Environmental Advisors Across Borders

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Video/Teleconference
Microsoft Teams Virtual Platform
May 5, 2022; 2:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m. EDT

Meeting Summary

Welcome, Introductions and Overview of Agenda

Eugene Green, GNEB Designated Federal Officer, Federal Advisory Committee Management Division,
Office of Resources and Business Operations, Office of Mission Support, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA); Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB; and Irasema Coronado, Vice Chair, GNEB

Mr. Eugene Green welcomed the participants and conducted the roll call. A list of meeting participants is
included as Appendix A.

Dr. Paul Ganster, GNEB Chair, and Dr. Irasema Coronado, GNEB Vice Chair, thanked the participants
for attending. Dr. Coronado is excited to advance the quality of life in the U.S.-Mexico border region.
Dr. Ganster provided an overview of the agenda, which is included as Appendix B.

The official certification of the minutes by the Chair is included as Appendix C.

GNEB Annual Report Topic (Water and Wastewater Infrastructure in the Border Region) and
Goals for Today's Meeting

Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB

Dr. Ganster commented that the ability to meet face-to-face offers the opportunity for many sidebar
discussions about how to develop GNEB's annual report and allows the members to get to know one
another better. Although this virtual meeting does not offer these opportunities, it is designed to allow a
number of experts in border water and wastewater infrastructure issues to present and the GNEB
members to ask questions.

He reminded the members that GNEB is an independent Federal Advisory Committee tasked with
providing annual reports. The topic of water and wastewater infrastructure on the border is complex, and
the Board must develop realistic recommendations and offer approaches to improve the quality of life in
border communities. GNEB must consider how to make a difference regarding the set of issues related to
lack of adequate water and wastewater infrastructure in the border region and how to be prepared for
future demands. Simply recommending additional funds does not receive a positive response. The Board
does not have research staff, so the members must rely on their and their organizations' resources and be
willing to participate actively in performing research and writing text for GNEB's written products.

The current Board members have expertise and experience with the border context and border water
issues. Dr. Ganster expects that the members will bring diverse perspectives and enhance Board
deliberations and discussions. Historically, members who share similar concerns have worked together to
research and develop text relating to these concerns. For example, if the Board decides to include energy
issues related to water and wastewater infrastructure in the report, a small group interested in energy
issues will collaborate to draft that portion of the report. The Board members will have adequate time to
review report drafts, provide input, and come to consensus about the information and recommendations
contained in the report.

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

1


-------
The goals for this meeting are to develop a list of priority topics for the final report, identify Board
members who will lead these topics, consider specific approaches to maximize the value of the report
(i.e., What is the major message that GNEB would like to convey?), and discuss next steps and timelines.
Crosscutting topics in the past have included colonias, tribal issues, climate change and financing.

By December 31, the Board must submit to the U.S. President and Congress an advice letter of
approximately 15-20 pages that outlines the major themes. In 2023, GNEB will develop a full, detailed
report on the major themes.

Dr. Teresa Pohlman commented that the federal government is concerned about emerging contaminants
(e.g., PFAS), so this might be another issue for the breakout groups to consider.

Public Comments

Mr. Green called for public comments and acknowledged the members of the public who had requested to
attend the meeting. No oral or written comments were offered.

Expert Presentations

Water and Wastewater Infrastructure

Salvador Lopez, Chief Environmental Officer, North American Development Bank (NADBank)

Mr. Salvador Lopez explained that NADBank was established in 1994 to develop and finance
environmental infrastructure along the U.S.-Mexico border to improve the well-being of the population.
NADBank is owned and governed equally by the U.S. and Mexico governments. NADBank has a
10-member, binational board of directors, with an equal number of representatives from each country.

Funded projects must be located within 62 miles north of the border and 186 miles south of the border,
with seven eligible project types: water, solid waste, air quality, sustainable energy, sustainable cities,
sustainable production and climate change. NADBank provides loans, grants and technical assistance. As
of the end of calendar year 2021, 288 projects with a total investment of $10.2 billion have been funded.
Of these projects, 169 have been in the water and wastewater sector.

NADBank-supported drinking water projects in Mexico have improved eight water treatment plants and
resulted in 120.5 miles of new waterlines and 5,639 new connections to water systems. These
improvements benefited more than 500,000 people. The wastewater projects NADBank supported in
Mexico benefited nearly 8 million people through improvement of 41 wastewater treatment systems and
the construction of 1,042 new miles of wastewater lines and 378,977 new connections to sewer systems.
Key indicators indicate that significant progress has been made in Mexico border states in recent decades,
but significant challenges in water resources management, drinking water distribution, sanitation and
storm water management remain.

Mr. Lopez displayed pie charts highlighting the differences in water supply sources in the sister cities of
San Diego-Tijuana and El Paso-Ciudad Juarez. The majority of water in Mexico's cities comes from
river and ground water sources, whereas San Diego and El Paso have more diversified water supplies.

NADBank-supported drinking water projects in the United States have improved 18 water treatment
plants and resulted in 187 miles of new waterlines and 8,516 new connections to water systems. These
improvements benefited more than 700,000 people. The wastewater projects NADBank supported in the
United States benefited nearly 300,000 people through improvement of 26 wastewater treatment systems
and the construction of 527.5 new miles of wastewater lines and 23,932 new connections to sewer

2

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary


-------
systems. Key challenges in U.S. border communities include the availability and resiliency of water
resources, basic infrastructure, and affordability.

Mr. Lopez summarized that significant progress has been made in basic infrastructure, but gaps remain.
Population growth and climate change create additional challenges that are expected to be exacerbated in
the future, requiring new policies, technologies and funding mechanisms. NADBank has been an
important player in addressing water management and other environmental issues in the border region
through binational cooperation, planning and project development, institutional capacity building,
leveraging capital to mobilize other resources, and effectively funneling U.S. funding to projects in
Mexico that provide strong binational benefits. EPA-funded grants have contributed to close the gap in
basic infrastructure needs in Mexico communities and in colonias and other underserved communities in
the United States.

