-------
About the Board
-------
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB or the Board) was created in 1992 by the Enterprise for the Americas
Initiative Act, Public Law 102-532. The purpose of the Board is to "advise the President and the Congress on the need
for implementation of environmental and infrastructure projects (including projects that affect agriculture, rural develop
ment, and human nutrition) within the states of the United States contiguous to Mexico to improve the quality of life of
persons residing on the United States side of the border."
The Board is charged with submitting an annual report to the U.S. President and Congress. Management responsibilities
for the Board were delegated to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) by
Executive Order 12916 on May 13, 1994.
GNEB does not carry out border region activities of its own, nor does it have a budget to fund border projects. Rather,
its unique role is to serve as a nonpartisan advisor to the President and the Congress and recommend how the federal
government can most effectively work with its many partners to improve conditions along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Board operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and membership on the Board is
extremely diverse. By statute, GNEB comprises representatives from:
(1) the U.S. government, including a representative from the Department of Agriculture and representatives from other
appropriate agencies;
(2) the governments of the states of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas; and
(3) private organizations, including community development, academic, health, environmental, and other nongovern
mental entities with experience on environmental and infrastructure problems along the Southwest border.
The Board also includes representatives from tribal governments with lands in the border region.
The recommendations in this report do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the federal departments and agen
cies that are represented on the Board, nor does the mention of trade names, commercial products, or private companies
constitute endorsement. The states of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have recused themselves from this report.
To request a hardcopy of this report, contact the National Service Center for Environmental Publications at
1-800-490-9198 or via email at nscep@lmsolas.com and request publication number EPA 202-R-16-001
(English version), https://www.epa.gov/faca/gneb-17th-report-climate-change-and-resilient-communities-along-us-
mexico-border-role-federal
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Transmittal Letter to the President From the Good Neighbor Environmental Board vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii
INTRODUCTION x
CHAPTER 1. The Impacts of Climate Change Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 1
1.1 How is climate expected to change in the region? 1
1.2 Reduced water supply and intensifying drought 4
1.3 Demographic change and high social vulnerability ..,...,...6
1.4 Significant border economy 6
1.5 Human health 7
1.6 Ecosystem and species health 7
1.7 Ecosystem services and carbon sequestration 9
1.8 Wildfire frequency 10
1.9 Coastal risk and vulnerability 10
CHAPTER 2. Vulnerable Populations and Environmental justice and Climate Change.. 11
2.1 Disadvantaged communities 11
2.2 Environmental justice 13
2,2.1 Ports of entry and environmental justice 13
2.3 Native communities and climate change: Protecting tribal resources as part of national climate policy 14
2.3.1 Alternative energy development for tribes 15
2.4 Recommendations [[[15
CHAPTER 3. Existing Federal Programs and Resources 17
3.1 Agriculture 17
3.2 North American Development Bank/Border Environment Cooperation Commission 18
3.3 Commerce 20
3.4 Energy 21
3.5 Environmental Protection Agency 22
3.6 Health and Human Services 24
3.7 Interior 24
3.8 The U.S. Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development, and International
Boundary and Water Commission,,..,,..,,..,,..,,..,,..,,..,,..,,. 25
3.8.1 U.S. Department of State 25
3.8.2 U.S. Agency for International Development 25
3.8.3 International Boundary and Water Commission 25
3.9 Recommendations 26
CHAPTER 4. Water-Related Issues and Climate Change 29
4.1 Effect of urban development on water flows and flood risk 29
4.2 Green infrastructure 30
4.3 Nogales water quantity and quality issues 33
4.3.1 Climate change impacts on limited water supply 33
4.3.2 Climate change impacts on ecosystem services 34
4.4 Wetlands 35
4.5 The water-energy nexus 36
4.5.1 Water-stressed areas along the border 36
4.5.2 Solar photovoltaic power case study 36
4.6 Recommendations 37
-------
CHAPTER 5. Transit, Trade and Air Pollution: Climate Risks and Promoting Environmental Resiliency .......41
5.1 Air pollution and the border region 41
5.2 Southern border entry volume and wait times 41
5.3 Commercial vehicles at southern border crossings 42
5.4 Private vehicles at southern border crossings 43
5.5 Pedestrian traffic at southern border crossings 43
5.6 Current efforts to improve transportation planning and reduce pollution 44
5.7 Transportation and air quality 46
5.8 Recommendations 47
CHAPTER 6. Energy, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change 49
6.1 Energy, human health and climate change 49
6.2 Energy resources and climate change 49
6.3 Energy and climate resilience 50
6.4 Energy efficiency and public education initiatives 53
6.5 Greenhouse gas reduction 53
6.6 Energy and resilient border communities 54
6.7 Efficient new buildings 54
6.8 Energy storage solutions............. .......56
6.9 Waste-to-energy technologies 56
6.10 Recommendations 57
CHAPTER 7. Climate Change Impacts on Public Health in the Border Region 59
7.1 Border region infectious disease outbreaks 59
7.2 Emerging infectious diseases 61
7.3 Heat waves, public health and climate change 62
7.4 Respiratory problems...... ................63
7.5 Food and waterborne disease 63
7.6 Climate change and mental health 63
7.7 Climate change impact on chronic diseases 63
7.8 Increased frequency and severity of storms 64
7.9 Food security, soil and food waste 64
7.10 Recommendations 65
CHAPTER 8. Recommendations 67
8.1 Summary of recommendations 67
8.2 Complete report recommendations by chapter 68
Appendices 73
Glossary of Acronyms 75
Glossary of Terms 75
2016 Members of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board 77
Acknowledgments 80
Notes and References 82
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Scope of Climate-Related Responses for Border Communities of Federal and Binational Agencies 18
Table 2. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit 20
Table 3. Key U.S. Agency for International Development Achievements in 2016 25
Table 4. Developed Land in the Three Major Urban Areas Along the Texas-Mexico Border (2006-2015) 30
Table 5. Water Withdrawal for Different Uses in the United States and Mexico 36
Table 6. 2015 Commercial Truck Entry at Ports of Entry 43
Table 7. 2015 Personal Vehicle Entry at Ports of Entry 43
Table 8. Demographic, Health, and Behavioral Characteristics of Laboratory-Confirmed Dengue Cases in
Yuma County, Arizona, and San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora (October-December 2014) 60
Table 9. Zika Infection in U.S. Border Counties (September 9, 2016) 61
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Southwest average yearly temperatures 1
Figure 2. Comparison of average differences in temperature and dryness in the United States between the
20th and 21st centuries 2
Figure 3. Projected temperature increases in the Southwest 2
Figure 4, Projected change in the number of hot nights 2
Figure 5. Southwest annual precipitation 3
Figure 6. Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) total water storage trends from 2002 to 2015 4
Figure 7. Altered hydrograph that indicates runoff volume and peaks in response to urbanization 30
Figure 8. Developed areas in (a) El Paso and (b) Laredo, Texas, in 2006 (gray) and 2015 (red) 31
Figure 9. Santa Cruz River at the Chavez Siding Road Crossing before (a) and after (b) the Nogales
International Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade and Los Alisos diversions (June 2004 and
May 2014, respectively) 34
Figure 10. Median life cycle water withdrawal by energy source 37
Figure 11. Current nonattainment areas under the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 42
Figure 12. San Diego's projected greenhouse gas emission levels and reduction targets 55
Figure 13. Weekly maps show where conditions are prime for the Zika-spreading mosquito to breed,
bite and potentially infect humans with the Zika virus 60
Figure 14. Areas endemic for Coccidioides 61
Figure 15. States reporting chikungunya virus disease cases in the United States in 2015 62
Figure 16. The total number of days per year with maximum temperature above 95°F (35°C) in the
last decade of the 21 st century 62
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
V
-------
i
—
-C ' • .
Transmittal Letter to
the President From
the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board
¦ ^
-------
President Barack Obama
Vice President Joseph Biden
Speaker Paul Ryan
On behalf of your Good Neighbor Environmental Board, I am submitting to you our 17th
Report, Climate Change and Resilient Communities Along the U.S.-Mexico Border: The Role of
the Federal Agencies. In our report, the Board summarizes the effects that climate change is
having in the U.S.-Mexico border region, identifies possible future impacts based on current
trends, and makes a series of recommendations that the federal government can take in
concert with state, local and tribal governments and partners in the private sector to mitigate
and adapt to climate change along our southern border.
Our report deals with a number of the issues in the border region that we have examined
in the past—including air quality, water quality and availability, human health, energy, and
vulnerable populations—but in this case focuses on the cumulative impacts climate change
will bring in all of these areas. Our recommendations emphasize the essential role that the
federal government plays in addressing the effects of a changing climate along our shared
border with Mexico. The many national, subnational and international programs to deal
with the effects of climate change along the border will not succeed without strong and
unwavering support from the federal departments and agencies whose expertise and resources
are crucial.
One area we have particularly tried to highlight is the disproportionate effects of climate
change that will be borne by the poor, the disadvantaged and tribal nations in the border
region that already are underserved and challenged economically. Many of these communities
will be increasingly challenged to cope with rising temperatures, decreased supplies of potable
water, an increased prevalence of infectious diseases, and extreme weather events. In many
cases, these communities and the people in them lack the financial means to partially shield
themselves from these impacts of climate change and will suffer the consequences in ways the
more affluent will not.
Our past reports have noted the unique characteristics of the U.S.-Mexico border region.
As a whole, it is one of the hottest, driest and poorest areas of the country, yet it is growing
rapidly and is vital to the U.S. economy. Mexico is the United States' third largest trading
partner, and the stream of commerce crossing our shared border is essential to the economic
prosperity of both countries. The Boards hope is that its report and recommendations have
identified actions that the U.S. federal government can take to help protect and preserve the
communities, environment and economy of the border region.
Sincerely,
Paul Ganster, Ph.D.
Chair
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
-------
Executive
Summary
-------
Climate change models project increasing economic, social,
human health and environmental impacts on the diverse
and vulnerable communities along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Overall, the border region is one of the poorest in the
United States, with many disadvantaged Hispanic and tribal
communities in urban and rural areas especially vulnerable
to climate change impacts. An added complexity for U.S.
border communities is that Mexican cities sharing the same
bioregion contain millions of inhabitants and have different
governance systems. Although the effects of climate change
flow both ways across the international boundary, mitigation
and adaptive measures do not.
This report explores how U.S. border communities can
partner with existing federal programs to build sustainable
communities in the face of climate change impacts. At the
same time, it addresses the important issue of coordination
across the international border for collaborative actions
with Mexico. Finally, the report provides recommendations
for federal agencies to work more effectively with border
communities to increase local resilience in the face of climate
change.
The U.S.-Mexico border area generally is characterized
by a hot, dry climate, and evidence indicates that periods
of decades-long droughts have occurred throughout the
region. Climate change is projected to, among other effects,
increase temperatures, decrease precipitation, produce more
extreme weather events, decrease snowpack and runoff,
reduce renewable surface and ground water resources, and
bring about more frequent and intense wildfires and intense
storm surges in the region. Traditional infrastructure systems
are ill-equipped to allow border communities to mitigate
these extremes, which will affect many sectors, including
water, energy, trade, transportation and public health. The
often-disadvantaged populations of border communities,
including tribal populations, are particularly vulnerable
to the health effects of climate change. Animal and plant
species in the border region also are at risk.
Climate change on the U.S.-Mexico border region is
projected to contribute to, and make it more difficult to
manage, rising levels of infectious and chronic disease;
harmful, cumulative effects on humans and the environment
caused by fire, flood, heat, pollution and health disparities;
and complexity and risk posed by a globalized economy with
increasing food-energy-water security problems.
As demonstrated by examples throughout this report, U.S.
federal agencies are committed to addressing climate change.
Federal and state agencies are investing significant financial
and human resources in the border region to reduce pollu-
tion and environmental degradation; these agencies also are
investing in programs to mitigate climate change impacts
and increase the resiliency of local communities. Challenges,
however, exist in ensuring that these programs and invest-
ments are accessible to border communities, whether they
are urban or rural, small or large* The Board provides a series
of recommendations to ad dress these challenges.
The recommendations described in this report fall within
three themes. The first theme is outreach. Many federal
programs can assist all types of border communities in
addressing climate change impacts. Many smaller and poorer
communities, however, lack the administrative support
and technical expertise to effectively access these programs.
Federal agencies should increase their outreach and organize
information regarding federal programs for border commu-
nities. The binational North American Development Bank
and Border Environment Cooperation Commission have a
presence along the border, have worked in most border com-
munities, and have experience in Mexican communities as
well; this binational agency can play an important outreach
role with border communities regarding climate change.
Another important theme of the report and recommen-
dations is that many groups in the border region are
disadvantaged and characterized by low income. Many of
these groups are primarily Hispanic and live in colonias with
substandard infrastructure and public services. Others are
tribal peoples in rural areas that depend on natural resources
affected by climate change. All of these groups are dispro-
portionately affected by climate change and need special
attention by federal programs.
A third important theme is that federal agencies addressing
climate impacts in the border region should make a concert-
ed effort to coordinate with counterpart agencies in Mexico.
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board firmly believes
that climate change-related issues that have origins and
effects on both sides of the international boundary require
solutions that also span the border.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
ix
-------
Introduction
Climate change and variability already affect the economic,
social, human health and environmental conditions of
diverse and vulnerable communities along the U.S.-Mexico
border. The border region is one of the poorest in the
United States, with disadvantaged communities in urban
and rural areas that are vulnerable to the effects of climate
change. The border location creates additional challenges
for U.S. border communities because Mexican cities with
millions of inhabitants share the same bioregion but have
different governance systems. Although the effects of
climate change flow both ways across the international
boundary, mitigation and adaptive measures do not.
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB or
Board) has developed this report to explore how U.S.
border communities can partner with existing federal
programs and their state and local partners to build
sustainable and resilient communities in the face of climate
change impacts. It also addresses collaboration across the
international border with Mexico.
Chapter 1 describes the primary consequences of a
changing climate for communities along the U.S.-Mexico
border, based on the best science available. Changes are
occurring and pose a growing concern in the border
region. Although the geographical focus of this report is
on the zone between the border and 100 kilometers (62.1
miles) north of the international boundary, the discussion
is relevant to wider regions—such as major river basins,
airsheds or adjacent oceans—including binational effects.
Chapter 2 highlights groups in the border region that
are especially vulnerable to the potential negative effects
of climate change in their region. Poor rural and urban
groups and tribal peoples are characterized by low income,
substandard housing and lack of public services while
being disproportionately affected by many effects of a
changing climate.
Chapter 3 discusses government programs that address
climate change and consequences for border communities
and how these programs can build resiliency and mitigate
climate change impacts for the border populations. This
chapter includes information that should be of use to
border stakeholders, including binational, state and local
government partners.
Chapters 4 to 7 address specific climate change impacts
related to water, air, energy and resiliency and include
examples of actions and programs that respond to these
effects to improve environmental resilience in the border
region. Chapter 4 examines how climate change affects
water resources, which is critical to almost all facets of
border life. Chapter 5 highlights climate risks related to
trade, transportation and air pollution in the border zone,
as well as promotion of resilience and risk mitigation
in border communities. Chapter 6 discusses the nexus
between energy and greenhouse gases (GHGs) relative
to the built environment. Chapter 7 details current and
possible future climate change impacts on public health.
Chapter 8 presents a summary of recommendations for
federal actions to aid border communities in response to
these climate change challenges.
x
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter
The Impacts of Climate Change Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
The U.S.-Mexico border region overall is characterized by
a hot, dry climate, although the Lower Rio Grande region
has greater precipitation and humidity. The paleoclimate
record, which goes back thousands of years before regular
recorded measurements, indicates past periods of extended
drought lasting several decades. Changes in global climate
are projected to result in a variety of environmental, social
and economic vulnerability issues for the region, including
temperature increases in the atmosphere, on land and
in the ocean; decreased total precipitation and increased
evapotranspiration; more extreme weather events; decreased
snowpack and runoff; more frequent insect outbreaks; more
frequent and intense wildfires; and sea-level rise and more
intense storm surges, resulting in worse flooding, saltwater
intrusion and erosion in coastal areas.
1.1 How is climate expected to change
in the region?
Global annual average temperature, as measured over both
land and ocean surfaces, warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85°C)
from 1880 to 2012.1 Figure 1 illustrates the general increase
in average temperatures in the Southwest United States,
whereas Figure 2 compares average changes in temperature
and dryness between the 20th and 21st centuries throughout
the United States. U.S. average air temperature has increased
by 1.3°F to 1.9°F (0.7°C to 1.1 °C) since recordkeeping began
in 1895, and most of this increase has occurred since about
1970. Continued warming of the planet is projected to occur
as a result of GHG emissions, although natural variability still
will play a role.2 Recent research has indicated that another
SpBW Aug. Temperature
55
54
1:2
53
LI??
54
50
Figure 1. Southwest average yearly temperatures.
Sou rce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate at a
Glance, ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/107/0/tavg/ytd/12/1895-2016?base_
prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000. Temperatures reflect data
from the Southwest region as defined by NOAA, which includes the states of
Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah.
0.5°F (0.28°C) increase is projected during the next few
decades even if all GHG emissions are stopped.3 Recorded
past and projected future temperature increases also have
affected and are projected to affect the climate of the border
region, with the greatest increases inland from the coasts.
The projected magnitude of temperature increase is expected
to be greatest during the summer, with a greater number of
extreme heat days above 100°F (38°C) and more frequent
high nighttime temperatures. The average annual tempera-
ture is projected to increase 2°F to 7°F (1.1°C to 3.9°C) by
the middle of the 21st century.4 Recen tly, the U.S. Desert
Southwest experienced record-breaking heat, including record
daily high temperatures set on June 19, 2016, in Phoenix
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
1
-------
The Impacts of Climate Change Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Average Difference in Temperature (°F)
Higher Emissions (A2)
2021-2050 2041-2070
Lower Emissions (B1)
2070-2099
Temparatures (°F)
I I I
1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5
Figure 2. Comparison of average differences in temper-
ature and dryness in the United States between the
20th and 21st centuries.
Top: Difference in Temperature from 20th Century Average to 21st Century
Average. Bottom: Dryness 2009-2014 Compared to 1895-2014,
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Ciimate
Resilience Toolkit, toolkit.ciimate.gov.
(118°F/48°C), Tucson (115QF/46°C), Yuma (120°F/29°C)
and Flagstaff, Arizona (93°F/34°C).?
The most recent decade (2001—2010) was the warmest on
record.6 In 2013, 46 record-high temperatures were matched
or exceeded in the Southwest. If global emissions continue
to grow, projections suggest that the Southwest regional
average annual temperature will increase by 2.5°F to 5.5°F
(1.4°C to 3.1°C) between 2041 and 2070 and by 5.5°F to
9.5°F (3.1°C to 5.3°C) between 2070 and 2099. Reducing
emissions dramatically would lower these projected increases
to only 2.5°F to 4.5°F (1.4°C to 2.5°C) between the years
2041 and 2070, and 3.5 F°to 5.5°F (1.9°C to 3. TO
between the years of 2070 and 2099.7 Figure 3 depicts the
projected temperature increases in the Southwest region
based on different emission levels.
Toward the end of the century (2077—2099), the number of
hot nights also is projected to increase significantly com-
pared to the timeframe between 1971 and 2000 (Figure 4).
Such changes will affect the Texas and New Mexico border
regions most intensely.
Precipitation is projected to be more variable with decreases
on the Pacific coast and parts of the Arizona-Sonora border.
Figure 5 highlights the changes in average precipitation
Figure 3. Projected temperature increases in the
Southwest,
Source: Adapted from Melillo et al. 2014."
in the Southwest United States during the last century.
Models project that the Lower Rio Grande Basin area of the
border (downstream of Fort Quitman in Hudspeth County,
Texas) will experience decreased precipitation and increased
evapotranspiration, contributing to an estimated 700,000
acre-feet per year (8.6 million cubic meters per year) surface
water shortfall by 2060, exacerbated by increased population
growth in the region..10 Although limited water resources
and periodic droughts have been major issues historically
in the region, with future increasing temperatures and
changes in precipitation projected to exacerbate drought
consequences, it also should be noted that the reluctance to
deliver water according to treaty also has worsened mat-
ters.11-12 Paleoclimate records for the area show that severe:
Number of Nights
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Figure 4. Projected change in the number of hot nights.
Source: Adapted from Melillo et ai. 2014A'
2
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
The Impacts of Climate Change Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Avg. Precipitation
1901-2000
AVg. il4.ro 5
40C6 3
1900 1OT0 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2Q0O 2$150
Figure 5. Southwest annual precipitation.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate at a
Glance, ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/107/0/pcp/ytd/12/1895-2016?base_
prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901 &lastbaseyear=2000. Temperatures reflect data
from the Southwest region as defined by NOAA, which includes the states of
Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah.
"mega-droughts" have lasted for 50-year periods.13 The
decade of 2001 to 2010 was the warmest in the 110-year
instrumental record for the Southwest, with temperatures
almost 2°F (1.1°C) higher than historic averages, fewer cold
air outbreaks, and more heat waves.14
Droughts and heat waves along the U.S.-Mexico border
region are projected to become more intense and cold waves
less intense, affecting precipitation, runoff and recharge,
food and energy security, and ecosystem and species health.
For example, dry conditions coupled with overgrazing can
lead to increased erosion, the spread of invasive plants, and
reduced productivity of crops such as fruit trees.6 Some cacti
in the Desert Southwest have experienced no or reduced
reproduction with overall population declines beginning
in the 1990s. It is not clear whether climate change is the
driving factor in these declines, but increased temperatures
and reduced precipitation certainly could affect species such
as the endangered acuna cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus
var. acunensis).n
In addition to generally decreased precipitation, the border
region may experience an increasing number of extreme
drought and flood events because of climate change.
Traditional stormwater management systems (commonly
known as gray infrastructure) are ill-equipped to mitigate
either of these extremes. Gray infrastructure redirects rainfall
into channels and pipes, making it unavailable for storage,
irrigation, natural cleansing or infiltration into the ground
water supply.
Extreme rain events come with their own challenges. The
Assessment of Climate Change on the Southwest United States
(2013) reports that highly structured and in-filled cities have
limited capacity to adapt to increasing stormwater flows and
maybe vulnerable to extreme flooding.16 Enhanced, intensi-
fied water flows will increase suspended sediments and other
pollutants in the runoff, degrading water quality. Altered
flow regimes, polluted urban stormwater and degraded
water quality have significant implications for downstream
ecosystems.
The frequency of 2-day heavy rainfall spells has nearly
doubled in Texas during the past century.17 Rainfalls of 4 to
6 inches (10 to 15 centimeters) are becoming more common
in the Rio Grande Valley. The increasingly urbanized border
cities experience special challenges as a result of the intensity
of storm events. As more and more areas of the Rio Grande
Valley watershed become paved, and thus impervious,
rainfall runoff discharges peak faster and higher, resulting
in increased damage to homes and businesses. This also can
lead to decreased dry weather flows in streams because less
ground water is being recharged.ls In terms of development
Colorado River Water Users:
• 40 mttlton people
• 4.5 million acres irrigated land
• 22 National Parks. Wildlife Refuges,
or Recreation Areas
• Uncounted wildlife
• Hydropower (4200 megawatt capacity)
The Rio Grande provides water for more than 5 million people in
Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Mexico. In New Mexico, it supplies
a substantial portion of water for urban needs and irrigation, among
other uses. Source: climate.gov/news-features/features/drought-rio-grande.
Colorado River Basin. Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, toolkit.climate.gov.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
3
-------
The Impacts of Climate Change Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
and stormwater management, Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps usually are used
to understand flood hazards for an area. This process needs
to be readdressed because these maps often are produced
from decades-old stream flow data. As the U.S. Climate
Resilience Toolkit has noted: "Floodplain managers need
new peak streamflow data to update flood frequency analyses
and flood maps in areas with recent urbanization."13
1.2 Reduced water supply and
intensifying drought
Declines in total basin runoff have been observed in
the Colorado River and Rio Grande River watersheds.20
Snowpack and stream flows are projected to diminish across
the Southwest, decreasing surface water supply available to
cities, agriculture and ecosystems.6 Climate change, coupled
with the area's natural variability (i.e., the extensive and
severe droughts now documented in the historical record),
could amplify these past extreme conditions.'0 Droughts
already affect estuarine ecosystems along the U.S.-Mexico
border, such as the Tijuana River Estuary in California and
the Rio Grande and Lower Laguna M adre of South Texas.
Estuarine ecosystems depend on adequate water flow for
normal habitat function and biological productivity in and
during extended droughts. Conflict among water users could
reduce water allocated to ecosystems arid increase existing
severe drought stresses. Drought and reduced water supply
in the two transboundary basins of the Colorado River
and Rio Grande River can affect compliance by the United
States and Mexico with mutual water delivery obligations
established by treaty. Climate projections for 2050 indicate
that 32 percent of counties in the United States could be at
high or extreme risk of water shortages (compared to 10% of
counties today), with the greatest concentration of extreme
conditions occurring along the U.S.-Mexico border.21
Reduced stream flows and snowpack will affect tourism and
recreation in the Southwest's rivers and lakes, with economic
effects on businesses that depend on these activities. Soil
moisture is projected to decline with higher temperatures
and faster evapotranspiration rates in the Southwest.20
Figure 6 illustrates changes in terrestrial water storage
trends from 2002 to 2015.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's 2016 SECURE Water
Report projects several increased risks to western United
States water resources during the 21st century, including:
• A temperature increase of 5°F to 7°F (2.8°C to 3.9°C)
by the end of the century.
• A precipitation increase over the northwestern and
north-central portions of the western United States
and a decrease over the southwestern and south-
central areas of the western United States.
Inches of water
Figure 6, Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment
, , Inchesor Water , , -J.-—. „ _
(GRACE) total water storage trends from 2002 to 2015.
Source: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion
Laboratory GRACE data/California Institute of Technology.
• A decrease for almost all of the April 1 snowpack, a
standard benchmark measurement used to project
river basin runoff.
• A 7 to 27 percent decrease in April to July stream
flow in several river basins, including those of the
Colorado, Rio Grande and San Joaquin rivers.®
A recent detailed study of the Colorado River Basin, which
supplies critical amounts of water to the border regions of
California, Arizona, Baja California and parts ofSonora,
concludes that by 2060, there will be an annual shortfall
between water production and water demand ranging from
0 and 6.8 million acre-feet (8.4 billion cubic meters), with
a median of 3.2 million acre-feet (3.9 billion cubic meters),
leading to the curtailment of water deliveries to all users
of the river's waters.22^ The projected shortfall will have
significant economic, social and policy implications for the
U.S.-Mexico border region.
Renewable surface arid ground water resources along the
U.S.-Mexico border likely are being reduced by climate
change, posing a major concern to energy security, as water,
energy and food are closely intertwined. Energy is needed to
purify and distribute water, and water is needed to generate
energy.24 Thermoelectric power production is the single
largest user of water in the United States, accounting for
more than 45 percent of total water withdrawals in 2010 '
(although actual water use is much less, as most cooling water
is returned to the source). Thermoelectric power plants use
water for steam production and cooling to generate electric-
ity.26 The growing demand for limited water supplies places
increasing pressure on the energy sector to seek alternative
approaches. The water-energy nexus is becoming increasingly
important, especially along the U.S.-Mexico border, which
faces growing water scarcity challenges exacerbated by climate
change, population growth and industrial expansion.
4
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
The Impacts of Climate Change Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
A view looking west into the San Juan Mountains of southern Colorado, the headwaters of the Rio Grande, from near the town of Del Norte.
Snowmeit is the primary water source for the river. Visualization by Hunter Allen, based on multiple data sources: National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Advanced Space borne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Global
Data Explorer gdex.cr.usgs.gov); USGS Global Visualization Viewer (glovis.usgs.gov) landsat image from April 5, 2011; and aerial imagery from
the National Agriculture Inventory Program via the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Geospatial Data
Gateway(https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/). Source: climate.gov/news-features/features/drought-rio-grande.
Water use can be defined in terms of withdrawal and
consumption. Water consumption is the use of water that is
not returned to the environment, usually by evaporation.27
Withdrawal is the total amount of water that is removed
from a ground or surface water source, some of which may
get returned to its source, consumed or made available
for use elsewhere. Water withdrawn by thermoelectric
power plants for cooling that is not consumed sometimes
is returned to the environment at a higher temperature
(occasionally exceeding 90°F/32°C), which can harm fish
and wildlife.27 Nearly three-quarters of the total amoun t of
water withdrawn by thermoelectric power plants is fresh
water.2s According to the Texas Water Development Board,
which conducts an annual survey of water, and a 5-year state
of Texas water plan, steam electric power plants in Texas
consumed 410,000 acre-feet (506 million cubic meters) of
water in 2014, or roughly three percent of all water used
in the state that year. In its 2017 plan, the Texas Water
Development Board projects that steam electric consump-
tion could increase to as much as 1.7 million acre-feet (2.1
billion cubic meters) by 2070 as population and electricity
needs increase. '' "
The Southwest faces rapid population growth, rising
electricity d emand and declining water resources.31
Continued reliance on thermoelectric power plants under
a business-as-usual scenario, for example, would reduce
the amount of water stored in Lake Mead (in Nevada and
Arizona) and Lake Powell (in Utah and Arizona) by 50 per-
cent below the long-term historical average (1971—2007) by
2050.3S
One of the consequences of the energy-water nexus is that
it may bring challenges to the stability and reliability of
the electrical grid. The extreme drought in Texas in 2011
caused a 6 percent increase in electricity generation and a
9 percent increase in water consumption for electricity33
Water shortages and higher water temperatures caused
by ongoing drought in the Southwest are revealing the
vulnerability of thermoelectric power plants and grids.
On average, a 1°C (1.8°F) rise in ambient cooling water
temperature can cause power output to drop by as much as
0.5 percent.3^ Hydroelectricity generation in California has
dropped nearly 50 percent since 2013, as the state continues
to be affected by the worst drought in memory. In 2015,
hydroelectricity provided less than 7 percent of California's
overall electricity generation, down from 13 percent in 2013.
From October 2011 through the end of 2015, California
experienced a reduction of around 57,000 gigawatts of
hydroelectricity, which caused electricity costs to increase by
approximately $2 billion. Replacing the reduction in hydro-
electricity with natural gas also led to a 10 percent increase
in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and other pollutants/5
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
The Impacts of Climate Change Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Human consumption and use of ground water has benefited
society in terms of improved public health, agricultural
productivity, economic development and food security
Ground water extraction, however, has surpassed recharge
rates in numerous locations around the world, including
the southwestern United States and the U.S.-Mexico border
region. As energy demand increases with population growth,
other uses of water—such as agriculture, manufacturing,
drinking water and sanitation services for cities—face
increasing competition for limited water resources.
1.3 Demographic change and high social
vulnerability
Almost all border climate and environmental issues are
binational, as most of the U.S. border population lives in
sister cities separated from adjacent Mexican urban areas
only by the international boundary, forming more than a
dozen transboundary metropolitan regions. These range in
size from the greater San Diego, California-Tijuana, Baja
California, area, with 5 million people, to the area of Naco,
Arizona-Naco, Sonora, with slightly more than 6,000 peo-
ple.3* Each sister city pair shares an ecosystem with common
environmental issues, such as air and water pollution. All of
these communities, even wealthier San Diego, are charac-
terized by large numbers of low-income residents who are
especially vulnerable to climate effects.
The challenges of responding to the consequences of regional
climate change are exacerbated by these prevalent socioeco-
nomic conditions of communities along the border region.
With the exception of San Diego, U.S. residents along the
border have fewer financial resources than residents of other
U.S. regions; three of the poorest 10 counties in the United
States can be found within 100 miles (161 kilometers) of
the U.S.-Mexico border,37 and in 2013, nearly 30 percent of
the U.S. population residing in 23 counties along the border
was below the poverty level.38 The cultures and languages are
more diverse along the border than many areas elsewhere in
the country, as approximately one-half of all people resid ing
in U.S. counties along the border speak Spanish as a first
language/'" ' With a changing climate, federally recognized
tribes and tribal communities along the border face the loss
of traditional foods and medicines, culturally important
animal species, and plant resources;41 Historic land settle-
ment patterns and high rates of poverty—more than double
that of the general U.S. population42—complicate tribes'
and other disadvantaged populations' abilities to respond to
environmental challenges.
1.4 Significant border economy
Persistent U.S.-Mexico border poverty notwithstanding,
the region is critical for the prosperity of the U.S. economy.
Mexico is the third-largest trading partner of the United
States.4' U.S. goods and services trade with Mexico totaled
6
an estimated $583.6 billion in 2015. Most of the trade
moves through the land ports of entry located on the south-
ern border in truck and rail containers.43'14 Some border
regions are areas of significant economic activity in addition
to trade, such as the biotechnology cluster in San Diego;
aerospace in Arizona; petroleum and natural gas in Texas;
and intensive irrigated agriculture—especially fresh fruits
and vegetables—in Imperial County, California, adjacent
areas in Arizona, and in Texas' Lower Rio Grande Valley.
Although the benefits of U.S.-Mexico trade are spread
widely throughout the country, many of the costs associated
with the flow of goods are borne by border communities
in the form of a saturated transportation infrastructure and
heavy truck traffic through communities with its associated
air pollution, which is exacerbated by excessive waiting
times for northbound crossings at the border.45 Although
transnational trade creates jobs in both the U.S. and Mexico
border regions in transportation and warehousing, these tend
to pay low wages without benefits and so fail to address the
border-wide issue of low per capita income.46
Climate change and air pollu tion are closely linked. When
energy from the sun reaches the earth, the planet absorbs
some of this energy and radiates the rest back to space as
heat. The surface temperature depends on this balance
between incoming and outgoing energy. Atmospheric
GHGs, such as CO2 and methane, can trap this energy and
prevent the heat from escaping. Ozone, composed of three
oxygen atoms, is formed by the combination of volatile:
organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in
the presence of sunlight. Weather and climate play a key role
in the formation of ozone in urban areas, with ozone levels
generally higher during hot, dry summers; these levels will
increase with global warming.47 Emissions from industrial
facilities and electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline
vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources
of NOx and VOCs. Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of
health problems, particularly for children, the elderly and
Photo Credit: Leterman /Shutterstock.com.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
The Impacts of Climate Change Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
people of all ages who have lung diseases such as asthma.
Ground-level ozone also can have harmful effects on sensitive
vegetation and ecosystems.lS
Ports of entry are a major source of pollution as a result of
the high volume of personal vehicle and diesel truck traffic
crossing the border. The large number of vehicles crossing
through the ports of entry located in dense urban U.S. and
Mexican border cities, combined with long waiting times to
cross, produce elevated levels of criteria pollutants, including
carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide. Also present in
high concentrations are benzene, black carbon and ultrafine
particles, the very small nanoparticles that are implicated in
cardiovascular, neurological and other health effects.49
Thus, efforts to reduce pollution from transportation, local
businesses, power plants, and oil and gas production, as well
as other sources of NOx and VOCs, will be important in the
border areas to allow communities to keep ozone levels down
and protect populations in the likelihood of hotter, drier
summers. In addition, a particular issue confronting some
U.S. border communities is the challenge of controlling
pollution when a significant amount can come from sources
within Mexico. Particulate matter (PM)—specifically PM2J
(PM less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter)—is
a criteria pollutant. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) establishes National Anbient Ar Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for each criteria pollutant.30
1.5 Human health
Low-income rural and urban residents of border commu-
nities, especially communities of color, are more vulnerable
to climate risks.11,31'52 The U.S.-Mexico Border Health
Commission identified eight border populations highly
vulnerable to climate-related health effects: low income,
homeless, uninsured and underinsured, limited and non-En-
glish speakers, elderly, migrant laborers and farmers, newer
immigrants, and undocumented immigrants., ! Poorer
residents of U.S. border communities most often live in
substandard housing that is more vulnerable to climate
extremes. Poor residents may not be able to afford air
conditioning, and their homes may be located in areas more
prone to flooding or adjacent to major transportation routes
and ports of entry that have poor air quality.49 With less
access to medical care relative to the general population, dis-
advantaged urban and rural communities along the border
experience a greater burden from a changing climate.
Temperature changes may understate the likely conse-
quences of climate change along the border resulting from a
projected increase in the number of extreme heat days and
high nighttime temperatures. In the summer of 2011, for
example, large areas of the inland U.S.-Mexico border region
Set records for the highest number of days with tempera-
tures exceeding 100°F (38°C) in recorded history. In some
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
Photo Credit: David Litman / Shutterstock.com.
areas, temperatures exceeded 100°F (38°C) on more than
100 days.11 During the 2011 heat event, rates of water loss
resulting in part from evaporation were double the long-term
average. Depleted water resources contributed to more than
$10 billion in direct losses to agriculture alone.3® In January
2012, customers of 1,010 Texas water systems were asked to
restrict water use, and mandatory water limits were in place
in 647 water systems.55 Similarly, because: of drought, in
April 2015, California's governor ordered mandatory water-
use reductions of 25 percent annually by 400 local water
supply agencies.515
The primary cause of weather-related deaths in the United
States is heat, and excessive heat leads to high morbidity,
particularly for low-income and minority populations. For
example, the Arizona Department of Health Services docu-
mented 1,535 deaths from heat between 2000 and 2012. Of
the nearly 586 Arizona residents who died from heat-related
causes, more than one-half were Hispanic, one-half were
older than 57 years, and many died within their homes.37
Climate change is projected to increase the presence and
range of disease vectors—such as mosquitoes or rodent
populations—in the border region, which will increase the
transmission of the West Nile, dengue, chikungunya and
Zika viruses. Valley fever, plague and Hanta pulmonary
syndrome occurrences also are linked to climate change in
the Southwest, although the direction and impacts of the
changes are specific to diseases and locations. Climate change
may increase PM stemming from additional wildfires with
negative implications for respiratory health, particularly for
the elderly, children, infants and those with pre-existing
pulmonary and cardiovascular conditions.58
1.6 Ecosystem and species health
The border region contains more than 6,500 plant and
animal species, including 148 species listed as endangered in
the United States;.59 Approximately a dozen transboundary
rivers and aquifers provide water to cities, tribes and farms in
the two countries—including two major rivers, the Colorado
-------
The Impacts of Climate Change Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
I
The Sky Island Region and Climate Change
New Mexico
Arizona
Mexico
authorities; private landowners and
nongovernmental organizations; and
hundreds of volunteers. These projects
include:
Adaptation Planning for Natural
Resources of the Sky Island Region
The Sky Island Alliance survey of spring sites in Arizona included stakeholders from the
U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Arizona Geological Survey, private
landowners, and others. This photo shows Turkey Creek in the Chiricahua Mountains of
southeast Arizona, summer 2015. Credit: Sky Island Alliance.
The Sky Island Region and Climate
Change
The Sky Island region is a globally
recognized center of biocultural
diversity that sprawls across the
U.S.- Mexico border, mainly in the
states of Arizona and Sonora, but with
parts in New Mexico and Chihuahua.
Sky Islands are forested mountains
surrounded by grasslands or desert.
Several biotic influences converge
here across 55 mountain ranges that
support a staggering diversity of life:
more than 4,000 plants, more than
one-half of all species of birds found in
North America, thousands of species
of invertebrates, nearly 100 reptiles,
and 25 native amphibians. Because
the Sky islands are isolated from each
other, the number of unique (endemic)
species in the region is impressive. The
Sky Island region faces threats related
to climate change. Annual average
daily maximum temperatures in
Arizona have increased by as much as
5.4°F (3°C) from 1901 to 2010 in some
areas, the Southwest is experiencing
unusually severe drought,67 and winter
precipitation in Arizona has become
more variable, with a trend toward
increasing frequency of both extremely
dry and extremely wet winters.68 Water
resources are becoming increasingly
scarce in the arid Sky Island region of
southern Arizona and northern Sonora
as the area experiences continued
urban and rural population growth.
