biental del Buen Vecino – Marzo 2008 Eleventh Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board – March 2008 
y Le ud de la t 

1992 en vir 

ún se estipula g a se er p 

 O 

ar al 

 su misión es asesor 

Estados a de er ont 

de la fr 

a o par st esupue n un pr o 

c 

e y al esident ar al Pr 

esor 

a es par r o 

 sus diversos act 

16, al 129 esidenci o Pr 

tiv 

a su aliz e as r lés) y l 

en ing 

ales eder as f 

s dependenci 

 además a ey s. Inclu axe 

T 

ícolas rg 

vil, organismos a 

gos lo s homó o 

s consultiv 

ar el ur g n de ase n el fi o 

c 

s . Su n, DC ot shing a 

en W 

ones. ci aciones de ac 

mend 

és de va tr s a a ead 

as son cr 

ntable, y de e ollo Sust r 

sar 

o, en imism s as. A iz er ont 

r 

mas que e d. Uno de los t a 

enidos sost se anc v ar a rg 

o 

et nre en Int na i g la pá e 

sit 

o ltiv nsu o c é mit o 

ta); un c 

s ica er m e A h r t o se f irpret n

e y esident me al Pr or 

 Inf 

evisado me no ha sido r or 

A EP 

e vista y políticas de 

ebe les no d ai c omer s c o 

ct 

tional a N( 

es Ambientales 

o 

ar la publicación númer 

en u del B 

unta Ambiental 

About the Board The Good Neighbor Environmental Board is an independent U.S. Presidential advisory committee that was created in 1992 under the 

Enterprise for the Americas Initiative Act, Public Law 102-532. It operates under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and its mission is to advise the President and Congress of the United States on “good neighbor” environmental and infrastructure practices along the U.S. border with Mexico. The Board does not carry out border-region environmental activities of its own, nor does it have a budget to fund border projects. Rather, its unique role is to step back as an expert, nonpartisan advisor to the President and Congress and recommend how the federal government can most effectively work with its many partners to improve the environment along the U.S.-Mexico border. Under Presidential Executive Order 12916, its administrative activities were assigned to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and are carried out by the EPA Office of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM). Membership on the Board is extremely diverse. It includes senior officials from a number of U.S. federal government agencies and from each of the four U.S. border states—Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. It also includes representatives from the tribal, local government, nonprofi t, ranching and grazing, business, and academic sectors. In addition, the Board maintains dialogue with its counterpart Mexican environmental agency advisory groups and the Consejos Consultivos para el Desarrollo Sustenable (CCDS)—referred to as Consejos—to help ensure that it remains informed about issues on the Mexico side of the border. The Board meets twice each calendar year in various U.S. border communities and once in Washington, DC. Its advice is submitted to 

the U.S. President and Congress in the form of annual reports that contain recommendations for action. These recommendations are submitted after consensus is reached across the entire membership. They are shaped by the combined expertise of the Board members, by the Board’s ongoing dialogue with its Consejo counterpart groups, and by the speakers and concerned citizens from both sides of the border who attend its meetings in border communities. The Board also occasionally issues Comment Letters during the year to provide input on timely topics. One of the most frequently recurring themes in its advice is that support for cross-border cooperation is essential if sustained progress is to be made on environmental issues along the U.S.-Mexico border. All 

f 

h

G

d 

hb

l 

d 

h

bl

f

h

d 

b S
Letter to the President............................................................................................ii


Recommendations at a Glance ...............................................................................1


natural disasters and the environment 

along the u.s.-mexico border 

Introduction ..............................................................................................................2


Focus of this Report ............................................................................................4


Section 1: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border ..............6


Effects on the Region’s Environment .................................................................6


 Effects on the Region’s Human Health ............................................................15


 Effects on the Region’s Wildlife and Ecosystems .............................................17


 Eff ects on Specific Population Groups ..............................................................20


Section 2: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border...........23


United States: Domestic/International Policies/Institutions ........................23


Mexico: Domestic/International Policies/Institutions ...................................35


 Binational Arrangements ..................................................................................36


Section 3: Spotlight on Promising Partnerships ............................................43


 Government Partnerships .................................................................................43


 University Partnerships ....................................................................................44


 Multi-Sector Partnerships .................................................................................45


 Hurricane/Flood Specifi c Partnerships ............................................................45


Earthquake and Wildfi re Specifi c Partnerships ...............................................47


Glossary......................................................................................................................48


JK

BUSINESS REPORT .................................................................................................49


Council on Environmental Quality Response to Tenth Report...............................50


Comment Letters .......................................................................................................51


Membership Roster and Resource Specialists ..........................................................57


Note of Th anks ...........................................................................................................60


Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border i 
ii Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
Eleventh Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board 

RECOMMENDATIONS AT A GLANCE 

To effectively protect human health and the environment within the 

U.S.-Mexico border region from natural disasters, the Good Neighbor 

Environmental Board recommends that the federal government work 

with appropriate authorities to implement the following policy options: 

Prevent or minimize the impacts of natural disasters through 

appropriate zoning codes, building codes, landscape requirements, 

watershed management, and municipal strategic planning. 

Build capacity at the local, state, regional, and tribal levels to 

effectively manage natural disasters, including cross-border 

coordination.

Better integrate current disparate preparedness and response 

management systems and practical exercises so as to cover all 

types of emergencies, including natural disasters. 

Expand existing domestic and binational agreements to incorporate U.S.-Mexico border-specific measures related to natural 

disasters, including measures tailored to specific natural features 

and human settlements. 

1

2

3

4

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 1 
Hurricane Katrina struck in August 2005, followed 

shortly by Hurricane Rita. One of the most sobering 

lessons learned was the need for more strategic preparation and response to natural disasters at all levels, 

particularly in terms of adequately protecting vulnerable populations. 

The U.S.-Mexico border region provides a compelling example of what may, and sometimes has, occurred 

when vulnerable populations are not prepared for natural disasters. The region’s vulnerability takes several 

forms. First, a local incident in the border region can 

quickly become an international incident. Extreme 

weather events such as hurricanes, fl oods, tornadoes, 

wildfires, earthquakes, and mudslides do not respect 

administrative boundaries. Unlike nonborder communities, residents of the U.S.-Mexico border region 

must attempt to coordinate their response to natural 

disasters with their neighbors across the border, often 

through informal channels. 

In addition, studies from the Center for Hazards 

and Risk Research at Columbia University have shown 

that natural disasters tend to have the greatest impact 

on the poorest people of a region. Collectively, U.S. 

border cities and counties constitute the poorest region of the United States, with many low-income and 

densely populated urban areas. Large numbers of U.S. 

border colonias residents live in substandard housing 

with inadequate infrastructure located in areas susceptible to flooding. Many neighboring Mexican border communities also have poor populations settled in 

precarious areas such as canyon bottoms and on steep 

slopes. Strapped municipal budgets and the lack of 

federal grant funding, with local populations growing 

at annual rates of 4 to 6 percent, result in the inability 

to maintain critical environmental infrastructure such 

as levees, storm drains, and sewage conveyance and 

treatment systems—infrastructure that is likely to be 

affected by natural disasters and capable of aff ecting 

neighboring communities on the U.S. side. 

On a positive note, recent years have seen some 

improvement in the condition of environmental infrastructure on both sides of the border. Credit for this 

success belongs to numerous sources—local eff orts, 

border state initiatives, and binational programs such 

as the Border 2012 program (see following sections) 

and the Border Environment Cooperation Commission/North American Development Bank. Yet despite 

this progress, the condition of environmental infrastructure in many border communities remains substandard for numerous reasons. Most important are 

declining state and federal support for infrastructure 

investment in conjunction with rapidly spreading urban areas and land use changes. 

Scarcity of resources at the municipal level is only 

one facet of the problem. The link between poverty 

and added vulnerability is borne out on an individual 

household level as well. As noted above, in the U.S.­

Mexico border region, low-income populations face 

particular challenges as they often live in risk-prone 

locations such as steep slopes subject to slippage or in 

river bottoms or flood plains subject to fl ooding. Th eir 

housing tends to be of lower quality construction and 

less resistant to damage from wind, earthquakes, and 

floods. Because many low-income residents do not 

have adequate insurance on their homes and possessions, they are reluctant to evacuate and avoid potential personal injury. 

Moreover, post-9-11 concerns in the United States 

about border security have added an additional layer of 

complexity to many types of national policy decisions, 

including decisions that affect the border region’s vulnerability to natural disasters. For example, maintaining a tightly controlled border for enhanced security 

may work against the need to cross the border quickly 

to provide timely assistance in the event of a natural 

disaster. Strong border controls can hinder cross-border communication and interaction with counterparts 

in Mexico that, in turn, may delay response to natural 

and other disasters. 

On a government-to-government level, some institutional frameworks already are in place to begin 

to address the “natural disaster border barrier” prob2 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
lem. For example, the U.S. National Response Plan has 

a Support Annex on International Coordination that 

calls for working with the International Red Cross and 

Red Crescent Movement to assist family members in 

case of emergency (see United States: Domestic/International Policies/Institutions section). Moreover, during 

2007, the Heads of State of the 3 countries issued a 

Joint Statement under the Security and Prosperity 

Partnership of North America that called for emergency management and preparedness along the borders 

between their nations to be a high priority (see Spotlight on Promising Partnerships section). In addition, at 

the conclusion of the XXV Border Governors Conference on September 27–28, 2007, the governors of the 

10 U.S.-Mexico border states resolved to (1) develop 

a Five-Year Binational Emergency Response Strategic Plan that will include prevention, preparation, 

response, and recovery; and (2) develop a Memorandum of Understanding for mutual help in the event of 

emergencies among the 10 border states. 

Although these codified frameworks of intent exist, they have yet to be implemented and therefore remain untested. Others, such as the 1980 U.S.-Mexico 

Agreement on Cooperation During Natural Disasters, 

have never been fully implemented and therefore 

have not always enabled the quick and targeted types 

of responses that are needed when a natural disaster 

strikes and impacts the same geographical region on 

both sides of the border. Some of these frameworks on 

paper are not set up to respond binationally to binational natural disasters. Often, their provisions were 

agreed on in earlier times when the border was lightly 

populated, before the existence of dynamic transborder metropolises with millions of residents. 

Residents on both sides of the border are all too 

aware of the need to respond eff ectively in real time. 

Many of them have a great deal invested in ensuring 

that such is the case; U.S. and Mexican border twin 

cities (“sister cities”) have become increasingly intertwined. Substantial numbers of people live on one side 

of the border and work and shop on the other side. 

Many families, including tribal members, have relatives living on both sides of the boundary. In addition, 

many maquiladoras in Mexican cities ship their fi nished products to the United States through the U.S. 

sister cities. Not surprisingly, under the circumstances, the onset of a natural disaster is likely to fi nd many 

Americans on the Mexican side of the border and vice 

versa. Moreover, some of the critically needed resources for responding and protecting the public may be located on the other side of the border from where the 

disaster is occurring. Formal agreements between the 

U.S. and Mexican governments for responding to local 

transborder natural disasters have not evolved as rapidly as has the need for such mechanisms. 

Given these sobering circumstances, U.S. border 

communities and their Mexican neighbors have begun 

to work together at the local level to prepare for natural 

disasters. One noteworthy result is the development 

of sister city emergency response plans. Th ese plans, 

jointly developed by residents of neighboring border 

cities, set out specific procedures for working together 

in the event of chemical release and often entail training exercises to maximize preparedness. Despite their 

significant contribution to the problem, however, sister city emergency response plans have their limitations both in scope and resources. In many cases, they 

are designed specifically to address hazardous materials releases but not necessarily the broader issue of 

natural disasters (see Binational Arrangements section). 

Complementing these sister city plans are a number of more informal, ad hoc arrangements. Having 

business associates, friends, and family on both sides 

of the border becomes a primary motivation for marshalling the resources to get the job done, regardless 

of where an individual or their agency may be based. 

Informal arrangements also have their limitations, 

however. Once the immediate threat is dealt with, 

attention turns back to other pressing matters. Assistance tends to be focused principally on issues of 

short-term recovery rather than on prevention for the 

medium and long range. More eff ective contributions 

will require a long-range preventive approach directed 

toward structural issues rather than only short-term 

remedial actions. 

In summary, natural disasters continue to occur 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 3 
along the border amid limited on-the-ground coordinated action from the United States and Mexico. Th e 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board has written this 

report to focus national attention on this gap in national policymaking and eff ective implementation. 

