In July 2024, the Machángara River entered a courtroom in Quito in the form of a glass jar filled with its own water. The jar stood before the judges as the river’s representative, asking the court to recognize that its rights had been violated and, in doing so, challenging the way cities relate to nature.
What does it mean for a river to have rights? And what happens when those rights are violated?
This case tells the story of a river transformed by urbanization. Once a lifeline for the communities that grew along its banks, the Machángara has gradually disappeared beneath concrete channels to become the receptacle for much of the city’s wastewater. Today, it has become one of Ecuador’s most polluted rivers. By appearing in court as a rights-bearing entity, the Machángara is forcing a fundamental question: can a city thrive while the river that sustains it is treated as disposable?
This article follows the alliance of citizens, scientists, and activists who came together to defend the Machángara River as a living entity, drawing on Ecuador’s pioneering Rights of Nature legal framework to demand its restoration. Blending science, law, and grassroots action, we trace the river’s ecological decline, the legal battle that brought it to court, and the broader implications for urban environmental governance. At its core, the Machángara trial is not only a case about pollution but also a test of whether a city can reimagine its relationship with the river that runs through it.
We illustrate how the Rights of Nature framework offers a fundamentally different approach to environmental litigation. Rather than requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate personal or economic losses, it recognizes ecosystems as legal subjects with the right to exist, thrive, and regenerate, shifting the focus from compensation to ecological restoration. In the Machángara trial, the court prioritized evidence of the river’s ecological condition and the municipality’s legal duty to protect it, ultimately ordering restoration measures instead of monetary damages. By granting legal standing to the river and enabling citizens to represent its interests, the case also helps address longstanding power imbalances that have often limited access to environmental justice.
This case study supports the environmental recovery of the Machángara River, restoring its clean and healthy condition to ensure water availability for human use while safeguarding the ecological integrity of its ecosystems. Although this is an enormous challenge, it is achievable with political and community will if the Rights of Nature are recognized and respected. Success stories from around the world highlight the remarkable resilience of rivers when all stakeholder groups collaborate to re-establish a more responsible and sustainable relationship with the river.
This landmark case is presented by introducing the Machángara River and its people, presenting the ecogeographical connectivity of rivers and water flow management for both human access and ecological needs. We discuss river pollutants and wastewater to contextualize grassroots movements for river restoration. Our focus on the Machángara River lawsuit offers a chronology of events and then analyzes the value of Rights of Nature over environmental litigation, especially when it comes to the burden of proof. In closing, we note lessons, challenges, and opportunities for future directions.
1. On the Machángara River and its people
The Machángara is Quito’s main river, receiving a majority of the domestic and industrial wastewater of a city of about 3 million people. Much of the river’s natural flow has been funneled through underground pipes or channeled to hide the heavy contamination that has created a toxic, contaminated, and foul-smelling waterway. The Machángara River’s natural hydrology has been significantly impacted by water diversions and shows visible evidence of significant environmental damage, corroborating incriminating data from various scientific studies, some of which are summarized herein.
The Machángara River originates high in the páramo south of Quito, primarily around the Atacazo–Ungüí massif, where many springs and streams converge.Footnote 1 Its catchment is a steep, elongated Andean watershed that drains the eastern slopes of Quito’s central valley. This biodiverse headwaters region is located very near the equator between 3,200 and 3,800 m elevation and features Andean vegetation on the volcanic soils of steep slopes. The watershed runs mostly southwest to northeast following the long, narrow inter-Andean valley, receiving small streams that drain high areas (Figure 1).
Topographic map showing the Machángara River flowing (SW to NE) through the urban area of Quito and its surrounding districts. Source: José Daza, Instituto Biósfera, Universidad San Francisco de Quito.
Figure 1. Long description
A topographic map with a shaded relief background showing the city of Quito and surrounding regions.
* Central Region: A large green-shaded area represents Quito, stretching vertically through the center of the map.
* Hydrology: The Machángara River is depicted as a blue line originating from several mountain sources in the Southwest, merging into a single main channel that flows Northeast through the center of Quito before exiting toward the East near Cumbayá.
