Jump to main content.

Detailed Meeting Summary/Minutes McAllen, TX 2004

G N E B Good Neighbor Environmental Board

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD

Board Meeting

Holiday Inn Convention Center
McAllen, Texas
June 9-10, 2004

Table of Contents
List of Participants
June 9 Meeting Summary
Background
Greetings
Water Management Presentation 1: Water Master's Perspective:Rio Grande Management
Questions and Comments
Water Management Presentation 2: Water Management in Mexico
Questions and Comments
Water Management Presentation 3: NADBank-Funded Water Conservation Projects
Questions and Comments
Good Neighbor Board Member Report-outs

Water Management Presentation 4: Desalination, Conservation and Public Utilities
Questions and Comments
Water Management Presentation 5: Lower Rio Grande Water Rights: Historical and International Aspects
Questions and Comments
Water Management Presentation 6: Environmental Flow Protection: Protecting Our Rivers, Bays and Estuaries
Questions and Comments
Water Management Presentation 7: Rio Grande Restoration Projects Upstream
Questions and Comments
Consejo Report-out
Other Business
 
June 10 Meeting Summary
 
Membership Matters
Approval of the Minutes
Indicators of Effectiveness
Distribution of Seventh Report
Good Neighbor Board Member Report-outs
Advisory Letters
Breakout Sessions for Eighth Report
Field Trip

Meeting Summary/ Minutes of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Good Neighbor Environmental Board

Board Meeting

Holiday Inn Convention Center
McAllen, Texas
June 9-10, 2004

Meeting Participants

Board Members and Alternates Present

Board Members' Colleagues

EPA Staff

Speakers and Attendees

Detailed Meeting Summary, June 9-10, 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 - June 9, 2004

Greetings
Chairman Placido Dos Santos welcomed Board members, speakers and members of the public, all of whom introduced themselves. He introduced the meeting theme of water management, which is in preparation for the Board's Eighth report for the President and Congress on border-region water issues. He also wished a happy birthday to McAllen Mayor Leo Montalvo.

Mr. Montalvo welcomed the Board and applauded their efforts, which he described as yeoman's work. He discussed some health and water issues facing the area, which has seen a lot of growth on the Mexican side of the border. He encouraged looking at regional cooperation among municipalities and water providers.

Water Management Presentations

Presentation 1: Water Master's Perspective: Rio Grande Management

Carlos Rubinstein, Water Master, TCEQ
Mr. Rubinstein discussed the management of the Rio Grande waters below Fort Quitman, Texas. The Water Master Program grew out of a lawsuit in the 1950s, filed after an irrigation district diverted water on its way to a municipality. The courts took possession of all waters at the Falcon Reservoir at that time and created the program. When Texas was part of Spain, water in the Rio Grande was allocated by the king and attached to land and land grants. Then this was mixed with English law, and the results did not work for the state. The court-established system vacated existing water rights and granted new priorities based on historical and beneficial use, with a special classification of water rights for municipalities, which are guaranteed with a one-year reserve that is reassessed every month. There is no guarantee for irrigation water.

Mr. Rubinstein said the system works well, is drought-driven and drought-responsive, and allows for a very active water market. It treats the Amistad and Falcon reservoirs as one system (Falcon loses more water to evaporation, he said). The system allows for a conversion process, though conversion comes at a price. As cities occupy space previously used for farming, irrigable acreage is reduced. But the water saved is now municipal-use and must be guaranteed, so the value of the water under the transferred right is reduced to 40 or 50 percent, depending on the previous classification of the right.

There is a reserve to cover evaporation losses, but the system does not have a reserve to cover losses from inefficiencies in distribution canals of irrigation districts; the districts pay for those inefficiencies, which have to do with terrain (high clay content in the soil, for example) and the investment in improving the districts' infrastructure.

Mr. Rubinstein said there is a binational working relationship at the local level, with data shared equally, completely and daily. Water master deputies check the river daily to make sure water is being diverted at the rate and quantity authorized. Mr. Rubinstein said the level of compliance from users, who fund the program, is astronomical.

Questions and Comments
Mr. Ganster: Has there been any discussion about enabling some sort of contractual arrangements for transfers from one country to the other?
Mr. Rubinstein: There are transfers that occur already, mainly from Mexico to the United States. and there was a minute order signed in 1995 to allow Texas to transfer water to Mexico through the IBWC to address a potential municipal emergency (in the end, it was not needed). But there is nothing at the private level.

Ms. Sutley: Have you ever considered water quality or, for example, habitat for endangered species in the allocation? Also, do you allow for long-term transfers of water?
Mr. Rubinstein: When we try to discuss environmental flows and those considerations, we need to do it at an international level. Absent that, you would be placing the burdens wholly on one country or another. It is not uncommon to have water supply corporations enter into long-term water delivery contracts with municipalities. The agreement is between them, but we are the ones that actually move the water, and the water is moved as it is needed. Think of it as a bank moving funds.