From its perspective, when formulating national policy on natural disasters and their environmental implications, it is essential that the specifi c circumstances 

and vulnerabilities found in the U.S.-Mexico border region be factored into the equation. Strategic planning, 

within this scenario, should include a keen awareness 

of conditions and institutional capabilities on both 

sides of the border. It also should include an in-depth 

understanding of whether well-intended U.S. national 

frameworks actually work—or do not work—in realworld circumstances. 

It is in our national self-interest, as well as “good 

neighborly,” for federal policymakers to adopt this 

more strategic approach to managing natural disasters along our southern international border. By being 

prepared to effectively respond to natural disasters on 

both sides of the border, our homeland security will 

be strengthened. The Board encourages federal policymakers, both in the administration and Congress, to 

move forward with expedience to address vulnerabilities faced by the U.S.-Mexico border region in managing natural disasters. 

Focus of This Report 

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board defi nes 

natural disasters as discreet, extreme weather-related 

and other natural events that cause damage and require an immediate response. Moreover, because the 

Board is a federal advisory committee, its discussion 

of the issue primarily is limited to instances in which 

the federal government does, or should, get involved. 

In addition, because its mission is to provide advice on 

environmental and infrastructure issues along the U.S.­

Mexico border, the Board primarily examined natural 

disasters in light of their effects on the environment 

and human health, as well as how the federal government can most effectively apply its resources toward 

minimizing the negative eff ects.

 The Board recognizes that natural disasters in the 

border region are especially complicated. For example, 

the U.S. federal government responds to two broad 

categories of incidents: domestic incidents/natural disasters and international incidents/natural disasters. 

Each category triggers a different set of responses, including whether or not the incidents are ultimately declared disasters by either the U.S. federal government 

or the Mexican federal government. 

This report seeks to address the gap that may occur 

at a federal level in the border region when domestic 

agencies, which typically respond to one or the other 

of the above incidents, suddenly must look at both the 

domestic and international consequences/impacts of 

a natural disaster. Those agencies that normally only 

respond to a domestic disaster may suddenly be faced 

with international concerns as a result of an incident 

just across the border on the Mexican side. Likewise, 

U.S. federal agencies that normally provide international assistance to a foreign disaster may suddenly 

have to examine domestic implications of an event 

occurring on the Mexican side of the border. As such, 

the U.S.-Mexico border region provides a unique set of 

circumstances when compared to a domestic-only or 

international-only context. 

Hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, wildfi res, earthquakes, and mudslides are the specific disasters examined. The recommendations are formulated to provide 

both short-term and longer term measures. In addition, they cover steps that can be taken within the current policy arena as well as options involving possible 

changes—or at least reinterpretations—of existing 

policy. 

Despite the decision to focus primarily on extreme 

weather events of short duration, the Board also decided that it would be remiss not to state its strongly 

held view that longer term trends such as desertifi cation, severe drought, prolonged fl ooding, and climate 

change should be included in the natural disasters policy discussion. These slower acting cousins of cataclys4 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
mic natural events justifiably can be viewed as natural 

disasters that occur over a longer timeframe. By viewing them as such, complacency, fatalism, and—most 

importantly—lack of preparedness can be avoided. 

Also somewhat outside the scope of this report, 

but central to any policy discussions about natural 

disasters in any portion of the United States, is the 

need to carefully examine the link between human actions and natural disasters. For example, to what degree does construction of dams and levees encourage 

people to build in floodplains, potentially exacerbating 

damage from naturally-induced floods if/when the 

flood control structures fail? Might land-use practices be as responsible for fl ood and fire damage as the 

water and fire itself? How do growing human populations in a region magnify the effect of natural disasters 

and increase human vulnerabilities? Could the impact 

of severe weather events be mitigated through better 

planning and urban development policies? 

The report that follows addresses these human-factor issues to the extent that they aff ect environmental 

quality, in keeping with the Board’s mission, but not 

necessarily from a socio-economic perspective, which 

is outside its mission. These questions also require 

comprehensive answers if federal policies on managing 

natural disasters, whether they be in the U.S.-Mexican 

border region or elsewhere in the nation, are truly to 

be comprehensive. 

The U.S.-Mexico border region spans four U.S. states, six Mexican states, and extensive tribal lands. Roughly two-thirds 

of the 1,952 mile border lies in Texas and is demarcated by the Rio Grande River. (Source: Harry Johnson, San Diego 

State University) 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 5 
Effects of Natural 

Disasters on the 

U.S.-Mexico Border 

Effects on the Region’s Environment 

Natural Disasters Natural Disasters 

Effects on the Region’s Environment

Hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, mudslides, and wildfires pose a risk to those living along 

the U.S.-Mexico border. Although floods, even in desert areas, may pose the most widespread threat, other 

disasters obviously can inflict just as much damage. 

Earthquake risk is especially strong in California as 

a result of the high tectonic activity, but earthquakes 

also have occurred in Texas. Texas is especially at risk 

for tornadoes, but tornadoes have struck other parts 

of the region as well. Wildfires can occur anywhere 

along the border. 

On the Mexican side, less developed urban and 

flood control infrastructure and more settlement in 

flood prone areas and on steeper slopes make Mexican 

settlements more vulnerable to the effects of flooding, 

earthquakes, landslides, and tornadoes than their U.S. 

sister cities. The Mexican border populations, however, may be less at risk from wildfires because wildfires 

tend to burn naturally, without suppression, preventing the dangerous fuel load build up that occurs north 

of the border. In addition, there are more grazing activities and firewood removal activities near Mexican 

border settlements. 

Recent history has all too clearly demonstrated the 

border region’s continued vulnerability to natural disasters. In October 2007, for instance, wildfires raged 

through Southern California, destroying 2,000 homes 

and causing well over $2 billion in damage. Although 

attention rightfully focused on the immediate toll 

on the communities that suffered, the ecological impact has yet to be assessed according to the nonprofit 

group, The Nature Conservancy. 

Flooding also has continued to beset the region, 

with recent examples in Arizona/Sonora and Texas/ 

Chihuahua. In August 2007, intense local storms sent a 

wall of water through the Nogales Wash, an arroyo now 

lined as a concrete drainage channel that flows from 

Nogales, Sonora, through the heart of its sister city of 

Nogales, Arizona. The aging channel suffered extensive 

damage in the United States. A 116-foot long segment 

of the floor of the wash was swept away, and a massive 

void was detected behind the west wall of the channel. Perhaps of greatest concern was that the damage 

exposed an international sewer line that was underneath the floor of the wash, creating a significant risk 

that the sewer line would rupture, potentially floodEarthquakes continue to be a fact of life along the California-Baja California portion of the U.S.-Mexico border. 

Map shows number of times per century that bedrock 

shaking from earthquakes will be strong enough to cause 

damage in Southern California. Note that the focus is on 

bedrock and, therefore, underestimates likely damage 

from shaking in basins and valleys. (Source: U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program Web Site.) 

6 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

ing parts of central Nogales, Arizona, with wastewater 

or contaminating the Santa Cruz River. Even as other 

storms approached, crews worked diligently to make 

emergency repairs. The governor signed an emergency 

declaration, authorizing use of National Guard troops 

if necessary. One year earlier, during the summer of 

2006, severe flooding in the El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad 

Juárez, Mexico, area caused more than $100 million in 

damage, resulting in El Paso being declared a federal 

disaster area. 

Tornadoes also have made recent border region 

history. In April 2007, a pair of tornadoes struck Eagle 

Pass, Texas, and neighboring Piedras Negras, Coahuila. 

Along with widespread property damage, the toll on 

the population was seven people killed in Eagle Pass 

and three in Piedras Negras, with dozens injured in 

the sister cities. Tornadoes are infrequent in this part 

of the border; they are more common further east in 

Cameron County, which is the southernmost county 

in Texas. The county is bordered on its eastern edge by 

the Gulf of Mexico, making it more vulnerable to extreme weather events. During the past 55 years of data 

collection on tornadoes, no fatalities were recorded in 

Cameron County, but as the region continues to grow 

from a rural agricultural zone to a highly populated 

trade and manufacturing corridor, losses of both life 

and property are expected to escalate. 

Following is a more detailed examination of how 

particular natural disasters continue to affect the region’s environment. 

Earthquakes, Landslides, and 

Mudslides 

Earthquakes continue to be a fact of life along the 

California-Baja California portion of the U.S.-Mexico 

border. They can occur at any time, without warning. 

Besides the toll they exact on human life and property, 

earthquakes present significant environmental risks 

including destruction of infrastructure such as roads 

and bridges, pipelines, refi neries, wastewater treatment plants, chemical storage facilities, dams, levees, 

and canals. 

Earthquakes are a major cause of landslides, particularly when soils are saturated with moisture from 

intense rain events. Areas with steep slopes, such as 

the San Diego-Tijuana region, are especially susceptible to mudslides during earthquakes and after wildfires when vegetated slopes have become barren and 

are vulnerable to the effects of storms. Once a mudslide or landslide occurs, recovery and rebuilding activities may be limited because of lack of insurance coverage; insurance companies consider these disasters 

“land movement” events and, therefore, mudslides are 

not covered under base property insurance policies. 

Whereas significant sums of insurance payments may 

be available after a major fire or hurricane, mudslides, 

like earthquakes, will not trigger payments unless the 

individual property owner chooses to purchase supplemental coverage. The ripple effect of this lack of coverSlice of Border Region History: 

Earthquakes in the Imperial Valley 

and Beyond 

The Imperial Valley is one of the most 

seismically active areas in California. There 

have been earthquakes of magnitude 6 or 

greater in 1915, 1940, 1979, and 1987. The 

strongest was a magnitude 6.7 quake in 

1940 that killed 7 people. The geological 

forces that caused the November 23–24, 

1987, earthquakes are the same ones that 

pulled Baja California away from Mexico to 

form the Gulf of California. Movement along 

the Imperial fault also caused damage to the 

irrigation system in the Imperial Valley. The 

All American Canal, which brings water from 

the Colorado River to the Imperial Valley, was 

damaged most severely. East of Calexico, the 

earthquake shook down levees on both sides 

of the canal. The banks settled more than 1 

meter in places. 

Earthquakes also have occurred in other parts 

of the border region. In 1995, for instance, 

a magnitude 5.3 earthquake struck the 

Alpine-Marathon area of southwest Texas. 

The largest earthquake in history to strike 

this region occurred in 1931 near Valentine, 

Texas, and had a magnitude of 6.4. 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 7 
section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

Slice of Border Region History: 2003 Cedar Wildfire, San Diego 

One of the largest fires in Southern California history, which started on October 25, 2003, burned a total 

of 280,278 acres during the course of 22 days. The cause was a local deer hunter setting fire to brush 

and timber to signal his whereabouts after being separated from his hunting partner. Because of the dry 

conditions of surrounding vegetation—mostly chaparral—in combination with Santa Ana winds, the Cedar fi re 

spread extremely rapidly. 

In an effort to contain the fire, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, local governments in Southern California, tribal fire departments, and a number of 

volunteer agencies provided support. Mexican participants in the Border Agency Fire Council (see Spotlight 

on Promising Partnerships section) crossed the border to help. The Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) also provided funding to cover 75 percent of the total cost as a result of President Bush’s approval of 

the Fire Management Assistance Grant Program and declaration of a federal disaster in response to thenGovernor Gray Davis’s request for assistance. 

In addition to the incineration of forests, the environmental consequences were dramatic. Storm water runoff, 

normally absorbed by well-vegetated soils, increased by approximately 12,675,000 cubic feet as a result of 

the loss of vegetation. A study done by the nonprofit group American Forests estimates a $25,350,000 cost to 

retain the additional runoff to protect current infrastructure. Traces of ash in run-off water also resulted. San 

Diego County spent approximately $6.5 million in toxic and hazardous debris removal in preparation for the 

following rainy season in an effort to reduce contamination of nearby water sources. 

Within the Cedar Fire area in the San Diego City boundaries, 49 percent of the tree canopy, which removes 

approximately 315,000 pounds of air pollutants per year, was eliminated. American Forests estimates the 

annual loss in value at roughly $800,000. 

The fire also exacted a toll on human life and health. Fifteen civilian fatalities were reported, two of which 

were a fi refighter and an unidentified male who was believed to be a transient. Out of the 1,478 total fi re 

personnel, 104 fi refighters were injured. 

As is the case for many wildfires, the ecosystem effects of the Cedar Fire were complex. A subspecies of 

native coastal rainbow trout with a highly restricted range was completely eliminated in the wild. Fortunately, 

a group of 16 fish had recently been placed in an aquarium at the Chula Vista Nature Center prior to the fi re. 

