The Oregon Plan

William Boyer was an Economics professor who was passionate about the environment being preserved for future generations. Over a period of years (~1990-1996~), Boyer authored and developed "The Oregon Plan". The Oregon Plan was a amendment to the Oregon Constitution proposed in 1994 to ensure a sustainable and healthy environment for future generations.

This web page will (eventually) document his initial efforts, listening to others, and enlisting help along the way to simplify and focus on an amendment to the Oregon Constitution. (After many months of discussion, it was realized that an amendment can't be loaded down with details about implementation.) For now (3/29/25), this page just bears one of his editorials and the language of perhaps the final version of the amendment.

Oregon Plan Newsletter masthead

I, John Miller, found Boyer highly compelling, and helped however I could during those years. I will add more to the story as time permits. Here are some things I hope to include:

The Oregonian

Friday, February 12, 1993

Rights for Livable environment urged

Oregon Constitution could be amended to show the world the way

By William Boyer and Lanny Sinkin

Monday, the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee of the Oregon Senate will have an opportunity to think globally and act locally.

The committee will consider Senate Joint Resolution 1, a constitutional amendment to guarantee "the right to live and work in an environment protected from known harmful pollutants" and "the right to the sustainable benefit of Oregon's natural resources."

This amendment would require the state or any of its political subdivisions to determine that any actions they take do not violate these two rights. If public officials permit violations, citizens could go to court to protect their new rights.

The evidence of destructive human activity is visible throughout Oregon, such as the clear-cut slopes, the top-soil flowing away in our rivers and the disappearing salmon. Other evidence is not visible but nonetheless real, such as radioactive material in our rivers, ozone-depleting gases in our air, and heavy metals in our soils.

While there have been many efforts over the years to stop pollution and protect natural resources, SJR1 is the first to deal with these problems by providing a constitutional basis for challenging those who would degrade our life-support system.

The enactment of these rights would place Oregon in the forefront of the national movement to transform the paradigm of our economic practices from one of exploitation, pollution and disregard future consequences to one of conservation, environmental preservation and intergenerational equity.

The enactment would also be in furtherance of the global goals set forth by the Earth Summit and the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development.

Among the principles and rights adopted by this latter commission were:

Enactment of SJR1, the Oregon formulation of these principles, would provide clear guidance for the future. People would begin to ask whether their industrial activity introduced harmful pollutants into the workplace or environment. People involved in extraction of natural resources would begin to ask whether their activity degraded the vitality of the ecosystem from which extraction took place, such that future generations would not have the same opportunity to benefit from the natural resource.

The effect of adopting this amendment would be similar to the response we have seen to the international decision to phase out ozone-destroying gases. Corporations using such gases, including corporations in Oregon, developed new manufacturing proc-esses, alternative chemicals or otherwise responded with innovations producing new businesses and jobs.

The fundamental question raised by this amendment is: Are the people of Oregon entitled to be protected from harmful pollutants and are the generations coming after us entitled to opportunities that the planet gave to us?

There are those who will attempt to divide this issue along Republican vs. Democratic lines for short-term political gain. But this amendment transcends any such minor differences. Beyond the political, religious, social, ethnic, economic, and many other divisions within the human family, there is one fundamental, underlying reality — the survival of the human community depends on the viability of the ecosystems from which humanity draws sustenance.

Those who monitor the health of the planet on a daily basis know that the data coming in is discouraging and even frightening. This amendment is a major step forward in changing the way human civilization interacts with its life-support system by expressing the need for that change in terms of guaranteed constitutional rights.

Passage of this resolution would place the measure on the ballot and give the people the opportunity to choose.

William Boyer is chairman of the Campaign for a Healthy and Sustainable Oregon; Lanny Sinkin is the campaign's public education coordinator.

The Amendment

The following is the text of the Constitutional Amendment for a Sustainable Oregon. It was approved December 4, 1992 by the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee for a Bill in the 1993 Legislature recommending a Public Referendum in 1994.

Senate Joint Resolution #1

SUMMARY

Amends Constitution to create right to healthful environment and sustainable benefit of Oregon's natural resources.

Amends Constitution to require state to consider created rights when enacting and administering laws. Amends Constitution to grant standing to all persons to enforce created rights.

Refers resolution to people at next statewide general election.

JOINT RESOLUTION

Whereas the citizens of the State of Oregon have the right to live and work in an environment which is healthful and sustainable for present and future generations; and Whereas the support of this right requires protection of air, water, land and natural ecological systems from pollution, degradation and irreversible destruction; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon:

PARAGRAPH 1. The Oregon Constitution is amended by creating new sections to be added to and made a part of Article I and by creating a new Article to be known as Article XIX, such sections and Article to read:

SECTION 41. All persons have the right to live and work in an environment protected from known harmful pollutants.

SECTION 42. All persons have the right to the sustainable benefit of Oregon's natural resources, free of significant impairment or irreversible harm.

ARTICLE XIX

SECTION 1. When enacting and administering the laws of this State, the Legislative Assembly and each agency and political subdivision of the State shall make a determination that its actions are consistent with the rights set forth in sections 41 and 42, Article I of this Constitution.

SECTION 2. No person shall be denied standing to enforce the rights set forth in sections 41 and 42, Article I of this Constitution where the state or its political subdivisions fail to make the determination required in section 1 of this Article.

PARAGRAPH 2. The amendment proposed by this resolution shall be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection at the next regular general election held throughout this state.

Retrospective

Bill Boyer and many of his collaborators are gone now. This was all pre-internet, pre-email. Communication was via postal mail and phone calls. Computer files & docs are pretty much long gone. I have a 3½" thick file of papers and news clippings.

Caveat! I am writing this Epilogue from vague memories without trying to piece it together from papers and correspondence I've saved. I'll look for a 'post mortem' on this effort - how The Plan evolved and how it ended - written closer to the end of the effort 30 years ago. Until then, I'll add details here and via additional pages in the References section below.

I recall that The Plan started out as just certain 'protections' to be written into the state constitution — simple values. The question of implementation came up, and we didn't want anything specific in the constitution -- begging the question whether it would reply on legislators to act? Not likely! Gov Roberts was openly skeptical about codifying it into law.

This is when the notion of 4 or 5 'Volunteer Commissions' came in to oversee various agencies.

My sense is that The Plan wasn't going to be championed by a state legislator. I don't know if any were lobbied. That approach may not even have been considered. (?) So, it was re-cast as a Citizen's Initiative which would have required a significant number of petition signatures in order to be placed on the Ballot. (Oregon is somewhat unique in having such a process.) Signature gathering is expensive, unless you have a large base of ready volunteers. Evidently that failed.

John Kitzhaber became Governor in 1994. He had his own environmental agenda. Also, an emergency room doctor, he was interested in the state having a health plan, which he dubbed "The Oregon Health Plan", or The Oregon Plan for short. It's complicated! (Medicare.) The rest is history.

I welcome written contributions to this retrospective! → miller at lclark.edu

— jm 3/29/2025

References

A link appears with each reference, to the source.