Factual Record

Río Magdalena Submission

(SEM-97-002)

Prepared in Accordance with Article 15

of the North American Agreement

on Environmental Cooperation
For more information about this or other publications from the CEC,

contact:

Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America

393, rue St-Jacques Ouest, bureau 200

Montréal (Québec) Canada H2Y 1N9

Tel.: (514) 350-4300

Fax: (514) 350-4314

E-mail: info@ccemtl.org

http://www.cec.org

ISBN: 2-89451-715-7

© Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America, 2003

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Legal Deposit - Bibliothèque nationale du Québec, 2003

Legal Deposit - Bibliothèque nationale du Canada, 2003

Disponible en français – ISBN: 2-89451-714-9

Disponible en español – ISBN: 2-89451-716-5

This publication was prepared by the Secretariat of the Commission for

Environmental Cooperation of North America (CEC). The views contained herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the governments of

Canada, Mexico, or the United States of America.
Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2. Summary of the Submission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. Summary of Mexico’s Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4. Scope of Factual Record. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5. Environmental Law in Question. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

6. Summary of Other Relevant Factual Information and Facts

Presented by the Secretariat in Relation to the Matters

Addressed in the Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6.1 Process for Gathering Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6.2 Information on the Magdalena River and the

Municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino

and Santa Ana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

6.3 Wastewater from the Municipalities of Imuris,

Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

6.3.1 Pollutant Levels in Municipal Wastewater

Discharges and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

6.3.2 Wastewater Treatment Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 29

6.3.3 Magdalena River Water Quality Monitoring . . . . 33

6.3.4 Effects of Wastewater Discharge from Imuris,

Magdalena, and Santa Ana on Magdalena River

Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

6.4 Enforcement of Environmental Law with Respect to

Wastewater Discharges from Imuris, Magdalena, and

Santa Ana into the Magdalena River. . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3
6.5 Current Factual Status of Wastewater Discharges from

Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana into the

Magdalena River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

7. Closing Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Appendices and Attachment

Appendix 1 Council Resolution 02-02, Instruction to the

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental

Cooperation regarding the assertion that Mexico is

failing to effectively enforce certain environmental

laws regarding the pollution of the Magdalena

River, through the discharge of wastewater from

the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino

and Santa Ana in the Mexican state of Sonora

(SEM-97-002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendix 2 Overall Plan to Develop a Factual Record with

Regard to Submission SEM-97-002. . . . . . . . . . . 53

Appendix 3 Process for Gathering Information for the

Development of the Factual Record on Submission

SEM-97-002 (Examples of relevant information) . . . 61

Appendix 4 Information Requests to Mexican Authorities and

List of Recipient Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Appendix 5 Information Requests to NGOs, JPAC and other

Parties to the NAAEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Appendix 6 Information Gathered for the Development of

the Factual Record on Submission SEM-97-002

(Río Magdalena) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Appendix 7 Data from Terrenate Monitoring Station, 1999

through 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Appendix 8 Contaminant Limits for Wastewater Discharges

(Table 2 of NOM-001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Attachment 1 Council Resolution 03-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

4 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION
1. Executive Summary

Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) establish the process regarding citizen submissions and the development of factual records relating to the effective

enforcement of environmental law. The Secretariat of the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) administers this

process.

On 7 April 1997, Comité Pro Limpieza del Río Magdalena (the

“CPLRM” or the “Submitter”) filed a submission with the Secretariat in

accordance with Article 14 of the NAAEC (SEM-97-002). The submission

asserts that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce its environmental

law with respect to wastewater from the municipalities of Imuris,

Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana in the Mexican state of Sonora, which

is allegedly discharged into the Magdalena River without being duly

treated to prevent the pollution of the river.

On 7 March 2002, the Council decided unanimously to instruct the

Secretariat to develop a factual record on the alleged failure by Mexico to

effectively enforce various provisions of the General Law on Ecological

Balance and Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilibrio

Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente—LGEEPA) with respect to the pollution of the Magdalena River by the discharge of wastewater from the

municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana, to which

the submission filed by CPLRM refers.

In the development of this factual record, the Secretariat considered publicly available information, information provided by Mexico

and other interested parties, and information developed by the Secretariat. In this factual record, the Secretariat presents the facts relevant to

whether Mexico is failing to effectively enforce LGEEPA Articles 88

paragraph IV, 89 paragraph VI, 93, 117, 121, 122, 123, 124 and 133, without aiming to reach any conclusions on this question.1

5

1. In its recommendation to Council for the development of this factual record (at 20) of

5 February 2002, the Secretariat determined that consideration of the effective

enforcement of LGEEPA Article 92 was not warranted, but the recommendation

inadvertently included this article in the list of provisions that would be covered by
The LGEEPA requires persons who discharge wastewater to prevent pollution of national waters through adequate treatment of their

discharges. In addition, wastewater discharges must comply with

Mexican Official Standard NOM-001-ECOL-1996, which establishes the

maximum contaminant limits for wastewater discharges into national

waters and onto national property (NOM-001).2 The Magdalena River is

national property and wastewater discharges into this river are federal

jurisdiction.3 The deadline for compliance with the maximum contaminant limits established by NOM-001 for Imuris and Santa Ana is 1 January 2010; the deadline for Magdalena de Kino is 1 January 2005.

The National Water Commission (Comisión Nacional del Agua

—CNA) is the authority competent to enforce the laws, regulations, and

Mexican Official Standards governing water pollution prevention and

control. The CNA is also the body responsible for ongoing and systematic monitoring of the quality of national waters as required by the

LGEEPA. In addition, among other responsibilities, the CNA carries out

hydraulic infrastructure projects, including construction of wastewater

treatment systems.

The factual information presented by the Secretariat in this factual

record reveals that, in fact, when the submission was filed in 1997, the

municipality of Magdalena de Kino was discharging its wastewater into

the Magdalena River without sufficient prior treatment to prevent pollution of that river, and the municipalities of Imuris and Santa Ana were

discharging them near the river without any treatment. Starting in 1998,

the CNA built or expanded treatment infrastructure (lagoons) in the

three municipalities. Currently, the wastewater from the municipalities

of Imuris, Magdalena and Santa Ana is sent to those treatment systems

prior to being discharged into the Magdalena River and its environs.

However, the water operating agencies (organismos operadores de agua) of

the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana do not

have financial resources allocated in their budget to operate and maintain the treatment systems. The municipalities do not monitor or report

the pollutants present in their discharges as required by NOM-001,

nor do they pay the fees for use of national waters as repositories of

wastewater discharges required by the Federal Duties Law (Ley Federal

de Derechos—LFD).

6 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION

the factual record, (SEM-97-002) Article 15(1) Notification to Council that preparation of a factual record is warranted (5 February 2002), at 2 and 27. The factual record

does not address this provision.

2. Published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF) on 6 January 1997.

3. As per Declaration 207 of 25 June 1924, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (Diarro Oficial de la Federación—DOF) on 22 August 1924.
The information the Secretariat presents in this factual record

reveals that since the entry into force of the NAAEC on 1 January 1994,

the CNA has not taken any enforcement action regarding the water

pollution prevention and control environmental law provisions referred

to in this factual record with respect to the municipalities of Imuris,

Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana.

As regards ongoing and systematic monitoring of Magdalena

River water quality, since 1999 the CNA has been performing bimonthly

sampling at the Terrenate station. The station is downstream of the

Imuris discharge and upstream of the Magdalena and Santa Ana discharges. According to the CNA, the water of the Magdalena River is suitable for public water supply, recreation, fishing, aquatic wildlife, and

industrial and agricultural uses, notwithstanding the fact that in 1999

and 2000 several river water samples exceeded the Ecological Water

Quality Criteria (including fecal coliform levels of 3,500 MPN/100 ml

compared to the limit of 1,000 MPN/100 ml).

2. Summary of the Submission

On 7 April 1997, CPLRM filed a submission with the Secretariat

in accordance with Article 14 of the NAAEC. The CPLRM, a nongovernmental organization established in Terrenate, Municipality of

Imuris, Sonora, Mexico, asserts that the municipalities of Imuris,

Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana discharge their wastewater into the

Magdalena River without prior treatment, in contravention of Mexican

environmental law. The Submitter asserts that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce various articles of the LGEEPA, as well as three laws of the

state of Sonora: the Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection

Law, the Waters Law, and the Health Law. The Submitter asserts that it

has taken various actions to prevent the pollution of the Magdalena

River since 1980, and describes the principal events that have occurred

since then.

The Submitters have sent letters concerning the pollution of the

Magdalena River to different authorities: the Office of the President of

the Republic, the Ministry of Social Development (Secretaría de Desarrollo

Social—Sedesol), the Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and

Fisheries (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca—

Semarnap), the Office of the Federal Attorney for the Environment

(Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente—Profepa), the Government of the State of Sonora and the Human Rights Commission

(Comisión de Derechos Humanos).

SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION 7
In 1988, CNA began construction of a project to build a treatment

lagoon for the municipal wastewater of Imuris. The project was suspended following complaints from residents of the neighboring communities. In 1992, Sedesol and CNA authorized Imuris to discharge its

municipal wastewater into the area that had been dug up as part of the

suspended treatment project, for a period of 45 days, during which the

authorities were to develop a new project. Imuris was still discharging

its municipal wastewater at this site when the submission was filed in

1997.

The submission makes assertions regarding the pollution problems of the Magdalena River, the lack of adequate treatment of municipal wastewater discharges in alleged violation of the laws prohibiting

the dumping of pollutants into watercourses, and the obligation to prevent and control water pollution. The Submitter asserts that pollution in

the Magdalena Rivers results in harm to the environment and human

health. It states that bacteriological analyses performed on water from

the Magdalena de Kino irrigation district in 1991 showed large quantities of fecal coliforms at the various irrigation intakes, and that similar

results were obtained from bacteriological analyses reported in 1996.4

The Submitter asserts that the pollution of the Magdalena River

has caused harm to farmers and others who use it to irrigate the traditional crops that represent the main source of economic livelihood for

the region’s households. The submission asserts that the CNA has

sanctioned farmers and water users under Mexican Official Standard

NOM-CCA-033-ECOL/19935 (NOM-033) because the Magdalena River

water they use exceeds the parameters of the standard for use in vegetable crop irrigation. The Submitter also asserts that Magdalena River

water caused irreversible levels of root rot on many fruit trees.

The submission asserts that the three levels of government (federal, state and municipal) have failed to address and solve the problems

raised. The Submitter asserts that at the time the submission was filed,

the Magdalena River had not been classified as required by law.6 It states

8 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION

4. Supplement to the submission, at 2–3.

5. Establishing the bacteriological conditions for the use of urban or municipal

wastewater, or mixtures of such wastewater with water taken from bodies of water,

in the irrigation of vegetable crops and vegetable/fruit products. The code of this

standard changed to NOM-033-ECOL-93 on 30 November 1994.

6. The Law of National Waters (Ley de Aguas Nacionales) provides that:

Article 15.– The formulation, implementation and evaluation of water planning will

include:

... V. Classifying the bodies of water according to their uses and the development of

water balances for quantity and quality and by watershed and hydrologic region; ...
that at that time, municipal wastewater was still being discharged

directly and without restriction into the river, which has historically

been used as a source of drinking water for human consumption and for

irrigation of the crops that represent the main source of economic livelihood for the region’s households.7

The Submitter cites various laws that are no longer in force, asserting that although water pollution prevention and control laws have

existed for some time, they have merely been amended every six-year

term without ever having been enforced.8 As for laws currently in force,

the Submitter indicates that it considers Mexico to be failing to effectively enforce the following provisions of law:

(i) The LGEEPA: Articles 1 paragraphs I, II, III, V, VI, VIII, IX and X; 4;

5 paragraphs I, II, III, V, VII, XVI, XVII, XVIII and XIX; 6; 7 paragraphs I, II, VIII, IX, XI, XII, XIV, XV, XVIII, XIX and XXI; 8 paragraphs I, II, VII, IX, X, XI, XIII and XV; 10; 15; 16; 23 paragraph VII;

36; 88; 89 paragraphs II, VI and VII; 90; 91; 92; 93; 96; 98 paragraph

IV; 104; 108 paragraph I; 109 BIS; 117; 118 paragraphs I, II, III, V and

VI; 119; 119 BIS; 120; 121; 122; 123; 124; 126; 127; 128; 129; 133; 157;

159 BIS 3; 159 BIS 4; 159 BIS 5; 189; 190; 191; 192; 199; and 200.

(ii) The Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection Law of the

State of Sonora: Articles 3 paragraphs I, IV, and V; 6 paragraphs II,

III, VIII, X and XII; 7 paragraphs III and VII; 8 paragraphs II, VI and

IX; 52, 95 paragraph IV; 96 paragraphs I and III; 97 paragraphs I

and II; 98 paragraphs I, II and IV; 99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 163, 164, 165,

166, 167 and 168.

(iii) The Waters Law of the State of Sonora, Article 73 paragraph I.

SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION 9

Article 87.– “The Commission” will determine the parameters that discharges shall

meet, the assimilation and dilution capacity of the national bodies of water and the

pollution burden that they may receive, as well as the water quality goals and the

deadlines to reach them, through the Decrees of Classification of National Waters,

that will be published in the Official Gazette of the Federation, as well as their

amendments, for their observance.

The decrees will contain:

I. The boundaries of the body of water being classified;

II. The parameters that discharges shall meet depending on the body of water being

classified, in accordance with the time periods set in the regulations to this law;

III. The capacity of the body of water being classified to assimilate or dilute pollutants; and

IV. The maximum limits of pollutants analyzed, as a base to set individual discharge

conditions.

7. Supplement to the submission, at 11.

8. Supplement to the submission, at 1, 10–11.
(iv) The Health Law of the State of Sonora: Articles 3 paragraph XI; 4

paragraph VI; 5 paragraph I; 6 paragraphs I and II; 8 paragraph V;

18 paragraph V; 86 paragraph III; 90, 91 paragraphs I and II; 94; 95;

194; 195; 196; 200, and 201.

On 6 October 1997, the Secretariat determined that the submission

met the requirements of NAAEC Article 14(1) and, considering the criteria set forth in NAAEC Article 14(2), on 8 May 1998 it requested a

response from the Party. The Secretariat received the Party’s response

on 29 July 1998, in accordance with NAAEC Article 14(3).

3. Summary of Mexico’s Response

Mexico, in its response submitted 29 July 1998, asserts that the

majority of the facts alleged by the Submitter arose prior to the entry into

force of the NAAEC on 1 January 1994, and thus the application of the

Agreement to this submission would be retroactive, to the detriment of

the Party.9

Mexico states that the environmental laws of the State of Sonora are

not applicable to the submission because wastewater discharges into

national waters are under federal jurisdiction.10 The response states that

the Magdalena River is in the national domain as per Declaration 207 of

25 June 1924, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (Diario

Oficial de la Federación—DOF) on 22 August 1924.11

The response addresses each of the provisions cited in the submission. Mexico argues that some of these provisions are not applicable and

that those that are applicable were enforced.

Mexico’s response asserts that LGEEPA Article 93, which makes

water pollution prevention and control mandatory, was duly enforced

through the creation of a legal framework for pollution control in

national waters and through monitoring of compliance with the applicable Mexican Official Standards (Normas Oficiales Mexicanas—NOM).12

10 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION

9. The Secretariat determined that the application of Article 14 with respect to the

alleged failures to effectively enforce the environmental law is not retroactive

because the alleged violations were continuing at the time that the submission was

filed. (SEM-97-002) Notification to Council that Development of a Factual Record is

Warranted (5 February 2002), at 9-10.

10. Response of the Party (RSP), at 30.

11. RSP, at 31.

12. RSP, at 47.
Mexico asserts that the CNA monitors compliance with the applicable

NOMs.

Concerning the effective enforcement of LGEEPA Article 117, the

response refers only to paragraph IV of the article, which requires the

treatment of urban wastewater discharges. Mexico asserts that this provision was enforced because treatment infrastructure exists in Imuris

and Magdalena and there are plans to build such infrastructure in Santa

Ana.13

In regard to LGEEPA Article 122 prescribing the specific obligation

that wastewater from urban public uses must meet the conditions necessary to prevent the pollution of the receiving waters, Mexico again

responds that wastewater treatment infrastructure does exist.14

As regards the criteria for sustainable use of water and aquatic ecosystems, provided in Articles 88 and 89 of LGEEPA, Mexico’s response

does not refer to the enforcement of Article 88. Mexico asserts that Article 89, is not relevant to the submission and that, in view of the broad definition of the concepts of sustainable use and aquatic ecosystem, it’s

impossible for Mexico to refute any violations of which the Submitter

may be complaining.15

Regarding the alleged failure to effectively enforce LGEEPA Article 123 with reference to NOM–001, Mexico asserts that the CNA, as a

means of solving the environmental problems of the Magdalena River,

entered into a contract in 1997 to develop the “Project to Adapt and/or

Expand the Sanitary Sewer Systems and Wastewater Treatment Plants

of the Cities of Imuris, Magdalena, and Santa Ana” (the “Project of

1997”). Mexico provided copies of documents describing that project

with its response.16

Mexico states in its response that to enforce Article 133, the CNA

has monitored the quality of Magdalena River water, leading to inspection visits, the closing of establishments and the sanctioning of farmers

(as per NOM–033).17

SUMMARY OF MEXICO’S RESPONSE 11

13. RSP, at 49.

14. RSP, at 51.

15. RSP, at 44–45.

16. RSP, at 13–16, 28–29 and Appendix 23, “Project to Adapt and/or Expand the Sanitary Sewer Systems and Wastewater Treatment Plants of the Cities of Imuris,

Magdalena, and Santa Ana.”

