![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Detailed Meeting Summary/Minutes Washington DC 2004
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD
Board Meeting
Watergate Hotel
Washington, DC
Feb. 24-25, 2004
Meeting Summary/ Minutes of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
Board Meeting
Watergate Hotel
Washington, DC
Feb. 24-25, 2004
Meeting Participants
Chair
Placido Dos Santos, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Board Members and Alternates Present
Dora Alcala, Mayor, Del R-io, Texas
Larry Allen, Malpai Borderlands Group
Diana Borja, Office of Border Affairs, Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality
Karen Chapman, Environmental Defense, Austin, Texas
Gedi Cibas, Border Coordinator, New Mexico Environment Department
Arturo Duran, Commissioner, International Boundary and Water Commission
Paul Ganster (by telephone, Feb. 25)
Valecia Gavin, President, Border Environmental Health Coalition, Doña
Ana County, New Mexico
John Klein, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Interior
Linda Lawson, Director for Safety, Energy and Environment, Department of Transportation
Dennis Linskey, U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs Coordinator, Department of State
Christine Machion, Department of Housing and Urban Development (representing
Shannon Sorzano Feb. 25)
Thomas Mampilly, Department of Health and Human Services (representing Dick
Walling Feb. 24)
Ned Norris, Vice Chairman, Tohono O'odham Tribe
Jerry Paz, consulting engineer, Las Cruces, New Mexico
Ken Ramirez, lawyer (water rights, environmental), Austin (Feb. 24)
Ed Ranger, ADEQ Phoenix, Arizona; special counsel
Diane Rose, Mayor, Imperial Beach, California
Doug Smith, Corporate Environmental Affairs, Sony Electronics
Shannon Sorzano, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (Feb. 24)
Nancy Sutley, California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento
Bob Varady, Deputy Director, Udall Center for Public Policy, University of
Arizona
Dick Walling, Office of the Americas in the Middle East, Department of Health
and Human Services (Feb. 25)
Laura Yoshii, EPA Deputy Regional Administrator, San Francisco
EPA Staff
Daiva Balkus, Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
(OCEM)
David Batson, Facilitator
Geraldine Brown, OCEM
Oscar Carrillo, GNEBAssociate Designated Federal Officer
Elaine Koerner, GNEB Designated Federal Officer
William Luthens, Region 6
Paul Michel, Southwest Border Program Office, Region 9
Megan Moreau, Office of International Affairs
Eliot Tucker, Border Infrastructure Program
Lois Williams, OCEM
Speakers and Attendees
David Barrett, Sempra Energy
James Connaughton, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality (keynote address)
Melissa Dubinsky, Stone and Webster Management Consultants
Kerstin Erickson, Stanford University
Bill Franks
Antonio Flores, Public Affairs Director, North American Development Bank (NADBank)
Luiz Augusto Cassanha Galvao, Sustainable Development and Environmental, Pan
American Health Organization
Jorge Garcias, Deputy Managing Director, NADBank
Lori Gray, Assistant Regional Director for the Lower Colorado River Region,
Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Interior
Lori Hidinger, Ecological Society of America
Ms. Ing
Mark Kilgore, Louis Berger Group, Research Fellow at University of Texas at
Austin
Fernando Macias, General Manager, Border Environment Cooperation Commission
(BECC)
Teodoro Maus, Minister, SEMARNAT
Ciro Martinex, Eastern Research Group
Fernanda Montano, SEMARNAT
Robert Pastor, Vice President of International Affairs at American University
and Director of the Center on North American Studies
Mike Pool, Bureau of Land Management, California Director
Mayra Quiri-Dongo, Natural Resources Defense Council
Dave Schlesinger, Bajagua Project
Susan Schmidt, Manatt Jones Global Strategies
Dean Scott, Daily Environment Report
Jim Simmons, Bajagua Project
Matt Simmons, Ferguson Group
William Snape, Chief Counsel, Defenders of Wildlife
Bob Stein, U.S. Department of Transportation
Rick Van Schoik, Director, Southwest Center for Environmental Research and
Policy (SCERP)
Bob Ybarra, consultant, former Board member
Al Zapanta, President and CEO of the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce
Detailed Meeting Summary, February 24, 2004
Background
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board (the Board) is an Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) independent advisory committee. It advises
the U.S. President and Congress on good-neighbor practices along the
U.S.-Mexico border. The focus is on the environmental infrastructure
needs of the U.S. states that are contiguous to Mexico.
Day 1 - February 24, 2004
Greetings
Chairman Placido dos Santos welcomed
Board members, speakers and members of the public, all of whom introduced
themselves.
Good Neighbor Board Member Federal Report-Outs
Dennis Linskey and Arturo Duran offered federal report-outs. Mr. Linskey described recent and upcoming political activity in the United States and Mexico, and mentioned the new issues that have dominated the bilateral relationship since September 2001, including a slowdown in trade and a deterioration of economic ties. A slowdown at border crossings has an effect on the regional environment. Mr. Duran discussed his first weeks as Commissioner for the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), which have included the signing of Minute 311.
