Annual Report
of the
Good Neighbor
Environmental Board
A Presidential and Congressional Advisory Committee
on U.S.-Mexico Border
Environmental and Infrastructure Issues
April 1997

-------
THE GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD
AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON U.S.- MEXICO BORDER
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES
The President
The Speaker of the House of Representatives
The Vice President
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board advisory committee was established by
Congress in 1994, to address U.S.-Mexico border environmental and infrastructure issues
and needs. The Board is comprised of a broad spectrum of individuals from business,
nonprofit organizations, and state and local governments from the four states which
border Mexico. The Board also has representation from eight U.S. departments and
agencies. The legislation establishing the Board requires it to submit an annual report to
the President and the Congress. On behalf of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board,
I am happy to present this second annual report.
During the past year, the Board has had extensive discussions about critical issues
facing the border region, including receiving input from citizens in each of the
communities where we met, and has developed a series of recommendations reflected in
the enclosed report. The report and recommendations focus on changing the development
paradigm along the U.S.-Mexico border—to begin to establish a sustainable development
vision for the region. In addition to conventional environmental issues, the Board is also
addressing health, transportation, housing, and economic development issues. The
current recommendations relate largely to implementation of the new binational Border
XXI framework and plan, coordination and leveraging of federal programs in the border
region, encouragement of greater private sector participation, and development of needed
infrastructure.
The Board has worked very effectively and very hard over the past year. The
work of each of the border region and federal agency members, and this report, reflects
an outstanding commitment to finding effective and feasible approaches to the critical and
urgent issues facing the U.S.-Mexico border region. We submit our recommendations for
your consideration.
James Marston
Chair
Enclosure

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board
was created by the Enterprise for the
Americas Initiative Act of 1992 (7 U.S. Code
Section 5404) to advise the President and the
Congress concerning environmental and
infrastructure issues and needs within the
States contiguous to Mexico. The statute
requires the Board to submit an annual
report to the President and the Congress.
This is the Board's second annual report.
The Act requires that Board membership
include representatives from appropriate
U.S. Government agencies; from the
governments of Arizona, California, New
Mexico and Texas; and from private
organizations, including community
development, academic, health,
environmental, and other nongovernmental
entities with expertise on environmental and
infrastructure problems along the southwest
border. The Board has met six times and
will meet in September 1997 with its
Mexican counterpart, Region 1 of the
Mexican National Advisory Council for
Sustainable Development.
The U.S.-Mexico border region faces a
number of distinctive environmental,
demographic and economic challenges.
There has been a dramatic surge in
population and industrialization over the
past 30 years. Over the past 5 years the
population has grown about 25 percent, and
is projected to double over the next 20 years.
Over 400,000 U.S. residents live in colonics,
21 counties have been designated as
economically distressed, and three of the ten
poorest U.S. counties are located in the
border region. There are approximately
2,000 maquiladora companies in the region,
employing more than 600,000 workers, with
the highest concentrations in Tijuana and
Juarez.
This growth presents very significant
environmental, health, natural resources,
transportation and housing problems.
Solving these problems requires a
comprehensive sustainable development
strategy. The Board's second annual report
presents additional recommendations for
addressing the urgent challenges of the U.S.-
Mexico border region.
Border XXI Development and
Implementation
The Board endorses the recently issued
Border XXI Framework and implementation
plan as the latest steps in the continuing
strengthening of U.S.- Mexico border
cooperation. Border XXI establishes
important goals and objectives for the region
and for both governments, employs a
regional as well as binational approach to
issues, demonstrates improving interagency
coordination and public participation, and
establishes three new areas of binational
working group emphasis.
The binational work groups need to be
accountable to established objectives and to
priority concerns identified by the publics.
Implementation and future work plan
development must assure substantial,
continuous input from publics on both sides
of the border. We believe it is also essential
to measure the extent to which annual work
programs support Border XXI objectives and
goals, and the extent to which overall efforts
are leading to sustainable development of
the border region.
Given that Border XXI's principal goal is to
promote sustainable development of the
border region, it needs to address effectively
the significant impacts of industrial growth
on the border environment and to identify
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 1

-------
mechanisms for greater involvement by all
stakeholders in setting priorities and
defining approaches. We commend EPA's
commitment to incorporate tribes into the
implementation and further development of
Border XXI, and urge all U.S. agencies to
accelerate efforts to include Native
American representatives in planning and
implementation of programs. The Border
XXI process should also more actively
involve academia in establishing research
priorities.
Border XXI should be the umbrella process
for defining an overall sustainable
development strategy for the region, linking
binational efforts and coordinating public
and private border programs and resources.
The Board recommends that Border XXI also
address transportation, water resources,
commerce and economic development, and
natural resources and land use management.
Management of Federal Programs
In order to better understand the scope,
purposes and levels of funding of federal
agency programs in the border region, the
Board obtained available information from
several agencies concerning border region
projects initiated between 1992 and 1995.
Subsequently, the Board analyzed each
project using environmental sustainability
criteria including geographic scope, extent of
community involvement, remediation and
prevention objectives, capacity building,
inter-governmental and private sector
involvement, and information management
and access. While some departments were
able to provide only partial data, the Board
believes that the data and its analysis
provide an extremely valuable picture of
federal effort in the region, a tool for federal
agencies to coordinate efforts in the region,
and a sound basis to support preliminary
recommendations. The Board will continue
to review and report on specific and overall
federal effort in the region.
The information provided by the agencies
documents more than 400 projects. Projects
address air and water quality management,
compliance, emergency response, solid and
hazardous waste management, pollution
prevention, natural resources management,
environmental health, information
management, transportation, urban
development and other infrastructure. The
projects focus primarily on technical studies;
governmental and community training and
assistance; information collection, data
management, and information sharing.
The data reflect a significant commitment to
assisting Mexico develop governmental staff
and institutional capacity; assisting
communities on both sides of the border to
improve human health and their
environment; meeting water infrastructure
needs; and assisting border industry to
develop and implement remediation and
prevention programs.
The Board commends the significant
binational emphasis of many projects, but
believes even greater effort is needed to
assure truly binational approaches to the
issues.
Efforts were apparent in all agencies'
programs to provide access to information
and training to increase communities'
capacity to participate in and influence how
federal programs address needs in the
region. However, there is limited evidence
of participation by the private sector or
nongovernmental organizations in most
projects.
Given the very high risks associated with
hazardous materials, the Board urges
expanded efforts to address solid and
hazardous waste management and
emergency response issues.
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 2

-------
With respect to the substantial amount of
border data collection and information
system development, the Board is concerned
with the potential for duplication of effort
and the high probability that lack of
coordination may preclude sharing of
information among data bases and broad-
based analysis by the agencies.
Closer collaboration is especially needed
among the departments in addressing colonia
infrastructure and natural resources
management needs. We support continued
movement toward implementing ecosystem
wide management strategies and programs
in an integrated approach.
We also recommend substantially
accelerated efforts to address tribal issues by
all agencies, especially the Indian Health
Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs that are
charged specifically with these
responsibilities.
In addition, the Board recommends greater
coordination of U.S. and Mexican
government border programs with those of
the NAFTA North American Commission
for Environmental Cooperation (CEC).
We recommend that the Border XXI
Framework and binational work groups
establish requirements and processes for
formal strategic, project, and budget
coordination among agencies and with the
public in annual project priority setting and
scoping projects.
Better coordination is needed between
economic development policies and
programs and environmental, natural
resources, health, housing and other human
service programs. Sustainable development-
oriented policies are critical, especially with
accelerating economic development on both
sides of border and continuing expansion of
maquiladora companies.
Leveraging of FederalResources
We urge the governments to look for ways
to leverage federal authorities and resources
more effectively. Given that federal
resources are likely to continue to be
inadequate in relation to the magnitude of
border problems, we recommend that the
U.S. Government encourage development of
innovative funding and program
management agreements involving multiple
federal, state and local agencies.
Effective implementation of border region
programs requires a more comprehensive
multi year estimate of needs, a long term
funding commitment, and better leveraging
of existing federal and private resources.
An interagency process is needed that
provides more authority to agencies to
coordinate and integrate their border
program activities, to budget jointly for
cooperative projects, to leverage
appropriations, to develop interagency
funding agreements, to provide multi-
agency grants, and to permit utilization of
federal funds in both countries to make
projects truly binational and sustainable.
To help the agencies and the Board
determine needed changes in direction, we
urge an assessment of each individual
agency's authorities for providing services to
local communities on the border. Different
agencies have different authorities,
especially related to the border region, that
should be clarified and coordinated.
Need for New Authorities and Additional
Funding
We urge the President and the Congress to
endorse:
•	binational funding authority for the
Department of Health and Human
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 3

