Towards a new water law: “green” and resilient

Río

I. The “reality” regulating water law has changed and will continue to change.

It is not hard to come to the conclusion 1 that water management in Chile is neither sustainable nor resilient. And although there may be many various reasons, these lines of thinking aim to place an emphasis on the shortcomings and backwardness of one of its pillars: water law.

Up until now in specialized academic legal opinion, the “dogmatic core” 2 of the discipline, meaning what grants it its autonomy as such and determines its principles and parent institutions, has not included the protection of water nor its sustainable use. According to Vergara, the reality or particular facts to be regulated by water law are water and its use. And the principles of the discipline in Chile are essentially that water is public; that rights may be acquired over these waters (or be recognized in certain cases), that there is certain freedom to be the owner of these rights, to exercise these rights and transfer them; and the principle of the unity of flow. 3

Hence, this dogmatic core of water law in Chile must change, be updated, and not only revolve around the “rights of use.” Rather, it should be broadened to the protection of water and its sustainable use. Scientific evidence is compelling in the sense that there is a dynamic and mobile “new reality” to accept: freshwater is already scarce in many areas and the drought will continue; glaciers are melting, temperatures are rising, there are more floods, etc. This means that if current management remains this way within this new scenario, competition over water will intensify and conflicts and environmental deterioration will be exacerbated. “Bauer cautions that the next generation of water conflicts will be defined by the link between water and energy, climate change and ecosystem sustainability. The Water Code cannot single-handedly deal with these problems.” 4

Thus, if we want to protect water and fight climate change, there must be substantial reforms made to water law. Although current law, essentially constituted by the Water Code, perceives water as a national asset for public use, it has turned it into a “private” 5 asset by granting ownership over water use rights, as free and perpetual rights, rights that can be freely transferred on the market and where there is no obligation to respect the use for which they were granted. In fact, even if there is a water shortage, all uses compete equally, without any recognition of priorities 6; although in practice, the Code does in fact grant privileges to certain extractive uses (such as mining), it incentivizes others (such as farming and hydroelectric use), and, by contrast, it establishes few regulations for domestic use (such as granting the right to extract a certain amount of underground water without any need to file a request). In terms of ecosystem use, since 2005 there has only been one regulation that enforces respect of the minimum ecological flow when granting water rights, but it is only applicable to the “new” rights. It is incomprehensible that legislation does not yet embrace the fact that when there is no water, there will be environmental deterioration that is many times irreversible (the case of Aculeo Lake), human rights will be violated (Petorca case), and productive uses will not be able to be carried out properly either (hydroelectric dams at medium capacity).

The water authority is only endowed with “general” 7 environmental powers, and, as Costa rightly affirms, the fact that it can only employ rather “lateral” protection tools has led this state obligation heretofore to be cast “adrift”. 8 All these powers of the authority must be reconsidered.

The General Water Authority (DGA) has powers to grant water use rights, but once they are granted, it must leave them to the private self-management system of users, organizations that are not organized in many watersheds, and which do not have environmental powers.

The authority does little planning, little auditing, and offenders are rarely held criminally or administratively responsible. The scenario is disheartening when there is “theft” of water and when repairing environmental damages.

There is little preventative protection if the authority does not consider adequate water planning. And even less so if there are no instruments in current water law that make it possible to incorporate land planning into this water planning, so as to assess the effects that possible soil uses in the watershed may have on the quality and quantity of water. 9

Moreover, although the Code recognizes the principle of the unity of flow, for example, in reality there are rivers from the very same watershed that are managed separately. And when a right is acquired or transferred, this principle is not respected either, because in practice, availability is not analyzed in light of the relationship between surface and underground waters; nor when water transfers of watersheds are allowed, and the relationship with the ocean is considered even less so, where continental waters generally flow out. At other latitudes, the integrated management of water resources expressly includes the coastal marine area.

