ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE

GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD

A Presidential and Congressional Advisory Committee
on U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental and
Infrastructure Issues

April 1997

i

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board
was created by the Enterprise for the
Americas Initiative Act of 1992 (7 U.S.
Code Section 5404) to advise the
President and the Congress concerning
environmental and infrastructure issues
and needs within the States contiguous
to Mexico. The statute requires the
Board to submit an annual report to the
President and the Congress. This is
the Board's second annual report.

The Act requires that Board membership
include representatives from
appropriate U.S. Government agencies;
from the governments of Arizona,
California, New Mexico and Texas; and
from private organizations, including
community development, academic,
health, environmental, and other
nongovernmental entities with expertise
on environmental and infrastructure
problems along the southwest border.
The Board has met six times and will
meet in September 1997 with its Mexican
counterpart, Region 1 of the Mexican
National Advisory Council for
Sustainable Development.

The U.S.-Mexico border region faces a
number of distinctive environmental,
demographic and economic challenges.
There has been a dramatic surge in
population and industrialization over
the past 30 years. Over the past 5
years the population has grown about 25
percent, and is projected to double
over the next 20 years. Over 400,000

U.S. residents live in colonias, 21
counties have been designated as
economically distressed, and three of
the ten poorest U.S. counties are
located in the border region. There are
approximately 2,000 maquiladora
companies in the region, employing more
than 600,000 workers, with the highest
concentrations in Tijuana and Juarez.

This growth presents very significant
environmental, health, natural
resources, transportation and housing
problems. Solving these problems
requires a comprehensive sustainable
development strategy. The Board's
second annual report presents
additional recommendations for
addressing the urgent challenges of the
U.S.-Mexico border region.

Border XXI Development and
Implementation

The Board endorses the recently issued
Border XXI Framework and implementation
plan as the latest steps in the
continuing strengthening of U.S.-
Mexico border cooperation. Border XXI
establishes important goals and
objectives for the region and for both
governments, employs a regional as well
as binational approach to issues,
demonstrates improving interagency
coordination and public participation,
and establishes three new areas of
binational working group emphasis.

2

-------
The binational work groups need to be
accountable to established objectives
and to priority concerns identified by
the publics. Implementation and future
work plan development must assure
substantial, continuous input from
publics on both sides of the border.
We believe it is also essential to
Given that Border XXI's principal goal
is to promote sustainable development
of the border region, it needs to
address effectively the significant
impacts of industrial growth on the
border environment and to identify
mechanisms for greater involvement by
all stakeholders in setting priorities
and defining approaches. We commend
EPA's commitment to incorporate tribes
into the implementation and further
development of Border XXI, and urge all
U.S. agencies to accelerate efforts to
include Native American representatives
in planning and implementation of
programs. The Border XXI process
should also more actively involve
academia in establishing research
priori t ies.

Border XXI should be the umbrella
process for defining an overall
sustainable development strategy for
the region, linking binational efforts
and coordinating public and private
border programs and resources. The
Board recommends that Border XXI also
address transportation, water
resources, commerce and economic
development, and natural resources and
land use management.

Management of Federal Programs

measure the extent to which annual work
programs support Border XXI objectives
and goals, and the extent to which
overall efforts are leading to
sustainable development of the border
region.

In order to better understand the
scope, purposes and levels of funding
of federal agency programs in the
border region, the Board obtained
available information from several
agencies concerning border region
projects initiated between 1992 and
1995. Subsequently, the Board
analyzed each project using
environmental sustainability criteria
including geographic scope, extent of
community involvement, remediation and
prevent ion objectives, capacity
building, inter-governmental and
private sector involvement, and
information management and access.

While some departments were able to
provide only partial data, the Board
believes that the data and its analysis
provide an extremely valuable picture
of federal effort in the region, a tool
for federal agencies to coordinate
efforts in the region, and a sound
basis to support preliminary
recommendations. The Board will
continue to review and report on
specific and overall federal effort in
the region.

The information provided by the
agencies documents more than 400
projects. Projects address air and

3

-------
water quality management, compliance,
emergency response, solid and hazardous
waste management, pollution prevention,
natural resources management,
environmental health, information
management, transportation, urban
development and other infrastructure.
The projects focus primarily on
technical studies; governmental and
community training and assistance;
information collection, data
management, and information sharing.

The data reflect a significant
commitment to assisting Mexico develop
governmental staff and institutional
capacity; assisting communities on
both sides of the border to improve
human health and their environment;
meeting water infrastructure needs;
and assisting border industry to
develop and implement remediation and
prevention programs.

With respect to the substantial amount
of border data collection and
information system development, the
Board is concerned with the potential
for duplication of effort and the high
probability that lack of coordination
may preclude sharing of information
among data bases and broad-based
analysis by the agencies.

Closer collaboration is especially
needed among the departments in
addressing colonia infrastructure and
natural resources management needs. We
support continued movement toward
implementing ecosystem wide management
strategies and programs in an
integrated approach.

The Board commends the significant
binational emphasis of many projects,
but believes even greater effort is
needed to assure truly binational
approaches to the issues.

Efforts were apparent in all agencies'
programs to provide access to
information and training to increase
communities' capacity to participate in
and influence how federal programs
address needs in the region. However,
there is limited evidence of
participation by the private sector or
nongovernmental organizations in most
proj ects.

Given the very high risks associated
with hazardous materials, the Board
urges expanded efforts to address solid
and hazardous waste management and
emergency response issues.

We also recommend substantially
accelerated efforts to address tribal
issues by all agencies, especially the
Indian Health Service and Bureau of
Indian Affairs that are charged
specifically with these
responsibi1i t ies.

In addition, the Board recommends
greater coordination of U.S. and
Mexican government border programs with
those of the NAFTA North American
Commission for Environmental
Cooperation (CEC).

We recommend that the Border XXI
Framework and binational work groups

4

-------
establish requirements and processes
for formal strategic, project, and
budget coordination among agencies and
with the public in annual project
priority setting and scoping projects.

Better coordination is needed between
economic development policies and
programs and environmental, natural
resources, health, housing and other
human service programs. Sustainable
development-oriented policies are
critical, especially with accelerating
economic development on both sides of
border and continuing expansion of
maquiladora companies.

Leveraging of Federal Resources

We urge the governments to look for
ways to leverage federal authorities
and resources more effectively. Given
that federal resources are likely to
continue to be inadequate in relation
to the magnitude of border problems,
we recommend that the U.S. Government
encourage development of innovative
funding and program management
agreements involving multiple federal,
state and local agencies.

Effective implementation of border
region programs requires a more
comprehensive multi year estimate of
needs, a long term funding commitment,
and better leveraging of existing
• funding for the Department of

the Interior to address priority
border-specific natural resource
protection needs; much of the
Department's border states

federal and private resources.

An interagency process is needed that
provides more authority to agencies to
coordinate and integrate their border
program activities, to budget jointly
for cooperative projects, to leverage
appropriations, to develop interagency
funding agreements, to provide multi-
agency grants, and to permit
utilization of federal funds in both
countries to make projects truly
binational and sustainable.

To help the agencies and the Board
determine needed changes in direction,
we urge an assessment of each
individual agency's authorities for
providing services to local communities
on the border. Different agencies have
different authorities, especially
related to the border region, that
should be clarified and coordinated.

Need for New Authorities and Additional
Funding

We urge the President and the Congress
to endorse:

•	binational funding authority for
the Department of Health and
Human Services to permit them to
address critical transboundary
health problems;

budget goes to routine
management of lands;

•	increased emphasis on emergency
response and hazardous materials
management;

5

-------
•	increased emphasis on industrial
and community pollution
prevention efforts;

•	obtaining better binational
census and economic development
informat ion.

•	special tax-exempt
infrastructure financing for the
four U.S. border states;

•	focusing resources from both of
the EPA water infrastructure
revolving funds; and

•	negotiating with the government
of Mexico to create a public and
private sector fund to support
binational demonstration

proj ects.

We endorse congressional proposals for
biennial budgeting and commend the
seven year funding commitment
established by the three countries for
implementation of the NAFTA
environmental side agreement.

Development of Institutional Approaches

Because the U.S. and Mexico share many
of the border's ecosystems, watersheds
and air sheds, binational and regional
programs need to be expanded. We
recommend that the U.S. and Mexican
governments work more closely to
implement additional joint
transboundary programs involving all
levels of governments. We also
encourage technical and financial
assistance to build on and help
transfer successful local-level cross-
border initiatives.

We note that the federal government,
states and some private foundations
have supported pollution prevention
training, technical assistance and
auditing programs primarily for
maquiladora companies. We encourage
development of additional public-
private programs that provide economic
incentives for reduction, recycling and
pollution prevention on both sides of
the border. We also encourage
appropriate recognition to companies
and programs that are demonstrating
voluntary commitment to pollution
control, prevention, recycling and
reuse.

Implementation of the binational air
quality management basin (AQMB)
agreement for the El Paso-Juarez
airshed is a very important enhancement
to the informal sister city and state-
to-state arrangements that have
developed over the years. We recommend
that implementation of the AQMB be
evaluated by the governments and the
communities to determine if this model
may be useful to address other air
quality issues as well as other
transboundary problems, e.g., water,
hazardous waste, health.

The Board commends the Department of
Commerce binational sustainable
development program for the Rio Grande
that simultaneously addressed economic
development and environmental planning
and encourages similar border area
programs by agencies.

More work is needed to answer critical

6

-------
questions about the location, amount,
quality and movement of groundwater.
We encourage development of new
binational water quantity and ground
water management institutional
arrangements at key border locations,

We recommend that federal agencies on
both sides of the border improve the
efficiency and reliability of
notification and monitoring processes
for hazardous materials transported
across the border and for dealing with
environmental emergencies. We recommend
that the governments begin addressing
immediately the implications and
requirements for hazardous waste
disposal in the region that will result
from termination of the maquiladora
program in the year 2000.