Border Environmental Forecast
Panel 1: Government Experts
Jerry Clifford, EPA
Mr. Clifford commended the Board on its Seventh Report and offered updates
on the Border 2012 Program, the agency's funding for a Clean
Bus Grant Program, investments to improve Mexico's hazardous
waster facilities, and partnerships with the Pan-American Health Organization.
He also discussed the plan for an efficient unified board for the Border
Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development
Bank (NADBank). While those groups' funding capabilities decreases,
their process for certifying projects has sped up, leading to greater
shortfalls.
Minister Teodoro Maus, Mexico Secretariat for Environment and Natural
Resources (SEMARNAT)
Mr. Maus discussed the benefits and difficulties of being a neighbor
to the U.S., sharing a border he described as being the only example
of a developing country next to a highly industrialized country. Amid
immediate security concerns, the environment is often an easy issue to
put aside. Water, more than anything else, can be the source of either
conflict or cooperation. He expressed concern for the side effects of
the Yuma desalination plant. The resulting higher salt concentration
in the water that will reach the Colorado delta, he said, will essentially
kill the delta.
Mike Pool, Bureau of Land Management, California Director
Mr. Pool discussed the increasing demand for water, the urbanizing border
population, the different issues faced by rural areas, the environmental
effects of illegal immigration, the many partnerships between the two
countries on environmental issues, and the importance of education
and information sharing.
Questions and Comments
Mr. Linskey elaborated on the complex issues, historical contexts, and
international consequences surrounding the desalination plant and the
lining of the All American Canal.
Mr. Cibas: One preeminent theme is the scarcity of resources. What suggestions
do you have for the Board's consideration, and what initiatives
are under your umbrellas for releasing these constraints?
Mr. Clifford: One could simply increase the budget. There is a strong
reliance on the U.S. for capacity building. There is potential in trying
to leverage state involvement and state-to-state connections, and in
helping states further inland. Extending to public health, trade and
tourism issues leads to more opportunities for leveraging. The Board
is encouraged to look at water pricing—currently no one is paying
what it takes to produce clean water, and if people had to pay appropriately,
it would help with both project funding and conservation—cross-border
planning, and a binational water-quality database.
Mr. Pool: The use of foundations, donations, NGOs, and challenge cost-share
programs can leverage our capability so we do not always rely on federal
appropriations. Also, technology transfers and information exchange happen
in both directions and are free. We have learned a lot from our Mexican
counterparts, who are very creative and innovative with a limited amount
of money.
Mr. Norris discussed the toll taken on the Tohono O'odham Nation by illegal border crossing, which has increased dramatically as Homeland Security measures have created a bottleneck coming through tribal land. He also asked about the outlook for the tribal border water/wastewater program, which has been an asset and which has complemented the effort of Indian Health Service. Ms. Yoshii confirmed that the program's funding has been greatly reduced, but that EPA was continuing to work with tribes to secure funding support.
Ms. Chapman wondered what it takes to get full funding for the Border Environmental Infrastructure Fund (BEIF), for which the Board had written comment letters. Mr. Clifford replied that the more people in positions of influence who understand the impact of not funding a project, the better.
Ms. Sutley said that the barriers to water conservation, recycling and reuse are many: public acceptance, regulatory issues, the cost of recycling to produce high-quality water, contaminants, etc. Also, the EPA could be helpful in trying to develop legal mechanisms to donate monitoring equipment to Mexico. Mr. Clifford said an easy mechanism is to find an NGO willing to take the equipment. Mr. Maus said there have been problems with attempts to donate ambulances, and that part of capacity building is creating NGOs and opportunities for tax-deductible donation.
Mr. Ranger: In light of the 10th anniversary of NAFTA, what
thought is going to this inequitable subsidy that the border states are
paying
for the increased impact along the border?
Mr. Clifford: The border states are the first place job-seeking immigrants
arrive, but the wave is affecting other states. The long-term solution
is to analyze why people come, and until people in Mexico have the ability
to earn the same type of money they can in the U.S., little will change.
And the more these issues are linked with something like public health,
which commands a lot of attention, the more ability there will be to
address them.
Mr. Maus suggested also looking at where the money goes that is sent
back to Mexico by workers in the U.S.
Mr. Varady: A new observer would wonder why the government is cutting its revenues so drastically, why it is cutting taxes, which are the way we have paid for water infrastructure? When Mr. Clifford says we should be paying more for water, that is what we were doing when we were paying taxes.
Mr. Van Schoik offered to provide the Board with a recent SCERP study on international water pricing.
Jim Simmons and Dave Schlesinger discussed public-private partnerships
through Bajagua. Such partnerships, Mr. Schlesinger said, are "nothing
more than an allocation of risk to where the risk can be best handled" and
are "going to represent the future of water and wastewater treatment
on the border."
(Panel 1 Ends)
Good Neighbor Board Member Federal Report-Outs (continued)
In her report-out, Ms. Yoshii updated the Board on the implementation of Border 2012, whose workgroups are detailed at www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder. They have received many proposals already for project funding. Mr. Luthens added that they have also had proposals for some Clean Air Act money, such as for diesel retrofit and energy projects.
