WaterWired

Racism Report Redux: 'The Flint Water Crisis - Systemic Racism Through the Lens of Flint'

I originally posted this report a few years ago and promptly forgot about it. The times dictate that I repost it with an addition and ask you to read it. It's by the Michigan Civil Rights Commission: The Flint Water Crisis: Systemic Racism Through the Lens of Flint'.

Thanks to friend and colleague Lisa Beutler for calling it to my attention. I will give it another platform.

Download The Flint Water Crisis- Systemic Racism Through the Lens of Flint'

The opening comments...

February 17, 2017

Dear Reader,

On January 25, 2016, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission unanimously passed a resolution to hold a series of hearings to determine if any civil rights had been abridged by the contamination of the Flint water distribution system.

At all three hearings, we heard of the many challenges and hardships faced by residents unable to access clean drinking water. We also toured several Flint neighborhoods, meeting with residents and hearing how their lives had been affected and changed immeasurably. The July 14th and September 8th hearings included expert testimony focusing on the history of Flint’s economy and housing, environmental justice, and the application of the current emergency manager law.

Reviewing the historical governmental actions impacting the living and health conditions of Flint residents, i.e., the legacy of Flint, was sobering and left a deep impression. We must come to terms with the ongoing effects of "systemic racism" that repeatedly led to disparate racial outcomes as exemplified by the Flint Water Crisis. This can no longer be ignored.

We also offer recommendations intended to ensure that “another Flint” does not happen again – in Flint or anywhere in Michigan. We urge those with authority to carefully consider and act upon these recommendations.

On behalf of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission and Michigan Department of Civil Rights, we wish to thank everyone who testified and submitted written testimony, as well as those who provided additional insight and information for inclusion in this report.

Sincerely,
Michigan Civil Rights Commission

Rasha Demashkieh, Co-Chair
Mumtaz Haque
Deloris Hunt
Linda Lee Tarver
Laura Reyes Kopack JD, Co-Chair
Arthur M. Horwitz
Ricardo Resio
Bradley Voss

Let me add this June 2020 open letter (thanks Lisa Beutler) from current Flint mayor Sheldon A. Neeley:

Flint has throughout its history been a guiding force for our country. It is again.

As the world watches our peaceful protests, they are seeing the Flint we know and love. Flint is a city of champions, not because of the actions of any one of us — but because of the collective spirit we embody. We are descendants of innovators and great business minds, factory workers who sat down for what was right and single-handedly built the American Middle Class, the women who built tanks to lead us to victory in WWII, and the masses who selected a black man mayor in 1966 and by popular vote became the first city in the nation to adopt a fair housing ordinance.

We know when we protest that it is about the past and the future. We know that protest is about building, not tearing down.

We are devastated by the death of George Floyd. The gross injustice cuts to the core of this community that has long defined itself as social justice leaders.

When the people rightfully began gathering to protest in response to Mr. Floyd’s death, I too relied on those lessons I learned growing up in Flint: The only appropriate response to protesters is to listen and the only appropriate answer is action.

I personally met with protest organizers as did Flint Police Chief Phil Hart and other key members of my staff. Those discussions led to development of a six-point action plan for the City of Flint to start our work — including development of a Black Lives Matter Advisory Council to continue our work for the long term.

To elected leaders across the country, I say: As we continue to see violent protests in our state and in our country, I urge you to please just stop and listen. We have work that needs to be done.

Work with the protesters. Work with each other. Together, we will make this country a better place.

And, to the protesters, I say: Thank you.

A majority of us living in Flint today also are the descendants of slaves, the descendants of someone who survived shackles, the descendants of someone who despite all odds saw the country take its first somewhat reluctant steps toward equality. In your protests on the lawn at Flint City Hall and around the world, we have seen every shade of skin join in a universal fight for humanity. Thank you.

Thank you for fighting for justice. Thank you for sparking a national conversation. We need to keep talking — and to keep voting — until those in positions of power are willing to listen.

Together, let’s build the tomorrow we deserve today.

For the love of our community,

Sheldon A. Neeley

Mayor of the City of Flint

Important reading...

Enjoy!

"While we almost universally recognize that racial discrimination is wrong, this consensus has not translated into decision-making or policies that reflect those values." - from the report, p. 3

CRS Report: 'Changes in the Arctic - Background and Issues for Congress' Updated: 18 June 2020

Ronald O'Rourke, Laura B. Comay, Peter Folger, John Frittelli, Marc Humphries, Jane A. Leggett, Jonathan L. Ramseur, Pervaze A. Sheikh, and Harold F. Upton wrote this comprehensive, oft-updated, 123-page CRS report: Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress.