* Surrounding Districts:
- Northeast: Calderón (pink), Llano Chico (orange), and Zámbiza (light blue).
- East: Nayón (light green), Cumbayá (purple), and Tumbaco (cyan).
- Southeast: Conocoto (bright green), San Rafael (red), and Sangolquí (olive green).
- South: Amaguaña (light blue), Uyumbicho (teal), and Tambillo (brown).
* Map Elements:
- Top-Left: A legend titled LEYENDA lists the color-coded districts and a red line for Via_I_250k.
- Center-Left: A North arrow points toward the top of the map.
- Bottom-Right: A scale bar indicates distances from 0 to 4 kilometers.
- Border: Latitude and longitude coordinates frame the map, ranging from 78 degrees 37 minutes West to 78 degrees 25 minutes West, and 0 degrees 7 minutes South to 0 degrees 24 minutes South.
Much of the upper and middle watershed is heavily urbanized, as the Machángara and its tributaries cut through densely populated residential districts, industrial zones, and Quito’s historic center, flowing through deeply incised volcanic ravines. Because the river crosses the eastern edge of the city, the watershed includes both densely populated hillsides and more vegetated ridges and hilltops to the east. As the catchment narrows downstream toward the north, the river leaves the urban basin and descends sharply into the canyon of the Chiche River, and the landscape shifts to semi-arid shrublands and eroded cliffs. Ultimately, the Machángara catchment forms part of the larger Guayllabamba–Esmeraldas drainage system that flows west into the Pacific Ocean near Esmeraldas, linking Quito’s high-altitude urban basin to the wider Pacific watershed.Footnote 2
1.1. Ecogeographical connectivity of rivers
River connectivity is critical in tropical mountain rivers, acting as vital connectors for transporting water, sediment, nutrients, and organisms from mountains to floodplains. Connectivity describes elements of the natural flow of a river across three dimensions: longitudinal (upstream and downstream), lateral (river and floodplain), and vertical (river and groundwater).Footnote 3 Healthy river connectivity is crucial for maintaining biodiversity, supporting ecosystems, and providing vital services to human populations. However, human activities have severely impaired river connectivity globally, with serious consequences for ecosystem function. Restoring these connections is essential for mitigating the impacts of climate change, improving water quality, and enabling aquatic life to survive.
Another way to think about interconnected river systems is discussed by Macfarlane in his book Is a River Alive? He argues that a river is not a single entity but several rivers at once.Footnote 4 Reflecting on the Los Cedros River—another landmark case in Ecuador’s Rights of Nature jurisprudence—Macfarlane describes three interrelated rivers. The first is the river we usually perceive: the visible hydrological flow of water across the landscape. The second is the “river of fungi,” the vast ectomycorrhizal networks beneath our feet through which the fungal kingdom disperses and connects ecosystems. The third is the river above us in the sky, the “flying river” where atmospheric currents transport water vapor and return it as rain in distant places. The Amazon Basin has been the primary laboratory for developing the concept of flying rivers.
Seen in this light, rivers such as the Machángara and Los Cedros are part of a complex, interconnected system grounded in scientific insights that have only recently been recognized. They reveal a profound ecological connectivity that we are still learning to understand and remind us that scientific knowledge continues to evolve, requiring openness to new ways of interpreting natural phenomena.
1.2. Managing water flow for both human access and ecological needs
Healthy watersheds with flowing river systems are critical for human livelihoods, and they provide a range of ecosystem services such as clean water for domestic, agricultural, and industrial use; aquifer recharge; biodiversity maintenance; and flood control. Managing water flow to meet both human and ecological needs—known as environmental flows or e-flows—is a complex balancing act that requires an integrated, adaptive approach. Because humans and ecosystems have different water requirements, e-flow management aims to satisfy competing social, economic, and environmental needs in a sustainable way by allocating water to rivers and wetlands.Footnote 5 The difficulty of meeting these simultaneous demands is compounded by urban migration and population growth, poor land-use practices, lack of regulations (and/or lack of enforcement) on water withdrawals and river use and protection, and climate change impacts that alter rainfall patterns and make it more difficult to predict water availability. Therefore, effective e-flow management requires a holistic approach across the watershed that integrates various strategies and involves the collaboration of all stakeholder groups. Efforts to manage Machángara River e-flows face significant challenges due to severe urban and industrial pollution, channelization, and the legal battle over the river’s right to exist as a healthy ecosystem.
