Border 2012:
U.S. - Mexico
Environmental Program
w
State of the Border Region
Indicators Report
2010
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
www.usa.gov
www.epa.gov
www.gobiernofederal.gob.mx
www.semarnat.gob.mx
SEMARNAT
-------
State of the Border Region 2010
Ackno wledgements
This report benefits from the contributions, review, and suggestions of many staff at EPA, SEMARNAT, border
region tribes and indigenous communities, and other federal, state, and local agencies in the U.S. and Mexico.
Particular thanks go to representatives of Border 2012 coordinating bodies that provided leadership in the
development and refinement of indicators in their areas of expertise.
We hope that this report will be informative to a broad range of audiences in the border region. And, we hope
that it will be useful in charting the future course of binational efforts to improve the environmental quality of the
border region, and in so doing, the health and quality of life of those who call the border region home.
Cesar E. Rodriguez Ortega
Border Indicators Task Force Co-Chair, SEMARNAT
SEMARNAT
MEDIO AMBIENTE V
RECURSOS NATO RALES
Steve Young
Border Indicators Task Force Co-Chair, U.S. EPA
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
May 2011
-------
State of the Border Region 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Report Overview 1
2. The U.S.-Mexico Border Region 5
What are the population trends in the border region? 7
• Border Region Population and Forecast Population Growth: 2005-2030 7
• Census and Projected Border Region Population (U.S.): 2005-2010 7
• Comparison of Population Projections (Mexico): 2005-2030 7
What are the trends in economic integration and cross-border trade? 11
• Value of U.S. and Mexico Trade 11
• Value of Land-based Freight Movement Across the U.S.-Mexico Border 11
• Number of Northbound Truck Crossings at the U.S.-Mexico Border Per Year 11
• Number of Northbound Passenger Vehicle Crossings at the U.S.-Mexico Border Per Year 11
Highlight: Border Eco-regions and Biodiversity 14
How many facilities in the border region are releasing toxic pollutants—and how much? 16
• Number of Facilities in the Border Region Reporting Toxic Releases under Pollutant Release and
Transfer Registries 16
• Total Toxic Releases from Reporting Facilities in the Border Region 16
Highlight: How is a Changing Climate Affecting the Border Region? 19
3. Water 23
Are homes in the U.S.-Mexico border region being connected to safe drinking water and wastewater
treatment services? 25
• Number of Unserved Homes Connected to Safe Drinking Water through the Border Water
Infrastructure Program 25
• Number of Unserved Homes Connected to Wastewater Collection and Treatment Services through
the Border Water Infrastructure Program 25
Highlight: Water Infrastructure and Health in Indigenous Communities in Mexico 27
How much untreated and inadequately treated sewage is being removed from the border
region environment? 28
• Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) from Untreated and Inadequately Treated Sewage Removed
from the Environment through the Border Water Infrastructure Program 28
Highlight: Improving Water Quality in the New River through Wastewater Treatment in Mexicali 30
Do Mexico border communities have access to safe drinking water and wastewater services? 32
• Percent of Mexico Population in Border Region Municipios with Piped Drinking Water to the Property 32
• Percent of Mexico Population in Border Region Municipios with Wastewater Collection Services 32
Do U.S. border communities have access to safe drinking water and wastewater services? 38
• Percent of Population in U.S. Border Counties with Connections to Centralized Water Systems 38
Highlight: Water Quality and Health in the Juarez Valley, Mexico 41
How safe is the water at San Diego and Tijuana Beaches? 43
• San Diego County Beach Advisories and Closures: Beach Mile Days 43
• Binational International Boundary and Water Commission Shore Sampling: Elevated Fecal
Indicator Bacteria 43
-------
State of the Border Region 2010
How safe is the water at Mexico Border Region Beaches? 47
• Percent of Mexico Border Beach Sampling Events Above Enterococcus Standard 47
Highlight: How Water Quality Standards Affect Indicator Results 50
4. Air 53
What is the quality of border region air compared to health standards? 54
• Number of Days Exceeding Air Quality Standards in Border Monitoring Areas 54
What is being done to reduce diesel emissions from transportation in the border region? 58
• Number of Diesel Truck Retrofits from Binational Projects in the Western Border Region 58
What are border region states doing to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and respond to a
changing climate? 60
• Status of Border State Development of Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Forecasts, and Action Plans 60
What activities are reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the border region? 62
• Actual and Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions from Global Methane Initiative Projects
in the Border Region 62
5. Land 65
How much solid waste is being generated in the border region and how much of it is adequately
disposed of? 66
• Per-Capita Municipal Solid Waste in U.S. Border States and Counties 66
• Per-capita Daily Solid Waste Generation in Mexico Border States 66
• Solid Waste Generation (tons/day) in Selected Mexico Border Municipalities 66
• Percent Adequate Solid Waste Disposal in Mexico's 300 km Border Zone 66
Highlight: Border Tribe's Measurement of Cleanup Results Creates the Building Blocks for Environmental
Indicators 69
Are scrap tire piles being cleaned up? 70
• Number of Scrap Tires Removed During Clean Up at Two of the Largest, Selected Tire Piles in
the Border Region 70
Highlight: Preventing Future Tire Piles 73
How many facilities manage hazardous waste in the border region? 74
• Number of Facilities Managing Hazardous Waste in the Border Region 74
Highlight: Clean up of Metales y Dehvados and Other Hazardous Waste Sites in the Border Region 76
Highlight: Electronic Exchange of Import and Export Notice and Consent Information Between the
United States and Mexico 77
What is the volume of pesticides applied to land in the border region? 78
• Amount of Pesticides Used in U.S. Border Counties: California and Arizona 78
Highlight: Pesticide Training and its Effectiveness on Changing Worker Behavior 80
6. Joint Readiness for Environmental Response 83
How many chemical or oil emergency incidents have been reported in the border region? 84
• Number of Incident Notifications in the Border Region Received by the National Response Center (NRC)....84
• Number of Incident Notifications in the Border Region Received by COATEA/CENACOM 84
Highlight: Sister Cities Plans Being Developed, Revised, and Implemented 87
How are Sister City Binational Emergency Response Plans tested and improved? 88
• Binational Sister City Joint Contingency Plan Exercises 88
-------
State of the Border Region 2010
7. Environmental Performance through Compliance, Enforcement, Pollution Prevention, and
Promotion of Environmental Stewardship 89
What are border region facilities doing to voluntarily reduce their impact on the environment? 90
• Number of Facilities Audited and Certified through the Industria Limpia Program in Mexico's Border
Region 90
How many regulated facilities are in the border region? 92
• Total Number of Facilities Regulated Under Federal Programs: U.S.-Mexico Border Region 92
How many inspections of regulated facilities are conducted in the border region? 94
• Number of State and Federal Inspections for Federal Programs in the U.S. Border Region 94
• Number of Federal Inspections in the Mexico Border Region 94
Highlight: State Inspections and Enforcement Actions for Federally Regulated Facilities in Texas 96
What happens when a facility violates environmental law in the United States? 97
• Number of Federal Enforcement Actions in the U.S. Border Region 97
• Penalties in Number and Dollar Value in the U.S. Border Region 97
• Pollution Reduction from Federal Enforcement Actions in the U.S. Border Region 97
-------
State of the Border Region 2010
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 1—Report Overview
1. REPORT OVERVIEW
Border 2012 Goals
1. Reduce water contamination
2. Reduce air pollution
3. Reduce land contamination
4. Improve environmental
health
5. Enhance joint readiness for
environmental response
6. Improve environmental
performance
Each of the Border 2012 goals is
represented by specific objectives
and sub-objectives related to
specific border environmental
and health issues.
State of the Border Region 2010 provides information on the status and trends
of environmental quality and environmental health in the U.S.-Mexico border
region. In doing so, it also illustrates progress made under the U.S.-Mexico
Border 2012 program and identifies areas for further binational work beyond
2012.
This report builds on the flagship 2005 State of the Border Region report. It
updates many of the indicators first reported in 2005, adds new indicators,
and includes place-specific highlights that could become border-wide
indicators in the future. As with the 2005 report, this report is structured
around the six goals of Border 2012 with chapters on water, air, land,
environmental readiness and response, and enforcement and compliance.
Indicators that support Border 2012's additional goal, environmental health,
cut across the other five goals and are included throughout the report in the
most appropriate chapter.
The indicator and highlight information is presented with brief data source
information below each indicator or highlight. Complete underlying data and details on indicator data sources are
available in a companion document, State of the Border Region 2010: Indicator Metadata and Data Tables.
Border Program Timeline
La Pa/
Agreement
1983
Iniegralect Bonlei
Environmental Plan for
U.S.-Mexico Border
Area (IBEP)
1992
Border 2012
Border 2012 is a ten-year cooperative program initiated in 2002 and designed "to
protect the environment and public health in the U.S.-Mexico border region,
consistent with the principles of sustainable development." Through Border 2012,
federal, state, tribal and local institutions and agencies collaboratively work to
produce prioritized and sustained actions that consider the needs of border
communities. The actions implemented under Border 2012 are guided through a
series of results-oriented goals and objectives, and measured by environmental and
performance indicators. Border 2012's goals and objectives were updated in 2008
through a mid-course refinement process designed to target Border 2012 activities in
the last five years of the program.
Border 2012 is the latest cooperative initiative implemented under the 1983 La Paz
Agreement. It builds on the previous efforts, particularly Border XXI, which marked
the first binational effort to develop environmental indicators for the border region.
Border Indicators Task Force
This report was developed by the Border Indicators Task Force (BITF). Created in
2003, the BITF works with Border 2012 coordinating bodies to develop environmental
and performance indicators for the border region. The BITF supports the program's guiding principles to "achieve
concrete, measurable results" and "measure program progress through development of environmental and public
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 1—Report Overview
health-based indicators." The BITF supports the national coordinators, border-wide coordinating bodies, regional
workgroups, and other stakeholders by assessing the state of the border region and relating ambient
environmental and health conditions to the activities of Border 2012. It helps ensure that Border 2012 can
demonstrate progress toward meeting the program's ambitious binational goals and objectives. The BITF is led by
representatives of the United States' national environmental agency, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and Mexico's national environmental agency, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT).
Co-chairs from EPA and SEMARNAT work with BITF members that represent many Border 2012 partners, including
federal, state, and local agencies, U.S. tribes, Mexican indigenous communities, and stakeholders.
How were indicators developed for this report?
The starting point for indicators included in this report was the 2005 State of the Border Region report. The 2005
report acknowledged the challenges of developing binational indicators and noted that indicators would be refined
and added as the coverage and comparability of data improved over time. This 2010 report represents an
additional step forward in developing high-quality, comparable, and useful indicators for the border region.
A key guiding principle in developing the indicators for this report was that the indicators should be as relevant as
possible to the work of achieving Border 2012 goals and objectives. An aspirational goal of the indicator
development process was to have at least one indicator related to each of the twenty Border 2012 objectives (as
updated through the Border 2012 mid-course refinement process). To help accomplish that goal, the BITF
undertook a planning process that sought to align border indicators more closely with Border 2012 goals and
objectives.
Launched in late 2007, the planning process
engaged Border 2012 coordinating bodies and other
stakeholders in identifying new or refined
indicators. To guide these conversations, the BITF
used "indicator opportunity tables" to identify
opportunities to create new indicators (or refine
existing ones) that measure pressures, needs,
outputs, and/or outcomes related to Border 2012
goals and objectives. This process led to several
new or revised indicators.
The indicator development process focused on
identifying comparable binational data that were
specific to the border region (defined as 100 km
north and south of the international border). In
many cases, data sources and policies differed
enough between the U.S. and Mexico that separate
but related indicators needed to be reported for
both countries. Data specific to the border region
were not always available. If they were available, they often were reported at the municipal or county-level or
even at the level of U.S. and Mexico border states, requiring data aggregation or interpretation in order to describe
the border region.
Types of Indicators
Pressure: Indicators that describe human activities that place
stresses on the environment.
Example: Increase in cross-border trade
Need: Indicators that inform our understanding of the
magnitude or type of need for a programmatic response.
Example: Number of diesel trucks crossing the border
each year
Output: Indicators that measure activities, products, or
services resulting from a project or program.
Example: Number of diesel truck emissions reduction
retrofits in the border region
Outcome: Indicators that measure changes in the state of the
environment or the effects of environmental conditions on
human and/or ecological health.
Example: Reductions in border region diesel emissions or
improvements in air quality
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 1—Report Overview
In some cases, data on desired indicators were not available border-wide at all. In some of these cases, the BITF
developed place-specific highlights to describe status, trends, or Border 2012 activities in particular areas.
Although these highlights currently provide less information than indicators, they are included in order to present
a more holistic picture of the border region and to encourage future development of these highlights into
indicators suitable for binational reporting.
What indicators are included and how are they described?
The first chapter of the report focuses on general information about the border region's population, economy, and
climate. It provides the context for many of the current environmental and health challenges in the region. The
five chapters that follow present indicators related to specific Border 2012 program goals and objectives.
The graphic on the next page illustrates how indicators are presented in the report. Indicators are grouped
according to questions. Each indicator is accompanied by a reference to the indicator type, derived from indicator
opportunity tables (e.g., pressure, need, output, or outcome). For each indicator, the report includes a chart or
table to accompany the indicator text. The report identifies the most relevant Border 2012 objective or sub-
objective for each group of indicators. Additionally, each indicator description addresses the questions:
• Why is this indicator important?
• What is this indicator showing?
• What influences this indicator and what can be done in the future?
• What technical considerations are important for understanding this indicator and its limitations?
The Border Indicators Task Force hopes that you find this report informative and useful and invites your feedback
on future indicators to help measure environmental quality and environmental health in the border region.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 1—Report Overview
State 2-fths Eorii-srRegran 2013
£ n vironmen to < Perfo rmo nee
How many inspections of regulated facilities are conducted in the
border region?
Indicator:
Number of State and Federal Inspections for Federal Programs in
the U.S. Border Region K
* Number of Federal Inspections in the Mexico Border Region
• 5t- 7VI2 mcmi .-
• tatrtaw
• '. tatrli
...5. a1-: '.' = ••."::.. -.-:>= it I'1"- :r r=s^ 5t=i fsi" L= = ar= •• = ; = =<" = "t= i» =(-fDri'r-| 51". .•':•-'•-• = rts 3'.;=.
-nspettiDns areiopCueEEd under tte rues govs-rr.inj tn= major fsfie^a' rsg.u'atory programs. inmaoy
:a===, ''•it;"';"! ='; :=":;r 3.t D; =t=t= =St':;== ts \-.r;:'~ f=j=f= prsfa^s rgv= DrrnrfeiEsateS. 11 M = -.':;,
ins.psction and monrtoriri» for industrial and =srwice=jt3ljiis^rr£r;t: i«ter1e*teraljarisfc^B is conducted
anAnrruai E"'/ro""5i-t5 B'3|'3"r of i ".- DSZtlsr. ar^J carrisdout Oy PROFEPA.
Why are these indicators important?
^E^t an, TV 13 =
What are these
indicators showing?
f r-5 t_f t=d Statss bsrdgr
'•E| :- ''••
D
and zoos,
with a iifnificant arrount of
;-= : = : -= =:::=. "ted for 0y
'^ = :•:•': = • • = !':•
N umber of State and Federal Inspections fcr Federal
Programs in the U.5, Border Regie n
22Z2 :aa3 22G.i 23C5 2C2S 2CC7 2CC3 2GC3
• '.' = •=.:; :"= -."
= = :' y=
Related
Border 2012
Objective
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 2—The U.S.-Mexico Border Region
THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER REGION
The U.S.-Mexico border region, as defined by the 1983 La Paz Agreement, is the area within 100 kilometers (about
62.5 miles) on either side of the U.S.-Mexico border. It extends 3,141 km (1,952 miles) from the Gulf of Mexico on
the east to the Pacific Ocean on the west. The region is comprised of 10 states (4 U.S. and 6 Mexican), which are
organized through the Border 2012 program into four Border Regional Workgroups. The region is also home to 26
federally recognized tribes in the U.S., and a number of indigenous communities in Mexico. The Border 2012
program recognizes 15 "sister city" pairs along the border, which are adjacent U.S. and Mexico border cities that
share significant social and economic ties.
U.S.-Mexico Border Region
C A L I F O R N I A/
,
San Diego r
^_ • CalexicoC
ARIZONA
NEW MEXICO
Tijuana Mefcica|i
} SarHuis
YRio Colorado
\Av ' ^S
1
United States
Columbus SunlandPark
\E\ P;
Juarez
D
'o
DURANGO
Brownsville
.NUEVQ LRio Matamoros
M
V-,
Source: Natural Earth dataset
Although divided by an international border, the region is connected by historical, cultural, family, and economic
ties. It is also united by shared air and water resources, habitats, and climates that do not observe political
boundaries. These connections create common cause for the people living in the border region to sustain and
improve their shared environment.
The region's environmental quality and environmental health are influenced by trends in population, the economy,
and industrial activity. These forces have created some of the challenges being addressed by current Border 2012
activities, and they will continue to create new challenges for managing environmental quality and improving
environmental health in the region.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 2—The U.S.-Mexico Border Region
This overview of the U.S.-Mexico border region includes sections on:
• Border region population and population growth projections
• Trends in economic integration and cross-border movement
• Border region biodiversity
• Environmental releases from facilities in the border region
• Impacts of climate change on the border region
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 2—The U.S.-Mexico Border Region
U.S.-Mexico Border Region
What are the population trends in the border region?
Indicators:
* Border Region Population and Forecast Population Growth: 2005-2030
•» Census and Projected Border Region Population (U.S.): 2005-2010
Comparison of Population Projections (Mexico): 2005-2030
Between 1983 and 2005, the border region population grew from 6.9 million people to just over 13 million people.
The most recent population projections for the region—also reported in the 2005 State of the Border Region
report—estimate that the region's population will grow to 16-25 million people by 2030.
Ninety percent of the border population resides in 15 paired inter-dependent sister cities, and the remaining 10%
live in smaller tribal and indigenous communities or in rural areas. Over 40% of the region's population resides in
the California-Baja California region, which is home to the major border cities of San Diego, Tijuana, and Mexicali.
Population Density (2000)
CALIFORNIA/
^
San Diegos Sunland Park
Douglas
Del Rio
To Eagle
Ciudad^i
Acufia
Tti
Ne§ras Nuev
COAHUILA
Population Density
(People /km2)
0-5
, I 5 - 25
• 25 - 250
• 250 -1,000
• 1,000 -30,000
Source: Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN, and Centra Internacional de
Agriculture Tropical (CIAT). 2005. Gridded Population of the World Version 3 (GPWv3), SEDAC, Columbia University,
Palisades, NY.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 2—The U.S.-Mexico Border Region
Why are these indicators important?
Population growth in the region puts pressure on air, water, and land. It also creates additional demand for
services—such as water supply and wastewater treatment—to ensure a safe and healthy living environment.
Growth puts pressure on surrounding land and habitat. In metropolitan areas, growth creates regional
concentrations of air emissions—particularly from transportation sources—and heightens demand on drinking
water and wastewater infrastructure. In rural areas, growth creates new challenges to provide services to isolated
populations, colonias (i.e., unincorporated communities or settlements in rural areas as well as adjacent to cities
and towns), and to tribal and indigenous communities, which may have substandard housing and unsafe drinking
water or wastewater systems.
What are the indicators showing?
The most recent population data
available from census agencies in
the U.S. and Mexico show the
population of the border region is
consistent with the starting point
for growth paths estimated in a
2003 study by Peach and Williams.
The most recent year for which
there is official census data for
both the U.S. and Mexico is 2005,
and it shows a regional population
of 13 million. Several more years
of actual population data will be
needed to understand if the
regional population as a whole is
on a high, medium, or low growth
path.
Population
Border Region Population and
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
0
Forecast Population Growth: 2005-2030
^^^
^^ZZ^^^^2.
*=^
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
• Actual Population (US and Mex; 2005) Projection: Low Scenario (US and Mex)
Projection: Medium Scenario (US and Mex) Projection: High Scenario (US and Mex)
Census data for the U.S., which is available through 2008, suggest that the U.S. side of the border region may be on
a path between the medium and high Peach and Williams scenarios.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 2—The U.S.-Mexico Border Region
Census and Projected Border Region Population (U.S.):
2005-2010
7,600,000
7,400,000
7,200,000
7,000,000
6,800,000
6,600,000
6,400,000
6,200,000
6,000,000
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
• U.S. Census data «
Projection: Medium Scenario (U.S. only)«
• Projection: Low Scenario (U.S. only)
• Projection: High Scenario (US only)
Official population projections for the Mexico border region from Consejo Nacional de Poblacion (CONAPO) for the
period 2005-2030 suggest that Mexico's border region may grow on a path between the medium and low Peach
and Williams scenarios.