We commend the accelerated binational
efforts to address border health
problems, and the proposed 1997 program
enhancements addressing dissemination
of environmental health information;
childhood exposures to pesticides;
neural tube defects; lead surveillance
and intervention; and training.

The Board's first annual report cited a
number of concerns regarding
interrelated regional transportation
and environment issues. We commend the
U.S. Federal Highway Administration for
its work with other U.S. agencies and
with counterparts in Mexico to
coordinate commercial motor carrier
safety standards, road signs and
signals, truck weights and dimensions,
compliance and enforcement activities,

expanded efforts to collect compatible
data, implementation of border wide,
binational water conservation programs;
and negotiated resolution of domestic
and binational allocation issues.

processing of commercial vehicles at
border crossings; and joint
transportation planning. We also note
a number of highway improvement and
border crossing projects being
developed with both public and private
funds.

In addition to governmental and
industry funding needs, the Board
encourages changes in U.S. tax law to
encourage private support to these
public purposes, the creation of
additional binational foundations, and
technical assistance to Mexico to
develop a private foundation network.

Infrastructure Development

For the past several years, both sides
of the border have experienced
significant developmental pressures due
to industrialization, migration and
population growth. Environmental,
health, housing, transportation and
other infrastructure have not kept pace
with this development. We believe that
the interconnection of environment,
health, housing, and transportation
infrastructure-related problems makes
it imperative that infrastructure
issues be addressed more
comprehensively.

7

-------
The Board encourages compilation of a
comprehensive inventory of
infrastructure needs, developed on a
binational basis, to assure
coordination of transboundary needs and
projects and projecting maximum
leveraging of investments on both sides
of the border. We also urge
comprehensive prioritization of
infrastructure needs to support a more
rational allocation of limited
resources; to identify localities most
stressed by economic, environmental,
and public health issues; and to
communicate priorities to communities
competing for funding.

BECC/NADBank

The Border Environment Cooperation
Commission (BECC), and the North
American Development Bank (NADBank)
have the potential to help
significantly improve the border
The NADBank has made very few loans
during its first two years of
existence. A major cause are
provisions in the NADBank charter
requiring it to charge an above-market
rate of interest. This requirement
precludes the neediest communities on
both sides of the border from accessing
NADBank funds. We strongly urge the
governments to re-negotiate the
NADBank's charter to authorize
reduction of its interest rate.

We urge the NADBank to improve its
communication with border communities,
and to work with the BECC to implement
a coordinated outreach effort.

envi ronment.

We commend the BECC for incorporating
enhanced sustainable development
criteria for review of border
environmental projects, and urge
application of the same types of
criteria by other public and private
funding entities. We also commend
the BECC for initiating a program to
assist smaller communities in
developing project proposals. We urge
that technical assistance also be
provided to border communities to help
them develop their institutional
capacity to manage facilities; we
understand that a program to do this is
being considered by NADBank. We urge
the BECC to continue to streamline its
application process to encourage more
rapid certification of projects to
NADBank and other funding sources.

BECC and NADBank need to encourage
greater use of alternative and
innovative technologies. The BECC
should also emphasize low water-use
treatment processes, especially in
areas where there are water shortages.

Colonias and Rural Areas

The rate of continuing urbanization in
colonias and rural areas, and the
absence of proper urban planning and
local zoning controls , is threatening
the ability of the governments to
provide essential infrastructure.
Although more than $500 million has

8

-------
been allocated since 1991, costs for
basic water service to colonias in
Texas and New Mexico are still
estimated at more than $500 million,
and there are comparable settlements in
Arizona and California. These
estimates do not address critical air,
hazardous and solid waste,
transportation, or housing
infrastructure needs.

We recommend that federal, state and
local agencies providing infrastructure
funding recognize colonias and similar
substandard developments in all four
border states, and coordinate their
individual funding programs for maximum
environmental benefit. We recommend
that federal grant and low cost loan
assistance be continued at existing
levels for infra-structure, health
facilities and training in U.S.
colonias for at least the next ten
years. We also continue to recommend
that border state wastewater revolving
funds allocate a major portion of SRF
funds to border infrastructure needs.

The Board believes there is a
tremendous need, and potential, for
greater public-private funding and for
privatization of hazardous waste
handling, solid waste management, and
water quality infrastructure projects.
In addition, private entities that have
The Board notes that the shortage of
adequate housing underlies many of the
border's environmental and public
health problems. Establishment and
enforcement of zoning practices, and
creative financing through public-

contributed to the environmental and
public health problems and that have
benefited from NAFTA implementation
should bear more of the cost.

The Board notes that there has been
considerable U.S. government investment
in development of related economic
infrastructure, including international
trade routes, bridges and highways. We
urge that the governments assure that
investments in environmental and
economic infrastructure be managed to
help assure balanced and sustainable
economic development.

We encourage the U.S. to work with
Mexico to promote legislation to
authorize municipal bonding authority
for Mexican communities. We also urge
the U.S. government to consider
providing tax-free status for public
bonds issued in the U.S. for cross
border projects and other incentives to
encourage public-private and
privatization efforts.

The Board continues to recommend the
development of eco-industrial parks
along the border, sited at appropriate
locations, to reduce pollution and
costs and to support clean economic
development.

private cooperation, are needed on both
sides of the border to ease this
crisis. .

Meeting Information Needs

9

-------
There is a lack of needed information
and awareness by residents on both
sides of the border, as well as the
governments, concerning border area
problems and options for addressing
these problems. Access to information
is a critical prerequisite to effective
community participation in setting
priorities, selecting the most feasible
and comprehensive approaches to
environmental, natural resource, public
health and related problems; and
locating financial and technical
assistance.

We encourage more outreach coordination
among federal agencies, state agencies,
local governments, Indian Nat ions, and
community groups on both sides of the
border. We recommend that data be made
accessible to the public by state and
federal government agencies through
Internet and other wide-net systems
along the border and commend several
federal agencies for establishing
Internet Web sites.

A recent report anticipates that in 20
years one-third of the Texas population
will not finish high school. The Board
recommends more emphasis on education
for border communities and meeting the
tremendous need for resources for local
schools.

Both countries need to obtain accurate
data on population growth trends,
especially given the flux of people in
and through the border zone. More
adequate information is also needed
linking population trends and available
resources, including identifying the
"carrying capacity" of the border
region. The lack of information

concerning long-term population trends
limits the effectiveness of Border XXI
in planning for needed infrastructure
and programs.

Considerable research is being
conducted by U.S. and Mexican colleges
and universities in the border region.
Academia and funding sources must
assure that the research is relevant
and the results accessible to the
communities, other academics, and the
governments.

Coordination with the Mexican Advisory
Council for Sustainable Development

The Board and its Mexican counterpart,
Region 1 of the Mexican National
Advisory Council for Sustainable
Development, have established ongoing
communication. The two advisory
committees have agreed to meet together
in September 1997 and annually to
coordinate activities.

Public Input

At each meeting, the agenda includes
time for members of the public to brief
the Board on concerns as well as on
local and regional initiatives to
address key problems. We commend the
number of initiatives that demonstrate
the commitment of border residents to
work together to improve the
environment and to promote sustainable
development of the U.S.-Mexico border
region.

10

-------
INTRODUCTION

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board
was created by the Enterprise for the
Americas Initiative Act of 1992 (7 U.S.
Code Section 5404) to advise the
President and the Congress concerning
environmental and infrastructure issues
and needs within the States contiguous
to Mexico. The statute requires the
Board to submit an annual report to the
President and the Congress. The
Board's first annual report was
submitted in October 1995. This is the
Board's second annual report.

The Act requires that Board membership
include representatives from
appropriate U.S. Government agencies;
from the governments of Arizona,
California, New Mexico and Texas; and
from private organizations, including
community development, academic,
health, environmental, and other
nongovernmental entities with expertise
on environmental and infrastructure
problems along the southwest border. A
list of members is provided in Appendix
A.

Diego, California; and February, 1997
at El Paso, Texas. In September 1997,
the Board and its Mexican counterpart,
Region 1 of the Mexican National
Advisory Council for Sustainable
Development, will initiate annual joint
meetings of the two advisory
commi t tees.

ROLES OF THE GOOD NEIGHBOR
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD

The Board envisions its roles as:

• Advising the U.S. Federal Government

A Presidential Executive Order
delegates implementation authority to
the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The Board
operates under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act and meets at least twice
annually at locations along the U.S.-
Mexico border. The Board has met six
times: September, 1994 at McAllen,
Texas; January, 1995 at San Diego,
California; June, 1995 at Tucson,
Arizona; April, 1996 at Las Cruces,
New Mexico; September, 1996 at San

11

-------
Promoting sustainable development

-------
a
c
h
e
s
t

0

e
n
v

1
r

0
n
m
e
n
t
a

1

v

i
n
f
r

a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

Promoting improved coordination of
P
u
b
1
i
c
h

-------
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
a
n
d
r
e
s

0

u
r
c
e
s

1
n
t
h

• Encoeraging the development, use and
b

0
r
d
e
r
r
e

g

1

0
n

• Advocating for and representing U.S.

r

e
s

1
d

14

-------
0

n
m
e
n
t
a

1
t
e
c
h
n

0

1

0
g

1
e
s
a
n
d
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
n

g
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
s
a
P

15

-------
THE GfATLFNGHS

• Essentially all of the major border

As a region, the U.S.-Mexico border
area faces a number of distinctive
environmental, demographic and economic
challenges:

• The 2,000 mile U.S. - Mexico border
line that bisects ecosystems. Air, water, fauna
not recognizing these political boundaries.