17. RSP, at 18–23 and 55.
In Chapter IV of its response, Mexico offers an account of the environmental problems of the Magdalena River, stating that “based on the

water quality monitoring conducted by the CNA with a view to classifying [the river], it may be observed that the river has the capacity to assimilate or attenuate the impact of the wastewater discharges it receives.”18

Mexico confirms that the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino,

and Santa Ana discharge their wastewater into the river, but clarifies

that in the case of Imuris and Magdalena de Kino, the discharges are

treated in oxidation lagoons, even though these systems are faulty.19

Mexico’s response states as follows:

It should be mentioned that the treatment of wastewater from the country’s population centers is a goal that the Mexican government has been

unable to fully achieve and that progress in this area is subject to the availability of budgetary resources. This being the case, it must be stated that

despite the existence of a general obligation in both federal and state law to

treat wastewater from population centers, the economic limitations facing

the country make it as yet impossible to fully enforce this provision; nevertheless, a clear strategy for a gradual solution to the wastewater treatment

problem at the national level can be discerned in the corresponding government plans.20

In its response, Mexico acknowledges that there are deficiencies in

the treatment of the wastewater discharged into the Magdalena River.21

However, the response states that “the economic situation of the municipalities, the state government and the federation limit the ability to

implement action plans for the construction of treatment systems.”22

The information provided in Mexico’s response confirms that the

municipalities in question did not hold the relevant discharge permits at

the time the response was submitted, but stated that issuance of those

permits was forthcoming.23

Regarding the use of Magdalena River water for human consumption, Mexico asserts that the drinking water supply in the three munici12 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION

18. RSP, at 13.

19. RSP, at 34–35.

20. Ibid.

21. According to the Response, the oxidation lagoons used by the municipality of

Magdalena de Kino to treat its wastewater are obsolete and inadequate. The municipality of Santa Ana has no wastewater treatment system at all. As for Imuris, Mexico asserts that according to information provided by the state and municipal

governments, one anaerobic and one facultative wastewater treatment lagoon

began operation on 11 June 1998. RSP, at 14.

22. RSP, at 23.

23. RSP, at 36.
palities in question comes from deep wells: 2 in Imuris, 4 in Magdalena

de Kino, and 4 in Santa Ana. Mexico’s response specifies that two of

the wells in Magdalena de Kino are located on the left bank of the

Magdalena River.24

Mexico’s response acknowledges that the waters of the Magdalena

River are polluted. It states that sanctions have been imposed on farmers

that used them for irrigation. Mexico asserts, however, that according to

the CNA study, the pollution is due to “open-air defecation, domestic

discharges, refuse, and organic matter.”25 Likewise, the response asserts

that a well in Imuris was capped (without specifying the date) because it

was seriously contaminated, and states that the cause of the contamination was that the majority of residents discharge their domestic

wastewater into latrines, cesspools, and septic tanks.26

Finally, Mexico asserts that three citizen complaints filed by

the Submitter were processed. According to the response, the two

complaints filed in 1992 were duly processed in accordance with the

LGEEPA.27 The response states that the processing of the citizen complaint filed by the Submitter in 1997 has not yet concluded.28

Given the complexity of the matter, and to better understand some

aspects of the legal and administrative framework referenced in

Mexico’s response, the Secretariat, relying on NAAEC Article 21(1)(b),

requested but did not receive additional information from the Party. The

requests were sent on 13 September 1999, 13 January 2000 and 23 October 2000. In order to continue with the processing of this submission, the

Secretariat proceeded with its analysis based on the available information.

4. Scope of Factual Record

On 5 February 2002, the Secretariat notified Council that, pursuant

to Article 15(1) and in light of the Response, it considered some of the

arguments in the submission to warrant the development of a factual

record.

SCOPE OF FACTUAL RECORD 13

24. RSP, at 14–16.

25. RSP, at 18–23.

26. RSP, at 14.

27. RSP, at 24–27.

28. RSP, at 28. The Secretariat found that the since the submission did not develop a

specific line of argument about the alleged failure to effectively enforce LGEEPA

Articles 189, 190, 191, 192 and 199 regarding the citizen complaint procedure, and

in view of the actions described in the Response, it is not necessary to continue

reviewing this assertion in the factual record.
The provisions cited in the submission refer to various aspects

of the regulatory framework for water. They establish jurisdictions,

general principles, criteria, obligations, and prohibitions with the objective of guaranteeing the sustainable use of water and preventing and

controlling the pollution thereof. However, not all the provisions are

directly applicable to the facts addressed in the submission, although all

are related to it in a general way. As Mexico states in its Response, the

discharge of wastewater into national bodies of water such as the

Magdalena River is under federal jurisdiction, and therefore the Secretariat did not include the state environmental protection, water, and

health provisions cited in the submission in its recommendation to

Council for the development of this factual record.

Likewise, the Secretariat found that the following LGEEPA provisions are not directly applicable to the matters addressed by the submission in light of the arguments put forward by Mexico in its Response and

absent specific arguments by the Submitter as to why it considers that

Mexico is failing to effectively enforce the provisions invoked: Article 1

(on the regulatory nature of the LGEEPA); Articles 4–8 and 10 (on jurisdictional division and coordination between the authorities); Articles 15

and 16 (on environmental policy); Article 23 (on the regulation of human

settlements); Articles 36, 90 and 119 (on the issuance of Mexican Official

Standards); Article 88 paragraphs I to III (containing criteria for the use

of aquatic ecosystems and the hydrological cycle); Article 89 paragraphs

I to V and VII to X (on consideration of the criteria for sustainable water

use in the granting of permits, concessions, and authorizations that may

affect the hydrological cycle, and in the urban development masterplan

for the Federal District); Article 91 (on the granting of authorization

to affect the channel or bed of watercourses); Article 96 (on aquatic

ecosystems); Articles 98 and 104 (on soil preservation and sustainable

use); Article 108 (on exploration and exploitation of non-renewable

resources); Article 109 BIS (on the requirement for the Ministry to produce an inventory of emissions and discharges); Article 118 (contemplating the governmental activities in which water pollution prevention

and control criteria must be considered); Article 119 BIS (on the powers

and obligations of the state and municipal governments in regard to

water pollution prevention and control); Article 120 (establishing that in

order to prevent water pollution, certain activities are subject to federal

or local regulation); Article 126 (providing that urban wastewater treatment equipment must meet the requirements set out in the Mexican

Official Standards); Article 127 (on industrial wastewater treatment

facilities); Article 128 (establishing that wastewater from urban drainage

and sewer systems may be used in industry and agriculture if treated as

prescribed by Mexican Official Standards); Article 129 (establishing the

14 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION
water treatment obligation for economic activities likely to cause water

pollution); Article 134 (establishing criteria for the prevention of soil

contamination); Article 157 (on social participation in environmental

policy); Articles 159 BIS 3, 159 BIS 4 and 159 BIS 5 (on the right to environmental information); and Article 200 (requiring state laws to provide for

a citizen complaint procedure).29

Based on the Secretariat’s recommendation, Council Resolution

02–02 (reproduced in full in Appendix 1 of this factual record) instructs

the Secretariat:

to prepare a factual record in accordance with Article 15 of the NAAEC

and the Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters under Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation for the assertions set forth in Submission SEM-97-002 that Mexico

is failing to effectively enforce Articles 88 paragraph IV, 89 paragraph VI,

92, 93, 117, 121, 122, 123, 124 and 133 of the LGEEPA (Ley General del

Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente) with respect to the pollution of the Magdalena River through the discharge of wastewater from the

municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana in the Mexican state of Sonora.30

In consequence, this factual record presents information relevant

to the facts relating to:

i) the alleged violations by the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena

de Kino, and Santa Ana in the state of Sonora, Mexico of LGEEPA

Articles 88 paragraph IV, 89 paragraph VI, 93, 117, 121, 122, 123,

124 and 133;

ii) the enforcement of these provisions by Mexico with respect to

these municipalities; and

iii) the effectiveness of that enforcement.

5. Environmental Law in Question

This factual record refers to the alleged failure by Mexico to effectively enforce its environmental law with respect to pollution of the

Magdalena River by wastewater discharges from the municipalities of

Imuris, Magdalena de Kino, and Santa Ana in the state of Sonora.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN QUESTION 15

29. (SEM-97-002) Notification to Council that Development of a Factual Record is

Warranted (5 February 2002), at 11–13.

30. See footnote 1.
The relevant provisions establish the general obligation to prevent

and control water pollution; the responsibility of users of national

waters to use them sustainably; and the obligation of any person discharging wastewater to treat it prior to discharge in order to prevent

contamination of the collecting bodies. In addition, these provisions

refer to the issuance and revocation of wastewater discharge permits;

compliance with the applicable Mexican Official Standards and particular conditions of discharge (CPD); and the authorities’ obligation to conduct ongoing and systematic water quality monitoring. The relevant

provisions are cited verbatim below:

LGEEPA Article 88.– The following criteria shall be considered for the

sustainable use of water and aquatic ecosystems:

...IV.– The preservation and sustainable use of water and aquatic ecosystems is the responsibility of the users thereof and of anyone undertaking

works or activities affecting such resources.

LGEEPA Article 89.– The criteria for the sustainable use of water and

aquatic ecosystems shall be considered in:

...VI.– The operation and administration of drinking water and sewer systems serving population centers and industries;

LGEEPA Article 93.– The Secretariat shall undertake the actions necessary to prevent and, as applicable, control eutrophication, salinization and

any other pollution process in national waters.

LGEEPA Article 117.– The following criteria shall be considered for the

prevention and control of water pollution:

I. The prevention and control of water pollution is fundamental in preventing the reduced availability of water and protecting the country’s

ecosystems;

II. The State and society have shared responsibility for preventing the

pollution of rivers, watersheds, reservoirs, marine waters and other

bodies of water and watercourses, including groundwater;

III. Anyone who uses water in production activities that may cause it to

become polluted bears the responsibility for treatment of discharges

in such a manner as to restore it to a condition suitable for use in other

activities and to maintain the balance of ecosystems;

IV. Urban wastewater must be treated before being discharged into

rivers, watersheds, reservoirs, marine waters and other bodies of

water and watercourses, including groundwater; and

16 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION
V. The participation and joint responsibility of society is an indispensable condition for the prevention of water pollution.

LGEEPA Article 121.– Wastewater containing pollutants may not be discharged or allowed to infiltrate into any body of water or watercourse or

into the soil or subsoil without prior treatment and the permission or

authorization of the federal authority, or the local authority in cases of discharges into waters under local jurisdiction or into the drainage and sewer

systems of population centers.

LGEEPA Article 122.– Wastewater arising from urban public uses and

from industrial or agricultural uses that is discharged into the drainage

and sewer systems of population centers or into watersheds, rivers,

riverbeds, reservoirs or other bodies of water or watercourses, as well as

waters allowed to infiltrate into the subsoil by any means, and in general

waters spilled into the soil, must meet the conditions necessary to prevent:

I. Pollution of the collecting bodies;

II. Interference with water purification processes; and

III. Disruptions, impediments or alterations in the proper use or adequate operation of the systems, and in the hydraulic capacity of the

watersheds, watercourses, reservoirs, water tables and other national

bodies of water as well as the sewer systems.

LGEEPA Article 123.– All discharges into collecting systems, rivers, aquifers, watersheds, riverbeds, reservoirs, marine waters and other bodies of

water or watercourses as well as spills of wastewater on soil, or infiltration

thereof into lands, shall satisfy the requirements of any Mexican Official

Standards promulgated for such purpose and any applicable particular

conditions of discharge determined by the Ministry or the local authorities. The person who generates such discharges is responsible for performance of the required prior treatment.

LGEEPA Article 124.– Where wastewater affects or may affect water supply sources, the Ministry shall so notify the Ministry of Health and deny or

revoke the corresponding permit or authorization, as the case may be and,

as applicable, order the suspension of the supply.

LGEEPA Article 133.– With the participation of the Ministry of Health as

applicable pursuant to other provisions of law, the Ministry shall perform

systematic and ongoing monitoring of water quality in order to detect the

presence of pollutants or excesses of organic wastes and to take the appropriate measures. In the case of waters under local jurisdiction, such actions

shall be coordinated with the authorities of the states, the Federal District

and the municipalities.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN QUESTION 17
The relevant Mexican Official Standard under Article 123 is

NOM–001–ECOL–1996 establishing the maximum contaminant limits

in wastewater discharges into national bodies of water and property.

The most relevant sections provide as follows:

... 4. Specifications

4.1 The concentration of basic pollutants, heavy metals, and cyanide for

wastewater discharges into national waters and property shall not exceed

the value indicated as the maximum contaminant limit in Tables 2 [see

Appendix 8 of this factual record] and 3 of this Mexican Official Standard.

The allowable pH range is 5 to 10.

4.2 Fecal coliforms shall be taken as an indicator in determining pathogen

contamination. The maximum contaminant limit for wastewater discharges into national waters and property as well as discharges into soil

(use in agricultural irrigation) are 1,000 and 2,000 as the most probable

number (MPN) of fecal coliforms per 100 ml as monthly and daily averages, respectively.

... 4.5 The persons responsible for discharges of wastewater into national

waters and property shall comply with this Mexican Official Standard as

follows:

a) Municipal discharges shall meet the compliance deadliness set out in

Table 4. Compliance is gradual and progressive as a function of population size. The number of inhabitants corresponds to that determined in the

XI National Census of Population and Housing for 1990, published by the

National Institute of Statistics, Geography, and Information Technology.

...

Table 4

Municipal Discharges

Compliance deadline Population range

1 January 2000 Over 50,000

1 January 2005 20,001–50,000

1 January 2010 2,501–20,000

4.6 The compliance deadlines set out in Tables 4 and 5 of this Mexican Official Standard may be advanced by the National Water Commission for a

specific collecting body provided that there exists a study validating such

a change.

18 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION
4.7 The persons responsible for municipal and non-municipal wastewater

discharges whose pollutant concentration for any of the basic parameters,

heavy metals, and cyanides exceeds the maximum contaminant limits set

out in Tables 2 and 3 of this Mexican Official Standard, multiplied by five,

for type B collecting bodies (rivers, urban public use), shall file a plan of

actions or works to control the quality of the discharges with the National

Water Commission within a period not to exceed 180 calendar days following the publication of this standard in the Official Gazette of the Federation.

Other persons responsible for municipal and non-municipal wastewater

discharges exceeding the maximum contaminant limits of this standard

shall file a plan of actions or works to control the quality of the discharges

with the National Water Commission by the dates set out in Tables 6 and 7.

The foregoing is without prejudice to the payment of the fees contemplated in the Federal Duties Law and the fines and sanctions prescribed by

the applicable laws and regulations.

Table 6

Municipal Discharges

Population range Filing deadline for action plan

Over 50,000 30 June 1997

20,001–50,000 31 December 1998

2,501–20,000 31 December 1999

...

4.8 The person responsible for the discharge shall conduct monitoring of

the wastewater discharges to determine the daily and monthly averages.

The analysis and reporting frequencies are given in Table 8 for municipal

discharges and in Table 9 for non-municipal discharges. In situations

justifying greater control such as the protection of water supply sources

for human consumption, water-related environmental emergencies, or

uncontrolled production processes, the National Water Commission may

amend the analysis and reporting frequency. The monitoring records

must be kept on file and made available for review during a period of three

years following their production.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN QUESTION 19
Table 8

Population range Sampling and analysis Reporting frequency

frequency

Over 50,000 Monthly Quarterly

20,001–50,000 Quarterly Semiannually

2,501–20,000 Semiannually Annually...

6. Auditing

The National Water Commission shall conduct sampling and analysis of

wastewater discharges periodically and randomly for the purpose of verifying compliance with the maximum contaminant limits established by

the parameters set forth in this Mexican Official Standard.

6. Summary of Other Relevant Factual Information and Facts

Presented by the Secretariat in Relation to the Matters

Addressed in the Submission

6.1 Process for Gathering Information

Based on the Secretariat’s recommendation of 5 February 2002, the

Council of the CEC instructed the Secretariat on 7 March 2002 to develop

a factual record in regard to submission SEM-97-002. In April 2002, the

Secretariat initiated the factual record development process.

The scope of the information gathering for the factual record was

the effective enforcement of LGEEPA Articles 88 paragraph IV, 89 paragraph VI, 93, 117, 121, 122, 123, 124 and 133 with respect to the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino, and Santa Ana in the state of

Sonora, Mexico. The Secretariat sought to gather information on the

Party’s initiatives and actions to achieve compliance by these municipalities with the requirements of preventing and controlling water pollution; the responsibility of the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de

Kino, and Santa Ana as users of the (national) waters of the Magdalena

River to use them sustainably; the wastewater monitoring and treatment

obligations; compliance with the applicable NOM (NOM-001); and

ongoing and systematic monitoring of water quality in the Magdalena

River.

The Secretariat made available to the Parties, the Submitter, and

any interested party a general plan for the development of the factual

20 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION
record (Appendix 2 of this factual record) and a description of the scope

of the relevant information gathering (Appendix 3 of this factual record).