Comparison of Population Projections (Mexico):
2005-2030
14,000,000
12,000,000
.2 10,000,000
£
3
o 8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
•CONAPO Population Projections •
Medium Scenario (Mexico only) •
• Low Scenario (Mexico only)
• High Scenario (Mexicoonly)
What influences these indicators and what can be done in the future?
Population growth is a function of birth rates, death rates, and net migration. For the border region, migration is a
key factor as people move to the urbanized and industrialized areas of northern Mexico and to major U.S.
metropolitan areas such as San Diego and El Paso.
Technical considerations
Current population statistics in the U.S. and Mexico are estimates developed by the respective countries' census
agencies. Both the U.S. and Mexico are implementing a complete national census in 2010, which will provide an
update on population and demographic data. Estimates of border region population are based on county-level
data in the U.S. and data on municipalities in Mexico. Some border counties in the U.S. extend beyond the 100 km
border region (which will tend to over-count the region's population).
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 2—The U.S.-Mexico Border Region
Data sources
J. Peach and J. Williams. 2003. "Population Dynamics of the U.S.-Mexican Border Region." Unpublished,
forthcoming SCERP Monograph. San Diego: SCERP/SDSU Press
U.S. Census, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties of CA, AZ, NM, TX
INEGI, Indicadores demograficos - por municipio, 2005
CONAPO, 2005-2030 projections
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 2—The U.S.-Mexico Border Region
U.S.-Mexico Border Region
What are the trends in economic integration and cross-border
trade?
Indicators:
•^ Value of U.S. and Mexico Trade
•^ Value of Land-based Freight Movement Across the U.S.-Mexico Border
•» Number of Northbound Truck Crossings at the U.S.-Mexico Border Per Year
•» Number of Northbound Passenger Vehicle Crossings at the U.S.-Mexico Border Per Year
The economy and the environment of the border region are influenced by cross-border trade and the cross-border
movement of people more than any other region of the U.S. or Mexico. Trade between the U.S. and Mexico has
been substantially increasing over the past 10 years. This economic activity is especially associated with the growth
of manufacturing and industrial facilities in the border region, which has furthered the exchange of products,
leading to increased border crossings by trucks. Consequently, trade can contribute to elevated vehicular
emissions and reduced air quality for residents on both sides of the border.
Why are these indicators important?
The region's economic and social integration contributes significantly to its vitality, supporting economic sectors
that depend on trade and empowering residents that routinely cross the border for work, education, and family.
However, economic integration also puts pressure on the region's environment by driving industrial and
commercial growth and focusing the direct consequences of the transport of goods and people on the region's air.
For example, trucks carrying manufactured goods from Mexico into the U.S. often idle at northbound border
crossings, leading to concentrated local diesel emissions.
What are these indicators showing?
The total actual value of merchandise trade (both exports and imports to and from the U.S. and Mexico) in 2008
was $367 billion—a 266% increase since 1994. Although these values are not indexed for inflation, inflation
increased by less than 50% over this time period.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 2—The U.S.-Mexico Border Region
Value of U.S. and Mexico Trade
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Exports from U.S. to Mexico • Exports from Mexico to U.S.
Although not all of this trade passed by land directly through the border region, a significant portion of it did. In
2008, for example, the total value of exports from Mexico to the U.S. was $216 billion. Of this, $140 billion was
land-based freight coming through the border region.
Value of Land-based Freight Movement Across the U.S.-Mexico Border
$400
$350
O
£9.
Ol
ro
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Exports from U.S. to Mexico
I Exports from Mexico to U.S.
Much of the freight crossing the border travels via
long haul trucks or drayage trucks (i.e., short haul
vehicles that cross the border frequently) that
often wait idling at the border before crossing. In
2008 there were nearly 4.9 million such
northbound truck trips across the border. The
number of northbound truck trips has increased
by 10% since 2002.
Number of Northbound Truck Crossings at the
U.S.-Mexico Border Per Year
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 2—The U.S.-Mexico Border Region
Number of Northbound Passenger Vehicle
Crossings at the U.S.-Mexico Border Per Year
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Also crossing the border are buses and passenger
vehicles, which totaled 79 million northbound
trips at border crossings in 2008. Trips via bus and
passenger vehicle have declined 12% since 2002—
partly a reflection of tighter border security since
September 11, 2001.
What influences these indicators and
what can be done in the future?
All of these indicators are measures of economic
integration between the U.S. and Mexico and the overall level of economic activity in the region and between the
countries as a whole. Declines in economic activity in either country can contribute to reduced trade between
both countries. As noted, other factors—such as tighter border security—can impact cross-border movement.
Technical considerations
Data are only available for northbound border crossings because they are collected at U.S. customs facilities for
vehicles and people coming into the U.S. Ideally, similar data would be available for southbound trips as well.
Data on the value of trade are not indexed for inflation, but—as noted above—the growth in trade has far
outpaced inflation over the period described.
Data sources
U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, TradeStatsExpress
U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 2—The U.S.-Mexico Border Region
U.S.-Mexico Border Region
Highlight: Border Eco-regions and Biodiversity
The U.S.-Mexico border region is highly diverse in
terms of habitats and the species they sustain,
including many rare and locally distinct species.
Population growth and economic development
put pressure on border region habitats through
fragmentation and degradation. Some Border
2012 programs, such as improvements to water
quality and waste management, can help improve
habitat.
According to the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
(IUCN), four primary types of habitat compose
most of the U.S.-Mexico border region:1
• California Coastal Sage & Chaparral [red]—
Encompassing the western part of Southern
California and Northern Baja California, this
region of coastal plains, terraces, and foothills
has a high diversity of different types of
habitats and a high level of species diversity
and endemism. It hosts 150 to 200 species of
butterflies alone.
• Sonoran Desert [dark pink]—Stretching
north through the states of Sonora and
Eastern Baja California into Arizona and
California's Imperial Valley, this region has
the highest diversity of vegetation (560 plant
species] of any desert region in the world and
a large number of species of mammals,
reptiles, birds, and amphibians.
• Chihuahuan Desert flight pink]—This large
region stretches from the Western Sierra
Madre mountains (which separate it from the
Sonoran Desert] through southeastern
Arizona, southern New Mexico, northern
Chihuahuan and Coahuila and west Texas to
the Eastern Sierra Madre. Bounded by
mountains on its flanks, the Chihuahua Desert
has supported the evolution of many endemic
plants and other species. It contains some of
the last remaining populations of Mexican
prairie dogs, wild American bison and
pronghorn antelope.
• Tamaulipan Mezquital (tan]—This region
follows the Rio Grande from the Eastern Tip
of Coahuila through southern Texas and the
northern portions of Nuevo Leon and
Tamaulipas to the Gulf of Mexico. It is made
up of a diverse collection of grass and brush
lands, dunes, and tidal flats. This region is
one of the priority areas worldwide for the
preservation of cacti and other succulents.
Within these habitats there are over 6,500 animal
and plant species. The range of many of these
species includes both sides of the U.S. and Mexico
border region. Mexico's Comision Nacional Para el
Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (National
Commission for the Understanding and Use of
Biodiversity, CONABIO] maintains a National
Biodiversity Information System on animal and
plant species throughout the country. Based on
CONABIO's data, Mexico's 100 kilometer border
region is home to:
4,052 species of plants
44 species of fungi
454 species of invertebrates
crustaceans]
44 species of amphibians
(mostly
1 Habitat descriptions correspond to eco-regions, which are defined by the World Wildlife Fund as "relatively large units of land that contain a
distinct assemblage of natural communities and species, with boundaries that approximate the original extent of the natural communities prior
to major land use change" (see: http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/wildfinder/).
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 2—The U.S.-Mexico Border Region
• 184 species of reptiles
• 1,467 species of birds
• 175 species of mammals
The main threats to species in the border region
are habitat destruction and habitat fragmentation
from development and urbanization—primarily
near the coasts and around major border crossing
cities—as well as cattle ranching and agriculture.
Changes in climate are also expected to affect the
range and prevalence of species.
In accordance with Mexico's core biodiversity law
(NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2001), 235 species found
in the border region are classified in a risk
category. Of these, 85 are considered endangered
under Mexico law. In the U.S., 148 species found
in border counties are listed as endangered under
the U.S. Endangered Species Act
Sources
World Wildlife Fund, Wildfinder dataset:
http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/wildfinder
Patricia Koleff, Andres Lira-Noriega, Tania
Urquiza and Eduardo Morales, "Priorities for
Biodiversity Conservation in Mexico's Northern
Border" in Cordova, A. & C. de la Parra (Eds.)
2007. A Barrier to our Shared Environment, The
Border Fence between the United States and
Mexico. Semarnat, INE, El Colegio de la Frontera
Norte & The Southwest Consortium for
Environmental Research & Policy. Mexico.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
• AZ, NM, TX endangered species data: U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service Southeast Region:
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Endange
redSpecies/lists/
• CA (San Diego, Imperial) endangered species
data: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 2—The U.S.-Mexico Border Region
U.S.-Mexico Border Region
How many facilities in the border region are releasing toxic
pollutants—and how much?
Indicators:
•» Number of Facilities in the Border Region Reporting Toxic Releases under Pollutant Release and Transfer
•> Total Toxic Releases from Reporting Facilities in the Border Region
Although the border region economy is diverse, some of the economic activity involves industrial activities that
release pollutants to the region's air, water, and land. Both the U.S. and Mexico have programs that require
facilities releasing pollutants above a threshold amount to report on these releases every year. The programs,
which go by the internationally-recognized term "pollutant release and transfer registries," are the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) in the U.S. and the Registro de Emisiones y Transferencia de Contaminantes (RETC) in Mexico.
Although there are some differences in the facilities and pollutants covered by the two programs (making it
difficult to integrate data across the border), together they provide insights into the number of facilities releasing
pollutants to air, water, and land and the quantity of these releases.
Aerial View of TRI and RETC Facilities on the Tamaulipas-Texas Border
Reporting facilities are represented by orange circles
Source: EPA, Toxics Release Inventory, (2009); SEMARNAT, Registro de Emisiones y Transferencias de
Contaminantes (2007). Bing Maps Aerial Imagery, 2010 Microsoft Corporation.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 2—The U.S.-Mexico Border Region
Why are these indicators important?
Facilities that report under the TRI and RETC programs have to estimate and report the amounts of toxic chemicals
released on-site (to air, water, and land) and the amount transferred off-site for disposal. Most of these releases
are legal and covered under permits obtained by the facilities under each country's environmental laws. The
releases do not all contribute to risk to humans or the environment if, for example, they do not involve any human
exposure to these chemical releases. However, the number of facilities and the quantity of emissions are general
indicators of the demands that such releases place on the environment and human health, on local infrastructure,
and on regulatory agencies.
Number of Facilities in the Border Region Reporting
Toxic Releases under Pollutant Release and Transfer
Registries
2000
•£ 1500
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 2—The U.S.-Mexico Border Region
stabilized from 2006 to 2007. In the U.S. (for which more recent data are available), releases rose again in 2008
and then dropped in 2009 to around 2005 levels. The higher overall level of releases in Mexico is likely due to the
larger number of reporting facilities. It is important to note that release data represented in the chart for Mexico
exclude emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) because these emissions are not reported under TRI in the U.S., and the
volume of CO2 emissions reported by RETC facilities masks the volume of emissions of all other RETC pollutants.
Excluding CO2 makes the results of TRI and RETC more comparable and focused on toxic releases.
What influences these indicators and what can be done in the future?
These indicators are influenced by both the number of facilities that release pollutants above a certain threshold
and the amount of releases. The presence of these facilities in the border region is largely driven by economic
trends and policies, such as the establishment of maquiladoras as encouraged by U.S.-Mexico trade agreements
and other policies. Effective environmental policies and infrastructure are important for ensuring that the kinds of
releases reported under TRI and RETC do not pose unacceptable risks to border region residents and the
environment.
Technical considerations
As noted above, the total number of pounds released does not indicate either uncontrolled, illegal emissions or
risk. At the same time, it does not represent all of the releases of covered pollutants because both countries have
reporting thresholds below which facilities are not required to report. Therefore, these data would not reflect
cumulative releases from many small or mobile sources. Also, Mexico and the U.S. differ in the pollutants reported
and applicable reporting thresholds. A major difference between the two countries' programs is that RETC
includes CO2 emissions and TRI does not (as noted, data reported here exclude CO2 emissions to make the two
programs more comparable). However, the U.S. established monitoring requirements for large greenhouse gas
emitters in 2009, and these data will become available soon (although not through TRI).
Data sources
EPA, Toxics Release Inventory, TRI.net (2009 data release)
SEMARNAT, RETC data website (Border region facilities identified by EPA Office of Environmental Information)
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 2—The U.S.-Mexico Border Region
U.S.-Mexico Border Region
Highlight: How is a Changing Climate Affecting the Border Region?
The arid landscape of much of the border region is a defining feature of its ecosystems, economy, and
history. In particular, the lack of water—and the demand for it—drives regional development, politics, and
even culture. Actual and anticipated changes in climate—from both natural fluctuations and human
activity—can compound the challenges for the region.
Measured and forecasted data on temperature, precipitation, and other factors provide a picture of the
extent of change being experienced in the region now and anticipated changes in the future.
For example, the U.S. Global Change Research Program reports that the average temperature of the
American Southwest (including California,
Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New
Mexico, and part of Texas) has increased
around 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8
degrees Celsius) from a 1960-1979
baseline.2 Estimated further increases in
average temperatures by 2090 range from
4-10 degrees Fahrenheit (3.2-5.6 degrees
Celsius) above the baseline (see graphic at
right). Increases in temperature can
directly affect human health in a region
already dominated by high temperatures,
and it can also affect ecosystems through
drought, fires, invasive species, and pests.
Rising temperatures also decrease
upstream mountain snowpack and
Observed and Projected Temperature Rise
-2000 -2020 -2050 -2090
• Higher
Emissions
Scenario''
* Lwiir
Emissions
Scenario"
Observe!
O"
-
\
•
'
12'F
ID'
8'
r
4'
2- C
§•
j
J
12T
10*
^
T
W
1
1
;-
;
;
12'F
ID-
S'
4*
r
y .
c*
12'F
10'
3'
6'
4'
2
£
uuu
Source: U.S. Global Change Research Program. Temperatures are for the
Southwest U.S. The brackets in thermometers indicate estimated ranges of
model projections—the program notes that higher or lower outcomes are
possible
precipitation, which feed border region
rivers and reservoirs and provide critical
sources of water for human consumption,
ecosystem health, agriculture, energy, and
other uses in the border region. The Global
Change Research Program notes that water supplies in the region are already stressed and that "water
supplies are projected to become increasingly scarce, calling for trade-offs among competing uses, and
potentially leading to conflict." The figure below shows the U.S. Global Change Research Program's
illustration of projected changes in spring precipitation in the U.S. Southwest—a critical source of water for
reservoirs. The darker brown areas near the border indicate the largest decrease in rainfall.
In a seeming paradox, climate change can also increase risks of winter floods as precipitation patterns shift.
In coastal areas, especially the Gulf of Mexico, climate change may be driving increased hurricane activity
with sometimes devastating effects on coastal communities.
1 See: http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/regional-climate-change-impacts/southwest
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 2—The U.S.-Mexico Border Region
Projected Change in Spring Precipitation, 2080-2099
Lower Emissions
Scenario"
Higher Emissions
Scenario"
J
Analysis of the impacts of climate change in
Mexico also project increases in regional
temperature and declines in precipitation. A
2009 report released by SEMARNAT on the
impact of climate change on Mexico's economy
between the present and 2100 concluded that all
scenarios analyzed would result in an increase in
average temperatures. The report predicted
^B| higher relative warming in the north and
^^fftK' northwest of the country (i.e., the border region).
• The graphic below illustrates the results of two
scenarios (numbers represent increases in
temperature and percent declines in rainfall).
The scenario represented at the top of the
graphic is based on assumptions of rapid
economic growth and globalization. It results in
a 2.5-4.0 °C increase in temperature and 5.7-18%
decline in precipitation country-wide. The
scenario represented at the bottom of the graphic
is based on slower, more regional economic growth. It results in a 1.5-3.0 °C increase in temperature and a
3.5-15% decline in precipitation country-wide. In each case, some of the largest impacts on temperature
and precipitation are in the northern border region.
Projected Temperature and Precipitation Increases from Climate Change in Mexico
PraelpUtton Clung* to P.re.i.1
| CMIP3-B1"
Percentage change in March-April-May precipitation for 2080-2099 compared to
1961-1979 for a lower emissions scenario91 (left) and a higher emissions scenario91
(right). Confidence in the projected changes is highest in the hatched areas.
Source: U.S. Global Change Research Program.
Temperatura media (°C)
Precipitation (
O 0.5 1 1.5 Z 2.5 3 3.5 4 fl.5 5 -35 -3O -25 -2O -15 -10 -5 0 5 1O
b) Escenorro de emisiones AIR (medias)
Temperatura media [°C) Prc:cipitic:i>n (^4]
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 -35 -3O -25 -2O -15 -10 -5 0 5 1O
Source: SEMARNAT, The Economics of Climate Change in Mexico
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 2—The U.S.-Mexico Border Region
SEMARNAT predicts that increases in temperatures and declines in precipitation will lead to a significant
increase in hydrologic stress for the region in terms of per capita supply of water. The water vulnerability
index below shows increasing vulnerability in most Mexican border states by 2050 and extreme
vulnerability in all border states by 2080.
Water Availability Impact of Climate Change in Mexico
Vulnerability index reflecting water availability and quality for decades 2020s, 2050s and 2080s
A2 2020s
Source: INE. "Evaluacion de la afectacion de la call dad del agua en cuerpos superficiales y subterraneos por efecto de la
variabilidad y el cambio climatico y su impacto en la biodiversidad, agricultura, salud, turismo e industria." 2008. In: INE-
Semarnat. "Mexico: Cuarta Comunicacion Nacional ante la Convencion Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climatico.'
Mexico. 2009.
Sources
U.S. Global Change Research Program, Regional Impacts: Southwest,
http://www.globalchange.gov/images/cir/pdf/southwestpdf
SEMARNAT, The Economics of Climate Change in Mexico, 2009
http://www.semarnat.gob.mx/informacionambiental/Publicacion/Sintesis2009cambioclimatico.pdf
Israel Laguna Monroy (INE), "State Programs for Climate Change Action," Border 2012 Air Policy Forum,
July 7, 2010
INE-Semarnat, "Mexico: Cuarta Comunicacion Nacional ante la Convencion Marco de las Naciones Unidas
sobre el Cambio Climatico," Mexico, 2009
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 2—The U.S.-Mexico Border Region
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
3. WATER
Water is an extremely limited resource in many parts of the border region. Population growth—along with growth
in agriculture and other economic activity—places increasing stress on water quantity and quality. Protecting the
quality of rivers, oceans, and other water is important for ecological and human health in the region.
Developing infrastructure to deliver safe drinking water to people and to reduce untreated discharges to border
region rivers, aquifers, and oceans has been a high priority of Border 2012 and previous binational environmental
programs. In 1993, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American
Development Bank were created as an environmental side-agreement of the North American Free Trade
Agreement to support the planning, development and financing of projects, including drinking water delivery and
wastewater treatment, in the U.S.-Mexico Border region. Between 1993 and 2009, BECC certified a total of 167
environmental infrastructure projects—86 in Mexico and 81 in the U.S.—with an estimated total cost of more than
$3.6 billion. Of these projects, 101 involved new or improved water and wastewater services. The certified
wastewater projects, for example, represent the capacity to eliminate more than 350 million gallons per day of
untreated or inadequately treated discharges. Funding has been provided by EPA, Mexico's Comision Nacional del
Agua (Federal Water Commission, CONAGUA), and local, state, binational and international agencies to make
these critical investment projects more affordable. The leveraged efforts of these agencies have resulted in
certified and funded projects that will collectively bring basic water and wastewater services to over 10.7 million
people.