Download CRS_Report_Changes_Arctic_Background_Issues_Congress_18June 2020

Lots of things going on in the Arctic. Here we go with the report's summary (click on the graphics to enlarge them):

Summary
The diminishment of Arctic sea ice has led to increased human activities in the Arctic, and has heightened interest in, and concerns about, the region’s future. The United States, by virtue of Alaska, is an Arctic country and has substantial interests in the region. The seven other Arctic states are Canada, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark (by virtue of Greenland), and Russia.

The Arctic Research and Policy Act (ARPA) of 1984 (Title I of P.L. 98-373 of July 31, 1984) “provide[s] for a comprehensive national policy dealing with national research needs and objectives in the Arctic.” The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the lead federal agency for implementing Arctic research policy. Key U.S. policy documents relating to the Arctic include National Security Presidential Directive 66/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25 (NSPD 66/HSPD 25) of January 9, 2009; the National Strategy for the Arctic Region of May 10, 2013; the January 30, 2014, implementation plan for the 2013 national strategy; and Executive Order 13689 of January 21, 2015, on enhancing coordination of national efforts in the Arctic. The office of the U.S. Special Representative for the Arctic has been vacant since January 20, 2017.

The Arctic Council, created in 1996, is the leading international forum for addressing issues relating to the Arctic. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) sets forth a comprehensive regime of law and order in the world’s oceans, including the Arctic Ocean. The United States is not a party to UNCLOS.

Record low extents of Arctic sea ice over the past decade have focused scientific and policy attention on links to global climate change and projected ice-free seasons in the Arctic within decades. These changes have potential consequences for weather in the United States, access to mineral and biological resources in the Arctic, the economies and cultures of peoples in the region, and national security.

The geopolitical environment for the Arctic has been substantially affected by the renewal of great power competition. Although there continues to be significant international cooperation on Arctic issues, the Arctic is increasingly viewed as an arena for geopolitical competition among the United States, Russia, and China. Russia in recent years has enhanced its military presence and operations in the Arctic. China’s growing activities in the Arctic have become a matter of increasing curiosity or concern among observers.

U.S. military forces have begun to pay more attention to the Arctic in their planning and operations. The Department of Defense (DOD), the Navy, and the Coast Guard have all issued Arctic strategy documents in recent years. Whether DOD and the military services are adequately resourcing these strategies and taking appropriate and adequate actions for defending U.S. interests in the Arctic has emerged as a topic of debate and congressional oversight. The Coast Guard has two operational polar icebreakers and has received funding for the procurement of the first of three planned new polar icebreakers.

The diminishment of Arctic ice could lead in coming years to increased commercial shipping on two trans-Arctic sea routes—the Northern Sea Route close to Russia, and the Northwest Passage close to Alaska and through the Canadian archipelago—though the rate of increase in the use of these routes might not be as great as sometimes anticipated in press accounts. International guidelines for ships operating in Arctic waters have been recently updated.

Changes to the Arctic brought about by warming temperatures will likely allow more exploration for oil, gas, and minerals. Warming that causes permafrost to melt could pose challenges to onshore exploration activities. Increased oil and gas exploration and tourism (cruise ships) in the Arctic increase the risk of pollution in the region. Cleaning up oil spills in ice-covered waters will be more difficult than in other areas, primarily because effective strategies for cleaning up oil spills in ice-covered waters have yet to be developed.

Large commercial fisheries exist in the Arctic. The United States is working with other countries regarding the management of Arctic fish stocks. Changes in the Arctic could affect threatened and endangered species, and could result in migration of fish stocks to new waters. Under the Endangered Species Act, the polar bear was listed as threatened on May 15, 2008. Arctic climate change is also expected to affect the economies, health, and cultures of Arctic indigenous peoples.

Great read!

Enjoy!

"We are all in the same storm. But we are not all in the same boats." - @DrBonnieHenry (quoted in @nytimes via @TheWeek)

Report: 'Hydrology of the Transboundary Drin River Basin' - Water Management, Collaboration and Cooperation

While searching for material on the Drin River Basin for one of my classes I stumbled across this brief report by Elisabeta Poci for one of Dr. David Maidment's classes (GIS in Water Resources) at the University of Texas at Austin in December 2011. 