Pursuant to NAAEC Articles 15(4) and 21(1)(a), the Secretariat

requested Mexico and 6 of its authorities to provide the relevant information in their possession for the preparation of the factual record

(Appendix 4 of this factual record contains a list of the recipients of this

request and a description of the information requested). Two Mexican

authorities provided information in response to the request, while the

others either did not respond, or stated that the matter is outside their

jurisdiction. Likewise, the Secretariat invited the other two parties to the

NAAEC and the Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) to provide

relevant information. The Secretariat identified 22 persons or

nongovernmental organizations that might possess relevant information, including CPLRM, and invited them to provide that information.

Information was received from 3 persons in response to that request

(Appendix 5 of this factual record contains a list of the recipients of the

request and a description of the information requested).

Appendix 6 contains a list of all the information gathered by the

Secretariat that formed the basis for this factual record.

Article 15(5) of the NAAEC provides that “[t]he Secretariat shall

submit a draft factual record to the Council. Any Party may provide

comments on the accuracy of the draft within 45 days thereafter.” Pursuant to Article 15(6), “[t]he Secretariat shall incorporate, as appropriate,

any such comments in the final factual record and submit it to the Council.” The Secretariat submitted the draft factual record to the Council on

29 July 2003. The Parties did not comment on the draft factual record.

SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT FACTUAL INFORMATION 21
6.2 Information on the Magdalena River and the Municipalities

of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana31

The Magdalena River and the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena

de Kino and Santa Ana are located in the northern part of the Mexican

state of Sonora.

The Magdalena River is part of the Concepción River watershed. It

is formed in the municipality of Imuris by the junction of the El Bambuto,

Milpillas, and El Fresnal Rivers. At Magdalena de Kino, the river

receives water from the Sásabe and Tasiacuri Creeks, and at the Santa

Ana limits it joins the Altar River to form the La Asunción River. In the

municipality of Santa Ana, the Magdalena River also receives water

from Corral Viejo, El Aguaje, El Otate, Coyotillo, and El Cumaro creeks,

and continues toward Trincheras, Pitiquito, and Caborca.

The principal settlements of the municipalities of Imuris,

Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana along the banks of the Magdalena

River and its tributaries are the seats of those municipalities and the

22 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION

31. Unless expressly indicated otherwise, the information in this section is taken from

the website of the Government of the State of Sonora <http://www.sonora.

gob.mx>.
rural communities of San Ignacio, El Crucero, Terrenate, La Mesa,

Pantanito, and Santa Marta. The Magdalena River is the main source of

water supply for human consumption and agricultural use in those

communities.32 Irrigation water is also taken from the Comaquito reservoir 18 km northwest of the municipal seat of Imuris (capacity of 32 million cubic metres). The Magdalena River is dry part of the year.33 The

Magdalena River is classified in the Federal Duties Law (Ley Federal de

Derechos—LFD) as a collecting body for urban public use (type B).34

The municipality of Imuris occupies an area of 1,710.3 km2 (0.92%

of the state total and 0.09% of the national total). Its seat is Imuris, and

other important towns are Campo Carretero, Terrenate, La Estación and

La Mesa. The topography of the municipality is rugged in its western

and northern portions, while the valleys forming the Cocóspera Rivers

and their tributaries emerge to the south. The climate is hot and arid with

an average annual temperature of 18.7 oC. The main months of rainfall

are July and August; average annual precipitation is 413.1 mm. According to preliminary figures from the 2000 Census of Population and

Housing produced by the National Institute of Statistics, Geography,

SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT FACTUAL INFORMATION 23

32. RSP, at 13, and information provided by Mexico for the development of this factual

record on 11 June 2002 (IPM), at 6.

33. Information provided to the Secretariat in an interview with personnel from the

CNA Hermosillo regional office on 9 October 2002.

34. IPM, at 21.
and Information Technology (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e

Informática—INEGI), the total population in 2000 was 10,006. The population growth rate is 3.1 per cent.

The municipality of Magdalena de Kino covers an area of

1,460.23 km2 of gently sloping valleys and hills. It borders Imuris on the

east and Santa Ana on the south. The most important towns in addition

to the seat —Magdalena— are San Ignacio, San Isidro, Tasiacuri, and

El Sásabe. The climate is semi-arid with an average annual temperature

of 19.5 oC. The eastern and northwestern portions are extremely rugged

while the southern portion is almost entirely flat. The average annual

rainfall is 395.7 mm. According to preliminary figures from the

2000 census, the municipality has a population of 24,409 which is

growing at a rate of 2.0 per cent.

The municipality of Santa Ana covers an area of 1,620.65 km2. In

addition to the seat —Santa Ana— other important towns are Estación

Llano, El Claro, and Santa Ana Viejo. The topography of the municipality is almost entirely flat, with a downward slope to the west. The climate

is hot and arid with an average annual temperature of 20.6 oC and average annual rainfall of 332 mm. According to preliminary 2000 census

data, the municipality of Santa Ana has a total population of 13,534 and a

growth rate of 0.6 per cent.

Agricultural production occupies a total of 4,378.9 ha in Imuris,

1,233 ha in Magdalena de Kino, and 8,410 ha in Santa Ana. The principal

crops are wheat, corn, forage crops, vegetables, beans, sorghum, and

fruit. Crops are irrigated with well water and by small water intakes

from the Magdalena River. Livestock production is another activity of

considerable economic importance in the three municipalities, although

the main sources of employment are in the commercial, service, and

maquiladora sectors.

6.3 Wastewater from the Municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena

de Kino and Santa Ana

Pursuant to Article 115 paragraph III of the Political Constitution

of the United Mexican States (Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos

Mexicanos—CPEUM), drinking water, drainage, sewage, and wastewater treatment and disposal services are public services exclusively

provided by the municipalities. Municipalities are authorized to provide this service either through their centralized administration or

through decentralized municipal administration agencies, as provided

24 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION
in the municipal administrative provisions issued by the municipalities

in accordance with the state laws establishing the general framework for

municipal public administration.35

The LGEEPA prohibits the discharge or infiltration of wastewater

containing pollutants into any body of water or watercourse or into the

soil or subsoil without prior treatment and the permission of the authorities. The municipalities, as users of national waters as receiving bodies

for wastewater discharges from urban public uses, are responsible for

controlling any pollution that may ensue from these discharges and for

performing the prior treatment required in order to meet the applicable

Mexican Official Standards and particular conditions of discharge. The

CNA is the authority competent to issue wastewater-related permits

and to enforce the laws governing the prevention of pollution of national

waters.

The municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana

discharge wastewater from the drainage and sewer systems of their

municipal seats into or near the Magdalena River. Only the municipal

seats have sewer service. In Imuris, the sewer system covers 80% of the

population. The majority of the municipality’s residents discharge their

domestic wastewater into latrines, cesspools, and septic tanks.36 In

Magdalena, the sewer system covers 75% of the population.37 In Santa

Ana, 60% of the population has access to the sewer service.38 According

to the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), problems

associated with the Magdalena sewer system include infiltration into the

collecting system, negative slopes, insufficient pipe capacity, and silting

of pipes due to low water velocity. BECC estimates the investment

necessary to correct these defects at approximately US $3,000,000.00.39

The Secretariat did not obtain information on the condition of the sewer

systems of Santa Ana and Imuris.

SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT FACTUAL INFORMATION 25

35. CPEUM, Article 115.– The States shall, for their internal governance, adopt the

republican, representative and popular form of government, taking as a basis for

their territorial division and political and administrative organization the Free

Municipality, as follows: ... III. Municipalities are responsible for the following

public duties and services: a) Drinking water, drainage, sewerage, treatment and

disposal of their wastewater;...

36. http://www.sonora.gob.mx/municipios/getmun.asp?municipio=imuris.htm&

nombre=Imuris.

37. http://www.sonora.gob.mx/municipios/getmun.asp?municipio=magdalena.ht

m&nombre=Magdalena.

38. http://www.sonora.gob.mx/municipios/getmun.asp?municipio=santaana.htm

&nombre=Santa %20Ana.

39. BECC, Summary of Ongoing Projects in the Magdalena River Basin, at 1. Information provided to the Secretariat for the development of this factual record on 3 June

2002.
6.3.1 Pollutant Levels in Municipal Wastewater Discharges

and Monitoring

NOM-001 establishes the maximum contaminant limits for

wastewater discharges into national waters and property, but provides

that compliance with these limits is gradual and progressive. For municipal discharges, the compliance deadline depends on population size (as

per the XI National Census of Population and Housing for 1990, published by INEGI). Municipalities with populations between 20,001 and

50,000, such as Magdalena de Kino, must comply by 1 January 2005,

while municipalities with populations between 2,501 and 20,000, such as

Imuris and Santa Ana, have until 1 January 2010 to comply.

NOM-001 also establishes deadlines by which the persons responsible for municipal wastewater discharges exceeding the maximum contaminant limits of NOM-001 must file with the CNA a plan of action or

works to control the quality of their discharges. The deadline for filing

the plan applicable to Magdalena de Kino was 31 December 1998, while

the deadline applicable to Imuris and Santa Ana was 31 December 1999.

The municipalities are also required to file semiannual progress reports

on their plans of action.

In addition, the municipalities are required to monitor their

wastewater discharges in order to determine daily and monthly

pollutant averages. Municipalities with populations between 20,001 and

50,000, such as Magdalena de Kino, must perform quarterly sampling

and analysis and semiannual reporting; those with populations between

2,501 and 20,000, such as Imuris and Santa Ana, must perform semiannual sampling and analysis and annual reporting. The monitoring

records must be kept on file and made available for review for three

years. The wastewater discharge permits issued by the CNA for the

three municipalities in question provide for annual reporting and

semi-annual monitoring in all three cases.

NOM-001 and the compliance deadlines established for some of

the obligations set out therein do not exempt the persons responsible for

wastewater discharges from the general prohibition on causing the pollution of surface water, groundwater, or soil due to the discharging of

wastewater containing pollutants without prior treatment; nor do these

deadlines affect the CNA’s obligations in regard to inspection, monitoring, and sanctioning as applicable.40

26 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION

40. In this regard, see also RSP, at 24.
Also, the LAN and the LFD provide that users of national waters as

collecting bodies for their wastewater discharges (including municipalities) must pay fees to the Federation for those wastewater discharges

that exceed the maximum contaminant limits. Executive Orders issued

by the federal Executive Branch on 11 October 1995 and 21 December

2001 established a waiver scheme for these obligations. Municipalities

that decide to join the scheme are exempted from fee obligations accrued

prior to their joining.

The municipal wastewater from Imuris, Magdalena, and Santa

Ana contains primarily domestic waste. According to the CNA, no

industrial facilities discharge into the municipal sewer system.

In the course of developing the Project of 1997, CNA measured pollutant concentrations in the wastewater discharges. The following table

is a summary, provided by Mexico, of the monitoring results,41 along

with the corresponding values under NOM–001 (rivers, type B use) and

the particular conditions of discharge.42

SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT FACTUAL INFORMATION 27

41. IPM, at 1–3. The CNA performed this monitoring at the discharge point of the sanitary system of the town of Imuris, at the outlet of the oxidation lagoon of the city of

Magdalena, and at the final discharge point of the water sanitation system of the

city of Santa Ana. The analysis was performed on compound samples consisting of

a mixture proportional to the measured flow of six simple samples taken every 4

hours during a period of 24 hours. During the sampling period, gauging was performed, water and air temperature were measured, and pH and electrical conductivity readings were taken.

42. NOM-001 and the CPD contemplate other parameters that Mexico did not include

in its summary table (heavy metals—arsenic, cadmium, cyanide, copper, total

chromium, mercury, nickel, lead, zinc—and floating matter).
* detergents

In the case of Magdalena, the CNA concluded from these results

that “... the quality of the effluent does not meet the requirements of the

standard to be considered an effluent appropriate for discharge into

the Magdalena River.”43 In the cases of Imuris and Santa Ana, one of

the CNA’s conclusions with respect to these results was that “the

wastewater discharges from the town negatively impact the quality of

28 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION

43. RSP, Appendix 23 -Magdelena, at 40.

Parameter Unit Significant Significant Significant Limits set

Sample Sample Sample out in NOM-

(Imuris) (Magdalena) (Santa Ana) 001 and CPD

PH mg/l 7.7 7.5 7.5 Not less

than 5 nor

greater

than 10

BOD (5) at 20 oC mg/l 92.5 149.0 105.6 150

Oils and lubricants mg/l 13.3 15.0 18.2 25

Settleable solids mg/l 2.3 1.0 Not indicated 2

Total suspended solids mg/l 86.0 141.0 Not indicated 125

Methylene blue active mg/l 9.0 10.0 10.0 Not

substances (MBAS)* prescribed

Total phosphorus mg/l 5.0 8.0 Not indicated 30

(exp. as P)

Organic nitrogen mg/l 7.4 10.0 Not indicated

60 (total

Ammonia nitrogen mg/l 21.0 16.0 Not indicated nitrogen)

Electrical mmhos/ 810.0 914.0 840.8 Not

conductivity cm prescribed

Total coliforms MPN/ 2.40E+07 2.05E+07 Not indicated Not

100 ml prescribed

Fecal coliforms MPN/ 1.55E+07 1.20E+07 1.266E+07 2,000

100 ml (15,500,000) (12,000,000) (12,660,000)

Minimum flow rate lps 8.4 Not taken Not indicated Not

prescribed

Maximum flow rate lps 12.4 Not taken Not indicated Not

prescribed

Average flow rate lps 10.6 Not taken Not indicated Not

prescribed

Average ambient oC 7.5 10.0 Not indicated 40 (tempetemperature rature of

sample)
the collecting body, since the contribution of salts, solids (dissolved),

nutrients (ammonia nitrogen and phosphates), detergents (MBAS), oils

and lubricants, organic matter (COD and BOD) and bacteriological load

(total coliforms) are harmful to the water used for crop irrigation.”44

These are the most recent analyses of wastewater discharges by

these three municipalities into the Magdalena River, according to the

information obtained by the Secretariat. As stated above, pursuant to

LGEEPA Article 123 and NOM–001 section 4.8, the municipalities of

Imuris, Magdalena de Kino, and Santa Ana are obligated to conduct

monitoring of their wastewater discharges and to report the results to

the CNA. These municipalities are not performing the required monitoring and reporting.45

6.3.2 Wastewater Treatment Systems

The wastewater from the city of Magdalena is discharged into the

Magdalena River, while the wastewater from the cities of Imuris and

Santa Ana is discharged in near the river. Currently, the three cities treat

their wastewater prior to discharging it into the river. The treatment

systems of these cities include different types of lagoons, which may be

described as follows:

Oxidation Lagoon

Relatively shallow wastewater body contained within a specifically

designed earthen pond in which biological oxidation of organic matter

takes place by natural transfer or is artificially accelerated with oxygen.46

Stabilization Lagoon

A type of oxidation lagoon in which biological oxidation of organic matter

is effected by natural or artificially accelerated transfer of oxygen to the

water from air. Their dimensions are specially designed for biological

treatment of wastewater by a natural biochemical purification process.

They are simple earthen structures open to the soil and air for better purification. In order for a stabilization lagoon to work properly, the following

processes must occur:

– Oxidation of organic matter under aerobic conditions.

SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT FACTUAL INFORMATION 29

44. RSP, Appendix 23 -Imuris, at 52 and Santa Ana, at 44.

45. Interview with personnel from the CNA Northwest Regional Office during Secretariat’s 9–10 October 2002 visit.

46. Diccionario del Agua, Aquamarket <http://www.aguamarket.com/diccionario/>

(translation). In particular, see “laguna de oxidación” at <http://www.aguamarket.com/diccionario/terminos.asp?Id=2339>.
– Surface reaeration.

– Decomposition of organic matter under anaerobic conditions.

Classification of stabilization lagoons:

Aerobic: As their name indicates, these lagoons operate in the presence of air. They are shallow (1.20–0.80 m), thus conducive to the proliferation of the algae that supply a large part of the necessary oxygen. BOD

removal efficiencies of 65–75% are achieved. Their main disadvantage is

the amount of space required. In aerobic lagoons, the suspended and dissolved degradable substances are stabilized by the aerobic microbial flora.

Anaerobic: Generally used as a preliminary purification or pretreatment method, they may be considered as digesters since specific quantities of organic matter or load are applied per unit of volume, such that

anaerobic conditions (i.e., the absence of oxygen) prevail. The expected

BOD removal efficiency with this lagoon varies with retention time; for

times of 1 to 10 days, efficiencies of 20–60% are obtained. One disadvantage of this type of lagoon is the production of foul odors that prevent it

from being sited near inhabited areas (within 500 m). Generally, these reservoirs are 3–5 m deep.

Facultative: This is a combination of the two previous types. Facultative lagoons are designed at depths varying normally from 1.5–2 m and a

quantity of organic matter or load per unit of volume enabling the growth

of aerobic and facultative organisms (which latter can reproduce either in

the presence or absence of oxygen). Its flexibility makes it the most common type of lagoon; it requires less land than the aerobic type and does not

produce the bad odors typical of the anaerobic type. As with all biological

processes, the factor most affecting its efficiency is temperature. Expected

BOD removal efficiencies with these lagoons range from 60–85%.

Removal efficiency for bacteria, particularly the coliform group, can reach

99.99% due to the prolonged retention times.

Maturation Lagoon

Stabilization lagoon designed to treat secondary or wastewater effluent

previously treated by a lagoon system (anaerobic-facultative, aeratedfacultative, or primary-secondary). Originally designed to reduce bacterial loads.