What is more, decisions are made by the authority and user organizations without the participation of all interested parties. There is no one to represent the interests of the users “with no water rights,” future generations, nor the ecosystems. We have asserted that the Water Code is not a code “for water.” Rather, it is for the “rights” to water, and, thus, only owners of these rights participate 10. And within these organizations, decisions are undemocratic because they are only representative of the “users with greatest resources11

Moreover, as observed by the World Bank, the State organizations (more than 40) do not act in a coordinated manner, thereby producing “overlapping and fragmentation” of resources and duties. And there are still matters that fall into no man's land, such as water planning at the watershed level, the protection of the environment and vulnerable groups, controlling the safety of dams not built with public funds, the disclosure of information, and education, etc. 12

Furthermore, decisions are typically improvised because there is no existing reliable scientific information, neither on the availability or quality of the water, especially underground water. Nor is there information regarding how associated ecosystems function. This is especially serious within the context of climate change, and because the precautionary principle has not been applied thus far as it should; as such, when there is scientific uncertainty, this cannot be used as an excuse to postpone a decision, such as approving a request for rights or a project, rejecting or, or placing conditions on it.

Nor do the regulations consider “sustainable incentives.” By contrast, they operate with “perverse” subsidies, according to the OECD, such as those related to the license for the non-use of water, technified irrigation, and the use of agro-chemicals that pollute the water 13.

The Code addresses some subjects that are especially important today because of climate change, which must be urgently revised. This is because, for example, the matters that empower the authority to decree a water shortage emanate from the assumption there is an “extraordinary” drought (when it is already ongoing in the country) 14, and those addressing the floods only do so to give the DGA the power to monitor works on intakes of natural waterways and reservoirs.

   II. A new Water Law: “green” and resilient

A “green” water law would mean it would include the environmental variable (in terms of sustainability) in decision-making on planning and management. It would also be “resilient” by including flexibility in decision-making, enabling us to gradually adapt to the changing reality and considering special rules for the most vulnerable groups. Only a water law understood as such will make it possible to achieve water security and make headway on the sustainable development goals.

In the author's opinion, sustainable and resilient water management means that water law considers decision-making based on the following premises, criteria, or principles:

                    a. Water is a natural, limited, and valuable resource (a shared asset, in the words of E. Ostrom) which, as part of the environment, must be protected and managed, in terms of quality and quantity, with special rules (different than the rules for private assets), which fairly address this characteristic of being shared. And especially within a context of climate change, meaning with a changing reality, the possibility for the authority to “revise” the conditions under which it granted rights must be considered. 15

                    b. Protection implies there will be appropriate local planning of the uses of water (and possible scenarios), while also considering the uses of the soil. To this effect, experts suggest implementing integrated water management, which is a management approach that highlights the role of water as a social, economic, and environmental asset, and which entails the coordinated management of water and soil. 16

This management must be taken on within each territory 17. It also entails protecting vulnerable aquatic ecosystems (vulnerable to climate change and direct anthropogenic activity), such as glaciers, wetlands, peatlands, etc., which, in turn, are especially valuable as water reserves, flood containers, carbon capturers, etc.

                     c. Decisions made by the State and private entities surrounding sustainable water management must be based on reliable scientific information (and adequate technology for data processing) and must apply the preventative principle. When this is not the case, the precautionary principle must be applied.

                      d. The hydrological cycle must be respected and the effects of decisions that alter it must be appropriately assessed. This is because, for example, the transport of water from one watershed to another may cause effects on both, especially on the one that would provide the water, as described recently 18.

​​​​​​​                       e. It is required for all use to be done sustainably to ensure that these generations and future ones are able to enjoy all other uses as well. Therefore, the functions of water are discussed, or the ecosystem services it provides 19. For example, a watershed gives us water for domestic human consumption and different productive purposes (such as power generation, mining, agricultural irrigation), and it also sustains the flora and fauna of the associated ecosystems. It provides scenic beauty for recreation, it collects pollutant discharges for final disposal, it carries nutrients to the sea that then become food that enables fishing, etc. And all of this is lost when there are droughts, overuse, or water is polluted. 20

​​​​f. Governance must be participatory (with appropriate information and education), and it must consider all interested parties because decisions cannot be left exclusively in the hands of the State or experts, politicians, or only users. 21It must also be adaptive (in the sense that it is flexible when there are changes in the environment), and coordinated (among the different competent State bodies and between the State and private entities), especially with the Ministry of the Environment (which spearheads environmental issues), and the new institutions that will be responsible for Climate Change.

​​​​​​​                        g. Sustainable economic incentives must be employed, which encourage saving water, seeking out new sources, using a green infrastructure, etc., while applying principles such as “he who conserves, charges,” and “water pays for water,” and

​​​​​​​                        h. There must be appropriate auditing to enforce responsibility for harms to the ecosystem and people.