Watershed Boundaries
Watershed Boundaries
(Lwc
Cuff of Menco Arkansas/ted Rhnr
Gulf of MtfftKO mo Gi jndr
Pacific Ocean Seaboard
Pacific Ocean: Colorado River
Internal dmrut»»nn
Lrvrf IV Wawstwt Boundary
Source: /A/EG/, NR-CAN, USGS. 2010. CEC North American Atlas - Watersheds.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
This chapter covers several aspects of providing access to safe drinking water and wastewater treatment and
improving ambient water quality in the border region, including:
• Access to safe drinking water and adequate wastewater collection and treatment
• Reductions in pollutant loadings to surface water bodies
• Beach water quality
• Human health related to water quality
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
Reduce Water Contamination
Are homes in the U.S.-Mexico border region being connected to safe
drinking water and wastewater treatment services?
Indicator:
Number of Unserved Homes Connected to Safe
Drinking Water through the Border Water
Infrastructure Program OUTP^^
Number of Unserved Homes Connected to
Wastewater Collection and Treatment Services
through the Border Water Infrastructure Program
Sub-Objective 1A: Promote the increase in the
number of homes connected to a potable water
supply beyond the original Border 2012 objective of
25%.
Sub-Objective IB: Promote the increase in the
number of homes connected to wastewater
collection and treatment systems beyond the original
Border 2012 objective of 25%.
Why are these indicators important?
Access to safe drinking water and the protection of public and ecological health through adequate wastewater
collection and treatment are key focus areas of Border 2012. Poor quality drinking water and inadequate
wastewater collection and treatment can pose a serious risk of water-borne disease exposure and transmission.
What are these indicators showing?
The Border 2012 program assessed the number of homes lacking service in the U.S.-Mexico border region in 2003.
An estimated 98,575 border region homes in the U.S. and Mexico lacked safe drinking water, and an estimated
690,723 homes lacked adequate wastewater collection and treatment services. Many federal, state and local
agencies have funded projects that improved the drinking water and wastewater services in this region. EPA's
U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program (BWIP) funds drinking water and wastewater projects,
recognizing that access to these basic public health services is of the highest priority. These high priority projects
include extending safe drinking water and adequate wastewater services to existing communities lacking those
services and providing critical drinking and wastewater system upgrades so that treatment levels meet U.S. and
Mexican federal and state standards.
From its inception in 1995 through fiscal year 2010, the BWIP has funded 92 projects that serve 8.5 million border
residents in the U.S. and Mexico. The total cost of these projects amounted to $1.7 billion. To make the projects
affordable, they were financed with $560 million in EPA grants and over $1.1 billion from other sources. Many
border communities are financially disadvantaged and cannot bear the debt burden necessary to rebuild water
infrastructure through conventional assistance channels. Applications for drinking water and wastewater service
funding submitted to the BWIP reflect the region's need. For fiscal year (FY) 2011/12 funding, the BWIP received
200 applications with total construction needs of $795 million. In the previous funding cycle for FY2009/10, 212
applications were received reflecting total construction needs of $1.1 billion dollars.
Significant progress is being made on connecting homes to essential drinking water and wastewater services.
However, the total need for new and improved services is not completely known (see discussion later in this
chapter). During the five-year period from FY2006 through FY2010, 44 BWIP-supported drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure projects were completed. Thirty-five of these projects provided homes with first time
access to drinking water and wastewater collection and treatment services while nine other projects improved
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
drinking water and treated wastewater services. The figures below show annual and cumulative drinking water
and wastewater connections that resulted from these projects. Cumulatively, an estimated 52,130 homes were
connected to a safe community drinking water system, representing 53% of the homes identified in 2003 as lacking
drinking water service. The 254,125 homes connected to adequate wastewater collection and treatment service
during this same five-year period represent 37% of the homes identified in 2003 as lacking wastewater services.
Number of Unserved Homes Connected to
Safe Drinking Water through the Border
Water Infrastructure Program
60
2010
I Annual Connections
-Cumulative Connections
Number of Unserved Homes Connected to
Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Services through the Border Water
Infrastructure Program
300
2006
2007
2008
Fiscal Year
2009
2010
I Annual Connections
"Cumulative Connections
What influences these indicators and what can be done in the future?
The number and size of projects leading to new drinking water and wastewater connections are influenced by the
availability of funding and the number and quality of applications for infrastructure to meet community needs.
Technical considerations
Data on annual and cumulative drinking water connections represent piped service into the home. Data on annual
and cumulative wastewater connections represent connections to wastewater collection and treatment.
Data sources
EPA, "Border 2012: U.S. Mexico Environmental Program" and "U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program: Border 2012-
A Mid-Course refinement (2008-2012)"
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Program: National Water Program Performance Measure Results Reported Annually
under the EPA National Water Program Strategic Plans for 2003-2008, 2006-2011 and 2011-2015 and the FY2010
Guidance
EPA, U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
Reduce Water Contamination
Highlight: Water Infrastructure and Health in Indigenous Communities in
Mexico
In 2007, two indigenous communities in Baja
California received new drinking water systems
with funding from Mexico's Commission for the
Development of Indigenous People and the U.S.
EPA's Border 2012 grant program. A recent study
observed the associations between improved
drinking water infrastructure and the incidence of
illness.
What was the problem and how was it
addressed?
In the indigenous communities of San Antonio
Necua and San Jose de la Zorra, researchers
measured water samples twice a month in the
new and old water systems and in several
household water storage containers. Samples
were analyzed for the bacterial indicators E. coli
and total coliform. During the same time period,
environmental health surveys were administered
every two weeks to families in the communities.
The participants were asked about the types of
drinking water sources being used, water
transport methods, storage and disinfection
practices, and health and illness data in the home.
What were the results?
The water quality samples and the surveys were
analyzed and compared to previous studies that
were conducted in the same communities before
water infrastructure was upgraded. In
comparison with previous data, both communities
had significantly less indicator bacteria in samples
taken from the new drinking water systems.
However, surveys revealed that people in one of
the communities were facing increasing levels of
gastrointestinal disease. Further investigation
showed that this community was experiencing
problems with its new system, and residents were
getting water from both the old (contaminated)
and new (uncontaminated) drinking water source.
As a result, the state health agency intervened and
brought in bottled water on a temporary basis and
disinfection solution, which resulted in a
significant decline in gastrointestinal illnesses.
In the other community, water quality samples
revealed that although the water coming from the
new source in this community was clean, the
containers used to store the water inside the
home were significantly contaminated and further
intervention was needed.
How does this relate to the rest of the
border region?
By measuring health outcomes such as
gastrointestinal diseases along with water quality,
this research was able to determine that more
than just basic infrastructure improvements were
needed to protect public health. The research also
revealed that cultural practices and perceptions
played an important role in transportation and
consumption of drinking water in each of the
communities. Indicators related to health and
cultural practices could help us to gain a better
understanding of the effectiveness of
interventions and improve future projects. As
evidenced by this research, improved
infrastructure may be only one part of an
integrated approach to improving access to safe
drinking water.
Sources
Paula Stigler, "Water Quality as an Environmental
Health Indicator in Two Baja California Indigenous
Communities Associated with New Drinking
Water Infrastructure," Master's Thesis, 2009.
Linda Reeves, "Safe Drinking Water for Baja
California Indigenous communities," Border 2012
Regional Workgroup Newsletter: California/Baja
California, Fall 2007.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
Reduce Water Contamination
How much untreated and inadequately treated sewage is being
removed from the border region environment?
Indicator:
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) from Untreated
and Inadequately Treated Sewage Removed from the
Environment through the Border Water Infrastructure
Program
Sub-Objective IB: Promote the increase in the
number of homes connected to wastewater
collection and treatment systems beyond the original
Border 2012 objective of 25%.
Why is this indicator important?
A lack of wastewater service poses both a public health and environmental risk to communities. The powerful
impacts of raw sewage discharges to a river or stream include pathogens that make the water unsafe for
recreation or reuse, organic loads that deplete oxygen and choke aquatic life, and nutrients that lead to algal
blooms. Inadequate systems discharge non-compliant wastewater effluent to impaired streams and rivers, which
compounds the significant environmental degradation already present.
Wastewater collection and treatment projects can dramatically reduce contamination of rivers and surface waters
by removing untreated or inadequately treated sewage discharges, providing environmental benefits as well as
public health benefits. For every household that is hooked up to a collection and treatment system, roughly 200
gallons of raw sewage per day no longer flow into border region waterways.
What is this indicator showing?
The degree or strength of wastewater
contamination can be expressed in terms
of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD).
BOD is listed as a conventional pollutant in
the U.S. Clean Water Act, and BOD water
quality standards are set for rivers and
streams in order to support beneficial uses
such as swimming and fishing. Wastewater
treatment effectiveness also can be
measured in terms of the BOD loading
removed as a result of treatment
processes. Since 2003, more than 30
completed projects contributed to the
cumulative removal of 65 million pounds
per year of BOD that previously were
discharged to the environment in the U.S.-
Mexico Border area.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) from
Untreated and Inadequately Treated
Sewage Removed from the Environment
through the Border Water Infrastructure
Program
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
I Yearly Removal
•Cumulative Removal (since 2003)
The Border region has a unique hydrologic
landscape. The Colorado River flows from north to south linking the U.S. and Mexico. However, many rivers along
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
the Border flow northward into the U.S. from Mexico (for example, the Tijuana River and New River in California
and the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers in Arizona) or, in the case of the Rio Grande in Texas, form the border
itself.
Collaboration among U.S. partners and with Mexico to provide adequate wastewater collection and treatment has
led to significant progress in reducing the discharge of raw sewage into the shared water bodies:
• For the Mexican cities of Juarez, Piedras Negras, Nuevo Laredo, Acufia, Ojinaga, Reynosa and Matamoros,
all of which discharge wastewater to the Rio Grande, EPA BWIP projects have reduced the volume of
discharged untreated sewage by 110 million gallons per day.
• The upgrade of the Nogales (Arizona) International Wastewater Treatment Plant, completed in 2009, has
revitalized the upper Santa Cruz River in southern Arizona. The upgrade resulted in a more than 90%
reduction of ammonia and turbidity in the Santa Cruz River, has significantly improved river water clarity,
and has enhanced river aquatic habitat.
• The 2007 completion of a wastewater conveyance and treatment project in Mexicali, Baja California,
reduced the amount of raw sewage flowing via the New River into Calexico, California and on to the
Salton Sea by more than 15 million gallons per day, equivalent to the sewage produced by over 200,000
people. (The resulting dramatic improvement in the New River water quality is described in more detail
as a highlight in this chapter.)
What influences this indicator and what can be done in the future?
The amount of BOD removed from wastewater is influenced by the ongoing operations of wastewater treatment
plants in the border region and by new projects to address untreated or inadequately treated sewage. Continued
effective operation of existing infrastructure and the construction of new facilities are influenced by the availability
of funding and the number and quality of applications for infrastructure to meet community needs.
Technical considerations
Data on BOD loading removal reflect the results of some thirty completed projects that reduced untreated sewage
discharges to the environment by connecting households to wastewater collection and treatment or improved the
level of treatment of inadequately treated sewage prior to discharge.
Data sources
EPA, "Border 2012: U.S. Mexico Environmental Program" and "U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program: Border 2012-
A Mid-Course Refinement (2008-2012)"
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Program: National Water Program Performance Measure Results Reported Annually
under the EPA National Water Program Strategic Plans for 2003-2008, 2006-2011 and 2011-2015 and the FY2010
Guidance
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
Reduce Water Contamination
Highlight: Improving Water Quality in the New River through Wastewater
Treatment in Mexicali
The New River originates 20 river miles south of the
U.S.-Mexico border. After crossing the border at
Mexicali (Baja California) and Calexico (California), it
travels 65 river miles northward before emptying into
the Imperial Valley's Salton Sea. This transboundary
river has been recognized as significantly polluted
from urban waste and agricultural run-off since at
least the 1940s. Large binational investments in
wastewater infrastructure are now helping to clean it
up.
What was the problem and how was it
addressed?
Historically, a major contributor of pollution to the
New River was untreated wastewater flows from the
City of Mexicali, which accounted for approximately
10% of the river's flow at the border. Recognizing the need to reduce pollution from untreated wastewater,
the U.S. and Mexico began collaborating in the mid-1990s on a series of infrastructure projects. Together,
these projects repaired collector lines and pump stations, rehabilitated and upgraded existing water
treatment plants, and constructed the new "Las Arenitas" wastewater treatment plant south of Mexicali.
Total investment in new construction has exceeded $90 million.
What were the results?
Binational wastewater treatment projects have improved the environmental conditions of the New River
and Salton Sea and reduced public health risks in the U.S. and Mexico associated with raw sewage. These
projects are benefiting an estimated 635,000 people. Over 40 million gallons (approximately 151.5 million
liters) per day of untreated sewage are being removed from the New River. Complementary projects on the
U.S. side of the border have further reduced discharges to the river.
Water quality sampling at the border by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board provides
evidence of the benefits: the 12-month average measurement of dissolved oxygen in the river jumped from
just above 1 mg/L to above 5 mg/L. (5 mg/L is California's water quality criterion for warm water aquatic
habitat.) Although dissolved oxygen at times still drops below 5 mg/L during the summer months, dissolved
oxygen levels have significantly improved and show an increasing trend.
Sampling reveals that levels of fecal coliform bacteria have dropped substantially with the opening of the
Las Arenitas plant. However, levels of fecal coliform in the river still violate standards designed to protect
human health.
As with other Mexican border communities, continued illicit wastewater discharges in Mexicali require
ongoing attention from both the U.S. and Mexico to treat or prevent pollution.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
Water Quality Monitoring Program
IBWC Minute No. 264
NEW RIVER AT INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
January 2004 - June 2009
How does this relate to the rest of the border region?
Although the New River is one of the more extreme cases of surface water pollution in the border region, it
holds lessons for water pollution elsewhere on the border. The efforts on the New River show what can be
accomplished when the stakeholders in the U.S. and Mexico collaborate on funding, technical assistance,
planning and implementation to address critical water quality needs. Efforts along the New River also
highlight continuing water quality challenges in the U.S.-Mexico border region.
Source
Doug Liden, EPA, Presentation "EPA's Efforts to Improve New River Water Quality," December 22,2009
EPA, "City of Mexicali Wastewater Infrastructure Projects benefiting the New River," October 2009
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
Reduce Water Contamination
Do Mexico border communities have access to safe drinking water
and wastewater services?
Indicator:
•* Percent of Mexico Population in Border Region
Municipioswith Piped Drinking Water to the Property
Percent of Mexico Population in Border Region
Municipios with Wastewater Collection Services
Sub-Objective 1A: Promote the increase in the
number of homes connected to a potable water
supply beyond the original Border 2012 objective of
25%.
Sub-Objective IB: Promote the increase in the
number of homes connected to wastewater
collection and treatment systems beyond the original
Border 2012 objective of 25%.
Access to safe drinking water and the protection of public and ecological health through adequate wastewater
collection and treatment are key focus areas of Border 2012. Border institutions have invested significant amounts
of money in water infrastructure in Mexico's border region and have seen substantial gains in service coverage and
capacity.
Data for 2005 collected by Mexico's national census agency, INEGI, show the percent of the population with
drinking water and wastewater collection services in major border municipios. ("Municipio" defines an area that
covers cities, outlying populated areas and rural areas, similar to counties in the U.S.). The INEGI wastewater
collection data do not represent wastewater that is collected and treated. However, BECC and some other border
institutions have compiled some data on wastewater treatment capacity in the border region as described below.
Why are these indicators important?
Water infrastructure protects human health from diseases related to poor drinking water quality and exposure to
contaminated wastewater. Many diseases are linked to poor water quality, including cryptosporidiosis, E. coli
infection, giardiasis, viral Hepatitis A, cholera, shigellosis, salmonellosis, and typhoid fever. At the same time,
adequate wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure preserves the quality of rivers, oceans, and other
surface water bodies.
What are these indicators showing?
Based on the 2005 INEGI data for 14 major Mexican border municipios, the percent of the population with drinking
water piped to the property—either directly to the house or to the lot—ranged from 77% in Nogales (Sonora) to
97% in San Luis Rio Colorado (Sonora), Juarez (Chihuahua), Acufia (Coahuila), and Piedras Negras (Coahuila). The
population without service in these 14 municipios, according to the INEGI data, totaled over 240,000 people.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
Percent of Mexico Population in Border Region Municipios with Piped
Drinking Water to the Property
o
is
98% accord ing 2009
CONAGUAdata
98% accordingto 2009
CONAGUAdata
«°
>
jp
* * £• &
y
ctx ^
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
Percent of Mexico Population in Border Region Municipios with
Wastewater Collection Services
100%
90% --I
o
is
according to
Baja California state
water agency
92% accordingto 2009
CONAGUAdata
accordingto
2009 CONAGUAdata
accordingto 2009 BECC
certification document
0%
«c >
./
J*
&
Note: Across the border region, different sources of data often report different percent service coverage for
border municipios. Some examples are shown here for illustrative purposes, but the issue is found in other
border municipios as well.
In these same Mexican border municipios, 2005 INEGI data show the percent of the population with wastewater
collection services. INEGI data indicated that service coverage ranged from 79% in Ascension (Chihuahua) to 97%
in Agua Prieta (Sonora) and Juarez (Chihuahua). The population without service in these 14 municipios, according
to the INEGI data, totaled over 340,000 people. It should be emphasized that these data represent collection, but
not necessarily wastewater treatment. Some collected wastewater counted in these percentages may be
discharged without treatment.
As with drinking water data, different sources often show different percent coverage for wastewater collection.
For example, while INEGI data for Juarez show 97% wastewater collection coverage, a 2009 BECC certification
document shows 88%. In Agua Prieta, Sonora, INEGI data show 97% coverage while CONAGUA data show 78%
coverage.
In general, Mexico's border municipios have higher rates of drinking water service coverage than sewer collection
coverage. There are, however, a few exceptions. In Nogales, for example, piped drinking water reached only 77%
of the population in 2005 while sewage collection reached 94% of the population. Research by the BECC attributes
this result to significant binational investment around that time in sewer infrastructure.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
As noted above, border-wide data on wastewater collection and treatment in Mexico are not consistently
available. BECC has compiled some data on wastewater treatment capacity for border municipalities as part of its
effort to assess state needs for water infrastructure. These data suggest that at current capacity, over 785,000
people are without wastewater treatment in 14 border municipios.
Some municipio-specific data on wastewater treatment coverage are available in some cases at the state level. For
example, Baja California's state water agency (the Comision Estatal del Agua de Baja California) shows that 96% of
the volume of the wastewater captured via collection systems in Tijuana and Rosarito is treated.
What influences these indicators and what can be done in the future?
The need for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure is driven by population growth in the border region—
especially growth in areas where capacity is already lacking or inadequate. Significant industrial development has
fueled regional job growth and population increases in Northern Mexico while ongoing southwesterly migration
has boosted the population on the U.S. side of the border. Other factors that influence the need for (and location
of) water and wastewater infrastructure include health considerations, the feasibility to extend services, and water
reuse opportunities. An additional consideration is the need to balance demands for safe drinking water with
other uses, such as agricultural, municipal, and/or industrial use.
Technical considerations
As noted, INEGI reports on drinking water service and wastewater collection service, but not wastewater
treatment. INEGI defines drinking water services as: occupied homes with water piped to the property from the
public centralized water system; the access point may be inside or outside of the house.
A number of technical considerations relate to the comparability of various sources of drinking water and
wastewater, as described in the highlight "What is in a Number? Understanding Border Region Water and
Wastewater Service Coverage Data."
Data sources
BECC, "Diagnostico de Infraestructura Ambiental Basica para el estado de [estado]"
Comision Estatal del Agua de Baja California, "Informe Mensual de Agosto 2010"
Comision Estatal del Agua (Sonora) and CONAGUA, "Estadisticas del Agua en el Estado de Sonora, Edition 2008"
EPA, Regions 6 and 9 border programs
CONAGUA/'Situacion del Subsector Agua Potable, Alcantarillado y Saneamiento, Edition 2009"
INEGI, Requerimiento Especial Num. Control 9660 as reported in BECC, "Diagnostico de Infraestructura Ambiental
Basica para el estado de [estado]"
Programa Nacional de Infraestructura 2007-2012, as reported in BECC, "Diagnostico de Infraestructura Ambiental
Basica para el estado de [estado]"
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
Reduce Water Contamination
Highlight: What is in a Number? Understanding Border Region Water and
Wastewater Service Coverage Data
What does it mean that a city has 98% drinking water coverage—or 75% or 50%? An accurate answer
depends on the who, what, where, when, and how of the data:
• Who is described in the data—households or the number of people in the population?
• What types of connections (e.g., to a house, property, or community) are counted as "service"?