Mr. Ramirez: How would a new industry wanting to move into the valley go about securing water supply since there is no water right available?
Mr. Rubinstein: Industrial water comes from the same pool as municipal water, which would promote and should assist in the promotion of economic development of the valley. You go buy an irrigation right, and rather than convert it to municipal, you convert it to industrial. The smart thing to do would be to convert it to multi-use, municipal and industrial. The price and process are the same, and the guarantee would be the same as a municipal guarantee.

Mr. Muskovitz: Is the market price for water affected by quality? Also, as we have investment reducing the loss of water, is there a correlation with the price?
Mr. Rubinstein: There is a correlation as demand goes, when you improve efficiency—if a farmer can buy less water and yet maintain the same quantity, for example. Water quality is not an issue on setting the price.

Mr. Cibas: Are there mechanisms, in some manner of legal mechanisms used in international law, to ensure accuracy is maintained if data is found to be inaccurate?
Mr. Rubinstein: The mechanism is the IBWC itself. We share the same monitoring stations and communicate decisions immediately. We have the same ability to look at each other's data.

Mr. Dos Santos: Who sets the price of water?
Mr. Rubinstein: The market, the demand.
Mr. Dos Santos: But the municipal sector is paying as much as $2,000 per acre-foot for a long-term right. What about the possibility of leases to encourage—even if it is a temporary transfer of rights—a conversion of use? Also, if an agricultural entity gets off of surface waters, do they have the opportunity to drill wells?
Mr. Rubinstein: Yes, but the quality of our groundwater is suspect at best. And to make a distinction, you cannot do a direct comparison of the price on wet water versus the paper right. There is a lot that goes into that $2,000 price. The biggest part of it is that it is a guaranteed right.

Presentation 2: Water Management in Mexico

J. Arturo Herrera Solis, Commissioner, Mexican Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC)
Mr. Herrera, delivering his presentation in Spanish, outlined the framework of water management in Mexico. Its National Water Commission (CNA) is responsible for setting policies for the beneficial uses of the country's water resources. The issue has grown more important, and not only in the border region. If it is considered a national security issue, it requires national attention. The 1944 treaty not only tries to distribute water between the two countries; it also creates a bilateral instrument and allows us to build infrastructure to develop the facility in the border region. Government institutions have seen the challenge of how to make information on water management more accessible. The Mexican and U.S. sections have a website with a great amount of data from more than 40 monitoring stations in both countries, something Mr. Herrera said he has not seen in any other border. Mr. Herrera said recent drought conditions were a learning experience for both countries, and he stressed the importance of collaboration and of looking to the future to meet long-term needs. He said the environment is last in water distribution and that environmental aspects need to be considered.

Questions and Comments
Mr. Ganster: The question is what kind of administrative mechanism can be developed to effectively manage a binational watershed on that scale? Is that something the CILA/IBWC is prepared to undertake? Or do we need to invent something new?
Mr. Herrera thought we have lost a lot of time trying to create institutions, and we have lost sight that everything evolves. He said binational interests could be addressed with the national commission as a link, recommending good policies with the present institutions.

Mr. Guerrero said it was important to include the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the Rio Grande Summit (Mr. Herrera agreed) and asked about the invasive species tamarisk. Mr. Herrera said, among other efforts, there is a workgroup on invasive species that includes the State of Texas.

J. Arturo Herrera Solis, Commissioner, Mexican Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC)
Mr. Herrera, delivering his presentation in Spanish, outlined the framework of water management in Mexico. Its National Water Commission (CNA) is responsible for setting policies for the beneficial uses of the country's water resources. The issue has grown more important, and not only in the border region. If it is considered a national security issue, it requires national attention. The 1944 treaty not only tries to distribute water between the two countries; it also creates a bilateral instrument and allows us to build infrastructure to develop the facility in the border region. Government institutions have seen the challenge of how to make information on water management more accessible. The Mexican and U.S. sections have a website with a great amount of data from more than 40 monitoring stations in both countries, something Mr. Herrera said he has not seen in any other border. Mr. Herrera said recent drought conditions were a learning experience for both countries, and he stressed the importance of collaboration and of looking to the future to meet long-term needs. He said the environment is last in water distribution and that environmental aspects need to be considered.