-------
Services to permit them to address
critical transboundary health
problems;
•	funding for the Department of the
Interior to address priority border-
specific natural resource protection
needs; much of the Department's
border states budget goes to routine
management of lands;
•	increased emphasis on emergency
response and hazardous materials
management;
•	increased emphasis on industrial and
community pollution prevention
efforts;
•	obtaining better binational census
and economic development
information.
•	special tax-exempt infrastructure
financing for the four U.S. border
states;
•	focusing resources from both of the
EPA water infrastructure revolving
funds; and
•	negotiating with the government of
Mexico to create a public and private
sector fund to support binational
demonstration projects.
We endorse congressional proposals for
biennial budgeting and commend the seven
year funding commitment established by the
three countries for implementation of the
NAFTA environmental side agreement.
Development of Institutional Approaches
Because the U.S. and Mexico share many of
the border's ecosystems, watersheds and air
sheds, binational and regional programs
need to be expanded. We recommend that
the U.S. and Mexican governments work
more closely to implement additional joint
transboundary programs involving all
levels of governments. We also encourage
technical and financial assistance to build on
and help transfer successful local-level cross -
border initiatives.
We note that the federal government, states
and some private foundations have
supported pollution prevention training,
technical assistance and auditing programs
primarily for maquiladora companies. We
encourage development of additional
public-private programs that provide
economic incentives for reduction, recycling
and pollution prevention on both sides of
the border. We also encourage appropriate
recognition to companies and programs that
are demonstrating voluntary commitment to
pollution control, prevention, recycling and
reuse.
Implementation of the binational air quality
management basin (AQMB) agreement for
the El Paso-Juarez airshed is a very
important enhancement to the informal
sister city and state-to-state arrangements
that have developed over the years. We
recommend that implementation of the
AQMB be evaluated by the governments
and the communities to determine if this
model may be useful to address other air
quality issues as well as other transboundary
problems, e.g., water, hazardous waste,
health.
The Board commends the Department of
Commerce binational sustainable
development program for the Rio Grande
that simultaneously addressed economic
development and environmental planning
and encourages similar border area
programs by agencies.
More work is needed to answer critical
questions about the location, amount,
quality and movement of groundwater. We
encourage development of new binational
water quantity and ground water
management institutional arrangements at
key border locations, expanded efforts to
collect compatible data, implementation of
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 4

-------
border wide, binational water conservation
programs; and negotiated resolution of
domestic and binational allocation issues.
We recommend that federal agencies on
both sides of the border improve the
efficiency and reliability of notification and
monitoring processes for hazardous
materials transported across the border and
for dealing with environmental emergencies.
We recommend that the governments begin
addressing immediately the implications
and requirements for hazardous waste
disposal in the region that will result from
termination of the maquiladora program in
the year 2000.
We commend the accelerated binational
efforts to address border health problems,
and the proposed 1997 program
enhancements addressing dissemination of
environmental health information;
childhood exposures to pesticides; neural
tube defects; lead surveillance and
intervention; and training.
The Board's first annual report cited a
number of concerns regarding interrelated
regional transportation and environment
issues. We commend the U.S. Federal
Highway Administration for its work with
other U.S. agencies and with counterparts in
Mexico to coordinate commercial motor
carrier safety standards, road signs and
signals, truck weights and dimensions,
compliance and enforcement activities,
processing of commercial vehicles at border
crossings; and joint transportation planning.
We also note a number of highway
improvement and border crossing projects
being developed with both public and
private funds.
In addition to governmental and industry
funding needs, the Board encourages
changes in U.S. tax law to encourage private
support to these public purposes, the
creation of additional binational
foundations, and technical assistance to
Mexico to develop a private foundation
network.
Infrastructure Development
For the past several years, both sides of the
border have experienced significant
developmental pressures due to
industrialization, migration and population
growth. Environmental, health, housing,
transportation and other infrastructure have
not kept pace with this development. We
believe that the interconnection of
environment, health, housing, and
transportation infrastructure-related
problems makes it imperative that
infrastructure issues be addressed more
comprehensively.
The Board encourages compilation of a
comprehensive inventory of infrastructure
needs, developed on a binational basis, to
assure coordination of transboundary needs
and projects and projecting maximum
leveraging of investments on both sides of
the border. We also urge comprehensive
prioritization of infrastructure needs to
support a more rational allocation of limited
resources; to identify localities most stressed
by economic, environmental, and public
health issues; and to communicate priorities
to communities competing for funding.
BECC/NAPBank
The Border Environment Cooperation
Commission (BECC), and the North
American Development Bank (NADBank)
have the potential to help significantly
improve the border environment.
We commend the BECC for incorporating
enhanced sustainable development criteria
for review of border environmental projects,
and urge application of the same types of
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 5

-------
criteria by other public and private funding
entities. We also commend the BECC for
initiating a program to assist smaller
communities in developing project
proposals. We urge that technical assistance
also be provided to border communities to
help them develop their institutional
capacity to manage facilities; we understand
that a program to do this is being considered
by NADBank. We urge the BECC to
continue to streamline its application
process to encourage more rapid
certification of projects to NADBank and
other funding sources.
The NADBank has made very few loans
during its first two years of existence. A
major cause are provisions in the NADBank
charter requiring it to charge an above-
market rate of interest. This requirement
precludes the neediest communities on both
sides of the border from accessing NADBank
funds. We strongly urge the governments to
re-negotiate the NADBank's charter to
authorize reduction of its interest rate.
We urge the NADBank to improve its
communication with border communities,
and to work with the BECC to implement a
coordinated outreach effort.
BECC and NADBank need to encourage
greater use of alternative and innovative
technologies. The BECC should also
emphasize low water-use treatment
processes, especially in areas where there
are water shortages.
Colonias and Rural Areas
The rate of continuing urbanization in
colonias and rural areas, and the absence of
proper urban planning and local zoning
controls , is threatening the ability of the
governments to provide essential
infrastructure. Although more than $500
million has been allocated since 1991, costs
for basic water service to colonias in Texas
and New Mexico are still estimated at more
than $500 million, and there are comparable
settlements in Arizona and California.
These estimates do not address critical air,
hazardous and solid waste, transportation,
or housing infrastructure needs.
We recommend that federal, state and local
agencies providing infrastructure funding
recognize colonias and similar substandard
developments in all four border states, and
coordinate their individual funding
programs for maximum environmental
benefit. We recommend that federal grant
and low cost loan assistance be continued at
existing levels for infra-structure, health
facilities and training in U.S. colonias for at
least the next ten years. We also continue to
recommend that border state wastewater
revolving funds allocate a major portion of
SRF funds to border infrastructure needs.
The Board believes there is a tremendous
need, and potential, for greater public-
private funding and for privatization of
hazardous waste handling, solid waste
management, and water quality
infrastructure projects. In addition, private
entities that have contributed to the
environmental and public health problems
and that have benefited from NAFTA
implementation should bear more of the
cost.
The Board notes that there has been
considerable U.S. government investment in
development of related economic
infrastructure, including international trade
routes, bridges and highways. We urge that
the governments assure that investments in
environmental and economic infrastructure
be managed to help assure balanced and
sustainable economic development.
We encourage the U.S. to work with Mexico
to promote legislation to authorize
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 6

-------
municipal bonding authority for Mexican
communities. We also urge the U.S.
government to consider providing tax-free
status for public bonds issued in the U.S. for
cross border projects and other incentives to
encourage public-private and privatization
efforts.
The Board continues to recommend the
development of eco-industrial parks along
the border, sited at appropriate locations, to
reduce pollution and costs and to support
clean economic development.
The Board notes that the shortage of
adequate housing underlies many of the
border's environmental and public health
problems. Establishment and enforcement
of zoning practices, and creative financing
through public-private cooperation, are
needed on both sides of the border to ease
this crisis. .
Meeting Information Needs
There is a lack of needed information and
awareness by residents on both sides of the
border, as well as the governments,
concerning border area problems and
options for addressing these problems.
Access to information is a critical
prerequisite to effective community
participation in setting priorities, selecting
the most feasible and comprehensive
approaches to environmental, natural
resource, public health and related
problems; and locating financial and
technical assistance.
We encourage more outreach coordination
among federal agencies, state agencies, local
governments, Indian Nations, and
community groups on both sides of the
border. We recommend that data be made
accessible to the public by state and federal
government agencies through Internet and
other wide-net systems along the border and
commend several federal agencies for
establishing Internet Web sites.
A recent report anticipates that in 20 years
one-third of the Texas population will not
finish high school. The Board recommends
more emphasis on education for border
communities and meeting the tremendous
need for resources for local schools.
Both countries need to obtain accurate data
on population growth trends, especially
given the flux of people in and through the
border zone. More adequate information is
also needed linking population trends and
available resources, including identifying the
"carrying capacity" of the border region.
The lack of information concerning long-
term population trends limits the
effectiveness of Border XXI in planning for
needed infrastructure and programs.
Considerable research is being conducted by
U.S. and Mexican colleges and universities in
the border region. Academia and funding
sources must assure that the research is
relevant and the results accessible to the
communities, other academics, and the
governments.
Coordination with the Mexican Advisory
Council for Sustainable Development
The Board and its Mexican counterpart,
Region 1 of the Mexican National Advisory
Council for Sustainable Development, have
established ongoing communication. The
two advisory committees have agreed to
meet together in September 1997 and
annually to coordinate activities.
Public Input
At each meeting, the agenda includes time
for members of the public to brief the Board
on concerns as well as on local and regional
initiatives to address key problems. We
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 7

-------
commend the number of initiatives that
demonstrate the commitment of border
residents to work together to improve the
environment and to promote sustainable
development of the U.S.-Mexico border
region.
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 8

-------
INTRODUCTION
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board
was created by the Enterprise for the
Americas Initiative Act of 1992 (7 U.S. Code
Section 5404) to advise the President and the
Congress concerning environmental and
infrastructure issues and needs within the
States contiguous to Mexico. The statute
requires the Board to submit an annual
report to the President and the Congress.
The Board's first annual report was
submitted in October 1995. This is the
Board's second annual report.
The Act requires that Board membership
include representatives from appropriate
U.S. Government agencies; from the
governments of Arizona, California, New
Mexico and Texas; and from private
organizations, including community
development, academic, health,
environmental, and other nongovernmental
entities with expertise on environmental and
infrastructure problems along the southwest
border. A list of members is provided in
Appendix A.
A Presidential Executive Order delegates
implementation authority to the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The Board
operates under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act and meets at least twice
annually at locations along the U.S.-Mexico
border. The Board has met six times:
September, 1994 at McAllen, Texas; January,
1995 at San Diego, California; June, 1995 at
Tucson, Arizona; April, 1996 at Las Cruces,
New Mexico; September, 1996 at San Diego,
California; and February, 1997 at El Paso,
Texas. In September 1997, the Board and its
Mexican counterpart, Region 1 of the
Mexican National Advisory Council for
Sustainable Development, will initiate
annual joint meetings of the two advisory
committees.
ROLES OF THE GOOD NEIGHBOR
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD
The Board envisions its roles as:
•	Advising the U.S. Federal
Government and Congress regarding
environmental and infrastructure
issues and needs.
•	Promoting sustainable development
for the border region by
recommending balanced approaches
to environmental, infrastructure,
public health, and economic
development issues;
•	Promoting improved coordination of
federal programs and resources in
the border region.
•	Advocating for and representing U.S.
residents of the border region.
•	Encouraging the development, use
and dissemination of environmental
technologies and financing
mechanisms appropriate to the
unique circumstances of the region.
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 9