• Where is the boundary of the area described—the 100km border region, a border state or county, a city,
a utility's service area, or some other geographical area?
• When were the data collected and whatyear(s) do they represent?
• How were the data collected—by household survey, by utility reporting or by some other means?
Different answers to these questions can lead to different pictures of service coverage—even for what
seems to be the same city or area. For example, the INEGI data reported for the indicator "Percent of Mexico
Population in Border Region Municipios with Piped Drinking Water to the Property" show drinking water
service coverage for Mexicali (Baja California) at 96%. Mexico's national water agency, CONAGUA, in its
2009 annual water sector report, listed Mexicali's drinking water coverage as 99%. Several factors may
explain the difference, such as:
• INEGI considers a house to have service if the connection is to the house or property, while CONAGUA
also counts access to a public water intake or hydrant in the neighborhood as service;
• INEGI data are for the "municipio" of Mexicali (population approx. 908,000) while CONGUA data are for
the geographically smaller and more urban "localidad" (population approx. 733,000);
• INEGI data are for 2005, while CONAGUA data are for 2008; and
• INEGI data were based on census surveys while CONAGUA data were self-reported by utilities.
Different reporting years, different definitions of geographical area, different sources and/or different
definitions of service may all contribute to the apparent inconsistency in numbers.
For a given set of service connections, an over-counted population will also reduce the coverage percentage
while an undercounted population will increase the coverage percentage. Accurate counts of population in
the border region are a challenge due to the prevalence of unincorporated areas and informal settlements
(e.g., colonias), and a transient population at the border which will tend to lead to undercounts of the actual
population. Such an undercount would tend to increase the apparent coverage percentage for water and
wastewater services.
Data can differ as well in the assumptions we make about them. For example, drinking water service
coverage indicators reported in this document for both the U.S. and Mexico represent connections to
centralized water systems. In Mexican municipios, we can assume that households that are not connected to
centralized systems probably do not have access to safe drinking water. Residents in Mexico that are not
connected to centralized systems may receive drinking water through water trucks, central community
standpipes or taps, or through sub-standard water hoses. It is very rare to find a home with an individual
well used for drinking water purposes. Similarly, Mexican residents that are not connected to centralized
wastewater collection and treatment systems often use sub-standard sewage disposal practices such as
latrines, septic tanks without drainfields and direct discharges to ditches. In U.S. counties, in contrast, it is
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
quite common for households to be connected to a private well for drinking water rather than a centralized
system, especially in rural areas. In most cases, these private wells provide high quality water.
Sources
Comision Estatal del Agua de Baja California, "Informe Mensual de Agosto 2010,"
http://www.cea.gob.mx/indicadores.htm.
CONAGUA, "Situacion del Subsector Agua Potable, Alcantarillado y Saneamiento, Edicion 2009":
http://www.conagua.gob.mx/CONAGUA07/Publicaciones/Publicaciones/LibroAnexosYTablas-
Situaci%C3%B3nSAPAS.pdf.
INEGI, Requerimiento Especial Num. Control 9660 as reported in BECC, "Diagnostico de Infraestructura
Ambiental Basica para el estado de Baja California."
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
Reduce Water Contamination
Do U.S. border communities have access to safe drinking water and
wastewater services?
Indicator:
•» Percent of Population in U.S. Border Counties
with Connections to Centralized Water Systems
Sub-Objective 1A: Promote the increase in the number of
homes connected to a potable water supply beyond the
original Border 2012 objective of 25%.
Sub-Objective IB: Promote the increase in the number of
homes connected to wastewater collection and treatment
systems beyond the original Border 2012 objective of 25%.
Just as it is in Mexico's border region, access to safe drinking water and wastewater collection and treatment is
also an important focus of programs and institutions in the U.S. border region. The indicator that describes the
percent of the population in the U.S. border region with connections to centralized water system describes how
much of the U.S. border population has access to this source of safe drinking water. Currently, data are not
available to develop a similar indicator for wastewater services, but information on future development of these
data is described below.
Why is this indicator important?
Protecting human health from exposure through drinking water and contact with contaminated wastewater—as
well as protecting water resources—are important drivers for regulatory and non-regulatory programs in the U.S.
to ensure safe drinking water and adequate wastewater collection and treatment.
What is this indicator showing?
Data on the population served by connections to
centralized drinking water systems above a
certain size are reported to EPA's national Safe
Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). Data
from SDWIS for U.S. border counties can be
combined with county-level U.S. Census
population data to approximate the percent of
the population in these border counties with
connections to centralized drinking water
systems. (Note that this is only an approximation
because of the way SDWIS counts population
served; see "technical considerations" below.)
When border county data are aggregated by
state, they show percent coverage rates ranging
from 92% in Texas' border counties to 98% in New
Mexico's border counties.
Percent of Population in U.S. Border Counties
with Connections to Centralized Water Systems
Q«o/
100%
90%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
California
Arizona
New Mexico
Texas
Although SDWIS data can be used to approximate the population served by connections to centralized systems, it
does not provide information about the water sources for people in households not connected to centralized
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
systems (or, "public water systems" as defined under the Safe Drinking Water Act3). In many cases—especially in
rural areas—households without system connections have their own wells or are connected to small water
systems that do not meet the definition of a "public water system." These household or small water systems are
not reported to SDWIS. As long as the water in wells or from small systems meets water quality standards, it can
be considered safe. There are, however, no border-wide sources of data on populations served by private wells or
small water systems. In the absence of this type of information, it would be wrong to assume that the "service
gap" presents a clear need for additional centralized drinking water infrastructure.
What is the status of data on the population served by wastewater collection and
treatment in the U.S. border region?
For this indicators report, adequate data on the percent of the population in U.S. border counties with wastewater
collection and treatment services could not be reported. (For data on annual and cumulative new connections,
please see indicators earlier in this chapter). EPA collects data on existing wastewater collection and treatment
systems in the U.S. through the national Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS). The survey lists data provided
by states on existing publicly-owned wastewater systems, the number of people served by each system, and a
variety of other information about wastewater infrastructure needs.4 This is a robust data set that is used to
estimate nation-wide needs for investment in wastewater collection and treatment. However, the CWNS may not
provide a complete picture of the number of people served by wastewater infrastructure in the border region
because states are not required to report on all systems. As a result, states tend to report mainly on facilities that
have financial needs (e.g., for major repairs, rehabilitation, or replacement) and on larger, centralized facilities.
Smaller rural systems or decentralized residential systems (on-site or clustered) may be under-reported. The
CWNS also does not include data on tribal or private systems. In aggregate, these data gaps mean that CWNS
data, taken alone, would likely undercount the U.S. border region population with wastewater collection and
treatment services.
BECC is in communication with EPA, states, and others to build on the information provided in the CWNS to
assemble a more complete picture of wastewater services in the U.S. border region. This work is part of BECC's
effort to document water, waste, and other infrastructure needs in the border region through state-by-state
assessments and reports. However, BECC's work on reports for U.S. border states was not complete at the time of
the publication of this indicators report. Future work on border indicators can incorporate this information from
BECC as it becomes available.
What influences this indicator and what can be done in the future?
As in Mexico, the need for drinking water and wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure in the U.S. is
driven by border region population growth and development patterns. It is also influenced by competing demands
from agriculture, industry, and other sources of water demand.
3 Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the term "public water system" means a system for the provision to the public of water for human
consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, if such system has at least fifteen service connections or regularly serves at least
twenty-five individuals.
4 Information and data on the CWNS is available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/cwns/index.cfm.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
Technical considerations
The drinking water indicator measures the population served by connections to centralized water distribution
systems. Although most of these connections are to residential homes and buildings, some are connections to
commercial businesses, and the population served by those businesses is counted in the data. This will tend to
over-estimate the percent of service coverage. At the same time, the water connection data do not include tribal
populations served by systems on tribal lands or populations served by adequate private wells or small systems.
This will tend to under-estimate the percent of the population with adequate access to drinking water. Overall,
the net impact of these factors on the accuracy of the drinking water indicator is not known.
Data sources
EPA, SDWIS Drinking Water Data Waterhouse (July 2010)
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division (March 2010 data release)
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
Reduce Water Contamination
Highlight: Water Quality and Health in the Juarez Valley, Mexico
What was the problem?
Pathogenic microorganisms in tap water, which can cause gastrointestinal diseases in humans, have
impacted the health of people living in rural areas of the Juarez Valley in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico. A
high incidence of parasites such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium are linked in the area to inadequate
wastewater treatment infrastructure. Around two-thirds of wastewater from Ciudad Juarez is treated at
two advanced primary treatment facilities, but one-third is discharged without treatment Untreated water
mixes with treated wastewater effluent, existing surface water in the Rio Grande, and other sources—and
ultimately is used for farming in the Juarez Valley.
Comunidades del Valle de Juarez, Chihuahua
ValledeEl Paso, Texas
Loma Blanca
San Isidro
San Agustin
Jesus Carranza
TresJacales
ElMillc
Juarezy Reforma
PorfirioParra
Guadalupe
PraxedisG. Gro.
Colonia Esperanza
To better understand the link between water contamination and health in the valley, a team of researchers
from border region universities and institutions undertook an epidemiological study of gastrointestinal
diseases in the Juarez valley.5
What were the results?
The researchers identified several conclusions from their ongoing research, including:
• According to the epidemiological survey of households, 10-12% of children under five suffered from
diarrhea.
• Ninety percent of houses used water from the tap water system. 72% used that water for food
preparation and 45% for drinking water.
5 The team was comprised of members from the Universidad Autonoma de Ciudad Juarez, Comision de Cooperacion Ecologica Fronteriza,
Comision Estatal para Proteccion contra Riesgos Sanitarios, Colegio de la Frontera Norte, and the Texas Agrilife Research & Extension Center at
El Paso, Texas A&M University.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 3—Water
• Fifty-five percent of tap water samples tested positive for the parasites Cryptosporidium and/or
Giardia. Researchers concluded that the presence of these parasites may be linked to the area's aquifer,
distribution system, town storage systems, and the condition of pipes inside and outside homes.
• More than 56% of tap water samples tested positive for total coliform.
How is this being addressed?
Since 2005, eight wastewater collection and treatment projects benefitting eleven Juarez Valley
communities have been funded under the Border Water Infrastructure Program. In addition, drinking water
distribution projects were also funded for two of the eleven communities. Currently, there are three
additional projects in development that will provide drinking water and wastewater services for two
additional Juarez Valley communities. In total, thirteen communities are being served by new water
infrastructure projects.
Sources
Juan P. Flores-Margez, Alberto Ramirez Lopez, Baltazar Corral Diaz, Evangelina Olivas E., Aracely Salazar
Monrreal, Roberto Hurtado Jimenez, Gilberto M. Lizarraga Bustamante, George D. Di Giovanni. "Microbial
Pathogens in Tap Water at Rural Communities of North Mexico."
Dr. Alberto Ramirez Lopez, Dr. Juan Pedro Flores Margez. "Gastrointestinal Diseases and Causal Effects in
The Valle de Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico El Paso, Texas," June 16, 2010.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Section 3—Water
Reduce Water Contamination
How safe is the water at San Diego and Tijuana Beaches?
Indicator:
•^ San Diego County Beach Advisories and Closures: Beach Mile Days
Binational International Boundary and Water Commission Shore
Sampling: Elevated Fecal Indicator Bacteria
Sub-Objective 3A: Strengthen
communication and coordination
between U.S. and Mexico on coastal
water quality monitoring and beach
advisory/closure protocols.
The Southern California and Northern Baja California coast offers warm weather and expanses of sandy beaches
that entice bathers, surfers, divers, and other water users to this part of the border region. However, potentially
harmful bacteria flowing into coastal waters may pose a risk to the health of those seeking to enjoy ocean beaches.
Given the potential risks from contaminated surface water, San Diego County monitors the quality of border region
beaches in California near the U.S.-Mexico border. Detection of contamination or other events (e.g., spills or heavy
rainfall events) can lead to the posting of advisories or closing of the beaches.
In addition to the San Diego County monitoring program, a joint binational monitoring program involving the City
of San Diego, the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), and the Comision Estatal de Servicios
Publicos de Tijuana (CESPT) maintains an ocean monitoring program at sites at San Diego and Tijuana Beaches
(henceforth, this monitoring program is referred to as the IBWC monitoring program). The monitoring program
assesses water quality for the area surrounding San Diego's South Bay Ocean Outfall, which is approximately 3.5
miles offshore and which discharges treated water from the International Wastewater Treatment Plant (operated
by the IBWC). This monitoring program includes eight shore sampling locations on the U.S. side of the border and
three sampling locations at Tijuana beaches.
Both of these sources provide data for indicators of beach water quality in the San Diego-Tijuana area.
Why are these indicators important?
The proximity of San Diego and Tijuana beaches to major urban areas is part of their popularity, but it also means
that these beaches are potentially vulnerable to contamination from many sources. Exposure to bacterial
contaminants at beaches can cause immediate disease impacts, so effective ongoing monitoring and real-time
advisories—and potentially closings—are important to ensure the safety of bathers.
What are the indicators showing?
Beach monitoring data for San Diego County and the IBWC monitoring program are presented separately because
of differences in monitoring programs and reporting.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Section 3—Water
The County of San Diego monitors 52 miles of recreational shoreline year round, with enhanced monitoring
locations during "beach season" from April to October. During this time, the County monitors 60 locations weekly.
Based on sampling, the County posts beach advisories if bacteria exceed California state ocean water standards.6
The County will also close beaches if there are significant sewage spills that threaten coastal water quality. San
Diego reports its advisory and closure data in terms of "beach mile days," which are calculated by multiplying the
number of days of a closure or advisory posting by the number of miles of beach posted or closed.
San Diego County Beach Advisories and Closings
(Expressed as Beach Mile Days)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
—Advisory BMDs due to Exceedance of Bacteriological Standards (April-October)
Non-chronic Sewage-Related Closure BMDs
—Chronic Sewage-Related Closure BMDs (Border Field State Park and TJSNWRS)
The graphic above shows San Diego County data broken out into three types of beach advisories or closings:
• Advisory Beach Mile Days. These data represent beaches on which the County posted advisories because
water samples exceeded bacteriological standards.
• Non-chronic Sewage-Related Closure Beach Mile Days. These data represent beaches that were closed
due to sewage spills, but are not considered "chronic" because closures at these beaches are infrequent.
• Chronic Sewage-Related Closure Beach Miles Days. These data represent beaches that are frequently
closed due to sewage spills. These closures are all in the area of Border Field State Park and Tijuana
Slough National Wildlife Refuge Shoreline, which are at the outlet of the Tijuana River adjacent to the
border.
Over the period 2000-2006 (the last year for which San Diego County published annual reports under the program)
there were fewer than 100 beach mile days each year posted with advisories due to exceedances of bacteriological
standards. During that same period, there were between 225 and 456 beach mile days annually subject to chronic
sewage-related closures. In addition, there were between 55 and 225 beach mile days of sewage-related closures
elsewhere at San Diego beaches.
San Diego County uses the State of California's ocean water standards. For single sample standards, they are: Total Coliforms—10,000
organisms per 100 milliliter sample; Fecal Coliforms—400 organisms per 100 milliliter sample; Enterococci—104 organisms per 100 milliliter
sample; Fecal: Total ratio: >1,000 total coliforms if ratio exceeds 0.1.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Section 3—Water
Weekly sampling through the IBWC monitoring program at eight shore
locations in the U.S. and three shore locations in Mexico showed that up to 31%
of weekly samples per year at individual sampling locations exceeded standards
for fecal indicator bacteria (FIB). (The FIB standard is a combined standard for
enterococcus, fecal coliforms, and total coliforms).7 The percent of samples
exceeding standards dropped overall from 2008 to 2009 and dropped at most
individual sampling locations as well. Sampling stations near San Diego's South
Bay Outfall, the U.S.-Mexico Border, and along the northern Mexico coast had
the highest number of exceedances when compared to the same FIB standards.
Binational International Boundary and Water
Commission Shore Sampling: Elevated Fecal
Indicator Bacteria
S.
S9 S8 S12 S6 Sll S5 S10 S4 S3 S2 SO
Sampling Station
12008 2009
What influences these indicators and what can be done in
the future?
IBWC Shore Sampling
Locations
-\
San ^ San
Diego \ Dieoo
B«y
12345
Map source: County of San
Diego Department of
Environmental Health, "San
Diego County 2006 Beach
Closure and Advisory Report."
Analysis by San Diego County concluded that the largest contributor to beach
advisories and closures was sewage-contaminated runoff from the Tijuana
River, which is also consistent with the IBWC monitoring program results.
Runoff events can affect several miles of shoreline and can last from days to
weeks. The events are generally triggered by high rainfall, which brings high flows into the Tijuana River Estuary.
Peak bacteria counts generally track rain events. A key step to improve beach water quality is to improve the
water quality of the Tijuana River by reducing pollutant loadings to it. CESPT has recently completed two new
wastewater treatment plants that will improve wastewater quality in the Tijuana River.
A key focus of Border 2012 is ensuring that public health is protected by alerting beachgoers when water is
contaminated. This is an important element of the San Diego County monitoring program's beach notifications
and closures program. In Tijuana, CESPT posts beach sampling data on its website. The data reported by CESPT
comes from analysis of split samples taken during sampling events for the IBWC monitoring program. Increased
transparency and publication of beach water quality data is highly consistent with Border 2012's objective to
City of San Diego samples are considered "elevated FIB" if any of the following are true: a) total coliform > 1000 colony forming units
(CFU)/100 ml, b) fecal coliform > 400 CFU/lOOml, or c) enterococcus >104CFU/100 ml.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Section 3—Water
"strengthen communication and coordination between U.S. and Mexico on coastal water quality monitoring and
beach advisory/closure protocols."
Technical considerations
San Diego County and the IBWC monitoring programs have different monitoring regimes (e.g., frequency and
methods) and different ways of reporting data (i.e., "beach mile days" vs. exceedance of standards). San Diego
County also limited the scope of its annual reporting on beach closures after 2006 due to budget cuts.
Data sources
County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, "San Diego County 2006 Beach Closure and Advisory
Report"
City of San Diego, "Annual Receiving Waters Monitoring Report for the South Bay Ocean Outfall (South Bay Water
Reclamation Plant)" 2008 and 2009 (Source for IBWC Monitoring Program data)
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Section 3—Water
Reduce Water Contamination
How safe is the water at Mexico Border Region Beaches?
Indicator:
•^ Percent of Mexico Border Beach Sampling Events Above
Enterococcus Standard
Sub-Objective 3A: Strengthen communication
and coordination between U.S. and Mexico on
coastal water quality monitoring and beach
advisory/closure protocols.
Since 2003, Mexico's Comision Federal para la Proteccion contra Riesgos Sanitarios (Federal Commission for the
Protection against Sanitary Risk, COFEPRIS), in collaboration with the Ministry of Tourism, SEMARNAT, and the
Ministry of the Navy have monitored the sea water quality in numerous Mexican beaches along the Pacific Ocean,
the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean as part of the "Programa Integral de Playas Limpias." This program reports
data on the number of monthly sampling events that exceed Mexico's bathing standard for enterococcus, which is
a pathogen that is frequently used as an indicator of fecal contamination (e.g., from sewage spills or inadequate
sewage systems). Enterococcus and other bacteria related to fecal contamination can cause a variety of infections
and illness.
Why is this indicator important?
Clean and healthy beaches are important for protecting the health of residents and those visiting Mexico's tourist
beaches and for supporting the economy of beach communities.
What is the indicator showing?
Mexico's COFEPRIS reports on monthly sampling results for enterococcus bacteria at several locations within the
border region or easily accessible from it:
• Baja California: near Tijuana (three beaches), Rosarito (three beaches), Ensenada (ten beaches), and San
Felipe (five beaches)
• Tamaulipas: near Matamoros (three beaches)
• Sonora: near Puerto Penasco (five beaches).
Prior to June 30, 2010 Mexico's bathing standard for enterococcus bacteria was 500 organisms/lOOml. Above this
level, water was considered unhealthy for bathing. This is the standard used for this indicator. As of June 30,
2010, Mexico instituted a new bathing standard for enterococcus bacteria in which concentrations above 200
organisms/lOOml are considered unhealthy for bathing; the California state standard is 104 organisms/lOOml. See
the highlight "How Water Quality Standards Affect Indicator Results" for an explanation of the role of standards in
assessing water quality.