These are shallow (0.5–1.0 m) with a large surface area. Light must be

allowed to penetrate the lagoon and aerobic conditions must prevail

throughout, hence the necessity of oxygen.

Their main function is to remove any remaining fecal bacteria, pathogens,

etc., guaranteeing the sanitary quality of the water.

30 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION
The main biological phenomena occurring in this lagoon are oxidation by

aerobic bacteria and photosynthesis by algae, which proliferate rampantly.47

When the submission was filed in 1997, wastewater from

Magdalena was being treated in one anaerobic lagoon (1.79 ha, depth of

2.41 m) and one facultative lagoon (4.88 ha, depth of 1.5 m). This system

operated with a removal efficiency of 70.72% for BOD and 83.97% for

total coliforms.48 Wastewater from Santa Ana was not being treated.49

Imuris was discharging its wastewater into a temporary lagoon because

its two facultative lagoons were not operating.50

In 1988 the CNA built an oxidation lagoon to receive domestic

wastewater from the municipality of Imuris. However, this treatment

system never went into operation because a flood destroyed the pipes,

and the municipality did not have the budget to rebuild the damaged

sections. In 1992, the Sonora state office of the Ministry of Social Development (Secretaría de Desarrollo Social) gave a temporary 45-day authorization for discharge of wastewater from Imuris into an area known as

“Laguna Vieja,” for infiltration and evaporation while the construction

and installation of the new wastewater lagoons for that town were

completed. The Water Administration Division (Subgerencia de

Administración del Agua) of the CNA ratified the 45-day discharge authorization on 2 September 1992, stating that the authorization was granted

in order to resolve the pollution problem caused by the domestic

wastewater, and because the sewer system required cleaning prior to

operation of the sump, which was silted up due to the obstruction of the

last section of the wastewater pipe.51

The first phase of expansion of the Magdalena treatment plant was

carried out during 1998, with the construction of a maturation lagoon to

treat a flow of 42.18 lps (2.52 ha, depth of 1.5 m). In Imuris, during this

first phase, an anaerobic lagoon (0.44 ha, depth of 4 m) and three maturation lagoons (1.09 ha, depth of 1.5 m) to treat a flow of 19.83 lps were built

as a complement to the existing facultative lagoons, which were out of

service.52

SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT FACTUAL INFORMATION 31

47. See “laguna de maduración” at <http://www.aguamarket.com/diccionario/

terminos.asp?Id=3005> (translation).

48. RSP, Appendix 23 -Magdalena, at 15.

49. RSP, Appendix 23 -Santa Ana, at 11.

50. RSP, Appendix 23 -Imuris, at 10.

51. Memo no. BOO.728.2.01771, RSP, Appendix 7.

52. IPM, at 8.
In 2000, the Santa Ana oxidation lagoons were built. These consisted of an anaerobic lagoon (0.076 ha, depth of 4 m) and three maturation lagoons (approximately 1.12 ha, depth of 1.5 m) to treat a flow of

27.85 lps. Also in 2000, the second phase of the Magdalena treatment

plant expansion was completed. This consisted of the addition of an

anaerobic lagoon (0.05 ha), a facultative lagoon (1.30 ha) and three maturation lagoons (0.85 ha each) to treat a flow of 23.36 lps.53

Currently, the Imuris wastewater treatment system consists of

6 oxidation lagoons with a total treatment capacity of 19.8 lps; the

Magdalena system consists of 8 lagoons with a total capacity of 65.54 lps,

and the Santa Ana system consists of 5 lagoons with a total capacity of

27.85 lps. The removal efficiency of these three systems is 92.9% for BOD

and 99.9% for fecal coliforms.54 Further to the Project of 1997 (second

phase), expansions are planned in 2017 for the Santa Ana and Imuris

systems.55 In a study to improve the Magdalena de Kino water supply,

sewer, and treatment systems, the BECC estimated that an investment

on the order of $1,900,000 is required to optimize the treatment process.56

The Imuris wastewater treatment lagoons are located 12 km southwest of that town, approximately 4 km from the right bank of the

Magdalena River.57 In the case of Magdalena, the lagoons are approximately 3 km to the west of the town along the banks of the Magdalena

River.58 The Santa Ana lagoons are approximately 4 km to the southwest

of Santa Ana near the river.59

As mentioned previously, these municipalities carry out their

drinking water and sewer-related roles through their respective drinking water and sanitary sewer operating agencies. The CNA built the

treatment facilities, but the municipalities are responsible for operating

and maintaining the oxidation lagoons in such a manner as to ensure

that they work properly. However, the budget of the operating agencies

does not include a line item for treatment, but only covers operation and

maintenance of the water supply and sewer systems.60 The person

32 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION

53. IPM, at 8-9.

54. IPM, at 9–10 and 13–15.

55. RSP, Appendix 23 -Santa Ana, at 87 and Imuris, at 103.

56. BECC, Summary of Ongoing Projects in the Magdalena River Basin, at 1.

57. RSP, Appendix 23 -Imuris, at 3 and 112.

58. RSP, Appendix 23 -Magdalena, at 4, 15 and 102.

59. RSP, Appendix 23 -Santa Ana, at 3 and 88.

60. IPM, at 12–13.
responsible for the Magdalena operating agency estimates the expense

of operating and maintaining that town’s treatment plant at approximately P $20,000.00 monthly. The expenses include the cost of electrical

power to operate the pumps, periodic cleaning to prevent obstruction of

flow through accumulation of garbage, prevent the silting of pipes, chlorine and other purification agents, etc.61 The Submitter asserts that problems frequently affect the treatment systems, especially the sumps,

causing wastewater spills. This was the situation in Imuris when the

Secretariat visited the site on 9 October 2002. The sump that pumps

wastewater to the treatment lagoons is on the bank of the river, and

although it was operating, the wastewater was running off into the

riverbed.62

In its response to the submission of 29 July 1998, Mexico states that

the absence of a budget has prevented the municipalities from duly fulfilling their water treatment obligations.63 The Secretariat requested but

did not obtain additional information about the budgetary limitations

invoked by Mexico.

6.3.3 Magdalena River Water Quality Monitoring

Under LGEEPA Article 133, Semarnat, with the participation of the

Ministry of Health, is responsible for conducting systematic and continued monitoring of national waters to detect the presence of pollutants

and excess organic wastes, and for taking any necessary measures. Pursuant to LAN Articles 9 paragraph V and 86 paragraph V, Semarnat performs this function through the agency of the CNA.

In 1993, the CNA conducted a physicochemical and bacteriological

study of the Agua Zarca-El Claro section of the Magdalena River to

ascertain its assimilative capacity.64 Samples were taken at 11 points:

Agua Zarca, Cibuta, Imuris, Cocóspera Creek, Punta de Agua Creek,

Magdalena, Sásabe Creek, Santa Ana, Santa Ana wastewater, El Cajón

Creek and El Claro. The highest results for BOD, oils and lubricants,

settleable solids, total suspended solids, total coliforms and fecal

SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT FACTUAL INFORMATION 33

61. Conversation of 9 October 2002 with Ing. Armida E. Carranza A., Director of

Municipal Water Operating Agency, Municipality of Magdalena 2000-2003.

62. The Secretariat went to the Imuris municipal offices to obtain information about

the cause of this leak but found nobody there at the time, and the Secretariat did not

inquire further.

63. RSP, at 35.

64. IPM, at 3 and “Magdalena River” Appendix.
coliforms at the river sampling points in Imuris, Magdalena and Santa

Ana were as follows:65

Until 1997, the CNA operated the National Monitoring Network in

the state of Sonora (17 monitoring stations located along surface waterways in the Mayo and Yaqui valleys and along the Sonora River but not

including the Magdalena River). This monitoring network ceased to be

meaningful due to the population growth and the diversification of

industry and manufacturing in the state. In its place, the CNA began

operating the National Monitoring Network in 1998 with 8 new surface

water-monitoring stations along the main waterways of the state of

Sonora. At the Terrenate station on the Magdalena River, bimonthly

water quality monitoring began in 1999.66

The Terrenate monitoring station is 10 km downstream from the

town of Imuris on the Magdalena River. The Magdalena and Santa Ana

discharge points are downstream of the station. CNA states that the station was located there because this is the only point where the river has a

sufficient volume of water that is constantly flowing, but provided no

further information on the process by which CNA decided to locate the

monitoring station in Terrenate.67

34 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION

65. IPM, “Magdalena River” Appendix, Appendix B, “Water Quality Tables.”

66. Ibid.

67. Interview with personnel from the CNA Northwest Regional Office, during the

Secretariat’s visit of 9–10 October 2002.

Parameter Units Imuris Magdalena Santa Ana

BOD (5) mg/l 6.06 4.54 7.07

Oils and lubricants mg/l 12.86 7.56 17.12

Settleable solids mg/l 1.0 .22 N.D.

Total suspended solids mg/l 96.0 160.0 78.0

Total coliforms MPN/100 ml 2,400 21,000 4,600

Fecal coliforms MPN/100 ml 930 15,000 2,400
Monitoring data dating back to 1999 is available for this station.

The parameters used to assess water quality for agricultural irrigation use

at the Terrenate station are pH, specific conductivity, chlorides, fecal

coliforms, total suspended solids, and dissolved solids. The CNA measurements indicate that, in general, the Ecological Water Quality Criteria (CE–CCA–001/89)68 were met for all of these parameters in five of the

six samples conducted in 2001. In the sixth sample, the fecal coliform criterion was exceeded (3,500 MPN/100 ml versus a maximum contaminant limit of 1,000 MPN/100 ml for agricultural irrigation use).69 The

CNA concluded as follows for the 20 samples conducted from 1999 to

2001:

– The pH met the criterion in 100% of the samples.

– The specific conductivity met the criterion in 100% of the samples.

– The chloride concentration met the criterion in 100% of the samples.

– The suspended solids limit was only exceeded twice and only by 10%,

so the results are not considered significant.

– The concentration of dissolved solids met the criterion in 100% of the

samples.

SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT FACTUAL INFORMATION 35

68. Published 13 December 1989 in the DOF.

69. IPM, at 4 and “Magdalena River” Appendix.
– The fecal coliform parameter of 1,000 MPN/100 ml was exceeded in 8

of the samples, in 2 cases by 10%, in 2 cases by 30%, and in 4 cases by an

amount between 60% and 350%.

The average Use Potential Index for the three years monitored is 1.07;

although this is slightly greater than 1, the water quality is considered

acceptable for use in agricultural irrigation, although not on vegetables

intended for raw consumption due to the presence of fecal coliforms.

To prevent the fecal coliform concentration from exceeding the quality

criterion, the water must be disinfected.70

The parameters used to assess water quality for use as drinking

water at the Terrenate station are pH, dissolved oxygen, oils and lubricants, colour, chlorides, methylene blue active substances (detergents),

fecal coliforms, alkalinity, total phosphates, nitrates, total suspended

solids, and dissolved solids. The CNA states that in general the Ecological Water Quality Criteria for drinking water were met for all parameters indicated for that use, although oils and lubricants were found in

two samples, total phosphates were slightly higher than the criterion in

two samples, and as mentioned previously, fecal coliforms exceeded the

criterion in one sample.71 The CNA concluded the following about the

20 samples conducted between 1999 and 2001:

– The pH met the criterion in 100% of samples.

– Dissolved oxygen met the criterion in 100% of samples.

– Oils and greases were detected in 47% of samples

– Colour met the criterion in 100% of samples.

– The concentration of chlorides met the criterion in 100% of samples.

– The concentration of methylene blue active substances met the criterion in 100% of samples.

– The fecal coliform criterion of 1,000 MPN/100 ml was exceeded in 8 of

the samples, in 2 cases by 10%, in 2 cases by 30%, and in 4 cases by an

amount between 60% and 350%.

– Alkalinity met the criterion in 100% of samples.

– The phosphate concentration met the criterion in 75% of samples and

never exceeded the criterion by more than 30%, so the results are not

considered significant.

36 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION

70. Results of water quality assessment using Use Potential Index. IPM, “Magdalena

River” Appendix.

71. Ibid.
– The nitrate concentration met the criterion in 100% of samples.

– The concentration of suspended solids met the criterion in 100% of

samples.

– The concentration of dissolved solids met the criterion in 100% of

samples.

The average Use Potential Index for the three years monitored is 1.13;

although this is slightly greater than 1, the water quality is considered

acceptable for use as a drinking water source if purified to eliminate

coliform microorganisms and oils and lubricants.72

Appendix 7 of this factual record contains the table of 1999–2001

monitoring data for the Terrenate station, which was provided by

Mexico.

The CNA classifies the Magdalena River as “suitable” for the

following uses: public water supply, recreation, fishing and aquatic

wildlife, and industrial and agricultural uses.73

6.3.4 Effects of Wastewater Discharge from Imuris, Magdalena,

and Santa Ana on Magdalena River Users

In the submission that gave rise to this factual record, CPLRM

asserts that wastewater discharges into the Magdalena River from the

municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino, and Santa Ana caused

harm to persons who use the river’s water for irrigation, and caused the

rotting of fruit trees.

In 1996, the CNA conducted monitoring of Magdalena River water

used for irrigation in the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino,

and Santa Ana, and found that it exceeded the limits of NOM-CCA033-ECOL-93.74 Pursuant to LAN Article 119 paragraph II, the CNA

sanctioned 3 farmers who were using polluted water to irrigate vegetables.75 The vegetable producers expressed their disagreement with

being prevented from using Magdalena River water for irrigation of

SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT FACTUAL INFORMATION 37

72. Ibid.

73. Surface Water Quality in the Northwest Region, December 2001 <www.cna.

gob.mx>.

74. Published in the DOF on 18 October 1993. This standard establishes the bacteriological conditions for the use of urban or municipal wastewater, or mixtures of

such wastewater with water taken from bodies of water, in the irrigation of vegetable crops and vegetable/fruit products. The code for this standard was changed to

NOM-033-ECOL-93 on 30 November 1994.

75. RSP, at 18, Appendix 9.
their already planted crops. In this regard, Francisco Villarreal Villarreal

filed a complaint with the state human rights commission on 9 December 1996.76 The National Human Rights Commission determined that

the matter was outside its jurisdiction and recommended that the

complainant apply to the CNA.77

In order to address this matter, a commission was formed with representatives of the farmers using the water, the municipalities of Imuris,

Magdalena de Kino, and Santa Ana, the CNA, the federal Ministry of

Agriculture, Livestock Production and Rural Development (Secretaría de

Agricultura, Ganadería y Desarrollo Rural—SAGAR), the Sonora State

Ministry of Agricultural Development (Secretaría de Fomento Agrícola)

and the Sonora State Ministry of Health and Welfare (Secretaría de

Salubridad y Asistencia).78 The commission met on 27 August and 5 September 1996 and agreed on measures for irrigation of the crops. It was

agreed that SAGAR would issue planting permits so that the producers,

with knowledge of the water quality, could take the measures necessary

to chlorinate the water if it did not meet the standard. The director of the

SAGAR Rural Development District sent the chlorine dosages recommended for treatment of water for vegetable irrigation to the president

of the San Ignacio Pueblo section of the Comaquito Irrigation Unit. The

users did not chlorinate the water as agreed, arguing that the stated

measures were too costly.79

The commission was dissolved in November 1996 when the

CNA completed the study titled “Preliminary Pollution Analysis of the

Magdalena River.”80 The study determined that the towns situated

along the banks of the river were responsible for the entirety of the pollution as a result of their practices of open-air defecation and discharge of

domestic wastewater, refuse, and organic matter. No sources of chemical pollution were detected.

Mexico asserts that no problems have ever arisen in regard to

water supply for human consumption as a result of wastewater discharges from the municipalities in question.81 According to CPLRM, in

September 1997, the residents of San Lorenzo reported fetid odors due to

38 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION

76. RSP, Appendices 10–11.

77. RSP, Appendix 11.

78. The Secretariat did not find information on who formed this commission and

under what authority. The commission held its meetings in the municipal offices of

Magdalena de Kino, according to the minutes. RSP, Appendix 12.

79. RSP, at 19–22, Appendix 12.

80. RSP, Appendix 13.

81. IPM, at 6.
an overflow of the oxidation lagoon that receives wastewater from

Magdalena, which was reported by the committee to be flowing into the

Magdalena River. The Submitter also reported that one child died of

gastroenteritis at that time,82 and annexed a medical notice of 15 September 1997 by which Dr. Arturo Ibarra, a pediatric physician, alerted the

residents of Magdalena to the risks represented by the lack of adequate

water treatment infrastructure.83

The Secretariat did not obtain additional information about these

incidents, nor did it receive additional information about the rotting

of fruit trees noted in the submission as an effect of the municipal

wastewater discharges in question.

Mexico asserts that in view of the data obtained from the Terrenate

monitoring station and the asserted fact that no epidemics or harm to

health have occurred in the area, “the discharges cannot be considered to

have caused any adverse effects on the environment.” Mexico states that

“in order to avert any risk,” the CNA has, since 1996, been requiring that

Magdalena River water be chlorinated prior to being used in irrigation.84

6.4 Enforcement of Environmental Law with Respect to

Wastewater Discharges from Imuris, Magdalena,

and Santa Ana into the Magdalena River

The LGEEPA provisions relevant to this factual record are cited

verbatim in section 6 of this document. These establish the general obligation to prevent and control water pollution, the responsibility of users

of national waters to use them sustainably, and the obligation of any person discharging wastewater to treat it prior to discharge in order to prevent pollution of the collecting bodies such that it meets the specific

parameters set out in the Mexican Official Standards and the particular

conditions of discharge.