Presentation 3: NADBank-funded Water Conservation Projects

Oscar Cabra, North American Development Bank (NADBank)
Mr. Cabra: In addition to the investment in Mexico and the infrastructure program, NADBank also has a technical assistance program focused on providing technical assistance in Mexico related to water conservation. Agricultural producers are generally the largest consumers of water in the border region, and many experts agree that application of the improved technology and changes in practice, particularly in the agricultural sector, could save significant amounts of water in both countries. The saved water could be put to a range of uses, including compliance with the 1944 treaty obligations. Mexico intends to carry out a conservation program to modernize irrigation districts and promote conservation in border communities. To help finance this and conservation projects on the U.S. side, the two governments agreed to support the use of NADBank resources. NADBank's Water Conservation Investment Fund (WCIF) has $40 million for each country for conservation projects, which must be certified by the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC). Public sector bodies, irrigation districts, and other quasi-governmental bodies could be recipients. Several studies by the CNA and the Instituto Mexicano de Tecnologia de Agua (IMTA) indicate that a significant water savings could be realized in irrigation district 005, in Delicias, Chihuahua. In both countries, it has been important to accommodate the construction of infrastructure with the agricultural planting season, and not to disrupt that. The Bank's investment is focused on canal lining and piping, land grading, and low- and high-pressure systems. Construction in Delicias started in November 2003.

The board also authorized $5 million from the Bank's undesignated retained earnings to technical assistance for water conservation exclusively in Mexico to advance both technological and management tools, particularly in the Río Conchos. The objectives were to create a framework to capture and analyze the data, to improve the decision-making on the Bravo and Conchos water resources, to update policies and procedures in systems that improve the management of those two rivers, and to evaluate groundwater resources for continued reliability and as emergency supplies. Mr. Cabra summarized the studies funded so far, including one to create a Río Bravo basin database for integration into the CNA's GIS system. More information is available on the Bank's website.

Questions and Comments
Mr. Guerrero: When these projects are done, who will own the systems and who will be responsible for operations and management? Also, aside from the research and data, is there any technical assistance for the farmers to develop and implement irrigation water management practices on their particular place? And did you consider soil surveys as part of the studies that need to be done so farmers understand how to manage with those different soil types?
Mr. Cabra: In Mexico, it is owned by the CNA, in conjunction with the irrigation district; in the U.S. each district owns its own infrastructure. In Mexico CNA is the ultimate decision maker, but within the districts there are modelos, basically sub-irrigation districts, and they make decisions within the modelo. The studies are not really research studies. We will have information that will show water losses—from evaporation, inefficiency, clandestine use—and we are very optimistic that the $5 million investment will result in operational type of data that will give Mexico the ability to have a good handle on their water losses and how much water they have.

Mr. Varady: Has the Bank tried to estimate the potential for savings over the entire border area? And has there been any way or attempt to measure the effectiveness of spending a dollar for conservation versus spending a dollar for more traditional ways to develop new sources of water?
Mr. Cabra: The Bank is not involved in either of those efforts. We are a financing institution. One of the criteria was the cost per water saved, but with regards to the Bank participating in any analytical type efforts in response to question two, no.

Mr. Dos Santos: Who will be assessing the actual conservation associated with these investments after they are done?
Mr. Cabra: That responsibility will lie with the individual irrigation districts with regards to assessing the amount of water; in Mexico it would be the CNA.
Mr. Dos Santos: If the Bank is providing the funding, will they budget something to do a technical assessment after the fact?
Mr. Cabra: Yes. On both sides of the border we have hired a lending supervisor—we contract out for a consulting firm that will augment our resources to oversee our investment. At the end of the construction period we have a closeout procedure by which we evaluate what was funded indeed was what happened.

Ms. Spener: For the Conchos and Delicias irrigation improvements there is a provision through IBWC Minute that the IBWC will provide oversight. We will inspect to ensure conveyance of conserved water to the Rio Grande because of the treaty implications.

Mr. Ganster: Is there consideration given to what the effect of water conservation will be or might be on maintaining ecosystems? For example, in the Imperial Valley seepage has established ecosystems that have become homes to endangered species. If you line canals to conserve water, you have a whole other set of issues to deal with.
Mr. Cabra: One of the criteria for BECC certification is to assess the environmental impact.

Ms. Sutley: For projects on the U.S. side, can you provide 100 percent of the money, or do you require any kind of local contribution or match?
Mr. Cabra: The maximum was $4 million or 50 percent, but no more than $4 million.

Good Neighbor Board Member Federal Report-Outs

Mr. Klein of the Department of the Interior's U.S. Geological Survey mentioned a well-attended and well-received environmental health studies workshop held in McAllen in April, which is part of a pilot effort they hope to see move up the Rio Grande Valley (he had both English and Spanish fact sheets for the Board and guests). Also, the department had one of its semiannual field coordinating committee meetings in Yuma in May, and a major topic of concern and discussion dealt with the Department of Homeland Security now being the lead agency on the Arizona Border Control Initiative. There was concern that DHS was providing a few rather rigid dictates to the department and to the people on the border who were going to be looking at illegal cross tracking, and that there was going to be quite a bit of negligence and looking the other way when it came to the environmental laws and requirements that are in place. There has been a great deal of work in the past couple of months, and Mr. Klein said he has just learned that there will be training for Border Patrol agents in charge on the Arizona section of the border to begin to take greater cognizance and appreciation for natural and cultural resources. There is headway being made, some consensus and understanding of the need for environmental sensitivity.