-------
THE CHALLENGES
As a region, the U.S.-Mexico border area
faces a number of distinctive environmental,
demographic and economic challenges:
•	The 2,000 mile U.S. - Mexico border
represents a politically drawn line that
bisects ecosystems. Air, water, fauna and
flora move back and forth, not
recognizing these political boundaries.
Population growth, development, water
consumption, and air and water pollution
are stressing already fragile, arid
ecosystems. Rural areas have not escaped
these problems.
•	The region is currently home to 10.5
million people; about 6.2 million live in
the US and 4.3 million in Mexico. 90
percent of residents live in urban areas;
more than half of the people live in the
San Diego/Tijuana and El Paso/Juarez
metropolitan areas. Over the past five
years the population has grown about 25
percent, and is projected to double over
the next 20 years
•	More than 20 percent of U.S. citizens in
the region live below the poverty line,
almost double the U.S. average. Over
400,000 U.S. residents live in colonias. 21
counties have been designated as
economically distressed; 3 of the 10
poorest U.S. counties are located in the
region;
•	There are approximately 2,000
maquiladora companies in the region,
employing more than 600,000 workers,
with the highest concentrations in Tijuana
and Juarez;
•	All U.S. sister cities meet basic water
treatment requirements; this is not true
for the more than 400,000 people who live
in U.S. colonias. In Mexico, existing
water treatment capacity meets only 34
percent of total needs. There is
considerable reliance on
groundwater, sources of which are
experiencing tremendous
development and agricultural use
pressures. Critical water shortages
are expected within the next five
years in most industrialized areas;
•	Essentially all of the major border
cities are out of compliance with at
least two major air quality
requirements, especially small
particulates, carbon monoxide and
ozone;
•	Hazardous waste problems include
illegal transboundary shipment of
hazardous wastes, improper
disposal, inactive and abandoned
dump sites, and improper
management of open sites;
•	With respect to health problems,
people in the border region are
exposed to heavy metals, lead,
hazardous wastes, raw sewage,
pesticides, etc. There is considerable
evidence of major respiratory
diseases, elevated blood lead levels
in children; multiple myeloma,
lupus, hepatitis, tuberculosis,
gastrointestinal diseases, and
pesticides poisonings.
There are approximately 85
threatened or endangered species in
the border area; border ecosystems
support more than 450 rare or
endemic species.
Given these problems, the Board continues
to encourage both governments to:
•	Recognize that effectively addressing
border environmental issues requires
simultaneous efforts regarding
natural resources, health, housing,
transportation and other
infrastructure needs;
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 10

-------
•	Establish a long-term, comprehensive,
integrated, and regional approach to
planning to sustain a healthy
environment and economy;
•	Address border problems in a binational
context;
•	Coordinate and optimize government
resources at all levels;
•	Encourage public-private partnerships
and privatization to address
infrastructure needs;
•	Promote pollution prevention in concert
with industry, community stakeholders,
and enforcement personnel;
•	Help colonias, smaller communities and
unincorporated rural areas of the border
region to develop their human,
community, and infrastructure resources;
•	Ensure that planning, implementation
and evaluation address the needs of
Native Americans and other populations
that might be disproportionately affected
by environmental contamination;
•	Increase the accessibility of relevant data
and information to border citizens and
among governments.
BORDER XXT DEVELOPMENT
AND IMPLEMENTATION
The issuance in January, 1997 of the Border
XXI Framework and annual implementation
plan represents the latest steps in the
continuing strengthening of U.S.- Mexico
cooperation regarding the nearly 2,000 mile
shared border.
The Border XXI Framework is much more
comprehensive than the predecessor
Integrated Border Environmental Plan
issued in 1992. It establishes important goals
for the region and for the governments
themselves; it establishes five year
implementation objectives for each of the
nine focus areas, and an annual work
planning process; it employs a regional as
well as binational approach to issues; it
demonstrates substantially improved
interagency and federal-state coordination
and public participation; and it establishes
three new areas of emphasis— natural
resources, environmental health, and
information management—for a total of nine.
The Board commends the governments for
the improvements in the development of
Border XXI.
We applaud the establishment of five
regional sub-components of Border XXI to
help highlight issues and needs that are
specific to areas of the border region. While
the Border XXI document will continue to
require further development of the regional
sections, these sub-parts provide a
mechanism to help set concrete priorities
within each region and to enhance
community and local government
participation in addressing specific regional
issues. The establishment of these regions
will make it even more critical that the nine
subject area work groups coordinate with
each other concerning specific regional
issues and priorities.
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 11

-------
Operation of Binational Work Groups
Because the nine binational work groups are
central to ongoing development and
implementation of the plan, they need to be
accountable to overall Framework goals and
objectives, to issue area and regional
objectives, and to priority concerns
identified by the public and state and local
governments. Border XXI's binational goals
and objectives must guide the work groups'
priorities and budgets—not vice versa—and
the annual work plans must incorporate
public priorities more effectively.
The Board recommends that the U.S. and
Mexican national coordinators charge the
nine binational working groups, and
possible regional sub-groups, with assuring
clear connections between Border XXI goals,
multi year objectives and annual work plan
priorities, and with an evaluation role to
monitor implementation. They also need to
assure that interested groups have real input
into planning and implementation processes.
We specifically recommend that the new
Information Working Group first identify
what information already exists, systematize
its availability, and define ways to deliver
information more effectively to border
communities.
We recommend that 1) the U.S. and
Mexican national coordinators establish
regional sub work groups that mirror the
Border XXI organization; 2) officials
designated by state and local governments,
nongovernmental organizations, tribes,
and industry participate as members of
each geographic working group in the near
term, and as members of the border wide
work groups in the longer term; at least 25
percent of the geographic work group
members should be private citizens; 3)
establish clear mechanisms for
consideration of regional work group
priorities by the full working groups; and
4) governments publicize the names and
affiliations of work group members and
project management officials to improve
their accessibility and accountability to
state and community officials.
Linking Goals. Objectives. Action Plans.
Reporting and Evaluation:
We believe it is essential to measure the
extent to which annual work programs
support Border XXI objectives and goals,
and the extent to which overall efforts are
leading to sustainable development of the
border region. Relevant performance and
environmental measures need to be agreed
binationally against which progress can be
assessed and work program adjustments
made based on actual accomplishments
year to year. The Board understands that
the U.S.-Mexico border program is one of
the U.S. government's pilot programs under
the new Government Performance Review
and Accountability Act (GPRA); we will be
happy to comment on proposed
environmental sustainability benchmarks.
We also note that a joint conference was held
by EPA and the Mexican statistical agency
(INEGI) to develop measures of progress for
the border region.
Board Participation in Border XXI
Implementation
In addition to its statutory responsibilities
for advising the President and the Congress,
the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
has been designated as the lead U.S.
government advisory body on development
and implementation of the Border XXI
program. In this capacity, the Board has key
roles to advise on formulation of plan
structure and priorities, and to recommend
measures for monitoring its implementation,
including evaluating the extent and quality
of public participation. Members of the
Board expect to attend the annual National
Coordinators meeting, to be briefed by the
chairs of each work group on the status of
implementation and on development of the
upcoming year's work plan, and to
comment.
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 12

-------
The Board wants to play a larger
communication role to help incorporate
public concerns into specific initiatives
related to ongoing Border XXI development.
The Board requests that a committee
member be identified to serve as a public
liaison on each of the nine work groups.
Public Participation and Reporting
The Board strongly believes that Border
XXI implementation and annual work plan
development must assure substantial,
continuous, and informed input from
communities on both sides of the border
and from all segments of the public. Better
coordination, communication and planning
among state and local governments,
communities, Native Americans, and the
private sector on both sides of the border
could have created important opportunities
to leverage programs and funds, avoid
redundant programs, and assure
binationally consistent methods and
procedures.
Despite an improved public outreach
process, the Board emphasizes the need for
the federal governments and the work group
chairs to assure that state and local
government and community priorities are
seriously considered in development of
annual implementation plans. The Board
believes that very few changes were made
to the proposed 1996 implementation plan
as a result of the public comment process.
We are concerned that the 1997 Border XXI
implementation plans are essentially final at
the time of this report, but there has been no
opportunity for the Board or the public to
participate in their development. The
public must be consulted concerning work
plan priorities. We recommend that each
of the nine working groups open their draft
annual plans for public comment, including
use of both electronic means and mailing
lists.
We feel strongly that "opportunity to
comment" is not "public participation," and
emphasize that the process of public input is
not simply seeking public comment, but
rather an ongoing give-and-take that
educates and gives the public ownership of
problems and solutions. While we recognize
the need for specific public comment
deadlines related to annual budget cycles,
the Board believes Border XXI must be "a
living document" and endorses an ongoing
public comment process to encourage the
public to voice opinions at any time
regarding implementation of the Border
XXI plan.
In addition to the formal biennial summary
report on Border XXI implementation, the
governments should make available to the
working groups and the public an annual
compilation of public comments received.
We also recommend that, every four years,
federal agencies, the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board and our Mexican
counterpart, sponsor a binational border-
wide conference to review the status of
achievement of the objectives outlined in
the Framework. The conference should be
binational and both public advisory
committees should have an active role with
community groups to review the goals and
objectives of the work.
Business and Industry Involvement: Given
that Border XXI's principal goal is to address
economic development and environmental
issues in a holistic approach, Border XXI
needs to address more effectively the
significant impacts of industrial growth on
the border environment and to identify
mechanisms for greater participation by
industry. Unfortunately, industrial interests
on both sides of the border have played a
very minor role in formulation of border
objectives and programs. We recommend
that selected business and industry
representatives, from regional chambers of
commerce, the Border Trade Alliance and
maquiladoms be asked to participate in
regional work groups.
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 13