Sky Island Alliance is a binationai
conservation organization that works
to protect and restore the rich natural
heritage of native species and habitats
in this binationai region.6970 During
the past 5 years, the organization has
taken a comprehensive approach
to addressing both current and
anticipated climate change impacts
on human and natural communities
in southeastern Arizona. A number
of climate adaptation projects have
been organized by Sky Island Alliance
and implemented with federal,
state and locai agencies; tribal
From 2010-2013, Sky Island Alliance
conducted a regional climate change
adaptation workshop series that
brought together diverse stakeholders.
Workshop participants developed
a shared understanding of current
climate science and key vulnerabilities
and prioritized implementable
adaptation strategies. Outcomes
included forging an inclusive group of
stakeholders for the region, identifying
a key study topic (springs in priority
ground-water basins), and scaling of
restoration work to a watershed scale.
Response to Wildfire Impacts
Severe fire followed by intense
monsoon precipitation is altering
streams, springs and entire watersheds
in rapid and sometimes catastrophic
ways. Burned areas that receive no
rehabilitative treatment experience
destructive erosion resulting from a
lack of ecosystem recovery; wildlife
and pollinator corridors may suffer as a
result. Sky Island Alliance worked with
partners to restore two watersheds in
the Chiricahua Mountains, one burned
and one unburned. This work was
designed to inform future ecological
restoration in arid lands in the context
of climate change impacts. Treatments
Location of the Sky Island region. Credit: Samantha Hammer, Sky Island Alliance.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
The Impacts of Climate Change Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
A rock erosion-control structure provides
a localized increase in water infiltration
in the Chiricahua Mountains. Credit: Sky
Island Alliance.
included installation of more than 700
loose rock erosion control structures
in drainages to facilitate creation of
microclimates that are likely to be
resilient to future fires and a drying
climate, benefitting both native
vegetation and wildlife.
Documenting, Protecting and
Restoring Spring Ecosystems
Approximately 1,300 springs exist
in the Arizona portion of the Sky
Island region. Springs are keystone
ecosystems and known to be
biodiversity hotspots; however, they
are poorly documented and suffer from
extensive human modification. Sky
Island Alliance worked with multiple
partners to develop new information
on the location, management context,
and biological, hydrological and
ecological characteristics of springs.
Restoration at spring sites has focused
on the organization working with
agencies, landowners and grazing
permittees to find creative ways to
both make water available to as wide a
variety of wildlife as possible while not
interrupting current land uses.
River and the Rio Grande River—and many smaller
sources, such as the Tijuana and New rivers in California
and Baja California and the Santa Cruz and San Pedro
rivers in southern Arizona and northern Sonora. Major
transboundary aquifers include the Hueco Bolson and the
Mesilla-Conejo-Medanos in the Paso del Norte region and
the Mimbres-Los Muertos aquifer and drainage system in
New Mexico. Major desert ecosystems include the Mojave
(Imperial Valley, California), Sonoran (southern Arizona
and Sonora), and Chihuahuan (eastern Arizona, western
New Mexico and western Texas) deserts. Coastal zones at the
eastern and western ends of the border contain important
marine and freshwater habitats.11-60
fmv* su«i»-
¦ * o. o h ~ » a i; m ~ a ?
Fl ... | ' i •
This is a compilation of springs data in the Sky Islands of southern
Arizona. Data were imported from the National Hydrology Dataset
database, the Arizona State Land Office, and the Arizona Department
of Water Resources. Additional data were contributed by Springs
Stewardship Institute and Sky Island Alliance.
Source: databasin.org/datasets/a1f0dd6d51e34ff1bf6d3abe07c985a6
As air temperature increases, so will the temperature
of streams and rivers. Some species—such as the Gila,
Apache and Rio Grande cutthroat trout—are dependent
on cold water. Increases in stream temperature will affect
oxygen levels, food resources and the ability of these native
cold-water species to compete with nonnative fishes.15 The
border region of southeast Arizona and northern Sonora—
including the Santa Cruz, Gila and San Pedro rivers and the
Ri'o Yaqui and R'o Concepcion—is the habitat for 16 of the
21 species of fish native to the region. Three native frogs, a
salamander and several species of garter snakes depend on
aquatic habitat in these drainages. Although current model-
ing cannot reliably predict specific changes several decades in
advance, projected warmer temperatures with more variable
precipitation will result in greater stress for species in the
coming decades.61
Coupled with nonclimatic factors such as population growth
and development pressure, the higher temperatures, more
extensive and severe droughts, and decreases in precipitation
create challenges for protected natural areas, birds and
wildlife, and riparian systems.11
For example, in recent years demand has exceeded the
supply of water from the transborder Colorado River system,
which serves 40 million people, irrigates 3 million acres (1.2
million hectares) in the United States, and supplies 1.5 mil-
lion acre-feet (1.9 billion cubic meters) of water annually
to Mexico by treaty.®-® The health of wetland ecosystems
that are bountiful sources of biodiversity are affected by
these increasing pressures.11 The border fence marking the
international boundary between the two countries fragments
wildlife habitats and migration corridors and can limit
species' ability to access food and mates on the other side of
the fence. '
1.7 Ecosystem services and carbon
sequestration
Land-use and land-cover choices can influence the degree
to which human communities and natural systems are
vulnerable to climate change. The Third National Climate
Assessment (2014) includes a discussion of sectors—including
agriculture, forestry and other land use—that emit approx-
imately one-quarter of all anthropogenic GHG emissions.7
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
9
-------
The Impacts of Climate Change Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
In the case of the U.S.-Mexico border region, land-use and
land-management choices can reduce atmospheric GHG
releases; enhance resilience to a changing climate and related
hazards; improve food, water and energy security; and
improve human health. The 16th GNEB report, Ecological
Restoration in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region, highlights some
of these connections by drawing attention to the importance
of green infrastructure, ecosystem services and human
health, and the role that biomass and soil play in carbon
sequestration on local, regional and global scales.64 Key
carbon capture targets include forests and wetlands as well as
strategies to sustainably couple human and natural systems
in human settlements using biotic and green infrastructure
across local and bioregional scales. Coastal wetlands, for
example, sequester and store significant amounts of carbon,
up to 10 times more carbon per equivalent area than tropical
forests.65
Preventing further destruction or degradation of wetlands,
forests and other natural areas in the U.S.-Mexico border
region can limit future loss of natural vegetation and capture
carbon through plant growth. Although the fraction of
global emissions from the destruction of ecosystems is not
as large as those from the burning of fossil fuels, the global
emissions from degraded or destroyed coastal ecosystems
alone can be substantial. Estimates of emissions from
conversion and degradation of coastal wetlands amount to
the equivalent of up to 19 percent of tropical deforestation
emissions on an annual basis globally.66
1.8 Wildfire frequency
The trend toward longer, hotter and drier summer seasons
appears to be contributing to the significant increase in large
wildfires in the western United States and those burning
across the international U.S.-Mexico boundary.71,72 Increased
warming and drought will further stress forest areas and
result in more devastating insect infestations. The accumula-
tion of woody fuel and the spread of nonnative grasses also
have made the region more vulnerable to intense wildfires.73
Increased temperatures also will contribute to a longer fire
season; California, for example, now has a fire season that
lasts all year.74,75 Fire models project more wildfires and
increased risks to communities across extensive border areas.6
1.9 Coastal risk and vulnerability
Rising sea levels along the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific coasts
will increase the likelihood of flooding and potentially
compromise water quality and ecosystem health. Based on
tide-gauge data, the past 100-year trend for sea-level rise is
0.68 feet (0.21 meters) near San Diego and 1.24 feet (0.38
meters) near Port Isabel, Texas.76 Intermediate-low scenario
projections of the increase in local relative sea level from
2015 to 2050 for these two locations (taking into account
ocean thermal expansion but not melting ice) suggest an
additional 0.49 feet (0.15 meters) and 0.70 feet (0.2 meters),
respectively.77,7S
With elevated sea levels, the potential for coastal flood-
ing—as well as erosion of bluffs, beaches and barrier
islands—increases. The risk of damage and chronic, recur-
rent shallow coastal flooding from higher daily tides, as well
as storm surge and destructive wave action from tropical
storm events, will increase. Texas' Gulf Coast averages
approximately three tropical storms or hurricanes every
4 years,79 generating coastal storm surge and sometimes
bringing heavy rainfall and damaging winds hundreds
of miles inland. Sea-level rise creates the potential for
greater damage from storm surge along both the Texas and
California coasts. Coastal estuaries and marsh complexes
may become inundated as sea level rises. In addition,
saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers can damage potable
water sources.
Episodic and chronic coastal flooding could put at risk
critical coastal infrastructure in San Diego and southeastern
Texas, including ports, roads, bridges, energy production,
and water and sewage treatment facilities, as well as urban
beachfront development. Port Isabel, Texas, has seen a
547 percent increase in the number of recurrent (nuisance)
flood days during the past 50 years (from 2.1 per year in
1960 to 13.9 per year in 2010).so In Texas, 26 percent of
insured commercial and residential property lies in coastal
counties, totaling $1.2 trillion in 2013.S1 Shorter term
climate fluctuations, such as those caused by El Nino, can
further stress the productivity, integrity and rebound capaci-
ty of economic, social and environmental systems.
In the U.S.-Mexico border region, human health, ecosystems
and the water supply already are at risk. Climate changes
and fluctuation may increase the severity and magnitude of
these risks. Coupled with the poverty and social vulnerability
of the region, federal agency action to help citizens adapt to
and mitigate climate risks could improve the quality of life,
livelihoods and security of border communities.
Following a discussion of border groups vulnerable to
climate change in Chapter 2, the remainder of this report
details current efforts by federal programs and reviews case
studies of the impacts from climate risks. It culminates with
recommendations to the U.S. President and Congress.
10
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter
2.1 Disadvantaged communities
A cross-cutting theme of this report is the impact of climate
change on the vulnerable populations and disadvantaged
communities—both rural and urban—present throughout
the entire border region. Previous GNEB reports have
underscored the intersection of disadvantaged communities
and environmental impacts in the border region.39 This
GNEB report makes clear that these disadvantaged border
communities are likely to be disproportionately affected by
the projected impacts of climate change and that addressing
their needs by federal agencies is a priority for environmental
justice.
Native communities, many of which depend on tribal
resources on reservation lands, are exposed to the threats of
climate change on many levels. The border is replete with
disadvantaged communities, often characterized as poor,
without adequate urban services, and primarily Hispanic.
The population of the U.S.-Mexico border has per capita
incomes well below average U.S. per capita income levels.391
Many of these disadvantaged border residents are found
in colonias in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California,
with both the largest number of colonias and the largest
colonia population in Texas.8- Colonias are residential areas
in rural and sometimes urban areas in the border region that
lack basic urban infrastructure and services and are mainly
Hispanic in population. The development of Texas colonias
dates back to at least the 1950s when developers divided
surplus land in floodplains with low agricultural value into
small lots with little or no infrastructure or urban services,
such as potable water supply, seepage treatment, paved roads
or public lighting. These lots were sold for low-cost housing
sites. At one point, more than 400,000 residents in Texas
lived in these colonias along the border with Mexico. As of
2014, 369,000 residents lived in 1,854 colonias in the six
largest Texas border counties with coloniasP Today, Texas
colonia residents continue to have incomes significantly
lower than the state average, with a median income of
$28,900 compared to $51,000 for the state as a whole. In
the six largest counties with colonias in Texas, 96 percent
of the population is Hispanic, with 94 percent of residents
under 18 born in the United States.8"*
It should be noted, however, that of the 369,000 colonia
residents in Texas' six largest counties with colonia popula-
tions, only 38,000 lack water and sewer—a result of state,
federal and binational agencies working together to fund this
infrastructure.83 As a result of the substantial efforts by many
local, state and community representatives* much progress
has been made during the last 25 years to improve the
infrastructure, including laws that require counties along the
border to adopt model subdivision rules to prevent future
colonia development and new programs through the Texas
Water Development Board. The Economically Distressed
Areas Program provides financial assistance to provide water
Vulnerable Populations and Environmental Justice and
Climate Change
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
ii
-------
Vulnerable Populations and Environmental Justice and Climate Change
Stepping stones in front of a colonia home reflect chronic flooding problems. Credit: EPA Office of Environmental Justice.
and wastewater services to economically distressed areas
where services do not exist or systems do not meet minimum
state standards, and through August of 2016, more than
$624 million in Economically Distressed Areas Program
funds—including dedicated EPA funds through the bina-
tional North American Development Bank (NADB) and
Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC)—
have been provided throughout the state for completed
projects, with some 300,000 residents benefited, most of
them in border communities^'
Colonias and low-income areas are present in large neighbor-
hoods in the more prosperous cities of the border, including
El Paso (Texas), Las Cruces (New Mexico), Brownsville
Many colonia homes are self-constructed from readily available used
and new materials. Credit: EPA Office of Environmental Justice.
12
(Texas) and San Diego (California), where income disparities
often are significant. For example, in 2010, San Diego
County was the wealthiest area along the border, with a
median household income of $62,771 and a population that
was 32 percent Hispanic. In contrast, the city of San Diego's
San Ysidro Community Planning Area, which is adjacent to
the port of entry, had a 2010 population that was 93 percent
Hispanic with a median household income of $35,993.s®
San Ysidro's socioeconomic characteristics were more similar
to populations elsewhere along the border than to those in
the rest of San Diego County.
A limited supply of adequate, affordable housing in cities
and rural areas along the Texas-Mexico border, coupled with
the rising need for such housing, has contributed to the
development of new colonias and the expansion of existing
ones. People often buy property lots through a contract for
deed, a financing method whereby developers offer a low
down payment and low monthly payments but no title to
the property until the final payment is made. Houses in
colonias generally are constructed in phases by their owners
and may lack electricity, plumbing and other basic amenities.
The: colonias growth has challenged residents, as well as
county, state and federal governments, to provide basic
water and sewer services and improve the quality of life in
the coloniasF Local public funds and other resources often
are limited and unable to provide services to the current and
growing colonia population. Hidalgo County, which has
the most colonias and largest number of colonia residents in
Texas, is typical of many border counties. For basic health
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Vulnerable Populations and Environmental Justice and Climate Change
Without piped-iri municipal water, washing clothing requires
significant effort. Credit: Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
Pit privies are the norm in colonias without municipal sewage systems
and often contaminate adjacent shallow wells. Credit: Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas.
and human services, environmental services and capital
improvements, colonia residents must rely on an often
confusing combination of local, state and federal programs,
many of which come and go depending on the political and
economic climate.
2.2 Environmental justice
Executive Order 12898, signed by President Bill Clinton
in 1994, requires each federal agency to work to achieve
environmental justice in agency policies and regulations.
Although the executive order is not enforceable in court,
federal agencies have subsequently incorporated con-
siderations of environmental justice in their operations.
Environmental justice concerns the inequitable exposure of
poor and minority communities to environmental hazards.88
Environmental justice is required to be considered in federal
planning as described in Executive Order 12898® and has
been an issue along the border for environmental agencies
and others.30'81 A significant body of scientific literature
exists about environmental justice in the United States and
worldwide, with numerous critical appraisals of its research
methodologies and conclusions; however, the U.S. federal
mandate for consideration of environmental justice issues
within the United States by the executive order is quite
clear.''"''
In the border region, many neighborhoods with high poverty
rates are especially vulnerable to climate change impacts such
as drought, rising temperatures that intensify health effects
of air pollution, and extreme weather events. The many
challenges faced by residents of poor neighborhoods detailed
in Chapter 1 exacerbate health effects in these underserved
communities. For example, disparities in exposure to traffic
have been documented and are considered an environmental
justice issue in the U.S.-Mexico border region. In California,
Hispanic children have been shown to be more likely to
live in areas with higher traffic density than non-Hispanic
whites.5** Despite health risks posed by traffic exposure, some
schools in California are located close to traffic sources, and
these schools are more likely to be poor and serve Hispanic
students.93
2.2,1 Ports of entry and environmental justice
The border ports of entry are vital to U.S. trade and the
national economy, but most of these are located in the
U.S. cities adjacent to residential and commercial areas
whose residents and workers are mainly low income. In
these areas, the location near the port of entry amplifies
the environmental justice issue. As described in Chapter
1, proximity to heavy trucks an d large numbers of idling
vehicles can expose border crossers to toxic air pollutants.
Traffic pollutants concentrations are much higher very
near the source as compared to further away, and exposure
to near-traffic environments is associated with a host of
harmful health effects, including cardiovascular and adverse
birth outcomes.;® Short-term high exposures and long-term
exposures have been linked with health effects.9® Exposures
from being near traffic at border crossings come in addition
to background exposures to the generally poor air quality
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
13
-------
Vulnerable Populations and Environmental Justice and Climate Change
PP!'^W"
Solar panels along the shore of Lake Powell. Credit: Susan Schmitz / Shutterstock.com.
along the U.S.-Mexico border.97 At the U.S.-Mexico border
crossings, the existing infrastructure was not designed to
consider the effects of air contamination by idling vehicles.
At many crossings, for example, pedestrians wait in long
lines adjacent to idling vehicles, and they only escape the
direct exposure when entering an air-conditioned pedestrian
inspection facility after crossing into the United States. As
the U.S. economy improves, cross-border commercial and
noncommercial vehicular traffic and pedestrian crossing
through the ports of entry will grow, which will increase
concerns regarding wait times and health effects.
The infrastructure and administrative resources for the
ports of entry along the Mexican border have always lagged
behind demand that was driven by international trade and
by population growth in the border region. Investment in
efficient borders has always had as a first priority the facili-
tation of movemen t of commercial cargo. A second priority
has been improving the flow of passenger vehicles. The
very last priority, until recently, has been improvement of
pedestrian crossings.
Reducing border wait times also is an obvious measure
to limit people's exposures when waiting to cross at ports
of entry. This would directly benefit vehicle drivers and
passengers as well as pedestrians crossing the border, and air
quality near the crossing would be improved. Even though
recent border infrastructure improvements at San Ysidro
have significantly reduced vehicle wait times, the pedestrian
waits are still often 1 hour or longer.9* Lack of shade, hot
and cold weather extremes in the desert regions, and the
deliberate avoidance of liquid intake by crossers because of
the lack of public toilet facilities can exacerbate the adverse
effects of pollu tion exposures. Many of the pedestrians are
from low-income groups and cannot afford the expedited
crossing permits or to cross in a vehicle. Thus, the pollution
exposure is greater at the border crossings for low-income
residents of the region.
2.3 Native communities and climate
change: Protecting tribal resources
as part of national climate policy
Native American communities are among the most vulnera-
ble groups in the U.S.-Mexico border region. Tribes often are
the first to see and feel changes in the natural environment.
Traditional tribal practices and relationships with the natural
world form the spiritual, cultural and economic foundation
for many Native American nations—foundations that will
be, and in some cases already are, threatened by climate
change. For example, many Native Americans reside in rural
regions that are particularly exposed to the growing threat of
wildfires, enhanced by climate change impacts. For centu-
ries, the Colorado River and its tributaries have been the
lifeblood of southwestern tribes, including the Hopi, Navajo,
Mohave, Apache and Tohono O'odham. Historically,
plentiful waters enabled tribes to survive in this arid region
by growing crops and raising livestock, traditional subsis-
tence practices that many tribes still follow today. A dramatic
increase in the population of the Southwest has placed a
severe strain on the water resources in the Colorado River
Basin. Todays users place such high demand on the river
system that in most years the Colorado River does not reach
its outflow into the Gulf of California, nor does this trend
show signs of stopping. The populations of Nevada and
Arizona alone are projected to double in the next 25 years.
14
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Vulnerable Populations and Environmental Justice and Climate Change
Although tribes often hold federal reserved water rights that
are among the most senior in the prior appropriation scheme
of water allotment in the West, many tribal water rights
remain unquantified, and tribal access to water rights often
is impeded by the lack of infrastructure. In a warmer and
drier Southwest, competition for water resources will only
become fiercer, posing significant challenges for tribes and
also threatening the already unstable and delicate allocation
for all Southwest residents. Increased demand for decreasing
water supplies will have serious implications for tribes, as
competition between tribal and nontribal users will make
water adjudication and negotiation more difficult.
The federal trust responsibility requires the federal govern-
ment to protect tribal land and resources. This authority is
rooted in numerous treaties, statutes, executive orders and
judicial opinions that recognize the very tribal rights at risk
from climate change. Consequently, federal agencies play a
key role in partnering with Native communities to address
the challenges of climate change.
2.3.1 Alternative energy development for tribes
Because fossil fuel emissions are such a major contributor
to GHGs and climate change, development of alternative
energy technologies will be an important component of any
future strategy. Tribes have some of the greatest resources
(e.g., wind and solar power) for helping the United States
with renewable energy development. At the same time, they
are among the most vulnerable to climate change impacts
caused in large part by conventional fossil fuel-based energy
development. Helping tribes develop alternative energy
technologies both on reservations and as part of a national
renewable energy program can help overcome this contra-
diction. Alternative energy projects take investment capital,
infrastructure and technical capacity that tribes often lack.
Development of renewable energy resources by tribes on
their own will do little to mitigate the impact from climate
change on their communities. Tribes, however, can play an
important role in any national or international solution. For
this reason, any renewable energy program at the federal lev-
el, including the binational NADB-BECC, should include
opportunities and incentives for tribes. Such a program
should include technical assistance and subsidies for indi-
vidual projects on reservations. The government also should
provide financial assistance to establish transmission lines to
connect tribal projects to the national energy infrastructure.
2.4 Recommendations
1. Vulnerable and disadvantaged border communities
will be disproportionately affected by climate change
impacts. These groups also often lack the expertise
to access available federal programs that assist border
communities to develop resiliency to these impacts.
An immediate priority should be to coordinate federal
agencies to proactively perform outreach to disadvan-
taged border communities to assist in addressing the
effects of climate change.
2. The NADB-BECC, through consultations with
border tribes and coordination with U.S. federal and
state programs, should develop a specific program
to facilitate the development of renewable energy by
border tribes.
3. Every federal agency with an emergency preparedness
mission should use its existing programs to support
vulnerable and disadvantaged communities in estab-
lishing infrastructure and building capacity for fire
suppression, emergency management implementation,
and hazard mitigation for natural disaster events. For
example, federal agencies should facilitate wildland
fire management specific to rural disadvantaged tribal
and other vulnerable communities.
4. EPA should continue to support the La Paz
Agreement and Border 2020 initiatives to enhance
emergency response coordination with its federal,
state and local partners, with special attention to tribal
communities and underserved populations. As GNEB
recommended in its 11th report, Natural Disasters
and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border,
emergency response must be more closely coordinated
across the border with Mexico. Most importantly,
the 1980 U.S.-Mexico Agreement on Cooperation
During Natural Disasters needs to be updated to
enable the immediate and targeted responses required
when a natural disaster affects the shared geographical
region on both sides of the border. ¦
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
15
-------
-------
Chapter
Existing Federal Programs and Resources
Federal agencies are committed to addressing climate change.
On February 19, 2015, President Barack Obama signed
Executive Order 13693," which commits the United States
to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent during the next
decade from 2008 levels, saving taxpayers up to $18 billion
in avoided energy costs. The federal government agreed to
increase the share of electricity that it consumes from renew-
able sources to 30 percent. Both federal and state agencies
are investing significant financial and human resources in
the border region to reduce pollu tion and environmental
degradation; address water and air quality, energy and health
issues; and facilitate the movement of goods and people.
These agencies also are investing in programs to mitigate
climate change impacts and increase the resiliency of local
communities. Regular transboundary consultation between
the United States and Mexico can empower cooperative
local responses and enhance border resiliency through
careful planning and bilateral collaboration with local and
international partners. Federal leadership in transborder
cooperation through increased use of the Border Liaison
Mechanism (a local binational meeting that U.S. and
Mexican consuls convene to address cross-border issues), the
U.S. and Mexican sections of the International Boundary
and Water Commission (IBWC), and other means is critical
in developing regional approaches to binational issues. It
is beyond the scope of this chapter or report to describe all
federal programs in the U.S.-Mexico border region that can
mitigate climate risks and improve community adaptation
to climate fluctuation and change. Instead, this chapter seeks
to describe some of the programs and provide case studies of
successful agency actions. Table 1 alphabetically lists federal
agencies and the scope of their climate-related responses.
Included are two binational institutions—the NADB-
BECC—and the IBWC.
3.1 Agriculture
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
a nonregulatory agency under the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), works with private landowners and
land managers to plan and implement conservation efforts
within the diverse variety of ecosystems, critical habitats and
treasured landscapes along the U.S.-Mexico border, ranging
from deserts and mountains to natural waterways such as
rivers, streams and creeks. Through its guiding principles of
"service, partnership and technical excellence," the NRCS
provides technical and financial assistance in an effort to pro-
tect, restore and enhance impaired natural ecosystems at risk
from climate change, extreme weather, land fragmentation
and urban encroachment. The NRCS partners with state and
local governments, as well as private organizations, to sustain
and restore ecosystems to improve water quality and quantity
and air quality as well as enhance soil productivity and the
diversity of healthy plant and wildlife communities.100
For example, in fiscal year 2016, the NRCS' priorities
included soil health, nitrogen management, livestock
partnership, grazing and pasture, energy efficiency, and
private forests. Two climate change mitigation opportunities
are being offered along the Texas border. A Rio Grande
project near Fort Quitman, just downstream of El Paso,
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
17
-------
Existing Federal Programs and Resources
Table 1. Scope of Climate-Related Responses for Border Communities of Federal and Binational Agencies
Agency
Scope of Climate-Related Response
Air
Emergency
Preparedness
Energy
Health
Movement of
Goods
Water
Infrastructure
Ecology
U.S. Department of
Agriculture
~
~
~
U.S. Department
of Commerce,
National Oceanic
and Atmospheric
Administration
~
~
~
~
~
U.S. Department of
Health and Human
Services
~
~
~
U.S. Department of
Homeland Security
~
~
~
~
U.S. Department of
Interior
~
~
~
~
~
U.S. Department of
State
~
~
~
~
~
~
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
International
Boundary and
Water Commission,
U.S. Section
~
~
~
~
North American
Development Bank-
Border Environment
Cooperation
Commission
~
~
~
~
~
~
promotes carbon sequestration in soil on both rangeland and
cropland. A Southern Texas Rio Grande project promotes
soil health and grazing on pasturelands to increase carbon
sequestration. In both projects, the NRCS also works closely
with the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board in
promoting conservation practices. The NRCS' Migratory
and Shore Bird Habitat Initiative involves conservation
planning for migrating, shorebird and grassland nesting bird
habitats in Texas' southernmost border counties. Funding
has been provided for brush management, grass planting,
prescribed burning and prescribed grazing to emulate open
prairie and savannah-type ecosystems that support grass-
land bird species. These practices also create habitat for a
number of migratory insect, bird and animal species, such
as the Monarch butterfly and neotropical migratory bird
populations.
During fiscal year 2015, the USDAs national StrikeForce
for Rural Growth and Opportunity provided relief for
Texas, New Mexico and Arizona counties with persistent
poverty, 85 percent of which are in rural areas. The NRCS
collaborated closely with other USDA agencies, part-
ners, community-based organizations, stakeholders and
communities to reach underserved populations and rural
communities; improve access to and participation in USDA
programs; enhance economic opportunities and benefits to
these areas; and enable farmers, ranchers and private land-
owners to operate more sustainably while their conservation
practices promote clean air and water, healthy soil, wildlife
habitat and resistance to extreme weather events, such as
drought. The NRCS' Texas program provided $1.2 million
through its Environmental Quality Incentives Program to
farmers and ranchers in StrikeForce counties.
3.2 North American Development Bank/
Border Environment Cooperation
Commission
In 1993, in the context of negotiations of the North
American Free Trade Agreement, sister U.S.-Mexico bina-
tional institutions, NADB and BECC, were established.
The institutions were funded in equal parts by the United
States and Mexico and are mandated to preserve, protect
and enhance the environment of the border region to
advance the well-being of the people of the United States
and Mexico. The joint NADB-BECC Board of Directors
comprises representatives from the U.S. Department of
State (State Department), U.S. Department of Treasury, and
EPA and their Mexican federal counterparts, as well as state
and local representatives from the border region. The State
18
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Existing Federal Programs and Resources
Department also directly funds BECC operations in the
amount of approximately $2.4 million annually.
The close coordination between NADB and BECC, includ-
ing the integration of their respective boards of directors into
a single board in 2006, has resulted in significant benefits
to the projects these two institutions support. Realizing the
benefits of closer integration, the board of directors in 2014
approved a resolution recommending the merger of the two
organizations into one. The merger process continues in
2016.
NADB, located in San Antonio, Texas, and BECC, located
in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, constitute an innovative,
binational approach to environmental infrastructure devel-
opment and financing in the border region. NADB and
BECC offer comprehensive support to public entities and
private companies in planning, development, implementa-
tion, supervision and results measurement of environmental
infrastructure projects. NADB is authorized to make loans
to public and private sector borrowers operating within
the United States and Mexico. Any project, regardless of
community size or project cost, is eligible for financing and
other forms of assistance from NADB if it meets all three
of the following eligibility criteria: (1) it is a remedy to an
environmental and/or human health problem; (2) it passes
the BECC certification process; (3) it is located within
100 kilometers (62 miles) north of the international bound-
ary in one of the four U.S. states ofTexas, New Mexico,
Arizona or California or within 300 kilometers (186 miles)
south of the border in one of the six Mexican states of
Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora or
Baja California.
NADB and BECC provide technical assistance and institu-
tional strengthening efforts through community grants for
project development activities, including feasibility and engi-
neering studies, urban and regional planning, infrastructure
needs assessments, and credit ratings for potential borrowers.
They also facilitate capacity building through studies and
various workshops on climate change and basic infrastruc-
ture. To date, NADB is participating in 225 BECC-certified
environmental infrastructure projects with $2.72 billion in
loans and grants, of which 89 percent has been disbursed for
project implementation.101
Many of these projects have addressed issues that increase
border community resiliency in the face of climate change
impacts and include projects for water conservation and
efficiency, energy efficiency, cleaner and alternative energy,
air pollution reduction, and green infrastructure. BECC
partnered with EPA and the Center for Climate Strategies
on a climate-change initiative coordinated with Mexico's
National Institu te of Ecology and Climate Change. GHG
inventories completed in 2010 for the six Mexican border
states concluded that by 2025, these states would generate
31 percent of Mexico's total GHG emissions with only
19 percent of the national population residing in these states.
Following the completion of these inventories, BECC—
with support from Border 2020, the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), the Latin American
Regional Climate Initiative, and El Colegio de la Frontera
Norte—continued work with the Mexican states of Baja
California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila and Tamaulipas to
complete state climate action plans, which identify mitiga-
tion policies. NADB and BECC also support many projects
in energy efficiency and alternative energy to reduce GHG
emissions.
Since 1997, the U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure
Program, funded by the U.S. Congress through EPA, has
awarded grants to border-region water and wastewater
systems through the Project Development Assistance
Program for project development and design and the Border
Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF) for construction
programs administered by NADB-BECC. EPA and NADB-
BECC have contributed more than $47 million in Project
Development Assistance Program technical assistance grants
for project development in more than 160 communities.
The BEIF has committed $642.3 million to implement
115 water and wastewater projects in the United States and
Mexico. Of that amount, $597.4 million has been disbursed
for project implementation, which represents 93 percent
of the funds contracted for projects. The BEIF selection
process requires that every project, whether located in the
United States or Mexico, document an environmental and
human health benefit for the United States.10®
Water infrastructure construction for new development.
Credit: Muratart / Shutterstock.com.
In 2015, NADB and BECC expanded promotion of green
infrastructure along the border to document how green
strategies and technologies—such as reinstating native flora,
redesigning street medians and sidewalks to capture storm-
water onsite, and using permeable paving materials—can be
gradually incorporated into existing urban infrastructure.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
19
-------
Existing Federal Programs and Resources
BECC hosted five green infrastructure events in 2015,
including the second annual Border Green Infrastructure
Forum in Tucson, Arizona, and an interactive webinar to
explore the current legal framework for promoting green
infrastructure projects in Mexico. Two workshops involving
a hands-on demonstration project also were hosted in San
Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora, and Ramos Arizpe, Coahuila.
The exercise focused on passive rainwater harvesting and
reuse systems and the importance of planting native vegeta-
tion for restoring regional ecosystems.103-105
NADB and BECC also encourage public-private coop-
eration to conduct climate change adaptation planning;
conduct scientific studies; advocate for management and
conservation strategies that address the threat of climate
change; engage volunteers in critical monitoring, protection
and restoration activities; and advocate for sustainable policy.
One example of this engagement is the Sky Island Alliance
in Tucson, which involves a range of nongovernmental orga-
nizations and local, state and federal government agencies.
One of Sky Island Alliance's focus areas is climate change,
and the organization conducts climate change adaptation
planning and scientific studies; advocates for management
and conservation strategies that address the threat of
climate change; engages volunteers in critical monitoring,
protection and restoration activities; and advocates for good
policy. Working on landscape issues, Sky Island Alliance has
convened a series of climate change workshops to address
natural resource management, planning and conservation
and has published its adaptation methods and results to
promote strategies that safeguard ecological systems and the
wildlife and human populations that depend on them.
3.3 Commerce
Scientists are increasingly called on to address the most press-
ing challenges of our time. They also are asked to articulate
the societal impact of their work and communicate research
findings to broader audiences. Researchers in all disciplines
must not only communicate their research to the public, but
also they must work with the public to develop an effective
research agenda that authentically addresses the concerns and
needs of communities. The National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine Committee on Science Literacy
and Public Perceptions of Science argues that science literacy
is desirable not only for individuals but also for the health
and wellbeing of communities and society. Science literacy
in public decision making is increasingly important.106 This
presents special challenges in transboundary regions that
span international borders. The type of efforts described in
this report thus merit ongoing evaluation and support.
For instance, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) within the U.S. Department of
Commerce manages science and stewardship programs
that advance the understanding of and ability to anticipate
changes in the environment, improve society's ability to
make scientifically informed decisions, and conserve and
enhance ocean and coastal resources. NOAA's observations,
tools and information enable people to understand and
prepare for climate variability and change as well as monitor
climate and environmental fluctuations as they occur in real
time. NOAA is an important resource for research results,
data and analysis to help border communities develop
capacity to respond to the effects of climate change.
For example, the Climate.gov website provides timely and
authoritative scientific data and information about climate
to promote public understanding of climate science and
climate-related events, as illustrated by the report Drought
on the Rio Grande}01 NOAA's National Hurricane Center
also provides storm surge forecasts, which are of increasing
interest to Pacific and Gulf of Mexico border communi-
ties.108 NOAA's U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit provides
scientific tools, information and expertise to help people
manage climate-related risks and opportunities to improve
resilience to extreme events, such as the Boosting Ecosystem
Resilience in the Southwest's Sky Islands case.109 Table 2 lists
site resources.
NOAA leads the interagency National Integrated Drought
Information System (NIDIS), which improves the country's
capacity to manage drought-related risks by providing the
Table 2.The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit
Component
Content
Steps to Resilience
Steps that users can follow to initiate, plan and implement projects to become more resilient to climate-
related hazards.
Case Studies
Real case studies of climate risks affecting communities and steps they are taking to plan and respond to
improve resilience.
Tools
Free software to access, analyze and visualize climate data; estimate climate trends and hazards; and
enable resilience-building efforts.
Climate Explorer
A visualization tool to create maps of climate stressors and impacts and interactive graphs of daily obser-
vations or long-term averages from thousands of weather stations.
Self-Guided Learning Narratives explaining how climate variability and change can affect regions and economic sectors, pointers
and Access to Expertise to free training courses, locations of centers for regional climate information, and search tools for access-
ing federal climate science domains.
20
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Existing Federal Programs and Resources
best available information and tools to prepare for and
mitigate the effects of drought. NIDIS operates a Drought
Early Warning System to make climate and drought science
readily available to a wide range of federal, tribal, state,
local and academic partners and to improve the capacity of
stakeholders to monitor, forecast, plan for and cope with the
impacts of drought. The North America Drought Monitor
is a cooperative Canadian, Mexican and U.S. effort to
monitor drought across the continent.110 The system allows
each country's drought experts to coordinate and integrate
data collection and monitor droughts across the continent
monthly. NOAA's Digital Coast provides coastal social and
economic data, satellite and Lidar imagery, hydrography data
sets, land cover and land cover-change databases, arid digital
elevation models, as well as decision-support tools and
training for coastal managers to help communities address
climate resiliency issues and other topics, such as adaptation.
The Global Ecosystem Center used NOAAs Coastal Change
Analysis Program to integrate land-cover data sets with
Landsat imagery from 1984 and 2011 to evaluate land
cover over 26 years to visualize urban growth in the region
between Los Angeles and San Diego and illustrate fire risks
so as to develop land-use and natural-resource management
strategies to address fire vulnerabilities. Another example is
the San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative, a partnership
of local and regional organizations working together to pro-
tect the county's approximately 70 miles of coastline from
vulnerabilities to sea-level rise, coastal flooding and extreme
weather events and help participating cities in California
(Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar,
San Diego and Imperial Beach) coordinate sea-level rise
vulnerability assessments and integrated coastal resilience
strategies to reduce the region's risks and vulnerabilities and
build regional coastal resilience. A third example is the Gulf
of Mexico Alliance, whose partners will seek to help 10 Gulf
of Mexico coastal communities enhance their resilience to
future hazards through pilot projects and regional coordina-
tion, including in Texas.
Tijuana estuary in San Diego, California, the largest undivided, intact
coastal wetland in Southern California,
Credit: Sherry V. Smith / Shutterstock.com.
3.4 Energy
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) seeks to ensure
America's security and prosperity by addressing its energy
and environmental challenges through transformative science
and technology solutions. As part of its initiatives related to
climate change and energy, the DOE works collaboratively
with its counterparts in Mexico and Canada. In May 2015,
San Diego Climate Collaborative (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]
L Regional Coastal Resilience Program)
The San Diego Climate Collaborative,
founded in 2012, is a member-based
network supporting public agencies
in the San Diego region to advance
comprehensive solutions to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and prepare
for climate impacts. In February of
2016, the collaborative received a
$689,500 grant from NOAA (matched
with nearly $350,000 from nonfederal
partners) for protecting the region's
coastline. As storms and flooding
from El Nino and sea-level rise have
threatened the San Diego region's
coastline, infrastructure and economy,
this partnership managed by seven San
Diego public agencies has extended its
efforts to improve regional resilience
and urban protection. The project
provides new data on flood mapping
and shoreline bluff surveys, developing
additional legal, economic and
scientific expertise and helping cities
with outreach and communication.
Along with 70 miles of beaches that
attract millions of visitors each year,
San Diego's coastal region contains
key infrastructure such as major
transportation arteries, including
Amtrak rail lines and highways; seven
major military installations; and water
and energy infrastructure, including
power plants and a new desalination
plant.