Mr. Muskovitz of the Department of State's Office of Mexican Affairs said the President has signed an Executive Order that sort of lays the way for reform of the BECC and NADBank boards, which will be combined into a single board with five U.S. and five Mexican representatives. There will be representatives from the State and Treasury departments and EPA, plus a state representative and a local/NGO/public representative. EPA will maintain an absolute veto on projects that do not meet environmental standards, and Treasury will have an absolute veto on projects that are not financially viable. They are still in discussion as to whether the chair on the U.S. side will rotate among the three federal agencies. Mr. Ganster asked about public participation and buy-in with the new board, and Mr. Muskovitz said the intention was to maintain public participation and have as transparent a process as possible. Mr. Dos Santos asked about ongoing dialogue on the water debt. Mr. Muskovitz said they had yet to reach a commonality of view.

Mr. Allen of the Malpai Borderlands Group told the Board about a recent visit by six Masai tribesmen from Kenya and Tanzania. They had a lot in common with Arizona and New Mexico cattlemen, such as the loss of open space or available grazing land. There was a May 9 New York Times article about the visit. The Malpai group does periodic workshops for ranchers all over the West on the group's collaborative approach to natural resource management and its rapport with government agencies and environmental groups. The next one will be in the fall with a group of ranchers from Chihuahua, and it will be the first workshop done in Spanish.

Water Management Presentations (continued)

Presentation 4: Desalination, Conservation and Public Utilities

Genoveva Gomez, Director of Water/Wastewater Engineering and Operations, Brownsville Public Utilities Board, representing General Manager and CEO John Bruciak
Ms. Gomez discussed some of Brownsville's water strategies. The Southmost Regional Water Authority was established by legislation in 1981 to meet regional water needs but was dormant until around 2000, when several local water districts met on alternative ways to look at water issues. There was a desire to form an authority, so Southmost was reestablished. In 1985, Brownsville expressed some interest in desalination, and in 1995 it did a brackish-desalination pilot study in conjunction with the Texas Water Development Board. The cost of desalination of brackish groundwater is comparable or less than surface water, and there is more water available. The projected cost was $20 million with a capacity of 20 million gallons per day. The first phase of the desalination plant is a 7.5 million gallons per day capacity, and there are two phases still to go for a total capacity of 22.5 million gallons. They are using economies of scale, Ms. Gomez said: By taking the regional approach, they will be able to get help from such entities as the Texas Water Development Board, though they did not go that route in the first phase because of an aggressive time schedule. The Brownsville PUD is also doing a feasibility study on a saltwater plant at the Brownsville Port (which would be built in conjunction with a power plant), and a study on reclamation and reuse.

Questions and Comments
Ms. Sutley: How is the brine disposed of for the brackish water? Also, how dependent on the cost of water and drought conditions are the economics of the plan? Is it sustainable for the long term?
Ms. Gomez: Behind the plant there is a drain ditch about 200 or 300 feet from the plant, and we received a permit from TCEQ to discharge that water in there. It goes into the San Martin Lake (already a saline lake), which is close to Brownsville Port, and then it goes into the sea. We had two water plants before we built the brackish water plant. Both were 20 million gallons and at close to 60 percent capacity. So we were already looking at other ways to either expand or build a new plant. You can build a new plant and buy all the water rights you want, but if the water is not available you are not going to be able to produce any water. We looked at the brackish water plant because it was more cost-efficient than seawater.

Mr. Ganster: Were any discussions held with Matamoros or Tamaulipas as possible partners?
Ms. Gomez: Not for the brackish water plant, because of the aggressive schedule. We have been working a lot with Mexican entities on the Weir project, and on the desalination project we did discuss the option of working with the Mexican entities and providing them water in the future. As of right now we decided to stay within the U.S. and maybe later do a regional approach. Again, it is just a feasibility study.

Mr. Varady: How much brackish water is there? How long would it take to deplete desalinating it at this rate?
Ms. Gomez: The study that was done only looked at 30 years, but it showed that at the rate we are going, 7.5 million gallons a day, it could be up to 900 years. That could be affected as you pump deeper and as other entities start tapping into the aquifer.

Mr. Dos Santos remarked how interesting it is to see a small community like Brownsville undertake all these efforts. Was there an assessment for long-term planning? What is behind it all?
Ms. Gomez: The Brownsville PUD has always been proactive. These studies were done in the 1990s, and this time they did not have much choice—they needed to either build a new plant or expand existing plants, and with the drought they could not count on the water being there. Also, the governor has been pushing for desalination and brackish water plants.

