Note: the following is a draft in progress for the Trial Smelter Dispute article. My area of focus is the Dispute Details section of the article. Team members feel free to make changes and provide feedback.
This section will briefly describe the parties involved and the efforts made to resolve the dispute prior to going to arbitration. It will also describe the damage as alleged by the complainants in terms of smoke and water pollutants.
Dispute Details
editMajor Players
editThe major players of the Trial Smelter dispute include the owners of the smelter, the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada (COMINCO), and the American residents, mostly farmers and landowners, affected by the smoke generated from the smelter. Eventually, the farmers and landowners in Washington, who had a mutual concern for the smoke drifting from the smelter, formed a protective association.[1] The Canadian and American governments also became involved in the dispute because of the issue of national boundaries and extraterritoriality.[2] Both governments were initially involved through the foundation of the International Joint Commission (IJC) in 1909, which was responsible for investigating and then recommending a settlement for the alleged damages.[3] This transformation of the smelter dispute into a foreign policy issue resulted in more institutions joining the dispute. This included Canada's National Research Council (NRC) and the American Smelting and Refining Company, both contributed scientific experts in support for their respective countries.[4]
Alleged Damages
editA growing concern in 1925 was the smoke drifting from the smelter across the border into Washington, allegedly causing damages to crops and forests.[5] The smoke generated from the smelter became the source of complaints from American residents. Complaints included: sulphur dioxide gases in the form of smoke generated from the smelter was directed into the Columbia River Valley by prevailing winds, scorching crops and accelerating forest loss.[6]
Initial Efforts to Resolve
editAfter the complaints in 1925 regarding crop and forest destruction as a result of smoke from the smelter, COMINCO accepted responsibility and offered to compensate the people affected.[7] COMINCO also proposed installing fume-controlling technologies to limit future damage and lower emissions of sulphur dioxide. The company had initially raised smoke stacks to four hundred feet in an effort to increase the dispersion of pollutants; however, this only resulted in prevailing winds moving the noxious fumes downwind to the inhabitants of the Columbia River Valley.[8] The company also tried to offer payments to those affected or even purchase the land outright, which some accepted. However, eventually the company was denied because of Washington State's prohibition against foreigners owning property.[9] This led to the official petition by the farmers and landowners of Washington in 1927 for state and federal support against the smelter, claiming the smoke was damaging United States lands.[10] In 1931, the IJC awarded the farmers $350,000 in damages, but did not set guidelines on sulphur dioxide emission reduction.[11] This was far less than the inhabitants had wanted and eventually under the pressure of Washington's State Congressional Delegation, the IJC settlement was rejected. This led to the eventual establishment of the three-person Arbitral Tribunal to finally solve the dispute, which was established in 1935.
- ^ Wirth, J. D. (1996). "The Trail Smelter Dispute: Canadians and Americans Confront Transboundary Pollution". Environmental History. 1 (2): 34.
- ^ Wirth, J. D. (1996). "The Trail Smelter Dispute: Canadians and Americans Confront Transboundary Pollution". Environmental History. 1 (2): 35.
- ^ Wirth, J. D. (1996). "The Trail Smelter Dispute: Canadians and Americans Confront Transboundary Pollution". Environmental History. 1 (2): 36.
- ^ Wirth, J. D. (1996). "The Trail Smelter Dispute: Canadians and Americans Confront Transboundary Pollution". Environmental History. 1 (2): 36.
- ^ Wirth, J. D. (1996). "The Trail Smelter Dispute: Canadians and Americans Confront Transboundary Pollution". Environmental History. 1 (2): 34.
- ^ John E.Read, "The Trail Smelter Dispute [Abridged]," 'Transboundary Harm in International Law: Lessons from the Trail SmelterArbitration,' Bratspies, Rebecca M. and Russell A. Miller eds. (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2006), 27.
- ^ Wirth, J. D. (1996). "The Trail Smelter Dispute: Canadians and Americans Confront Transboundary Pollution". Environmental History. 1 (2): 34.
- ^ Wirth, J. D. (1996). "The Trail Smelter Dispute: Canadians and Americans Confront Transboundary Pollution". Environmental History. 1 (2): 35.
- ^ Wirth, J. D. (1996). "The Trail Smelter Dispute: Canadians and Americans Confront Transboundary Pollution". Environmental History. 1 (2): 35.
- ^ Wirth, J. D. (1996). "The Trail Smelter Dispute: Canadians and Americans Confront Transboundary Pollution". Environmental History. 1 (2): 35.
- ^ Wirth, J. D. (1996). "The Trail Smelter Dispute: Canadians and Americans Confront Transboundary Pollution". Environmental History. 1 (2): 36.