INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN
FOR THE MEXICAN-U.S. BORDER AREA
(First Stage, 1992-1994)
\
US. ENVHONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Son
TEXAS
SECRETARIA DE DE8ARROLLO URBANO Y ECOLOQIA
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I INTRODUCTION M
A. The Presidents' Communique 1-1
B. Background 1-2
C. Objectives of the Border Environmental Plan 1-3
D. Scope of Plan 1-4
E. The North American Free Trade Agreement 1-5
n THE BORDER AREA-BASIC DESCRIPTION II-l
A. Physical Setting II-l
B. Population II-6
C. Economic Base II-8
HI BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ffl-1
A. Water III-l
1. Water Supplies III-l
2. Water Quality III-3
3. Wastewater Treatment III-5
a. Tijuana/San Diego III-5
b. Mexicali/Imperial County III-6
c. San Luis Rio Colorado/Yuma III-7
d. Nogales/Nogales III-7
e. Ciudad Juarez/El Paso III-8
f. Piedras Negras/Eagle Pass III-8
g. Nuevo Laredo/Laredo III-8
h. Bajo Rio Bravo/Lower Rio Grande IH-9
4. Marine Environment III-9
a. Tijuana River Estuary III-9
b. The Gulf of Mexico 111-10
B. Air 111-12
1. Overview 111-12
2. Tijuana/San Diego 111-13
3. Mexicali/Imperial County 111-15
4. Ciudad Juarez/El Paso 111-16
5. Sunland Park, New Mexico 111-17
6. Other Areas 111-18
C. Hazardous Materials and Hazardous and Municipal Solid Waste 111-18
1. Overview 111-18
2. Transboundary Movement and Tracking of Hazardous Material 111-19
3. Cooperative Strategy for Enforcement of Hazardous Waste
Regulations 111-22
4. Education of the Regulated Community 111-23
5. Abandoned and Illegal Dump Sites 111-23
6. Municipal Solid Waste 111-23
7. Industrial Waste 111-24
D. Pesticides 111-24
E. Contingency Planning/Emergency Response 111-25
1. Overview 111-25
2. Joint Response Team (JRT) Activities 111-26
F. Pollution Prevention 111-28
A92-171.toc ii PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
G. Environmental Health in the Border Area 111-29
H. Environmental Education 111-32
I. Conservation Issues HI-33
1. Description 111-33
2. Projects Developed to Date 111-37
3. Technical Training 111-40
J. Urban Development Issues 111-41
1. Mexican Urban Development Program 111-42
2. U.S. Colonias 111-42
3. Additional Binational Initiatives 111-43
K. Border Infrastructure/Bridges and Border Crossings 111-44
L. Other Multimedia Issues 111-44
IV ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES IV-1
A. General IV-1
B. Environmental Health IV-2
D. Regional Priorities IV-3
E. General Priorities IV-5
V IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN V-l
A. Specific Implementation Plans V-2
1. SEDUE/EPA Cooperative Enforcement Strategy V-3
a. Cooperative Enforcement Strategy Work Group V-5
b. Role of Private Companies in the Border Area V-6
c. Information Exchange V-7
d. Visits and Observer Participation V-7
2. Industrial Multimedia Source Controls Requiring Government and Private
Sector Initiatives V-7
3. Protection of Water Quality/Conservation of Water Resources V-l 1
a. Surface Water Supplies V-12
b. Border Area Ground Water Supplies V-12
c. Implementation Plan for Surface Water and Ground Water Supplies . . V-l3
d. Colonias and rural sanitation in the U.S V-13
4. Border Wastewater Control V-14
a. Wastewater Treatment V-14
(1) Tijuana/San Diego V-15
(2) Mexicali/Imperial County V-17
(3) San Luis Rio Colorado/Yuma V-18
(4) Nogales/Nogales V-18
(5) Ciudad Juarez/El Paso V-19
(6) Piedras Negras/Eagle Pass V-19
(7) Nuevo Laredo/Laredo V-19
(8) Bajo Rio Bravo/Lower Rio Grande V-21
(9) Reynosa/McAllen V-21
(10) Matamoros/Brownsville V-21
(11) Studies in Other Sister Cities V-21
A92-171.toc iii PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section
Page
b. Characterization of Wastewater Rows to Protect International
Treatment Plants V-22
5. Air Quality V-23
a, Ciudad Juarez/El Paso, Texas - Sunland Park, New Mexico V-23
b. Mexicali/Imperial County V-25
c. Tijuana/San Diego V-26
6. Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste V-29
a. Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste V-29
(1) Hazardous Waste Tracking V-30
(2) Cooperative Enforcement Strategy V-31
(3) Education of the Regulated Community V-32
(4) Transportation Issues V-33
b. Abandoned and Illegal Dump Sites V-33
7. Municipal Solid Waste V-34
8. Pesticides V-35
9. Contingency Planning/Emergency Response V-36
10. Regulations of Activities Impacting on the Environment V-39
11. Pollution Prevention V-41
a. Border Area Pollution Prevention Initiatives V-42
b. Technical Assistance for Pollution Prevention V-42
12. Environmental Education V-43
a. Formal "Classroom" Environmental Education V-44
b. Informal Environmental Education V-44
c. Environmental Education Workshops V-44
13. Conservation of Natural Resources V-45
14. Urban Development V-45
B. General Provisions on Implementation V-46
1. Intergovernmental Coordination and Public Involvement V-46
a. Intergovernmental Coordination V-46
b. Public Participation V-46
2. Other Programs to Promote Public Awareness and Increase Public
Participation V-48
3. Effective Protection of Transboundary Environmental Resources V-49
4. Increased Financial Resources for Environmental Protection in the Border
Area V-49
5. Periodic Review of the Border Environmental Plan V-50
C. Border Environmental Plan Funding V-50
Annex
A Existing Environmental Institutional Framework for the Border Area A-l
B Background Materials Relating to Sections n and in B-l
C Names and Affiliations of Those Who Testified or Submitted Comments to EPA on the
Border Environmental Plan During its Formation C-l
D Names and Affiliations of Those Who Testified or Submitted Comments to SEDUE on the
Border Environmental Plan During its Formation D-l
A92-171.toc
IV
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
A. THE PRESIDENTS' COMMUNIQUE
On November 27, 1990, President Carlos Salinas de Gortari of the United Mexican States and President George
Bush of the United States of America held one of their periodic meetings, this time in Monterrey, Mexico, to
discuss issues important to both countries. The Presidents were accompanied by the heads of their respective
environmental authorities and discussions took place concerning environmental conditions along the Mexican-
U.S. border. The result of the meeting was a joint communique that included commitments and directives for
cooperative activities in response to these conditions. The Presidents agreed to direct their respective
environmental authorities (the Ecological Sub-Secretariat of the Secretariat of Urban Development and Ecology
(SEDUE) of Mexico and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)), to work together to develop a
comprehensive border environmental plan (the Border Environmental Plan or the Plan) designed to solve
environmental problems in the Border Area. (Article 4 of the 1983 Agreement between the United States of
America and the United Mexican States on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment
in the Border Area (the 1983 U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Agreement, often referred to as the La Paz
Agreement), defines the Border Area as an area 100 kilometers on each side of the international boundary. The
term "Border Area" has the same meaning in the Plan.) The text of their joint communique on the Border
Environmental Plan is as follows:
The Presidents emphasized the need for ongoing cooperation in the area of environmental
protection. Both Presidents instructed the authorities responsible for environmental affairs of their
countries to prepare a comprehensive plan designed to periodically examine ways and means to
reinforce border cooperation in this regard, based on the 1983 Bilateral Agreement. Such a
mechanism should seek ways to improve coordination and cooperation, with a view to solving the
problems of air, soil, and water quality and of hazardous wastes. State and municipal authorities
of both governments and private organizations in both countries should participate in such tasks as
appropriate.
This first stage of the Plan (1992-1994) represents an important step toward the fulfillment of that joint
Presidential directive.
A92-171.1 1-1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
B. BACKGROUND
Formal efforts between Mexico and the United States to protect and improve the environment in the Border Area
began in 1983 with the adoption of the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Agreement. This Agreement outlines
the primary objectives of common border environmental cooperation; establishes a mechanism for additional
agreements, annexes, and technical actions; and provides for regular high-level meetings and special technical
meetings to further promote and encourage environmental cooperation between the two countries. The 1983
Border Environmental Agreement also establishes formal communication procedures and provides that both
countries designate National Coordinators to coordinate and monitor the implementation of the Agreement.
Currently, Dr. Sergio Reyes Lujan, Undersecretary for Ecology of SEDUE, is serving as the Mexican National
Coordinator and Timothy B. Atkeson, Assistant Administrator for International Activities of EPA, is serving as
the U.S. National Coordinator. The 1983 Border Environmental Agreement is discussed in more detail in Annex
A.
In response to the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement and subsequent annexes, SEDUE/EPA Work Groups
were established and communication procedures were developed for dealing with the principal environmental
concerns relating to water, hazardous waste, air, and contingency planning/emergency response issues affecting
the Border Area. The binational Work Groups have provided the bulk of the expertise upon which this Plan is
based. Recently created fifth and sixth Work Groups on cooperative enforcement strategy and pollution
prevention will help guide implementation of the Plan, coordinate cross-cutting enforcement and voluntary
pollution prevention issues, and focus on various aspects of specific enforcement programs. In addition, Mexico
and the United States have long pursued common interests in water resources and water sanitation in the Border
Area through the binational International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). The ffiWC actively
participates in the Water Work Group.
Growing support within the Mexican Government for environmental protection within the Border Area was
confirmed by former President de la Madrid of Mexico in his introduction to the far-reaching 1988 Mexican
General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (General Ecology Law) when he stated that
"...the conflict between environmental protection and economic development in Mexico has now arrived at the
point where the best environmental solution is also often the best economic solution." This Border
Environmental Plan is based upon a general recognition today that the Border Area's growth must now be made
environmentally sustainable through the participation of industry and all segments of the Border Area
community.
A92-171.1 1-2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
C. OBJECTIVES OF THE BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN
The purpose of this Border Environmental Plan is to strengthen the basis for continuing cooperation between
Mexico and the United States in improving the environment of the Border Area. The Presidents specifically
asked that the Plan be comprehensive, that it have the goal of solving pollution problems in the Border Area, that
it be reviewed periodically, and that the participation of state and municipal authorities of both governments and
private organizations of both countries be sought as appropriate.
In accordance with these guidelines, this first stage of the Border Environmental Plan:
• Outlines the environmental characteristics of the Border Area and describes the present status of
significant environmental issues in the Border Area;
• Summarizes the cooperative environmental accomplishments achieved to date in the Border Area
by binational, national, state and local environmental agencies;
• Articulates the commitment of all environmental agencies, both Mexican and U.S., to work
cooperatively to better understand environmental issues in the Border Area and to establish
priorities and develop mechanisms for implementing solutions;
• Sets out implementation plans to mobilize the cooperative efforts of governments at all levels, and
to involve the private sector as well, in seeking solutions to the Border Area's priority
environmental problems; and
• Sets out general provisions on implementation and a funding plan to help make the Border
Environmental Plan fully effective.
It was the intent of both Presidents that preparation of the Plan involve the participation of governments,
businesses, academic institutions, and environmental organizations as appropriate. SEDUE and EPA are
undertaking systematic and carefully-coordinated efforts to provide for full and meaningful participation by the
public in both countries at every stage of the Plan's development The public and private sectors have been
invited to submit relevant information and to comment on the Plan during its formation. They have had an
opportunity to submit written comments and to participate in seventeen hearings on both sides of the border (see
Annexes C and D). SEDUE and EPA are publishing the Border Environmental Plan, first stage (1992-1994) as
agreed upon for presentation to Presidents Salinas and Bush. Under the Plan's general provisions on
implementation (see Section V.B) the public and private sectors will continue to be involved in the
A92-171.1 1-3 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
environmental planning process. The Plan will again be reviewed and revised in 1994 and subjected to a similar
process of governmental, private and public participation.
Preparation of the Border Environmental Plan has been greatly facilitated by a spirit of close cooperation
between SEDUE and EPA and a recognition that environmental problems exist on and affect both sides of the
border. Just as there are unsolved waste problems of industries on both sides of the border affecting border
waters, there are air pollution problems in the greater Ciudad Juarez/El Paso area (including Sunland Park, New
Mexico) and Tijuana/San Diego affecting the air basins of their sister cities. The Border Environmental Plan is a
dynamic, binauonal document that will be revised and expanded as new information is developed, as
implementation of solutions evolves, and as further experience is gained in working together to achieve common
goals. Mexico and the United States are aware of and concerned about the issues of the environment and the
relationship between environmental protection and continued economic growth in the Border Area. Both
governments have pledged to protect the environment in the Border Area while maintaining economic
development, thereby fostering an economically sustainable growth that is compatible with the environment
This Plan lays the basis for translating that commitment into action.
D. SCOPE OF PLAN
This Border Environmental Plan is organized into four major sections. Section II describes the Border Area.
Section III sets out existing environmental issues of concern, progress achieved to date, and current and
anticipated needs with respect to these issues, including the need for information. Section IV outlines the
procedure followed for assessing environmental priorities in the Border Area. Section V presents the first stage
of implementation of the Plan through 1994 and sets forth general provisions on implementation and a funding
plan designed to make the Border Environmental Plan effective. Annex A describes the existing environmental
institutional framework on both sides of the border. Annex B sets out supporting data on the border economy.
Annexes C and D lists the names and affiliations of those who testified or submitted comments on the Plan
during its formation.
The scope of the Border Environmental Plan is such that some of the activities specified represent only the
beginning of a series of actions that will ultimately achieve environmental results along the border. Not all
environmental efforts will be completed in the first year, or even in the second or third years. Rather, this is the
commencement of a substantially increased cooperative bmational effort for at least the next decade to promote
environmental improvements along the border.
A92-171.1 1-4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
E. THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mexico, the U.S., and Canada are currently engaged in the negotiation of a North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) intended to reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade among the three countries and
create an open trading market of over 360 million people. Negotiations on the NAFTA began with a trilateral
meeting of trade ministers on June 12, 1991.
In general, the parties are committed to proceeding on two separate tracks to reduce or avoid potential adverse
environmental impacts of the NAFTA. These are: (1) negotiation of provisions in the NAFTA to limit or avoid
potential adverse impacts associated with liberalization of trade in goods and services, such as impacts relating to
pesticides and toxics in products; and (2) cooperative arrangements and agreements between SEDUE and EPA to
deal with other environmental issues. The U.S. Government has indicated that the Border Environmental Plan is
a central part of U.S. efforts to address border environmental issues outside the NAFTA.
Negotiation of a NAFTA is being conducted independently of the development of the Plan. The environmental
program outlined in the Plan will continue whether or not a NAFTA is successfully concluded.
In October 1991, the U.S. Government released to the public a draft review of Mexican-U.S. Environmental
Issues, analyzing possible environmental effects of the NAFTA (the "NAFTA Environmental Review Document"
or the "Review"). This review was undertaken by an interagency task force coordinated by the Office of the
United States Trade Representative (USTR) with the assistance of EPA and has been supplemented following
receipt of written comments from the public.
The Review considers in detail the possible environmental impacts on the Border Area of a free trade agreement.
This Review has been made available to the NAFTA negotiators, Congress, SEDUE and the public, and the
possibilities discussed will receive continuing consideration in the SEDUE-EPA annual reviews of the Plan's
Implementation.
As is noted in the conclusion of the NAFTA Environmental Review Document:
It is difficult to relate specific environmental effects to a NAFTA that is still undefined.
• When coupled with environmental sensitivity, however, policies which stimulate economic growth
are an indispensable element in improving environmental protection.
A92-171.1 1-5 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• In assessing the possible environmental effects of a NAFTA, a particularly difficult analytical issue
has been how to predict the effects of the NAFTA on growth in the Mexican-U.S. border region.
• Therefore, while it is difficult to estimate the effect of a NAFTA on border growth with precision,
it seems likely that economic growth and industrialization in the border region will continue and
possibly accelerate, whether or not a NAFTA comes to pass. This finding reinforces the
importance of the completion and implementation of the Mexican-U.S. Border Environmental Plan.
• This Plan establishes a framework for dealing with existing environmental needs (including
enforcement) and lays the groundwork for cooperation in dealing with future environmental
challenges.
The conclusion in the Review that growth and industrialization in the Border Area are likely to continue, with or
without a NAFTA, is in accord with SEDUE's and EPA's observations as well as with the assumptions on which
the first stage of the Border Environmental Plan has been based. In shaping the Plan, it has been useful to have
the benefit of the Review as well as the associated comments. A central element of the Plan involves the
continued monitoring of environmental trends in the Border Area and the adjustment of its environment
protection system to new pressures as necessary.
A92-171.1 1-6 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
SECTION H
THE BORDER AREA-BASIC DESCRIPTION
This section describes the physical, demographic, and economic characteristics of the Border Area. The
materials presented are meant to provide an overview of the conditions and recent developments that have shaped
the Border Area.
A. PHYSICAL SETTING
The border between Mexico and the United States extends for nearly 3,200 kilometers (approximately 2,000
miles) from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. Six Mexican states and four U.S. states adjoin the border,
as illustrated in Figure II-l. The Border Area is defined in Article 4 of the 1983 Border Environmental
Agreement as the area within 100 kilometers of each side of the international boundary. Figure II-l shows the
100 kilometer-deep Border Area, its major cities, the principal sister city pairs along the border, and the six
geographic regions described in Section II.A-Physical Description. Protected areas in the Border Area are shown
in Figure B-l, Annex B. The climate, topography, hydrology, and geology along the Border Area can be divided
into six physically distinct regions. These regions are, (from west to east), the Baja California/California Region,
the Sonora Plains/Colorado River Basin Region, the Sierra Madre Occidental/Continental Divide Region, the
Northern Plateau/Great Plains Region, the Sierra Madre Oriental/Santiago Mountain Region, and the Gulf of
Mexico Coastal Plain/Gulf Coast Lowland Region.
Physical Description
A large part of the Border Area is a generally arid region with a unique ecology. There are some forest areas
and irrigated farmlands. The physical characteristics of each region in the Border Area are discussed below:
1. The Baja California/California Region extends from the Pacific coast to the low plains along the Colorado
River. The Sierra de Juarez (California Coastal Mountain Range) runs down the middle of this region. The arid
coastal lands to the west of the mountains are a series of coastal terraces, mesas, and small basins with riverine
deltas and restricted coastal strips. Irrigated portions of this arid region support agricultural production. The
western face of the Sierra de Juarez has a gentle slope climbing to heights of approximately 6,500 (1,980 meters)
feet in the Border Area. The high peaks support forests and woodlands. The eastern face drops off sharply,
descending steeply down to the Colorado River Basin.
A92-171.2 II-l PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Sonora Plains/
Baia California/ Colorado River
California Region , Basin Region
San
BAJAt
CALIFORNIA
IS/
*er
3n
ARIZ
"-.,
. 1*v
^.^ M
Nogalc
-- 1
Sierra Madre
Occidental/
Continental
Divide Region
ONA
^Tucson |
T,
Coll
S Agua \
Prieta \
Northern Plateau/
Great Plains
Region
NEW MEXICO
lOS:Crut«, : S,N
-f.r Su",lt"1d PW^'
r-T ^El PQSO^N
Polomos TrV \
J Ctudod\.
Juarez v.
~\ -X ^
i \ N.
Oriental/
Santiago
Mountain
Region
Pecos
Sierra Madre
Gulf of Mexico Coastal Plain/
Gulf Coast Lowland Region
TEXAS
-1 : -. .Jt V
^
SONORA
• Hermosillo
V^Guaymas
• Ciudad Oiregon
Austin
Son Antonio
Chihuahua. -
CHIHUAHUA
i'Corpus Christ!
International Boundary
State Borders
100km Border Area
100 KlonwUn
Brownsville
Matamoros
DURANGO
NUEVO
/
TAMAULIffAS
fc
Figure 11—1. Mexico/United States Border Area (showing major sister cities)
16J712M
-------
2. The Sonora Plains/Colorado River Basin Region (the Pacific Lowlands) extends from the base of the
Sierra de Juarez to the Continental Divide. This arid low-lying region has insufficient natural precipitation to
support agriculture without irrigation. In its natural slate it is dotted with shrubs and sparse grass. Irrigation in
the Mexicali Valley, the Colorado Delta, and along the Magdalena River has made agriculture possible, although
saline waters and soil are still a problem. Extensive irrigation supports crops of cotton, alfalfa, and grain. Large
copper deposits have been mined from this area.
3. The Sierra Madre Occidental/Continental Divide Region separates the plains of the Colorado River Basin
Region from the high plateaus of Mexico and the southern United States. This mountain range serves as a
natural boundary between the normal western and eastern weather systems of this arid region. The mountain
precipitation supports forests of oak and pine.
4. The Northern Plateau/Great Plains Region of the Border Area extends from the Sierra Madre Occidental
(Western Sierra Mountains) and the Sierra Madre Oriental (Eastern Sierra Mountains) and crosses the northern
portion of the Central Plateau System of Mexico. This region has a climate that is arid to mildly arid.
Geographically, the region is comprised of plateaus, or mesas with mountain ranges, valleys, and arroyos which
are normally dry. The Rio Bravo/Rio Grande forms the international border along all but the westernmost
portion of this region. This region supports little more than shrubbery and sparse grass without irrigation.
Extensive irrigation along the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande and the Pecos River has made agriculture possible.
5. The Sierra Madre Oriental/Santiago Mountain Region is a high mountain range that divides the Central
Plateau and the Gulf of Mexico coastal lowlands. The Rio Bravo/Rio Grande passes through the valleys of this
mountainous region at the Big Bend National Park. This region is semi-arid, supporting shrubs and sparse grass.
Mountain precipitation permits the growth of forests in this region.
6. The Gulf of Mexico Coastal Plain/Gulf Coast Lowland Region of the Border Area follows the Rio
Bravo/Rio Grande from the Sierra Madre Oriental to the Gulf of Mexico. The tropical maritime air and the
extensively irrigated land support many types of crops. Irrigation and the presence of lowlands along the coast
have allowed agriculture to develop in much of this portion of the Border Area along the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande.
Climate
Dry desert conditions exist over most of the Border Area with the exception of the areas along the peaks of the
Sierra de Juarez (California Coastal Range), at the mouth of the Colorado River and irrigated sections of the
A92-171.2 II-3 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Sonora Plains, along the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande, and bordering the Gulf of Mexico. The climate west of the
Continental Divide is strongly influenced by the semi-permanent Pacific subtropical anticyclone. This system
stabilizes the off-shore circulation in the Baja California/California Region year round and is responsible for
trapping air pollution. This system moves south during the winter months allowing an occasional storm to reach
the western Border Area. Nearly all of the Border Area between the Baja California/California Region and east
to the Sierra Madre Oriental Region receives less than 10 inches (25 cm) of rainfall yearly. Only the
mountainous areas receive enough rain to support agriculture without irrigation. The majority of the Border Area
in the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Plain Region receives between 12 to 20 inches (30 to 50 cm) of precipitation
yearly, with the easternmost coastal area receiving up to 39 inches (100 cm) annually. Irrigation is also
important to the agriculture of these regions.
Temperatures in the coastal Baja California and Gulf of Mexico area remain largely uniform year round with
average yearly temperature extremes of 55°-75°F (13°-24°C) along the Pacific Coast and 65°-80°F (18°-27°C)
along the Gulf of Mexico. Temperatures between the Sonora Plains/Colorado River Basin Region and the
Northern Plateau/Great Plains Region are largely dependent on elevation. At elevations below 2,500 feet (760
meters) above sea level the mean annual temperature is 75°F (24°C). At elevations between 2,500 and 6,000
feet (760 and 1,830 meters) above sea level the mean annual temperature is 65°-75°F (18°-24°C). At elevations
between 6,000 feet (1,830 meters) above sea level and the highest peaks of the Sierra de Juarez (California
Coastal Mountain Range) and the Sierra Madre Occidental/Continental Divide Region, the mean annual
temperature is 55°-65°F (13°-18°C).
Topography
The Border Area has three mountain zones passing through it. In the west, the Baja California/California Region
is split by the Sierra de Juarez (California Coastal Mountain Range) with approximate elevations of up to 6,500
feet (1,980 meters) above sea level. The Sonora Plains/Colorado River Basin Region is a low-lying area (100-
500 feet (30-150 meters) above sea level) that extends from the Baja California/California Region to the base of
the Sierra Madre Occidental/Continental Divide Region with mountain peaks of over 7,000 feet (2,130 meters)
above sea level. The Northern Plateau/Great Plains Region (approximately 4,000 feet (1,220 meters) above sea
level) is the northern portion of the Central Plateau System of Mexico. Bordering the Plateau Region to the east
is the Sierra Madre Oriental/Santiago Mountains Region with peaks over 7,000 feet (2,130 meters) above sea
level. The Gulf of Mexico Coastal Plain/Gulf Coast Lowland Region follows the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande from
the Great Bend (of the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande) to the Gulf of Mexico.
A92-171.2 II-4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Hydrology
The majority of the Border Area between the Sonora Plains/Colorado River Basin Region and the Sierra Madre
Oriental/Santiago Mountains Region is arid to semi-arid with little or no ground water. Rivers and streams
flowing between the Sierra de Juarez and the Sierra Madre Occidental drain toward the Colorado River Basin.
The waters from many rivers and streams are used extensively for irrigation. Low humidity, high temperatures,
dry ground, and heavy irrigation cause many rivers and streams to dry up before reaching the Gulf of California.
The high salinity of the soil and of the river water in this area presents problems for agriculture.
The area between the Sierra Madre Occidental and the Sierra Madre Oriental (Northern Plateau/Great Plains
Region), within the Border Area, drains internally with few permanent rivers and streams. The ground in this
region is generally composed of salt beds or salt lake floors.
The Gulf of Mexico Coastal Plain/Gulf Coast Lowland Region relies on the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande and ground
water for irrigation. Insufficient supplies of ground water in the Border Area of this Region are restricting new
settlement and agriculture.
Geology
Arid gray-brown desert soils cover most of the Border Area. These soils are high in lime and soluble salts. The
underlying geological structures of each of the six regions are representative of a specific type of formation. The
mountains of the Baja California/California Region are a westward tilted fault block with metamorphosed and
unmetamorphosed sediments. The Sonora Plains/Colorado River Basin Region is characterized by its broad
basins separated by isolated hills and low mountains. The detached block ranges are aligned generally north to
south. The Sierra Madre Occidental/Continental Divide Region has an underlying strata that was deformed by
folding and faulting. Paleozoic strata overlie Ordovician and Cambrian materials in the northern portions of the
Sierra Madre Occidental. The Northern Plateau/Great Plains Region is composed largely of folded Mesozoic
strata with Cretaceous and Upper Jurassic formations predominating among exposed rocks. The Sierra Madre
Oriental/Santiago Mountains Region is composed largely of folded sedimentary rock that has been deformed by
uplifting, faulting, and erosion. Exposed formations in the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Plain/Gulf Coast Lowland
Region are of cretaceous strata that roughly parallel the coast.
A92-171.2 II-5 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
B. POPULATION
Most of the Border Area is sparsely populated. The majority of the border population (72 percent) lives in
fourteen pairs of "sister cities" located across the border from each other. Tijuana/San Diego have a combined
population of over two million while Ciudad Juarez/El Paso have a combined population of over one million.
Five other sister city pairs (Mexicali/Imperial County, Nuevo Laredo/Laredo, Reynosa/McAUen,
Matamoros/Brownsville and San Luis Rio Colorado/Yuma) each have a combined population of over 200,000
residents.
The Border Area population is in excess of nine million and represents a growth of over sixty percent during the
last ten years. Populations of the major sister cities for 1980 and 1990 are shown in Table II-1. These data
include official census results for Mexico and the United States for 1980, preliminary U.S. Census data for 1990,
and Mexico's census data for 1990.
The population of major sister cities in the Border Area has grown rapidly in recent years, increasing from
4,265,274 in 1980 to 7,897,504 (census data) in 1990. According to official Mexican and U.S. Census data, the
smaller city in most sister city pairs experienced more relative growth from 1970 to 1980, creating severe
pressures on infrastructure. Population growth in the Border Area has paralleled the expansion of the industrial
base of the border cities.
There are close to 200 million crossings of the border northbound every year, making it the most frequently
crossed border in the world. Figures for the top Mexican-U.S. land border ports of entry ranked by the numbers
of persons and vehicles entering the U.S. are shown in Annex B, Tables B-l and B-2.
The increased population along the border, particularly in Mexico, has brought about serious problems due to the
uncontrolled urban growth and unplanned land use. Although significant investments have been made to resolve
existing problems, they have been insufficient thus far to compensate for the current deficits in infrastructure and
urban services. SEDUE has estimated that services in Mexico need to be increased by the following amounts:
potable water by 14 percent; water treatment and sewage by 35 percent; electric power by 10 percent; public
lighting by 30 percent; and roads and highways by 53 percent. In addition, the lack of preparation of land
suitable for housing has resulted in unplanned settlements lacking in basic services, including wastewater
treatment plants, public transportation facilities, and adequate means to manage and dispose of municipal solid
waste.
A92-171.2 II-6 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE II-1. POPULATIONS OF BORDER SISTER CITIES
1990
Metropolitan City
Area and/or County
Tijuana, Baja California
San Diego, California
Tecate, B.C.
Mexicali, Baja California
Calexico, California
"Ensenada, B.C.
San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora
Yuma, Arizona
Nogales, Sonora
Nogales, Arizona
Agua Prieta, Sonora
Douglas, Arizona
Naco, Sonora
Naco, Arizona
Las Palomas, Chihuahua
Columbus, New Mexico
Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
El Paso, Texas
Ojinaga, Chihuahua
Presidio, Texas
Ciudad Acuna, Coahuila
Del Rio, Texas
Piedras Negras, Coahuila
Eagle Pass, Texas
Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas'
Laredo, Texas
Reynosa, Tamaulipas
McAllen, Texas3
Matamoros, Tamaulipas
Brownsville, Texas4
U.S. County Non-Sister City Total
Mexican Total
U.S. Total
TOTAL
742,686
2,498,016
51,946
602,390
109,303
260,905
111,508
106,895
107,119
29,676
39,045
97,624"
4,636
97,624"
16,565
18,110
797,679
591,610
23,947
6,637
56,750
138,721
98,177
36,378
219,468
133,239
376,676
383,545
303,392
260,120
1,312,820
3,812,889
5,722,694
9,535,583
688.6902
1,110,549
38,7872
438.3032
18,633
239.8152
105.9332
54,923
102.1242
19,489
32,7782
17,324
3,906 2
675
2,5002
641
787,788 2
515,342
20.9722
3,072
52,983
30,705
96,178
20,651
218,413
122,899
332,755
84,021
266,055
98,962
--
3,427,980
2,070,886
5,498,866
1980
Metropolitan City
Area
461,257
1,861,846
30,540
510,664
14,412
175,425
92,790
62,550
68,076
15,680
34,380
13,058
4,441
768
11,985
414
567,365
479,899
26,421
1,723
41,948
30,034
80,290
21,407
203,286
99,285
294,934
283,229
238,840
209,727
NA
2,842,642
3,094,032
5,936,674
428,500
875,538
23,900
341,559
14,412
120,483
76,684
43,433
65,603
15,680
28,862
13,058
3,742
768
2,072
414
544,496
425,259
18,162
1,723
38,898
30,034
67,455
21,407
201,731
91,449
429,929
66,281
188,745
84,997
~
2,580,821
1,684,453
4,265,274
'Total includes population data for the City of Rio Bravo. 'Includes Edinburg and Mission, Texas
''Estimated data (Mexican Census Bureau). "Includes Harlingen, Texas
*Not included among fourteen sister city pairs
"Population data are for Cochise County, Arizona, which includes the cities of Naco and Douglas.
A92-171.2
n-7
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
C. ECONOMIC BASE
According to the Woiid Bank, average per capita income for Mexico in 1989 was $1,670. For the United States
during the same year, average per capita income was $19,620 (figures are in 1987 U.S. dollars). Moreover, a
marked element of the Mexican-U.S. border economy is the disparity in wealth on the two sides of the border.
In 1984, the average per capita income of individuals living in the most affluent part of the U.S. border, the San
Diego, California Metropolitan area, was more than 6.5 times greater than that of the Mexican national average.
Average per capita income on the U.S. side of the border is at least twice the Mexican average. Nevertheless,
collectively, U.S. border counties rank among the poorest in the United States. Along the U.S. portion of the
Border Area, 25 percent of all family incomes fall below the poverty line (defined as a minimum needs threshold
of U.S. $13,359 per annum (in 1990) for a family of four). An additional 50 percent of all families earn less
than $12,000 per year. During 1991, unemployment rates across the U.S. portion of the Border Area ranged
from a low of 8.3 percent in San Diego to 14 percent in Brownsville, Texas.
Of the major U.S. cities on the Mexican-U.S. border, the San Diego economy remains the most diversified with
major employers in the defense, electronic, light manufacturing, and biotechnology industries. Tourism,
agriculture, and government are also mainstays of the regional economy. For the rest of the U.S. Border Area,
however, opportunities for economic development are more limited and are mostly tied to cross-border trade with
Mexico. Tables B-3 and B-4 (Annex B) show employment growth rates in U.S. border counties for 1970-1988
and business patterns for employment for these U.S. counties for the same period.
Across the U.S. southwest border, trade and service industries dominate, including transportation, customs
brokerage, finance, and warehousing. Retailing is another important border industry. These sectors remain peso-
dependent with regional employment linked to the strength of the Mexican economy.
Although in most cases the economic growth of the U.S. portion of the Border Area has been accompanied by
local, state, and Federal investment in transportation, water supply and treatment and other public works projects,
there are well known, but not well documented problems with rural, unincorporated subdivisions ("colonias") in
U.S. border counties which have substandard bousing, inadequate roads and drainage, and substandard or
nonexistent water and sewer facilities. It is estimated that about 215,000 residents of Texas and New Mexico
live in such colonias. Similar settlements exist in the other U.S. border states and in the Mexican border states.
On the Mexican side, the government has promoted the development of the border region through the
"maquiladora" program, initiated in 1965 and other similar policies. In the past, the term "maquiladora", or mill,
referred to grain grinding mills and the "maqinla" was the mill owners' share of the flour received for grinding
the grain. Today, the term refers to the export-oriented processing and assembly plants located in the Mexican
A92-171.2 D-8 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Border Area that use imported inputs and materials. Most of the plants are part of production-sharing
arrangements with U.S. firms that take advantage of local production factors and the proximity to suppliers and
consumers in the United States.
The Mexican maquiladora program permits 100 percent foreign investment and allows the temporary importation
of equipment, components, and inputs into Mexico on a duty-free basis. In many instances, finished products
using U.S. inputs and materials pay duty when exported to the U.S. only on the value added in Mexico.
Mexican environmental regulations provide that the hazardous waste generated in Mexico by the maquiladora
plants must be returned to the country of origin of the raw material. At the same time, the maquiladoras must
comply with all Mexican environmental regulations.
Table B-5 (Annex B) shows the number and locations of maquiladoras in Border Area cities for 1989, 1990 and
1991. The number of employees for November 1991 is also shown. Nearly 380,000 people are employed by
maquiladoras within the Border Area while other industries employ over 500,000 people. The average annual
growth rate for the maquiladoras in terms of plants and employment has been 16 percent over the last eight
years. Maquiladoras have become an important source of foreign exchange for Mexico, earning U.S. $3.6 billion
in 1990.
In the last several years, a growing number of maquiladoras have moved to the interior of Mexico. This trend is
likely to be reinforced in the future due to infrastructural strains and manpower shortages in the Border Area.
Currently, 73 percent of all maquiladoras are located in cities along the Mexican-U.S. border. See Figure B-2
(Annex B).
As of 1991, the largest segments of the Mexican border industries were the electronics and transportation
equipment sectors, as shown in Figure B-3 (Annex B). Figure B-4 (Annex B) shows the types of industry on the
U.S. side of the border as of 1989.
As maquiladora industries and other sectors of the economy in the Mexican border cities have grown, the added
economic activity and accompanying population increases have produced substantial strain on the Border Area's
infrastructure. Congestion, uncontrolled urban development, and lack of basic public health and sanitation
facilities have become significant problems. On the U.S. side of the border, industrial growth has not been as
dynamic, amounting to 2.0 percent in the last decade. However, there are many of the same types of industries
on the U.S. side of the border as are found on the Mexican side. Table B-6 (Annex B) shows the number and
location of U.S. industrial facilities and toxic releases hi the U.S. Border Area.
A92-171.2 II-9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
SECTION ra
BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
The material set forth in this section on border environmental conditions in most cases presents (1) information
on the current situation, (2) accomplishments to date, and (3) additional information needs. The implementation
plans set out in Section V.A draw upon available data and experience to resolve the Border Area issues.
Refinement of these plans will be undertaken as new information is obtained. Only in a limited number of cases
will implementation await the collection of new information, and these cases have been identified in both Section
in and Section V.
The proposals in this Plan are based primarily upon analyses of nine pairs of urban areas: Tijuana/San Diego,
Mexicali/Imperial Valley, Nogales/Nogales, San Luis Rio Colorado/Yuma, Ciudad Juarez/El Paso, Piedras
Negras/Eagle Pass, Nuevo Laredo/Laredo, Reynosa/McAllen and Matamoros/Brownsville. The priority given to
these urban areas does not restrict consideration of environmental issues in other areas of the border region such
as Naco/Naco, Agua Prieta/Douglas, Las Palomas/Columbus, Ojinaga/Presidio and Ciudad Acuna/Del Rio. One
of the long-term objectives of this Plan is to investigate and identify environmental problems throughout the
entire Border Area.
A. WATER
1. Water Supplies (For relevant implementation plan, see pages V-ll through V-13).
Surface water supplies are apportioned between Mexico and the United States by the IBWC under the 1944
Treaty between the United States of America and the United Mexican States on the Utilization of Waters of the
Colorado and the Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande (the Water Treaty of 1944) for most the Rio Bravo/Rio
Grande, and for the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers. For the upper 90 miles of the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande, the U.S.
Section of the IBWC makes deliveries to Mexico under the 1906 Convention Providing for the Equitable
Distribution of the Waters of the Rio Grande for Irrigation Purposes. Distribution of each country's water is the
responsibility of that country's domestic authorities. It is the responsibility of the Stale of Texas to apportion
water under Texas water law to the U.S. cities and other entities on the Texas side of the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande.
For the Colorado River, the IBWC, in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, delivers apportioned
Treaty waters to Mexico at the Morelos Dam near Yuma, Arizona. Other surface waters of the Colorado River
in the United States are governed by the Colorado River Compact of the States of Colorado, New Mexico,
A92-171.3 III-l PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and California, and are delivered under Compact rules by the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOD.
In Mexico, the apportioned surface waters from the Colorado River and Rio Bravo/Rio Grande are delivered by
the IBWC to the Mexican National Water Commission (CNA) for distribution to Mexican users.
The principal communities along the Mexican/U.S. border that obtain drinking water from the Rio Bravo/Rio
Grande include Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua - El Paso, Texas; Ciudad Acuna, Coahuila; Piedras Negras, Coahuila -
Eagle Pass, Texas; Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas - Laredo, Texas; Reynosa, Tamaulipas - Mission, McAllen,
Hidalgo, and Pharr, Texas; and Matamoros, Tamaulipas - Brownsville and Harlingen, Texas. (In addition, there
are a number of smaller communities and water districts that use the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande as a source of water
or draw from canals or resacas into which the river water is diverted, principally in the Lower Valley.)
Tijuana, Baja California - San Diego, California; Tecate, Baja California; and Mexicali, Baja California -
Calexico, California, each import all or part of their water supply from the Colorado River. Yuma, Arizona
obtains water directly from the Colorado River. The other border communities obtain drinking water from both
renewable and non-renewable ground water sources. Rapid growth in the border communities will continue to
put pressure on the region's water resources and on the public water system treatment and distribution facilities
that rely on these resources (see Annex B, Table B-7).
Areas where the source of the public water supply is ground water are scattered along the Border Area. The
primary concentration of ground water sources of public water supply is located in the municipality of Ciudad
Juarez, Chihuahua and in El Paso County, Texas. Bolson deposits of both the Mesilla and Hueco aquifers are
the major source of ground water for municipal and industrial needs for the City of El Paso and nearby
communities. The Rio Bravo/Rio Grande alluvium is an important source of shallow ground water as a
supplemental source for agricultural uses in the area.
When aquifers in the Mesilla and Hueco bolsons are pumped heavily, significant quantities of ground water enter
these aquifers as induced recharges from the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande and from storage in the Rio Grande
alluvium. The quality of the surface water in the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande and the quality of the ground water in
storage in the river alluvium can have a significant impact on the quality of the ground water in the bolsons. El
Paso recharges highly treated domestic wastewater into the Hueco bolson from which part of the city's potable
water supply is drawn.
A92-171.3 ffl-2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Border Area potable ground water shortages would most likely impact the Ciudad Juarez area of Mexico and the
El Paso County area of west Texas. The quantity of ground water available for agricultural purposes throughout
the Border Area could be adversely affected by significant industrial growth. Widespread industrial growth and
associated residential development in close proximity to El Paso County in the U.S. and in the vicinity of Ciudad
Juarez, Mexico could create high rates of ground water withdrawal from the bolsons and result in unacceptable
ground water quality degradation that would force the sister cities of Ciudad Juarez/El Paso to import
supplemental drinking water supplies from sources outside the Border Area. Extensive ground water pumping
throughout the Border Area may also lead to transboundary land surface subsidence problems.
At present, both the Mexican and U.S. Governments, through the IBWC, are exchanging hydrogeological
information on ground water basins along the border in accordance with IBWC Minute 242. The IBWC will
give priority to this matter in the Ciudad Juarez/El Paso area. Furthermore, under Minute 242, the two
governments consult through the IBWC before undertaking substantial new modified surface and ground water
developments that could adversely impact the other country.
2. Water Quality (For relevant implementation plan, see pages V-ll through V-13).
In some regions of the Border Area, the waters that cross the boundary, or those that drain into or form
international rivers, have inadequate sanitary conditions caused by wastewater which flows into these rivers.
There is the related risk of pollution of transboundary ground waters if proper management and treatment of
wastewater and hazardous waste are not carried out. Mexico and the United States are concerned about the
adverse public health and environmental impacts associated with pollution of transboundary water supplies. Such
concern, along with concern about pollution of the marine environment, has been heightened by the approach of
cholera, a waterborne intestinal disease. Among other factors, this disease has spread because of inadequate
wastewater treatment in the Border Area. Both governments are closely monitoring the incidence of this disease.
