Legislation Seeks to Protect Rhode Islanders’ Rights to Clean, Healthy Environment
March 10, 2025
Share
PROVIDENCE — Rhode Island has famously enshrined shoreline access in the state Constitution; could environmental protections soon follow?
A joint resolution introduced by Sen. Susan Sosnowski, D-South Kingstown, would let voters decide in a referendum if a so-called “green amendment” should be added to the first article of the Constitution.
The proposed amendment would guarantee the Ocean State’s residents to an “inherent, inalienable, indefeasible, and self-executing right to clean air, clean water, healthy and uncontaminated soil, a life-supporting climate, and the preservation of the environment’s natural and scenic, and recreational values.” The drafted clause mandates that the state serve as a trustee and protects, conserves, and maintains the natural resources in perpetuity.
“The state has done a good job protecting the environment; we’ve had good environmental controls and protections for the water, atmosphere, and the air, but I think it can be improved,” said Don Hermes, co-chair of the Peace Dale Congregational Church’s green team. “The green amendment will add another level of strength to protections, and it will head off things before they happen.”
Hermes, a retired geologist and former professor at the University of Rhode Island for 40 years, said the amendment would allow the state to exert stronger control over the environment, by letting it preemptively act before polluters pollute. He’s advocating for the environment with his fellow co-chair, George Faucher.
Hermes cited the 2020 case brought to a Montana District Court by Our Children’s Trust, Held v. Montana, as an inspiration. The case’s plaintiffs, a group of 16 youths between the ages of 2 and 18, argued the state’s support of its extractive and environmentally harmful oil and coal industry has worsened the impacts of climate change on their lives, in violation of the Montana Constitution.
A District Court judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and that ruling was upheld in December by the Montana Supreme Court, which held the state had violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and that a state prohibition on measuring greenhouse gas emissions was inconsistent with the state Constitution.
Montana is only one of three states with an active green amendment in its constitution; the others are Pennsylvania and New York.
Hermes said the chaos from the Trump administration adds another layer of need for the amendment. “The environment is going to be in double or triple jeopardy because of the changes happening in our climate,” he said.
It’s been an especially chaotic year for federal environmental protections, and funding. The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, two of the chief agencies that work on climate change and other environmental issues, have faced mass firings or funding reductions in the weeks since President Donald Trump was inaugurated.
The cuts been wreaking havoc, even in Rhode Island. Local environmental agencies have found large swathes of their budgets inaccessible, and changes to NOAA staffing or funding in particular will likely damage the state’s commercial fishing industry and marine research.
It’s not unusual for advocates to push for new constitutional amendments covering different broad rights. For years pro-education groups, including the Rhode Island Foundation, have successively lobbied lawmakers to pass a constitutional amendment that would guarantee the right to an education in the state.
Rhode Island’s not the only state in which a green amendment is being sought this year. The national organization Green Amendments for the Generations has been advocating for states to add environmental protections to their constitutions. Rhode Island is the 16th state to file legislation supporting a green amendment. Other states with proposals include Connecticut, New Jersey, New Mexico, Hawaii, Iowa, and Michigan.
“Rather than instruct government officials in the state to regulate and control the use of the state’s natural resources as a means of advancing natural resource protection, the proposed Rhode Island amendment would create a right of the people to a clean, safe and healthy environment,” said Maya van Rossum, founder of the national organization, in a release.
“This is a bold move by a small state,” Hermes said. “But because of our progressive nature I think we have a chance of really pushing this forward.”
S327 has yet to receive a hearing in the Senate. A companion bill has not yet been introduced in the House of Representatives.
While on its surface, installing additional protection for the environment seems reasonable, beware of the unintended consequences. I can only imagine the plethora of lawsuits precipitated by such an amendment. For example, as a citizen who is against offshore wind farms, I could argue that the State’s permitting of such would violate my rights to a clean and healthy environment. Or if the state were to issue a permit to alter a wetland, which is already regulated, I could add another layer of conflict by arguing again that my right to a healthy environment has been infringed upon.
Of course, the lawyers would prosper. And, lastly, how would this amendment be enforced? Another bureaucracy?
I’m all for environmental protection. But it’s not as simple as it appears.
Careful consideration is required.
I support the amendment. Too much of rule by the rich destroys the environment. The environment and the commuity’s public health needs to be foremost in the efforts that we call economic development. If you canot prove it will be safe, do not leat it loose in the commuity. As for dealing with fossil fuel shills who fight wind and solar, we can argue that their harms are phony or much less than the harms of the alternatives. It also allows us to argue for conservation, for using less as an entire society.