Specific goals of the collaborative
include the coordination of sea-
level rise vulnerability assessments
for the five contiguous Californian
coastal cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Encinitas, Del Mar and San Diego and
legal and cost benefit analyses of
potential coastal protection strategies
that could be incorporated into land
use, regulatory policies and capital
improvement programs. As a result,
local coastal plans will be updated
to account for coastal storm and
sea-level rise hazards. The large
number of NOAA Regional Coastal
Resilience Grants Program proposals
devoted to building resilience in
coastal communities in the face of
climate change impacts and hazards
indicate both the extraordinary level
of nationwide need and the realization
that communities, in addition to facing
current impacts, are concerned about
the future impacts that will potentially
have greater negative consequences
to their environmental, social and
economic sustainability.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
21
-------
Existing Federal Programs and Resources
the energy ministers from the three countries established a
Working Group on Climate Change and Energy to support
implementation of clean energy and climate change goals.
Areas for collaboration include energy efficiency, low-car-
bon electricity grids, and climate change adaptation and
resilience. In February 2016, the three countries signed
a Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Climate
Change and Energy Collaboration, which expanded areas
of cooperation addressing climate change associated with
energy production, transmission and use. Bilateral discus-
sions between the United States and Mexico also encourage
the development and implementation of initiatives to foster
cooperation in the energy sector between the two countries.
3.5 Environmental Protection Agency
EPA is the U.S. lead agency for protecting human health
and the environment, including promulgation, enforcement
and rule development related to the Clean Air Act and
hazardous materials responses during declared disasters or
emergencies, such as major storms and other climate-related
incidents. The EPA-led binational Border 2020 Program,
an implementation program of the 1983 La Paz Agreement,
empowers federal environmental authorities in the United
States and Mexico to implement cooperative initiatives
through multiyear binational programs. In collaboration
with Mexico's environment ministry, Secretarfa de Medio
Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT)—as well
as help from EPA's partners in state government, industry,
academia, tribes and local communities—Border 2020
builds on progress already made on climate change and
other environmental issues under the program. Border 2020
emphasizes regional, bottom-up approaches for decision
making, priority setting and project implementation to
protect and improve the environment and public health
along the border. Many of the activities under Border 2020,
as well as other EPA programs, respond directly to climate
change issues in border communities.
Border 2020 has established five environmental and public
health goals: (1) reduce air pollution; (2) improve access to
clean and safe water; (3) promote materials management,
waste management and clean sites; (4) enhance joint
preparedness for environmental response; and (5) enhance
compliance assurance and environmental stewardship.111
Within each goal, EPA has defined specific priority activ-
ities that program partners will undertake to protect the
environment and public health in the U.S.-Mexico border
region through "conservation-oriented social and economic
development that emphasizes the protection and sustainable
use of resources, while addressing both current and future
needs, and present and future impacts of human actions."112
Task forces devoted to EPA's Border 2020 Goal 4 regularly
discuss, plan, prepare and conduct exercises for potential
emergency responses because of the increased potential for
floods, fire and severe storms resulting from climate change.
EPA coordinates closely with FEMA, NOAA, and the U.S.
Coast Guard—as well as with other federal, state and local
agencies (e.g., Protection Civil, county emergency managers,
emergency management departments)—through the Goal 4
task forces and EPA Regional Response Teams.
EPA works with partners along the U.S.-Mexico border to
address binational environmental challenges and dispro-
portionate health effects that burden border communities.
Health effects include poor indoor and outdoor air quality,
mismanagement of pesticides, misuse of chemicals and
other waste, poor water quality, and binational chemical
emergencies. Increasing temperatures that have accompanied
climate change have exacerbated many of these problems,
particularly the health effects of poor air quality in border
communities. One example of EPA efforts to improve air
quality is through the Imperial County (California) Air
Pollution Control District. Region 9 has provided funding
for the last 5 years to allow the district to implement a
campaign that discourages the use of fireworks and open
burning; public service announcements are aired on local
television, and outreach materials are distributed to local
schools.
EPA has been working with many partner organizations
along the border to protect children's health in communities
by funding a dozen organizations during the past 3 years to
support capacity building through training for child care and
school personnel, environmental home assessments, educa-
tion for farm workers about take-home pesticide exposures,
and training for those who train others. Many of these activ-
ities address issues related to children's health and the effects
of climate change. These efforts have affected about 25,000
people directly; when a community health promoter {promo-
tora) carries the message about children's health protection
into a community or physicians hear about children's health
protection in grand rounds or via online training, long-term,
multiplicative effects within a community may result. For
example, with partners such as the Southwest Center for
Pediatric Environmental Health, Texas Tech University
Health Sciences Center in El Paso, the White House "Strong
Cities, Strong Communities" initiative, and the University of
Texas Rio Grande Valley, EPA has cohosted three successful
children's environmental health symposia in the border
region. During these symposia, experts from the United
States and Mexico presented on a variety of important
topics, including asthma and air pollution, lead and mercury
exposure, climate change effects on children's health, diabetes
and obesity, and vector-borne illnesses. Participants included
health professionals, promotoras, community-health workers
and academics, as well as representatives from federal, state
and local governments.
22
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Existing Federal Programs and Resources
Measuring station for air quality and weather. Credit: Grafxart/Shutterstock.com.
EPA has addressed mobile source emissions and impacts
from U.S.-Mexico trade ports of entry as a major source of
pollution resulting from the high volume of personal vehicle
and diesel truck traffic that crosses the border, as described
in Chapters 1 and 2. For example, the San Ysidro Port of
Entry in California is the busiest land port in the world,
accounting for almost 20 percent of all personal vehicle and
pedestrian crossings on the U.S.-Mexico border. The San
Diego Air Pollution Control District, with funding from
EPA Region 9, installed an air quality monitor at the San
Ysidro Port of Entry for PM2.5 in 2015 to gather data about
air quality and likely impacts on the local community. PM2.5
consists of ultrafine particles that are absorbed deep into the
respiratory tract. They are generated to a significant degree
by motor vehicles, and they affect the air quality adjacent to
motor ways.
Using a methodology developed by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) that estimates emissions from
vehicles crossing the ports of entry, EPA also has provided
funding to estimate emissions at the Calexico, California,
and the Mariposa, Arizona, ports of entry. For the Mariposa
study, researchers used historical information from the U.S.
Department ofTransportation's Bureau of Transportation
Statistics and field data to establish a simulation model.
The results from the model are input to the Motor Vehicle
Emission Simulator, state-of-the-art emission modeling
software developed by EPA to analyze emissions. For the
Calexico study, researchers utilized methodologies developed
by FHWA.113 Emissions were estimated using a model used
by California state and local governments to meet Clean
Air Act requirements that calculates air pollution vehicle
emissions factors. The Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
also was used for this study to develop an adj ustment factor
to account for conditions that the California model cannot
directly analyze. The results of these studies can be used by
local, state and federal agencies responsible for planning new
ports or expanding existing ports to minimize emissions.
With funding from EPA, the California Air Resources
Board is operating two PM2,5 monitors in Mexicali, Baja
California, for the next 2 years. Air quality from these
monitors will help inform both countries of the interna-
tional transport of PM2.lv Imperial County (California)
is in nonattainment for PM&j and has been successful in
demonstrating, pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 179B
International Border Areas, that it would have been in
attainment but for emissions emanating from Mexico. With
funding from EPA, the state of Arizona recently completed
2 years of PM10 (PM less than or equal to 10 millimeters in
diameter) monitoring in Nogales, Sonora. Air quality data
from these monitors will help inform both countries of the
international transport of PM10 in the region.
In 2015, with EPA funding, the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality contracted with the Texas A&M
Transportation Institute to generate border-specific drive
cycles for cross-border transit buses at the El Paso-Ciudad
Juarez Port of Entry. The commission analyzed the data
following federal emissions models to develop a more
refined on-road mobile emissions inventory. In addition,
as vehicle traffic at border crossings contributes to total
on-road mobile-source emissions in border cities—and there
was no methodology to estimate this impact—the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality contracted with
the Transportation Institute to develop a robust estimation
methodology to allow analysis of cross-border vehicle activity
and accurate calculations of the potential effect of control
strategies. The estimation tool was completed in 2013 and
facilitates modeling at other inland ports along the entire
length of the U.S.-Mexico border, especially Laredo-Nuevo
Laredo, the inland port in the United States with the highest
commercial volume.
In recent years, as part of implementation of the Clean Air
Act, EPA has been targeting climate change more directly
by targeting GHG emissions—first through engine and fuel
economy standards in the transportation sector—but also
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
23
-------
Existing Federal Programs and Resources
In 2015, the Border Health Commission and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regions 6 and 9 cooperated with governmental and
nongovernmental organizations to train promotoras in cities throughout the border region. Credit: Pema Garcia, Texas A&M University.
requiring large newly constructed power plants to obtain a
GHG air permit. Most recently, EPA adopted a new rule
on August 3, 2015, known as the Clean Power Plan (CPP),
which would eliminate significant amounts of power plant
carbon pollution, and the resulting health-harming pol-
lutants, by requiring existing power plants to reduce CO^
emissions by 30 percent in the next 15 years. The CPP offers
clean energy innovation, development and deployment and
lays the foundation for the long-term strategy needed to
tackle the threat of climate change.
One of the key programs of the CPP, known as the Clean
Energy Investment Program, would provide—as part of
the way to comply with the CPP Rule—extra incentives
for states, tribes and local communities to invest in energy
efficiency and renewable energy accessible to communities.
By providing states and utilities ample flexibility and the
time needed to achieve these pollution cuts, the CPP offers
the power sector the ability to optimize pollution reduc-
tions while maintaining a reliable and affordable supply of
electricity. The CPP will allow fossil fuel-fired power plants
to continue to operate more cleanly and efficiently while
expanding the capacity for zero- and low-emitting power
sources. EPA is establishing interim and final statewide
goals. These goals will reduce sulfur dioxide and NOx and
lower missed work days, premature deaths, asthma attacks
and premature deaths related to pollution. The CPP has
been challenged in court and was recently stayed by the
U.S. Supreme Court while the CPP is under review. Some
border states have continued to plan for implementation of
the CPP, whereas others are awaiting the results of the review
by the Court of Appeals.11*
3.6 Health and Human Services
The Border Health Commission (BHC) within the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (H HS) provides
international leadership to improve health and the quality of
life along the U.S.-Mexico border by convening stakeholders
to promote health and prevent diseases. For example, the
BHC has established a collaborative partnership with EPA
to coordinate activities that support the BHC s Healthy
Border 2020 initiative and EPA's Border 2020 program.
In 2015, the BHC and EPA Regions 6 and 9 cooperated
with governmental organizations and nongovernmental
organizations to train promotoras in cities throughout the
border region, covering topics such as air quality, carbon
monoxide, asthma, lead exposure, pesticides, household
chemicals, water quality and drought within the Texas-
Chihuahua region. In regard to climate change, participants
in those sessions considered measures that their communities
and organizations are taking to address climate fluctuation
and change risks. The BHC and EPA collaborated on three
children's health symposia in 2015 and 2016 in El Paso, San
Diego and Brownsville. All included discussions on climate
change and its effects on children's health, especially with
regard to infectious diseases, respiratory illness and heat-re-
lated illnesses.115
3.7 Interior
The U.S. Department of the In terior (DOI) protects and
manages the country's natural resources and cultural heri-
tage, provides scientific and other information about those
resources, and honors its trust responsibilities and special
commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives and affili-
ated island communities. To implement President Obama's
2013 Climate Action Plan, DOI's Bureau of Reclamation,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park
Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have devel-
oped and implemented programs to enhance the resiliency
of U.S. border communities.
For example, USGS manages eight Climate Science Centers,
providing scientific vulnerability assessments, estimation of
climate effects on natural resources, monitoring, and data
24
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Existing Federal Programs and Resources
sharing for making decisions on mitigating and adapting
to the effects of climate change.116 DOI's Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives operate at the regional and field
levels to partner with federal, state, tribal and local entities
to apply Climate Science Center findings. For example,
one Climate Science Center-Landscape Conservation
Cooperative effort (the Southwest Tribal Climate Adaptation
Workshop convened in San Diego in 2015117) helped south-
ern California tribes learn about climate change impacts
on tribal resources and vulnerabilities and possible ways of
adapting to these impacts.
USGS supports 48 Water Science Centers in the United
States that collect, analyze and disseminate hydrological
data used to manage water resources. Since 2007, the
Arizona Water Science Center, in coordination with Mexico,
has conducted transboundary aquifer assessments of the
U.S.-Mexico transboundary aquifers, such as the Hueco
Bolson-Mesilla Aquifer in New Mexico and Texas and the
Upper Santa Cruz and San Pedro River Basin aquifers in
Arizona. Objectives include a comprehensive assessment
of the status of the aquifer, ground water flow models, and
extensive monitoring of hydrologic conditions, as well as
preparation of findings and sharing of information with land
managers in the United States and Mexico.lls
3.8 The U.S. Department of State,
U.S. Agency for International
Development, and International
Boundary and Water Commission
3.8.1 U.S. Department of State
The State Department supports bilateral and trilateral (with
Canada) policies to further the administration's climate
change objectives, including signing and ratifying the Paris
Agreement and implementing the National Determined
Contributions under the Paris Agreement. A major example
of this cooperation is the formation of the North American
Climate, Clean Energy, and Environment Partnership,
announced at the June 2016 North American Leaders
Summit, which outlines specific climate change goals agreed
to by all three countries. Several federal agencies on both
sides of the border are involved with implementing these
objectives. The State Department plays a coordinating,
support role in some cases and directly runs other programs.
3.8.2 U.S. Agency for International
Development
USAID supports Mexican national and subnational policy
development to implement energy reform and Mexico's
2012 General Law on Climate Change. Mexico's climate
change programs focus on switching to cleaner energy
sources and increasing energy efficiency. USAID supports
Mexican efforts to achieve its goal of a low-carbon future
through the following: (1) reducing GHG emissions from
its energy, forestry and land use sectors; (2) establishing
robust systems for monitoring, reporting and verifying emis-
sion rates and reductions; (3) strengthening its institutional
and technical capacities; and (4) creating a sustainable source
of financial support for climate change mitigation programs.
Table ; lists some key recent USAID achievements that
relate to the U.S. border because they enable Mexico's efforts
to prevent pollution and mitigate climate risks.
Table 3.Key U.S. Agency for International Development
Achievements in 2016
Provided technical assistance for the development of Mexico's
Climate Change Strategy.
Assisted Mexico to formulate mitigation cost curves for green-
house gas abatement strategies.
Assisted development of social and environmental safeguards
for reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation.
Helped Mexico plan for integrating renewable energy into
Mexico's electrical grid.
Fostered peer-to-peer learning, training and exchanges of
technical experts in climate change and energy.
Supported creation of a clean energy certificate system as an
incentive for renewable power generation.
Although the State Department and USAID initiatives do
not focus exclusively on the border region, the implementa-
tion of climate change goals nationally in Mexico will affect
the border.
3.8.3 International Boundary and Water
Commission
The IBWC is a binational international organization
comprising separate U.S. and Mexican sections tasked with
joint responsibility for managing the two countries' various
Border Sanitation and Stormwater Issues in Mexicali, Baja California, affecting New River
in California
The United States and Mexico have
made significant progress to address
stormwater and wastewater problems
in Mexicali, Baja California, that
affect New River water quality in
California. Key wastewater treatment
infrastructure in Mexicali, however,
is either now well past its useful life
or highly inefficient energy-wise;
stormwater infrastructure to handle
extreme storm events in Mexicali needs
to be upgraded to prevent adverse
water quality effects on the New
River in California. The New River is a
tributary to the Salton Sea, California's
largest inland surface water.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
25
-------
Existing Federal Programs and Resources
water and boundary agreements. The U.S. Section of the
IBWC is a federal agency that receives its budget as part
of the State Departments Foreign Operations and Related
Programs appropriation. The State Department provides the
U.S. Section with foreign policy oversight and guidance.
Commissioners appointed by each country's president
head both sections, which are administered and funded
independently.
The IBWC's mission relates to climate change through
the execution of its water distribution and flood control
responsibilities, transboundary water distribution in the
watersheds of the Rio Grande and Colorado rivers, operation
and maintenance of water storage reservoirs and hydroelec-
tric dams on the Rio Grande, and flood protection along
the principal boundary rivers through levee and interior
floodway projects. The Commission's border sanitation and
water quality mission includes the operation of wastewater
treatment plants in San Diego and Nogales (Arizona), both
the responsibility of the IBWC's U.S. Section. Its Mexican
Section manages a wastewater treatment plant in Nuevo
Laredo, Tamaulipas, on the Rio Grande.
Two principal agreements between the United States and
Mexico guide the IBWC's water management mission:
the 1906 Convention on the Equitable Distribution of
the Waters of the Rio Grande and the 1944 Treaty for the
Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana rivers
and the Rio Grande. Implementation of the IBWC's treaty
responsibilities frequently requires specific agreements for the
planning, construction, operation and maintenance of joint
works and projects, as well as for changes and adjustments to
operational matters. Major decisions of the IBWC are sub-
ject to the approval of the two governments and are recorded
as formal "Minutes," 320 of which have been concluded as
of August 2016. Text boxes describe the Commission's two
most recent Minutes concerning various aspects of Colorado
River and Tijuana River Basin water management.
3.9 Recommendations
1. A wealth of federal agency programs exists to help
border communities respond to the challenges of
climate change. Navigating the complex federal
structure to connect with specific programs, however,
often is a complicated and difficult task. Larger border
IBWC Minute 319 and Colorado River Water Resource Management
Minute 319 was adopted in 2012
to promote, on a 5year pilot basis,
binational cooperation in countering
the impact of protracted drought
in the U.S. Southwest and northern
Mexico. The Minute established mutual
obligations to improve management
of the Colorado River and guide U.S.
and Mexican authorities for managing
challenges of regional climate change.
It established adaptive approaches
to cooperate, within the strictures of
the two countries' 1944 Water Treaty,
on the diminishing water supply and
growing demand in the border region.
Mexico agreed to share the loss of
potential water usage reductions with
U.S. states under specified conditions,
while gaining a right to any eventual
surplus water in the system. The
Minute also provided for investment in
water conservation projects in Mexico
by U.S. governmental and private
entities to improve the efficiency of the
conveyance of the 1.5 million acre-feet
(1.85 billion cubic meters) of Colorado
River water delivered to Mexico
annually under the treaty. Minute
319 also addressed environmental
restoration of the Colorado River delta
by authorizing a first-ever release of a
"pulse flow" through the river system, a
long-standing goal of environmentalists
in both countries. In 2016, U.S. and
Mexican officials engaged in intensive
consultations that seek to design an
agreement to succeed Minute 319 once
it sunsets at the end of 2017.
IBWC Minute 320 and Tijuana River Basin Cooperation
The United States and Mexico
approved Minute 320 in 2015 to
manage flood control, wastewater,
solid waste, sediment and stormwater
flows containing sediment, trash,
and high concentrations of industrial,
agricultural and urban pollutants in
the transboundary Tijuana River Basin
that extends across a 1,750-square mile
(4,532-square kilometer) area in San
Diego County and the Baja California
municipalities of Tijuana, Tecate,
and Ensenada. Responsible technical
authorities in the United States and
Mexico (e.g., U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, state and local
governmental entities such as the
Regional Water Quality Control Board
and the city of San Diego), along with
other stakeholders (e.g., Surfrider
and Wild Coast), are cooperating
to protect the Tijuana River Basin's
natural resources despite the growing
population and urbanization on both
sides of the boundary. Minute 320
created a consultative mechanism
for jointly identifying and addressing
sustainable management of the
basin that also encourages enhanced
civic participation in the process. A
Binational Consultative Group, chaired
by the U.S. and Mexico sections of
the International Boundary Water
Commission, serves as a clearinghouse
for recommending cooperative
measures under the Minute 320
process. This Minute's example of
binational cooperation in addressing
the transboundary impact of climate
change could pave the way for
joint management of other shared
watersheds along the border.
26
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Existing Federal Programs and Resources
communities, with well-trained and numerous staff,
generally interface well with federal agencies. Smaller
urban and rural communities, however—especially
disadvantaged communities—often lack the human
resources to initiate contact with appropriate federal
programs. Consequently, it is recommended that
federal agencies facilitate the flow of information on
climate change programs for the border region to
border communities of all types. The NADB-BECC
would be an appropriate agency to organize this
information as part of its regular outreach to border
communities. NADB-BECC has a history of cooper-
ation with many different federal agencies, and BECC
would be able to effectively facilitate this information
sharing across the international border to communi-
ties and agencies at all levels because it is a binational
organization with headquarters in Mexico.
2. EPA should begin working with the State Department
and other federal and state partners and nongovern-
mental organizations to directly engage with Mexico
to reduce CO2 emissions from the Carbon I and II
electrical generating units near Nava, Coahuila, 20
miles south of Eagle Pass, Texas. These two coal-fired
power plants generate 1.2 and 1.4 gigawatts of energy,
respectively, and Carbon 1 emitted 7.5 million tons
(6.8 million metric tonnes) of CO2 in 2005 alone.
3. A range of local communities along the border
recognize the direct economic, social, human health
and environmental effects caused by climate change.
This leads to more local conversations on initiatives
that can be implemented or recommended to mitigate
climate change impacts. This bottom-up approach
is a key to Border 2020s success. Federal agencies,
particularly EPA, should continue to support Border
2020, which helps build on the expertise within com-
munities to identify priorities and implement projects.
Supporting these local initiatives is an infrastructure
of regional and border-wide workgroups further
targeting resources based on priorities identified by
the United States and Mexico.
4. Agencies should increase the frequency and depth of
binational coordination. For example, as a result of
the GNEB meetings in February 2016, the sister cities
of Brownsville (Texas) and Matamoros (Tamaulipas)
participated jointly in the World Urban Campaign:
Urban Lab in September 2016. The Urban Lab
dialogues are being led by ONU-Habitat Mexico
and Urban Campus by the Colegio Nacional de
Jurisprudencia Urbanistica. Leading up to this import-
ant meeting, the cities of Brownsville and Matamoros
participated in co-working meetings to plan and
decipher topics of valuable concern. Through careful
facilitation from federal officials and presentation of
background materials, the two cities agreed on two
topic areas: (1) transportation and mobility and (2)
flood mitigation and resiliency. Both cities highlighted
current local ordinances, areas of federal support, and
future initiatives. The mayors and staff from both
cities officially participated in the meetings.
5. The Border Liaison Mechanism is an agreement of
the U.S.-Mexico Binational Commission to empower
the consuls general of border cities to convene public
and other stakeholders from both sides of the border
to address common interests of regional concern. The
Border Liaison Mechanism has become less active
in recent years as a result of the economic downturn
and border violence. This mechanism now needs to
be re-energized with appropriate levels of resources
to facilitate cross-border cooperation at the local level
on climate change-related issues and other shared
concerns in the diverse regions of the border.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
27
-------
-------
Water-Related Issues and Climate Change
The combination of increased temperatures, reduced
precipitation and ongoing drought associated with climate
change threatens surface and subsurface water supplies
for residential, commercial, agricultural and ecosystem
maintenance purposes in many areas of the border region.
Growing scarcity of water also has negative implications for
energy production in the border region. The intensification
of storms that is one effect of climate change is projected
to increase runoff that is magnified by expanding urban
areas, exacerbating stormwater and flood management
challenges for border communities. Many of the resultant
risks are transboundary in nature and can be most effectively
addressed through bilateral cooperation in the border region.
The most obvious challenges are effective management of the
binational Rio Grande River and Colorado River systems
and support of state aquifer management programs.
Many factors, from urbanization to urban tree cover to
high energy demand, affect water quantity and quality in
the U.S.-Mexico border region. Cities along the border
have started implementing programs and policies to help
combat these negative effects; however, much more can and
should be done. Many of these efforts also address the effects
of climate change. Federal agencies provide support and
leadership for many of these activities, in concert with state,
local and binational agencies.
4.1 Effect of urban development on
water flows and flood risk
Extreme rain events that are projected to increase with cli-
mate change come with their own challenges. The Assessment
of Climate Change on the Southwest United States16 reports
that highly structured and in-filled cities have little capacity
to adapt to increasing stormwater flows and may be especial-
ly vulnerable to extreme flooding. Urban development has
significantly affected natural water flows and hydrological
patterns. Construction generally involves removing native
vegetation and soil, which alters the natural landscape and
vegetation that help to slowly capture and filter stormwater,
provide air purification benefits, and provide habitat for ani-
mals. As development changes the landscape from "green" or
natural to gray," there often is a loss in permeable surfaces,
which can lead to an acceleration of stormwater runoff into
low-lying areas. This affects the natural stormwater flow and
changes expectations of "flood zones" and preparations for
extreme weather events, which are projected to increase as
the climate changes (Figure 7).
The potential for extreme precipitation events is important
for urban planners and engineers to consider because the
amount of rain and duration of these events determine the
needed design capacity of the stormwater infrastructure.
Substantial increases in extreme precipitation events driven
by climate change may result in the failure of stormwater
systems if new extreme precipitation levels are outside their
design envelope.
As indicated in Chapter 1, FEMA flood maps depict flood
hazards for the border area derived from decades-old data.
In addition, for areas that share a watershed with Mexico,
data from south of the border often are not harmonized
with those for U.S. communities. New flood maps that are
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
29
-------
Water-Related Issues and Climate Change
updated with changes in runoff resulting from urbanization
on both sides of the border and incorporate projected
climate change impacts will help manage flood hazards in
border communities.19
Large
Storm
1
Higher and More .
Rapid Peak Discharge I
' X J .i
* Small
* . Storm
( *
\ More Runoff Volume .
A
N Lower and Less
Pre-development
Post-development
/ V
I V
Gradual / \
Recession
Higher Baseflow /
/ '
Figure 7. Altered hydrograph that indicates runoff
volume and peaks in response to urbanization.
Source: Adapted from Schueler, 1987."9
The amount of land urbanized in the border region continues
to increase, exacerbating runoff from the more intense storm
events associated with climate change. From 2006 through
2015, the three major urban areas along the Texas-Mexico
border lost 18,389 acres (7,445 hectares) of land to urban
development, representing a 5 percent increase in urbanized
or developed land (Table 4). In the Lower Rio Grande Valley
and El Paso areas, the land lost was primarily cropland. The
land use changed as a result of urbanization around Laredo,
Texas, was mainly former rangeland (Figure 8).
4.2 Green infrastructure
Traditional stormwater management systems, or gray
infrastructure, are ill-equipped to mitigate the increasing
number of extreme drought and flood events associated with
climate change. Gray water infrastructure redirects rainfall
into channels and piping, making it unavailable for storage,
irrigation, natural cleansing or infiltration. Sizing for larger
flood events would require costly overhauls of existing storm
management systems.
Green infrastructure provides a cost-effective alternative to
traditional gray infrastructure that revives ecosystem ser-
vices, adding to the border's resiliency. Green infrastructure
is defined by EPA as a set of products, technologies and
practices that use natural systems or constructed systems that
mimic natural processes to improve overall environmental
quality and provide public services.120121 BECC has done
much to increase border communities' understanding of
these principles and techniques through its many education-
al forums.
Green stormwater infrastructure helps slow runoff in
developed and undeveloped areas, reduces surface erosion
(resulting in improved water quality), and filters the water
slowly into the soil. In addition, roots from trees and shrub-
bery help to anchor soil, which minimizes erosion, and the
vegetation helps build organic soil that allows for filtration
and keeps nutrients in the ground. Green stormwater infra-
structure supports improved human health and air quality,
reduced energy demand, increased carbon storage, increased
property values of up to 30 percent, increased recreation
space, reduced ambient temperatures, flood prevention, and
additional habitat for wildlife:
"[T]he value of green infrastructure actions is calcu-
lated by comparison to the cost of'hard' infrastructure
alternatives, the value of avoided damages, or market
preferences that enhance value (e.g., property value).
Green infrastructure benefits generally can be divided
into five categories of environmental protection:
(1) Land-value, (2) Quality of life, (3) Public
health, (4) Hazard mitigation, and (5) Regulatory
compliance."122
Green stormwater infrastructure, including bioswales and
rain gardens, can help to capture and filter water onsite
instead of diverting it into stormwater systems or onto roads
or property. Tucson is a leader in terms of green stormwater
infrastructure implementation, and research has shown the
numerous benefits:
"Results from modelingshoiv GSI [green stormivater
infrastructure] can have a significant impact on both
large and small storm events. GSI resulted in reducing
the 100-year 3-hour event peaks by 24%, 19%
and 10% in the Valencia, El Vado and Santa Clara
watersheds, respectively. GSI implemented throughout
these ivatersheds in our 25-year scenario ivill result in
over $2.5 million of annual community benefits as a
result of flood reductions, ivater conservation, property
value increases, reduced urban heat island impacts,
Table 4. Developed Land in the Three Major Urban Areas Along the Texas-Mexico Border (2006-2015)
Lower Rio Grande
Valley
Laredo, Texas
El Paso, Texas
Combined
2006 acres
218,896
32,497
102,605
353,998
2015 acres
227,698
36,429
108,260
372,387
Difference
8,802
3,932
5,655
18,389
Percentage increase
4%
12%
6%
5%
Source: National Geospatial Data Asset 2006 National Land Cover Database; National Agricultural Statistics Service 2015 Cropland Data Layer.
30
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Water-Related Issues and Climate Change
Legend
Figure 8. Developed areas in (A) El Paso and (B) Laredo, Texas, in 2006 (gray) and 2015 (red). From 2006 to 2015,
El Paso's urban footprint increased 6 percent and that of Laredo 12 percent.
Source: National Geospatial Data Asset 2006 National Land Cover Database and National Agricultural Statistics Service 2015 Cropland Data Layer.
An example of green infrastructure. Water from an adjacent parking lot in Las Cruces, New Mexico, is directed to a rain garden, where it slowly
soaks into the ground while natural bacteria in the soil help to break down pollutants.
Credit: Cathy Mathews, Landscape Architect, City of Las Cruces, New Mexico.
improved stormivater quality, reduced heating and
cooling needs, air quality improvements, and the energy
associated with pumping Central Arizona Project ivater
and ground ivater in Tucson."1^
The Lower Rio Grande Valley Texas Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Stormwater Management Task Force is
an organization that promotes green stormwater infrastruc-
ture and less intense development through education and
workshops. The Lower Rio Grande Valley Stormwater Task
Force and its many conferences, trainings, demonstration
projects and research are partly funded by an EPA 319(b)
grant through the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality. The organization assists 17 municipalities and
counties across the Rio Grande Valley in complying with
state and federal stormwater regulations and permits.121
Decreased precipitation is likely to stress already fragile local
water supplies. Capturing or storing stormwater runoff
when it rains can help communities increase water supply
reliability Organizations such as the San Diego Climate
Collaborative already advocate for infiltration-based green
infrastructure practices (e.g., rain gardens, green streets) that
allow rainwater to soak into the ground, replenishing local
ground water reserves. Rainwater harvesting techniques
(e.g., rain barrels, cisterns) can reduce demand for potable
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
31
-------
Brownsville Resaca Restoration Program
BROWNSVILLE RESACA RESTORATION (Oioup 1 Project Sites)
Water-Related Issues and Climate Change
carried river flows with heavy sediment
loads through the delta to the Gulf of
Mexico. Today, these deltaic channels
have been abandoned to form finger-
lakes throughout Brownsville, which
are referred to as "resacas" and are
classified as wetlands. The resaca
system eventually flows into the
Brownsville Ship Channel and the Gulf
of Mexico.
Over time, agriculture and urban
development contributed to substantial
deposits of sediment and trash
resulting in decreased water depth,
water quality and water circulation.
Water depths are no longer sufficient
to provide habitat for many native
species of fish that once lived in the
resacas, algal blooms and fish kills are
becoming a more common occurrence,
and the resaca are no longer able to
capture sufficient quantities of runoff
from the intense storms of the region
to avoid urban flooding.
Initiated in 2013, by December 2015,
the restoration program had dredged
nearly 116,000 cubic yards (89,000 cubic
meters) of sediment from three resacas
along with significant quantities of solid
waste, including scrap tires. Removal
of this material increased the capacity
of stormwater retention of these three
resacas by 23.3 million gallons (88.2
million liters). Accomplishments to
date, along with the ongoing dredging
and restoration projects conducted in
partnership with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, will increase Brownsville's
ability to address flood events, which
will likely become more intense with
the effects of climate change.
Source: brownsville-pub.com/about-
u s/projects/resa ca-resto ration;
Mariscal, R. 2016. Resaca Restoration
and Southmost Regional Water
Authority Update to the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board, epa.gov/
node/142511/revision/353653.
Floating dredger from IMS Dredges® is self-propelled and has a 9-foot cutterhead. Sedi-
ment is transported via floating pipe to an offsite dewatering system. Credit: Brownsville
Public Utilities Board.
Segments of the Brownsville resaca system that were dredged during Phase 1 of the
resaca restoration project. Credit: Brownsville Public Utilities Board.
An innovative green infrastructure
project is underway in the City of
Brownsville that will improve urban
resiliency to climate change impacts.
Brownsville Public Utilities Board's
resaca restoration program, in
cooperation with state and federal
agencies, is restoring these natural
wetlands to improve ecological
functioning, increase urban recreation
areas, and capture stormwater to
reduce flooding. The Brownsville
landscape is characterized by a broad,
fanshaped delta at a river's mouth
that has been dissected by multiple
meandering channels. These channels
water for landscape irrigation in public parks and municipal
buildings or for nonpotable uses such as toilet flushing and
cooling systems. According to a joint Issue Brief by the
Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pacific Institute:
"In southern California and the San Francisco Bay
Area, capturing runoff using these approaches can
increase water supplies by as much as 630,000 acre-
feet each year. Capturing this volume, roughly equal
to the amount of water used by the entire City of Los
Angeles annually, would increase the sustainability
of California's ivater supplies while at the same time
would reduce a leading cause of surface water pollution
in the state''izs
32
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Water-Related Issues and Climate Change
Urban Forestry
Project Desert Canopy is funded by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's U.S. Forest Service to
enable communities to improve air quality through
urban forestry. Urban forestry and expansion of tree
cover helps offset climate change impacts in border
cities. The Desert Canopy study completed in 2014
indicates that Phoenix, Arizona, has a 9 percent tree
cover that hasan annual benefit of $6.11 million in
terms of stormwater capture and filtering. El Paso,
Texas, has a 5.1 percent tree cover that has an annual
benefit of $2.1 million. Albuquerque, New Mexico, has a
13.3 percent tree cover that has a $3.42 million annual
benefit in terms of avoided stormwater runoff. Las
Cruces, New Mexico, has a 3.7 percent tree cover, which
has an annual benefit of $58,900 per year in terms of
stormwater filtration and capture.128129 By adopting
smart tree canopy and green stormwater infrastructure
policies, the U.S.-Mexico border cities not only can
become more resilient in terms of flash flooding and
extreme heat but also improve air quality through
increased carbon sequestration, increase walkability
through reduced urban heat island effects, and reduce
peak energy demand while increasing property values:
"[A] 20-percent tree canopy over a house results in
annual cooling savings of 8 to 18 percent and annual
heating savings of 2 to 8 percent."130
During the past century in Texas, the frequency of 2-day
heavy rainfall spells has nearly doubled,17 with 4- to 6-inch
rainfalls becoming more common in the Rio Grande Valley.
In lieu of developing oversized stormwater infrastructure to
combat these deluges, Brownsville, Texas, is using resacas or
historic river channels to help buffer the effects of extreme
flooding events. Efforts are underway to restore, enhance
and improve the natural services of flood protection and
water supply in the resacas through sedimentation removal.
In phase one alone, the community has increased its storage
capacity by 23.3 million gallons (88.2 million liters).126
If all area resacas are restored, the city could direct up to
727 million gallons (2.8 billion gallons) into these channels.
As promising as this strategy appears for this coastal city,
the unmet restoration costs moving forward are almost
$170 million.127The adjacent Mexican city of Matamoros,
Tamaulipas, had filled in most of its resacas with urban
development, and storm events produce considerably more
flooding there than in Brownsville. This contrast across the
international border in the same ecoregion illustrates the
value of green infrastructure.
Green infrastructure implemented at a broad scale has the
potential to reduce stormwater pollution from the "first
flush," the first 0.5 inch (1.3 centimeters) of rain that
liberates the oils, grease, animal feces, brake dust, metals
and sediment that accumulate on roofs, streets and other
impermeable surfaces between storm events. As water
infiltrates roots and soil, bacteria break down hydrocarbons
and other urban contaminants carried across impermeable
surfaces. For cities such as Las Cruces, New Mexico—which
is soon to have its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System stormwater permitting program adopt green storm-
water infrastructure as its primary management strategy to
address water quality impairments—building professional
and economic capacity to address health and environmental
concerns is imperative.
4.3 Nogales water quantity and quality
issues
Binational water, wastewater and stormwater issues are very
complex in the Ambos Nogales region, comprising the sister
cities of Nogales, Arizona, and Nogales, Sonora. Ambos
Nogales has long presented a microcosm of the type of
water and sanitation issues that arise when close proximity,
explosive population growth and a particular topography
combine at the U.S.-Mexico border. The United States and
Mexico, through the IBWC, have cooperated in wastewater
treatment since the 1950s to handle effluent from Mexico
that flows from the much larger and faster growing city
of Nogales, Sonora. Currently, the Nogales International
Wastewater Treatment Plant (NIWTP), located near
Nogales, Arizona, treats much of the wastewater from the
Mexico side of the border. The treated effluent is discharged
into the Santa Cruz River, where it maintains critical
riparian habitat downstream (in the United States) for many
miles and recharges aquifers that supply potable water to
surrounding communities.
Stormwater management also constitutes a major chal-
lenge. A combination natural wash and manmade tunnel
system conveys floodwaters through the two municipalities
during the brief but intense summer monsoon season but
is proving increasingly inadequate for the task. Greatly
diminished rainfall absorption capacity by the ground in
the rapidly urbanizing territory of Nogales, Sonora, has
combined with the more intense rainfall events associated
with climate change to greatly overload the system, leading
to blown manhole covers and street flooding in both cities.
Stormwater challenges that have arisen as a result of cli-
mate change in Ambos Nogales have been the focus of the
IBWC, which has approached the issues from a binational
perspective.
4.3.1 Climate change impacts on limited water
supply
The water supply of Nogales, Arizona, relies mainly on
micro-ground water basins located along the Santa Cruz
River, located east of the city, that are recharged by ephem-
eral runoff. The city also depends on the Potrero well field
located east of the Nogales Wash. The main water supply of
Nogales, Sonora, is the Los Alisos well field, located south
of the Nogales watershed divide. Supply is supplemented by
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
33
-------
Water-Related Issues and Climate Change
ground water infiltration galleries located along the Santa
Cruz River in Sonora and wells located within the Nogales
subwatershed.
In the Upper Santa Cruz River Basin in Arizona, climate
change is projected to increase the frequency of dry summers
and the frequency of both wet and dry winters.131 This will
complicate management decisions for the water utilities that
serve Ambos Nogales and will have significant implications
for water quality and quantity and the ecosystem services
supported by the Santa Cruz River in Arizona. The following
issues are
of t
Drier summers coupled with wetter winters could
shift the distribution of Nogales sanitary sewer
overflows to the winter months. This may augment
infiltration of contaminated stormwater on down-
stream water supplies while affecting ecosystems.
Drier summer and winter seasons could negatively
affect the Santa Cruz River microbasins in Arizona,
forcing the U.S. municipality to rely on lower quality
water from the Potrero well field.
IBWC Minute 276, a binational agreement between
the United States and Mexico adopted in 1988,
established the conditions for wastewater treatment of
effluent from Nogales, Sonora, in the United States.
The Minute further established that Mexico would
retain the right to eventually treat such effluent in its
own national territory, as well as the right to reclaim
wastewater volumes treated in the United States.