Mr. Dos Santos reported on his, Ms. Balkus and Ms. Koerner's meeting with EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt. They presented him with the Seventh Report. When asked what the EPA can do on the border, Mr. Dos Santos stressed water and wastewater infrastructure funding: the BEIF.
Mr. Klein reported that climate specialists are becoming convinced that we are on the threshold of what could become a very long and devastating drought. Reservoirs are 60 percent below normal for the Colorado River. Many management scenarios may have been formulated during wetter periods.
Keynote Presentation
James Connaughton, Council on Environmental Quality
Mr. Connaughton congratulated on Board on the Seventh Report, which is especially valuable in reminding readers that as we talk about the environment, a critical endpoint is public health. The Report, he added, is strengthened by the Board's diverse membership. He described the border as merely a point in a shared water-based ecosystem. It is becoming a complex of binational cities unlike anything else in the world. He encouraged the Board to synthesize subject areas in a way to facilitate the locality decision-making toward a common vision and a guiding framework. He stressed the importance of education, as well as an integrated observing network, which has health study and planning benefits, too. Mr. Connaughton also spoke of the importance of wetlands, pointing to recent legislation for further projects and to public-private partnerships. He addressed air pollution and praised efforts over past decades. When you bring air pollution down, he said, it increases your ability to bring economic development up, advancing economic, social and environmental opportunities without the air as a constraint.
Questions and Comments
Ms. Sutley raised the concern over BEIF funding. Mr. Connaughton mentioned
recent success with Tijuana sewage, and was hopeful that a good model
of success breeds more success and that increased economic growth will
produce additional revenue streams. He also stressed the importance
of partnerships.
Mr. Ranger: How can we partner in the interconnection between climate
change and air quality?
Mr. Connaughton: On the climate change issue we, basically, have a three-tiered
strategy. One is advancing the research in terms of our continued understanding
of the priority areas that we need to know and understand to make better
policy decisions. Tier two is technology. Everybody in the climate change
dialogue agrees that it is transformation technology that is the solution
to dramatically reducing greenhouse gases. On the transportation side,
it is fundamental that we get to a new transportation system. And, again,
the U.S. has led the way, but in partnership with key developed and developing
countries for the first time and accelerating the time to a hydrogen-based
transportation system.
Ms. Rose: How do you reconcile conflicts between homeland security,
border patrol issues, and the environmental issues? Do you dialogue with
the security folks? How does that work?
Mr. Connaughton: We have just gone through the process of working with
the Department of Homeland Security to put in place their first new NEPA
Regulations for their environmental review process. In terms of the substance
of it, how do you reconcile? Of course, there is no ready answer to that.
The upfront participation of localities in those discussions to try to
find a way to meet the paramount security needs with the least impact
on our natural systems. Sometimes non-expert, non-ecosystem expert professionals
overlook opportunities. And, again, that is why we have this very important
environmental review process.
Border Environmental Forecast (continued)
Panel 2: Private Sector Experts
Al Zapanta, President and CEO of the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Zapanta explained that, for perspective on what is going on with
private sector along the border, the Chamber participated on two major
projects with EPA and one with SEMARNAT where the Chamber has felt
that we needed to engage directly with the side agreements after NAFTA
was promulgated. The Seven Principals of Environmental Stewardship
for industry was finalized about 2½ years ago. The Chamber has
now done a refinement of that, and is moving forward on its own with
SEMARNAT and a private sector project that is in Baja California sewage,
the Laredo Bay Project.
What is important is that the private sector is what is going to drive many of the changes, and they are going to do it voluntarily. And the more we can engage with private sector along the border, and on both sides in our countries to include our neighbors to the north, the more successful we will be. The Laredo Bay Project, involving $2 billion and 5,000 homes to be built in Nopolo, has been an example of this. It is partnership of a group out of Victoria, Canada, and a group out of Phoenix. One percent of all the sales of the properties will go into a social, educational, economic and sustainable-development foundation with a board of directors from Laredo, Canada, and the United States. So it is really the first major sustainable-development community that is a "NAFTA baby."
Mr. Zapanta strongly urge the group to, wherever possible, ensure that the private sector is part and parcel of not only dialogue, but the Board's process. He observed a kind of narrowmindedness or a sensitivity to not want to talk to the private sector.
Dr. Robert Pastor, Vice President of International Affairs at American
University and Director of the Center on North American Studies
Mr. Pastor urged the group to step back and look at the border problems
from an alternative direction, from a North American direction, from
a continental direction. The North American Free Trade Agreement succeeded
in what it was designed to do, which was to promote trade and investment,
but it failed miserably in reducing the development gap between Mexico
and its two northern neighbors, in reducing immigration, although it
was promised to do that. In fact, illegal migration has tripled in the
last decade since NAFTA.
In the absence of a true development strategy for North America, there is an unspoken development strategy which, essentially, says for foreign direct investors, invest near the border, congregate there, do not necessarily invest in the border, but invest in your factories on the border, which serve as magnets for additional labor coming from Central and Southern Mexico.