Mexico and the United States are concerned about the adverse environmental and public health impacts of the
contamination of common drinking water sources in the Border Area. In 1992, Mexico will initiate a ground
water monitoring program and an inventory of the sources of quality of, and treatment processes for, drinking
water.
A92-171.3 III-3 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Both governments have enacted laws and created regulations for toe adequate treatment of drinking water. In the
United States, the application of these regulations rests with the state governments with oversight by EPA. In
Mexico, responsibility rests with the Federal Government but can be delegated to the states.
In addition, under the terms of the Water Treaty of 1944, which authorizes the sanitation programs of the IBWC,
both governments are required to take measures necessary to ensure that the quality of international river waters
is not impaired, along with their beneficial use.
Since the Water Treaty of 1944, the IBWC has had the lead role in undertaking border sanitation measures and
works mutually agreed to by Mexico and the United States. These projects have consisted of constructing
wastewater collection systems and treatment plants, and of conducting water quality monitoring.
The Mexican and United States Governments are concerned about any negative impact upon public health and
the environment that may arise from ground water contamination. In accordance with the 1944 Water Treaty
and Minute 242 of the IBWC, Mexico and the U.S. use the IBWC as a vehicle for information exchange and
consultation regarding transboundary ground water resources. In the United States, EPA and the border states,
within their respective borders, share jurisdiction over issues related to ground water quality. In Mexico, SEDUE
and the National Water Commission (CNA) have corresponding jurisdiction.
Through the IBWC, SEDUE and EPA are exchanging information concerning water pollution control regulations
and the industrial wastewater pretreatment regulations of their respective countries. Other information exchanges
have included documentation supporting the development of categorical effluent standards and a computer
program which determines the potential treatability of industrial wastes. EPA has also provided information on
effluent limitation guidelines for existing sources, performance standards for new sources, and pretreatment
standards for new and existing sources of water pollution. Through the Mexican section of the IBWC, SEDUE
has provided EPA with adopted water quality criteria, final effluent guidelines for several different types of
industries, and proposed discharge criteria for industrial releases into treatment and collection systems. SEDUE
and EPA actively support the development of cooperative action plans to implement safe drinking water and
wastewater treatment projects in the Border Area and will assist the IBWC in its development of pretreatment
programs compatible with the agreed-upon design of wastewater treatment facilities.
In May 1990, EPA and the State of California conducted a two-week training seminar in San Diego for SEDUE
and IBWC personnel on operations and maintenance of municipal wastewater treatment facilities. This technical
assistance exemplifies the cooperative training efforts undertaken to date in the Border Area. SEDUE, EPA, and
the IBWC also conducted an international forum on the Microbial Rock Plant Filter at El Paso, Texas in March
A92-171.3 ffl-4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
1991. This forum made possible the transfer of technology from a review of innovative practices used in the
design, construction, operation, and maintenance of low cost municipal wastewater systems.
Ground water quality monitoring in the Border Area is conducted principally in the regions that rely upon ground
water sources as a source of public water supply. The United States Geological Survey has a network of
monitoring wells which are sampled and analyzed for water quality parameters such as hardness, pH,
temperature, and total dissolved solids. The Texas Department of Health monitors all public water supplies
including those in areas where the source of the public water supply is ground water.
Water quality data for surface waters are obtained and exchanged by Mexico and the United States through the
ffiWC for the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande, the Colorado River, the New River and the Tijuana River. The IBWC
administers water measuring and data collection for the two countries as provided for in the Water Treaty of
1944. The two governments, through the IBWC, also exchange data on surface flow for all streams that cross
the boundary.
The programs of the Mexican and U.S. Governments to address the data needs and water treatment requirements
of the Border Area are discussed in Section V.A.4. In addition, there are a number of areas along the Border,
particularly the U.S. colonias, which do not have adequate public water facilities and are in great need of these
services.
3. Wastewater Treatment (For relevant implementation plan, see pages V-14 through V-23).
In some Border Areas, waters which cross the border or flow into rivers that form the international boundary
between Mexico and the U.S. may be unsanitary because of wastewater discharges into these water bodies.
Inadequate management and treatment of wastewater and industrial wastes also may pose a risk to transboundary
ground water resources.
a. Tijuana/San Diego (For relevant implementation plan, see pages V-15 through V-17).
The current Tijuana wastewater collection system cannot convey and treat all of the wastewater being generated
there. This has resulted in uncontrolled raw sewage from Tijuana flowing across the border into San Diego,
California. Since the 1960s, in accordance with IBWC Minute 222, the City of San Diego has treated the City
of Tijuana's wastewater whenever necessary. In accordance with IBWC Minute 270, Mexico has carried out
construction work to enlarge the water supply and sewage system of Tijuana. The main components of the first
phase were the construction of a pumping plant, pressure line, conveyance channel, and a treatment plant at San
Antonio de los Buenos in Mexico. These facilities are now functioning properly.
A92.1713 ffl-5 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
In addition, the Government of Mexico, in order to stop some of the uncontrolled flows of wastewater crossing
the border in the canyon areas and Tijuana beaches, has constructed and currently operates the pumping system
that conveys wastewater to the treatment system at San Antonio de los Buenos built under the first phase. There
are other defensive works (facilities to collect untreated Tijuana wastewater and convey them to Mexican
facilities for treatment) located in the United States and operated by the IBWC.
The IBWC has constructed interim works to divert untreated wastewater from the Tijuana River and convey
them for treatment to existing facilities in both countries. These interim controls went into operation in October
1991.
Section 510 of the U.S. Water Quality Act of 1987, authorizes EPA to make grants to the IBWC for the
construction of international sanitation facilities in San Diego County. This treatment plant is expected to be
completed by early 1995. Construction of the first land outfall component began in the spring of 1991. Mexico
is working on collection system modification and plans to convey Tijuana wastewater to the new international
plant. A cooperative program is being developed to control and pretreat industrial discharges into the proposed
plant
Currently, San Diego wastewater is treated to an advanced primary level. The City of San Diego and EPA are
discussing upgrading treatment to a secondary level prior to ocean discharge and extending this discharge to
three and one-half miles from shore. Among other improvement options, San Diego is considering additional
treatment
facilities adjacent to the proposed international plant utilizing a common ocean outfall. The additional treatment
facilities are needed to increase sewage treatment capacity and to meet treatment levels set by EPA.
b. Mexicali/lmperial County (For relevant implementation plan, see pages V-17 through V-18).
The New River, originating south of Mexican", Mexico, flows north, carrying both raw and partially treated
sewage, industrial wastes, and agricultural runoff into California where additional agricultural runoff enters the
river.
The situation in Mexicali has improved since 1980 when the city's water quality problems were due to the
existence of an inadequate collection system that discharged municipal wastewater into the New River. Other
discharges into the New River included untreated industrial wastewater, waste from pigpens, and drainage from
the open-air municipal solid waste dump. To resolve these problems, Mexicali has installed wastewater
treatment systems in some of the local factories, relocated the pigpens so that their discharges do not affect the
river, relocated the municipal solid waste dump which currently operates as a sanitary landfill, and improved the
municipal solid waste collection system.
A92-171.3 III-6 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
The Mexicali wastewater system is still insufficient for all of the wastewater generated in that city, resulting in
transboundary contaminated flows in the New River. While a large part of Mexicali's sewage receives some
treatment, the effluent is discharged into the New River without disinfection. The remaining sewage flows
without treatment to the New River or its drainage tributaries. Industrial wastes from several areas of Mexicali
are also discharged into drains that empty into the New River.
The IBWC is developing a conceptual plan to resolve the New River water sanitation problems which will, in
the long term, eliminate all untreated domestic and industrial wastewater discharges destined for that river.
These plans also include provisions for handling wastewater discharges associated with the proposed Port of
Entry east of Mexicali-Calexico. Details on implementation appear in Section V.A.4.
c. San Luis Rio Colorado/Yuma (For relevant implementation plan, see pages V-18 through V-19).
San Luis Rio Colorado, which has a population of 111,500, generates approximately 4.5 million gallons per day
(mgd) of municipal wastewater which, without treatment, is flowing into the Sanchez Mejorada, where it is
completely utilized for the irrigation of crops.
d. Nogales/Nogales (For relevant implementation plan, see pages V-18 through V-19).
Surface water assessments by the State of Arizona since the 1970s indicate that surface water in Nogales was
sometimes contaminated by fecal coliform. In order to confirm the results of these studies, an intensive survey
by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), the City of Nogales, Arizona, the IBWC and
responsible authorities in Mexico to characterize the contaminants is now underway. In addition, defensive
chlorination measures are in place and operating in Mexico. Flows after chlorination are consistent with Arizona
standards for determining the fecal coliform count A plan for additional measures at Nogales, Arizona, is under
development by the U.S. Section of the IBWC and will be submitted for public comment in 1992. At present,
the wastewater of Nogales, Sonora and Nogales, Arizona are treated together in an IBWC international treatment
plant north of the boundary built in 1951 and relocated and expanded in 1972. The plant is now being expanded
from 8.2 mgd to 17.2 mgd capacity, and the expansion is nearly complete. The raw sewage that crosses the
border through the Nogales Wash will be under control once the plant is finished.
In Nogales, Sonora, sewage collection has increased from 44 to 85 percent, and, with the addition of the
collector sewer network, coverage increased to 95 percent during 1991. The Nogales Wash covered floodway
extension in Nqgales is 35 percent complete.
A92-1713 ITJ-7 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
e. Ciudad Juarez/El Paso (For relevant implementation plan, see page V-19).
Small, continuous, untreated wastewater discharges from Ciudad Juarez and, with increasing frequency,
occasional discharges of untreated wastewater used for irrigation in the agricultural Juarez Valley, flow into the
Rio Bravo/Rio Grande.
Wastewater from Ciudad Juarez is collected and discharged to an open ditch without treatment That ditch
conveys approximately 45 mgd of Ciudad Juarez wastewater along with irrigation waters consisting of surface
water diverted from the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande and larger quantities of ground water pumped from the Juarez
Valley. The mixed waters are used to irrigate field crops, which are mostly cotton. On occasion, during the
non-irrigation season, some of these mixed waters have been discharged into the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande.
Effluent from El Paso's four wastewater treatment plants that discharge to the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande is treated to
secondary levels with disinfection.
/. Piedras Negras/Eagle Pass (For relevant implementation plan, see page V-19)
The city of Piedras Negras has a population of over 98,000 and generates approximately 3.6 mgd of municipal
wastewater. Drinking water and sewer systems are inadequate for this population.
At present, the city relies on oxidated ponds for sewage treatment Most of these have reached their capacity
and have been absorbed by encroaching urban development The efficiency of treatment is low, and the resulting
effluent is discharged to the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande. Some collector lines are not connected to the treatment
plant and discharge untreated sewage into the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande.
g. Nuevo Laredo/Laredo (For relevant implementation plan, see pages V-19 through V-20).
Nuevo Laredo has a limited sewage collection system and no wastewater treatment facilities, resulting in
discharges directly into the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande. A combined flow of 27 mgd of untreated wastewater enters
the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande from more than 30 points in Nuevo Laredo. All such sewage will be treated to
standards agreed to by the two governments in an international treatment plant to be located on the Mexican side
of the border. Mexico is currently carrying out the expansion and rehabilitation of the Nuevo Laredo wastewater
sewer system and the construction of the two principal interceptors which will convey the wastewater to the
international treatment plant The IBWC has been given responsibility for designing the plant
Municipal wastewater in Laredo, Texas is treated by sewage treatment facilities and complies with Federal and
stale water quality regulations for total suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).
A92-171.3 EQ-8 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
h. Bajo Rio Bravo/Lower Rio Grande (For relevant implementation plan, see page V-21).
The waters of the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande released from the Falcon Dam supply drinking water to more than one
million people and irrigate more than 1.2 million acres of agriculture land in both countries. Due to inadequate
treatment and collection facilities, untreated or partially treated sewage is discharged into the Rio Bravo/Rio
Grande by some communities in the Border Area from the Falcon Dam to the Gulf of Mexico.
Of all the treatment plants in the U.S. communities along the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande, only one such plant,
operated by the City of Brownsville, discharges secondary treated and disinfected effluent into the Rio Bravo/Rio
Grande. Other U.S. border communities discharge into interior drainage systems away from the river.
Most Mexican communities in the lower reaches of the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande River also discharge their
wastewater into interior drainage systems away from the river. The City of Reynosa, however, provides
treatment to collected sewage by means of a 16-lagoon system adjacent to the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande. The
effluent is discharged without disinfection into a tributary drain that empties into the river. Water quality
sampling under an IBWC program has found high bacterial levels in the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande immediately
downstream of these discharges.
Downstream of Matamoros/Brownsville the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande empties into the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf is
used for recreation, fishing and shellfishing.
4. Marine Environment
a. Tijuana River Estuary
The Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve (TRNERR) is one of 19 sites in the National Estuarine
Research Reserve System (NERR), managed by the National Ocean Service (NOS) of the U.S. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Located at the coastal end of the Tijuana River, along the border,
this 2,513-acre site shares many similar environmental concerns with other estuarine areas.
To date, several projects including monitoring of water quality, channel fish, invertebrates, vegetation, and marsh
soils have been funded by NOAA. The objective of these research efforts is to document pollutants that enter
the TRNERR with freshwater inflows from the river and to assess changes in environmental indicators. In
addition to changes in the environmental quality of the Tijuana River, changes in hydrology resulting from
dredging activities intended to reduce mosquito breeding habitat also have produced negative impacts on the
functioning and integrity of the National Estuarine Reserve.
A92-171.3 HI-9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
b. The Gulf of Mexico
The Gulf of Mexico is a natural resource of incalculable value, important to the prosperity of both the United
States and Mexico. This complex network of rivers, bays, estuaries, barrier islands, reefs, and beaches bordering
on a vast, semi-contained and shallow body of water forming pan of the Wider Caribbean Region sustains a
broad range of economic activities, including: a rapidly-growing tourist industry along the coast that has
contributed greatly to the U.S. economy; supply of over 50 percent of the U.S. market of fish and seafood,
making the Gulf one of the world's major commercial fisheries; shipping lanes that convey 45 percent of U.S.
import/export tonnage through U.S. Gulf ports; approximately 200 mobile rigs for offshore oil and gas
exploration that drill as many as 1,000 new wells per year, over 90 percent of combined Mexican and U.S.
offshore oil production; and wetlands that provide a habitat for more than 75 percent of North America's
migratory waterfowl and a breeding ground for a wide variety of sport and commercial fish and shellfish.
The Gulf of Mexico is also important to the energy production capabilities of the United States. Historically, the
Gulf has provided more than 72 percent of offshore petroleum and 97 percent of offshore U.S. natural gas
production. The U.S. Department of the Interior estimates that 78 percent of the United States offshore
petroleum and gas reserves are located in the Gulf. The economy of the states along the Gulf coast depends, in
large part, upon the petroleum and chemical industries and upon agriculture. These activities generate significant
amounts of toxic wastes.
This tremendous resource, however, has begun to show signs of environmental degradation. The commercial and
industrial activity that has made the Gulf such a key resource for Mexico and the United States, has become a
threat to the integrity of the Gulfs ecological systems. The Gulf receives both countries' contaminant
discharges, and is greatly affected by agricultural and urban activities located in the Gulf region.
According to relevant studies, the six Mexican states along the Gulf generate approximately 695 mgd of
residential wastewater, and an organic charge, measured as BOD 5, of approximately 535,000 tons (485,000
metric tons) annually. Matamoros, Tamaulipas, along with twenty other municipalities, is considered the major
contributor of waste discharges into the Gulf. As a result of these waste discharges, ecological degradation has
occurred, including degradation of some productive areas. In addition, natural changes caused by the pollutants
have also caused a major decline in the productivity of these areas and put some species in danger of extinction.
The deterioration of the Gulf is evident in a variety of areas. Specific examples include:
• Approximately 92-98 percent of the Gulfs commercial fish and shellfish rely on estuaries
(wetlands and adjacent open water) during at least part of their life cycle. Continuing rapid
loss of wetlands and seagrass habitats threatens the productivity of commercial fishery stocks.
A92-171.3 JTJ-10 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Concerns over human health have resulted in the permanent or conditional closure of 8.4
million acres (57 percent) of shellfish-growing areas along the Gulf Coast The number of
closed areas is growing as a result of increasing human population along the coast
• Another environmental concern in the Gulf of Mexico is marine debris. An estimated 2 million
seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals die each year in the U.S. from entanglement in marine
debris or ingestion of plastics mistaken for food. Over 1 million pounds of trash and debris
were picked up on Gulf beaches during the 1988 beach cleanup project Over 68 percent of the
trash was plastic.
• Along the Texas coastline, aquatic vegetation has vanished due to dredging and construction
activities and an increase in navigation. The industrialized and urbanized estuaries have lost
most of their marine vegetation.
In response to these problems EPA created the U.S. multi-agency Gulf of Mexico Program. The main purpose
of the Program is to develop and implement a management strategy aimed at protecting, restoring, and
maintaining the health and productivity of the Gulf. Such a strategy should achieve a balance between the
impact and demands of human-related activities and the preservation and enhancement of the marine resources of
the Gulf. It is clear that binational efforts must be increased if irreversible damage to this key environmental
resource is to be avoided. The Gulf transcends state and national boundaries, and the problems can only be
overcome through cooperative efforts. It is through such international cooperation that steps are being taken to
designate the Wider Caribbean Region (including the Gulf of Mexico) as a special area under Annex V of the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, and the 1978 Protocol to that
Convention (MARPOL 73/78). (See Annex A, p. A-9.)
A protocol to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider
Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention) will also be developed under the auspices of the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) to control land-based sources of marine pollution (LBS) in the Wider
Caribbean. A technical committee of experts, to include individuals from Mexico and the U.S., will be convened
by UNEP, Mexico and the United States, in Mexico, to determine the policies, strategies, and plans for
development of an LBS protocol. The technical committee will develop an agenda for a UNEP workshop, to be
co-sponsored by Mexico and the U.S.
Starting in 1992, SEDUE and EPA will initiate a bilateral pilot program to focus on subregional LBS issues in
the Gulf of Mexico. Under this pilot program, SEDUE and EPA will coordinate their conservation and
environmental restoration efforts in the Gulf. The SEDUE and EPA pilot project in the Gulf of Mexico is
expected to include an evaluation and monitoring phase, followed by development and implementation of any
A92-171.3 III-11 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
regulations or guidelines that may be necessary. The pilot program is also expected to include the development
of educational programs, public involvement, and establishment of a technical/scientific data management and
public information system.
B. AIR
1. Overview (For relevant implementation plan, see pages V-23 through V-29).
The levels of U.S. criteria pollutants (ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), paniculate matter of less than 10
microns (PM-10), nitrogen dioxide (NO^, sulfur dioxide (SOj), and lead (Pb)) for which U.S. National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established are monitored in several of the larger U.S. Border Area
communities. In addition, there are five visibility monitoring stations along the border near Douglas, Arizona
with other visibility monitors at several U.S. National Park Service (NPS) areas near the border (e.g., Big Bend,
Guadalupe Mountains, and Carlsbad Caverns National Parks). U.S. border communities currently not attaining
one or more NAAQS are: San Diego (O,, CO) and Imperial County, California (PM-10); El Paso County, Texas
(O,, CO, PM-10); Yuma, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise counties, Arizona (PM-10).
There are no current sets of data sufficient to characterize air quality in the area south of the Mexico-U.S.
border, although monitoring has begun in Ciudad Juarez and one station has been put into service in Tijuana
The new cooperative sampling/monitoring network for Ciudad Juarez and El Paso includes five sites in Ciudad
Juarez with equipment to monitor PM-10, CO, O3 and meteorological parameters. Activated in June 1990, this
network also includes four sites in El Paso and is part of a cooperative SEDUE-EPA air basin study program
initiated under Annex V of the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement
Emissions inventories on the U.S. side for the relevant criteria pollutants have been prepared for most of the
non-attainment areas cited above, and inventories for all non-attainment areas are required by the U.S. Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). Data on emissions and characteristics of major point sources (over 100 tons
per year per facility) are reported to EPA by State or local agencies. In addition, the EPA National Air Data
Branch periodically compiles county-level inventories for area and mobile sources. These were most recently
updated for 1986.
Concerns have been raised about the contribution of mobile sources at U.S. Customs ports of entry to air
pollution problems in border cities. The Binational Committee on Bridges and Border Crossings is working
cooperatively and border-wide to promote improvements in infrastructure, procedures and staffing which would
facilitate legal border crossings and, as a consequence, to help reduce the problem of air pollution which may
exist in certain high volume traffic areas. In Tijuana/San Diego, a commuter/express lane has been established
to encourage car pooling and reduce the volume of cross-border traffic at rush hour. In Ciudad Juarez, a
A92-171.3 ffl-12 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
vehicular study will provide useful information in characterizing the contribution of mobile sources to air
pollution at the customs ports. Once the study is complete, the information may be applied in the planning and
construction of additional customs ports.
Sulfur dioxide emissions from copper smelters and utilities on both sides of the border have been a concern in
the past but are currently not having major impacts on ambient SO2 levels due largely to cooperative efforts
between the two governments under Annex IV to the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement. Regular
exceedances of the NAAQS for SO2 in southern Arizona ceased after 1985 when control or closure of several
large smelter operations eliminated these emissions. Currently, there are two smelters operating in the United
States portion of the Border Area; both have major SO2 and particulate controls.
Visibility studies conducted by NFS in pristine areas of the southwestern United States indicate that long-range
transport and atmospheric transformation of emissions from these types of sources are still of concern due to
their contribution to sulfate levels in areas hundreds of kilometers from the sources. Under certain conditions,
major SO2 sources in the Border Area or even deeper in Mexico or the United States can contribute to
degradation of visibility in scenic areas along the border (such as Big Bend National Park and Parque
International Del Rio Bravo), as well as in areas as far away as the Grand Canyon.
Very little is known about the potential levels of hazardous or toxic air pollutants in the border regions of
Mexico or the U.S., because very little monitoring of non-criteria pollutants has been conducted there. However,
the CAAA establishes a major new regulatory program for control of toxic air pollutants. U.S. agencies along
the border will be responsible for this process as specified in the Act Also, during the summer of 1991
cooperative SEDUE-EPA air monitoring of non-methane hydrocarbon species occurred at one site in Ciudad
Juarez and one site in El Paso. Air quality issues for three of the principal areas needing immediate air quality
monitoring are discussed in the following pages.
2. Tijuana/San Diego (For relevant implementation plan, see pages V-26 through V-29).
Tijuana and San Diego share an atmospheric basin, where the prevailing meteorological conditions in both cities
are determinants in the diffusion and transport of pollutant emissions on both sides of the border. The
topographic conditions, characterized by numerous canyons, and long seasons of drought, wide zones of erosion,
and the consequent removal of particulate material (by wind erosion), cause complex contamination patterns
common to both territories. Mobile and stationary source emissions are two of the principal atmospheric
problems of the Tijuana/San Diego area. Mobile sources include private automobiles, cargo transport and
passenger transport vehicles, and commercial and private airplanes. Stationary sources include industrial
manufacturing plants and utilities.
A92-171.3
HJ-13 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
In San Diego, as in most of California, ozone is the most significant pollutant, followed by PM-10, SO2, CO, and
NO2. Air quality is monitored at ten different locations in the San Diego area. San Diego has not succeeded in
meeting Federal standards for O3 and CO, but has met standards for NO2, SO2, and PM-10. The California
Clean Air Act of 1988 established general guidelines for areas in non-attainment of standards for O3, CO, and
NO2. The San Diego area has been classified by the State of California as having severe air quality problems. It
is doubtful that San Diego will succeed in meeting the slate standards before the year 2000. Therefore, it will be
required to reduce its emissions by 5 percent annually. The infrastructure characteristics (i.e., the lack of
continuity of roads, existence of conflicting mergers of roads, lack of signs and traffic lights) and transportation
characteristics (poor public service and inadequate and/or obsolete vehicular fleets) increase the contamination
potential of mobile sources.
In the case of Tijuana, paniculate material monitoring has not been carried out on a continuous basis, resulting in
inconsistency in the PM-10 data base for this area. Gaseous pollutant, PM-10, and total suspended paniculate
monitoring equipment has been installed at the Tijuana Technical Institute, but data are not currently available.
Through a cooperative effort with SEDUE and EPA, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has provided
technical assistance to and repair of SEDUE's ambient air monitoring instrumentation to be used at the Tijuana
Technical Institute air monitoring station. In addition, the Tijuana emissions inventory is very sparse, providing
only general information, principally oriented toward maquiladoras. However, since September 1991, SEDUE
has established a technical staff dedicated solely to air quality issues in the area.
In Tijuana, some paniculate monitoring occurred under a Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) Monitoring Network
which was implemented from 1979 to 1984 and consisted of monitors in three locations. The program was
conducted by the Mexican Subsecretariat for Environmental Improvement (SMA), with technical assistance
provided by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD). However, no recent information is available
concerning ambient levels of paniculate matter or other pollutants. Consequently, air quality information in these
areas is needed in order to identify and evaluate emissions sources and determine their impacts.
There has been some preliminary study of potential cross-border impacts of transported ozone and ozone
precursors in the Tijuana/San Diego area. Local officials in San Diego have expressed a desire to include an
area of Mexico 30 or 40 kilometers deep, in their State Implementation Plan (SIP) analyses but are now planning
modeling and other activities with U.S. data only, due to the unavailability of required information for Baja
California. San Diego County studies have also indicated that ozone levels may be affected by overnight
transport of emissions from Los Angeles caused by sea breezes.
A92-171.3 ffl-14 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Tijuana/San Diego has been identified as a potential additional study area under Annex V to the 1983 Border
Environmental Agreement. The addition of such a study area would produce much useful data for evaluating the
Tijuana/San Diego air quality and emissions impacts.
3. Mexicali/Imperial County (For relevant implementation plan, see pages V-25 through V-26).
Ambient PM-10 concentrations exceed the annual and 24-hour PM-10 standards at the Brawley, El Centra, and
Calexico sampling sites in Imperial County, California. In 1987, the PM-10 concentration level measured at the
Calexico monitor was 405 ng/m3 for the highest 24-hour average and 140 ng/m3 for an annual average
(applicable NAAQS is 50 |ag/m3). It is likely that PM-10 concentrations currently also reach unhealthy levels in
Mexicali, Mexico.
CARB has prepared a PM-10 emissions inventory for Imperial County, but little information exists about
emissions in Mexicali. Therefore, an emission inventory of major PM-10 sources is needed for the City of
Mexicali. Information is also needed about episodic emissions (e.g., field burning, tilling) that may affect PM-10
levels. It is suspected that a large portion of the highest PM-10 concentrations are caused by fugitive dust
emissions (e.g., unpaved road dust, windblown dust, agricultural burning, tilling, aggregate mining, and
construction). The precise locations and timings of these dust emissions are unknown. The chemical profiles for
dusts from various activities are very similar and it is unlikely that ordinary modeling methods can distinguish
between the sources. Therefore, creative new approaches must be developed to identify the sources of these
fugitive dust emissions.
SEDUE and EPA have agreed on bilateral participation in a Mexicali/Imperial County PM-10 study.
Mexicali/Imperial County has been identified as an additional study area under Annex V to the 1983 Border
Environmental Agreement. EPA Region 9 is developing a study plan for monitoring of sources and receptors
and for the application of receptor models to apportion ambient PM-10 to its sources.
The Mexicali/Imperial County PM-10 action plan calls for workshops as a means to transfer technology from the
research community to local air pollution control personnel in Mexico and the United States. Workshops on
measurement technology include emissions survey techniques, ambient sampler operation and maintenance, and
meteorological measurement systems. Similar workshops for training in PM-10 modeling techniques are also
planned. The monitoring program is scheduled to last one year and will be followed by chemical analyses,
computer modeling, and report preparation.
CARB is currently providing EPA and Imperial County technical assistance as well as actual monitoring
assistance, in support of this plan. CARB is an active member of the Mexicali/Imperial Valley Border Task
Force.
A92-171.3 ffl-15 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Even though the problem of vehicular emissions has not been quantified, the lack of efficient public
transportation services encourages the use of personal automobiles. Vehicular exhaust and a lack of parking
areas in midtown Mexicali are significant contributors to existing environmental problems.
4. Ciudad Juarez/El Paso (For relevant implementation plan, see pages V-23 through V-25).
Since the 1970s, El Paso, Texas has failed to meet NAAQS for ozone (O3), inhalable particulates (now
characterized as PM-10), and carbon monoxide (CO). Although the State of Texas and the City of El Paso have
developed regulations under EPA guidance to reduce emissions of hydrocarbons (volatile organic compounds --
VOCs), CO, and PM-10 in El Paso County, these emission reductions have not resulted in attainment of the
relevant NAAQS.
In fact, ambient concentrations of O,, CO, and PM-10 have increased over the last ten years, possibly due to
continuing high emissions of these pollutants in Ciudad Juarez. Preliminary air monitoring in Ciudad Juarez
indicates an ambient problem in Ciudad Juarez at least as severe as that hi El Paso. Ambient concentrations in
Ciudad Juarez may exceed the comparable Mexican ambient air quality goals for at least O3, CO, and PM-10.
The ASARCO primary copper smelter in El Paso operates a supplementary control system to avoid SO2
exceedances. It consists of a series of meteorological stations, SO2 monitors, and stack samplers. Data from this
system are used to reduce smelter production when conditions indicate that an exceedance might occur. Since
the use of this monitoring system is restricted to the U.S. side of the border, there is a possibility that emissions
from this smelter may be impacting the Ciudad Juarez area. This will need to be investigated in order to make
proper control determination.
Ciudad Juarez/El Paso was the first study area authorized under Annex V to the 1983 Border Environmental
Agreement Recent air monitoring efforts have included aerial and "saturation sampler" studies of PM-10
episodes in 1990, and deployment of monitors in Ciudad Juarez and El Paso since June 1990. An emission
inventory program has been developed to collect information relating to releases in the Ciudad Juarez/El Paso
airshed. Currently, only sources in Ciudad Juarez are included in this study. A standardized questionnaire was
prepared in Spanish and was distributed to over 400 potential sources in Ciudad Juarez. A one-day workshop on
questionnaire response preparation was presented to over 250 firms in Ciudad Juarez in September 1990.
A two-week cooperative SEDUE/EPA/Texas Air Control Board (TACB)/E1 Paso County field effort was
conducted in April 1991 to identify and evaluate stationary, area and fugitive emission source locations in the
Ciudad Juarez study area. In addition to collecting these data, assistance was provided to facilities in the
preparation of individual emission estimates required by SEDUE. Facilities evaluated ranged from simple
tile/brick kilns to complex state-of-the-art component production facilities. Unpaved roads, open dumping,
A92-171.3
HI-16 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
quarries and other open sources were also investigated during this field effort. Sampling of vehicle emissions in
Ciudad Juarez was performed in the fall of 1990 to develop mobile source emission factors. A study of vehicle
miles traveled in Ciudad Juarez is planned for early 1992. A special study of PM-10 emissions and meteorology
during a December 1990 episode in the air basin is also scheduled for completion in early 1992.
From 1985 to 1987, EPA Region 6 developed three air quality training courses for use by Mexican personnel
covering monitoring, quality assurance, and emission inventory techniques and in 1989, also sponsored
attendance of SEDUE personnel at a week-long training course covering a variety of monitoring methods.
Training also preceded SEDUE involvement in a PM-10 saturation monitoring study in December of 1989. In
addition, in September 1991, EPA Region 6 sponsored a visible emissions inspection certification course and a
combustion evaluation course in Saltillo, Mexico. The courses were taught in part by TACB personnel and were
attended by representatives of Mexican environmental agencies. The ongoing air quality monitoring effort in
Ciudad Juarez/El Paso has included training of Mexican personnel to operate and maintain the monitoring sites in
Ciudad Juarez. SEDUE has established a technical staff dedicated solely to air quality issues in the area.
The El Paso City Council passed an oxygenated fuels ordinance which became effective October 1, 1991. The
measure mandates the sale of 2.1 percent oxygenates in fuel and will be superseded by the EPA-mandated
requirement of 2.7 percent oxygenates by the fall of 1992. The city's early action may reduce El Paso CO
emissions by 15 percent - 20 percent during the 1991-1992 winter season.
5. Sunland Park, New Mexico
Recent data from air quality monitoring in Sunland Park, New Mexico indicate that ambient PM-10
concentrations have exceeded the 24-hour NAAQS at least twice in the past two years. However, the data are
incomplete and, thus, inconclusive. This data, and new data that are being generated, are currently being
reviewed by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) and EPA to determine the attainment status of
Sunland Park. If it is determined that Sunland Park is a non-attainment area, appropriate actions based upon the
CAAA will be taken to alleviate the problem. Since Sunland Park shares a common air basin with Ciudad
Juarez and El Paso, controls in these cities may mitigate problems in Sunland Park. Depending upon the results
of ongoing studies, additional controls in Sunland Park may also become advisable.
A92.17i 3 DJ-17 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
6. Other Areas
Other areas also require research concerning air emissions. The sister cities of Nogales/Nogales, San Luis Rio
Colorado/Yuma and Agua Prieta/Douglas are currently exceeding the NAAQS for PM-10. Additional ambient
air and meteorological monitoring and sampling are needed in Nuevo Laredo/Laredo, Reynosa/McAllen, and
Matamoros/Brownsville. There is also a need to study visibility problems in Big Bend National Park, Guadalupe
Mountains National Park, and Carlsbad Caverns National Park, as well as in southwest New Mexico. Little
information beyond routine PM-10 compliance monitoring is currently available. With the expected increase in
the number of industrial facilities in the Border Area and resulting growth in population and vehicle use, baseline
air quality data in the Border Area would be needed before recommendations as to control strategies, can be
made.
C. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL AND HAZARDOUS AND MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
1. Overview (For relevant implementation plan, see pages V-29 through V-35).
The management of hazardous material in both Mexico and the United States is of concern to both countries due
to the potential for transboundary contamination and potential public health and environmental impacts.
Hazardous waste, which is a subset of hazardous material, is of particular concern because waste management
(including treatment, disposal, and recycling) may provide an opportunity for pollutants to enter the environment
if such processes are inadequately controlled. The management of municipal solid waste is also an issue of
environmental concern and is discussed separately in Section IHC.
Since environmentally sound management of hazardous material, and in particular hazardous waste, is an issue
that geographically concerns the entire Border Area, the discussion that follows attempts to characterize the
nature of the problem as a whole and describes bilateral programmatic efforts aimed at developing solutions.
Specific issues of concern include the following:
» The transboundary shipment of hazardous material (products and raw materials) is a
result of the daily functioning of the modem economies of Mexico and the United
States. The safe transport of such material to and from markets is essential.
• Significant volumes of hazardous waste are transported across the border. These
wastes must be tracked by the appropriate authorities to ensure that they enter and/or
leave Mexican and U.S. regulatory systems appropriately. This is fundamental to
verifiable, proper waste management.
A92-171.3 HI-IS PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Illegal dumping of hazardous wastes is periodically reported. Concerns related to this
issue include potential impacts to public health via direct or indirect exposure from
contamination of air, water, or soil.
• On both sides of the border, siting of regulated and controlled treatment, storage and
disposal facilities for hazardous waste is hampered by unfavorable public opinion.
The Mexican and U.S. Governments recognize the need for information concerning hazardous and solid waste
handling requirements of the Border Area (for relevant implementation plan, see Section V.A.6). To that end,
they have identified the following issues:
• Transboundary movement of hazardous wastes;
• Abandoned or illegal dump sites; and
• Municipal solid waste capacity and siting.
2. Transboundary Movement and Tracking of Hazardous Material (For relevant implementation plan,
see pages V-29 through V-33).
The last four years have seen an intense growth of industry within the Border Area at Reynosa, Matamoros,
Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana, Nogales, Mexicali, and Nuevo Laredo. Many of the materials handled by border
industries are hazardous, including solvents, acids, resins, paints, plastics, heavy metals, oils and varnishes.
These materials are transported on heavily traveled roads and could present a risk to traffic and residential areas
if a release occurs. While the transport of hazardous material is a necessary element of border commerce, little
is being done in the area of pollution prevention to reduce the volume of hazardous material used or to identify
alternative, non-toxic substitute materials.
Hazardous waste legally traverses the border for a number of reasons. Since, under Mexican law, hazardous
waste generated from maquiladora processing of raw materials from outside Mexico must be returned to the
country of origin, waste is readmitted under the terms of Annex III to the La Paz Agreement. Mexican
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities do not accept maquiladora waste except for recycling when valuable
materials may be obtained, provided it has been brought into the Mexican economy with all duties having first
been paid. Until recently, the destination of waste generated by the maquiladora industry, particularly the
amount returned to the United States, was not well known.
A92-171.3 HI-19 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
According to EPA data, 91 maquiladora patent companies have returned waste through U.S. Customs ports in
Texas to the U.S. from their Mexican subsidiaries since 1987. These parent companies return waste from one or
several maquiladoras during each shipment According to EPA records, the number of shipments of hazardous
waste through Texas has grown from 9 shipments and 189.9 tons (172.3 metric tons) in 1987 to 356 shipments
and 2,388.5 tons (2,200 metric tons) in 1990. It is believed that there are more legal shipments made from
Mexico to the U.S. than previously appeared, due to inconsistencies in tracking and mistakes in documentation.
However, the total amount of hazardous wastes produced by maquiladoras is still not known and is believed to
be significantly higher than the recorded values.
Transboundary movement of hazardous waste between Mexico and the United States poses unique challenges. A
primary problem is the difficulty in tracking shipments, due to several factors:
• The difficulties in coordinating numerous agencies responsible for regulation of the transported
wastes;
• The binational logistics of transboundary transport;
• Uncertainty as to the amount of hazardous waste generated by maquiladoras from U.S. raw
materials; and
• Uncertainty as to the amount and type of hazardous waste transported and the location of the
disposal site.
Current waste tracking in Mexico, with the exception of maquiladora wastes, relies on the Ecological Guide
(Guia Ecologica), which serves as an import/export notification document, and on information contained in each
company's semi-annual report to SEDUE. In addition, there is a Manifest of Delivery, Transport, and
Acceptance of Hazardous Residues form which is used in the transport of hazardous material. This form must
be forwarded to SEDUE. This reporting has been implemented for the past four years. Nevertheless, the
amount of waste produced, stored, and/or shipped off-site is not adequately documented. It is therefore possible
that illegal storage and disposal of waste occurs in Mexico. This situation negatively affects the accurate
tracking of hazardous waste because: (i) less waste appears to be shipped from Mexico to the U.S. than is
actually shipped; and (ii) tracking documents are lost, impeding efforts to accurately verify the disposition of
such wastes. It is also possible that inaccurate information exists regarding the legal handling of waste in the
U.S. This illegal flow of hazardous waste can produce a variety of environmental and public health problems,
such as direct exposure to toxic chemicals, contamination of surface and ground water, and air pollution due to
evaporation and burning.
A92-171.3 ffl-20 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Annual tracking of U.S. waste exported to Mexico is monitored by EPA. Mexico is currently accepting only the
import of a steel dust from which zinc metal is reclaimed. U.S. waste exporters are required to file with EPA an
annual notice of the projected amount of waste that they will ship. EPA uses this information to request consent
from SEDUE for the shipment to take place. If the consent is given, the shipment may proceed. By March 1 of
every year, U.S. exporters must also provide a summary of their shipments in the past calendar year. The
frequency of illegal U.S. waste exports to Mexico is not known, nor is the ultimate fate of such illegal
shipments, but SEDUE and EPA are cooperating much more closely in this area and have recently announced
several enforcement actions. SEDUE and EPA are also developing a mechanism to accelerate the process of
returning illegal hazardous wastes to the country of origin.
Mexico and the United States are currently seeking legislation to support ratification of the Basel Convention on
the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal which Mexico has already
ratified. The proposed legislation would expand the categories of waste covered by U.S. export authority,
provide broader authority to take charge of waste bandied improperly abroad, and provide authority to stop
shipments of hazardous waste if there is reason to believe they will not be managed in an environmentally-sound
manner.
The primary mechanism for tracking the transboundary movement of hazardous waste into the U.S. is the
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest It documents the generator, transporters), and ultimate disposition of the
waste, characterizing and quantifying each waste shipment. Sometimes, however, this information is incomplete
or inaccurate.
In addition to the waste manifests described above, EPA also relies upon the advance notifications required of
U.S. treatment, storage, and disposal facilities anticipating the receipt of hazardous waste from a foreign source.
This is a one-time, constituent/source specific notification (i.e., subsequent shipments of the same waste from the
same source do not require additional notice).
EPA has assisted in developing several training programs for U.S. Customs Inspectors on hazardous waste,
manifesting, placarding, insurance, and safety issues. These programs have included participation by EPA, the
U.S. Department of Transportation, and state agencies in their implementation, and have been followed by high-
priority, intensive border inspection initiatives involving all incoming and outgoing truck traffic at several points
along the border. Information obtained by U.S. Customs at the port of entry where the waste shipment will enter
the U.S. waste tracking system is essential to the proper tracking of the waste. Other important information on
shipments is obtained from Mexican Customs.
A92-171.3 111-21 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
3. Cooperative Strategy for Enforcement of Hazardous Waste Regulations (For relevant
implementation plan, see pages V-31 through V-32).
SEDUE and EPA have undertaken a variety of activities to enhance industry compliance with hazardous waste
regulations in both countries. These include the following:
SEDUE and EPA personnel have participated together in over 24 cooperative training visits at
Mexican and U.S. industrial facilities in sister cities along the border since 1989. In addition,
SEDUE and California state and county personnel have visited 16 U.S. facilities.
• EPA has provided SEDUE with training and technical assistance on hazardous waste
incineration and other hazardous waste treatment techniques since 1987. In 1988 and 1989,
EPA provided SEDUE with permitting guidance for a hazardous waste incineration facility
being constructed in Tijuana. EPA is currently arranging a cooperative training visit to
commercial hazardous waste management facilities for SEDUE inspectors. SEDUE personnel
have also attended various training courses sponsored by EPA on the protection and safety of
personnel, technologies for the treatment of hazardous wastes, and emergency response for
incidents occurring in the handling of hazardous substances.