1.3. River pollutants
The combined effects of severe pollution and altered flows have significantly degraded the Machángara River, as reflected in the poor physical, chemical, and biological conditions of its terrestrial and aquatic environments. Physical impacts include changes in water temperature, clarity, depth, and habitat structure, as well as alterations to the riverbed and banks. These shifts disrupt sediment transport, nutrient cycling, and overall habitat quality for both aquatic and riparian species. In the most polluted areas, organic pollution is very high due to direct discharges from industries and homes without treatment.
Recent studies confirm high levels of organic matter, heavy metals, and untreated wastewater discharges in the Machángara that carry risks to public health and make the water unusable. For example, urban water samples found high levels of fecal coliforms and insufficient dissolved oxygen, all above established legal environmental limits, as well as declines in populations of pollution-sensitive aquatic macroinvertebrates.Footnote 6 Aquatic insects like mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), and caddisflies (Trichoptera), together known as EPTs, are sensitive to pollution and are useful indicators of river health globally. For this reason, they are used extensively in freshwater biomonitoring programs to document changes in water quality.Footnote 7
Other scientific studies have drawn attention to different forms of pollution affecting Quito’s urban rivers, including viral loads and microplastics. Guerrero-Latorre et al. analyzed SARS-CoV-2 concentrations in river water at the height of the COVID-19 epidemic, finding a higher prevalence of viral loads than officially reported.Footnote 8 Microplastic pollution—better studied in oceans than rivers, although they are the main conduits carrying plastics to oceans—has also been documented. Research in Andean headwaters revealed the presence of microplastics, with markedly higher concentrations in both water and sediments after rivers flow through urban areas.Footnote 9 Together, these studies underscore the urgent need to address wastewater treatment and the public health risks associated with inadequate sanitation in Quito’s rivers.
1.4. Wastewater
As of late 2023, only 3.42% of Quito’s wastewater was treated, leaving Ecuador’s capital city’s 18 rivers and 136 streams heavily contaminated with domestic and industrial sewage.Footnote 10 This situation reflects decades of delays in Quito’s river decontamination efforts, including political setbacks and the failure to complete the proposed Vindobona megaproject. In response, the Quito Municipal Water Authority Empresa Pública Metropolitana de Agua Potable y Saneamiento de Quito (EPMAPS) launched a new strategy in 2024 involving an investment of about US$900 million with a seventeen-year implementation plan aimed at reaching 95% treatment coverage. The program includes the construction of Quito’s wastewater treatment plant—the main plant for the Machángara River—along with two additional major facilities in nearby towns within the metropolitan district and 19 smaller plants in rural areas. Despite this renewed institutional commitment, challenges remain significant due to rapid urban growth, illegal discharges, and deteriorated infrastructure. Technical studies emphasize the need for comprehensive biological and chemical treatment, improved land-use practices, zoning controls, and reductions in industrial pollution. Until that occurs, untreated wastewater continues to affect the health and quality of life of nearby communities, prompting legal and community actions demanding long-overdue structural solutions.
1.5. Grassroots movements for river restoration
Quito’s rivers have been polluted for decades, and as a result, many people have forgotten that they were not always this way. They were once clean, vibrant waterways full of life and served as the main water source for surrounding communities and were even used for cooking. Not so long ago, families without access to potable water washed their clothes in city rivers, and children played along their banks, cooling off in the water or catching tiny fish; some may still do these activities despite the contamination. Today, this once-rural landscape is densely built, filled with houses and businesses, and the river bears the burden of that transformation.
In and around Quito, women have played a leading role in raising awareness about the poor environmental condition of the city’s rivers and streams and in building social movements to protect them.Footnote 11 Numerous activist groups have emerged, each operating at different scales. In 2020, a group called Women for Water was formed by water specialists who were concerned about river protection but had not previously focused on Quito’s local watersheds.Footnote 12 United by their commitment to water and river conservation, they turned their attention to the city’s rivers and began organizing “water walks” with key decision-makers to observe and discuss the ongoing deterioration of the Machángara River.