Europe has succeeded in significantly reducing the development gap between their richest and poorest countries. Why? Free trade and investment, conditionality in terms of economic policy, but mostly the transfer of an enormous amount of resources, particularly effective in infrastructure and post-secondary education. What can we learn from Europe? Number one: they wasted about half of the money. The only money that was well spent was on infrastructure and post-secondary education. Number two: do not create many new banks and institutions; use existing institutions. And number three: condition the aid on genuine reforms and effective use of those resources.
How do we bring Mexico, Canada, and particularly the United States to
the point that all three countries recognize that there is no investment
abroad that would accrue more benefits in the United States than an investment
in Mexico's development, but only if Mexico were to make a comparable
investment in its own development? We need to be sure that that money
would be well spent, as it would be if the World Bank and the Inter-American
Development Bank and the North American Development Bank, would take
a hand in implementing all of that.
William Snape, Chief Counsel for Defenders of Wildlife
Mr. Snape noted that there is an incredible demand for power and energy
resources, or at least a perception of a demand for those resources—but
most objective individuals and researchers do indicate an increased
demand for energy. Energy planning is happening in such a helter-skelter
fashion right now that he fears that not only are we not really going
to solve our energy problems because plants are being built wherever
possible, we are going to cause a lot of problems in the process. In
Mexico, there really are some opportunities. Wind power is not being
captured in Mexico to the extent that it can. The same with solar,
which is under-invested in Mexico and is a win/win for both economics
and the environment. We do not need more institutions, but we need
the ones we have to take some baby steps. For example, IBWC needs to
be given more decision-making ability and to be more accountable. The
IBWC continues in many instances, despite its improvement, to be a
black box. No one is really quite sure what happens there.
Luiz Augusto Cassanha Galvao, Sustainable Development and Environmental,
Pan American Health Organization
Mr. Galvao observed that if the world could be provided with equitable
access to safe water and sanitation, it could wipe out more than 2 million
needless deaths of children every year, plus countless cases of diarrhea,
missed days of school, years of disability, and millions of dollars of
productivity loss. The statistics show that with improved access to clean
water and sanitation, infant and child mortality rates plunge. Development
goals that target improved access to safe drinking water and sanitation
by specific years will be attained more easily in the rural sectors rather
than the urban sector. Rural areas are not improving so much as that
the rural populations are decreasing, which improves the statistics.
The population explosion on the U.S.-Mexico border creates strain on
the infrastructure, which is complicated by environmental stressors and
insufficient supply of water, particularly from the Rio Grande.
Questions and Comments
Mr. Duran stated that unless we, as government, have something specific
to offer to the private sector, they are not going to step up to the
level that we would like them to. It would be good if Mr. Zapanta's leadership could assist in that endeavor and see if there can be something
that can be put together in a framework on behalf of the industry for
all three governments to consider. At the policy level, Mr. Duran thinks
those incentives need to be specific with some very target goals and
objectives. Mr. Pastor's words and presentation were stimulating.
One of the major shortcomings of NAFTA is that the expectation was
that all three governments should take care of it. It is a very high
and unrealistic expectation. How we can bring that down to the local
level and sustain those economies is really something to be looking
for. We need to focus on how we go about building capacity at the local
level and how local communities go about addressing their own issues
and start looking for local problems, local solutions, and how we can
all facilitate a process and empower that. Then, leverage the existing
resources in partnership.
Mr. Zapanta agreed, and said that the Chamber would be willing to work with Mr. Duran, or anybody else. Thinking about NAFTA, there is the impact of China in the last couple of years coming into the trade market, which means a slowdown for Mexico. The Partnership for Prosperity should be continued, to try to go into migrant-sending regions and help develop economic development programs so people would stay, and eventually start to stem the tide of migration.
Mr. Pastor understood why it might feel overwhelming at the border,
and realized at the same time that the national governments are not helping
much. To a great extent, national governments felt that NAFTA would solve
all problems. What is necessary is a national development strategy, a
continental development strategy for all three that would permit the
center and the south to grow in a fashion that would relieve the pressure
on the border. And that does require a significant amount of investment.
He felt that what the group could do is to bring that consciousness to
the capitals, because he does not believe that our national leaders are
fully aware of both the pressure felt on the border and the necessity
of developing all three countries in a more cooperative fashion.
Ms. Alcala agreed with the focus on the population shift. This needs
to be brought up in relation to what the border communities are seeing
and going through because of NAFTA, which has been good in one way,
but in another, we are not keeping up with the infrastructure.
Mr. Paz pointed out that with NAFTA, in exchange for all the activity that was going to go on along the border, Congress promised $100 million a year. That is part of the deal that has not been lived up to, and to expect the private sector to come in and say they are going to pick up the gap is unrealistic. To say that other NGOs are going to pick up the gap is unrealistic.
Ms. Sutley stated that California was the only recipient of a kind of active investment dispute with respect to the decision to ban the gasoline additive MTBE, which survived a court challenge in federal court in the United States, but is still alive in front of the NAFTA panel.