, water consumption, and air and water pollution are
d ecosystems. Rural areas have not escaped these

• The region is currently home to 10.5
ion live in the US and 4.3 million in Mexico. 90
rban areas; more than half of the people live in the
Juarez metropolitan areas. Over the past five years
25 percent, and is projected to double over the

• More than 20 percent of U.S.
low the poverty line, almost double the U.S.
sidents live in colonias. 21 counties have been
tressed; 3 of the 10 poorest U.S. counties are

•	There are approximately 2,000
egion, employing more than 600,000 workers, with the
ana and Juarez;

•	All U.S. sister cities meet basic
this is not true for the more than 400,000 people

Mexico, existing water treatment capacity meets

There is considerable reliance on groundwater,
ing tremendous development and agricultural use
rtages are expected within the next five years in

16

-------
a

j

0
r
a

1
r

q

u
a
1
i

t

y

r

e

q

u
i
r

e
m
e
n

t
s

V

e
s

P
e
c
i
a
1

Hazardous waste problems include

y

s
m
a
1
1

P

a

-------
r

a
n
s
b

0
u
n
d
a
r

y

s
h

1

P
m
e
n
t
o
f
h
a
z
a
r
d

0
u
s
w
a
s
t
e
s

V

1

m

P
r
o
P

18

-------
i

m
P
r
o
P
e
r
m
a
n
a

g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f

0

p
e
n
s

1
t
e
s

• With respect to health problems,

P
e

0
P

1
e
i
n
t
h
e
b

19

-------
r
d

0
u

s
w
a
s
t
e
s

V

r

a
w
s
e
w
a

g
e

v

P
e
s
t

1
c
i
d
e
s

V

e
t
c

T
h
e
r
e
i
s

20

-------
1

e
v
a
t
e
d
b
1
o

0
d

1
e
a
d
1
e
v
e
1
s
i
n
c
h
i
1
d
r
e
n

v

m
u
1
t
i

P
1

21

-------
There are approximately 85
n
t
e
s
t
i
n
a
1
d
i
s
e
a
s
e
s

V

a
n
d

P
e
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s
P

0

1

s

0

n

1
n

-------
a

•>

b
o
r
d
e
r
e
c
o
s

y

s

Given tthese problems, the Board

continiffis to encourage both governments

to: m

s

• Recognize that effectively
u
P
P
o
r
t
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n

4

5
0
r
a
r
e
o
r
e
n

23

-------
n

t
a
1
i

s
s
u
e
s
r
e

q

u
i
r

e
s
s
i

m
u
1
t
a
n
e
o
u
s
e
f
f

0
r
t
s
r
e

g
a
r
d

1

24

-------
t
i
o
n
a
n
d

0
t
h
e
r

1
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
n
e
e
d
s

• Establish a long-term,

c
o
m

P
r
e
h
e
n
s

25

-------
Address border problems in a

t

0
s
u
s
t
a

1
n
a
h
e
a
1
t
h
y

e
n
v

1
n
a
t
i
o
n

Coordinate and optimize government
resources at all levels;

Encourage public-private
partnerships and privatization to
address infrastructure needs;

Promote pollution prevention in
concert with industry, community
stakeholders, and enforcement
personnel;

and unincorporated rural areas of
the border region to develop their
human, community, and infrastructure
resources;

• Ensure that planning, implementation
and evaluation address the needs of
Native Americans and other
populations that might be
disproportionately affected by
environmental contamination;

Help colonias, smaller communities

Increase the accessibility of

26

-------
relevant data and information to
border citizens and among
governments.

BORDER XXI DEVELOPMENT AND

IMPLEMENTATION

The issuance in January, 1997 of the
Border XXI Framework and annual
implementation plan represents the
latest steps in the continuing
strengthening of U.S.- Mexico
cooperation regarding the nearly 2,000
mile shared border.

The Border XXI Framework is much more
comprehensive than the predecessor
Integrated Border Environmental Plan
issued in 1992. It establishes
important goals for the region and for
the governments themselves; it
establishes five year implementation
objectives for each of the nine focus
areas, and an annual work planning
process; it employs a regional as well
as binational approach to issues; it
demonstrates substantially improved
interagency and federal-state
coordination and public participation;
and it establishes three new areas of
emphasis-- natural resources,
environmental health, and information
management--for a total of nine. The
Board commends the governments for the
improvements in the development of
Border XXI.

We applaud the establishment of five
regional sub-components of Border XXI
to help highlight issues and needs that
are specific to areas of the border
region. While the Border XXI document
will continue to require further
development of the regional sections,
these sub-parts provide a mechanism to
help set concrete priorities within
each region and to enhance community

27

-------
and local government participation in
addressing specific regional issues.
The establishment of these regions will
make it even more critical that the
nine subject area work groups
coordinate with each other concerning
specific regional issues and
Because the nine binational work groups
are central to ongoing development and
implementation of the plan, they need
to be accountable to overall Framework
goals and objectives, to issue area and
regional objectives, and to priority
concerns identified by the public and
state and local governments. Border
XXI's binational goals and objectives
must guide the work groups' priorities
and budgets--not vice versa--wA the
annual work plans must incorporate
public priorities more effectively.

The Board recommends that the U.S. and
Mexican national coordinators charge
the nine binational working groups, and
possible regional sub-groups, with
assuring clear connections between
Border XXI goals, multi year objectives
and annual work plan priorities, and
with an evaluation role to monitor
implementation. They also need to
assure that interested groups have real
input into planning and implementation
processes. We specifically recommend
that the new Information Working Group
first identify what information already
exists, systematize its availability,
and define ways to deliver information
more effectively to border communities.

We recommend that 1) the U.S. and
Mexican national coordinators establish
regional sub work groups that mirror
the Border XXI organization; 2)
officials designated by state and local

priori t ies.

Operation of Binational Work Groups

gove rnmen t s, nongove rnmen t a1
organizations, tribes, and industry
participate as members of each
geographic working group in the near
term, and as members of the border
wide work groups in the longer term; at
least 25 percent of the geographic work
group members should be private
citizens; 3) establish clear
mechanisms for consideration of
regional work group priorities by the
full working groups; and 4) governments
publicize the names and affiliations of
work group members and project
management officials to improve their
accessibility and accountability to
state and community officials.

Linking Goals, Objectives, Action
Plans. Reporting and Evaluation:

We believe it is essential to measure
the extent to which annual work
programs support Border XXI objectives
and goals, and the extent to which
overall efforts are leading to
sustainable development of the border
region. Relevant performance and
environmental measures need to be
agreed binationally against which
progress can be assessed and work
program adjustments made based on
actual accomplishments year to year.
The Board understands that the U.S.-
Mexico border program is one of the
U.S. government's pilot programs under
the new Government Performance Review

28

-------
and Accountability Act (GPRA); we will
be happy to comment on proposed
environmental sustainability
benchmarks. We also note that a joint
conference was held by EPA and the
Mexican statistical agency (INEGI) to
develop measures of progress for the
border region.

Board Participation in Border XXI
Implementation

In addition to its statutory
responsibilities for advising the
President and the Congress, the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board has been
designated as the lead U.S. government
The Board wants to play a larger
communication role to help incorporate
public concerns into specific
initiatives related to ongoing Border
XXI development. The Board requests
that a committee member be identified
to serve as a public liaison on each of
the nine work groups.

Public Participation and Reporting

The Board strongly believes that Border
XXI implementation and annual work plan
development must assure substantial,
continuous, and informed input from
communities on both sides of the border
and from all segments of the public.
Better coordination, communication and
planning among state and local
governments, communities, Native
Americans, and the private sector on
both sides of the border could have
created important opportunities to
leverage programs and funds, avoid
redundant programs, and assure
binationally consistent methods and
procedures.

advisory body on development and
implementation of the Border XXI
program. In this capacity, the Board
has key roles to advise on formulation
of plan structure and priorities, and
to recommend measures for monitoring
its implementation, including
evaluating the extent and quality of
public participation. Members of the
Board expect to attend the annual
National Coordinators meeting, to be
briefed by the chairs of each work
group on the status of implementation
and on development of the upcoming
year's work plan, and to comment.

Despite an improved public outreach
process, the Board emphasizes the need
for the federal governments and the
work group chairs to assure that state
and local government and community
priorities are seriously considered in
development of annual implementation
plans. The Board believes that very
few changes were made to the proposed
1996 implementation plan as a result of
the public comment process. We are
concerned that the 1997 Border XXI
implementation plans are essentially
final at the time of this report, but
there has been no opportunity for the
Board or the public to participate in
their development. The public must be
consulted concerning work plan
priorities. We recommend that each of
the nine working groups open their
draft annual plans for public comment,
including use of both electronic means
and mailing lists.

We feel strongly that "opportunity to
comment" is not "public

29

-------
participation," and emphasize that the
process of public input is not simply
seeking public comment, but rather an
ongoing give-and-take that educates and
gives the public ownership of problems
and solutions. While we recognize the
need for specific public comment
deadlines related to annual budget
cycles, the Board believes Border XXI
must be "a living document" and
endorses an ongoing public comment
process to encourage the public to
voice opinions at any time regarding
implementation of the Border XXI plan.

In addition to the formal biennial
summary report on Border XXI
implementation, the governments should
make available to the working groups
and the public an annual compilation of
public comments received. We also
recommend that, every four years,
federal agencies, the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board and our Mexican
counterpart, sponsor a binational
border-wide conference to review the
status of achievement of the objectives
Native American Nations Involvement:
There are some 25 Indian Nations that
have lands and peoples adjoining the
border, and they must be part of the
planning process. We urge the U.S. to
follow through with verbal commitments
to accelerate efforts to include Native
American representatives in
environmental and health planning
activities and implementation of
programs. We commend EPA's commitment
to lead development of a strategy for
incorporating tribes into
implementation and further development
of Border XXI, and for committing to
tribes, whose environmental needs are
very large, 10 percent of the

outlined in the Framework. The

conference should be binational and
both public advisory committees should
have an active role with community
groups to review the goals and
objectives of the work.