Beautiful area!

Download Poci

I first leaned of the Drin River Basin at a GWP meeting in Slovakia in December 2019. Then it was featured on the GWP website with the byline, Political cooperation across borders protects water resources in Drin Basin. Below is some introductory material from that article, which touts a new agreement reached by all the riparians - Albania, Greece, Kosovo*, Montenegro and North Macedonia.

Ministers and High-level representatives of the five Riparians endorse the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the Drin River Basin in South East Europe.

High level representatives from the five Riparians virtually signed a joint statement today, thus endorsing the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the sustainable management of the Extended Drin Basin, directly benefiting its 1.6 million inhabitants. Shared among Albania, Greece, Kosovo*, Montenegro and North Macedonia (the five ‘Riparians’), the Drin River Basin provides water resources for drinking, energy, fishing and agriculture, biodiversity, tourism and industry. Read more here.

This endorsement confirms the political will among the five Riparians to work across borders and sends a strong message that improved water resources management, which also yields benefits for public health and livelihoods, remains a priority and will continue to be pursued at the transboundary level, in spite of current difficulties associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The current crisis underscores the vital importance of water for hygiene in the region and globally.

Watch the endorsement ceremony here.

*All references to Kosovo are made in the context of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999)

You can read the entire article here.

Back to Ms. Poci's report.

Introduction and Background
The Drin River Basin is located in the Western Balkans and it is shared between Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia and Montenegro.

The total catchment area of the basin is around 19,600 km2 and including Black Drin which drains from Lake Ohrid and flows up north until it meets White Drin and flow together as Drin until they meet the Buna River and discharge finally to Adriatic Sea. The basin includes also three trans-boundary lakes which are the Shkodra Lake, Ohrid Lake and Prespa Lakes (Large and Small Prespa). The Prespa Lakes are shared between Albania, Macedonia and Greece and I will show later the reason why
I haven’t included them in my analysis.

My motivation for studying the Drin River Basin is related to the fact that the basin is very important for the region in terms of economy and it has many unique natural resources. 

Besides these natural values, the Drin Basin is important to the economy of countries sharing it where the main users of water are agriculture, energy, water supply and sanitation, mining and industry, environment, fisheries, tourism, and transport (Trans-Boundary Waters and Integrated Water Resource Management in the Western Balkans Region, 2007). But more specifically, the Drini River is extremely important to the Albanian economy because of the electricity production. The Drin is the longest and largest river in Albania and the damns constructed along its way in the Albanian territory, produce hydropower contributing to around 90% of the total electric capacity in the country.

Another characteristic of the basin, is related to the hydraulic complex Drin River-Buna River- Shkodra Lake. Meeting of the Drin River with Buna only 1.5 km after Buna has left Shkodra Lake inhibits the free drainage of Buna from the lake and in many times creates a flow in the opposite direction for Buna.

Being able to calculate the drainage area of each of the countries along with estimating the potential volume for Run off (by using precipitation data) is important to make an analysis of how much each country is contributing to the watershed. Using the precipitation data for an interval of years allows us to make comparisons between different years related to the run off volume calculated for each country through the time period specified.

However, as I will show later in my report, the poor quality of data and in the worst cases the lack of them, made this a very challenging task for me.

Here are the conclusions reached by Ms. Poci:

Conclusions
Even though because of the above reasons related to my data I was not able to make a full analysis of Run Off for the each of the four countries, based on my experience with this project, I have made some reflections and I am presenting them in the form of conclusions to my work.

Since data acquisition is the first step in starting to work with GIS, having a good source of data is important. It is not enough to just get the data but they should be reliable as well since data quality will significantly affect the quality of the results. In that regard, they should be put in a format that can be used in GIS, and provide sufficient information for the user such as the Coordinate System used.

The local data are always more reliable than those found on Global Databases, however they should be shared on Global Databases (when national Databases do not exist) and be updated on a regular basis. Along with that, building of National Geodatabases should become a must for each country as the only way to be able to assess its own resources, update them, and make the analysis and decision making process easier, faster and better.

In terms of projection, it is important when considering a study area spread in more than just one country, to choose the right projection. Again, projection will affect the results of the work at the end.

Efficient management of the Drin River Basin requires cooperation on a regional level, where each country takes the responsibility to improve the management and water quality in its own catchment, while considering the impact of their discharges to the other countries. This is specifically crucial to Albania because of its downstream location. On a political level, this regional cooperation is important to the countries since as they are preparing their way to the European Union they way have to comply with EU Standards and Water Framework Directives.