SEDUE and EPA have also coordinated several investigations and enforcement efforts involving the illegal
storage and disposal of hazardous waste as noted above. A recent example occurred in 1990 when hazardous
material of U.S. origin was identified in Tijuana. SEDUE and EPA worked together to conduct a preliminary
assessment of the materials, which appeared to be solvents, heavy metals, and off-specification paints. Following
lab analyses, the drummed wastes were packed and shipped to the United States for disposal. EPA and the U.S.
Federal Bureau of Investigation have pursued criminal enforcement actions against the U.S. source of the
materials and EPA has initiated a civil enforcement action against the U.S. company whose lax reporting
prevented discovery of the illegal shipment sooner. As of September 1991, EPA had filed twelve enforcement
actions involving waste exports to, or imports from, Mexico. Recently, EPA also filed seven administrative
enforcement actions against U.S. steel producers exporting electric arc furnace dust waste to Mexico in violation
of U.S. hazardous waste export laws. These actions were also initiated in cooperation with the Mexican
Government. Another recent hazardous waste enforcement initiative is EPA Region 6' s maquiladora pilot project
which involved discussions among representatives of SEDUE, EPA, and some of the U.S. parent companies of
the larger maquiladora facilities, designed to encourage a written voluntary commitment to compliance and
compliance assessments.
A92-171.3
HJ-22 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
4. Education of the Regulated Community (For relevant implementation plan, see page V-32).
SEDUE and EPA have intensified their educational outreach effort to the regulated community on the subject of
hazardous waste requirements. The cornerstone for this effort is the annual Maquiladora Conference co-hosted
by SEDUE and EPA and sponsored by the National Maquiladora Association. The conference has become a
widely attended forum for the discussion of issues and dissemination of information related to hazardous waste
management and transportation. At the conference each year, a manual of relevant SEDUE and EPA regulations
is distributed. This maquiladora manual is revised each year in both Spanish and English.
5. Abandoned and Illegal Dump Sites (For relevant implementation plan, see pages V-33 through V-34).
The presence of abandoned and illegal hazardous waste sites is a problem in both countries. These sites can
affect human health and the environment as contaminants migrate through the soil and into the ground water.
By their nature these sites are often secret, their number is unknown, and locating them is difficult. The extent
of contamination resulting from illegal dumping is also unknown. SEDUE is currently developing a program to
remediate abandoned or illegal hazardous waste disposal sites and to ensure the proper handling and storage of
hazardous waste. EPA currently has in place the Superfund program to handle such abandoned or illegal sites in
the United States. EPA has identified approximately 450 sites on the U.S. side of the Border Area where it is
possible that hazardous waste may be stored or disposed of improperly. The Agency has already initiated
remedial action for five sites in the Border Area that are on the U.S. Superfund priority list for cleanup.
6. Municipal Solid Waste (For relevant implementation plan, see pages V-34 through V-35).
Because of the increased population caused by regional industrial growth, solid waste generation in the Border
Area has changed in both quantity and type, requiring changes in collection and disposal procedures and changes
in disposal locations. The Border Area has a population in excess of nine million. The Mexican side of me
Border Area has a per capita waste generation rate of 0.645 kg/day (1.4 IDs/day). This yields a total of 3,286
metric tons per day (2,980 tons per day). The per capita waste generation rate is 2.2 kg/day (4.9 Ibs/day) for the
United States as a whole. This results in a total of 6,446 metric tons per day (5,846 tons per day). The average
rate for the Border Area is lower. Of the total Mexican solid waste generated, it is estimated that only
1,511 (1,487 tons per day) metric tons per day are collected. Approximately 1,775 metric tons per day (1,747
tons per day) of solid waste are therefore discarded inappropriately due to the lack of dumpsters and collection
systems in highly populated areas and areas of difficult access, as well as due to the lack of space to install solid
waste storage facilities. About 65 percent of collected garbage is disposed of in open air dumps. In the absence
of adequate landfills, incineration facilities, or a recycling program, many communities have no way of reducing
the volume of their municipal solid waste or of disposing of this waste properly.
1?13 111-23 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
7. Industrial Waste
Approximately 900 facilities in the border regions of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California have been
identified as generators of hazardous waste under the U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
the chief U.S. hazardous waste regulatory statute. A large percentage of these hazardous waste generators are
small quantity generators such as dry cleaners, automobile shops, and small-scale painting operations, which are,
for the most part, subject to reduced regulatory requirements under RCRA. There are similar types of small-
quantity hazardous waste generators on the Mexican side of the Border Area, as well as large-quantity generators
such as industrial facilities. About one percent of hazardous waste generators on the U.S. side of the Border
Area are also storage facilities and have received or will receive the appropriate permits. There are no
commercial treatment, storage, or disposal facilities within the Border Area although there are numerous facilities
that perform these functions in neighboring areas.
SEDUE has authorized operation of two hazardous waste recycling plants in the Border Area. One is in Tijuana
and the other is in Mexicali. Nineteen other recycling plants exist in Mexico, but operation of these plants can
only be authorized by SEDUE once they fulfill regulatory requirements. Usually, wastes are recycled to recoup
solvents, oils and metals. In addition, six installations near the border are currently authorized by SEDUE for
controlled confinement of residues which can include stable hazardous residues and residues with metallic
content One of these authorized installations is in Baja California, and two are in Nuevo Leon. One is located
in Tamaulipas, one in San Luis Potosi and another in Sonora.
D. PESTICIDES (For relevant implementation plan, see pages V-35 through V-37)
Controls over pesticides are important in the Border Area where their use creates health or environmental
problems because of worker exposure or contamination of air and water. There is presently little hard data on
these issues in the Border Area. The Texas Water Commission, in cooperation with the IBWC, made a study of
32 pesticides and organic compounds in the waters and biota of the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande from Amistad to
Falcon Dam in 1990. DDT, DDE, and chlordane were detected in fish tissue samples collected in the reach from
Laredo, Texas to the international Falcon Reservoir, though none of these compounds were detected in the water.
The U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has also documented DDE concentrations
throughout the peregrine falcon food chain at Big Bend National Park in Texas at levels high enough to be a
concern to the protection of that endangered species.
There are agricultural lands on both sides of the border utilized for crop production, particularly the Imperial
Valley in California, the Mexicali Valley in Baja California, and the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande Valley. The Sonora-
Arizona border is less developed in this regard but has been increasing its agricultural production. The Rio
Bravo/Rio Grande Valley on both sides of the border is a prolific producer of agricultural products, ranging from
A92-171.3 ffl-24 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
cotton in the upstream areas to fruits and vegetables in the lower Rio Bravo/Rio Grande. Both the Mexican and
U.S. growers use significant quantities of pesticides in the production of these crops, particularly for fruits and
vegetables.
Generally, the pesticides used in both countries are the same or at least closely related. One major difference is
that a few pesticides are used in Mexico which do not have the same registered uses in the United States,
although they are most often approved for other food uses in the United States. Officials from Mexico and the
U.S. have met to begin a project to identify Mexican or U.S. pesticide uses that do not have corresponding
tolerances in the two countries, and to determine whether alternative pesticides with appropriate tolerances could
be substituted or tolerance levels developed.
Spray drift across the border and its potential for non-point source pollution of water bodies are the two most
important diversions of pesticides to control. An information system on pesticide usage in the Border Area is
needed as a starting point for controlling pesticide use and applying monitoring systems.
CICOPLAFEST is the Mexican Government intersecretarial commission created in 1988 to provide integrated
decision making and regulation of all aspects of pesticides, fertilizers, and toxic substances. Mexican law and
regulations require registration of all pesticides. The requirements are similar to those in the U.S. but
implementation of the regulations and protection of health and the environment is hampered by a number of
factors. The Mexican Government is beginning to implement a program, similar to the U.S. Good Laboratory
Practices (GLP) program, that would ensure quality of data for registration purposes and control over potential
uses. Although pesticides are registered and instructions are provided on recommended uses, farmers and
growers may often use pesticides contrary to directions. CICOPLAFEST and EPA plan to oversee pesticide
issues in the Border Area as part of their national pesticide regulatory programs. They will attempt to
understand the extent of pesticide-related problems and develop control mechanisms which can be mutually
accepted and implemented by both countries. The Water and Air Work Groups will, of course, conduct
monitoring programs to detect any evidence of pesticide runoff or drift problems.
E. CONTINGENCY PLANNING/EMERGENCY RESPONSE
1. Overview (For relevant implementation plan, see pages V-36 through V-39).
The potential for accidental releases, explosions, or spills of hazardous material in the Border Area requires
responsible contingency planning and preparation for response to such emergencies. In the United States,
chemical emergency preparedness and response activities are required and authorized by the 1980 U.S.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the 1986
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-
A92_m 3 m-25 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Know Act (EPCRA) as enacted by Title in of SARA, and the National Contingency Plan (NCP) contained in
CERCLA. SARA Title in requires the formation of State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs) and
Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) for the purpose of developing local contingency plans and
emergency response capability for accidental hazardous material releases. EPA shares responsibility for Federal
responses to accidental hazardous material releases with the U.S. Coast Guard as provided in the NCP. SEDUE
and the Mexican National System of Civil Protection share emergency response roles, as coordinated by the
Mexican Secretariat for Administration. The process which has been used in Mexico and which serves as an
overall guide for the development of contingency plans, response preparation, and prevention of accidents,
including information to the public, community involvement, and risk reduction, is described in the program of
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) known as APELL (Awareness and Preparedness for
Emergencies at the Local Level). APELL has as its main objective the prevention of loss of life and property
and ensuring environmental safety in the community by creating and/or increasing public awareness of possible
hazards existing within the community and using that awareness to help develop community plans to respond to
any emergencies those hazards might present Mexico sponsored a regional APELL workshop in 1990, in which
representatives from the United States participated.
The Mexican-U.S. Inland Joint Response Team (JRT) was established under Annex II to the 1983 Border
Environmental Agreement to coordinate hazardous emergency preparedness and response activities along the
Mexican/U.S. border. Most small spills are handled by each country at the local level in coordination with the
ffiWC as part of the JRT response, specifically, in fourteen pairs of sister cities: Tijuana, Baja California/San
Diego, California; Mexicali, Baja Califomia/Calexico, California (including Imperial County); San Luis Rio
Colorado, Sonora/Yuma, Arizona; Nogaks, Sonora/Nogales, Arizona; Naco, Sonora, Naco, Arizona; Agua Prieta,
Sonera/Douglas, Arizona; Las Palomas, Chihuahua/Columbus, New Mexico; Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua/El Paso,
Texas; Ojinaga, Chihuahua/Presidio, Texas; Ciudad Acuna, Coahuila/Del Rio, Texas; Piedras Negras,
Coahuila/Eagle Pass, Texas; Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas/Laredo, Texas; Reynosa, Tamaulipas/McAllen, Texas;
and Matamoros, Tamaulipas/Brownsville, Texas. The JRT is activated in the event of a significant hazardous
substances incident in the Border Area. It is chaired for Mexico by SEDUE and for the U.S. by EPA. The JRT
extends coverage into the Gulf of Mexico where response authorities are shared by the U.S. Coast Guard and the
Mexican Navy. Additionally, the JRT serves as a conduit for information about each country's hazardous
substances emergency preparedness and response activities. The JRT meets regularly to address issues and
improve the status of emergency preparedness and response along the border.
2. Joint Response Team (JRT) Activities
In addition to addressing policy, protocol, and program development issues, the JRT participates in a number of
activities including:
A92-171.3 EQ-26 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Contingency Planning. Under the auspices of the JRT, the Joint Mexican-U.S. Contingency
Plan for Accidental Releases Along the Border (JCP) was developed and presented to the
Presidents of both countries in January 1988. Once the JCP was developed, emphasis shifted
to developing contingency plans in the fourteen pairs of sister cities along the border named
above. Initially, contingency plans are being developed for Mexicali/Imperial County,
Tijuana/San Diego, and Matamoros/Browmville.
• JRT Conferences. In April 1989, the JRT convened its first conference to initiate planning
and preparedness efforts in the fourteen sister city pairs along the border. The conference
brought together representatives from the public and private sectors of both countries. A
second conference focusing more specifically on the development of sister city contingency
plans and response mechanisms was held in June 1990. Future conferences and workshops
will build upon the efforts of these two conferences.
• Simulation Exercises and Other Training Initiatives. The JRT has sponsored several
simulation exercises including a tabletop exercise in Mexicali/Imperial County in 1989, a full
field exercise in Matamoros/Brownsville in 1990 (described below), and a second full field
exercise in the same sister city area in November 1991.
The JRT has been involved in several exercises in the past two years in Tijuana/San Diego, Ciudad
Juarez/El Paso, and Matamoros/Brownsville. In December 1990, JRT members were invited by SEDUE to
observe a field exercise which was planned by a maquiladora facility in Matamoros. The exercise involved a
simulated emergency response to a hypothetical release that threatened the surrounding residential community in
Matamoros and had the potential to threaten the downtown area of Brownsville, Texas. la the fall of 1989,
Brownsville, Texas through the Cameron County Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) and Matamoros,
Tamaulipas through the Local Committee on Mutual Assistance (CLAM) began working with members of the
JRT to develop the first full-field exercise in the Border Area, which took place in March 1990. The JRT, which
sponsored the exercise, has encouraged and supported the establishment of local action committees to work
together in developing the sister cities' plans and in all emergency preparedness, prevention, and response
activities. Subsequently, other exercises were held in Matamoros with the participation of JRT and LEPC
members and CLAM organizations. The second Local Committee on Mutual Assistance is being formed in
Ciudad Juarez to work with the El Paso County Local Emergency Planning Committee in JRT activities.
A92-171.3 ni-27 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
The JRT also encourages industry, particularly the maquiladoras along the border, to participate as working
members of LEPCs and CLAMs, to participate in border exercises and training sessions, to provide information
on hazardous chemicals, to participate in the development of contingency plans, and to provide emergency
equipment to enhance community efforts and response capabilities.
A training workshop developed by EPA Region 6 currently is being offered to those organizations charged with
responding to hazardous material incidents. Materials are being translated into Spanish to facilitate similar
training of Spanish-speaking personnel and to promote consistent response to accidents involving the release or
potential release of hazardous material on both sides of the border. In 1990, EPA Region 9 conducted training
in San Diego and Calexico concerning hazardous material recognition for those responsible for responding to
hazardous material incidents. These bilingual sessions were conducted in collaboration with other Federal
agencies. Primary attendees were local emergency officials.
The Mexican and U.S. Governments are addressing the various data needs and coordination mechanisms
necessary to enhance the contingency planning/emergency response capabilities of the Border Area. These
implementation actions are discussed in Section V.A.9.
F. POLLUTION PREVENTION (For relevant implementation plan, see pages V-42 through V-44)
Whereas traditional efforts to protect the environment have emphasized the collection, treatment, and disposal of
pollutants after they have been generated (for example, the use of catalytic converters on cars), pollution
prevention emphasizes the minimization of pollution before it is generated. That is, if production systems can be
redesigned to use less input material and less energy, less waste will be generated. As a result, less pollution
will need to be treated in traditional ways.
Pollution can be prevented in several different ways:
Products can be reformulated to use less hazardous material.
Processes can be modified to use less input material.
Equipment and processes can be redesigned to use less energy.
• Waste materials can be recovered for recycling or reuse.
Besides the environmental benefits, there are a number of economic benefits to pollution prevention. Businesses
can reduce the money spent on production materials and energy; employees are exposed to less hazardous
material; the potential dangers associated with accidents involving hazardous material are reduced; and the costs
of waste disposal are minimized. In short, businesses often can improve their competitive position because of
A92-171.3
m-28 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
their pollution prevention efforts. To date there has not been a significant pollution prevention effort in the
Border. Area but there appears to be ample opportunity to initiate such an effort.
Pollution prevention strategies must be based on sufficient knowledge and data to predict pollution threats and
the ability to make appropriate management decisions.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH IN THE BORDER AREA
Sections in.A through IIID identify many of the root causes of environmental health consequences of increased
industrialization along the border. Environmental health as a concern is also discussed in Section IV.B.
Over the past year, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) and the Mexican Secretariat of Health (SSA) have been
developing a special program for the Mexican-U.S. border. The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) has
also assisted in this initiative. PHS and SSA have agreed on the goal of improving public health along the
border.
As an initial step in developing a cooperative program to achieve this goal, the Region 9 Office of the U.S.
Public Health Service has undertaken Project CONSENSO. This project has identified those public health
problems along the border that can be addressed through binational cooperation. Priority state and local health
problems were identified through a series of regional workshops.
Mexican and U.S. Federal health agencies supported Project CONSENSO as a mechanism through which local
health officials would identify binational priority problems, based on their expertise. CONSENSO's workshops
also suggested responses and the project plan included an inventory of health programs and resources along the
entire border.
In January, February, and March 1991, four regional CONSENSO workshops were held in San Diego,
California; El Paso, Texas; Harlingen, Texas; and Tucson, Arizona. Forty to sixty representatives of health
organizations, both public and private, and health workers of both countries attended each of the workshops.
The workshop participants discussed and reached consensus on border health priorities. Each meeting identified
approximately 13 to 14 priority issues of a binational nature.
A fifth general meeting of CONSENSO was held in El Paso, Texas in March 1991. Participants included key
individuals from previous meetings; representatives of local, state, and Federal Governments; representatives of
private sector entities from Mexico and the U.S. (including maquiladoras); and representatives from non-
governmental organizations.
A92-171.3
ITJ-29 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
The general priorities identified through Project CONSENSO, included the following:
• primary health care
• drug dependency
• health promotion and disease prevention
• environmental health
• mother/infant care
• occupational health
The Border Area needs, with respect to environmental health, were identified as follows:
• There is a need to improve the infrastructure of urban services. Large deficiencies exist in
services related to water quality and solid waste disposal.
• Due to the growth of the maquiladora industry, there is a need to monitor, control, and
manage hazardous waste.
In addition, Project CONSENSO identified specific key concerns:
• water, air, and soil pollution
• hazardous waste
• education and legislation
Regional priorities were summarized by the participants as follows:
• Decrease the number of people served by ground water wells
• Decrease air pollutants
• Reduce the deterioration of the environment, giving priority to the elimination of solid wastes
and water pollution
• Ensure the adequate elimination of hazardous waste associated with the maquiladora industry
• Establish a binational entity capable of analyzing health and environmental needs and
improving the conditions along the border
• Increase the availability of drinking water and sewage systems
• Prevent the contamination of food crops by pesticides
• Reduce risk of harm to health associated with water, air, and soil pollution through pollution
prevention and corrective actions
• Reduce diseases related to environmental conditions
A92-171.3 ffl-30 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Identify and reduce pollution from sources that affect the water quality of the Rio Bravo/Rio
Grande
Quantify levels of environmental pollutants and initiate the necessary reduction efforts
• Increase binational coordination through responsible national organizations
With the priorities identified through Project CONSENSO, SSA and PHS have been working closely with local
health officials to identify specific binational responses. These activities must be based on one or more of the
priority areas, and lead to the larger goal of strengthening public health capacity along the border.
As is clear from Section W, Environmental Priorities, SEDUE and EPA,, as well as other U.S. health agencies,
have been particularly concerned with the water and sanitation problems along the border, especially in the U.S.
colonias, where the problems are most severe. Currently, health problems due to a lack of appropriate sanitation
are even more perilous, as a result of the movement of cholera from South to Central America and into Mexico.
Often the U.S. colonias either do not have any water and/or sanitation systems, or they have shallow wells which
can easily be contaminated by inadequate waste disposal. These shallow wells have also been associated with
the prevalence of Hepatitis B in this area. There are over 350 colonias in the El Paso area alone, and more than
100 in the Harlingen/Brownsville areas. This sanitation situation, combined with the fact that colonias are
inhabited mainly by highly transient populations which receive many visitors from the Mexican side, provides
opportunities for the introduction and rapid spread of communicable and particularly diarrheal diseases.
Many U.S. and Mexican experts are convinced that outbreaks of diseases such as cholera could be more rapidly
controlled and to a large extent prevented, if adequate potable water and sanitation systems could be introduced
as soon as possible. Both governments have begun cholera prevention and treatment preparation measures along
the border which include informing the public and medical communities about how to avoid cholera and
informing medical and laboratory workers about how to identify and treat it The PHS has also participated in
trilateral meetings with Mexico and Canada to facilitate a more effective response to outbreaks of cholera in
North America, Central America and the Caribbean.
As the Plan is implemented, additional information on environmental health will be collected to identify routes of
exposure, quantify environmental health consequences to workers and the surrounding community, and prioritize
problems and resources for responding to these environmental health problems.
SEDUE and EPA will continue to coordinate their efforts with PHS and SSA to further develop the
environmental health component of the Plan as it specifically relates to activities associated with the
CONSENSO project which are relevant to environmental concerns, and to build support through local
involvement in this important issue.
A92_1713 HI-31 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
H. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION (For implementation plan see pages V-43 through V-45)
Economic development in the region and the Border Areas natural characteristics suggest the need to promote
environmental education and public participation to raise the population's consciousness and motivation regarding
environmental problems. Furthermore, in many cases, the insufficient level of environmental education
contributes to increased environmental degradation due to inappropriate natural resource use.
Because the affected populations are heterogeneous and have diverse cultures, it will be necessary to develop
both formal and informal environmental education programs. Such programs will foster diverse alternatives for
the solution of environmental problems, promote better conduct towards the environment, and train specialists
capable of suggesting technical solutions to minimise adverse environmental impacts.
Throughout the Border Area there are a number of academic institutions at the primary, secondary, and
university levels, dedicated to the study of border environmental protection and conservation. Increasingly,
academic institutions from both Mexico and the U.S. are collaborating in a number of border environmental
research and education efforts.
SEDUE has also initiated a number of actions to address the need for environmental education. These include
incorporation of environmental concepts in school curriculum plans at the national level. Although this work is
not specifically focused on the Border Area, it affects the border due to its status as a nationwide program.
To increase local government participation, SEDUE is promoting education of local government officials in
environmental protection. Mexican municipal councils ("ayuntamientos") give little attention to environmental
problems. Due to the lack of technical and administrative knowledge among the general population, a local
official should be responsible for promoting, organizing, and directing environmental measures approved in
council, as well as for involving the public in such activities to me extent appropriate. Mexico now has trained
local government officials in 47 municipalities in the border states of Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila,
Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas. These officials rely on such publications as The Municipality and Environmental
Protection, which guided the creation of the Municipal Environmental Management System.
To promote bilateral environmental education initiatives even further, the Mexican Secretariat of Public
Education and the U.S. Department of Education signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOD) in 1991,
which identifies environmental education as an initiative that should be given priority by both governments. In
support of the MOU between Mexico and the United States, SEDUE and EPA will work with their respective
departments of education to promote environmental education in the Border Area.
A92-171.3 ffl-32 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
EPA's participation in this educational effort will be shaped by the U.S. National Environmental Education Act,
which became effective in November 1990. This statute calls on EPA to join with Mexico and Canada in the
development of environmental education initiatives. The law also establishes a National Environmental
Education and Training Foundation with the goal of fostering international cooperation in the area of
environmental education.
I. CONSERVATION ISSUES (For implementation plan see page V-45).
1. Description
Just as pollution has impaired water and air quality in the Border Area, it has adversely affected the region's
wildlife, natural areas, and habitat. In addition, population growth, increased timber harvesting, cattle grazing
and the pumping of ground water have put pressure on the borderland's natural environment. SEDUE has more
extensive authorities with respect to natural conservation than does EPA, but developments with respect to
conservation in the Border Area will be followed in the Plan.
For example, the coastal wetlands and beaches of both Baja California and the Gulf of Mexico are unique and
their irreplaceable habitat and important recreational resources are threatened by pollution. Near shore waters
support a wide variety of important recreational fisheries, as well as marine mammals and endangered and
threatened sea turtles. Inland it is necessary to establish wildlife travel corridors if important species are to be
preserved. There is already such an acquisition project on the U.S. side of the lower Rio Bravo/Rio Grande
Valley to establish a chain of wildlife refuges. However, a number of new bridges have been proposed between
the Gulf of Mexico and Del Rio, Texas. Each bridge and its approaches impact brush and riparian
habitats along the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande. The environmental effects of the numerous proposed bridges need to
be addressed.
Mexico and the United States have a long history of cooperating on wildlife protection and the conservation of
natural resources in the Border Area. By virtue of their long common border and the migration patterns of many
species, both countries have a common interest in a great number of wildlife and natural resource issues. The
entire border region, and in particular the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande Valley, has a great deal of unique biological
diversity which the two countries are taking steps to protect. Major areas of cooperation include the
conservation of wildlife, the protection of national parks and forests, and the preservation of marine resources.
As can be seen from the following discussion, there is a strong institutional basis for cooperation between the
two countries on conservation issues affecting the Border Area
Cooperation efforts to protect wildlife date back to the Convention Between the United States of America and
the United Mexican States for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals, which was signed by the
ITJ-33 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
~ i / A . j
-------
two countries in 1936. Under this agreement, Mexico and the United States work together in conducting on-the-
ground surveys and management activities for the protection of migratory species. In 1940, Mexico and the U.S.
joined with other countries in signing the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the
Western Hemisphere.
More recently, in 1984, SEDUE and FWS signed an Agreement for Cooperation in the Conservation of Wildlife.
Under this agreement, a Mexican-U.S. Joint Committee on Wildlife Conservation was established to serve as the
joint coordinating body for bilateral efforts in such areas as the conservation of threatened or endangered species
of wild flora and fauna, exchange of wildlife specimens, and management of migratory birds.
The Joint Committee has a mandate to address five priority issues for both countries. These include:
-species in danger of extinction;
-management of species in protected areas;
-migratory species;
-technical assistance; and
-legal and administrative issues.
SEDUE, through the Directorate General for the Conservation of Natural Resources (DGCERN), and the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI), through FWS, have conducted annual meetings for the design, evaluation,
monitoring, and planning of specific projects designed to address the priority issues mentioned above and to
involve research and academic institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), interested citizens groups,
and local authorities on both sides of the border.
In spite of these efforts, the populations of a number of species of migratory birds are declining. Reduction of
habitat appears to be a problem for both summering grounds in Canada and the Northern United States and
winter grounds in Mexico and the U.S. Therefore, representatives of the U.S. Western Governors' Association,
the Mexican-U.S. Border Governors' Conference, and the Western Premiers' Conference of Canada are
developing plans to manage the ecosystems of the Mid-Continent Flyway.
The United States has also undertaken a significant effort to train Mexican officials in the procedures employed
to enforce roe Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Mexico's recent accession to CITES marks an important step in efforts to address the illegal trade in wildlife and
will continue to require cooperation between the two countries.
The U.S. Forest Service has had a cooperative agreement with Mexico's Forest Service since 1985. Joint
projects include firefighter training, cooperative research on insects and pest control protecting migratory bird
A92-171.3
UJ-34 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
habitats, and remote sensing inventories of Mexico's forests. Technical assistance efforts include training hi
techniques to inventory forest resources and produce maps of existing forested areas throughout Mexico based on
satellite data. The U.S. Forest Service will implement the 1985 Cooperative Agreement with the Forest Service
of Mexico under the auspices of the North American Forest Commission.
Important conservation work is also conducted under the trilateral Mexico-U.S.-Canada MOU on the
conservation of wetlands, signed by DGCERN, FWS, and the Canadian Wildlife Service of the Department of
the Environment of Canada, in March 1988. These wetlands are used by aquatic and migratory birds throughout
North America as hibernation areas and feeding grounds. It also establishes a Trilateral Committee among
Mexico, the United States, and Canada to carry out joint projects designed to protect and preserve wetland areas
which are essential to the survival of aquatic and migratory birds.
Pursuant to the MOU, cooperative projects are carried out by FWS and SEDUE in Mexico under the U.S. North
American Wetlands Conservation Act and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Appropriations
under the Act provide significant levels of funding for the development of projects for wetlands conservation and
the protection of aquatic and migratory birds in all three countries. The budget for these projects is administered
by a committee on which representatives of Mexico and Canada participate as ex-officio members. Work is also
underway to identify wetland and wintering sites for migratory birds which are considered priority areas for
trilateral cooperation.
In 1988, SEDUE and NPS signed an MOU on Cooperation in Management and Protection of National Parks and
Other Protected Natural and Cultural Sites. National parks are particularly important in the Border Area and
comprise approximately 18 percent of the Border Area on the U.S. side. Big Bend National Park, for example,
is a designated international biosphere reserve. Cooperation in this area is increasing and NPS recently set up a
Mexico Coordination Office in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
This MOU established the Joint Committee for the Management and Protection of National Parks and Other
Protected Natural and Cultural Sites, coordinated by SEDUE, through DGCERN, and DOI through FWS.
The Joint Committee has a mandate to address five priority areas, of interest to both countries:
planning and management of protected areas;
operation of protected areas;
environmental education with regard to, and interpretation and designation of,
protected areas;
assessment and capacity building; and
legal and administrative issues.
A92-1713 ITJ-35 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Mexican and U.S. officials have also been discussing die possible creation of counterpart parks along the border.
SEDUE and NFS are discussing the establishment of a protected area adjacent to Big Bend National Park
that would include the Sierra del Carmen. SEDUE plans to develop the park in Mexico primarily for the
protection of the fragile Chihuahua Desert environment Another proposal being considered is the establishment
of a Greater Sonoran Desert Biosphere Reserve that could include such areas as Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument, Cabeza Prieta Game Refuge, and Pinacate Reserve. Workshops have been proposed to bring the
principal planning and land management agencies together to discuss regional cooperation for protection of these
resources.
For the past several years, the U.S. Agency for International Development (A.IJX) has funded conservation
projects in Mexico. Several of these projects are directly related to the border environment For example, in
1991, A.I.D. provided a grant to The Nature Conservancy to assist Mexican Government agencies in the
management and protection of Mexican national parks, including parks located along the border. An A.IX).
grant to the World Wildlife Fund is being used to develop and implement pilot buffer zone management projects
in Mexico. One of those projects will include baseline ecological studies, master planning, institution building,
and management practices in forests along the border.
Mexico and the United States have an extensive relationship in the area of fisheries and marine resources in the
Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean. At the technical level, Mexican and U.S. scientists have worked together
for years on issues of mutual interest and concern, including the exchange of data and information on a variety
of snared resources on both coasts through two long-standing cooperative scientific programs.
Both countries worked to have the Gulf of Mexico designated as a specially protected area under Annex V to
MARPOL 73/78. This proposal was expanded to encompass the Wider Caribbean Region (including the Gulf of
Mexico). The designation will require stringent restrictions on the disposal of wastes resulting from the normal
operation of ships in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, under the 1980 Agreement of Cooperation between the
United States of America and the United Mexican States Regarding Pollution of the Marine Environment by
Discharges of Hydrocarbons and Other Hazardous Substances, the two countries have established contingency
plans to address oil spills and other related marine emergencies in shared waters that help protect the Border
Area.
With regard to the marine environment of the Border Area in general, NOAA monitors the concentrations and
effects of pollutants in the coastal marine environment on both the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico portions of
the Border Area. Mexican and U.S. marine pollution monitoring activities will be coordinated as part of the
Plan's overall environmental monitoring and assessment activities.
A92-171.3
ni-36 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Both countries were also active in recent regional efforts to reach agreement on a Specially Protected Areas and
Wildlife (SPAW) Protocol (1990) to the Cartagena Convention. Under this Protocol, signed by Mexico, the
U.S., and other Caribbean region countries, the parties have agreed to cooperate in identifying and protecting
ecosystems and species that may be at risk. When it becomes effective, the SPAW Protocol will provide an
important mechanism for addressing areas of concern, including endangered species and such fragile ecosystems
as coral reefs, sea grasses, and mangroves. As discussed on Page ni-11, under the Cartagena Convention,
Mexico and the United States are jointly assisting UNEP in developing a protocol for the Wider Caribbean
Region (including the Gulf of Mexico) to reduce land-based sources of marine pollution which could diminish
flows of such pollutants northward from the Caribbean along the Texas coast All the conservation measures
discussed in this section, as they affect the Border Area, will be reviewed prior to the second stage of the Plan.
2. Projects Developed to Date
The Joint Committees referred to above have developed projects and studies to respond to specific natural
resource problems and emergencies in the Border Area. These projects and studies are listed according to the
committee which developed them, as follows:
a. Joint Committee for the Conservation of Wildlife
(1) Endangered Species
• Project for the conservation of the berrendo and other native fish of Sonora;
• Project for the conservation of the Mexican wolf in Chihuahua and New Mexico;
• Project for the conservation of native cacti; and
• Study of populations of the royal eagle, the bald eagle, the plumed falcon, the
peregrine falcon, the spotted owl and the miniature guacamaya in the States of
Sonora, Baja California, Sinaloa, Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, and Coahuila.
(2) Migratory Species
• Evaluation of populations of the white-winged dove in Tamaulipas;
Aerial studies of Pacific and Gulf of Mexico flyways;
A92-1713 ffl-37 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Identification of refuges for neotropical migratory birds that winter in Mexico and
migrate from border regions in the United States (proposed project for 1992-1994);
• Study of the habitat of the snow goose in Chihuahua and Durango;
• Study of the habitat of the golondrino duck which winters on the western coast of
Mexico with subpopulations of the white-headed goose on the northern Pacific coast;
• Study of Baja California habitats of beach birds and migratory water birds; and
• Study of the general habitats of migratory birds.
(3) Species in Protected Areas
• Monitoring and evaluation of cacti in risk of extinction in the Cuatro Cienagas
Biosphere Special Reserve, Coahuila;
» Monitoring and evaluation of populations of prehistoric blind fish in the Cuatro
Cienagas Biosphere Special Reserve;
• Basic studies of populations of black bears in the Maderas del Carmen, Coahuila; and
• Monitoring and evaluation of cacti populations in the Tamaulipas Biosphere of the
Sky Reserve.
(4) Issues of Technical Capacity Building
Capacity building for inspectors and SEDUE oversight personnel of the means of
identifying species in commerce;
Capacity building for SEDUE personnel on CITES regulations; and
• Establishment of a permanent training course dealing with protected areas.
A92-171.3 ffl-38 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
(5) Legal and Administrative Issues
• Development of publications to assist in the identification of forest flora and fauna,
products and by-products derived from those flora and fauna, and products confiscated
through inspection and surveillance;
• Establishment of inspection and surveillance programs in the following border
locations, which are authorized ports of entry for flora and fauna and their by-
products: Tijuana, Baja California; Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua; and Nuevo Laredo,
Tamaulipas in Mexico; and San Diego, California; El Paso, Texas; and Laredo, Texas
in the United States. The objective of these programs is to control illegal traffic in
cacti, orchids, birds, wildcats, and other natural products imported from Mexico into
the U.S.
b. Trilateral Committee Among Mexico, the U.S., and Canada for the Conservation of Wetlands
• Designation of the habitat of aquatic migratory birds in Laguna Madre, Tamaulipas, Mexico;
• Population surveys of migratory birds and analysis of the Colorado River delta habitat and;
• Conservation and management of: the salt marshes of Topolobambo and Bahia de Pabellon in
Sinaloa; Laguna Qjo de Liebre, Laguna San Ignacio, and Bahia Magdalena in southern Baja
California; and Laguna Bavicora in Chihuahua. These are all priority wetlands which provide
essential habitat for nesting and wintering of the geese and shore birds of the southern United
States.
c. Joint Committee for the Management and Protection of National Parks and Other Protected Natural
and Cultural Sites
(1) Planning and Management of Protected Areas
• Fifth course on the management of protected areas;
A92-171.3 ffl-39 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Course on the management of protected areas in humid tropical zones, focusing on
the habitat of neotropical species that migrate from regions bordering the United
States (1992); and
Fifth regional conference addressing wildlife, protected areas and recreational use
issues in the Border Area, to be held in 1992.
(2) International Seminar and Workshop on Environmental Education and Nature Interpretation
3. Technical Training
SEDUE is in the process of developing and conducting the following technical training projects.
• Studies concerning the Kikapoo Indians who migrate between the U.S. and Mexico;
• Studies concerning the Boquillas del Carmen and Maderas del Carmen National Parks in
Coabuila, areas protected as "sister parks" of Big Bend National Park;
• Training courses for administrators and park security officers (1992);
• Training course on the formulation of management plans in protected areas (1992);
Workshops on environmental education for teachers in rural districts near protected areas in
the border region, such as: the Park of the National Constitution of 1857 in Baja California;
the Biosphere Reserve in Project "El Pinacate" in Sonora; the Cascada de Basasseachic and
Tecuan National Parks in Chihuahua; the protected areas of Caflon de San Lorenzo, Cuatro
Cienegas, Boquillas del Carmen, and Maderas del Carmen in Coahuila; the Cumbres National
Park in Monterrey; the Sabinal National Park in Nuevo Leon; and the Cielo and Los Novillos
Reserves and the white-winged dove nesting reserve in Tamaulipas; and
Technical training on the management of reserves designed for recreational uses.
SEDUE is cooperating with various governmental entities in conducting the projects described above, including:
the Governments of the States of Sonora, Tamaulipas, and Coahuila; FWS; and the game and wildlife
departments of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, among others.
A92.1713 m-40 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
In addition, SEDUE has worked with, or is currently working with, diverse academic and research institutions in
conducting the above-referenced projects. These institutions include: the Universities of Tamaulipas, Baja
California, Chihuahua, Guadalajara, Nuevo Leon, and Antonio Narro; the Jalisco Research Center; the Monterrey
Technological Institute; the University of Texas; and the Sonora Ecology Center. The following environmental
organizations are also involved in these activities: Ecosfera, Pronatura, Naturalia, Profauna, The Nature
Conservancy, the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, the Peregrine Fund, Conservation International, Dumac,
Ducks Unlimited, the World Wildlife Fund, the Aragon Zoo, the Chapaultepec Zoo, and the San Cayetano
Wildlife Station.
J. URBAN DEVELOPMENT ISSUES (For implementation plan, see page V-45)
As noted earlier (see Section ni.B), the population of major sister cities in the Border Area has grown rapidly in
recent years. This has led to increased pressures on the region's urban infrastructure. In Mexico, growing
infrastructure deficits in bousing, paved roads, and public works are having adverse environmental and health
impacts throughout the Border Area. Increased economic activity in Mexico has attracted a population which
has, in turn, contributed to a housing shortage and the proliferation of unplanned communities, many of which
are adjacent to industrial areas.
The establishment of enterprises in the Border Area should be the result of careful planning. In accordance with
this objective, the Mexican General Ecology Law requires all new enterprises seeking permission to operate in
the Border Area to be evaluated in terms of their environmental impact and risk. In this way economic
development will be made compatible with environmental protection and public safety.
As of early 1991, Mexican authorities had identified over 1,100 maquiladoras whose activities require
environmental risk analysis to determine their regulatory status.
However, urban development problems are not restricted solely to the Mexican side of the border. In the United
States, the growth in cross-border commerce during the 1980s has made many of the commercial ports of entry
physically obsolete. There are also well known problems with rural, unincorporated subdivisions (colonias) in
U.S. border counties. These colonias are characterized by substandard housing, inadequate roads and drainage,
and substandard or nonexistent water and sewage facilities. The residents of colonias face many of the same
health risks found on the Mexican side of the border (see Environmental Health in the Border Area, Section
III.G).
A92-171.3 HI-41 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
1. Mexican Urban Development Program
Given that the demographic growth of the border cities is contributing to the commercial development of the
Border Area, it is indispensable that this growth be handled appropriately. It has resulted in a significant demand
for goods, services, and housing and increased pressure on urban infrastructure. The situation threatens to
accelerate the deterioration of the environment due to the excessive demands being made on it for material and
energy resources. The stress placed on the environment and existing infrastructure places limits on the
effectiveness and profitability of development projects or actions.
In order to address this problem, an urban development assistance program has been formulated for Mexican
border cities, the intent of which is to increase local productivity and raise the standard of living of the
inhabitants. The program focuses on the changes caused by commercial growth in the affected areas and defines
objectives and strategies for dealing with these changes. The program, which will be carried out by the Mexican
Government, emphasizes identification of the current weakness in infrastructure, addresses the dynamics of
commercial trade and the underdevelopment of these populated areas, and identifies specific measures which
would increase the efficiency and productivity of the border cities. In addition, it will analyze the current
sources of funding for public works and development, including independent development organizations and state
and local institutions.
In cities on the Mexican side of the border, due to the lack of adequate urban housing for people of low income,
villages have developed which lack the basic services that help create acceptable living conditions. These
villages generally are located in greater metropolitan areas lacking the infrastructure necessary to provide them
with basic services. These villages are important sources of environmental contamination due to the lack of
drainage, paved roads, and waste collection systems. In order to resolve these problems, parcels of land will be
reserved for low income families in urbanized areas so that services needed for satisfactory living conditions can
be obtained on a cost-effective basis.
2. U.S. Colonias
According to a November 1990 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report, "Rural Development: Problems
and Progress of Colonia Subdivisions near the Mexican Border," an estimated 215,000 residents of Texas and
New Mexico reside in colonias. Sixty percent of the Texas colonias have water supplies, but less than 1 percent
have sewage systems. According to the GAO report, there are more than 824 colonias in six Texas counties
alone. This figure does not include one hundred colonia subdivisions in Pueblo Socorro, Texas that have an
estimated population of 15,000 inhabitants. In New Mexico, 80 percent of the colonias have water but only 7
percent have sewer systems. In colonias without public water systems, residents typically use shallow wells that
A92-171.3 ffl-42 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
are often easily contaminated by private septic systems. In colonias without sewers, residents typically use septic
tanks and privies which do not meet public health standards.
Lack of potable water and proper sewage disposal in the colonias have resulted in a very high rate of hepatitis A
in El Paso County, Texas. Shigella dysentery is also a serious health problem. In El Paso County there are 350
colonias with a population of about 68,000 lacking either proper sewage disposal or the benefit of potable water.
A study by the University of Texas Health Science Center revealed that by the age of 8 years approximately 35
percent of the children of the colonias had already been infected with Hepatitis A, and that by the age of 35
years, some 85 to 90 percent of the residents had been infected with Hepatitis A. Figures for the Rio Grande
Valley (Brownsville, McAllen, and Laredo, Texas) are worse.
Both Texas and New Mexico have funding programs for water and sewer development needs in colonias. Texas
authorized a $100 million bond issue for water and sewer projects in economically distressed counties and in all
counties adjacent to the Mexican border and recently approved an additional $150 million bond issue to further
assist the colonias. Since 1987, the State of Texas has had authority to require developers to provide water and
sewer systems to buyers of real estate. While state and local efforts in New Mexico have provided public water
supplies to colonias, efforts to provide sewer systems have not been as successful. The U.S. Government,
through EPA, has made available $15 million in loans to fund residential plumbing connections to homes in
Texas colonias.
