Search results

Concerns regarding the management of water and air pollution in border regions – such as the California‐Mexico Border, is an old issue, which has bubbled up to its current crisis situation. Health and safety disasters, stemming from water pollution on both sides of the border mount as do related costs to local financially‐strapped communities in California. One such impacted community is Imperial County, California, which must deal with the consequences stemming from the “dirtiest river in the United States”. This refers to The New River which enters the US through Mexico. While NAFTA has promoted the growth of globalized companies and industries in the region, progress has added to pollution. Regulation is far from evenly matched in the two countries. To manage negative spillover effects from globalism across borders, the time has come for development of new administrative law, with strict penalties for violators. This article uses the impact of pollution from The New River to discuss the hollowing of our nation‐state’s democratically‐derived mandate against pollution. It also raises the question of whether we have the stomach to push for new administrative law and risk multinational flight to other more accommodating regions, or live with the status quo and its serious human and environmental consequences.

The purpose of this paper is to use the experience of pollution in the Imperial and Baja California Valleys under NAFTA, as a cautionary model to provide recommendations for deterrence of similar ecological degradation effects that could emerge under the newly‐approved CAFTA.

Analysis of the region using existing statistical data and content analysis of qualitative data from the Imperial and Baja California Valleys, and Costa Rica.

Economics and ecology have thus far not proved to have a complementary relationship, based on the NAFTA experience in the Imperial and Baja California Valleys. Early data on environmental law suits in the CAFTA region against environmental regulations also point to a negative attitude by business to environmental protections of nation‐states. CAFTA's investment rules puts corporate rights over ecosystems by limiting public regulation and granting legal avenues to corporations to sue governments for “barriers to trade”, where national environmental laws are seen as these so‐called “barriers to trade”.

CAFTA was promulgated in 2005, but only put into effect, January 1, 2006. Thus, as more data emerges about its impacts, additional and more definitive studies can be undertaken.

Looking at the possible environmental effects of CAFTA and NAFTA provides the international community a chance to consider early remediation and prevention measures for the environmental sustainability of the CAFTA region within the context of this large economic market.

This is a fresh and early look at a newly‐installed international trade policy, and its value to scholars and practitioners lies in its cautionary guidance for the future of CAFTA. These arguments are based on experience with other, more longer‐lived, trade policies like NAFTA.