Join the Coalition
A growing, diverse coalition is coming together to stop Measure 20-373.
Lane County stands together against 20-373
Mayors, county officials, business associations, utilities, fire survivors, REALTORS®, farmers, and neighbors — Democrats and Republicans — united in opposition.
Local leaders
Three Leaders. One Vote: No
Sean VanGordon
Mayor of 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.”
Faye Stewart
Lane Electric Co-op, Director
“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.”
Nick Smith
Mayor of Cresswell
“Measure 20-373 opens up a giant door to litigious action between friends, good neighbors, municipalities, Contractors and even permitted NGO. Science has been omitted and replaced with unconstitutional legal action installed in its place.”
In their own words
voices from across lane county
Why a wildfire survivor, a family timberland owner, an environmentalist, and a Realtor all reached the same conclusion.
“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 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
“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
“While protecting clean water and healthy ecosystems is a goal we all share, this measure introduces sweeping and unclear legal standards that could expose Lane County to significant litigation... Every lawsuit the county must defend requires time, staff resources, and ultimately, taxpayer dollars. The result would be more uncertainty, more litigation, and fewer resources available for the services residents depend on.”
Pat Farr
Lane County Commissioner
“Lane County needs environmental policy that's actually grounded in science and accountable to voters. Measure 20-373 is neither.”
Theresa Hausser
“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
“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
“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
“This measure amounts to false advertising.”
Rick Roseta
“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
“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.
“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
“Lane County families and small woodland owners deserve clear, workable environmental policy — not a measure that invites lawsuits over routine land management.”
Kate McMichael
“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
“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
“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