-------
Native American Nations Involvement:
There are some 25 Indian Nations that have
lands and peoples adjoining the border,
and they must be part of the planning
process. We urge the U.S. to follow
through with verbal commitments to
accelerate efforts to include Native
American representatives in environmental
and health planning activities and
implementation of programs. We
commend EPA's commitment to lead
development of a strategy for incorporating
tribes into implementation and further
development of Border XXI, and for
committing to tribes, whose environmental
needs are very large, 10 percent of the
$100,000,000 it received in 1996 for
construction of border environmental
infrastructure.
Coverage of Additional Priority Issues:
The Board recommends that Border XXI
continue to expand coverage and
integration of issue areas. Border XXI
should be the umbrella process for
defining an overall sustainable
development strategy for the region,
linking binational efforts, and
coordinating public and private border
programs and resources.
Transportation: Reiterating last year's
report, the Board believes that Border XXI
needs to address transportation issues. We
also endorse the need for a comprehensive,
cross-border transportation planning
process, as envisioned by the U.S.-Mexico
Joint Working Committee for Binational
Transportation Planning, in coordination
with local, state and regional efforts.
Water Resources: While Border XXI
addresses water quality issues in great
depth, it does not explicitly address water
quantity issues. We recognize that
groundwater management is a very difficult
issue because of legal complexities and
information limitations, but groundwater is
one of the most critical issues facing the
water-short, agricultural, and rapidly
industrializing sections of the border region.
We recommend that Border XXI work
groups specifically address water quantity
issues and that the plan emphasize strategies
to encourage water conservation and reuse.
Commerce and Economic Development:
We recommend that Border XXI provide
coordination of programs to address local
and regional economic development and
environmental issues through better
coordination of programs managed by the
U.S. Department of Commerce and its
Mexican counterpart. We emphasize
particularly the need for census agencies to
obtain population and economic data on
both sides of the border and to coordinate
economic development priorities with those
of other federal environmental, natural
resources, transportation and housing
agencies. We note that representatives of
the Department's International Trade
Administration and Economic Development
Administration are participating on the
Board.
Natural Resources: Border XXI work
planning needs to begin identifying crucial
"hot-spot" areas for priority natural
resource protection and conservation
projects. Border XXI also needs to increase
emphasis on coastal issues and in-stream-
flow issues.
We urge that officials of the federal drug
interdiction agencies meet with federal
natural resources management agencies to
discuss revised drug interdiction practices
that will reduce negative impacts on fragile
ecosystems and species.
Land Use: We believe there is a need for
development of a long-term land use plan
along the border incorporating sustainability
concerns. Industrial, agricultural, human,
and natural and biological realities all need
to be considered in economic decision-
making. Industrial development strategies
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 14

-------
as well as agricultural practices need to take
into account the sustainability of the natural
resources, e.g., efforts to attract industries
that use a lot of water to water-starved parts
of the border and attempts to grow alfalfa in
the desert make little environmental or
economic sense.
In addition, despite the fact that over 37
percent of the land on the U.S. side of the
border is under some form of federal
protected status, until recently there has
been little effort at cooperatively managing
these lands as the complex, interconnected
ecosystems they are.
Research Needs: The Border XXI process
should more actively involve academia and
should be used to identify research needs
cooperatively with the academic
community.
MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAT-
PROGRAMS
In order to better understand the scope,
purposes and levels of funding of federal
agency programs in the border region, the
Board last year requested information
concerning border region programs, projects
and budgets from each of the eight federal
agencies participating on the advisory
committee. Each of the agencies submitted
available information covering work
initiated between 1992 and 1995.
The Board sees one of its essential roles as
promoter of a paradigm shift to sustainable
development of the border region. We
evaluated the project information provided
by the agencies against positive
environmental sustainability criteria
developed by the Board, including regional
and ecosystem scope, extent of community
involvement, remediation and prevention
objectives, types of capacity building, levels
of intergovernmental and private sector
involvement, and information access. The
Board will continue to report on the progress
of federal and other efforts in the paradigm
shift to sustainability of development in the
region.
As caveats to the analysis, the data available
from the agencies were quite variable in
coverage and level of detail. Some
departments were able to provide only
partial data largely because their internal
tracking systems do not report border-
specific activities or resources separately
from national programs that have border-
region aspects. In addition, project and
budget data related to 1995 and more recent
activity is incomplete due to funding
uncertainties in all agencies at the time data
was compiled.
Despite the caveats, the Board believes that
the data and analysis provide a unique and
extremely valuable view of federal effort in
the region, a unique tool for federal agencies
to coordinate federal effort in the region,
and a sound basis to support the following
recommendations. Each of the departments
and agencies have agreed that compilation
of this information will continue to be very
valuable for improving interagency
coordination and for increasing leveraging
of existing statutory authorities and
program budgets. The Board has asked each
of the departments to provide updated
project and budget information to enable it
to continue to review and report on specific
and overall federal effort in the region. The
Board also intends to incorporate
information from the Border Environment
Cooperation Commission, and from the four
border states concerning state-funded
programs.
The information provided by the agencies
documents approximately 400 projects
implemented since 1992. The Environmental
Protection Agency leads with 142 projects,
followed by Interior with 117 projects,
Commerce with 51 projects, and Health and
Human Services (HHS) with 25 projects
listed, although a significant number of
individual HHS research projects were
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 15

-------
consolidated in the matrix. Of the others, the
International Boundary and Water
Commission cited 12 projects,
Transportation 10, Housing and Urban
Development 9, Agriculture 5, and State
Department 2 projects. Each of these latter
agencies have advised that they have funded
additional projects that they will report in
future updates.
Reported projects address both very specific
and broad issues related to air and water
quality management, compliance,
emergency response, solid and hazardous
waste management, pollution prevention,
natural resources management,
environmental health, information
management, transportation, urban
development and other infrastructure. The
projects have focused primarily on technical
studies; governmental and community
training and assistance; information
collection, data management, and
information sharing.
Examples of federally funded projects
include local and regional air quality studies;
air quality management and hazardous
waste compliance training for Mexican
government officials; training and technical
assistance for maquiladora companies;
electronic transfer and sharing of compliance
data between federal agencies in both
countries; survey of sister city emergency
planning needs; training of health
professionals; community health outreach
in colonias; a Lower Rio Grande Valley
environmental health exposure study;
delivery of Indian health services;
monitoring to obtain environmental, natural
resources, health information; providing
information to Mexican officials regarding
pesticides handling, siting of hazardous
waste facilities, and enforcement policies;
assessment and management of natural and
biological resources; development of natural
resources education materials; technical
assistance to government and industry to
establish pollution prevention programs;
development of solid waste management
infrastructure in colonias; exchange of
information between countries on siting and
managing solid and hazardous waste
facilities; monitoring to measure water
quality trends and to assess groundwater
supply and contamination; construction of
water management systems for colonias;
studies to characterize watersheds; technical
assistance to small communities on
managing water and wastewater treatment
facilities; monitoring movement of
hazardous wastes across the border; a study
of cumulative U.S. impacts of Rio Grande
Bridge crossings and possible effects of
future permitting; and policy coordination
with Mexico on transportation networks
between the two countries.
The data reflect a significant commitment to
assisting Mexico develop governmental staff
and institutional capacity; assisting
communities on both sides of the border
improve human health and their
environment; meeting water infrastructure
needs; and assisting border industry to
develop and implement remediation and
prevention programs.
Geographic Scope
Over 40 percent of reported projects are
binational, with 12 entirely focused in
Mexico. Approximately one-third of the
projects reported are multi state or border
wide. The rest of the projects are focused
locally or regionally in the four states: 81
projects in Texas; 74 projects in Arizona; 54
projects in California; and 34 projects in New
Mexico.
There is limited evidence of ecosystem-level
effort, although there are notable projects
addressing airsheds, watersheds and nature
preserves, e.g., the El Paso-Juarez airshed,
the Sonoran Desert, Big Bend National Park,
and Biosphere Reserve.
The Board commends the significant
binational emphasis of many projects, but
believes even greater effort is needed to
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 16