Border Water and Wastewater Infrastructure

Maria-Elena Giner, Commissioner, International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC)

Dr. Maria-Elena Giner explained that IBWC is responsible for applying the boundary and water treaties
between the United States and Mexico. The broad range of responsibilities of the U.S. Section of IBWC
(USIBWC) includes flood control, water delivery, oversight of dams and hydroelectric power plants,
sanitation, and boundary demarcation. Major ongoing projects include Colorado River conservation
projects, construction and sediment removal along the Upper and Lower Rio Grande, and Amistad Dam
projects. USIBWC's annual budget is $50 million for construction and $50 million for salaries and
expenses for the 253 authorized staff positions—reduced from 313, which USIBWC is trying to restore—
at 12 offices in the border region and Washington, D.C.

Dr. Giner described deferred maintenance, equipment replacement, flood control and other unfunded
projects that highlight IBWC's work on serious needs along the border related to water supply and flood
protection. The USIBWC's estimated deferred maintenance budget is $11 million; extraordinary deferred
maintenance is estimated to cost $487 million. Sediment removal is critical to protect residents from
flooding and provide more efficient water delivery. New sediment basins are being installed to keep
sediment from reaching the Rio Grande, making sediment removal easier. USIBWC is assessing how to
deploy a sediment management plan; next steps include a sediment transport study and engaging in
agreements with municipalities to install sediment control structures upstream. Congress appropriated
$7.23 million for the Heavy Equipment Replacement Program. Aging equipment (e.g., dozers,
excavators, graders), some from the early 1980s, requires costly repairs and needs replacement at a cost of
$60 million. The Rio Grande Flood Control System requires $889 million for 172 miles of levees and
gaps that need to be raised and rehabilitated to meet Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
standards. Other unfunded projects include dam safety (requires $215 million) and renovation of
61 facilities (requires $31 million).

Dr. Giner displayed a map of international dams and areas covered under the 1906 Convention Between
the United States and Mexico for the Equitable Distribution of the Waters of the Rio Grande (Convention
of 1906) and 1944 Treaty Between the United States of America and Mexico Relating to the Utilization of
Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande (1944 Water Treaty), as well as a
current map of select dams in the Rio Grande Basin. Water delivery under the Convention of 1906 is
based on usable water storage in the Elephant Butte Reservoir; this year, as a result of drought conditions,
the United States will be able to provide only 15.7 percent of the full allocation, which will affect
agricultural users.

Dr. Giner displayed a graph of historical water deliveries to Mexico from 1939 to 2021, as well as a graph
of estimated water volumes allotted to the United States by Mexico under the 1944 Water Treaty. Under
the 1944 Water Treaty, the United States delivers a volume of up to 1.5 million acre-feet (maf) annually

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

3


-------
to Mexico. In times of surplus, the United States delivers a total volume of up to 1.7 maf annually. In
extraordinary drought, Mexico's volumes are reduced in proportion to U.S. proportions.

IBWC met in October 2020 to discuss Minute 325, which considers measures to end the current Rio
Grande water delivery cycle to improve the predictability and reliability of Rio Grande water deliveries to
users in the United States and Mexico. Calibration is underway, and scenarios will be analyzed to
determine the impacts to both countries.

Minute 319, regarding cooperation on the Colorado River, was a 5-year pilot agreement signed in 2012
that calls for investment in water conservation, conserved volumes of water in Lake Mead to be held in
the United States for future delivery to Mexico, reduced water deliveries during low-level events at Lake
Mead, increased water deliveries during high-level events at Lake Mead, deferred water deliveries for
Mexico until repair of earthquake damage, and establishment of binational workgroups. Under
Minute 319, $21 million was invested in water conservation and environmental projects in Mexico in
exchange for delivery of 124,000 maf to the United States; 1,100 acres of enhanced riparian habitat were
created. Overall, it was a successful pilot project that provided a model for binational cooperation. Several
canal, well and other projects also were completed under Minute 319.

USIBWC is developing a white paper on conserving water and creating new water sources. Dr. Giner
described the scope of work of the project, which includes reviewing existing studies and reports,
conducting interviews, reviewing existing proposals, assessing the existing legal structures and barriers,
and providing recommendations based on the analysis. Dr. Giner encouraged the participants to follow
USIBWC on Twitter ( fMisibwc).

Environmental Justice, Border Water and Wastewater Infrastructure for Colonias

Carlos Rincon, Director, U.S.-Mexico Border Office, Region 6, EPA

Dr. Carlos Rincon explained that the 1983 La Paz Agreement defines the U.S.-Mexico border region as
62 miles north and 124.7 miles south of the border. Colonias started as clusters of makeshift houses and
mobile homes—often with only a few dozen residents—offering people the possibility of land and home
ownership. More than 2,200 colonias soon sprung up along the southwest border from Texas to
California. Lots often were sold using unscrupulous contract-for-deed arrangements, often leaving
individuals without a legal title for their small, unimproved lots of land that had no access to electricity,
gas, public services or indoor plumbing. Colonias are substandard housing developments, found in the
U.S.-Mexico border region, where residents lack safe, sanitary housing and basic services. Where sewer
systems do exist, treatment plants do not, and untreated wastewater is at best discharged to inefficient
septic tanks that are expensive to maintain.

Dr. Rincon displayed a map of the colonias, noting that 1,884 of the colonias are located in Texas. In
Texas, 358,024 individuals reside in colonias, compared with 278,209 individuals living in 104 colonias
in Arizona, 157,408 individuals living in 154 colonias in New Mexico, and 46,269 individuals living in
35 colonias in California. Dr. Rincon also displayed charts of colonias and colonias populations per
Texas county.