Seasonal uncertainties in rainfall may encourage
diminished wastewater deliveries to Arizona via treat-
ment at the Los Alisos Wastewater Treatment Plant for
recharge of Sonoran water supplies.
Reduced wastewater deliveries to the NIWTP in
Arizona will affect recharge of downstream Arizona
water supplies, the perennial flow of the Santa Cruz
River, and the sustainability of established and
rare ecosystems that the river currently supports
(Figure 9).
4.3.2 Climate change impacts on ecosystem
services
Surface flows in the Santa Cruz River provide many eco-
system services, such as vegetation and habitat for wildlife,
as well as recharge to ground water resources for water
provisioning. The USGS has mapped and quantified the
biophysical and socioeconomic effects resulting from various
scenarios associated with diminished deliveries of Sonoran
wastewater to the NIWTP in Arizona. Based on various
effluent release: scenarios from Sonora, the USGS Santa
Cruz Ecosystem Portfolio Model summarizes the effects
on Arizona community real estate values; the effects on
Tumacacori National Historical Park, an Aud ubon Society
Important Bird Area that hosts endangered birds; and the
extent of the Santa Cruz River's perennial flow, which hosts
the endangered Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis).132
Declining precipitation and annual distribu tion of storms
associated with climate change, in combination with urban
expansion and water scarcity in Nogales, Sonora, however,
likely will reduce treated water discharge to the Santa Cruz
River. As Nogales, Sonora, reuses more of its wastewater,
a lower volume will be conveyed across the border to the
binational sewage treatment plant. The USGS predicts that a
17 percent reduction in wastewater deliveries to the NIWTP
will negatively affect real estate values in the downstream
community ofTubac by $1 million, impair the downstream
Important Bird Area, and affect the perennial extent of
the river by at least 2 miles (3.2 kilometers). The worst-
case scenario considers no further deliveries of wastewater
from Sonora. In this case, real estate values in Tubac
and Tumacacori are affected by more than $ 11 million
Figure 9. Santa Cruz River at the Chavez Siding Road Crossing before (A) and after (B) the Nogales International
Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade and Los Alisos diversions (June 2004 and May 2014, respectively).
Source: John Shasky, Friends of the Santa Cruz River Volunteer.
34
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Water-Related Issues and Climate Change
combined, perennial flows through the Tumacacori National
Historical Park are eliminated, and at least 12 miles (19.3
kilometers) of Santa Cruz River perennial habitat is lost.
Most recently, the perennial exten t of the Santa Cruz River
has diminished as a result of improved recharge of effluent.
This resulted from decreased ammonia concentrations asso-
ciated with an upgrade to the NIWTP in 2009. Although
perennial reach has been lost, improved effluent quality
also has resulted in the rediscovery of the endangered Gila
topminnow downstream of the NIWTP, thus putting more
at stake if the river is entirely lost.®
4.4 Wetlands
Wetlands serve many important functions, from acting as
natural water filters to preserving and protecting the coun-
try's aquatic and terrestrial species. Wetlands also provide a
useful tool for control of stormwater. EPA defines wetlands
as "areas where water covers the soil, or is present either at
or near the surface of the soil all year or for varying periods
of time during the year, including during the growing
season."134 Wetlands also can be community assets and offer
ecotourism and economic benefits: "When all else is equal,
the price of a home located within 300 feet from a body of
water increases by up to 27.8%."® When properly designed
and implemented, a wetland can not only provide habitat for
animals but also play a very important role in urban storm-
water management.
There are many successful examples of wetland creation
along the U.S.-Mexico border. In El Paso, the Rio Bosque
Wetland receives treated effluent water from the Bustamante
Wastewater Treatment Plant year-round. The University of
Texas at El Paso manages the wetland and organizes bird
watching tours and other outdoor activities in the wetland.
The BJ Bishop Wetland in Presidio, Texas, also is an example
Climate Change and Endangered Desert Fish Response to Drought at Leslie Canyon National
Wildlife Refuge
Gila topminnow. Credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The southwestern border region of
the United States has always been
challenged by the availability of water.
Historic droughts have sometimes
extended for decades. In response
to these conditions, aquatic species
in the area have very restricted
distribution and also have been
challenged by introductions of invasive
fish species. At Leslie Canyon National
Wildlife Refuge in southeast Arizona,
wildlife managers are collaborating
with private landowners to help
desert fish adapt to rapidly changing
climatic conditions. The 2,765-acre
(1,119-hectare) refuge was established
in 1988 to protect the Yaqui topminnow
[Poeciliopsis sonoriensis) and the Yaqui
chub (Gila purpurea), two mosquito-
eating fish that are in danger of
extinction because of loss of their
wetland habitat and competition with
nonnative species.
Perennial flow in Leslie Creek is
dependent on an ample winter
snowpack on the adjacent 9,796-foot
(2,986-meter) Chiricahua Mountains,
which slowly melts and provides a
steady source of fresh water. Ongoing
long-term drought conditions now
affect this region, and future climate
change is projected to further reduce
available water. For example, the
annual snowpack has been more than
50 percent below normal, resulting in
less stream flow and sometimes even
zero perennial water.
To help sustain the native fish
populations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has worked with ranchers
upstream from the refuge to purchase
conservation easements, establish a
Safe Harbor Agreement, and introduce
the rare fish into suitable wetlands
on the private ranches that are less
threatened by reduced water. This
formal process is a "win-win" situation
for everyone involved. It provides for
landscape protection and conservation
of rare animals on private property,
which remain on local tax rolls
instead of being owned by the federal
government. It enables ranchers to
restore endangered species on their
private lands without any risk imposed
by laws that might otherwise negatively
affect their management activities and
use of their property. Finally, it helps
build positive relationships between
wildlife managers and ranchers as they
work together to keep large areas of
the landscape intact and healthy during
adverse environmental conditions.
Through this cooperation, desert
fish that have lived in these harsh
conditions for millennia will have a
chance to survive the expected changes
in climate.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
35
-------
Water-Related Issues and Climate Change
of how treated wastewater can be diverted to a wetland to
enhance habitat for migrating and local birds and provide
recreation opportunities for community members. Presidio
has agreed to donate water for as long as the supply lasts.
Shallow marsh systems are a viable option for stormwater
management because they act as a hybrid system for reten-
tion, detention and pollutant removal. They can temporarily
store stormwater runoff in shallow pools and include design
elements such as trees, native grasses, wildflowers, waterfalls
(for aeration) and aquatic life. Shallow marshes or construct-
ed wetlands are considered a "highly effective" management
practice in terms of water quality treatment.136 Incorporating
more wetlands into urban areas and into the design of
retention ponds can lead to reduced concentrations of trace
metals, trash and debris, oil and grease, and toxins in the
water system. The effective use of resacas by Brownsville for
flood control and other environmental benefits, described
above, is an example of the value of wetlands and the services
they provide.
4.5 The water-energy nexus
Water and energy are closely intertwined. As discussed in
Chapter 1, the energy supply that is critical to the economic
dynamism, social wellbeing and health of U.S. border resi-
dents is likely to be stressed by the effects of climate change
on a number of fronts, including limited water supplies for
hydropower generation and cooling of thermoelectric power
plants.
4.5.7 Water-stressed areas along the border
Although the United States and Mexico in general are not
considered water-scarce countries, unequal water distribu-
tion, pollution, population growth and overuse have led to
significant water stress along the U.S.-Mexico border. The
water stress on both sides of the border will only be exacer-
bated by the higher temperatures and declining precipitation
brought by climate change.
Climate change is reducing renewable surface and ground
water resources along the U.S.-Mexico border, posing a
major concern to energy security. Arizona and California
are two of seven U.S. states that share the Colorado River
with Mexico. Recent droughts have affected the water supply
across the West, with reservoir levels along the Colorado
River dwindling to 40-year lows.137 The border region
of southern New Mexico, far west Texas and Chihuahua
(Mexico) is challenged by limited surface and ground water
supplies that are becoming increasingly saline; increasing
water demands resulting from a growing population and
demand from irrigated agriculture; water quality effects from
agricultural, municipal and industrial discharges to the river;
and rising temperatures and increased frequency and inten-
sity of drought and extreme weather events.13S According to
Mexico's National Water Commission, much of northern
and central Mexico are under high or very high levels of
water stress, with 40 percent to 132 percent of the region's
renewable water resources already having been allocated.139
Table 5 contrasts water withdrawal for different uses in the
United States and Mexico.
Table S.Water Withdrawal for Different Uses in the
United States and Mexico
United States (2010)
Type
Percentage of Total
Thermoelectric*
45
Irrigation
32
Industrial
4
Public Supply
12
Other
7
Mexico (2009)
Type
Percentage of Total
Agriculture
77
Municipal
14
Thermoelectric
5
Industrial
4
*Total withdrawals for cooling; does not reflect cooling water that is returned
to source after use. Source: U.S. data: Maupin et al. 201425; Mexico data:
UN-Water 2013."°
Renewable energy sources, such as solar photovoltaic systems
and wind, have an advantage over hydroelectric and ther-
modynamic energy as they do not require fuel processing
and associated water inputs to generate electricity and are
consequently more resilient to extreme weather events and
severe droughts than hydro and thermoelectric sources. Solar
photovoltaic and wind power systems can improve access to
and sustainability of water supply for agriculture and other
uses.
In its World Energy Outlook 2012, the International Energy
Agency concluded that energy sector scenarios with higher
shares of renewable energy require much less water. The
American Wind Energy Association estimated that electricity
generated from wind energy in the United States avoided
the consumption of more than 130 billion liters (34 billion
gallons) of water in 2013, equivalent to the annual water
consumption of more than 320,000 U.S. households
(Figure 10).141
4.5.2 Solar photovoltaic power case study
Solar photovoltaic power uses up to 300 times less water143
than conventional energy by directly converting sunlight to
electricity without the use of water. On average, U.S. ther-
moelectric power plants withdraw 19,000 gallons (72,000
liters) to produce 1 megawatt-hour of electricity,144 compared
36
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Water-Related Issues and Climate Change
CoallGCC
Coal PC
CoalCC
CoalCT
Nuclear
Geothermal
CSP Trough
CSP Power Tower
Solar PV
OnshoreWind
Open loop cooling:
35,000
>Open loop cooling:
9,000
Open loop
-~ cooling:
47,000
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
LIFE CYCLE WATER WITHDRAWAL (GALLONS PER MEGAWATT HOUR)
Figure 10. Median life cycle water withdrawal by
energy source.
Sou rce: Meldrum eta!. 2013.'42 Note: CSP = concentrating solar power;
CT = combustion turbine; CC = combined cycle; IGCC = integrated gasification
combined cycle; PC = pulverized coal. The life cycle water withdrawal of selected
electricity generating technologies depicted in the graph above is based on
median harmonized estimates and includes component manufacturing,
fuel acquisition, processing, transport, and power plant operation and
decommissioning.
to photovoltaic power systems, which withdraw approxi-
mately 5 gallons (19 liters) per megawatt-hour or less during
operation.145 Solar photovoltaic power water consumption
during operation is associated with cleaning modules. By
displacing conventional grid electricity, a photovoltaic
array in the U.S. Southwest border region can save up to
5,600 liters (1,500 gallons) of life-cycle water withdrawal
per megawatt-hour.146 In California, 25 First Solar, Inc.
photovoltaic power plants in various stages of development,
construction or operation (total capacity of 3.6 gigawatts)
are projected to save more than 1.8 billion liters (475,000
gallons) of water per year in operational water consumption
(equivalent to approximately 730 Olympic-sized swimming
pools). Solar photovoltaic power is ideally suited to meet the
energy needs of arid regions of the U.S. border and northern
Mexico. Communities that generate a significant amount of
electricity from renewable energy can be less susceptible to
electricity disruption during droughts.
According to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists,
an electric system that relies on renewable sources such as
wind, solar and geothermal systems to supply 80 percent of
electricity demand and cuts energy use with energy efficiency
programs would withdraw 50 percent less water by 2030 and
90 percent less by 2050 than the business-as-usual scenario
in the power sector.31 In addition, renewable energy can help
to address the trade-offs between water, energy and food,
bringing security of supply to all three sectors. Although the
study uses very optimistic projections for increases in energy
efficiency and decreases in energy use and does not consider
grid reliability, it underlines the important connection
between renewable energy and water withdrawals for power
production.
4.6 Recommendations
1. Stormwater engineers and fioodplain managers along
the U.S.-Mexico border should utilize real-time
data from streamfiow-gauging stations when new
development is being considered in an area. This
will enable development guidelines consistent with
climate change impacts. At the same time, stream-
flow data from portions of shared watersheds in
Mexico also should be incorporated into new flood
maps. Agencies should consider how future—or
modifications to existing—infrastructure investments
in fioodplains will be informed by the new Federal
Flood Risk Management Standard. The new flood
standard describes various approaches for determining
the higher vertical flood elevation and corresponding
horizontal fioodplain for federally funded projects and
establishes the level to which a structure or facility
must be resilient. This may include using structural or
nonstructural methods to reduce or prevent damage;
elevating a structure; or, where appropriate, designing
it to adapt to, withstand and rapidly recover from a
flood event. In addition, agencies should consider
the use of natural systems, ecosystem processes and
nature-based approaches in the development of
alternatives for actions.
2. U.S. and Mexico officials should work with federal
agencies; the Colorado River Basin states of Arizona,
California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah
and Wyoming; and local stakeholders to reach an
agreement to succeed Minute 319, once it sunsets
at the end of 2017, that would continue binational
cooperation under the 1944 Water Treaty. The
agreement should continue to address the effects of
climate change on water supplies, as well as how the
two countries can participate in water conservation
efforts and drought planning.
3. The combination of increased temperatures, reduced
precipitation and ongoing drought associated with
climate risks threaten surface and subsurface water
supplies for residential, commercial, agricultural and
ecosystem maintenance purposes. Many of the resul-
tant risks are transborder in nature and can be most
effectively addressed through bilateral cooperation in
the border region. U.S. and Mexico federal agencies
should enhance their work together, in concert
with public and private stakeholders from both
countries, for effective management of the binational
Rio Grande River and Colorado River systems and
support of state aquifer management programs.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
37
-------
Water-Related Issues and Climate Change
Solar Case Study: Campo Verde Solar Facility—Imperial County, California
The Campo Verde Solar Facility (139-megawatt alternating current) is located in Imperial
County, California, less than 10 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border.
Credit: The 111th Group, Inc., courtesy of First Solar, Inc.
Located along the U.S.-Mexico border,
Imperial County, California, is an
example of a border community where
utility-scale solar power is booming.
High solar insolation; available land,
including more than 1.3 million acres
of Bureau of Land Management public
land; proximity to transmission; and
supportive local, state and federal
renewable energy policies have helped
drive the development of more than
1,000 megawatts of utility-scale solar
capacity in the county. This is more
solar capacity than most U.S. states,
with 60 percent sited on or crossing
over federal lands,8
The Campo Verde Solar Facility is a
139-megawatt alternating current
utiiity-scale solar photovoltaic project
located less than 10 miles from the
U.S.-Mexico border. The facility,
which became operational in October
2.013, was the first Bureau of Land
Management-approved project in the
county to reach commercial operation.8
The project was developed and
constructed by First Solar, Inc., using
its advanced thin-film photovoltaic
modules. The facility was sold to
Southern Power and Turner Renewable
Energy and has a 20-year power
purchase agreement with San Diego
Gas & Electric Company, helping the
San Diego company to reach state
of California-mandated renewable
portfolio standards of 33 percent by
2020 and 50 percent by 2030.
Campo Verde generates enough clean
electricity to power nearly 48,000
homes, displacing 80,000 metric tons of
carbon dioxide per year, the equivalent
of taking 15,000 cars off the road. In
addition to producing clean, renewable
electricity, the facility's photovoltaic
technology uses no water to generate
electricity, saving more than 28 million
gallons of water per year.
Imperial County has a 2015 population
of about 180,000 individuals. The
population is 80 percent Hispanic, and
three-quarters speak a language other
than English at home. Although one of
the top 10 agricultural counties in the
United States, with about $2 billion in
annual production, the valley has a
per capita income one-half of that of
California or the United States, poverty
and unemployment rates of more than
20 percent, and low levels of education
attainments The economic activity that
development of solar facilities brings
is welcomed in this disadvantaged
border community. According to an
independent study conducted for
Imperial County, the Campo Verde
Solar Facility will have an economic
impact to the Imperial County area
totaling about $239 million during the
estimated 30-year project life. During
construction, the facility contributed
approximately $17.5 million in local tax
revenue and employed an average of
250 workers during the construction
phase.
The growth of solar in Imperial County
was fueled by federal and state
renewable energy policies, including
the Federal Investment Tax Credit
and California's aggressive renewable
portfolio standards.
a Bureau of Land Management. 2016. "Renewable
Energy Projects Approved Since the Beginning of
Calendar Year 2009." Last updated August 2. www.
blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/renewable_energy/
Renewable_Energy_Projects_Approved_to_Date.
html
b Census Reporter. 2016. "Imperial County,
CA." Accessed October 1. censusreporter.org/
profiles/05000US06025-imperial-county-ca
4. Federal or binational agencies with responsibility for
addressing water problems and needs along the border
(including EPA, USGS, NADB-BECC and the
U.S. Section of the IBWC) should build on existing
programs, such as EPA's Border 2020 Program and the
IBWCs Minutes 319 and 320, to engage with Mexico
and its agencies to address climate change related to
shared water problems.
5. Federal water agencies and the binational NADB-
BECC should enhance their existing efforts to
compile and share information on local and state
water conservation programs on both sides of the
border to promote community resilience in the face
of climate change impacts. They should convene a
bilateral conference to learn what actions U.S.-Mexico
border communities are taking to conserve water,
share successful practices, and engage the private
sector in the discussion and implementation of best
practices. The agencies ought to use existing program
funds to encourage state and local government agency
staff, staff from environmental u tilities, appropriate
38
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Water-Related Issues and Climate Change
private sector stakeholders, and Mexican counterparts
to meet and discuss practical ways to prevent water
pollution of transboundary surface water and ground
water resources as well as watershed management
approaches to enhance border water quality In shared
water bodies where such discussion has been occurring
(e.g., through the Transboundary Aquifer Assessment
Program), implementation of solutions to identified
problems should commence.
6. Federal agencies (including EPA, IBWC, USGS,
USDA, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) should implement or
support ground water recharge for vulnerable and/
or disadvantaged communities through existing water
programs. Ground water recharge efforts provide
a mechanism to create stable ground water storage
areas, which in turn allow surface water to flow to
storage areas with reduced losses. Federal agencies
should implement and/or support stormwater
runoff programs to utilize recycled water for surface
water-dependent municipalities and facilitate funding
through existing programs to establish and/or enlarge
surface water storage impoundments and/or reservoirs,
where appropriate and cost effective. Federal agencies
should enhance their engagement with local officials
and planners to develop or support community design
solutions that prevent water contamination, such as
infrastructure for wastewater capture and treatment.
To protect tribal resources and meet the federal
government's trust responsibilities to tribes, the DOI
and its Bureau of Indian Affairs should operate
U.S. government programs to protect treaty and
other tribal rights as the climate changes.
7. The USDAs NRCS could allocate funds under
PL-566, the Small Watershed Program, to rehabil-
itate aging stormwater infrastructure and complete
watershed plans in the U.S.-Mexico border region to
prevent and mitigate flooding. The U.S. government
could provide financial assistance for water conser-
vation projects that target shared resources (e.g.,
the Colorado River, ground water) in such areas as
California-Baja California, where people and ecosys-
tems are already experiencing negative climate-related
impacts. ¦
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
39
-------
-------
Chapter
Transit Trade and Air Pollution: Climate Risks and Promoting
Environmental Resiliency
This chapter discusses a number of risks for border com-
munities associated with climate change. It highlights
examples for preventing damage and improving resilience,
emphasizing the role of federal agencies. Trade, transit and
air pollution are the core case studies examined here.
5.1 Air pollution and the border region
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is charged with oversight on
ensuring that communities throughout the United States,
including the border areas, comply with health-based
safeguards for certain air pollutants. The NAAQS are the
standards that determine whether or not areas comply with
basic standards for PM, ozone, sulfur dioxide, lead, nitrogen
dioxide and carbon monoxide. The NAAQS, continually
reviewed on a 5-year cycle, have become more restrictive
through the years, making compliance a challenge for local
communities. The increasing temperatures in the border
region associated with climate change, as well as increasing
urbanization and economic activities, provide significant air
quality management challenges. The location of many U.S.
border communities adjacent to large Mexican border cities
that have less restrictive air pollution requirements than U.S.
standards provides an added challenge for regional air quality
control.
For example, in 2008, EPA set the ozone standard at 75
parts per billion over an 8-hour time period. Under that
standard, several communities near the U.S.-Mexico border
in Arizona and California do not meet this 2008 standard
(Figure 11). Recently, EPA lowered the ozone standard
from 75 to 70 parts per billion. Although compliance is
based on a 3-year average, it is likely that both the current
nonattainment areas in California and Arizona and some
additional border communities, including El Paso, will
have difficulty meeting this standard. Indeed, a preliminary
proposal from Texas would declare El Paso in nonattainment
for ozone, with final designations due in 2017. Efforts taken
today to reduce air pollution at the local level will help keep
border populations healthy, lower ozone levels, allow areas
to remain in compliance with EPA standards, and ultimately
allow communities to better face the challenges of hotter,
drier climates that will accompany climate change. For many
border communities, an ongoing air quality challenge is
pollution transport and generation related to regional and
international commerce, ports of entry, and adjacency of
large urban areas across the border in Mexico.
5.2 Southern border entry volume and
wait times
U.S. and Mexican air quality monitoring along the border
traditionally has measured regional averages for San Diego,
Tijuana, El Paso, Ciudad Juarez and other border cities.
Government scientists and academic researchers, however,
have understood that ports of entry generate significant
levels of air contaminants resulting from long lines of idling
vehicles crossing the border.49 The poor air quality near these
ports of entry not only affects workers at the facilities and
individuals crossing but also the surrounding communities,
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
41
-------
Transit, Trade and Air Pollution: Climate Risks and Promoting Environmental Resiliency
Final Designations
UrwStesStf tabte ptfttabt me n t
NodnattawmenHBactj&tiitou nty)
H Ne.datta.in/nent-tWliftls-.Qounty)
Figure 11. Current nonattainment areas under the 2008
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
which often are primarily Hispanic and poor. EPA has
initiated programs to monitor air quality specifically at ports
of entry and to develop methodologies to accurately estimate
emissions at the ports of entry. These efforts are designed to
develop policies to help mitigate air pollution impacts on
border communities and make them more resilient in the
face of climate change.
As described in Chapter 3, with funding from EPA Region
9, the San Diego Air Pollution Control District installed a
PM7.5 air quality monitor at the San Ysidro crossing, which
will operate for 2 years, ending January 2017, to provide
data on the air quality impact to the local community. The
monitoring of ports of entry will produce important infor-
mation on human health impacts and environmental justice
for the surrounding low-income neighborhood. EPA also
collaborates with the Department of Homeland Security's
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Mexico's
Aduanas, and the trade community to red uce wait times at
ports of entry.
As discussed in Chapter 3, using a methodology developed
by the FHWA that estimates emissions from vehicles cross-
ing the ports of entry, EPA has provided funding to estimate
emissions at the Calexico (California) and the Mariposa
(Arizona) ports of entry. The results of these studies will
be used by local, state and federal agencies responsible for
planning new ports or for expansion of existing ports to
minimize emissions.
El Paso County and Ciudad Juarez have implemented a
mandatory vehicle emissions inspection test. Building on
results from 23 years of the Ciudad Juarez Vehicle Emissions
Inspection Program, the state of Chihuahua implemented
a similar program statewide in 2014. Throughout Juarez,
Chihuahua, and El Paso County, gasoline stations provide
oxygenated fuel during colder months and low Reid-vapor-
pressure gasoline during the hot summer.
To reduce emissions, California promulgated regulations
requiring diesel trucks and buses operating in California to
be upgraded or replaced with air pollution filters beginning
in January 2012. By January 2015, certain older trucks
also had to be replaced. By January 2023, nearly all trucks
and buses will need to have 2010 model-year engines
or equivalent. This regulation applies to all heavy-duty
diesel-fueled trucks and buses that cross at California ports
of entry. California has an active enforcement program at
the two commercial ports to ensure compliance with these
requirements.
To support emissions reductions from transportation, the
NADB is financing the Border Wide Transportation Project,
which provides loans to public bus companies in Mexico for
the purchase of new buses that meet diesel emission require-
ments that will improve air quality in the binational airsheds
along the border. NADB also has provided $205 million
in loans to local and state governments in Baja California
and Sonora to pave roads, thereby reducing PM emissions.
EPA also works with the Brownsville Metropolitan Planning
Organization and Juarez Planning Institute to improve
transit mobility by evaluating traffic needs and planning
future construction that will mitigate congestion resulting
from economic growth.147
Although not related to mobile sources, the use of fireworks
and open burning is a known contributor of GHG emissions
and PM during the holiday season in Mexicali. As discussed
in Chapter 3, for the past 5 years, EPA has funded the
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District to imple-
ment a campaign that discourages such practices through
public announcements on local television and distributing
outreach materials in schools. This is projected to reduce
PMi.s emissions in the binational basin.
5.3 Commercial vehicles at southern
border crossings
Commercial vehicles frequently are delayed at border
crossings. The commercial volumes are high and require
CBP to employ different screening methods than they
do for personally Owned vehicles (POVs). Trip delays
increase transportation costs and affect national security
and the environment. Air quality is a special concern, and
increasing ambient temperatures will only exacerbate the
air pollution effects of border delays on human health in
the areas surrounding the ports of entry. Border crossings
are potential bottlenecks in the freight transportation
network. Meanwhile, a query of the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics shows
42
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Transit, Trade and Air Pollution: Climate Risks and Promoting Environmental Resiliency
that slightly less than 500,000 (loaded/unloaded) commer-
cial trucks entered at various southern ports of entry from
January through March 2016. Year-end totals are summa-
rized in Table 6. The totals for 2016 are projected to meet or
exceed 2015 totals.
Table 6. 2015 Commercial Truck Entry at Ports of Entry
Source: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics.""1
Efforts are underway by several agencies to improve process-
es (e.g., inspection, queuing, just-in-time delivery), as well
as programs to fund and improve infrastructure, at ports of
entry to reduce delays and increase security. The objective of
these studies is to provide a baseline of border crossing wait
times by measuring border crossing times for commercial
trucks at each of the border crossings. These baseline data
then will be used to help measure the success of improve-
ment projects and strategies. The goal is to have 95 percent
of commercial truck traffic included in the monitoring and
have near real-time dissemination of border wait times and
cross-border wait times along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.
In late July 2016, a pilot program was initiated at the
Mariposa Port of Entry in Nogales for joint inspections of
cargo by CBP and Mexico's Tax Administration Service.
The inspections are conducted by both U.S. and Mexico
personnel for shipments of Customs-Trade Partnership
Against Terrorism-certified companies. A similar program
is being undertaken in Mexico at the Mesa de Otay Port
of Entry. Though the Mariposa project still is in its proof-
of-concept pilot phase, initial reductions in wait times and
emissions from commercial vehicles have been impressive.
In its first week of implementation alone, processing times
were reduced by up to 85 percent. What used to take 3.5
to 8 hours to process because of separate inspections now
currently takes an average of 25 minutes.149150
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
5.4 Private vehicles at southern
border crossings
The volume and wait times for POVs vary greatly at dif-
ferent ports of entry along the southern border. San Ysidro
is the busiest POV port of entry. The U.S. Department of
Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics end-
of-year totals for the southern border for the year 2015 are
presented in Table 7.
Table 7.2015 Personal Vehicle Entry at Ports of Entry
Port Name
Personal Vehicles
1
CA: San Ysidro
14,435,252
2
TX: El Paso
12,258,192
3
CA: Otay Mesa
6,933,472
4
TX: Laredo
5,224,056
5
TX: Hidalgo
4,594,298
6
TX: Brownsville
4,340,461
7
CA: Calexico
4,294,156
8
CA: Calexico East
3,622,215
9
AZ: Nogales
3,470,471
10
AZ: San Luis
3,106,744
11
TX: Eagle Pass
2,683,168
12
AZ: Douglas
1,591,184
13
TX: Del Rio
1,438,570
14
TX: Progreso
1,070,550
15
CA: Tecate
908,482
Source: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics.""1
The POV totals for 2016 are on track to meet or exceed
those of 2015. A POV traffic border wait time system
has been implemented at the Ysleta, Texas-Zaragoza,
Chihuahua Port of Entry in both directions (southbound
and northbound).151
Efforts are underway at many ports of entry to determine
whether Bluetooth-enabled devices, such as smartphones,
can be used to accurately measure wait times at the border.49
Accurate and real-time measures of wait times will assist
individuals crossing the border and also will facilitate efforts
of U.S. and Mexican authorities to reduce wait times,
thereby reducing air quality effects at the border. Similar
approaches are underway to examine pedestrian and bicycle
border crossing times.
5.5 Pedestrian traffic at southern
border crossings
San Ysidro followed by El Paso are the busiest pedestrian
ports of entry, each processing slightly fewer than 600,000
pedestrians each month from January through March
2016.14S In the past, managers of the ports of entry have
focused on reducing wait times of commercial vehicles and
43
Rank
Port Name
Trucks
1
TX: Laredo
2,015,773
2
CA: Otay Mesa
829,581
3
TX: El Paso
747,702
4
TX: Hidalgo
546,259
5
CA: Calexico East
337,474
6
AZ: Nogales
319,747
7
TX: Brownsville
205,159
8
TX: Eagle Pass
141,592
9
NM: Santa Teresa
102,315
10
TX: Del Rio
70,009
11
CA: Tecate
52,090
12
TX:Progreso
36,940
13
AZ: San Luis
33,712
14
AZ: Douglas
32,104
15
TX: Rio Grande City
30,890
-------
Transit, Trade and Air Pollution: Climate Risks and Promoting Environmental Resiliency
POVs, largely ignoring pedestrians, who often were forced
to wait in long lines for hours, without shade or restroom
facilities, and often adjacent to lines of waiting traffic. At
many ports of entry, the paths that pedestrians must follow
in crossing the border are excessively long, especially if
connecting from Mexican public transport on one side to
U.S. public transport on the other. This raises concerns
regarding vulnerable populations, including disabled people,
in terms of health effects in the face of increasing regional
temperatures and air pollution. Border crossing is a greater
burden for low-income people, who often cannot afford the
expense of a personal vehicle.
Currently, studies are underway at the San Luis, Arizona-San
Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora Port of Entry to evaluate existing
conditions and current needs of pedestrian and bicycle bor-
der crossing. The reconfiguration of the San Ysidro border
crossing includes addition of a new pedestrian crossing on
the west side of the facility that separates pedestrians from
traffic and increases the number of inspection stations.
5.6 Current efforts to improve
transportation planning and reduce
pollution
The U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee for
Transportation Planning, co-chaired by FHWA and the
Mexican Secretariat of Communication and Transportation,
analyze various ways that border wait-time data can be used
for planning, operations, traffic information and design, as
well as what methods and formats are needed for dissemina-
tion of the information. Most of the information currently
is being collected through the Border Crossing Information
System and being disseminated at the system's website.152
The system includes near real-time and archived data, mainly
for commercial and some POV traffic for the Texas ports of
entry.
The Joint Working Committee has created a number of
border-wide regional master plans with a comprehensive
and prioritized assessment of transportation needs along
the border, including at the ports of entry. Regional border
master plans provide the next logical step in a comprehen-
sive, binational transportation planning process. The master
plans include land use, environment, population and socio-
economic data. These data are used to adequately evaluate
growth and future capacity needs at the border and to more
realistically forecast future conditions in the border region.
These data can be utilized to evaluate the existing binational
transportation and port of entry system, its current and
future demand, and the infrastructure necessary to handle
the projected growth. The master plans foster consistency
among the individual agency planning processes, which cre-
ates documentation that feeds back into the periodic updates
of the plans. It considers short-, mid- and long-term needs.
The comprehensive list and prioritized assessment of the
transportation and port of entry needs support international
trade and improve cross-border travel and the quality of life
for the residents of and visitors to each region.
Border master plans can be incorporated as a component
of federal, state and local strategic plans. Additionally, the
outcome of the planning process should be accepted and
embraced by stakeholders throughout the border region.
Stakeholders should make the border master plan part of
their overall planning and forecasting process. Border master
plans should be regularly updated (every 3—5 years) with
new data, policy issues, and economic and infrastructure
changes, as planned by the stakeholders. As of October
2015, border master plans have been completed for all six
regions: California-Baja California (2008 and 2014 update);
Arizona-Sonora (2013); West Texas-New Mexico/Chihuahua
(2013); Lower Rio Grande Valley-Tamaulipas (2013);
California Integrated Border Approach Study
The California Integrated Border Approach Study is
an ongoing, multiyear study aimed at exploring an
innovative multiagency integrated border systems-
based approach to project delivery strategies at the
California-Mexico border. This research effort aims
to provide advice to address solutions related to
multiagency planning and innovative project delivery
to overcome funding shortages and individual agency
limitations to improve multimodal regional mobility at
communities abutting the state's international border
with Mexico. Although a number of federal, state
and local agencies work in border communities, no
formalized, collaborative strategies exist to implement
projects that go "beyond the mandate" of individual
agencies. The California border region needs a multi-
institutional border mechanism to serve as the lead
coordinating entity for strategic planning, project
delivery and funding partnerships to address regional
mobility needs at California's border communities.
The California Integrated Border Approach Study will:
• Describe the existing mobility conditions and
challenges at each of California's border communities
abutting international land ports of entry.
• Review best practice case studies from other areas
along the U.S.-Mexico border.
• Propose to the state of California different
alternatives of intra-agency collaboration to serve
California's international border with Mexico.
• Propose the required legal operating frameworks for
a future intra-agency structure.
• Develop innovative joint mechanisms for planning,
funding, financing and project delivery at California's
border communities.
• Provide a 5-year concept of operations for a new
intra-agency border collaboration mechanism.
44
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Transit, Trade and Air Pollution: Climate Risks and Promoting Environmental Resiliency
Laredo District in Texas-Tamaulipas/Nuevo Leon/Coahuila
(2012); and New Mexico-Chihuahua (2015).
In an effort to provide accurate short-, medium- and
long-term traffic projections for cross-border travel, forecast
modeling of cross-border and port of entry travel demand
is desired, including information to populate travel demand
models. Current examples of this include the Arizona-
Sonora Binational Travel Demand Model Phase I and a
project in California-Baja California. The Joint Working
Committee will support the completion of the Scenario
Planning of Future Freight and Passenger Traffic Flows across
the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada borders project. This
project will model traffic and produce projections through
the year 2045. The committee's support will help guide the
modeling effort and the project's success. These projections
will provide additional tools for future border master plan
updates.
These border master plans and modeling efforts with federal
leadership and strong state and local participation, as well as
the active collaboration of Mexican agencies, are outstanding
examples of transborder cooperation. The border-spanning
efforts of this transportation planning provides a useful
example for the type of multilevel and multiagency trans-
border collaboration required to enhance the resilience of
border communities in the face of challenges such as climate
change.
Many federal, state and local agencies are involved at the
ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. Coordinating
these agencies in efforts to improve infrastructure and
rationalize administration to facilitate trade and serve local
communities is a complex task, especially when the partici-
pation of Mexican stakeholders is essential.
An innovative study similar to the California Integrated
Border Approach Study is ongoing on the Arizona-Sonora
border with the Southern Arizona to Central Mexico
Freight Corridor Study and Needs Analysis. This study will
focus on Interstate 19 from Tucson to Nogales, Arizona,
and Carretera Federal 15 from Nogales, Sonora, to central
Mexico. The goal of the analysis is to identify ways by which
Arizona's transportation entities (e.g., state and departments
of transportation, regional planning agencies) may leverage
performance improvements or the creation of new freight
movement capacity within the state's transportation network
to garner economic development benefits. Modes analyzed
\
General Services Administration and Customs and Border Protection: Investing in Green
Infrastructure at San Ysidro
The San Ysidro Land Port of Entry is
the busiest land border crossing in
the Western Hemisphere, currently
processing an average of 50,000
northbound vehicles and 25,000
northbound pedestrians per day. The
San Diego Association of Governments
projects an 87 percent increase in
vehicle traffic in San Ysidro by the
year 2030. To accommodate that
growth and better meet the changing
needs of the tenant agencies and
the traveling public, the General
Services Administration is conducting
a complete reconfiguration and
expansion of the port. The scope
includes the demolition and
construction of the land port of entry,
including primary and secondary
inspection areas, administration and
pedestrian buildings, and all other
support structures. The project will
expand pedestrian processing facilities,
including a new pedestrian crossing on
the east side of the land port of entry
that will connect with a new multimodal
transportation hub in Mexico and
expanded northbound inspection
facilities. Additionally, there will be a
new north- and southbound crossing
at El Chaparral/Virginia Avenue with an
associated transit center.
Once all three phases are complete,
the new port will boast 62 northbound
vehicle primary inspection booths, one
dedicated bus lane, and inspection
booths spread across 34 lanes, as well
as improved processing facilities for bus
travelers and travelers participating
in the Secure Electronic Network for
Travelers Rapid Inspection program.
The land port of entry will have
more than 110,000 square feet of
new primary and secondary vehicle
inspection canopy utilizing state-of-the-
art materials that will both conserve
and produce energy. In addition,
a portion of the Interstate 5 South
freeway will be realigned and expanded
from the current five lanes to 10 lanes,
which will connect to Mexico's new
El Chaparral facility. A corresponding
southbound inspection canopy
will be constructed to support U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
southbound vehicle inspection efforts.
In designing the new San Ysidro Land
Port of Entry, the General Services
Administration is committed to build
the "Port of the Future" and strives to
build a facility that is sustainable and
operationally scalable and will
dramatically reduce the port's carbon
footprint, while at the same time
enhancing CBP's ability to conduct
its mission. With the innovative
applications of energy production
projects, as well as sustainable energy
and water-saving features, the San
Ysidro Land Port of Entry aspires to
receive the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (commonly
known as LEED) Gold certification.
The General Services Administration
currently is collaborating with
local agencies to develop a plan for
improvements at Virginia Avenue to
support northbound and southbound
pedestrian crossing on the west side of
the port. The proposed design includes
10 northbound and two reversible
pedestrian processing lanes and
conveniently serves the traveling public
on the west side of San Ysidro. The
concept includes an intermodal transit
center for buses and taxis in addition to
a pedestrian drop-off and pickup area
that was completed in July of 2016.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
45
-------
Transit, Trade and Air Pollution: Climate Risks and Promoting Environmental Resiliency
[RTLY CLOUDY
Vehicles lined up to enter into the United States from Tijuana, Mexico. Credit: James Steidl / Shutterstock.com.
will include both commercial motor carrier and freight rail.
The corridor of interest spans from Tucson along Interstate
19 to Nogales, Arizona, and Nogales, Sonora, before extend-
ing southward along Carretera Federal 15 to Guaymas,
Mazatlan, Guadalajara, and eventually Mexico City The
primary aim of the study is to determine the deficiencies
of the transportation network on Carretera Federal 15 and
Interstate 19 from Central Mexico to Tucson.
The active participation of federal agencies is central to both
of these studies to facilitate close coordination with Mexican
agencies at all levels. These processes provide U.S. border
communities with mechanisms to participate actively in
policy discussions that have great importance for quality of
life at the local level, as well as regional and national eco-
nomic impact.