The Drin River Basin faces several technical and management issues today related to upstream discharges of untreated wastewater and waste disposal, overuse of Water Resources and Biodiversity threatening, illegal constructions at coastal areas, flooding, etc (Trans-Boundary Waters and Integrated Water Resource Management in the Western Balkans Region, 2007). Identifying the potential of GIS in tackling of these issues, it motivates me to focus my work in the future on studying the Drin Basin through making use of GIS.

Good technical work, considering the paucity of data.

Let's hope the cooperation sticks! 

Brings back memories of my time working with the South Caucasus water issues.

Enjoy!

"Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans." - John Lennon (via @smerconish)

V.B. Price Asks: 'The Rio Grande Compact: Texas v. New Mexico - Where Are the Tribes?'

Another piece by V.B. Price, originally published on 26 January 2020, asks an important question:

The Rio Grande Compact: Texas v. New Mexico - Where Are the Tribes?

 

There’s a good chance that a lawsuit over water delivery and the Rio Grande Compact of 1938, filed almost six years ago by Texas against New Mexico and Colorado, will go to trial in the Supreme Court later this year. The suit has momentous and perhaps disastrous consequences for all water users, urban and rural, up and down the Middle Rio Grande Valley and for the immense farming operations — growing chile, pecans, pistachios and other crops — south of Elephant Butte Dam.

If New Mexico loses the case to Texas, we could be forced to severely curtail our water use and perhaps even establish an aggressive program of buying up water rights and retiring irrigated farmland to pay our water debt to Texas. A somewhat similar outcome occurred in 1988 when New Mexico lost a lawsuit brought by Texas involving the Pecos River.

While both Texas suits against New Mexico involve pumping groundwater around a river, thereby diminishing surface water flow, there are critical differences between the suits. Not only will a loss to Texas over the Rio Grande cause agricultural woes all along the river, it could also require water rationing in the Albuquerque metro area in times of hard drought. More importantly in the long run, a loss to Texas could mandate the adjudication of senior water rights up and down the river, including Pueblo water rights, the most senior of all.

The six major Pueblos with rights to the Rio Grande are not, however, a party to the Texas v. New Mexico lawsuit. There’s no mention of them that I can see in any of the public records of the suit so far. Nor is there mention of the hundreds of Hispanic and Anglo farmers with senior water rights to the river that have never been adjudicated either.

It seems entirely possible to me that Associate Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has a history of siding with Native Americans over issues involving treaties and other interests, might look askance at the Middle Rio Grande’s tangle of unadjudicated water rights and put the Texas suit on hold until the some kind of clarity reigns.

Gorsuch’s reluctance might be reinforced if he focuses on Article XVI of the Rio Grande Compact, which says, “Nothing in this Compact shall be construed as affecting the obligation of the United States of America to Mexico under existing treaties, or with the Indian Tribes, or as impairing the rights of the Indian Tribes.”

Article XVI makes it perfectly clear to me that the Supreme Court cannot rule against New Mexico until Pueblo and other early water rights are adjudicated, intertwined as they are in myriad treaties and other agreements, including the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which promised to “inviolably respect” existing water and property rights when the United States took over New Mexico and adjacent territories after it won its war with Mexico in 1848.

For the Supreme Court to rule against New Mexico and require serious curtailment of water use along the Middle and Southern Rio Grande would, in effect, violate unadjudicated water rights all along the river, offending the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and other treaties.

The water rights situation on the Rio Grande is really a shameful mess. “The fact remains that recognized Native American pueblos such as Isleta, just south of Albuquerque, have plausible but undetermined claims to the whole river. The whole structure of Anglo development, shaken by environmentalism, could be upended by these ownership questions. Without a firm grasp on the nature and extent of these Puebloan and Hispanic rights, efforts to restore the river and move it into a brave new future are all built on sand.” So said authors and water experts Fred Phillips, Em Hall and Mary Black in their definitive bookReining in the Rio Grande.

New Mexico has already filed counterclaims against Texas, accusing its farmers and cities of pumping groundwater along the Rio Grande and, in effect, causing New Mexico severe hydrological problems of its own. But whatever the direction Texas v. New Mexico takes down the road, it’s hard to see how any decision the Supreme Court might make wouldn’t end up being “built on sand.”