    III. Concluding Thoughts

This paper proposes “rethinking water law” and changing the logic behind it, in the sense of “making it green” and making it “resilient” to climate change.

If water law regulates water use, administration, and management, it must also protect it as the limited and valuable asset that it is. Although it is a usable resource, it is first and foremost an environmental component on which human life and ecosystems depend, and which deserves to be protected by the State and society.22

Water law must evolve. This is the water law we should have in the 21st century, a water law that, in the words of Embid, will be a field of law that is increasingly more removed from the classic issue of ownership of water, that is increasingly more aligned with decisions with scientific and participative bases, and which absolutely must be an “environmental water law.23

It is fundamental for the reforms made to Chilean law, in particular for water, to be assessed while considering we are especially vulnerable to climate change, and that management is currently not very sustainable. We need to react and adapt, but to adapt well.24

Artículo original en español "Hacia un nuevo derecho de aguas: ambientalizado y resiliente" en Revista Justicia Climática y Climática nº 11 de Ong Fima  

Notas al pie 

1. Many thanks to the Center for Water Resources for Farming and Mining (CRHIAM) of the University of Concepción, Project CONICYT/FONDAP/15130015, and the Center for Climate Science and Resilience (CR2), Project CONICYT/FONDAP/15110009.
2.To use Vergara’s wording in the most complete study in Chile on this issue: VERGARA, Alejandro. Sistema y Autonomía del Derecho de Aguas [System and Autonomy of Water Law], in:  Vergara Blanco, Alejandro (Director), Actas de Derecho de Aguas, Nº 1, 2011, p. 68.
3.VERGARA, Alejandro. Evolución y principios del derecho de aguas en Hispanoamérica. El caso de Chile [Evolution and principles of water law in Latin America. The case of Chile], in: Derecho de Aguas, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Colombia, 2004, Volume II, p.455 and et seq.
4.BAUER, Carl. ¿La Ley del Péndulo? Conflictos y la gobernanza del agua desde 2005 [The law of the pendulum? Water conflicts and governance in Chile since 2005]. In Aranda, Jorge; Insunza, Ximena; Montenegro, Sergio; Moraga, Pilar; Uriarte, Ana Lya (Editors): Actas de las VII Jornadas de Derecho Ambiental. Santiago: Thompson Reuters - Legal Publishing, 2014, p. 670.
5.ATRIA, Fernando & SALGADO, Constanza, La propiedad, el dominio público y el régimen de aprovechamiento de aguas en Chile [Ownership, public domain and the regimen of water use in Chile] Santiago de Chile, Thomson Reuters. 2015 and CELUME, Tatiana. Régimen público de las aguas [Public water regimen]. Santiago de Chile, Thomson Reuters. 2013.
6.SANDOVAL, María Ignacia. Ausencia de la regulación de usos prioritarios de las aguas en Chile: propuesta de modificación legal al Código de Aguas desde una perspectiva comparada [Absence of the regulation of priority uses of water in Chile: a proposal for legal modification of the Water Code from a comparative perspective]. In: Revista Justicia Ambiental Nº7, 2015, pp. 133-162.
7.BOETTINGER, Camila. Variables ambientales en el Código de Aguas [Environmental variables in the Water Code], in: Aranda, Jorge; Insunza, Ximena; Montenegro, Sergio; Moraga, Pilar; Uriarte, Ana Lya (Editors), Actas de las VII Jornadas de Derecho Ambiental. Santiago: Thompson Reuters - Legal Publishing, 2014, p. 374.
8.COSTA, Ezio. Diagnóstico para un cambio: los dilemas de la regulación en Chile [Diagnosis for a change: the dilemmas of the regulation in Chile]. Revista Chilena de Derecho, Vol. 43, Nº 1, 2016, p. 347.
9. DELGADO Verónica, ARUMI José Luis, REICHER Oscar. Lessons from Spanish and US law for adequate regulation of groundwater protection areas in Chile, especially drinking water deposits, Water Resource Management [online], 2017, pp. 4699-4713.
