That's not quite what's happening here, at least as far as NZ law which I'm most familiar with. I can tentatively extrapolate to UK and US law since the fundame

That's not quite what's happening here, at least as far as NZ law which I'm most familiar with. I can tentatively extrapolate to UK and US law since the fundaments lie in common. What you say is acknowledged - These things do not have agency and do not have awareness. Yet in allowing them legal personhood there is latitude in providing mechanisms to provide them with exactly that - Agency and awareness - such that their legal rights can be protected. This is where the establishment of a board comes in. In terms of legal precedent, this is not an entirely new concept. A person born with severe disabilities or entering into a vegetative state, or even murdered... All lack in the present sense (or even ever) agency and awareness. Nevertheless we have established legal rights for them. It follows that such principles might be extended further. I am uncertain it'll prove to be a beneficial persuit, since a general maxim in the legal world is that laws cannot directly prevent harm, only dis-incentivise future instances of it. For important natural wonders, prevention is key and reparations/justice don't really make sense.