Business and Industry Involvement:

Given that Border XXI's principal goal
is to address economic development and
environmental issues in a holistic
approach, Border XXI needs to address
more effectively the significant
impacts of industrial growth on the
border environment and to identify
mechanisms for greater participation by
industry. Unfortunately, industrial
interests on both sides of the border
have played a very minor role in
formulation of border objectives and
programs. We recommend that selected
business and industry representatives,
from regional chambers of commerce, the
Border Trade Alliance and maquiladoras
be asked to participate in regional
work groups.

$100,000,000 it received in 1996 for
construction of border environmental
infrastructure.

Coverage of Additional Priority Issues:

The Board recommends that Border XXI
continue to expand coverage and
integration of issue areas. Border
XXI should be the umbrella process for
defining an overall sustainable
development strategy for the region,
linking binational efforts, and
coordinating public and private border
programs and resources.

Transportation: Reiterating last

30

-------
year's report, the Board believes that
Border XXI needs to address
transportation issues. We also endorse
the need for a comprehensive, cross-
border transportation planning process,
as envisioned by the U.S.-Mexico Joint
Working Committee for Binational
Transportation Planning, in
coordination with local, state and
regional efforts.

Water Resources: While Border XXI
addresses water quality issues in great
depth, it does not explicitly address
water quantity issues. We recognize
that groundwater management is a very
difficult issue because of legal
complexities and information
limitations, but groundwater is one of
the most critical issues facing the
water-short, agricultural, and rapidly
industrializing sections of the border
region. We recommend that Border XXI
work groups specifically address water
quantity issues and that the plan
emphasize strategies to encourage water
conservation and reuse.

Commerce and Economic Development: We
recommend that Border XXI provide
coordination of programs to address
local and regional economic development
and environmental issues through better
coordination of programs managed by the
U.S. Department of Commerce and its
Mexican counterpart. We emphasize
particularly the need for census
agencies to obtain population and
economic data on both sides of the
border and to coordinate economic
development priorities with those of
other federal environmental, natural
In addition, despite the fact that over
37 percent of the land on the U.S. side

resources, transportation and housing
agencies. We note that representatives
of the Department's International Trade
Administration and Economic Development
Administration are participating on the
Board.

Natural Resources: Border XXI work
planning needs to begin identifying
crucial "hot-spot" areas for priority
natural resource protection and
conservation projects. Border XXI
also needs to increase emphasis on
coastal issues and in-stream-flow
i ssues.

We urge that officials of the federal
drug interdiction agencies meet with
federal natural resources management
agencies to discuss revised drug
interdiction practices that will reduce
negative impacts on fragile ecosystems
and species.

Land Use: We believe there is a need
for development of a long-term land use
plan along the border incorporating
sustainability concerns. Industrial,
agricultural, human, and natural and
biological realities all need to be
considered in economic decision-making.
Industrial development strategies as
well as agricultural practices need to
take into account the sustainability of
the natural resources, e.g., efforts to
attract industries that use a lot of
water to water-starved parts of the
border and attempts to grow alfalfa in
the desert make little environmental or
economic sense.

of the border is under some form of
federal protected status, until

31

-------
recently there has been little effort
at cooperatively managing these lands
as the complex, interconnected
ecosystems they are.

Research Needs: The Border XXI process
should more actively involve academia
and should be used to identify research
needs cooperatively with the academic
communi ty.

MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL
PROGRAMS

In order to better understand the
scope, purposes and levels of funding
of federal agency programs in the
border region, the Board last year
requested information concerning border
region programs, projects and budgets
from each of the eight federal agencies
participating on the advisory
committee. Each of the agencies
submitted available information
covering work initiated between 1992
and 1995.

The Board sees one of its essential
roles as promoter of a paradigm shift
to sustainable development of the
border region. We evaluated the
project information provided by the
agencies against positive environmental
sustainability criteria developed by
the Board, including regional and
ecosystem scope, extent of community
involvement, remediation and prevention
objectives, types of capacity building,
levels of intergovernmental and private
sector involvement, and information
access. The Board will continue to
report on the progress of federal and
other efforts in the paradigm shift to

sustainability of development in the
region.

As caveats to the analysis, the data
available from the agencies were quite
variable in coverage and level of
detail. Some departments were able to
provide only partial data largely
because their internal tracking systems
do not report border-specific
activities or resources separately from
national programs that have border-
region aspects. In addition, project
and budget data related to 1995 and
more recent activity is incomplete due
to funding uncertainties in all
agencies at the time data was compiled.

Despite the caveats, the Board believes
that the data and analysis provide a
unique and extremely valuable view of
federal effort in the region, a unique
tool for federal agencies to coordinate
federal effort in the region, and a
sound basis to support the following
recommendations. Each of the
departments and agencies have agreed
that compilation of this information
will continue to be very valuable for
improving interagency coordination and
for increasing leveraging of existing
statutory authorities and program
budgets. The Board has asked each of
the departments to provide updated
project and budget information to
enable it to continue to review and
report on specific and overall federal
effort in the region. The Board also
intends to incorporate information from
the Border Environment Cooperation
Commission, and from the four border
states concerning state-funded
programs.

32

-------
The information provided by the
agencies documents approximately 400
projects implemented since 1992. The
Environmental Protection Agency leads
with 142 projects, followed by Interior
with 117 projects, Commerce with 51
projects, and Health and Human Services
(HHS) with 25 projects listed,
although a significant number of
individual HHS research projects were
Reported projects address both very
specific and broad issues related to
air and water quality management,
compliance, emergency response, solid
and hazardous waste management,
pollution prevention, natural resources
management, environmental health,
information management, transportation,
urban development and other
infrastructure. The projects have
focused primarily on technical studies;
governmental and community training and
assistance; information collection,
data management, and information
sharing.

Examples of federally funded projects
include local and regional air quality
studies; air quality management and
hazardous waste compliance training for
Mexican government officials; training
and technical assistance for
maquiladora companies; electronic
transfer and sharing of compliance data
between federal agencies in both
countries; survey of sister city
emergency planning needs; training of
health professionals; community health
outreach in colonias; a Lower Rio
Grande Valley environmental health
exposure study; delivery of Indian
health services; monitoring to obtain
environmental, natural resources,
health information; providing

consolidated in the matrix. Of the
others, the International Boundary and
Water Commission cited 12 projects,
Transportation 10, Housing and Urban
Development 9, Agriculture 5, and State
Department 2 projects. Each of these
latter agencies have advised that they
have funded additional projects that
they will report in future updates.

information to Mexican officials
regarding pesticides handling, siting
of hazardous waste facilities, and
enforcement policies; assessment and
management of natural and biological
resources; development of natural
resources education materials;
technical assistance to government and
industry to establish pollution
prevention programs; development of
solid waste management infrastructure
in colonias; exchange of information
between countries on siting and
managing solid and hazardous waste
facilities; monitoring to measure water
quality trends and to assess
groundwater supply and contamination;
construction of water management
systems for colonias-, studies to
characterize watersheds; technical
assistance to small communities on
managing water and wastewater treatment
facilities; monitoring movement of
hazardous wastes across the border; a
study of cumulative U.S. impacts of Rio
Grande Bridge crossings and possible
effects of future permitting; and
policy coordination with Mexico on
transportation networks between the two
countries.

The data reflect a significant
commitment to assisting Mexico develop
governmental staff and institutional

33

-------
capacity; assisting communities on
both sides of the border improve human
health and their environment; meeting
water infrastructure needs; and
assisting border industry to develop
and implement remediation and
prevention programs.

Geographic Scope

Over 40 percent of reported projects
are binational, with 12 entirely
focused in Mexico. Approximately one-
third of the projects reported are
multi state or border wide. The rest
of the projects are focused locally or
regionally in the four states: 81
projects in Texas; 74 projects in
Arizona; 54 projects in California; and
34 projects in New Mexico.

There is limited evidence of ecosystem-
While human and institutional capacity
building efforts were apparent in all
agencies' programs, the members have
concerns with the commendable, but
limited, emphasis on informing the
public about the programs being planned
and conducted, as opposed to making
commitments to adjust priorities and
resources based on input from the
communities. There is very limited
evidence of effective participation by
the private sector or nongovernmental
organizations in most of the projects.
We strongly encourage each project
manager to actively engage the
communities, nongovernmental
organizations, academia, and the
private sector in project design and
implementation. We cannot overstate
the importance of this relationship-
building in achieving successful U.S.
and binational efforts.

level effort, although there are
notable projects addressing airsheds,
watersheds and nature preserves, e.g.,
the El Paso-Juarez airshed, the Sonoran
Desert, Big Bend National Park, and
Biosphere Reserve.

The Board commends the significant
binational emphasis of many projects,
but believes even greater effort is
needed to assure truly binational
approaches to the issues.

Capacity Building

The Board's sustainability criteria for
community involvement is difficult to
measure and meet, but represent
valuable indicators of the authenticity
of public involvement.

Remediation and Prevention

Given the severity of existing
environmental and health-related
problems, there is a heavy emphasis on
remediation. At the same time, the
Board sees a positive trend toward
parallel emphasis on prevention of
pollution and encourages greater
emphasis on prevention strategies in
future projects.

Institutional Development

Development of effective community
institutions on both sides of the
border is equal in importance to
building infrastructure capacity.
Infrastructure will fail if local
governments are unable to meet the
associated financial and maintenance

34

-------
requirements and to assure an informed
community that supports environmental
and public health requirements.