Three additional species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act had their habitat affected but not 

completely destroyed: the Least Bell’s Vireo, the Coastal California gnatcatcher, and the Quino checkerspot 

butterfly. The gnatcatcher depends on a type of low brush that responds well to fire and regenerates 

completely within about 2 to 3 years of burning. Fire plays an important role in providing diversity to certain 

vegetative communities. The patches of grass and shrub that re-grow in the wake of a forest fi re provide 

sources of food and cover to species that are not well adapted to forests. The Cedar Fire was clearly a 

tremendous disaster for those whose homes lay in its wake. The cycle of fire, regeneration, and re-growth is a 

perilous reality for communities established in the forests and chaparral in Southern California. 

age is that resulting environmental concerns such as 

water pollution, chemical spills, and the presence of 

other environmental problems may not be addressed 

adequately because of lack of funds. 

Wildfi res 

Wildfires are caused by lightening strikes or by 

people, either accidentally or intentionally. Wildfi re 

performs important ecological functions that border 

region habitats have adapted to for millennia. Some 

of the indigenous people of the region used fire as a 

land management tool, as did later Mexican and Anglo ranchers. Fire suppression has become a regular 

practice during the past century as fuels in the form 

of grasses, shrubs, and trees have built up to dangerous levels. In recent years along the U.S. side of the 

border, ranches in grasslands, shrublands, and forests 

have been subdivided into “ranchettes,” increasing the 

rural population and hence the demand for fi re sup8 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

pression to protect property. The people living in these 

isolated residences on both private and tribal lands increase political pressure to suppress all wildfi res. When 

the high levels of fuels are finally ignited, whether by 

lightening strike or human activity, the results can be 

catastrophic. 

A unique feature of wildfire causation along the border is the increase in illegal activities. Land managers 

in the Cleveland National Forest in Southern California have noted a direct link between wildfires and the 

presence of undocumented migrants and drug smugglers. As illegal activities increase, law enforcement 

activities also increase. The main cause of wildfi res is 

illegal campfires, but discarded lighted cigarettes and 

sparks from machinery and vehicles also cause wildfires. Some also suggest that smugglers have set fi res 

intentionally to avoid capture, and that others have 

started fires to eliminate dense vegetation that serves 

as hiding areas for migrants and smuggling activities. 

 Whereas many of the ecosystems of the borderlands are adapted to fire as a natural part of regeneration and re-growth, fire reduces available resources for 

a period of time and sometimes can destroy cultural 

resources. Forests will re-grow, but immediately after fires, timber and forage are eliminated. Wildlife 

habitats shift, scenic vistas are altered, and watershed 

functions for human benefit are compromised. During and immediately after the fire, hazardous materials and pollutants are released into the air, water, and 

soil. In addition, smoke and other emissions contain 

pollutants that can cause signifi cant health problems, 

especially for vulnerable populations such as children, 

the elderly, and asthmatics. 

Secondary and potentially long-term eff ects of 

wildfires often are more disastrous than the fi re itself. 

These secondary effects include increased potential for 

flooding, debris flows, and landslides; increased erosion; introduction of invasive species; changes in water 

quality; and reduced access to recreational areas. 

Tornadoes, Hurricanes, and 

Floods 

Tornadoes are unwelcome visitors to the border 

region, particularly in the Texas-Mexico borderlands 

at the southernmost edge of what is known as “tornado alley.” They are caused by the collision of cool and 

warm air masses and can trigger signifi cant environmental impacts, particularly when they strike a facility 

that contains potentially hazardous or toxic materials. 

As is the case of other natural disasters, post-tornado 

cleanup of debris and other wastes is a labor-intensive 

process including segregation of wastes for appropriate disposal to either a municipal landfill or an industrial or hazardous waste facility. 

Although much of the U.S.-Mexico border region 

is desert, paradoxically, the region also experiences periodic devastating hurricanes and fl oods. Hurricanes 

not only bring wind damage but also devastating 

coastal storm surges, heavy inland rainfall, and tornadoes. For instance, the states of Texas and its Mexican neighbor, Tamaulipas—with approximately 800 

miles of coastline on the Gulf of Mexico—particularly 

are vulnerable. In fact, during the 20th century, Cameron County, Texas, located on the Gulf of Mexico at 

the U.S.-Mexico border, experienced seven hurricanes, 

including five direct hits. Besides Texas, portions of 

California, Arizona, and New Mexico also have been 

affected by hurricanes. 

Flooding, perhaps paradoxically, remains one of 

the border region’s most widespread natural disaster 

threats. The Rio Grande, which forms the U.S.-Mexico 

border for 1,254 miles, has historically experienced 

cycles both of drought and devastating fl ooding. Although overall rainfall in the region is relatively low 

compared to other parts of the United States, the rain 

often comes in brief but intense weather events, making fl ash floods common in the desert. In the coastal 

Mediterranean climate of California and Baja California, the only area of North America to possess such 

a climate, much of the yearly precipitation comes in 

a few intense winter storm events, which usually produces high runoff and fl ooding. 

As mentioned earlier, El Paso, Texas; Ciudad Juárez, 

Chihuahua; and Doña Ana County, New Mexico, remain at risk for floods more than 1 year after intense 

local storms caused widespread urban flooding in August 2006. Although some work has been conducted to 

repair inadequate dikes and drainage structures, much 

work remains, especially in Ciudad Juárez, where inadequate dikes put nearby residents at risk. 

Besides the property destruction and health problems associated with many types of natural disasters, 

floods also can contaminate the water supply, overrun 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 9 
section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

wastewater treatment plants, and inundate urban environmental infrastructure and farmland. Contaminated floodwaters can contribute to health risks such 

as bacterial contamination, and mosquitoes breeding 

in stagnant floodwaters can become carriers of various types of illnesses (see Effects on the Region’s Human 

Health section). Wind and flooding also can devastate 

habitat important for native species. 

Slice of Border Region History: Ballad of the 1930 Nogales Flood 

Border residents have long recorded significant local events through corridos (folk ballads). Torrential rains 

and a flood on the afternoon of August 7, 1930, struck Ambos Nogales (neighboring U.S. and Mexican 

towns, both called Nogales). Seven people died and 100 homes were destroyed in Nogales, Sonora; the U.S. 

city saw eight people killed and 3,000 left homeless. The event was chronicled in a corrido by G. Guzmán, 

“Inundación de Nogales” (The Nogales Flood), recorded in January 1931. Written from the perspective 

of Nogales, Sonora, the corrido spoke of the destruction and the response of the authorities, including 

assistance from the U.S. side: 

Source: Corridos & Tragedias de la Frontera, Mexican-American Border Music, Vol. 6 & 7, Arhoolie Folklyric 719/720, 1994. 

A mil y novecientos treinta 

pongan muy bien su atención 

pues en Nogales, Sonora, 

había una inundación. 

A la una de la tarde 

un jueves tengo presente, 

azotó una tempestad 

donde murió mucha gente. 

... 

A las cuatro de la tarde 

pues vuelve la tempestad, 

se prolongó port tres horas 

destruyendo la siudad. 

... 

Para no cantar a ustedes 

les ha de dar compassion, 

de ver la gente en la calle 

corriendo sin dirección. 

Hasta hoteles y tiendas 

Muchas estaban destruidas, 

y también muchas personas 

allí perdieron sus vidas. 

... 

Ayudó la Legión de Honor, 

la Cruz Roja Americana, 

que fueron a dar auxilio 

a la siudad Mexicana. 

In nineteen hundred and thirty 

now pay very close attention, 

Well, in Nogales, Sonora, 

there was a fl ood. 

At one in the afternoon 

it was a Thursday, 

A tempest lashed the place 

where many people died. 

... 

At four in the afternoon 

well, the tempest returned, 

It continued for three hours 

destroying the city. 

... 

So as not to sing to you 

I want to offer my compassion, 

To see the people in the streets 

running around in confusion. 

Even hotels and stores 

many were destroyed, 

And also many people 

there they lost their lives. 

... 

The Legion of Honor helped 

as did the American Red Cross, 

They went to give aid 

to the Mexican city. 

10 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

Flood Damage Vulnerabilities 

Like wildfi re, fl ooding is a natural occurrence that 

can cause signifi cant damage to human life and property, particularly when exacerbated by additional factors such as urbanization. 

Population growth. Flooding in the border region often is particularly devastating because of development patterns. Rapid population growth, especially in Mexican communities, often has outpaced 

government’s ability to provide services such as roads, 

drainage systems, and wastewater infrastructure. 

Moreover, encroachment of population and transportation routes onto the floodplains and drainage areas 

greatly exacerbates flood problems. When people reside or conduct other activities in the fl oodplain, and 

when they use natural drainages for roads (drainages 

that are dry most of the time), the consequences can 

be devastating during storms. For instance, in Ciudad 

Juárez, Chihuahua, following floods in 2006, government offi cials offered to relocate residents who built 

their homes in high-risk floodplains. Although many 

have moved, some refuse to relocate, choosing to remain in high-risk zones. 

Problematic wastewater infrastructure design. In some border communities, wastewater infrastructure consists of collection systems located in 

low lying areas that move waste by gravity, a scenario 

that makes these communities particularly susceptible to damage from flooding. One such community 

is Nogales, Sonora; according to a Border 2012 study 

(see Binational Arrangements section), wastewater pipes 

in this community often are co-located with drainage 

channels. When the channels fill up with torrents of 

stormwater, pipe joints dislodge and the pipes fi ll with 

sand, causing even more ruptures farther downstream. 

In this way, flood events trigger sewage spills. Th e sediment also can impact operation and maintenance of 

wastewater treatment plants. 

To address these problems, the Border 2012 Arizona-Sonora Water Task Force recommends funding 

to plan a program of both structural and nonstructural 

flood control management. Structural features would 

include filtering systems, ponds, and rainwater harvesting (in other regions, they often consist of levees, 

floodwalls, and dams), whereas nonstructural management would address land use planning, land conservation, and stewardship programs. The rationale is 

that by directing development away from fl ood-prone 

areas, communities can spare the expense of costly 

structural cures. 

Inadequate fl ood control infrastructure. Another problem to contend with is the lack of municipal and federal resources for maintaining fl ood control 

infrastructure. In many border cities, stormwater control systems are not in place or are poorly developed. 

This scenario is particularly evident in Mexican border 

cities, where: (1) unplanned or poorly planned urban 

expansion, and (2) budgets stretched to the limit to 

provide water and wastewater services make such investment difficult and not always the highest priority. In other border communities, infrastructure such 

as levees is in great need of repair. This problem came 

sharply into focus during 2007 as work continued under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s FEMA 

Flood Map Modernization program. This program was 

established to improve and update the nation’s fl ood 

hazard identifi cation maps. Th ese flood maps are used 

to identify and depict flood hazard areas and set fl ood 

insurance rates in communities. They also support local planning, emergency preparedness and response, 

and natural resource management (see www.fema. 

gov/plan/prevent/fhm/mm_main.shtm). 

During the summer of 2006, severe flooding in the El 

Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, area caused 

more than $100 million in damage, resulting in El Paso 

being declared a federal disaster area. (Source: Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 11 
section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

FEMA currently is preparing updated Digital Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps for targeted counties across the 

United States, including several in the U.S.-Mexico 

border region. As part of this process, FEMA has requested that entities operating and maintaining fl ood 

control systems certify that those systems provide adequate protection against a 1 percent annual chance 

fl ood event—that is, the flood that has a 1 percent 

chance of occurring in any given year (often referred 

to as the 100-year flood). In several cases, after assessing the flood control infrastructure, these entities have 

reported back to FEMA that they are unable to certify 

that the systems in question are adequate. 

Local officials and property owners in these communities have raised concerns about the implications 

of fl ood hazard areas identifi ed in their communities. 

They cite concern over requirements for property owners to purchase flood insurance and apprehension that 

such a designation will make their communities less 

attractive to outside businesses and inhibit economic 

growth. 

Some communities have begun to take steps to 

address their concerns. For instance, the Doña Ana 

County Commission in New Mexico passed a resolution urging delay of the fl ood mapping process in the 

county until certain concerns and questions could be 

answered. The county and other entities have raised 

questions about the accuracy of FEMA’s fl ood model 

and draft maps. Regardless of the methodology used 

to model risk, work needs to be done to restore the 

integrity of flood control projects along the border. 

Entities such as the U.S. Section of the International 

Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) and the 

Hidalgo County (Texas) Drainage District #1 are working to raise and rehabilitate deficient Rio Grande levee 

segments to meet the FEMA certifi cation requirements. Properties near levees that are repaired and 

certified before the FEMA maps are finalized are expected to be removed from the flood hazard areas on 

the maps and be exempt from mandatory purchase of 

fl ood insurance. 