Dr. Pastor noted there was some very pioneering elements of that provision, but he does not believe that it was ever intended to be used in the way that it has been used, which is, to an effect, to protect investment at the cost of undermining environmental regulations at a local or provincial level. That needs to be corrected, together with the fact that most of the processes by which those disputes have been judged, have been closed. We need to open them up, make them transparent, and also make clear that they should not be used for the purpose of undermining environmental regulations. The dispute settlement mechanism should be moved and changed into a permanent cord of trade and investment to eliminate potential conflicts of interest.
(Panel 2 Ends)
Guest Speakers on Water Management
1). Improving Binational Water Management
Dr. Stephen Mumme, Colorado State University, Professor of Political Science
Dr. Mumme noted that in its Fifth Report, the Board advised the government to support efforts for increased collection in data sharing about border-region groundwater resources, to encourage greater binational cooperation and border groundwater management, and to support partnerships at all levels that promote strategic watershed principles. That is still very useful advice. Challenges include rising demand, urban expansion, rising per-capita use in Mexico, limited sources of new water, difficult storage, costly technologies, and insufficient institutional capability to deal with some of the scarcities. We need to work with the institutions we have to build further institutional capacity.
The 1906 agreement, the1944 Water Treaty, the La Passe Agreement, Border 2012 and Border XXI are all mechanisms that guide binational water use. What are the mechanisms for improving our binational status quo? There is a range of somewhat less formal options that can be adopted at the state, local and tribal level to pursue concurrent compatible changes in water management that synchronize local programs to achieve a binational benefit. The federal is there, and the federal is an important framing element in thinking about anything done at the state, tribal, and local levels. Tribal really straddles federal and local and is a unique jurisdictional reality along the border.
But there is the IBWC arrangement. We can pursue minutes in between our two governments. We have Border 2012 Workgroup policy forums and task forces, and we have the BECC and the NADBank operating as a truly binational forum for developing technical assistance certification and funded projects. The Board should think about treaty-compatible, binational reform options for surface water and watersheds, and then for groundwater.
The IBWC, designated lead federal agency for binational water management, is in some ways a limited agency, but it can be developed. The IBWC's role in fact-finding and data collection, strategic planning, and notification of crises can be elaborated. The IBWC should be a national coordinator and facilitator, in partnership with domestic agencies in anticipating and coordinating binational responses, and we need to seriously develop IBWC's role in monitoring watersheds borderwide.
We need to think about extending at least the U.S. sectional capability to support citizen advisory forums in border watersheds. We need to encourage Mexico to establish complementary bodies. The Board can really take a leading role in trying to catalyze, contact, discuss and encourage Mexico to try and create such bodies within the context that are compatible with Mexican domestic law and treaty authority.
The IBWC ought to build in a technical scientific advisory component that can be supportive of all these activities that are going on in the border area. It should also augment its staff resources in this area to provide a common frame for the two governments as they cooperate with their consultative and advisory and citizens' bodies so that we are not disputing the data. We need to support increased collection data sharing on a binational basis, but I hope the IBWC does not give up on trying to map groundwater aquifers in a binational way, enriching our understanding of these resources. The IBWC has initiated a very positive set of efforts in this regard, and I hope that they can harness state and local support. I hope the Board can lend some legitimacy to that process.
2). Lori Gray, Assistant Regional Director for the Lower Colorado River
Region, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Interior
For the Colorado River, issues we deal with regularly through IBWC include
salinity, sediment, lining the All American Canal (upon which an agreement
had been reached to analyze conveying a portion of the treaty water through
the All American Canal to Mexico, to some turnouts taking the water closer
and providing it in different areas, and to at a greater flexibility
for scheduling the water deliveries), the Yuma Desalting Plant, Mexican
Delta, and invasive species. The average natural flow is 15.1 million
acre-feet. The allocation is 16.5, which is a potential problem. When
the allocation was made, we had taken the average flow in years when
the flow was very high. We talk about salinity a lot, but in 1950, salinity
at the NIB was up around 1,000 parts per million. It is dropping now
to just about 800 parts per million. It is also dropping for Imperial
Dam. The water being delivered to Mexico is better quality, but it is
harder and harder for the U.S. to meet that differential written into
Minute 242 of the 1944 Treaty.
Questions and Comments
Mr. Varady: I wanted to talk a little bit about Minute 306, signed in
December 2000. It sounds like actually very little has been done to
implement what is in that minute.
Ms. Gray: We held a meeting at the Mexicali symposium, September 11,
2001. We had a three-prong agenda to talk about legal issues, to talk
about institutional issues—how does the Mexican Government work,
who is where in the organization, since the U.S. side of the house really
said, "Gee, we don't understand. We are not sure how to work
with you." So they were going to lay that out. And then the third
piece was environmental information. The U.S. has met. We have met with
the environmental groups, we have talked about the protocol. It is only
recently that we had the meeting with Mexico.
Mr. Linskey: There was a period in which I think both governments were
at an impasse on how to deal with implementing Minute 306. We wanted
to continue technical level of discussions; Mexico at that period felt
it would be better to bring it to capitals and have it discussed at national
level. We lost time but are back on track and following the workgroup
structure. In all frankness, sometimes this got tied up into the Rio
Grande water issues as well.