We are very concerned with the
relatively limited resources associated
with solid and hazardous waste
management and emergency response
issues. There are very high risks
associated with the amounts of
hazardous materials being used and
moved through this urban region.

We reemphasize the need for greater
federal emphasis on addressing Native
American environmental and health
issues. The Board identified a small
number of projects dealing with Indian
health and environmental issues.

Information Management

The Board identified very large
investments in data collection and
information system development,
especially Geographic Information
Systems. The Board is concerned with
the extent of duplication of effort and
the high probability that lack of
overall coordination may preclude
sharing of information among data bases
and broad-based analysis. The Board is
also concerned that there is relatively
little apparent priority for providing
Closer collaboration is especially
needed among the departments in
addressing colonia infrastructure and
natural resources management needs. We
support continued movement toward
implementing ecosystem wide management
strategies and programs. We also
recommend substantially accelerated
efforts to address tribal issues by all
agencies, especially the Indian Health

and explaining information to
communities and nongovernmental
organizations on both sides of the
border. These issues need continuing
emphasis by the binational Border XXI
Information Work Group.

Interagency and Intergovernmental
Coordination

Effective implementation of border
region programs requires a more
comprehensive multi year estimate of
needs, a long term funding commitment,
and better leveraging of existing
federal and private resources.

An interagency process is needed that
provides more authority to agencies to
coordinate and integrate their border
program and project activities, to
budget jointly for cooperative
projects, to leverage appropriations,
to develop interagency funding
agreements, to provide multi-agency
grants, and to permit utilization of
federal funds in both countries to make
projects truly binational and
sustainable. We urge the Congress to
consider creating legislation which
empowers federal agencies to implement
more creative funding approaches to
resolving U.S.-Mexico border issues.

Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs
that are charged specifically with
these responsibilities. In addition,
the Board recommends greater
coordination of U.S. and Mexican
government border programs with those
of the NAFTA North American Commission
for Environmental Cooperation (CEC).

To help the agencies and the Board

35

-------
determine needed changes in direction,
we urge an assessment of each
individual agency's authorities for
providing services to local communities
on the border. Different agencies have
different authorities, especially
related to the border region, that
should be summarized, clarified and
coordinated.

We recommend that the Border XXI
Framework establish requirements for
formal strategic, project, and budget
coordination among agencies in annual
project priority setting and scoping.

Sustainable development-oriented
policies and better coordination are
needed to link federal economic
development policies and programs with
environmental, natural resources,
health and housing policies and
programs.

Leveraging of Federal Resources

We urge the governments to leverage
existing federal authorities and
resources more effectively. Given that
resources will continue to be
inadequate in relation to the magnitude
of border problems, we recommend that
the U.S. Government authorize and
promote innovative funding and program
management approaches involving
multiple federal, state and local
agencies.

Need for New Authorities and Additional
Funding

We urge the President and the Congress
to consider:

• binational funding authority for the

Department of Health and Human
Services to permit them to address
critical transboundary health
problems;

•	additional funding for the

Department of the Interior to
address priority border-specific
natural resource protection
needs;

•	increased emphasis on emergency

response and hazardous materials
management;

•	increased funding for industrial and

community pollution prevention
efforts;

•	obtaining better binational census

and economic development
informat ion.

•	special tax-exempt infrastructure

financing for the U.S. border
states;

•	focusing resources to the border

from the federal and state water
infrastructure revolving funds;
and

•	creating with the government of

Mexico a public/private fund for
binational demonstration
proj ects.

While we do not anticipate multi year
funding authorities for the border
region in the near term, we endorse
congressional proposals for biennial
budgeting and commend the multi year
funding commitment by the three NAFTA
countries for implementation of the
environmental side agreement. To the
extent it becomes feasible, we support
negotiation of binational multiyear
funding commitments to address
sustainable development priorities for
the border region.

36

-------
DEVELOPMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL
ARRANGEMENTS

Binational Approaches

Because the U.S. and Mexico share many

We recommend that the U.S. and Mexican
governments work more closely to
develop additional joint transboundary
programs, involving representatives
from all levels of governments. For
binational projects generally, we note
the importance of clear standards,
definitions and responsibilities, and a
high level of sensitivity to the
different technological, cultural,
organizational situations. We also
encourage technical and financial
assistance to build on and help
transfer successful community-level
cross-border programs.

Enhancing Industry's Role

We note that the federal government,
states and some private foundations
have supported pollution prevention
training, technical assistance and
auditing programs focused primarily on
maquiladora companies. We endorse this
training, but also encourage the
parties to emphasize the value of
these initiatives for economic reasons.

The Board believes that private
industry has responsibilities to the
border environment and to the
communities where they operate that
goes beyond a profit motive. There is
a growing number of companies that are
demonstrating a strong commitment to
pollution control, prevention,

ecosystems, watersheds and air sheds,
binational and regional programs need
to be expanded. We note that many
U.S.-funded projects have been
binational and commend the emphasis in
Border XXI on regional and binational
approaches.

recycling and reuse. We encourage the
governments and communities to
recognize them and to help communicate
these successes.

We encourage development of public-
private sector programs that provide
economic incentives for reduction,
recycling and pollution prevention on
both sides of the border. We
especially recommend consideration of a
deposit refund system for transborder
shipments of hazardous waste that could
reduce the need for government
inspection programs.

We commend the WasteWi$e Project, a
binational public/private project in
the San Diego-Tijuana region, that is
improving cross-border trade in
recyclables and identifying ways to
expand binational markets for recycled
materials. We recognize Sony
Corporation's award-winning recycling
program focusing on design-for-the-
environment in its products and
faci1i t ies.

Airshed Planning

Consistent with our recommendation last
year, the Board commends implementation
of the binational Air Quality
Management Basin (AQMB) and Joint Air
Quality Advisory Committee for the El
Paso-Juarez airshed. This formal

37

-------
binational regional approach to
addressing environmental problems, with
significant public oversight, is a
very important enhancement to the
informal community-to-community and
state-to-state arrangements that have
been developed over the years. We
recommend that implementation of the
AQMB be evaluated by the governments
and the communities to determine if
this model may be useful for addressing
air quality issues elsewhere in the
region, as well as for other
transboundary environmental problems,
such as water, hazardous waste, and
health. We note that binational
airshed management arrangements are
already being extended to air and water
quality issues in the U.S.-Canada
border region.

The Carbon 1 and 2 plants in Mexico are
The Board commends the Department of
Commerce for its successful binational
sustainable development study of the
Rio Grande River that addressed
economic development, water use, and
watershed planning. We recommend this
kind of integrated planning as a
possible model for other air shed and
watershed areas.

Water Quantity Management and Water
Conservation

Ground water is a finite resource, yet
insufficient data, particularly
binational data, exists. It is assumed
that many communities are pumping more
groundwater than can be recharged.

Much greater focus is needed on water
quantity issues. In many locations
along both sides of the border, there

now on-line; there are proposals for
two additional plants. The Board
urges a truly binational effort to
solve the problems of Carbon 1 and 2 ,

including the need for U.S. government
and private funds to reduce emissions
from these plants and from other
sources on both sides of the border
which are affecting air quality in the
region. The visibility problems at Big
Bend National Park should be addressed
on a multi-jurisdictional basis using
the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission as a model.

We also continue to encourage the
governments to address larger issues
related to use of fossil fuels versus
alternative energy sources.

Watershed Planning

are still critical questions about the
location, amount, quality and movement
of groundwater, and ecosystem
relationships. We urge the two
governments to work closely with the
International Boundary and Water
Commission (IBWC) which has specific
binational treaty mandates, and with
U.S. border states to collect essential
water quantity data, using joint
protocols, and to discuss water
allocation issues.

We encourage further development of new
binational water quantity and ground
water management institutional
arrangements at key locations along the
border that combine the planning and
public oversight aspects of the new El
Paso-Ciudad Juarez Air Quality
Management Basin and Joint Advisory
Committee, and the implementation and

38

-------
management aspects of the Rio Grande
River Water Master.

We strongly recommend implementation of
border wide, binational water
conservation programs to conserve
existing ground and surface water
sources. Because many water quantity
problems relate to agricultural
practices, the Board recommends greater
binational efforts to encourage use of
"best management practices"e.g., drip
irrigation in irrigation water
management. We also urge the BECC and
NADBank to require local water
conservation programs as preconditions
to certification and receipt of
funding.

We also encourage greater emphasis on
water conservation education. A water
conservation education program in the
Rio Grande Valley, where 80 percent of
the available water is used for
irrigation, is teaching children on
both sides of the border about
conservation of shared resources. We
urge each level of government to
support educational programs in
schools, for farmers, and for the
general public focused on water quality
The Board commends a federal-state-
local pilot program designating
specific border crossings for
commercial truck traffic only, reducing
environmental and health impacts and
the risk of environmental emergencies.
For example, trucks carrying hazardous
materials may not travel though
downtown Laredo, McAllen and Reynosa.
This program is now being extended to
other border crossing locations.

We urge development of binational

and quantity management.

Hazardous Materials and Emergency
Response

We recommend that federal agencies on
both sides of the border improve the
efficiency and reliability of
notification and monitoring of
hazardous materials transported across
the border. We also recommend
establishment of effective joint
federal and state emergency response
programs for dealing with border
environmental emergencies. The Board
notes that there has been progress in
implementing use of HazTraks, a
binational computer system to monitor
truck cargoes. While we are aware that
each of the individual U.S. states have
responsibility for enforcing truck
safety standards, federal agencies in
both countries should help coordinate
and establish more effective emergency
response capabilities to deal with
accidents involving cross-border
traffic. Models for these kinds of
arrangements exist along the U.S.-
Canada border.

agreements for addressing environmental
emergencies that facilitate the rapid
movement of emergency response
personnel and equipment across the
border, improved availability of
emergency equipment at crossings,
development and testing of response
plans, improved tracking of cargoes
prior to inspection, and thorough
training of inspectors on both sides of
the border.