Colonias have been prioritized by need. Those that are not served by a public water or wastewater facility
and have health hazards present are Priority 1. Priority 2 includes colonias not served by water or
wastewater systems with no hazards present or colonias that are served by water or wastewater facilities
that are in serious violation of regulations. Priority 3 includes colonias in which only some residents are
not served by water or wastewater facilities. Colonias that have adequate water and wastewater services
are Priority 4. Priority 5 colonias are uninhabited.

4

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary


-------
Approximately 20 to 80 percent of colonias populations have wastewater facilities, and 10 to 90 percent
have drinking water services, depending on the state. By state, approximately 50 to 80 percent of colonias
are served by wastewater facilities, and 10 to 90 percent are served by drinking water facilities. New
Mexico has the lowest percentages in all four categories.

Dr. Rincon described the EPA historical Colonias Wastewater Treatment Assistance Program (CWTAP),
Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF), and Border 2025 's association with the Colonias Water
and Wastewater Program. CWTAP received $300 million in the mid-1990s for projects in unincorporated
colonias within 62 miles of the border that were in existence before November 1989; the projects were
closed by 2012. BEIF, managed through NADBank, and Border 2025 offer grant financing for high-
priority drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects located within 62 miles of the border.

Colonias have significant water and wastewater challenges, including lack of access to adequate drinking
water services and public wastewater systems, water quality compliance issues in areas that do have
service, lack of wastewater service connections from sewer street lines to homes, use of inadequate
containers that expose hauled water to the elements, risk of water well contamination from failing septic
tanks, flooded or muddy streets that obstruct public and school transportation and emergency services,
and high expenses for the purchase of bottled water and water-hauling services.

Dr. Rincon noted seven current projects supported by BEIF and Border 2025 in Texas, New Mexico and
the Rio Grande Valley. A number of resources are available for colonias information and data:

•	U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Grant Program

•	U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Colonias and Farmworker webpages

•	U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service

•	Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs Office of Colonia Initiatives

•	Texas Water Development Board Economically Distressed Areas Program 2020-2021 Annual Report

•	Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

•	Texas Attorney General

•	New Mexico Finance Authority Colonias Infrastructure Board

•	New Mexico Environment Department Water Quality Control Commission Regulations Standards

•	Arizona Department of Housing

•	Colonias in Arizona and New Mexico: Border Poverty and Community Development Solutions

•	T exasLawHelp .org

•	A.Y.U.D.A. Inc.: Adult and Youth United Development Association

•	ARISE: A Resource In Serving Equality

•	Southeastern New Mexico Economic Development District

•	Empowerment Congress of Dona Ana County

•	Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas. Inc.

•	Texas A&M University Colonias Program

•	EPISO/Border Interfaith: El Paso Interreligious Sponsoring Organization

•	DIGDEEP

•	County Commissioners Courts

Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Challenges for Border Tribes

Evaristo Cruz, Director of Community Development, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, and Jill Sherman-Warne,
Executive Director, Native American Environmental Protection Coalition

Mr. Evaristo Cruz displayed a map of the Y sleta del Sur Pueblo property boundaries, noting the
difference between the pueblo and other tribes. The pueblo is a checkerboarded, urban community, with

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

5


-------
noncontiguous pieces of land within the urban setting of El Paso. The tribe's northern housing district
includes 150 homes, and the southern housing district includes almost 400 homes. Many of the tribe's
water and wastewater needs are tied closely to El Paso water utilities and the Lower Valley Water
District. Additional pueblo land in El Paso County (Hueco Tanks) has its own challenges because of the
lack of development in the area. Further south, the tribe operates a 75,000-acre ranch that supports
ranching and agricultural activities.

Working with its water providers is key for the pueblo, but this is not universal for all tribes. Many tribes
have large, contiguous lands and treatment-as-a-state status, which allows them to operate their own water
and wastewater systems and infrastructure. It is important to note that tribes and communities along the
U.S.-Mexico border often are linked in terms of water and wastewater resources and infrastructure.

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo fully supports the El Paso water utilities and Lower Valley Water District because
the tribe is tied completely into these systems.

El Paso has initiated a number of water conservation efforts, including incentives and rebate programs,
municipal conservation laws, and installation of leak detection technologies. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo
supports these efforts. Following the adoption of the water conservation ordinance, per-person
consumption of water has been reduced by 30 percent. The Lower Valley Water District provides
assistance for the pueblo and colonias in El Paso County. The district's water installation plan includes
envisioned water and wastewater projects for subdivisions in El Paso County; $38 million has been set
aside for 18 water infrastructure projects and $26 million for 15 wastewater infrastructure projects. These
projects affect the pueblo's southern living district.

Mr. Cruz displayed two satellite images highlighting the severely affected water levels in the Elephant
Butte Reservoir caused by drought between June 1994 and July 2013. These areas are important to the
tribe's cultural and traditional practices, and access to the Rio Grande is important not only for surface
water resources but also the spiritual and cultural species that the water supports (e.g., plants). Resources
have become so scarce that the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas has traveled nearly 500 miles to
gather its traditional resources in locations near the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo. The need to conserve surface
water has become critical, and conservation efforts may have unintended consequences on plant and other
life. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo is using its ground water resources for agriculture at a rate higher than the
recharge rate.

The area deals with water extremes—drought or flooding; flooding causes severe erosion. The tribe is
exploring innovative technologies and approaches for stormwater containment, including French drains
and on-site ponding. During drought conditions, soil stabilizers are used to control dust, decrease
particulate matter and mitigate erosion.

Ms. Jill Sherman-Warne, a member of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, explained that she would discuss the
needs of the 20 California border tribes and displayed a map showing the locations of these tribes. The
U.S. government recognizes that tribes have authority over their lands. The coordinating principles of the
1999 U.S.-Mexico border agreement acknowledged tribes' authority to participate as partners; however,
this has not been fully realized.