Mr. Ramirez: Who is the operator of the Yuma Desalt Plant? Is it a water
quality project, or a drinking water project? Is it going to be permanent
under NPDES regime? Where is the brine discharge?
Ms. Gray: The Yuma Desalting Plant is a Reclamation-constructed and owned
facility to recover the 108,000 acre-feet that is being bypassed to Mexico.
Mexicans were concerned about the salinity. An easy fix is you take Walt-Mohawk's
return drain—they are at the bottom of the system, that is where
all the salt accumulates—and you send it over to an area. And the
agreement was an area in Mexico, which happens to be the Cienega de Santa
Clara. Discharge, the brine, would go down the moat to the Cienega.
Ms. Sutley: Will the desalting plant have any impact on the quality
of water being delivered to California?
Ms. Gray: In general, no.
Mr. Klein: If there was a normal run-off year for the next 10, 12, 14
years, how long would it take to fill the reservoirs?
Ms. Gray: Eighteen years. The 90 percentile probability of refilling
Mead by 2010 is between 20 and 24 percent. So we are going to have to
see a lot of water to recover the system totally.
Mr. Duran thanked Dr. Mumme for highlighting some of the opportunities in front of the IBWC, adding that he shares some of the same objectives as commissions and looks forward to exploring those opportunities. The treaties are not perfect and we are trying to make them work; however, he sees a lot of other opportunities where the states really can play an instrumental role to complement the treaties. His job will be to market that border region in Washington, D.C. and meet with members of Congress and the Senate so that we can get those level appropriations that are required.
Ms. Borja commented that the point made earlier about closing the development gap is one of the more brilliant things she had heard today. She felt that they had learned to overlook it. We have to begin closing that development gap in terms of technology and facilities, too.
3). Frank Bevacqua, Public Information Officer, U.S.-Canada International
Joint Commission (a counterpart to the IBWC)
The International Joint Commission was created by a 1909 Boundary Waters
Treaty, with three commissioners appointed by the U.S. President, with
Senate confirmation, and three appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada.
They work together to find solutions that are in the best interest of
both countries, and they do not receive any negotiating positions from
their national governments. Decisions are by consensus. We have approved
a number of dams and other projects that control water levels and flows.
We also attempt to help the two countries prevent and resolve disputes
involving the shared air and water resources. This is mainly when the
two countries come to us and ask us to perform a study, in which case
we make non-binding recommendations. We also have responsibilities for
overseeing the clean-up of the Great Lakes. The treaty deals with waters
that are boundary waters that flow along the boundary, as well as rivers
that cross the boundary. It gives full control over the waters to the
upstream country; both waters that cross the boundary, or waters that
flow into boundary waters. No dams or diversions or other projects will
be built in boundary waters that effect the natural levels and flows
on the other side without some form of binational approval. Either an
application is made to the IJC, or the two countries negotiate a separate
bilateral agreement. For rivers that cross the boundary, there is binational
approval needed if a project would raise the level of the water on the
other side. When the IJC is involved in approving a project, its job
is to make sure that interests in both countries are protected under
the terms of the treaty. Public involvement has been a hallmark of the
IJC's process from the beginning. It is very important to get people
in different parts of the watershed to talk to each other.
Mr. Bevacqua believes that the effort has been of value because of the
independence of the commissioners. It is very important to their function.
Even though the two countries have very different populations and economies,
in this process there is absolute parity. There is also a focus on science
and joint fact-finding.
Questions and Comments
Ms. Sutley: Do the volunteer boards make recommendations to the commission,
or do they have sort of independent decision-making authority?
Mr. Bevacqua: When we appoint the board, the commissioners will give
the board a directive. The board goes and carries out its process and
then comes back with recommendations to the commissioners, who make the
final decision.
Ms. Chapman: Is the commission up against the issue of environmental
flows?
Mr. Bevacqua: That is a very big issue that was not really considered
in the first half of the 20th century, when most of these projects were
approved and built. We are looking at defining performance indicators
of projects for the environmental functions and trying to optimize the
way the system would be regulated.
4). Holly Richter, Technical Committee Chair, Upper San Pedro Program;
Riparian Ecologist, Nature Conservancy
Hopefully, the case study on the San Pedro can be extrapolated to other
areas. The river flows north into the U.S., and right north of the international
border is a 40-mile conservation area owned and managed by the Bureau
of Land Management. The center third of the watershed, is called the
Sierra Vista sub-watershed. There is also Fort Huachuca, which is a Department
of Defense installation, with personnel and a surrounding population.
Most of the recharge occurs on the higher mountain areas that define
the watershed, and that recharge to the aquifer moves down into the center
of the valley and provides the base flows that sustain that riparian
corridor over time. In between are a lot of municipal wells and water
uses.
We are part of a larger network initially established by the Arizona Department of Water Resources. The partnership itself is a consortium of 20 agencies—federal, state, local agencies—and NGOs. We have private businesses represented. Our priorities are to cooperate in the identification, prioritization, and implementation of comprehensive projects and policies to meet our ground water challenges. It is a very collaborative grassroots effort; we operate under a consensus driven basis. It takes a lot of time, but it is also, I think, a very effective strategy in finding this balance between ecosystem needs and human demands. We sponsor research and monitoring needed for sound decision-making. We have almost 100 different efforts underway by member agencies, including the educational outreach program Waterwise. Our bottom-up collaborative approach to management challenges has resulted in informed decision-making and increased the availability of pooled and leveraged resources for science and project implementation. Cost-benefit analysis is an important tool for looking at projects.