As described in Chapter 3, a federal program that has
empowered border community participation in development
of border programs is Border 2020, the latest environmental
program implemented under the 1983 La Paz Agreement.
Border 2020 focuses on regional areas where environmental
improvements are needed most, establishing thematic goals,
supporting the implementation of projects, considering new
fundamental strategies, and encouraging the achievement
of more ambitious environmental and public health goals.
Border 2020 has been important in building capacity in
local border communities to meet the challenges of climate
change in the border region.
Under Border 2020, Goal 1 is to reduce air pollution. This
is being accomplished through initiatives to boost energy
efficiency and renewable energy generation, including 20
renewable energy projects supported by NADB-BECC and
under a 2-year plan to increase air monitoring along the
border. Several air quality monitoring projects currently are
underway, including PM monitors at two sites in Mexicali
and at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in San Diego, which will
aid in understanding PM).5 transport through the adjacent
areas.
5.7 Transportation and air quality
The transportation sector is the largest source of air
pollution in the bord er region, and the movemen t of trade
and people across the U.S.-Mexico boundary exacerbates
this problem because delayed movement resulting from
U.S. and Mexican security measures has the unintended
consequence of increased emissions of particulates and
ozone as well as VOCs and NOx, which contribute to
ozone formation.
The U.S. Department of Transportation and CBP can take
a number of actions to address transportation and air qual-
ity issues, such as reducing GHG releases and air pollution
at border crossings with Mexico by decreasing border wait
times, creating amenities for pedestrians waiting in line,
improving border crossing traffic-flow designs, and identi-
fying innovative technologies to better predict and reduce
border wait times. Some design options include creation
of buffer zones between roadways and communities,
re-routing trucks through commercial areas and away from
residential zones, and encouraging clean diesel programs for
commercial vehicles.4'5 Of course, many of these solutions
require coordination of all levels of U.S. government, as
well as Mexican authorities. The Mariposa Port of Entry in
Arizona is an example of effective design and smart border
management to increase energy efficiency and reduce vehic-
ular pollution.152 Some changes to reduce excessive border
crossing delays involve infrastructure and design issues
that will require years for implementation; however, there
are immediate actions, such as joint inspections, that the
relevant federal agencies can implement widely to decrease
border wait times.
46
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Transit, Trade and Air Pollution: Climate Risks and Promoting Environmental Resiliency
In 2014, for example, 11.9 million passenger vehicles (21.1
million passengers) and 7.9 million pedestrians crossed
into San Diego at the San Ysidro port of entry.14S During
the times when most crossings took place, wait times often
were 1 to 2 hours for passenger vehicles and more than 1
hour in the pedestrian line, resulting in significant human
exposure to ozone, carbon monoxide and PM2.5, as well
as considerable distress to waiting individuals, especially
in the pedestrian line.49 153 An executive order mandating
that U.S. border authorities prioritize reallocating staff
to inspection booths and positions at busy crossing times
could significantly reduce vehicular and pedestrian wait
times, reducing ozone and air contaminant production and
the negative health effects on passengers, pedestrians and
workers at the ports of entry and residents of the surround-
ing communities. The economic benefits of shorter wait
times for both commercial and noncommercial traffic at
the ports of entry also would be significant.154
5.8 Recommendations
1. The U.S. Department of Transportation and CBP
should reduce GHG releases and air pollution at
border crossings with Mexico by decreasing border
wait times, create amenities for pedestrians waiting
in line, improve border crossing traffic-flow designs,
and identify innovative technologies to better predict
and reduce border wait times. Some design options,
in which the General Services Administration will
play a role, include creation of buffer zones between
roadways and communities, re-routing trucks through
commercial areas and away from residential zones,
and encouraging clean diesel programs for commercial
vehicles. Of course, many of these solutions require
coordination of all levels of U.S. government, as well
as Mexican authorities.
2. An executive order should be implemented mandating
that U.S. border authorities prioritize reallocating staff
to inspection booths and positions at busy crossing
times. Such a mandate could significantly reduce
vehicular and pedestrian wait times, reducing ozone
and air contaminant production and their resulting
negative health effects on passengers, pedestrians,
workers at the ports of entry, and residents of the
surrounding communities. This executive order also
should address recruitment, training and retention
issues for CBP employees. The economic benefits of
shorter wait times for both commercial and non-
commercial traffic at the ports of entry also would be
significant.
3. The unified cargo inspection project being piloted in
Nogales should be evaluated for its reduction in emis-
sions from commercial vehicles, in addition to wait
times, and modeled at other land ports of entry in the
border region. The selection of one methodology for
obtaining emissions reduction also should be included
so that data evaluations are consistent.
4. Agencies should provide commensurate staffing levels
whenever infrastructure improvements are made at
land ports of entry in the border region. ¦
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
47
-------
-------
Chapter
Energy, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Energy production through the burning of fossil fuels,
both globally and in the U.S.-Mexico border region, is the
leading source of CO2, the most important of the GHGs
that contribute directly to global warming and climate
change. Fossil fuels are the main source of electricity
generation and dominate the transportation sector as well.
The burning of fossil fuels also produces air pollution, with
significant human health effects that will only intensify
with climate change and higher temperatures in the border
region. Efforts to reduce GHGs as a means of combating
climate change are integral to most federal, state and local
border community climate action plans. Energy efficiency,
a shift to cleaner burning fossil fuels, and growing use of
nonpolluting alternative and renewable energy sources, such
as solar photovoltaic and wind, are important components of
efforts to address the causes of climate change. U.S. border
communities will continue to be faced with the challenge of
transitioning away from traditional fossil fuel sources while
both fortifying the grid against new threats from climate
change and minimizing human health impacts.
6.1 Energy, human health and
climate change
As of 2015, the primary fuel sources supplying the energy
grid in the four U.S.-Mexico border states were fossil fuels
such as coal (Arizona: 36%, New Mexico: 63%) or natural
gas (California: 57%, Texas: 49%).15S?lSS These fuel sources
help to establish an affordable and reliable energy grid
critical to delivering many of the services that form the
pillars of community stability and health, including access
to clean water, sanitation and modern health services. In
analyzing the relationship between climate change and
energy production in this region, however, two key human
health consequences must be: considered: (1) how reliance
on fossil fuels for energy production directly affects human
health and climate change and (2) how climate change may
indirectly affect human health by disrupting energy produc-
tion required to maintain community health and stability.
By devising a comprehensive energy strategy that addresses a
primary cause of and adverse impacts from climate change,
the U.S.-Mexico border region also can address these two
energy-related threats to human health.
6.2 Energy resources and climate change
Located in one of the hottest and driest regions in the
United States, the population of the U.S.-Mexico border
region relies heavily on the energy grid as a lifeline to
maintain habitable communities and, therefore, is especially
vulnerable to disruptions in electricity supply. As discussed
in Chapter 1, the southwestern United States is predicted
to experience higher temperatures, more heat waves, more
droughts and more extreme weather events (e.g., storms,
floods, wildfires) during the next century,16,15? which will
serve to increase energy demand and magnify this vulnerabil-
ity. Each of these climate impacts poses unique threats to the
energy grid and community stability and health.
Higher temperatures affect thermal power plants (burning
both nuclear and fossil fuels) by raising the temperature of
water sources required for energy production and cooling.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board 49
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Energy, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Insufficiently cool water sources can cause unsafe conditions
and reduce efficiency of the plants that require high tem-
perature differentials to operate. Either of these conditions
can force a plant to temporarily curtail production or shut
down.15S Additionally, high temperatures can cause damage
to the physical structure of the power grid by lowering
power-carrying abilities and increasing wear and tear on
components. A 2012 report by the DOE states that high
temperatures cause power system stress, which increases the
vulnerability of the system to failure, by:
• Lowering the power-carrying capability of system
elements such as transmission lines, transformers,
circuit breakers and so forth.
• Accelerating the deterioration of dielectric materials,
operating mechanisms, supporting structures and
cooling/insulating liquids used in power apparatus.
• Inducing greater overall wear and tear effects on
apparatus, which leads to increased vulnerability to
faults and cascading failures.
• Shortening the life of batteries that are crucial in sup-
porting uninterruptible power supply and emergency
response systems.
• Significantly reducing the efficiency of photovoltaic
solar panels.
• Reducing the capacity and efficiency of gas and
combustion turbines.15S
Power plants, such as hydroelectric and thermal plants, that
rely on surface water for energy production and cooling are
especially vulnerable to drought conditions, as water resourc-
es in the Southwest likely will become increasingly scarce
during the next century. In a 2012 report by the DOE,
approximately 61 percent of installed energy capacity in the
Southwest was considered at "high-risk" for capacity loss
from drought conditions.158 The DOE also released a report
in 2015 providing a summary of climate change impacts on
the energy sector and resilience solutions for various regions,
including those along the U.S.-Mexico border region.159
Insufficient water resources can cause problems for power
plants in several ways. In hydroelectric plants, the generation
of electricity depends on the flow of large volumes of water
to spin turbines. Drops in reservoir levels cause decreased
energy generation.160 For example, in 2014 severe drought
conditions in California caused in-state hydropower genera-
tion to decrease by 50 percent.161 In thermal plants, drought
conditions also may affect the availability of water needed
for cooling purposes. Lack of cooling water can cause unsafe
conditions and lead to a shutdown of plants.
Floods, wildfires and storms with high winds or lightning
routinely damage electrical infrastructure. In a 2014 report
by Climate Central, severe weather was determined to have
caused 80 percent of large-scale power outages in the United
States between 2003 and 2012, and the average annual
number of weather-related power outages has doubled since
2003.162
General consensus indicates that these extreme weather
events and natural disasters are projected to continue to
increase in frequency and intensity in the U.S.-Mexico
border region as global temperatures rise. Much of the U.S.
energy infrastructure is located aboveground and vulnerable
to severe weather. Even power lines that are buried under-
ground, however, can be damaged during floods.
If the electricity grid is unable to withstand the increasing
constraints brought by climate change, then power outages
may occur more frequently. Beyond powering residences,
electricity powers many important services that are critical to
community health and stability, including water and sewer
systems, communications systems, hospitals and emergency
response systems, and refrigeration that preserves food and
medicines. Recent studies estimate the annual cost of major
weather-related power outages in the United States to be
between $20 and $55 billion.163 Power blackouts lasting
days, weeks or even longer could have catastrophic effects on
community stability and health in the U.S.-Mexico border
region.
The 2011 Southwest Blackout—in which power was lost
in the San Diego-Tijuana area; southern Orange County;
the Imperial, Mexicali and Coachella valleys; and parts of
Arizona and Sonora—serves as an example of how power
blackouts can affect community health and stability. The
blackout, although caused by human error rather than
climate effects, lasted for 11 hours and left nearly 7 million
people without power.164 The 11 hours without power
caused an estimated $12 to $18 million in food losses from
spoilage, traffic gridlock and some sewage pumping systems
to fail, resulting in contaminated water supplies and beach
closures.165 166 Millions were left without air conditioning
on a day when temperatures in some border cities reached
dangerously high levels (e.g., 113°F/45°C in Yuma, Arizona).
Power blackouts amplify risks to vulnerable border popu-
lations as a result of extreme heat. As stated in Chapter 1,
excessive heat is the leading cause of U.S. weather-related
deaths.167 California suffered a massive heat wave in 2006
that caused the deaths of an estimated 300 to 450 people.16s
Many low-income households in the U.S.-Mexico border
region may not have access to air conditioning and are espe-
cially at risk of heat stroke or death during power outages.
Chapter 7 provides more information on the effects of heat
on human health.
6.3 Energy and climate resilience
To meet the energy needs of the growing population in the
border region and enhance climate resiliency, the border
50
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Energy, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
The 200-megawcitt Los Vientos I Windpower Project is in Lyford,
Willacy County, Texas. Together with its sister project Los Vientos II, it
powers about 280,000 homes. Credit: Duke Energy Reriewables.
states have begun to transition to a cleaner energy economy
powered by energy efficiency and renewable energy programs
and policies; The federal government can continue to play a
vital role through education and outreach programs, as well
as providing support for the adoption of energy efficiency
and renewable energy technologies.
During the next decade, the U.S.-Mexico border region will
need to continue to invest in improvements that will ensure
that the energy system can withstand the new demands
brought on by climate change impacts. Building a more
resilient energy grid should be a key part of the climate
change strategy for the region and will help mitigate ener-
gy-related impacts of climate change to human health.
Investing in low-carbon energy sources is an important part
of both building grid resiliency and ensuring community
health and stability. In 2013, 37 percent of energy-related
U.S. CQa emissions stemmed from burning coal, natural
gas and oil to produce electricity.50 Using fossil fuels for
energy production not only contributes to the greenhouse
effect but also releases air pollutants that have documented
health effects (e.g., mercury, PM and sulfur dioxide) into
the air. Increased use of renewable energy not only reduces
these negative health effects, but also certain technologies,
such as wind and solar photovoltaic power, can enhance
grid resiliency by reducing dependency on fuel supplies and
water for operation. " Wind and solar technologies also
are increasingly cost competitive with conventional fuel
sources (based on an unsubsidized leveled cost-of-energy
comparison)170 and are even more cost competitive when
negative health and environmental effects from fossil fuels
are taken into consideration.171 Transition from fossil fuels
to renewables poses significant challenges, such as energy
storage and improvements to the grid, to ensure that energy
supply is available to meet demand; currently, these are areas
of significant research and development.
Solar photovoltaic power is most efficient in areas with high
insolation (solar radiation that reaches the earth's surface),1?2
and solar photovoltaic power uses no water to generate elec-
tricity, making the technology well-suited for deployment
in the U.S.-Mexico border region. An additional benefit of
solar photovoltaic power is that it can be easily scaled for
either residential, commercial, community or utility use.
Employing a combination of distributed generation and
community- or utility-scale generation will increase grid
resiliency in the most cost-effective manner.
The United States, Mexico and Canada are working on
these issues at the federal level and solidified the trilateral
commitment with the North American Climate, Energy and
Environment Partnership announced by President Obama,
President Enrique Pena Nieto and Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau at the 2016 North American Leaders Summit. The
partnership's goals include 50 percent clean power genera-
tion across the three countries by 2025, a 40 to 45 percent
reduction in methane emissions from the oil and gas sector
from the 2012 level by 2025, and more alignment of energy
efficiency standards. An example of the federal-level coop-
eration related to this partnership already occurring is the
program by the DOE and Mexico's Secretaria de Energfa
(Energy Secretariat), which is expanding power sector
cooperation to include peer dialogues for grid planning
and operation to include integration of renewable energy,
supporting establishment of renewable energy zones in
Mexico, and launching programs to enable business and
investor partnerships to scale up investment in low-carbon
power infrastructure. High-level government-to-government
engagement, including through the U.S.-Mexico Clean
Energy and Climate Policy Task Force, can continue to
further these efforts.
The DOE also has established the Partnership for Energy
Sector Climate Resilience, including electric utilities located
throughou t the United States and in the U.S.-Mexico border
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
51
-------
Energy, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
The Newman Solar, LLC facility in northeast El Paso, Texas, generates clean energy to power more than 3,800 homes. Credit: El Paso Electric.
region. The Partnership for Energy Sector Climate Resilience
is an initiative to enhance energy security by improving the
resilience of energy infrastructure to extreme weather and cli-
mate change impacts. The goal is to accelerate investment in
technologies, practices and policies that will enable a resilient
21st century energy system. Under this partnership, owners
and operators of energy assets will develop and pursue
strategies to reduce climate and weather-related vulnerabil-
ities. Collectively these partners and the DOE will develop
resources to facilitate risk-based decision making and pursue
cost-effective strategies for a more climate resilient energy
infrastructure.
Along the border, electricity transmission connections
cross the border in numerous locations, and electric power
is moved back and forth across the boundary. With the
reform of Mexico's energy sector, new investment is moving
into electrical energy production and renewables. As the
cross-border linkages increase and promote development of
regional, binational power grids, the reliability of the grid for
border communities will improve.
EPA's RE-Powering Americas Land Initiative encourages
renewable energy development on previously contaminated
properties, such as landfills, mines and industrial develop-
ments. This initiative addresses the need that renewables
have for large areas to site solar or wind projects and
provides a better alternative to converting farm or range
land or natural areas to energy production. In addition to
maintaining an inventory of these properties, the DOE's
National Renewable Energy Laboratory and EPA collaborate
to conduct feasibility studies for selected properties, exam-
ining both technical remediation of the site, as well as an
economic assessment.
Currently, 13 landfill methane capture projects exist in the
border region, with three more either planned or under
construction, where landfill gas is used for power generation
on-site or transferred to off-site industrial users.173 Most of
these projects are located in California or Arizona.
EPA has identified several benefits to siting solar photo-
voltaic power systems at Deming, New Mexico, and other
Brownfield sites. In addition to mitigating climate change
by reducing GHG emissions, solar power generation can
be developed in place of limited greenfields, preserving the
land carbon sink, especially as these sites often are located
near existing roads and energy transmission or distribution
infrastructure. This advances cleaner and more cost-effective
energy technologies while building community resiliency.174
The binational agencies, the NADB and BECC, are sup-
porting initiatives to increase solar photovoltaic and wind
projects in the border region and also climate change action
planning in Mexico's northern border region. NADB has
provided loans that finance almost $500 million for nine
solar and wind projects within Arizona and California,
totaling about 271 megawatts generated. BECC facilitated
the Baja California Climate Change Action Planning
process, which resulted in an estimate of costs and benefits
of different mitigation and adaptation options.
BECC has supported border efforts to address air risks posed
by climate change. For example, as described in Chapter
3, BECC collaborated to help the Mexican border states
develop GHG emissions inventories and forecasts in 2010.
The resulting state climate action plans developed by the
Mexican states of Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua,
Coahuila and Tamaulipas identified mitigation policies and
52
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Energy, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
the economic impacts of implementing these public policies.
In Baja California, Coahuila and Chihuahua, the action
plans also include socioeconomic micro- and macroanalyses
of mitigation policies, as well as the quantification of reduc-
tion and costs and the cost savings of the GHG inventory.175
The macroeconomic analysis showed that the recommended
policies identified to lower GHGs have, as a group, a positive
effect on the economy through increases in employment and
gross domestic product. A great disparity also exists among
the individual policies. For example, in Baja California,
"Finance Incentives for Machinery Energy Efficiency"
showed the greatest economic gain in the analyses based on
the reduction of production costs and the economic stimulus
from the investment in new equipment and machinery.
"Energy Supply Diversification" is seen to have the highest
negative effect in Baja California because of high capital
costs of the generation of renewable energy. Future initiatives
may include the review of four of the 17 policies in the
Coahuila state climate action plan to identify implementa-
tion strategies.
6.4 Energy efficiency and public
education initiatives
Encouraging the adoption of energy-efficient technologies
and behaviors in the public sector also will help promote
grid resiliency. By reducing overall electricity demand,
especially during critical times like extreme heat events, the
grid will be better able to serve communities and enhance
community resiliency in the face of climate change. The
federal government can encourage adoption of conservation
and energy efficiency technologies to benefit low-income
families and border communities, including updated energy
building codes for new construction, which will increase
resiliency of these residents in the face of higher tempera-
tures in the future.
The DOE and the National Science Foundation held a
series of joint workshops in 2015 and 2016 to stimulate
dialogue and accelerate the wide-scale advent of advanced
water resource recovery facilities (also known as wastewater
treatment plants).176 An opportunity exists for collabora-
tion and coordination with BECC on applying this work
to small water and wastewater utilities along the border,
including those of tribal governments. Most water and
wastewater facilities have large pumps, drives, motors and
other equipment operating 24 hours per day, and these
facilities can be among the largest individual energy users
in a community. Communities that operate water and
wastewater treatment plants along the border can improve
energy efficiency and cost savings through the use of variable
speed pumps/aeration equipment and incorporating solar
power systems. Facilities also can use other approaches to
improve energy efficiency by shifting energy usage away
from peak demand times to times when electricity is
cheaper. Wastewater treatment facilities that incorporate
anaerobic digesters can use the generated biogas end product
as a source of energy to operate facility booster and process
transfer pumps, blowers and heating units. The use of more
energy-efficient motors and pumps will reduce further the
amount of electricity needed to operate these facilities. These
actions can reduce the power generation requirements of the
electric power utility, thereby reducing GHG emissions.
In coordination with the National Weather Service, the
Climate Prediction Center can use existing programs to
develop methods to predict more accurately the location,
length and severity of extreme heat weather events, including
events with above-average nighttime temperature, which
are projected to have energy-use effects. Public education
about energy efficiency and safety during these events could
help prevent blackouts and heat deaths. Existing grant
programs of the DOE, the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD), and EPA can be used to
provide emergency shelters for extended periods of extreme
temperatures in vulnerable communities and subsidize air
conditioning for vulnerable populations.
6.5 Greenhouse gas reduction
Some border state and local community efforts to address
climate change include legal mandates to reduce GHG pro-
duction, subsidies for alternative energy, and development
of climate action plans. The combination of federal and state
subsidies and tax credits stimulated significant growth of
residential and commercial solar photovoltaic power systems
in border cities such as San Diego. The Shining Cities 2016
report indicates that San Diego at the end of 2015 had
installed solar photovoltaic power capacity of 189 mega-
watts, ranking second nationally behind Los Angeles.177 That
same report also ranked San Diego as fourth nationally in
terms of per capita solar photovoltaic power capacity.
The two largest border cities, San Diego and El Paso, had
adopted climate action plans by 2016. In 2009, El Paso
released its Sustainability Plan, which includes communi-
ty-wide goals for climate and clean energy action. El Paso
releases periodic report cards in accordance with this plan. In
addition, on August 2, 2016, El Paso Electric, which serves
parts of southern New Mexico as well as El Paso County,
announced the sale of its share of the coal plant and that
it had become the first utility in Texas or New Mexico to
be a coal-free energy provider, in part by making further
investments in solar energy.17S In California, both San Diego
and Imperial counties have climate action plans, whereas a
number of incorporated cities within each jurisdiction have
city-based climate action plans.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
53
-------
Renewable Energy Border State Facts
Energy, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
6.6 Energy and resilient border
communities
Throughout" the border region, communities are becoming
more climate-resilient with local renewable, energy-efficiency
and demand-response programs. In some cases, these are
local or state initiatives, but the federal government has
played and can play a role through the DOE, NADB-
BECC, EPA, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and
other federal agencies. With projected changes in weather
and climate indicating more extreme weather, it will be
important for border communities to have a resilien t energy
system that can operate efficiently and encourage local
generation. The DOE has specific renewable energy and
energy resiliency programs for federally recognized tribes,
including those in the border region.1®1 At the same time,
many of these solutions also reduce the need to run larger
central power stations or natural gas peaker plants that can
negatively affect air quality.
6.7 Efficient new buildings
Cities and states along the U.S.-Mexico border have different
codes or standards related to energy use and consumption
within both residential and commercial buildings. Although
the federal government does not play a direct role in energy
code adoption or enforcement along the border or in states
in general, the DOE is a participant in the development
of the codes through the International Code Council and
other groups, such as the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. In addition,
the DOE analyzes codes through its national laboratories
and provides resources and training for states on building
sciences and building code compliance. Thus, the DOE
reviews the latest codes to ensure that they will lead to more
energy-efficient" homes and buildings.
The DOE provides grant funding to states for energy
planning and other activities, and that funding is contingent
on states showing compliance with certain energy-efficient
building code measures, including having considered
and adopted more recent energy codes. Thus, to certify
compliance with Title III of the Energy Conservation and
Production Act, states must provide evidence that they
have adopted or have begun a process to adopt the latest
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and are
actually enforcing or ensuring compliance with that code.
The DOE also can work on its own code if it believes
that the most recent version of the IECC does not make
new buildings more efficient. These federally encouraged
standards can benefit local communities along the border
through improvements in energy efficiency.
Texas, New Mexico and California set minimum energy
codes with which all builders are required to comply,
although actual implementation and enforcement is left
up to local municipalities. Since 2001 in Texas, the State
54
U.S. states bordering Mexico have taken significant
steps in renewable energy, leading to decreased
emissions of air pollutants and a reduction in fossil
fuels use. Because energy sources are connected by
an electrical grid, it is difficult to disaggregate energy
production iocation from geographic usage; that is,
energy generated in one place in the state could be
consumed anywhere in a large region.
California
• California leads the nation in generation capacity for
geothermal, biomass, solar photovoltaic and solar
thermal electric projects.179
• California has the largest advanced energy industry
in the nation, with one in every five advanced energy
workers nationwide. California employment in the
advanced energy industry grew 18 percent in 2015.180
• As of December 2015, California leads the country
in cumulative solar capacity installed, with 13.2
gigawatts—enough energy to power 3.3 million
homes.181
Arizona
• With 2.3 gigawatts of solar power as of December
2015, Arizona has the second most installed solar
electrical watts per capita182 and the second-highest
solar energy capacity in the United States , with
enough solar energy installed in the state to power
327,000 homes.181
• The state ranked second in the nation in utility-scale
electricity generation from solar energy and third
in solar employment, with an estimated 9,200 jobs
(2014).182
• Arizona's Renewable Portfolio Standard requires
regulated electric utilities to generate 15 percent of
their energy from renewable resources by 2025.183
New Mexico
• In 2014, New Mexico ranked sixth nationally in utility-
scale electricity generation from solar energy.184
• As of June 2016, New Mexico has 400 megawatts of
solar energy installed (34 megawatts residential, 51
megawatts commercial and 316 megawatts utility-
scale), enough to power 91,000 homes.185
• A major portion of the SunZia Corridor—a 515-
mile (830-kilometer) transmission corridor being
developed by federal and state agencies to allow
renewable development on and across federally
held lands in Arizona and New Mexico—lies in New
Mexico.186
Texas
• Texas ranks first in the nation for wind energy
capacity, with 17.9 gigawatts of wind power capacity
as of December 2015. In 2015, wind generation in
Texas powered the equivalent of 4.1 million homes.187
• On March 23, 2016, wind power at one point
accounted for 48 percent of Texas' electricity.188
• Renewable energy accounted for 16 percent of the
state's electrical generating capacity as of April 2016.189
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Energy, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Sari Diego's Climate Action Plan
Some state and local governments
along the U.S.-Mexican border have
begun to respond to challenges posed
by climate change, most frequently
through development of a climate
action plan that recognizes the link
between greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and global warming. San
Diego, the largest border city in
the United States, with more than
1.3 million residents, has been a leader
on climate-related matters for the last
decade. In December 2015, the city
council unanimously approved Mayor
Kevin Faulconer's ambitious new City of
San Diego Climate Action Plan that called
for cutting the city's carbon footprint
in one-half by 2035.190 The plan,
championed bya Republican mayor,
was endorsed by a broad cross section
of stakeholders, including the business
community and environmentalists. In
May 2016, Mayor Faulconer released
a report that identified $130 million
in new monies for the fiscal year 2017
budget for transportation, renewable
energy, water, infrastructure and other
investments that support the goals of
the plan.
The City of San Diego Climate Action
Plan recognizes potential effects of a
changing climate—higher seasonal
temperatures, worsening air quality,
negative health effects such as
increased asthma and vector-borne
diseases, diminished water supplies,
and increased wildfires—that will
have great consequences not only for
the built and natural environment
but also for the community's health
and economic vitality. The plan also
commits to improve resilience to
potential future impacts of climate
change.
The City of San Diego Climate Action
Plan is driven by California's legislation
(Assembly Bill 32) and Governor
Jerry Brown's Executive Order B-30-
15, which set aggressive statewide
GHG emissions reduction targets to
reduce emissions to 40 percent below
1990 levels by 2030, setting the state
on a trajectory to reach 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050. San Diego
calculated an interim goal for 2035
to eventually achieve the 2050 target
(Figure 12).
The city has identified five strategies to
achieve the 2035 targets:
1. 100 percent clean and renewable
energy citywide.
2. 50 percent of people commuting by
bicycling, walking and transit.
3. Zero waste.
4. Energy and water efficient buildings.
5. Climate resiliency and adaptation.
Although the City of San Diego Climate
Action Plan links to regional, state
and federal efforts regarding climate
change within the United States, the
plan does not link to efforts in Mexico's
border region nor refer to realities
south of the international boundary.
The focus on areas within the city
limits is understandable because of
data availability and the geographical
limits of San Diego's jurisdiction. The
plan, however, and the next level of
all climate action planning in states
and at the federal level likely could
benefit from increased cross-border
collaboration. There is a potential for
greater positive effects if San Diego
partners with neighboring Tijuana and
its 2 million residents to expand their
climate action efforts. For example,
GHG reduction at the two ports of
entry would benefit both San Diego
and Tijuana and provide air quality
co-benefits for the residents and
workers in the area. Also, the benefits
of enhancing quality of life through
actions such as improved public transit
and increased urban tree canopy of
each city will serve the entire region,
beyond city boundaries.
18,000,000
16,716,020
15,856,604
FORECASTED BUSINESS AS USUAL
-------
Energy, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
updated through a rulemaking process. The California
Building Codes can be found in Title 24 and generally are
among the most energy efficient in the country In fact, they
are the only state code to require compliance with a "Green
Construction Standard." Recently California approved the
new 2016 Energy Efficient Standards, which build on the
previous California standards. In addition to requiring that
new homes and buildings be energy efficient with better
windows, insulation and roofs and less duct leakage, the
California requirements, also under Title 24, require all
buildings (with some exceptions) to be "solar ready"; that is,
easy to add solar panels if future occupants want them. Thus,
some communities, such as San Diego, already require new
homes and businesses to be solar ready, which helps spur the
adoption of solar technology.
In New Mexico, no process currently is in place to adopt the
2015 IECC, although since January 1, 2012, builders are
required to comply with the 2009 IECC. The Construction
Industries Division of the Regulation and Licensing
Department is the state agency charged with analyzing and
adopting new versions of the code. In Arizona, no state
minimum codes exist, although individual cities have for the
most part adopted either the 2009 or 2012 IECC.
Financing availability is important for border communities
to address energy-related issues related to climate change and
the critical role that energy plays. In 2010, the DOE issued
guidelines for pilot Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE)
financing programs.193 Several states—including California,
New Mexico and Texas—have adopted legislation that allows
local governments to create PACE districts. In Texas, border
counties—including Willacy, El Paso and Cameron—have
passed resolutions to create new PACE districts, although
programs just began in 2015.
In addition to PACE, some utilities, municipal utilities or
electric cooperatives have offered either "on-bill repayment"
or "on-bill financing" that allows residential and commercial
customers to borrow money for local storage, solar and
energy efficiency projects and pay the funds back over time.
Recently, in Texas, the Pedernales Electric Cooperative began
offering such loans through its billing systems, utilizing
startup funding obtained from the USDA's Rural Utilities
Service.
6.8 Energy storage solutions
A more recent development has been the growth in the use
of energy storage as a solution to create a more resilient
and flexible electric grid. Because solar photovoltaic arrays
do not work at night and have reduced output during
cloudy weather conditions, and wind generation often is
erratic, it is necessary to balance the regional electric grids
so that peak demands can be met. Energy storage meets this
need, and 2015 represented the largest growth in energy
storage technology in the United States. Energy storage
technologies—including batteries, flywheels, compressed air
energy storage, and thermal storage such as chilling stations
and hydrological storage systems—take electricity generated
at another site, store it and then release it at a later time.
In many electricity markets, electric consumers and utilities
are considering how to incorporate energy storage into the
country's mix of energy resources. In California, under
Assembly Bill 2514, all large investor-owned utilities are
required to meet goals to purchase energy storage tech-
nology. In Texas, there is no requirement to add electric
storage, but new rules are being developed on how storage
can participate in electric and operating reserve markets.
Recently, several large-scale battery projects have been
developed and are mainly providing "ancillary" services.
Along the border, American Electric Power, a large private
electric company, added a large battery of 4 megawatts to its
transmission system as a backup power source at the end of a
large transmission line near Presidio, Texas.
The federal government plays a role in the development
of storage technology. Through its Energy Laboratories,
the DOE provides important funding and research for
the integration of storage technology, and it also provides
direct funding to utilities and others. The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission established a comment period in
2016 under Docket No. AD 16-20-000 so that the public
could provide input on how storage technology can be more
seamlessly integrated into markets and transmission systems.
6.9 Waste-to-energy technologies
Under EPA's Border 2020 Program, the Texas-New Mexico-
Chihuahua Regional Workgroup Joint Advisory Committee
partner, Cementos de Chihuahua in Ciudad Juarez, has
been using more than 1.2 million scrap used tires annually
for energy cogeneration. Recently, Cementos de Chihuahua
submitted and received authorization from Mexico's
SEMARNAT to utilize nonhazardous municipal waste as a
source of energy to supplement consumption at the Juarez
Cement Plant. Cementos de Chihuahua cogenerates energy
using an average of 120 metric tonnes (132 tons) of waste
daily, constituting up to 33 percent substitution of combus-
tible energy consumed in a single cement plant.194 The waste
used for energy generation included used tires, pecan shells,
sawdust, plastics and industrial trash such as carton, paper
and automobile upholstery, averaging 40 metric tonnes (44
tons) daily.
EPA Region 6 has conducted several energy management
workshops for water and wastewater utilities along the
U.S.-Mexico border to promote a reduction in energy
consumption and costs by using the ISO 50001 Energy
Management Systems framework and EPA's ENERGY
STAR Guidelines for Energy Management. Utilities along
the border, however, have not yet adopted these energy
56
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Programs
Initiated in 2010 and updated in 2016, the PACE
program, when authorized by states, enables property
owners to finance clean energy projects by attaching
the obligation to repay the cost of improvements to
the property, not to the individual borrower. Recently,
many states, including both Texas and California,
have passed statewide legislation that authorizes the
creation of PACE Districts. PACE Districts are entities
that can assess a loan on a property for energy
efficiency, water conservation or renewable energy
improvements and then allow the loan to be paid back
through the property taxes by adding a special fee that
is paid back over time. In this way, energy efficiency and
renewable energy can be financed and are much more
accessible to low-income border residents and small
businesses. Although these programs are statewide,
they are important for the border region as a tool for
homeowners.
The federal government has a unique role to play
in promoting PACE. Recently, the Federal Housing
Authority approved new guidance that would allow
homes that it helps finance with existing PACE loans
to proceed. Stakeholders, however, still are awaiting
final rulemaking or guidance from the Federal Housing
Finance Agency to determine how that agency would
allow residential PACE to proceed while protecting the
agency and the federal mortgage market.
management practices, usually because they require an initial
monetary investment.195
6.10 Recommendations
1. Since its 14th report in 2011, GNEB has asked the
federal government to encourage the adoption of
cost-effective conservation and energy efficiency
technologies that benefit low-income families in the
border region currently paying high prices for energy.
For example, EPA can encourage U.S. border states
utilizing the Clean Energy Incentive Program as part
of the CPP to support renewable energy projects and
energy efficiency in low-income communities. HHS
can use its Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program to target tribal and other poor communities
in the border area, especially considering the increased
number of extreme heat events and the growing need
for air conditioning for vulnerable populations. In
the border region of San Diego-Tijuana, cooperative
efforts are underway between HUD and Mexico's
Secretarfa de Desarrollo Agrario, Territorial y Urbano
(Secretariat of Agrarian, Territorial and Urban
Development) to mitigate and adapt to climate
change through regional planning and green building.
2. Federal agencies should take the lead in assisting
border communities in the development of climate
action plans. Federal agencies, EPA and NADB-
BECC should organize information-sharing technical
Energy, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
workshops on climate action plans with U.S. and
Mexican sister cities.
3. The Federal Housing Finance Authority should
finalize its guidelines and rules on the participation of
homes with federally backed mortgages to participate
in PACE programs. Finalizing this guidance and
rulemaking would help local communities decide
to what extent residential PACE programs can be
implemented in border communities.
4. EPA should finalize the details of the Clean Energy
Incentive Program, and then, if and when the CPP
Rule becomes effective, work with NADB-BECC,
tribes, states and local communities in best practice
design of programs that could take advantage of the
incentives available under the program.
5. The DOE should continue to monitor the implemen-
tation of more efficient energy codes at the state and
local levels and provide funding, technical assistance
and guidance in compliance with these more advanced
energy codes.
6. The DOE should increase outreach to border com-
munities on climate change and clean and efficient
energy technologies, best practices, costs and benefits,
and how to determine the potential economic and job
creation effects from implementing energy efficiency
and photovoltaic solar, including utility-scale, rooftop
and community solar. Photovoltaic power plants are
the most technically and financially viable renewable
energy solution for increasing the border region's
climate resiliency. Energy efficiency and photovol-
taic solar projects are proven to provide significant
economic benefits, are developed in reasonably short
timeframes, and displace CO, and water used by
more traditional energy sources. In another example,
EPA—in collaboration with NADB-BECC and the
DOE and through Border 2020—can undertake
a regional assessment of opportunities to promote
energy efficiency and distributed solar for small water
and wastewater utilities along the border, including
those of tribal governments.
7. In coordination with the National Weather Service,
the Climate Prediction Center should use existing
programs to develop methods to predict more
accurately the location, length and severity of extreme
weather events, including events with above-average
nighttime heat. Existing DOE, HUD and EPA grants
programs can be used to provide emergency shelters
for extended periods of extreme temperatures in vul-
nerable communities and subsidize air-conditioning
for vulnerable populations. ¦
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
57
-------
-------
Climate Change Impacts on Public Health in the Border Region
Climate change on the U.S.-Mexico border region is
projected to contribute to, and make it more difficult to
manage, rising levels of infectious and chronic disease;
harmful, cumulative effects on humans and the environment
caused by fire, flood, heat, pollution and health disparities;
and complexity and risk posed by a globalized economy with
increasing food-energy-water security problems. Changes in
health issues related to climate change are driven by rising
daytime and nighttime temperatures, increasing frequency
and intensity of wildfires, changes in precipitation and
storm intensity, changes in the distribution and numbers of
infectious disease vectors, and other factors.
The U.S.-Mexico border region encompasses a large range of
geographic landscapes and climate zones; large portions of it
in each of the four U.S. border states (California, Arizona,
New Mexico and Texas) are desert, however, with high
temperatures in the spring and summer and a dry climate
throughout the year. Many people find the year-round warm
weather more attractive and head south either permanently
or temporarily as seasonal "snow birds"; as temperatures
continue to rise, however, the extreme heat can put people,
especially older populations, at risk. As populations increase
in these areas, so will air pollution as commerce also increas-
es and cities expand to meet population needs, potentially
leading to increased rates of respiratory and heat-related
illnesses. ' Furthermore, increasing temperatures may
have a more significant effect on other climate zones in the
border region, including coastal areas, which are traditionally
milder but experience higher humidity.
Scientists have recognized the strong impact of climate
variability on infectious diseases in the southwestern United
States.139 Pertinent infectious diseases to the Southwest
border region of the United States include dengue and valley
fever. Zika (Figure 13) and chikungunya are emerging
infectious diseases in the region. These likely will become
more widespread from temperature increases and the spread
of disease vectors, notably the Aedes aegypti mosquito that is
now present throughout the border region.
Four dengue virus serotypes exist, and the Aedes mosquito
serves as the vector for dengue, which results in high fevers,
rash, nose/gum bleeds, severe headaches, and pain in the
joints, muscles and bones.* Any four of the serotypes can
lead to dengue hemorrhagic fever, a potentially fatal clinical
syndrome found when more than one serotype is present,
A fungus, Coccidioides immitis, found in the soil of the
southwestern United States and parts of Mexico^ is responsi-
ble for valley fever (coccidioidomycosis). Individuals exposed
to these fungal spores may never develop any symptoms,
but those who do can experience fatigue, cough, fever, and
muscle and joint pain, among other symptoms.®31 Early
diagnosis is essential to preventing medical complications
and death for all of these diseases.