Housing, zoning. As noted previously in the introduction, low-income housing often is constructed 

of substandard materials. Moreover, it frequently is located in arroyos (natural run-off corridors or intermittent creeks) or other low lying and vulnerable areas, 

placing many at risk. For a variety of reasons, however, 

local governments often are reluctant to require residents to relocate. In addition to these issues related to 

low-income housing, permits have been issued in some 

communities to construct middle class subdivisions in 

arroyos. This issue has been brought to the forefront in 

El Paso, Texas, with neighborhood activists opposing 

the concept. It should be noted that fl oodplain construction may be acceptable in some cases, as long as 

the residents take certain steps such as elevating their 

homes and purchasing fl ood insurance. 

Mexican border cities such as Tijuana and Piedras 

Negras encounter great difficulties in protecting river 

floodplains, arroyos, and vulnerable slopes from encroachment by formal and informal settlements. Zoning is weak, and enforcement for zoning tends to be 

even weaker. Conflicting layers of governmental management make some actions diffi cult or impossible. For 

example, a federal agency, the National Water Commission (Comisión Nacional del Agua, CNA) owns the river 

channel and flood plain in the Alamar-Tijuana River 

system, but does not prevent unauthorized use of that 

area. The Municipality of Tijuana, which would like to 

prevent squatter settlements in those areas, lacks the 

legal authority to do so. The result is that people establish informal settlements in the river flood plain and 

arroyo bottoms, which are affected by the most severe 

of the winter storms, often with loss of life and considerable property damage. 

Next Steps To Address Flooding 

Vulnerabilities 

Allow time for levee improvements completion 

before Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps are fi ­

nalized. Construction of flood control improvements 

already is underway in some parts of New Mexico and 

Texas. The Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) should wait until these projects are completed 

before Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps are fi nalized. 

Support development and use of more sophisticated modeling to more accurately map fl ood 

risk. FEMA and the affected entities should be given 

flexibility in meeting modeling and mapping deadlines 

to provide the most accurate maps possible. 

12 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

Slice of Border Region History: Hurricanes with Cross-Border Effects 

One storm can affect numerous communities 

in both the United States and Mexico, even 

communities far from the border region. For 

example, Hurricane Gilbert made history in 

1988. After pounding Jamaica and the Yucatán 

Peninsula, Gilbert made landfall for the fi nal time 

as a Category 3 hurricane with winds of 125 miles 

per hour near La Pesca, Tamaulipas, about 150 

miles south of Brownsville, Texas. Its worst damage 

was some 175 miles inland in Monterrey, Nuevo 

León, where Gilbert brought torrential rainfall and 

flooding, killing 150 people. The storm then turned 

to the north, spawning tornadoes in San Antonio 

and Del Rio, Texas, killing two people. 

The hurricane of legend in the region was Beulah, 

in 1967. A Category 3 storm by landfall, it roared 

ashore on September 20 at Brownsville with 136 

mile-per-hour winds. As it proceeded inland, it 

dumped up to 35 inches of rain in the Rio Grande 

watershed—an area already saturated from rains 

the previous month. The resulting fl ooding caused 

serious damage in Harlingen, Texas, and at the 

airport in McAllen, Texas. More than 20,000 acres 

of agricultural lands were flooded. Urban and 

agricultural damage also was severe in Mexico. According to the National Weather Service, every river or 

stream in south Texas to the south of San Antonio flooded. The storm also triggered a record 95 tornadoes 

in Texas, including a deadly tornado 250 miles away at Palacios that killed four. 

Hurricane Beulah came ashore on September 20, 

1967, at Brownsville, Texas, with 136 mile-perhour winds. As it proceeded inland, it dumped up 

to 35 inches of rain in the Rio Grande watershed. 

The storm also triggered a record 95 tornadoes in 

Texas. Shown, under water, is Harlingen, Texas, 

with the Arroyo Colorado in the middle of the 

photo. (Source: County of Hidalgo, Texas) 

Encourage local, state, federal, and binational 

cooperation on flood control issues. Flood control 

projects often touch on many jurisdictions and agencies on both sides of the border. For example, certifi ­

cation of Rio Grande levees in El Paso County, Texas, 

requires cooperation of the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC; 

a federal agency), the City of El Paso, and a local irrigation district. Whereas the USIBWC maintains the Rio 

Grande flood control levees, the other entities have 

drainage structures that enter the river through the 

levees. To meet FEMA certification criteria, these entities must have agreements in place for coordinated 

operations of these structures in the event of a fl ood. 

Support technical cooperation and fi nancial 

assistance to Mexico for needed flood control improvements. The magnitude of flood that the levee 

system in the international reach of the Rio Grande 

is designed to handle is determined internationally so 

that both the United States and Mexico share equally 

in the risks and benefi ts of flood control projects. As 

the United States moves forward with plans to restore 

degraded levee segments to their original design, appropriate data and model sharing needs to take place 

with Mexico. 

Develop common approaches to urban watershed management in sister cities. The U.S. federal 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 13 
section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

Slice of Border Region History: Noteworthy Floods and Storms 

Colorado River, 1905—Temporary diversion of the Colorado River, constructed to replace water from the 

blocked Imperial canal, was breached by floodwaters. The Colorado River changed course and fl owed into 

Salton Sink (the site of the ancient Lake Cahuilla), creating the modern Salton Sea. 

Colorado River, 1909—25.3 million acre-feet passed through Laguna Dam, located near the U.S.-Mexico 

border upstream of Yuma, Arizona. This was enough water to fill 94 percent of present-day Lake Powell. 

Tijuana River, 1916—Major storm caused signifi cant flooding in the Tijuana River and adjacent areas in 

northern Baja California and Southern California. Houses, farms, dams, and transportation were destroyed, 

and there was some loss of life. 

Rio Grande, 1932—The flood originated in the Pecos and Devils Rivers in the United States, with fl ow 

peaking at 350,000 cubic feet per second at Laredo. The storm led to a U.S.-Mexico agreement for a 

coordinated flood control plan. 

Rio Grande, 1954—Biggest flood since 1865 and second biggest since 1746, the flood occurred during the 

Texas drought of record, with flows reaching 1 million cubic feet per second at Del Rio, Texas, and Ciudad 

Acuña, Coahuila, and filling Falcon Dam, built just the year before, preventing untold damage downstream. 

Rio Grande, 1967—Hurricane Beulah led to significant Rio Grande flooding, killed 58 people, and caused 

more than $1 billion in damage to Harlingen and McAllen in Texas and Ciudad Mier and Camargo in 

Tamaulipas. 

Southern California, Northern Baja California, and Southwestern Arizona, 1976—Hurricane Kathleen, 

an eastern Pacific cyclone, brought torrential rains and high winds to northern Baja California, Southern 

California, and the desert areas around Yuma. The track of the railroad that connected Tijuana with the 

Imperial Valley was washed out in several locations, and there was loss of life in the Yuma, Arizona, region. 

Farmland in the Imperial Valley was flooded, and the level of the Salton Sea was raised. 

Río Escondido, 2004—Normally a dry streambed, this river, located in Piedras Negras, Coahuila, across the 

border from Eagle Pass, Texas, experienced a devastating fl ash flood, killing dozens and damaging hundreds 

of homes. According to reports, the river rose 25 feet in just 15 minutes. 

El Paso, Texas; Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua; and Doña Ana County, New Mexico, 2006—Intense local 

rainfall caused widespread urban flooding as local stormwater systems were overwhelmed. A stormwater 

detention basin in Ciudad Juárez was at risk of collapse, with the potential to flood downtown El Paso, forcing 

the evacuation of 1,500 residents of downtown and south El Paso. To prevent a recurrence of this dangerous 

situation, the stormwater detention basin has since been decommissioned. 

government should work with Mexican counterpart 

entities, as well as with binational agencies, to provide 

leadership and technical and financial support for local 

communities to develop common approaches to land 

use, zoning, building codes, and fl ood control structures in vulnerable areas of the sister cities. (Th is concept is the urban component of binational watershed 

management that the Board has recommended in a 

number of its previous reports.) 

Provide outreach and education to residents 

living in fl oodplains. The FEMA Texas offi ce and 

the National Flood Insurance Program of the State of 

Texas visited local border counties in Texas in spring/ 

14 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

summer 2007, informing residents who lived in fl oodplains of their options, such as elevating houses and 

purchasing flood insurance. This type of collaborative 

outreach should continue. 

Use provisions within the Clean Water Act 

to create Watershed Restoration Action Strategies. Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act allows 

for a stakeholder-driven process to assess watershed 

function. In the mostly semi-arid environments of the 

U.S.-Mexico border, flooding can be ameliorated by 

implementing best management practices throughout 

watersheds. Although the connections between clean 

water and flooding may not be obvious on the surface, 

when the watershed as a whole is examined, cumulative impacts can be teased out into component parts. 

Housing construction in arroyos, installation of pavement, excessive livestock grazing in headwaters, or agricultural practices not only alter water quality but also 

increase storm runoff as well. A holistic examination 

of the issues in a watershed should be undertaken by 

border communities. 

JK

Natural Disasters 

Effects on the Region’s Human Health


Primary health effects from natural disasters include injuries and death from wind- borne objects, 

structural failures, floods and fl ash floods, and wildfi res. There are numerous secondary effects as well. 

Natural disasters may lead to industrial accidents, including hazardous materials spills. They also can cause 

disruptions in food and water supply and sanitation 

systems, leading to waterborne infectious diseases. In 

addition, they may lead to large-scale population displacement and great psychological stress. 

Flooding and earthquakes disrupt transportation 

infrastructure, delaying response by public health authorities and evacuation of healthy and disabled residents. Earthquakes may cause buildings to collapse, 

producing dust and other air pollutants. As noted previously in this section, wildfires also worsen air quality, exacerbating illnesses such as asthma. In fact, the 

entire public health infrastructure may become completely overwhelmed, including destruction of facilities and shortages of staff . 

As mentioned earlier in this report, hurricanes and 

floods damage drinking water and sewage treatment 

plants, thus affecting human health via waterborne 

pathogens that can cause diseases such as typhoid 

fever, cholera, leptospirosis, and hepatitis A. If electricity is lost for a period of time, the level of chlorine 

in drinking water distribution systems decreases, and 

pressure drops in the system can permit infi ltration 

of contaminants, requiring residents either to boil 

drinking water or purify it in another manner. Flooding can produce pools of stagnant water that provide 

breeding areas for mosquitoes, which may transmit 

diseases. Landfi lls may be damaged, polluting ground 

and surface water and scattering solid waste, which 

can increase populations of disease-bearing rodents. 

Vector-borne diseases, those carried by either insects 

or animals, may include malaria, dengue and dengue 

Domestic wastewater hookups like this one along Nogales 

Wash in Nogales, Sonora (across the border from Nogales, 

Arizona) are especially vulnerable to high-fl ow events 

during the summer monsoon season. Damage to these 

hookups from floods may result in discharges of untreated 

sewage into binational waterways. (Source: Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality) 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 15 
section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

haemorrhagic fever, yellow fever, and West Nile virus. 

Dengue, for example, usually appears 4 to 12 weeks 

after a storm as a result of the time needed for reproduction of mosquitos and the availability of a human 

carrier to be bitten to transfer the infection. Th ese diseases all are present in areas along the border, and although they currently do not constitute a signifi cant 

health threat, they do require ongoing monitoring. In 

addition, they could become a major concern in the 

wake of a major natural disaster in the border region. 

Natural disasters especially affect those border 

region residents who live in poverty with its attendant health, housing, and urban infrastructure issues. 

Many of these residents are located in and around the 

region’s urban centers and depend on large municipal 

environmental infrastructure systems such as drinking 

water filtration plants and wastewater treatment facilities. These facilities, however, may be poorly designed 

and maintained and therefore especially vulnerable to 

extensive damage from natural disasters. In addition, 

many of the region’s poorest residents on both sides 

of the border live in unincorporated settlements not 

connected to municipal infrastructure (see Colonias section ). Instead, they may rely on outdoor privies and 

drinking water stored in barrels or drawn from shallow 

and contaminated wells, circumstances that also create 

particular types of vulnerability to natural disasters.

 All U.S.-Mexico border-region residents face an additional health challenge: the inability to quickly and 

effectively move medical assistance across the international boundary. As a result, the nearest source of aid 

in a natural disaster crisis may well be literally unavailable. For example, although the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services has created a National Disaster Medical System comprised of 6,000 volunteers, 

only some of these volunteers have passports and 

could not be deployed internationally without waivers. 