As stated previously, the CNA is responsible for enforcing the

water pollution prevention and control laws and sanctioning violations

thereof.85 The violations, sanctions, and penalties provided by the

LGEEPA, the LAN and the Federal Criminal Code (Código Penal Federal—CPF) are as follows:

SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT FACTUAL INFORMATION 39

82. Letter from CPLRM to the CEC Secretariat received 15 October 1997.

83. Appendix to CPLRM letter mentioned in previous footnote.

84. IPM, at 7.

85. LAN Article 86 paragraphs III and VII.
LGEEPA, Article 171.– Violations of this law, its regulations, and any provisions ensuing from it shall be sanctioned administratively by the Ministry with one or more of the following:

I.– A fine equivalent to twenty to twenty thousand times the daily minimum wage applicable in the Federal District at the time the sanction is

imposed;

II.– Closing of the establishment, either temporary or permanent and

either total or partial:

a) Where the violator fails to meet the deadlines or conditions imposed by

the authority for performing the corrective measures or urgent actions

ordered;

b) In cases of recidivism where the violations cause negative effects on the

environment, or

c) In cases of repeated non-compliance, on three or more occasions, with

any corrective or urgent measure imposed by the authority.

III.– Administrative arrest for up to thirty-six hours.

IV.– Seizure of instruments, specimens, products or sub-products directly

related to violations concerning forest resources, wildlife species, or

genetic resources established by this Law, and

V.– Suspension or revocation of the corresponding concessions, licenses,

permits, or authorizations.

LAN, Article 119.– “The Commission” shall, as provided by this law, sanction the following violations:

I. Discharging wastewater, on a continuing, intermittent or accidental

basis and in violation of the provisions of this law, into collecting bodies in

the national domain, including marine waters, as well as where such

wastewater infiltrates into land in the national domain or other land

where it may contaminate the subsoil or aquifer, without prejudice to the

sanctions provided by the sanitary provisions and the provisions on ecological balance and environmental protection;

II. Exploiting, using, or enjoying national wastewaters without meeting

the quality-related Mexican Official Standards and particular conditions

established for such purpose;

40 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION
... VII. Failing to install the devices necessary to record or measure the

quantity and quality of water as prescribed by this law, its regulation, and

any other applicable provisions, or modifying or altering facilities and

equipment for the measurement of water volumes used, without the permission of the “Commission”;

... XV. Failing to fulfil the obligations set out in the concessions, assignments, or permits;

... XVIII. Committing any other violation of the provisions of this law or its

regulation.

LAN, Article 120.– The violations contemplated in the preceding article

will be sanctioned administratively by “the Commission” with fines

equivalent to the following number of times the daily minimum wage in

effect in the geographical area and at the time that the violation is committed:

I. 50 to 500 for violations of paragraphs VI, XI, XV and XVIII;

II. 100 to 1,000 for violations of paragraphs II, III, IV, VII, X, XVI and XVII...

CPF, Article 416.– Anyone who illegally discharges or dumps wastewater,

chemical or biochemical fluids, waste, or pollutants or allows them to infiltrate into soils, subsoils, marine waters, rivers, watersheds, reservoirs, or

other bodies of water or watercourses under federal jurisdiction, thereby

causing harm or the risk of harm to natural resources, flora, fauna, water

quality, ecosystems, or the environment, or who so authorizes or orders, is

liable to a sentence of one to nine years imprisonment and a fine of three

hundred to three thousand times the daily minimum wage.

Where the waters are discharged into or flow within or toward a protected

natural area, the penalty shall be up to three additional years imprisonment and a fine of an additional amount equal to 1,000 times the daily minimum wage.

As observed previously, another function of the CNA is to construct, in part or in full, water supply impoundment or storage, piping

and, as applicable, treatment or purification infrastructure with funds

from the federal treasury or funds obtained with the backing of the Federation or with any other type of federal guarantee. The LAN provides

as follows:

LAN, Article 46.– “The Commission” may, upon entering into an agreement with the governments of the corresponding federated entities

[states] and municipalities, construct in part or in full, the water supply

SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT FACTUAL INFORMATION 41
impoundment or storage, piping and, as applicable, treatment or purification infrastructure with funds from the federal treasury or funds obtained

with the backing of the Federation or any other type of guarantee therefrom, provided that the following requirements are met:

I. The works are located in more than one federated entity or have multiple

water uses or are expressly requested by the interested parties;

II. The governments of the respective federated entities and municipalities

contribute, as applicable, funds and investments to the infrastructure to be

built, and the necessary financing is obtained;

III. The recovery of the investment pursuant to the appropriate fiscal legislation is guaranteed and the user or user system undertakes to efficiently

administer the water systems and steward the water quality; and

IV. The respective federated entities and municipalities and their

para-state or paramunicipal entities, or the legal persons with which they

contract for such purpose, as the case may be, undertake to operate, preserve, maintain, and rehabilitate the hydraulic infrastructure. The corresponding undertakings shall be stipulated in the relevant agreements.

LAN, Article 86.– The Commission” is responsible for:

...VI. Promote or take the necessary measures to prevent refuse, waste,

toxic materials and substances, and sludge produced by wastewater treatment, from contaminating surface or groundwater and the property contemplated in Article 113...

The Secretariat has no information about the agreements whereby

the CNA constructed the treatment facilities of Imuris, Magdalena and

Santa Ana described in section 6.3.2 of this factual record.86 As stated

previously, the operation of these facilities is not the responsibility of the

CNA but, in this case, that of the respective municipalities.

As to enforcement and sanctions, from 1 January 1994 to the present, CNA took effluent measurements on only one occasion, in 1997, to

determine the pollutant levels in the wastewater discharges for the

municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena, and Santa Ana. The samples indicated fecal coliform effluent levels of 15,500,000 MPN/100 ml for Imuris,

42 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION

86. Appended to the IPM was a “Technical appendix to the coordination agreement of

11 May 2000 between the Federal Government ... and the Executive Branch of the

State of Sonora for the purpose of constructing drinking water, sewer, and treatment facilities for the border area of the State of Sonora”; however, this does not

refer to the treatment plants of Imuris, Magdalena and Santa Ana but to the sewer

and drinking water systems.
12,000,000 MPN/100 ml for Magdalena and 12,660,000 MPN/100 ml for

Santa Ana, while the effluent level established by NOM-001 is 2,000

MPN/100 ml. The results are presented in more detail in section 6.3.1 of

this factual record. The measurements were taken as part of the Project

of 1997 and not with a view to verifying compliance by these municipalities with their wastewater obligations. The CNA did not take any

enforcement action in regard to these samples.

Mexico asserts that it would have been inconsistent for the CNA to

promote initiatives to advance in bringing users of national waters into

compliance with the LAN (including the municipalities) and at the same

time sanction the operating agency for failing to comply with discharge

quality provisions.87

As part of these initiatives to promote compliance, the payment of

fees for wastewater discharges into national waters as required by the

LAN and the LFD was made subject to a waiver by means of Executive

Orders issued by the federal Executive Branch on 11 October 1995 and 21

December 2001. On 30 and 31 December 1996 respectively, the operating

agencies of Imuris and Magdalena de Kino signed an action plan in

order to receive administrative and fiscal support under the Executive

Order of 11 October 1995. However, the information provided to the Secretariat does not indicate that the municipalities in question took the

actions necessary to receive the benefits of this Executive Order.88 The

municipality of Santa Ana did not join the program. As to the Executive

Order of 2001, the deadline for joining the corresponding program was

31 May 2002. None of the three municipalities joined the program arising from this new Executive Order.89 Consequently, the municipalities

of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana are not exempt from

payment of contributions and accessory expenses for the use or enjoyment of property in the national domain as receiving bodies for their

wastewater discharges.

The CNA issued authorization for the municipalities in question to

discharge their wastewater into the Magdalena River by granting discharge permits on 14 January 1999. These permits allow a discharge

SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT FACTUAL INFORMATION 43

87. RSP, at 23.

88. To enjoy the benefits of this Executive Order, the municipalities would have had to

pay by 30 June 1997 their fees for the use or enjoyment of national waters accrued

prior to 1 January 1995, or would have had to comply with the provisions of Article

66 of the Tax Code of the Federation (Código Fiscal de la Federación) in force at that

time. There is no indication in the information obtained by the Secretariat that the

municipalities in question took either of these two actions.

89. Interview with personnel from the CNA Northwest Regional Office, during the

Secretariat’s 9–10 October 2002 visit.
volume of 1,164.40 m3/day and 425,736.00 m3/year for Imuris;

4,492.80 m3/day and 1,639,872.00 m3/year for Magdalena; and

3,731.00 m3/day and 1,361,815.00 m3/year for Santa Ana. The authority

imposed particular conditions of discharge on these permits that are

identical to the applicable parameters under NOM-001. However, under

NOM-001, the municipalities in question must comply with the maximum contaminant limits applicable to them90 by 31 December 2005 in

the case of Magdalena de Kino and 31 December 2010 in the case of

Imuris and Santa Ana. The permits do not mention the deferred compliance dates in NOM-001 for each municipality.91

In regard to the other obligations under NOM-001, the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana did not file the action

plan to improve the quality of their discharges as prescribed by the standard.92 The CNA had previously sent a memo to the three municipalities

informing them that the filing deadline was approaching (31 December

1999 in the case of Magdalena de Kino and 31 December 2000 in the case

of Imuris and Santa Ana).93 The municipalities did not file the required

plan.94 CNA has not taken any subsequent enforcement action in this

respect.

There is no record of any formal verification by the CNA of compliance with the particular conditions of discharge, NOM-001, or the environmental law governing the prevention and control of pollution by

wastewater discharges (pursuant to the LGEEPA and NOM-001) from

the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana, nor is

there any record that the CNA ever sanctioned these municipalities in

this regard or in regard to payment of fees under the LFD.

According to the CNA, since it is impossible in practice to suspend

urban discharges, the approach it adopted for this sector was one of

“promotion,” and new mechanisms are being developed to obligate

municipalities to comply with their fee payment obligations (for example, through the assignment of federal contributions as payment guaran44 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION

90. In the case of the Magdalena River, classified as being for urban public use in the

LFD, the limits are those corresponding to discharges into type B rivers as per Table

2 of NOM-001. (See Appendix 8 of this factual record).

91. This appears to be merely an omission since there is no indication that the authority

intended to accelerate the compliance deadline for that collecting body as it might

have done under paragraph 4.6 of NOM-001.

92. Interview with personnel from the CNA Northwest Regional Office, during the

Secretariat’s 9–10 October 2002 visit.

93. IPM, “Anexo Río Magdalena”.

94. Interview with personnel from the CNA Northwest Regional Office, during the

Secretariat’s 9–10 October 2002 visit.
tees on the commitments undertaken in the agreements between the

municipalities and the CNA for the construction of treatment infrastructure).95

6.5 Current Factual Status of Wastewater Discharges from Imuris,

Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana into the Magdalena River

As users of Magdalena River water and generators of wastewater

discharges, these three municipalities are responsible for ensuring that

their wastewater discharges do not pollute the Magdalena River and for

treating their discharges as required so that they do not exceed the applicable maximum contaminant limits (pursuant to NOM-001 and the particular conditions of discharge established by the CNA in its discharge

permits). The municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa

Ana route their wastewater to treatment lagoons prior to discharging it

into the Magdalena River.

The drinking water and sewer operating agencies of these municipalities are responsible for operating and maintaining the oxidation

lagoons in such a way that they function adequately (preventing the

obstruction of flow through accumulation of debris, preventing the silting of pipes, adding chlorine and other purification agents, etc.). The

budgets of these agencies do not include a line item for treatment; the

budgets only cover the operation and maintenance of the drinking water

and sewer systems.96 The person responsible for the Magdalena operating agency estimates the expense of operating and maintaining the

treatment plant at approximately P $20,000.00 monthly.97

The discharge of wastewater into the Magdalena River by the

municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana is covered

by permits issued by the CNA on 14 January 1999 for a period of

10 years. These permits cover a discharge volume of 1,164.40 m3/day

and 425,736.00 m3/year for Imuris; 4,492.80 m3/day and

1,639,872.00 m3/year for Magdalena; and 3,731.00 m3/day and

1,361,815.00 m3/year for Santa Ana.

The Imuris wastewater treatment system consists of 6 lagoons with

a total treatment capacity of 19.8 lps; that of Magdalena consists of

8 lagoons with a total treatment capacity of 65.54 lps; and that of Santa

SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT FACTUAL INFORMATION 45

95. Interview with personnel from the CNA Northwest Regional Office, during the

Secretariat’s 9–10 October 2002 visit.

96. IPM, at 12–13.

97. Conversation of 9 October 2002 with Ing. Armida E. Carranza A., Director of

Municipal Water Operating Agency, Municipality of Magdalena 2000-2003.
Ana consists of 5 lagoons with a total treatment capacity of 27.85 lps.

According to the CNA, the current removal efficiency of these systems is

92.9% for BOD and 99.9% for fecal coliforms.

The compliance deadline established by NOM-001 for the municipalities of Imuris and Santa Ana with respect to the maximum contaminant limits for wastewater discharges into national waters and property

is 1 January 2010; the deadline for Magdalena de Kino is 1 January 2005.

The municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana are not

monitoring and reporting their wastewater discharges as prescribed by

NOM-001. The Secretariat did not receive information indicating that

these municipalities have made payment of fees pursuant to the LFD,

from which they are not exempt because they did not join the program

arising from the Executive Order of 21 December 2001. Neither did the

Secretariat receive information indicating that the CNA has taken any

enforcement action regarding the water pollution prevention and control environmental law provisions that are the subject of this factual

record, with respect to the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino

and Santa Ana.

The CNA has conducted continued and systematic water quality

monitoring in the Magdalena River as contemplated in LGEEPA Article

133 by means of bimonthly measurements at the Terrenate monitoring

station since 1999. The Magdalena and Santa Ana discharge points are

downstream of the station while that of Imuris is upstream. According

to the CNA, the quality of Magdalena River water at Terrenate generally

meets the applicable parameters for use in agricultural irrigation and as

drinking water. Nevertheless, some measurements detected levels of

oils and lubricants, phosphates, and fecal coliforms in excess of those

allowed for such uses.

7. Closing Note

Factual records provide information on alleged failures to effectively enforce the environmental law in North America that may support the submitters, the Parties to the NAAEC, and other interested

members of the public in taking any action they consider appropriate in

relation to the matters addressed. In accordance with Council Resolution 02-02, which determined its scope, this factual record provides

information on whether Mexico is failing to effectively enforce various

provisions of its environmental law in relation to water pollution prevention and control with respect to wastewater discharges from the

municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana into the

Magdalena River.

46 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION
This factual record reveals that when the submission was filed in

1997, only the municipality of Magdalena de Kino was treating its

wastewater at all before discharging it into the Magdalena River. In

2002, when this factual record was produced, the municipal seats of

Imuris, Magdalena, and Santa Ana did have operating wastewater treatment systems (lagoons). The operating agencies with responsibility for

water do not have a budget to operate and maintain these systems.

The compliance deadline established by NOM-001 for the municipalities of Imuris and Santa Ana with respect to the maximum contaminant limits for wastewater discharges into national waters and property

is 1 January 2010; the deadline for Magdalena is 1 January 2005. For fecal

coliforms, the maximum effluent contaminant limit is 2,000 MPN/100

ml. According to the CNA, the removal efficiency of these treatment

plants is 92.9% for BOD and 99.9% for fecal coliforms.

The three municipalities do not monitor and report their wastewater discharges as prescribed by NOM-001; nor do they pay the

applicable fees pursuant to the LFD. According to the most recent measurement known, made for the Project of 1997 in which the treatment

plants now operating were built, the following fecal coliform levels

were detected in the respective effluent samples: 15,500,000

MPN/100 ml for Imuris, 12,000,000 MPN/100 ml for Magdalena and

12,660,000 MPN/100 ml for Santa Ana.

The CNA conducts bimonthly monitoring of Magdalena River

water quality at the Terrenate station. According to the CNA,

Magdalena River water is suitable for the following uses: public water

supply, recreation, fish and aquatic wildlife, industrial and agricultural.

However, in 1999 and 2000, the fecal coliform parameter of the Ecological Water Quality Criteria was exceeded in several river samples

(3,500 MPN/100 ml versus a maximum contaminant limit of 1,000

MPN/100 ml). This station is downstream of the Imuris discharge point

and upstream of the Magdalena and Santa Ana discharge points. Based

on the three years of monitoring at this station, the CNA considers the

waters of the Magdalena River to be “of acceptable quality for use in

agricultural irrigation, although not of vegetables intended for raw consumption due to the presence of fecal coliforms” and of acceptable quality for use as a drinking water supply “if purified to eliminate coliform

microorganisms and oils and lubricants.”98

CLOSING NOTE 47

98. Results of water quality assessment using Use Potential Index. IPM, “Magdalena

River” Appendix.
The information the Secretariat presents in this factual record

reveals that, in fact, since the entry into force of the NAAEC on 1 January

1994, the CNA—the competent authority in the area of water—has not

taken any enforcement action regarding the water pollution prevention

and control provisions referred to in this factual record with respect to

the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana. From

1998 to 2002, the CNA—which is also competent to carry out water infrastructure projects—built or expanded the wastewater treatment systems

of the three municipalities.