How does this affect cross-border work? What have we done to address those challenges and opportunities? The partnership has an objective to encourage collaboration with Mexican counterparts regarding resources of the basin. There are some simple logistical factors that greatly hinder our ability for cross-border work, such as clearance requirements for federal employees, scientific equipment, and vehicles. There are very limited funds for travel expenses, particularly for our Mexico partners. Translation services are very expensive. Looking at some of the bigger issues, there is a lack of an institutional framework for collaborative regional planning within Mexico. there are also a lot of disparities in our cross-border data collection and analysis, archiving and dissemination. An important thing we could make a lot of progress on is having additional venues for cross-border communication between technical experts.
Questions and Comments
Ms. Chapman: Where did you come up with the funding for conservation
easements, and who paid for the conservation easements?
Ms. Richter: It is a collaborative effort between the conservancy, the
Department of Defense, and the Bureau of Land Management. The Nature
Conservancy acts as kind of the broker, using funds, primarily, from
the Department of Defense, which has a mitigation requirement under a
biological opinion to, basically, mitigate so many acre-feet per year.
Then the easement is held by the Bureau of Land Management over the long-term.
Mr. Paz: BECC and NADBank have a technical advisory program where they
provide technical experts to help study a lot of these issues. They may
not have the funding to build it, or you may get on a priority list that
is pretty low in the whole scheme of things, it takes years. Going through
that process can at least get the science done. Then the money can flow
out of maybe some of the alternatives that are evaluated.
Mr. Linskey: On formal mechanisms for cooperating on watersheds, what
happens with the interstate compacts between the states? How would you
handle the Rio Grande compact, a Colorado River compact? The other thing
is how we handle the differences or treatment in water, where the Mexico
water is federal property, and in the U.S., it is a state property. And
then when we get to groundwater issues, we have Texas with one set of
rules versus New Mexico with another.
Dr. Mumme: The short answer is that you have to bring them in as stakeholders
in any kind of watershed-based planning that you are involved in. You
cannot leave them out. They are really part of the broader interstate
and federal apparatus that is in place. The bad news is that they are
a fairly rigid set of structures to work with. So you have to be operating
in those frames, but not all of the watersheds fall into such rigid structures.
So you have to distinguish between which watersheds you are dealing with.
It is clear that the tri-state Rio Grande compact works on a formula
basis for apportioning the water between the states, but there are real
issues, such as the current or recently resolved court case regarding
the silver minnow, that pertain to the flow regime and how those waters
are delivered. Any type of watershed process that you are going to think
about as sort of a template or model to push the governments towards,
does have to have some provision for conflict resolution, which would
be the IBWC in that structure. But IBWC could be elaborated under the
treaty in terms of working out basin-to-basin some conflict procedure
to deal with certain types of problems. that is a really tricky, thorny,
potentially divisive issue.
Mexico is now in the process of rethinking its water law. It is not a classic stakeholder model that is being used in Mexico right now. It is much more of a formal model of representation.
Mr. Cibas noted that there are two very different legal systems in these two countries, and he believes that one way of helping to resolve this issue is going to be to start dealing with very complex matters with a long history at a local level, at a very practical level of communities. Once we do that, we might then be able to start deducing various possibilities which may, or may not, conflict with existing laws in one country or the other. But if the members of these communities can communicate with each other, they might be able to persuade those who under the different laws in both countries have the authority to listen to their needs.
###
Day 2 - February 25, 2004
Approval of the Minutes
The minutes of the Imperial Beach, California, meeting were approved
with some modifications.
Planning for Eighth Report
In planning for the Eighth Report, the Board and facilitator David Batson
(Chair Dos Santos said he wanted to be more involved in the crafting
of the report) reviewed the Board's activities from the previous
year.
Successes
Mr. Dos Santos discussed how past Board recommendations, particularly
from its review of the Border XXI program, were incorporated into Border
2012, adopted in April 2003. The Board evaluated coordination with
Consejos and agreed to exchange agendas, meeting notices, minutes of
meetings, and drafts of documents when appropriate, and members developed
a greater understanding of those similar Mexican boards. Paul Ganster's
efforts to promote self-evaluation of the board with the indicators
of effectiveness (see below) showed the value of new blood and the
changes that come with new membership. Public participation increased
in 2003, as did the opportunities for Board members to take informative
field trips near meeting sites.
Meetings with the EPA Administrator and the head of the CEQ, as well as visits from other senior officials, Ms. Koerner added, say something about the Board's credibility and increasing clout. She also commended greater participation of Board members, their willingness to allocate some of the resources on their teams for the Seventh Report, and their work planning effective meetings. Ms. Yoshii mentioned the importance of the Board's newsletter.