In 2021, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the San Pedro River Rescue Collective emerged as a grassroots movement.Footnote 13 It began with a single post on social media: a photograph of the polluted river and a caption that read, “Neighbors, what can we do to clean the San Pedro River? It is heartbreaking to see the state of the river. Let’s make a plan—let’s do something!” Surprisingly, people replied immediately, and a first meeting was organized virtually. Connections grew with others who shared the same sense of urgency to rescue the river.
Members of the Collective dived into learning about urban rivers, blue–green infrastructure, and the Rights of Nature while gaining countless lessons from the people they met along the way. Although the group felt overwhelmed by the scale of the river’s problems, a community cleanup workday was organized, what Andean peoples call a “minka” in Kichwa. Information about Quito’s water sanitation crisis was presented, and Collective members were shocked to discover how minimal wastewater treatment was in their city and troubled by how few citizens knew about the extent of the problem.
Hidden in deep canyons, these rivers had been neglected for decades, silently used as open sewers.
Between November 2021 and November 2025, the San Pedro River Rescue Collective organized 28 minkas involving 2,380 volunteers who collected 17,694 kilos of trash comprised of plastics (45%), textiles (42%), and other materials (13%) from the river and riparian environment.Footnote 14 Beyond the immediate impact of these cleanups, the minkas have become cultural celebrations of hope, social spaces where strangers become allies, uniting around a shared purpose. Little by little, the activities organized by the Collective raised awareness and reconnected people with the river. What began as simple trash collection evolved into a broader movement encompassing citizen science, environmental education, communications, and, above all, community building. These gatherings have drawn the attention of government authorities, the media, and the wider public. Many people in Quito now recognize both the severe pollution affecting the city’s urban rivers and the growing community committed to restoring them with the hope that one day their children will again swim and play along their banks.
These community groups have joined forces to rescue and protect the Machángara River and support a landmark court ruling that recognizes the river as a subject of rights, requiring its cleanup and restoration.
2. The Machángara River lawsuit
Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution codified Rights of Nature, granting ecosystems like rivers legal personality and intrinsic rights.Footnote 15 This was a first globally, and it was inspired by the recognition that nature is not merely a resource to be exploited but should be given rights, like human rights, and be entitled to respect, protection, and restoration. Under this framework, anyone can litigate to defend nature even if they do not suffer personal property damage, thus expanding legal standing and civic participation in environmental protection.
Article 71 of the Constitution states that nature “has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes.” In practice, it means that all persons, communities, peoples, and nations can demand that Ecuadorian authorities enforce the Rights of Nature. One of those rights, according to Article 72, is the right to be restored. Therefore, the Constitution recognizes a river as a living entity with inherent rights to exist, thrive, and regenerate.
Ecuador’s approach to nature’s rights—later emulated in Bolivia—was groundbreaking in two key respects. First, it granted nature positive rights, meaning explicit entitlements to restoration, regeneration, and respect. Second, it addressed the issue of legal standing in an exceptionally expansive way by extending it to everyone. In Ecuador, any individual, regardless of their connection to a particular ecosystem, may bring a case to court to defend it.Footnote 16
According to Craig Kauffman and Pamela Martin, Rights of Nature generated 55 legal decisions in Ecuador between 2008 and 2023.Footnote 17 He argued that “Ecuadorian court decisions are changing Rights of Nature from a vague, abstract concept into a set of specific standards to balance with various human rights and existing environmental law in order to implement sustainable development in an integrated and holistic manner that does not sacrifice ecosystem functioning.”