The monthly enterococcus monitoring at border region beaches in Mexico showed samples exceeding Mexico's
500 organisms/lOOml standard only in the beaches at Rosarito, Baja California for the years 2003-2005. All other
reported sampling events were below the standard at all other border region beaches.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Section 3—Water
Percent of Mexico Border Beach Sampling Events Above Enterococcus Standard
Beach
Tijuana, Baja California
Tijuana 1
Tijuana II
Tijuana III
Rosarito, Baja California
Rosarito 1
Rosarito II
Rosarito III
Ensenada, Baja California
La Joya
El faro Beach
Mona Lisa
El Cipres
Conalep#2
Conalep#l
Playa Hermosa
Playitas
San Miguel
La Mision
San Felipe, Baja California
Los Faisanes
Burocratas
Dorado Ranch
Malecon
Bonita (Campo Rubens)
Tamaulipas
Playa Bagdad 1
Playa Bagdad II
Playa Bagdad III
Sonora
Playa Hermosa
Playa Bonita
Sandy Beach
Golfode Santa Clara 1
Golfode Santa Clara 2
2003
0% (4)
0% (4)
0% (4)
0% (4)
25% (4)
25% (4)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
2004
0% (10)
0% (10)
0% (10)
0% (10)
10% (10)
0% (10)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
0% (3)
0% (3)
0% (3)
--
--
2005
0% (8)
0% (8)
0% (8)
0% (8)
12% (8)
0% (8)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
0% (8)
0% (8)
0% (8)
0% (6)
0% (6)
0% (6)
0% (5)
0% (4)
2006
0% (9)
0% (9)
0% (9)
0% (9)
0% (10)
0% (9)
0% (7)
0% (7)
0% (7)
0% (7)
0% (7)
0% (7)
0% (7)
0% (7)
0% (7)
0% (7)
--
--
--
--
--
0% (8)
0% (8)
0% (8)
0% (7)
0% (7)
0% (7)
0% (7)
0% (7)
2007
0% (9)
0% (10)
0% (10)
0% (10)
0% (10)
0% (10)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (5)
0% (5)
0% (5)
0% (5)
0% (5)
0% (10)
0% (10)
0% (10)
0% (10)
0% (10)
0% (10)
0% (9)
0% (9)
2008
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (11)
0% (4)
0% (4)
0% (4)
0% (4)
0% (4)
0% (5)
0% (5)
0% (5)
0% (10)
0% (10)
0% (10)
0% (11)
0% (11)
- = no data; shaded boxes indicated years/locations where samples exceeded the standard. The number of samples is shown
in parentheses.
What influences this indicator and what can be done in the future?
Beach water quality can be impacted by a number of factors, including outflows from rivers that contain
contamination (especially during rain events), industrial or municipal outflows, and surface runoff.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Section 3—Water
Technical considerations
Many beaches are missing data for various months. More frequent sampling and/or sampling for other
bacteriological contaminants might produce different results. The new bathing standard (established June 30,
2010) of 200 organisms/lOOml for enterococcus may increase the number of sampling events that exceed the
standard in the future.
Data source
COFEPRIS (2009)
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Section 3—Water
Reduce Water Contamination
Highlight: How Water Quality Standards Affect Indicator Results
Water quality indicators are often reported as the percent of samples that exceed a particular standard. But
standards are not set in stone. They can differ across international borders and other jurisdictions, and they
can differ over time as new policies are introduced. To show how the choice of standards can affect indicator
results, this highlight illustrates how different water quality standards for enterococcus bacteria can affect
indicators for Tijuana beach water quality and can help make results from different sampling efforts more
comparable.
As represented in the indicator "Percent of Mexico Border Beach Sampling Events Above Enterococcus
Standard," Mexico's national health agency COFEPRIS reports on beach water quality sampling (conducted
approximately monthly) at three locations in Tijuana (see map below).
Source: COFEPRIS
To show the degree to which water samples from these three locations meet a range of water quality
standards, the figure below shows sampling results compared to three different standards (represented as
dotted horizontal lines on the figure):
• 500 organisms per 100ml of water—Mexico's enterococcus standard prior to June 30,2010
• 200 organisms per 100ml of water—Mexico's enterococcus standard after June 20,2010
• 104 organisms per 100ml of water—the California enterococcus standard used by San Diego
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Section 3—Water
Enterococcus Sampling Results for Tijuana Beaches, Baja California: Comparison
with Three Standards
500
o 400
— 300
a
UJ
100
.1.1.
- _ J. I
. . [.u..Jl.JilllhL LI-i......lLl ill
m
IP
rl
1 hi
pt
Oct
Tijuana 1
Tijuana II
Sampling date (approx. monthly)
Tijuana III — — -Standard (500) — — -Standard (200) — — -Standard (104)
As shown in the figure, all of the samples are below the 500 organisms/100 ml standard. However, as the
standard tightens to Mexico's new standard of 200 organisms/100 ml, some samples exceed it. Several more
samples would exceed a 104 organisms/lOOml standard. Clearly, an indicator expressed as the percent of
water samples exceeding a standard would differ based on the standard used.
Understanding differences in standards can also help compare data from different sampling efforts. For
example, adjusting for different standards can help compare the COFEPRIS beach monitoring data shown
above to data collected at Tijuana beaches through the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC)
monitoring program—a joint effort of the IBWC, the City of San Diego and Baja California's Comision Estatal de
Servicios Publicos (CESPT). The IBWC monitoring data are collected weekly at shore locations in San Diego
and Tijuana and compared to an enterococcus standard of 104 organisms/lOOml. (Related data from this
sampling effort are represented in the indicator "Binational International Boundary and Water Commission
Shore Sampling: Elevated Fecal Indicator Bacteria," along with a map of sampling locations.)
The table below shows results for two sampling locations at Tijuana beaches—one from COFEPRIS's sampling
work and one from the IBWC monitoring program. Both sampling stations are at Tijuana beaches within
approximately 1 km of the international border. The COFEPRIS data are collected approximately monthly, and
the IBWC monitoring data are collected weekly. The table shows the percent of samples each year that would
exceed three different enterococcus standards (500, 200, and 104 organisms per 100ml).
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Section 3—Water
Percent of Samples Exceeding Standards at Two Tijuana Beach Sampling Locations
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
COFEPRIS Monitoring Program (Location: Tijuana III; approximately monthly)
Standard: 500 organisms/lOOml
Standard: 200 organisms/lOOml
Standard: 104 organisms/lOOml
Number of samples
0%
25%
25%
4
0%
0%
0%
10
0%
0%
13%
8
0%
0%
0%
9
0%
0%
0%
10
0%
9%
9%
11
IBWC Monitoring Program (Location: Playas de Tijuana; station S3; weekly)
Standard: 500 organisms/lOOml
Standard: 200 organisms/lOOml
Standard: 104 organisms/lOOml
Number of samples
12%
10%
22%
50
8%
12%
14%
51
8%
12%
19%
52
4%
4%
8%
52
4%
6%
8%
52
3%
3%
10%
39
As shown in the table, the COFEPRIS samples generally show a lower percentage of exceedances at all levels of
the standard. For example, at a standard of 500 organisms/lOOml, the COFEPRIS data show no exceedances
over all of the years, while the IBWC monitoring program data show annual exceedances from 3% (2008) to
12% (2003). However, the apparent difference in results between the two sampling locations diminishes as
the standard decreases from 500 to 200 to 104 organisms/lOOml. At a standard of 104 organisms per 100ml,
for example, the results at the two sample locations are fairly similar for 2003 (25% vs. 22%), 2005 (13% vs.
19%), and 2008 (9% vs. 10%). Adjusting for different standards helps explain the relationship between these
two data sets and provides more information about beach water quality in the region.
Sources
City of San Diego, "Annual Receiving Waters Monitoring Report for the South Bay Ocean Outfall (South Bay
Water Reclamation Plant)" 2008 and 2009: http://www.sandiego.gov/mwwd/environment/reports.shtml
(IBWC monitoring program data)
COFEPRIS (2009)
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 4—Air
4. AIR
Air quality in the border region is impacted by pollutants from a number of sources. Motor vehicles, power plants,
industrial facilities, agricultural operations, mining, dust from unpaved roads, and open burning of trash all affect
urban and regional air quality along the U.S.-Mexico border. The most common and harmful pollutants from these
sources include suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and ground-level ozone.
Ozone is a photochemical oxidant and the major component of smog. It is formed through complex chemical
reactions between precursor emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), which
are emitted by transportation and industrial sources. It is reactive and damages lung tissue, reduces lung function,
and increases sensitivity to other irritants.
Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10) consists of ground geologic material.
Fine PM (diameter of 2.5 microns or less) or PM2.5 consists of sulfates, nitrates, other gases, soot and finer ground
geologic materials. Exposure to PM10 and PM2.5 can cause impaired breathing, aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease, and premature death. Recent studies have shown that fine-grained particulate matter may
be a greater health risk because these particles are more easily inhaled into the lungs.
There is also increasing attention to emissions of greenhouse gases—such as carbon dioxide and methane—in the
border region as well as to the impact of climate change on the border region.
The U.S. and Mexico continue to collaborate to help safeguard the health of border residents by protecting and
improving shared air basins. The two governments—in partnership with border tribal, state, and local
governments—have worked collaboratively to increase knowledge about pollution sources and impacts, establish
monitoring networks in several key areas, develop emissions inventories, demonstrate the benefits of using
cleaner fuels, retrofit diesel vehicles, collaborate on projects to reduce emissions, and build local capacity through
training.
Although substantial gains have been made, air quality is still a major concern throughout the border region. The
pressures associated with industrial and population growth, differences in governance and regulatory frameworks,
and topographic and meteorological conditions combine to present a challenging context in which to address air
quality management.
This chapter provides information on a number of aspects of air quality in the border region, including:
• Days exceeding particulate matter and ozone air quality standards
• Key activities to reduce air emissions (e.g., diesel truck retrofits)
Policy responses to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and adapt to a changing climate
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 4—Air
Reduce Air Contamination
What is the quality of border region air compared to health
standards?
Indicators:
* Number of Days Exceeding Air Quality Standards in Border
Monitoring Areas
Objective 1. By 2012 or sooner, reduce air
emissions as much as possible toward
attainment of respective national ambient air
quality standards, and reduce exposure in the
border region.
Air quality standards are established in order to protect people from potential harmful exposures to air pollutants.
Levels of air pollution that exceed a numeric standard are associated with potential impacts to human health. The
quality of the air can be inferred by the number of days that a standard is exceeded within a monitored area. The
most persistent and pervasive pollutants found in the border region are ozone and particulate matter (PM10).
U.S. ozone and PM10 standards were used to calculate and illustrate indicators in this section. They are:
• Ozone: 0.080 ppm (daily 8 hour maximum standard)8
• PM10: 150 ng/m3 (24 hour average standard)
Mexico's standard for ozone is 0.080 ppm (daily 8 hour maximum standard). Mexico's standard for PM10 is 120
Hg/m3 (24 hour average standard).
Data for these indicators come from five regional monitoring areas in the border region. One of these—Ciudad
Juarez/El Paso—includes air monitoring data from both sides of the border. The other monitoring areas—San
Diego, Imperial Valley, Nogales and Lower Rio Grande Valley—include only air monitoring data from the U.S. side
of the border (see 'Technical Considerations" below for a discussion of the air monitoring system in Mexico's
border region).
The current 8-hour U.S. standard for ozone is 0.075 ppm, but this standard has been stayed. The earlier U.S. standard of
0.080 ppm is used here to be consistent with data in past indicator reports and with Mexico's standard, which is 0.080 ppm.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 4—Air
JZALIFORNIA^
San Diego^ . f
"Calexico
/"""Ti
Tijuana Mexican/*.,.
/SarHjjis
:io Colorado
Monitoring Locations for Ozone in the Border Region
NEW MEXICO
United Stati
v^ m
Nogales
i i_uiuniou3 -^unland Park
v Naco Douglas p--B-—
—--a—'; / lac ~mt\ Paso
Nogales Maro .„, . ,V
MCIL.U Agua Palomas Juarez
rv-;-*L \
TEXAS
i Eagle
Piedras\Pass
Negras
Laredo
COAHUILA 'Nuevo
Laredo
f -
*' AT
Ozone Monitoring Station -^VieXlCO
Vo
Sister Cities
\ M~v,nH
Monitoring Locations for PM10 in the Border Region
CALIFORNIA/''
SanDiegoS • ' . f
f^T^vla
Tijuana Mexicali/*^.
/SafrLuis .
\Rio Colorado
^ 4|
Nc-1-*
~9 ••
<• •
~0
•f
NEW MEXICO
1
United States
Park
•w—--—; Las "T-1 ' "°
Agua Palomas Juarez
Prieta ^
TEXAS
SONORA
Presidio
\ Pr
OjinafK
CHIHUAHUA
1io Monitoring Station
Sister Cities
\
1 Eagle
as\Pass
Negras \
Acuna
1 Eagl
Piedras\Pass
Laredo
COAHUILA Nuevo1!
Laredoj\
"
DURANGO
,,.
.. TAMAU
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 4—Air
Why are these indicators important?
Ozone and particulate matter are the most prevalent air pollutants in the border region that are tracked because
of their impacts on human health, the environment, and aesthetics (e.g., visibility).
What are these indicators showing?
Based on the analysis of the number of days exceeding the ozone standard (0.080 ppm) and PM10 standards (150
u.g/m3) from 2006-2009, air quality varies geographically. San Diego and Imperial Valley had the highest number of
days exceeding the ozone standard. Imperial Valley, Nogales, and Ciudad Juarez/El Paso had the highest number of
days exceeding the PM10 standard. In contrast, the Lower Rio Grande Valley had the fewest days exceeding air
quality standards among the regions reported.
Number of Days Exceeding Air Quality Standards in Border Monitoring Areas
„ 70
S 60
! 50
•3, 40
.E 30
1 20
* 10
S. 0
San Diego
IO3 PM10
Imperial Valley
„ 7°
S 60
! 50
•3, 40
.E 30
1 20
* 10
£ 0
Nogales
116 18
o~H ^~B u
IO3 PM10
•a
= 50
(5 iu
M
•a
u 20
x in
fi 10
> U
&
Ciudad Juarez/El Paso
48
16 id ,,
• _ • 1
• O3 1 PM10
•a '°
~o
3
bO
-a
oj 20
g 1n
a 10
> u
a
Lower Rio Grande Valley
uu ul ul uu
rM rM rM rM
• O3 1 PM10
Note: Ciudad Juarez/El Paso monitoring areas include data from monitors in the U.S. and in Mexico; Nogales and Lower Rio
Grande Valley monitoring areas only have monitors in the U.S.; for San Diego and Imperial Valley, only data from monitors in the
U.S. are used because of quality assurance issues with the monitoring systems in Tijuana and Mexicali (see "Technical
Considerations" below).
Data specifically from monitoring stations in Juarez illustrate how using a different set of air quality monitors and
using different air quality standards can affect these indicators. Using Mexico's PM10 standard of 120 u.g/m3 (which
is lower than the 150 u.g/m3 U.S. standard illustrated above), the number of days exceeding the PM10 standard in
Juarez is 17,13, 32, and 38 days for 2006-2009, respectively. Using Mexico's ozone standard of 0.08 ppm (which is
the same as the U.S. standard), the number of days exceeding the ozone standard according to monitors in Juarez
is 5,1, 4, and zero days for 2006-2009, respectively.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 4—Air
What influences these indicators and what can be done in the future?
Ozone is formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), which are emitted by transportation and industrial sources. PM, which is fine
grained geologic material, enters the air through both human caused and natural sources. These sources include
agricultural processes, unpaved roadways, quarry and cement manufacturing, and incomplete combustion of
diesel fuels. In some areas, dust storms that suspend fine particulates in the air can cause peak concentrations of
PM10as well.
A number of efforts are underway in the border region to reduce ozone and PM emissions through stricter
standards on vehicle emissions, cleaner fuels, vehicle anti-idling programs, and other efforts. Some sources of
PM10, such as dust storms, are not amendable to control strategies. However some strategies, such as road
paving, can control the suspension of particulates due to winds or vehicle use.
Technical Considerations
Data on PM10 and ozone come from EPA's system for tracking air quality data, the Air Quality System (AQS). The
exceedances were calculated by adding the number of days above the standard on any site within each monitoring
area; exceptional events were included in the calculation, and multiple exceedances on the same day within each
monitoring area were counted as one.
Only data for one of the five monitoring areas come from monitors maintained in both the U.S. and Mexico
(Ciudad Juarez/El Paso). Given the complexity of maintaining a binational network, data for some years and
locations are incomplete.
The monitoring data from Tijuana and Mexicali were not included in this report because they do not meet the
quality assurance standards generally used for determining compliance with air quality standards in the U.S. Many
monitors in Tijuana and Mexicali have not been operating consistently since 2007, and the systems have not
passed recent annual performance audits performed by EPA and the Institute Nacional de Ecologia (INE). The
Secretaria de Proteccion al Ambiente in Baja California and INE are actively working to address the issues
identified.
The indicators do not show concentrations of small size particulate matter (i.e., PM2.5), which may be a significant
issue in some border regions even if PM10 concentrations are relatively low.
Data Sources
EPA Air Quality System (AQS)
2005 State of the Border Region report
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 4—Air
Reduce Air Contamination
What is being done to reduce diesel emissions from transportation
in the border region?
Indicators:
•» Number of Diesel Truck Retrofits from
Binational Projects in the Western Border
Region
Objective 1. By 2012 or sooner, reduce air emissions as much
as possible toward attainment of respective national ambient
air quality standards and reduce exposure in the border
region.
Emissions from diesel engines are a significant source of air pollutants in the border region. In order to address the
health threats posed by diesel emissions, the Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB), a U.S. federal advisory
panel on U.S.-Mexico border issues, recommended in its 2006 annual report that the U.S. and Mexico work
collaboratively to reduce emissions from diesel trucks, buses, municipal and private fleets, and passenger
vehicles.9
New diesel emissions standards adopted in the U.S. and Mexico for new heavy-duty engines are expected to have
a dramatic effect on diesel emissions generally. However, heavy-duty vehicles already on the road aren't subject
to the new standards. To address this existing heavy-duty fleet, several border region governments have focused
attention on retrofitting diesel vehicles in their jurisdictions, including school buses, port-related drayage vehicles,
and commercial fleets. For example, Texas retrofitted 482 school buses in Texas border counties between 2008
and 2010. In Arizona, 71 school buses were retrofitted during this same time period.
Another focus of work related to diesel emissions has been binational demonstration projects at California-Baja
California and Arizona-Sonora border crossings to fund and evaluate retrofits of diesel trucks that regularly cross
the U.S.-Mexico border.
Why is this indicator important?
Diesel engines contribute to emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), NOx, sulfur dioxide (SO2), VOCs, PM10 and PM2.5.
In addition, diesel exhaust contains 40 specific hazardous air pollutants. Among mobile sources of air pollution,
heavy-duty diesel vehicles are a significant contributor of ambient particulate matter and, through their emissions
of NOx, ground-level ozone.
In Mexico, the 1999 National Emissions Inventory estimated that light- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles accounted
for approximately 19% of all NOx emissions, 3% of all CO, 1.5% of VOCs, 1.5% of PM2.5,1.2% of PM10, and 0.15% of
SOx emitted in Mexico.
Binational diesel vehicle retrofit projects are an important step in identifying the effectiveness of retrofit strategies
in reducing diesel emissions in the border region given the unique patterns of cross-border travel and the
characteristics of the drayage fleet that accounts for much border region truck activity. Identifying and
demonstrating successful retrofit strategies will help encourage additional emissions control activities in the
border region and beyond.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, Ninth Report to the President and Congress of the U.S.: Air Quality and
Transportation & Cultural and Natural Resources, March 2006, available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb/gneb9threport/English-GNEB-9th-Report.pdf
-------
Number of Diesel Truck Retrofits
from Binational Projects in the
Western Border Region
1
«
cc.
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 4—Air
What is the indicator showing?
In the California-Baja California and Arizona-Sonora region, 62
retrofits were implemented for binational projects completed
in 2008, and 65 retrofits were implemented for binational
projects that were completed in 2009. One hundred
seventeen of these retrofits involved the installation of Diesel
Oxidation Catalysts, and 10 involved installing a Diesel
Particulate Filter. Activity centered on the Otay Mesa, Calexico
East, and Nogales border crossings.
What influences this indicator and what can be
done in the future?
The number of binational retrofit projects is largely a function
of funding. The purpose of these projects is to demonstrate
and test the effectiveness of retrofit technologies to provide
the information base for much broader, private sector
implementation of retrofits and turnover to cleaner fleets.
