Join the Coalition

“We've cared for working land in Lane County for decades. Measure 20-373 punishes responsible stewardship with the threat of constant litigation — that's not protection, it's chaos.”

Steve and Wylda Cafferata

“Lane County needs environmental policy that's actually grounded in science and accountable to voters. Measure 20-373 is neither.”

Theresa Hausser

“Measure 20-373 would harm small business while having little positive impact on the environment... 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.”

Eugene & Springfield Chambers of Commerce

Joint Statement

“Lane County deserves real solutions, not a measure that turns every land-use decision into a lawsuit.”

Andrew Van Atta

“Small cities like Creswell can't absorb the cost of constant litigation. Measure 20-373 would force communities to choose between paying lawyers and paying for services our residents count on every day.”

Nicholas Smith

Mayor of Creswell

“I care deeply about protecting our water, our natural resources, our county, and our future. As a concerned and committed community member, I urge you to vote NO on Measure 20-373.

We all deserve clean water, and we must protect it through thoughtful, effective policies that bring people together. Our community deserves a stronger, more certain path forward.

This proposal is unclear and could create opportunities for misuse, along with costly unintended consequences for our community and the public services we all rely on. Strong environmental policy should unite us and deliver real, lasting solutions—not division or burdens passed on to future generations.”

Carolina Jackson

“Farmers and ranchers are among the most dedicated stewards of land and water in Lane County... 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.”

Shane Ruddell

Lane County Farm Bureau

“We've watched Lane County thrive when good policy and good science work hand in hand. Measure 20-373 sets that balance aside in favor of open-ended litigation — the wrong path for our community.”

Ed and Kari Westlund

“Oregon has the most advanced water quality protections for forestry in the nation. 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. Measure 20-373 is unnecessary.”

Oregon Forest Industries Council

Oregon Forest Industries Council

“Measure 20-373 doesn't improve our watersheds — it just hands our community over to courtrooms. Lane County deserves real, accountable environmental policy.”

Joy Marshall

“Decades of working in Oregon's forests have taught me that good outcomes come from science and stewardship — not from legal fights. Measure 20-373 takes Lane County in the wrong direction.”

Bob Zybach

District 5 Commissioner Candidate / NW Maps Co.

“While the goal of protecting watersheds is one we share, the measure is written with vague and expansive language that creates significant legal uncertainty... 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.”

Lee Beyer

Former State Senator

“After a career managing Oregon forests, I can say plainly: Measure 20-373 increases wildfire risk by tying the hands of land managers and inviting paralysis through litigation. That's not how we protect Lane County's watersheds — it's how we put them at greater risk.”

Norm Michaels

Retired Forester

“East Lane families and small businesses can't afford a measure that opens the door to endless lawsuits over routine local decisions. We need accountable leadership and clear policy — not Measure 20-373.”

Jake Pelroy

Pelroy for East Lane Commissioner

“This measure amounts to false advertising.”

Rick Roseta

“In practice, [Measure 20-373] 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.”

Emily Reiman

CEO, DevNW

“I've spent my career in public safety, and I know what happens when local budgets get squeezed by avoidable legal costs. Measure 20-373 would do exactly that — pull money away from the services Eugene residents depend on.”

Randy Groves

Eugene City Councilor

“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... 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.”

Better Housing Together

Better Housing Together

“While the goal of protecting watersheds is one we share, the measure is written with vague and expansive language that creates significant legal uncertainty... 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.”

Chris Wig

Willamalane Board Member

“Lane County families and small woodland owners deserve clear, workable environmental policy — not a measure that invites lawsuits over routine land management.”

Kate McMichael

“Measure 20-373 would create costly, unpredictable litigation for everyday building and infrastructure work. That uncertainty drives up housing costs, slows projects, and ultimately makes it harder to deliver attainable homes in Lane County.”

Dan Revell

Western Oregon Builders Association

“As a Lane Electric Cooperative Director, I'm concerned Measure 20-373 exposes essential utilities to endless litigation over everyday operations. Those legal costs don't disappear — they show up in higher rates for rural families and small businesses who can least afford it. We should pursue environmental protection through clear, science-based policy, not through a measure that creates uncertainty without real results.”

Faye Stewart

Lane Electric Cooperative Director

“Measure 20-373 raises serious red flags for Springfield. By opening the door to broad, science-free litigation against local governments, it would increase legal costs and financial uncertainty. Those costs would inevitably be borne by residents and threaten funding for core city services like public safety.”

Sean VanGordon

Mayor of Springfield

“As a forester, I see firsthand how science-based management protects our watersheds. Measure 20-373 abandons that approach in favor of open-ended lawsuits that won't make our forests or rivers any healthier.”

Seth Barnes

“After careful review, the full EWEB Board voted to adopt a formal resolution opposing Measure 20-373... 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.”

John Brown

EWEB Commissioner