-------
assure truly binational approaches to the
issues.
Capacity Building
requirements and to assure an informed
community that supports environmental
and public health requirements.
We are very concerned with the relatively
limited resources associated with solid and
hazardous waste management and
emergency response issues. There are very
high risks associated with the amounts of
hazardous materials being used and moved
through this urban region.
The Board's sustainability criteria for
community involvement is difficult to
measure and meet, but represent valuable
indicators of the authenticity of public
involvement.
While human and institutional capacity
building efforts were apparent in all
agencies' programs, the members have
concerns with the commendable, but
limited, emphasis on informing the public
about the programs being planned and
conducted, as opposed to making
commitments to adjust priorities and
resources based on input from the
communities. There is very limited evidence
of effective participation by the private
sector or nongovernmental organizations hi
most of the projects. We strongly encourage
each project manager to actively engage the
communities, nongovernmental
organizations, academia, and the private
sector in project design and implementation.
We cannot overstate the importance of this
relationship-building in achieving successful
U.S. and binational efforts.
Remediation and Prevention
Given the severity of existing environmental
and health-related problems, there is a
heavy emphasis on remediation. At the
same time, the Board sees a positive trend
toward parallel emphasis on prevention of
pollution and encourages greater emphasis
on prevention strategies in future projects.
Institutional Development
Development of effective community
institutions on both sides of the border is
equal in importance to building
infrastructure capacity. Infrastructure will
fail if local governments are unable to meet
the associated financial and maintenance
We reemphasize the need for greater federal
emphasis on addressing Native American
environmental and health issues. The Board
identified a small number of projects dealing
with Indian health and environmental
issues.
Information Management
The Board identified very large investments
in data collection and information system
development, especially Geographic
Information Systems. The Board is
concerned with the extent of duplication of
effort and the high probability that lack of
overall coordination may preclude sharing
of information among data bases and broad-
based analysis. The Board is also concerned
that there is relatively little apparent priority
for providing and explaining information to
communities and nongovernmental
organizations on both sides of the border.
These issues need continuing emphasis by
the binational Border XXI Information Work
Group.
Interagency and Intergovernmental
Coordination
Effective implementation of border region
programs requires a more comprehensive
multi year estimate of needs, a long term
funding commitment, and better leveraging
of existing federal and private resources.
An interagency process is needed that
provides more authority to agencies to
coordinate and integrate their border
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 17

-------
program and project activities, to budget
jointly for cooperative projects, to leverage
appropriations, to develop interagency
funding agreements, to provide multi-
agency grants, and to permit utilization of
federal funds in both countries to make
projects truly binational and sustainable.
We urge the Congress to consider creating
legislation which empowers federal agencies
to implement more creative funding
approaches to resolving U.S.-Mexico border
issues.
Closer collaboration is especially needed
among the departments in addressing
colonia infrastructure and natural resources
management needs. We support continued
movement toward implementing ecosystem
wide management strategies and programs.
We also recommend substantially
accelerated efforts to address tribal issues
by all agencies, especially the Indian
Health Service and Bureau of Indian
Affairs that are charged specifically with
these responsibilities. In addition, the
Board recommends greater coordination of
U.S. and Mexican government border
programs with those of the NAFTA North
American Commission for Environmental
Cooperation (CEC).
To help the agencies and the Board
determine needed changes in direction, we
urge an assessment of each individual
agency's authorities for providing services to
local communities on the border. Different
agencies have different authorities,
especially related to the border region, that
should be summarized, clarified and
coordinated.
We recommend that the Border XXI
Framework establish requirements for
formal strategic, project, and budget
coordination among agencies in annual
project priority setting and scoping.
Sustainable development-oriented policies
and better coordination are needed to link
federal economic development policies and
programs with environmental, natural
resources, health and housing policies and
programs.
Leveraging of Federal Resources
We urge the governments to leverage
existing federal authorities and resources
more effectively. Given that resources will
continue to be inadequate in relation to the
magnitude of border problems, we
recommend that the U.S. Government
authorize and promote innovative funding
and program management approaches
involving multiple federal, state and local
agencies.
Need for New Authorities and Additional
Funding
We urge the President and the Congress to
consider:
•- binational funding authority for the
Department of Health and Human
Services to permit them to address
critical transboundary health
problems;
•- additional funding for the
Department of the Interior to address
priority border-specific natural
resource protection needs;
increased emphasis on emergency
response and hazardous materials
management;
•- increased funding for industrial and
community pollution prevention
efforts;
•- obtaining better binational census
and economic development
information.
•- special tax-exempt infrastructure
financing for the U.S. border states;
•- focusing resources to the border
from the federal and state water
infrastructure revolving funds; and
•- creating with the government of
Mexico a public /private fund for
binational demonstration projects.
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 18

-------
While we do not anticipate multi year
funding authorities for the border region in
the near term, we endorse congressional
proposals for biennial budgeting and
commend the multi year funding
commitment by the three NAFTA countries
for implementation of the environmental
side agreement. To the extent it becomes
feasible, we support negotiation of
binational multiyear funding commitments
to address sustainable development
priorities for the border region.
DKVKT.OPMKNT OF
INSTITUTIONAL
ARRANGF.MF.NTS
Binational Approaches
Because the U.S. and Mexico share many
ecosystems, watersheds and air sheds,
binational and regional programs need to
be expanded. We note that many U.S.-
funded projects have been binational and
commend the emphasis in Border XXI on
regional and binational approaches.
We recommend that the U.S. and Mexican
governments work more closely to develop
additional joint transboundary programs,
involving representatives from all levels of
governments. For binational projects
generally, we note the importance of clear
standards, definitions and responsibilities,
and a high level of sensitivity to the different
technological, cultural, organizational
situations. We also encourage technical and
financial assistance to build on and help
transfer successful community-level cross-
border programs.
Enhancing Industry's Role
We note that the federal government, states
and some private foundations have
supported pollution prevention training,
technical assistance and auditing programs
focused primarily on maquiladora
companies. We endorse this training, but
also encourage the parties to emphasize the
value of these initiatives for economic
reasons.
The Board believes that private industry has
responsibilities to the border environment
and to the communities where they operate
that goes beyond a profit motive. There is a
growing number of companies that are
demonstrating a strong commitment to
pollution control, prevention, recycling and
reuse. We encourage the governments and
communities to recognize them and to help
communicate these successes.
We encourage development of public-
private sector programs that provide
economic incentives for reduction,
recycling and pollution prevention on both
sides of the border. We especially
recommend consideration of a deposit
refund system for transborder shipments of
hazardous waste that could reduce the need
for government inspection programs.
We commend the WasteWiSe Project, a
binational public/private project in the San
Diego-Tijuana region, that is improving
cross-border trade in recyclables and
identifying ways to expand binational
markets for recycled materials. We
recognize Sony Corporation's award-
winning recycling program focusing on
design-for-the-environment in its products
and facilities.
Airshed Planning
Consistent with our recommendation last
year, the Board commends implementation
of the binational Air Quality Management
Basin (AQMB) and Joint Air Quality
Advisory Committee for the El Paso-Juarez
airshed. This formal binational regional
approach to addressing environmental
problems, with significant public oversight,
is a very important enhancement to the
informal community-to-community and
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 19

-------
state-to-state arrangements that have been
developed over the years. We recommend
that implementation of the AQMB be
evaluated by the governments and the
communities to determine if this model
may be useful for addressing air quality
issues elsewhere in the region, as well as
for other transboundary environmental
problems, such as water, hazardous waste,
and health. We note that binational airshed
management arrangements are already
being extended to air and water quality
issues in the U.S.-Canada border region.
The Carbon 1 and 2 plants in Mexico are
now on-line; there are proposals for two
additional plants. The Board urges a truly
binational effort to solve the problems of
Carbon 1 and 2 , including the need for U.S.
government and private funds to reduce
emissions from these plants and from other
sources on both sides of the border which
are affecting air quality in the region. The
visibility problems at Big Bend National
Park should be addressed on a multi-
jurisdictional basis using the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission as a model.
We also continue to encourage the
governments to address larger issues related
to use of fossil fuels versus alternative
energy sources.
Watershed Planning
The Board commends the Department of
Commerce for its successful binational
sustainable development study of the Rio
Grande River that addressed economic
development, water use, and watershed
planning. We recommend this kind of
integrated planning as a possible model for
other air shed and watershed areas.
Water Quantity Management and Water
Conservation
Ground water is a finite resource, yet
insufficient data, particularly binational
data, exists. It is assumed that many
communities are pumping more
groundwater than can be recharged.
Much greater focus is needed on water
quantity issues. In many locations along
both sides of the border, there are still
critical questions about the location, amount,
quality and movement of groundwater, and
ecosystem relationships. We urge the two
governments to work closely with the
International Boundary and Water
Commission (IBWC) which has specific
binational treaty mandates, and with U.S.
border states to collect essential water
quantity data, using joint protocols, and to
discuss water allocation issues.
We encourage further development of new
binational water quantity and ground water
management institutional arrangements at
key locations along the border that combine
the planning and public oversight aspects of
the new El Paso-Ciudad Juarez Air Quality
Management Basin and Joint Advisory
Committee, and the implementation and
management aspects of the Rio Grande
River Water Master.
We strongly recommend implementation of
border wide, binational water conservation
programs to conserve existing ground and
surface water sources. Because many water
quantity problems relate to agricultural
practices, the Board recommends greater
binational efforts to encourage use of "best
management practices'^.g., drip irrigation in
irrigation water management. We also urge
the BECC and NADBank to require local
water conservation programs as
preconditions to certification and receipt of
funding.
We also encourage greater emphasis on
water conservation education. A water
conservation education program in the Rio
Grande Valley, where 80 percent of the
available water is used for irrigation, is
teaching children on both sides of the border
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 20