Housing developments similar to colonias have also emerged in Arizona and California. In Arizona, lots are
often split into three parcels (the maximum allowed by state law) and then subdivided further, creating
unregulated developments. These developments are similar to colonias with respect to their lack of a potable
water supply, although the sewage systems of individual housing units must be approved by state authorities in
Arizona. In areas of California, such as San Diego, the lack of affordable housing for legal and illegal aliens has
resulted in the unauthorized occupation of land owned by others. Such "settlements" in California are not,
therefore, like the Texas and New Mexico colonias in which unincorporated subdivisions are built on parcels of
land that are reportedly sub-leased. However, they are characterized by the presence of little or no shelter,
water, or sewage facilities.
3. Additional Binational Initiatives
Mexico and the United States maintain cooperative relations in the area of urban development through SEDUE
and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Cooperative efforts include the
harmonization of urban development/land use plans for sister cities and the establishment of binan'onal border
urban development round tables for all sister city pairs.
A92-171.3 ffl-43 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
These initiatives seek to better define existing capabilities in zoning, land use policies, infrastructure (bridges,
border crossings, and roads), and the utilization of natural resources for sister cities located along the border in
order to facilitate improved bilateral coordination and cooperation in the cross-border movement of persons,
goods, services, and traffic (rail, automobile, and commercial carriers.)
K. BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE/BRIDGES AND BORDER CROSSINGS
To facilitate the cross-border flow of commerce and to reduce the impact of border traffic delays upon air
pollution, Mexico and the U.S. have undertaken a coordinated Border Area infrastructure initiative through the
Binational Group on Bridges and Border Crossings. This group will coordinate the planning and construction of
additional border crossings along the Mexican-U.S. border in the immediate future. These collaborative efforts
will be undertaken jointly by the Governments of Mexico and the United States.
In the United States, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), under the auspices of the Southwest
Border Station Capital Improvement Program, is modernizing and expanding existing border stations and
building new stations. In the U.S., $357 million has been appropriated for the program started in fiscal year
1988 for work on 52 projects. These projects extend from Brownsville, Texas to San Diego, California. By the
end of 1991, GSA completed some 27 projects. Most of the 52 projects will be completed by the end of 1994.
When complete, the program will have constructed 772 new truck docks. These docks will be able to handle
over 8 million trucks annually - four times the truck traffic handled in 1990. In addition, there will be
expansion capacity for over 1,000 additional truck docks. These facilities should be able to handle northbound
commercial traffic until well into the next century.
L. OTHER MULTIMEDIA ISSUES
The Mexican and U.S. Governments are addressing relevant data needs and other multimedia issues in the
Border Area. These actions involve the following:
• Obtaining information on industrial sources;
Conducting training programs;
• Developing methods of technology transfer,
• Developing methods to track industrial facilities usage of hazardous materials and disposal of
hazardous wastes;
A92-171.3 ffl-44 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Obtaining and exchanging information on existing disposal and storage facilities for hazardous
waste, including information on their operation and control;
Performing risk studies;
Performing monitoring studies;
Conducting cooperative training visits to facilities;
Exchanging enforcement information;
Developing private pollution prevention initiatives; and
Developing an industrial chemical stockpile data sharing capability between sister cities pairs.
A92_171 3 111-45 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
SECTION IV
ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES
A. GENERAL
The 1983 Border Environmental Agreement authorizes SEDUE and EPA to establish technical advisory groups
to address environmental issues facing the Border Area. The first annual meeting of National Coordinators
designated under the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement was held in November 1984 to institute such
groups. Following this meeting, three Work Groups were staffed from SEDUE, EPA the IBWC, the Mexican
Ministry of External Relations, and the U.S. Department of State to address the topics of water pollution, air
pollution, and pollution from hazardous waste. Work Groups on contingency planning, cooperative enforcement
strategy, and pollution prevention were added later. The topic of training was also included in the agenda of
each group. These Work Groups meet with the National Coordinators at least once a year to discuss significant
issues along with past and future activities.
In December 1990, representatives of SEDUE, EPA, the foreign ministries of Mexico and the U.S., and the
IBWC met in Washington, DC, in response to the request made by President Salinas and President Bush in
Monterrey, Mexico on November 27, 1990, that an environmental plan be prepared for the Border Area.
SEDUE and EPA agreed to seek a risk-based approach to prioritize environmental issues in the Border Area. It
was acknowledged that a quantitative risk assessment could not be conducted at this time due to a lack of
sufficient data which would have to be accumulated as the first stage of the Border Environmental Plan is put
into effect.
The following qualitative approach was adopted to set priorities for this first stage of the Border Environmental
Plan, with the goal of conducting a further review of priorities during the preparation of the Plan's second stage
in 1994.
In January 1991, the Work Groups met in Dallas, Texas to establish environmental priorities for the Border
Environmental Plan based on a comparison of actual and potential risks. Participants at the meeting contributed
their technical experience, knowledge, and professional judgment In addition to working on setting
environmental priorities, the Work Groups prepared outlines for action plans based on the results of the priority-
setting exercise.
A92-171.4
JY-1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Both EPA Region 6 (including Texas and New Mexico) and EPA Region 9 (including California and Arizona)
have recently conducted comparative risk projects to identify and evaluate the human health and ecological risks
posed by environmental problems in their respective regions. In this process, risks, both quantitative and
qualitative, were determined, and each region developed a relative ranking of the risks associated with the
particular environmental problems. The results of this experience provided the Work Group participants with
useful insight into how environmental priorities for the Border Environmental Plan should be set. Participants
from both SEDUE and EPA had also reviewed the EPA Science Advisory Board's report entitled Reducing Risk:
Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection (EPA-SAB-EC-90-021A-C).
B. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
The evaluation of environmental priorities in the Border Area has been assisted by the recent "Project
CONSENSO Final Report" on state and local environmental health priorities of border communities, discussed in
Section ni.G. Environmental health is one of the principal concerns of the region. These environmental health
concerns were described as follows in the Project CONSENSO Report of December 1990:
• Environmental conditions directly affect the whole border population. Further, in terms of the
environment, solutions will be effective only if issues are addressed binationally. General
considerations included:
The need to improve the urban infrastructure associated with the provision of basic
services such as potable water and proper solid waste disposition.
The need, due to the emergence of the maquiladora industry, for surveillance,
accountability, and the proper disposition of hazardous waste.
• Specific areas addressed include:
Water, soil, and air pollution
Hazardous wastes
Education and legislation
All these topics are also addressed in this Border Environmental Plan.
To ensure expert and continuing attention to environmental health considerations in the Plan, regular
consultations by SEDUE and EPA with the B Paso regional office of PAHO, and with SSA and PHS are being
A92-171.4 IV-2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
instituted. These entities will be collaborating closely in order to support mutual objectives. Discussions are
underway concerning appropriate mechanisms for at least annual consultations.
C. TYPES OF RISK
Environmental priorities in this Plan have been assessed on the basis of combined impacts to public health and
welfare and the environment. Problem areas have been identified through experience with known violations of
current environmental laws. The environmental issues determined to pose the greatest risk to the Border Area
were identified as water scarcity and contamination, problems associated with the transboundary movement of
hazardous waste, air pollution, and chemical emergencies. Although exposure to pesticides was not ranked high
by the Work Groups, it was decided that pesticides should be included in the Plan for monitoring and potential
action purposes.
SEDUE and EPA agreed that action plans to deal with the four major environmental problem areas covered by
the Work Groups should be incorporated into the Border Environmental Plan as follows:
1. Media specific issues including municipal wastewater, water supply sources, and air (e.g.,
ozone and paniculate matter);
2. Source control issues including industrial wastewater, hazardous waste, air toxics, and
accidental releases;
3. Hazardous and municipal waste issues including import/export of hazardous waste,
abandoned or illegal hazardous waste sites, and municipal solid waste sites along with the
collection and transportation of municipal solid waste; and
4. Emergency response/contingency planning including the development and coordination of all
affected agencies to prepare, train, and respond to potential/actual accidental releases.
D. REGIONAL PRIORITIES
The Work Groups also agreed to target major implementation activities in the first stage of the Plan
geographically, concentrating on the largest sister city areas along the border which were determined to have the
highest risks from environmental contamination based on the severity of the problems and population density.
A92-171.4 IV-3 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
While the Work Groups agreed that these geographic target areas should receive primary attention in the first
stage of the Plan, it was also agreed that other sister cities and their related environmental issues should be
included in the Plan, along with other non-geographic environmental issues facing the Border Area. As the Plan
evolves and is reviewed, environmental priorities will be evaluated and revised or modified as appropriate.
The initial geographic target areas identified by the Work Groups are Tijuana/San Diego, Mexicali/Imperial
County, Nogales/Nogales, Ciudad Juarez/El Paso, Nuevo Laredo/Laredo, and Bajo Rio Bravo/Lower Rio Grande
(Matamoros/Brownsville and Reynosa/McAllen). The groups evaluated the environmental issues that both
Mexico and die United States had ranked high for each of these areas. An effort was made not to prioritize
environmental media for the whole Border Area but rather to rank those media of concern with respect to each
geographic target The Work Groups emphasized that though these areas were initially targeted, other areas will
be evaluated as experience is gained when implementation plans are instituted, or as better data on public health
and ecological risks become available.
It was agreed that the following media-specific initiatives should be geographically targeted in implementation
plans as follows:
Tijuana/San Diego - municipal wastewater and ozone/carbon monoxide
Mexicali/Imperial County - municipal wastewater and paniculate matter
Nogales/Nogales - municipal wastewater and paniculate matter
Ciudad Juarez/El Paso - ozone/carbon monoxide and paniculate matter
Nuevo Laredo/Laredo - municipal wastewater
Bajo Rio Bravo/Lower Rio Grande - municipal wastewater and water supply sources
The group agreed that control of industrial sources should initially be focused in Tijuana/San Diego and Ciudad
Juarez/El Paso and, later, in the other sister cities. Industrial source controls are process-oriented and involve
multimedia responses. The Work Groups recommended mat solutions to this problem be pursued through a
combination of government and private initiatives.
It was recommended that some of the efforts to address problems associated with the import/export of hazardous
waste should initially be focused in the Tijuana/San Diego, Ciudad Juarez/El Paso, and Bajo Rio Bravo/Lower
Rio Grande (Matamoros/Brownsville and Reynosa/McAllen) areas.
In addition, the Government of Mexico has established the following geographically targeted multi-media
initiatives on a unilateral basis during the Plan's first phase (1992-94):
A92-171.4
IV-4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Tijuana - solid waste management and transportation infrastructure
Mexicali - transportation infrastructure
San Luis Rio Colorado - municipal wastewater
Negates - solid waste management
Ciudad Juarez - municipal wastewater, solid waste management, and territorial reserves
Piedras Negras - municipal wastewater
Reynosa - municipal wastewater, solid waste management, transportation infrastructure, and territorial reserves
Matamoros - solid waste management and roads
E. GENERAL PRIORITIES
Several environmental issues were identified that do not have a specific geographic focus but need to be
addressed border-wide. In particular, maquiladoras raise multimedia source concerns throughout the Border
Area. This issue will be addressed in all the implementation plans. Other border-wide issues include the
import/export of hazardous waste, abandoned or illegal hazardous waste sites, municipal waste sites, and
unplanned urban areas.
There are border-wide issues peculiar to the Mexican and U.S. sister cities such as contingency
planning/emergency response. The relevant Work Group recommended that contingency planning/emergency
response be scheduled for all sister cities, and that the information obtained through such activities be shared
with all interested parties.
The public is impacted by the activities of the regulated communities of both countries. The regulated
communities, engaged in transboundary commerce, must be responsive to the regulations of both countries.
Therefore, additional technical and educational outreach is necessary, tailored specifically to the needs of the
Border Area and reaching border-wide.
A92-171.4 IV-5 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
SECTION V
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN
(First Stage, 1992-1994)
This section describes specific actions that SEDUE, EPA, and the other relevant environmental agencies intend to
implement during the first stage of the Plan (1992 - 1994). Further refinements and other environmental media
needs will be a priority in later stages of the Plan. The action items have been prepared by SEDUE/EPA Work
Groups and reviewed by the relevant participants.
SEDUE and EPA will be primarily responsible, pursuant to the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement, for
ensuring full coordination and implementation of activities under this Border Environmental Plan. The IBWC
will carry out its mandate under the provisions of the treaties currently in effect Other Federal, state, and local
agencies, as well as industrial and non-governmental organizations and the IBWC, are each expected to play an
integral part in carrying out activities under this Plan.
While media-specific implementation plans are set out in this section, it is expected that integration will occur
through data collection tasks, technology transfer, exchange of multimedia pollution prevention information, and
cross-over benefits of reducing toxic and hazardous materials in the work place. Implementation of the
hazardous waste plan, for example, will serve the goals of several implementation plans by controlling potential
sources of surface and ground water contamination, reducing emissions of toxic substances into the air, and
lowering the risks of accidental releases or spills. In this fashion, activities within the IBWC, Federal, state and
local agencies, and between governments can be designed to ensure maximum benefit to the Border Area.
Funding for specific actions outlined in this first stage of the Plan (1992-94) will come from a variety of sources,
including commitments from the Mexican and U.S. Governments, state and local governments in the Border
Area, and the private sector (See Border Environmental Plan Funding, Section V.C). A portion of SEDUE's
financial resources to address environmental problems in the Border Area is expected to come from a U.S. $50
million World Bank loan, combined with a U.S. $38 million counterpart commitment from the Mexican
Government.
The total Fiscal Year (FY) 1992 and 1993 financial commitment by the U.S. Government for environmental
protection along the border is $384 million. The Mexican Government has allocated U.S. $460 million over a
three year period (1992-1994) for urban infrastructure projects along the border, including not only municipal
wastewater treatment but solid waste management, highways and the creation of "territorial reserves."
A92-171.5 V-l PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
A. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
The specific implementation plans set out below collectively constitute the first stage, 1992-1994, in a continuing
process of assessing and responding to the Border Area's environmental needs. Each has at least three major
components: data collection, information and technology transfer, and specific implementation initiatives.
The Border Environmental Plan envisions an integrated approach to implementation of numerous environmental
solutions. Specifically, it seeks to achieve four goals:
1. Continue media-specific and multimedia monitoring and pollution control activities in the
Border Area, including the performance of baseline and periodic environmental health risk
assessments;
2. Strengthen current environmental regulatory activities, as appropriate, in the Border Area
through new SEDUE-EPA cooperative programs and projects supplementing the 1983 Border
Environmental Agreement as needed;
3. Mobilize additional resources for pollution prevention and control in the Border Area; and
4. Supplement current pollution control programs through pollution prevention and voluntary
action programs.
Examples of cooperative multimedia activities include: development of a uniform data base to be used for risk
based management; inspections of industrial facilities generating hazardous waste, wastewater discharges, and air
emissions; sponsorship of industrial conferences focusing on water, hazardous waste, air, and emergency
response/contingency planning and compliance issues; and promotion of waste minimisation, source reduction,
and other facets of pollution prevention programs. Private sector pollution prevention initiatives include:
voluntary reporting of wastes generated or emitted; industrial waste minimization; and source reduction, recycling
and reuse. The significance of the slightly different definitions of hazardous waste in the two countries will be
evaluated and addressed.
A92-1715 V-2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Implementation topics are discussed in the following order:
• enforcement
• multimedia industrial source control requiring government and private initiatives
• water quality
water supply (including ground water monitoring), control of municipal and industrial
wastewater, colonias, and rural sanitation
• air quality
• contingency planning/emergency response
• wastes
transboundary movement of hazardous wastes
abandoned or illegal dump sites
solid waste
• pollution prevention
• environmental education
Although the majority of the Plan focuses on the sister cities in the Border Area with the highest populations,
this is not meant to exclude environmental activities at other locations. These sister city pairs serve as models
for addressing environmental issues across the entire Border Area. Scheduled environmental projects in sister
cities will be completed as planned and additional environmental projects will be funded as resources become
available.
1. SEDUE/EPA Cooperative Enforcement Strategy
A SEDUE/EPA Cooperative Enforcement Strategy Work Group has been charged with the task of coordinating
cross-cutting enforcement issues and of focusing attention on various aspects of enforcement over the three-year
implementation period for the first stage of the Plan. The U.S. participants also include representatives from the
Departments of State and Justice. In addition to SEDUE, the Mexican participants also include representatives
from the Secretariat for External Relations (SRE), and other Mexican Government agencies.
A92-171.5 V-3 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
While recognizing the sole and sovereign responsibilities of each government for law enforcement in its
respective jurisdiction and territory, Mexico and the United States also recognize that damage to human health
and the environment in the Border Area may be reduced through increased cooperation, and that a cooperative
enforcement strategy is necessary to promote compliance and ensure the integrity of environmental laws and
requirements. The strategy will include actions to be taken by each government to require compliance with
environmental laws and regulations, within its respective jurisdiction. They further agree that, because the
environmental problems of the border are common to both countries, a cooperative enforcement strategy between
the two governments to promote compliance with their respective environmental laws can achieve and convey a
more effective message of deterrence. They recognize that compliance can also be fostered by addressing
infrastructural needs and public attitudes to ensure that technological development and human and financial
resources make compliance by the regulated community feasible. To this end, the Mexican Government has
recently executed a training and technology compact with key elements of the Mexican industrial community and
a number of universities that should help assure the availability of pollution control equipment and technical
expertise to Mexican industry.
In 1992, SEDUE will spend U.S. $6.33 million on environmental enforcement, monitoring and associated control
activities in the Border Area. Stricter controls will be placed on border crossings of raw materials and hazardous
waste and environmental inspections will be stepped up through increasing regulation of the maquiladoras. This
effort represents a strengthening of ongoing enforcement mechanisms, which have produced positive results. In
1989, only 6 percent of the maquiladoras had obtained operating licenses; in 1991, the percentage had increased
to 54.6 percent In 1990, 30 percent of the maquiladoras generating hazardous waste declared such activity; by
1991, this figure had risen to 55 percent
The Cooperative Enforcement Strategy Work Group will coordinate and report on the various media-specific,
multimedia, programmatic, and geographic enforcement initiatives and focus on particular high priority
enforcement areas, such as hazardous waste.
The SEDUE and EPA cooperative enforcement strategy will include the following operational elements:
• Targeting Violations ~ Enforcement will be "targeted" so that initiatives focus enforcement
action by each government against priority targets, such as industries with poor compliance
histories, specific pollutants, and sensitive geographic areas of mutual interest and concern;
A92-171.5 V-4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Preventive Solutions - Pollution prevention/waste minimization is a principal goal of
enforcement Pollution prevention strategies will focus on either the medium in which the
original violation occurred or require, within the scope of applicable regulations, reductions in
emissions from other media in order to leverage the scope and impact of compliance
agreements; and
• Communications - Enforcement dissuades violation of the laws. SEDUE and EPA will use
the stigma of unfavorable publicity to encourage industries to realize that noncompliance
involves serious risks. The two agencies, within their respective countries, will cooperate in
developing an enforcement communications capability to ensure that the public and the
regulated community is informed about industry's record of environmental compliance and
SEDUE's and EPA's enforcement accomplishments in the Border Area.
a. Cooperative Enforcement Strategy Work Group
The Cooperative Enforcement Strategy Work Group will meet regularly (no less than annually) and will:
1. Exchange information concerning priorities for the respective enforcement actions of both
countries.
2. Establish subgroups comprised of appropriate representatives of both countries to cooperate on
enforcement actions in agreed-upon priority areas. Representatives will exchange relevant
information concerning enforcement priorities, develop plans for targeted enforcement and
identify, if possible, opportunities for cooperative enforcement activities.
3. Develop compatible hazardous waste tracking systems to facilitate the exchange of data on the
movement of hazardous waste within the Border Area and across the border, including
compatible computer software.
4. Work with the Hazardous Waste Work Group to improve the effectiveness of border
surveillance of hazardous waste shipments, including border checks and improved targeting,
through training of border officials and increased presence of environmental specialists at key
border crossings consistent with available resources.
5. Consistent with available resources, develop Spanish-language multimedia inspector training
courses to be given at a border location in 1992, and conduct (under Mexican and U.S. law)
A92-171.5
V-5 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
periodic bilingual hazardous waste inspector training courses in Region 6 for inspectors from
both countries. Also, train Mexican and U.S. Customs inspectors in the identification and
compliance monitoring of hazardous waste shipments.
6. Arrange exchanges of personnel to share experiences and develop technical skills to support
enforcement
7. Exchange information on laboratory facilities and analytical techniques; provide sample analysis
in targeted situations to support enforcement
8. Exchange information on emissions monitoring technology.
9. Exchange information on methodologies to support strong enforcement such as protocols for
self-auditing and compliance certification.
10. Exchange, at least annually, statistics related to compliance with environmental laws, such as
data concerning inspections, shutdowns, orders, fines collected, civil judicial actions, and
criminal actions.
11. Submit to the National Coordinators, on an annual basis, a report on the activities and
discussions of the Work Group.
Several activities associated with these operational elements are currently underway and will continue.
Examples of recent cooperative enforcement strategy accomplishments include: coordination of
investigations and enforcement efforts regarding illegal waste disposal such as the successful U.S.
prosecution of a case involving drums of solvents, heavy metal contaminants and off-specification paints
identified in Tijuana; the recent EPA filing of several administrative enforcement actions, developed
with the cooperation of the Mexican Government, for violation of hazardous waste export laws; and a
regional pilot project, which involved discussions among representatives of SEDUE, EPA, and some of
the larger maquiladora facilities, intended to encourage a commitment to compliance by the
maquiladoras.
b. Role of Private Companies in the Border Area
SEDUE and EPA will seek to ensure industry compliance in the Border Area with applicable
environmental laws and requirements. SEDUE and EPA agree to focus on this as a highly visible
A92-171.5 V-6 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
general policy and to exchange, when appropriate, information relating to the environmental conduct of
transnational companies.
c. Information Exchange
SEDUE and EPA, working together with the U.S. Departments of Justice and State, will assist one
another in accordance with the Mexican-U.S. Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty and the Hague Convention
in future legal proceedings involving regulatory compliance.
d. Visits and Observer Participation
Officials of each agency will, subject to mutual agreement, participate as observers in visits to facilities
located within the other country's Border Area, Efforts will be made to expand cooperative interaction
of SEDUE and EPA personnel through such visits. Each government will make public the
environmental compliance record of companies operating facilities in the Border Area.
2. Industrial Multimedia Source Controls Requiring Government and Private Sector Initiatives
The goals of industrial multimedia source controls are: to minimize the degradation of water, air, and land
resources and to minimize environmental and public health threats by minimi/ing the use and discharge of
hazardous substances in the environment This is achieved through: (1) an assessment of industrial sources and
risk; (2) regulatory review; (3) compliance with applicable regulations; and (4) private sector initiatives,
including pollution prevention.
Assessment of industrial sources and risks involves the identification of the locations of industries in the Border
Area and the nature of their actual and potential discharges and releases of hazardous substances into the
environment. This is followed by an assessment of the potential human health and environmental risks
associated with these discharges and accidental releases.
The private sector pollution prevention initiative consists of voluntary programs, established by industry and by
non-governmental organizations in each country, to minimize waste and prevent pollution. In addition, voluntary
programs could be established for items not specifically covered under the regulations of each country such as
more extensive reporting of wastes generated or discharged. Typical examples of private sector initiatives are
listed below:
A92-171 5 V-7 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• pollution prevention - changing chemical use or processes so that fewer toxic waste streams are
produced;
• waste minimization - minimization of waste and releases through source reduction, the use of
less toxic chemicals, or the recycling of waste;
• voluntary emissions reductions - voluntary reduction of pollutants;
• chemical safety audits - a review of facility management practices which might be applied to
reduce the possibility of a significant, accidental release of hazardous materials from the
facility; and
• corporate commitments to environmental ethics.
Implementation Plan for Industrial Multimedia Source Control
While ongoing activities continue, formal Han implementation will begin in 1992. The Plan will be
implemented initially in Ciudad Juarez/El Paso and Tijuana/San Diego and quickly expanded to other sister
cities. A brief description of the relevant activities follows. (Quantitative objectives presented below are meant
to be taken as potential targets for each year.)
Assessment
Identification of Facilities Producing Water, Air, or Hazardous Waste Discharges
• Track industrial facilities' production and usage of hazardous material and storage and disposal
of hazardous waste to identify possible illegal disposal of waste. Develop estimates of waste
quantities that a generator is expected to produce checked against documented quantities
shipped domestically and internationally and/or reused or stored on-site (1992).
• Identify industrial facilities in two targeted sister city areas including the location, owner, type
of pollution produced, and type of releases made into the air, water and land; develop
information on U.S. corporate affiliations with maquiladora plants (1992).
• Develop a shared computer system to store facility information and other data (1993).
A92-171.5 V-8 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Study of Risk
• Begin collection of the discharge and release data necessary for the development of an initial
comparative risk study (1992).
• Continue to collect the discharge and releases data necessary for completing the comparative
risk study (1993).
• Collect discharge and release data until completed (1994).
Monitoring
• Begin ambient air, water, and ground water monitoring to assess the impact of industrial
sources in the Border Area (1992).
• Improve access to laboratory facilities and information by EPA personnel in Mexico and
SEDUE personnel in the United States (1992).
• Continue to monitor the impact of industrial sources (1993).
• Complete a substantial portion of the monitoring to assess the impact of industrial sources
(1994).
Regulatory Review
• Exchange information concerning the full spectrum of applicable Federal and state statutes,
regulations, policies, procedures and their development; translate these materials (1992).
• Increase cooperation among SEDUE, EPA, and Mexican and U.S. state and local officials and
regulatory entities (1992).
Cooperative Visits to Facilities
• Conduct an increasing number of cooperative training visits to facilities in border sister city
pairs in which officials of an environmental authority of one country participate as observers at
the invitation of an environmental authority of the other country (1992).
A92-171.5 V-9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Regulatory Program Implementation
Training
• As an expansion of existing efforts, develop and implement a training plan for SEDUE and
EPA inspectors, regulation writers, and enforcement personnel working in the Border Area;
training should include visits of selected personnel to specific facilities (1992).
• Institutionalize the training sessions (1993).
Communication with the Regulated Community
• Develop methods regarding transboundary technology transfer and dissemination of information
to industry on pollution prevention, waste minimization, and waste recycling (1992).
• Begin preparations for the First Annual SEDUE/EPA Multimedia Environmental Educational
Conference (1992).
SEDUE and EPA speak at Fifth Annual Maquiladora Conference (1992).
• Hold Third Annual Joint Response Team Conference (1992).
• Hold the First Annual SEDUE/EPA Multimedia Environmental Educational Conference (1993).
• Continue to hold annual conferences on multimedia issues to enhance industry compliance
(1994).
Initiatives for the Private Sector
Technology Transfer
• Initiate cooperative efforts on computer software ID enable SEDUE and EPA to share relevant
data bases more easily (1992).
A92-171.5 V-10 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Develop mechanisms for SEDUE/EPA technology transfer (e.g., data/compliance information
software, transfer of pollution control technology to regulators or regulated entities, and
demonstration projects) (1992).
• Hold a three-day technology transfer conference regarding pollution prevention, waste
minimization, and pollution control for the maquiladora industry in three border cities (1993).
The transfer of technology is important to:
• Increase the sensitivity of industry to the need to protect the environment
• Develop a policy linked to a campaign of institutional incentives for the design and
implementation of clean technologies as well as the development of recycling and waste
management industries.
Voluntary Reductions
• Identify interested trade associations, citizen groups and other non-governmental organizations
and begin meeting with these groups to receive input on voluntary industrial waste reductions
(1992).
• The EPA Administrator and Regional AdministratDrs from EPA Regions 6 and 9 will continue
meeting with a number of chief executive officers of U.S. companies in the Border Area for
them to consider a voluntary program to reduce pollutants (33 percent in 1992 and 50 percent
by 1994). In addition, a serious effort will be made to encourage border facilities to make a 90
percent voluntary reduction in air toxics emissions (95 percent for particulates emissions) as
called for by Title ffl (Hazardous Air Pollutants) of the CAAA.
3. Protection of Water Quality/Conservation of Water Resources (For current status, see pages ffl-l
through m-5).
Water quality implementation plans are discussed in terms of water supply, municipal wastewater, and control of
industrial wastewater affecting water quality in the Border Area.
A92-171.5
V-11 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
a.
Surface Water Supplies (For current status, see pages ffl-3 through ffl-5).
The objective is to identify the sources and ensure the quality of the drinking water supplies of Mexican and
U.S. Border Area communities that are supplied from transboundary surface sources (i.e., border rivers, lakes,
and reservoirs).
The implementation plan for surface water supplies follows the section on Border Ground Water Supplies.
b. Border Area Ground Water Supplies (For current status, see pages IH-3 through ni-5).
In 1992, Mexico and the U.S. will initiate a program to monitor ground water sources and to inventory the
source, quality and treatment process of existing drinking water supplies. The Governments of Mexico and the
United States are concerned about adverse impacts on public health and the environment in border regions where
transboundary ground waters may be contaminated or are threatened by contamination. There is no existing
ground water treaty between the two countries. However, Mexico and the United States utilize the IBWC as the
vehicle for exchange of information and consultations regarding border ground waters pursuant to the Water
Treaty of 1944 and IBWC Minute No. 242. In the United States, EPA and the four U.S. border states share
jurisdiction over border ground water quality matters within their respective boundaries. In Mexico, SEDUE and
the National Water Commission (CNA) have corresponding jurisdiction. Border ground water aquifers that may
be contaminated or are threatened with contamination will be identified. With such aquifers as a first priority, a
cooperative Mexican-U.S. ground water quality monitoring program and data base will be developed through the
IBWC, with the cooperation of responsible agencies of both countries. This process will require time for its
implemenation and will be initiated by data gathering in 1992 and identification of problem areas in 1993, along
wito the development of criteria for remediation. Among remediation alternatives could be enforcement actions
by the proper agencies in each country, international construction projects, and other cooperative solutions and
preventive measures.
EPA will also coordinate its efforts closely with the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation
(USSR), which will initiate a new water resources investigation in 1992 that covers a portion of the Border
Area. The USSR's Lower Rio Grande Basin Study will include the Texas portion of the Bajo Rio Bravo/Lower
Rio Grande Basin from Amistad Dam to the Gulf of Mexico. It will also include portions of some counties in
the adjoining Nueces-Rio Bravo/Rio Grande Basin. The USBR study will focus primarily on U.S. domestic
water supply/demand issues. A special report will be completed by September 1995. This document will
include present and projected populations, water demand by sectors, assessment of the available resources,
evaluation of current and anticipated technologies, and options/alternatives for meeting future needs. Proposed
end products will include development of water management computer modeling programs.
A92-171.5
V-12 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
c. Implementation Plan for Surface Water and Ground Water Supplies (For current status, see pages
ffl-3 through IH-5)
• Based on data obtained from appropriate authorities in each country, SEDUE, CNA and EPA,
working with the IBWC, will develop an inventory of the sources, quality, and treatment
processes of the existing drinking water facilities of the sister city communities by the time of
the 1992 meeting of the National Coordinators. In addition, each government will determine
the priority needs for water supply treatment and distribution systems for existing and future
development in the sister city communities (1992).
• SEDUE and EPA, working with the IBWC, will exchange information on surface and ground
water protection programs (e.g., underground injection and storage tanks, wellhead protection,
and storm water control) (1992).
• Through monitoring programs, SEDUE, CNA and EPA, working with the IBWC, will identify
areas where any transboundary surface or ground water source or any potential transboundary
water source is contaminated or where "there is an identifiable threat of contamination to these
sources of water (1993).
• SEDUE, CNA and EPA, working with the IBWC, will develop cooperative programs for
solving identified problems under existing Mexican-U.S. agreements (1993).
d. Colonias and rural sanitation in the U.S. (For current status, see pages ni-43 through 111-44).
The objective is to provide basic indoor plumbing, safe drinking water and an acceptable
method of wastewater disposal for die people living in die colonias.
Implementation Plan for the colonias
• The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) and other relevant border state
agencies will implement programs for disadvantaged areas financed by EPA, the Rural
Development Administration (RDA) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and
relevant state agencies.
• EPA and USDA, through the RDA, will provide colonia-related technology transfer
assistance to the relevant state agencies.
A92-171.5 V-13 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
EPA and USDA will seek to establish a clearinghouse network to provide colonia
residents with information on government grant and loan programs.
4. Border Wastewater Control (For current status, see pages III-5 through III-9).
a. Wastewater Treatment
The ffiWC, in cooperation with SEDUE, EPA, and the CNA, will take an active role in assessing the existing
and future public health/environmental threat associated with present industrial and municipal wastewater
disposal practices in the Border Area. The Mexican and U.S. Governments will determine existing and future
infrastructure needs for collection, treatment and disposal, and will conduct preliminary planning, and develop
preliminary project budgets. Both governments will also determine the amount of industrial and urban growth
projected for the next 10, 20, and 30 years.
The Mexican and United States Governments, in accordance with their respective national laws, shall ensure
public involvement with a view to facilitating timely access by the public to information and data concerning
water quality in their respective jurisdictions, including domestic and international wastewater treatment projects.
The Mexican and United States Governments, through appropriate agencies, are committed to assuring public
environmental review procedures to analyze and take into account the environmental effects of their joint water
quality activities. Such processes will comply with applicable existing laws of both Mexico and the United
States, including all laws relating to public participation in any review process.
EPA will continue to provide training regarding wastewater facility operations, maintenance, and fiscal
management
Wastewater treatment implementation plans are set out separately for eight geographic areas: Tijuana/San Diego,
Mexicali/Imperial County, San Luis Rio Colorado/Yuma, Nogales/Nogales, Ciudad Juarez/El Paso, Piedras
Negras/Eagte Pass, Nuevo Laredo/Laredo, Bajo Rio Bravo/Lower Rio Grande (including Reynosa/McAllen and
Matamoros/Brownsville).
A92-171.5 V-14 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
(1) Tijuana/San Diego (For current status, see pages III-5 through III-6).
The objectives for this location are specified in IBWC Minute No. 283, and include:
• Eliminate all uncontrolled Tijuana wastewater flows and treat them in existing facilities through
interim IBWC works;
• Provide adequate treatment at the new international treatment plant to be completed in 1995 for
domestic Tijuana sewage; and
• Develop an industrial pretreatment program in 1992.
As discussed in Section in, the Mexican Government is participating in the financing of an international
wastewater treatment plant in San Diego County near the international boundary with Mexico that would handle
about one half of the projected sewage load from Tijuana to the year 2010. The international wastewater
treatment plant would be one of several components of an international solution to the Tijuana border sanitation
problem.
Three major components are included in the international treatment works:
• Construction of wastewater transport works in Tijuana;
• Construction of a land and ocean outfall in San Diego County near the international boundary;
and
• Construction of a 25 mgd secondary treatment plant in San Diego County near the international
boundary.
Implementation Plan for Tijuana/San Diego Wastewater
• Complete construction of the land portion of the ocean outfall component (1993).
• IBWC, SEDUE, and EPA complete their assessment of the need for development of an
industrial pretreatment program (1992).
Construct an international treatment plant under IBWC supervision (1992-1995).
A92-171.5 V-15 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
As provided in IBWC Minute No. 283, the Mexican and U.S. Governments:
• Have reserved the right to return for reuse in their respective territories all or part of the
international plant effluent corresponding to each country's sewage inflows;
• Are committed in all sanitation facilities constructed in the Tijuana Valley, to take measures to
avoid negative impacts on both sides of the border,
• Are agreed that, in the event of a breakdown in sewage collection and detention facilities, the
Government of Mexico will take special measures to immediately prevent such discharges and
make repairs; and
• Are agreed mat Mexico will operate and maintain, at its own cost, the integrated sewage
collection system, as well as the conveyance and treatment facilities which have been
constructed for Tijuana as described in IBWC Minute No. 270.
During 1992, the drainage collection systems for the primary sanitary sewer systems will be completed and will
connect 24,000 dwelling discharges, which will reach 75 percent of the total coverage and will conclude the
goals of the Interamerican Development Bank Tijuana project which includes the construction of a 195-km
network, drainage collection systems, installation of pumping stations, pressure lines, and the 30,000 dwelling
discharges.
Implementation Plan for the City of San Diego
The City of San Diego is currently planning a major expansion of its metropolitan sewage system. The city's
program was created in 1987 to fulfill the following goals:
• Provide full secondary treatment of wastewater discharged to the ocean;
• Achieve the maximum amount of water reclamation possible to minimize dependence upon
imported water supplies; and
• Accommodate future increases in wastewater flows.
A92-171.5 V-16 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
The City of San Diego's plan includes the following features:
• A secondary treatment system consisting of the Point Loma and South Bay plants which would
ultimately treat 205 mgd of wastewater prior to discharge of the treated water into the ocean;
• A water reclamation system consisting of seven plants with a capacity to treat 135 mgd to State
of California standards for reuse;
• Sludge processing and disposal facilities for digestion of sludge generated by treatment and
reclamation facilities; and
• A joint ocean outfall in the South Bay. This outfall will provide for disposal of effluent from
the proposed IBWC international secondary treatment plant for Tijuana, as well as effluent
from the city's South Bay secondary treatment plant and the excess reclaimed water from
nearby reclamation plants.
(2) Mexican/Imperial County (For current status, see page ni-6).
The IBWC has sought an interim solution to the New River border sanitation problem at Calexico, California,
and Mexicali, Baja California. Under the IBWC agreement in Minute No. 264, interim water quality standards
are established for the New River at the international boundary, and Mexico has undertaken a number of
corrective measures at its expense designed to meet those quality standards.
Implementation Plan for Mexicali/Imperial County Wastewater
The objectives for this location will be defined in an fflWC minute now under negotiation. Although agreement
has not been reached, the minute contemplates a conceptual plan for the long-term solution of the New River
problem including the following components:
• Achievement of the efficient operation of existing wastewater treatment lagoons;
• Completion of construction of new treatment facilities in southeast Mexicali to handle domestic
and industrial wastewater from this industrial area of Mexicali;
• Elimination of all discharges of untreated domestic and industrial wastewater through expansion
of the sewage collection system;
A92-171.5 V-17 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Incorporation into the sanitary system called Mexicali II the wastewater of new urban
development that will be generated as a result of the construction of the new Mexicali/Calexico
port of entry; and
• Elimination of untreated wastewater discharges into the New River.
(3) San Luis Rio Colorado/Yuma (For current status see p. ffl-7)
The Mexican Government has unilaterally included San Luis Rio Colorado in the Plan as a result of problems
experienced with wastewater treatment Although there are no international implications, the improvements will
have an important benefit for this location. It is anticipated mat there will be an increase in the areas covered by
the sanitary sewer systems and the construction of a treatment plant for wastewater during 1992.
(4) Nogales/Nogales (For current status, see page UI-7).
The objectives in Nogales/Nogales are to ensure elimination of all uncontrolled wastewater flows and to begin an
industrial wastewater pretreatment program.
In September 1988, the IBWC recommended, and the two governments approved, a further expansion to the
Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant as stipulated in Minute No. 276 of July 26, 1988. This
expansion is for the treatment of generated volumes, from both Nogales, Arizona, and Nogales, Sonora, until the
year 2000, and is expected to be completed in early 1992. Capacity will increase from 8.2 mgd to 17.2 mgd of
which Mexico's share would increase from 4.9 to 9.9 mgd. Mexico in turn is rehabilitating its sewer collection
system to stop uncontrolled sewage flows across the border. The two governments are required to assure
pretreatment to industrial wastes before discharge to the international plant
Implementation Plan for Nogales/Nogales Wastewater
The IBWC, SEDUE, and EPA have opened talks on an industrial pretreatment cooperative
program and the IBWC plans to begin expanded treatment plant operations in February, 1992.
Nogales, Sonora is completing wastewater collection works, and has completed the first stage
of the covered Nogales Wash Floodway. The IBWC is exploring solutions to renegade
transboundary sewage flows that may occur from the Nogales Canyon area.
• The IBWC will open discussions on planning for future flows in excess of the expanded
international treatment plant capacity in 1992.
A92-171.5 V-18 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• There will be an expansion of drainage collection systems in Nogales, Sonora.
(5) Ciudad Juarez/El Paso (For current status, see page ffl-8).
The objective is to eliminate discharges of untreated wastewater into the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande as specified in
IBWC Minute No. 261.
Ciudad Juarez will make improvements to its wastewater collection system to eliminate existing discharges into
the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande. Also, treatment facilities will be constructed having the capacity to treat estimated
flows by the year 2010. The effluent could still be used for irrigation, but, if any of it reaches the Rio Bravo/
Rio Grande, it should be of such quality that it would not result in a violation of water quality criteria to be
adopted by Mexico and the U.S. in cooperation with the IBWC.
Implementation Plan for Ciudad Juarez/El Paso Wastewater
• The IBWC will recommend to the Governments of Mexico and the United States, a conceptual
framework for solution of this problem to include water quality standards for this section of the
Rio Bravo/Rio Grande (1992).
• SEDUE, CNA, state and municipal authorities, and local industries will recommend a plan for
wastewater treatment works in Ciudad Juarez consistent with the conceptual framework agreed
upon by the two governments (1992).
(6) Piedras Negras/Eagle Pass (For current status, see page IU-8).
With regard to Minute 261, the IBWC will prepare a plan that will address pollution effects and include water
quality standards for this section of the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande.
(7) Nuevo Laredo/Laredo (For current status, see page IH.-8).
The objectives are to eliminate untreated wastewater discharges into the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande for Nuevo Laredo
and to begin an industrial pretreatment program.
IBWC has agreed on specified "Joint Measures to Improve the Quality of the Waters of the Rio Grande at
Laredo, Texas/Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas" through Minute No. 279 which provides for a sanitation project for
the City of Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, to be jointly funded by the Mexican and U.S. Governments. The works
A92-171.5
V-19 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
recommended by the Commission, and approved by the two governments, consist of six principal elements to be
completed by 1994:
• Construction of the Riverside Collector,
• Construction of the Coyote I Collector as an extension to the Riverside Collector,
• Expansion of the sewage collection system to collect and convey to the Riverside and Coyote II
Collectors sewage generated in areas not currently served and which presently discharge into
the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande;
• Rehabilitation of the sewage collection system at specific points to intercept and convey to the
Riverside and Coyote I Collectors those uncontrolled sewage flows that presently discharge into
the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande;
• Construction of a pumping plant to convey the sewage from the Riverside Collector to a
treatment plant; and
• Construction of a secondary treatment plant with an estimated capacity of 31 mgd located seven
miles downstream of the Ciudad Juarez/Lincoln International Bridge.
