Although i don't agree with it, i think you could make a decent argument for granting Apes human rights as they use tools, have rudimentary language and star in TV commercials moving pianos and drinking cups of tea but ultimately they are not humans despite sharing 98%-99% of our DNA so they fall short on that vital, but all important, aspect.
A river, lake and mountain then will have no chance but that hasn't stopped supporters of a new movement called 'Animism' from drawing up a document arguing that such natural phenomena should be granted legal personhood, and accorded the consequent rights in law – including the right to 'exist, flourish, and naturally evolve'.
The claim is that forests, rivers and such are not a bundle of ecosystem services but a living thing and therefore could bring legal action against anyone polluting it although on the other side of the coin, the river would be liable if it flooded homes.
The bill requires the parts of nature to become 'legal persons' which means that it can then have representation to sue a factory for polluting it which in some ways makes sense but in others seems non-sensical.
I do understand and have some sympathy for the view but ultimatley what is required is tougher laws and tougher implementation of them against what us humans are doing to nature, granting them a legal footing with humans is just a step too far.