-------
about conservation of shared resources.
We urge each level of government to
support educational programs in schools, for
farmers, and for the general public focused
on water quality and quantity management.
Hazardous Materials and Emergency
Response
We recommend that federal agencies on
both sides of the border improve the
efficiency and reliability of notification
and monitoring of hazardous materials
transported across the border. We also
recommend establishment of effective joint
federal and state emergency response
programs for dealing with border
environmental emergencies. The Board
notes that there has been progress in
implementing use of HazTraks, a binational
computer system to monitor truck cargoes.
While we are aware that each of the
individual U.S. states have responsibility for
enforcing truck safety standards, federal
agencies in both countries should help
coordinate and establish more effective
emergency response capabilities to deal with
accidents involving cross-border traffic.
Models for these kinds of arrangements exist
along the U.S.-Canada border.
The Board commends a federal-state-local
pilot program designating specific border
crossings for commercial truck traffic only,
reducing environmental and health impacts
and the risk of environmental emergencies.
For example, trucks carrying hazardous
materials may not travel though downtown
Laredo, McAllen and Reynosa. This
program is now being extended to other
border crossing locations.
We urge development of binational
agreements for addressing environmental
emergencies that facilitate the rapid
movement of emergency response
personnel and equipment across the
border, improved availability of emergency
equipment at crossings, development and
testing of response plans, improved
tracking of cargoes prior to inspection, and
thorough training of inspectors on both
sides of the border.
There is still a serious, continuing need for
emergency response and fire control
equipment and computers on both sides of
the border, especially in communities in
Mexico. Expanded efforts are needed to
obtain donations of usable equipment and
to simplify transfer of this equipment to
Mexico. Unfortunately, Mexico imposes
duties on transfer of some of this equipment
across the border; we urge agencies to
consider providing equipment on permanent
loan to Mexican entities to avoid these costs.
We understand that Mexico has requested
funds from NADBank to enable them to
acquire critically needed emergency
response equipment.
We urge the governments to begin
addressing immediately the implications
and requirements for hazardous waste
disposal in the border region that will
result from the termination of the
maquiladora program in 2000. After the
termination of the program, wastes will no
longer need to be repatriated from Mexico to
the U.S., requiring permitted waste disposal
and treatment facilities in Mexico that do not
currently exist.
Health
We note several steps that have been taken
over the past year to implement Board
recommendations regarding border
environmental health institutional needs. A
formal binational working group has been
created under the auspices of the U.S.-
Mexico Binational Commission; the
Interagency Coordinating Committee for
Environmental Health-U.S.-Mexico Border
(involving the Public Health Service, EPA,
all border state environmental and health
representatives, and the Pan American
Health Organization) is now binational,
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 21

-------
including the director of the Office of
Environmental Health, Mexican Ministry of
Health and six border environmental health
officers, as well as representatives from
SEMARNAP. The Texas Department of
Health has exhibited excellent leadership on
the border wide tuberculosis control
program which involves all 10 border state
health officers, federal representation from
Mexico and the U.S., the American Lung
Association, the Texas Medical Association,
the Pan American Health Organization, the
U.S.-Mexico Border Health Association,
Project Hope, and the National Heritage
Insurance Company. The project is
accelerating sharing of computerized
information, education on both sides of the
border, and state-to-state agreements. In
addition, Department of Health and Human
Services agencies are providing training and
the Pan American Health Organization
Ecology Institute in Mexico is developing
occupational and environmental health
training programs; a health data
infrastructure program and demonstration
programs are being funded in each of the
border states. We understand that the
Congress will be considering funding U.S.
implementation of the U.S.-Mexico Health
Commission Act. As noted in last year's
report, we concur that, in order for this
concept to work, the Commission must be
fully binational.
We commend these ongoing binational
efforts and the proposed 1997 program
enhancements addressing dissemination of
environmental health information;
childhood exposures to pesticides; neural
tube defects; lead surveillance and
intervention; and training. We also endorse
the continuing need to attract health care
professionals to border communities and to
train community health care practitioners.
Accessibility to loan repayment programs
and certification of more Health Professions
Shortage Areas at the border are needed.
Native Americans
Native American nations along the border
still have not been included to any
significant extent in planning or
implementation of border programs. We
recommend again that all appropriate
federal agencies accelerate efforts to ensure
inclusion of the Native American nations in
the border region in environmental, health
and infrastructure planning and program
implementation. Because several of the
tribes' lands and peoples are in both
countries, we also encourage the U.S. to
actively involve the Mexican national
government in addressing tribal
transboundary issues.
We endorse the proposal by the Tohono
O'odham Nation to conduct an
environmental and trade forum involving all
of the southwest border tribes and commend
the sponsorship by EPA and the
Governmental Advisory Committee to the
U.S. Representative to the North American
Commission for Environmental
Cooperation. We also commend the
decision by EPA to provide ten percent of
Fiscal Year 1996 border infrastructure funds
to help meet tribal environmental
infrastructure needs.
Transportation
The Board's first annual report cited a
number of concerns regarding interrelated
regional transportation and environmental
issues. For example, there are very serious
problems associated with air pollution from
trucks idling at border crossings, use of
unpaved roads, use of leaded fuels, trucks
carrying hazardous materials traveling
through (and disposing of wastes in)
communities and tribal lands. Drug
interdiction and immigration activities in
some locations have also caused trucks to
divert to and seriously impact smaller
border crossings. We continue to
recommend that U.S. and Mexican states
develop comprehensive joint plans and
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 22

-------
cross-border transportation authorities to
guide transportation policy decisions.
We commend the Department of
Transportation Federal Highway
Administration for its work with other U.S.
agencies and with counterparts in Mexico to
improve compatibility of commercial motor
carrier safety standards, road signs and
signals; coordinate truck weights and
dimensions; coordinate compliance and
enforcement activities; expedite processing
of commercial vehicles at border crossings
including facility improvements and use of
advanced technology; and conduct joint
transportation planning, including U.S. and
Mexican federal and state agencies. We also
note a significant number of highway
improvement and border crossing projects
that are being developed with both public
and private funds.
Foundations
While U.S. private foundations have
provided some funding to Mexican and U.S.
entities to encourage development of more
effective nongovernmental organizations,
there are still very substantial needs for
enhancing the ability of communities to
address development issues and improve
access to needed information. U.S. income
tax law restricts deductibility of charitable
donations when the funds are to be spent
outside the U.S. making it very difficult for
nongovernmental organizations to obtain
funds for transboundary projects. We
encourage changes in U.S. tax law to
encourage private support to these public
purposes, the creation of additional
binational foundations like the U.S:Mexico
Border Progress Foundation; and technical
assistance to Mexico to develop a private
foundation network.
TTSTFRASTRIJCTIJRK
niVII.OPMINT
For the past several years, both sides of the
border have experienced significant
developmental pressures due to
industrialization, migration and population
growth. Environmental, health, housing,
transportation and other infrastructure has
not kept pace with this development. We
believe that the interconnection of
environment, health, housing, and
transportation infrastructure-related
problems makes it imperative that
infrastructure issues be addressed more
comprehensively and recommend that
Border XXI be used as the appropriate
integrating process for doing this.
The Board commends the Department of
Commerce and its Mexican counterpart for
jointly sponsoring the second U.S.-Mexico
Border Infrastructure Conference last year,
and urges public and private sector
consideration of the conference report.
Inventory and Priorities
The Board encourages compilation of a
comprehensive inventory of infrastructure
needs. The needs inventory should be
developed on a binational basis to assure
coordination of transboundary needs and
projects and maximum leveraging of
investments on both sides of the border.
We also urge comprehensive prioritization
of infrastructure needs by federal and state
agencies, at least regionally, to support a
rational allocation of limited resources; to
identify localities that are relatively more
stressed by economic, environmental, and
public health issues; and to communicate
priorities to communities competing for
funding.
The inventory effort should focus initially on
wastewater treatment plants and sewage
lines; potable water plants and distribution
systems; individual hookups; and water
drainage projects. Inventories of other types
of infrastructure such as solid waste
management, hazardous waste disposal
sites, basic housing (especially colonias), and
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 23

-------
health care facilities, should also be
assembled as quickly as feasible. We
understand that a comprehensive survey of
border transportation issues is being
conducted by the U.S.-Mexico Joint Working
Committee for Binational Transportation
Planning.
BECC/NADBank
The Border Environment Cooperation
Commission (BECC), and the North
American Development Bank (NADBank)
have the potential to help significantly
improve the border environment.
Border Environment Cooperation
Commission
We applaud the BECC for incorporating
enhanced sustainable development criteria
for review of border environmental projects,
and urge application of the same type of
criteria by other public and private funding
entities. We also commend the BECC for
initiating a program to assist smaller
communities in developing project
proposals. We urge that BECC, as well as
state agencies and nongovernmental
organizations, provide technical assistance
to border communities to help them develop
their institutional capacity to manage design,
construction and operation of the facilities.
We urge the BECC to continue to identify
ways to streamline its application process to
encourage more rapid certification of
projects to NADBank and other funding
sources. We emphasize that this
acceleration should not occur at the expense
of an effective public participation process
in the affected communities.
North American Development Bank
Despite having $1.5 billion currently
available, the North American Development
Bank (NADBank) has made few, very
recent loans during its first two years of
existence. The binational agreement
establishing the NADBank requires that the
Bank charge an above-market rate of
interest. This requirement precludes the
neediest communities on both sides of the
border from use of NADBank funding. We
strongly recommend that the governments
re-negotiate the NADBank's charter to
authorize reduction of its interest rate to
support below-market lending. We urge
the governments to consider application of
U.S. State Revolving Fund guidelines to
NADBank operations.
The NADBank has been asked to provide
substantial drought relief assistance funds to
the state of Texas. We believe that funding
this type of proposal would violate the spirit
of the BECC and NADBank charters and
recommend against funding
We urge the NADBank to improve its
communication with border communities,
and to work with the BECC to implement a
coordinated outreach effort.
BECC and NADBank need to encourage
greater use of alternative technologies, i.e,
technologies that generally have low capital,
operating and maintenance costs, as well as
innovative technologies. The Environmental
Protection Agency and Department of
Agriculture are aware of a number of very
effective alternative technologies. The BECC
technical assistance program should
emphasize use of alternative technologies
and BECC should assure that communities
are informed about alternative systems.
We also encourage inclusion of alternative
technologies as priority in the BECC's
sustainable development project review
criteria for smaller communities.
Given the significant and growing shortfall
of ground and surface water throughout the
region, the BECC and NADBank can and
need to exercise leadership in promoting
water conservation practices. In conjunction
with its technical assistance program,
promotion of appropriate technologies, and
certification criteria development, the BECC
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 24