Implementation Plan for Nuevo Laredo/Laredo Wastewater
• The IBWC has opened talks on an industrial pretreatment cooperative program on surface water
standards for this reach of the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande, and on operation and maintenance details
(1992).
• The IB WC will complete expansion and rehabilitation of the wastewater collection system and
construction of the pumping station and interceptor (1992).
• The IBWC will complete wastewater treatment plant construction. The total cost of the project
will be U.S. $44 million, which will be split among the Mexican Government, the U.S.
Government, and the State of Texas (1994).
A92-171.5 V-20 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
(8) Bajo Rio Bravo/Lower Rio Grande (For current status, see page ffl-9).
The objective is to eliminate discharges of untreated or partially-treated wastewater into the Rio Bravo/Rio
Grande in the reach from the Falcon Dam to the Gulf of Mexico.
Implementation Plan for Bajo Rio Bravo/Lower Rio Grande Wastewater
In 1992, the ffiWC will recommend to the Mexican and U.S. Governments, a conceptual framework for the
solution of the problem of sewage discharges into the Bajo Rio Bravo/Lower Rio Grande, which includes the
areas of Reynosa/McAllen and Matamoros/Brownsville. In accordance with the Water Treaty of 1944 and
IBWC Minute 261, the IBWC will assess water quality at the source of supply and will assess wastewater
management options. The IBWC's recommended plan will include:
• potential population growth;
• water supply needs;
• wastewater collection, treatment and disposal needs; and
• water quality criteria.
(9) Reynosa/McAllen
To prevent untreated wastewater from entering the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande, the Mexican Government will increase
coverage by the municipal sewage system from 60 percent to 85 percent and will recondition the oxidation ponds
during 1992 and 1994.
(10) Matamoros/Brownsville
In order to address the water contamination issues in Matamoros, the Mexican Government will increase
coverage by the municipal sewage system from 65 percent to 75 percent, and initiate the construction of a
wastewater treatment plant. Brownsville, Texas currently meets applicable U.S. discharge standards.
(II) Studies in Other Sister Cities
In 1992, other IBWC water treatment studies will also be focused on the following cities:
Acuna/Del Rio
TecateyTecate
A92-171.5 V-21 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Agua Prieta/Douglas
Ojinaga/Presidio
*. Characterization of Wastewater Flows to Protect International Treatment Plants
Mexico and the U.S. recognize their obligation to ensure that appropriate pretreatment procedures will be
implemented for industrial wastewater before it reaches the international treatment plants or transboundary water
courses.
Under the Water Treaty of 1944 and IBWC Minutes 261, 264, 279, and 283, both governments have given the
IBWC, in cooperation with SEDUE and EPA, the responsibility of coordinating the implementation of domestic
industrial wastewaier control programs in order to ensure proper performance of the international treatment
facilities and to avoid any degradation of transboundary water sources which may adversely affect stream water
quality and beneficial uses. IBWC coordination with SEDUE, EPA, and other domestic agencies will include:
• Characterization of flows into international treatment faculties through a systematic program to
identify and monitor all industrial waste discharges into Border Area collection and treatment
systems;
• Definition of substances that would adversely impact and impair the efficiency of treatment
facilities, and specification of permissible levels for such substances entering the sewerage
collection system;
• Definition of substances that, despite standard pretreatment requirements, would adversely
affect receiving water quality and/or beneficial uses (i.e., via pass-through mechanisms). For
such substances, specification of permissible discharge levels, including any necessary
prohibitions on discharge;
Development of industrial inventories by SEDUE and EPA to identify potential sources and
contaminants, consistent with the industrial multimedia source control initiative outlined in this
section;
• Determination, by means of the industrial inventories developed by SEDUE and EPA in then-
respective countries, of the source of any substance undesirable in treatment facilities and
control of such substances in accordance with the respective laws of each country; and
A92-171.5 V-22 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
in
• Consultation twice per year by SEDUE, EPA, and the IBWC with other responsible agencies
each country to review the results of this cooperative industrial control program.
5. Air Quality (For current status, see pages HI-12 through HI-18).
The air quality action plans are based on the premise that monitoring, modeling, and emission inventory
development form the fundamental basis for a cost-effective emissions reduction strategy.
a. Ciadad Juarez/El Paso, Texas - Sunland Park, New Mexico (For current status, see pages III-16
through m-17).
The primary objective of the Ciudad Juarez/El Paso air quality studies is to reduce ambient concentrations of air
pollutants to mutually acceptable levels throughout the airshed. The study area also includes the adjoining city
of Sunland Park, New Mexico.
New requirements of the CAAA may influence implementation of the Plan in the United States. Under the
CAAA, El Paso must accomplish the following three major tasks. First, as a serious ozone non-attainment area,
El Paso must implement VOCs and/or nitrogen oxides reduction strategies to attain the NAAQS by
November 15, 1999. These requirements include obtaining reductions of 15 percent in VOC emissions by 1996
and 3 percent every year thereafter until attainment by implementing an enhanced inspection and maintenance
(I/M) program, implementing a new source permitting program, requiring Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for VOC emissions for additional stationary sources and vapor recovery controls for
gasoline fueling, participating in EPA's fleet vehicle Clean Fuels Program, and completing a major air modeling
effort by 1994. Second, for CO, El Paso must implement an alternative vehicular fuels program to be used
during winter months. Third, for PM-10, El Paso must implement additional Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM) for existing affected stationary and area sources.
In addition, major stationary sources in El Paso will be subject to new requirements for control of toxic air
pollutants and new requirements for operator permits.
Implementation Plan for Ciudad Juarez/El Paso Air Quality
Technical Aspects
• Appraise the causes of, and potential remedies for, urban air pollution problems in Ciudad
Juarez and El Paso (1992).
t
A92-1715 V-23 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Continue long-term air and meteorological monitoring throughout Ciudad Juarez/El Paso-
Sunland Park (1991-1994).
Perform additional short-term field studies as required (including VOC monitoring) (1991-
1993).
Identify air modeling techniques and wind models to be used (1992).
Complete a refined air emission inventory for Ciudad Juarez, including stationary, area, and
mobile sources, facilitated by a study of Ciudad Juarez vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (1993).
Develop realistic control strategy scenarios for evaluation, based upon refined emissions
estimates (1992-1994).
SEDUE, with assistance from EPA, will establish a vehicular l/M program in Ciudad Juarez to
reduce emissions from older vehicles (1992).
Determine the feasibility of extending the oxygenated fuels program to Ciudad Juarez and
implement the program if beneficial (1992).
Quantify the contribution of vehicles at U.S. Customs Bridges to the total level of air pollution
in the area and make recommendations for solutions to the problem by reducing traffic delays
and through other means (1993).
Develop a study of highway improvement to facilitate the flow of traffic and reduce emissions
from unpaved roads and highways (1993).
Establish public transportation programs that include the improvement of roads and bus routes,
and address parking needs and repair traffic lights (1993).
Administrative Aspects
Compile a report comparing and contrasting the current responsibilities, operational procedures,
and funding mechanisms/levels of the Mexican and U.S. air pollution control agencies that play
a role in regulating air quality in Ciudad Juarez/El Paso-Sunland Park (1993).
A92-171.5 V-24 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Prepare a report detailing the principal organizations (including non-governmental
organizations) and individuals involved in making public policy in Ciudad Juarez and El Paso
as well as the social and political framework within which these groups and individuals operate
(1993).
• Hold followup meetings (arranged during bilateral discussions by the Ciudad Juarez/El Paso
policymakers) to encourage harmonization of the air regulatory programs throughout Ciudad
Juarez/El Paso (1993).
• Execute computer modeling to evaluate the selected control scenarios (1994).
• Disseminate the project's technical results to Mexican and U.S. policymakers at the local, state,
and Federal levels (1994).
b. Mexicali/Imperial County (For current status, see pages IE-15 through III-16).
The long-term air quality goal in the Mexicali/Imperial County area is to develop a cooperative relationship
between Mexican and U.S. air pollution control organizations to define the PM-10 problem in Imperial Valley
and to develop effective emissions reduction strategies which are beneficial to the populations of Mexicali and
Imperial County.
Implementation Plan for Mexicali/Imperial County Air Quality
• When the proposed study area under Annex V to the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement
has been approved, convene a study team composed of representatives from air pollution
agencies in Mexico and the United States to refine the study plan, identify resources for the
proposed study, and appoint a principal investigator to coordinate the study (1992).
• Estimate the spatial and temporal distribution of PM-10 concentrations in Mexicali and Imperial
County (1992).
• Apportion PM-10 concentrations to source emissions (1993).
• Estimate cross-border fluxes of PM-10 (1993).
A92-171.5 V-25 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Finalize a control strategy (1993-1994).
• Modernize transportation facilities (1994).
Begin implementation of the control strategy (1994).
c. Tijuana/San Diego (For current status, see pages ffl-13 through HI-15).
Tijuana and San Diego share an atmospheric basin where the prevailing meteorological conditions in both cities
are determinants in the diffusion and transport of pollutant emissions to both sides of the border. The primary
objective of the proposed Tijuana/San Diego study is to reduce ambient concentrations of air pollutants to
mutually acceptable levels throughout the airshed.
For Tijuana, objectives include: (1) identification of the factors that determine the transborder interchange of
pollutants and its impact on air quality and potential health risks; (2) development of a method to determine
potential emission sources and to determine feasible reductions for identified sources; and (3) establishment of
the terms through which reduced emissions levels set as goals (and regional air quality goals) can be reached.
San Diego objectives include: (1) attainment of the national ambient air quality standard for ozone (0.12 parts
per million) by November 2005; (2) attainment of the national ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide
(9.0 parts per million) by November 1995; (3) installation of maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
on plants that are major sources of air toxics; (4) attainment of California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide and inhalable particulates (PM-10) as soon as practical; and (5) reduction of non-attainment
pollutants or their precursors by 5 percent or more per year.
Implementation Plan for Tijuana/San Diego Air Quality
Tijuana
• Following the approval of the proposed study, create the infrastructure required to evaluate air
quality in the City of Tijuana, supplementing the information provided by the station at Mesa
de Otay, operated by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (1992-1994).
• Establish a local work group with sole responsibility for evaluating air quality in Tijuana
(1992).
A92-171.5 V-26 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Establish a similar work group for the cooperative enforcement and control of emissions
sources (1992).
Establish a program for training a SEDUE Work Group in different aspects of the program
(1992).
• Identify and implement approaches to reduce vehicular emissions at border crossings (1992).
• Develop and promote a phased-approach vehicular Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program
(1992).
Implement Phase I of the I/M Program (1992).
Implement Phase II of the I/M Program (1992-1995).
• Improve public transportation (1994).
San Diego
Major Requirements under the CAAA are listed below:
As part of the ozone control strategy, achieve annual VOC emissions reductions of 3 percent
per year after the first six years, with compliance measured every three years;
Install reasonably available control technology on existing stationary sources emitting in excess
of 25 tons per year of VOCs and nitrogen oxides;
• Implement a construction permit program for new stationary sources of VOCs and NO,
requiring the lowest achievable emission rate and offsetting emissions reductions from other
sources by a ratio of 1.3 to 1; implement an operating permits program for certain stationary
sources (1993);
A92-171.5 V-27 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Implement control measures such as hose and nozzle controls on gas pumps to capture fuel
vapors, enhanced motor vehicle I/M programs, tighter tailpipe controls, and clean fuel fleet
programs (1994);
• Develop transportation control measures, such as carpooling programs, driving restrictions, and
high occupancy vehicle lanes, if needed (1993);
• Expedite road traffic at border crossings (1994);
• Establish an oxygenated fuels program (1993);
• Require maximum achievable control technology (MACT) on plants that are major sources of
air toxics (plants with the potential to emit at least 10 tons per year of any one of the 189 toxic
air pollutants listed in the CAAA) and such area sources that EPA determines warrant
regulation (1994);
• Require preparation and implementation of risk management plans by facilities where a
regulated substance is present in more than a threshold quantity; the plan is to provide for
prevention and detection of releases and emergency response (1992); and
• Apply U.S. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to control air emissions from
municipal, hospital, and other commercial and industrial incinerators (1992).
Major Requirements Under the California Clean Air Act are listed below:
• Ensure that there are no net increases in emissions from new or modified sources (1992);
• Require the installation of best available retrofit technology (1993-1994);
• Control heavy-duty truck traffic during commuting hours (1992-1993); and
• Comply with the following statewide emission control measures: clean fuels and low-emission
vehicles; reformulated gasoline; heavy-duty diesel smoke enforcement program; and emissions
A92-171.5 V-28 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
reductions from construction and farm equipment, locomotives, marine vessels, off-road
motorcycles, off-highway vehicles, and utility engines (1992-1994).
6. Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste (For current status, see pages III-18 through 111-24).
Implementation plans dealing with waste per se are grouped in this subsection under transboundary movement of
hazardous wastes and abandoned or illegal dump sites. The related topics of waste generation, hazardous
materials mass balances, pollution prevention and waste minimization are also considered in subsection V.A.2,
(Industrial Multimedia Source Control Requiring Government and Private Sector Initiatives). The topics related
to enforcement and the cooperative enforcement strategy are also discussed in subsection V.A.1, (SEDUE/EPA
Cooperative Enforcement Strategy).
a. Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste (For current status, see pages III-19 through 111-21).
Goals have been developed for: waste tracking, surveillance/enforcement, education of the regulated community,
and transportation issues.
The primary waste tracking objective is to determine the amount of waste generated in the Border Area and the
ultimate disposition of this waste (treatment, storage, or disposal in Mexico or the United States or illegal
disposal in either country). A secondary objective is to develop a cooperative Mexican-U.S. system for tracking
hazardous waste transported between the two countries. The cooperative enforcement strategy includes the
following objectives: cooperative Mexican and U.S. Customs training; high visibility deterrent enforcement; the
development of a Mexican-U.S. border tracking system to monitor hazardous waste shipments; detection and
interception of illegal transboundary movement of hazardous wastes; increased enforcement of notification and
reporting requirements for hazardous waste shipments between the two countries; and increasing the number of
cooperative enforcement actions against maquiladoras and their parent companies where appropriate. These
enforcement objectives will be a special focus of the SEDUE/EPA cooperative enforcement strategy for
compliance with environmental laws during the initial years of the implementation plans. The regulated
community must be educated in Mexican and U.S. environmental laws and regulations through training
conferences. Mexican and the U.S. environmental regulations will be published in Spanish and English.
SEDUE will explore ways to increase public awareness of illegal hazardous waste movements and disposal by
further encouraging the Mexican public to report illegal dumping to the relevant authorities.
A92-171.5 V-29 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Transportation objectives are to increase coordination between both SEDUE and the Mexican Secretariat of
Transportation (SCT) and EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and to assess the threat of
transboundary movement of hazardous waste to the population in the Border Area.
Implementation Plan for Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste
Implementation of the proposed activities will occur across the Border Area but with concentrated efforts
occurring in the following high priority city-pairs: Tijuana/San Diego, Ciudad Juarez/El Paso, and
Matamoros/Brownsville. Overall, the implementation plan is based on a shared data base, training, regular
border checks, a continuous presence at the border, routine/regular personnel exchanges, and coordination
between and among Federal, state, and local entities in Mexico and the United States. The hazardous waste
tracking and cooperative enforcement activities also receive special attention in the SEDUE/EPA Cooperative
Enforcement Strategy Implementation Plan.
(1) Hazardous Waste Tracking
Binationat Inventory of Wastes Produced in the Border Area
• Information on waste generation rates of Mexican and U.S. facilities in the Border Area is
being collected. SEDUE will provide the information from semi-annual industrial reports and
EPA will provide corresponding information obtained through inspections and review of U.S.
manifest data (1992).
• EPA will attempt to collect information regarding amounts of raw materials being sent to
maquiladora facilities from the U.S. (1992-1993).
• A mass balance methodology will be investigated to permit calculations of waste and by-
products generated for each industrial process. SEDUE and EPA will investigate the feasibility
of requiring industries to provide mass balance data at each plant in their respective countries
(1993).
• Manifests and associated paperwork on shipments of waste will be exchanged by Mexico and
the United States. The exchange of transportation data including manifests and the Ecological
Guide is currently limited by the absence of a central binational computerized tracking system
A92-171.5 V-30 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
providing this data. SEDUE and EPA, with the assistance of state environmental agencies, will
develop and institute such a computerized system (1993).
• SEDUE and EPA on their respective sides of the border will conduct facility visits and
inspections to determine the amount and types of hazardous waste produced in the Border Area
(1992).
SEDUE and EPA will exchange information on existing and proposed facilities capable of
handling hazardous wastes.
Mexican/U.S. Data Base
• Initiate a regular data exchange of manifests and other transportation paperwork (1992).
• Develop training for SEDUE and EPA inspectors in issues related to the transboundary
movement of hazardous waste (1992).
• Initiate an Inspection sub-Work Group to discuss common problems including manifest and
data base issues (1992).
EPA will review the U.S. Customs paperless tracking system (1992).
(2) Cooperative Enforcement Strategy
Customs Initiative
A92-171.5
Explore opportunities to enhance environmental enforcement capabilities at key border
crossings (1993).
Improve the effectiveness of surveillance of hazardous waste shipments through training and
increased regulatory presence (1993).
Initiate programs with Mexican and U.S. Customs for the regular exchange of data relating to
hazardous waste shipments (1992).
V-31 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Conduct additional inspections by SEDUE and Mexican Customs and by EPA and U.S.
Customs to find illegal shipments of hazardous waste in their respective countries along with
increased training visits (1992-1994).
Enforcement Initiative
• Exchange information concerning Mexican and U.S. enforcement priorities (1992).
• Increase cooperation among Mexican Customs, U.S. Customs, and state/local entities (1992).
Information relevant to transboundary pollution and related enforcement activities will be
exchanged on at least an annual basis (1992).
• Develop a cooperative Mexican-U.S. hazardous material transportation enforcement strategy
(1992).
• Develop a program to increase cooperative enforcement activities against companies that cannot
verify the ultimate fate of waste they have generated (1993).
(3; Education of the Regulated Community
• Evaluate border industry informational and educational needs (1992).
• Identify cities that should be targeted for additional education and input (1992).
• Analyze the above information to determine the most effective means of transferring
information regarding regulations to the affected companies (1992).
• Initiate waste management training and educational programs for the regulated community, in
cooperation with the New Mexico-based Waste Management Education and Research
Consortium and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as well as other institutions that may be
interested in such activities (1992-1993).
• Publish a binational document covering environmental and transportation requirements for the
transboundary movement of hazardous wastes (1993).
A92-171.5 V-32 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
(4) Transportation Issues
• Develop a cooperative Mexican-U.S. hazardous materials transportation enforcement
strategy (1992).
• Perform an environmental evaluation of increased traffic carrying hazardous wastes in the
Border Area with recommendations for reducing risks (1993).
• Obtain training for SEDUE and EPA personnel in waste transportation requirements from
respective transportation agencies (1993).
b. Abandoned and Illegal Dump Sites (For current status, see page ni-23).
Goals have been developed for two topics: site identification and education. For site identification, the goal is
to devise a strategy for locating abandoned or illegal hazardous waste dump sites in the Border Area. For
education, the goals are to develop deterrents to illegal dumping and to heighten the environmental awareness of
the regulated community and government officials.
Implementation Plan for Abandoned or Illegal Dump Sites
Initially, site identification will be conducted borderwide.
Site Identification
• Devise a strategy to locate abandoned and illegal hazardous waste sites in the Border Area.
(1992). SEDUE and EPA will explore ways of making available technology, including air
surveillance technology, useful in locating such hazardous waste sites.
• Begin field studies to locate abandoned and illegal hazardous waste sites (1993).
Education
• Devise a SEDUE/EPA educational program for the regulated community and state and local
officials regarding proper waste disposal (1992).
A92-171.5 V-33 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Develop a referral system for citizen reports of illegal dump sites (1992).
• Implement education programs through conferences, meetings, and publicity to inform the
public in me use of the referral system (hotline) (1993).
7. Municipal Solid Waste (For current status, see pages 111-23 through HI-24).
An implementation strategy has been developed to address four areas: assessment, public outreach, waste
collection improvements, and construction and development of additional sanitary landfills. The assessment will
determine the infrastructure, regulations, and numbers, locations and types of landfills needed in the Border Area
to mitigate public health and environmental threats associated with municipal solid waste disposal. The public
outreach goal is to involve the general public in the prevention of illegal dumping and to foster pollution
prevention, waste minimization and recycling.
Implementation Plan for Municipal Solid Waste
Assessment
• Assess the public health and environmental threats associated with municipal waste disposal in
the Border Area (1992).
• Determine the infrastructure and regulatory needs for municipal waste handling and disposal
(1992).
Determine the number, location, and types of landfills needed (1993).
Public Outreach
• Provide training regarding site selection (1992).
• Provide training regarding facility management (1992).
• Develop an educational campaign on the detrimental effects of illegal dumping and on
alternatives to illegal dumping (1992).
A92-171.5 V-34 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Organize border recycling workshops (1993).
Waste Collection Improvements and Development of Additional Sanitary Landfills
• In 1992, Mexico will improve waste collection systems and develop the landfill sites in the
following border cities:
Tijuana, Baja California
San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora
Nogales, Sonora
Piedras Negras, Coahuila
Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas
Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
Mexicali, Baja California
8. Pesticides (For current status see pages HI-24 through HI-25)
There are several specific actions, in addition to those noted above in the sections on water and air quality with
respect to pesticide residues, which should also be undertaken:
• Pesticide use record-keeping systems need to be instituted by border states with significant
pesticide use to identify the amounts and kinds of pesticides being used. This would assist in
assuring that environmental monitoring programs are keeping track of the appropriate
pesticides;
• SEDUE and EPA will develop technical cooperation programs in the areas of pesticide misuse
control, and farmer/applicator training and dealer training. Each agency will prepare pesticides
training materials and related legal materials, taking advantage of similar materials that have
A92_i7i 5 V-35 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
already been developed in the United States by bender states, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), EPA, and private industry;
• Mexico and the U.S. will exchange information on a regular basis regarding unreasonable
health or environmental risks created by pesticides, and will coordinate actions to regulate the
use of such pesticides, as necessary;
• The U.S. will continue to provide assistance in product and residue analysis, including training
of chemists, and conducting joint quality assurance programs, etc. Mexico is taking steps to
consolidate its laboratory capability in Matamoros and privatizing other laboratories to provide
commercial services. Incentives for private sector residue checking can be provided by strong
border inspection programs.
Mexico imports pesticides from the U.S and from other countries. There have been several recent proposals in
the U.S. Congress to prohibit the export to any country of pesticides banned in the U.S. for human health
reasons. If any of these legislative proposals becomes law, this should eliminate the export of banned U.S.
pesticides to Mexico. Both Mexico and the U.S. will take every opportunity to encourage other pesticide
exporting countries to conform to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAOYUNEP prior informed consent
procedures.
9. Contingency Planning/Emergency Response (For current status, see pages IH-25
through m-28).
In its efforts to strengthen chemical emergency preparedness and response along the border, the JRT has
identified several important areas to be addressed during the first stage of the Plan:
• Establish a complete three-year work plan with specific schedules and priorities. The work
plan should identify activities which relate to each item in V.A.9.
* Clarify the relevant legal authorities of both countries; promote understanding of and
compliance with laws and regulations;
• Establish a formal notification system between governments to ensure timely response and
awareness of releases affecting the Border Area;
A92-171.5 V-36 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Encourage participation from industry along the border concerning preparedness, prevention and
response activities;
Identify appropriate Federal, state and local officials on both sides of the border who can assist
in the cooperative development of emergency response capabilities;
• Establish appropriate mechanisms, including communications mechanisms, to address financial,
political, and operational issues pertaining to cross-border movement of emergency equipment
and personnel in the event of an incident;
Improve public availability of information about hazardous waste storage in local communities;
• Work jointly toward the development of an accident prevention program focused on facilities
handling toxic substances;
• Identify appropriate future JRT activities such as training and technical assistance for existing
emergency planning and response entities such as the Cameron County LEPC in Brownsville,
Texas and the CLAM in Matamoros to assist in promoting awareness of preparedness and
response activities on both sides of the border; and
Identify the need to disseminate written materials about the above activities, and provide
Spanish and English versions of such materials.
Implementation Plan for Contingency Planning/Emergency Response
For the initial implementation stages of this Border Environmental Plan, contingency plans in the three original
areas (Tijuana/San Diego; Mexicali/Imperial County; and Matamoros/Brownsville) will be improved and tested.
In addition, contingency plans will be developed and completed for the remaining eleven pairs of sister cities
within three years.
A description of the agenda for all fourteen pairs of sister cities follows:
Develop for each sister city, a detailed implementation schedule for the development of a
planning structure and contingency plan. In each case, the schedule will provide for the
V-37 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
~ i / j . j
-------
completion of the plan within three years. The process and milestones described in UNEP's
APELL program will be used as a guide for establishing the schedule (1992).
Establish a working relationship with each sister city pair focused on contingency planning,
preventing and responding to accidents involving the management and/or transportation of
hazardous substances in their management or transport (1992).
Improve methods of making information and data concerning hazardous substances and
installations accessible and available in the fourteen pairs of sister cities. In this way, these
communities can better plan to prevent chemical emergencies and be better prepared to respond
if they occur. UNEP's APELL program will be used as a guide (1992-1993).
Establish additional local groups such as the CLAM/LEPC organization for coordination of
planning, prevention, and response activities. Membership in CLAM/LEPC should include
broad-based representation from each community including: local planning, emergency, and
environmental officials; elected and other public officials; representatives from industry and
businesses; representatives from non-governmental organizations concerned with border issues
(1992).
Establish a formal 24-hour notification system in the sister cities encompassing both sides of
the border (1992).
Ensure that an effective hazardous material release notification system is in place on both sides
of the border and that personnel are fully trained in its use (1992).
Establish protocols to facilitate cross-border mobility of emergency response equipment and
personnel (1992).
Test the established 24-hour cross-border notification system for accidents (1992).
Begin the development of contingency plans for each sister city pair (1992-1993).
Conduct a simulation exercise to test parts of the system (1992-1993).
A92-171.5 V-38 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Establish a data base of hazardous substances releases in the sister cities (1992-1993).
Initiate the establishment of an information exchange system on chemical facilities (especially
those industrial installations capable of having a transboundary effect) transportation routes of
major concern, and response capabilities (1992-1994).
• Continue to update/exchange data base information on inventories and releases (1992-1994).
Conduct annual reviews of the sister cities plans (1992-1994).
• Sponsor a workshop/conference on border activities (1993).
• Conduct a simulation exercise to test the full system thoroughly (1993).
• Finalize the sister city contingency plans (1993-1994).
• Revise contingency plans where necessary (1994).
While these activities will be the focus of initial implementation of the Plan in the geographic areas mentioned
above, these activities will be repeated for each sister city pair until the entire Border Area is covered and a
regular process of reviewing, updating, and testing is established and maintained. The JRT is encouraging and
supporting all sister cities in efforts to have their contingency plans developed by 1994.
10. Regulation of Activities Impacting Upon the Environment
As part of the Plan, SEDUE has developed an ecological policy for the Border Area to promote environmental
protection, conservation, and soil and natural resources use and restoration, taking into consideration the
ecological and socioeconomic characteristics of the region with an emphasis on the critical areas of the border.
The ecological policy will serve as a reference point for environmental impact and risk assessment of new
projects. Similarly, it will help to reduce the time needed to process and respond to applications for
A92-171.5
V-39 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
environmental impact authorization. Evaluations of the applications will be streamlined by making them shorter
and more specific.
SEDUE considers mat environmental impacts and risk are being caused by the production of: petroleum and
petroleum derivatives, pharmaceutical products, chemical products, plastic products, cement, non-metallic
mineral-based products, synthetic resins and artificial fibers, basic chemicals and fertilizers.
To implement this regulatory program, SEDUE will rely upon its authorities located in the Mexican border
states.
SEDUE's local authorities along the border will advise those promoting new construction projects that any
project governed by Article 29 of the General Ecology Law must describe the environmental impact and the risks
that it may present, before construction may be authorized.
SEDUE will monitor the area closely, to ensure that no construction projects are initiated that involve any of the
previously-mentioned industrial activities, or that are governed by Article 29 of the General Ecology Law, unless
prior environmental impact assessment authorization has been granted.
To develop a regulatory program for productive activities falling within the scope of the Plan, SEDUE has
designed a program for implementation composed of the following actions:
• Application of the ecological policy to the Border Area will facilitate the development of
legislation at the state and municipal level governing soil usage and promote the establishment
of regional ecological policy programs, through coordination between the Mexican Federal
Government and the Mexican state and municipal governments in the Border Area.
• Identify the industrial environmental impact and risks that should be addressed at the Federal
level and those which could be handled at a local level.
• Formulate environmental criteria to evaluate the environmental impacts and risks related to
industrial activity in the border region.
• Formulate environmental criteria to evaluate environmental impacts caused by maquiladora
industries.
A92-171.5 V-40 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Formulate rules governing environmental impact assessment for the maquiladora industries.
• Formulate an agreement for decentralization of the environmental impact evaluation process for
the maquiladora industries.
• Develop training courses on environmental impact and risks associated with the maquiladora
industries.
• Develop programs for the prevention of environmental accidents. In Mexico, the prevention of
environmental accidents to date has been the sole responsibility of SEDUE, and has been
carried out primarily through those projects which, by their nature are subject to environmental
impact and risk studies under Articles 28 and 35 of the General Ecology Law.
• Establish buffer zones for industries.
• Regulate the environmental impact of and risks associated with unauthorized maquiladora
industries. SEDUE will visit maquiladora facilities considered to present potential
environmental risks and will verify that they were constructed after the General Ecology Law
was passed. Upon such verification, SEDUE will proceed to regulate their operations. Where
construction of unauthorized projects has not been completed, and completion may pose
environmental risks, SEDUE will order an immediate cancellation of the project.
SEDUE will offer, upon request by the border states, environmental impact and risk workshops.
11. Pollution Prevention (For current status, see page ffl-28 through HI-29)
Pollution prevention is an innovative approach to environmental protection that promises substantial benefits in
the Border Area. It is a relatively inexpensive way to protect the environment; the costs involved in preventing
pollution often are dramatically lower than the costs of treatment and disposal. Because privately-owned
businesses always have an incentive to develop ways of minimizing waste, they sometimes are willing to apply
their own technical expertise in voluntary programs, thus reducing the need for government expenditures.
Furthermore, pollution prevention efforts lessen the possibility of hazardous spills or accidents occurring either
within or outside a facility's boundaries because less hazardous material needs to be handled, transported, and
disposed.
A92-1715 V-41 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
a. Border Area Pollution Prevention Initiatives
Because of the potential for pollution prevention techniques to protect the border environment, SEDUE and EPA
will incorporate a pollution prevention component into the first stage of this Plan. As a first step, the two
agencies will establish a new pollution prevention Work Group under the 1983 Border Environmental
Agreement This Work Group will coordinate bilateral efforts to define and implement pollution prevention
projects in the Border Area.
For example, the Pollution Prevention Work Group will draw from EPA's 33/50 Project in the Border Area. A
special effort will be made to encourage industrial facilities on the U.S. side of the border to enlist in the project,
and the U.S. owners of facilities on the Mexican side of the border will be encouraged to apply their pollution
prevention activities in Mexico as well as in the United States.
The Pollution Prevention Work Group will develop joint pollution reduction initiatives in the border area similar
to EPA's existing 33/50 program. In the United States, the 33/50 program encourages industries to reduce
emissions of the 17 hazardous substances by 33 percent by the end of 1992 and by 50 percent by the end of
1995. At the end of 1991, over 700 U.S. companies had committed to reducing their emissions of the 17 target
chemicals by almost 300 million pounds by 1995.
During the Plan's first stage, the Work Group intends to assess the potential effectiveness of other kinds of
pollution prevention initiatives. Pollution prevention projects affecting municipal wastewater treatment, water use
efficiency, and agricultural chemical use may be especially beneficial in the Border Area. Based on its
assessments, the Work Group will recommend to the two agencies other pollution prevention projects in the first
or second stage of this Plan.
b. Technical Assistance for Pollution Prevention
To maTimiTp. the effectiveness of their joint pollution prevention program, SEDUE and EPA will work together
to provide a technical assistance program to participating businesses and to establish effective technology transfer
methods. This technical assistance will consist of training, information regarding clean production processes,
university-based technical resource centers, and demonstration projects.
A92-171.5 V-42 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Under this technical assistance program, industry employees will be trained to conduct internal environmental
audits and assessments in their facilities. They will also be assisted in identifying alternative production
processes, technologies, and materials that minimize waste.
The information element of the technical assistance program will consist of a direct hook-up for SEDUE to the
International Cleaner Production Information Clearinghouse operated jointly by EPA and UNEP. This computer-
based network will supply businesses in the Border Area with access to international technology information,
case studies, and technical guidance data bases.
EPA also will explore ways to support several university-based pollution prevention research and education
centers in the Border Area. These centers will conduct research on pollution prevention techniques especially
appropriate for the particular industries located in the Border Area, and they will help local businesses gain
access to and apply the information contained in international data bases.
Finally, EPA will work with SEDUE and Border Area universities to develop model pollution prevention and
recycling demonstration projects for local communities. These model projects will engage local businesses,
schools, and communications media in a coordinated, cross-media strategy to prevent specific kinds of pollution
in specific communities. The results of these demonstration projects will be shared with other communities hi
the Border Area so they can be duplicated where appropriate.
12. Environmental Education (For current status, see pages ffl-32 through m-33)
SEDUE and EPA believe that environmental education and widespread involvement by the general public is
essential to the success of this Plan. Consequently, both agencies will work with the public, local public and
private educational institutions, and with the private sector, to improve public understanding of the border
environment and the role the public can play in protecting it.
Environmental education is an instrument for the formation of environmental consciousness and a tool for
reducing the degradation of natural resources and the environment It is one of the elements that is helpful hi
changing public conduct. The approach to environmental education that will be developed in Mexico can be
divided into the following categories:
A92-171.5
V-43 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
a. Formal "Classroom" Environmental Education
Activities in this category incorporate an environmental dimension into educational systems of the Border Area,
and share the experience that has been gained on the national level.
This initiative will promote cooperation among institutions in environmental instruction and the training of
professionals in environmental management To achieve the aforementioned objectives, meetings will be held to
design the materials and the content Colloquia among universities will be held that lead to the formation of a
network for the exchange of knowledge and experience in the design of a university curriculum for the training
of environmental professionals.
b. Informal Environmental Education
The objective in this category is to increase public awareness of natural resource management without using
formal mechanisms. To that end, individuals need to be educated about appropriate use of soil, water, forests,
and waste management, through printed and audio-visual materials. These will permit the most direct
communication with the public. In the same manner, regional seminars and meetings will be arranged in which
non-governmental organizations and individuals committed to the defense of the environment will be invited to
participate.
c. Environmental Education Workshops
Environmental education workshops will be developed to instruct the public in the reuse of domestic and
industrial solid waste materials for useful purposes, such as recreational, artistic and other activities. These
workshops will be designed for both children and adults.
In addition, SEDUE and EPA will develop public service messages to be distributed to newspapers and radio and
television stations in the Border Area. These bilingual messages will encourage other actions, such as water
conservation, waste minimization, and basic home sanitation that individuals and families can take to help protect
the border environment Through such public service messages, SEDUE and EPA will publicize not only the
importance of broad public participation in environmental protection, but also the active cooperation of the two
nations through their respective environmental agencies.
A92-171.5 V-44 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
SEDUE and EPA intend to develop bilingual environmental education materials for distribution. They will
encourage the international exchange of teachers and other education professionals who work with local school
systems to design educational projects that foster international cooperation in addressing border environmental
issues.
To promote public participation on environmental issues, it is important that local governments designate an
official who will be responsible for environmental matters. It is also important to organize the private sector and
the public hi order to build commitments to environmental protection. It is important to encourage the
participation of environmental groups which could work towards environmental solutions
13. Conservation of Natural Resources (For current status, see pages 111-33 through in-37).
The three joint committees established for the conservation of natural resources (the Joint Committee for the
Conservation of Wildlife; the Tripartite Committee of Mexico, the U.S. and Canada for the Conservation of
Migratory Birds and their Habitats (Preservation of Wetlands); and the Joint Committee for the Management and
Protection of National Parks and Other Protected Natural and Cultural Sites) will continue to work on the design,
implementation and evaluation of priority programs. These themes will be explored in cooperation with research
and academic institutions, non-governmental organizations, interested citizen groups and local governmental
authorities on both sides of the border. The committees will continue to work on the projects referenced in
Section III as part of the Border Plan.
The part of this work pertaining to wildlife will be coordinated by SEDUE, and by DOI, through the FWS. The
work pertaining to protected areas will be administered by SEDUE and NPS. At forthcoming meetings,
scheduled for April 1992, the joint committees will develop action plans dealing with wildlife and protected areas
of the affected countries.
14. Urban Development (For current status, see pages ffl-41 through ffl-43)
In an attempt to address the array of urban development problems confronting the Border Area, a number of
initiatives have been taken by the Mexican Government. In particular, on October 23, 1991, the Mexican
Government announced a three-year commitment of U.S. $460 million to address current deficiencies in the
areas of wastewater treatment, collection and proper disposal of solid waste, road construction, and territorial
reserves for housing.
A921715 V-45 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
B. GENERAL PROVISIONS ON IMPLEMENTATION
In planning for an environmentally-sound Border Area, SEDUE and EPA have agreed upon the following
general provisions on implementation as an integral part of the Border Environmental Plan. Most cut across
many of the border problems, and all merit early action.
1. Intergovernmental Coordination and Public Involvement
a. Intergovernmental Coordination
SEDUE and EPA, as National Coordinators, will actively coordinate the activities of Federal, state, and local
governments in the implementation of the Plan, and in the continuing planning process.
• Programs that affect the environment of the Border Area will be coordinated, consistent with
treaties and other Mexican-U.S. agreements in force, by SEDUE (for other Mexican agencies)
and by EPA (for other U.S. agencies) to insure the overall integrity of the Plan.
• State and local environmental agencies will be invited to provide their extensive knowledge,
expertise, and resources to the Plan by encouraging their involvement and participation in the
binational Work Groups constituted by SEDUE and EPA pursuant to the 1983 Border
Environmental Agreement. Particularly on the U.S. side, state and local governments play a
significant role in carrying out Federal mandates; therefore, their direct and active involvement
is essential.
b. Public Participation
Public participation is essential to addressing environmental problems. Regardless of the efforts undertaken by
government, these will not be sufficient to deal fully with environmental problems unless they have public
support The Plan must thus reflect the interests and participation of the general public and public officials in
Mexico and the United States. In the U.S., the general public is often represented by organizations such as:
• citizen groups
• industry associations
• labor unions
A92-171.5 V-46 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• non-governmental organizations
• academic institutions
In Mexico, public participation occurs through municipal Ecological Committees of Citizen Participation, which
include representatives of social and private organizations. The first type of social organization consists of trade
unions, clubs, agricultural organizations, sporting associations, and professional organizations. The second type
of private organization consists of industrial associations, trade associations, farmers' associations, and press
associations. The Ecological Committees involve the public in reviewing regulations for environmental
protection, promote environmental awareness generally and provide a system to direct public attention to existing
problems. The various "publics" in Mexico and the U.S. may be involved in the Plan on three different levels:
(i) National/Binational - The SEDUE and EPA Border Environmental Plan Public Advisory
Committees will be chartered in Mexico and the U.S. respectively. The Mexican group will
advise SEDUE and the U.S. group will advise EPA.
Representatives of these groups are encouraged by SEDUE and EPA to meet periodically,
freely exchange ideas, and make joint recommendations to both SEDUE and EPA. Such
binational collaborative efforts will be valuable in forging measures to protect and enhance the
environment of the Border Area.
(ii) Sister City - Considerable public interaction already occurs between Mexican and U.S. sister
cities (mayoral meetings, industry alliances, community groups, etc.). As specific
environmental programs are developed and carried out in the sister cities, specific public
advisory groups may be established to fit specific needs as they arise. SEDUE and EPA will
strongly encourage and facilitate such public involvement; but will leave its form and content to
the participants to design on their own behalf.
(iu) People-to-People - SEDUE and EPA recognize that people-to-people community groups play a
significant role in forging a society aware and motivated by environmental quality, public
health, and economic vitality. SEDUE and EPA strongly endorse these efforts.
The SEDUE and EPA Border Environmental Plan Public Advisory Committees will each perform the following
general functions, subject to their respective charters and the approval of their participants:
A92-171.5
V-47 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Serve as advisory bodies to SEDUE and EPA, respectively, including the Plan Coordinators and
provide recommendations with respect to the implementation of the Plan;
• Serve as fora for the exchange of ideas and discussion on Border Area environmental problems;
and
• Assist in the promotion of information and technology transfer among industry and non-
governmental organizations.
Both the SEDUE and EPA Border Environmental Plan Public Advisory Committees will:
• Serve as conduits for the public dissemination of information concerning specific projects and
programs pursued under the Plan and, together with the Plan Coordinators, serve as a
clearinghouse for the receipt of public comments from area residents and others related to the
Plan and its implementation; and
• Promote community relations activities and right-to-know policies.
2. Other Programs to Promote Public Awareness and Increase Public Participation
To ensure effective implementation of the Border Environmental Plan, it is essential to make the public aware of
the Plan and to enlist their participation in implementing it The following additional activities will be
implemented:
• Public Meetings, Conferences and Workshops. SEDUE and EPA will develop educational
and information programs about the Border Environmental Plan, targeted at Mexican and U.S.
industries, governmental agencies, academic entities and the general public in the Border Area.
Programs should address both technical and policy issues, and focus on opportunities for the
private sector and for technology transfer.
• SEDUE/EPA Translation of Environmental Laws, Regulations, Standards and Guidance.
SEDUE and EPA will publish a SEDUE/EPA-approved English language translation of the
1988 Mexican Comprehensive General Ecology Law, the regulations and technical norms or
standards developed to implement the law, and such other Mexican and U.S. laws, regulations,
standards and guidance as SEDUE and EPA deem appropriate. The relevant U.S. laws,
regulations, standards and guidance will be translated into Spanish. These publications will be
regularly updated.