7.1 Border region infectious disease
outbreaks
Dengue is typically imported to the United States by travel-
ers visiting endemic countries. Dengue currently is prevalent
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
59
-------
Climate Change Impacts on Public Health of the Border
CT
¦New York
.Vancouver
•PuiUainl
Milwaukee*
•Cleveland
~Salt Lake City
Columbus
i Albuquerque
.Los Angeles
.Phoenix
Jwar67
Tijuana
.Chihuahua
Montreal
otf-" —
Toronto
Figure 13. Weekly maps show where conditions are prime for the Zika-spreading mosquito to breed, bite and
potentially infect humans with the Zika virus.
Source: 'ikazoneuso.com.
W
^ .Miami
,Nai;
•Monterrey afc®
©2016 zika zone jv | Experimental Model vo.47 | r20l60825
Leaflet | Basemap by Stamen Design, under CC BY 3.0. Data by OpenStreetMap, under ODbL.
•Philadelphia
Washington
in northern Mexico, increasing potential exposure among
U.S. border region residents. In 2005, the sister border
cities of Brownsville (Texas) and Matamoros (Tamaulipas)
experienced a dengue virus type 2 epidemic that caused
several cases of the deadly dengue hemorrhagic fever,3® A
study assessed the roles of temperature, precipitation and
El Nino Southern Oscillation and found that for every
1°C/1.8°F increase in sea surface temperature, a 19.4 percent
increase in dengue incidence followed.203 An abundant
winter population of Aedes mosquitoes and mosquito-in-
fested water containers (e.g., discarded waste tires, buckets)
contributed to the outbreak in both cities. Incidence was
higher in Matamoros, where household infrastructure that
limits dengue transmission was less available (e.g., lack of
air conditioners, small residential lot size). It is not clear
whether the epidemic in Brownsville largely resulted from
cross-border traffic or whether dengue now is endemic in
this U.S. border city.282 Increased incidence and distribution
of this vector-borne disease, however, may occur along the
U.S. border region because of high rates of cross-border
travel and low levels of economic resources (e.g., inability
to afford air conditioning or insect repellants).204 Some
researchers maintain that dengue is underreported on both
sides of the border, and a study suggests that dengue fever is
endemic in the Brownsville-Matamoros border region, with
past infection detected in 40 percent of Brownsville residents
and 78 percent of Matamoros residents?®35
A more recent cross-border dengue outbreak was reported
for Yuma County (Arizona) and San Luis Rio Colorado:
(Sonora) during the fall season of 2014.®6 As shown in
Table 8, 122 cases of laboratory-confirmed dengue were
reported in this border region: 52 in San Luis Rio Colorado
and 70 in Yuma County. Most (86%) of the diagnosed
individuals in Yuma County reported travel to Mexico:
within the 2 weeks preceding their illness onset. Jones et
al., however, caution that high travel frequency to Mexico
increases the probability that infections will be automatically
misclassified as travel-associated, obscuring actual rates of
infection occurring within Yuma County.
The: study by Jones et al. included household-based cluster
investigations near (within a 50-meter/164-foot radius) the
residences of laboratory-confirmed dengue cases in Yuma
Table 8. Demographic, Health, and Behavioral
Characteristics of Laboratory-Confirmed Dengue Cases
in Yuma County, Arizona, and San Luis Rio Colorado,
Sonora (October-December 2014)
Characteristic
San Luis Rio
Colorado
(n = 52)
Yuma County
(n 70)
1
No. (%)
No. (%)
Female
32 (62)
42 (60)
Hospitalized
11 (21)
37 (53)
Dengue hemorrhagic
fever
3(6)
0(0)
Travel to Mexico <14 days
before illness onset
n/a
60 (86)
Source: Jones et al. 2016206
60
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Climate Change Impacts on Public Health of the Border
County. The study revealed that nearly 80 percent reported
travel to Mexico at least once in the prior month, and very
few (16%) reported using mosquito repellant.206 The ento-
mologic assessments confirmed a significant proportion of
A. aegypti. This mosquito carrier was found to be colonized
water containers (24 per 100 houses; Breateau index),207
indicating increased risk for dengue virus transmission.
Buckets and other plastic water containers were the most
common types of infested containers.
Coccidioides, the fungus that causes valley fever, is endemic
along the U.S.-Mexico border region21® ( Figure 14). The
incidence of valley fever has risen dramatically in the past
two decades and infections are appearing more frequently
outside of the endemic zones.209 This fungus grows best in
soil following heavy rainfall and disperses in the air during
hot, dry conditions. Seasonal peaks of valley fever infections
in Arizona have been associated with climatic changes, with
hot, dry conditions demonstrating the strongest association
with incidence.210 A strong correlation also was identified
between variations in seasonal precipitation and incidence
of coccidioidomycosis reported in Arizona.211 A separate
study found that men, persons older than 65 years, immu-
nosuppressed individuals, Hispanics, Native Americans, and
residents of California or Arizona were at greatest risk of
coccidioidomycosis-associated deaths.212
Established endemic ~ Suspected endemic
Highly endemic
Figure 14. Areas endemic for Coccidioides.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cdc.gov/fungal/diseases/
coccidioidomycosis/causes.html.
7.2 Emerging infectious diseases
Emerging infectious diseases that pose a risk along the U.S.-
Mexico border region include the Zika and chikungunya
viruses. Climate change and rising temperatures contribute
to a greater presence of the primary vector for these diseases,
A. aegypti, in the U.S. border region from Brownsville to
San Diego.213 Border community risk for new and well-es-
tablished infectious diseases is compounded by high levels
of poverty and related poor quality housing and lack of air
conditioning. Adjacency to densely populated urban areas
across the international boundary in nearby Mexico and high
volumes of cross-border travel are additional considerations
in the spread of infectious diseases.214
Zika virus is transmitted via A. aegypti mosquito bites,
directly from mother to fetus during pregnancy and at birth,
through blood transfusion, and through sexual contact with
an infected man.215 Most individuals infected with Zika will
exhibit mild or no symptoms and therefore may never realize
they were infected.216 Clinical illness occurs in approximately
20 percent of infected people, with common symptoms that
include fever, rash, muscle and joint pain, conjunctivitis, and
headache. The most significant risk posed by Zika virus is its
ability to lead to microcephaly and other severe fetal brain
defects, making its transmission of particular concern during
pregnancy.
Zika virus was first introduced in the Americas to Brazil in
2015 and now is pandemic in some areas of Latin America.
Cases have been reported in most Central and South
American countries as well as the United States. Mexico is
a designated country with active Zika virus transmission
reported.217 Bidirectional cross-border traffic makes the U.S.-
Mexico border region a high-risk region for travel-associated
infections, particularly if increased cases of Zika infections
are identified in northern Mexico.
As of September 9, 2016, 50 cases of Zika virus infections
were identified in the border counties ( ble ). The fact
that there have been no locally acquired vector-borne cases
reported in the U.S. border states2ls may be the result of a
bias in algorithms used to test for Zika, which are largely
targeting those individuals who have traveled abroad to
infected areas.219,220 As indicated above by Jones et al. (2016)
in discussing dengue, caution should be taken against
misclassifying travel-related cases in a population with a
high frequency of cross-border travel. Because some areas of
the border are highly suitable year-round for the A. aegypti
Table 9. Zika Infection in U.S. Border Counties
(September 9, 2016)
Zika Cases
County
State
Travel Acquired
(n = 50)
Locally Acquired
(n = 0)
San Diegoa
CA
36
0
Pimab
AZ
5
0
Yumab
AZ
1
0
Cochiseb
AZ
3
0
Dona Anac
NM
1
0
El Pasod
TX
3
0
Val Verded
TX
1
0
Sources: "California Department of Public Health, 2016.22'
'Arizona Department of Health Services, 2016.222
cNew Mexico Department of Public Health, 2016.221
''Texas Department of State Health Services, 2016224
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
61
-------
Climate Change Impacts on Public Health of the Border
mosquito, and it is present throughout the border region, it
is likely that locally acquired vector-borne cases will become
common in the border region. High poverty rates in many
communities in this region also increase susceptibility of
human exposure to A. aegypti and its viral transmission.
The chikungunya virus was discovered in the Americas in
2013. As with the Zika and dengue viruses, the A. aegypti
mosquito is the primary vector in the transmission of the
chikungunya virus. Unlike Zika, however, chikungunya is
rarely transmitted from mother to a newborn. Although
infection with chikungunya rarely results in death, it can
lead to severe and disabling symptoms.2* For example, one
of its most common symptoms, joint swelling and pain, may
persist for months following infection. It also is important
to note that, unlike with Zika, most people infected with
chikungunya develop symptoms, which occur within 3 to 7
days of initial infection.
In 2015, 896 cases of new chikungunya-related illness were
reported in the United States; all except one case were attribut-
ed to travelers returning from affected areas,™6 Among the
border states, a significant number of travel-associated cases
have occurred in California (276 cases), Texas (54 cases) and
Arizona (24 cases), accounting for 40 percent of all labora-
tory-confirmed U.S. cases of chikungunya-related illness in
2015 (Figure 15).a® As of September 6, 2016, all four border
states had reported cases of new chikungunya-related illness. ''*
event is described as having stationary masses of warm air
with successive nights of high minimum temperatures. In
the United States, higher temperatures along with urban-
ization and an aging population will lead to a "significant
public health problem."219
The Southwest border is the hottest and driest region in
the United States, with climate change contributing to
increased temperatures throughout the 20th century and
projected temperatures for the 21st century, as discussed in
Chapter 1 of this report. Already, this region experiences a
large portion of the year with days above 95°F/35°C (Figure
16). The increasing temperatures related to climate change
have clear effects on human health in the border region.
Exposure to high heat can affect the body's ability to regulate
temperature, and this results in physiologic strain, which can
lead to death.231 Extended exposure to high heat can lead
to multiple health issues, including heat exhaustion, heat
stroke, heat syncope and death.2® Warmer temperatures will
result in higher incidences of dehydration and renal diseases,
as well as asthma, hay fever and other allergy-related diseases
brought on by climate change impacts on pollen seasons.1?8
Heat stress is a leading cause of death in the Southwest,
and as heat waves increase in number, length and intensity,
heat-related death rates will increase.157
Days With Maximum
Above 95°F/35°C
Legend
Numberof Days
7.3 Heat waves, public health and
climate change
Globally, there is a relationship between climate change
and the frequency, intensity and duration of extreme heat
events.229 Extreme heat is defined as temperatures that are
significantly higher than the average temperature in a specific
place during a specific period of time.230 An extreme heat
62
Figure 16. The total number of days per year with
maximum temperature above 95°F (35°C) in the last
decade of the 21st century.
Source: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Earth Exchange
Downscaied Climate Projections at 30 arc-seconds (NEX DCP30) showing number
of days per year whose temperature would exceed 90°F in the 2090s under RCP
8.5. Taken from Climate Explorer: toolkit.climate.gov/climate-explorer2/variables.
php?id=days_tmax_abv_35.0&zoom=6¢er=-12229924.5256282%2C3916021
.83310615&year=2090.
Those at highest risk for heat stress include vulnerable
residen ts such as Hispanics and Native Americans, children,
people living in rural areas, low-income residents, older
adults, people without air conditioning in their homes, and
people with pre-existing health conditions (e.g., cardiovascu-
lar disease, diabetes, hypertension, obesity),231 Approximately
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
Locally-acquired casesrraflDcntedi
Travel-associated casesn^partedi
Figure 15. States reporting chikungunya virus disease
cases in the United States in 2015.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cdc.gov/chikungunya/geo/
united-states-2015.html.
Denver
iHdhfeTta
Hermosillo
Chihuahua
Monterrey
Culiacan
-------
Climate Change Impacts on Public Health of the Border
25 percent of residents living on the U.S. side of the border
are living at or below the poverty level, whereas 28 percent of
residents in the Mexican border states are living in poverty.232
People with asthma and other respiratory illnesses also are
vulnerable because high temperatures contribute to poor air
quality, including the formation of ground-level ozone.157
Finally, people suffering from mental illness exhibit triple the
risk of death during heat waves.52
Disruptions to urban and rural electricity and water supplies
may further aggravate health problems in the Southwest. For
example, increased energy use for cooling during heat waves
may place additional strain on the electric grid ultimately
resulting in brownouts or power outages.6 Greater water
demand in growing cities along the border and reduced
water availability also could affect access to drinking water.
Shallow wells in rural border regions are drying up and
reducing drinking water supplies available to rural border
residents, including Native Americans and Hispanics.
7.4 Respiratory problems
Increasing historic temperatures in the border region as well
as projected increases for the 21st century will exacerbate
the health effects of air pollution. In many cities along the
U.S.-Mexico border, air pollution is a growing concern.
As discussed in previous chapters, a critical challenge to
air quality along the border includes international ports of
entry and associated traffic emissions from idling vehicles. A
positive association has been found between high tempera-
tures (32°C/90°F) and ground-level ozone production, and
increasing evidence suggests that ozone and high tempera-
ture affect mortality synergistically. Heat wave mortality is
greatest on days with high PMio.229 Because ozone formation
is temperature dependent, surface ozone concentration is
projected to increase with a warmer climate. Ozone damages
lung tissue, causing particular problems for people with asth-
ma and other lung diseases. Even modest exposure to ozone
may encourage the development of asthma in children.
Combustion of fossil fuel for energy production and trans-
portation and biomass fuel for energy production and trash
burning also affects the health of individuals. Household
burning of solid fuel such as wood exposes border residents,
increasing their mortality and morbidity from respiratory
and cardiovascular diseases. Dust also is a consequence of cli-
mate change and drought, leading to inhalation of pollutants
attached to dust.
In some regions, changes in temperature and precipitation
are projected to increase the frequency and severity of fire
events. Large wildfires release large amounts of PM2.5 and
concentrations can reach levels as high as 10 to 20 times the
NAAQS in adjacent populated areas. Wildfires also release
large amounts of VOCs and semi-VOCs, which contribute
to the formation of secondary organic aerosols. Elevated
concentrations of PM2.5 and secondary organic aerosols
caused by wildfires are usually accompanied by an increase
in the number of people with respiratory problems, such as
asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, who
seek treatment at a hospital.233
7.5 Food and waterborne disease
Climate change is likely to worsen surface and ground
water scarcity and quality both regionally and globally.234
Contamination of reduced water sources through untreated
sewage discharges or hazardous materials releases will only
exacerbate existing water quality problems. Poor water
quality for domestic and agricultural uses can increase infec-
tious diseases, including gastrointestinal diseases. Climate
change, particularly events of extreme precipitation, has been
associated with increases in the incidence of food- and water-
borne diseases as well.204 Human exposure to waterborne
pathogens may occur via ingestion, inhalation and dermal
absorption of microbial organisms. Water quality, sanitation
and hygiene also play significant roles in human exposure.
Gastrointestinal illness is particularly dangerous to vulnera-
ble populations and can cause chronic conditions or fatalities
in the elderly, infants, pregnant women, immune-compro-
mised individuals and people with other chronic illnesses
such as diabetes.235 Waterborne diseases, especially gastro-
intestinal diseases, are a leading cause of infant death in
Mexico and an ongoing problem in rural and poor urban
areas of the U.S. border. Gastroenteritis originates from viral,
bacterial and protozoan agents, whereas other pathogens,
such as Escherichia coli and Salmonella, are important causes
of food-borne illnesses.204 Cholera poses the greatest climate
change threat among waterborne diseases. Such increased
risk is associated with warming water temperatures.204
7.6 Climate change and mental health
Although the effects of climate change on physical health
are well documented in the medical literature, research on
climate change as a determinant of mental health outcomes
is limited. Climate change may affect mental health directly,
as found in conditions of extreme heat or natural disasters
leading to acute stress or post-traumatic stress disorder. It
also may affect mental health indirectly, such as through
displacement from one's home and socioeconomic effects
leading to extended stress, depression and suicide.236
7.7 Climate change impact on chronic
diseases
Climate change in the border likely will exacerbate infec-
tious disease, as detailed in previous sections of this report.
The impact of climate change in the border region on
chronic disease, however, may be more difficult to discern.
Nonetheless, it is likely that increasing temperatures affect
the obesity, diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
epidemics that particularly afflict Hispanic Americans and
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
63
-------
Climate Change Impacts on Public Health of the Border
Native Americans, as well as Mexican populations across
the border.237-241 With their genetic predisposition, their
susceptibility is compounded by the harsh reality that many
Hispanic and Native Americans live in poor areas, including
sites along the U.S.-Mexico border, with high rates of obe-
sity, poverty, poor nutrition, health disparities and exposure
to toxicants—all of which constitute cumulative effects that
increase the risk of getting cancer.
How does climate change factor into high toxicant-
associated steatohepatitis rates along the border region? In
the Southern California-Northern Baja California border
region, places like Imperial County's poverty-stricken
rural and urban areas—already among the disadvantaged
communities hardest hit by climate change (resulting
from such factors as heat, dust and economic challenges
associated with water scarcity and food insecurity)—are
known to experience significant environmental exposures,
especially pesticides in farm-working communities. These
rural communities likely are at a higher risk of toxicant-
associated steatohepatitis because of their higher exposure to
environmental toxicants, higher rates of obesity, unhealthy
diets, health disparities and genetic susceptibility. The same
can be said of rural communities in Mexico.
Rising temperatures and persistent, as well as more frequent,
heat waves have been correlated to asthma, diabetes, acute
renal failure and cardiovascular diseases. Temperature
inversions, occurring in the vicinity of warm fronts and often
seen during winter months, also can trap pollutants close to
the ground, creating and triggering adverse health effects,
especially for young children and adults already prone to
such diseases. In addition, extreme heat, severe weather
and air pollution can have direct and indirect effects on
chronic diseases, therefore making it critical to understand
how climate change can affect public health.52 All of these
concerns are important in the border region, and addressing
the impacts to vulnerable populations remains a challenge
for federal, state and local authorities. The underlying
stressors—low-education and low-income levels—decrease
residents' ability to prepare as needed (i.e., purchase fans or
air conditioning units).
7.8 Increased frequency and severity of
storms
Increased intensity of storm events related to climate change
in the border region will have implications for public
health in addition to physical infrastructure and property
implications. Flood deaths are a problem as a result of flash
floods on the western part of the border, whereas the Lower
Rio Grande region experiences damaging inundations from
tropical storms. Damage to the electric grid, water treatment
and wastewater treatment facilities affects the resiliency of
communities to respond to storm impacts. Flooding brings
increased risk of waterborne disease, dehydration from
decreased access to potable water, and exposure to mosqui-
toes and other vectors.242
7.9 Food security, soil and food waste
Food security, loss of productive soils, and food waste are
emerging global and national issues related to climate change
that are of growing concern in the border region.243,244
President Obama signed into law the 2016 Global Food
Security Act (S. 1252), which requires the development
and implementation of a Global Food Security Strategy to
promote global food security, resilience and nutrition. In
the case of the U.S.-Mexico border region, as already noted
in Chapter 1 of this report, scientists project that droughts,
heightened intensity of storm events, and heat waves are like-
ly to worsen negative effects on food security, ecosystems and
health. For example, dry conditions coupled with overgraz-
ing in the border region can lead to increased erosion, the
spread of invasive plants, and reduced productivity of crops
such as fruit trees.
The United Nations designated 2015 as the International
Year of Soils. In response, the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy issued a national Call to Action in
August 2016 to protect America's soil: "Climate change
is expected to increase pressure on soil as the frequency of
extreme weather events increases, bringing forceful rain and
flooding, which can strip away soil. Without coordinated
action, the United States is on track to run out of topsoil—
the medium upon which crop production depends—before
the end of the 21st century."245 The loss of vegetative cover
(biomass) and top soil is an acute problem for parts of the
U.S.-Mexico border region. For instance, in the San Diego-
Tijuana binational metropolis, rapid urbanization along
Tijuana's steep canyons lacking adequate infrastructure has
led to serious erosion with negative effects on wetlands and
waterways.246
A recent University of California report also recommends
interventions focused on soil and biomass, in a way that
advocates for food waste reduction and recovery. One
recommendation of the report is to implement "food waste
reduction programs and energy recovery systems to maxi-
mize utilization of food produced and recover energy from
food that is not consumed."247 The Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations estimates that as much
as one-third of all food produced for human consumption is
lost or wasted as a result of supply chain inefficiencies (e.g.,
failure to harvest crops in time, damage to the food during
processing or transport) and food waste (e.g., edible items
discarded for a variety of reasons, such as imperfections in
appearance, spoilage and too-large portions).24S'249
The CO, emitted in producing and distributing this food
accounts for 10 percent of the global CO2 emissions. The
magnitude of this problem suggests that much can be gained
from establishing food waste reduction and recovery systems
that maximize utilization of food resources while significant-
ly reducing emissions of CO2 and methane. Most
64
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
food waste ends up in landfills, where it off gases methane
as it decomposes, making it one of the waste sector's largest
sources of GHG emissions.250,251 The Food and Agriculture
Organization's report argues that food waste reduction has
multiple benefits. It can mitigate climate change, reduce
pressure on scarce natural resources, and make it easier to
meet the rapidly rising demand for food. Between 2013 and
2050, the Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that
global food production may have to increase by 60 percent
to meet worldwide demand.
7.10 Recommendations
1. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) should modify current Zika testing algorithms
that are biased toward detection of travel-related
infection rates. The current testing approach is inap-
propriate and ineffective in distinguishing between
travel and locally acquired Zika cases along the
U.S.-Mexico border, particularly because of the high
cross-border traffic and shared ecological environment.
2. Public health campaigns to increase awareness and
education of infectious diseases pertinent to the
U.S.-Mexico border region are essential to preven-
tion, especially concerning vulnerable populations
at increased risk from climate change and other
factors for development of these diseases. Prevention
education should focus on the importance of emp-
tying/ disposing of water containers than can serve as
mosquito breeding sites and sealing water containers
that cannot be emptied. In addition, the public can be
educated in the prevention of mosquito bites through
the application of mosquito repellents, use of pro-
tective clothing, installation of window screens, and
use of air conditioning when indoors. U.S. agencies
should coordinate these efforts with Mexican author-
ities to reduce risk regionally in the binational border
region.
3. Greater surveillance of vectors and analysis of the
mediating mechanisms/processes between climate
change (e.g., increases in precipitation and tempera-
ture) and disease outbreak is needed. Surveillance
of disease vectors should be systematic and well-dis-
tributed along and across the U.S.-Mexico border,
particularly cities with high cross-border traffic, to
accurately determine prevalence of infected vectors/
hosts, prevent and manage outbreaks, and tailor
warning messages to border communities at risk for
infection. Understanding how climate-related vari-
ations in vector habitats and human behavior (e.g.,
water storage and irrigation, pollution, migration,
travel) contribute to disease outbreaks in the border
region also is important.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
Climate Change Impacts on Public Health of the Border
4. The U.S.-Mexico border region is a contiguous
landscape where vector and zoonotic pathogens thrive
and circulate across political borders. To mitigate the
health burden of these infectious diseases effectively,
surveillance systems must follow a shared border
region perspective and a "One Health" approach.
Sharing of surveillance strategies and data can help to
facilitate timely detection of cross-border outbreaks.
5. NOAA should deploy an early heat warning system
for the binational Paso del Norte region to assist early
responders and community members to better prepare
for extreme heat events that are increasing in intensity
and frequency with climate change. The system should
be deployed in cooperation with Mexican authorities.
Once piloted, the system should be extended to the
rest of the binational border region.
6. Federal agencies should guide and support local gov-
ernments in identifying tree planting areas, installing
irrigation, purchasing and planting native shade-pro-
viding trees, installing three-tier water fountains, and
providing benches and other shade structures.
7. Federal agencies should increase training and continu-
ing education for primary care providers and mental
health professionals, highlighting the relation of
climate change to mental health, particularly targeting
those providers working with underserved popula-
tions. Agencies should incorporate mental health
training among emergency and disaster response
teams.
8. EPA should improve air quality monitoring and
warning systems along the border, moving beyond
region-wide air values to specifically monitoring
areas with vulnerable populations and hot spots such
as ports of entry. EPA also should increase efforts
to promote air quality awareness and education to
vulnerable populations along the U.S.-Mexico border
in their preferred language.
9. The CDC, in cooperation with state and local
authorities and Mexican agencies, can use existing
public health infrastructure programs to strengthen
transboundary disease surveillance, educate the public
regarding prevention and transboundary vector
prevention and control efforts, control insect vectors
and animal reservoirs of disease, and respond rapidly
to border public health outbreaks.204 The CDC should
coordinate public education campaigns that emphasize
protective behaviors to reduce risk to vector-borne
diseases and promote access to cooling centers,
particularly for the elderly, infirm and economically
disadvantaged people.
65
-------
-------
Recommendations
8.1 Summary of recommendations
The U.S.-Mexico border region is projected to experience
challenging economic and social impacts resulting from
climate risks across a spectrum—from water and energy
to health and transportation. This report outlines specific
recommendations for positive actions that federal gov-
ernment agencies should implement in this fiscal year to
build climate resilience in the border region. Executive
actions on the following can be implemented during the
current fiscal year:
1. Convene stakeholders from both sides of the border
to share information on responses to threats to water
supplies.
2. Enhance stormwater harvesting, ground water
recharge and ecological water flows to respond to
both flood and drought risks.
3. Facilitate flood mitigation and watershed manage-
ment efforts, especially systems with cross-border
causes and effects.
4. Promote efforts to advance integrated wastewater
resource management, innovative technologies, and
green infrastructure along the border with the goal
of providing clean, reliable and affordable water,
wastewater and stormwater services.
5. Promote and incentivize green infrastructure and pri-
oritize its financing for both domestic and binational
projects.
6. Promote the understanding of ecosystem services and
co-benefits of nature-based and carbon mitigation
options in water infrastructure projects (e.g., green
infrastructure) and coastal adaptation measures (e.g.,
living shorelines).
7. Coordinate efforts across and along the border to
prepare for new vectors and vector-borne diseases,
as well as other potential health effects related to
temperature increases and other climate risks.
8. Using existing executive orders, and reflecting
community concerns, continue to support, plan and
design for the reduction of wait times at the border
crossings from Mexico into U.S. border commu-
nities—initially through management efforts and
full staffing and in the longer term through physical
infrastructure improvements.
9. Target border urban and rural communities to
enhance and increase support for their energy
efficiency and security in the face of growing energy
demand risks.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
67
-------
Recommendations
10. Provide federal leadership to enhance the ability
of border communities to respond to emergencies
such as heat waves, flooding, coastal inundation and
wildfires, especially when U.S. and Mexican border
communities are affected. An important first step is
to modernize and make relevant to border realities
the 1980 U.S.-Mexico Agreement on Cooperation
During Natural Disasters.
8.2 Complete report recommendations
by chapter
The recommendations from the different chapters of this
report are listed below. Collectively, they address what
federal agencies can do better with existing resources and
programs to address climate change impacts and enhance the
resilience of border communities. A number of themes run
through these recommendations.
The first theme is that many federal programs within numer-
ous agencies can assist border communities, large and small,
urban and rural, in addressing climate change impacts.
Many smaller and poorer communities, however, lack the
administrative support and technical expertise to effec-
tively access these programs. The Board recommends that
agencies increase outreach to the diverse border programs.
In addition, GNEB suggests that NADB-BECC organize
information regarding federal programs for border commu-
nities. NADB-BECC has a presence along the border, has
worked in most border communities, and has experience in
Mexico's communities.
Another important theme of the report and recommen-
dations is that many groups in the border region are
disadvantaged and characterized by low income. Many
of these are primarily Hispanic and live in colonias with
substandard infrastructure and public services. Others are
tribal peoples in rural areas that depend on natural resources
affected by climate change. All of these groups are dispro-
portionately affected by climate change and need special
attention by federal programs.
A third important theme is that federal agencies that address
climate impacts in the border region should make a concert-
ed effort to coordinate with counterpart agencies in Mexico.
GNEB firmly believes that climate change-related issues that
have origins and effects on both sides of the international
boundary require solutions that also span the border.
Chapter 2. Vulnerable Populations and
Environmental Justice and
Climate Change
1. Vulnerable and disadvantaged border communities
will be disproportionately affected by climate change
impacts. These groups also often lack the expertise
to access available federal programs that assist border
communities to develop resiliency to these impacts.
An immediate priority should be to coordinate federal
agencies to proactively perform outreach to disadvan-
taged border communities to assist in addressing the
effects of climate change.
2. The NADB-BECC, through consultations with
border tribes and coordination with U.S. federal and
state programs, should develop a specific program
to facilitate the development of renewable energy by
border tribes.
3. Every federal agency with an emergency preparedness
mission should use its existing programs to support
vulnerable and disadvantaged communities in estab-
lishing infrastructure and building capacity for fire
suppression, emergency management implementation,
and hazard mitigation for natural disaster events. For
example, federal agencies should facilitate wildland
fire management specific to rural disadvantaged tribal
and other vulnerable communities.
4. EPA should continue to support the La Paz
Agreement and Border 2020 initiatives to enhance
emergency response coordination with its federal,
state and local partners, with special attention to tribal
communities and underserved populations. As GNEB
recommended in its 11th report, Natural Disasters
and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border,
emergency response must be more closely coordinated
across the border with Mexico. Most importantly,
the 1980 U.S.-Mexico Agreement on Cooperation
During Natural Disasters needs to be updated to
enable the immediate and targeted responses required
when a natural disaster affects the shared geographical
region on both sides of the border.
Chapter 3. Existing Federal Programs
and Resources
1. A wealth of federal agency programs exists to help
border communities respond to the challenges of cli-
mate change. Navigating the complex federal structure
to connect with specific programs, however, often is a
complicated and difficult task. Larger border commu-
nities, with well-trained and numerous staff, generally
interface well with federal agencies. Smaller urban and
rural communities, however—especially disadvan-
taged communities—often lack the human resources
to initiate contact with appropriate federal programs.
Consequently, it is recommended that federal agen-
cies facilitate the flow of information on climate
change programs for the border region to border
68
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Recommendatio
communities of all types. The NADB-BECC would
be an appropriate agency to organize this information
as part of its regular outreach to border communities.
NADB-BECC has a history of cooperation with many
different federal agencies, and BECC would be able
to effectively facilitate this information sharing across
the international border to communities and agencies
at all levels because it is a binational organization with
headquarters in Mexico.
2. EPA should begin working with the State Department
and other federal and state partners and nongovern-
mental organizations to directly engage with Mexico
to reduce CO2 emissions from the Carbon I and II
electrical generating units near Nava, Coahuila, 20
miles south of Eagle Pass, Texas. These two coal-fired
power plants generate 1.2 and 1.4 gigawatts of energy,
respectively, and Carbon 1 emitted 7.5 million tons
(6.8 million metric tonnes) of CO2 in 2005 alone.
3. A range of local communities along the border
recognize the direct economic, social, human health
and environmental effects caused by climate change.
This leads to more local conversations on initiatives
that can be implemented or recommended to mitigate
climate change impacts. This bottom-up approach
is a key to Border 2020s success. Federal agencies,
particularly EPA, should continue to support Border
2020, which helps build on the expertise within com-
munities to identify priorities and implement projects.
Supporting these local initiatives is an infrastructure
of regional and border-wide workgroups further
targeting resources based on priorities identified by
the United States and Mexico.
4. Agencies should increase the frequency and depth of
binational coordination. For example, as a result of
the GNEB meetings in February 2016, the sister cities
of Brownsville (Texas) and Matamoros (Tamaulipas)
participated jointly in the World Urban Campaign:
Urban Lab in September 2016. The Urban Lab
dialogues are being led by ONU-Habitat Mexico
and Urban Campus by the Colegio Nacional de
Jurisprudencia Urbanistica. Leading up to this import-
ant meeting, the cities of Brownsville and Matamoros
participated in co-working meetings to plan and
decipher topics of valuable concern. Through careful
facilitation from federal officials and presentation of
background materials, the two cities agreed on two
topic areas: (1) transportation and mobility and
(2) flood mitigation and resiliency. Both cities
highlighted current local ordinances, areas of federal
support, and future initiatives. The mayors and staff
from both cities officially participated in the meetings.
5. The Border Liaison Mechanism is an agreement of
the U.S.-Mexico Binational Commission to empower
the consuls general of border cities to convene public
and other stakeholders from both sides of the border
to address common interests of regional concern. The
Border Liaison Mechanism has become less active
in recent years as a result of the economic downturn
and border violence. This mechanism now needs to
be re-energized with appropriate levels of resources
to facilitate cross-border cooperation at the local level
on climate change-related issues and other shared
concerns in the diverse regions of the border.
Chapter 4. Water-Related Issues and
Climate Change
1. Stormwater engineers and fioodplain managers along
the U.S.-Mexico border should utilize real-time
data from streamfiow-gauging stations when new
development is being considered in an area. This
will enable development guidelines consistent with
climate change impacts. At the same time, stream-
flow data from portions of shared watersheds in
Mexico also should be incorporated into new flood
maps. Agencies should consider how future—or
modifications to existing—infrastructure investments
in fioodplains will be informed by the new Federal
Flood Risk Management Standard. The new flood
standard describes various approaches for determining
the higher vertical flood elevation and corresponding
horizontal fioodplain for federally funded projects and
establishes the level to which a structure or facility
must be resilient. This may include using structural or
nonstructural methods to reduce or prevent damage;
elevating a structure; or, where appropriate, designing
it to adapt to, withstand and rapidly recover from a
flood event. In addition, agencies should consider
the use of natural systems, ecosystem processes and
nature-based approaches in the development of
alternatives for actions.
2. U.S. and Mexico officials should work with federal
agencies; the Colorado River Basin states of Arizona,
California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah
and Wyoming; and local stakeholders to reach an
agreement to succeed Minute 319, once it sunsets
at the end of 2017, that would continue binational
cooperation under the 1944 Water Treaty. The
agreement should continue to address the effects of
climate change on water supplies, as well as how the
two countries can participate in water conservation
efforts and drought planning.
3. The combination of increased temperatures, reduced
precipitation and ongoing drought associated with
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Recommendations
climate risks threaten surface and subsurface water
supplies for residential, commercial, agricultural and
ecosystem maintenance purposes. Many of the resul-
tant risks are transborder in nature and can be most
effectively addressed through bilateral cooperation in
the border region. U.S. and Mexico federal agencies
should enhance their work together, in concert
with public and private stakeholders from both
countries, for effective management of the binational
Rio Grande River and Colorado River systems and
support of state aquifer management programs.
4. Federal or binational agencies with responsibility for
addressing water problems and needs along the border
(including EPA, USGS, NADB-BECC and the
U.S. Section of the IBWC) should build on existing
programs, such as EPA's Border 2020 Program and the
IBWCs Minutes 319 and 320, to engage with Mexico
and its agencies to address climate change related to
shared water problems.
5. Federal water agencies and the binational NADB-
BECC should enhance their existing efforts to
compile and share information on local and state
water conservation programs on both sides of the
border to promote community resilience in the face
of climate change impacts. They should convene a
bilateral conference to learn what actions U.S.-Mexico
border communities are taking to conserve water,
share successful practices, and engage the private
sector in the discussion and implementation of best
practices. The agencies ought to use existing program
funds to encourage state and local government agency
staff, staff from environmental utilities, appropriate
private sector stakeholders, and Mexican counterparts
to meet and discuss practical ways to prevent water
pollution of transboundary surface water and ground
water resources as well as watershed management
approaches to enhance border water quality. In shared
water bodies where such discussion has been occurring
(e.g., through the Transboundary Aquifer Assessment
Program), implementation of solutions to identified
problems should commence.
6. Federal agencies (including EPA, IBWC, USGS,
USDA, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) should implement or
support ground water recharge for vulnerable and/
or disadvantaged communities through existing water
programs. Ground water recharge efforts provide
a mechanism to create stable ground water storage
areas, which in turn allow surface water to flow to
storage areas with reduced losses. Federal agencies
should implement and/or support stormwater
70
runoff programs to utilize recycled water for surface
water-dependent municipalities and facilitate funding
through existing programs to establish and/or enlarge
surface water storage impoundments and/or reservoirs,
where appropriate and cost effective. Federal agencies
should enhance their engagement with local officials
and planners to develop or support community design
solutions that prevent water contamination, such as
infrastructure for wastewater capture and treatment.
To protect tribal resources and meet the federal
government's trust responsibilities to tribes, the DOI
and its Bureau of Indian Affairs should operate U.S.
government programs to protect treaty and other
tribal rights as the climate changes.
7. The USDAs NRCS could allocate funds under
PL-566, the Small Watershed Program, to rehabilitate
aging stormwater infrastructure and complete
watershed plans in the U.S.-Mexico border region to
prevent and mitigate flooding. The U.S. government
could provide financial assistance for water
conservation projects that target shared resources
(e.g., the Colorado River, ground water) in such
areas as California-Baja California, where people and
ecosystems are already experiencing negative climate-
related impacts.
Chapter 5. Transit, Trade and Air Pollution:
Climate Risks and Promoting
Environmental Resiliency
1. The U.S. Department of Transportation and CBP
should reduce GHG releases and air pollution at
border crossings with Mexico by decreasing border
wait times, create amenities for pedestrians waiting
in line, improve border crossing traffic-flow designs,
and identify innovative technologies to better predict
and reduce border wait times. Some design options,
in which the General Services Administration will
play a role, include creation of buffer zones between
roadways and communities, re-routing trucks through
commercial areas and away from residential zones,
and encouraging clean diesel programs for commercial
vehicles. Of course, many of these solutions require
coordination of all levels of U.S. government, as well
as Mexican authorities.
2. An executive order should be implemented mandating
that U.S. border authorities prioritize reallocating staff
to inspection booths and positions at busy crossing
times. Such a mandate could significantly reduce
vehicular and pedestrian wait times, reducing ozone
and air contaminant production and their resulting
negative health effects on passengers, pedestrians,
workers at the ports of entry, and residents of the
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Recommendatio
surrounding communities. This executive order also
should address recruitment, training and retention
issues for CBP employees. The economic benefits of
shorter wait times for both commercial and non-
commercial traffic at the ports of entry also would be
significant.
3. The unified cargo inspection project being piloted in
Nogales should be evaluated for its reduction in emis-
sions from commercial vehicles, in addition to wait
times, and modeled at other land ports of entry in the
border region. The selection of one methodology for
obtaining emissions reduction also should be included
so that data evaluations are consistent.
4. Agencies should provide commensurate staffing levels
whenever infrastructure improvements are made at
land ports of entry in the border region.
Chapter 6. Energy, Greenhouse Gases
and Climate Change
1. Since its 14th report in 2011, GNEB has asked the
federal government to encourage the adoption of
cost-effective conservation and energy efficiency
technologies that benefit low-income families in the
border region currently paying high prices for energy.
For example, EPA can encourage U.S. border states
utilizing the Clean Energy Incentive Program as part
of the CPP to support renewable energy projects and
energy efficiency in low-income communities. HHS
can use its Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program to target tribal and other poor communities
in the border area, especially considering the increased
number of extreme heat events and the growing need
for air conditioning for vulnerable populations. In
the border region of San Diego-Tijuana, cooperative
efforts are underway between HUD and Mexico's
Secretarfa de Desarrollo Agrario, Territorial y Urbano
(Secretariat of Agrarian, Territorial and Urban
Development) to mitigate and adapt to climate
change through regional planning and green building.
2. Federal agencies should take the lead in assisting
border communities in the development of climate
action plans. Federal agencies, EPA and NADB-
BECC should organize information-sharing technical
workshops on climate action plans with U.S. and
Mexican sister cities.