10.DELGADO, Verónica and REICHER, Oscar. La urgente incorporación del principio de participación ciudadana en el derecho de aguas chileno: un enfoque desde los instrumentos de gestión Ambiental [The urgent incorporation of the principle of citizen participation in Chilean water law: an approach from environmental management instruments]. In: Revista de Derecho Ambiental, N°8, 2017, pp. 154-183.
11.BAUER, Carl. Water Conflicts and Entrenched Governance Problems in Chile’s Market Model. Water Alternatives 8(2): 147- 172, 2015, pp.148, 12, 13, 54 and 55.
12.WORLD BANK, Chile. Diagnóstico de la gestión de los recursos hídricos [Diagnosis of water resource management], 2013, p. 38-40.
13.ECLAC and OECD, Environmental Performance Review: Chile 2016, 85, 246, and 247.
14.BOETTINGER, Camila. Análisis crítico de la Declaraión de Escasez [Critical analysis of the Shortage Declaration], in: La Regulación de las aguas: nuevos desafíos del siglo XXI. Actas de las II Jornadas del régimen Jurídico de las aguas. DER. 2019, 345-376.
15.As occurring in comparative law following DUHART Daniela. Institutional weakness in water management in Chile: reflections based on the study of the systems of England and Australia (New South Wales) and other compared experiences. In: La Regulación de las aguas: nuevos desafíos del siglo XXI. Actas de las II Jornadas del régimen Jurídico de las aguas. DER. 2019, 3-46.
16. It is defined as a process that promotes the coordinated management and development of water, the soil, and other related resources, so as to maximize resulting social and economic wellbeing equitably without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems. Integrated Water Resource Management [online] [date of retrieval: July 20, 2019] Available at: https://www.un.org/spanish/waterforlifedecade/iwrm.shtml
17.WATER AND ENVIRONMENT INITIATIVE, Roadmap of water resources, Santiago (Chile), 2017, [online] [date of retrieval: July 25, 2019] Available at: https://www.aguaymedioambiente.cl/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Hoja-de- Ruta-Agua-y-Medioambiente-2017-baja-resoluci%c3%b3n.pdf
18.As occurring in comparative law following DUHART Daniela. Institutional weakness in water management in Chile: reflections based on the study of the systems of England and Australia (New South Wales) and other compared experiences. In: La Regulación de las aguas: nuevos desafíos del siglo XXI. Actas de las II Jornadas del régimen Jurídico de las aguas. DER. 2019, 3-46.
19.It is defined as a process that promotes the coordinated management and development of water, the soil, and other related resources, so as to maximize resulting social and economic wellbeing equitably without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems. Integrated Water Resource Management [online] [date of retrieval: July 20, 2019] Available at: https://www.un.org/spanish/waterforlifedecade/iwrm.shtml
20.WATER AND ENVIRONMENT INITIATIVE, Roadmap of water resources, Santiago (Chile), 2017, [online] [date of retrieval: July 25, 2019] Available at: https://www.aguaymedioambiente.cl/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Hoja-de- Ruta-Agua-y-Medioambiente-2017-baja-resoluci%c3%b3n.pdf
21.Because water is not lost in the ocean, as stated by DELGADO, PARRA, and REICHER from CRHIAM (10/18/2015),  Debe el Congreso aprobar el trasvase entre cuencas del país [Must Congress approve the transfer between watersheds in the country], El Mostrador [online], [date of retrieval: June 10, 2019] Available at: https://m.elmostrador.cl/noticias/opinion/2015/10/18/debe-el-congreso-a… and FARÍAS, GARREAUD, MASOTTI, DELGADO, from CR2, Is the water that reaches the sea lost? (07/19/2019) [online] [date of retrieval: July 20, 2019] Available at: (http://www.cr2.cl/se- pierde-el-agua-que-llega-al-mar/
22. DELGADO, Verónica. Servicios ecosistémicos y ambientales en la legislación chilena [Ecosystem and environmental services in Chilean legislation]. In: Aranda, Jorge; Insunza, Ximena; Montenegro, Sergio; Moraga, Pilar; Uriarte, Ana Lya (Editors), Actas de las VII Jornadas de Derecho Ambiental Universidad de Chile, Recursos Naturales ¿Sustentabilidad o sobreexplotación?; Vol. VII, La Ley, THOMSON REUTEURS, 2014, 523-553.