A92-171.5 V-48 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Public Information on Environmental Conditions in the Border Area. SEDUE and EPA
will jointly arrange for the publication of triennial environmental indices and data on the Border
Area. SEDUE and EPA will seek establishment of requirements for public availability of data
on emissions and effluents of pollutants and other elements of a right-to-know program in the
Border Area.
• Bilateral Environmental Education Program. SEDUE and EPA will develop a bilateral
environmental education program for the Border Area. The program will include cross border
research, data collection and academic programs at the university level; public service
announcements; cooperation to support international youth exchange initiatives; and bilingual
teaching materials to promote environmental education in classrooms across the border at the
primary and secondary level. In cooperation with border public television and radio stations, an
initiative to increase the level of environmental awareness hi the region through media
programming will be launched.
• Private Volunteer Initiatives. SEDUE and EPA will promote increased environmental
awareness in the border communities through private initiatives to address the specific public
health and social infrastructural problems that contribute to adverse environmental conditions in
the Border Area. This will include model self-help demonstration programs to protect water
supplies and promote sanitation.
3. Effective Protection of Transboundary Environmental Resources
SEDUE and EPA, in cooperation with the IBWC, are taking steps to assure that the environmental standards and
requirements of each agency, and their enforcement, provide effective protection to transboundary environmental
resources in the Border Area such as border surface waters, transboundary aquifers, and the air basins of sister
cities. In this connection, the IBWC will, in consultation with SEDUE and EPA, announce during 1992 the
policies to be applied for the protection of Border Area binational wastewater treatment facilities through
pretreatment requirements and for the protection of transboundary aquifers.
4. Increased Financial Resources for Environmental Protection in the Border Area
SEDUE and EPA have reviewed ways to resolve financial resource problems and strengthen their cooperation in
mobilizing funding for pollution control facilities needed in the Border Area. The initial commitments to
financing the first stage of the Plan are set out in Section V.C of the Plan. Where pollution control facilities,
such as those for handling hazardous wastes, are lacking or inadequate, consideration is being given to
developing market incentives and user fees on pollution sources to pay for such facilities. SEDUE is promoting
A92-171.5
V-49 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
a program for the creation of new hazardous waste handling facilities in Mexico by 1994. SEDUE and EPA will
periodically review the need for technical assistance in developing market incentives and other environmental
policies, as well as for preparing proposals for loan financing of pollution control facilities. It is recognized that
external resources will be required to achieve complete implementation of the Plan by Mexico. During 1992,
SEDUE will set out Mexico's program for seeking such external financial support for the Plan through 1994.
SEDUE will also set out Mexico's program to generate financial support from industries on the Mexican side of
the Border Area for environmental infrastructure called for under the Plan.
5. Periodic Review of the Border Environmental Plan
SEDUE and EPA will review and update this Border Environmental Plan as the need arises. In any event, the
Plan will be reviewed and revised in 1994. At that time there will be similar opportunities for participation by
the governmental, public and private sectors before the Plan's second stage is adopted. In the interim, SEDUE
and EPA will convene an annual review of the Plan's implementation wilh opportunity for comment by the
governmental, public and private sectors.
C. BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN FUNDING
Funding for the first stage of the Plan (1992-94) will derive from a variety of sources, including contributions
from the Mexican and U.S. Governments, border state and local governments of both countries, and the U.S. and
Mexican private sectors. A portion of Mexico's funds to address border environmental problems will come from
a U.S. $50 million loan from the World Bank contingent upon matching Mexican Government support This
funding will permit a substantial increase in SEDUE's Border Area inspectors, from 50 to 200. To help make
these new inspectors more effective, SEDUE's 1992 operational budget for the Border Area will increase about
450 percent to U.S. $6.3 million.
The Mexican Government has committed U.S. $460 million over me 1992-1994 period for the development of
urban infrastructure along the border, including the handling and disposal of urban solid waste and municipal
wastewater and the creation of territorial reserves to support low-income housing. The 1992 commitment is U.S.
$147 million and additional funding commitments for Mexico's portion of the Plan will be announced on an
annual basis.
For 1992, the Mexican Government is committed to spend $147 million to ameliorate border environmental
problems, as follows: wastewater treatment ~ U.S. $60 million; road improvement ~ U.S. $40 million; public
transportation - U.S. $19.4 million; solid waste management - U.S. $16.6 million; and territorial reserves -
A92-171.5 V-50 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
U.S. $11 million. The funding will be utilized in the following cities: Tijuana - U.S. $28 million; Ciudad
Juarez - U.S. $26 million; Mexicali - U.S. $17 million; Nuevo Laredo U.S. $16 million; Reynosa - U.S. $14
million; Matamoros -- U.S. $13 million; Nogales -- U.S. $7 million; Piedras Negras -- U.S. $6 million; San Luis
Rio Colorado - U.S. $6 million; and other municipalities along the border - U.S. $14 million.
In the United States, wastewater treatment facilities and clean drinking water have been given the highest
priority. The total U.S. commitment contemplated in the FY93 budget to address environmental problems along
the border is $241 million, including $199 million in water-related construction grants. Of this sum, $50 million
will be earmarked for EPA wastewater grants to colonias in border regions. An additional $25 million in grants
has been proposed for drinking water hook-ups for colonias, to be administered through the Rural Development
Administration of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (RDA).
Other areas will receive additional EPA assistance totaling over $9 million in FY93. These areas include: air
pollution monitoring in Ciudad Juarez/El Paso, Tijuana/San Diego, and Mexican/Imperial Valley; U.S.
environmental technical assistance initiatives; enforcement; emergency planning and response; border
environmental education; border environmental roundtables and border crossing facilities; and the U.S. Border
Environmental Plan Public Advisory Committee. An additional $2 million will be directed to Border Area
public health projects administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The U.S. Export-
Import Bank will also commit $5 million in loan guarantees to help Mexico acquire pollution control equipment
and other U.S. goods and services for the improvement of Mexico's environment.
U.S. support for the Plan will also come from state and local governments. In Texas, for example, $100 million
in revolving loan funds were targeted in early 1991 for the water needs of colonias in that state. An additional
$150 million of funding for colonias was recently authorized by referendum in Texas last November. In Nuevo
Laredo/Laredo, funds from the State of Texas will be contributed to support a portion of the area's $44 million
binational sewage treatment facility.
Similarly, in California, $5.3 million in state funds have allocated to support the planned Tijuana/San Diego
sewage treatment facility. An additional $1 million in state funds have already been used to pay for a temporary
sewage diversion project for the Tijuana River. A further State of California contribution to the funding of the
New River project is contemplated.
The private sector will also play a role in providing funding for programs and infrastructure projects outlined in
the Plan. A principal example is the planned Chamizal reclamation project, the first part of a U.S. $70 million
sewage treatment plant for Ciudad Juarez that includes two more treatment plants to be located east of the city,
with construction scheduled to be completed in 1993. The Ciudad Juarez treatment project will be funded in part
21?15 V-51 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
by the Mexican Government, the State of Chihuahua and Ciudad Juarez. The local maquiladora industry
association is considering the assumption of a 30 percent share of total project costs. Construction is scheduled
to commerce in February 1992.
MEXICAN/UJ5. BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN FUNDING COMMITMENTS
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
I. Mexican Government
A. SEDUE Border Environmental Initiatives (Excluding IBWC)
Sewage Treatment
Solid Waste
TransportationVRoads
Territorial Reserves
Contingency Funds
Construction Grant Sub-Total
Border Area Administration/
cooperative enforcement strategies
TOTAL MEXICAN COMMITMENT
1992-1994
$220.0
$25.0
$168.0
$43.0
$ 4.0
$460.0
$ 6.3'
$466.3
B.
Mexican IBWC Wastewater Project Construction
Laredo
Nogales project
-Stage One
-Contribution to treatment plant
Tijuana project
-Stage one works
-Stage two works
Mexicali project
To Date
1988-1991
$3.0
$30.0
$33.0
1992-1995
$22.0
$1.0
$20.02
Pending
$41.02
'1992 budgeted commitment (1993 and 1994 commitments to be announced)
'Committed lev-date
A92-171.5
V-52
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
C. 7992 SEDUE Commitment by City
Ciudad Juarez $26 Million
Tijuana $28 Million
Mexicali $17 Million
San Luis Colorado $ 6 Million
Nogales $ 7 Million
Piedras Negras $ 6 Million
Nuevo Laredo $16 Million
Reynosa $14 Million
Matamoros $13 Million
Other $14 Million
$147 Million
II. U.S. Federal Government
A. Border Wastewater Project Construction (EPA and IBWC)
To Date Two Year
1988-91 1992 1993 1992-93
Tijuana Project
-EPA — $49.0 $65.0 $114.0
-IBWC — $3.0 $4.0 $7.0
Nogales Project
-EPA $0.0 $0.0 $5.0 $5.0
-IBWC $11.7 $0.5 $0.0 $0.5
Nuevo Laredo Project
-IBWC — $12.1 $0.5 $12.6
New River
-EPA — $0.0 $10.0 $10.0
-IBWC — $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0
$11.7 $64.6 $84.5 $149.1
B. Colonias Assistance Initiative
Two Year
1992 1993 1992-93
EPA (Grant Program) $0.tf $50.0 $50.0
USDA (Grant Program) $PJ> $25-Q $25.0
$0.0 $75.0 $75.0
A92-171.5
V-53 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
C. Technical Assistance/Other Programs
Two Year
1992 1993 1992-93
EPA
-border programs $3.0* 9.14 $17.0
-other wastewater treatment
(i.e., San Diego project) $40.0 $40.0 $80.0
HHS $2.0 $2.0 $4.0
Export-Import Bank $18.0 $5.0 $23.0
EBWC (other than wastewater construction) $ 10.4 $ 25.5 $ 35.9
$73.4 $81.5 $154.9
TOTAL U.S. COMMITMENT $138.0 $241.1 $379.0
3Note: An additional $15 million had been appropriated in FY 1990 for an EPA state revolving loan fund
(SRF) program which continues to provide assistance to colonia communities in the State of Texas.
*Includes $1.6 million in FY-1992 and $2.1 million in FY-1993 for EPA border area enforcement initiatives.
A92-171.5 V-54 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
ANNEX A
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
FOR THE BORDER AREA
A. OVERVIEW OF SEDUE AND MEXICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS IMPACTING THE
BORDER AREA
Mexican environmental laws, regulations and standards are administered and executed by the ecological sub-
secretariat of SEDUE. Mexico's first modern environmental laws were passed in 1972, 1982 and 1984. These
laws were superseded in 1988 by the "General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection"
(the General Ecology Law), a comprehensive statute covering all types of pollution as well as the protection and
preservation of natural resources.
Four regulations relating to national air pollution, air pollution within the Mexico City Metropolitan Zone,
environmental impact assessment and hazardous wastes have been issued under the General Ecology Law since
1988. A fifth regulation covering wastes at sea which implements the London Ocean Dumping Convention was
adopted in 1979 and will remain in force until superseded. A new regulation dealing with the prevention and
control of water pollution is expected to be published. As of November 1990, 57 technical ecological standards
(NTEs) and ecological criteria have been issued to implement the regulations. Since then, SEDUE has also
approved several additional NTEs involving source categories for water. Other NTEs, particularly in the air and
hazardous waste pollution areas, are slated to be presented for approval by the end of 1992.
Mexico's environmental laws, regulations and standards are similar in many respects to those in the United
States. The General Ecology Law embodies principles similar to those in U.S. laws and regulations, and the
technical standards for implementing the General Ecology Law that have been issued are generally comparable to
those of the United States.
A92-171anx A-l PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Mexico is committed to ensuring new source compliance and to "growing clean." Most of those entities
intending to construct new facilities or modifications to existing facilities, whether public or private, are required
to file an environmental impact analysis with SEDUE and, for high risk activities, a risk assessment. SEDUE
reviews these analyses and has the authority to deny authorization for a project or to impose design, construction,
and operating conditions to avoid significant adverse environmental effects. Even in cases where all applicable
NTEs have not yet been developed, SEDUE can impose limits and other "special conditions." Separate air,
water, and waste permits are also necessary where applicable.
In accordance with the General Health Law in Mexico, the Secretariat of Health sets water quality standards for
human use and consumption, as well as standards relating to treatments for water disinfection, and performs
monitoring and certification of drinking water quality. A national system to monitor and certify water has been
established and is applicable throughout Mexico. Likewise, the Secretariat of Health is also responsible for the
establishment of sanitary quality criteria for wastewater treatment and for monitoring the health of workers and
the general population for risks of exposure to toxic substances and hazardous waste.
The Secretariat of Health is also the entity responsible for establishing the maximum allowable limits of
pollutants in the air, as well as evaluating the effects of air pollution on public health and educating the
population on reducing the associated risks. Programs are underway for establishing a regulatory framework as
well as for training personnel to evaluate the effects on health resulting from exposure to these materials.
The Secretariat of Commerce and Industrial Development (SECOFT) oversees the operations of Mexico's
maquiladora industry under the August 15, 1983 "Decree for the Fostering of the Exporting Maquiladora
Industry." Under that Decree and in accordance with Annex ffl of the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement, if
waste resulting from materials imported into Mexico from the United States cannot be "nationalized" by the
maquiladora operator in accordance with Mexican law, such waste must be returned to the United States.
Since the General Ecology Law was passed, SEDUE has taken increasingly strong measures to bring existing
sources into compliance and to demonstrate its commitment to the law. From March 1988 through the end of
1990, 5,405 inspections occurred nationwide resulting in 980 partial and 1,139 temporary plant closings and 3
permanent closings. From January 1 through May 15, 1991, there were more than 275 plant inspections in
Mexico City resulting in the temporary or partial closing of 102 facilities and 3 permanent closings. In March
1991, Mexican President Salinas de Gortari closed the "18th of March" PEMEX oil refinery near Mexico City.
The closing of this refinery, which accounted for eight percent of PEMEX's total distillation capacity and
involved
A92-171 .anx A-2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
a U.S. $500 million investment and 5,000 jobs, demonstrates Mexico's commitment to improving the
environment. SEDUE has recently hired fifty new inspectors for Mexico City and proposes to have 200
inspectors assigned to the Border Area.
Mexico's efforts however, have been hampered by a lack of resources. Nevertheless, the 1991 SEDUE budget
for ecological activities was approximately $39 million, more than three times its 1990 budget for this purpose.
In addition, Mexico is negotiating with the World Bank for a loan of $50 million to assist SEDUE which,
together with allocations from the Federal Government of Mexico, will provide significant additional resources
for SEDUE's activities.
B. OVERVIEW OF EPA AND U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS IMPACTING THE BORDER
AREA
Most United States pollution control and prevention laws are administered by EPA, a Federal regulatory agency
headed by an Administrator who is appointed by, and reports directly to, the President. Formed in 1970, EPA is
responsible for pollution abatement and control programs, including air and water pollution control; water supply
and radiation protection; solid and toxic waste management; emergency preparedness and response and
contingency planning; pesticides control; and toxic chemicals regulation. Those offices within EPA having the
most direct responsibility for the Border Area include: the Office of International Activities, which maintains
Agency contacts with SEDUE and provides the U.S. Coordinator for the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement;
the Office of Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention, which maintains contact with SEDUE on spill
preparedness and emergency response issues; and the EPA Regional Offices in Dallas (Region 6, which includes
the Texas and New Mexico border regions with Mexico) and San Francisco (Region 9, which includes the
California and Arizona border regions with Mexico), which help implement and enforce national policy and the
full range of EPA environmental programs. As the Border Environmental Plan is implemented, a number of
other EPA offices, including the Office of Water and the Office of Enforcement, are having increased
involvement in Border Area issues.
Enforcement of EPA-administered statutes affects the U.S. side of the Border Area directly. Some U.S. laws
also impact directly upon certain maquiladora operations. For example, the return of hazardous waste to the
United States from maquiladora facilities in Mexico is regulated by both U.S. Federal and state laws once those
materials reach the U.S. border.
A-3 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Hazardous substances and wastes in commerce are regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as
hazardous materials. Shipments of hazardous wastes, including those originating in foreign countries, must
comply with the regulations applicable to hazardous materials having similar hazardous properties.
Federal regulation of the transportation of hazardous materials is aimed at ensuring public safety through proper
containment of hazardous materials during transportation and adequate communication of the nature of potential
hazards. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as amended, governs transportation of materials in
commerce found by the Secretary of Transportation to pose an unreasonable risk to health and safety or property.
Hazardous materials include explosives, flammables, corrosives, poisons, and other materials that have acute
potential for human injury as well as radioactive and disease-causing agents.
Pursuant to the U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which authorizes EPA to regulate
hazardous wastes and develop hazardous waste management practices, EPA tracks the domestic movement of
hazardous wastes from generation to final disposal. Transboundary shipments of hazardous wastes are also
tracked. Through reporting and manifesting requirements, exported hazardous wastes are tracked from their
generation in the United States to their arrival at the border with Mexico. For each such export, the exporter
must notify EPA of its intent to export; the Mexican Government must consent to receive the export; a copy of
the Mexican Government consent must be attached to the manifest accompanying each shipment; and each
shipment must conform to the terms of the consent Imports of hazardous waste from Mexico are tracked from
the time they reach the U.S. border until they reach their final U.S. destination.
EPA and authorized states have the authority for administrative enforcement of RCRA requirements. A variety
of tools exists under U.S. law to compel transporters, brokers, TSDFs (Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facilities), U.S. sister plants, other intermediaries and any other RCRA violators to come into compliance. These
enforcement tools include administrative orders, civil actions, criminal actions, and special penalty actions.
Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 contains U.S. provisions for
preparing for responses to accidental releases of extremely hazardous substances. Under Section 301, all U.S.
states are required to establish Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) that are responsible for
developing local emergency plans for chemical accidents. Section 304 requires immediate notification of
chemical releases above a certain threshold level. Sections 311-312 require facilities to provide information on
chemicals produced, stored, and used. Section 313 requires facilities to report the amounts of all routine and
accidental releases of certain chemicals. Finally, Section 325 sets forth penalties and enforcement criteria for
failure to meet Title III requirements.
A92-171.anx A-4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
EPA has the authority on the U.S. side of the border to protect the supply of drinking water delivered through
public water systems. The U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to set drinking water standards,
commonly known as Maximum Contaminant Levels, which are applied to such public water systems. In
addition, EPA administers a program within the Border Area to improve access to water and sewer systems. To
ensure water quality within the Border Area, the Clean Water Act provides the authority for the establishment
and enforcement of limitations on point sources discharging into U.S. waters. Water quality standards developed
by the states and approved by EPA consist of designated uses and criteria to meet those uses.
Section 815 of the CAAA, which remains in force until July 1, 1995, authorizes the EPA Administrator, in
conjunction with the U.S. Department of State and affected border States, to agree upon a cooperative program
with SEDUE to monitor and improve air quality in regions on both sides of the Border Area. Section 815
provides, among other things, for establishing air quality monitoring and remediation programs and annual
progress reports to the U.S. Congress which are to include funding recommendations for monitoring and
remediation efforts.
Monitoring components include ambient air quality monitoring programs, emissions inventory development and
collection of additional monitoring data to support state-of-the-art mathematical modeling studies. The ultimate
goal of these programs will be to collect and produce data projecting the level of emissions reductions necessary
in both Mexico and the United States to attain both primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) and other air quality goals in areas within the United States along the Mexican border. The
EPA Administrator is authorized to negotiate with appropriate Mexican representatives to develop remediation
measures for reducing airborne pollutant levels to achieve and maintain air quality standards and goals. This
remediation program will also identify those control measures to be implemented by Mexico with the help of
material or financial assistance from the United States.
Section 818 of the CAAA amends the requirements governing State Implementation Plans (SIPs) in international
border areas. Among other things, it provides that if a state can demonstrate that the SIP would be adequate to
attain and maintain the relevant NAAQS by the specified attainment date, except for emissions emanating from
outside the United States, EPA should approve the SIP provided it meets all applicable requirements other than
NAAQS attainment and maintenance and not penalize the U.S. city in question by "bumping up" its pollution
severity category.
A92-171.anx
A-5 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
C. APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND TREATIES
1. Bilateral Agreements Between Mexico and the United States
Two major groups of bilateral agreements between Mexico and the United States relate to air, water and land
resource protection and pollution control.
The first group of agreements includes the 1889 International Boundary Convention which established the
International Boundary Commission (IBC), and the Water Treaty of 1944 which replaced the IBC with the
International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) and granted the IBWC enhanced authority to address
water quality, conservation, and use issues. The IBWC was made responsible for undertaking any border water
sanitation measures or works mutually agreed upon by the two governments. Such agreements are expressed in
the form of IBWC minutes which, upon approval of both governments, become binding obligations upon each as
international agreements and relate to planning, construction, operation, and maintenance of joint activities
including obligations for measures that each government must undertake. Wastewater treatment facilities are
presently under construction at Nuevo Laredo and Nogales, and are scheduled for the New River at
Mexicali/Calexico and Tijuana/San Diego. Through the IBWC, Mexico and the United States have launched
their largest project to date, a new international secondary sewage treatment plant in me Tijuana/San Diego area.
The second major group of relevant bilateral agreements includes the 1983 Agreement between the United States
and Mexico on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area (the
"1983 Border Environmental Agreement") and its five Annexes. The 1983 Border Environmental Agreement
provides a framework for cooperation between Mexican and U.S governmental authorities to prevent, reduce, and
eliminate sources of air, water, and land pollution in a 100-kilometer wide zone along each side of the
international boundary. The Agreement creates the general structure under which specific projects set out in
technical annexes (currently five) are implemented.
Annex I signed on July 18, 1985 addresses Tijuana/San Diego wastewater treatment facilities. Activities relating
to this project have been conducted by the IBWC in coordination with SEDUE and EPA.
Annex II signed on July 18, 1985 and the 1988 Joint U.S ./Mexico Contingency Plan for Accidental Releases of
Hazardous Substances Along the Border authorize the establishment of the Inland Joint Response Team (JRT).
The JRT undertakes emergency actions to respond to accidental oil and hazardous substance spills along the 200-
kilometer-wide inland Border Area defined by the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement The JRT also
A92-171.anx A-6 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
coordinates international hazardous substance emergency preparedness and response activities in this area.
Establishment of the JRT supplemented the 1980 Agreement of Cooperation between Mexico and the United
States regarding Pollution of the Marine Environment by Discharges of Hydrocarbons and other Hazardous
Substances (implemented by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Mexican Navy), which establishes a similar
mechanism for the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Ocean regions of the Border Area.
Annex HI signed on November 12, 1986 governs the transboundary shipment of hazardous wastes and hazardous
substances between Mexico and the United States. It establishes notification and consent procedures which
require the country of export of hazardous waste to provide written notice to, and obtain consent from, the
country of import prior to commencing export The Annex further requires the country of export to readmit any
shipment of hazardous waste returned for any reason by the country of import. For the United States, this means
that the U.S. will aljow re-entry of hazardous waste and hazardous substance shipments in compliance with
domestic U.S. law. In addition, hazardous waste generated from raw materials admitted to either country "in-
bond" for purposes of processing must be readmitted by the country from which the raw materials originated, as
in the case of hazardous wastes generated in maquiladora facilities. With respect to hazardous substances,
Annex III requires each party to notify the other of regulatory actions undertaken to bar or severely restrict a
pesticide or chemical and to give notice of any ongoing hazardous substances export that comes to the attention
of the country of export.
Annex IV signed on January 29, 1987 requires copper smelters in the Border Area of Arizona, New Mexico,
Texas and Sonora, Mexico, operating as of January 29, 1987, to comply with certain emissions limits that are no
stricter than U.S. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). The Annex contains an annual reporting
requirement and provides for the transfer of emissions and compliance monitoring data between SEDUE and
EPA.
Annex V signed on October 3, 1989 provides for a quantitative appraisal of causes of, and potential remedies
for, urban air pollution problems in Mexico-U.S. border cities identified as "study areas." Under Annex V, for
each study area, SEDUE and EPA will compile emissions inventories (including major stationary, mobile, and
area sources of selected pollutants), estimate control requirements needed to attain applicable standards, conduct
ambient air quality monitoring, and perform air modeling analysis to evaluate air quality changes that would
result from airshed-wide emissions reductions. The first study area to be identified under Annex V was Ciudad
Juarez/El Paso. At the 1991 Binational Commission meeting in Mexico City, Tijuana/San Diego and
Mexicali/Calexico were proposed to be added for study under Annex V.
A92-171.anx
A-7 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Four Work Groups of technical experts were established prior to 1991 to implement the terms of the 1983
Border Environmental Agreement and its technical Annexes; the Water Work Group, the Hazardous Waste Work
Group, the Air Work Group, and the Contingency Plan/Emergency Response Work Group (Inland Joint Response
Team (JRT)). A Cooperative Enforcement Strategy Work Group was established in June 1991 and a Pollution
Prevention Work Group in November 1991.
The Mexico-United States Mutual Legal Assistance Cooperation Treaty became effective in May 1991 and
provides for mutual legal assistance by the parties in criminal matters. Mexico is also a recent signatory to the
Hague Convention On the Taking of Evidence Abroad, to which the United States is also a party. These
agreements will make it easier in criminal and civil proceedings for administrative and judicial authorities in one
country to obtain assistance from their counterparts in the other.
Since 1983, the following other bilateral and trilateral cooperative agreements associated with protecting natural
resources in the Border Area have been signed by Mexico and the United States:
Agreement between the Directorate General of Natural Resources of SEDUE and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior for Cooperation in the Conservation
of Wildlife (1984).
• Agreement between the Forest Service of Mexico and the U.S. Forest Service on Cooperation
(1985).
• Memorandum of Understanding among the Directorate General of Natural Resources of
SEDUE and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior and the
Canadian Wildlife Service of the Department of the Environment of Canada to Evaluate the
Possibilities of Developing Strategies for Conservation of Migratory Birds and their Habitats
(1988). This agreement provides for trilateral cooperation in promoting projects for the
conservation of wetlands.
Memorandum of Understanding between SEDUE and the U.S. National Park Service on
Cooperation in Management and Protection of National Parks and Orner Protected Natural and
Cultural Heritage Sites (1988).
A92-171.anx A-8 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
2. Multilateral Environmental Agreements
Several multilateral agreements to which Mexico and the United States are parties affect the Border Area. Both
Mexico and the United States are parties to the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer
and the Montreal Protocol On Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which entered into force in 1989.
Mexico was the first country to ratify the Montreal Protocol which has as its objective the enactment of
precautionary measures for the control of ozone depleting emissions. Both Mexico and the United States have
signed the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (the
Basel Convention). Mexico has ratified the Basel Convention and President Bush has submitted implementing
legislation to Congress for its advice and consent to ratification. The Basel Convention will require an exporting
party to provide the receiving country with advance notice of proposed shipments of waste and the prior written
consent of the receiving country. It will also require that the exporting country be assured that the waste will be
managed in an "environmentally sound manner" in the receiving country. Article 11 of the Convention provides
that parties can enter into bilateral agreements with non-parties and with other parties for the trans-shipment of
hazardous wastes, so long as the provisions of these agreements are no less protective of the environment than
the Basel Convention itself. As noted above, Annex HI to the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement, signed in
1986, covers the transboundary shipment of hazardous wastes and hazardous substances.
Both Mexico and the United States are parties to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the
Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (the Cartagena Convention) which entered into force in
1986. A 1983 protocol to the Cartagena Convention concerning cooperation in combatting oil spills in the Wider
Caribbean Region requires parties to promote contingency plans for combatting oil pollution. Under a second
protocol on Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW), signed in 1990, the parties have agreed to protect
certain ecosystems and species which may be endangered. Mexico and the U.S. are signatories but have not yet
ratified the protocol. The parties to the Convention are now attempting to develop a third protocol covering
land-based sources of marine pollution.
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, and the 1978 Protocol to that
Convention (MARPOL 73/78) establish international environmental rules on the design, construction, and
operation of ships. As noted above, the International Maritime Organization's Marine Environment Protection
Committee (MEPC) has voted to include the Gulf of Mexico and the Wider Caribbean Region (including the
Gulf of Mexico) as a special area under MARPOL 73/78 at the July 1991 Meeting of the MEPC. When the
special area designation becomes effective, the discharge of oil, oily mixtures, and garbage from ships operating
in the region will be prohibited, provided that port facilities to handle such wastes are available.
A92-171.anx
A-9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
The United States and Mexico are also parties to the 1972 Convention on the Prevention of the Marine Pollution
by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Ocean Dumping Convention) which controls pollution of the
sea by the dumping of wastes and other matter that are liable to create hazards to human health, harm living
resources and marine life, damage amenities or interfere with other legitimate uses of the seas.
Several other multilateral instruments may also be relevant to the Border Area. Principle 21 of the 1972
Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment provides that States have the sovereign right to exploit their
own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies and the responsibility to ensure that activities within
their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or areas beyond their
jurisdiction.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), opened for signature in 1982 but not yet in
force, contains provisions on natural resources and the marine environment. It has been signed and ratified by
Mexico, and is part of the Supreme Law of Mexico. While the UNCLOS has not been signed or ratified by the
United States, the United States accepts and acts in accordance with the balance of interests set forth in the
Convention relating to the traditional uses of the ocean set out in the non-deep seabed mining provisions. Where
the UNCLOS does not reflect customary international law, the provisions of the 1958 Geneva marine
conventions are still applicable for both countries.
3. Mexkan-U.S. Environmental Planning and Coordination Mechanisms
The commitments to strengthen cooperative environmental activities in the Border Area and the planning goals
set forth in the November 1990 joint Presidential communique, together with SEDUE-EPA collaboration under
the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement and the experience with ffiWC management of border water projects,
creates a flexible binational mechanism for upgrading the border environment As has already occurred in the
process of public comment and hearings, the Plan will draw in and coordinate the participation of the border
states and cities, the private sector and the public. By approaching the Plan in stages, together with annual
reviews of implementation, a continuing process of review and refinement involving all the relevant parties will
be initiated.
The Presidents of Mexico and the United States hold regularly-scheduled meetings to discuss issues of mutual
concern including environmental issues and to promote continued friendly and cooperative relations. Progress
reports on this Plan are being made available to the Presidents on such occasions.
A92-171.anx A-10 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
The next level of Mexican-U.S. planning activities occurs within the framework of the Mexican-U.S. cabinet to
cabinet Binational Commission, which brings together the highest levels of authority within the environmental
agencies of both countries. The Secretary of SEDUE and the Administrator of the EPA meet at least annually as
part of this cabinet-level Binational Commission to further discussions involving cooperative environmental
agreements between the two nations. The preparation of the Plan was reviewed in such a meeting during the
1991 Binational Commission meeting in Mexico City.
The 1983 Bord,er Environmental Agreement provides for an annual meeting between the National Coordinators
of the Agreement. The Mexican coordinator is the Under Secretary for Ecology of SEDUE. The U.S.
coordinator is the Assistant Administrator for International Activities of EPA. The foreign affairs ministries of
both countries and the IBWC also participate. Additional representatives from both countries are asked to attend
these meetings to facilitate the discussion and understanding of technical and policy issues depending on the
agenda for the individual meetings. The purpose of these meetings is to review the manner in which the Border
Environmental Agreement is being implemented and to review other environmental cooperation between SEDUE
and EPA. It is planned that representatives of the Mexican and U.S. border states as well as the public and
private sectors will join the SEDUE-EPA Coordinators' 1992 meeting, to be held in June in Santa Fe, New
Mexico.
4. Federal-State Environmental Relationships in Mexico and the United States
SEDUE is more centralized than EPA. As compared with the United States, a much larger portion of Mexico's
environmental protection regime is currently developed and implemented by Federal authorities. Mexican laws
and regulations provide for an expanded role for the states but this has not yet been fully implemented. For
example, in its achievement of ambient air quality standards, Mexico relies on a source permitting program
which is currently carried out at the Federal level through SEDUE. SEDUE intends to eventually turn most
permitting responsibilities over to the states as intended by Mexico's air regulation. Under Mexican water
pollution law, either Federal or state governments may authorize wastewater discharges into bodies of water or
into the soil or subsoil.
Since the General Ecology Law was enacted in early 1988, nineteen of the Mexican states, including the States
of Coahuila, Sonora, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas in the Border Area, plus the Federal District have adopted
environmental statutes. Other states have yet to adopt such statutes, leaving to the Federal Government exclusive
jurisdiction over most environmental matters. Those regulations and standards passed or promulgated at the local
level may not be less stringent than the Federal regulations or standards.
A92-171.anx
A-11 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Mexico is currently examining how SEDUE might become more "decentralized" by shifting some of the
functions which it now administers centrally to state environmental authorities.
In the United States, many minimum pollution control standards are set at the Federal level. However, these are
often implemented by state plans, which may call for more but not less stringent pollution control measures, with
Federal authorities retaining oversight responsibility. Examples of this approach include the U.S. air and water
pollution control regimes. Under the U.S. Clean Air Act, the states develop state implementation plans or "SIPs"
which are submitted to EPA for approval. The SIPs, which must contain a number of measures prescribed by
the Federal statute and must provide for their implementation, are subject to Federal oversight. Under the U.S.
Clean Water Act, the EPA sets minimum technology-based guidelines for pollutant discharges into surface
waters. These are implemented through a permitting program largely carried out by the states under Federal
oversight, except where states have chosen not to participate. In these cases, the Federal Government conducts
the permitting program. Standards are developed by each state with respect to the quality of their own receiving
waters which may be more but not less stringent than the Federal standards. On the other hand, implementation
of some U.S. environmental programs, including those in the pesticides area, remain highly centralized.
States and local governments have also adopted their own sets of environmental laws and requirements. In some
cases, these laws and requirements parallel Federal rules or are adopted to implement Federal laws and
regulations, as noted above. In other cases, states and local governments have adopted different and, in some
instances, more stringent protective standards, where permitted by Federal law. For example, the air quality
rules and regulations in California and its South Coast Air Quality Management District are in some respects
more stringent than Federal standards.
Both SEDUE and EPA have reviewed this Plan with their border state environmental authorities and have
included in the general provisions on implementation to this Plan (see Section V) a provision on coordination of
environmental programs in the Border Area.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES OF MEXICAN AND U.S. BORDER STATES AND CITIES
The following subsection briefly describes the state and local agencies involved along the Mexican-U.S. border
which administer, manage, monitor, permit and enforce environmental regulations.
A92-171 .anx A-12 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
1. Mexico
At a national level, the National Water Commission has as one of its programs, the responsibilities of promoting
and implementing sewage collection and treatment systems for municipal wastewater and providing technical
assistance to local operating agencies. A majority of these activities are already taking place in the Border Area.
There are six Mexican states that border the United States: Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila,
Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas. SEDUE has offices ("delegaciones") in each border state as well as local offices
in most Border Area cities. The CNA also has managerial offices in each of the states and most of the cities in
the Border Area. Four of the states, Sonora, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas, have state environmental
laws, although regulations have not been promulgated pursuant to those state laws.
The principal municipal governments affected include: Tijuana and Mexicali in Baja California; Nogales in
Sonora; Ciudad Juarez in Chihuahua; and Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros in Tamaulipas.
Baja California
State water quality programs are administered primarily by the State Public Service Commissions (CESPs) within
the Secretariat of Human Works and Public Services (SAHOPE). CESP-T administers the program for the cities
of Tijuana and Tecate and CESP-M administers the program for Mexicali. These Commissions are responsible
for monitoring wastewater discharges into municipal sewage systems. They are also responsible for water
quality monitoring programs in the Pacific Ocean and for monitoring the water quality of transboundary rivers
such as the Tijuana and New Rivers. The Commissions coordinate with SEDUE and CNA in the
implementation of these monitoring programs.
The State of Baja California, in coordination with and through the assistance of CNA, SEDUE and the IBWC,
has begun to construct drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities in compliance with existing
arrangements between Mexico and the United States.
Sonora
The Safe Drinking Water and Sewage Commission of Sonora (CEAPAES), within the Secretariat for
Infrastructure and Urban Development, is primarily responsible for Sonera's water quality programs. This
Commission has offices in various cities throughout the State of Sonora which monitor wastewater discharges
A-13 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
," l /1. 3nx
-------
into municipal sewage systems. In coordination with SEDUE and CNA, these Commission offices are also
responsible for water quality monitoring programs for transboundary rivers (Nogales, Santa Cruz, and Agua
Prieta), and for obtaining additional sources of safe drinking water for the municipalities of the state.
The State of Sonora has constructed, in coordination with and through the assistance of CNA, SEDUE and the
IBWC, drinking water and sewage treatment facilities for the City of Nogales, to implement the relevant Mexico-
United States binational arrangement
Chihuahua
Ciudad Juarez has a recently-created municipal ecological committee which participates actively in the process of
finding solutions to environmental problems.
Air Quality Control
Ciudad Juarez has worked with SEDUE and the State of Texas to establish a long-term air quality monitoring
network. This network, the first of its kind to be established in a Mexican border city, was launched on June 10,
1990, and will continue to operate at least through August 1992.
Water Quality Control
Water quality programs in Chihuahua are administered primarily by the Central Water and Sanitation Board
(JCAS), which is an arm of the state government These programs are also administered by municipal water and
sanitation offices, established in various cities, which form a pan of the JCAS. The state is considering a
delegation of its current responsibility for water quality programs to those local JCAS offices with management
capabilities. The JCAS also has programs to monitor wastewater discharges in municipal sewage systems and to
monitor the quality of drinking water sources, which are mostly ground water aquifers. The JCAS, in cooperation
with SEDUE and CNA, also conducts exploration programs, aimed at obtaining new sources of safe drinking
water for each of the cities within the state.
SEDUE, CNA, and the DBWC are also active participants with the states of Chihuahua and Ciudad Juarez in an
integrated project to resolve the transboundary water sanitation problem at Ciudad Juarez.
A92-171.anx A-14 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Coahuila
In Coahuila, water quality programs are carried out by the Coahuila Potable Water and Sewage System
(SAPAC), which is part of the state government and has local offices in several Coahuila cities. At present, the
state government is considering the possibility of transferring responsibility for drinking water and wastewater
treatment programs from the state level to the municipal level. SAP AC currently monitors wastewater discharges
into municipal sewage systems and has constructed, rehabilitated, and increased the capacity of wastewater
treatment facilities in a number of local communities.
Nuevo Leon
Water Quality Control
In Nuevo Leon, the State System of Potable Water and Water Treatment (SISTELEON) administers water
quality programs. SISTELEON is a state government agency with local offices at the municipal level. The
Monterrey branch of SISTELEON, referred to as the Monterrey Water and Drainage System, has implemented
drinking water and wastewater treatment projects for the Monterrey metropolitan area, and has assisted other
parts of the state in establishing the same type of programs. The Monterrey Water and Drainage System, in
coordination with CNA, SEDUE, and the IBWC, is also working to establish a system for the collection and
treatment of wastewater from Colombia, the only border city in Nuevo Leon.
Solid Waste Control
The Metropolitan Waste Collection System (SIMEPRODE), is part of the state government and is responsible for
the handling and disposal of solid waste in the Monterrey metropolitan area. Solid waste management in the rest
of the state is essentially a municipal activity, carried out in compliance with standards established by SEDUE.
Tatnaulipas
Water quality programs within the State of Tamaulipas are administered primarily by the state government's
Commission for Potable Water and Wastewater Treatment (COAPA), which has local offices in cities throughout
the state. At present, COAPA is considering transferring responsibility for safe drinking water systems and
sewage systems to the municipalities. COAPA has programs to monitor wastewater discharges into municipal
sewage systems, as well as programs for monitoring effluent discharges from treatment plants to collection
A92-171.8M A'15 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
facilities. COAPA also has constructed, rebuilt, or increased the capacity of drinking water systems and sewage
treatment facilities in several cities.
The State of Tamaulipas, through the Secretariat of Human Resources and Public Services, is participating
actively, in coordination with CNA, SEDUE and the IBWC, in the construction of a municipal wastewater
collection and treatment system, within the context of the Mexican/U.S. bilateral program.
Mexican states do not have air pollution control agencies. All air quality control activities in Mexico are
undertaken by SEDUE with the assistance of municipal authorities. Management of solid waste is essentially a
municipal responsibility in Mexico, conducted under the supervision of SEDUE. Each municipality manages
solid waste or contracts with private companies for solid waste management services. Each Mexican state
operates, selects and provides sites for disposal of hazardous wastes and substances, in accordance with standards
set by SEDUE. Mexican Customs and SEDUE participate with each state in the control of transboundary
movements of hazardous waste.
2. United States
The States of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas each share a border with Mexico. The principal
municipal governments affected by border environmental concerns include the following: San Diego and
Calexico in California; Nogales in Arizona; and El Paso, Laredo, and Brownsville in Texas. The bulk of
existing data on concentrations of metals, volatile organic compounds, and other toxic constituents (i.e., non-
conventional pollutants) is a result of state monitoring programs supported by funds from EPA provided under
the U.S. Clean Water Act, the U.S. Clean Air Act, RCRA, and other similar programs. For example, California
has been routinely monitoring conventional pollutants in Border Area water bodies since the mid-1970s and
many airborne priority pollutants since the mid-1980s.
California
The principal environmental officer of the State of California is the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a
recently created cabinet-level position that oversees the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA).
Cal-EPA consists of the following:
• Office of the Secretary for Environmental Protection;
• Air Resources Board;
A92-171anx A-16 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Integrated Waste Management Board;
• State Water Resources Control Board (including Regional Water Quality Control
Boards);
• Department of Toxic Substances Control;
• Department of Pesticide Regulation; and
• Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
The constituent boards, departments and offices, such as the Air Resources Board and the Department of Toxic
Substances Control, manage individual, media-specific programs. Although the boards are independent agencies,
the Secretary is responsible for ensuring that board activities are consistent with State policy. The Secretary also
fulfills the Agency Secretary role for the boards, departments, and offices within Cal-EPA.
Along with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the San Diego Air Pollution Control District as well as
the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District have provided technical assistance and resources. It is
anticipated that this assistance will increase as programs implemented under the Border Environmental Plan are
begun. CARB is also responsible for regulating emissions from motor vehicles.
Air Quality Control
The statewide custodian of air quality is CARB, located in Sacramento. CARB oversees regulations of
California's various air quality management districts. CARB coordinates the plans prepared by the individual
districts into an overall state implementation plan and has the authority to override district decisions regarding
state ambient air quality standards and emission limitations. CARB also has the authority to replace district
standards.