California border tribes exist in a varied ecosystems (e.g., farms, orchards, deserts). Unfunded needs
continue to exist among these tribes, which have not been fully engaged to participate in border
agreements. The 2011 Indian Health Service (IHS) Sanitation Deficiency System (SDS) indicated that
57 tribes in California were in need of water systems, storage, community systems, wells and water main
pipelines. As of 2019, 31 tribes are listed in IHS SDS as a result of changes made to how tribes are placed
on the SDS and not because the needs of 26 tribes have been addressed. This change may or may not have
included tribal consultation. Most IHS SDS unfunded tribal needs in California are rated as Level II or III.

6

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary


-------
Level III is defined as "an Indian tribe or community with a sanitation system that has an inadequate or
partial water supply and a sewage disposal facility that does not comply with applicable water supply and
pollution control laws or that has no solid waste disposal facility."

Ms. Sherman-Warne displayed a map of each of the 20 California border region tribal reservations,
describing the salient features of each. Many are remote, and several are located in mountainous areas
with limited access. The Campo Indian Reservation is located on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border,
with tribal members living on each side. Highways cross several reservations. One reservation is only 10
acres, another is uninhabited, and another is a checkerboarded community. Many reservation roads are
unpaved and a single lane. Very few reservations have community water and sewer systems, and the
existing systems often are old and need to be replaced. The Rincon Indian Reservation deals with
endangered species, and the Santa Ysabel Reservation faces wildfires nearly every year. Many of these
tribes have submitted multimillion dollar requests for water and wastewater system installation or
upgrades; approximately $34 million worth of water and wastewater projects are needed among the
California border tribes.

Member Q&A Session

Dr. Giner recently finished her doctoral dissertation, which focused on measuring outcomes and lessons
learned in colonias, and one of the chapters has been published. She would like to highlight the oversized
infrastructure that exists in these communities because they did not grow as expected. The issues that
were easier to address were taken care of first, and now rural and isolated areas that are difficult to extend
services to remain in need. She spoke to more than 100 utilities during her dissertation research, and the
common theme is that these communities do not have the resources to build and grow the necessary
facilities.

Dr. Rincon commented that he will be gathering similar data with information that will be valuable.
Treating water and breaking linkages to old sewer infrastructure in some areas will increase water quality
because these areas will not be receiving untreated, legacy sewage. It also is important to consider how
infrastructure improvements on the Mexico side of the border will improve conditions on the U.S. side.
The Region 6 Regional Administrator is interested colonias and rural communities. Region 6 can provide
resources to perform research and draft text.

Breakout Sessions: Board Member Discussions and Report Outs

Group 1

Dr. Ganster reiterated that the goals are to identify priority areas for the report and determine which
members will work on them. He asked the group members to consider the overall messaging of the report:
What is the major point that the Board would like to make? The group should develop a short blurb that
describes what GNEB would like to convey. He asked the group members to identify specific points that
occurred to them as they listened to presentations or to describe the ideas that they had submitted when
asked to provide their areas of interest prior to the meeting. Dr. Ganster noted that the original report
statement that GNEB worked on with the Council on Environmental Quality is available, and the Board
members should have familiarized themselves with it before the meeting.

Ms. Rebecca Roose commented on her top-tier issues for this topic. The first is local capacity
development, particularly in small, rural, disadvantaged and tribal communities and colonias. Capacity
building must cover technical, financial (e.g., the ability to pursue funding) and managerial capacity for
water and wastewater systems. Although the federal government acknowledges the reality of the situation
in these communities, adequate policies have not been directed toward this issue. Her second top-tier

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

7


-------
issue is climate change and resiliency, including climate science and research around greater urbanization
and extended drought.

Mr. William Micklin agreed with Ms. Roose's top-tier issues. Tribes' priorities include capacity building
around water, wastewater and energy systems, as well as climate change adaptation and resiliency. It is
difficult for tribes to make themselves competitive for funding, with increasing competition occurring
between tribes that have and those that do not. For example, funding is provided to infrastructure systems
that are inarguably part of the problem. Also, Indigenous knowledge should be considered more seriously.
Currently, water is scarce (drought) or it arrives in large volumes during storms and destroys
infrastructure (flooding). Keeping water balanced through Indigenous practices is important. Systems are
needed that use waste streams for fuel to generate renewable energy in border communities
(e.g., compacting ash). Such approaches introduce layers of different energy systems and allow waste
streams to be used as practical measures to achieve climate change goals. The Board should explore
Indigenous knowledge systems and how they can be introduced into the knowledgebase for determining
practices and projects that help retain water within communities.

Mr. Joaquin Marruffo suggested that GNEB explore the issue of stormwater management. Management
of stormwater in binational border communities could provide positive effects for infrastructure and
human health. Lack of stormwater management can affect existing infrastructure by transporting waste
and sediment and causing sanitary sewer overflows; often these flow from Mexico into the United States.
Green and gray infrastructure must be considered as part of the solution.

Dr. Ganster agreed that it is not possible to address issues in the United States without looking at both
sides of the border. This has been a dilemma for GNEB because statutorily the report must address only
the U.S. side of the border. It is necessary, however, to assess the entire watershed—binational problems
need binational solutions. GNEB's report must include a strong focus on the entire border region. Many
border communities face many of the same problems.

Ms. Melisa Gonzales, a stormwater specialist, agreed that she would like to see stormwater addressed, as
well as water reuse (e.g., purple pipes). Water reuse is unknown in her area in south Texas—7 miles from
the border in Alamo, Texas—and she is very interested in this topic because water is a great commodity.