Mr. Dos Santos also asked about an effluent project the PUD is looking at, with something like golf courses as end users, and wondered if it is possible to deliver to agriculture and have its use deferred. Mr. Ramirez said the current law in Texas does not allow reclaimed water on food products, only for grass, industrial purposes, power plants, etc. Those regulations can be amended. Ms. Gavin said such water cannot be put on food crops in New Mexico either.

Ms. Sutley said that many reclamation and conservation projects in California have been funded by taxpayers through bonds and through their water rights.

Presentation 5: Lower Rio Grande Water Rights: Historical and International Aspects

Glenn Jarvis, Law Offices of Glenn Jarvis
Mr. Jarvis, who has been involved in Texas water law for more than 40 years, offered a history of water in the area from the Civil War era to the present. The Rio Grande was an interrupted flow initially, with very low and very high flows, and that has had both legal and economic consequences. Shortages began in the 1880s as development increased, but treaties between Mexico and the United States did not address water or water rights until the 1906 Convention, in which it was agreed that Mexico would receive 60,000 acre-feet per year in exchange for release of its claims against the United States for lack of water in the area. The 1944 treaty followed, which included provisions for Mexico to deliver 350,000 acre-feet per year averaged over a five-year period. The treaties of 1906 and 1944 were based on irrigation as opposed to municipal use, which at that time was not an issue. The dams and reservoirs built from the 1944 treaty were really for flood control. In Texas, disputes during a drought in the 1950s triggered the Big Valley Water Suit, litigation that involved 3,000+ parties and at least 200 lawyers. Texas passed the Adjudication Act of 1967 as a result, and water rights have been adjudicated in all areas except a segment in the El Paso upper reach, which is now pending and is very complex because it involves the international aspects of water deliveries to Mexico. In September 2002 there was a treaty violation when Mexico was about 1.4 million behind in its 1944 treaty obligations. The area has shown billions of dollars of losses brought about by lack of water, with a ripple effect from farmers to those who provide farmers with equipment and services. The region has diversified enough that it was not felt too much, but it has impacted the area quite a bit.

Questions and Comments
Mr. Sutley: The treaties and adjudication also predate some environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act. How does the system deal with that?
Mr. Jarvis agreed that the legal infrastructure came long before environmental laws and concerns. There are some lawsuits and legislation going on.

Mr. Ramirez: A battle wages in Texas now over who controls effluent, and some have suggested there should be another adjudication over return flows. What are your thoughts on that?
Mr. Jarvis: I do not think you are going to have a reallocation. It will be done recognizing a property rights and a water right, as opposed to taking the water rights back and reallocating them. In Texas it was learned prior to Senate Bill 1 that many of the water rights were granted based on return flows. Downstream water rights can be affected with either direct or indirect reuse, and the environment gets involved with it because environmental flows depend on return flows. It is a complex issue.

Mr. Dos Santos thanked Mr. Jarvis for "the most complete description of the history of how these various pieces of water law or water compact law fit together" and asked his advice on how to improve binational water management. Mr. Jarvis encouraged joint management of the whole basin. He praised the real-time data coming out of the Water Master Program and the sharing of data. He also stressed the importance of managing groundwater.

Public Comment Session

Elvira Ries, a McAllen resident, said she was concerned about children being sent to Mexico without supervision and the lack of supervision in general with parents having to work late. She wishes schools could be open later to help. The lack of supervision and resources may be boosting the high-school dropout rate, which is increasing especially among Hispanics. Also, Ms. Ries said she is concerned about interference with legal travel between Mexico and the United States. She met a man in McAllen traveling from Mexico on a three-day pass who returned because he was scared immigration authorities might take his papers. She hoped the Board could help take her concerns to the top level.

Water Management Presentations (continued)

Presentation 6: Environmental Flow Protection: Protecting Our Rivers, Bays and Estuaries

Randy Blankinship, Lower Laguna Madre Ecosystem Leader, Coastal Fisheries Division, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Recent rainfall might have taken water off the front burner for many people, but Mr. Blankinship said as much diligence is needed now in planning as when water was scarce. A healthy ecosystem is vital and very important to all economic sectors in a region. Recent studies have shown that sport fishing in the Laguna Madre region has an economic impact exceeding $222 million annually, commercial fishing $63 million, and birding or wildlife watching $100 million. Plants and ecosystems that had developed in the delta have, with the flood control of the dams, shrunk toward the river. The clearing of land for agriculture has also reduced the amount of habitat. Environmental flows are those flows that keep a river a river as we know it, flows adequate in quantity and quality to support shrimp, crabs, fish, mollusks and vegetation. Associated declines in water quantity and quality within the Rio Grande have precipitated declines in diversity of border species of fish and wildlife. Also, there are unreliable contributions from the Rio Conchos due to treaty issues. A couple of state initiatives are under way for dealing with these issues, such as the Senate Bill 1 planning process. Many innovative alternatives are needed, and some encouraging things are happening. First is recognition of the problem. At the 2004 Valley Water Summit, a survey revealed that the majority believe the best thing to do is increase overall water supplies through conservation, implying that if you are going to save water you are going to leave it in the river. There is also the mechanism of the Texas Water Trust, where unused water rights can be placed so they are not lost for in-stream flow purposes.

