California, Chile, and water law

Ralco dam & hydroelectric plant, Veoverde

Carl Bauer and Luis Catalán recently posted “Water, law, and development in Chile/California cooperation, 1960s-1970s”. First, the abstract:

During 1963-1978 the governments and the top universities of Chile and California undertook three programs of binational development assistance and cooperation. The programs built on a long historical relationship between the two regions, marked by their striking similarities in physical geography and natural resources, despite being 1000s of miles apart on opposite sides of the Equator. The first program was for technical development assistance to Chile in the framework of the Alliance for Progress, and involved the three governments of Chile, California, and the United States. Water resources and river basin development planning were a primary emphasis, and led to building Chile’s largest dual-purpose reservoir (Colbún). The second program was for graduate-level academic exchange and involved the two leading public university systems, the University of Chile and the University of California. This comprehensive program was funded for more than a decade by the Ford Foundation, with agriculture, natural sciences, and engineering the dominant fields. The third program was a separate effort to reform Chilean legal education, led by Stanford Law School and funded by the Ford Foundation. This Chile Law Program was a leading international example of the “law and development” movement in the 1960s, which overlapped closely with the early years of the “law and society” movement in the U.S. Both university and law school programs ended after the Chilean military coup in 1973. What were the impacts of these programs on water, law, and society in both Chile and California? What lessons can we learn today from those historical experiences? We answer these questions with an historical overview and synthesis of diverse documents and evidence. In focusing on water, law, and society, we aim to contribute to the interdisciplinary synthesis of different fields of development studies.

And from the conclusion:

In terms of water, California’s influence has been noticeable in dams and technology, but not in law and policy....

Diffusion of constitutional environmental rights

Here's a paper that goes to the important historical question of how and why environmental legal norms are transplanted, diffused, received, or what have you, between legal systems.

Constitutional Environmental Protection in 1980

Constitutional Environmental Protection in 2010

(figures from the article)

Jerg Gutmann, Sina Imhof, and Stefan Voigt have posted "Are You Green Yet? On the Diffusion of Constitutionally Protected Environmental Rights". The abstract explains:

Over the last couple of decades, ever more countries have integrated environmental rights into their constitutions. Drawing on discrete time survival analysis techniques, this paper identifies the determinants of the introduction of such rights. It turns out that a country’s level of democracy, its legal tradition, the sustainability of its tourism sector, and the implementation of major changes to the constitution are statistically significant predictors of an entrenchment of environmental rights in national constitutions. Other plausible explanations can be discarded. Income, affectedness by extreme weather events, citizens’ initiatives, dependence on fossil fuels or agriculture, and stated ecofriendly attitudes or behavior are not associated with a higher propensity for constitutional environmental protection. However, we find robust evidence for a diffusion of constitutional environmental rights among spatially proximate countries.