APPEALS COURT: NO ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOP NAFTA

The Clinton administration has won a court appeal that removes a mandate that it prepare a detailed study of the North American Free Trade Agreement's effects on the environment. A three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., unanimously overturned a June 30 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Charles Richey, who also sits in Washington. Richey had ordered the Clinton administration to prepare an exhaustive environmental study, which could have taken 1 year. Congress

Oct. 4, 1993

3 min read

The Clinton administration has won a court appeal that removes a mandate that it prepare a detailed study of the North American Free Trade Agreement's effects on the environment.

A three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., unanimously overturned a June 30 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Charles Richey, who also sits in Washington.

Richey had ordered the Clinton administration to prepare an exhaustive environmental study, which could have taken 1 year. Congress is expected to vote on the trade deal this fall so it can take effect Jan. 1.

The plaintiffs in the suit were Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth, and Sierra Club. They plan to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but a decision cannot come before next spring and thus would be moot.

The trade agreement, known as Nafta, would lower tariffs and trade barriers among the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

Chief Appeals Court Judge Abner Mikva, in the court's opinion, wrote Nafta was a presidential action not covered by the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires most federal agencies to prepare environmental impact statements for major rulemakings. Mikva wrote, "Nafta's fate now rests in the hands of the political branches. The judiciary has no role to play."

EPA Administrator Carol Browner said Nafta carries a side agreement that requires constant monitoring of the trade pact's effect on the environment. She also noted U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor is conducting an environment review of Nafta provisions.

Browner said, "Nafta is the first trade package to promote prudent use of natural resources. Nafta is the first trade package to require enforcement of environmental laws. Nafta is our best chance for cleaning up the U.S.Mexico border."

INDUSTRY REACTION

The American Petroleum Institute issued a statement supporting congressional approval of Nafta "in accordance with our long tradition of advocating free trade.

"We take this position notwithstanding our strong disappointment over the fact that equity investments in Mexico by the U.S. petroleum industry will continue to be seriously restricted even under Nafta.

"Our hope is that some time in the future, arrangements will be made so our companies will be able to make the same kinds of investments in Mexico that Mexican companies are allowed to make in the U.S."

And the American Gas Association sent a statement to the House ways and means committee attacking what it called "misinformation about the economic and environmental impact of Nafta."

AGA Pres. Mike Baly wrote, "Some Nafta opponents would have the American public believe this agreement will be bad for the environment when nothing could be further from the truth.

"Economic development generally improves the economic quality of life. As economies become more efficient, less harmful waste is generated, and natural gas stands to play an important role in this process.

"And as people become more affluent, they are concerned less about survival and more about the quality of life.

"Mexico has already made great strides on the environmental front. Since 1988, when Mexico passed one of the most stringent environmental laws on the continent, it reportedly has shut down approximately 2,000 factories, either temporarily or permanently, that were in violation of its environmental laws.

"Mexico also has increased its budgetary support for environmental enforcement from $6.6 million in 1990 to $77 million in 1992."