48 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION
APPENDIX 1

Council Resolution 02-02, Instruction to

the Secretariat of the Commission for

Environmental Cooperation regarding the

assertion that Mexico is failing to effectively

enforce certain environmental laws regarding

the pollution of the Magdalena River, through

the discharge of wastewater from the

municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino

and Santa Ana in the Mexican state of Sonora

(SEM-97-002)

Mexico, March 7, 2002

COUNCIL RESOLUTION 02-02

Instruction to the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental

Cooperation regarding the assertion that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce certain environmental laws regarding the pollution of

the Magdalena River through the discharge of wastewater from the

municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana in the

Mexican state of Sonora.

THE COUNCIL:

SUPPORTIVE of the process provided for in Articles 14 and 15 of

the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC)

regarding submissions on enforcement matters and the preparation of

factual records;

CONSIDERING the submission filed on the above-mentioned matter by

Comité Pro Limpieza del Río Magdalena, and the response provided by

the Government of the United Mexican States on July 29, 1998; and

HAVING REVIEWED the notification by the Secretariat of February 5,

2002, that the development of a factual record is warranted in relation to

certain assertions included in the submission (SEM-97-002);

HEREBY UNANIMOUSLY DECIDES:

TO INSTRUCT the Secretariat to prepare a factual record in accordance

with Article 15 of the NAAEC and the Guidelines for Submissions on

Enforcement Matters under Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation for the assertions set forth in Submission SEM-97-002 that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce Articles 88

paragraph IV, 89 paragraph VI, 92, 93, 117, 121, 122, 123, 124 and 133

of the LGEEPA (Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al

Ambiente) with respect to the pollution of the Magdalena River through

the discharge of wastewater from the municipalities of Imuris,

Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana in the Mexican state of Sonora;

TO DIRECT the Secretariat to provide the Parties with its overall work

plan for gathering the relevant facts and to provide the Parties with the

opportunity to comment on that plan; and

APPENDIX 1 51
TO DIRECT the Secretariat to consider, in developing the factual record,

whether the Party concerned is “failing to effectively enforce its

environmental law” since the entry into force of the NAAEC on January

1, 1994. In considering such an alleged failure to effectively enforce,

relevant facts that existed prior to January 1, 1994, may be included in the

factual record.

APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL.

52 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION
APPENDIX 2

Overall Plan to Develop a Factual Record with

Regard to Submission SEM-97-002

Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Overall Plan to Develop a Factual Record

Submission I.D.: SEM-97-002

Submitter(s): Comité Pro Limpieza del Río Magdalena

Party: United Mexican States

Date of this plan: 22 March 2002

Background

On 7 April 1997 Comité Pro Limpieza del Río Magdalena filed a

submission with the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental

Cooperation (CEC) in accordance with Article 14 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC). The submission

asserts that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law

with respect to the discharge of wastewater from the municipalities of

Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana in the Mexican state of

Sonora, which are allegedly released into the Magdalena River without

being duly treated to prevent the pollution thereof.

On 7 March 2002, the Council decided unanimously to instruct the

Secretariat to develop a factual record, in accordance with Article 15 of

the NAAEC and the Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters

under Articles 14 and 15 of the NAAEC (Guidelines), with respect to the

assertions set forth in Submission SEM-97-002, that Mexico is failing to

effectively enforce Articles 88 paragraph IV, 89 paragraph VI, 92, 93, 117,

121, 122, 123, 124 and 133 of the General Law of Ecological Balance

and Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la

Protección al Ambiente–LGEEPA) with respect to the pollution of the

Magdalena River due to the discharge of wastewater from the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana in the Mexican

state of Sonora. The Council directed the Secretariat, in developing the

factual record, to consider whether the Party concerned “is failing to

effectively enforce its environmental law” since the entry into force of

the NAAEC on 1 January 1994. In considering such alleged failure, releAPPENDIX 2 55
vant facts existing prior to 1 January 1994 may be included in the factual

record.

Under Article 15(4) of the NAAEC, in developing a factual record,

“the Secretariat shall consider any information furnished by a Party and

may consider any relevant technical, scientific or other information: (a)

that is publicly available; (b) submitted by interested non-governmental

organizations or persons; (c) submitted by the Joint Public Advisory

Committee; or (d) developed by the Secretariat or by independent

experts.”

Overall Scope of the Fact Finding

The submission asserts that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce

its environmental law by not preventing the pollution of the Magdalena

River due to the discharge of untreated wastewater from the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana in the Mexican state of

Sonora. The assertions in the submission that are the subject of this factual record are:

1. the alleged failure to effectively enforce Articles 93, 117 and

122 of the LGEEPA with respect to the general obligation

to prevent and control water pollution, in the case of the

Magdalena River;

2. the alleged failure to effectively enforce Articles 88 paragraph

IV and 89 paragraph of the LGEEPA with respect to the

responsibility of the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena

de Kino and Santa Ana, as users of the Magdalena River’s

national waters, to use them sustainably;

3. the alleged failure, in the case of the discharge of wastewater

from the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and

Santa Ana into the Magdalena River, to effectively enforce

Articles 92, 117 paragraph IV, 121 and 123 of the LGEEPA, with

respect to the obligation of any person discharging wastewater

to give prior treatment to the discharge to prevent the pollution of the receiving bodies;

4. the alleged failure to effectively enforce Articles 121 and 124 of

the LGEEPA, with respect to the granting and cancellation of

the wastewater discharge permits for the municipalities of

Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana;

56 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION
5. the alleged failure, in the case of the wastewater discharge into

the Magdalena River, to effectively enforce Article 123 of the

LGEEPA, with respect to compliance with the applicable Mexican Official Standards; and

6. the alleged failure to effectively enforce Article 133 of the

LGEEPA, by not performing an ongoing and systematic monitoring of the water quality of the Magdalena River.

To prepare the factual record, the Secretariat will gather and

develop information relevant to the facts concerning:

i) the alleged violations by the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena

de Kino and Santa Ana in the Mexican state of Sonora, of Articles 88

paragraph IV, 89 paragraph VI, 92, 93, 117, 121, 122, 123, 124 and

133 of the LGEEPA;

ii) Mexico’s enforcement of these provisions, with respect to those

municipalities; and

iii) the effectiveness of Mexico’s enforcement of these provisions, with

respect to those municipalities.

Overall Plan

Consistent with Council Resolution 02-02, execution of the overall

work plan will begin no sooner than 15 April 2002. All other dates are

best estimates of execution time. The overall plan is as follows:

• Through public notices or direct requests for information, the Secretariat will invite the Submitters, JPAC, members of the communities

of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana, and the local, state and

federal authorities to submit relevant information within the scope of

the fact-finding described above. The Secretariat will explain the

scope of the fact-finding, providing sufficient information to enable

interested persons or non-governmental organizations or JPAC to

provide relevant information to the Secretariat (section 15.2 of the

Guidelines) [mid-April 2002].

• The Secretariat will request information relevant to the factual record

from the appropriate federal, state and local Mexican authorities, and

will consider any information provided by a Party (Articles 15(4) and

21(1)(a) of the NAAEC)[mid-April and early May 2002]. Information

will be requested relevant to the facts regarding:

APPENDIX 2 57
i) the alleged violations by the municipalities of Imuris,

Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana in the Mexican state of

Sonora, of Articles 88 paragraph IV, 89 paragraph VI, 92, 93,

117, 121, 122, 123, 124 and 133 of the LGEEPA;

ii) Mexico’s enforcement of these provisions, with respect to

those municipalities; and

iii) the effectiveness of Mexico’s enforcement of these provisions,

with respect to those municipalities.

• The Secretariat will gather the relevant technical, scientific or other

information that is publicly available, including from existing databases, information centers, libraries, research centers and academic

institutions [May through August 2002].

• As appropriate, the Secretariat will develop, through independent

experts, technical, scientific or other information relevant to the factual record [May through August 2002].

• As appropriate, the Secretariat will gather relevant technical, scientific or other information for the development of the factual record,

from interested persons or non-governmental organizations, JPAC or

independent experts [May through August 2002].

• In accordance with Article 15(4), the Secretariat will prepare the draft

factual record based on the information gathered and developed

[September through November 2002].

• The Secretariat will submit a draft factual record to Council. Any

Party may provide comments on the accuracy of the draft within 45

days thereafter, in accordance with Article 15(5) [December 2002].

• As provided by Article 15(6), the Secretariat will incorporate, as

appropriate, any such comments in the final factual record and submit it to Council [February 2003].

• The Council may, by a two-thirds vote, make the final factual record

publicly available, normally within 60 days following its submission,

in accordance with Article 15(7).

Additional Information

The submission, Mexico’s response, the Secretariat determinations, the Council Resolution, and a summary thereof are available in the

58 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION
Registry on Citizen Submissions in the CEC home page at www.cec.org

or upon request to the Secretariat at the following address:

CEC Secretariat

Submissions on Enforcement

Matters Unit (SEM Unit)

393, rue St-Jacques Ouest,

bureau 200

Montreal QC H2Y 1N9

Canadá

CCA / Mexico Liaison Office:

Atención: Unidad sobre Peticiones

Ciudadanas (UPC)

Progreso núm. 3,

Viveros de Coyoacán

México, D.F. 04110

México

APPENDIX 2 59

APPENDIX 3

Process for Gathering Information for the

Development of the Factual Record on

Submission SEM-97-002 (Examples

of relevant information)

Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

for Development of the Factual Record on

Submission SEM-97-002 (Río Magdalena)

16 April 2002

I. The factual record process

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) of North

America is an international organization created under the North

American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) by Canada,

Mexico and the United States. The CEC operates through three organs: a

Council, made up of the highest-level environmental official in each

member country; a Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC), composed

of five citizens from each country; and a Secretariat located in Montreal.

Article 14 of the NAAEC allows residents in North America to

inform the Secretariat, in a submission, that any member country (hereinafter, a Party) is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law.

This initiates a process of review of the submission, after which the

Council may instruct the Secretariat to prepare a factual record in connection with the submission. A factual record seeks to provide detailed

information to allow interested persons to assess whether a Party has

effectively enforced its environmental law with respect to the matter

raised in the submission.

Under Articles 15(4) and 21(1)(a) of the NAAEC, in developing a

factual record, the Secretariat shall consider any information furnished

by a Party and may ask a Party to provide additional information. The

Secretariat also may consider any information that is publicly available;

provided by the JPAC, the Submitters or other interested persons or

nongovernmental organizations; or developed by the Secretariat or

independent experts.

On 7 March 2001, the Council decided unanimously to instruct the

Secretariat to develop a factual record, in accordance with Article 15 of

the NAAEC and the Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters

under Articles 14 and 15 of the NAAEC (Guidelines), regarding the assertions raised in submission SEM-97-002 that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce Articles 88 paragraph IV, 89 paragraph VI, 93, 117, 121,

APPENDIX 3 63
122, 123, 124 and 133 of the General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al

Ambiente—LGEEPA), with respect to the pollution of the Magdalena

River by the discharge of wastewater from the municipalities of Imuris,

Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana in the Mexican state of Sonora.1 The

Council directed the Secretariat, in developing the factual record, to consider whether the Party concerned “is failing to effectively enforce its

environmental law” since the entry into force of the NAAEC on 1 January 1994. In considering such an alleged failure to effectively enforce, relevant facts that existed prior to 1 January 1994 may be included in the

factual record.

By means of this document, the Secretariat seeks information

relevant to matters to be addressed in the factual record for the Río

Magdalena submission, SEM-97-002. The following sections provide

background on the submission and describe the type of information

sought.

II. The Río Magdalena submission

On 7 April 1997, Comité Pro Limpieza del Río Magdalena filed a

submission with the Secretariat of the CEC, concerning wastewater from

the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana in the

Mexican state of Sonora, which is allegedly released into the Magdalena

River without being duly treated to prevent the pollution thereof.

The alleged failures to effectively enforce Mexico’s environmental

law that is the subject of this factual record refer to:

1) The general obligation to prevent and control water pollution, in

the case of the Magdalena River (LGEEPA Articles 93, 117 and 122);

2) The responsibility of the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de

Kino and Santa Ana as users of the national waters of the

Magdalena River, to use them sustainably (LGEEPA Articles 88

paragraph IV and 89 paragraph VI);

64 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION

1. Note that the reference to Article 92 of the LGEEPA has been eliminated. On page 20

of its recommendation to Council for the development of this factual record, of 5 February 2002, the Secretariat determined that a review of the effective enforcement

of this provision was not warranted, as the Party’s actions with respect to the

wastewater discharge in question qualify as promotion actions pursuant thereto.

However, this provision was accidentally included in the list of relevant provisions

on pages 2 and 27 of that recommendation.
3) The obligation of any person who discharges wastewater to give

prior treatment to the discharge in order to prevent the pollution of

the receiving bodies, in this case the discharge of wastewater from

the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana

into the Magdalena River (LGEEPA Articles 117 paragraph IV, 121

and 123);

4) The granting and cancellation of wastewater discharge permits for

the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana

(LGEEPA Articles 121 and 124);

5) Compliance with the Mexican Official Standards applicable in the

case of the discharge of wastewater from the municipalities in

question into the Magdalena River (LGEEPA Article 123); and

6) The obligation to perform an ongoing and systematic monitoring

of the water quality of the Magdalena River (LGEEPA Article 133).

The principal environmental damages allegedly caused have been

the degradation of the water quality of the Magdalena River, the rotting

of fruit trees and the impossibility of using the river’s water for irrigating

traditional crops in the region.

The response to this submission, provided by the Mexican Government on 29 July 1998, describes the problems of the Magdalena River

and the situation of the three municipalities in question. Mexico asserts

that it has not failed to effectively enforce its environmental law because

it has scheduled actions to handle these problems. Mexico’s response

includes as exhibits, copies of the construction or extension projects of

the treatment systems of each municipality with which the treatment

deficiencies of the three municipalities supposedly will be addressed.

III. Request for information

The Secretariat of the CEC requests information relevant to the

facts concerning:

i) the alleged violations of Articles 88 paragraph IV, 89 paragraph VI,

93, 117, 121, 122, 123, 124 and 133 of the LGEEPA by the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana in the Mexican

state of Sonora, relating to the prevention and control of the pollution of the Magdalena River due to the discharge of wastewater;

APPENDIX 3 65
ii) Mexico’s enforcement of these provisions with respect to the discharge of wastewater from those municipalities; and

iii) The effectiveness of Mexico’s enforcement with respect to the discharge of wastewater from those municipalities.

IV. Examples of relevant information

1. Information on Mexico’s enforcement of Articles 88 paragraph IV,

89 paragraph VI, 93, 117, 121, 122, 123, 124 and 133 of the LGEEPA,

with respect to the discharge of wastewater from the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana into the

Magdalena River.

2. Information on any local, state or federal policies or practices

regarding enforcement of the environmental law that apply to

the discharge of wastewater from the municipalities of Imuris,

Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana into the Magdalena River, and

the manner in which those policies or practices were applied.

3. Information on the effectiveness of Mexico’s enforcement of these

provisions, with respect to the discharge of wastewater from the

municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana into

the Magdalena River; that is, information on the extent and manner in which the efforts to enforce the Party’s environmental law

have contributed to the prevention and control of the water pollution of the Magdalena River.

4. Information on the level of pollutants in the discharges of wastewater from the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and

Santa Ana into the Magdalena River.

5. Information on the treatment given to the wastewater from the

municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana before

it is discharged into the Magdalena River.

6. Information on the removal efficiency of the existing treatment

systems, considering the applicable maximum pollutant limits.

7. Information on the water quality of the Magdalena River, upriver

and downriver from such discharges.

66 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION
8. Information on the effects of the discharge of wastewater from the

municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana, on

the water quality of the Magdalena River.

9. Information on the effects of the discharge of wastewater from the

municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana, experienced by farmers and other uses of the river’s waters.

10. Information on other environmental effects of the discharge of

wastewater from the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino

and Santa Ana.

11. Information on the monitoring and reporting of discharges of

wastewater from the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino

and Santa Ana.

12. Information on the human, financial and technical resources used

in the enforcement of environmental law, with respect to the

discharge of wastewater from the municipalities of Imuris,

Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana.

13. Information on the execution of the infrastructure extension and

construction programs that, according to Mexico’s response to

the submission, were undertaken to address these matters in the

municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana.

14. Any other technical, scientific or other information that could be

relevant.

V. Additional background information

The submission, Mexico’s response, the Secretariat’s determinations, the Council Resolution, the overall plan to develop the factual

record and other information are available in the Registry and Public

Files in the Citizen Submissions on Enforcement Matters section of the

CEC web site at <http://www.cec.org>. These documents may also be

requested from the Secretariat.

VI. Where to send information

Relevant information for the development of the factual record

may be sent to the Secretariat until 30 August 2002, to the following

address:

APPENDIX 3 67
Secretariat of the CEC

Submissions on Enforcement

Matters Unit (SEM Unit)

393, rue St-Jacques Ouest,

bureau 200

Montreal QC H2Y 1N9

Canada

Tel. (514) 350-4300

CCA / Mexico Liaison Office

Atención: Unidad sobre Peticiones

Ciudadanas (UPC)

Progreso núm. 3

Viveros de Coyoacán

México, D.F. 04110

México

Tel. (52-55) 5659-5021

For any questions, please send an e-mail to the attention of Carla

Sbert, at <info@ccemtl.org>.