-------
should emphasize low water-use treatment
and groundwater recharge processes,
especially in water short areas.
As entities established under the NAFTA
agreement, the BECC and NADBank will be
evaluated shortly as part of the mandatory
triennial review of NAFTA implementation.
We urge the governments and the
Commission on Environmental Cooperation
to emphasize the importance of these
institutions to achieving the overall, long
term goals of NAFTA.
Colonias and Rural Areas:
The rate of continuing urbanization in
colonias and rural areas, and the absence of
proper urban planning and local zoning
controls , is threatening the ability of the
governments to provide essential
infrastructure.
Since 1991, EPA and IBWC have allocated
more than $500 million to address just
wastewater infrastructure problems,
including over $185 million to assist colonias
in Texas and New Mexico. Additional costs
for basic water service to colonias in Texas
and New Mexico is estimated at more than
$500 million, and there are comparable
settlements in Arizona and California. With
respect to wastewater treatment, reliable
estimates indicate the United States border
communities will require investments of
$1,475 billion over ten years to bring them
up to acceptable standards, of which $925
million should come from State Revolving
Funds (SRF) loans and tax-exempt bonds,
and $550 million from other federal and
state grants and loans. Mexico estimates
needed investment for border region water
services through the year 2000 at more than
$442 million: $ 132 million for drinking
water; $265 million for wastewater.
These estimates do not address critical air,
hazardous and solid waste, transportation,
or housing infrastructure needs.
Although State Revolving Fund ( SRF) loan
(and NADBank) debt service requirements
force user fees beyond the capacity-to-pay of
many residents, we continue to recommend
that border state wastewater revolving
funds allocate a major portion of SRF funds
to border infrastructure needs. Previous
Clean Water Act federal grants and State
Revolving Fund (SRF) loans have provided
substantial help to larger U.S. border
communities. Unincorporated colonias and
smaller U.S. communities now represent a
critical financing issue.
While major colonias funding to date has
focused on designated colonias in Texas and
New Mexico, there are similar substandard
developments lacking basic infrastructure in
Arizona and California. Eighteen areas have
been identified in California in Imperial, San
Diego, Riverside, and Kern counties.
Arizona and California settlements receive
limited funds from USDA, but not from EPA
due to the failure of these states to identify
colonia-like settlements. We recommend
that federal, state and local agencies
providing infrastructure funding recognize
colonias and similar substandard
developments lacking basic infrastructure
in all four border states, and coordinate
their individual funding programs for
maximum environmental benefit.
We recommend that federal grant and low
cost loan assistance be continued at
existing levels for infrastructure, health
facilities and training in U.S. colonias for at
least the next ten years. Due to their lack of
access to low-cost SRF loans, tax-exempt
bond revenues or significant sources of user
fees, colonias and small communities need
continued priority focus and subsidization.
Although it was expected to play a central
role, this critical funding gap is not yet being
filled by the North American Development
Bank. Responsible federal agencies, state
and local governments should cooperate to
establish mechanisms incorporating and
formalizing the legal and institutional status
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 25

-------
of colonics.
The Board also recommends that local civic
authorities in the border states seek to
impose proper planning and zoning controls
under state law, including urging local
authorities to require private developers to
incorporate necessary infrastructure into
their development design comparable to the
exercise of local police powers in all other
areas of the U.S.
Private Sector Investment and
Public/Private Partnerships
The Board believes there is a tremendous
need, and potential, for substantial public-
private funding and for privatized
environmental infrastructure development
on both sides of the border. Federal and
other public funds will be inadequate to
meet the current and projected needs. In
addition, private entities that have
contributed to the environmental and public
health problems and that have benefited
from NAFTA implementation should bear
more of the cost.
The Board is pleased with the increasing
BECC emphasis on private sector funding of
municipal environmental infrastructure,
including new criteria for certification of
private sector projects and a Build-Operate-
Transfer (BOT) program. The Board also
believes there are significant opportunities
for full privatization of hazardous waste
handling and solid waste management
facilities, infrastructure which are not
necessarily public environmental
responsibilities.
The Board notes that there has been
considerable U.S. government investment in
development of related economic infra-
structure, including international trade
routes, bridges and highways. We urge that
the governments assure that investments in
environmental and economic infrastructure
be managed and balanced to help assure
that economic development is sustainable.
We strongly encourage the U.S. to promote
Mexican legislation to authorize municipal
bonding authority for Mexican communities.
We also urge the U.S. government to
consider providing tax-free status for public
bonds issued in the U.S. for cross border
projects and other incentives to encourage
public-private and privatization efforts.
Eco-industrial Parks: The Board supports
the recommendations of the President's
Council On Sustainable Development and
continues to recommend the development
of eco-industrial parks in appropriate
places along the border to reduce pollution
and costs, and to support clean economic
development. Eco-industrial parks, such as
the Brownsville, Texas and Nogales, Arizona
models, create a vertically integrated chain
of plants wherein one plant uses another's
byproducts or wastes as input. The parks
create synergies among industries which can
result in substantial cost savings as well as
significant reductions in environmental
pollution. Unfortunately, the few parks that
have been initiated have lost substantial
funding. To make these cutting-edge plans
a reality, federal funds are needed to help
implement workable pilots.
Housing: The Board notes that the shortage
of adequate housing underlies many of the
border's environmental and public health
problems. Several creative housing finance
projects begun prior to the 1994 Mexican
financial crisis have been discontinued or
dramatically downsized. Unfortunately,
neither NADBank nor the BECC have the
resources or the mandate to deal with the
housing problem. The establishment of
zoning practices, enforcement of zoning, and
creative financing through public-private
cooperation are needed on both sides of the
border to ease this crisis. It is also important
to assure that zoning be set to preclude
construction in designated flood zones.
We recommend that the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 26

-------
continue to provide financial assistance and
incentives for upgrading substandard
housing in the colonias, and work closely
with state agencies in the U.S., and with
federal and state agencies in Mexico to
develop mechanisms for promoting low-
cost public housing construction in the
border region. We also recommend that
mechanisms currently being utilized by
county officials to promote public housing
and provide financial assistance to colonia
residents be enlarged and structured as
block grants, and that flexibility be
provided to facilitate the combination of
various federal program monies, such as
those established through the Rio Grande
Valley Empowerment Zone.
The Board commends the work of various
foundations and non governmental
organizations to assist local communities
respond to housing needs through methods
such as self help, micro loans, bulk materials
purchasing, etc. Moreover, the Board
acknowledges the participation of certain
maquiladoras in providing housing
construction assistance to their employees
and encourages more of these companies to
provide housing assistance programs.
MEETING INFORMATION
NEEDS
There is a lack of needed information and
awareness by residents on both sides of the
border, as well as the governments,
concerning border area problems and
options for addressing these problems.
Access to information is a critical
prerequisite to effective community
participation in setting priorities, selecting
the most feasible and comprehensive
approaches to environmental, natural
resource, public health and related
problems; and locating financial and
technical assistance.
The Board commends the Mexican
government for establishing environmental
indicators as part of its monitoring and
reporting of Gross Domestic Product.
Outreach Coordination: With respect to
effectively reaching communities with
information and soliciting their views, we
encourage more outreach coordination
among federal agencies, state agencies, local
governments, Indian Nations, and
community groups on both sides of the
border. Working together, these
organizations can more effectively inform
wider networks about issues and can help to
distribute materials so that people are better
informed and prepared to make decisions.
We continue to recommend establishing a
federal-state-local clearinghouse network, in
cooperation with the border offices of
federal and state agencies, to provide more
rapid transfer of information among levels
of government and to local community
groups in the incorporated and
unincorporated areas.
Federal agencies should consider
contracting with nongovernmental
organizations to generate and organize
public comments. Increased public
communication and access to information
can also help to enhance public oversight,
reducing the need for government
inspection programs and direct data
collection.
Internet Access: We recommend that data
be made accessible to the public by state and
federal government agencies through
Internet and other wide-net systems along
the border and commend several federal
agencies for establishing Internet Web.
However, most border communities have
limited access to the technology
superhighway at this time.
The Board encourages continuing support
for the U.S. Department of Commerce
Telecommunications and Infrastructure
Assistance Program that provides matching
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 27

-------
grants to help spread information
technology into communities. Federal
agencies (such as the Department of
Commerce National Telecommunications
and Information Administration) should
support necessary fiber optic cable
installations in these communities, with
reduced matching funds. Federal agencies
should also direct surplus property
computers to public access sites (e.g.,
libraries, schools, banks, supermarkets, and
churches) and support training programs to
assist Internet access by residents.
While the Board reiterates the need for
providing more data to community
residents, we emphasize also that the
information must be useful. Reports should
be made available to local organizations,
libraries, and schools (in both English and
Spanish if possible) that analyze the data,
identify pros and cons of various options,
and identify appropriate governmental and
nongovernmental contacts for further
information and assistance.
A recent report by the state of Texas
provides grim demographic projections of
population increases for the next 20 years.
The report anticipates that in 20 years one-
third of the population will not have finished
high school, a dire projection of have and
have-not's. The Board recommends more
emphasis on education as an interface with
infrastructural issues for border
communities and meeting the tremendous
need for resources for local schools.
Use of Existing Information: While the
Board supports the collection of needed
additional binational data, using common
collection and analytical methods, we
believe that a substantial amount of
environmental, natural resource, health and
related data are available in both countries
which can provide useful baseline
information. We endorse the creation of the
Border XXI Information Working Group and
recommend that development of such an
inventory of existing information is one of
their highest priorities. The Board also
endorses increasing the number of databases
and the use of sophisticated Geographic
Information Systems (GISs), but emphasizes
that local citizens, as well as the
governments, must be capable of getting to
that information.
Population Growth and Trend Information:
Both countries need to obtain accurate data
on population growth trends, especially
given the flux of people in, through, and
around the border zone. More adequate
information is also needed linking
population trends and available resources,
including identifying the "carrying capacity"
of the border region. The lack of
information concerning long-term
population trends limits the effectiveness of
Border XXI to effectively plan for needed
infrastructure and programs. Long term,
ongoing studies need to be conducted to
identify population trends and to establish
baselines for federal, state, regional and
local planning.
We recommend that funding be provided to
the Bureau of Census, and that the U.S.
negotiate joint efforts with the Mexican
government and the counterpart census
agency, INEGI, to conduct binational census
studies, to cooperate in data analysis, and to
make the reports available. We also
recommend establishing permanent
monitoring to track changes in population.
We recommend establishing binational
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) so
that interested parties in the U.S. and
Mexico can more clearly see the large
binational population and economic base in
the region, e.g., the Lower Rio Grande
Valley, that does not appear in each
individual country's data. We also
encourage the governments to use economic
and population data from both sides of the
border in designating trade areas.
AppliedPpgpareh • Considerable research is
being conducted by U.S. and Mexican
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 28