Also, certification standards for health care professionals vary across borders. 

Next Steps To Address Health 

Effects of Natural Disasters 

Include cross-border evacuations in preparedness planning. Preparedness plans need to consider 

elderly residents for evacuation, special needs shelters, 

and medical needs. Besides evacuating the critically 

ill and elderly, plans should recognize that those with 

chronic conditions such as asthma also may need to 

evacuate. Emergency response exercises should be undertaken on a regular basis. In addition, planning for 

evacuations across the border should be carried out 

because, at any one time, thousands of U.S. border city 

16 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 

Promotoras – Key Members of the Health 

Worker Disaster Response Team 

“Promotoras”—sometimes called “promotores” to 

indicate both male and female workers—are wellknown and trusted members of the U.S.-Mexico border 

community health team. They receive their training 

from health care professionals and take on the key 

role of talking with families in their homes about 

health issues and disease-prevention methods (see 

the Board’s Seventh Report, “Children’s Environmental 

Health”). Examples of sister city pairs along the border 

where the promotoras approach is being used include 

Yuma/San Luis-San Luis Rio Colorado, Ambos Nogales, 

and El Paso-Ciudad Juárez. 

For many border communities, promotoras are a critical 

component of the community health worker team, 

especially those communities where Spanish frequently 

is the first language of a family. In fact, the promotoras 

tradition is ingrained in Mexico’s border communities 

and increasingly is viewed as an extremely effective 

tool in the United States as well. Because of their local 

credibility, promotoras are able to deliver culturally 

sensitive education to families as well as collect data 

on families’ health status. They also offer the potential 

to be key players in responding to human health needs 

related to natural disasters. 

In Arizona, for instance, promotoras are being trained 

on emergency preparedness and response techniques 

and linked to the local emergency preparedness 

agencies (city, county, and state). Promotoras 

organizations there are working with the Red Cross, the 

Arizona Citizen Volunteer Corps, and local fi refi ghters 

groups. They are required to be certified in CPR and to 

take a first aid course. 

In New Mexico, the New Mexico Department of Health 

worked with the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) to assist the colonia of 

Del Cerro and the City of Hatch to educate colonias 

residents on how to address mold and mosquito 

control. Flyers were printed in English and Spanish, and 

the local community centers served as the distribution 

centers. 

On a national level, emergency preparedness continues 

to feature as a topic in the promotoras’ annual national 

conference. 
section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

residents are visiting across the border and vice versa. 

Texas officials made such preparations for Hurricane 

Dean in August 2007, although Dean eventually missed 

Texas completely. Finally, to help the public do its part 

in preparedness, make information widely available in 

both English and Spanish. For example, the Southern 

California Earthquake Center developed a bilingual 

earthquake preparedness handbook and distributed 

millions of copies through newspapers, the American 

Red Cross, and home improvement stores. 

Incorporate lessons learned for post-impact 

injury prevention. Lessons learned from Hurricane 

Katrina include creating widespread safety messages 

in both Spanish and English on safe placement and 

use of generators and warning of the risk of downed 

power lines. Other lessons include the following: restore electrical service as a priority and provide advice 

on safe motor vehicle use during and after a storm. 

These outreach campaigns need to be devised by U.S. 

and Mexican authorities and designed for dissemination in the binational footprint of the likely disaster. 

Strengthen post-impact associated disease 

prevention. To reduce communicable disease risks 

from natural disasters, work to restore service from affected wastewater treatment plants. In addition, make 

uninterrupted provision of safe drinking water a top 

priority. Note that not only flooding can aff ect drinking water supplies—in the 2007 Southern California 

wildfires, one community, Ramona, was without water 

for several weeks, and residents had to resort to trucking in water and boiling existing supplies. Th ese plans 

need to be developed in a coordinated way for both 

sides of the border. 

Strategically harness technology to aid in 

post-disaster recovery. For example, starting in 

2008, the State of Texas will use Radio Frequency 

Identification wristbands to identify and track natural 

disaster evacuees. 

JK

Natural Disasters 

Effects on the Region’s Wildlife and Ecosystems 


Natural disasters are deemed as such by people, 

but they always have played a role in the structure 

and function of native habitats. For instance, barrier 

islands off the coast of Texas lessen the impacts of hurricanes while providing breeding habitat for seabirds. 

Hurricanes landing on the Texas Gulf Coast have uprooted sabal palm forests, but these disturbances result in a more varied natural community that, in the 

long term, is more diverse and resistant. 

Tornadoes touching down in southern Texas have 

left swaths of thorn scrub barren for miles, but regrowth of low growing grasses in the wake of tornadoes benefits white-tailed deer and rodents that are 

prey for species such as the endangered ocelot. Although mudslides in California have buried streams, 

they also have provided a new substrate for plants. 

Flooding has scoured the banks of the Rio Grande and 

the Colorado River and deposited large amounts of 

sediments downstream, burying aquatic and riparian 

habitats, but it is the sediments that provide soil for a 

new generation of floodplain forests. Hailstorms have 

killed quail and other small vertebrates, but provide 

much needed moisture. Wildfires have converted old 

growth forests into grasslands or shrub lands, killing 

many plants and animals in the process while benefi ting a new suite of species. 

These intense disturbances of the status quo have 

disrupted breeding cycles, entire ecosystems, and altered the way watersheds behave. In an increasingly 

urbanized border, these changes disrupt the ecological 

services on which humans have come to depend. It can 

be diffi cult and costly for large urban communities to 

adapt to altered watershed function. 

In today’s border environment, natural disasters 

threaten wildlife and ecosystems mainly when their 

habitats already have been significantly altered by 

human activities. Mudslides provide a case in point. 

In Southern California along the border, the cycle of 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 17 
section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

drought, fi re, rain, and sediment movement has been 

in place for thousands of years. Normally, vegetated 

slopes act like a sponge, soaking in water after rains. 

In areas where fire suppression has been aggressively 

practiced in recent times, however, areas may not have 

burned in decades. Under these conditions, heavy rains 

following wildfires often erode the post-wildfi re barren 

slopes and erode large amounts of soil and material, 

destroying vegetation in the process. The cycle itself is 

natural, but it is the scale and periodicity of the cycle 

that has changed. With the continued increase in the 

number and scale of mudslides, some aquatic species 

that have become confined to drainages within this 

altered cycle are at risk of extinction. Wild southern 

steelhead trout in the streams of San Diego County are 

particularly at risk, as well as wild rainbow trout populations in the headwaters of these streams. 

The California-Baja California border area has an 

extremely high degree of seismic activity, which can 

temporarily or permanently alter the intricate natural 

plumbing system. Earthquakes can alter the direction 

of rivers and streams as well as drain current spring 

sites or create new ones. In fact, the greatest threats to 

wildlife and ecosystems are the changes in hydrology 

that, in turn, can affect springs that are home to species such as the endangered Devil’s Hole pupfi sh, found 

now in just one spring in Southern Nevada, north of 

the border region. Flash flooding has been deemed a 

significant threat to this fish as well. 

The impacts of flooding merit specifi c attention 

in a review of impacts to wildlife and ecosystems. Th e 

two most significant river basins of the border, the 

Rio Grande and the Colorado, are lined by fl oodplains 

adapted to flooding. Both river systems are primarily snow fed (for the Rio Grande this is true primarily 

upstream of El Paso) and both surge in spring, before 

dams and diversions, during the annual snowmelt. 

Species such as cottonwood, willow, and minnows all 

are highly adapted to these annual fl ooding events, 

which serve as environmental cues for reproduction. 

Cottonwood and willow seed require moist soils for establishment, and some minnows require receding waters in floodplains for spawning. Pulses of water also 

move sediment that accumulates at the mouth of arroyos and move it downstream to become the seedbed 

of new forests, and eventually sandbars at the mouth 

of the river, protecting the coastline from hurricanes. 

To humans, the impacts of flooding often are devastating. Without flooding, however, the ecosystems of the 

Rio Grande and Colorado Basins will become extinct. 

This complex paradox is one of the greatest challenges 

of balancing environmental and human needs along 

the border. 

Wildlife and Ecosystem 

Vulnerabilities 

Human changes to the landscape have signifi cantly 

altered natural systems in the border region. Dams and 

levee systems, along with irrigated farming and urbanization, have changed the natural regime of rivers of 

the arid border, transforming stream fl ows, riparian 

ecosystems, regional biodiversity, and groundwater. 

These cumulative changes have made wildlife and ecosystems of the border more vulnerable to the eff ects of 

natural hazards. 

Human Alterations of Surface Water Flow. 

One of the most signifi cant differences in the impact 

natural disasters have on wildlife and ecosystems now, 

as opposed to former times, is the human factor. For 

example, the natural flooding cycle has been interThe masked bobwhite quail (shown) is one example of a 

species facing significant habitat loss in the borderlands. 

State- and federal-sponsored programs for prescribed fi re 

may help reduce incidents of large wildfires, as well as 

help maintain these species’ habitats. (Source: Buenos 

Aires National Wildlife Refuge) 

18 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

rupted by construction of dams and levee systems. According to a 2000 report by the World Wildlife Fund, 

“The conversion of natural habitats to agriculture and 

urban areas, the introduction of exotic species, water 

diversions, flow regulation, dam and levee construction, channel straightening and dredging, and numerous other changes have taken place along the desert 

Rio Grande and all have impacted the organisms of 

the riparian landscape immensely. The dynamics of 

the river system and the ecosystems that depend on it 

have been changed, reducing the natural heterogeneity 

of the system and severing connections between the 

patches within it.” 

Urbanization, Security, and Fire Suppression. Urbanization, transportation infrastructure, 

and security related activities also are impacting natural systems of the border region. The spread of these 

activities into formerly undisturbed, or lightly disturbed, areas has resulted in fragmentation of ecosystems. This occurrence has reduced the size of the 

patches of habitat, so that in some areas the remaining 

ecosystem fragments are too small to support some 

species such as the endangered ocelot and jaguarondi 

along the border of Texas and Tamaulipas. In addition, 

active fire suppression has accompanied urbanization 

into natural areas so as to protect homes and structures. As stated in this section, this practice has led to 

a dramatic increase in the fuel load, which has resulted 

in larger and more intense wildfi res. These super wildfires have the potential to affect very large areas and 

even extirpate species. 

Next Steps To Address Wildlife 

and Ecosystem Vulnerabilities 

Institutionalize a watershed approach to managing wildlife and other resources. As mentioned 

previously, the Clean Water Act Section 319(h) provides the opportunity for stakeholders and watershed 

groups to create Watershed Restoration Action Strategies that assess all the stressors present in a watershed 

that may be compromising water quality. Improving 

water quality becomes the vehicle for understanding 

all aspects of the watershed. Th e Watershed Protection 

Plan for the Arroyo Colorado Watershed in the Lower 

Rio Grande Valley is an excellent model for grappling 

with the impacts of urbanization and agriculture on 

the ecosystem and for seeking best management practices to create resilient systems that can serve communities long into the future. 

Strategically restore surface waters. To reduce 

the environmental damage from flood control works of 

the Rio Grande, Colorado, and Tijuana Rivers, strategic restoration is one approach being proposed. In the 

case of the Rio Grande, a 2003 report from Th e Alliance for Rio Grande Heritage and World Wildlife Fund 

notes that restoration activities could include lowering the floodplain to allow the channel to fl ood more 

frequently, and constructing side channels to connect 

low-lying areas away from the main channel. Another 

option would be to remove or breach levees in specifi c 

locations to increase the frequency of over bank fl ows. 

In other words, a natural flow cycle, which includes periodic floods, is good for the riparian ecosystem, water 

quality, system resiliency, and species protection. 

Likewise, on the Colorado River, environmental 

organizations such as Environmental Defense and the 

Sonoran Institute have promoted the idea of restoring 

river meanders and providing for occasional fl ooding 

onto the banks as a means of restoring native cottonwood and willow habitat. When the river leaves the 

low-flow channel and inundates the adjacent fl oodplain 

(over bank flooding), it provides water for habitat restoration. Over bank flooding can occur while still containing the river in the flood control levees. Supporters 

point to studies demonstrating that native species in 

the Colorado River Delta region benefi ted signifi cantly 

from flood events in the 1980s and 1990s. 

These strategic restoration efforts are best accomplished with active participation of relevant Mexican 

agencies and organizations. Examples include Mexico’s National Commission for Natural Protected Areas 

(Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas); the 

Mexico Section of the IBWC (La Comisíon Internacional 

de Limites y Agua); CNA; state environmental agencies; 

and local and state water/wastewater treatment agencies (sometimes called Juntas or Comisiones de Agua y 

Saneamiento). 