Technical considerations
This indicator reports the number of retrofits, rather than the emissions reductions due to retrofit technologies.
Actual emissions reductions would depend on the characteristics of individual trucks and their patterns of use,
which are data that are not available. It does not include information about other retrofits in the region, including
private-sector investments in retrofits or projects in the region that were not binational in nature.
Data sources
Industrial Economics (lEc), "Analysis of Diesel Emissions in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region" (2007)
SEMARNAT, INE, Inventaho Nacional de Emisiones de Mexico, 1999 (2006)
EPA, Region 9 data on retrofit projects
2008
2009
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 4—Air
Reduce Air Contamination
What are border region states doing to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases and respond to a changing climate?
Indicators:
•* Status of Border State Development of Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, Forecasts, and Action Plans
Objective 2. By 2012, build border greenhouse
gas (GHG) information capacity using comparable
methodologies and expand voluntary cost-
effective programs for reduction of GHG
emissions in the border area.
Why is this indicator important?
As a primarily arid region with high temperatures, scarce water, and unique ecosystems—as well as a region with
coastal areas bordering on two of the world's major salt water systems—the border region is vulnerable to the
impacts of a changing climate. Border states and cities—and their respective federal governments—have
therefore focused increasing attention on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Border 2012 provides a
forum for increased binational cooperation and attention toward reducing GHGs and adapting to a changing
climate.
What is the indicator showing?
Since 2005, the U.S. states of California, New Mexico, and Arizona, and all of the Mexican border states have
completed comprehensive GHG emissions inventories and forecasts. Texas completed a less detailed emissions
inventory covering the years 1990-1999, which was released in 2002.10
Three out of the four U.S. border states—California, Arizona, and New Mexico—have developed climate action
plans that specify GHG reduction targets for the state and a series of actions to achieve those targets. All three
either have, or anticipate having, mandatory reporting programs to support the plans.
All of the Mexican border states also anticipate developing climate action plans as a follow-up to their GHG
inventory development efforts. Mexico's Programas Estatales de Accion ante el Cambio Climatico (State Program
for Climate Change Action) is providing training and technical assistance to Mexican state governments to develop
action plans in conjunction with academic institutions and stakeholders.
Status of Border State Development of Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Forecasts, and Action Plans
Status of Inventory Publication
Status of Forecast Publication
Status of Action Plan Publication
United States
California
Arizona
New Mexico
Texas
Completed (2007)
Completed (2005)
Completed (2006)
Completed (2002)
Completed (2007)
Completed (2005)
Completed (2006)
--
Completed (2006)
Completed (2006)
Completed (2006)
--
Texas' inventory is described as a "streamlined" inventory that focused on key sources and sinks ratherthan a comprehensive list. The age,
approach and level of detail of the inventory make it difficult to compare with more recent inventories in the border region. A brief description
of the inventory is available at: http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/TXsummarv v2.PDF.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 4—Air
Status of Inventory Publication
Status of Forecast Publication
Status of Action Plan Publication
Mexico
Baja California
Sonora
Chihuahua
Coahuila
Tamaulipas
Nuevo Leon
Completed (2007)
Completed (2008)
Recently completed (2010)
Recently completed (2010)
Recently completed (2010)
Recently completed (2010)
Completed (2007)
Completed (2008)
Recently completed (2010)
Recently completed (2010)
Recently completed (2010)
Recently completed (2010)
--
--
--
--
--
--
-- denotes plan not completed
What influences this indicator and what can be done in the future?
Most border states have committed to developing GHG inventories, forecasts, and action plans. In the future,
border states can work together to get a picture of border-wide emissions and to develop collaborative, and even
region-wide, strategies for reducing GHG emissions.
Technical considerations
All of the border state inventories and forecasts done since 2005 have used methodologies consistent with the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines. However, there are some differences arising from
data availability, whether states calculate emissions from electricity consumption vs. production,11 and whether
gross or net emissions were reported.12 The inventories and forecasts for Arizona, New Mexico and all of the
Mexican border states are methodologically similar because they used the same technical consultant.
Data sources
Israel Laguna Monroy (INE), "State Programs for Climate Change Action," Border 2012 Air Policy Forum (July 7,
2010)
Ross & Associates, "U.S.-Mexico Border Region Greenhouse Gas Inventories and Policy" (2009)
11A consumption-based approach counts emissions from all electricity used in the state, including within-state production and electricity
imports.
12 Gross emissions are the total emissions in the state while net estimates take into account the amount of CO2 equivalent that has been
removed from the atmosphere by the process of sequestration in carbon sinks (e.g., tree growth).
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 4—Air
Reduce Air Contamination
What activities are reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the border
region?
Indicators:
•* Actual and Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Reductions from Global Methane Initiative
Projects in the Border Region
Objective 2. By 2012, build border greenhouse gas (GHG)
information capacity using comparable methodologies and
expand voluntary cost-effective programs for reduction of
GHG emissions in the border area.
The Global Methane Initiative is an international partnership to pursue cost-effective, near-term recovery of
methane and use it as a clean energy source. It builds on the Methane to Markets program, which was launched in
November 2004. The Initiative targets methane produced from landfills, underground coal mines, natural gas and
oil systems, and agriculture.
The Global Methane Initiative currently has 38 country partners, including the U.S. and Mexico. Mexico and the
U.S. signed a letter of cooperation in 2006 committing to collaborate on methane projects in Mexico, including
working with local governments and the private sector. The two governments collaborated in developing the
Mexico Landfill Gas (LFG) Model, which assesses the feasibility and benefits of collecting and using landfill gas for
energy recovery.
Why is this indicator important?
Methane is a potent GHG if released to the atmosphere. However, it is also a valuable fuel source. Capturing
methane and using it for fuel prevents it from reaching the atmosphere and also reduces consumption of other
fuels.
What is the indicator showing?
Currently, there are three completed, ongoing, or planned Global Methane Initiative projects in the border
region—two for landfills and one for a coal mine (see table). Together, they account for annual reductions of
approximately 4.5 million metric tons CO2 equivalent. Ideas for future projects promise additional annual
reductions of around 800,000 metric tons CO2 equivalent per year.
Actual and Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions from Global Methane Initiative Projects
Project
Nuevo Laredo Landfill,
Tamualipas
Ensenada Landfill, Baja
California
Mimosa Mines, Sabinas
Coal Basin, Coahuila
Annualized GHG
Reductions
(tons of CO2e/year)
81,883
16,624
4,180,000
Brief Description
Evaluation of the technical feasibility and the institutional and political
framework of capturing and using methane gas. Site was selected for a
pre-feasibility study, including a pump test evaluation.
Evaluation of technical feasibility and the institutional and political
framework of capturing and using methane gas. Site was selected for a
pre-feasibility study, including a pump test evaluation.
Recovery and utilization of coal mine methane.
Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 4—Air
Project
Nogales Landfill, Sonora
Saltillo
Mimosa Mines, Palau
City, Coahuila
Mimosa Mines, Palau,
Coahuila
Annualized GHG
Reductions
(tons of CO2e/year)
163,493
85,972
606,630
200,000
Brief Description
Evaluation of the technical feasibility and the institutional and political
framework of capturing and using methane gas. Site was selected for a
pre-feasibility study, including a pump test evaluation.
Evaluation of the technical feasibility and the institutional and political
framework of capturing and using methane gas. Site was selected for a
pre-feasibility study, including a pump test evaluation.
Capture of coal mine methane from three mines for flaring and power
generation. Project could generate approximately 7 MW of electricity.
Advanced gob gas drainage at coal mine.
Project Status
Completed
Completed
Idea
Idea
What influences this indicator and what can be done in the future?
Global Methane Initiative projects are funded by partners (e.g., the U.S. and Mexico) and/or by investments driven
by international GHG agreements that allow entities to offset their emissions by purchasing reductions from
projects such as these.
Technical considerations
Global Methane Initiative projects may constitute only a part of projects that result in reported emission
reductions. For example, these projects may involve an initial feasibility study, but not an entire project.
Data sources
The Global Methane Initiative
SEMARNAT (2010) data on project status
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 4—Air
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 5—Land
5. LAND
Land in the border region can be impacted by air and water pollution, improper disposal of solid waste, and
impacts from urban, industrial, and agricultural activities. The Border 2012 program focuses on land
contamination from inadequate management and disposal of solid and hazardous waste and from inadequate
clean-up of sites contaminated by hazardous waste. Through its focus on environmental health, Border 2012 also
focuses attention on the application of pesticides to border region agricultural lands and the impact pesticides can
have on the health of farm workers and others in the region.
This chapter provides indicators and highlights related to:
• Solid waste generation and disposal
• Hazardous waste management and cleanup
• Pesticide use and training
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 5—Land
Land Contamination
How much solid waste is being generated in the border region and
how much of it is adequately disposed of?
Indicators:
* Per-Capita Municipal Solid Waste in U.S. Border States and Counties
Per-capita Daily Solid Waste Generation in Mexico Border States
Solid Waste Generation (tons/day) in Selected Mexico Border Municipalities
Percent Adequate Solid Waste Disposal in Mexico's 300 km Border Zone
Sub-Objective IB: By
2012, develop or
identify capacity
building materials for
source reduction,
recycling and
management of
municipal solid waste.
Solid waste generated by residents of the border region may be recycled, diverted to other uses, disposed of in
adequately designed solid waste facilities, or disposed of improperly. To promote more environmentally sound
solid waste disposal, programs can be developed to encourage recycling, diversion, and proper use of waste.
Programs may also focus on reducing the production of solid waste by reducing waste generation at its source.
Why are these indicators important?
Reductions in the generation of solid waste, as well as recycling and adequate disposal all keep waste from being
disposed of improperly. Improper disposal can contaminate land and water (especially when hazardous waste is
mixed with solid waste), create nuisances such as odor and pests, and waste resources that might otherwise be
diverted to productive use.
What are the indicators showing?
In the U.S., per-capita annual
solid waste generation data are
not available for all border
counties. New Mexico
provides county-level data on
per-capita municipal solid
waste generation, but
California and Arizona only
provide data at the state level.
Texas provides county-level
data, but it is for waste disposal
rather than generation. Based
on the data available, per-
capita waste generation has
declined since 2004 in
California and New Mexico
(where over 60% of the U.S.
border region population
Per-Capita Municipal Solid Waste in U.S. Border States and
Counties
•California (statewide, generated)
• New Mexico (border counties, generated)
•Arizona Border (statewide, generated)
Texas (bordercounties, disposed)
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 5—Land
resides). Only one year of data is available for Arizona, so it is not possible to chart a trend. In Texas, per-capita
disposal increased from 2006 to 2007, the years for which data are available. (In general, the amount of
generation will be higher than the amount disposed because some generated waste will be recycled or otherwise
diverted from disposal.)
For Mexico, BECC reports per-capita solid
waste generation for Mexican border states
(though not for the border region
specifically). Although year-to-year trends
are not available for Mexico, the data can be
compared across Mexican border states and
with U.S. border states. Baja California has
the highest per-capita generation and
Coahuila and Sonora have the lowest. All of
these Mexican border states have per-capita
waste generation rates that are lower than
U.S. border states and counties based on
data available.
Per-capita Daily Solid Waste Generation for
Mexico Border States
Baja California
Sonora
Chihuahua
Coahuila
Nuevo Leon
Tamaulipas
0 0.5 1 1.5
Per-capita Solid Waste Generation (kg/person/day)
For border cities in Mexico, Tijuana and Mexicali (both in Baja California) generate the highest total amount of
solid waste per day—a result of higher per-capita generation and higher populations.
Solid Waste Generation (tons/day) in Selected Mexico Border
Municipalities
San Luis Rio Colorado ^H 140
Nogales ^^H 180
Agua Prieta • 63
Ojinaga 1 20
Ascension | 22
Acuna ^| 115
Piedras Negras ^| 131
Anahuac 1 20
Nuevo Laredo ^^^^^| 345
Reynosa
| 524
70
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Solid Waste Generation (tons/day)
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 5—Land
Percent Adequate Solid Waste Disposal in Mexico's 300
km Border Zone
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Although data on adequate
disposal of solid waste in
border municipalities are not
available, there are data on
the percent of solid waste
that is adequately disposed of
(as defined by Mexico's
national social development
agency SEDESOL) in the 300
km region south of the U.S.
Mexico border (The 300 km
border region is a focus area
of the BECC, which publishes
these data). This indicator
shows that from 58% to 96% of solid waste goes to adequate disposal depending on the border state.
What influences these indicators and what can be done in the future?
The total amount of solid waste generated is a function of per-capita generation and population, while the amount
disposed of properly is a function of the availability of adequate facilities, systems for collection and transport of
waste, and behaviors and choices of individuals. A key focus of recent investment, especially in the Mexico border
region, has been to build adequate solid waste disposal facilities. BECC estimates that 2.5 million residents of the
border region (defined as 100 km from the border) do not have access to modern landfills. Other complementary
efforts—such as programs to encourage waste reduction and recycling—are also important.
Technical Considerations
Solid waste data are reported in many different ways, not all of which are comparable. For example, Texas only
reports on the quantity of waste that is disposed while other U.S. states and border counties report on waste
generation, recycling, and disposal. Some states in the U.S. report annual data on total solid waste generation,
which needs to be converted to per capita data based on census population figures. Also, some states report data
annually while some report on a variable basis. For example, the most recent data for Arizona are from 2002,
while there are annual data for California through 2009.
Finally, it is not known how much total waste is generated in the border region. Therefore, we cannot currently
determine what portion is being effectively managed border-wide.
Data sources
California: Cal Recycle
Arizona: 2002 Recycling Program Report
New Mexico: New Mexico Solid Waste Annual Report (for years 2004-2008)
Texas: Municipal Solid Waste in Texas: A Year in Review 2006 (and 2007)
Mexico: BECC, "Diagnostico de Infraestructura Ambiental Basica para el estado de [estado]"
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 5—Land
Land Contamination
Highlight: Border Tribe's Measurement of Cleanup Results Creates the
Building Blocks for Environmental Indicators
What was the problem and how was it
addressed?
Some tribes located in the border region have
significant problems with uncontrolled disposal of
solid waste on tribal lands—often from sources
beyond the tribe itself. The Tohono O'Odham
Nation has been meeting this challenge by clearing
waste, documenting dumping locations, and
measuring results. This work demonstrates how
local residents can generate and use information
to understand and resolve environmental
problems in their communities.
What were the results?
As part of a federally-funded grant project, the
Tohono O'Odham Nation has been documenting
and measuring results, including quantitative data
on:
• Tons of material collected,
• The number of trash bags of discarded waste
transferred to a landfill,
• Waste characterization to determine if waste
material could be recycled,
• The number of abandoned vehicles crushed
and sent to scrap metal markets for recycling,
and
• The number of bikes brought back to a
holding yard for future recycling or re-use.
To document this work, tribal staff tracked GPS
coordinates for each cleanup location, the amount
of waste removed and discarded, the number of
monitoring visits, and the mileage and fuel costs
for transporting waste. Their focus on measuring
results yielded insights into the effectiveness of
the removal strategy, including the likelihood that
certain sites would remain clean or be littered
again.
How does this relate to the rest of the
border region?
The type of measurement done for this project
creates the foundation for developing place-
specific or border-wide environmental indicators
that can track trends in environmental problems
and their solutions. For example,
• Regularly collected information about waste
locations (e.g., via digital photos and GPS
coordinates) and/or more comprehensive
data on the amount and nature of solid waste
at a site can be used to track and
communicate the magnitude and trend of
waste problems over time.
• Data collected by multiple sources, such as
tribes and federal, state and local agencies,
can build a picture of the border-wide
severity of solid waste problems and track
changes in the location of dumps.
• Regularly collected data on how much
material was cleaned up and disposed of
could measure achievement of important
tribal environmental goals and progress
toward regional goals, such as Border 2012
goals to reduce land contamination.
This kind of indicator information can be useful
for highlighting problems and obtaining and
targeting resources to address them. Harnessing
the power of measurement and indicators
creation can help tribes and border communities
track issues across a wide range of environmental
problems, such as air quality, surface water
quality, land degradation, and environmental
health.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 5—Land
Land Contamination
Are scrap tire piles being cleaned up?
Indicators:
•^ Number of Scrap Tires Removed During
Clean Up at Two of the Largest,
Selected Tire Piles in the Border Region
Objective 3: By 2010, clean up three of the largest sites that contain
abandoned waste tires in the U.S. Mexico border region, based on
policies and programs developed in partnership with local
governments.
Sub-Objective 3C: When practicable, clean up small tire piles, at least
once in each of the four regional workgroup geographic areas.
Throughout the border region, millions of scrap tires have accumulated in a number of waste tire piles. There are
46 known tire piles in the border region, according to the Border 2012: U.S.-Mexico Border Scrap Tire Inventory
Summary Report (May 2007).
The Mexican border region receives imports of millions of used tires from the U.S. that are imported for purposes
of reuse. These used tires have a shorter lifespan than new tires because they are used tires with generally 15,000
to 30,000 km of wear.
Border 2012 has committed to clean up some of the border's largest tire piles along with at least one small pile in
each of the four regional workgroup geographical areas.
Why is this indicator important?
Scrap tire piles pose significant environmental and health risks. Tire piles create breeding grounds for mosquitoes,
rodents, and other vectors of disease, potentially increasing the incidence of malaria, dengue fever, and
encephalitis diseases, such as West Nile Virus. Tire pile fires are also difficult to extinguish and can burn for
months, emitting noxious fumes and generating liquid wastes that contaminate soil, groundwater, and surface
water.
What is the indicator showing?
Two of the largest sites that contain abandoned waste tires in the U.S.-Mexico border region have been cleaned
up, totaling 1,675,000 tires successfully removed. These two piles, INNOR and Centinela, were located in Mexicali.
Tires removed from INNOR were transported to CEMEX's cement plant in Ensenada, and tires from Centinela were
transported to CEMEX plants located in Ensenada and Hermosillo; in each case they were then co-processed as
tire-derived fuel (TDF).
At least one small pile in each of the four regional workgroup geographical areas has also been fully cleaned up,
demonstrating achievement of the Border 2012 sub-objective. The piles include:
Site
Tijuana, Baja California
Hueco Tanks State Park, Texas
Sabinas Hidalgo, Nuevo Leon
San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora
Regional Workgroup
Baja California-California
New Mexico-Texas-Chihuahua
Texas-Coahuila-Nuevo Leon-Tamaulipas
Arizona-Sonora
Total Tires Removed
40,000
250,000
8,000
140,000
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 5—Land
Along with these small piles, other large, medium and small tire piles have been removed with an overall total of
6,877,535 tires cleaned up from 2004-2009 in Mexico's border region. The majority of these tires were used as
TDF for cement production, providing an energy source from waste.
Summary of Tire Pile Cleanups in Mexico's Border Region
Entity
Tijuana, BC
Mexicali, BC
San Luis R. Col., SON
Nogales, SON
Cd. Juarez, CHI
Piedras Negras, COA
Ciudad Acuna, COA
Region Carbon., COA
Torreon, COA
Region 5 Manantiales, COA
Matamoros, JAM
Reynosa, TAM
Annual TOTAL
TOTAL
2004
40,000
425,000
-
-
120,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
585,000
2005
-
918,600
-
-
620,000
-
-
-
-
-
1,538,600
2006
-
239,650
30,000
-
682,000
59,160
-
-
-
-
-
1,010,810
2007
-
30,900
110,000
-
638,605
195,840
60,000
-
-
-
1,035,345
2008
-
36,000
-
45,000
830,000
-
40,000
-
-
20,000
80,000
1,051,000
2009
-
40,800
-
55,000
1,507,000
-
-
-
8,000
16,000
29,980
-
1,656,780
6,877,535
The data in this table include tires from the small piles in the previous table with the exception ofSabinas Hidalgo, Nuevo Leon
This success is due to the combined efforts of EPA, SEMARNAT, regional waste task forces, affected states, tribes,
and industry.
What influences this indicator and what can be done in the future?
Funding is a key factor in cleaning up existing tire pile sites. Finding uses for old tires is a critical factor as well.
Looking forward, an important area of focus is on preventing tire piles by creating alternative markets for used
tires (See the highlight "Preventing Future Tire Piles"). Without development of these alternative markets, tire
piles may continue to be created in the border region despite accomplishments in cleaning up existing large piles.