-------
colleges and universities in the border
region. Too little of this research is being
applied towards solving real world border
problems. In addition to the research itself
being relevant to important issues, the
results of this research must be accessible to
the communities, other academics, and the
governments. Funding sources should
require that research products intended for
use in border communities be bilingual.
OTHER COMMENTS
Coordination with the Mexican Advisory
Council for Sustainable Development
The Board and its Mexican counterpart
(Region 1 of the Mexican National Advisory
Council for Sustainable Development) have
established ongoing communication. The
two advisory committees will meet together
in mid-1997 to begin development of
coordinated agendas and to discuss
development of joint recommendations.
Commendations
We commend EPA for establishing border
liaison offices at San Diego, California, and
El Paso and McAllen, Texas. We especially
commend the San Diego office for its work
in development of Border XXI, and its
outstanding efforts in providing information
and assistance to citizens and organizations
primarily in Arizona and California
Public Input
The Board' meetings are open to the public;
a list of public attendees at the April, 1996,
August 1996, and February 1997 meetings is
included as Appendix 2.
At each meeting, the Board also sets aside
time to listen to concerns of members of the
public and to become aware of community
efforts to address environn -2ntal problems.
Some examples of accomplishments
presented to the Board include:
Palomas, Mexico and Columbus,
New Mexico, two small sister cities,
have created a cross-border task
force to work jointly on public health
issues and environmental and
economic development planning;
The Transboundary Resource
Inventory Project, an integrated
border wide effort managed by the
Texas General Land Office, is
working on integration of data
concerning the border through use of
geographic information systems
(CIS);
The Tijuana River Watershed Project
also is developing a comprehensive
GIS to be shared by the U.S. and
Mexico for binational watershed
management planning;
The Texas Center for Policy Studies,
a research and policy organization
based in Austin, is working with
grassroots organizations throughout
Mexico, and focusing on the border
and on conservation and habitat
issues;
The California Border Environmental
Corporation Committee, comprised
of state level officials from Baja
California, Baja California Sur, and
California, is working jointly to
improve communication among the
states, to provide cross-border
training and information, and to
support environmental infrastructure
projects in the region;
The San Diego Association of
Governments is providing a very
effective forum for environmental
and transportation planning and
coordination among local
communities and other governments
on both sides of the border; and the
Tijuana and San Diego Binational
Planning and Coordinating
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 29

-------
Committee provides a forum for joint
programs, information sharing, and
coordination with federal and state
agencies.
We commend all of the local, regional and
binational initiatives that demonstrate the
commitment of border communities and
nongovernmental organizations to work
together to improve the environment and to
promote sustainable development of the
U.S.-Mexico border region.
In Memoriam
We note with sadness the untimely death of
Charles F. Meissner, former Assistant
Secretary and U.S. Department of
Commerce representative on the Board. He
was dedicated to solving U.S.-Mexico border
problems and was an invaluable member of
the Board.
IMPLEMENTATION OF REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Board appreciates the opportunity to
offer these recommendations and
respectfully requests a response to this
second Annual Report. The Board intends to
continue to monitor implementation of the
recommendations included in this and
previous reports, and to advise the President
and the Congress on the status of
implementation in its next annual report.
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 30

-------
APPENDIX 1
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD
Mr. James Marston, Chair
Director, Texas Office
Environmental Defense Fund
44 East Avenue, Suite 304
Austin, TX 78701
Mr. Patrick Banegas
General Manager
Water and Sanitation District
P.O. Box 1751
1470 N. 4th Street
Anthony, NM 88021
Mr. Tibaldo Canez
Director, U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
3033 North Central
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Mr. John K. Flynn
Supervisor, Ventura County
808 S. Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 95665
Mr. Bernard Gaillard
Director, Secretary's Office of
International Transportation and Trade
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
Honorable William Ginsberg
Acting Assistant Secretary for
Market Access and Compliance
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th St. & Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20230
Charles G. Groat, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Environmental
Resource Management
University of Texas at El Paso
El Paso, TX 79968
Ms. Alison Hughes
University of Arizona College of Medicine
2501 E. Elm Street
Tucson, AZ 85716
Mr. John Klein
Assistant Regional Hydrologist
U.S. Geological Survey
2800 Cottage Way, Room W2233
Sacramento, CA 95825
Ms. M. Lisa LaRocque
Director, Project Del Rio
1494A S. Solano
Las Cruces, NM 88001
Ms. Wendy Laird
Executive Director
Tucson Audubon Society
300 East University Blvd., Suite 120
Tucson, AZ 85705
Ms. Felicia Marcus
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Mr. Winston Martin
Special Projects Officer
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development
800 Dolorosa Avenue
San Antonio, TX 78207
Mr. David Merk
Environmental Consultant
11814 Via Genero
El Cajon, CA 92109
Ms. Elsa R. Saxod
Executive Director
U.S.-Mexico Border Progress Foundation
1615 Murray Canyon Road, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92108
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 31

-------
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD
Christine M. Sierra, Ph. D.
Department of Political Science
2074 Social Science Building,
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131-1121
Mr. Alan Stephens
State Director, Rural Development
U.S. Department of Agriculture
3003 Central Avenue, Suite 900
Phoenix, AZ 8 5012
Mr. Bill Summers
President
Rio Grande Valley Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 1499
Weslaco, TX 78599-1499
Ms. M. Elizabeth Swope
Coordinator for U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs
Office of Mexican Affairs
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20520
Mr. Rosendo Trevino III
State Conservationist
Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
6200 Jefferson Street, Northeast
Albuquerque, NM 87109-3734
Mr. J. Jorge Verduzco
Executive Vice President
International Bank of Commerce
P.O. Drawer 1359
Laredo, TX 78042-1359
Mr. Richard Walling
Director , Office of the Americas
and Middle East
Office of International and Refugee Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Room 18-75, Parklawn Building
Rockville, MD 20857
Mr. Kenneth Williams
Legislative Council Member
Tohono O'odham Nation
P.O. Box 827
Sells, AZ 85634
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION
Mr. John Bernal
U.S. Commissioner
International Boundary and Water
Commission
4171 N. Mesa, Suite C-310
El Paso, TX 79902
Designated Federal Officer
Mr. Robert L. Hardaker
Office of the Administrator (160 IF)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
202-260-2477; 202-260-6882 fax
E -mail: hardaker. robert@epamail. epa. gov
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 32

-------
APPENDIX 2
PUBLIC ATTENDEES AT 1996-1997 MEETINGS
Las Cruces. New Mexico-April 1996
Andrea Abel, Texas Department of Health
Larry Allen, Coronado National Forest, Arizona
Octavio Chavez, Ciudad Juarez, Mexico
Roger Frauenfelder, Border Environment Cooperation Commission
Thomas Guerra, City of Columbus, New Mexico
David Hinkel, City of Columbus, New Mexico
Jack Long, City of Columbus, New Mexico
Howard Ness, National Park Service
Cyrus Reed, Texas Center for Policy Studies
Daniel Reyna, Director, Border Health Office, State of New Mexico
Carlos Rincon, Environmental Defense Fund
Alice Salcido, Office of Senator Bingaman
San Diego. California-August 1996
Andrea Abel, Texas Department of Health
Kenneth Cronin, Tohono O'odham Nation
Vicky Estrada-Bustillo, U.S. Forest Service
Paul Ganster, San Diego State University
Sofia Hernandez, Texas Department of Health
Gonzalo Lopez, City of San Diego
Susan Phillips, California Water Resources Control Board
Amary Reyes, SAHOPE, Baja California, Mexico
Oscar Romo, Mexican National Council for Sustainable Development
Nan Valerio, San Diego Association of Governments
Richard Wright, San Diego State University
Luis Zuniga, Sony Mexico Manufacturing Center
El Paso. Texas-February 1997
Bobby Creel, New Mexico Water Resources Institute
Nicole Carter, Stanford University
James Davis, New Mexico Department of Agriculture
Miguel Escobedo, Texas Department of Health
Ana Isabel Fonteil, Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Tijuana, Mexico
Philip Goodall, University of Texas, El Paso
Rebekah Hoffacker, Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission
Roberto Hurtado, Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Tijuana, Mexico
April Lander, Border Environment Cooperation Commission
Andy Mares, AYUDA, Inc.
Ernest Rebuck El Paso Water Utilities
Blanca Serrano, Texas Department of Health
Marion Truxal, League of Women Voters
Antonio Vergara, AYUDA, Inc
Edwina Vogan, Women in Technology
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
PAGE 33

-------