3. The Federal Housing Finance Authority should
finalize its guidelines and rules on the participation of
homes with federally backed mortgages to participate
in PACE programs. Finalizing this guidance and
rulemaking would help local communities decide
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
to what extent residential PACE programs can be
implemented in border communities.
4. EPA should finalize the details of the Clean Energy
Incentive Program, and then, if and when the CPP
Rule becomes effective, work with NADB-BECC,
tribes, states and local communities in best practice
design of programs that could take advantage of the
incentives available under the program.
5. The DOE should continue to monitor the implemen-
tation of more efficient energy codes at the state and
local levels and provide funding, technical assistance
and guidance in compliance with these more advanced
energy codes.
6. The DOE should increase outreach to border com-
munities on climate change and clean and efficient
energy technologies, best practices, costs and benefits,
and how to determine the potential economic and job
creation effects from implementing energy efficiency
and photovoltaic solar, including utility-scale, rooftop
and community solar. Photovoltaic power plants are
the most technically and financially viable renewable
energy solution for increasing the border region's
climate resiliency. Energy efficiency and photovol-
taic solar projects are proven to provide significant
economic benefits, are developed in reasonably short
timeframes, and displace CO, and water used by
more traditional energy sources. In another example,
EPA—in collaboration with NADB-BECC and the
DOE and through Border 2020—can undertake
a regional assessment of opportunities to promote
energy efficiency and distributed solar for small water
and wastewater utilities along the border, including
those of tribal governments.
7. In coordination with the National Weather Service,
the Climate Prediction Center should use existing
programs to develop methods to predict more
accurately the location, length and severity of extreme
weather events, including events with above-average
nighttime heat. Existing DOE, HUD and EPA grants
programs can be used to provide emergency shelters
for extended periods of extreme temperatures in vul-
nerable communities and subsidize air-conditioning
for vulnerable populations.
Chapter 7. Climate Change Impacts on Public
Health in the Border Region
1. The CDC should modify current Zika testing
algorithms that are biased toward detection of trav-
el-related infection rates. The current testing approach
is inappropriate and ineffective in distinguishing
-------
Recommendations
between travel and locally acquired Zika cases along
the U.S.-Mexico border, particularly because of
the high cross-border traffic and shared ecological
environment.
2. Public health campaigns to increase awareness and
education of infectious diseases pertinent to the
U.S.-Mexico border region are essential to preven-
tion, especially concerning vulnerable populations
at increased risk from climate change and other
factors for development of these diseases. Prevention
education should focus on the importance of emp-
tying/ disposing of water containers than can serve as
mosquito breeding sites and sealing water containers
that cannot be emptied. In addition, the public can be
educated in the prevention of mosquito bites through
the application of mosquito repellents, use of pro-
tective clothing, installation of window screens, and
use of air conditioning when indoors. U.S. agencies
should coordinate these efforts with Mexican author-
ities to reduce risk regionally in the binational border
region.
3. Greater surveillance of vectors and analysis of the
mediating mechanisms/processes between climate
change (e.g., increases in precipitation and tempera-
ture) and disease outbreak is needed. Surveillance
of disease vectors should be systematic and well-dis-
tributed along and across the U.S.-Mexico border,
particularly cities with high cross-border traffic, to
accurately determine prevalence of infected vectors/
hosts, prevent and manage outbreaks, and tailor
warning messages to border communities at risk for
infection. Understanding how climate-related vari-
ations in vector habitats and human behavior (e.g.,
water storage and irrigation, pollution, migration,
travel) contribute to disease outbreaks in the border
region also is important.
4. The U.S.-Mexico border region is a contiguous
landscape where vector and zoonotic pathogens thrive
and circulate across political borders. To mitigate the
health burden of these infectious diseases effectively,
surveillance systems must follow a shared border
region perspective and a "One Health" approach.
Sharing of surveillance strategies and data can help to
facilitate timely detection of cross-border outbreaks.
5. NOAA should deploy an early heat warning system
for the binational Paso del Norte region to assist early
responders and community members to better prepare
for extreme heat events that are increasing in intensity
and frequency with climate change. The system should
be deployed in cooperation with Mexican authorities.
Once piloted, the system should be extended to the
rest of the binational border region.
6. Federal agencies should guide and support local gov-
ernments in identifying tree planting areas, installing
irrigation, purchasing and planting native shade-pro-
viding trees, installing three-tier water fountains, and
providing benches and other shade structures.
7. Federal agencies should increase training and continu-
ing education for primary care providers and mental
health professionals, highlighting the relation of
climate change to mental health, particularly targeting
those providers working with underserved popula-
tions. Agencies should incorporate mental health
training among emergency and disaster response
teams.
8. EPA should improve air quality monitoring and
warning systems along the border, moving beyond
region-wide air values to specifically monitoring
areas with vulnerable populations and hot spots such
as ports of entry. EPA also should increase efforts
to promote air quality awareness and education to
vulnerable populations along the U.S.-Mexico border
in their preferred language.
9. The CDC, in cooperation with state and local
authorities and Mexican agencies, can use existing
public health infrastructure programs to strengthen
transboundary disease surveillance, educate the public
regarding prevention and transboundary vector
prevention and control efforts, control insect vectors
and animal reservoirs of disease, and respond rapidly
to border public health outbreaks.204 The CDC should
coordinate public education campaigns that emphasize
protective behaviors to reduce risk to vector-borne
diseases and promote access to cooling centers,
particularly for the elderly, infirm and economically
disadvantaged people.
72
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendices
-------
-------
Appendices
Glossary of Acronyms
BECC Border Environment Cooperation Commission
BEIF Border Environment Infrastructure Fund
BHC Border Health Commission
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
C02 carbon dioxide
CPP Clean Power Plan
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOI U.S. Department of the Interior
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GNEB Good Neighbor Environmental Board
GRACE Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment
HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
IBWC International Boundary and Water Commission
IECC International Energy Conservation Code
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NADB North American Development Bank
NIDIS National Integrated Drought Information
System
NIWTP Nogales International Wastewater Treatment
Plant
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
NOx nitrogen oxides
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
PACE Property-Assessed Clean Energy
PM particulate matter
PM2.5 particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers in diameter
PM10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10
micrometers in diameter
POV personally owned vehicle
SEMARNAT Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos
Naturales
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VOC volatile organic compound
Glossary of Terms
acre-foot: A unit of volume equal to the volume of water
required to cover 1 acre (0.405 hectare) in area and 1 foot
(30.48 centimeter) in depth; 43,560 cubic feet (1233.5
cubic meters).
Ambos Nogales: Meaning "both Nogales," this is a common
name for the adjacent border towns of Nogales, Arizona, and
Nogales, Sonora.
anaerobic digester: A sealed vessel, or series of vessels, in
which microorganisms break down biodegradable material in
the absence of oxygen; commonly used as part of wastewater
treatment.
bioswale: Landscape elements designed to remove silt and
pollution from surface runoff water. They consist of a swaled
drainage course with gently sloped sides (less than 6%) and
filled with vegetation, compost and/or riprap.
colonias: An unregulated settlement/residential area along
the U.S.-Mexico border that may lack some of the most
basic living necessities such as potable water and sewer
systems, electricity, and safe and sanitary housing.
ecosystem services: Benefits derived by humans from
ecosystems, such as provisions (production of food and
water), regulation (control of climate and disease), support
(nutrient cycles and crop pollination), and cultural (spiritual
and recreational benefits).
endemic species: Species of plants or animals that occur
only in a restricted location.
ephemeral runoff: Water that flows for a short period of
time after a precipitation event or snowmelt.
evapotranspiration: The sum of evaporation and plant
transpiration from the Earths land and ocean surface to the
atmosphere.
gray infrastructure: Human-engineered solutions that often
use concrete and steel for stormwater management and
urban development.
green infrastructure: An approach to stormwater man-
agement that protects, restores or mimics the natural water
cycle.
greenfield: Previously undeveloped sites for commercial
development or exploitation.
greenhouse gas: A gas that contributes to the greenhouse
effect, the warming of Earths lower atmosphere, by absorb-
ing infrared radiation.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
75
-------
Appendices
Glossary of Terms (continued)
hydrography: The applied science of surveying, charting
and describing the physical features of bodies of water and
coastal areas and predicting their change over time.
insolation: The solar radiation that reaches the Earth's sur-
face. It is measured by the amount of solar energy received
per square centimeter per minute. Much of the border
region has high values.
Lidar: A detection system that works on the principle of
radar, but uses light from a laser.
neotropical: A zoogeographical region comprising Central
and South America, including the tropical southern part
of Mexico and the Caribbean. Distinctive animals include
edentates, opossums, marmosets and tamarins.
outflow: The outward flow of air from a weather system,
associated with wind shift and temperature drop.
paleoclimate: Past climate that existed prior to humans
collecting instrumental measurements of weather.
peaker plants: Power plants that generally run only when
there is a high (peak) demand for electricity.
PM2. 5: Fine particulate matter; microscopic solid or liquid
matter suspended in the Earth's atmosphere with a diam-
eter of 2.5 micrometers or less. They can enter the lungs,
potentially causing serious health problems.
PM10: Coarse particulate matter; microscopic solid or liquid
matter suspended in the Earth's atmosphere with a diameter
of 2.5 to 10 micrometers. They can enter the lungs, poten-
tially causing serious health problems.
promotoras: A community member who receives specialized
training to provide basic health education in the community
without being a professional health care worker.
rain garden: A planted depression or a hole that allows
rainwater runoff from impervious urban areas—such as
roofs, driveways, walkways, parking lots and compacted
lawn areas—the opportunity to be absorbed.
recharge: A hydrologic process where water moves down-
ward from surface water to ground water; the primary
method through which water enters an aquifer.
resacas: A type of oxbow lake that can be found in the
southern half of Cameron County, Texas. They are former
channels of the Rio Grande and are naturally cut off from
the river, having no inlet or outlet.
riparian system/habitat: The interface between land and a
river or stream.
runoff: The draining away of water (or substances carried in
it) from the surface of an area of land, a building or struc-
ture, or so forth.
snowpack: Layers of snow that accumulate in geographic
regions and high altitudes where the climate includes cold
weather for extended periods during the year; they are an
important water resource that feed streams and rivers as they
melt.
water-energy nexus: The relationship between the water
used for energy production (including electricity and sources
of fuel such as oil and natural gas) and the energy consumed
to extract, purify, deliver, heat/cool, treat and dispose of
water and wastewater.
76
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
2016 Members of the Good Neighbor Er
Nonfederal Members
Paul Ganster, Ph.D., Chair
Director
Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias
San Diego State University
Laura Abram
Director, Public Affairs
First Solar, Inc.
Jose Angel
Interim Executive Officer
State Water Resources Control Board
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Lauren Baldwin, LEED-GA
Sustainability Program Specialist
City Manager's Department
Office of Resilience and Sustainability
City of El Paso, Texas
Evaristo Cruz
Director
Environmental and Natural Resources Department
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo
Tom W. Davis
General Manager
Yuma County (Arizona) Water Users' Association
David J. Eaton, Ph.D.
Bess Harris Jones Centennial Professor
LBJ School of Public Affairs
The University of Texas at Austin
Carrie Hamblen
Executive Director
Las Cruces (New Mexico) Green Chamber of Commerce
Lisa LaRocque
Sustainability Officer
Public Works Department
City of Las Cruces, New Mexico
Edna A Mendoza
Director
Office of Border Environmental Protection
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Jack Monger
Executive Director
Industrial Environmental Association
Appendices
'onmental Board
Mariel Nanasi
Executive Director
New Energy Economy
Luis Olmedo
Executive Director
Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.
Rebecca L. Palacios, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Public Health Sciences
New Mexico State University
John C. Parada
Tribal Environmental Programs Director
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla Cupeno Indians
Keith Pezzoli, Ph.D.
Teaching Professor, Department of Communication
Director, Urban Studies and Planning Program
University of California, San Diego
Cyrus B. H. Reed, Ph.D.
Conservation Director
Lone Star Chapter
Sierra Club
Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., P.E.
Chairman of Commissioners
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Thomas Skibitski
Chief, Emergency Response Operations
Office of the Secretary
New Mexico Environment Department
Scott D. Storment
Principal
Green Hub Advisors, LLC
Margaret Wilder, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
School of Geography and Development
Center for Latin American Studies
University of Arizona
Jose Francisco Zamora-Arroyo, Ph.D.
Director
Colorado River Delta Legacy Program
Sonoran Institute
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
77
-------
Appendices
2016 Members of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board (continued)
Federal Members
International Boundary and Water Commission
Edward Drusina
Commissioner
United States Section
International Boundary and Water Commission
Department of Agriculture
Salvador Salinas
Texas State Conservationist
Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce—National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Jeff Payne, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Office for Coastal Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Department of Energy
Carol Battershell
Deputy Director
Energy Policy and Systems Analysis
U.S. Department of Energy
Department of Homeland Security
Teresa R. Pohlman, Ph.D., LEED, AP
Executive Director
Sustainability and Environmental Programs
Undersecretary for Management
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Department of the Interior
Jonathan Andrew
Interagency Borderlands Coordinator
Office of the Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
Department of State
Hillary Quam
Border Affairs Coordinator
Office of Mexican Affairs
U.S. Department of State
Department of Transportation
Sylvia Grijalva
U.S.-Mexico Border Planning Coordinator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Samuel Coleman, P.E.
Deputy Regional Administrator
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Headquarters Staff
Designated Federal Officer
Ann-Marie Gantner
Designated Federal Officer
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mark Joyce
Associate Director
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
78
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendices
2016 Members of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board (continued)
Federal and State Agency Alternates
(Non-Board Members Who Support Their Agency's Participation)
International Boundary and Water Commission
Russell Frisbie
Special Assistant
United States Section
International Boundary and Water Commission
Department of Agriculture
Kristy Oates
State Resource Conservationist
Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce—National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Michael Migliori
Office for Coastal Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Department of Health and Human Services
Abraham Torres
Management Analyst
U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
EPA Regional Office Contacts
Region 6
Arturo Blanco
Director of Environmental Justice, International and
Tribal Affairs
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Paula Flores-Gregg
Texas-Coahuila-Nuevo Leon-Tamaulipas Coordinator
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jenna Manheimer
Environmental Scientist
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9
Jeremy Bauer
Regional Coordinator
San Diego Border Liaison Office
Region 9
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Homeland Security
Jennifer Hass, J.D.
Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation
Program Manager
Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Department of State
Beverly Mather-Marcus
Energy and Environment Officer
Office of Mexican Affairs
U.S. Department of State
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E.
Border Affairs Manager and Colonias Coordinator
Intergovernmental Relations Division
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Carlos Rincon
Director
El Paso Border Office
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Kevin Shade
Superfund Enforcement Officer
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Debra Tellez
Texas-New Mexico-Chihuahua Coordinator
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
To mas Torres
Director
San Diego Border Liaison Office
Region 9
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
79
-------
Appendices
Acknowledgments
Hugo Colon Acevedo, Senior Design Manager,
buildingcommunityWORKSHOP
Wael Al-Delaimy, Ph.D., Division of Global Health Chief,
University of California, San Diego
Noorah Alhasan, Policy Analyst, Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality
Lissette Almanza, Policy Analyst, Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality
Nick Mitchell Bennett, Executive Director, Community
Development Corporation of Brownsville, Texas
Bethany Boiling, Ph.D., M.S., Microbiologist, Texas
Department of State Health Services
David Brown, Ph.D., M.A., Director, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration Regional Climate Services
Elly Brown, Director, San Diego Food Systems Alliance
Charlie Cabler, City Manager, City of Brownsville, Texas
Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6
Karen Drozdiak, Sustainability Communications for First
Solar
Nicole Ferrini, Chief Resilience Officer, City of El Paso,
Texas
Melissa Floca, Director, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies,
University of California, San Diego
Irma Flores, Communications and Community Relations
Officer, Border Environment Cooperation Commission
Fonna Forman, Professor, University of California, San
Diego
Edward Gardiner, Ph.D., Contractor to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Program
Office; CollabraLink Technologies, Inc., National Centers
for Environmental Information—Asheville
Maria Elena Giner, P.E., General Manager, Border
Environment Cooperation Commission
Laura E. Gomez Rodriguez, White House Council on
Strong Cities, Strong Communities Initiative
Jesus Gonzalez Macias, Federal Delegate for SEMARNAT
in the State of Tamaulipas, Mexico
William Hargrove, Center for Environmental Resources
Management, University of Texas at El Paso
Jennifer Hass, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Susan Hathaway, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Susanna Hecht, Professor, University of California, Los
Angeles
Cody Hooven, Chief Sustainability Officer, City of San
Diego
Marion Henley, Policy Analyst, Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality
Arq. Mauricio Ibarra, Director of Municipal Planning, City
of Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico
Stanley Maloy, Ph.D., Dean, College of Sciences, San
Diego State University
Carla Mancha, Executive Director, Brownsville (Texas)
Housing Authority
Rene Mariscal, Water Resource Manager, Brownsville
(Texas) Public Utilities Board
Honorable Anthony "Tony" Martinez, Mayor, City of
Brownsville, Texas
Leah Mcintosh, Water Quality Specialist, Brownsville
(Texas) Public Utilities Board
Jesse Miller, Associate Director, Rio Grande Valley Office,
buildingcommunityWORKSHOP
Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E., Border Affairs Manager, Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality
80
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendices
Acknowledgments (continued)
Ruth Osuna, Assistant City Manager, City of Brownsville,
Texas
David Pierce, Ph.D., Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Lisa Quiveors, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Professor, Scripps Institution
of Oceanography
Jeffrey Stiefel, Ph.D., Senior Coordinator for Climate
Change and Health Resilience, Health Threats Resilience
Division, Office of Health Affairs, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security
Alan Sweedler, Ph.D., Assistant Vice President for
International Programs, San Diego State University
Paul Watson, President and CEO, The Global Action
Research Center
KaraWentworth, Postdoctoral Scholar, University of
California, San Diego
Richard Winkler, Co-Director, Victory Gardens, San Diego
John Wood, Commissioner, Port of Brownsville, Texas
Emily Young, Ph.D., Executive Director, Nonprofit and
Philanthropic Institute, School of Leadership and Education
Sciences, University of San Diego
Erica Zolezzi, Public Affairs Program Manager, First Solar
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
81
-------
Appendices
Notes and References
1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. "2013:
Summary for Policymakers." In Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by
T. F. Stacker, D. Qin, D. K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J.
Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P. M. Midgley. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press, ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/
wgl/WG!AR5 SPM FINAL.pdf.
2 Hawkins, E. and R. Sutton. 2011. "The Potential to
Narrow Uncertainty in Projections of Regional Precipitation
Change." Climate Dynamics 37: 407—418. doi: 10.1007/
s00382-010-0810-6.
3 Matthews, H.D. and K. Zickfeld. 2012. "Climate Response to
Zeroed Emissions of Greenhouse Gases and Aerosols." Nature
Climate Change 2: 338—341. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1424. Note: The
0.5°F projection is used in the Third National Climate Assessments
which contains the following qualification: "Natural variability
could still play an important role over this time period. However,
choices made now and in the next few decades will determine the
amount of additional future warming." Garfin, G., G. Franco,
H. Blanco, A. Comrie, P. Gonzalez, T. Piechota, R. Smyth, and
R. Waskom. 2014. "Our Changing Climate." In Future Climate
Change: The Third National Climate Assessments citing Hawkins,
E. and R. Sutton. 2011. "The Potential to Narrow Uncertainty
in Projections of Regional Precipitation Change. Climate
Dynamics. 37: 407-408. doi: 10.1007/s00382-010-0810-6.
4 Wilder, M., G. Garfin, P. Ganster, H. Eakin, P. Romero-Lankao,
F. Lara-Valencia, A.A. Cortez-Lara, S. Mumme, C. Neri, and F.
Munoz-Arriola. 2013. "Climate Change and U.S.-Mexico Border
Communities." In Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest
United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment,
edited by G. Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S.
LeRoy, 340—384. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Note: Projections
derive from the outcomes of several global climate models, and
associated "downscaled" regional climate simulations, using
two emissions scenarios ("A2" or "high-emissions," and "Bl" or
"low-emissions") developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (Nakicenovic
and Swart 2000). There is high confidence that climate will warm
substantially during the 21st century, as all of the projected global
climate models and associated downscaled simulations exhibit
progressive warming over the Southwest United States. Within
the modeled historical simulations, the model warming begins
to become distinguished from the range of natural variability in
the 1970s; similar warming is also found in observed records and
appears, partially, to be a response to the effects of greenhouse gas
increases (Barnett et al. 2008; Bonfils et al. 2008).
5 National Weather Service Operations. 2016. "Significant Event
Report—Record Breaking Heat for the Southwest, Advisory
Bulletin." Issued June 21.
6 Garfin, G., G. Franco, H. Blanco, A. Comrie, P. Gonzalez, T.
Piechota, R. Smyth, and R. Waskom. 2014. "Southwest." In
Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National
Climate Assessment^ edited by J.M. Melillo, T.C. Richmond, and
G.W. Yohe, 462—486. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Global Change
Research Program. doi:10.7930/J08G8HMN.
7 Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe, eds. 2014. Climate
Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Global Change Research
Program. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2. nca2014.globalchange.gov
8 This figure was adapted from the "Projected Temperature Increases"
NCA3 Data Figure created by the National Climate Assessment
Technical Support Unit. Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, and G.W.
Yohe, eds. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Global
Change Research Program. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2. ncics.org/
report-landing-page/nca3-data. Original source Kunkel et al. 2013.
9 This figure was adapted from the "Projected Changes in Key
Climate Variables Affecting Agricultural Productivity" NCA3
Data Figure created by the National Climate Assessment Technical
Support Unit. Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe,
eds. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third
National Climate Assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Global
Change Research Program. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2. https://ncics.
org/ report-landing-page/nca3-data/.
10 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2013."Lower Rio Grande Basin Study
Shows Shortfall in Future Water Supply." usbr.gov/newsroom/news-
release/ detail .cfm ?RecordI D=45486. Note: Hydrologic projections
of water supply build on existing data within the Region M Water
Plan and relevant data sources. Future water supply projections
were made using Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 3
(CMIP-3) and the Variable Infiltration Capacity hydrologic model,
both of which are applicable to the entire Lower Rio Grande Basin
in the United States and Mexico. The CMIP-3 archive provides a
1/8° latitude by 1/8° longitude, or an approximately 12-kilometer
(7.5-mile) resolution grid, on a monthly time-series of precipitation
and temperature from 1950—2099 for 112 climate projections. The
emission scenarios used in the downscaled global climate model
(GCM) are emission scenarios A2 (high), A1B (medium), and Bl
(low), and they reflect a range of future greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. Emission scenarios exist that have both higher and lower
GHG emissions than those considered in this study. The three
scenarios included in the analysis, however, span the widest range
available for which consistent, comprehensive GCM modeling has
been performed and for which downscaled climate information is
available. Lower Rio Grande Basin Study, Under the Authority of
the SECURE Water Act (Public Law 111-11), Great Plains Region,
Oklahoma-Texas Area Office, December 2013, pp. 2-18 — 2-19.
11 Wilder, M., G. Garfin, P. Ganster, H. Eakin, P. Romero-Lankao,
F. Lara-Valencia, A.A. Cortez-Lara, S. Mumme, C. Neri, and F.
Munoz-Arriola. 2013. "Climate Change and U.S.-Mexico Border
Communities." In Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest
United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment,
edited by G. Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S.
LeRoy, 340—384. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
12 Under the 1944 Water Treaty, Mexico is supposed to deliver
350,000 acre-feet (431 cubic meters) annually to the United States
on the Rio Grande, but between 1992—1999, it provided less than
that amount every treaty year, even during years when its Luis Leon
Dam was storing water in its flood pool. Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC). 2002. State of the Rio Grande
and the Environment of the Border Region: Strategic Plan, Volume 3,
Fiscal Years 2003—2007. SFR-035C/02. Austin, TX:TNRCC. tceq.
state.tx.us/assets/public/comm exec/pubs/sfr/035 02/vol3.pdf.
13 Cook, E.R., R. Seager, R.R. Heim, R.S. Vose, C. Herweijer, and
C. Woodhouse. 2010. "Megadroughts in North America: Placing
IPCC Projections of Hydroclimatic Change in a Long-Term
Palaeoclimate Context." Journal of Quaternary Science 25: 48—61.
doi:l 0.1002/jqs. 1303.
14 Hoerling, M.P., M. Dettinger, K. Wolter, J. Lukas, J. Eischeid, R.
Nemani, B. Liebmann, and K.E. Kunkel. 2013. "Present Weather
and Climate: Evolving Conditions." In Assessment of Climate Change
in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National
Climate Assessment, edited by G. Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth,
M. Black, and S. LeRoy, 74—97. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Rising to the Urgent Challenge.
Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, fws.gov/home/
climatechange/pdf/ CCStrategicPlan.pdf.
82
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendices
Notes and References (continued)
16 Garfin, G., A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy.
2013. Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States:
A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment. Washington,
D.C.: Island Press.
17 Satija, N. and J. Malewitz. 2015. "Climate Change, a Factor in
Texas Floods, Largely Ignored." The Texas Tribune, May 27.
18 Center for Watershed Protection. 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover
on Aquatic Systems: Watershed Protection Research Monograph No. 1.
Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection.
19 Konrad, C.P. 2014. "Effects of Urban Development on Floods."
U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 076-03. pubs.usgs.gov/fsi
fs07603/.
20 Georgakakos, A., P. Fleming, M. Dettinger, C. Peters-Lidard, T.C.
Richmond, K. Reckhow, K. White, and D. Yates. 2014. "Water
Resources." In Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment, edited by J.M. Melillo, T.C.
Richmond, and G.W. Yohe, 69—112. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Global Change Research Program. doi:l0.7930/ J0G44N6T.
21 Roy, S.B., L. Chen, E.H. Girvetz, E.P. Maurer, W.B. Mills,
andT.M. Grieb. 2012. "Projecting Water Withdrawal and
Supply for Future Decades in the U.S. Under Climate Change
Scenarios." Environmental Science & Technology 46: 2545-2556.
doi:10.1021/es2030774. Note: The reference contains the following
qualification, "This trajectory on water supply is not intended as a
prediction that water shortages will occur, but rather where they are
more likely to occur, and where there might be greater pressure on
public officials and water users to better characterize, and creatively
manage demand and supply." The "water supply sustainability risk
index," takes into account water withdrawal, projected growth,
susceptibility to drought, projected climate change and other factors
in individual U.S. counties for the year 2050. It takes into account
renewable water supply through precipitation using the most
recent downscaled climate change projections and estimates future
withdrawals for various human uses.
22 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2016. SECURE Water Act Section
9503(c)—Reclamation Climate Change and Water. Prepared for
the U.S. Congress. Denver, CO: Bureau of Reclamation, Policy and
Administration.
23 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2015. "Colorado River Basin Water
Supply and Demand Study." Last modified July 31. usbr.gov/lc/
region/programs/crbstudv.html. Note: The full study available at
verderiverinstitute.org/Moving%20Forward%20-%20BOR%20
-%20fullreport.pdf contained the following qualification: "It is
impossible to know the precise trajectory of future water supply and
demand or how those trajectories may impact the reliability of the
Colorado River and its tributaries to meet Basin needs. To address
this uncertainty, the Basin Study adopted a scenario planning
process to capture a broad range of plausible water demand and
supply futures and then assessed the impacts to Basin resources if
such futures were to unfold."
24 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2002. Water and
Sustainability: U.S. Electricity Consumption for Water Supply &
Treatment—The Next Half Century. Product ID: 1006767. Palo
Alto, CA: EPRI.
25 Maupin, M.A., J.F. Kenny, S.S. Hutson, J.K. Lovelace, N.L. Barber,
and K.S. Linsey. 2014. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in
2010. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1405. dx.doi.org/10.3133/
cirl405.
26 Diehl, T.H. and M.A. Harris. 2014. Withdrawal and Consumption
of Water by Thermoelectric Power Plants in the United States, 2010.
U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014—5184.
dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20l45184.
27 Averyt, K., J. Fisher, A. Huber-Lee, A. Lewis, J. Macknick, N.
Madden, J. Rogers, and S. Tellinghuisen. 2011. Freshwater Use by
U.S. Power Plants: Electricity s Thirst for a Precious Resource. A Report
of the Energy and Water in a Warming World Initiative. Cambridge,
MA: Union of Concerned Scientists.
28 Kelic, A., V. Loose, V. Vargas, and E. Vugrin. 2009. Energy and
Water Sector Policy Strategies for Drought Mitigation. SAND 2009-
1360, Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories.
29 Texas Water Development Board. 2014. Water Use Survey—
Historical Summary Estimates by State. Austin, TX: Texas Water
Development Board, twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning/waterusesurvev/
estimates/data / 2014TexasWaterUseEstimatesSummary.pdf.
30 Texas Water Development Board. 2017. Water for Texas: 2017 State
Water Plan. Austin, TX: Texas Water Development Board. Page A-6.
twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning/swp/20171 doc/2017 SWP Adopted.
pdf.
31 Rogers, J., K. Averyt, S. Clemmer, M. Davis, F. Flores-Lopez, P.
FrumhofF, D. Kenney, J. Macknick, N. Madden, J. Meldrum, J.
Overpeck, S. Sattler, E. Spanger-Siegfried, and D. Yates. 2013.
Water-Smart Power: Strengthening the U.S. Electricity System in a
Warming World. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists.
32 Yates, D., J. Meldrum, and K. Averyt. 2013. "The Influence of
Future Electricity Mix on Southwestern U.S. Water Resources."
Environmental Research letters 8 (4): 045005.
33 Scanlon, B.R., I. Duncan, and R.C. Reedy. 2013. "Drought and the
Water—Energy Nexus in Texas." Environmental Research letters
8 (4): 045033.
34 Cook, M.A., C.W. King, F.T. Davidson, and M.E. Webber.
2015. "Assessing the Impacts of Droughts and Heat Waves at
Thermoelectric Power Plants in the United States Using Integrated
Regression, Thermodynamic, and Climate Models." Energy Reports
1:193-203.
35 Gleick, P.H. 2016. Impacts of California's Ongoing Drought:
Hydro electricity Generation 2015 Update. Oakland, CA: Pacific
Institute, pacinst.org/app/uploads/2016/02/Impacts-Californias-
Ongoing-Drought-Hydroelectricity-Generation-2015-Update.pdf.
36 Ganster, P. and D.E. Lorey. 2015. The U.S.-Mexican Border Today:
Conflict and Cooperation in Historical Perspective (Third Ed), 140,
Table 6.2. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
37 U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission. 2015. "Border Region."
Accessed December 9. borderhealth.org/border region.php.
38 U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. "Small Area Income and Poverty
Estimates: 2013 All Ages in Poverty." September 16.
39 Good Neighbor Environmental Board. 2010. A Blueprint for
Action on the U.S.-Mexico Border: 13th Report of the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United
States. EPA 130-R-10-001. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/
eng gneb 13th report final.pdf.
40 Ganster, P. and D.E. Lorey. 2015. The U.S.-Mexican Border Today:
Conflict and Cooperation in Historical Perspective (Third Ed), 152.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
41 Cozzetto, K., K. Chief, K. Dittmer, M. Brubaker, R. Gough,
K. Souza, F. Ettawageshik, S. Wotkyns, S. Opitz-Stapleton, S.
Duren, and P. Chavan. 2013. "Climate Change Impacts on
the Water Resources of American Indians and Alaska Natives
in the U.S." Climatic Change 120: 569—584. doi:10.1007/
si 0584-013-0852-y.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
83
-------
Appendices
Notes and References (continued)
42 Sarche, M. and P. Spicer. 2008. "Poverty and Health Disparities
for American Indian and Alaska Native Children." Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences 1136: 126—136. doi: 10.1196/
annals. 1425.017.
43 Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. 2016. "Mexico." Accessed
October 25. ustr.gov/countries-regions/americasimexico.
44 U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. "Trade in Goods with Mexico."
Accessed December 9. census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.
html.
45 Lee, E. and C. E. Wilson. 2012. The State of Trade, Competitiveness
and Economic Well-Being in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region.
Washington, D.C.: Wilson Center, wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/
files/State of Border Trade Economy O.pdf.
46 Ganster, P. and D.E. Lorey. 2015. The U.S.-Mexican Border Today:
Conflict and Cooperation in Historical Perspective (Third Ed.), 232.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
47 Perera, E.M. and T. Sanford. 2011. Climate Change and Your
Health. Rising Temperatures, Worsening Ozone Pollution. Cambridge,
MA: Union of Concerned Scientists.
48 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. "Ozone Pollution."
Last modified May 18. epa.gov/ozone-pollution.
49 Quintana, P.J.E., P. Ganster, P.E. Stigler Granados, G. Munoz-
Melendez, M. Quintero-Nunez, and J.G. Rodriguez-Ventura.
2015. "Risky Borders: Traffic Pollution and Health Effects at
U.S.—Mexican Ports of Entry." Journal of Borderlands Studies 30 (3):
287-307. doi:l0.1080/08865655.2015.1066697.
50 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. "Overview
of Greenhouse Gases." Last modified October 6. epa.gov/
ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases.
51 Shonkoff, S.B, R. Morello-Frosch, M. Pastor, and J. Sadd. 2011.
The Climate Gap: Environmental Health and Equity Implications
of Climate Change and Mitigation Policies in California. Climatic
Change 109 (Suppl. 1): S485—S503.
52 Crimmins, A., J. Balbus, J.L. Gamble, C.B. Beard, J.E. Bell, D.
Dodgen, R.J. Eisen, N. Fann, M.D. Hawkins, S.C. Herring, L.
Jantarasami, D.M. Mills, S. Saha, M.C. Sarofim, J. Trtanj, and L.
Ziska, eds. 2016. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health
in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Global Change Research Program. dx.doi.org/10.7930/TQR49NOX.
53 U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission. 2013. Synthesis Report:
Prevention and Health Promotion Among Vulnerable Populations on
the U.S.-Mexico Border. El Paso, TX: U.S.-Mexico Border Health
Commission.
54 Shafer, M., D. Ojima, J.M. Antle, D. Kluck, R. A. McPherson, S.
Petersen, B. Scanlon, and K. Sherman, "Great Plains." In Climate
Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate
Assessment, edited by J.M. Melillo, T.C. Richmond, and G.W.
Yohe, 441—461. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Global Change Research
Program.. doi:10.7930/J0D798BC.
55 Wythe, K. 2012. "Community Water Systems Recovering
from the Drought: Lessons Learned; Plans Made." txHJJ
7 (2): 6—9. twri.tamu.edu/publications/txh2o/summer-2012/
community-water-systems/.
56 Calif. Exec. Order No. B-29-15. April 1, 2015. gov.ca.gov/
docs/4.1.15 Executive Order.pdf.
57 Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS). 2012. Trends in
Morbidity and Mortality From Exposure to Excessive Natural Heat in
Arizona. Phoenix, AZ: ADHS.
58 Brown, H.E., A.C. Comrie, D.M. Drechsler, C.M. Barker, R. Basu,
T. Brown, A. Gershunov, A.M. Kilpatrick, W.K. Reisen, and D.M.
Ruddell. 2013. "Human Health." In Assessment of Climate Change
in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National
Climate Assessment, edited by G. Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth,
M. Black, and S. LeRoy, 312—339. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
59 Border 2012: U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program. 2011. State of
the Border Region Indicators Report 2010. Washington, D.C: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, epa.gov/sites/production/files/
documents/border-2012 indicator-rpt eng.pdf.
60 Good Neighbor Environmental Board. 2006. Air Quality and
Transportation and Cultural and Natural Resources on the U.S.-Mexico
Border: Ninth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to
the President and Congress of the United States. EPA130-R-06-002.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, epa.
gov/faca/gneb-9th-report-air-quality-and-transportation-cultur-
al-and-natural-resources-us-mexico-border.
61 Duncan, D. and G. Garfin. 2006. "Native Fish Conservation and
Climate Variability in Southeastern Arizona." Borders, Boundaries
and Time Scales: Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Research and
Resource Management in the Southwestern Deserts, Tucson, AZ.
62 Udall, B. 2013. "Water: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation." In
Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States: A
Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment, edited by G.
Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy, 197—217.
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
63 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2015. "Colorado River Basin Water
Supply and Demand Study." Last modified July 31. usbr.gov/lc/
region/programs/crbstudv.html.
64 Good Neighbor Environmental Board. 2014. Ecological Restoration
in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region: 16th Report of the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United
States. EPA 130-R-l4-001. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-12/docu-
ments/16th gneb report english final web.pdf.
65 Mcleod, E., G.L. Chumra, S. Bouillon, R. Salm, M. Bjork, C.M.
Duarte, C.E. Lovelock, W.H. Schlesinger, and B.R. Silliman. 2011.
"A Blueprint for Blue Carbon: Toward an Improved Understanding
of the Role of Vegetated Coastal Habitats in Sequestering C02"
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9 (10): 552—560.
doi:10.1890/l 10004.
66 Pendleton, L., D.C. Donato, B.C. Murray, S. Crooks, W.A.
Jenkins, S. Sifleet, C. Craft, J.W. Fourqurean, J.B. Kauffman, N.
Marba, P. Megonigal, E. Pidgeon, D. Herr, D. Gordon, and A.
Baldera.. 2012. "Estimating Global 'Blue Carbon Emissions From
Conversion and Degradation of Vegetated Coastal Ecosystems."
PIoS Onel (9): e43542. doi: 10.1371 /journal.pone.0043542.
67 Overpeck, J., G. Garfin, A. Jardine, D.E. Busch, D. Cayan,
M. Dettinger, E. Fleishman, A. Gershunov, G. MacDonald, K.
T. Redmond, W.R. Travis, and B. Udall. 2013. "Summary for
Decision Makers." In Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest
United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment,
edited by G. Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S.
LeRoy, 1—20. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
68 Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. 2009. Global
Climate Change Impacts in the United States. United States Global
Change Research Program. New York: Cambridge University Press.
69 Robles, M.D. and C. Enquist. 2010. Managing Changing
landscapes in the Southwestern United States. Tucson, AZ: The
Nature Conservancy, www.skyislandalliance.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/1 l/sky-island-alliance-2015-annual-report.pdf.
84
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendices
Notes and References (continued)
70 Misztal, L. 2010. Adapting to a Changing Climate in the Sky Island
Region. Edited by R.M. Gregg, http:/Zwww.cakex.org/case-studies/
adapting-changing-climate-skv-island-region.
71 Joyce, L.A., S.W. Running, D.D. Breshears, V.H. Dale, R.W.
Malmsheimer, R.N. Sampson, B. Sohngen, and C.W. Wood et al.
2014. "Forests." In Climate Change Impacts in the United States:
The Third National Climate Assessment*, edited by J.M. Melillo, T.C.
Richmond, and G.W. Yohe, 175—194. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Global Change Research Program.
72 Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, T.W. Swetnam.
2006. "Increases in Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Associated With
Warming and Advances in the Timing of Spring." Science Express
313:940.
73 Fleishman, E., J. Belnap, N. Cobb, C. A. F. Enquist, K. Ford,
G. MacDonald, M. Pellant, T. Schoennagel, L. M. Schmit, M.
Schwartz, S. van Drunick, A. L. Westerling, A. Keyser, and R.
Lucas. 2013. "Natural Ecosystems." In Assessment of Climate Change
in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National
Climate Assessment, edited by G. Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth,
M. Black, and S. LeRoy, 148—167. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
74 Westerling, A.L R. 2016. "Increasing Western U.S. Forest
Wildfire Activity: Sensitivity to Changes in the Timing of Spring."