23.GONZÁLEZ, Sergio. Contaminación difusa de las aguas [Diffuse pollution of water]. Revista IniaTierra Adentro, Ed, 2007 - biblioteca.inia.cl, p. 22. [online], available at: http://biblioteca.inia.cl/medios/biblioteca/ta/NR34773.pdf [retrieved on June 6, 2019]
24.DEL MORAL, Leandro & PEDREGAL, Belén. New scientific hypotheses and citizen participation in environmental conflict resolution. In: Documents d’anàlisi geogràfica, Nº 41, 2002, pp. 129 and 130.
25.EMBID Irujo, Antonio. El derecho de aguas del siglo XXI [Water law of the 21st century]. In: Actas de Derecho de Aguas, 2, 2012, p.93.
26.The concept of “poor adaptation” and various cases described in ECLAC, Adaptation to Climate Change in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2015, p. 51.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
  • 1. Many thanks to the Center for Water Resources for Farming and Mining (CRHIAM) of the University of Concepción, Project CONICYT/FONDAP/15130015, and the Center for Climate Science and Resilience (CR2), Project CONICYT/FONDAP/15110009.
  • 2. To use Vergara’s wording in the most complete study in Chile on this issue: VERGARA, Alejandro. Sistema y Autonomía del Derecho de Aguas [System and Autonomy of Water Law], in:  Vergara Blanco, Alejandro (Director), Actas de Derecho de Aguas, Nº 1, 2011, p. 68.
  • 3. VERGARA, Alejandro. Evolución y principios del derecho de aguas en Hispanoamérica. El caso de Chile [Evolution and principles of water law in Latin America. The case of Chile], in: Derecho de Aguas, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Colombia, 2004, Volume II, p.455 and et seq.
  • 4. BAUER, Carl. ¿La Ley del Péndulo? Conflictos y la gobernanza del agua desde 2005 [The law of the pendulum? Water conflicts and governance in Chile since 2005]. In Aranda, Jorge; Insunza, Ximena; Montenegro, Sergio; Moraga, Pilar; Uriarte, Ana Lya (Editors): Actas de las VII Jornadas de Derecho Ambiental. Santiago: Thompson Reuters - Legal Publishing, 2014, p. 670.
  • 5. ATRIA, Fernando & SALGADO, Constanza, La propiedad, el dominio público y el régimen de aprovechamiento de aguas en Chile [Ownership, public domain and the regimen of water use in Chile] Santiago de Chile, Thomson Reuters. 2015 and CELUME, Tatiana. Régimen público de las aguas [Public water regimen]. Santiago de Chile, Thomson Reuters. 2013.
  • 6. SANDOVAL, María Ignacia. Ausencia de la regulación de usos prioritarios de las aguas en Chile: propuesta de modificación legal al Código de Aguas desde una perspectiva comparada [Absence of the regulation of priority uses of water in Chile: a proposal for legal modification of the Water Code from a comparative perspective]. In: Revista Justicia Ambiental Nº7, 2015, pp. 133-162.
  • 7. BOETTINGER, Camila. Variables ambientales en el Código de Aguas [Environmental variables in the Water Code], in: Aranda, Jorge; Insunza, Ximena; Montenegro, Sergio; Moraga, Pilar; Uriarte, Ana Lya (Editors), Actas de las VII Jornadas de Derecho Ambiental. Santiago: Thompson Reuters - Legal Publishing, 2014, p. 374.
  • 8. COSTA, Ezio. Diagnóstico para un cambio: los dilemas de la regulación en Chile [Diagnosis for a change: the dilemmas of the regulation in Chile]. Revista Chilena de Derecho, Vol. 43, Nº 1, 2016, p. 347.
  • 9. DELGADO Verónica, ARUMI José Luis, REICHER Oscar. Lessons from Spanish and US law for adequate regulation of groundwater protection areas in Chile, especially drinking water deposits, Water Resource Management [online], 2017, pp. 4699-4713.
  • 10. DELGADO, Verónica and REICHER, Oscar. La urgente incorporación del principio de participación ciudadana en el derecho de aguas chileno: un enfoque desde los instrumentos de gestión Ambiental [The urgent incorporation of the principle of citizen participation in Chilean water law: an approach from environmental management instruments]. In: Revista de Derecho Ambiental, N°8, 2017, pp. 154-183.
  • 11. BAUER, Carl. Water Conflicts and Entrenched Governance Problems in Chile’s Market Model. Water Alternatives 8(2): 147- 172, 2015, pp.148, 12, 13, 54 and 55.
  • 12. WORLD BANK, Chile. Diagnóstico de la gestión de los recursos hídricos [Diagnosis of water resource management], 2013, p. 38-40.