Incorporate ecosystem health goals into urban 

stormwater management plans. Border cities such 

as San Diego, Tijuana, El Paso, Ciudad Juárez, Las Cruces, Laredo, and Nuevo Laredo should prescribe bufGood Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 19 
section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

fers, riparian strips, and wetlands that can capture and 

slow stormwater while benefi ting wildlife. (It should 

be noted that U.S. cities with populations greater than 

100,000 already have to obtain stormwater permits 

from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the 

state delegated agency.) 

Expand prescribed fires to maintain habitats 

for critically endangered species. Th e aplomado falcon, masked bobwhite quail, and the chaparral-dependent species of San Diego County are examples of species facing significant habitat loss in the borderlands. 

State and federal sponsored programs for prescribed 

fire to maintain their habitats should be instituted 

where absent and maintained where present. Education campaigns that impress on homeowners in fi re 

prone areas techniques to keep their properties “fi re 

safe” should become a high priority for border counties and states. 

Identify, protect, and connect critical habitat. 

To protect critical natural areas and species from devastating effects of natural disasters, the Board recommends several steps. First, critical habitat areas must 

be identified and protected on both sides of the border. Second, efforts need to be made to connect critical habitat areas with protected areas, thus assuring 

that connected patches of habitat are large enough to 

maintain ecosystem and species health. Because many 

important habitat areas are near each other across the 

international boundary, it is important to maintain 

unbroken connectivity. San Diego County has done an 

excellent job with its Multiple Species Conservation 

Program, but connection across the border with important habitats in Baja California is lacking. 

To address this lack of connectivity, the Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative, which is 

based on scientific research to identify priority species 

and habitats, has been proposed by U.S. and Mexican 

nongovernmental organizations. Th e effort is supported by the California Biodiversity Council, a coalition of 

local, state, and federal agencies. 

Lack of transboundary connectivity can be found 

in other areas of the border as well. Examples are the 

New Mexico-Chihuahua border with the jaguar and 

the Texas-Tamaulipas border with the ocelot and the 

jaguarondi. 

Consider protective measures for endemic species. In the Cedar Wildfi re, a species of native coastal rainbow trout found in a number of rivers in the 

Cuyamaca Rancho State Park was completely wiped 

out. Fortunately, as mentioned earlier, a group of 16 

had recently been placed in an aquarium at the Chula 

Vista Nature Center just prior to the fire. More consideration should be given to such measures, particularly 

for endemic species. 

JK

Natural Disasters 

Effects on Specific Population Groups


Tribes 

Twenty-six U.S. federally recognized Native American tribes live in the U.S.-Mexico border region. Some 

of these tribes have family and cultural ties to indigenous peoples in the northern border region of Mexico. 

For a variety of reasons, when natural disasters strike, 

border tribes often find themselves particularly at risk. 

For example, many residents of tribal areas live in dispersed housing that is scattered over the landscape 

and surrounded by native vegetation. Th ese homes 

are vulnerable to wildfires and are diffi cult to evacuate. 

Also, during the recovery phase, it is diffi cult to restore 

basic services to these properties. 

Tribes already have taken steps to reduce their 

vulnerability. For example, some have pre-disaster 

mitigation plans, while others are awaiting approval 

on their plans. Some tribes have volunteer tribal fi re 

departments, some have paid staff, and others have a 

Telecommunicator Emergency Response Taskforce or 

a Community Emergency Response Team. 

Tribes in the Southern California border area are 

regularly affected by fires, as often as every 3 to 4 years. 

20 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

Tribes’ vulnerability to natural disasters became clear 

once again during the Southern California wildfi res of 

October 2007. A total of 13 tribes evacuated their reservations. Shown is the Poomacha fire advancing across 

a hillside on La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians land, near 

Escondido, California, on October 24. (Source: Indian 

Health Service.) 

For instance, in 2003, several tribes in the San Luis Rey 

Watershed and Palomar Mountain area were impacted 

by the Paradise, Cedar, and Otay fires. In addition, in 

October 2007, tribes’ vulnerability, unfortunately, was 

once again demonstrated during the Southern California wildfires—the Poomacha, Witch, and Harris 

fi res. The La Jolla Band of Luiseño Indians witnessed 

more than 90 percent of their resources burned in the 

Poomacha fire. A total of 13 tribes evacuated their reservations. Three tribes were without power and water. 

Homes at several of the reservations were destroyed, 

water lines were melted, and water mains burst. Tribal evacuation centers were set up for displaced tribal 

families, and elders were bused to safer locations. Th e 

Red Cross set up fi eld operations, and HUD formed a 

disaster response team that provided advice on how 

HUD resources might be used for rebuilding. Widespread concern remains about what future fi res may 

bring to the area, especially for tribes such as the Santa 

Ysabel Band of Diegueño Indians, whose land has not 

burned in many decades. 

Besides wildfires, border tribes continue to be affected by flooding. For example, in the El Paso area, 

the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (YDSP) tribe of Texas suffered damage to tribal members’ housing and land in 

August 2006 by the severe fl ooding that occurred in 

El Paso. According to tribal offi cials, the fl ooding also 

caused erosion, which was intensified because the invasive shrub species that have come to dominate the 

area do not protect against erosion as well as the native 

grasses. Additionally, there were signifi cant problems 

with mosquitoes and mold following the fl ooding. 

To prepare for natural disasters and their aftermath, YDSP created an Emergency Planning Coordinator and an Emergency Planning Committee, along 

with an Emergency Management Plan that meets 

federal government requirements. The committee is 

composed of various departments (law enforcement, 

health, legal, government operations, etc.) that meet 

on a bimonthly basis. It also conducts training for both 

tribal members and other community members. It has 

participated in exercises with surrounding cities and 

counties and works in partnership with the City of El 

Paso, the City of Socorro, El Paso County, the State of 

Texas, and FEMA. Training partners include the Native 

American Fish & Wildlife Society and the Workplace 

Safety Training Program of the University of Alabama 

at Birmingham. Although the tribe has not worked directly with Ciudad Juárez, it is indirectly involved via 

one of its partners. 

Like some other border communities, the YDSP 

and other tribes face a shortage of resources for natural disaster preparations and response. Tribal spokespeople have called for more communication and sharing of training opportunities as a means for building 

capacity. They also recommend that emergency planning committees contain all vital departments to be 

fully eff ective. 

Colonias 

“Colonias” are unincorporated communities or settlements along the U.S. border with Mexico that lack 

basic environmental infrastructure. (Note that in Mexico, a “colonia” is considered a regular neighborhood; 

the equivalent term in Mexico is “colonia popular.”) 

Most of these settlements are informal or illegal, 

but local U.S. and Mexican authorities have not been 

able to prevent their formation. In recent decades, 

hundreds of such settlements have sprung up along 

the southern borders of New Mexico and Texas. As 

of January 1, 2008, there were 138 colonias in New 

Mexico. In Texas, according to a state government report published at the end of 2006, there was a total 

of 1,786 colonias with a combined population of apGood Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 21 
section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

proximately 360,000 in the six largest border counties 

alone. Current estimates put the total Texas colonias 

population at nearly 400,000. 

Fortunately, conditions in many border-region colonias have improved in recent years through federal 

and state programs. A number of colonias residents, 

however, continue to live in substandard housing and 

have inadequate drainage, sewage, drinking water, and 

garbage disposal systems. They rely, instead, on substandard septic tanks, pit privies, or, in some cases, 

outhouses. Some of these communities also suff er 

from poor air quality as a result of conditions such as 

dirt roads in an arid climate, which increases the presence of dust (coarse particulate matter). Other issues 

include lack of proper drainage to ensure stormwater 

flows away from homes during rainstorms and control 

of blowing dust. 

Colonias can be particularly hard hit during natural disasters because most of them were established 

without proper planning, urban services infrastructure, or enforced building codes. Many were built in 

flood plains or on steep slopes, and the housing quality 

often is poor. In addition, where environmental infrastructure does exist in colonias, it is fragile, making it 

unable to withstand floods and other events. For instance, inadequate wastewater systems can mean that 

sewage sometimes saturates streets during fl oods or 

heavy rains. That same flooding often poses a threat 

to groundwater. Drinking water systems and wells can 

be contaminated by overflowing stormwater. Another 

effect of flooding or heavy rainfall is damage to roads; 

dirt roads can turn into impassable mud. Residents 

sometimes are cut off from their community, with access to food and other supplies limited, garbage pickup (where available) hindered, and school buses unable 

to pick up children. 

New Mexico’s colonias suffered extensive damage 

during flooding in 2006, as did El Paso-area colonias. 

Unfortunately, because rain events—especially in the 

Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas—often are so severe, 

and because many colonias are located in fl oodplains, 

flooding in Texas colonias occurs regularly. Witness 

the following description carried by the Brownsville 

Herald newspaper after Cameron County fl ooding in 

2003: “Flooded farm fields, small towns and colonias 

are awash in stinky rainwater mixed with sewage from 

overflowing septic tanks. Health offi cials are preparing 

for a bumper crop of mosquitoes.” 

Colonias in Mexican border cities are perhaps even 

more vulnerable to the effects of natural disasters than 

their counterpart settlements across the international 

boundary. Even less government control on planning 

of these settlements, denser settlements, and lower 

levels of infrastructure distinguish the Mexican informal communities. As noted previously, Mexican settlements also tend to appear in areas of steep slopes 

and canyon bottoms, areas not considered suitable by 

commercial developers. 

Colonias’ preparedness for natural disasters could 

potentially be enhanced through use of a tool developed by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with 

the offices of the Texas Attorney General, Secretary of 

State, and the Texas Water Development Board called 

the Colonia Health, Infrastructure, and Platting Status 

(CHIPS) tool. It can be used to provide information to 

support infrastructure priorities in Texas. The tool’s report generator can be tailored to the needs of the user, 

providing either broad or specific output. For example, 

CHIPS can be used to list colonias with wastewater 

issues in a specific county as well as all colonias with 

need of clinical access. Given that it provides both population database information and infrastructure data 

for each colonia in Texas, it may lend itself to a disaster preparedness tool. In fact, FEMA requested a copy 

and made use of its capabilities to respond to the 2006 

flooding in El Paso. 

JK

22 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb

Managing Natural 

Disasters on the 

U.S.-Mexico Border 

Natural Disasters 

United States: Domestic/International 

Policies/Institutions 

Natural Disasters

United States: Domestic/International 

Policies/Institutions

The United States has a complex domestic system 

for preparing for, responding to, recovering from, and 

mitigating natural disasters. The system largely developed out of the need to manage incidents within the 

United States. It does not, however, adequately contemplate disasters in the border region of the United 

States that also impact parts of neighboring Mexico. 

In the case of binational border natural disasters, 

the system is calibrated for rapid response only in the 

area covered by the disaster that lies north of the international boundary. Response on the other side of the 

border is left to Mexican authorities, despite transborder implications, unless the incident is declared 

a disaster by the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico and the 

Mexican federal government requests U.S. government assistance. In that case, formal transboundary 

cooperation on natural disaster response and recovery officially occurs primarily through a chain of communication involving Mexico City and Washington, 

D.C., namely the U.S. Department of State, the Office 

of Foreign Disaster Assistance at the U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID), and the Mexican 

Foreign Ministry. 

Given that many border incidents may not be declared a natural disaster by one or both of the federal 

governments, local and state officials often must meet 

immediate emergency needs through informal local 

agreements and cooperation. As a result, transboundary natural disasters leave millions of U.S. border residents in transboundary communities with different 

levels of protection under the National Incident Management System (NIMS, discussed later) than residents in other parts of the nation. 

U.S. domestic policy addresses incident management, including natural disasters, from the ground up. 

This approach is based on the recognition that local 

governments have several unique types of expertise: 

(1) pre-existing close working relationships with each 

other, (2) detailed familiarity with the populations 

they serve, and (3) specific geographic awareness of 

the impacts a potential threat could impart. 

As a result, federal policy calls for emergency preparedness and disaster response to be handled at the 

lowest jurisdictional level(s) possible. Local, tribal, 

and state governments have primary responsibility 

for preparing their communities for a natural disaster 

and for responding first should a disaster occur. Federal assistance generally becomes available only when 

the resources of local, tribal, and/or state governments 

become overwhelmed. On occasion, however, particularly since Hurricane Katrina, the federal government 

has stepped in earlier in the process to pre-position resources in anticipation of a response. 