Water Quality Control
The administration of California's water quality programs is divided among nine regional water quality control
boards that report to the California Water Resources Control Board in Sacramento. The nine boards are
authorized to adopt regional water quality control plans, prescribe waste discharge requirements, and perform
other water quality control functions within their respective regions, subject to state-board review or approval.
The State Water Resources Control Board and two Border Area regional boards have provided a significant
amount of technical assistance with regard to border water quality issues. California has been routinely
monitoring conventional pollutants in border water bodies since the mid-1970s and many priority pollutants since
A92-171.anx
A-17 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
the mid-1980s. The state has also apportioned U.S. $5.3 million in matching funds for the design and
construction of wastewater treatment works to address the Tijuana sanitation problem.
Solid Waste Quality Control
Solid waste disposal facilities, including landfills, transfer processing stations, and waste-to-energy facilities, must
obtain permits and are otherwise regulated by local enforcement agencies under the overall coordination of the
California Waste Management Board. The local agencies may consist of counties or cities or both.
Hazardous Waste Quality Control
The California Department of Toxic Substance Control is a comprehensive department that regulates hazardous
waste generators, treatment storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs), transporters, site mitigation, alternative
technology, and runs the state hazardous waste program.
California law regulates all firms generating waste oil, asbestos, or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Once the
amount stored exceeds prescribed thresholds, the U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the
U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) take effect
In California, the Department of Food and Agriculture regulates the use of pesticides, however, this responsibility
may be shifted by an upcoming state government reorganization.
Emergency Response/Contingency Planning
Emergency planning is carried out by the Governor's Office of Emergency Services. There are local planning
efforts as well.
Arizona
In 1987, Arizona created a new cabinet-level Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). All sources with
the potential to emit significant amounts of any regulated pollutant must have installation and operating permits
in Arizona.
A92-171.anx A-18 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Air Quality Control
The state regulates only the major sources of air pollution, defined as those capable of individually generating
more than 75 tons of air contaminants annually and those that are involved in copper smelting or in crude oil
refining. Emergency planning at the state level is the responsibility of the Division of Emergency Services of
the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs. Air pollution programs are managed by the Office
of Air Quality which seeks to prevent, control and abate air pollution by testing, determining standards,
conducting investigations, compiling and publishing reports, and initiating and prosecuting enforcement actions.
Water Quality Control
Arizona's water quality control activities are managed by the Office of Water Quality Management within
ADEQ. The state administers substantial portions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program, while EPA is responsible for carrying out enforcement functions.
Arizona has been routinely monitoring conventional pollutants in border water bodies since the mid-1970s and
many priority pollutants since the mid-1980s. ADEQ, in cooperation with the IBWC, the City of Nogales, and
Santa Cruz County, recently developed a four month surface and ground water quality monitoring program for
the Nogales area
ADEQ's Office of Water Quality approves construction of sanitary facilities; provides general construction
supervision; conducts routine operation and maintenance inspections; certifies operators of treatment facilities;
and administers Federal construction grants through the Wastewater Management Authority of Arizona.
Arizona's Aquifer Protection Permit Program regulates many of the wastewater and solid waste facilities
mentioned in the Border Plan.
Solid/Hazardous Waste Quality Control
In Arizona, solid waste landfills are under the jurisdiction of local communities, although the state Office of
Waste Programs monitors those efforts. In Arizona, the State Chemist regulates the use of pesticides.
A-19 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
•- l/i .3nx
-------
Emergency Response/Contingency Planning
Emergency planning at the state level is performed by the Division of Emergency Services in the Arizona
Department of Emergency and Military Affairs. There are local planning efforts as well.
New Mexico
New Mexico's environmental programs are managed by the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED).
Emergency planning is led at the state level by the Division of Emergency Services. Each county has a local
Emergency Planning Committee which implements the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Program. New Mexico has full responsibility, as delegated by EPA, for new source review permitting for
sources in the state.
Air Quality Control
New Mexico's ambient air quality standards include EPA's criteria pollutants as well as other pollutants. Any
new or existing source that, without controls, would emit more than an average of 0.25 parts per million (ppm)
of the pollutant per eight-hour shift must use the best available control technology (BACT) to reduce those
emissions.
Water Quality Control
NMED administers a public water supply program which regulates all public water systems in the State for
drinking water quality system design and operation and the certification of utility personnel. NMED also
administers die Wellhead Protection Program to protect ground water as a source of public water supply. NMED
has not assumed full authority to manage the Federal water pollution control programs. State rules specify that
discharges covered by me NPDES permit programs are not subject to state regulations unless a source has not
corrected a violation within 30 days of receiving notice from EPA. In such cases, state discharge regulations
take effect until the violation has been rectified.
EPA has delegated responsibility for the public water supply program to the New Mexico Environment
Department
A92-171.anx A-20 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Solid/Hazardous Waste Quality Control
Solid nonhazardous waste management is under the jurisdiction of the Solid Waste Bureau of the NMED. The
Bureau has a key role in the development of state regulations and implementation of both State and Federal
regulations governing solid waste management While the NMED has a role in the siting, permitting and
operation of solid waste facilities in New Mexico, primary responsibility for managing solid waste disposal rests
with the counties and municipalities.
Hazardous waste regulation in New Mexico is under the jurisdiction of the Hazardous and Radioactive Waste
Bureau of the NMED. The NMED is authorized under RCRA and state law to issue permits to, and enforce
against, hazardous waste facilities. Thus, it has a role in the siting and operation of hazardous waste disposal
facilities in New Mexico. The NMED also has a role in the transboundary movement of foreign waste through
the monitoring of waste manifesting required under RCRA. In addition, the NMED administers the RCRA
import/export regulations which require all hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities in New
Mexico to provide notification of anticipated receipt of foreign waste. NMED has also cooperated with Federal
authorities in case development investigations related to the enforcement of RCRA import/export regulations.
In New Mexico, pesticide use falls under the jurisdiction of the New Mexico Department of Agriculture.
Emergency Response/Contingency Planning
Emergency response and contingency planning activities in New Mexico are performed or coordinated by the
Department of Public Safety, Emergency Management Bureau. The Bureau serves as the coordinator and
repository for all hazardous materials emergency planning information and response activities for the State
Emergency Response Commission (SERC).
Texas
Environmental programs in Texas are decentralized and are administered by several individual offices. Unlike
California and Arizona, Texas has no comprehensive cabinet level environment department. Texas is in the
process of unifying its environmental agencies.
A92-171.anx
A-21 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Air Quality Control
The Texas Air Control Board (TACB) has complete autonomy over all matters related to air pollution, including
managing and enforcing all federally required air permit programs. The central office in Austin is responsible
for enforcement, monitoring and technical support, and program development, while routine day-to-day activities
are carried out by 12 regional offices.
Since the signing of the Border Environmental Agreement in 1983, the City of El Paso and the State of Texas
have increased their activities with respect to Border Area air concerns. They have attended meetings of the
National Environmental Coordinators, have sponsored meetings of the local Ciudad Juarez/El Paso air quality
Work Group, and have assisted in providing training to Mexican and U.S. personnel working in the Border Area.
City and state involvement in the provision of technical guidance to SEDUE-Ciudad Juarez in the establishment
and operation of the long-term Ciudad Juarez PM-10, CO, O3, and meteorology monitoring network has been of
particular assistance. This network, the first long-term network of its kind in a Mexican border city, was first
activated on June 10, 1990 and will continue in operation at least through August 1992.
Water Quality Control
The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) administers the Construction Grant Program under delegation
from EPA. The TWDB also administers the State Revolving Loan Fund and the Colonias Plumbing Loan
Programs which receives funding from EPA. The TWDB provides administrative, financial, and engineering
support for these programs.
The Texas Department of Health (TDH) administers a public water supply program which regulates all public
water systems in Texas for drinking water quality, system design and operation and certification of operating
personnel. The TDH also jointly administers the Wellhead Protection Program with the Texas Water
Commission (TWC) to protect ground water quality as a source of public water supply.
The Texas General Land Office (TxGLO) serves as the chief liaison for the state on all matters relating to the
Gulf of Mexico including LBS, marine debris, and habitat protection. Generally TxGLO is responsible for
managing and leasing all public school lands for the State of Texas. In coastal Texas, this includes all
exploration for and production of oil and gas, including royalties. TxGLO has recently been charged with the
responsibility for administering the new Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program under NOAA. TxGLO is
also the agency responsible for coastal oil spill response.
A92-I71.anx A-22 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Other Texas Programs Related to Water Quality
Texas Department of Health - Mexico/US. Border Council
In 1989, the Texas legislature created an Office of Texas-Mexico Health and Environment within the Texas
Department of Health to determine health and environmental problems along the Mexican-Texas border and
make recommendations to the legislature for solutions to these problems. An interagency advisory council,
composed of members from state and Federal agencies and universities, issued a report on border problems. In
addition, there is a Mexico/Texas Border Health Association which has existed for many years and provides a
forum for health and environmental officials from Mexico and Texas to discuss problems and needs.
Texas Water Development Board Economically Distressed Areas Program
In the Border Area along the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande, corresponding to the states of Texas in the United States
and the states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas in Mexico, there has been a history of
unplanned rural subdivision development which has accelerated during the past decade. These residential
subdivisions, referred to as "colonias", have common characteristics: substandard housing, inadequate roads,
poor drainage, and substandard or nonexistent water and sewer facilities. They are usually located beyond
official city and town limits, or at least outside municipal water and sewage treatment districts. Often the
residents haul potable water from the nearest available source, sometimes miles away. Some residents, for lack
of other options, use water taken from irrigation ditches. If ground water is available, shallow wells may be
used, but the water is of poor quality. When organized water systems are available, residents may obtain water
from a yard tap or common tap which serves several residences. Human waste is disposed of in pit privies or
substandard on-site waste disposal systems that pollute the shallow ground water relied on for drinking water.
In 1989, the Texas legislature created a program called the Economically Distressed Areas Program in 1989,
which is a broad program, not designed exclusively for the colonias. State legislation requires that a project area
defined as an Economically Distressed Area must be located within an affected county. Affected counties are
those where either per capita income is 25 percent below the state average and unemployment is 25 percent
above the state average for the last three years or are adjacent to Mexico. Economically Distressed Areas were
defined by the legislature to be those areas that have inadequate water or wastewater systems, in adequate
financial resources to meet those needs and whole 80 percent of the dwellings to be served were occupied in
June 1, 1989. All the current projects under the State program are located in the Border Area as defined in the
Plan.
A92-171.anx
A-23 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
The FY 1990 Appropriation Act for EPA programs allocated $15 million for establishing a special revolving
fund (SRF) for loans in the colonias of 12 Texas counties. This SRF will work in concert with the state
program. Whereas the state program will fund water and wastewater treatment facilities, the colonias SRF will
fund individual plumbing needs and connections to sewer collection systems and water mains.
Solid/Hazardous Waste Quality Control
The Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Solid Waste Management has responsibility for solid (non-
hazardous) waste in Texas. The Bureau drafts and implements regulations applicable to all aspects of solid
waste management to include permitting of solid waste disposal facilities and enforcement of regulations.
County and municipal authorities play a major role in the implementation of the regulatory requirements.
Various Councils of Governments (COGs) in Texas are developing regionalization plans for solid waste
management As these plans become final and are implemented, these COGs will be assuming greater roles in
regulatory implementation.
The TWC has jurisdiction over hazardous waste management in Texas. The TWC issues permits to hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and enforces applicable regulations, including RCRA import
notification requirements. The TWC has a role in the siting and operation of hazardous waste facilities as well
as the transboundary movement of hazardous waste. Import/export information obtained by the TWC from the
regulated community is supplied to the Regional Office as part of the implementation of their annual grant work
plans.
The TWC has been active with Customs in responding to accidental chemical spills and providing assistance in
the identification/classification of unknown substances crossing the border. Their activities also include
Operation Exodus (spot checks of exports to Mexico).
The TWC periodically conducts informative workshops for the regulated community on import/export
regulations. In addition, the TWC had an educational conference on hazardous waste management for the
regulated community along the border in El Paso, Texas, in July 1991. The TWC has participated in some of
the cooperative inspections with SEDUE and Region 6. The TWC has cooperated in case development
investigations related to the enforcement of RCRA import/export regulations.
In Texas, the State Department of Agriculture controls the use of pesticides.
A92-171.anx
A-24 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Emergency Response/Contingency Planning
The State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) is chaired by the Governor's Division of Emergency
Management (DEM). The DEM coordinates contingency planning and preparedness activities of the county-
based Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) and also becomes the lead state agency for emergency
response action where a disaster has been declared. Other emergency response responsibilities are shared by the
Texas Water Commission for spills of hazardous substances, the Texas Air Control Board for air releases, the
Texas Railroad Commission for land based oil spills, and the General Land Office for marine oil spills. The
Texas Department of Health is the repository for hazardous substance facility inventories.
The Texas SERC was awarded a $75,000 grant by EPA in 1991 to conduct workshops in border cities to foster
development of contingency plans and emergency response capabilities.
A-25 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
A92-171.anx ^ ^J
-------
ANNEXE
BACKGROUND MATERIALS RELATING TO
SECTIONS H AND ffl
A92-171 anb ^-1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
N
Son Diego
Tijuana
TEXAS
CD
8
o
,
< <
International Boundary
State Borders
Continental Divide
Port of Entry
rownsvFlle
Matamoros
NU
LEOJ^T
TAMAULIF
JAS
Figure B-1. Protected Areas in the Mexico/United States Border Area
-------
TABLE B-l. TOP MEXICAN/U.S. LAND BORDER PORTS OF ENTRY RANKED BY PERSONS
ENTERING U.S.
Persons Entering U.S. in Millions
Port of Entry
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Average Annual
Growth Rate (%)
1986-1990
San Ysidro/Otay Mesa, CA
El Paso, TX
Calexico, CA
Laredo, TX
Hidalgo, TX
Brownsville, TX
Nogales, AZ
San Luis, AZ
Eagle Pass, TX
Douglas, AZ
TOTAL
41.5
33.1
15.8
14.4
13.5
14.2
11.7
5.2
4.9
4.3
158.6
44.6
32.4
15.7
15.1
13.2
13.6
11.9
5.5
5.2
4.2
161.4
51.6
39.8
21.4
16.6
13.4
12.8
13.7
7.1
6.0
4.4
186.8
60.4
42.4
27.6
16.8
15.0
14.8
14.0
7.3
6.7
4.6
209.6
62.2
43.1
29.9
17.9
16.6
15.8
15.2
7.9
6.3
4.9
219.8
10.8
7.2
18.3
5.7
5.5
3.0
6.9
11.3
7.0
3.3
7.9
Source: U.S. Customs Service Border Interdiction Committee.
A92-171.anb
B-3
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE B-2. TOP MEXICAN/U.S. LAND BORDER PORTS OF ENTRY RANKED BY TRUCKS
ENTERING U.S.
Port of Entry
Trucks Entering U.S. in Thousands
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Average Annual
Growth Rate (%)
1986-1990
San Ysidro/Otay Mesa, CA
El Paso, TX
Brownsville, TX
Calexico, CA
Laredo, TX
Nogales, AZ
Hidalgo, TX
Eagle Pass, TX
Douglas, AZ
San Luis, AZ
182.4
143.6
141.2
131.4
103.5
102.6
36.2
32.5
12.3
10.7
243.5
177.0
152.7
127.4
113.3
119.6
39.6
26.6
13.4
13.1
292.0
172.4
160.9
133.0
137.9
107.0
57.6
28.0
16.6
16.7
342.1
179.2
160.9
134.1
182.0
132.0
89.4
31.2
17.7
23.5
399.8
182.3
142.5
140.2
322.3*
154.3
125.6
36.8
12.5
29.8
373.5
539.4*
180.1
155.1
313.7*
143.3
119.4
36.3
13.8
33.6
16.2
6.6**
5.7
3.5
21.1**
7.8
29.1
3.0
4.1
26.0
TOTAL
896.4 1026.2 1122.1 1292.1 1546.1 1908.2
Source: U.S. Customs Service Border Interdiction Committee.
*Data includes empty trucks that were previously counted with passenger traffic.
**Average does not use data with empty trucks included.
A92-171.anb
B-4
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE B-3. GROWTH IN EMPLOYMENT IN U.S. BORDER COUNTIES, 1970-1988
County
Yuma, AZ
Puna, AZ
Cochise, AZ
Santa Cruz, AZ
Subtotal
San Diego, CA
Imperial, CA
Subtotal
Hidalgo, NM
Luna, NM
Dona Ana, NM
Subtotal
El Paso, TX
Hudspeth, TX
Culberson, TX
Jeff Davis, TX
Presidio, TX
Brewster, TX
Terrell, TX
Val Verde, TX
Kinney, TX
Maverick, TX
Dimmit, TX
Webb, TX
Zapata,TX
Jim Hogg, TX
Starr, TX
Hidalgo, TX
Willacy, TX
Cameron, TX
Subtotal
Total
1970
10,698
76,496
9,868
3,586
100,648
290,958
11,866
302,824
800
1,824
9,932
12,556
81,269
203
816
46
605
951
241
3,423
209
2,706
519
12,922
227
540
1,115
27,807
1,162
25,270
160,031
576,059
Total Number
1980
16,281
149,545
11,674
6,710
184,210
533,027
18,129
551,156
1,322
2,232
16,174
19,728
130,753
140
587
160
599
1,345
140
5,417
276
4,883
1,580
24,363
652
574
1,712
41,249
1,741
47,866
264,037
1,019,131
of Employees
1988
22,502
209,786
15,260
7,962
255,510
767,646
18,835
786,481
1,342
2,487
24,754
28,583
152,179
215
513
195
536
1,452
94
5,266
245
4,018
1,069
26,818
706
535
2,518
67,775
1,662
53,621
319,417
1,389,991
Average Annual
1970-1980
5.22
9.55
1.83
8.71
8.30
8.32
5.28
8.20
6.53
2.24
6.28
5.71
6.09
-3.10
-2.81
24.78
-0.10
4.14
-4.19
5.83
3.21
8.05
20.44
8.85
18.72
0.63
5.35
4.83
4.98
8.94
6.50
7.69
Growth Rate
1980-1988
3.82
4.03
3.07
1.87
3.87
4.40
0.39
4.27
0.15
1.14
5.30
4.49
1.64
5.36
-1.26
2.19
-1.05
0.80
-3.29
-0.28
-1.12
-1.77
-3.23
1.01
0.83
-0.68
4.71
6.43
-0.45
1.20
2.10
3.64
Source: County Business Patterns, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
A92-171.anb
B-5
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE B-4. BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS FOR U.S. BORDER COUNTIES
Number of Employees by Industry, 1970
County
Yuma, AZ
Pima, AZ
Cochise, AZ
Santa Cruz, AZ
Subtotal*
San Diego, CA
Imperial, CA
Subtotal*
Hidalgo, NM
Luna, NM
Dona Ana, NM
Subtotal*
H Paso, TX
Hudspeth, TX
Culberson, IX
Jeff Davis, TX
Presidio, TX
Brcwster, TX
Terrell, TX
Val Verde, TX
Kinney, TX
Maverick, TX
Dimmit, TX
Webb, TX
Zapata,TX
Jim Hogg, TX
Starr, TX
Hidalgo, TX
Willacy, TX
Cameron, TX
Subtotal*
Total
Total
10.698
76.496
9,868
3,586
100,648
290,958
11,866
302,824
800
1.824
9.932
12,556
81.269
203
816
46
605
951
241
3,423
209
2,706
519
12,922
227
540
1,115
27,807
1,162
25,270
160,031
576,059
Agriculture
Forestry
and Fishing
380
347
7
D
734
2,145
540
2,685
107
71
178
256
D
D
14
D
D
D
D
D
746
D
865
1,881
5,478
Mining
D
6,053
D
D
6,053
551
17
568
D
D
13
13
169
D
D
D
D
D
D
101
105
67
62
116
416
651
17
74
1,778
8,412
Transportation
and Public
Construction Manufacturing Utilities
739
8,752
D
167
9,658
19,982
566
20,548
D
119
823
942
6,297
7
D
D
27
33
D
189
12
60
20
403
23
49
18
1,894
63
1,875
10,970
42,118
948
7,574
1,681
200
10,403
73,302
1,288
74,590
D
251
1,425
1,676
22,467
D
D
42
D
D
908
1,147
D
5
2,861
63
4,987
32,471
119,140
616
4,173
636
289
5,714
19,394
826
20,220
46
255
934
1,235
6,826
D
D
56
112
25
231
D
148
19
1,153
D
D
27
1,329
55
1,904
12,275
39.444
Wholesale
Trade
1,079
3,582
327
769
5,757
13.758
1,435
15,193
26
33
337
396
6,917
D
19
24
90
D
175
D
93
D
1,015
D
32
33
5,533
301
2,353
16,585
37,931
Retail
Trade
3,646
20,641
2,648
1,430
28,365
74,012
4,655
78,667
336
651
3,388
4,375
18,552
102
272
299
339
96
1.125
49
1,052
242
5.089
68
171
399
8.543
436
7,328
44,189
155,596
Finance,
Insurance, Unclassified
Real Estate Services Establishments Subtotal*
531
5,008
528
134
6,201
19,683
561
20,244
32
117
675
824
4,884
D
D
30
43
D
228
D
98
33
730
14
D
D
1,245
57
1,325
8,687
35,956
2,690
19,947
1,810
478
24,925
66,442
1,948
68,390
207
265
2,190
2,662
14,475
53
69
88
280
22
545
D
226
85
2,801
47
46
169
4,778
164
4,402
28,250
124,227
D
419
D
112
531
1,697
30
1,727
D
76
76
426
D
3
42
D
D
D
D
227
D
168
866
3,200
10,629
76,496
7,637
3,579
98,341
290,966
11,866
302,832
647
1,798
9,932
12,377
81,269
162
360
524
942
143
2,549
61
2,686
504
12,795
214
414
1,067
27,807
1,156
25,272
157,952
571,502
A92-171.anb
B-6
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE B-4. BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS FOR U.S. BORDER COUNTIES (CONTINUED)
Number of Employees by Industry, 1980
County
Yuma, AZ
Pima, AZ
Cochise, AZ
Santa Cruz, AZ
Subtotal*
San Diego, CA
Imperial, CA
Subtotal*
Hidalgo, NM
Luna, NM
Dona Ana, NM
Subtotal*
El Paso, TX
Hudspeth, TX
Culber«on, TX
Jeff Davis, TX
Presidio, TX
Brewster, TX
Terrell, TX
Val Verde, TX
Kinney, TX
Maverick, TX
Dimmit, TX
Webb, TX
Zapata, TX
Jim Hogg, TX
Starr, TX
Hidalgo, TX
Willacy, TX
Cameron, TX
Subtotal*
Total
Total
16,281
149,545
11,674
6,710
184,210
533,027
18,129
551,156
1,322
2,232
16,174
19,728
130,753
140
587
160
599
1,345
140
5,417
276
4,883
1,580
24,363
652
574
1,712
41,249
1,741
47,866
264,037
1,019,131
Agriculture
Forestry
and Fishing
1,069
950
28
A
2,047
4,266
770
5,036
B
307
307
399
A
A
B
A
A
104
B
635
102
295
1,535
8,925
Mining
16
6,685
458
A
7,159
658
B
658
A
26
B
26
259
A
43
B
A
B
A
168
193
1,136
C
126
97
831
160
88
3,101
10,944
Construction
1,620
17,189
893
291
19,993
10,293
2,120
38,904
18
127
2,111
2,256
11,477
A
9
A
30
84
446
50
C
125
1,615
48
30
70
4,722
53
3,343
22,102
83,144
Manufacturing
1,467
20,589
1,925
858
24,839
28,547
1,302
29,849
F
170
1,843
2,013
35,089
B
B
23
A
745
G
231
2,183
A
A
A
7,921
323
11,960
58,475
97,740
Transportation
and Public
Utilities
866
7,805
1,152
496
10,319
28,219
1,783
30,002
B
227
925
1,152
9,128
A
20
A
47
134
12
327
B
218
136
2,878
A
A
90
2,423
172
2,988
18,573
59,893
Wholesale
Trade
1,426
7,367
448
1,099
10,340
127,219
6,219
133,900
52
192
705
949
9,759
26
19
25
58
257
293
167
2,008
7
106
65
8,951
116
4,209
26,066
67,357
Retail
Trade
5,590
37,971
3,682
277
47,520
127,681
1,230
45,076
393
839
4,999
6,231
31,058
58
264
44
273
535
94
2,229
45
1,860
397
8,982
189
206
805
15,354
491
13,298
76,182
263,833
Finance,
Insurance,
Real Estate
786
9,902
637
329
11,654
43,846
3,142
152,529
B
162
1,088
1,250
7,045
11
A
A
43
57
A
388
B
228
64
1,201
B
A
69
2,356
85
2,696
14,243
72,223
Services
3,220
39,625
2,256
1,024
46,125
149,387
E
5,477
C
344
3,824
4,168
25,269
19
135
26
76
327
A
924
B
392
244
3,821
93
58
393
7,471
228
8,602
48,078
250,900
Unclassified
Establishments
221
1,462
195
110
1,988
5,477
17,817
453,844
38
B
E
38
1,271
8
35
A
47
B
A
B
3
96
B
435
55
15
46
585
11
387
2,994
10,497
Subtotal*
16,281
149,545
11,674
4,484
181,984
436,027
501
2,087
15,802
18,390
130,754
122
525
70
541
1,218
106
5,316
98
3,255
1,557
24,363
392
541
1,635
51,249
1,741
47,866
271,349
925,567
A92-171.anb
B-7
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE B-4. BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS FOR U.S. BORDER COUNTIES (CONTINUED)
Number of Employees by Industry, 1988
County
Yuma, AZ
Pima,AZ
Cochise, AZ
Santa Cruz, AZ
Subtotal*
San Diego, CA
Imperial, CA
Subtotal*
Hidalgo, NM
Luna,NM
Dona Ana, NM
Subtotal*
El Paso, TX
Hudspeth, TX
Culberson, IX
Jeff Davis, TX
Presidio, TX
Brewster, TX
Terrell, TX
Val Verde, TX
Kinney, TX
Maverick, TX
Dimmit, TX
Webb, TX
Zapata, TX
Jim Hogg, TX
Starr, TX
Hidalgo, TX
Willacy, TX
Cameron, TX
Subtotal*
Total
Total
22,502
209,786
15,260
7,962
255,510
767,646
18,835
786,481
1,342
2,487
24,754
28,583
152,179
215
513
195
536
1,452
94
5,266
245
4,018
1,069
26,818
706
535
2,518
67,775
1,662
53,621
319,417
1,389,991
Agriculture
Forestry
and Fishing Mining
1,814
1,991
79
17
3,901
7,135
1,847
8,982
B
165
165
481
A
A
A
26
A
16
A
21
B
935
74
315
1,868
14,916
B
1,801
151
1,952
678
E
678
A
A
61
61
78
A
B
A
B
B
109
476
127
35
B
850
A
B
1,675
4,366
Construction
1,482
18,143
761
302
20,688
58,917
1,170
60,087
21
92
2,496
2,609
9,216
B
A
24
15
58
225
A
50
67
930
38
19
48
3,632
41
2,279
16,642
100,026
Manufacturing
1,725
31,618
1,398
1,008
35,749
124,379
1,634
126,013
F
92
2,585
2,677
39,170
B
A
A
36
A
475
1,028
B
1,515
A
A
A
10,031
E
9,278
61,533
225,972
Transportation
and Public
Utilities
992
9,111
1,211
393
11,707
33,065
1,215
34,280
44
119
1,360
1,523
8,679
B
A
A
68
124
A
330
B
174
66
4,074
13
26
143
2,492
128
i871
19,188
66,698
Wholesale
Trade
1,392
8,619
437
1,838
12,286
42,723
1,799
44,522
17
154
1,136
1,307
9,790
A
37
11
79
A
418
209
35
1,840
A
47
118
9,452
79
3,764
25,879
83,994
Retail
Trade
7,337
52,459
5,102
2,734
67,632
184,606
6,196
190,802
472
975
7,181
8,628
35,311
135
213
57
282
515
43
2.115
52
1,534
418
9,115
288
263
1,236
20,734
582
15,715
88,608
355,670
Finance,
Insurance, Unclassified
Real Estate Services Establishments Subtotal*
969
12,837
847
408
15,061
64,541
828
65,369
B
222
1,759
1,981
8,571
A
A
A
54
172
A
370
16
261
67
1,837
B
57
158
3,645
, 116
3,870
19,194
101,605
6,541
71,527
5,081
1,142
84,291
243,821
3,583
247,404
204
760
7,623
8,587
39,366
9
144
87
74
416
27
1,210
84
621
218
6,517
159
70
645
14,856
302
14,893
79,698
419,980
C
1,680
193
120
1,993
7,781
C
7,781
1
37
388
426
1,517
4
9
2
8
B
B
10
B
3
493
12
A
56
1,148
20
F
3,282
13,482
22,252
209,786
15,260
7,962
255,260
767,646
18,272
785,918
759
2,451
24,754
27,964
152,179
148
403
170
512
1,400
70
5,169
162
3,893
983
26,818
637
517
2,404
67,775
1,342
52,985
317,567
1,386,709
* Subtotals for individual employment categories do not include data withheld to avoid disclosure.
Letten indicate figures withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual companies:
- For 1970, D denotes figures withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual companies.
- For 1980 and 1988, employment-size classes for these companies are indicated as follows: A-0 to 19, B-20 to 99, C-100 to 249, E-250 to 499, F-500 to 999.
Source: County Business Patterns, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
A92-171.anb
B-8
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE B-5. NUMBER AND EMPLOYMENT OF MAQUILADORAS
November 1991 November 1991 June 1991 June 1991 March 1990 March 1989
Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of
Maquiladoras Employees Maquiladoras Employees Maquiladoras Maquiladoras
Border Cities (within 100 km.)
Tijuana
Ciudad Juarez
Mexicali
Matamoros
Tecate
Nuevo Laredo
Nogales
Reynosa
Piedras Negras
Ciudad Acuna
Ensenada
Agua Prieta
San Luis Rio Colorado
Naco
Palomas
TOTAL
656
321
122
94
110
93
75
82
37
46
44
27
23
4
5
1,739
70,262
134,838
19,400
38,268
5,934
21,000
21,084
30,000
7,182
14,261
5,706
7,500
3,000
1,200
137
379,772
530
320
161
94
90
93
80
82
43
44
41
32
3,000
6
5
1,641
65,255
134,838
20,576
38,268
4,665
21,000
21,084
30,000
8,130
14,151
1,735
7,500
12
1,200
137
371,509
530
309
148
89
86
67
65
57
39
36
33
28
0
0
0
1,499
334
260
131
72
46
63
64
35
30
32
--
28
0
0
1,100
Source: Twin Plant News
A92-171.anb
B-9
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Son Diego
Tijuana
ARIZONA
• Phoenix
GO
I
.—•
o
i
NEW MEXICO
Los Cruces.
Sunlond Pork'v
Columbus. r— -^r;
TEXAS
Austin
San Antonio
• Cludod Onregon
(3)
International Boundary
State Borders
100km Border Area
100 Ktonntvt
,. Del Rio
Cludod Acuna.>-
(44)
Gom«z Palocio • I, Torr»on
(29W Saltlllo'
DURANGO >
Corpus Christ!
Brownsville
Matamoros
(94)
NUEVO
LEOI,
JAMAULlJ'AS
Figure B-2. Numbers of Maquiladoras in Mexican Border States
-------
PPC
EMS
34%
OMP
14%
KEY
PPC Petroleum, Petroleum Products, Plastics,
Chemicals
EEA Electronic/Electric Equipment/Apparatus
FA Food and Agricultural
S Services
OMP Other Manufactured Products
M Metal Industries
TES Transportation Equipment & Supplies
COT Clothing and other Textiles
EMS Electronic/Electric Materials & Supplies
MS Medical Supplies
Figure B-3. Products produced by Mexican Border Industries as of 1991.
A91-3WE
B-ll
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
EMS
23%
PPC
20%
COT
1%
TES
13%
M
16%
KEY
PPC Petroleum, Petroleum Products, Plastics,
Chemicals
EEA Electronic/Electric Equipment/Apparatus
FA Food and Agricultural
S Services
OMP Other Manufactured Products
M Metal Industries
TES Transportation Equipment & Supplies
COT Clothing and other Textiles
EMS Electronic/Electric Materials & Supplies
Figure B-4. Products produced by U.S. Border Industries as of 1989.
M1-3WF
B-12
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE B-6. U.S. INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES AND TOXIC RELEASES IN THE U.S. BORDER AREA
State
and
County
Arizona
Pima
Yuma
State total
California
Imperial
San Diego
State Total
New Mexico
Dona Ana
Hidalgo
State Total
Texas
Cameron
El Paso
Hidalgo
Webb
State Total
ALL
Number of
Facilities
25
2
27
2
74
76
1
1
2
9
24
6
1
40
145
Fugitive or
non-point
emissions
666,120
0
666,120
31,505
1,663,023
1,694,528
0
6,900
6,935
218,150
790,421
39,375
1,500
1,049,466
3,417,029
Stack or
point air
emissions
218,764
49,525
268,289
1,750
4,203,664
4,205,414
0
487,250
487,250
95,709
695,722
113,560
17,000
921,991
5,882,944
Discharges Releases
to water to land
0
0
0
0
1,000
1,000
0
0
0
250
0
0
250
500
1,500
8,398
0
8,398
0
1,000
1,000
0
20,353,549
20,353,549
3,238
23,350
0
750
27,338
20,390,285
Discharge
toPOTW
9,243
0
9,243
0
650,678
650,678
0
0
0
41
273,304
250
0
273,595
933^16
Transfers to Total
other off-site Release/
locations Transfer
407,288
1,849
409,137
0
394,875
394,875
35
0
0
953,988
180,949
16,343
0
1,151,280
1,955,292
1,309,813
51,375
1,361,187
33,255
6,914,240
6,947,495
20,847,699
20,847,734
1,271,376
1,963,746
169,528
19,500
3,424,150
32^80,566
A92-171.anb
B-13
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE B-7. POTABLE WATER SUPPLIES IN MEXICAN BORDER COMMUNITIES**
Population
Volume*
Source
Tijuana, B.C. 70.0
Tecate, B.C. 3.6
Mexicali, B.C. 81.2
San Luis Rio Colorado, Son. 21.4
Nogales, Son. 15.3
Naco, Son. 1.7
Agua Prieta, Son. 7.53
Ciudad Juarez, Chih. 120.0
Ciudad Acuna, Coab. 3.6
Piedras Negras, Coab. 10.3
Nuevo Laredo, Tarn. 25.6
Nva. Ciudad Guerrero, Tarn. 0.7
Ciudad Mkr, Tarn. 0.6
Cd. Miguel Aleman, Tarn. 2.4
Colorado River
Ground Water
Colorado River
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Rio Bravo/Rio Grande
Rio Bravo/Rio Grande
Rio Bravo/Rio Grande
Rio Bravo/Rio Grande
Rio Bravo/Rio Grande
Rio Bravo/Rio Grande
Source: EBWC, Mexican section.
*In millions cubic meters, 1991.
**Records of the ffiWC contain no information for Reynosa, Tarn, and Matamoros, Tarn.
A92-171.anb
B-14
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
ANNEX C
NAMES AND AFFILIATIONS OF
THOSE WHO TESTIFIED OR SUBMITTED
COMMENTS TO EPA ON THE BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN
DURING ITS FORMATION
f_1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
A92-171.anc *~ *
-------
LAST NAME
RR3T NAME
ORGANIZATION
TITLE
BENTSEN
BINGAMAN
DECONCINI
DOMENICI
BUSTAMANTE
COLEMAN
CUNNINGHAM
DE LA GARZA
KOLBE
SKEEN
SHANE
SIRMON
WATKINS
KING
RICHARDS
LUCIO
ROSSON
TRUAN
ZAFFIRINI
MCDONALD
ALTUMADA
COTA
JUAREZ
KARAM
RIVERA
RIVERA
SESTEAGA
SUVA
TIDWELL
TIRADO
GARZA
GIL
HERNDON
MACIAS
MOLINA
RAMIREZ
TILNEY
CHACON
COVACEVICH
GUEVARA
LLOYD M.
JEFF
DENNIS
PETEV.
ALBERT G.
RONALD D.
RANDY
KIKA
JIM
JOE
JEFFREY N.
JEFF M.
JAMES D.
BRUCE
ANNE W.
EDDIE
PEGGY
CARLOS F.
JUDITH
NANCY
CAMILO
GENE
JACINTO
GEORGE
MARCO
EDUARDO
VICTOR M.
MARCOS
JACK N.
ANTONIO
IGNACIO
LEONARDO
J.B.
MARY P.
VENTURA
SAUL N.
WILLIAM S.
ALICIA
ANTHONY
JOSE
U.S. SENATE, TEXAS
U.S. SENATE, NEW MEXICO
U.S. SENATE, ARIZONA
U.S. SENATE, NEW MEXICO
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, TEXAS - 23RD DISTRICT
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, TEXAS - 16TH DISTRICT
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.CALJFORNIA - 44TH DISTRICT
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, TEXAS - 15TH DISTRICT
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, ARIZONA - 5TH DISTRICT
CONGRESS OF UNITED STATES, NEW MEXICO - 26TH DISTRICT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
STATE OF TEXAS
THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CITY COUNCIL OF NOGALES, AZ
CITY COUNCIL OF NOGALES, AZ
CITY COUNCIL OF LAREDO, TX
CITY COUNCIL OF NOGALES, AZ
CITY COUNCIL OF NOGALES, AZ
CITY COUNCIL OF CALEXICO, CA
CITY COUNCIL OF NOGALES, AZ
CITY COUNCIL OF NOGALES, AZ
CITY COUNCIL OF NOGALES, AZ
CITY COUNCIL OF CALEXICO, CA
CITY OF BROWNSVILLE, TX
CITY OF NOGALES/SONORA, MEXICO
CITY OF SPOFFORD, TX
CITY OF NOGALES, AZ
CITY OF SUNLAND PARK, NM
CITY OF LAREDO, TX
CITY OF EL PASO, TX
COUNTY OF EL PASO, TX
HIDALGO COUNTY, TX
COUNTY OF ZAPATA, TX
SENATOR
SENATOR
SENATOR
SENATOR
CONGRESSMAN
CONGRESSMAN
CONGRESSMAN
CONGRESSMAN
CONGRESSMAN
CONGRESSMAN
ASSISTANT SECRETARY
DEPUTY CHIEF
SECRETARY
GOVERNOR
GOVERNOR
STATE SENATOR
STATE SENATOR
STATE SENATOR
SENIOR STATE SENATOR
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
COUNTY COUNCILMAN
COUNCILMAN
COUNCILMAN
COUNCILMAN
COUNCILMAN
COUNCILMAN
COUNCILMAN
COUNCILMAN
COUNCILMAN
COUNCILMAN
MAYOR
MAYOR
MAYOR
MAYOR
MAYOR
MAYOR
MAYOR
JUDGE
JUDGE
JUDGE
A92-171.anc
C-2
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
LAST NAME
FIRST NAME
ORGANIZATION
TITLE
RUIZ
BEARL
RODRIGUEZ
ACOSTA
ADAMS
AGUIRRE
AIBEL
ALLEN
ALLMAN
ALMANZA
ALTOMARE
ANAYA
ANCKER-JOHNSON
ANDREW
ARCHULETA
ARIZPE
ASBURY
BAKER
BANE
BARR
BATES
BAUER
BEAN
BEARDEN
BECKWITH
BEIER
BEITEL
BELCHER
BELZE
BENSON
BERRIER
BIRDSALL
BOCCELLA
BOUDREAUX
BRIGHT
BRIGHT
BRODECKY
BROOKS
BRUNNICK
BUCHER
BURGER
BUSSARD
J. EDGAR
DONALD
OSCAR
GILDANDO
JEANNE
MANUEL
HOWARD J.
ANN
RONALD J.
SUSANA
JOHN
EDDIE
BETSY
NICHOLS
EDMUND G.
GUADALUPE
MARVIN
ANNE
MARY
RONALD E.
JAMES E.
JUDITH L.
KEVIN
DAVID
SIDNEY A.
MAXG.
TIM
MADGE ELIZABETH
ALAN
E.
LARRY
STEVE
CLAIRE M.
RONALD
JAMES M.
ANN
JUANITA
ELAINE R.
MARY LOU
JAMES
BOB
DAVID
HIDALGO COUNTY, TX
CITY OF CALEXICO, CA
CITY OF EAGLE PASS, TX
ENLACE ECOLOGICO AGUA PRIETA
CONCERNED CITIZEN
TEXAS AIR CONTROL BOARD
ITT CORPORATION
CITIZEN ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
LAREDO MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
PEOPLE ORGANIZED IN DEFENSE OF EARTH
THE COALITION FOR BORDER BIOSPHERE
THE VALLEY INTERFAITH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA RURAL HEALTH OFFICE
EL PASO WATER UTILITIES PUBLIC SERVICES
FEMAP
ASOCIACION DE MAQUILADORAS DE MATAMOROS
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
LA CLINICA DE FAMILIA
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PHILIPS INC.
DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES, CITY OF SAN DIEGO
NEW MEXICO PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT INC.
BROWNSVILLE NAVIGATION DISTRICT
CONCERNED CITIZEN
BINATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
CARE OF KINNEY COUNTY
ALLIED-SIGNAL INC.
CONCERNED CITIZEN
CAMERON CO. LEPC
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
UNION PACIFIC CORPORATION
CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
SOUTH TEXAS COALITION FOR PEACE
CONCERNED CITIZEN
CONCERNED CITIZEN
OFFICE OF CONGRESSMAN RONALD D. COLEMAN
IMPERIAL COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIERRA CLUB
EPA (OSW)
JUDGE
CITY MANAGER
CITY MANAGER
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
CHAIRMAN
VICE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR
GENERAL MANAGER
PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT, RESEARCH
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT COORD.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT COORD.
CHAIRMAN
PRESIDENT
PRESIDENT
PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR
ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL
CHAIRMAN
DIRECTOR
A92-171.anc
C-3
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
LAST NAME
RR8T NAME
ORGANIZATION
TITLE
BUSTOS
CALAPA
CALDERO
CAMACHO
CAMPBELL
CAMPOS
CAROTHERS
CARTER
CARTWRIQHT
CASTILLO
CERVANTES
CHAPMAN
CHAVEZ
CHAVEZ
CHAVEZ
CHITICK
CLEMAN
COMELLA
COMIEZ
CONTRERAS
COWEN
COXING
CROWNSON
CSIDER
CULBERTSON
DANIEL
DE ANDA
DE LA ROSA
DE TREVILLE
DELECH
DENMAN
DIBONITO
DODIER
DOMINGUEZ
DRYDEN
DRYDEN
DUBOVE
DUNCAN
EDWARDS
ESCANDON
ESCARCEGA
ADRIAN
JOE
RICARDO E.