  • 13. ECLAC and OECD, Environmental Performance Review: Chile 2016, 85, 246, and 247.
  • 14. BOETTINGER, Camila. Análisis crítico de la Declaraión de Escasez [Critical analysis of the Shortage Declaration], in: La Regulación de las aguas: nuevos desafíos del siglo XXI. Actas de las II Jornadas del régimen Jurídico de las aguas.
  • 15. As occurring in comparative law following DUHART Daniela. Institutional weakness in water management in Chile: reflections based on the study of the systems of England and Australia (New South Wales) and other compared experiences. In: La Regulación de las aguas: nuevos desafíos del siglo XXI. Actas de las II Jornadas del régimen Jurídico de las aguas. DER. 2019, 3-46.
  • 16. It is defined as a process that promotes the coordinated management and development of water, the soil, and other related resources, so as to maximize resulting social and economic wellbeing equitably without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems. Integrated Water Resource Management [online] [date of retrieval: July 20, 2019] Available at: https://www.un.org/spanish/waterforlifedecade/iwrm.shtml
  • 17. WATER AND ENVIRONMENT INITIATIVE, Roadmap of water resources, Santiago (Chile), 2017, [online] [date of retrieval: July 25, 2019] Available at: https://www.aguaymedioambiente.cl/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Hoja-de- Ruta-Agua-y-Medioambiente-2017-baja-resoluci%c3%b3n.pdf
  • 18. As occurring in comparative law following DUHART Daniela. Institutional weakness in water management in Chile: reflections based on the study of the systems of England and Australia (New South Wales) and other compared experiences. In: La Regulación de las aguas: nuevos desafíos del siglo XXI. Actas de las II Jornadas del régimen Jurídico de las aguas. DER. 2019, 3-46
  • 19. It is defined as a process that promotes the coordinated management and development of water, the soil, and other related resources, so as to maximize resulting social and economic wellbeing equitably without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems. Integrated Water Resource Management [online] [date of retrieval: July 20, 2019] Available at: https://www.un.org/spanish/waterforlifedecade/iwrm.shtml
  • 20. WATER AND ENVIRONMENT INITIATIVE, Roadmap of water resources, Santiago (Chile), 2017, [online] [date of retrieval: July 25, 2019] Available at: https://www.aguaymedioambiente.cl/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Hoja-de- Ruta-Agua-y-Medioambiente-2017-baja-resoluci%c3%b3n.pdf
  • 21. WATER AND ENVIRONMENT INITIATIVE, Roadmap of water resources, Santiago (Chile), 2017, [online] [date of retrieval: July 25, 2019] Available at: https://www.aguaymedioambiente.cl/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Hoja-de- Ruta-Agua-y-Medioambiente-2017-baja-resoluci%c3%b3n.pdf
  • 22. Because water is not lost in the ocean, as stated by DELGADO, PARRA, and REICHER from CRHIAM (10/18/2015),  Debe el Congreso aprobar el trasvase entre cuencas del país [Must Congress approve the transfer between watersheds in the country], El Mostrador [online], [date of retrieval: June 10, 2019] Available at: https://m.elmostrador.cl/noticias/opinion/2015/10/18/debe-el-congreso-a… and FARÍAS, GARREAUD, MASOTTI, DELGADO, from CR2, Is the water that reaches the sea lost? (07/19/2019) [online] [date of retrieval: July 20, 2019] Available at: (http://www.cr2.cl/se- pierde-el-agua-que-llega-al-mar/
  • 23. DELGADO, Verónica. Servicios ecosistémicos y ambientales en la legislación chilena [Ecosystem and environmental services in Chilean legislation]. In: Aranda, Jorge; Insunza, Ximena; Montenegro, Sergio; Moraga, Pilar; Uriarte, Ana Lya (Editors), Actas de las VII Jornadas de Derecho Ambiental Universidad de Chile, Recursos Naturales ¿Sustentabilidad o sobreexplotación?; Vol. VII, La Ley, THOMSON REUTEURS, 2014, 523-553.
  • 24. GONZÁLEZ, Sergio. Contaminación difusa de las aguas [Diffuse pollution of water]. Revista IniaTierra Adentro, Ed, 2007 - biblioteca.inia.cl, p. 22. [online], available at: http://biblioteca.inia.cl/medios/biblioteca/ta/NR34773.pdf [retrieved on June 6, 2019]