Questions and Comments
Ms. Sutley: Is there any dedicated water supply for wildlife refuges along the Rio Grande?
Mr. Blankinship: Through the process of creating the refuges, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service bought water rights associated with much of the property it acquired. They have been combined into one account and can be used at multiple places.

Presentation 7: Rio Grande Restoration Projects Upstream

Tyrus Fain, President, Rio Grande Institute
Mr. Fain: The Rio Grande Institute is a nonprofit 501(c)3 education and research organization based in Marathon, Brewster County, Texas, in existence since 1998, when it hosted a meeting of state and federal agencies and NGOs. That led to the formation of the Forgotten River Action Committee, a multi-jurisdictional informal working group that gradually began engaging U.S. and Mexican federal and state agencies. With this emerging partnership, they were trying to carve out a kind of binational cooperation that would be fairly limited to a manageable issue in a selected area. They settled on the proliferation of tamarisk in the Colorado Canyon and the Boquillas Canyon. Managers already knew each other, and language was not much of a problem. So in many ways it was a purposefully small bite. With almost six years of planning, funding from the Meadows Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund, the aid of a Mexican government study on tamarisk eradication and re-vegetation, the cooperation of research institutes, and help from the Texas Center for Service Learning, they are fairly confident that by 2006 they will have the infestation under control and have some degree of treated re-vegetation. Through a parallel study they are still looking at alternatives to their approach (the Garlon swab) in the canyons, such as aerial spraying and the introduction of tamarisk's natural predator, the Asian leaf beetle.

Mr. Fain said the group recommends that funds to address the problem not be restricted to one country or the other: You cannot control an invasive weed on one side of the river. He also stressed the importance of getting a binational assessment of the whole management resource preservation situation in this stretch of the river. In light of the Supreme Court's recent ruling on NAFTA and truck emissions, he was thinking back on NAFTA and the agreement calling for a transboundary environmental impact assessment (TEIA) that would always take place when any action on one side would affect the other. What ever happened to the TEIA commitment?

Questions and Comments
Mr. Muskovitz and Ms. Borja discussed some of the state vs. federal impediments for both countries on TEIA.

Ms. Alcala asked about infestation of African cane and the Garlon swab.
Mr. Fain said he would put her in touch with Mark Briggs, an expert on the subject.

Ms. Spener suggested a Board recommendation to support invasive species control and asked about the status of the La Linda Bridge as part of an effort to create a binational eco-tourism hub. There is not any port between Presidio and Del Rio at this point.
Mr. Fain: The Rio Grande Institute is involved greatly in that, in partnership with a Mexican nonprofit. We now own part of the bridge and, along with Brewster County and the governor of Coahuila, are extremely involved in trying to get it reopened. It is up to Homeland Security and the Mexican authorities to address it. The Texas Legislature passed a resolution calling for the bridge's reopening. The stars are all lined up; it is just a question of somebody making them shine.

Mr. Klein: I would like to see numbers dealing with the amount of water reclaimed from the eradication of tamarisk. The main benefit I have seen is minimizing salination of the soil and replanting cottonwood, which has just as high a consumptive use of the groundwater but creates a more favorable habitat.
Mr. Fain agreed that the numbers tossed around for savings are often exaggerated and said they are not couching their project with the notion that it is going to make the Rio Grande flow again.

Consejo Report-Out

Andres Ochoa, Northeast Consejo, State President for the Engineering and Environmental Society, Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas
Mr. Ochoa brought names, contact information, agendas, minutes and some agreements of Mexico's Consejos to share with the Board. When it is complete (scheduled for October), he will send a copy of the white book that details their activities and recommendations. He detailed some current water issues facing the Mexican boards, which included restructuring concerns and the impact of commercial fishing in the Sea of Cortes. One worry is the decreased resources that will happen with the extension of the border area to the 300-kilometer range. As a result, there has been a prioritization of zones and projects. They are also looking at the high basins for water harvesting that are going to get to the Rio Grande. One worry he has about Border 2012 is that there should be consultants from the most important cities in the border area; now, they are coming from wherever they are appointed.

Mr. Ganster asked if they could share a draft of their recommendations before the white book is finalized, so the Board could see them before it completes its report. Mr. Dos Santos repeated the request, and Mr. Ochoa did not think sharing the information would be a problem.