A U.S. Government Accountability Office report 

issued in 2007 (GAO-07-403) reaffirms that a variety 

of natural hazard mitigation activities exist, and they 

are primarily implemented at the state and local level. 

Entitled Natural Hazard Mitigation: Various Mitigation 

Efforts Exist, but Federal Efforts Do Not Provide a Comprehensive Strategic Framework, the report states that 

although “FEMA [Federal Emergency Management 

Agency], other federal agencies, and nonfederal stakeholders have collaborated on natural hazard mitigation, the current approach is fragmented and does not 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 23 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

provide a comprehensive national strategic framework 

for mitigation. Collaboration typically occurs on a hazard-specific basis, after a disaster, or through informal 

methods. A comprehensive framework would help define common national goals, establish joint strategies, 

leverage resources, and assign responsibilities among 

stakeholders.” 

Domestic Emergency Management Cycle 

Whether managing a natural disaster or another type of emergency, four components generally are included in the cycle: 

preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. Clearly, mitigation activities after a disaster also feed into future planning 

and preparedness. Because of the binational nature of sister cities, the border region has specific vulnerabilities that complicate the execution of the emergency management cycle. 

Mitigation 

Actions to eliminate or reduce the impact 

of future disasters. Specifi c hazard 

mitigation plans are prepared following a 

federal, state, or local disaster. 

Preparedness 

Activities undertaken in 

advance of an emergency. 

These activities develop 

operational capabilities and 

improve effective response to 

disasters. Disaster plans are 

developed and revised to guide 

disaster response and increase 

available resources. 

Response 

Recognition of an approaching disaster by 

coordinating resources and activating a 

warning system as well as responding to an 

actual response and sustaining support. 

Recovery 

Both short-term activities 

intended to return vital 

life-support systems to 

operation, and long-term 

activities designed to return 

infrastructure systems to 

pre-disaster conditions. 

Triggering Domestic Federal 

Assistance 

Federal involvement typically occurs under the following circumstances: (1) local, tribal, and/or state jurisdictions already have responded to the incident; (2) 

the resources of these jurisdictions have become overwhelmed (or it is anticipated that they will be); and (3) 

the damage has been assessed by local, state, federal, 

and volunteer organizations to determine losses and 

recovery needs. At that point, the governor(s) of the 

affected state(s) requests federal assistance. 

Under the Staff ord Act (see text box), federal assistance to help manage a natural disaster typically becomes available when “the disaster is of such severity 

and magnitude that effective response is beyond the 

capabilities of the state and the affected local governments, and that the federal assistance is necessary.” 

Only the President may proclaim a Major Disaster 

Declaration or an Emergency Declaration. To obtain 

24 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

either, the governor of an affected state must make a 

declaration request to the President. A Major Disaster 

Declaration initiates the delivery of longer term federal recovery assistance programs and typically requires 

a commitment of state funds. An Emergency Declaration provides shorter term federal assistance for a specific emergency, or for the prevention of a major disaster, and does not activate the delivery of longer term 

federal recovery assistance programs. 

Once a declaration is issued, a number of federal 

agencies become involved. Assistance available depends on which type of declaration is issued as well 

as the incident itself. Assistance generally falls into 

three categories: (1) individual assistance, including 

disaster housing, disaster grants, low-interest disaster 

loans, and other disaster assistance programs; (2) public assistance, which helps state or local governments 

fund the costs of rebuilding a community’s damaged 

Federal Authority for Managing Domestic Natural Disasters and Other Incidents 

Numerous laws, regulations, guidance documents, and directives create the web of authority for federal activities related 

to natural disasters. Following are descriptions of several of the key documents. 

Laws 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 transferred numerous agencies and functions, including FEMA and several 

preparedness branches of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and HHS, to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

The Homeland Security Act assigned to DHS the responsibilities of consolidating and coordinating U.S. emergency 

prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. Public Law 107-296 (2002). 

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) establishes programs and 

procedures for the federal government to provide assistance to state, local, and tribal governments, as well as individuals 

and private nonprofit organizations, in the event of a disaster or emergency. It sets out the authority for federal disaster 

preparedness and relief programs and includes the procedures through which state governors request federal assistance 

and disaster declarations when combined state and local resources are insufficient to manage an incident. 93 Public 

Law 288 (1974), as amended. 

Executive Orders 

Executive Order 12148 (Federal Emergency Management) designates FEMA as the primary federal agency for 

coordination of federal disaster relief, emergency assistance, and emergency preparedness. With the notable exception 

of the authority to declare a major disaster or emergency, the executive order also delegates to FEMA the responsibility 

for numerous relief and assistance functions formerly vested in, or transferred to, the President under disaster-related 

laws (including the Stafford Act). 44 Federal Register 43239 (1979), as amended by Executive Order 13286, 68 Federal 

Register 10619 (2003). 

Executive Order 13286 amended previous executive orders and other actions, including Executive Order 12148, in 

connection with the restructuring of federal departments and agencies responsible for incident management and 

emergency response, and with the transfer of certain functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security. 68 Federal 

Register 10619 (2003). 

Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs) 

HSPD-5 (Management of Domestic Incidents, February 28, 2003) requires development of a single national incident 

management system, which has led to development of the NIMS, and of a national response plan, resulting in 

development of the National Response Plan (NRP) . A successor to the NRP, the National Response Framework (NRF), 

was released on January 22, 2008, and is set to go into effect on March 22, 2008. It also designated the Secretary of 

Homeland Security as the “principal federal official for domestic incident management.” 

HSPD-8 (National Preparedness Goal, December 17, 2003) requires the development of a national preparedness goal 

to enhance federal prevention of, and response to, emergencies, particularly the effectiveness, efficiency, and timely 

delivery of federal preparedness assistance to state and local governments. 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 25 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

infrastructure, including debris removal and grants 

for public schools; and (3) hazard mitigation, which 

assists both individuals and public entities with measures to reduce or eliminate damage caused by future 

disasters. These measures may include elevation or relocation of flood-prone homes or retrofi tting buildings 

to make them better able to withstand the impacts of 

earthquakes or strong winds. 

Besides the two types of declarations available under the Stafford Act, many federal departments and 

agencies have independent authority to provide specific types of incident assistance and support (see Roles 

of Federal Agencies below). Note that, in some cases, an 

agency’s offi cial authority includes natural disasters, 

whereas in others it may only include emergencies such 

as transportation accidents involving the release of hazardous materials. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) can issue a disaster declaration in 

response to flooding and coastal storms, whereas the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has authority to respond to sudden threats to public health 

or the environment caused by inland releases of oil or 

hazardous substances. When natural disasters involve 

tribal entities, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian 

Health Service (under the Department of Heath and 

Human Services [HHS]) are involved. 

Coordinating Federal Assistance 

NRP and NIMS. Following the September 11, 

2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the DHS was created and designated the umbrella federal incident management agency. To help 

DHS strategically oversee the work among the many 

entities involved in managing incidents, the NRP and 

the NIMS were developed. These post-9/11 actions 

initiated a period of transition for domestic incident 

management, and the United States arguably remains 

in that period of transition. 

Developed to deal with all incidents of varying type, 

magnitude, and severity, the NRP’s primary purpose is 

to facilitate coordination among federal, state, tribal, 

and local governments, as well as private and nonprofit organizations. The NRP has fi ve components: (1) a 

Base Plan that relies on the NIMS (see below) as an 

organizational template for coordination; (2) appendices that provide additional authorities, references, and 

resources; (3) Emergency Support Function Annexes 

that describe the roles of federal agencies and departments; (4) Support Annexes with additional subjectspecific information such as international coordination; and (5) Incident Annexes, which describe specifi c 

incident management activities for particular types of 

incidents. 

Particularly relevant to emergency response in the 

U.S.-Mexico border region is the NRP’s Support Annex on International Coordination (IC Annex). Th e IC 

Annex discusses the Department of State’s responsibilities as the coordinating federal agency for incidents 

with an international component—responsibilities 

such as expediting visa issuance of foreign experts if 

needed; working with the International Red Cross and 

Red Crescent Movement to assist family members in 

locating loved ones in an affected area; coordinating 

U.S. government requests for foreign or international 

multilateral (e.g., United Nations [UN], North Atlantic Treaty Organization) assistance; and advising on 

the diplomatic, economic, and security implications of 

border restrictions or closure. 

The IC Annex of the NRP also discusses international coordination associated with many of the emergency support functions (ESFs) (see table). Th e IC Annex lists the following as “cooperating agencies”: the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); Department 

of Defense (DOD); HHS; DHS; DOJ; Department of 

Transportation (DOT); USAID; other federal agencies; 

and the American Red Cross. 

Perhaps significantly within the international context, although the NRP mentions the U.S.-Mexico Marine Joint Contingency Plan (Marine JCP), it does not 

mention the Joint United States-Mexico Contingency 

Plan for Preparedness and Response to Environmental 

Emergencies Caused by Releases, Spills, Fires, or Explosions of Hazardous Substances in the Inland Border 

Area (Inland JCP) (see Binational Arrangements section). 

Both the Marine and Inland JCPs, however, are important frameworks for coordination with Mexico in the 

event of polluting incidents, and therefore would significantly strengthen the NRP if included. 

The NIMS is the template that was used in developing the NRP. It provides a consistent framework for 

incident management at all jurisdictional levels regardless of the cause, size, or complexity of the incident. 

This consistent framework enables responders from 

26 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

U.S. National Response Plan (NRP):


Federal Agency ESF and Responsibilities in the Case of Domestic Disasters


NOTE: A declared disaster on the Mexican side of the border would trigger a different set of functions/responsibilities 

from the U.S. government if the Mexican government requested assistance. 

Emergency Support 

Function 

Primary Department 

or Agency 

1. Transportation Department of Transportation 

2. Communications Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

(Information Analysis and Infrastructure 

Protection/National Communications 

System) 

3. Public Works and 

Engineering 

Depmartent of Defense (U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers) and DHS (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]) 

4. Firefighting U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

(Forest Service) 

5. Emergency 

Management 

DHS (FEMA) 

6. Mass Care, 

Housing, and 

Human Services 

DHS (FEMA) and American 

Red Cross 

7. Resource Support General Services Administration (GSA) 

8. Public Health and 

Medical Services 

Department of Health and Human 

Services 

9. Urban Search and 

Rescue 

DHS (FEMA) 

10. Oil and Hazardous 

Materials Response 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

and DHS (U.S. Coast Guard) 

11. Agriculture and 

Natural Resources 

USDA and the Department of the Interior 

12. Energy Department of Energy (DOE) 

13. Public Safety and 

Security 

Department of Justice 

14. Long-Term Community Recovery USDA, Department of Commerce, DHS 

(FEMA), Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, Treasury, and Small 

Business Administration 

15. External Affairs DHS (FEMA) 

Sources: Information obtained from Table 2.1 of The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned (February 2006), page 16; Figure 2 of the NRP (December 2004), page 

12; the table entitled “International Coordination Associated With Emergency Support Functions (ESFs)” in the International Coordination Support Annex, INT-5, of the NRP (December 

2004); and the Notice of Change to the NRP (May 25, 2006). 

State Department Responsibilities within the 

International Context 

When the U.S. Government considers transportation and border restrictions/ 

closures, the State Department must provide guidance on overall diplomatic, 

economic, and security implications. Specific areas include: 

• Restrictions on international air travel. 

• Clearance of foreign aircraft and marine vessels. 

• Facilitate communications for response to international cyber-CIP failures 

and related incidents. 

• Work to effect multilateral efforts to create a “global culture of cybersecurity.” 

[No responsibilities detailed in the International Coordination Support Annex] 

Coordinate with foreign governments and DHS on identification and movement to the United States of assets and resources for firefighting assistance. 

[No responsibilities detailed in the International Coordination Support Annex] 

Coordinate with foreign governments on identification and movement to the 

United States of mass care assets and resources for response and recovery 

activities. 

As requested by foreign governments, act as liaison with local authorities to 

enable foreign missions to provide consular access and safety/security assistance to its nationals in the United States. 

[No responsibilities detailed in the International Coordination Support Annex] 

• Work with U.S. agencies, the World Health Organization, other international 

organizations, and nations on surveillance activities and countermeasures to 

reduce the spread of biological contaminants and facilitate the delivery of 

vaccines, blood products, and medicines. 

• Support federal agencies to facilitate the transfer of dangerous pathogen 

samples from and to the United States. 

• Facilitate coordination between domestic and international public health and 

law enforcement efforts. 

• Coordinate with foreign governments, if requested, on identification and 

movement to the United States of urban search and rescue assets. 

• Articulate U.S. needs to the world community through the UN. 