Dr. Pohlman commented that the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which is commonly referred to
as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, has pumped billions of dollars into federal agencies (e.g., EPA,
FEMA, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy) and state and local governments
to use for loans and grants. In writing its report, GNEB will define the problem, examine the parameters
and develop solution sets. As a part of these solution sets, the report could provide information on how
communities can obtain grant money for infrastructure projects. She would like GNEB to help border
communities access these funds. Agencies are trying to determine which entities are the neediest, and
Dr. Pohlman would like the southwest border area to be the recipient of these funds. Gathering and
providing information about what funding is available from agencies would be a useful tool for
disadvantaged communities along the border.

Ms. Roose commented that the largest ever investment in water and wastewater infrastructure is in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Those funds will flow through EPA to states to run through their Drinking
Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds, and energy-efficiency projects can be included. States
must identify what projects are eligible, and the onus is on them to provide outreach and education.

GNEB can examine states' actions and identify gaps that need to be filled to bolster states' ability to get
the funding where it needs to go, which is disadvantaged communities. Dr. Pohlman agreed, noting that
the Board's report can provide recommendations to the federal government on where funds should be
directed and could suggest the development of a strategic plan to allow border states to coordinate to

8

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary


-------
spend Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funds along the southwest border. Mr. Rafael DeLeon remarked that
as EPA implements the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, EPA staff can provide the Board with relevant
information.

Dr. Pohlman sees a number of efforts and activities related to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, but the
coordinated effort Ms. Roose suggested provides the opportunity to change lives with an efficient use of
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funds. GNEB has a chance to accomplish something extraordinary and
special.

Mr. Erik Lee thought that assisting border communities to access funding is an excellent idea. The
process needs to be more fluid, and agencies need to change their thinking because the money is not
theirs. The combination of bankers and bureaucrats could result in stringency. The Paycheck Protection
Plan could be used as a model; it provided funds to small businesses quickly and efficiently. The U.S.-
Mexico border region needs something similar to the Paycheck Protection Plan to address infrastructure
issues. In terms of Ms. Gonzales' point of water reuse being unknown in certain border areas, some of the
larger cities may have information to share with the smaller, rural communities (e.g., technology transfer).
Other areas outside of the United States also have a strong grasp of innovation in water reuse and could
serve as resources.

Dr. Ganster agreed that large cities with many resources and expertise, such as San Diego, have come
very far, but their successes took decades of research and work. His concern is that smaller communities
that do not have grant writers and project managers may be left behind. For example, small communities
cannot put a shovel-ready project together. How can these smaller communities compete for resources?
Many interesting challenges exist.

Mr. Micklin agreed, noting that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law often requires a significant match.
GNEB should recommend that agencies that have the authority to exercise a waiver to eliminate matching
funds do so. Many grants have conditions that require applicants to demonstrate long-term sustainability,
and communities that lack infrastructure and have the greatest need do not have the ability to generate
revenue to demonstrate sustainability; therefore, they cannot create competitive applications. These
communities face significant obstacles. He also recommended that the Board focus on natural resources.
Communities must engage in real, regular and meaningful participation in decision-making, particularly
federally recognized tribes and their government-to-government relationships. Restoration of the
indigenous environment is critical to sustainably support solutions; changes to the original environment
have caused an increased number of wildfires with significant negative effects, the ground to be fairly
impervious to storm water runoff, and extended drought to be a continuing problem. Managing water and
wastewater requires examining these natural systems.

Dr. Ganster commented that NADBank has learned over the years that funding infrastructure projects
without ensuring sustainable operations and maintenance is disastrous because many projects deteriorated
quickly, before their time. The issue is about not only obtaining support for projects but also building the
capacity to obtain funding to maintain infrastructure, as Ms. Roose spoke about. Smaller communities,
including tribal communities, are competing against one another for funding. Does a better approach exist
to allow communities to build capacity to facilitate development and maintenance of projects?

Ms. Gonzales remarked that she knows that if her city is competing against a larger city, her city will lose
the grant. It is not a lack of grant-writing talent; it is the lack of matching funds. One recommendation
could be to provide funding based on community size so that applicants are competing against equivalent
communities. Grant cycles often are unfair to smaller communities.

Ms. Roose commented that much of the discussion's focus has been on different types of barriers that
communities experience seeking and accessing funding and sustaining their capacity overtime. She

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

9


-------
recommended that in writing its report, the Board focus on analyzing the most common and persistent
barriers. GNEB may not be able to develop recommendations to address all barriers, but it can identify
strategies and recommendations for those that are most common, pressing and pervasive. She
recommended that the approach be to pair an analysis of current barriers with an analysis of the resources
available through this unprecedented amount of funding. The Board's recommendations should focus on
how border communities can find the resources that they need to address their water and wastewater
infrastructure issues.

Group 2

Mr. Jose (Joe) Hinojosa suggested conducting a cost-benefit analysis for wastewater, as in the Board's
2015 report, which is an effective public policy strategy that assigns an economic value to water
conservation and treats it as a source of additional supply.

Dr. Kimberly Collins commented that focusing on local governance would be interesting, including
infrastructure needs, administrative oversight issues and types of funding available to local governments.
Networked governance—such as public-private partnerships and community-based organization
collaboration with local and tribal governments—also could be examined. Dr. Collins noted that decisions
at high levels often are driven by politics, suggesting the need for more focus on and assistance to groups
at the local level, where public agencies are working to provide resources to their communities.

Mr. Riazul Mia commented that Laredo, Texas, will require significant funding for wastewater in the next
5 years, but the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is written in a way that makes the community ineligible
based on income level. Although Laredo provides wastewater services to outside areas, the infrastructure
is larger than necessary, resulting in water quality issues. The system cannot be flushed because drainage
is inadequate. Mr. Mia emphasized the need to assess the effects of new regulations on communities,
which often do not have funding to make mandated changes. Dr. Giner commented that such issues are
consistent in many locations and added that infrastructure implemented by the Economically Distressed
Areas Program is aging, but no low-cost funding is available to replace pieces of oversize systems.