Mr. Muskovitz offered more details on the extension to the 300-kilometer range in terms of primarily grant areas and lending areas. Mr. Dos Santos said if the BECC is expected to conduct public process for a greater number of projects because of the expansion of the region, it will either require greater resources or happen at the expense of something else.


Other Business

Mr. Dos Santos announced that the terms of Karen Chapman, Ed Ranger and Nancy Sutley were ending after this meeting. He also said Administrator Mike Leavitt had sent the Board a response on its report on children's environmental health. Ms. Koerner said the Board was being included in a general government survey of advisory committees to get feedback on their effectiveness, and she asked everyone to take a few minutes to fill out the survey. Also, television crews from Univision and Telemundo interviewed Mr. Dos Santos and Ms. Koerner.

###

Day 2 – June 10, 2004

Business Meeting

Membership Matters
Ms. Koerner shared a letter from Ms. Chapman, who could not attend this meeting. Ms. Chapman wrote that she comes away from her time on the Board with a more rounded view of border projects. She praised the Board's ability to rise above political winds. Mr. Dos Santos said Ms. Chapman and the other outgoing Board members would receive plaques, and Ms. Koerner distributed pins to the new Board alternates as an official welcome.

Approval of the Minutes
The minutes of the Feb. 24-25 Washington, DC, meeting were approved with two spelling changes.

Indicators of Effectiveness for the Board
Mr. Ganster provided an update on his ongoing look at indicators of the Board's effectiveness. Much of what he had suggested requires a certain amount of staff time, and there needs to be a balance between the information on what the Board is doing and the ability to track it. An easier way of tracking involves indirect measures and anecdotal information. Some non-systematic but generally effective ways of tracking are when the Board appears in the press, the impact of the meetings, who comes to them, etc. Ms. Koerner recommended that they continue this qualitative tracking until they can find an efficient way to do it more quantitatively. She asked members to let her know when they see a mention in the press or hear a reference in another program. Mr. Varady wondered if the current advisory committee poll would reveal whether other boards do self-evaluations and what their methodologies might be. Mr. Cronin mentioned the environmental indicators being developed for Border 2012, which Ms. Koerner said is a different kind of program whose indicators might not be appropriate for an advisory board.

Mr. Ganster raised the issue of the effectiveness of the annual report, which requires so much effort and staff time to prepare. Is it really the best use of the Board's time? Would a series of short recommendations throughout the year be better? Ms. Koerner and Mr. Dos Santos said the requirement to generate an annual report is in the enabling legislation, but that it could be interpreted in many ways. They suggested the topic be revisited at a future meeting.

Mr. Ramirez said he found the exchange of information at the meetings incredibly valuable and wondered if there might be greater importance in them than in the written report. Could the report be streamlined to make it a direct set of recommendations? Mr. Varady said the Administrator's response did not make it seem like the report had a real resounding impact, and the Board needs to look at other ways of trying to influence the process. Ms. Sutley had mixed feelings about the reports, which provide a focus every year that helps the Board come together and operate in a fairly cohesive manner. Also, the audiences for the report will only pay as much attention to it as they want to, and she doubted changing the vehicle would change that.

Distribution of Seventh Report
Ms. Koerner said reports would be sent to Mexico's Consejos, using the contact information provided by Mr. Ochoa. Ms. Alcala said fellow attendees at a March Mexico City conference on Mexicanos en el Exterior were very interested in the report. Ms. Koerner said they were working with people in the El Paso office and the San Diego border office to do a sort of generic mailing to complement the targeted mailing that has been done.

Mr. Dos Santos said the report has been a centerpiece for a lot of work going on in Arizona and Sonora: It is the reason education, health and environmental people in those two states are coming together to work on children's environmental health issues, which are also a top priority for Arizona's governor. Mr. Ramirez hoped the Board would talk about such impacts when they revisit the issue of the report's effectiveness.

Good Neighbor Board Member Report-Outs (continued)

Mr. Cronin of the Tohono O'odham Nation discussed the work of the two tribal border environmental coordinators and provided an overview of current projects throughout the border, such as a water needs assessment being done in the Baja area among seven tribal communities and perchlorate concerns in the Colorado River. (Mr. Klein said they needed to be careful when talking about sources for perchlorate, a naturally formed mineral as well as a contaminant.)

Mr. Cibas of New Mexico's Environmental Department discussed the gradual implementation or participation under the Border 2012 information process of task forces and workgroups. An interesting finding has been the differences in rural and urban task forces: Some of the big problems are in rural areas, while most of the attention is focused on urban areas. His department is involved in several programs, including teaching children about surface movement of contaminants with ant-farm models, harvesting rainwater, and implementing a GIS project to enable local communities to better understand what is happening in their area.

