Matanza River

In 1993, President Carlos Menem's Secretary of Environment, María Julia Alsogaray, presented a 3-year project to clean up the Riachuelo that was approved, but never started, let alone concluded. Alsogaray would later be prosecuted for misappropriation of those public funds.[10]

According to Argentine newspaper Página/12, of the 250-million-dollar budget, only $90 million remain; $6 million were lost in punitive interests, $150 million were destined to unrelated social projects, and only $1 million was used for the actual cleanup. Critics have also noted that this cleanup was in vain, as all that was done was to remove sunken ship hulls, but nothing was done to prevent newly abandoned ships from sinking.[11] A period of optimism regarding the waterway's condition followed announcements in 2006 by President Néstor Kirchner that the Riachuelo's improvement would be prioritized;[12] but, though some efforts were undertaken,[8] the river remains a source of health problems and urban blight for its adjoining neighbourhoods. Environmental cleanup efforts have been supplemented by urban renewal proposals for the area.[13]

In 2004, a group of residents of the Matanza basin, living in one of the worst-polluted urban slums,[14] filed a case before the Supreme Court of Argentina, against the national government, the provincial government, the municipality, and several private companies.[15] The case was named the Mendoza case, after Beatriz Mendoza, one of the residents filing the case.[16] They were asking compensation for the environmental damages they faced as a consequence of the environmental contamination of the river, and they required the halting of contamination activities.[17] In July 2008 the Argentinian Supreme Court issued its decision, recognising the federal government’s liability, together with the city and province of Buenos Aires, for the environmental damages in the river.[14] The Court recognised the residents' right to a healthy environment and that the governments had to repair the damage.[18] The Court ordered the governments to: (a) improve the quality of life for the people living in the area, (b) remediate the ecological damage of the basin and (c) prevent further contamination. However, the Court did not issue any decision with regard to the private companies involved.[14] Five NGOs that had been active in the case - including Greenpeace - were also involved by the Court, that appointed them as patrols for the river and surrounding areas, to control how the improvements and works planned for the river basin were carried out.[19]