Mr. Jose Palacios commented that the Lower Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Water Quality Initiative aims to
create a binational watershed protection plan for the lower Rio Grande. The framework was designed in
2013, and this goal is an objective of Border 2025. He noted the importance of regionalization of water
infrastructure, which the Texas Water Code promotes and is relevant for smaller communities that cannot
implement larger infrastructure. Operation and maintenance costs could be divided among smaller
communities. Binational wastewater treatment plants in sister cities also were noted by the TCEQ Office
of Water. Mr. Palacios also emphasized the importance of promoting human resources, noting the need
for more water and wastewater management professionals to be identified, trained and certified.
Universities need to promote wastewater management as a career. TCEQ also is assessing the relationship
between water conservation in agriculture and water supply for communities.

Mr. Mia suggested that the group avoid duplicating work by reviewing documents gathered by the Texas
Water Development Board identifying water needs for the state. He also commented on the significant
water loss that occurs in unlined irrigation canals.

Dr. Alan Sweedler pointed out that wastewater treatment uses significant amounts of energy, yet
renewable energy sources and energy conservation opportunities have not been explored at most facilities.

Mr. Cruz pointed out that overengineered systems result in untapped capacity that could be used for
regions that cannot fill their own needs. He planned to contact the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas,
whose land extends into Mexico, because the tribe might have insights on water usage and riparian rights

10

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary


-------
across the border. Mr. Cruz pointed out that ground water use is higher in Mexico, but economic drivers
also exist on the Mexico side of the border; for example, Ciudad Juarez is much larger than El Paso, but
El Paso has more water infrastructure. Mr. Cruz wondered what equivalent water systems and the
equivalent ability to draw from shared aquifers would look like.

Mr. Alejandro Barcenas pointed out that the agriculture sector uses most of the water, but defining more
consistent policies on crops farmed in this area is not always realistic. Current crops often are not species
designed for desert environments. He added that ground water regulations differ between the United
States and Mexico; Mexico's regulations are federal, but U.S. regulations vary by state. He wondered
how to administer regulations to manage binational aquifers and how to maintain improvements made,
especially in Mexico, when governments and priorities change often and investments made in water
infrastructure are not maintained. He suggested that a binational management entity for maintenance be
developed.

Dr. Coronado wondered about the budget of the Mexican Section of the IBWC (known in Mexico as
Comision International de Limites y Aguas or CILA).

Mr. Carlos Suarez cautioned against framing agricultural water use in a way that suggests farmers are
being told what to grow, which has been a challenge in some farm bills in the past. He added that some
work on watersheds, which do not have political lines, is needed and have occurred in the past. He
commented that as a diplomat in Mexico, his team worked with the Comision National del Agua (the
Mexico National Water Commission, commonly known in Mexico as CONAGUA) on water issues; he
recommended enhancing relationships with entities that can assess needs along the border and identify
how both countries can benefit.

Ms. Kathryn Becker pointed out that many farmers who work on the U.S. side near the border also work
in Mexico, but because of the infrastructure and regulatory environments on each side, they farm different
products. She added that because this statutorily is a U.S. report, the opportunity to discuss Mexico may
be limited. Ms. Becker pointed out that sourcing and infrastructure development overlap in some ways, so
both breakout groups may discuss how Executive Order 14008 must be satisfied. She emphasized the
need to show how infrastructure aids communities in responding to this executive order, particularly as
related to environmental justice.

Group 2 concluded its session by identifying roles and responsibilities of the group members, which are
detailed in the action items.

Report Outs

Dr. J. Phillip King reported out for Group 1, which discussed the need for local capacity development,
particularly for underserved and tribal communities and colonias. Communities need assistance with
building technical, financial and management capacities, particularly with a focus on increasing climate
change resiliency. Agencies also need to take better advantage of Indigenous knowledge systems to better
manage the landscape (e.g., capture more storm water, use waste streams to generate local energy).
Stormwater management is needed to prevent infrastructure damage and contamination. Group 1 noted
the difficulty of addressing issues on one side of the border without also addressing issues on the other
side of the border. GNEB should coordinate a strategy to help border communities obtain funding that is
available but scattered. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has provided a great deal of funding, but
smaller municipalities find it difficult to compete with larger municipalities, so building capacity for grant
writing, as well as for maintenance and management of funded projects, is critical. The group thought that
compiling a list of all funding opportunities would be helpful for border communities. Federal funding is
being channeled through states, and states need assistance with outreach and training to disseminate these
funds. Coordination among states and local government is critical to ensure that funding is getting to the

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

11


-------
communities that need it. The current funding process is unfair because larger entities that have resources
and matching funds receive the bulk of funding. The communities that need the resources most lack the
resources to obtain them. More funding agencies should relax or waive matching fund requirements.

States also need to provide outreach to tribes. Wildfires will significantly affect the future of water supply
and wastewater systems. GNEB needs to engage in a robust barriers analysis so that the Board can
identify and prioritize the barriers to better address them.

Dr. Collins provided the report out for Group 2, which discussed reconsidering and updating the cost-
benefit analysis from GNEB's 2015 report with a focus on water and wastewater and understanding the
overall border situation. The Board should consider local-level management, as well as current federal
legislation and how local governments can meet these federal requirements. Disadvantaged communities,
such as border communities, often struggle to meet the requirements of unfunded mandates. The Lower
Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Water Quality Initiative is working on a watershed protection plan. Also important
are examining how the regionalization of water infrastructure can benefit smaller border communities and
understanding how binational wastewater treatment facilities and watersheds fit into this regionalization.
GNEB should examine what human capital, resources and training are needed in the border region to
address water and wastewater infrastructure issues. Water conservation and its relationship to water
supplies are important, as is the need to better understand power and energy supply—including cost—and
wastewater treatment. The group discussed riparian rights and tribal issues and how to ensure that tribes
are engaged. Many issues arise from the Mexico side of the border, so it would be interesting to see how
improved infrastructure in Mexico would affect the U.S. side. The group also discussed conservation as
related to agriculture and ground water regulations, as well as network governance among local, state and
federal governments. Agriculture also has some overlap with infrastructure issues. Finally, the group
considered how executive orders related to environmental justice and climate change can be applied to
meet the infrastructure, maintenance and capacity needs of border communities.

