On 16 May 2004, Vaud voters clearly rejected the popular initiative «Sauver le Pied du Jura» («Save the Foot of the Jura»), launched by environmentalist Franz Weber and his Helvetia Nostra foundation. The text proposed creating a «cantonal park» across seven municipalities between Berolle and La Praz, at the foot of the Jura range, banning the opening of new gravel pits there.
Filed in March 1998 with 17,216 signatures, the initiative responded to a string of extraction projects that alarmed landscape defenders: risks to the groundwater feeding Morges and around ten municipalities, harm to an area prized for its tranquillity, and convoys of lorries through the villages. The gravel-pit battle had pitted residents against operators for decades.
Supporters cast the park as a bulwark against «concreting over» and speculation. Opponents — the cantonal government, municipalities and business circles — saw it as putting an entire region «under glass», an «Indian reservation» freezing all development. The people sided with the latter, rejecting the binding instrument on offer.
The underlying question remained open: how to reconcile the canton's gravel supply — essential to construction — with protecting landscapes and drinking water and limiting transport nuisances?
▲ Overall result Initiative «Sauver le Pied du Jura» rejected. Vaud voters clearly dismissed a cantonal park that would have banned new gravel pits, siding with the government and business circles. | ▼ Area concerned The project covered seven municipalities at the foot of the Jura, between Berolle and La Praz. A consolidated public source giving municipal results for this 2004 vote is not available. |
Actors and figures
▲ Yes camp • Franz Weber (environmentalist, initiator) • Helvetia Nostra (nature and heritage foundation) • «Sauver le Pied du Jura» association • Landscape and environmental protection circles | ▼ No camp • Vaud cantonal government (against a regulatory lock-down of the region) • Affected Jura-foot municipalities • Gravel and construction industry (operators) • Hauliers and business circles |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) Protect threatened water and landscape « preserve a nature untouched by speculators » Verdict : ✓~ Fear largely vindicated Between 2004 and 2006 the Vaud administrative court overturned several gravel-pit permits (Montricher, L'Isle, Allaman, Tolochenaz), citing precisely the risk to groundwater — drinking water for Morges and around ten municipalities — and landscape damage. The initiators' arguments thus proved correct before the courts, by a route other than the ballot box. Source : Franz Weber Foundation; court rulings AC.1998.0209 (2004) and AC 2001/0135 (2006) Permanently safeguard a unique region Verdict : ✗~ Goal not achieved by the initiative The binding cantonal park never came about. Partial protection emerged later by other means (Jura Vaudois Regional Nature Park, case law, master plans), but without the requested lock: no general ban on gravel pits was enshrined. Source : Canton of Vaud; Jura Vaudois Regional Nature Park | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) No putting a region «under glass» « they are preparing an Indian reservation » Verdict : ✗~ Promised calm never came The No averted the feared total freeze, but the «case-by-case» management opponents praised did not extinguish the conflict. Twenty years on, the Ballens mega-pit project (Holcim/Orlatti, nearly 90 hectares of forest threatened) reignited protest: a petition of over 15,000 signatures filed with the cantonal parliament in 2025 and a forest occupation. Source : 24 heures; objectifclimat.ch (2024-2025) The canton needs its gravel Verdict : ✓~ Real need, partial solutions Material supply remained imperative. The canton sought to reconcile extraction and nuisance by developing rail transport of gravel (BAM line Bière–Apples–Morges, Boiron project) to avoid thousands of lorries on village roads. The question did not vanish with the rejection. Source : Canton of Vaud, DSE «Combined gravel transport» (2009); 24 heures |
Factual record
The ballot verdict did not settle the matter. The cantonal park was dropped, but protecting the foot of the Jura played out partly elsewhere — in the courts — while extraction pressure has lately risen again.
✗ Initiative rejected — no cantonal park | 4+ Gravel pits overturned by courts (2004-2006) | 20 years A conflict never extinguished | 15,000+ Signatures against the Ballens mega-pit (2025) |
In 2004 Vaud voters rejected an instrument, not necessarily a goal. A cantonal park locking down seven municipalities struck a majority as excessive — one receptive to arguments about development and material supply.
Yet history vindicated the losing side on several concrete points. The fears over groundwater and landscape, dismissed as alarmist by opponents, were upheld by the administrative court, which halted project after project between 2004 and 2006. Ballot and bench reached opposite verdicts.
The compromise then sought — extract but move the gravel by rail — showed a third way existed between sanctuary and free-for-all. But it did not disarm the tensions.
The proof: the Ballens mega-pit project revived in 2024-2025 exactly the same clash as in 2004, complete with a mass petition and a forest occupation. Twenty years on, the foot of the Jura remains a battlefield between concrete and landscape.