Technical considerations
Unfortunately, the total magnitude of the tire pile problem is unknown. The U.S.-Mexico Border Tire Inventory
Summary Report (May 2007) is the first inventory to be completed of scrap tires for the entire U.S.-Mexico border
region.13 The report features a GIS map of scrap tires in the region. Although this report tried to accurately
capture the number of scrap tires and scrap tire piles in the border region at that time, it is difficult to establish an
estimate of the distribution or quantity of scrap tires in the border region. The number of tires at many sites
fluctuates constantly and new tire piles continue to develop. Additionally, the exact number of tires at known
locations is difficult to estimate.
13 See: http://www.epa.gov/border2012/fora/waste-forum/tire-locus.html
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 5—Land
Data sources
U.S.-Mexico Scrap Tire Action Plan
Tire pile cleanup data provided by U.S. EPA (ORCR) and SEMARNAT
Border Scrap Tire Integrated Management Initiative
Border 2012: U.S.-Mexico Border Scrap Tire Inventory. Summary Report
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 5—Land
Land Contamination
Highlight: Preventing Future Tire Piles
What is the problem and how is it being
addressed?
Millions of scrap tires contaminate the U.S.-
Mexico border region, posing a serious threat to
the environment and public health. Improperly
managed in stockpiles, illegal dumps, and
scattered along roadsides, scrap tires are a
significant border solid waste problem. They are
ideal breeding grounds for mosquitoes, rats and
other disease vectors. Tire piles are also fire
hazards. If they catch fire, they can generate air,
water and land contamination.
Border 2012 has taken a multifaceted approach
through cleanup and prevention efforts to
overcome the scrap tire problem. One preventive
measure that Border 2012 has taken is the Tire
Initiative Collaborative Effort Through this
effort, border states, municipalities and the tire
industry are working together to address the
scrap tire problem. At the state level, in August of
2008, the heads of all ten border state
environmental agencies formally signed the Tire
Initiative Letter of Understanding to support the
Tire Initiative, an integrated, binational approach
to scrap tire management.
At the 2008 XXVI Annual Border Governors
Conference, a joint declaration was signed by
governors of the border states to execute the Tire
Initiative. At the 16th Border Legislative
Conference on October 19, 2007, state legislators
from the U.S. and Mexico expressed their support
of the Tire Initiative.
At the city level, San Luis, Sonora was the first
border city to agree to take steps to implement the
Tire Initiative in 2007, and more municipalities
since then have also signed on. The U.S. Rubber
Manufacturers Association also signed a Tire
Initiative Letter of Understanding in 2008.
What were the results?
Roughly 6.9 million of the border's tires were
cleaned up from 2004-2009 by Border 2012
partners. The majority of these recovered tires
were used as fuel in cement kilns. The removal of
these tires and implementation of Border 2012's
scrap tire preventive measures has resulted in
reducing the risk of mosquito-borne diseases for
populations located near the border along with
reducing the number of tire fires.
Source
US-Mexico Border Scrap Tire Project Action Plans
(September 2009); link:
http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/fora/waste-
forum/docs/10tires/BorderTireActionPlans9-
14.pdf
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 5—Land
Land Contamination
How many facilities manage hazardous waste in the border region?
Indicators:
•* Number of Facilities Managing Hazardous Waste
in the Border Region
Sub-Objective 1-A: By 2012, develop or identify capacity
building materials for source reduction, recycling and
management of waste streams, for example: electronics
waste and spent lead acid batteries.
Under the 1999 "Consultative Mechanism for the Exchange of Information on New and Existing Facilities for the
Management of Hazardous and Radioactive Waste" agreement, the U.S. and Mexico exchange data on permitted
hazardous and radioactive waste management facilities in the border region. Although the two countries have
different regulatory regimes and definitions of hazardous facilities, in general these are facilities that treat, store,
or dispose of hazardous or radioactive waste, including hazardous waste recycling. (In the U.S., for example, they
are facilities with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permits). The mechanism recognizes a shared
binational interest in knowing how many facilities exist in the region and when new facilities come online without
impeding the two countries' sovereignty regarding the siting and regulation of these facilities.
Hazardous Waste Sites (2003-2009)
%pTT»--'»>7r<'Yurria
Tijiiana^-'ft/lpxirali/fc^
io Colorado
United States
'"•«-—
\ Del Rio
Ciudadt*
Eagle
Sister Cities
Offsite Recycling
Off-Site Treatment
DURANGO
• Off-Site Disposal
I Off -Site Storage
• Off-Site Storage
Corrective Action only
On-Site Treatment
On-Site Disposal
On-Site Storage
Expired Permit
•ownsville
tamoros
for Military Installations
Why is this indicator important?
The consultative mechanism was established in recognition of public concern in the U.S. and Mexico regarding
past, current, and proposed hazardous waste storage, treatment and disposal facilities in the region. Although
many facilities handle hazardous waste safely and appropriately, those that do not have adequate management
practices can become the source of pollution and future cleanup sites.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 5—Land
What is the indicator showing?
Number of Facilities Managing Hazardous Waste in
the Border Region
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
U.S. • Mexico
Note: Data not available for both
countries in all years
In 2010, the U.S. and Mexico
reported a total of 34 facilities
permitted to handle hazardous
waste in the border region—19
in the U.S. and 15 in Mexico. For
the U.S., the number of facilities
has declined since 2004. For
Mexico, the number of facilities
increased from 2005 (the first
year data was available) to 2009
and then declined in 2010.
(Note that the chart shows all of
the facilities permitted between
2004 and 2009; not all of them
are handling hazardous waste in 2010. Data are not available for both countries for all years).
A map of all reported facilities is shown above. Many of the facilities are clustered in three areas of the border
region: San Diego/Tijuana, El-Paso/Juarez, and the Rio Grande Valley (McAllen/Brownsville/Matamoros).
What influences this indicator and what can be done in the future?
The number of facilities managing hazardous waste is a function of the overall level and type of economic activity
in an area. In the future, it is important that Mexico and the U.S. continue to share information on facilities in the
border area that manage hazardous waste.
Technical considerations
Mexico and the U.S. have different definitions for what constitutes a hazardous waste facility reportable under the
consultative mechanism and different permitting programs. This indicator does not imply anything about whether
a facility is handling waste appropriately or complying with hazardous waste rules.
Data sources
U.S. EPA, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, 2010
SEMARNAT. Direccion General de Gestion Integral de Materiales y Actividades Riesgosas. November, 2010
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 5—Land
Land Contamination
Highlight: Cleanup of Metales y Derivados and Other Hazardous Waste
Sites in the Border Region
What was the problem and how was it
addressed?
Metales y Derivados, an abandoned lead smelter
in Tijuana (Baja California), which became a toxic
contaminated site, posed public health risks
mainly due to air-borne lead. The site—owned
and operated by a U.S. parent company—was
active from 1986 until 1994 when it was shut
down by Mexico's environmental enforcement
agency, PROFEPA. However, neither the owner
nor the Mexican government had funding or
technical capacity available to clean up the site.
Despite this, in 2004, Border 2012 partners began
implementing a four-phase cleanup plan.
What were the results?
The site was cleaned up in the fall of 2008,
becoming the first site to be cleaned by Border
2012 partners. It was among the first sites to be
completed under Mexico's new hazardous waste
site cleanup law.
The site assessment and cleanup were successful,
with 2,000 tons of hazardous waste (including
drums, sacks, and upper level contaminated soil)
being removed. 42,000 tons of contaminated soil,
waste, and debris were capped.
The project was conducted in collaboration with a
binational Metales Technical Workgroup, which
included government and community
representatives and EPA as an advisory member.
EPA provided a community involvement grant to
the Environmental Health Coalition to retain their
own engineering consultant to advise them during
the capping process.
Plans are under way to revitalize the site, possibly
by building a material testing laboratory or
developing a site for green industry such as solar
panel manufacturing.
Metales y Derivados was a landmark achievement
for Mexico and Border 2012—and a model for
other site cleanups in the border region.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 5—Land
Land Contamination
Highlight: Electronic Exchange of Import and Export Notice and Consent
Information Between the United States and Mexico
What was the problem and how was it
addressed?
Although Mexico has a prohibition on shipping
hazardous waste from the U.S. to Mexico for
disposal, Mexico—like many countries—does
accept exports from other countries for recycling.
Most of these exports involve electric arc furnace
dust from small steel mills (mostly located in the
southern U.S.), which is recycled at a facility in
Mexico called Zinc Nacional to recover zinc.
Mexico exports some hazardous waste to the U.S.
for disposal and recycling—mainly "returns" of
hazardous waste to the U.S. from U.S.-owned
maquiladora industries based in northern Mexico.
Both the U.S. and Mexico have separate systems
for tracking the movement of hazardous waste
within their respective countries. Hazardous
waste crossing the border from Mexico into the
U.S. needs a U.S. EPA hazardous waste manifest
while the shipment is in the U.S.; Mexico has
similar requirements.
Currently, countries share export requests (also
known as notices) and consents to export with
one another by sending paper copies through the
mail or by fax, a process that generates hundreds
of thousands of pages of documents each year.
Led by the Commission for Environmental
Cooperation Hazardous Waste Task Force, the
U.S., Mexico, and Canada are working on a system
to electronically exchange notice and consent data
for hazardous waste exports and imports.
What are the expected results?
The electronic data exchange will convert the
exporting country's data into a uniform format
using common data standards and then send the
data to the proposed importing country where it
will be converted into the format used by that
country. This approach will reduce burden,
improve data quality, and help governments
provide more timely and coherent information on
what crosses their national borders.
Source
Commission for Environmental Cooperation,
"Tracking Hazardous Waste,"
http://www.cec.org/files/pdf/ECONOMY/
hazwaste%20tracking en.pdf
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 5—Land
Land Contamination
What is the volume of pesticides applied to land in the border
region?
Indicator:
•* Amount of Pesticides Used in U.S. Border Counties:
California and Arizona
Health Objective 3B: By 2007, reduce pesticide
exposure by training 36,000 farm workers on
pesticide risks and safe handling, including ways to
minimize exposure for families and children.
Pesticides are routinely applied to agricultural lands in the U.S.-Mexico border region. California and Arizona have
significant agricultural industries in their border areas and both states maintain reporting systems that track
pesticide use. Other U.S. and Mexico border states do not have comprehensive reporting systems and are not
described here.
Why is this indicator important?
Pesticides must be used properly according to product label requirements in order to protect the health of farm
workers and to reduce impacts to biodiversity, land and water resources. Although data on the total volume of
pesticides applied do not correlate with health or environmental impacts, they do suggest the magnitude and
trend of this potential stressor.
Amount of Pesticides Used in U.S. Border Counties: California
and Arizona
10,000,000
8,000,000
M
= 6,000,000
tt
ra
'o
4,000,000
° 2,000,000
What is the indicator
showing?
Data show that the amount of
pesticides applied in Arizona
border counties has increased by
46% from 2005 to 2009. In
contrast, the amount applied in
California border counties dropped
by over 50% from 2003 to 2008
(the latest year for which data are
available). The California State
Department of Pesticide
Regulation noted that dry winters
and springs (which tend to
diminish weed growth) and a shift from broad-based insecticides to newer products with more targeted uses
account for some of the California declines.
What influences this indicator and what can be done in the future?
The amount of pesticide use is driven by the amount of agricultural land in a particular area, pest pressures,
changes in preferred and available pesticides, economic conditions and choices about what crops to grow. Use of
pesticides can be reduced through attention to appropriate use of non-pesticide alternatives, including integrated
pest control.
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Arizona Border Counties
•California BorderCounties
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 5—Land
Technical considerations
Only California and Arizona have annual use reporting systems that reliably track pesticide use data.
Data sources
California Department of Pesticides Regulation (CDPR), California Full Use Reporting System; California Pesticide
Use by County
California Department of Pesticides Regulation, "DPR Reports Pesticide Use Declined Again in 2008" (January 7,
2010)
Arizona Department of Agriculture; Arizona Full Use Reporting System
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 5—Land
Land Contamination
Highlight: Pesticide Training and its Effectiveness on Changing Worker
Behavior
What percent of workers are getting trained
in pesticide safety and do they implement
what they are taught?
Training programs in the border region have been
developed to teach workers about pesticide safety.
Ensuring that these programs are effective
requires assessment of the percentage of workers
trained and determining whether they apply the
lessons they are taught to their work.
Pesticide exposure can cause a variety of
occupational illnesses in farm workers, including
dermatitis, eye injuries, and respiratory illnesses.
Proper training in pesticide handling and use can
educate and therefore protect workers and their
families from potential exposures and risks of
adverse health effects. The U.S. has instituted a
number of programs to train workers and
instructors in ways to limit their exposure to
pesticides. Pesticide safety training is required by
the EPA Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for
agricultural pesticides. The WPS is designed to
protect employees on farms, forests, nurseries,
and greenhouses from occupational exposures to
agricultural pesticides through education and
safety training, pesticide application notices, and
access to medical assistance if necessary.
At regional WPS "Train the Trainer" events held
in Arizona between 2005 and 2010, over 200
pesticide safety personnel were trained to provide
appropriate education and training materials to
agricultural workers and pesticide handlers in the
U.S. border region. During the most recent
workshop in April 2010, participants planned to
train approximately 7,450 agricultural workers
and 1,800 pesticide handlers each year. The
workshop was held in both English and Spanish.
In Texas, the state Department of Agriculture has
trained over 3,000 people in border counties14 on
safe pesticide handling since 2005.
In New Mexico, call-in data to the state Poison and
Drug Information Center revealed that the highest
rate of calls came statewide from the highly
agricultural counties of Dona Ana, Hidalgo, and
Luna. To better understand this, the New Mexico
Department of Health conducted a study of
pesticide training effectiveness in this area of the
state. The objective of the study was to
characterize farm workers' experiences,
knowledge, beliefs, training, and practices
regarding pesticide illness and exposure
prevention.
What were the results from the New Mexico
study?
A survey of farm workers, orally conducted by lay
health workers in the field, revealed the following:
• 59% of men and 38% of women surveyed had
received information on how to protect
themselves from pesticide exposure.
• 57% of men and 32% of women had received
pesticide exposure prevention training—of
these, 26% of men and 12% of women could
identify the training as Worker Protection
Standard certified.
• Workers that had received training were
significantly more likely to wear a long sleeve
shirt and gloves (to reduce pesticide
exposures) than workers without training.
• There is a lack of compliance by farmworker
employers within New Mexico's border
counties with training requirements as
established by the WPS.
14 This figure represents the number of people trained in Cameron, El Paso, Hidalgo, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Starr, Uvalde, Willacy, andZavala
counties.
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 5—Land
How may these findings relate to the rest of
the border region?
Considering the results of the survey in New
Mexico border counties and the authors'
conclusions, agricultural workers in the rest of the
border region who receive training and education
in accordance with the WPS are presumably more
likely to adopt behaviors that reduce their
potential exposures to pesticides than those
workers who have not received this training.
The training gap of untrained workers in the New
Mexico counties may also exist in other border
region counties. This suggests those authorities
responsible for training and employers need to
continue their efforts to reach out to this transient
labor force to provide training.
Source
New Mexico Department of Health, "Pesticide
Exposure of Farm workers in Dona Ana, Hidalgo,
and Luna Counties of New Mexico: A Report Based
on Findings from a Survey of 202 Participants,"
http://www.nmborderhealth.org/documents/
NMFarmworker pest surv2009.pdf
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 5—Land
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 6—Enhance Joint Readiness for Environmental Response
6. JOINT READINESS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE
Preparing for a possible emergency in the border region improves the probability that both countries can
adequately respond to incidents and protect the environment and the public from hazards. Annex II of the 1983 La
Paz Agreement on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area
established the Mexico-U.S. Joint Contingency Plan (JCP) to provide a binational coordination mechanism for
protecting human health and the environment and responding to significant chemical and oil contingencies or
emergencies that affect the inland border area between the U.S. and Mexico. The La Paz Agreement also
established the Joint Response Team (JRT), which has coordinating authorities for both Mexico and the U.S.
The JRT is composed of representatives from U.S. and Mexico federal, state and local agencies responsible for
emergency prevention, preparedness, and response in the border region. It issued the first JCP in 1988, which was
revised and updated in 1999 and again in 2008.
The work of the JRT is supported by a robust system for the binational notification of emergency response
incidents, drills, and threats; local Emergency Response Plans developed jointly by sister cities along the border;
certified training courses; and analyses of potential risks in the border region.
This chapter contains indicators on:
• Emergency incident notifications
• Sister city emergency response plan development
• Local Emergency Response Plan exercises and training
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 6—Enhance Joint Readiness for Environmental Response
Joint Readiness and Response
How many chemical or oil emergency incidents have been reported
in the border region?
Indicator:
•» Number of Incident Notifications in the Border Region Received by
the National Response Center (NRC)
•> Number of Incident Notifications in the Border Region Received by
COATEA/CENACOM
Sub-Objective 1A: By 2012, on an
annual basis, continue to test and
update the emergency notification
mechanism between Mexico and the
United States.
The JCP established a binational notification system that alerts agencies in the U.S. and Mexico about emergency
response incidents and drills. Any actual or threatened incidents involving releases of chemicals from non-mobile
machinery, refineries, manufacturing plants, and other fixed facilities that have the potential to affect the other
country are reported.
Notifications—both for actual incidents and for drills—are received by the National Response Center (NRC) in the
U.S. In Mexico, notifications are received by the Centro Nacional de Comunicaciones de Mexico (National
Communications Center, CENACOM), which is part of the Sistema Nacional de Proteccion Civil (Civil Protection).
Notifications in Mexico are also received by the Centro de Orientacion para la Atencion de Emergencias
Ambientales (Center for Environmental Emergencies, COATEA) of the Procuraduria Federal de Proteccion al
Ambiente (Federal Attorney General for Environmental Protection, PROFEPA). In Mexico, Civil Protection takes the
lead on emergency responses, while PROFEPA is responsible for inspection and enforcement. Both agencies work
together during emergencies. CENACOM and NRC are available to receive notifications 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week.
U.S.- Mexico Binational Notification System
ISJRT
U.S.
NATIONAL RESPONSE
CENTER INRCI
Telephone
Fax
E-mail
Represent a- Offices USEPA
lives USA
Co-Chairs
PROFEPA-
Proteccion Civil
MexlJRTl
CENACOM: National Communications Center (Civil Protection SEGOB)
COATEA: Center for Orientation for Emergencies Attention (PROFEPA)
ISJRT: Incident-Specific Joint Response Team
JRT: Joint Response Team (Co-chair Mexico - PROFEPA, Proteccion Civil,
Co-chair U.S. - EPA)
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 6—Enhance Joint Readiness for Environmental Response
Why are these indicators important?
Number of Incident Notifications in the Border
Region Received by NRC
800
600
400
200
An adequate cross-border
notification system is critical to a
robust emergency response system
so that local emergency responders
can be alerted about actual or
threatened emergencies. Upon
receipt, notifications are responded
to in an appropriate manner
through the execution of local
response plans (i.e., Sister City
Plans) and/or the U.S.-Mexico Joint
Contingency Plan. In some cases,
local emergency responders are the
first to respond to an incident, and if necessary, the JRT may be activated for significant events to provide support.
What are these indicators showing?
Incident notifications to the NRC have shown a steady increase since 2003. Even though these data may reflect an
increase in the number of emergency incidents, they may also show that the notification system is more effectively
being used for incidents that occur (that is, a higher percentage of incidents are being reported.) Data collected
for the U.S. border areas of Texas and New Mexico by EPA Region 6 show that incidents reported in those areas
between 1999 and 2009 resulted in 101 injuries, 25 deaths, and 27 evacuations or shelter in place events.
2003
2004
California
2005 2006 2007
• Arizona • New Mexico
2008
Texas
2009
Incident Notifications in the Border Region
Received by COATEA/ CENACOM
PROFEPA reports incident
notifications received by
COATEA/CENACOM for border
sister cities in Mexico for the
period 2003-2009. For this
period, the average number of
incident notifications per year
was approximately 32, with
increases in 2007 and 2008 (43
and 42 notifications,
respectively). The highest
number of incidents occurred
in Tamaulipas (123 incidents
over the 2003-2009 period),
most of them (66 total) in the
city of Reynosa.
What influences these indicators and what can be done in the future?
These indicators are influenced by both the number of incidents and the percentage of incidents that are reported.
While much of the work on emergency response is aimed at reducing the number of incidents that occur (which
would reduce this indicator), it is also important that incidents that do occur get reported (which could increase
2003
2004
• Baja California Sonora
2005
IChihuauhua
2006
I Coahuila
2007
2008
2009
I Tamaulipas
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 6—Enhance Joint Readiness for Environmental Response
the indicator). Ideally these indicators should be complemented with the number of total incidents and the
percentage of incidents that are notified.
