> This is philosophical drivel that has only the effect of making politicians seem like they care about the environment. That, or it's a clever hack that that

> This is philosophical drivel that has only the effect of making politicians seem like they care about the environment. That, or it's a clever hack that that brings many existing aspects of the legal system to bear in interesting ways. For example, I'm guessing that the river being a legal person would imply that it cannot be owned, neither in whole nor in part, by any other person. It sounds like the law also provides for some other things that legal persons typically have, such as a panel of one or more humans to serve as its representative. And that panel of humans would probably then have the ability to do things like pursue litigation on its behalf. Note that this isn't a particularly new hack, either. Basically the same thing has been done with things that are even more nebulous than a river, such as trusts and corporations, for centuries. The most unprecedented aspect is the idea that you could use this bit of semantic sleight-of-hand for a purpose other than making money.