Several years ago, the negotiation of NAFTA was in the news. NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Agreement, and it was the subject of much debate and fanfare when it was being negotiated. Some warned that it could lead to some difficult problems. They were right, but you are not going to believe why.

You may recall that one of the concerns that many people expressed was that a trade agreement such as NAFTA might some how limit the ability of United States to protect its own people and enforce its own laws. It seemed like a radical, unfounded concern to many. After all, how could a treaty with Mexico interfere with our ability to sell rule?

As it turns out, however, the concern was valid, as evidenced by perhaps the most ridiculous legal action ever filed on American soils. At issue is whether a Canadian company can rely on NAFTA to prevent California from banning the gasoline additive MTBE.

MTBE was supposed to make gasoline burn more efficiently. Since the 1990s, gasoline producers have been required by our federal EPA to add this chemical compound to gasoline sold in many states. The theory was simple. MTBE was supposed to make gasoline burn more efficiently, thereby cutting down on smog. But by any measure MTBE is a failure. It has not worked. Worse, however, is that MTBE has leaked into underground water drinking supplies throughout the United States, and consequently has led to the shutting down of many drinking water wells. In California alone, municipalities have had to shut down drinking water wells serving their communities and look for alternate supplies of drinking water.

Just recently, nearly 150 residents of a New Jersey community were forced to sue three major oil companies for polluting their private drinking water wells with MTBE. Litigation abounds throughout United States and some experts suggest that we have yet to see the tip of the iceberg.

As a result of this MTBE nightmare, many states and federal governments are entertaining legislation to permanently ban the use of MTBE within their jurisdictions. A congressional subcommittee just recently approved such legislation and the states are different stages of the law making process. California ordered MTBE eliminated from its gasoline supply by the end of 2002. Probably, California should have ordered that it be eliminated immediately. But at least California has reacted strongly.

Relying on NAFTA provisions, a Canadian company called Methanex claims it should be entitled to compensation because it is a large manufacturer of MTBE and stands to lose, it says, $970 million as a result of the California ban. Methanex makes these allegations in a claim that it has filed with a trade tribunal.

What this Canadian company is saying is that California, and implicitly the federal government and any other state, cannot protect its citizens from being poisoned by MTBE. Instead, we are supposed to sit back and continue to drink MTBE and become sick and watch our property values fall all in the name of free?trade with Canada and with Mexico.

So the concerns that people had with NAFTA and a suggestion that it would take away our ability to self govern, were indeed well?founded. Of course, this is an absolutely ludicrous situation. And this Canadian company should be shamed. So should our elected officials to placed us in this situation .

It is important that we make it known that Americans will not tolerate this kind of business conduct. An organization called OXYBUSTERS, which has long fought for the elimination of MTBE from our gasoline supplies, has posted an easy to use (fill in your name and click) letter on its web site addressed to the president of Methanex. That letter informs the president of that company that Americans will not tolerate these kinds of practices. I urge you to go to: www.oxybusters.com/nafta/methanex.html

The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq., and IRED.Com, Inc., will not accept any responsibilty for any reliance on the information in this column or any damages whatsoever resulting from reading this column.