68 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION
APPENDIX 4

Information Requests to Mexican Authorities

and List of Recipient Authorities

Letter to the Party requesting

information for development of the

factual record for SEM-97-002

16 April 2002

Re: Development of factual record for submission SEM-97-002

(Río Magdalena)

The Secretariat hereby requests Mexico to provide relevant information for preparation of the factual record in regard to submission

SEM-97-002 (Río Magdalena) in accordance with NAAEC Articles 15(4)

and 21(1)(a).

As you are aware, on 7 March 2002 the Council resolved unanimously to instruct the Secretariat to develop a factual record in accordance with NAAEC Article 15 and the Guidelines for Submissions on

Enforcement Matters under Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation regarding the assertions made in submission SEM-97-002 that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce Articles

88 paragraph IV, 89 paragraph VI, 93, 117, 121, 122, 123, 124 and 133 of

the General Law on Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection

(Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente–LGEEPA)

in relation to contamination of the Magdalena River by wastewater discharges from the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa

Ana in the state of Sonora, México.1

In accordance with NAAEC Articles 15(4) and 21(1)(a), the Secretariat shall, in developing the factual record, consider any information

furnished by a Party, and may also request additional information. Likewise, it may consider information that is publicly available or is provided by other NAAEC Parties, the JPAC, the submitters, or other

interested non-governmental organizations or persons, as well as information developed by the Secretariat and by independent experts.

APPENDIX 4 71

1. Please note that the reference to LGEEPA Article 92 has been deleted. In its recommendation to Counsel for the development of this factual record (p. 20) of 5 February

2002, the Secretariat determined that the effective enforcement thereof did not warrant review. However, it was accidentally included in the list of provisions for which

the Secretariat recommended the development of a factual record (pp. 2 and 27 of the

recommendation).
Attached please find the list of questions for which information is

requested from Mexico for the development of this factual record.

Kindly respond to this request by 28 June 2002.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Legal Officer

Submissions on Enforcement Matters Unit

Encl.

cc: [Environment Canada]

[US EPA]

CEC Executive Director

72 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION
Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Request for information from Mexico

for development of the factual record in regard to

submission SEM-97-002 (Río Magdalena)

16 April 2002

Submission SEM-97-002 asserts that despite the enactment of various laws to prevent water pollution as well as multiple amendments

to these laws and the institutional arrangements necessary for their

enforcement, no measures were taken for the effective enforcement of

these laws in the case of the wastewater of the municipalities of Imuris,

Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana, which is discharged into the

Magdalena River without the prior treatment necessary to prevent the

contamination thereof.

For the development of the factual record in regard to this submission, the Secretariat requests additional information from the Party

about the enforcement, with respect to wastewater discharges from the

municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana, of the following provisions of the General Law on Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al

Ambiente–LGEEPA): Articles 93, 117 and 122, establishing the generic

obligation to prevent and control water pollution; Articles 88 paragraph

IV and 89 paragraph VI providing that users of national waters are

responsible for their sustainable use; Articles 117 paragraph IV, 121, and

123, providing that anyone who discharges wastewater must treat it in

order to prevent contamination of the receiving bodies; Articles 121 and

124, contemplating the granting of wastewater discharge permits and

providing for their revocation where they affect or may affect water supply sources; and finally, Article 133, ordering ongoing and systematic

monitoring of water quality in order to detect contaminants or excess

organic waste and to take the appropriate measures. In particular:

1. Please provide additional information on the contaminant levels

in the wastewater discharges from the municipalities of Imuris,

Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana from 1 January 1994 to date,

and provide copies of the corresponding documentation.

2. Describe how monitoring and reporting were done for the

wastewater discharges from the municipalities of Imuris,

APPENDIX 4 73
Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana from 1 January 1994 to date,

and provide copies of the corresponding documentation.

3. Mexico’s Response asserts that the CNA conducted water quality

monitoring for classification of the Magdalena River which indicated that the river has the assimilative capacity for the discharges

it receives.2

3.1. Provide information on this classification of the Magdalena

River, specifying the parameters used and the results of the

monitoring performed.

3.2. Describe how the “ongoing and systematic” monitoring of

Magdalena River water quality contemplated in LGEEPA

Article 133 has been carried out and provide copies of the corresponding documentation.

3.3. Provide information on Magdalena River water quality

upstream and downstream of the discharges in question

from 1 January 1994 to date, including copies of the corresponding sampling results.

3.4. Describe the effects of the wastewater discharges from the

municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana

on Magdalena River water quality.

4. Detail the uses of the Magdalena River and the water supply

sources of the region.

5. Indicate whether water supply sources were affected by the

wastewater discharges into the Magdalena River from the municipalities in question, and state the measures taken in each case.

6. Provide information on the effects of the wastewater discharges

from the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa

Ana on the users of Magdalena River water, including agricultural

and drinking water uses.

7. Provide information on the environmental effects of the

wastewater discharges from the municipalities of Imuris,

Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana.

74 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION

2. See chapter IV of the Response of the Party.
8. Provide additional information on the wastewater discharge permits of each municipality as well as copies thereof.

9. Provide additional information on the treatment afforded the

wastewater from the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino

and Santa Ana prior to its discharge into the Magdalena River from

1 January 1994 to date.

10. Provide additional information on the removal efficiency of the

existing treatment systems in the three municipalities in question.

11. The submitters allege failure to effectively enforce Article 123,

under which all discharges into rivers must meet the applicable

Mexican Official Standards. Mexican Official Standard NOM001-ECOL-1996 (NOM-001) sets maximum contaminant limits for

wastewater discharges into national waters and property. These

limits are mandatory for the municipalities of Imuris and Santa

Ana as of 1 January 2010, and for the municipality of Magdalena de

Kino as of 1 January 2005.

11.1. Mexico’s Response asserts that the CNA enforces the applicable Mexican Official Standards. Provide information on the

enforcement actions with respect to the wastewater discharges from the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de

Kino and Santa Ana, and on the effectiveness of the enforcement of the environmental law related to the prevention and

control of water pollution.

11.2. In accordance with NOM-001, the municipalities of Imuris

and Santa Ana were required to file programs of actions or

works to be carried out in order to comply with the maximum

contaminant limits set by that standard by 31 December 1999,

and the municipality of Magdalena de Kino was required to

do so by 31 December 1998. Provide information on how that

obligation was met by each of the municipalities in question

as well as copies of those programs.

11.3. In relation to the foregoing obligation, the municipalities are

required to file semiannual progress reports on control of

their discharges. Provide information on fulfillment of that

obligation and copies of the semiannual reports for each of

the municipalities in question.

APPENDIX 4 75
11.4. In addition, Imuris and Santa Ana are required to make semiannual discharge quality measurements and report them to

the CNA annually, while Magdalena de Kino is required to

make quarterly measurements and report them semiannually. Provide copies of the reports filed in fulfillment of this

obligation for each of the municipalities in question.

12. Mexico’s Response indicates that although there are deficiencies

in the treatment of wastewater discharged into the Magdalena

River,3 “the economic status of the municipalities, the state government and the federation limits the execution of programs of action

for the construction of treatment systems.”4 The submission challenges the alleged lack of funds for the implementation of such

programs, stating that the municipalities “charge 35% monthly on

each bill for drinking water, drainage and sewer services.”5

12.1. Provide information specific to the municipalities of Imuris,

Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana on the economic limitations referred to by Mexico in its Response.

12.2. Provide information on the human, financial and technical

resources employed in environmental law enforcement in

relation to the wastewater discharges from the municipalities

of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana from 1 January

1994 to date and on the actions taken to allocate the necessary

funds.

13. Mexico’s Response includes copies of the “Project to Adapt and/or

Expand the Sanitary Sewer Systems and Wastewater Treatment

Plants of the Cities of Imuris, Magdalena, and Santa Ana” developed under a contract signed with the CNA in 1997 as a measure to

solve the environmental problems of the Magdalena River.

13.1. Indicate the stage of completion of this project for each of the

municipalities in question and its results.

76 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION

3. According to the Response, the oxidation lagoons with which Magdalena de Kino

treats its wastewater are obsolete and insufficient. The municipality of Santa Ana

does not have a wastewater treatment system. As for Imuris, the Party asserts that

according to information provided by the state government and the municipality,

two wastewater treatment lagoons, one anaerobic and one facultative, went into

operation on 11 June 1998; Response of the Party, p. 14.

4. Response of the Party, p. 23.

5. Additional filing to the submission, p. 11.
13.2. In particular, provide information on the construction of the

necessary wastewater treatment works in the municipality of

Santa Ana; the correction of defects in the Magdalena de Kino

wastewater treatment system, and the operating efficiency of

the Imuris treatment system, for prevention and control of

pollution of the Magdalena River.

13.3. Provide information on the budget allocated to the works in

question (source, amounts allocated, amounts spent, etc.).

13.4. Provide information on the filing of preventive environmental impact reports for the three projects with the competent

authorities, and the processing of these reports.6

13.5. Detail the functions, responsibilities and obligations of the

operating agencies, the municipal government, and the federal government in relation to the “Project to Adapt and/or

Expand the Sanitary Sewer Systems and Wastewater Treatment Plants of the Cities of Imuris, Magdalena, and Santa

Ana.”7

13.6. Explain the basis of the CNA’s involvement in carrying out

actions that are the responsibility of the municipalities as

users of national waters. Explain the relationship between

that involvement and the CNA’s responsibility for enforcing

and sanctioning the fulfillment of user obligations.

14. Explain the enforcement policy for NOM-001 in relation to the general obligations of the federation and the municipalities in regard

to the prevention and control of pollution of national waters.

15. Describe the municipal, state and/or federal environmental law

enforcement policies or practices applicable to the wastewater discharges from the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and

Santa Ana into the Magdalena River and detail how they were

applied in these cases.

APPENDIX 4 77

6. Section 11 of each volume of the projects refers to these preventive reports under the

heading “Environmental Impact Study.”

7. As noted in the Secretariat’s recommendation for the development of this factual

record, the functions arising from that project do not appear to coincide with those

established in the LGEEPA, the National Waters Law (Ley de Aguas Nacionales) or

NOM-001 (LGEEPA Articles 88 paragraph IV, 89 paragraph VI, 93, 117 paragraph IV,

118 paragraph V, 119 BIS, 121, 122, 123 and 133; LAN Articles 88, 89 and 90).
16. Describe the extent and manner in which the environmental law

enforcement initiatives and actions in question with respect to

the wastewater discharges from the municipalities of Imuris,

Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana into the Magdalena River contributed to the prevention and control of water pollution in the

Magdalena River.

17. Provide additional information on the effectiveness of the enforcement by Mexico of LGEEPA Articles 88 paragraph IV, 89 paragraph VI, 93, 117, 121, 122, 123, 124 and 133 with respect to

the wastewater discharges from the municipalities of Imuris,

Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana into the Magdalena River from

1 January 1994 to date.

18. Provide any other technical, scientific or other information that

may be relevant.

78 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION
Mexican Authorities Recipient of a Request

for Information for the Development of the

Factual Record on Submission

SEM-97-002

FEDERAL

Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (Secretaría de

Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales–SEMARNAT)

Minister

Coordination Unit of International Affairs (UCAI)

National Water Commission (Comisión Nacional del Agua)

Sonora Regional Office;

Legal Affairs Unit

STATE

Government of the State of Sonora

Ministry of Urban Development and Environment (Secretaría de

Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología);

Ministry of Urban Infrastructure and Environment (Secretaría de

Infraestructura Urbana y Ecología)

Sonora State Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development

(Instituto del Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable del Estado de

Sonora–IMADES)

APPENDIX 4 79

APPENDIX 5

Information Requests to NGOs,

JPAC and other Parties to the NAAEC

Form Letter to NGOs

26 April 2002

Re: Request for information relevant to the factual record for

submission SEM-97-002 (Río Magdalena)

The Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation

of North America recently began the process of preparing a factual

record regarding an assertion that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce

its environmental law with respect to the wastewater from the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana in the Mexican

state of Sonora, which is allegedly discharged into the Magdalena River

without being duly treated to prevent the pollution thereof. This assertion was made in a submission filed with the Secretariat in April 1997 by

Comité Pro Limpieza del Río Magdalena.

I am writing to invite you to submit information relevant to the factual record. The attached Request for Information explains the citizen

submissions process and factual records, gives background about the

so-called Río Magdalena submission (SEM-97-002), describes the scope

of the information to be included in the factual record for that submission, and provides examples of information that might be relevant. We

will accept information for possible consideration in connection with the

factual record until August 30, 2002.

We appreciate your consideration of this request and look forward

to any relevant information you are able to provide. Please feel free to

contact the Secretariat if you have questions. Contact information is provided at the end of the Request for Information.

Sincerely,

Legal Officer

Submissions on Enforcement Matters Unit

Enclosure

APPENDIX 5 83
Memorandum to the Joint Public

Advisory Committee

Memorandum

DATE: 22 April 2002

À / PARA / TO: Chair, JPAC

CC: JPAC Members, CEC Executive Director,

JPAC Liaison Officer

DE / FROM: Legal Officer, Submissions on

Enforcement Matters Unit

OBJET / ASUNTO / RE: Request for information relevant to the

factual record for submission SEM-97-002

(Río Magdalena)

As you know, the CEC Secretariat recently began the process of

preparing a factual record for submission SEM-97-002 (Río Magdalena).

This submission was filed with the Secretariat in April 1997 by Comité

Pro Limpieza del Río Magdalena. Consistent with Council Resolution

02-02, the factual record will focus on the assertion that Mexico is failing

to effectively enforce Articles 88 paragraph IV, 89 paragraph VI, 93, 117,

121, 122, 123, 124 and 133 of the General Law of Ecological Balance

and Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la

Protección al Ambiente—LGEEPA), with respect to the pollution of the

Magdalena River by the discharge of wastewater from the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and Santa Ana in the Mexican state of

Sonora.1

I am writing to invite the JPAC to submit information relevant to

the factual record, consistent with Article 15(4)(c) of the NAAEC. The

84 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION

1. Note that the reference to Article 92 of the LGEEPA has been eliminated. On page 20

of its recommendation to Council for the development of this factual record, of 5 February 2002, the Secretariat determined that a review of the effective enforcement of

this article was not warranted, as the Party s actions with respect to the wastewater

discharge in question qualify as promotion actions pursuant thereto. However, this

provision was accidentally included in the list of relevant provisions on pages 2 and

27 of said recommendation.
attached Request for Information, which has been posted on the CEC

website, gives background about the Río Magdalena submission,

describes the scope of the information to be included in the factual

record, and provides examples of information that might be relevant.

We will accept information for possible consideration in connection

with the factual record until August 30, 2002.

We appreciate your consideration of this request and look forward

to any relevant information you are able to provide. Please feel free to

contact me at (514) 350-4321 or <csbert@ccemtl.org> if you have questions regarding this request or the factual record process.

APPENDIX 5 85
Letter to the Other Parties of the NAAEC

(Canada & US)

22 April 2002

Re: Request for information relevant to the factual record for

submission SEM-97-002 (Río Magdalena)

As you know, the CEC Secretariat recently began the process of

preparing a factual record for submission SEM-97-002 (Río Magdalena),

consistent with Council Resolution 02-02. I am writing to invite the

[Canadian Party] [the United States] to submit information relevant to

the factual record, in accordance with Article 15(4) of the NAAEC.

The attached Request for Information, which has been posted on

the CEC website, gives background about the Río Magdalena submission, describes the scope of the information to be included in the factual

record, and provides examples of information that might be relevant.

We will accept information for consideration in connection with the

factual record until August 30, 2002.

We appreciate your consideration of this request and look forward

to any relevant information you are able to provide. Please feel free to

contact me at (514) 350-4321 or <csbert@ccemtl.org> if you have questions regarding this request.

Sincerely,

Legal Officer

Submissions on Enforcement Matters Unit

cc: Semarnat

[US EPA]

[Environment Canada]

CEC Executive Director

Enclosure

86 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION
Nongovernmental organizations

and individual recipients

of a request for information for development

of the factual record in regard to

Submission SEM-97-002

Universidad de Sonora (Unison):

Fraternity of Agronomists of Unison;

Dept. of Agriculture and Livestock Production;

Dept. of Scientific Research/DICTUS;

Div. of Biological and Health Sciences;

Div. of Engineering

Hermosillo, Sonora

Northern Regional Unit

Santa Ana Campus

Sciences and Engineering Division

Navojoa, Sonora

Northern Regional Unit

Caborca, Sonora

Unison Norte Legal Aid Office

Caborca, Sonora

Colegio de Sonora:

Health and Society Program;

Regional Studies Program;

Regional Information Unit

Hermosillo, Sonora

UNAM, Institute of Ecology

Hermosillo, Sonora

Enlace Ecológico A.C.

El Colegio de la Frontera Norte (COLEF)

San Carlos, Nogales, Sonora

Centro de Investigación y Estudios Ambientales A.C. (CIEA)

North American Development Bank

San Antonio, Texas

APPENDIX 5 87
Border Environment Cooperation Commission

Cd. Juárez, Chihuahua

Sonora Environmental Research Institute, Inc. (SERI)

Tucson, Arizona

University of Arizona:

Center for Latin American Studies;

Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy

Tucson, Arizona

Comité Pro Limpieza del Río Magdalena

Magdalena de Kino, Sonora

88 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION
APPENDIX 6

Information Gathered for the Development

of the Factual Record on Submission

SEM-97-002 (Río Magdalena)

List of Information Gathered for the Development of the Factual

Record on Submission SEM-97-002 (Río Magdalena)

APPENDIX 6 91

1. IP-CPLRM: Information provided by Comité Pro-Limpieza del Río Magdalena.

DOCUMENT

No. ID DATE AUTHOR DOCUMENT PROVIDED TO THE RECEIVED

mm/dd/yy SECRETARIAT BY mm/dd/yy

1 IP-CPLRM1 08/21/97 Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

Letter to CEC on the situation in

the municipalities of Imuris,

Magdalena and Santa Ana.