2.1. A chronology of events
In July 2024, a court in Quito recognized the Machángara River as a rights-bearing entity and found the municipality responsible for violating those rights through severe pollution. In preparing the case, the plaintiffs brought together a broad set of Quito’s citizens, including water experts, academics, artists, urban planners, historians, and grassroots activists.Footnote 18 However, it left out Indigenous worldviews. Although Indigenous Kitu Kara people participated in the legal process and contributed to the understanding of the river as a living being, neither the claim nor the court’s ruling meaningfully reflected their cosmovision.Footnote 19
The resulting lawsuit was the sum of a long fight of citizen activism to position rivers as an integral part of their city.Footnote 20 Together, the plaintiffs were able to demand the protection and restoration of the Machángara River, encompassing legal rights to water, sanitation, and a healthy city. As a result, the court ordered the city to implement a list of 27 measures over the short, medium, and long term as an integrated program. These measures can be summarized as follows:
-
• Governance and planning: assessments, land use, public engagement;
-
• Sanitation and restoration: treatment plants, nature-based solutions, river buffers;
-
• Regulation, enforcement, and incentives: solid waste management, economic and tax incentives, standards, and regulations;
-
• Land use planning and risk management: resettlement and urban building standards.
During the first half of 2025, the Minister of the Environment convened a meeting with the Mayor of Quito and the plaintiffs to initiate negotiations for a settlement. After more than 10 meetings, the parties reached partial agreement on 14 of the 27 points established in the ruling. The main point of contention was the municipality’s proposal for a seventeen-year timeline to complete the comprehensive wastewater treatment system. Given that the city has been promising to invest in wastewater treatment for more than two decades, the plaintiffs considered any timeline longer than ten years unacceptable. Despite the partial agreement, the municipality appealed the ruling to a higher national court, and the judge upheld the original sentence, disregarding the negotiated points.
Today, more than a year after the first court ruling, progress at the municipal level appears to be limited. This was reflected in the municipality’s recent proposal that the litigants meet with Ecuador’s Ombudsman’s Office, or Defensoría del Pueblo. Worse, new construction along the river suggests that translating the court’s decision into consistent watershed protection remains an ongoing challenge.
2.2. Rights of nature over environmental litigation
Considering the Machángara River case, it can be argued that the Rights of Nature framework has proven more effective than traditional environmental jurisprudence based on loss-and-damage claims. Historically, class-action environmental lawsuits in Latin America, and particularly in Ecuador, have tended to evolve into prolonged, fruitless legal battles, yielding little to no ecological remediation.Footnote 21 A well-known example is the decades-long Texaco (now Chevron) case in the Ecuadorian Amazon, in which local and Indigenous communities alleged that the company discharged billions of gallons of toxic waste during its operations more than thirty years ago, yet meaningful environmental recovery has remained elusive.
The Machángara case illustrates how a Rights of Nature approach shifts the legal focus from human-centered damage and compensation to the protection and restoration of the ecosystem itself. Under this framework, lawsuits can be filed on behalf of the river regardless of economic costs or human losses. The ruling emphasized the municipality’s obligation to protect and restore the river, rather than limiting the analysis to downstream economic impacts on people.
In pursuing the Machángara case, the plaintiffs focused on demonstrating the river’s degraded condition and pollution levels without needing to prove causation, a process that is typically complex, expensive, and often endless. One need only recall the decades-long legal battles required to establish that cigarette smoking is hazardous to human health.
The court’s judgment relied on a broad body of evidence, including scientific data, historical information, and artistic depictions of environmental harm.Footnote 22 Instead of imposing monetary penalties, the ruling required the municipality to take responsibility and implement the actions needed to protect and restore the river. Given that the municipality is legally charged with safeguarding the river, and considering the well-documented water quality and environmental problems described above, the lawsuit focused on identifying responsibility and mandating the restorative measures determined by the judge based on the evidence presented.
The Rights of Nature framework helps correct the power imbalance inherent in traditional loss-and-damage claims by creating a symmetry between the affected entity—the river—and the parties responsible for its harm. By fundamentally redefining who holds legal standing and whose interests are prioritized, this approach alters the dynamics of environmental law. Recognizing power differences among stakeholders is essential for negotiating and resolving conflicts, especially in water management. Yu et al. emphasized this point in various political contexts, including China, where environmental outcomes could improve significantly if decision-makers more fully understood and addressed these power asymmetries.Footnote 23
2.3. Burden of proof
Loss-and-damage claims generally require plaintiffs to prove personal or economic harm resulting from environmental degradation. This framework tends to privilege those with economic resources, legal and scientific expertise, or direct property interests. As a result, participation is usually limited to actors who can afford litigation, while local communities facing harm often cannot act. The same constraint applies to threatened ecosystems: in the absence of demonstrable economic loss or legal standing, they cannot be defended.
