Last November, Everett made history by passing Initiative 24-03, granting the Snohomish River legal standing rights in court. In January, the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, along with local developers including Robinett Brothers, Greencity Development, and Washington Aggregates & Concrete Association, filed a complaint in Snohomish County Superior Court challenging the initiative.
The Core Arguments
The developers, represented by Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, argue that the initiative conflicts with federal and state laws, exceeds the scope of local initiative power, and will cause frivolous lawsuits because scientific certainty isn’t mandated for filing cases on behalf of the river.
Brian Holtzclaw, general counsel for the Master Builders Association, emphasized: “This is not about environmental protection. We all want to have clean waters and a good, healthy environment for everyone. This is simply about whether or not the way to address these issues is through the local initiative process”.
The Defense
Rachel Kurtz-McAlaine, an attorney representing Standing for Nature defending the initiative, explained that the city law works to fill gaps that existing laws might have and acts as a preventive measure to protect the watershed. “Protecting the environment is an uphill battle,” she said. “This was a way to have a local community be able to have some say in how the local river watershed gets treated, without adding more regulations”.
The Spokane Precedent: Key Differences
Opponents point to a 2009 Spokane initiative that was struck down by the Washington Supreme Court, claiming similar language makes both initiatives invalid. However, Kurtz-McAlaine argues there are crucial differences: “The Spokane initiative also had not just the rights of the river, but also the rights of the citizens in Spokane to use and access water. And I think that’s where the court, they really had an issue with that”.
The Everett initiative doesn’t attempt to grant citizens access to water, meaning it doesn’t cover water use rights. Unlike the Spokane bill, Everett’s law includes a preemption clause stating the initiative isn’t viable in cases where preexisting state and federal laws have already established regulations or specific enforcement jurisdiction.
Addressing Concerns About Frivolous Lawsuits
Opponents claim that because scientific certainty isn’t required, the law will spark frivolous litigation. However, the initiative’s structure creates natural barriers: if a lawsuit is successful, damages equal the cost of restoring the watershed, and that money goes to the City of Everett, not the plaintiff. “If somebody throws a candy wrapper in the river, there’s not enough of a restoration there, a remedy, for a court to take that on,” Kurtz-McAlaine explained. “It’s really designed for large impacts that somehow made its way around regulations”.
Regarding the evidentiary standard, civil cases typically use the preponderance of evidence concept, requiring the party making the claim to prove their argument is more than 50% likely to be true. “There still needs to be credible evidence,” Kurtz-McAlaine said. “If you kind of wait for the scientific certainty, then it’s too late. The harm could be just impossible to remedy”.
The City’s Position
In September, Everett City Attorney Ramsey Ramerman submitted a response siding with the developers, stating that while the city supports protecting the watershed, existing federal and state laws along with the city’s own regulations are already in place to protect the watershed and related water bodies.
What This Means for the Rights of Nature Movement
The initiative adds Everett to a growing list of states and countries worldwide joining the Rights of Nature movement, which stems from Indigenous mindsets that believe environments and natural entities should have the same rights as people to be protected and flourish.
When the initiative passed, Standing for Washington expected opposition. “It’s such a novel concept that I think it’s just scary to developers because it’s new and they haven’t seen how it could work,” Kurtz-McAlaine said. “But, that’s not a reason to get rid of it”.
The court’s decision will determine whether Everett’s voters have the authority to protect their watershed through this innovative legal framework—and could set a precedent for communities nationwide seeking to defend their natural resources.
Read the full article On Friday, a judge will consider whether the Snohomish River has rights, by Eliza Aronson, Everett Herald, October 22, 2025.
Image: A boat navigates the Snohomish River near the Lowell Riverfront Trail on Oct. 21, 2025 in Everett, Washington. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