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

09/03/97

2 IP-CPLRM 09/12/97 Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

(Ayala Soto, L.F.)

(Sánchez S., J.A.)

Letter to CEC with additional

information to that submitted by

Comité Pro-Limpieza del Río

Magdalena with 3 annexes.

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

(Ayala Soto, L.F.)

(Sánchez S., J.A.)

10/15/97

3 IP-CPLRM 01/06/97 Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

(Ayala Soto, L.F.)

(Sánchez S., J.A.)

Annex 1. Letter to the Sonora

Municipal President calling for

urgent action.

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

(Ayala Soto, L.F.)

(Sánchez S., J.A.)

10/15/97

4 IP-CPLRM 09/08/97 Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Ayala Soto, L.F.)

Annex 2. Letter to the Secretary

of Infrastructure and Ecology, to

the Director of Ecological Rules

and to the chief of staff of the

Sonora State Governor.

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Ayala Soto, L.F.)

10/15/97

5 IP-CPLRM 09/15/97 (Dr. Ibarra, A.) Annex 3. Public letter to the residents of Magdalena, from Dr.

Arturo Ibarra, pediatrician.

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Ayala Soto, L.F.)

10/15/97

6 IP-CPLRM 02/05/98 Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

Letter to the Profepa Delegate in

Sonora, in reference to Ruling

No. PFPA-DS-UDQ-021/98,

providing/ follow-up concerning

the complaint with the General

Bureau of Complaints from

Central Offices, dated 27 October 1997 with 5 annexes.

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

02/26/98

7 IP-CPLRM 01/26/98 Profepa

(Morachis López, J.R.)

Annex 1. Ruling No. PFPA-DSUDQ-021/98, notification of proceeding issued by the Profepa

Sonora Delegation (E-26), Complaint Unit

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

02/26/98

8 IP-CPLRM 01/16/98 National Water

Commission (Jurado

Márquez, M.A.)

Annex 2. Ruling No. BOO.R.3.

5.4.-095/0087, regarding municipal discharges into the Magdalena River.

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

02/26/98

9 IP-CPLRM 01/05/98 National Water

Commission (Jurado

Márquez, M.A.)

Annex 3. Ruling No. BOO.R.

3.5.4.-081/0110, issued by the

National Water Commission

Northeast Regional Office,

addressed to Profepa, reporting

on the inspections performed

under the Clean Water Program

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

02/26/98

10 IP-CPLRM 11/29/96 National Human

Rights Commission

(Guadarrama López, E.)

Annex 4. Ruling No. V2/0040043

Exp. CNDH/122/96/SON/6926,

letter from the National Human

Rights Commission addressed to

Mr. Jesús Alberto Sánchez

Sánchez et al., concerning their

complaint, dated 22 October

1996

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

02/26/98

11 IP-CPLRM 09/02/92 National Water

Commission (Isasi

de la Garza, P.)

Annex 5. Ruling No. BOO.

728.2.01771, authorization for

the temporary discharge of

wastewater into the “Laguna

Vieja”, addressed to the Municipal President of Imuris, Sonora

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

02/26/98;

04/01/98
92 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION

DOCUMENT

No. ID DATE AUTHOR DOCUMENT PROVIDED TO THE RECEIVED

mm/dd/yy SECRETARIAT BY mm/dd/yy

12 IP-CPLRM 03/20/98 Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

Letter to CEC, to the Presidents

of Mexico and the United States,

the Prime Minister of Canada, the

Mexican Chamber of Deputies,

the International Monetary Fund,

the World Bank, and the general

public, to denounce the situation

in Imuris with 2 annexes.

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

04/01/98

13 IP-CPLRM 02/13/98 Semarnap

(Morachis López, J.)

Annex 1. Ruling No. PFPA-DSUDQ-040/98, issued by Profepa

and addressed to Mr. Enrique

Montaño Guzmán

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

04/01/98

14 IP-CPLRM n/a Environmental Health

Group Border XXI

Annex 2. “Clean Water at Home”

program – pilot project for seven

small communities and the

improvement of water quality in

15 border towns

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

04/01/98

15 IP-CPLRM 06/24/98 Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

Letter to the Chairman of the

Municipal Board of Imuris,

Sonora, to the CEC, the Presidents of Mexico and the United

States, the Prime Minister of

Canada, the Mexican Chamber

of Deputies, the International

Monetary Fund, the World Bank,

and the general public, to

denounce the situation in Imuris.

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

07/22/98

16 IP-CPLRM 09/18/98 Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

Letter to CEC on Mexico’s

response with one annex.

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

09/30/98

17 IP-CPLRM 09/20/98 Notary Public

(Álvarez Llera, J.)

Annex 1. Notarized deed and

photographs relating to the drainage from the City of Santa Ana,

Sonora

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

09/30/98

18 IP-CPLRM 01/20/00 Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

Letter from Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena, addressed to

Semarnat

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

02/28/01

19 05/31/02 Border Environment

Cooperation

Commission (Macías

Norte, F.)

Ruling No. C4909/AGE 2002,

information to prepare the factual

record on the Magdalena River,

Sonora, Mexico, with annex

“Summary of Projects in Development at the Magdalena River

Basin”

Border Environment

Cooperation Commission (Macías Norte, F.)

06/03/02

20 IPM2 07/01/02 Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

Ruling No. UCAI/2991/02, information from the National Water

Commission for the factual

record, with two annexes

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

21 IPM 06/27/02 National Water

Commission (Gordoa

Márquez, G.)

Annex A. Ruling No. BOO.00.

02.02.02.1.-5395 issued by the

National Water Commission in

response to Ruling UCAI/

1744/02, dated 19 April 2002

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

22 IPM n/a National Water

Commission

Annex B. “Río Magdalena

Annex” Request for information

from Mexican Party for the preparation of a factual record on the

submission SEM-97-002 (Río

Magdalena), dated 16 April 2002.

Description of the “ongoing and

systematic” monitoring of water

quality of the Magdalena River

with several annexes.

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

2. IPM: Information provided by Mexico.
APPENDIX 6 93

DOCUMENT

No. ID DATE AUTHOR DOCUMENT PROVIDED TO THE RECEIVED

mm/dd/yy SECRETARIAT BY mm/dd/yy

23 IPM 1999-2001 National Water

Commission

Annex 1: Results of water quality

assessment of the Magdalena

River at the Terrenate station

employing the potential use

index. Three (3) tables: 1. Potential use index (farm irrigation); 2.

Potential use index (drink water

supply); 3. National Water Commission, Adjunct General Technical Bureau (Surface Water

Monitoring Network).

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

24 IPM 03/16/01 National Water

Commission

(Dr. Jaime P., A.)

Annex 2: Ruling No. BOO.05.525

issued by the National Water

Commission Office of Sanitation

and Water Quality, addressed to

Mr. Montaño Guzmán with a list

of works executed in 1998 and

1999.

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

25 IPM n/a National Water

Commission

Annex 3: Map of sampling stations on the Magdalena RiverSemarnat 07/11/02

26 IPM 1993 National Water

Commission

Annex 4. Appendix B: Water

Quality Tables

Annex 4a: Physicochemical and

bacteriological analyses of water,

Agua Zarca sampling station (2

tables)

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

27 IPM 1993 National Water

Commission

Annex 4b: Physicochemical and

bacteriological analyses of water,

Cibuta sampling station (2 tables)

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

28 IPM 1992-1993 National Water

Commission

Annex 4c: Physicochemical and

bacteriological analyses of water,

Imuris sampling station (3 tables)

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

29 IPM 1993 National Water

Commission

Annex 4a: Physicochemical and

bacteriological analyses of water,

Arroyo Cocospera sampling station (2 tables)

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

30 IPM 1993 National Water

Commission

Annex 4e: Physicochemical and

bacteriological analyses of water,

Arroyo Punta de Agua sampling

station (2 tables)

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

31 IPM 1992-1993 National Water

Commission

Annex 4f: Physicochemical and

bacteriological analyses of water,

Magdalena sampling station (3

tables)

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

32 IPM 1992-1993 National Water

Commission

Annex 4g: Physicochemical and

bacteriological analyses of water,

Arroyo Sasabe sampling station

(2 tables)

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

33 IPM 1992-1993 National Water

Commission

Annex 4h: Physicochemical and

bacteriological analyses of water,

Santa Ana sampling station (3

tables)

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

34 IPM 1992-1993 National Water

Commission

Annex 4i: Physicochemical and

bacteriological analyses of water,

Santa Ana wastewater sampling

station (2 tables)

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

35 IPM 1993 National Water

Commission

Annex 4j: Physicochemical and

bacteriological analyses of water,

Arroyo El Cajón sampling station

(2 tables)

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

36 IPM 1993 National Water

Commission

Annex 4k: Physicochemical and

bacteriological analyses of water,

El Claro sampling station (2

tables)

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02
94 FACTUAL RECORD: RÍO MAGDALENA SUBMISSION

DOCUMENT

No. ID DATE AUTHOR DOCUMENT PROVIDED TO THE RECEIVED

mm/dd/yy SECRETARIAT BY mm/dd/yy

37 IPM 01/14/99 National Water

Commission (Jurado

Márquez, M.A.)

Annex 5: Concession Title No.

02SON112353/08HMGR99 from

the National Water Commission

to the Imuris municipal government

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

38 IPM 01/14/99 National Water

Commission (Jurado

Márquez, M.A.)

Concession Title No.

02SON112352/08HMGR99 from

the National Water Commission

to the Magdalena municipal government

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

39 IPM 01/14/99 National Water

Commission (Jurado

Márquez, M.A.)

Concession Title No.

02SON112354/08HMGR99 from

the National Water Commission

to the Santa Ana municipal government

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

40 IPM 10/15/99 National Water

Commission (Rodríguez

López, J.R.)

Annex 6: Ruling No.

BOO.00.R03.04.4-7186, Deadline Notice for filing of action program to improve wastewater

quality in Imuris

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

41 IPM 10/15/99 National Water

Commission (Rodríguez

López, J.R.)

Annex 7. Ruling No.

BOO.00.R03.04.4.-7187, Deadline Notice for filing of action program to improve wastewater

quality in Magdalena

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

42 IPM 10/15/99 National Water

Commission (Rodríguez

López, J.R.)

Annex 8. Ruling No.

BOO.00.R03.04.4-7189, Deadline Notice for filing of action program to improve wastewater

quality in Santa Ana

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

43 IPM n/a National Water

Commission

Annex 9. Map of Terrenate monitoring stationSemarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

44 IPM 1999-2001 National Water

Commission

Annex 10. National Water Quality

Monitoring Network. 20 pages of

analytical results of water quality

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

45 IPM 12/21/01 Federal Official

Gazette Semarnat

Annex 11. Decree published in

the Federal Official Gazette on

wastewater discharges

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

46 IPM 05/11/00 National Water

Commission, Northeast

Regional Manager;

Secretary of Urban

Infrastructure and

Ecology (Jurado

Márquez, M.A.)

(Ibarra Legarreta, M. )

Annex 12. Technical annex to

the coordination agreement,

dated 11 May 2000, between

Semarnap through the National

Water Commission and the State

of Sonora

Semarnat

(Guzmán Sandoval, H.)

07/11/02

47 IP-CPLRM 07/10/02 Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

(Ayala Soto, L.F.)

Letter from Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena to CEC

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

07/16/02

48 CNA3 12/19/01 National Water

Commission Semarnat

Decree on national waters National Water Commission (Tiznado

Aganza, S.)

10/09/02

49 CNA 12/19/01 National Water

Commission Semarnat

Decree on wastewater dischargesNational Water Commission (Tiznado

Aganza, S.)

10/09/02

50 CNA n/a National Water

Commission (Jaime

Jáquez, C.);

Semarnat

(Lichtinger Waisman,

V.)

National Hydraulic Program

2001-2006, Executive Summary,

2nd Edition

National Water Commission (Tiznado

Aganza, S.)

10/09/02

3. CNA: National Water Commission (Comisión Nacional del Agua).
APPENDIX 6 95

DOCUMENT

No. ID DATE AUTHOR DOCUMENT PROVIDED TO THE RECEIVED

mm/dd/yy SECRETARIAT BY mm/dd/yy

51 IP-CPLRM 06/08/98 Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

Letter to the National Water Commission in reference to Ruling

BOO.R.3./02938, dated 26 May

1998, to denounce the situation

in Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and

Santa Ana municipalities

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

52 IP-CPLRM 05/26/98 National Water

Commission (Jurado

Márquez, M.A.)

Annex 1. Ruling No. BOO.R.3./

02938 addressed to Comité

“Pro-Limpieza del Río Magdalena,” regarding municipal discharges into the Magdalena

River

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

53 IP-CPLRM 03/27/98 Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

Letter to Profepa in reference

to Ruling DG/004/143/98.

E.710/811/26, dated 12 February

1998, issued by Profepa on

Imuris, Magdalena de Kino and

Santa Ana municipalities with

one annex.

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

54 IP-CPLRM 02/12/98 Semarnap

(Sodi Robles, E.)

Annex 1. Ruling No.

DG/004/143/98, Letter from

Semarnap addressed to the

Submitter regarding its complaint

against the Imuris, Magdalena de

Kino and Santa Ana municipal

authorities

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

55 IP-CPLRM 07/10/02 Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

(Ayala Soto, L.F.)

Letter to CEC in reference to

SEM-97-002, from Comité

Pro-Limpieza del Río Magdalena

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Montaño Guzmán, E.)

(Ayala Soto, L.F.)

07/16/02

56 IP-CPLRM 1997 Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Ayala Soto, L.F.)

Page of an article entitled “In

Defense of the Magdalena River

and Health,” published by the

Border Health and Environment

Network

Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

(Ayala Soto, L.F.)

n/a

57 n/a 1999 National Water

Commission

Situation of the Drinking Water,

Sewers and Sanitation Subsector 1999. Municipal Wastewater

Treatment Plants

www.cna.gob.mx n/a

58 n/a 2000 National Water

Commission

Document: Basic Compendium

of Water in Mexico – Mission of

the National Water Commission

www.cna.gob.mx n/a

59 n/a 2001 Technical Council of the

National Water

Commission (Lichtinger,

V.); National Water

Commission (Jáquez,

C.J.)

National Hydraulic Program

2001-2006

www.cna.gob.mx n/a

60 n/a 09/00/01 Semarnat;

Banco Nacional de

Obras y Servicios

Públicos; S.N.C.

National Water

Commission

Program for the modernization of

water operating agencies, with

three annexes: Annex 1, Program approach; Annex 2, Cities

with populations above 50,000

inhabitants according to the 2000

census; and Annex 3, efficiency

improvement actions

www.cna.gob.mx n/a

61 n/a 12/00/01 National Water

Commission

National Inventory of Drinking

Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants, as of December

2001

www.cna.gob.mx n/a

62 n/a 04/15/02 Sonora State

Government

Sonora municipalities: Information on Santa Anawww.sonora.gob.mx n/a

63 n/a 04/15/02 Sonora State

Government

Sonora municipalities: Information on Magdalena

www.sonora.gob.mx n/a

64 n/a 04/15/02 Sonora State

Government

Sonora municipalities: Information on Imuriswww.sonora.gob.mx n/a

APPENDIX 7

Data from Terrenate Monitoring Station,

1999 through 2001

APPENDIX 7 99

APPENDIX 7

Data from Terrenate Monitoring Station, 1999 through 2001

National Water Commission

General Technical Division

Surface Water Monitoring Network

APPENDIX 8

Contaminant Limits for Wastewater Discharges

(Table 2 of NOM-001)

APPENDIX 8 103

Appendix 8

Maximum contaminant limits for basic contaminants in wastewater discharges as per NOM-001 (Table 2)

D.A. = Daily average; M.A. = Monthly average

N.A. = Not applicable(A), (B) and (C): Type of receiving body as per Federal Duties Law (Ley Federal de Derechos)

(1) Instantaneous(2) Simple weighted average sample(3) Absent according to test method defined in NMX-AA-006

ATTACHMENT 1

Council Resolution 03-15

COUNCIL RESOLUTION 03-15

Instruction to the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental

Cooperation to make public the Factual Record for Submission

SEM-97-002 (Río Magdalena)

THE COUNCIL:

SUPPORTIVE of the process provided for in Articles 14 and 15 of the

North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) regarding submissions on enforcement matters and the preparation of factual

records;

NOTING that the Secretariat received no comments from the Parties

on the draft Río Magdalena factual record;

HAVING RECEIVED the final factual record for Submission

SEM-97-002;

AFFIRMING its commitment to a timely and transparent process; and

FURTHER NOTING that pursuant to Article 15(7) of the NAAEC, the

Council is called upon to decide whether to make the factual record

publicly available;

HEREBY DECIDES:

TO MAKE PUBLIC and post on the registry the final factual record for

Submission SEM-97-002.

APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL:

____________________________________

José Manuel Bulás Montoro

Government of the United Mexican States

____________________________________

Judith E. Ayres

Government of the United States of America

____________________________________

Norine Smith

Government of Canada

COUNCIL RESOLUTION 03-15 107