Technical considerations
Data on the number of incident notifications to NRC, CENACOM, or COATEA provide only part of the picture of
how many emergencies happen in the border region. It is not known how many incidents go unreported nor
whether those that are notified are the most significant emergencies. Likewise, the NRC does not track how many
incidents are responded to or whether the binational notification system triggered a response.
Data sources
U.S. National Response Center data provided by EPA, OSWER (2010)
Centro de Orientacion para la Atencion de Emergencias Ambientales (COATEA) (2010)
U.S. EPA Region 6. "EPA Region 6 Border Accidental Release Information: 1999-2009"
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 6—Enhance Joint Readiness for Environmental Response
Joint Readiness and Response
Highlight: Sister Cities Plans Being Developed, Revised, and Implemented
What was the problem and how was it
addressed?
All chemical and other hazardous incidents and/or
emergencies affect the local community first
Acknowledging this, the Mexico-U.S. Joint
Contingency Plan provided the foundation for
establishing sister city Binational Emergency
Response Plans. While the JCP focuses on chemical
and oil incidents, the local Emergency Response Plans
or sister city plans are being revised and updated to
include all hazardous incidents. Fourteen sister city
pairs were originally identified by the JCP along the
U.S.-Mexico border. An additional sister city pair was
added for Rio Bravo/Weslaco. Development and
strengthening of these plans is an important objective
of Border 2012.
The sister city Binational Emergency Response Plans
provide local emergency response teams with a
mechanism for addressing issues and concerns
through cooperative measures and
recommendations, including emergency response
planning, exercises, and training.
What were the results?
As of 2009, all fifteen sister cities had Binational
Emergency Response Plans in place. In 2008, an
additional Tri-national Emergency Preparedness Plan
was developed by the Tohono O'odham Tribe,
Arizona and Mexico. Together, the plans cover
roughly 90%15 of the population of the border region.
Recently, some sister cities have updated their
emergency response plans to reflect an "all hazards
environmental response" approach and others are
working on similar updates. The all-hazards planning
approach focuses on developing capacities and
capabilities that are critical to preparedness for a full
spectrum of emergencies or disasters rather than
separate plans for each specific type of emergency,
such as a chemical and/or oil spill.
U.S. EPA in the U.S. and PROFEPA and
Protection Civil in Mexico regularly conduct
standardized emergency preparedness and
response training to build capacity to respond
to emergencies described and planned for
among sister cities. Courses are attended by
federal, local, state, regional and Tribal
emergency response personnel. Often running
for a full week, these bilingual courses cover
topics such as risk management, hazardous
materials training, decontamination
procedures, and hospital mass casualty
scenarios. Examples include:
• HAZMAT First Responder Operations: 23
Mexican Responders certified (October
2006)
• Emergency Response Guide for
Transportation: 160 Responders trained
(March 2007)
• Incident Command Systems and
Integration with Emergency Operation
Centers: 75 responders certified (March
2008)
In 2008, EPA signed an agreement with U.S
Northern Command to expand training and
capacity building in Mexico.
Sources
Border 2012. "Emergency Preparedness at the
U.S.-Mexico Border: Sister City Plans."
This is the approximate percentage of the border region population living in border region Sister Cities, according to the Pan-American Health
Organization .
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 6—Enhance Joint Readiness for Environmental Response
Joint Readiness and Response
How are Sister City Binational Emergency Response Plans tested and
improved?
Indicator:
* Binational Sister City Joint Contingency Plan
Exercises
Sub-Objective 3A: By 2012, 75% of sister city joint
contingency plans will be supplemented with
preparedness and prevention related efforts, such as
certified training, risk analysis, and capacity building.
Emergency planning exercises are designed to test and improve Sister City Binational Emergency Response Plans
and build capacity among federal, state, and local agencies and first responders in the U.S. and Mexico. These
exercises focus on the most likely emergency scenarios. Agencies in charge simulate a response in the field or
indoors. Also, phone advisory tests verify that all required parties receive adequate notification.
Why is this indicator important?
JCP exercises ensure that the JCP and the Sister City Binational Emergency Response Plans are up to date and can
be implemented during emergencies. Results are used to prepare reports, which set the stage for plan revisions.
Sister City Joint Contingency Plan
Exercises
a
Q)
•s
Q)
XI
n
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
What is the indicator showing?
Since 2001, the U.S. and Mexico have conducted
between one and four binational emergency
response exercises annually. Some of these exercises
involve multiple sister cities. Some of the exercises
also involve multiple components, including
simulated responses, full-scale responses, and tests of
notification procedures.
What influences this indicator and what
can be done in the future?
The number of exercises conducted is largely a
function of funding and the capacity of emergency response personnel to host them and participate.
Technical considerations
Only binational exercises are captured in this indicator. Other state or local exercises are not included. Exercises
that include multiple sister cities are counted as one exercise as are those that include multiple components (e.g.,
simulations, full scale, and notification).
Data sources
PROFEPA(2010)
Emergency Preparedness and Response Border wide Workgroup. "Revision y Adecuacion de los Indicadores
Binacionales" (September 2008)
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 7—Environmental Performance
7. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
THROUGH COMPLIANCE, ENFORCEMENT,
POLLUTION PREVENTION, AND PROMOTION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Environmental regulatory programs on both sides of the border establish and enforce rules to limit pollutant
discharges to air, water, and land, as well as to manage the generation, transportation, storage, and treatment of
hazardous wastes. In addition to these regulatory programs, both the U.S. and Mexico have developed programs
that encourage voluntary activities to protect human health and the environment that go beyond what is legally
required. Border states, tribes, local governments and the federal government all play key roles in establishing and
enforcing rules and promoting voluntary action.
This chapter focuses on both voluntary and regulatory programs. It includes indicators related to:
• Voluntary compliance programs
• Inspections of facilities
• Enforcement actions, penalties, and pollution reductions from enforcement activities
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 7—Environmental Performance
Environmental Performance
What are border region facilities doing to voluntarily reduce their
impact on the environment?
Indicator:
•* Number of Facilities Audited and Certified through
the Industria Limpia Program in Mexico's Border
Region
Sub-Objective 1A: Continue promoting adoption of
voluntary programs and pollution prevention by industry
and in other sectors in both countries. Federal, state, and
local initiatives may include the Industria Limpia
program and others, and projects to green the supply
chain.
Whether to promote "beyond compliance" activity or encourage adherence to environmental rules, voluntary
programs provide facilities with information, technical assistance, public recognition, or regulatory incentives to
help them reduce emissions to air, discharges to water, and transfer or disposal of waste.
Mexico's flagship voluntary program is Industria Limpia (also known as the Programa
Nacional de Auditoria Ambiental), which was established in 1992 to assist facilities in
reducing environmental impacts and complying with national laws. It is administered by
PROFEPA. Facilities seeking to enter the program invite an auditor approved by PROFEPA to
conduct a facility audit, which identifies what the facility needs to do to comply with
environmental laws. Facilities sign an agreement (Convenio de Concertacion) documenting
an action plan to correct identified problems by a specified date. If a facility complies with the agreement, it is
eligible to be certified under the program and is granted a two-year exemption from regulatory inspection. To be
certified, a facility must have an Environmental Management System (EMS).
In the U.S., voluntary environmental management programs typically focus on providing incentives for companies
for "beyond compliance activities." Some border states maintain such voluntary incentive programs, such as Clean
Texas and Arizona Performance Track. Although eligibility differs from program to program, facilities must
typically have good compliance records, an EMS, and other commitments to environmental stewardship.
Mexico maintains extensive data on the Industria Limpia program, but the U.S. federal government and states do
not maintain comprehensive data sets on voluntary environmental management efforts. The remainder of this
description focuses on Mexico.
Why is this indicator important?
Facilities' participation in voluntary programs can reduce impacts on the border environment by encouraging
compliance with environmental laws and/or providing incentives to go beyond compliance. Participation is also a
sign that facilities are making an extra effort to improve environmental performance—in many cases because they
are recognized by regulatory agencies or the public for doing so.
-------
250
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 7—Environmental Performance
What is this indicator showing?
The figure below shows the
number of audits and
certifications annually in the
border region under Mexico's
Industria Limpia program.
On average, there were 123
facilities audited and 43
facilities certified annually
over the 2003-2009 period.
Annual certifications in 2009
were 1.5 times the number of
certifications in 2003 after a
steady decline between 2004
and 2007. From 2003 to
2009 PROFEPA certified a
total of 300 border region
facilities as participants in the
Industria Limpia program.
Number of Facilities Audited and Certified through the
Industria Limpia Program in Mexico's Border Region
2003 2004 2005
2006 2007 2008
2009
I Audits Certifications
What influences this indicator and what can be done in the future?
Companies may participate in voluntary environmental programs for many reasons, including their own business
needs, public recognition, or a corporate commitment to environmental stewardship. Maintaining or increasing
access to the Industria Limpia program in Mexico, for example, can improve environmental performance in the
border region if current and future member companies better comply with environmental laws.
Technical considerations
Voluntary programs in the U.S. and Mexico are designed differently and play different roles. Both countries have
other federal or state voluntary programs—often with a specific sectoral or media focus—that are not represented
in the data presented here.
Data sources
PROFEPA (2009 and 2010) for data on Industria Limpia audits and certifications
PROFEPA. "Auditoria Ambiental"
Blackman Alan, et al. "Voluntary Environmental Management in Developing Countries." RFF Discussion Paper
(July 2007)
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 7—Environmental Performance
Environmental Performance
How many regulated facilities are in the border region?
Indicator:
•^ Total Number of Facilities Regulated Under
Federal Programs: U.S.-Mexico Border Region
Objective 2: By 2009, determine the pollution sources in the
border area that present risks to human health and the
environment that are subject to regulation and set
priorities for actions to lower the risk.
Many facilities in the U.S.-Mexico border region are regulated under U.S. and Mexican federal regulatory programs
covering air pollution, water pollution, and waste. In the U.S., these facilities are regulated through permits issued
under various statutes and statutory programs: the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act for possible impacts to air and
water; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for the generation, storage, treatment, or disposal of
hazardous waste; and/or the Toxic Release Inventory for the reporting of pollutant releases.
In Mexico, inspection and monitoring of industrial and service establishments under federal jurisdiction is
conducted through an Annual Environmental Program of Inspection. As a result of inspections, facilities are
classified as in compliance, in partial compliance, or out of compliance. This may result in a determination of
whether violations are non-serious or serious, which may lead to temporary, partial, or total closure of facilities.
Why is this indicator important?
The number of federally regulated facilities in the region is an indicator of the size of industrial, manufacturing, and
other sectors whose operations put pressure on environmental resources. It is also an indicator of the institutional
demands on governments to issue permits, inspect operations, and enforce environmental rules.
What is the indicator
showing?
There are over 11,500 regulated
facilities in the U.S.-Mexico border
region—approximately 6,200 in
Mexico and approximately 5,400 in
the U.S. The largest share of
facilities is in the San Diego-Tijuana
area of California and Baja
California.
What influences this
indicator and what can be
done in the future?
The number of regulated facilities is
a function of the scope of federal
regulatory programs and the
number of facilities that fall under
Total Number of Facilities Regulated Under Federal
Programs: U.S.-Mexico Border Region
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Total Mexico Facilities
Total U.S. Facilities
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 7—Environmental Performance
these programs. Increases in industrial economic development will tend to increase the number of regulated
facilities, while less economic development or economic shifts toward non-industrial sectors (e.g., service
industries) will tend to reduce (or at least slow the growth of) such facilities. In the future, it is important for
regulatory agencies in the border region to effectively identify facilities that should be regulated and ensure
compliance through permitting, inspections, and other key elements of regulatory programs.
Technical considerations
The number of regulated facilities should not be taken as a proxy for the level of pollution in a region. All else
equal, it is much better for a potentially polluting facility to be regulated than unregulated. Also, many other
sources of pollution exist that are not included in this indicator, such as mobile transportation sources. At the same
time, not all regulated facilities are counted here. Data for Mexico are only for federally-regulated facilities. U.S.
data are for facilities regulated under federal programs, some of which are delegated to states, or local
governments, but not for facilities that are only regulated under state or local programs.
Data sources
PROFEPA, 2010
EPA, ECHO online database
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 7—Environmental Performance
Environmental Performance
How many inspections of regulated facilities are conducted in the
border region?
Indicator:
•* Number of State and Federal Inspections for Federal Programs in
the U.S. Border Region
•^ Number of Federal Inspections in the Mexico Border Region
Objective 3: By 2012 increase compliance
in the priority areas determined in
Objective 2 by applying regulatory
and/or voluntary tools
In both the U.S. and Mexico, inspections of regulated facilities are key tools for enforcing environmental laws. In
the U.S., inspections are conducted under the rules governing the major federal regulatory programs. In many
cases, inspections are carried out by state agencies to which federal programs have been delegated. In Mexico,
inspection and monitoring for industrial and service establishments under federal jurisdiction are conducted
through an Annual Environmental Program of Inspection and carried out by PROFEPA.
Why are these indicators important?
The number of inspections in the border region is an indication of the level of government activity to ensure
compliance with federal environmental laws.
What are these indicators showing?
1000
800 -
In the U.S. border region,
inspections under federal
programs declined by 50%
between 2004 and 2009, with a
significant amount of the decline
accounted for by reductions in
inspections in the California
border region (although
inspections in all states declined
over the period).
In Mexico, the number of federal
inspections each year ranged
from 713 to 793 between 2003
and 2009, with an exception in
2008, which saw a high of 1,024 inspections.
Number of State and Federal Inspections for Federal
Programs in the U.S. Border Region
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
I Arizona
I California New Mexico BTexas
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 7—Environmental Performance
Number of Federal Inspections in the Mexico
Border Region
1200
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
IBaja California
INuevoLeon
• Chihuahua
Sonora
2008
ICoahuila
ITamaulipas
2009
What influences these indicators and what can be done in the future?
Assuming a stable base of regulated facilities, the number of inspections conducted annually is influenced by both
agency priorities for inspection and by the resources available to conduct inspections. Declining agency budgets
can mean less money to hire and pay inspectors and fewer inspections overall, which may be responsible for a
decline in inspections in the U.S. in 2009 as a result of the economic downturn.
Technical considerations
In Mexico, facilities are either federally or state regulated—not both. Data from PROFEPA reported here are for
federal inspections only. For the U.S., data are for "federally reportable" inspections which may be undertaken by
state or federal inspectors. This may not include all state inspections of state-regulated facilities.
Data sources
PROFEPA, 2010
EPA, OECA (2010) data provided based on EPA National Program data systems
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 7—Environmental Performance
U.S.-Mexico Border Region
Highlight: State Inspections and Enforcement Actions for Federally Regulated
Facilities in Texas
Many U.S. states implement federal environmental regulatory programs, including conducting inspections
and taking enforcement actions. Some of these state inspections are not recorded in federal databases, and
they do not appear as part of the federal inspection statistics reported for the indicator "Number of State
and Federal Inspections for Federal Programs in the U.S. Border Region." Similarly, some state enforcement
actions are not reported to federal systems and are not counted in the indicator "Number of Federal
Enforcement Actions in the U.S. Border Region."
State Inspections and Enforcement Actions for
Federally Regulated Facilities in Texas
This highlight illustrates the
magnitude of state inspections and
enforcement actions, which may not
be reported in the other compliance
indicators in this report. It shows the
number of these activities conducted
by Texas between 2002 and 2009 for
the 995 federally-regulated facilities
in Texas (as shown for the indicator
"Total Number of Facilities Regulated
Under Federal Programs: U.S.-
Mexico Border Region"). During this
period, Texas conducted between 92
inspections (in 2002) and 663
inspections (in 2005) annually of
these facilities under federally
delegated programs. The state undertook between 27 enforcement actions (in 2002) and 59 enforcement
actions (in 2008) as well.
While the number of state enforcement activities in Texas has held steady in recent years, the number of
state inspections has declined since the high in 2005.
Source
TCEQ databases, Consolidated Compliance and Enforcement Database (data downloaded and validated
10/27/2010-11/2/2010)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
•Inspections
Enforcement Actions
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 7—Environmental Performance
Environmental Performance
What happens when a facility violates environmental law in the
United States?
Indicator:
•» Number of Federal Enforcement Actions in the U.S. Border Region
Penalties in Number and Dollar Value in the U.S. Border Region
Pollution Reduction from Federal Enforcement Actions in the U.S. Border
Region
Objective 3: By 2012 increase
compliance in the priority
areas determined in Objective
2 by applying regulatory
and/or voluntary tools
Number of Federal Enforcement Actions in the
U.S. Border Region
When a facility violates environmental law in the U.S., the regulating agency may impose actions to enforce
compliance and may also impose monetary penalties and/or criminal sanctions. Formal enforcement actions in the
U.S. may involve administrative (non-judicial) actions, or judicial actions that involve civil or criminal penalties. The
amount of pollution reductions from
enforcement actions depends upon the type
of violation. Pollution reductions reported
here include only those involving federal
settlements of enforcement cases.
Why are these indicators
important?
Enforcement actions, monetary penalties,
and/or criminal sanctions deter violations of
environmental laws and create an incentive
for staying in compliance with
environmental statutes and regulations.
Penalties are designed to recover the
economic benefit of noncompliance as well
as reflect the seriousness of the violation.
What are these indicators
showing?
Between 2004 and 2009, the number of
enforcement actions in the U.S. border
region declined by approximately 50%. The
largest decline in enforcement activities
came in Texas (although enforcement
activity in all states declined over the
period).
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
I California
Penalties in Number and Dollar Value in the U.S.
Border Region
a
•E
"
*;
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
o
D
I Number of Penalties
Dollar Value of Penalties
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 7—Environmental Performance
The number and dollar amount of
penalties also generally declined
from 2004 to 2009, although
there were some exceptions (e.g.,
2006 was a high year for the
number of penalties; and the
dollar value of penalties peaked in
2007).
Pollution Reduction from Federal Enforcement
Actions in the U.S. Border Region
3
o
Q.
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
• Arizona
I California
New Mexico
I Texas
There is no clear pattern in the
amount of annual pollution
reductions achieved from
enforcement actions each year.
2005 and 2006 were very high
years for the volume of pollution
reduced while 2008 and 2009 were very low.
What influences these indicators and what can be done in the future?
Like data on inspections, data on enforcement actions, penalties and enforcement-related pollution reductions are
a function of agency regulatory priorities and program capacity. Specific national, regional, or sector-based
enforcement initiatives may result in higher or lower inspection, penalty, or pollution reduction figures on a yearly
basis. One or more high-profile settlements in a particular state in a given year may significantly skew overall year-
to-year results.
Technical considerations
Enforcement actions cannot be imposed unless a violation has occurred and has been detected by the regulatory
agency. There is, however, not always a clear connection between a facility polluting the environment and
compliance with the law because facilities may legally pollute under the conditions of a permit, and violations may
not always result in releases of pollutants. When examining trends over time and differences among states, it is
important to consider factors such as federal, state, and local environmental priorities; the number and type of
facilities operating in each state; and other environmental management activities not reflected in this indicator,
such as compliance assistance and informal enforcement actions (e.g. notices of violations). As noted above,
individual enforcement actions that yield large pollution reductions or penalties may significantly contribute to
enforcement results within that year, leading to a large impact on overall results.
U.S. data include both informal and formal enforcement actions. These are defined as follows:16
• Informal response. Agencies can simply notify the source about its violation and request that it come into
compliance, without taking any further formal legal action. They may request that the source operator
certify in writing that it has come into compliance.
• Formal administrative enforcement. Government agencies can also issue an administrative order to
compel compliance, and in many cases can administratively impose a monetary penalty for past
infractions.
' http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/basics/enforcement.html
-------
State of the Border Region 2010: Chapter 7—Environmental Performance
• Formal civil/judicial enforcement. EPA, through the U.S. Department of Justice, can initiate a civil lawsuit
in the federal courts against a violator. Such a lawsuit may seek a court order compelling compliance and
imposing a monetary penalty. Civil lawsuits are more cumbersome than formal administrative
enforcement proceedings, but carry greater weight because the courts can enforce their own orders more
effectively than can EPA. Similar avenues are available to most of the state agencies.
The approach EPA uses to calculate pollution reductions has changed over time. Recently, EPA has included more
types of facilities in the calculation, which is likely to increase the total volume of pollution reductions.
Data source
EPA, OECA (2010) data provided based on EPA National Program data systems
-------
State of the Border Region 2010
Border 2012: U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program
Indicators Report
------- |