LUIS
MARY LOU
NATIVIDAD
LESLIE
RICHARD H.
JANICE
ENRIQUETA
CHARLES
JIM
EVERARDO L
NORMA
ROBERT
DAVID
ELDON
PHILIP L.
MAYNARD S.
SALVADOR
RALPH
GORDON
NANCY
LOUIS J.
WARREN
ROBERT F.
RICARDO
GUSTAVO
SUSAN
EDWARD
CATAUNA
TONY
JOSEO.
PATRICIA
EDWARD J.
BENILDE
FERNANDO
JOAN
PAUL
IGNACIO
FERNANDO
TBD INTERNATIONAL BEJAR & ASSOC.
BROWNSVILLE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF EAGLE PASS
CONCERNED CITIZEN
SIERRA CLUB
CITY OF EL PASO
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES (HUMAN & NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION)
SOUTHERN ARIZONA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SOCIETY
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD
THE BORDER ORGANIZATION
MALONEY & BURCH
SIERRA CLUB
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TEXAS VEHICLE INSPECTORS ASSN.
CONCERNED CITIZEN
AT&T(ENVIRONMENTAL & SAFETY ENGINEERING DIVISION)
NATIONAL PARK SERVICES
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.
OFFICE OF POLICY ANALYSIS (DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION)
UNIVERSITY OF NUEVO LEON
MAYORAL CANDIDATE, BROWNSVILLE, TX
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CONCERNED CITIZEN
CONCERNED CITIZEN
GROUNDWATER USERS ADVISORY COUNCIL
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
LAW OFFICE OF RICARDO DE ANDA
CONCERNED CITIZEN
COALITION FOR BORDER BIOSPHERE RESERVE
ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY PROJECT
COLEGIO SONORA
CONCERNED CITIZEN
CONCERNED CITIZEN
OFFICE OF CONGRESSMAN JOE SKEEN (NEW MEXICO 26TH DISTRICT)
CONCERNED CITIZEN
CONCERNED CITIZEN
EL PASO REGIONAL SIERRA CLUB
CONCERNED CITIZEN
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
EL PASO INTERRELIGIOUS SPONSORING ORGANIZATION
DISTRESSED AREAS PROGRAM (TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD)
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
VICE PRESIDENT
FOUNDING PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
LAWYER
CHAIRMAN
PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT
SENIOR COUNSEL
DIRECTOR
PROFESSOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
EMPLOYEE
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
CHAIRMAN
ATTORNEY
LEGISLATIVE AIDE
LEGISLATIVE AIDE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS
ASST TO THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
A92-171.anc
C-4
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
LAST NAME
RRST NAME
ORGANIZATION
TITLE
ESPINOSA
ESTRADA
FAIN
FARMER
FARMER
FELBLUM
FERGUSON
FIQUEROA
FLORES
FONTES
FOX
FRICKS
FRIEDLAND
FUENTES
FUENTES
GALINDO
GANSTER
GARCIA
GARCIA
GARCIA DE ANOA
GARZA
GARZA
GIERMANSKI
GODINES
GOLDMAN
GONZALEZ
GONZALEZ
GREGORY
GUERRA
GUTIERREZ
HALL
HAMMOND
HANAWA
HANEY
HASS
HATHAWAY-MCKEITHHA
WES
HERNANDEZ
HIGGINS
HOLGUIN
HOLUB
HOUGEN
JUDITH
HENRY
TYRUS
ROSE
MIKE
MARY
MERRIWOOD
BEN
REBECCA
VICTOR
EDWARD Z.
BONNIE
PETER
H. R.
AL
JIMMY
PAUL
DARLENE
ALFONSO
ROSA MARIA
ANTONIO O.
ESTELLA
JIM
REYNALDO
JOSEPH L.
DOMINGO
JOSE
MICHAEL
LUIS M.
MARIO
JOHN
JACK
DAVID
MARU BELL
MAURIE
MELISSA
AMANDA
ROSARIO
THOMAS R.
ESPERANZA
HUGH
JAMES
ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT OF NEW MEXICO
THE RIVER PIERCE FOUNDATION
TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY
NEW MEXICO CONSERVATION VOTERS' ALLIANCE
FRONTERA AUDUBON SOCIETY
CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KINGSVILLE
UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA AFL-CIO
NOGALES SCHOOL BOARD
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
OFFICE OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI, NM
NATIONAL COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
CONCERNED CITIZEN
COMMUNITY RESOURCE GROUP
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL STUDIES OF THE CALIFORNIAS, SDSO
OFFICE OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI, NM
CONCERNED CITIZEN
CONCERNED CITIZEN
CONCERNED CITIZEN
VALLEY INTERFAITH
DIVISION OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE OF LAREDO UNIVERSITY
CONCERNED CITIZEN
THE INTL CENTER FOR SOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
TEXAS CENTER FOR POLICY STUDIES
CONCERNED CITIZEN
ARIZONA TOXICS INFORMATION CENTER
CONCERNED CITIZEN
MATAMOROS MAQUILA ASSOCIATION
TEXAS WATER COMMISSION
RIO GRANDE COMPACT COMMISSION, EL PASO
CAMERON CO. LEPC
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT
CONCERNED CITIZEN
BAKER & MCKENZIE
SANTA CLARA CENTER FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
CONCERNED CITIZEN
ASOCIACION DE MAQUILADORAS DE SONORA
ADMINISTRATIVE/CITY CLERK CITY OF SUNLAND PARK, NM
CITY OF NOGALES
THE BORDER ORGANIZATION
SECRETARY
PROGRAM DIRECTOR
SPECIAL ASST TO COMMISSIONER
MANAGER
MANAGER
REPRESENTATIVE
CONSERVATION CHAIR
DIRECTOR
LEGISLATIVE AIDE
CHAIRMAN
PROFESSOR
LEGISLATIVE AIDE
CHAIRMAN
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
REPRESENTATIVE
COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
COMMISSIONER
VICE PRESIDENT
PARTNER
DIRECTOR
PRESIDENT
REPRESENTATIVE
CITY ATTORNEY
A92-171.anc
C-5
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
LAST NAME
JACOBS
JACQUEZ
JAN3EN
JARDINES
JARMON
JENKINS
JIRON
JOFFROY
JONES
JUAREZ
JUAREZ
KAMP
KELLY
KHERA
KJOS
KUNZ
KYD
LA DREW
LACHMAN
LANDFORD
LANQMAN
LAUREL
LEAL
LEDEZMA
LEON CANTY
LEVY
UEB
LOCKETT
LOCKWOOD
LOPEZ
LOPEZ
LOPEZ
LOZO
LUCAS
MAEZ
MALEY
MARCHBANKS
MARCIL
MARIN
MARSTON
MARTINEZ
MATTSON
FIRST NAME
KATHARINE
RICARDO
LJLAM.
JOEL
LESLIE
DON
QILLERMO A.
WILLIAM F.
C.ALLAN
RUMALDO Z.
DAVID
RICHARD
MARYE.
A.K.
KAARES.
SUSAN
MARGOT
JUDITH
MARIANNE
ROBERT A.
LAURA
ERNIE
TERESA
DAVID
SARA
TOM
CARL
JACKIE
WILLIAM
GENARO
POLLY
MARCOS
FRED
JOE
JAMES
MARY HELEN
PERCY
ANTHONY G.
CARLOS M.
JIM
SANDRA
FREDERIC E.
ORGANIZATION
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
WASTE MANAGEMENT EDUCATION & RESEARCH
CONCERNED CITIZEN
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MONTERREY, MEXICO
SMALL ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT U.S PEACE CORPS
THE EUREKA COMPANY
INTEC
BORDER TRADE ALLIANCE
TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
VALLEY/HEALTH COORDINATOR'S OFFICE, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BORDER ECOLOGY PROJECT
TEXAS CENTER FOR POLICY STUDIES
GMA, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE OF TIJUANA-SAN DIEGO REGION
ARIZONA-MEXICO BORDER HEALTH FOUNDATION
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION
ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS (UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP)
COALITION FOR BORDER BIOSPHERE RESERVE
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
CONCERNED CITIZEN
ASOCIACION REGIONAL DE MAQUILADORAS DE REYNOSA, A.C.
PROYECTO COMADRES
CONCERNED CITIZEN
CONCERNED CITIZEN
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
CONCERNED CITIZEN
CONCERNED CITIZEN
ARIZONA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICE
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE
THE BORDER ORGANIZATION
ESCUELA SUPERIOR DE AGRICULTURA
CONCERNED CITIZEN
EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS
SOUTHWEST CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND POLICY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
CAMERON COUNTY, TX
WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER
AMBIOTEC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
OFFICE OF TEXAS GOVERNOR, ANNE RICHARDS
POWER SUPPLY DIVISION
TITLE
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
FORMER COORDINATOR (SEDIA)
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
PRESIDENT
CHAIRMAN
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
MEMBER
DIRECTOR
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
PRESIDENT
CHAIRPERSON
VICE PRESIDENT OF ADM. SERVICES
DIRECTOR
STATE COORDINATOR
GENERAL MANAGER CHIEF ENGINEER
DIRECTOR
PROFESSOR
CITY ATTORNEY
ENGINEER
PRESIDENT AND CEO
DIRECTOR
SPECIAL ASSISTANT
VICE PRESIDENT
A92-171.anc
C-6
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
LAST NAME
FIRST NAME
ORGANIZATION
TITLE
MATZ
MAURO
MCCLOSKEY
MCCLOSKEY
MCDONALD
MCKINNEY
MCLERRAN
MEDINA
MEISTER
MENDEZ
MERRILEES
METZNER
MEYERS
MICHIL
MIKA
MILLAR
MILLER
MOCK
MOLINAR
MONJE
MONLEY
MONTAG
MORA
MORALES
MORALES
MORENO
MORENO
MORRISS
MOYERS
MULLINS
MUNOZ
NAKAGAWA
NAREL
NECCO
NICHOLS
NICKEY
NIXON
O'BRIEN
OJEDA
OLIVER
JAMES
GARY
PETER F.
MICHAEL
JAMES O.
LARRY D.
DANNY
ENRIQUE
GARY W.
MARIA T.
CRAIG
CLIFTON G.
JOSEPH H.
DOCTOR
SUSAN
FRED
RON
C.R.
GEORGE
JOSEPH
MARTHA
THOMAS C.
AURORA
NICK
ROBERT
ROBERTO
JOSE L
RONALD R.
KARLO.
M.L
RAUL V.
CRAIG
TRACY
FRED
ANDREW
LAURENCE N.
SHERRIE
JOSEPH
DAVID
ARNOLD W.
HARLINGEN CITY COMMISSION
TEXAS LAND COMMISSION
ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION
SIERRA CLUB
CONCERNED CITIZEN
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
EL PASO COUNTY LOCAL EMERGENCY PLAN OFFICE
INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
YUMA AUDUBON SOCIETY
CONCERNED MEXICAN CITIZEN
FAIR TRADE CAMPAIGN
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL STUDIES OF THE CALIFORNIAS, SASO
MILITARY HIGHWAY WATER SUPPLY CORP.
INSTITUTE FOR MANUFACTURING & MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
COALITION FOR JUSTICE IN THE MAQUILADORA
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
AQUACULTURE CONSULTANTS
CONCERNED CITIZEN
CONCERNED CITIZEN
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA RURAL HEALTH OFFICE
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY DIVISION, HONEYWELL INC.
CONCERNED CITIZEN
SIERRA CLUB
CONCERNED CITIZEN
THE BORDER ORGANIZATION
COLEGIO SONORA
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AZ
SOUTHEAST ARIZONA GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION
CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
EL PASO-CITY COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
CONCERNED CITIZEN
THE RIVER PIERCE FOUNDATION
CONCERNED CITIZEN
RURAL HEALTH OFFICE
EL PASO CITY COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
CONCERNED CITIZEN
VALLEY INTERFAITH
THE BORDER ORGANIZATION
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
TEXAS LAND COMMISSIONER
PRESIDENT
CHAIRMAN
DIRECTOR RESOURCE PROTECTION
CHAIRMAN
PRINCIPAL
PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR, TOXIC PROJECT
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
CONSULTANT
CORPORATE DIRECTOR
CHAIRMAN
ENVIRONMENTAL & COMM. DEV.
VICE PRESIDENT-REGIONAL AFFAIRS
CHIEF OF STAFF SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
REVEREND
ENGINEER-DIRECTOR
A92-171.anc
C-7
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
LAST NAME
OLIVEROS
ORANTES
ORTEGA
OSTERMAN
PALACIOS
PARRA
PARRA
PEARCY
PEQG
PEREZ
PETTIS
PINE
PLARRIS
PREWETT
PRICE
QUIROZ
RAMIREZ
RAMIREZ
RAMOS
RANDALL
RANGER
RAY
RICHARDS
RIORDON
RITTGERS
ROBERSON
ROBINSON
RODEN-LUCERO
RODRIGUEZ
RODRIGUEZ
ROGERS
RUIZ
RUTLEDGE
SALAS
SALDANA
SANCHEZ
SANCHEZ
SANCHEZ
SASS
SAUCEDA
RR3T NAME
VICTOR M.
TEOOORO
HERBERT
TAMAR
NICK
JAVIER
ANTONIO
RICHARD
DANIEL 0.
MIKE
RONALD
ARTHUR L
MICHAEL A.
RAY
JUDITH
JOSEPH
ROBERTO
ANTONIO
ANDRES
ALBERT
EDWARD M.
ROBERT
CATHERINE M.
ELIZABETH E.
MATEELE
DON
JERRY R.
EDWARD O.
GEORGE
EMERENCIO
C. GREGORY
JOHN
WILLIE M.
PATRICIA
DINA
ROBERTO A.
AMELIA
MARY E.
SHERRY L
FLORENCIO
ORGANIZATION
CITY OF LAREDO HEALTH DEPARTMENT
CONCERNED CITIZEN
PAN AMERICAN HEALTH ORGANIZATION
OFFICE OF SENATOR JEFF BINGAMAN (NEW MEXICO)
U.S. BUREAU OF LAND RECLAMATION
VALLEY INTERFAITH
TRINITY CHICANO COALITION
WILDLIFE CORRIDOR TASK FORCE
SAN DIEGO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP.
FIRE DEPARTMENT OF LAREDO, TX
GRAY, GARY, AMES & FRYE
MAVERICK COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 952
TEXAS CITRUS MUTUAL
DONA ANA COUNTY
NATURE CONSERVANCY
COMMUNITY RESOURCE GROUP INC.
CONCERNED CITIZEN
CONCERNED CITIZEN
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
LAFFAN, MUES & KAYE
FEDERATED METALS
CONCERNED CITIZEN
CONCERNED CITIZEN
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF TEXAS
CALIFORNIA/NEVADA SECTION OF AMERICAN WATER WORKS
CITY OF LAREDO HEALTH DEPARTMENT
CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF EL PASO
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF TEXAS
CONCERNED MEXICAN CITIZEN
CHEMICAL RECLAMATION SERVICES, INC
RIO GRANDE DEVELOPMENT COUNSEL GOVERNMENT
CONCERNED CITIZEN
CASA DE COLORES
CONCERNED CITIZEN
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
CONCERNED CITIZEN
LA CLINICA DE F AM I LI A
FRIENDS OF THE SANTA CRUZ RIVER
CONCERNED CITIZEN
TITLE
CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
CHIEF, FIELD OFFICE
LEGISLATIVE AIDE
PLANNING OFFICER
PRESIDENT
CHIEF
PARTNER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
MEXICO COUNTY PLANNING
DIRECTOR
ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWYER
GENERAL MANAGER
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
REVEREND
SPECIAL ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR/COLEGIO DE LA FRONTERA
A92-171.anc
C-8
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
LAST NAME
FIRST NAME
ORGANIZATION
TITLE
SCHMANDT
SCOTT
SHAKELFORD
SHAW
SHERWOOD
SIRES
SMITH
SOLORZANO
STECKHAN
STEVENS
STOCKER
STROCK
SULZER
SUTER
TAFFY
TAKVORIAN
TAYLOR
THOMAS-RAMIREZ
THOMPSON
THUNER
THURMAN
TIMMONS
TINSMAN
TISDALE
TITTLE
TODD
TORREZ
TORREZ
TOWERS
TURNER
UHLHORN
UMPHERS
VALE
VALENCIA
VARADY
VAZQUEZ
VELARDE
VILLAREAL
WALES
WARD
WARD
WATKINS
JURQEN
LORETTA A.
GORDON
JOHN R.
EDWARD C.
EARL
EDELMIRA
RAFAEL
RAINER B.
ERNESTINA
RANDALL K.
JAMES M.
KENNETH E.
PATRICIA H.
LEE
DIANE
LYNDA
SUSAN
STEVEN P.
KATHELEEN A.
L.D.
JEFF
STEWART
DONNA
KENNETH
LEO
LOU
GUADALUPE
WILLIAM D.
KAYH.
TUDOR G.
NANCY
SAM
NESTOR A.
ROBERT
LETICIA
RODRIGO
SIMON
SISTER VINCENT
JUSTIN R.
PAT
BARBARA
CENTER OF GLOBAL STUDIES
CONCERNED CITIZEN
CONCERNED CITIZEN
ASARCO
LAREDO DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION
CITY OF NOGALES
THE BORDER ORGANIZATION
CONCERNED CITIZEN
THE WORLD BANK
CONCERNED CITIZEN
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN
INTERNATIONAL GOOD NEIGHBOR COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COALITION
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH AND INFORMATION CENTER
CONCERNED CITIZEN
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DIVISION)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CONCERNED CITIZEN
INTERNATIONAL AND TERRITORIAL AFFAIRS STAFF
BACKCOUNTRY AGAINST DUMPS
IMPERIAL COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
THE HEGAR GROUP
CONCERNED CITIZEN
COMITE FRONTERIZO DE OBRERAS
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD
HOMEOWNERS TAXPAYER ASSOCIATION
HARLINGEN AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
ZAPATA COUNTY NATURE CONSERVATION SOCIETY
MEXICO-TEXAS BRIDGE OWNERS ASSOCIATION
EL PASO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
UDALL CENTER FOR STUDIES IN PUBLIC POLICY
OFFICE OF TEXAS GOVERNOR, ANNE RICHARDS
MOVIMIENTO ECOLOGISTA DE MONTERREY, A.C.
WATER COMMITTEE
ST. VINCENT DE PAUL
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
OFFICE OF CONGRESSMAN JIM KOLBE (5TH DISTRICT, AZ)
CONCERNED CITIZEN
DIRECTOR
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEUR
PLANT MANAGER
PRESIDENT
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
U.S. ALTERNATE EXECUTIVE DIR.
MANAGER
SECRETARY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RETIRED CHEMISTRY PROFESSOR
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
PROJECT LEADER
AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER
ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
HEALTH OFFICE
RETIRED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
CHAIRPERSON
CHAIRMAN
VICE PRESIDENT
PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT FOR PLANNING
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
PRESIDENT
CHAIRMAN
SENIOR RESOURCE SPECIALIST
ASSISTANT TO CONGRESSMAN
A92-171.anc
C-9
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
LAST NAME
WEISBERQ
WELLHOUSE
WELLS DIAZ
WESSTROM
WHITE
WHITMORE
WILLIAMSON
WOOTTEN
WORLEY
ZURICK
FIRST NAME
LEON
MARIE
MARGARET R.
BETTY
CHARLES A.
KAYR.
KAY
ELEANOR G.
J,W.
PATRICK
ORGANIZATION
BROWNSVILLE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
CONCERNED CITIZEN
CONCERNED CITIZEN
CONCERNED CITIZEN
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
CONCERNED CITIZEN
MESILLA VALLEY AUDUBON SOCIETY
CONCERNED CITIZEN
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
TITLE
MANAGER OF REGIONAL AFFAIRS
CHAIRMAN
DEPUTY REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
A92-171.anc
C-10
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
ANNEX D
NAMES AND AFFILIATIONS OF
THOSE WHO TESTIFIED OR SUBMITTED
COMMENTS TO SEDUE ON THE BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN
DURING ITS FORMATION
D-1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
A92-171.and ^
-------
NAME
ORGANIZATION
SR. VICTOR ACEVEDO
ING. QILDARDO ACTOSTA
UC. ANGEL ACOSTAIEYVA
ORAL QONZALO ADALID MIER
INQ. LEOCADIO AGUAYO
CORL RENE CARLOS AGUILAR P.
C. JAVIER AGUILAR RANGEL
C. THOMAS ALBERT
C.P. ROBERTO ALCIDE BELTRONES
ARQ. RENE ALTAMIRANO PEREZ
ING. ALEJANDRO ALVARADO REYES
C. JUAN ANDRADE NEQUIZ
ING. CARLOS ANGULO
C. HUMBERTO ARVIZU A.
LIC. BELEM AVENDANO RUIZ
C. CRISTINA AVILA HERNANDEZ
DC. FERNANDO BAEZA MELENDEZ
C. MARIA ELENA BARAJAS
DR. EDUARDO BARRERA HERRERA
C. ROBERTO BARRIENTOS
PROF. FEDERICO BARRIENTOS DE LA TORRE
ARQ. MIGUEL BENAVIDES C.
INV. FANCISCO A. BERNAL RODRIGUEZ
C. LEOCADIO BEYTIA
ING. EMILIO BRUNA
UC. MARIO BUCIO
UC. LEOPOLDO BURGUETE
DR. JORGE BUSTAMANTE
UC. CARLOS BUSTAMTNE ACEVEDO
ING. JESUS BUSTAMANTE SALCIDO
ARQ. GUILLERMO CABALLERO HERRERA
ARQ. IQNACIO CABRERA FERNANDEZ
UC. RICARDO E. CALDERON
ING. JESUS ROMAN CALLEROS
UC. WILFRIDO CAMPBELL SAAVEDRA
PROF. ENRIQUE CAMPOS ARAGON
C. FELIX CAMPOS CORONA
C. JORGE CARDENAS GONZALEZ
ING. ELIDA CARRASCO
C. RICHARD CARTER
C. RON CASTEL
UC. MILTON CASTELLANOS GOUT
INDUSTRIAS MADERERA ACEVEDO
GRUPO ENLACE ECOLOGICO, A.C.
PRESIDENTE, CONGRESO DEL ESTADO
COMANDANTE GUARNIC DE LA PLAZA
U.G.R.S.
COMMANDANTE DEL 89 BATALLON DE INFANTERIA
CONSUL, PHOENIX, ARIZONA
MOVIMIENTO ECOLOGISTA DE COAHUILA
I.M.S.S.
SEDUE
GRUPO SONOTRONIES
PRESIDENTE MUNICIPAL PLUTARCO ELIAS CALLES
SERVICIOS COORDINADOS DE SALUD PUBLICA
C.R.O.C.
SECOFI
REGIDORA, CIUDAD ACUNA
GOBERNADOR CONTITUCIONAL DEL ESTADO DE CHIHUAHUA
MOVIMIENTO ECOLOGISTA DE SONORA
EL COLEGIO DE LA FRONTERA NORTE
MAYOR DE EAGLE PASS, TEXAS
COMPLEJO MAREMOTRIZ DEL MAR DE CORTES
CUIDADANO MATAMORENSE
COLEGIO DE LA FRONTERA NORTE
CONSUL DE MEXICO EN EAGLE PASS, TEXAS
ASOCIACION FRONTERIZA DE MANEJO DE DESECHOS
SRE
ABOGADOS BRYAN GONZALEZ VARGAS Y GONZALEZ BASS
EL COLEGIO FRONTERA NORTE
PROYECTO MATRIX
PRESIDENTE MUNICIPAL, SAN LUIS RIO COLORADO, SONORA
AIRE SANO
PRESIDENTE MESON
ABOGADO. EAGLE PASS, TEXAS
EL COLEGIO DE LA FRONTERA NORTE
U.A.C.J.
C.B.T.I.S. #54, CIUDAD ACUNA
CONGRESO DEL ESTADO
PRESIDENTE MUNICIPAL DE H. MATAMOROS, TAMAULIPAS
COMISION SONORA ARIZONA
CANACO, EAGLE PASS, TEXAS
PRESIDENTE MUNICIPAL DE MEXICALI
A92-171.and
D-2
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
NAME
ORGANIZATION
LIC. MARIO A. CASTILLO GARZA
ING. EVA CASTILLO ZAYAVEDRA
C. LUIS E. CASTRESANA R.
C. JESUS CASTRO
ARQ. RUBEN CASTRO BUJORQUEZ
DR. HERNAN CAVAZOS
C.P. MARIA GPE. CENTENO
C. BENITO CERVANTES SANCHEZ
LIC. PATRICIO CHIRINOS CALERO
SR. FELIPE CHON MENCHACA
LIC. LUIS DONALDO COLOSIO MURRIETA
GRAL. EDGAR CONDE PEREA
ING. JORGE CONTRERAS FORNELLI
LIC. JOSE MANUEL CORONA ESTRADA
C. SYLVIA CORREA
DR. LEONEL COTA ARAIZA
LIC. CARLOS V. CRUZ MARTINEZ
SR. EDWIN CUBBIFON
C. ANDRES CUELLAR
ARQ. INOCENCIO CUELLAR LOPEZ
M.C. CARLOS R. DE ALBA PEREZ
ING. CARLOS DE LA PARRA
C. FRANCISCO DE LA PENA DAVILA
SRA. GUADALUPE DE LA VEGA
C. MANUEL DE LAS PIEDRAS
C. SARA DE LEON DE CANTO
C. CATALINA DENMAN
LIC. ROSARIO DIAZ ARELLANO
LIC. FRANCISCO DOMINGUEZ
C. LAURA DURAZO
LIC. LUIS ELIZONDO
GRAL. JOSE LUIS ENRIQUEZ ANDRADE
ING. ROMULO ESCOBAR
BIOL. JORGE ESCOBAR MARTINEZ
C. EDUARDO A. FERRIZ
ING. HUMBERTO FILIZOLA HACES
DR. MANUEL F. FLORES
ING. PEDRO FLORES AGUIRRE
DR. MANUEL M. FLORES ARCE
DR. RENE FRANCO BARRENO
DR. SERGIO FUENTES MOYADO
CANACO, PIEDRAS NEDRAS, CHIHUAHUA
CORET
CONSUL TUCSON, ARIZONA
ASOCIACION DE MAQUILAS SAN LUIS RIO COLORADO, S.L.R.C.
DELEGADO DE SEDUE EN B.C.
DIRECCION DE INVESTIGACION Y POSTGRADO UABC
GRUPO ECOLOGICO DE NOGALES
UNIVERSIDAD DE SONORA
SECRETARIO DE DESARROLLO URBANO Y ECOLOGIA
CLUB ROTARIO, PIEDRAS NEGRAS
SENADOR
COMANDANTE DE LA GUARNICION
CENTRO EMPRESARIAL DE CIUDAD JUAREZ
CANACO, TIJUANA
E.P.A.
INSTITUTO DE FISICA - UNAM
CANAL 3, PIEDRAS NEGRAS, COAHUILA
CONSUL GENERAL DE E.U.A. EN TIJUANA, B.C.
COMISION DE DERECHOS HUMANOS DE MATAMOROS
COLEGIO DE ARQUITECTOS DE MEXICALI
CAMARA NACIONAL OE LA INDUSTRIA PESQUERA
COLEGIO FRONTERA NORTE, TIJUANA
SISTEMA DE AGUA POTABLE Y ALCANTARILLADO
FEMAP
ASOCIACION DE SEGURIDAD E HIGIENE DE B.C.
AFECTADOS POR LAS EMPRESAS QUIMICAS
EL COLEGIO DE SONORA
U.B.C.J.
PRI
PROYECTO FRONTERIZO AMBIENTAL
COMITE PARA EL DESARROLLO INDUSTRIAL DE MATAMOROS
COMANDANTE DEL STO. BATALLON DE INFANTERIA
DESARROLLO ECONOMICO
SUBDELEGADO DE ECOLOGIA
E.A.S. (PRODUCTOS DE CONTROL), S.A.
UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE TAMAULIPAS
INSTITUTO TECHNOLOGICO DE TIJUANA
FUNDACION CULTURAL ECOLOGICA MEXICALI
INSTITUTO TECHNOLOGICO DE TIJUANA
CONSEJO MUNICIPAL DE ECOLOGIA
INSTITUTO DE FISICA DE LA U.N.A.M.
A92-171.and
D-3
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
NAME
ORGANIZATION
DR. RAFAEL QALINDO P.
LIC. JORGE I. GALLEGO SALAS
C. JAVIER GARCIA ALANIS
LIC. OSCAR R. GARCIA CORIA
ARQ. CARLOS QARCIA FLORES
DR. IGNACIO GARCIA IZQUIERDO
C. ROGELIO GARCIA LERMA
LIC. EDGARDO GARCIA VILLANUEVA
C. BEN1QNO GIL DE LOS SANTOS
C. LEOBARDO GIL TORRES
LIC. JOSE ANTONIO GONZALES
LICfMIGUEL GONZALEZ CALETTE
M.C. ADOLFO GONZALEZ CALVILLO
DR. ARTURO GONZALEZ C.
M.V.Z. ABUNDIO GONZALEZ GONZALEZ
ING. ADOLFO GONZALEZ M.
ARQ. ANTONIO L. GONZALEZ OLVERA
C.P. ALFREDO GONZALEZ RUBIO
LIC. LUIS MANUEL GUERRA
C. MARIA J. GUERRERO
ORAL. ISIDRO MARIO GUILLEN ZAMUDIO
ING. MARIO GUTIERREZ
PROFR. MODESTO GUTIERREZ CORONADO
DR. EFRAIN GUTIERREZ GALINDO
DC. JOSE LUIS GUTIERREZ JUAREZ
ING. ANTONIO HARB KARAM
ARQ. VICTOR HERMOSILLO CELADA
LIC. CARMEN L. HERNANDEZ
LIC. JOSE LUIS HERNANDEZ SILERIO
ARQ. IQNACIO CARLOS HUERTA
GRAL. GERARDO JASSO TEYES
LIC. ENRIQUE JIMINEZ
FIS. ROBERTO JIMINEZ ORNELAS
SR. RICHARD KIY
DC. ISAURO LANDA
BIOL. ARTURO LARA FLORES
C. TERESA LEAL ONTIVEROS
M.C. CUAUHTEMOC LEON DIEZ
C. RAUL N. LEYVA
LIC. OSCAR LICONA NIETO
INSTITUTO FRONTERIZO DE ESTUDIOS FILOSOFICOS Y CULTURALES
CANACINTRA DE MEXICALI
CLUB ROTARIO MATAMOROS 84
DELEGADO ESTATAL, SEDUE
SECRETARIA DE ASENTAMIENTOS HUMANOS
REGIDOR, PIEDRAS NEGRAS, COAHUILA
CTM MATAMOROS
ABOGADOS CREEL-GARCIA Y MUGGENBURG
DIPUTAOO FEDERAL
PRESIDENTS MUNICIPAL DE NOGALES
ASOCIACION DE INDUSTRIALES DE OTAY
CANACINTRA TIJUANA
INSTITUTO DE INVESTIGACIONES OCEANOGRAFICAS
S.A.R.H.
DELEGADO ESTATAL, SEDUE-TAMAULIPAS
PRESIDENTS CANACO
COLEGIO DE ARQUITECTOS
CANACO
GRUPO ECOLOGtSTA DIGNIOAO
COMANDANTE DE LA GUARNICION DE LA PLAZA
ASOCIACION DE MAQUILADORAS DE MATAMOROS
U.N.E.
INSTITUTO DE INVESTIGACIONES OCEANOLOGICAS
CANACO
DESARROLLO URBANO DEL GOBIERNO DEL ESTADO
GOBIERNO DEL ESTADO
UNIDAD DE PROTECCION CIVIL
U.N.E.
COLEGIO DE ARQUITECTOS
VIZONA NORTE MIUTAR
CANACINTRA DE TECATE
UNIVERSIDAD DE SONORA
EPA
AMAC
ASOCIACION DE BIOLOGOS DE MEXICALI
MUSEO DE MEXICALI
CETYS EN TIJUANA
A92-171.and
D-4
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
NAME
ORGANIZATION
M.C. ROMAN LIZARRAGA ARCINIEGA
MTRO. LUIS LLORENS BAEZ
LIC. ENRIQUE LOAEZA TOVAR
ARQ. SERGIO LOPEZ
ING. MARCOS LOPEZ
C. CARLOS ALFONSO LOPEZ
ING. GENARO LOPEZ BOJORQUEZ
SRITA. NACHELY LOPEZ HURTADO
C. ROGELIO LOPEZ LUCIO
ING. LUIS LOPEZ MOCTEZUMA
LIC. OLEGARIO LOZOYA
C. ROBERTO LUEVANO AGUAYO
LIC. JULIAN LUZANILLA CONTRERAS
C. MARY P. MACIAS
DR. BALTAZAR MACIAS AHUMADA
C.P. JOSE DE JESUS MACIAS DELGADO
LIC. FERNANDO MARES COSSIO
DR. MARIO MARTINEZ
LIC. SERGIO MARTINEZ GARZA
LIC. OSCAR MARTINEZ IRIBERRY
C. FERNANDO MATA CUTA
M.C. ENRIQUE MEDINA SALMAN
LIC. ENRIQUE MEJIA PANCARDO
C. ELOY MENDEZ
C.P. FRANCISCO MENDIVIL ESTRADA
LIC. ELISEO MENDOZA BERRUETO
ING. JUAN MENDOZA CASTRO
ING. MAURICIO MERCADO
LIC. RICARDO MIER AYALA
C. FRED MILLAR
NINO RAYENARI MURA
ING. HUMBERTO MORALES
LIC. JOSE LUIS MORENO
LIC. MARIO MORUA JOHNSON
ING. HECTOR MURGIA LARDIZABAL
LIC. MARIO NAJERA DEL VALLE
M.C. LUIS FELIPE NAVARRO BLACHE
ARQ. ROBERTO NURA PALAC1OS
LIC. J. URVANO NUNEZ MENDEZ
ING. FRANCISCO OCHOA
ING. JAVIER OCHOA
INSTITUTO INVEST. OCEANOLOGICAS
UABC
CONSUL GRAL. DE MEXICO EN SAN DIEGO, CA
MOVIMIENTO ECOLOGISTA DE B.C.
ESCUELA SUPERIOR DE AGRICULTURA HNOS. ESCOBAR
PRESIDENTS ELECTO DE IMURIS, SONORA
U.A.B.C.
PARTIDO ECOLOGISTA DE MEXICO
ASOCIACION DE MAQUILADORAS MEX.
DELEGADO DE S.P.P.
CANACINTRA, CIUDAD ACUNA, COAHUILA
FEDERACION ESTATAL DE B.C.
C.N.C.
MAYOR, NOGALES, ARIZONA
ALIANZA ECOLOGISTA DE B.C.
PRESIDENTS MUNICIPAL
COORD. DE DELEGACIONES SEDUE
CICESE
SEDUE
ASOCIACION DE INDUSTRIALES
AGENTE ADUANAL
ECOLOGIA INDUSTRIAL INTERNACIONAL
BANOBRAS
EL COLEGIO DE SONORA
PRESIDENTS DE CANACINTRA
GOBERNADOR CONSTITUTIONAL DEL ESTADO DE COAHUILA
ING. CIVILES Y COLEGIDOS DE NOGALES, A.C.
COORDINADOR DE LA MATERIA HIDROLOGICA
ECOLOGIA GOBIERNO DEL ESTADO
AMIGOS DE LA TIERRA U.S.A.
TECHNOLOGICO DE CIUDAD JUAREZ
PROFESOR INVESTIGADOR DEL COLEGIO SONORA
GOBERNADOR DEL ESTADO
CANACINTRA
CONSUL DE MEXICO EN DEL RIO, TEXAS
ASOCIACION DE OCEANOLOGOS DE B.C.
DIRECCION GENERAL DE PUNEACION MUNICIPAL
COLONIA SECC. 11 Y AMPL. EJIDO DE LAS RUSIAS
MAM
AMAC
A92-171.and
D-5
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
NAME
ORGANIZATION
ING. ARTURO OCHOA GONZALEZ
C. UNA OJEDA REVAN
DR. TEODORO ORANTES
DRA. SILVIA ORTEGA SALAZAR
LIC. JESUS A. OSTOS GARCIA
ING. FRANCISCO PACHECO COVARRUBIAS
LIC. BULMARO PACHECO M.
QUIM. ALMA LETICIA PARTIDA
LIC. LUIS ALBERTO PELAYO
ARQ. JOSE PENA HERRERA
ING. IGNACIO PENA TREVINO
LIC. EVARISTO PEREZ ARRIOLA
BIOL. DANIEL PEREZ BASTIDA
LIC. VICTOR M. PEREZ RODRIGUEZ
C. TOM PHILLIPS
C. MARK POTTS
ALM. ENRIQUE RAMOS MARTINEZ
C. EDWARD M. RANGER
PROF. MOISES REYES CARDONA
FISICO SERGIO REYES LUJAN
PROFA. MARTHA N. RIOJAS C.
LIC. JAVIER RIVAS GUZMAN
LIC. GUILLERMO RIVERA RODRIGUEZ
ING. MANUEL RIVERA ZAMUDIO
ING. RUBEN ROA QUINONEZ
DIP. RODRIGO ROBLEDO
C. MARINA ROCHA GARCIA
ING. JOSE MAGDALENO RODRIGUEZ ANGUIANO
QUIM. MERCEDES RODRIGUEZ F.
C. EMERENCIANO RODRIGUEZ JABRAIL
LIC. FRANCISCO RUBIO FELIX
C. NOE S. RUIZ ORTIZ
ING. MIGUEL SALAZAR
PROPA. BERTHA G. SALAZAR FALCON
ARQ. BERNARDO SALCEDO LEOS
C. EMILIO SALINAS COVARRUBIAS
C. ROBERTO SANCHEZ DEUMA
C. JAIME SANCHEZ N.
LIC. ONORATO TECIER FUENTES
LIC. MARIO TOMAS
C. BALTAZAR TORRES
M.C. GUILLERMO TORRES MOYE
RECTOR ITN
COLEGIO DE LA FRONTERA NORTE
I.M.S.S.
UAM UNIDAD AZCAPOTZALCO
SEDUE ESTADO DE COAHUILA
TECHNOLOGICO DE MONTERREY, CAMPU CIUDAD JUAREZ
SENADOR
PROFESOR INVESTIG. DE LA ESC. DE ECOLOGIA-CESUES
ASOCIACION DE INDUSTRIALES
CNIC
CILA
PRESIDENTS MUNICIPAL DE CIUDAD ACUNA, COAHUILA
SECRETARIA Di ASENTAMIENTOS HUMANOS
U.A.C. PIEDRAS NEGRAS, COAHUILA
OFICINA DE SALUD EN UVALDE, TEXAS
E.P.A.
COMANDANTE SECTOR NAVAL SEDEMAR
ASESOR AMBIENTAL
AYUNTAMIENTO CIUDAD ACUNA
SUBSECRETARIO DE ECOLOGIA
INSTITUTO DE LAS AMERICAS (MONTESORI)
ASOCIACION DE MAQUILADORAS
SUBSECRETARIO DE DESARROLLO URBANO
CONACYT (SONORA)
COMISION NACIONAL DEL AQUA
COMISION DE EGOLOGIA DEL CONGRESO DEL ESTADO
BIO-TEC
REPRESENTANTE DE LA COMUNIDAD ECOLOGICA DE MATAMOROS
EMPRESA DIABSA
CONSUL DE MEXICO EN NOGALES
DIRECTOR CESUES
CESUES
GRUPO ECOLOGISTA DIGNIDAD
MOVIMIENTO ECOLOGISTA DE COAHUILA
CENTRO ESTUDIOS PARA DESARROLLO DE LA ADMON. MUNICIPAL
UNIVERSIDAD DE SONORA
COLEGIO DE LA FRONTERA NORTE
PRESIDENTS MUNICIPAL, NACO, SONORA
FUNDACION ECOLOGICA MEXICANA, PIEDRAS NEGRAS, COAHUILA
DELEGADO DE LA REFORMA AGRARIA
GRUPO ECOLOGISTA DE MEXICALI
FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS MARINAS
A92-171.and
D-6
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
NAME
ING. ELIAS S. TREVINO
C. FRANCISCO TREVINO MORA
ING. ANTONIO CARLOS VALDEZ BALBOA
C. RAMIRO VALDEZ FONTES
UC. RUDOLFO VALOEZ GUTIERREZ
C. RITO VALDEZ SALINAS
SRITA. DELIA VALDIVIA CONTRERAS
MAT. MARCO A. VALENCIA A.
ING. MARCO A. VALEZUELA
C.P. SERGIO VAZQUEZ
C. FELIPE VELAZQUEZ
BIOL RAUL VENEGAS
ARQ. MARCO A. VILCHIS
C. BAUDELIO VILDOSOLA T.
ARQ. LUIS VILLAGRA CALLETI
C. JOSE C. ZAVALA
UC. ERNESTO ZEPEDA MATAMOROS
C. HUGO ZERMENO
ORGANIZATION
CANACINTRA, PIEORAS NEGRAS, COAHUILA
CANACO CIUDAD ACUNA, COAHUILA
GOBIERNO DEL ESTADO DE TAMAULIPAS
C.T.M.
SECRETARIA DE DESARROLLO ECONOMICO
PRESIDENTS MUNICIPAL DE PIEDRAS NEGRAS, COAHUILA
ALIANZA ECOLOGISTA DE B.C.
RECTOR UNI-SON
DIR. EJECUTIVO DE LA A.M.S.
UABC
FRENTE DE PROTECCION ECOLOGICA
MUSEO REGIONAL DE CIENCIAS
FACULTAD DE ARQUITECTURA DE LA U.A.B.C.
PRESIDENTE MUNICIPAL, AQUA PREITA, SONORA
UNION DE COLONOS RESIDENTES DE GUAYMAS
BIO-TEC
DELEGACIUN REGIONAL, ZONA COSTA, SEDUE
U-ZOMEX, S.L.R.C.
A92-171.and
D-7
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
•fU.S. Government printing office : 1992 - 312-014/40061
------- |