Rights of Nature address these inequities by recognizing ecosystems as legal subjects with intrinsic rights to exist, thrive, and regenerate.Footnote 24 This recognition grants ecosystems independent legal standing, enabling anyone to bring suit on their behalf regardless of personal loss. In doing so, Rights of Nature help correct the imbalance that allows corporations or governments with greater power and resources to dominate traditional damages-based processes. Instead of determining monetary compensation for harm to people or property, the focus shifts to protecting and restoring ecological integrity, thus removing the burden of proving financial loss.
Rights of Nature frameworks can also shift the burden of proof away from plaintiffs. In many cases, they require states or developers to demonstrate that their actions will not harm nature, rather than obligating plaintiffs to prove harm has already occurred. Although the degree to which this burden shifts varies by judicial interpretation and legal context, it generally facilitates more proactive ecosystem protection. In the Machángara case, for example, the judge allowed experts to present ecological and ecosystem-health evidence rather than relying on narrow, reductionist water-quality metrics.
For the first time, the Machángara River appeared in court—as river water in a glass jar—to defend its own rights (not human rights) and file the lawsuit. By granting nature a legal voice and enabling ordinary citizens to represent it in court, Rights of Nature helps equalize power dynamics and creates enforceable obligations for governments. This approach addresses the structural injustices embedded in traditional environmental litigation by centering ecological protection rather than financial compensation. In countries like Ecuador, where historical power imbalances have often left vulnerable communities and marginalized Indigenous peoples without effective legal protection, this shift is especially significant.Footnote 25
Aguas González examines the Machángara decision alongside two other cases, finding that Rights of Nature functions as a political tool that reshapes questions of authority, sovereignty, representation, and governance.Footnote 26 Under this framework, the burden of proof emphasizes identifying the actors responsible for maintaining the river’s integrity rather than amassing extensive scientific evidence to quantify damage.
The City of Quito appealed the sentence by taking the case to the Constitutional Court, but in 2026 the highest judicial authority rejected the appeal, leaving the original 27-point ruling fully in force. Quito’s municipal environmental authority is now responsible for coordinating the judgment’s implementation, while the Defensoría del Pueblo initiated a formal oversight by requesting progress updates from both the municipality and the plaintiffs.
3. Lessons
In the case of the Machángara River, local citizens with limited resources and organizational capacity joined forces with local academics and scientists eager to support the initiative. Experts volunteered their time to help secure a Rights of Nature ruling. The decision to pursue a constitutional claim emerged largely from the availability of lawyers interested in using this legal tool. In practice, the Rights of Nature framework has proven far more effective than traditional loss-and-damage approaches.
The ruling recognized the river as an entity with rights, enabling Indigenous groups and local communities to hold the municipality accountable for pollution without needing to prove damages or personal economic loss. The lawsuit also generated broader public awareness and unexpectedly fostered an educational process within Quito’s municipal administration, including its leadership and staff. Although the mayor argued that public policy cannot be shaped through litigation, the Rights of Nature case helped shift public opinion, an outcome that likely would not have been achieved otherwise. After all, it is difficult to oppose the restoration of a river.
During the appeal phase, the presiding judge expressed skepticism at the municipality’s position, noting the inherent contradiction: the very authority responsible for protecting the city’s rivers was arguing against its ability to do so. This inconsistency was impossible to overlook, and the judge ultimately upheld the original ruling, reaffirming that the municipality must implement the 27-point plan to restore the river.
3.1. Challenges and opportunities
Although the Machángara case has not yet transformed the relationship between Quito’s citizens and nature, the Rights of Nature framework is helping renew the city’s recognition of the importance of its rivers. Because the framework accommodates a wide range of ideological and political perspectives, it lends itself to diverse institutional arrangements.Footnote 27 In this spirit, the case is now moving toward the creation of innovative governance structures, as envisioned by the ruling. As Kotze and Villavicencio suggested, Rights of Nature can generate an “ecocentric counter-narrative” that stands in contrast to traditional anthropocentric constitutional approaches.Footnote 28
The verdict established a group of river steward organizations, guardianas in Spanish, a term that underscores the prominent role of women in leading the lawsuit, to monitor implementation of the ruling. They will be responsible for overseeing compliance, advocating for municipal investment, and encouraging concrete restoration actions, drawing on the rich and evolving global jurisprudence on Rights of Nature.