It’s easy to imagine Pueblos opposing all rulings that might infringe on their senior water rights, undefined or not. And if the Court should make adjudication of those rights mandatory before any final rulings come down, Texas v. New Mexico over the Rio Grande could be in litigation for decades.

 

As is the case with all V.B. Price's essays, food for thought!

Feel free to leave a post on this blog post and/or on Mr. Price's column here.

Enjoy!

"All logical arguments can be defeated by the simple refusal to reason logically." - Steven Weinberg (quoted @TheBrowser via@TheWeek)

CRS Reports: 1) 'NAFTA and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)'; 2) 'Environmental Provisions in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)'

1) M. Angeles Villarreal and Ian F. Fergusson penned this CRS report (2 March 2020): NAFTA and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). 

Graphics can be enlarged by clicking on them.

Download CRS_Report_NAFTA_USMCA_2March2020

Overview

The 116th Congress, in both its legislative and oversight capacities, has been active in numerous trade policy issues related to renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its replacement, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). In May 2017, the Trump Administration sent a 90-day notification to Congress of its intent to begin talks with Canada and Mexico to renegotiate and modernize NAFTA, as required by the 2015 Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). Negotiations officially began on August 16, 2017, and were concluded on September 30, 2018. The USMCA was signed on November 30, 2018. The agreement was approved by the House of Representatives (H.R. 5430) on December 19, 2019, by a vote of 385-41, and by the Senate (S. 3052) on January 16, 2020, by a vote of 89-10. President Trump signed the USMCA implementing legislation on January 29, 2020 (P.L. 116-113). All three parties must ratify the agreement and have regulations and laws in effect to meet their USMCA commitments before the agreement enters into force.

The first NAFTA negotiations were launched in 1992. Implementing legislation was signed on December 8, 1991 (P.L. 103- 182) and NAFTA entered into force on January 1, 1994. It is particularly significant because it was the most comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) negotiated at the time, contained several groundbreaking provisions, and was the first of a new generation of U.S. FTAs later negotiated. NAFTA established trade liberalization commitments and set new rules and disciplines for future FTAs on issues important to the United States, including intellectual property rights protection, services trade, dispute settlement procedures, investment, labor, and environment. NAFTA’s market-opening provisions gradually eliminated nearly all tariff and most nontariff barriers on merchandise trade. At the time of NAFTA negotiations, average applied U.S. duties on imports from Mexico were 2.07%, while U.S. businesses faced average tariffs of 10%, in addition to nontariff and investment barriers, in Mexico. The U.S.-Canada FTA, which had been in effect since 1989, was suspended under NAFTA. NAFTA will stay in effect until USMCA enters into force.

USMCA, comprised of 34 chapters and 12 side letters, retains most of NAFTA’s market opening measures and other measures, while making notable changes to auto rules of origin, dispute settlement provisions, government procurement, investment, and intellectual property rights (IPR) protection. It also modernizes provisions in services, labor, and the environment. New trade issues, such as digital trade, state-owned enterprises, anticorruption, and currency misalignment, are also addressed. Key issues for Congress in the debate surrounding USMCA included worker rights protection in Mexico, IPR provisions and access to medicine, the enforceability of labor and environmental provisions, as well the constitutional authority of Congress over international trade and its role in revising, approving, or withdrawing from the agreement. Congress was also active in considering U.S. negotiating objectives and the extent to which USMCA made progress in meeting them, as required under TPA.

At least 30 days prior to USMCA’s entry into force, the President must notify Congress that he has determined that the otherparties have taken the necessary legal and regulatory measures to comply with their commitments under the agreement. Such measures include laws or regulations regarding rules of origin, tariffs, panel rosters related to dispute resolution, establishing committees such as the one called for in the chapter on small and medium-sized enterprises, and labor law implementation in Mexico, among others. After all parties have the necessary legal and regulatory measures in place to meet their USMCAcommitments, the agreement will enter into force “on the first day of the third month following the last notification.” The process could take several months or longer. USMCA parties may take as much time as they need to meet their obligations.