Challenges and Lessons Learned
Ms. Koerner noted the importance of finding a focus early on for the
annual report, so there is less risk of devoting a lot of effort to
something that does not end up getting into the report.
With a topic such as water, Ms. Sutley said, she hoped the Board would not feel as if it had to describe issues in exhaustive detail. It was valuable in the Seventh Report to have examples of things people are doing, and to inform Congress and the President of those things that are going on at the border and trying to point out the areas that the Federal Government can be helpful with.
Mr. Ranger wanted to encourage thought of implementation at the state level and coordination with enforcement teams at state, county and city level in order to enhance the impact of the Board's suggestions.
Ms. Chapman felt that the report's consensus can be both a strength and a weakness. In some cases, she said, the NGO perspective might present views that are a little bit more activist-oriented than a lot of the Board is comfortable with, and the report doesn't reflect the complete richness of the different views.
Mr. Walling said keeping up could be a little frustrating and wondered if some benchmarks of where the Board wants to be when in the reports might be helpful, so that missing a meeting or a pair of conference calls would not cause someone to feel lost.
Development of 2004 Roadmap
The Board reviewed its original mission statement and list of principles,
and Mr. Batson asked if those visions were still what made sense for
the group. In order to provide timely advice, Mr. Ranger recommended
establishing a sort of issue or threat matrix that would focus on regions
and states and jurisdictions, providing a map of what the problems
are, what the imminence of these threats are, so the Board can communicate
among themselves, as well as within agencies and with Mexican counterparts.
In view of the previous day's speakers, Ms. Rose wondered if
the Board's emphasis should take into account the severely reduced
federal resources. Many Board members agreed that the Board should
look at the allocation of all resources, without letting the federal
government off the hook for its allocation of resources and its responsibilities
on the border. Mr. Cibas said the private sector should also be held
accountable for the externalities of doing business on and across the
border.
As goals for the Eighth Report, Board members cited the following: increase resources, give communities working tools, increase results, identify concrete actions, provide benefits and costs, affect institutional arrangements, communicate needs, have a lasting impact, be widely used, identify problem areas, address working with Mexico, promote practical solutions, have input from Mexico, be a unified document, be focused, include an understanding of government focus, and be pragmatic.
The Board discussed whether it would prefer a broad focus or an emphasis on discrete issues. Topics mentioned included a blueprint for binational planning; the need to separate ground and surface water, with a focus on often-neglected groundwater; transborder cooperation mechanisms; the importance of work at the local level; using a bottom-up approach; the chance to build on previous recommendations; and a regional versus a thematic approach. Ms. Sutley suggested a focus on community input, best practices, and outstanding needs. Mr. Dos Santos suggested a look at the IBWC.
Expanding on Ms. Sutley's divisions, Mr. Batson suggested workgroups with thematic focuses: one that dealt with information data issues; one that dealt with institutional issues, including the IBWC issues and the different institutions that are involved and how value could be added by those institutions; and one dealing with the integration issues.
For the data workgroup (John Klein, Dick Walling, Gedi Cibas, Valecia Gavin, Diana Borja): address why data is important, who will use it, binational capability of databases checked, integrating datasets, data inventories in full spectrum, environmental infectious diseases health issues, technical capacity building, standardized testing methods, both QA and QC, include technical advisory components for the data, and public access to data.
For the institutions workgroup (Bob Varady, Arturo Duran, Nancy Sutley, Gedi Cibas, Valecia Gavin, Diana Borja, Jerry Paz): identify border institutions, look at the inventory of resources that currently exist, identify opportunities for collaboration and effective use, coordination across institutions and citizen advisory components, making federal agencies more transparent.
For the workgroup on integration (Dora Alcala, Larry Allen, John Klein, Karen Chapman, Laura Yoshii, Nancy Sutley, Gedi Cibas, Valecia Gavin, Doug Smith): technical assistance to local communities, existing planning groups and entities, where are they most effective, combining watershed and binational principles, what principles seem to work best and be most effective, what kind of a blueprint is there to promote integrated watershed approach, planning to results, communication, measuring and evaluation, how can we use an integrated approach to address water quality and quantity issues.
Items such as community input and environmental justice could be addressed by each group as appropriate.
Planning calls were scheduled for Eighth Report workgroups.
Indicators of Effectiveness
Mr. Ganster: Indicators broke down into quantitative (such as reports
issued and meeting attendance) and qualitative—what were the
impacts of our reports, what effect did we have at changing perceptions
in the public, in Congress, and in the administration. The major problems
are that the Board is trying to really serve to enlighten Congress
and the administration, and secondarily, the communities that we all
come from. Those are things that cannot be measured easily in the short-term.
We are talking about changing the way people think and perceive things
over the long-term. It is very difficult to establish a cause-effect
relationship.
Other Business
Ms. Koerner updated the Board on the distribution of its Seventh Report,
of which 5,000 copies were printed. She also took a count for Round-up
readership, from email forwardings to web postings.
Dick Walling announced that this would be his last meeting due to changes in the Office of the Americas and his increased focus on the Middle East.
Post-meeting logistical plans were discussed, and the meeting concluded at 4:04 pm.