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 371 (1696):
20150178. dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0178.
75 Haeyoun, P., D. Cave, and W. Andrews. 2015. "After Years of
Drought, Wildfires Rage in California." New York Times, July 15.
76 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2013.
"Sea Level Trends." Last modified October 15. tidesandcurrents.
noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html. 2013 update ofNOAAs 2009
Sea level Variations of the United States 1854—2006, Technical
Report NOS CO-OPS 53, tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/
Tech rpt 53.pdf.
77 U.S. Army Corporations of Engineers. 2015. "Sea Level Calculator
(version 2015.46)" Accessed December 9. corpsclimate.us/
ccaceslcurves.cfm. Based on regionally corrected rates from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations 2013 report,
Estimating Vertical land Motion from long-Term Tide Gauge Records,
Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 065, tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/
publications/Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 065.pdf. Note: A
sea-level calculator was used to obtain this particular projection and
a scenario assessment report, which is cited below, and describes the
methodology and intention behind such calculations.
78 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
scenarios based on A. Parris, P. Bromirski, V. Burkett, D. Cayan,
M. Culver, J. Hall, R. Horton, K. Knuuti, R. Moss, J. Obeysekera,
A. Sallenger, and J. Weiss. 2012. Global Sea level Rise Scenarios for
the United States National Climate Assessment, Technical Report
OARCPO-1. Washington, D.C.: NOAA Climate Program
Office, cpo.noaa.gov/sites/cpo/Reports/2012/NOAA SLR r3.pdf.
Note: Scenarios do not predict future changes, but describe future
potential conditions in a manner that supports decision making
under conditions of uncertainty. Scenarios are used to develop and
test decisions under a variety of plausible futures. This approach
strengthens an organizations ability to recognize, adapt to and take
advantage of changes over time. Using a common set of scenarios
across different regions and sectors to frame the range of uncer-
tainties surrounding future environmental conditions is a relatively
new and evolving initiative of the National Climate Assessment.
This report provides scenarios to help assessment experts and their
stakeholders analyze the vulnerabilities and impacts associated with
possible, uncertain futures.
79 Roth, D. 2010. Texas Hurricane History. Camp Springs, MD:
National Weather Service, www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/txhur.
80 Sweet, W.V., J. Park, J. J. Marra, C. Zervas, and S. Gill. 2014. Sea
level Rise and Nuisance Flood Frequency Changes Around the United
States,y Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 73. Washington, D.C.:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, purl.fdlp.gov/
GPO/gpo57825.
81 Insurance Information Institute. 2016. "Texas Hurricane
Insurance: Fact File." Last modified August, iii.org/article/
texas-hurricane-insurance-fact-file.
82 Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Communities Unlimited,
Rural Community Assistance Partnership, and The Center for
Advanced Spatial Technologies. 2015. U.S.-Mexico Border Needs
Assessment and Support Project: Phase II Assessment Project. Report
to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, rcap.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/03/RCAP Colonias-Phase-II-Assessment-Report
FINAL web.pdf.
83 Texas Office of the Secretary of State. 2014. Tracking the Progress
of State-Funded Projects That Benefit Colonias: Report to the 84th
legislature. Austin, TX: Texas Office of the Secretary of State, sos.
state, tx. us/border/ forms/2014-progress-legislative-report.pdf.
84 Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. 2015. Las Colonias in the 21st
Century: Progress Along the Texas-Mexico Border. Dallas, TX: Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas, dallasfed.org/assets/documents/cd/pubs/
lascolonias.pdf.
85 Texas Water Development Board. 2016. Quarterly Report, June
1—August 31, 2016. Austin, TX: Texas Water Development Board,
Economically Distressed Areas Program, twdb.texas.gov/publica-
tions/ reportsiedap reports/doc/Status.pdf.
86 San Diego Association of Governments. 2015. "Data Surfer."
profilewarehouse.sandag.org.
87 Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Communities Unlimited,
Rural Community Assistance Partnership, and The Center for
Advanced Spatial Technologies. 2015. U.S.-Mexico Border Needs
Assessment and Support Project: Phase II Assessment Project. Report
to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, rcap.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/03/RCAP Colonias-Phase-II-Assessment-Report
FINAL web.pdf. Note: This report contains updated statistics on
demographics and a needs assessment specific to each county along
the U.S.-Mexico border.
88 Brown, P. 1995. "Race, Class, and Environmental Health: A Review
and Systematization of the Literature." Environmental Research 69
(1): 15-30.
89 Exec. Order No. 12898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (February 19, 1994).
90 Carruthers, D.V. 2008. Environmental Justice in Latin America:
Problems, Promise, and Practice, Urban and Industrial Environments.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
91 Houston, D., J. Wu, P. Ong, and A. Winer. 2004. "Structural
Disparities of Urban Traffic in Southern California: Implications for
Vehicle-Related Air Pollution Exposure in Minority and High-
Poverty Neighborhoods." Journal of Urban Affairs 26: 565—592.
92 Lester, J.P., D.W. Allen, and K.M. Hill. 2001. Environmental
Injustice in the United States. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
93 Pellow, D.N. and R.J. Brulle. 2005. Power, Justice, and the
Environment: A Critical Appraisal of the Environmental Justice
Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
94 Gunier, R.B., A. Hertz, J. Von Behren, and P. Reynolds. 2003.
"Traffic Density in California: Socioeconomic and Ethnic
Differences Among Potentially Exposed Children." Journal of
Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 13 (3): 240—246.
95 Green, R.S., S. Smorodinsky, J.J. Kim, R. McLaughlin, and B.
Ostro. 2004. "Proximity of California Public Schools to Busy
Roads." Environmental Health Perspectives 112 (1): 61—66.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
85
-------
Appendices
Notes and References (continued)
96 Peters, A., S. von Klot, M. Heier, I. Trentinaglia, A. Hormann, H.E.
Wichmann, H. Lowel, and Group Cooperative Health Research in
the Region of Augsburg Study. 2004. "Exposure to Traffic and the
Onset of Myocardial Infarction." New England Journal of Medicine
351 (17): 1721-1730.
97 Smith, L.A, S. Mukerjee, G.J. Monroy, and F.E. Keene. 2001.
"Preliminary Assessments of Spatial Influences in the Ambos
Nogales Region of the US-Mexican Border." Science of the Total
Environment 276 (1—3): 83—92.
98 U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 2015. "Border Wait Times."
Accessed December, apps.cbp.gov/bwt.
99 Exec. Order No. 13693, 80 Fed Reg. 15869 (March 19, 2015).
100 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2015. "Technical Assistance." Accessed December, nrcs.
usda.gov/wps/portal/ nr csl main / national/programs/technical.
101 North American Development Bank. 2016. Summary Status Report,
June 30, 2016. San Antonio, TX: North American Development
Bank, nadbank.org/pdfs/FreqUpdates/SummaryStatusReport.pdf.
102 North American Development Bank. 2012. "Border Environment
Infrastructure Fund." nadbank.org/programs/beif.asp.
103 Border Environment Cooperation Commission. 2016. "Green
Infrastructure Demonstration Workshop Held in Ramos Arizpe,
Coahuila." Posted on January 4. becc.org/news/becc-news/
green-infrastructure-demonstration-workshop-held-in-ramos-arizpe-
coahuila.
104 Border Environment Cooperation Commission. 2015. "Green
Infrastructure Demonstration Project Implemented in San Luis
Rio Colorado." Posted on October 15. becc.org/news/becc-news/
green-infrastructure-demo nstration-project-implemented-in-san-
luis-rio-colorado.
105 North American Development Bank and the Border Environment
Cooperation Commission. 2016. 2015: Year in Review, becc.org/
uploads/files/2015-english-pagexpage.pdf.
106 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016.
Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington,
D.C.: The National Academies Press.
107 Guido, Z. 2012. "Drought on the Rio Grande." ClimateWatch
Magazine, October 5. climate.gov/news-features/features/
drought-rio-grande.
108 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2016. "Local
Surge Impacts Information." Accessed October 25. nhc.noaa.gov/
surge/local, php.
109 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.2016. "Boosting
Ecosystem Resilience in the Southwests Islands." U.S. Climate
Resilience Toolkit. Last modified August 9. toolkit.climate.gov/
taking-action/boosting-ecosystem-resilience-southwests-sky-islands.
110 National Drought Resilience Partnership. 2016. "North American
Drought Portal." Accessed October 25. drought.gov/nadm/.
111 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. "Border 2020:
Goal and Objectives." Border 2020: U.S.-Mexico Environmental
Program. Last modified January 12. epa.gov/border2020/
goals-and-ob j ectives.
112 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Border 2020: U.S.-Mexico
Environmental Program. EPA 160-R-12-001. epa.gov/sites/produc-
tion/ files/documents/border2020summary.pdf
113 Federal Highway Administration. 2012. United States-Mexico
Land Ports-of-Entry Emissions and Border Wait-Time White Paper
and Analysis Template. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway
Administration.
114 On February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed implemen-
tation of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) pending judicial review. As
of the date of this report, states and stakeholders do not have to
comply with the CPP while the stay is in effect. EPA firmly believes
the CPP will be upheld when the merits are considered because the
rule rests on strong scientific and legal foundations.
115 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Proceedings of the
2015 Children's Environmental Health on the Border Symposium:
Protecting Children Where They Live, Learn and Play, epa.gov/
sites/production/files/2016-01 /documents/symposium proceed-
ing final jan 21 20l6.pdf.
116 U.S. Department of the Interior. 2016. "Climate Science Centers."
Accessed October 25. www.doi.gov/csc.
117 California Landscape Conservation Cooperative. 2015. "Tribal
Climate Adaptation Workshop." Last modified September 2.
californialcc.org/ events/tribal-climate-adaptation-workshop.
118 Callegary, J.B., I. Minjarez Sosa, E.M. Tapia Villasenor, P.
dos Santos, R. Monreal Saavedra, F.J. Grijalva Noriega, A.K.
Huth, F. Gray, C.A. Scott, L.A. Oroz Ramos, S.B. Megdal, M.
Rangel Medina, J.M. Leenhouts. 2016. San Pedro River Aquifer
Binational Report. El Paso, TX: International Boundary and Water
Commission. ibwc.gov/Files/San Pedro River Binational%20
Report 0131l6.pdf.
119 Schueler, T.R.. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual
for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. Washington, D.C.:
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
120 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Climate Change and
Urban Green Infrastructure in the Border Region, epa.gov/sites/pro-
duction/ files/2015- 10/documents/2015 ncm presentation - meg.
pdf.
121 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. "What is
Green Infrastructure?" Last modified September 23. epa.gov/
green-infrastructure/what-green-infrastructure.
122 Foster, J., A. Lowe, and S. Winkelman. 2011. The Value of Green
Infrastructure for Urban Climate Adaptation. Washington, D.C.:
Center for Clean Air Policy, amwa.net/galleries/climate-change/
Green Infrastructure FINAL.pdf.
123 Watershed Management Group. 2015. Solving Flooding
Challenges with Green Stormwater Infrastructure in the Tucson
Airport Wash Area. Tucson, AZ: Watershed Management
Group, watershedmg.org/sites/default/files/documents/
solving-flooding-challenges-with-green-stormwater-infrastruc-
ture-in-tucsons-airport-wash-2015 .pdf.
124 Rio Grande Valley Stormwater Management. 2015. "Members."
Last modified August 25. rgvstormwater.org/members/.
125 Natural Resources Defense Council and Pacific Institute. 2014.
The Untapped Potential of California's Water Supply: Joint Issue Brief.
pacinst.org/ publication/ca-water-supplv-solutions.
126 Mariscal, R. 2016. Resaca Restoration and Southmost Regional
Water Authority Update to the Good Neighbor Environmental
Board, epa.gov/node/142511 /revision/353653.
127 Mariscal, R. 2016. Resaca Restoration and Southmost Regional
Water Authority Update to the Good Neighbor Environmental
Board, epa.gov/node/142511 /revision/353653.
128 ASU Sustainable Cities Network. 2014. "Project Desert
Canopy Air Quality." In Southwest Forests. Tempe, AZ:
Arizona State University, sustainablecities.asu.edu/
proj ect-desert-canopy-air-quality-southwest-forests.
86
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendices
Notes and References (continued)
129 Davey Resource Group. 2014. Las Cruces, New Mexico Project
Area: Community Forest Assessment. Prepared for the City of Las
Cruces and New Mexico State Forestry. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
130 Alliance for Community Trees. 2011. Benefits of Trees and Urban
Forests. Lincoln, NE: Alliance for Community Trees, actrees.org/
files/Research/benefits of trees.pdf.
131 Shamir, E., S.B. Megdal, C. Carrillo, C.L. Castro, H.-I. Chang,
K. Chief, EE. Corkhill, S. Eden, K.P. Georgakakos, K.M. Nelson,
and J. Prietto. 2015. "Climate Change and Water Resources
Management in the Upper Santa Cruz River, Arizona." Journal of
Hydrology 521:18—33.
132 Norman, L., N. Tallent-Halsell, W. Labiosa, M. Weber, A. McCoy,
K. Hirschboeck, and F. Gray. 2010. "Developing an Ecosystem
Services Online Decision Support Tool to Assess the Impacts of
Climate Change and Urban Growth in the Santa Cruz Watershed;
Where We Live, Work, and Play." Sustainability (Switzerland) 2 (7):
2044-2069. doi:10.3390/su2072044.
133 Sonora Institute. 2015. "Endangered Fish Rediscovered in Santa
Cruz River." Posted December 4. sonoraninstitute.org/2015/
news-release-12-07-2015.
134 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. "Why Are
Wetlands Important?" Last modified March 28. epa.gov/wetlands/
why-are-wetlands-important.
135 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1991.
American Housing Survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
136 U.S. Department of Transportation. 2016. "Stormwater Best
Management Practices in an Ultra-Urban Setting: Selection and
Monitoring." Federal Highway Administration. Accessed June 23.
environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ ecosystems/ultraurb/uubmp3p2.asp.
137 Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 2009.
Water, People, and the Future: Water Availability for Agriculture in the
United States. Issue paper 44. Ames, IA: CAST.
138 Hargrove, W. L., D.M. Borrok, J.M. Heyman, C.W. Tweedie, and
C. Ferregut. 2013. "Water, Climate, and Social Change in a Fragile
Landscape." Ecosphere 4 (2): 22.
139 Stratfor Global Intelligence. 2015. "Industrial Expansion Will
Strain Mexico's Water Resources." Posted February 16. stratfor.com/
analysis/industrial-expansion-will-strain-mexicos-water-resources.
140 UN-Water. 2013. UN-Water Country Brief: Mexico. New York, NY:
UN-Water, unwater.org/fileadmin/user upload/unwater new/docs/
Publications/MEX pagebvpage.pdf.
141 International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). 2015. Renewable
Energy in the Water, Energy & Food Nexus. Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates: IRENA.
142 Meldrum, J., S. Nettles-Anderson, G. Heath, and J. Macknick.
2013. "Life Cycle Water Use for Electricity Generation: A Review
and Harmonization of Literature Estimates." Environmental Research
Letters 8 (1): 015031.
143 Fthenakis, V. and H.C. Kim. 2010. "Life-Cycle Uses of Water
in U.S. Electricity Generation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 14 (7): 2039-2048.
144 In 2010, U.S. thermoelectric power water withdrawals amount-
ed to 161 billion gallons (609 billion liters) per 3,130,000
gigawatt-hours.
145 Photovoltaic uses up to 20 liters (5.3 gallons) per megawatt-hour
during operation. Fthenakis, V. and H. C. Kim. 2010. "Life-Cycle
Uses of Water in U.S. Electricity Generation. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 14: 2039—2048.
146 Sinha, P. 2013. "Life Cycle Materials and Water Management for
CdTe Photovoltaics." Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 119:
271-275.
147 Brownsville Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2016. "Projects."
Accessed October 25. permits.cob.us/330/Projects.
148 U.S. Department of Transportation. 2016. "Border Crossing/
Entry Data." Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Accessed October
25. transborder.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/
TBDR BC/TBDR BC Index.html.
149 Clark, J. 2016. "Binational Cargo Inspections Deliver Immediate
Results." Nogales International\ August 4. nogalesinternational.
com/news/binational-cargo-inspections-deliver-immediate- results/
article 77f20ca8-5a76-lIe6-a2f3-cbdd7efc3cel.html.
150 U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 2016. "U.S. Customs and
Border Protection Announces Unified Cargo Inspection Pilot
and Participates in Building Strong Border Communities Event
with Government of Mexico." Last modified September 13. cbp.
gov/ newsroom/speeches-and-statements/2016-08-05-000000/
us-customs-and-border-protection-announces.
151 Texas A&M Transportation Institute. 2016. "Border Crossing
Information System." Accessed October 25. bcis.tamu.edu.
152 Karaim, R. 2014. "Mariposa Land Port of Entry, Designed by Jones
Studio." Architect Magazine, October 27.
153 Calit2. 2015. "Best Time to Cross the Border." Mobile app accessed
December 9. traffic.calit2.net/border/border-crossing-wait-times-
map.php. Reports crossing times based on user reports and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection data.
154 San Diego Association of Governments. 2006. Economic Impact
of Wait Times at the San Diego-Baja California Border. San Diego,
CA: San Diego Association of Governments, sandag.org/programs/
borders/binational/projects/2006 border wait impacts report.pdf.
155 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2016. "Electricity Data
Browser." Accessed October 25. eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/.
156 Muyskens, J.D. 2015. "Mapping How the United States Generates
Its Electricity." The Washington Post, July 31. washingtonpost.com/
graphics/ national/power-plants/.
157 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. "Climate Impacts in
the Southwest." Last modified October 6. epa.gov/climate-impacts/
climate-impacts-southwest.
158 U.S. Department of Energy. 2012. Impacts of Long-Term Drought
on Power Systems in the U.S. Southwest. Washington,D.C.:
U.S. Department of Energy, energv.gov/ ocl downloads/
impacts-long-term-drought-power-systems-us-southwest-iuly-2012.
159 U.S. Department of Energy. 2015. Climate Change and the U.S.
Energy Sector: Regional Vulnerabilities and Resilience Solutions.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, www, energy, gov/
sites/prod/files/2015/10/f27/Regional Climate Vulnerabilities
and Resilience Solutions O.pdf.
160 U.S. Department of Energy. 2012. Impacts of Long-Term
Drought on Power Systems in the U.S. Southwest. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, energv.gov/ ocl downloads/
impacts-long-term-drought-power-systems-us-southwest-iuly-2012.
161 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2014. "California
Drought Leads to Less Hydropower, Increased Natural Gas
Generation." Today in Energy, September 30. eia.gov/todayinenergv/
detail.cfm?id= 18271.
162 Kenward, A. and U. Raja. 2014. Blackout: Extreme Weather, Climate
Change and Power Outages. Princeton, NJ: Climate Central, assets,
climatecentral .org/ pdfs/PowerOutages. pdf.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
87
-------
Appendices
Notes and References (continued)
163 Campbell, R.J. 2012. Weather-Related Power Outages and Electric
System Resiliency. Congressional Research Service Report to
Congress. August 28, 2012. fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42696.pdf.
164 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and North
American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). 2012. Arizona-
Southern California Outages on September 8, 2011: Causes and
Recommendations. Joint FERC/NERC report, nerc.com/pa/rrm/ea/
September%202011 %20 South west%20Blackout%20Event%20
Document%2QL/AZOutage Report 01MAY12.pdf.
165 San Diego Union-Tribune. 2011. "Despite Losses, Blackout May
Bring Some Good." September 10.
166 Medina, J. 2011. "Human Error Investigated in California
Blackout s Spread to Six Million." The New York Times, September
10. nvtimes.com/2011/09/1 Olusl 1 Opower.html? r=0.
167 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2015.
74-Year List of Severe Weather Fatalities. Washington, D.C.: NOAA.
nws. noaa.gov/om/hazstats/resources/weather fatalities.pdf.
168 Ostro, B.D. 2009. Estimating the Mortality Effect of the July 2006
California Heat Wave. Sacramento, CA: California Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment. energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-Q36/
CEC-500-2009-036-D.PDF
169 R.W. Beck, Inc. 2011. Final Report: Distributed Energy Resiliency
Study. Prepared for the Oregon Department of Energy, oregon.
gov/ energy/P-I/docs/Rl 444%200regon%20Distributed%20
Energv% 20 Resiliency %20 Study, pdf
170 Lazard. 2014. Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis—Version
8.0. lazard.com/media/1777/levelized cost of energy - ver-
sion 80.pdf.
171 Sinha, P., M. de Wild-Scholten, A. Wade, and C. Breyer. 2013.
"Total Cost Electricity Pricing of Photovoltaics." Paris, France:
Proceedings of the 28th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy
Conference, 4583—4588.
172 International Energy Agency. 2014. Technology Roadmap:
Solar Photovoltaic Energy. Paris, France: International Energy
Agency, iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/
TechnologyRoadmapSolarPhotovoltaicEnergy 2014edition.pdf.
173 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. "Landfill Methane
Outreach Program." Last modified October 4. epa.gov/lmop.
174 Kiatreungwattana, K., J. Geiger, V. Healey, and G. Mosey. 2013.
Feasibility Study of Economics and Performance of Solar Photovoltaics
at the Peru Mill Industrial Park in the City of Deming, New Mexico.
Produced under direction of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Technical
Report NREL/TP-7A30-58368. www.nrel-gov/docs/fyl 3os-
tiZ58368.pdf.
175 The Government of the State of Coahuila. 2011. State
of Co ahuila State Climate Action Plan, server.cocef.org/
Final Reports B2012/20164/20164 Final Report EN.pdf.
176 U.S. Department of Energy. 2015. "New Report Outlines Potential
of Future Water Resource Recovery Facilities." Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Last modified November 3.
energy.gov/ eere/bioenergv/ articles/new-report-outlines-potential-fu-
ture-water-resource-recovery-facilities.
177 Environment America. 2016. Shining Cities 2016: How Smart Local
Policies Are Expanding Solar in America. Boston, MA: Environment
America Research and Policy Center, environmentamerica.org/
reports/am e/shining-cities-2016.
178 El Paso Electric. 2016. "EPE Becomes the First Regional
Utility to Go Coal-Free." Press release of August 2.
www.epelectric.com/ about-el-paso-electric/ article/
epe-becomes-the-first-regional-utility-to-go-coal-free.
179 American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE). 2013.
"Renewable Energy in California." In Renewable Energy in the 50
States: Western Region. Washington, D.C.: ACORE. acore.org/files/
pdfs/states/California.pdf.
180 Advanced Energy Economy. 2016. "Advanced Energy
Jobs In California." Accessed September 7. info.aee.net/
advanced-e ne rgv-i o bs- i n-cal ifo rn ia- 2 016.
181 Solar Energy Industries Association. "Top Ten Solar
States." Accessed September 8. seia.org/research-resources/
top-10-solar-states.
182 Arizona Commerce Authority. 2016. "Renewable Energy." Accessed
September 8. azcommerce.com/industries/renewable-energy.
183 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2016. "Arizona State
Profile and Energy Estimates." Accessed September 8. eia.gov/state/
analvsis.cfm?sid=AZ.
184 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2016. "New Mexico
State Profile and Energy Estimates." Accessed September 8. eia.gov/
state/ ?sid=NM.
185 Solar Energy Association. 2016. "New Mexico: Solar." Accessed
September 8. seia.org/state-solar-policv/new-mexico.
186 SunZia Southwest Transmission Project. 2016. "SunZia Project
Information" Accessed September 9, sunzia.net/project informa-
tion.php.
187 American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2016. Texas Wind
Energy. Washington, D.C.: AWEA. awea.files. cms-plus .com/
FileDownloads/pdfs/Texas.pdf.
188 Blum, J. 2016. "Depressed Texas Power Prices Mean Cheap
Electricity, Plant Closures." Houston Chronicle, April 9; updated
April 11. houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Depressed-
Texas-power-prices-mean-cheap-7238350.php.
189 Spindle, B. and R. Smoth. 2016. "Which State Is a Big Renewable
Energy Pioneer? Texas." Wall Street Journal> updated August 29.
wsj.com/articles/which-state-is-a-big-renewable-energy-pioneer-
texas-1472414098.
190 The City of San Diego. 2015. City of San Diego Climate Action Plan:
Adopted December 2015. San Diego, CA: The City of San Diego.
sandiego.gov/ planning/ genplan/ cap.
191 U.S. Department of Energy. 2016. "DOE Makes Up to $3 Million
Available to Fund First Steps Toward Developing Renewable
Energy and Energy Efficiency on Tribal Lands." Office of Indian
Energy Policy and Programs. Last modified August 17. energv.gov/
indianenergy/articles/doe-makes-3-million-available-fund-first-
steps-toward-developing-renewable.
192 Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station. 2014. Final
Recommendation to SECO, Lncluding Stringency Analysis & Review
of Public Comments, Regarding the 2015 IRC\ Chapter 11, and the
2015IECC vs. the 2009 Codes. College Station, TX: Texas A&M
Engineering Experiment Station, Energy Systems Laboratory.
193 U.S. Department of Energy. 2010. Guidelines for Pilot PACE
Financing Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Energy, wwwl.eere.energy.gov/wip/pdfs/arra guidelines for pilot
pace programs.pdf.
88
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendices
Notes and References (continued)
194 Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua. 2016. Reporte Anual 2015.
Chihuahua, Mexico: Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua, gcc.
com/opencms/export/sites/portal/es/relacion inversionistas/
informes v reportes/galeria informes v reportes/Informe CNBV/
GCC-ReporteanualCNBV2015 .pdf.
195 Reazin. 2016. Email communication of March 22.
196 Guirgus, K., A. Gershunov, A. Tardy, and R. Basu. 2014. The
Impact of Recent Heat Waves on Human Health in California.
Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 53 (1): 3—19.
197 Gamble, J.L., B.J. Hurley, P.A. Schultz, W.S. Jaglom, N. Krishnan,
and M. Harris. 2013. "Climate Change and Older Americans: State
of the Science." Environmental Health Perspectives 121 (1): 15—22.
doi:l 0.1289/ehp.1205223.
198 Thomas, P., A. Swaminathan, and R. Lucas. 2012. "Climate Change
and Health With an Emphasis on Interactions With Ultraviolet
Radiation: A Review." Global Change Biology 18 (8): 2392—2405.
199 Kolivras, K.N. and A.C. Comrie. 2004. Climate and Infectious
Disease in the Southwestern United States. Progress in Physical
Geography 28 (3): 387—398.
200 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. "Dengue." Last
modified January 19. cdc.gov/dengue.
201 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. "Symptoms of
Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis)." Last modified March 2. cdc.
gov/ fungal/diseases/coccidioidomycosis/svmptoms.html.
202 Ramos, M.M., H. Mohammed, E. Zielinski-Gutierrez, M.H.
Hayden, J.L.R. Lopez, M. Fournier, A.R. Trujillo, R. Burton, J.M.
Brunkard, L. Anaya-Lopez, A.A. Banicki, P.K. Morales, B. Smith,
J.L. Munoz, S.H. Waterman, and The Dengue Serosurvey Working
Group. 2008. "Epidemic Dengue and Dengue Hemorrhagic
Fever at the Texas—Mexico Border: Results of a Household-based
Seroepidemiologic Survey, December 2005." The American Journal
of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 7& (3): 364—369.
203 Brunkard, J.M., E. Cifuentes, and S.J. Rothenberg. 2008.
"Assessing the Roles of Temperature, Precipitation, and ENSO in
Dengue Re-Emergence on the Texas-Mexico Border Region." Salud
Publica de Mexico 50: 227—234.
204 Greer, A., V. Ng, and D. Fisman. 2008. "Climate Change and
Infectious Diseases in North America: The Road Ahead." Canadian
Medical Association Journal 178 (6): 716—722. doi:10.1503/
cmaj.081325.
205 Brunkard, J.M., J.L.R. Lopez, J. Ramirez, E. Cifuentes, S.J.
Rothenberg, E.A. Hunsperger, C.G. Moore, R.M. Brussolo, N.A.
Villarreal, and B.M. Haddad. 2007. "Dengue Fever Seroprevalence
and Risk Factors, Texas—Mexico Border, 2004." Emerging Infectious
Diseases 13 (10): 1477-1483.
206 Jones, J.M., B. Lopez, L. Adams, F.J.N. Galvez, A.S. Nunez,
N.A.H. Santillan, L. Plante, R.R. Hemme, M. Casal, E.A.
Hunsperger, J. Munoz-Jordan, V. Acevedo, K. Ernst, M. Hayden, S.
Waterman, D. Gomez, T.M. Sharp, K.K. Komatsu, and the Dengue
Investigative Team. 2016. "Binational Dengue Outbreak Along
the United States—Mexico Border — Yuma County, Arizona, and
Sonora, Mexico, 2014." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 65
(19): 495-499. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6519a3.
207 World Health Organization. 2003. Guidelines for Dengue
Surveillance and Mosquito Control[ Second Edition. Manila,
Philippines: World Health Organization Regional Office for the
Western Pacific.
208 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. "Sources of
Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis)." Last modified April 4. cdc.gov/
fungal/diseases/coccidioidomycosis/causes.html.
209 Brown, J., K. Benedict, B.J. Park, and G.R. Thompson. 2013.
"Coccidioidomycosis: Epidemiology." Clinical Epidemiology 5:
185-197.
210 Park, B.J., K. Sigel, V. Vaz, K. Komatsu, C. McRill, M. Phelan, T.
Col man, A.C. Comrie, D.W. Warnock, J.N. Galgiani, and R.A.
Hajjeh. 2005. "An Epidemic of Coccidioidomycosis in Arizona
Associated With Climatic Changes, 1998—2001. Journal of Infectious
Disease 191 (11): 1981-1987.
211 Nguyen, C., B.M. Barker, S. Hoover, D.E. Nix, N.M. Ampel, J.A.
Frelinger, M.J. Orbach, and J.N. Galgiani. 2013. "Recent Advances
in Our Understanding of the Environmental, Epidemiological,
Immunological, and Clinical Dimensions of Coccidioidomycosis."
Clinical Microbiology Reviews 26 (3): 505—525.
212 Huang, J.Y., B. Bristow, S. Shafir, and F. Sorvillo. 2012.
Coccidioidomycosis-Associated Deaths, United States, 1990—2008.
Emerging Infectious Diseases 18 (11): 1723—1728.
213 Monaghan, A.J., K.M. Sampson, D.F. Steinhoff, K.C. Ernst,
K.L. Ebi, B. Jones, and M.H. Hayden. 2016. "The Potential
Impacts of 21st Century Climatic and Population Changes on
Human Exposure to the Virus Vector Mosquito Aedes aegyptu
Climatic Change doi: 10.1007/sl0584-016-1679-0.
214 Monaghan, A.J., C.W. Morin, D.F. Steinhoff, O. Wilhelmi,
M. Hayden, D.A. Quattrochi, M. Reiskind, A.L. Lloyd, K.
Smith, C.A. Schmidt, P.E. Scalf, and K. Ernst. 2016. "On the
Seasonal Occurrence and Abundance of the Zika Virus Vector
Mosquito Aedes aegypti in the Contiguous United States."
PIOS Currents: Outbreaks 8 (March 16). doi: 10.1371 /currents,
outbreaks.50dfc7f46798675fc63e7d7da563da76.
215 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. "Zika Virus:
Transmission and Risks." Last modified October 24. cdc.gov/zika/
transmission/index, html.
216 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. "Zika Virus:
Symptoms, Testing, and Treatment." Last modified June 21. cdc.
gov/ zika/ symptoms/ index.html.
217 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. "Zika Virus: All
Countries and Territories With Active Zika Virus Transmission."
Last modified October 5. cdc.gov/zika/geo/active-countries.html.
218 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. "Zika Virus:
Case Counts in the United States." Last modified October 24. cdc.
gov/ zika/ geo / united-states.html.
219 Arizona Department of Health Services. 2016. "Arizona Interim
Zika Testing Algorithms for Healthcare Providers." Last accessed
September, azdhs.gov/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/
mosquito-borne/index.php#zika-info-data.
220 California Department of Public Health. 2016. Identification
of local Transmission—-Zika Testing Criteria for Persons Without
Travel Related Exposure. June. cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discond/
Documents/IdentificationofLocalTransmission-ZikaTestingCriteriaf
orPersonswithoutTravel-RelatedExposure.pdf.
221 California Department of Public Health. 2016. "CDPH Weekly
Update on Number of Zika Virus Infections in California,
September 9, 2016."
222 Arizona Department of Health Services. 2016. "Arizona 2016 Zika
Virus Statistics, September 9, 2016."
223 New Mexico Department of Public Health. 2016. "Zika Virus:
Activity in New Mexico, September 9, 2016." nmhealth.org/about/
erd / ideb/zdp/zika/.
224 Texas Department of State Health Services. 2016. "Zika in Texas:
Reported Cases as of September 9, 2016." texaszika.org.
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
89
-------
Appendices
Notes and References (continued)
225 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. "Chikungunya
Virus: Symptoms, Testing, and Treatment." Last modified April 6.
cdc.gov/ chikungunva/ symptoms/index.html.
226 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. "Chikungunya
Virus: 2015 Final Data for the United States." Last modified June
23. cdc.gov/chikungunva/geo/united-states-2015 .html.
227 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. "Laboratory-
Confirmed ChikungunyaVirus Disease Cases Reported to
ArboNET by State or Territory—United States, 2015." Last
modified June 22. www.cdc.gov/chikungunva/pdfs/2015table-
062216-final.pdf.
228 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. "Chikungunya
Virus: 2016 Provisional Data for the United States." Last modified
October 18. cdc.gov/chikungunva/geo/united-states-2016.html.
229 Luber, G. and M. McGeehin. 2008. "Climate Change and Extreme
Heat Events." American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35 (5):
429-435. doi:10.10l6/j.amepre.2008.08.021.
230 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Climate Change
and Extreme Heat: What You Can Do to Prepare." EPA 430-R-16-
061. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Developed with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
epa.gov/ climatechange/extreme-heat-guidebook
231 Reid, C.E., M.S. O'Neill, C.J. Gronlund, S.J. Brines, D.G. Brown,
A.V. Diez-Roux, and J. Schwartz. 2009. "Mapping Community
Determinants of Heat Vulnerability." Environmental Health
Perspectives 117 (11): 1730—1736.
232 Migration Policy Institute. 2006. The U.S.-Mexico Border. Posted
June 1. migrationpolicy.org/article/us-mexico-border.
233 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. "Protect Yourself
From Wildfire Smoke." Last modified August 19. cdc.gov/Features/
Wildfires/index.html.
234 Schewe, J., J. Heinke, D. Gerten, I. Haddeland, N.W. Arnell, D.B.
Clark, R. Dankers, S. Eisner, B.M. Fekete, F.J. Colon-Gonzalez,
S.N. Gosling, H. Kim, X. Liu, Y. Masaki, F.T. Portmann, Y. Satoh,
T. Stacke, Q. Tang, Y. Wada, D. Wisser, T. Albrecht, K. Frieler,
F. Piontek, L.Warszawski, and P. Kabat. 2014. "Multimodel
Assessment of Water Scarcity Under Climate Change." Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America.Ill (9): 3245-3250. doi: 10.1073/pnas. 1222460110.
235 Rose, J.B., P.R. Epstein, E.K. Lipp, B.H. Sherman, S.M. Bernard,
andJA. Patz. 2001. "Climate Variability and Change in the United
States: Potential Impacts on Water- and Foodborne Diseases
Caused by Microbiologic Agents." Environmental Health Perspectives
Supplements 109 (Suppl. 2): 211—221.
236 Bourque, F. and A.C. Willox. 2014. "Climate Change: The Next
Challenge for Public Mental Health?" International Review of
Psychiatry 26 (4): 415—422.
237 Carrion, A.F., R. Ghanta, O. Carrasquillo, and P. Martin. 2011.
"Chronic Liver Disease in the Hispanic Population of the United
States." Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 9: 834—841.
238 Fischer, G.E., S.P. Bialek, C.E. Homan, S.E. Livingston, and B.J.
McMahon. 2009. "Chronic Liver Disease Among Alaska-Native
People, 2003-2004." American Journal of Gastroenterology 104 (2):
363-370.
239 Lazo M., U. Bilal, and R. Perez-Escamilla. 2015. "Epidemiology of
NAFLD and Type 2 Diabetes: Health Disparities Among Persons of
Hispanic Origin." Current Diabetes Reports 15 (12): 116.
240 Lopez-Velazquez, J., K.V. Silva-Vidal, G. Ponciano-Rodriguez,
N.C. Chavez-Tapia, M. Arrese, M. Uribe, and N. Sanchez-Mendez.
2014. "The Prevalence of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in the
Americas." Annals ofHepatology 13 (2): 166—179.
241 Saab S., V. Manne, J. Nieto, J. Schwimmer, and N.P. Chalasani.
2016. "Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in Latinos." Clinical
Gastroenterology and Hep ato logy 14 (1): 5—12.
242 Greenough, G., M. McGeehin, S.M. Bernard, J. Trtanj, J. Riad, and
D. Engelberg. 2001. "The Potential Impacts of Climate Variability
and Change on Health Impacts of Extreme Weather Events in the
United States." Environmental Health Perspectives 109 (Suppl 2):
191-198.
243 World Food Programme. 2016. "What Is Food Security?" Accessed
September 11. wfp.org/node/359289.
244 National Research Council. 2012. A Sustainability Challenge: Food
Security for All: Report of Two Workshops. Washington, D.C.: The
National Academies Press.
245 Handelsman, J. and P. Liautaud. 2016. "A Call to Action to
Save One of Americas Most Important Natural Resources."
White House Blog, August 1. whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/08/01 /
call-action-save-one-americas-most-important-natural-resources.
246 Pezzoli, K., J. Kozo, K. Ferran, W. Wooten, G. Rangel Gomez,
and W.K. Al-Delaimy. 2014. "One Bioregion/One Health: An
Integrative Narrative for Transboundary Planning Along the
US-Mexico Border." Global Society 28 (4): 419—440. doi: 10.1080/1
3600.826.2014.951316.
247 Ramanathan, V., J.E. Allison, M. Aufhammer, D. Auston, A.D.
Barnosky, L. Chiang, W.D. Collins, S.J. Davis, F. Forman, S.B.
Heckt, D. Kammen, C.-Y.C.L. Lawell, T. Matlock, D. Press, D.
Rotman, S. Samuelsen, G. Solomon, D.G. Victor, and B. Washom.
2015. "Executive Summary." Bending the Curve: 10 Scalable
Solutions for Carbon Neutrality and Climate Stability. Oakland, CA:
University of California Press.
248 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.
2013. Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources,
Summary Report. Rome, Italy: FAO. fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/
i3347e.pdf.
249 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.
2011. Global Food Losses and Waste. Extenty Causes and Prevention.
Rome, Italy: FAO. fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf.
250 Hecht, S.B., K. Pezzoli, S. Saatchi, and W. Silver. 2016. "We Dont
Need to Invent Trees: Carbon in Woodlands: Equity, Spillovers,
Speed and Landscape Dynamics From Wildlands to Cities."In
Bending the Curve: 10 Scalable Solutions for Carbon Neutrality and
Climate Stability. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
251 Kummu, M., H. de Moel, M. Porkka, S. Siebert, O. Varis, and P.J.
Ward. 2012. "Lost Food, Wasted Resources: Global Food Supply
Chain Losses and Their Impacts on Freshwater, Cropland, and
Fertiliser Use." Science of the Total Environment 438: 477—489.
90
Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
-------
------- |