I want to reproduce what the report says about the environment (pages 33-35):

Environment

NAFTA was the first U.S. FTA to include a side agreement related to the environment. As with the chapter on labor, environment provisions in U.S. FTAs have evolved significantly over time. The NAFTA side agreement—the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC)—required all parties to enforce their own environmental laws, and contains an

enforcement mechanism applicable to a party’s failure to enforce these laws. NAAEC included a consultation mechanism for addressing disputes with a special dispute settlement procedure. Subsequent FTAs included a similar environmental chapter within the main text of the agreement, including a country’s obligations to enforce their own laws.83

More recent U.S. FTAs added an affirmative obligation for FTA partner countries to adhere to multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and allowed for environmental disputes under the FTAs to access the main dispute settlement provisions of the agreement. These obligations generally were reflected in the TPA-2015 negotiating objectives. The USMCA environment chapter obligates each party to

•   not fail to effectively enforce its environmental laws through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction to attract trade and investment;

•   not waive or derogate from such laws in a manner that weakens or reduces the protections afforded in those law to encourage trade or investment;

•   ensure that its environmental laws and policies provide for and encourage high levels of protection;

•   strive to improve its levels of environmental protection;

•   require parties to adopt and maintain statutes and regulations consistent with

  multilateral environmental agreements to which each is a party;

•   recognize the sovereign right of each party to establish its own levels of domestic environmental protection, its own regulatory priorities, and to adopt or modify its priorities accordingly;

•   acknowledge a party’s right to exercise discretion with regard to enforcement resources;

•   provide for the resolution of disputes; and

•   provide a mechanism to implement the agreement.

  USMCA directly or implicitly addresses obligations under major Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs). It also includes obligations and encouragements to protect the ozone layer, protect the marine environment from ship pollution, encourage conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, encourage sustainable fisheries management and requires the control, reduction, and eventual elimination of subsidies that lead to overfishing or overcapacity. The USMCA does not contain language on climate change.

  The Protocol of Amendment to USMCA clarified some of the existing language in the agreement and addressed some perceived shortcoming in the original USMCA text, such as

•   Asserting the presumption that an environmental dispute affects trade and investment unless a respondent party can prove otherwise.

•   Requiring each party specifically to adopt, maintain, and implement laws, regulations and other measures to fulfill the following MEAs to which they are a party:

  •   Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES)

  •   Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

  • •   International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ship (MARPOL)

    •   Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

    •   Convention on Antarctic Marine Living Resources

    •   International Whaling Convention

    •   Inter-American Tropical Tuna Convention

The USMCA, as originally signed, only made explicit reference to CITES, MARPOL, and the Montreal Protocol. USMCA implementing legislation will create an Interagency Environment Committee for Monitoring and Enforcement, analogous to the labor chapter, and establishes environment-focused attachés in Mexico City to monitor compliance with the agreement. In addition, the implementing legislation includes measures for authorizing grants under the U.S.- Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program, the Trade Enforcement Trust Fund and a recapitalization of the North American Development Bank (NADB).

2) Richard K. Lattanzio and Ian F. Fergusson wrote this earlier (28 May 2015) CRS  InFocus two-pager: Environmental Provisions in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).

Download CRS_InFocus_EnvProvisions_FTAs_28May2015

Overview

Linkages between trade and environmental protection have long been a concern to some U.S. policymakers and stakeholders. The central question is whether trade liberalization (i.e., the removal of barriers on the free exchange of goods and services between nations) advances shared economic and environmental goals. Some observers argue that economic expansion brought on by trade liberalization adversely impacts the environment. Among other concerns, they contend that for developing countries, international competition may lead them to adopt less stringent environmental standards or to engage in more polluting activities. Thus, they claim that environmental provisions are necessary in trade agreements to help raise or maintain international standards and protect U.S. businesses and workers from perceived unfair competition. Other policy makers and stakeholders believe that trade liberalization and environmental protection are mutually supportive. They argue that while economic growth may adversely impact the environment during the initial stages of industrialization, it can also provide resources to mitigate such effects as countries develop. They also argue that trade liberalization can support U.S. environmental goals through the elimination of tariffs on environmental goods, and the reduction of trade-distorting subsidies.

Trade-related environmental provisions in U.S. FTAs were first introduced in the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994 (NAFTA). Through the years, they have moved from side agreements to integral chapters within FTA texts, and increasingly have incorporated cooperation and dispute settlement (DS) mechanisms. By executive order in 1999, President Clinton required trade agreements to undergo environmental assessments. In the Trade Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-210), Congress included environmental provisions as a principal negotiating objective in renewing the President’s Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) (previously known as fast-track) legislation. Since then, the United States has been at the forefront of using trade agreements to promote core environmental protections. The structure and use of environmental provisions is currently under debate in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and in Congress’ consideration of TPA renewal legislation.

Enjoy, or as one of my students would say: 'Knock yourself out.'.

“It’s not true that you never learn from history. You do, but then you forget.” – Martin Wolf