Action Items and Next Steps

Dr. Ganster is impressed by the thoughtful comments of the Board members and participants. He will
review the meeting summary when it is available, develop a rough report outline from these comments,
and circulate the outline to the GNEB members for their comments.

The Board will need additional group discussions. Mr. Green indicated that GNEB members can meet in
groups of seven or eight to discuss the report; meeting in larger groups would invoke Federal Advisory
Committee Act rules. Dr. Coronado commented that everyone will be able to contribute to the small
groups. Once the outline is completed, small groups can be established. Members will work in these small
groups to discuss their topics, create plans for researching and drafting text, and then carry out these
plans.

Adjournment

Drs. Ganster and Coronado thanked the GNEB members for their thoughtful discussion and EPA staff
and contractors for their support.

Mr. Green thanked Drs. Ganster and Coronado for their leadership. He will send the PowerPoint
presentations and background information to the members. He also will circulate the action items and
summary to the Board members when they are ready.

Dr. Ganster adjourned the meeting at 6:01 p.m. EDT.

12

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary


-------
Action Items

>	Dr. Ganster will—

o Review the meeting summary when it is available,
o Develop a rough report outline from the information in the summary,
o Circulate the outline to the GNEB members for their comments.

>	Dr. Coronado will—

o Contact Mr. Hinojosa for more information on the agricultural sector,
o Participate in the small-group editing team.

>	Mr. Palacios and TCEQ staff will—

o Research transborder watershed protection and institutionalization of effort,
o Research operation and maintenance challenges in small communities,
o Research Amistad Dam remediation.

o Research regional and border-wide approaches to regional water management,
o Contact a colleague in the TCEQ Office of Water who can provide information on human
capital development.

>	Mr. Barcenas will—

o Research shared aquifers.

o Provide contact information for experts in ground water issues.

>	Mr. Mia will—

o Share a study on ground water.

o Contact a colleague on the Texas Water Development Board.

>	Mr. Cruz will contact the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas to gain insight about water usage
and riparian rights across the border.

>	Dr. Collins will review local-level management issues with Dr. Coronado's assistance.

>	Mr. Green will send the PowerPoint presentations and background information to the Board
members.

>	GNEB members will—

o Meet in groups of no more than eight members to continue their discussions,
o Provide comments on the report outline after Dr. Ganster distributes it.

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

13


-------
Appendix A: Meeting Participants

Chair

Paul Ganster, Ph.D.

Director

Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias
San Diego State University
San Diego, CA

Nonfederal. State. Local and Tribal Members

Alejandro R. Barcenas

Community Services/Public Works Director
City of Nogales
Nogales, AZ

Kimberly Collins, Ph.D.

Executive Director, Barbara and William

Leonard Transportation Center
Professor, Department of Public Relations
California State University, San Bernardino
San Bernardino, CA

Evaristo Cruz

Director of Community Development
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo
El Paso, TX

Melisa Gonzales

Special Projects Director
City of Alamo
Alamo, TX

Josiah Heyman, Ph.D.

Director

Center for Interamerican and Border Studies
The University of Texas at El Paso
El Paso, TX

Jose (Joe) Hinojosa

General Manager

Santa Cruz Irrigation District No. 15
Edinburg, TX

Mignonne Hollis

Executive Director

Arizona Regional Economic Development

Foundation
Sierra Vista, AZ

Vice Chair

Irasema Coronado, Ph.D.

Director and Professor
School of Transborder Studies
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ

James Phillip King, Ph.D., P.E.

Researcher and Graduate Advisor
Department of Civil Engineering
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM

Erik Lee

Interim Board President

North American Research Partnership

Sierra Vista, AZ

Joaquin Marruffo

Border Programs Coordinator

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Tucson, AZ

Riazul Mia, P.E., CFM

Assistant City Manager
City of Laredo
Laredo, TX

William Micklin

Chief Executive Officer
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians
Alpine, CA

Jonathan Niermann

Commissioner

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Austin, TX

Rebecca Roose, J.D.

Deputy Cabinet Secretary of Administration
Former Water Protection Division Director
New Mexico Environment Department
Santa Fe, NM

Alan Sweedler, Ph.D.

Community Advisor
Clean Energy Alliance
San Diego, CA

14

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary


-------
Prescott Vandervoet

Co-Owner and Operator
Vandervoet and Associates Inc.

Rico Rio, AZ

Federal Members

International Boundary and Water

Commission
Maria-Elena Giner, Ph.D.

Commissioner

International Boundary and Water Commission
El Paso, TX

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Carlos Suarez

State Conservationist (State Director)

Natural Resource Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Davis, CA

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Teresa R. Pohlman, Ph.D., LEED, AP

Executive Director

Sustainability and Environmental Programs
Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C.

Designated Federal Official

U.S. Department of Transportation
Colleen Vaughn

Senior Environmental Policy Analyst
Office of the Secretary
U.S. Department of Transportation
Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Rafael DeLeon, Esq.

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of International and Tribal Affairs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Eugene Green

Designated Federal Official

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

Federal Advisory Committee Management Division

Office of Resources and Business Operations

Office of Mission Support

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Office Participants

Region 6
Robert Houston

Staff Director

Communities, Tribes and Environmental

Assessment
Region 6

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dallas, TX

Carlos Rincon, Ph.D.