There is still a serious, continuing

39

-------
need for emergency response and fire
control equipment and computers on both
sides of the border, especially in
communities in Mexico. Expanded
efforts are needed to obtain donations
of usable equipment and to simplify
transfer of this equipment to Mexico.
Unfortunately, Mexico imposes duties on
transfer of some of this equipment
across the border; we urge agencies to
consider providing equipment on
permanent loan to Mexican entities to
avoid these costs. We understand that
Mexico has requested funds from NADBank
to enable them to acquire critically
needed emergency response equipment.

We urge the governments to begin
addressing immediately the implications
and requirements for hazardous waste
disposal in the border region that will
result from the termination of the
maquiladora program in 2000. After the
termination of the program, wastes will
no longer need to be repatriated from
Mexico to the U.S., requiring permitted
waste disposal and treatment facilities
in Mexico that do not currently exist.

Health

We note several steps that have been
taken over the past year to implement
Board recommendations regarding border
environmental health institutional
needs. A formal binational working
group has been created under the
auspices of the U.S.-Mexico Binational
Commission; the Interagency
Coordinating Committee for
Environmental Health-U.S.-Mexico Border
(involving the Public Health Service,
We commend these ongoing binational
efforts and the proposed 1997 program

EPA, all border state environmental
and health representatives, and the Pan
American Health Organization) is now
binational, including the director of
the Office of Environmental Health,
Mexican Ministry of Health and six
border environmental health officers,
as well as representatives from
SEMARNAP. The Texas Department of
Health has exhibited excellent
leadership on the border wide
tuberculosis control program which
involves all 10 border state health
officers, federal representation from
Mexico and the U.S., the American Lung
Association, the Texas Medical
Association, the Pan American Health
Organization, the U.S.-Mexico Border
Health Association, Project Hope, and
the National Heritage Insurance
Company. The project is accelerating
sharing of computerized information,
education on both sides of the border,
and state-to-state agreements. In
addition, Department of Health and
Human Services agencies are providing
training and the Pan American Health
Organization Ecology Institute in
Mexico is developing occupational and
environmental health training programs;
a health data infrastructure program
and demonstration programs are being
funded in each of the border states.
We understand that the Congress will be
considering funding U.S. implementation
of the U.S.-Mexico Health Commission
Act. As noted in last year's report,
we concur that, in order for this
concept to work, the Commission must be
fully binational.

enhancements addressing dissemination
of environmental health information;

40

-------
childhood exposures to pesticides;
neural tube defects; lead surveillance
and intervention; and training. We
also endorse the continuing need to
attract health care professionals to
border communities and to train
community health care practitioners.
Accessibility to loan repayment
programs and certification of more
Health Professions Shortage Areas at
the border are needed.

Native Americans

Native American nations along the
border still have not been included to
any significant extent in planning or
implementation of border programs. We
recommend again that all appropriate
federal agencies accelerate efforts to
ensure inclusion of the Native American
nations in the border region in
environmental, health and
infrastructure planning and program
implementation. Because several of the
tribes' lands and peoples are in both
countries, we also encourage the U.S.
to actively involve the Mexican
national government in addressing
tribal transboundary issues.

We endorse the proposal by the Tohono
O'odham Nation to conduct an
environmental and trade forum involving
all of the southwest border tribes and
commend the sponsorship by EPA and the
Governmental Advisory Committee to the
U.S. Representative to the North
American Commission for Environmental
Cooperation. We also commend the
decision by EPA to provide ten percent
of Fiscal Year 1996 border

infrastructure funds to help meet
tribal environmental infrastructure
needs.

Transportation

The Board's first annual report cited a
number of concerns regarding
interrelated regional transportation
and environmental issues. For example,
there are very serious problems
associated with air pollution from
trucks idling at border crossings, use
of unpaved roads, use of leaded fuels,
trucks carrying hazardous materials
traveling through (and disposing of
wastes in) communities and tribal
lands. Drug interdiction and
immigration activities in some
locations have also caused trucks to
divert to and seriously impact smaller
border crossings. We continue to
recommend that U.S. and Mexican states
develop comprehensive joint plans and
cross-border transportation authorities
to guide transportation policy
decisions.

We commend the Department of
Transportation Federal Highway
Administration for its work with other
U.S. agencies and with counterparts in
Mexico to improve compatibility of
commercial motor carrier safety
standards, road signs and signals;
coordinate truck weights and
dimensions; coordinate compliance and
enforcement activities; expedite
processing of commercial vehicles at
border crossings including facility
improvements and use of advanced
technology; and conduct joint
transportation planning, including U.S.
and Mexican federal and state agencies.

41

-------
We also note a significant number of
highway improvement and border crossing
projects that are being developed with
both public and private funds.

Foundations

While U.S. private foundations have
provided some funding to Mexican and
U.S. entities to encourage development
of more effective nongovernmental
organizations, there are still very
substantial needs for enhancing the
ability of communities to address
development issues and improve access

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

For the past several years, both sides
of the border have experienced
significant developmental pressures due
to industrialization, migration and
population growth. Environmental,
health, housing, transportation and
other infrastructure has not kept pace
with this development. We believe that
the interconnection of environment,
health, housing, and transportation
infrastructure-related problems makes
it imperative that infrastructure
issues be addressed more
comprehensively and recommend that
Border XXI be used as the appropriate
integrating process for doing this.

The Board commends the Department of
Commerce and its Mexican counterpart
for jointly sponsoring the second U.S.-
Mexico Border Infrastructure Conference
last year, and urges public and private
sector consideration of the conference
report.

Inventory and Priorities

to needed information. U.S. income
tax law restricts deductibility of
charitable donations when the funds are
to be spent outside the U.S. making it
very difficult for nongovernmental
organizations to obtain funds for
transboundary projects. We encourage
changes in U.S. tax law to encourage
private support to these public
purposes, the creation of additional
binational foundations like the U.S.-
Mexico Border Progress Foundation; and
technical assistance to Mexico to
develop a private foundation network.

The Board encourages compilation of a
comprehensive inventory of
infrastructure needs. The needs
inventory should be developed on a
binational basis to assure coordination
of transboundary needs and projects and
maximum leveraging of investments on
both sides of the border.

We also urge comprehensive
prioritization of infrastructure needs
by federal and state agencies, at least
regionally, to support a rational
allocation of limited resources; to
identify localities that are relatively
more stressed by economic,
environmental, and public health
issues; and to communicate priorities
to communities competing for funding.

The inventory effort should focus
initially on wastewater treatment
plants and sewage lines; potable water
plants and distribution systems;
individual hookups; and water drainage
projects. Inventories of other types
of infrastructure such as solid waste
management, hazardous waste disposal

42

-------
sites, basic housing (especially
colonias), and health care facilities,
should also be assembled as quickly as
feasible. We understand that a
comprehensive survey of border
transportation issues is being
conducted by the U.S.-Mexico Joint
Working Committee for Binational
Transportation Planning.

BECC/NADBank

The Border Environment Cooperation
Commission (BECC), and the North
American Development Bank (NADBank)
have the potential to help
significantly improve the border
envi ronment.

Border Environment Cooperation
Commission

We applaud the BECC for incorporating
enhanced sustainable development
criteria for review of border
environmental projects, and urge
Despite having $1.5 billion currently
available, the North American
Development Bank (NADBank) has made
few, very recent loans during its
first two years of existence. The
binational agreement establishing the
NADBank requires that the Bank charge
an above-market rate of interest. This
requirement precludes the neediest
communities on both sides of the border
from use of NADBank funding. We
strongly recommend that the governments
re-negotiate the NADBank's charter to
authorize reduction of its interest
rate to support below-market lending.
We urge the governments to consider
application of U.S. State Revolving
Fund guidelines to NADBAnk operations.

application of the same type of
criteria by other public and private
funding entities. We also commend
the BECC for initiating a program to
assist smaller communities in
developing project proposals. We urge
that BECC, as well as state agencies
and nongovernmental organizations,
provide technical assistance to border
communities to help them develop their
institutional capacity to manage
design, construction and operation of
the facilities.

We urge the BECC to continue to
identify ways to streamline its
application process to encourage more
rapid certification of projects to
NADBank and other funding sources. We
emphasize that this acceleration should
not occur at the expense of an
effective public participation process
in the affected communities.

North American Development Bank

The NADBank has been asked to provide
substantial drought relief assistance
funds to the state of Texas. We
believe that funding this type of
proposal would violate the spirit of
the BECC and NADBank charters and
recommend against funding

We urge the NADBank to improve its
communication with border communities,
and to work with the BECC to implement
a coordinated outreach effort.

BECC and NADBank need to encourage
greater use of alternative
technologies, i.e, technologies that
generally have low capital, operating

43

-------
and maintenance costs, as well as
innovative technologies. The
Environmental Protection Agency and
Department of Agriculture are aware of
a number of very effective alternative
technologies. The BECC technical
assistance program should emphasize use
of alternative technologies and BECC
should assure that communities are
informed about alternative systems.
We also encourage inclusion of
alternative technologies as priority in
the BECC's sustainable development
project review criteria for smaller
communi ties.

Given the significant and growing
shortfall of ground and surface water
throughout the region, the BECC and
NADBank can and need to exercise
leadership in promoting water
conservation practices. In conjunction
with its technical assistance program,
promotion of appropriate technologies,
and certification criteria development,
the BECC should emphasize low water-
use treatment and groundwater recharge
processes, especially in water short
areas.

