[mrcsd]

Surely an ability to balance requires that both sides of an issue be deemed somehow legitimate, no? In which case, surely there must be some sort of "right" which forbids injuries to nature, without which there can be no legal standing to prevent such injuries. In other words, why is there a procedural right to pollute and yet no right to stop pollution?

[everforward]

Virtually all legal systems are permissive in the sense that anything not prohibited is permissible. That's why basically all laws prohibit activity, and permitting activity is generally done by repealing/modifying the law prohibiting that activity.

The underlying issue here is that the state passed a law prohibiting local governments from granting rights to water to their citizens. The state prohibition supersedes the local government, so this local law is only allowed if they can find something that supersedes the state law (eg some part of the state constitution). No such clause exists in the state constitution, nor in any other state law.

If state law or the state constitution was modified to grant that right, the local law would be allowed to stand.

This is less about rights and more about state law superseding local law.

[s1artibartfast]

I dont think it requires an equal and opposite right. First off, not everything is balanced. Second, opposition and balancing can come from very different rights. For example, private property rights can balance. You can sue for injury when pollution impacts your private property. It may be legal for someone to pollute the stream (all else being equal), but illegal for someone to pollute the stream that you were already using for drinking water.

[tptacek]

There is obviously no procedural right to pollute.

[s1artibartfast]

I would argue that ability to alter nature is implicit in property rights. I just don't think it is without limitations.