Director

U.S.-Mexico Border Office
Region 6

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
El Paso, TX

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

15


-------
Region 9
Lily Lee

Manager

Water Infrastructure Office
Region 9

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
San Francisco, CA

Other U.S. Environmental Agency Participants
David Ack

Federal Advisory Committee Management
Division

Office of Resources and Business Operations
Office of Mission Support
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Lisa Almodovar

Deputy Director

Office of Regional and Bilateral Affairs
Office of International and Tribal Affairs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Oscar Carrillo

Federal Advisory Committee Management
Division

Office of Resources and Business Operations
Office of Mission Support
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Marta Jordan

U.S.-Mexico Program Manager
Office of International and Tribal Affairs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Monica Lewis

Federal Advisory Committee Management
Division

Office of Resources and Business Operations
Office of Mission Support
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Emily Pimental

Border Specialist and Regional Coordinator
U.S.-Mexico Border Program
Region 9

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
San Francisco, CA

Stephanie McCoy

Federal Advisory Committee Management
Division

Office of Resources and Business Operations
Office of Mission Support
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Gina Moore

Federal Advisory Committee Management
Division

Office of Resources and Business Operations
Office of Mission Support
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Richard Peprah

Federal Advisory Committee Management
Division

Office of Resources and Business Operations
Office of Mission Support
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Brian Piccolo

Office of Information Technology Operations
Office of Mission Support
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Nolan Pinkney

Federal Advisory Committee Management
Division

Office of Resources and Business Operations
Office of Mission Support
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

16

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary


-------
Toni Rousey

Federal Advisory Committee Management
Division

Office of Resources and Business Operations
Office of Mission Support
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Other Federal. State. Tribal and Local Parti
Kathryn Becker, J.D.

Assistant General Counsel and Tribal Liaison
Office of General Counsel
New Mexico Environment Department
Santa Fe, NM

Jay Collert

Director of Environmental Compliance
Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C.

Claudia Gil

Environmental Science Specialist

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Nogales, AZ

Kristen Goodrich, Ph.D.

Coastal Training Coordinator

Tijuana River National Estuarine Research

Reserve
Imperial Beach, CA

Christoffer Jonsmyr (for Vivian Moreno)

Communications and Outreach Director
City of San Diego
San Diego, CA

Christy Kehoe

Mid-Atlantic Regional Marine Debris

Coordinator
Marine Debris Program
Office of Response and Restoration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration
Washington, D.C.

Christine Taylor

Federal Advisory Committee Management
Division

Office of Resources and Business Operations
Office of Mission Support
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Salvador Lopez

Chief Environmental Officer
North American Development Bank
San Antonio, TX

Lucas Lucero

Southwest Border Coordinator
Arizona State Office
Interior Region 8
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior
Phoenix, AZ

Steven Magallanes

Forest Border Liaison
Coronado National Forest
U.S. Forest Service
Tucson, AZ

Eddie Moderow

Border Affairs Manager

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Austin, TX

Laura Norman, Ph.D.

Supervisory Research Physical Scientist
Western Geographic Science Center
U.S. Geological Survey
Tucson, AZ

Jose Luis Palacios

Border Affairs Intern

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Austin, TX

Jill Sherman-Warne

Executive Director

Native American Environmental Protection

Coalition
Murrieta, CA

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

17


-------
Contractor Support

Kristen LeBaron

Senior Science Writer/Editor

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.

Gaithersburg, MD

Sally Paustian

Writer/Editor

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.
Gaithersburg, MD

18

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary


-------
Appendix B: Video/Teleconference Agenda

II) C3 N

Environmental Advisors Across Borders

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)
Virtual Meeting: Microsoft Teams
May 5, 2022, 2:00 p.m-6:00 p.m. EDT

AGENDA

2:00-2:10 p.m. Welcome and Member Role Call

•	Eugene Green, GNEB Designated Federal Officer

•	Dr. Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB

•	Dr. Irasema Coronado, Vice Chair, GNEB

2:10-2:20 p.m. GNEB Annual Report Topic (Water and Wastewater Infrastructure in the Border
Region) and Goals for Today's Meeting

•	Dr. Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB
2:20-2:30 p.m. Public Comments

2:30-4:30 p.m. Expert Presentations

2:30-3:00 p.m. Water and Wastewater Infrastructure

•	Salvador Lopez, Chief Environmental Officer, North American Development
Bank (NADBank)

3:00-3:20 p.m. Border Water and Wastewater Infrastructure

•	Dr. Maria-Elena Giner, Commissioner, International Boundary and Water
Commission (IBWC)

3:20-3:40 p.m. Environmental Justice, Border Water and Wastewater Infrastructure for Colonias

•	Dr. Carlos Rincon, Director, U.S.-Mexico Border Office, Region 6, EPA

3:40-3:50 p.m. Break

3:50-4:30 p.m. Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Challenges for Border Tribes

•	Evaristo Cruz, Director of Community Development, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo

•	Jill Sherman-Warne, Executive Director, Native American Environmental
Protection Coalition (NAEPC)

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

19


-------
' 1 itinued)

4:30-5:00 p.m.	Member Q&A Session

5:00-5:40 p.m.	Breakout Session: Board Member Discussions and Report Outs

5:40-6:00 p.m.	Action Items and Next Steps

6:00 p.m.	Adjournment

20

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary


-------
Appendix C: Chair Certification of Minutes

I, Paul Ganster, Chair of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB), certify that this is the final
version of the complete minutes for the video/teleconference held on May 5, 2022, and that the minutes
accurately reflect the discussions and decisions of the meeting.

/U/M:	June 8, 2022

Paul Ganster, GNEB Chair	Date

May 5, 2022 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

21


-------