As entities established under the NAFTA
agreement, the BECC and NADBank will be
evaluated shortly as part of the
mandatory triennial review of NAFTA
implementation. We urge the
governments and the Commission on
Environmental Cooperation to emphasize
the importance of these institutions to
achieving the overall, long term goals
of NAFTA.

Although State Revolving Fund ( SRF)
loan (and NADBank) debt service
requirements force user fees beyond the
capacity-to-pay of many residents, we

Colonias and Rural Areas:

The rate of continuing urbanization in
colonias and rural areas, and the
absence of proper urban planning and
local zoning controls , is threatening
the ability of the governments to
provide essential infrastructure.

Since 1991, EPA and IBWC have allocated
more than $500 million to address just
wastewater infrastructure problems,
including over $185 million to assist
colonias in Texas and New Mexico.
Additional costs for basic water
service to colonias in Texas and New
Mexico is estimated at more than $500
million, and there are comparable
settlements in Arizona and California.
With respect to wastewater treatment,
reliable estimates indicate the United
States border communities will require
investments of $1,475 billion over ten
years to bring them up to acceptable
standards, of which $925 million should
come from State Revolving Funds (SRF)
loans and tax-exempt bonds, and $550
million from other federal and state
grants and loans. Mexico estimates
needed investment for border region
water services through the year 2000 at
more than $442 million: $132 million
for drinking water; $265 million for
wastewater.

These estimates do not address critical
air, hazardous and solid waste,
transportation, or housing
infrastructure needs.

continue to recommend that border state
wastewater revolving funds allocate a
major portion of SRF funds to border
infrastructure needs. Previous Clean

44

-------
Water Act federal grants and State
Revolving Fund (SRF) loans have
provided substantial help to larger
U.S. border communities.

Unincorporated colonias and smaller
U.S. communities now represent a
critical financing issue.

While major colonias funding to date
has focused on designated colonias in
Texas and New Mexico, there are similar
substandard developments lacking basic
infrastructure in Arizona and
California. Eighteen areas have been
identified in California in Imperial,
San Diego, Riverside, and Kern
counties. Arizona and California
settlements receive limited funds from
USDA, but not from EPA due to the
failure of these states to identify
colonia-like settlements. We
recommend that federal, state and local
agencies providing infrastructure
funding recognize colonias and similar
substandard developments lacking basic
infrastructure in all four border
states, and coordinate their individual
funding programs for maximum
environmental benefit.

We recommend that federal grant and low
cost loan assistance be continued at
existing levels for infrastructure,
health facilities and training in U.S.
colonias for at least the next ten
years. Due to their lack of access to
low-cost SRF loans, tax-exempt bond
revenues or significant sources of user
fees, colonias and small communities
need continued priority focus and
subsidization. Although it was
expected to play a central role, this
critical funding gap is not yet being
filled by the North American

Development Bank. Responsible federal
agencies, state and local governments
should cooperate to establish
mechanisms incorporating and
formalizing the legal and institutional
status of colonias.

The Board also recommends that local
civic authorities in the border states
seek to impose proper planning and
zoning controls under state law,
including urging local authorities to
require private developers to
incorporate necessary infrastructure
into their development design
comparable to the exercise of local
police powers in all other areas of the
U.S.

Private Sector Investment and
Public/Private Partnerships

The Board believes there is a
tremendous need, and potential, for
substantial public-private funding and
for privatized environmental
infrastructure development on both
sides of the border. Federal and other
public funds will be inadequate to meet
the current and projected needs. In
addition, private entities that have
contributed to the environmental and
public health problems and that have
benefited from NAFTA implementation
should bear more of the cost.

The Board is pleased with the
increasing BECC emphasis on private
sector funding of municipal
environmental infrastructure, including
new criteria for certification of
private sector projects and a Build-
Operate-Transfer (BOT) program. The
Board also believes there are
significant opportunities for full

45

-------
privatization of hazardous waste
handling and solid waste management
facilities, infrastructure which are
not necessarily public environmental
responsibi1i t ies.

The Board notes that there has been
considerable U.S. government investment
in development of related economic
We strongly encourage the U.S. to
promote Mexican legislation to
authorize municipal bonding authority
for Mexican communities. We also urge
the U.S. government to consider
providing tax-free status for public
bonds issued in the U.S. for cross
border projects and other incentives to
encourage public-private and
privatization efforts.

Eco-industrial Parks: The Board
supports the recommendations of the
President's Council On Sustainable
Development and continues to recommend
the development of eco-industrial parks
in appropriate places along the border
to reduce pollution and costs, and to
support clean economic development.
Eco-industrial parks, such as the
Brownsville, Texas andNogales, Arizona
models, create a vertically integrated
chain of plants wherein one plant uses
another's byproducts or wastes as
input. The parks create synergies
among industries which can result in
substantial cost savings as well as
significant reductions in environmental
pollution. Unfortunately, the few
parks that have been initiated have
lost substantial funding. To make
these cutting-edge plans a reality,
federal funds are needed to help
implement workable pilots.

infra-structure, including
international trade routes, bridges and
highways. We urge that the governments
assure that investments in
environmental and economic
infrastructure be managed and balanced
to help assure that economic
development is sustainable.

Housing: The Board notes that the
shortage of adequate housing underlies
many of the border's environmental and
public health problems. Several
creative housing finance projects begun
prior to the 1994 Mexican financial
crisis have been discontinued or
dramatically downsized. Unfortunately,
neither NADBank nor the BECC have the
resources or the mandate to deal with
the housing problem. The establishment
of zoning practices, enforcement of
zoning, and creative financing through
public-private cooperation are needed
on both sides of the border to ease
this crisis. It is also important to
assure that zoning be set to preclude
construction in designated flood zones.

We recommend that the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
continue to provide financial
assistance and incentives for upgrading
substandard housing in the colonias,
and work closely with state agencies in
the U.S., and with federal and state
agencies in Mexico to develop
mechanisms for promoting low-cost
public housing construction in the
border region. We also recommend that
mechanisms currently being utilized by
county officials to promote public
housing and provide financial
assistance to colonia residents be
enlarged and structured as block

46

-------
grants, and that flexibility be
provided to facilitate the combination
of various federal program monies, such
as those established through the Rio
Grande Valley Empowerment Zone.

The Board commends the work of various
foundations and non governmental
organizations to assist local
communities respond to housing needs
through methods such as self help,
micro loans, bulk materials purchasing,
etc. Moreover, the Board acknowledges
the participation of certain
maquiladoras in providing housing
construction assistance to their
employees and encourages more of these
companies to provide housing assistance
programs.

MEETING INFORMATION NEEDS

Outreach Coordination: With respect
to effectively reaching communities
with information and soliciting their
views, we encourage more outreach
coordination among federal agencies,
state agencies, local governments,
Indian Nations, and community groups on
both sides of the border. Working
together, these organizations can more
effectively inform wider networks about
issues and can help to distribute
materials so that people are better
informed and prepared to make
decisions. We continue to recommend
establishing a federal-state-local
clearinghouse network, in cooperation
with the border offices of federal and
state agencies, to provide more rapid
transfer of information among levels of
government and to local community
groups in the incorporated and

There is a lack of needed information
and awareness by residents on both
sides of the border, as well as the
governments, concerning border area
problems and options for addressing
these problems. Access to information
is a critical prerequisite to effective
community participation in setting
priorities, selecting the most feasible
and comprehensive approaches to
environmental, natural resource, public
health and related problems; and
locating financial and technical
assistance.

The Board commends the Mexican
government for establishing
environmental indicators as part of its
monitoring and reporting of Gross
Domestic Product.

unincorporated areas.

Federal agencies should consider
contracting with nongovernmental
organizations to generate and organize
public comments. Increased public
communication and access to information
can also help to enhance public
oversight, reducing the need for
government inspection programs and
direct data collection.

Internet Access: We recommend that
data be made accessible to the public
by state and federal government
agencies through Internet and other
wide-net systems along the border and
commend several federal agencies for
establishing Internet Web. However,
most border communities have limited
access to the technology superhighway

47

-------
at this time.

The Board encourages continuing support
for the U.S. Department of Commerce
Telecommunications and Infrastructure
Assistance Program that provides
matching grants to help spread
information technology into
communities. Federal agencies (such as
the Department of Commerce National
Telecommunications and Information
Administration) should support
necessary fiber optic cable
installations in these communities,
with reduced matching funds. Federal
agencies should also direct surplus
property computers to public access
sites (e.g., libraries, schools, banks,
supermarkets, and churches) and support
training programs to assist Internet
access by residents.

While the Board reiterates the need for
providing more data to community
residents, we emphasize also that the
information must be useful. Reports
should be made available to local
organizations, libraries, and schools
(in both English and Spanish if
possible) that analyze the data,
identify pros and cons of various
options, and identify appropriate
governmental and nongovernmental
contacts for further information and
assistance.

Population Growth and Trend
Information: Both countries need to
obtain accurate data on population
growth trends, especially given the
flux of people in, through, and around
the border zone. More adequate
information is also needed linking
population trends and available

A recent report by the state of Texas
provides grim demographic projections
of population increases for the next 20
years. The report anticipates that in
20 years one-third of the population
will not have finished high school, a
dire projection of have and have-not's.
The Board recommends more emphasis on
education as an interface with
infrastructural issues for border
communities and meeting the tremendous
need for resources for local schools.