As part of the mandated short-term measures, the municipality is conducting a comprehensive assessment of pollution sources affecting the Machángara. The River Guardians have prioritized obtaining access to this report, a draft of which was presented in April 2026. Simultaneously, the municipal urban planning and land-use office is developing a management plan for the Machángara River corridor, while technical studies for two wastewater treatment plants are underway.
The Machángara case demonstrates how science can be translated into accessible language and how diverse forms of evidence—from the natural and social sciences to legal analysis, art, and Indigenous knowledge—can be integrated to strengthen the decision-making process of municipal authorities.
The implementation of nature-based solutions, or non-structural measures designed to protect river buffers, wetlands, riparian vegetation, and forests, became a central point of contention between the municipality and the plaintiffs. Many municipal technical staff were skeptical of natural infrastructure and insisted on prioritizing grey infrastructure, reinforcing a false dichotomy that has been widely challenged internationally. Cities seeking to maintain or enhance urban quality of life depend on abundant green spaces, clean rivers, and the preservation of natural features. Healthy vegetation and waterways provide aesthetic value, biodiversity conservation, and flood-mitigation benefits essential for climate resilience.
A notable, unexpected outcome of the legal process was the learning that took place among more than 100 municipal employees during the negotiations. The discussions about the Machángara River’s problems and potential solutions helped build new understanding and commitment within the administration, laying groundwork for a more transformative river-restoration program. The mayor’s rhetoric has been increasingly transformative, and his team appears to be gradually aligning with this vision.
The greatest challenge ahead is strengthening the municipality’s administrative capacity to improve communication, coordination, and joint budgeting that are fundamental requirements for river restoration. Rivers cross physical and jurisdictional boundaries; their recovery demands cooperation among all city agencies, from water and solid-waste operators to planning and administrative departments. Budgets must be aligned or pooled to achieve meaningful results, yet current institutional capacities and skills remain limited. Effective interdepartmental articulation is therefore vital. Although municipal bureaucracy is difficult to mobilize, as in any large city, it is not impossible. Financial resources are also limited, but the city has opportunities to close the funding gap through innovative approaches that require cross-sectoral exploration and collaboration.
3.2. Future directions
In November 2025, the Mayor of Quito signed an agreement and publicly committed to cleaning up the city’s rivers by 2040. This fifteen-year horizon establishes a state policy designed to outlast the current administration. Perhaps such a commitment might have emerged without the Rights of Nature litigation; however, given that river restoration was absent from the mayor’s campaign platform, it is reasonable to view the Machángara case as instrumental in generating a public policy mandate that extends beyond the present leadership.
Quito must now confront the challenge of treating 97% of its wastewater discharges and restoring its rivers so they can once again reflect their heritage in an Andean city that has been shaped by deep canyons, native vegetation, and remarkable vistas. The Machángara experience adds to Quito’s global legacy for watershed protection as the city pioneered the world’s first water fund, a model now replicated in more than 50 cities worldwide. Likewise, the Rights of Nature lawsuit to protect an urban river is one of the first of its kind globally. The challenge ahead is ensuring that its mandate is fully implemented within the next decade.
Civil society organizations continue to mobilize resources and sustain public engagement through river walks, clean-up campaigns, and collaborative technical studies with local universities. Together, these initiatives seek to strengthen public participation and promote an integrated, evidence-based approach to river restoration. Ultimately, the Machángara River’s recovery will require sustained political commitment, broad collaboration, and a long-term interdisciplinary approach.
Author contribution
Conceptualization: M.E., M.S.; Investigation: M.E., M.P., M.S.; Methodology: M.E., M.P., M.S.; Project administration: M.E.; Writing - original draft: M.E., M.P., M.S.; Writing - review & editing: M.E., M.S.
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Open access