Ms. Spener detailed some of the projects of the IBWC, which include work on providing secondary treatment at the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant; the donation of a bulldozer to Naco, Sonora, to reduce risk of fire in the landfill and subsequent air quality problems; an environmental impact statement for management of a controversial canalization project downstream from Percha Dam, as well as efforts to bring disagreeing parties to the table to find common ground; and flood preparedness work.

Ms. Borja said TCEQ is working on the Border Governors Conference set for Aug. 9-10 in Santa Fe. On Border 2012, they are trying to reduce the number of task forces (17 from two workgroups) and encourage more fix-it proposals as opposed to study-it proposals. They have started a new volunteer water quality, cleanup, public-outreach education and awards-recognition program called Friends of the Rio Grande, which is going to partner with IBWC.

Mr. Mampilly said the Office of the Americas is in the final stages of recruitment for a new director. For the U.S./Mexico Border Health Commission, plans are under way for binational health week in October. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently underwent a major transformation, turning once autonomous centers into collaborative centers.
Ms. Gavin detailed Doña Ana County's submission for Border 2012, which include a bilingual pesticide safety education project for farm workers and their families. They have been having air quality meetings from the Air Quality Bureau out of Santa Fe because there are new standards for New Mexico being presented in June. There is a study under way of "this weird dust" in Sunland Park, Chihuahua and Northern New Mexico. Mr. Dos Santos said the "strange dust cloud" had also been detected moving over Tucson in the evening.

Mr. Ganster said that in California looking at water has evolved to watershed management. He is now involved in the Tijuana River Watershed Border 2012 task force, doing a baseline analysis and pulling together data on a binational watershed, as well as pulling together a binational advisory group. They are in the process of writing up a draft vision for the watershed to be presented in early August. A step that remains is to figure out what kind of administrative mechanism is needed to implement some sort of binational watershed management plan.

Mr. Luthans said there are a number of Border 2012 task force meetings of water and wastewater infrastructure detailed in the Round-up. In order to build more of a relationship between EPA and SEMARNAT, there is now a jointly hired staff person to work in the Nuevo Leon delegados office as a Border 2012 liaison.

Mr. Smith said Sony is on the board of the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation, which installed 30,000 collection bins for cell phones on Earth Day last year in order to tap into their collection system for rechargeable batteries. Sony has also been doing an annual report, sort of a corporate social responsibility report, and it is a challenge.

Advisory Letters
Ms. Spener agreed to draft a letter to the President and Congress, copying appropriate agencies, requesting that federal governments provide resources to address invasive plant species in the border region, stressing binational cooperation and making clear why the problem is particularly relevant and important now in the border region.

Mr. Dos Santos said a message from the Board about using NADBank resources to beef up the BECC and stressing the importance of the BECC's technical assistance role would be particularly timely given that the two boards are about to merge. Ms. Sutley agreed that it was important to stress that BECC provides some unique services that NADBank is not capable of providing. Mr. Ganster added that, because of inadequate internal resources, BECC has used a variety of consultants, which has made it hard to develop good institutional capacity and memory. Mr. Varady said a letter should be phrased to it does not come off as threatening to one organization, and Ms. Borja suggested giving a heads-up to NADBank. Mr. Varady suggested including a statement supporting a rotating chairmanship. Ms. Koerner said it could be fit into a more overarching theme about enabling both institutions to continue to function at full capacity and have equal input.

Mr. Varady asked about drafting an op-ed piece from the letter. Ms. Koerner said that the Board, which reports to the President, had no precedent for such a thing, but that it could be looked into.

Breakout Sessions for Eighth Report
The workgroups met in separate parts of the meeting room for an hour and then reported on their progress. Mr. Ganster said the institutions group ended up with a goal of increased institutional capacity for border spanning on water resources, under which could fit a number of subjects, such as institutional capacity for trans-border watershed management. They planned a conference call for July 8 and would have new text then.

The data information workgroup thought it would be nice to also mention health issues in terms of appropriate planning and management, and the fact that the data gap should include that are necessary to put in place appropriate statements about health, said Mr. Klein. The group would also have new text after a conference call.

Ms. Gavin said the integration workgroup broke their topics into segments and would bring it together with a conference call July 2.

Mr. Ramirez and Mr. Smith had discussed private sector involvement, divided into what the private sector can do to sustain water supplies in border regions (sustaining supplies for its own benefit, investing in innovative technologies) and what border regions can do to attract the private sector (have a secure and certain water supply).

Looking at the three main workgroups, Mr. Cronin said that because tribes have issues that relate to all of them he was thinking about a tribal submission integrated into each chapter, which would also help make all readers aware of tribal issues.

Mr. Dos Santos said it would be helpful to present along the whole length of the border watersheds that are shared and depict them as possible planning units.

Meeting ended at 12:00 noon.

Field Trip
After the meeting ended, some Board members took an optional field trip to the nearby Santa Anna Wildlife Refuge.

##

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.