Use of Existing Information: While
the Board supports the collection of
needed additional binational data,
using common collection and analytical
methods, we believe that a substantial
amount of environmental, natural
resource, health and related data are
available in both countries which can
provide useful baseline information.
We endorse the creation of the Border
XXI Information Working Group and
recommend that development of such an
inventory of existing information is
one of their highest priorities. The
Board also endorses increasing the
number of databases and the use of
sophisticated Geographic Information
Systems (GISs), but emphasizes that
local citizens, as well as the
governments, must be capable of getting
to that information.

resources, including identifying the
"carrying capacity" of the border
region. The lack of information
concerning long-term population trends
limits the effectiveness of Border XXI
to effectively plan for needed
infrastructure and programs. Long
term, ongoing studies need to be

48

-------
conducted to identify population trends
and to establish baselines for federal,
state, regional and local planning.

We recommend that funding be provided
to the Bureau of Census, and that the
U.S. negotiate joint efforts with the
Mexican government and the counterpart
census agency, INEGI, to conduct
binational census studies, to cooperate
in data analysis, and to make the
reports available. We also recommend
establishing permanent monitoring to
track changes in population.

We recommend establishing binational
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)
so that interested parties in the U.S.
and Mexico can more clearly see the
large binational population and
economic base in the region, e.g., the
Lower Rio Grande Valley, that does not
appear in each individual country's
data. We also encourage the
governments to use economic and
population data from both sides of the
border in designating trade areas.

Applied Research: Considerable
research is being conducted by U.S. and
Mexican colleges and universities in
the border region. Too little of this
research is being applied towards
solving real world border problems.
In addition to the research itself
being relevant to important issues, the
results of this research must be
accessible to the communities, other
academics, and the governments.

Funding sources should require that
research products intended for use in
border communities be bilingual.

OTHER COMMENTS

Coordination with the Mexican Advisory
Council for Sustainable Development

The Board and its Mexican counterpart
(Region 1 of the Mexican National
Advisory Council for Sustainable
Development) have established ongoing
communication. The two advisory
committees will meet together in mid-
1997 to begin development of
coordinated agendas and to discuss
development of joint recommendations.

Commendations

We commend EPA for establishing border
liaison offices at San Diego,
California, and El Paso and McAllen,
Texas. We especially commend the San
Diego office for its work in
development of Border XXI, and its
outstanding efforts in providing
information and assistance to citizens
and organizations primarily in Arizona
and California

Public Input

The Board's meetings are open to the
public; a list of public attendees at
the April, 1996, August 1996, and
February 1997 meetings is included as
Appendix 2.

At each meeting, the Board also sets
aside time to listen to concerns of
members of the public and to become
aware of community efforts to address
environmental problems. Some examples
of accomplishments presented to the
Board include:

49

-------
Palomas, Mexico and Columbus, New
Mexico, two small sister cities,
have created a cross-border task

The Transboundary Resource Inventory
Project, an integrated border
wide effort managed by the Texas
General Land Office, is working
on integration of data
concerning the border through
use of geographic information
systems (GIS);

The Tijuana River Watershed Project
also is developing a comprehensive
GIS to be shared by the U.S. and
Mexico for binational watershed
management planning;

The Texas Center for Policy Studies,
a research and policy organization
based in Austin, is working with
grassroots organizations throughout
Mexico, and focusing on the border
and on conservation and habitat
i ssues;

The California Border Environmental
Corporation Committee, comprised of
state level officials fromBaja
California, Baja California Sur, and
California, is working jointly to
improve communication among the
states, to provide cross-border
training and information, and to
support environmental infrastructure
projects in the region;

• The San Diego Association of
Governments is providing a very
effective forum for environmental
and transportation planning and

force to work jointly on public
health issues and environmental
and economic development
planning;

coordination among local communities
and other governments on both sides
of the border; and the Tijuana and
San Diego Binational Planning and
Coordinating Committee provides a
forum for joint programs,
information sharing, and
coordination with federal and state
agencies.

We commend all of the local, regional
and binational initiatives that
demonstrate the commitment of border
communities and nongovernmental
organizations to work together to
improve the environment and to promote
sustainable development of the U.S.-
Mexico border region.

In Memoriam

We note with sadness the untimely death
of Charles F. Meissner, former
Assistant Secretary and U.S. Department
of Commerce representative on the
Board. He was dedicated to solving
U.S.-Mexico border problems and was an
invaluable member of the Board.

IMPLEMENTATION OF REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

The Board appreciates the opportunity
to offer these recommendations and
respectfully requests a response to
this second Annual Report. The Board
intends to continue to monitor
implementation of the recommendations
included in this and previous reports,

50

-------
and to advise the President and the
Congress on the status of
implementation in its next annual
report.

-------
Appendix 1

GOOD NEIGHBOR

Mr. James Mars ton, Chair

Director, Texas Office
Environmental Defense Fund
44 East Avenue, Suite 304
Austin, TX 78701

Mr. Patrick Banegas

General Manager

Water and Sanitation District

P.O. Box 1751

1470 N. 4th Street

Anthony, NM 88021

Mr. Tibaldo Canez

Director, U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quali ty

3033 North Central
Phoenix, AZ 85012

Mr. John K. Flynn

Supervisor, Ventura County
808 S. Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 95665

Mr. Bernard Gail lard

Director, Secretary's Office of

International Transportation and Trade
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Honorable William Ginsberg

Acting Assistant Secretary for
Market Access and Compliance
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th St. & Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20230

ENTAL BOARD

Charles G. Groat, Ph.D.

Director, Center for Environmental
Resource Management
University of Texas at El Paso
El Paso, TX 79968

Ms. Alison Hughes

University of Arizona College of Medicine
2501 E. Elm Street
Tucson, AZ 85716

Mr. John Klein

Assistant Regional Hydrologist
U.S. Geological Survey
2800 Cottage Way, Room W2233
Sacramento, CA 95825

Ms. M. Lisa LaRocque

Director, Project Del Rio
1494A S. Solano
Las Cruces, NM 88001

Ms. Wendy Laird

Executive Director

Tucson Audubon Society

300 East University Blvd., Suite 120

Tucson, AZ 85705

Ms. Felicia Marcus

Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

Mr. Winston Martin

Special Projects Officer
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development

52

-------
800 Dolorosa Avenue
San Antonio, TX 78207

Mr. David Merk

Environmental Consultant
11814 Via Genero
El Cajon, CA 92109

Ms. Elsa R. Saxod

Executive Director
U.S.-Mexico Border Progress Foundati
1615 Murray Canyon Road, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92108

-------
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD

Christine M. Sierra, Ph. D.

Department of Political Science
2074 Social Science Building,
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131-1121

Mr. Alan Stephens

State Director, Rural Development
U.S. Department of Agriculture
3003 Central Avenue, Suite 900
Phoenix, AZ 85012

Mr. Bill Summers

President

Rio Grande Valley Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 1499
Weslaco, TX 78599-1499

Ms. M. Elizabeth Swope

Coordinator for U.S.-Mexico Border
Affairs

Office of Mexican Affairs
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20520

Mr. Rosendo Trevino III

State Conservationist
Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
6200 Jefferson Street, Northeast
Albuquerque, NM 87109-3734

Mr. J. Jorge Verduzco

Executive Vice President
International Bank of Commerce
P.O. Drawer 1359
Laredo, TX 78042-1359

Mr. Richard Walling

Director , Office of the Americas
and Middle East

Office of International and Refugee
Health

U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services

Room 18-75, Parklawn Building
Rockvilie, MD 20857

Mr. Kenneth Williams

Legislative Council Member
Tohono O'odham Nation
P.O. Box 827
Sells, AZ 85634

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

Mr. John Bernal
U.S. Commissioner
International Boundary and Water
Commission

4171 N. Mesa, Suite C-310
El Paso, TX 79902

Designated Federal Officer

Mr. Robert L. Hardaker

Office of the Administrator (1601F)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

202-260-2477; 202-260-6882 fax

E-mai1: hardaker.robert@epamai1.epa.gov

54

-------
Appendix 2

PUBLIC ATTENDEES AT 1996-1997 MEETINGS

Las Cruces, New Mexico-April 1996

Andrea Abel, Texas Department of Health
Larry Allen, Coronado National Forest, Arizona
Octavio Chavez, Ciudad Juarez, Mexico

Roger Frauenfelder, Border Environment Cooperation Commission

Thomas Guerra, City of Columbus, New Mexico

David Hinkel, City of Columbus, New Mexico

Jack Long, City of Columbus, New Mexico

Howard Ness, National Park Service

Cyrus Reed, Texas Center for Policy Studies

Daniel Reyna, Director, Border Health Office, State of New Mexico
Carlos Rincon, Environmental Defense Fund
Alice Salcido, Office of Senator Bingaman

San Diego, California-August 1996

Andrea Abel, Texas Department of Health
Kenneth Cronin, Tohono 0' odham Nation
Vicky Estrada-Bustillo, U.S. Forest Service
Paul Ganster, San Diego State University
Sofia Hernandez, Texas Department of Health
Gonzalo Lopez, City of San Diego

Susan Phillips, California Water Resources Control Board

Amary Reyes, SAHOPE, Baja California, Mexico

Oscar Romo, Mexican National Council for Sustainable Development

Nan Valerio, San Diego Association of Governments

Richard Wright, San Diego State University

Luis Zuniga, Sony Mexico Manufacturing Center

El Paso, Texas-February 1997

Bobby Creel, New Mexico Water Resources Institute
Nicole Carter, Stanford University
James Davis, New Mexico Department of Agriculture
Miguel Escobedo, Texas Department of Health

Ana Isabel Fonteil, Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Tijuana, Mexico
Philip Goodall, University of Texas, El Paso

Rebekah Hoffacker, Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission
Roberto Hurtado, Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Tijuana, Mexico
April Lander, Border Environment Cooperation Commission
Andy Mares, AYUDA, Inc.

Ernest Rebuck El Paso Water Utilities

55

-------
Blanca Serrano, Texas Department of Health
Marion Truxal, League of Women Voters
Antonio Vergara, AYUDA, Inc
Edwina Vogan, Women in Technology

56

-------