or the Creek and Watershed: The Creek and its encompassing Watershed, and the living and other things existing naturally therein, exist and function as an integrated and interdependent system of natural communities and are therefore understood, respected, and recognized in this Resolution as a living entity, possessing fundamental and inalienable rights.

It got even sillier.

Nederland appointed two legal guardians to act on behalf of the water.

Activists hailed the move as the first time humans were appointed to act as legal guardians for nature (within the United States) by recognizing the rights of rivers, forests, animals, and ecosystems. 

I'd normally digress about now and hypothesize that a majority of leftists who advocate for the rights of rivers, forests, ecosystems, and other nature stuff aren't all that interested in the rights of pre-born children, but I don't see a need to state the obvious.

Anyway, a funny thing happened on the way to Nederland, Utopia.

As reported by Inside Climate News last Tuesday, with "the ink is barely dry on a Colorado town’s first rights of nature resolutions," the Nederland town board voted unanimously to repeal the declarations.

Here's more:

Nederland Mayor Billy Giblin said it is “crystal clear” that the rights of nature resolutions are not legally binding and that the reason he sought to repeal the resolutions is because he, along with the town’s water lawyers and administration, are concerned “that the entity that brought us the rights of nature resolution” is opposing four water storage rights application permits across the state, including Nederland’s.

In an explanatory document filed ahead of Tuesday’s board meeting, Giblin alleged that previously passed resolutions “may be being used in ways that the Town did not understand or anticipate at the time of adoption, and in ways that could jeopardize the Town’s water security.” 

Giblin further charged:

This unexpected shift — from Rights of Nature as a tool to provide the Town with information about the health of the Creek, to others using Rights of Nature as a point of leverage against the Town and its neighbors in the community … should be considered in deciding whether Rights of Nature remains a good fit for the Town of Nederland.

In other words, of course it's not a good fit for the people of Nederland.

Teaching moment: 

Before you sign on the proverbial dotted line; or in this case, vote in favor of a resolution, you first might want to make sure you thoroughly understand what you're signing or what you're supporting. In this case, before your environmentalist self gets out over your rest of the story skis. 

Related:

'Nature Rights' for Trees and Rocks Outlawed in Utah

The Annual Earth Day Conflict Report: From Bald Hedgehogs to Witch Executions to Deadly Cereal!

Environmental Activists Warn of 'Insect Apocalypse' That Isn't Actually Happening