Support the entire spectrum of incident management. 

Facilitate the exchange between the United States and foreign nations to 

identify the nature of the threat, impede disease spread, and take immediate 

remedial actions. 

Support DOE work with the governments of major oil-consuming countries 

through the International Energy Agency and other groups to maintain readiness to respond to energy emergencies such as a disruption in oil supplies. 

[No responsibilities detailed in the International Coordination Support Annex] 

Support all agencies and the international community on long-term recovery 

efforts. 

Support the DHS diplomacy and public affairs to ensure a consistent the 

message to foreign and domestic stakeholders. 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 27 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

different jurisdictions and disciplines to work together 

more effectively. For example, it assigns a specifi c title 

for each type of responsibility and a specific chain of 

command that should be used to manage every incident. HSPD-5 specifies that beginning in Fiscal Year 

2005, all recipients of federal preparedness awards 

must implement the NIMS. 

NRP to NRF. Not long after the NRP and NIMS 

were developed, Hurricane Katrina provided a largescale test of these systems. Following the coordination 

issues that surfaced as the nation scrambled to respond, 

both the NRP and the NIMS began to be revised to incorporate lessons learned. Among other changes, the 

revised NRP, to be replaced by the NRF on March 22, 

2008, sets out to clarify issues such as what triggers 

implementation of the NRP. It also emphasizes that an 

anticipatory response may be most appropriate when 

merely the threat of a significant incident exists. 

Other planning tools. In addition to relying on 

the NRP/NRF, some federal agencies independently 

have developed planning tools to address their particular areas of substantive jurisdiction during an incident. 

For example, HHS has developed the Planning Tool for 

Public Health Effects During Natural Disasters. Th e 

HHS Planning Tool charts natural disaster events (such 

as floods, earthquakes, landslides, wildfires) and public health contingencies (such as dealing with deaths, 

injury prevention and control, loss of clean water supply, loss of shelter, loss of routine hygiene, increased 

pests and vectors, loss of electricity), ranking the likely 

prevalence of each contingency throughout an aff ected 

population during each type of event (e.g., focal, widespread, rare, likely). 

In addition, EPA is developing a planning tool that 

local communities (e.g., cities, counties, and tribes) can 

use to develop plans for managing debris that results 

from natural disasters. 

Role of Federal Agencies in 

Managing Domestic Incidents 

Many Federal agencies play a part in the emergency management cycle. In some cases, their role primarily is during the preparedness and response portion, 

whereas other agencies step in during recovery and 

mitigation/rebuilding; still others are involved in multiple phases. For example, at the front end of the cycle, 

the U.S. Geological Survey, within the Department of 

the Interior (DOI), issues notifications and warnings 

for earthquakes, volcanoes, and landslides. DHS oversees the national effort to manage all types of hazards. 

FEMA, within DHS, mobilizes and organizes entities 

during a disaster and also administers the National 

Flood Insurance Program. During emergencies, federal 

agencies also extemporaneously assist where necessary, as EPA did with its search and rescue eff orts in 

the aftmath of Hurricane Katrina. 

The National Response Team, comprising 16 federal agencies, has responsibility for eff ective national 

preparedness and response for oil and hazardous 

materials spills. The USDA Forest Service fi ghts and 

manages wildfires. In addition, the National Wildfi re 

Coordinating Group (NWCG) is made up of the USDA 

Forest Service; four DOI agencies—the Bureau of Land 

Management, the National Park Service, the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, and the Fish and Wildlife Service; and 

state forestry agencies through the National Association of State Foresters. Its purpose is to coordinate 

programs of the participating wildfi re management 

agencies and foster cooperation. The NWCG provides 

a formalized system to agree on standards of training, 

equipment, qualifications, and other operational functions. 

DOT has a Regional Emergency Transportation 

Program to ensure that the DOT role in National Response Planning is accomplished. This program resides 

under the leadership of DOT Regional Emergency 

Transportation Coordinators and Representatives who 

are responsible for developing preparedness plans; 

conducting training; maintaining interdepartmental, 

federal, state, and local organization coordination; and 

supporting FEMA’s response under the NRP. 

The recovery and rebuilding/mitigation portion 

of the cycle portion also brings in numerous agencies. 

For instance, HHS together with DHS coordinates federal public health and medical care assistance; HUD 

works with local organizations after fl oods to address 

mold and mosquito control, as well as rebuilding. In 

addition, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

within USDA, carries out debris removal from clogged 

streams caused by flooding, installs conservation measures such as reseeding native grasses to prevent soil 

28 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

erosion on hillsides after a fire, and replants and reshapes farmland stream banks that have eroded after a 

flood. Also managed by USDA is the Wetlands Reserve 

Program, a voluntary program to restore wetlands, 

which, in turn, help to minimize future fl ood damage. 

In addition, managing a natural disaster along the 

U.S.-Mexico border often includes an international dimension, and several federal agencies play a particularly central role. The State Department coordinates international response efforts and requests for aid from 

foreign governments; USAID, particularly its Offi ce of 

Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA), also may play a 

key role. Because international response can become 

a central feature of effectively managing natural disasters in the border area, the roles of the State Department and USAID are discussed more fully below. 

Role of Federal Agencies in Managing International Incidents 

State Department and USAID. The State Department plays a central role in coordinating the U.S. 

response to foreign disasters by providing assistance 

to American citizens abroad and by serving as the focal 

point for contact with foreign governments. It exercises these responsibilities through several mechanisms. 

First, the Secretary of State provides overall foreign policy guidance to the USAID OFDA. USAID, in 

turn, is the principal U.S. agency to extend assistance 

to other countries recovering from disasters once the 

U.S. Ambassador to the affected country has made a 

declaration of disaster and the foreign government has 

requested assistance. The USAID OFDA off ers emergency assistance, funds mitigation activities to reduce 

the impact of recurrent natural hazards, and provides 

training to build local capacity for disaster management. In addition, OFDA deploys teams of disaster 

specialists to assess damage, determine appropriate 

assistance levels, and coordinate with other U.S. government and nongovernmental responders. In the 

case of Mexico, USAID OFDA most recently provided 

more than $2.1 million in response to the devastating 

floods in the states of Tabasco and Chiapas in November 2007 and deployed a five-person assessment team 

to the fl ood-affected area to determine priority needs 

in consultation with the U.S. Embassy and the Government of Mexico. 

The U.S. Embassy and Consulates in the impacted 

country also play a critical role by becoming the central 

hubs for disseminating information to local Americans 

and liaising with host-country government on disaster 

response. Depending on the size of the disaster, the 

State Department in Washington, D.C., and/or embassies may form task forces to manage the U.S. response 

(as was the case with the 2003 tsunami that impacted 

Thailand, Indonesia, and other parts of Asia). In Mexico, U.S. consulates often must take the first action in 

any anticipated hurricane, assisting American citizens 

in the area, deploying staff to the anticipated aff ected 

area, and maintaining contact with foreign offi cials. 

Embassy personnel also may be deployed to hard-hit 

areas to shore up consulate staff. In addition to maintaining open lines of communication—critical during 

a disaster—the U.S. Ambassador also has the authority to release up to $50,000 in immediate disaster aid 

to foreign governments. 

Besides its work in the field, the headquarters office of the State Department in Washington, D.C., has 

particular responsibilities for responding to both foreign and domestic disasters. Th e office serves as the 

primary conduit for communicating with U.S. diplomatic posts, disseminates critical information to U.S. 

media outlets, and works with other U.S. agencies. 

In the case of catastrophic domestic disasters, such 

as Hurricane Katrina, it is the State Department’s responsibility to coordinate offers of foreign assistance. 

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the United 

States accepted foreign assistance—something that 

the United States had never done on such a large scale. 

As a result, the State Department, FEMA, and USAID 

OFDA have worked closely together to develop the 

International Assistance System (IAS), which establishes standard operating procedures for requesting 

assistance, determining if resources can be procured 

internationally, reviewing offers, determining acceptability of offers, managing logistics, and distributing 

resources. Additional U.S. agencies involved in IAS include DHS, DOS, USDA, and others. 

Next Steps for Existing Frameworks and Capabilities 

Further clarify the National Response Plan 

(NRP)/National Response Framework (NRF). Th e 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 29 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

concepts, principles, and initiatives of the NRP/NRF 

are extremely useful to coordinate the complicated 

web of local, state, tribal, and federal responders and 

their numerous independent and co-dependent responsibilities. Some additional clarifi cation, however, 

would strengthen the framework. For example, clarify 

the chain of command and what is coordinated when 

to facilitate quick and effi cient responses. Th e “clarify 

what is coordinated when” issue has implications, for 

instance, for whether FEMA or federal agencies (using 

their own resources) pay for the costs of the response. 

Adapt the NRP’s Support Annex on International Coordination to enable rapid response to 

border-region natural disasters. As mentioned 

earlier, although the NRP mentions the U.S.-Mexico 

Marine Joint Contingency Plan (Marine JCP), it does 

not mention the Joint United States-Mexico Contingency Plan for Preparedness and Response to Environmental Emergencies Caused by Releases, Spills, Fires, 

or Explosions of Hazardous Substances in the Inland 

Border Area (Inland JCP) (see Binational Arrangements 

section). Both the Marine and Inland JCPs, however, 

are proven and successful plans for binational emergency response coordination, and therefore important 

frameworks for coordination with Mexico in the event 

of polluting incidents. Even if not mentioning the 

Inland JCP in the original NRP was merely an oversight, including it in the forthcoming version would 

strengthen the NRP/NRF. 

Build capacity so that the necessary technology and experienced decisionmakers at all levels 

are available in the field during a response, including newer players. Events such as Hurricane 

Katrina and the Southern California wildfires of 2007 

have proven that responders at all levels must have 

the capacity to quickly and effectively respond. Emergency preparedness and response has become a shared 

responsibility among all levels of government—local, 

state, tribal, and federal—as well as the private and 

nonprofi t sectors. 

To build this capacity and address the disparate levels of expertise and understanding, newer responders 

could draw from the experience of more historical responders such as experienced state and local responders and the Forest Service, EPA, and Coast Guard. 

One mechanism would be to engage in experienced 

responder-led training and information exchanges. 

Proactively preparing and training for disasters may 

be among the most effective means to mitigate their 

impacts. In addition, experienced responders are encouraged to reach out to the private sector to ensure, 

for example, that large employers in border communities have policies, procedures, and trained personnel in 

place to manage natural disasters. 

Role of the Private Sector 

In the U.S.-Mexico border region, many large companies have set up operations on both sides of the 

border. Some are involved in manufacturing, whereas 

others are involved in trade as well as wholesale and 

retail operations. 

Private sector operations along the U.S.-Mexico 

border should be included in all discussions regarding 

preparation and response to disasters caused by natural hazards. Many companies have operations on both 

sides of the border, and their employees live in both 

Mexico and the United States. Many companies have 

in-plant medical staffs, secure communication systems across the border, large warehouses, and fl eets of 

buses—all of which can be brought to bear during an 

incident. 

Large companies, during and after an incident, have 

responsibilities for the welfare of company personnel, 

making sure the company comes through the incident, 

and assisting where possible in the larger community. 

Internationally, forward-looking companies and governments are instituting policies for emergency management; for example, an ISO standard (certifi ed by 

the International Organization for Standardization 

and verifiable by an independent party) for emergency 

management has been approved by Israel. A primary 

goal of these policies is to enable companies to survive 

disasters and recover rapidly, preserving jobs and economic output. 

Sony Electronics, Inc., provides one example of a 

border-region company with strategic planning measures in place for the onset of natural disasters. Headquartered in the Rancho Bernardo area of San Diego, 

one of the areas hard hit by the October 2007 wildfires, the company’s response to the disaster was coordinated through the provisions of its Business Con30 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

tinuity Plan. The Plan provides extensive procedures 

for assisting employees in advance of, during, and following the disaster. It also includes procedures for coordinating with government agencies taking the lead 

in the overall community response. Before the onset 

of the disaster, hazardous chemicals were stored in 

noncombustible areas and secured. During and after 

the disaster, the company followed the Plan’s provisions for cooperation with the Red Cross and access 

to legal and insurance services. According to company 

officials, Business Continuity Plans are expected at all 

Sony facilities, including those in Mexico. 

In some areas, company plans have been coordinated through local business associations. One example 

is the Matamoros Local Mutual Assistance Committee (Comité Local de Ayuda Mutual, CLAM). Created in 

1986 by local industry, CLAM structure and activities 

are patterned after guidelines of a U.S. program called 

Community Awareness and Emergency Response. 

CLAM establishes and reviews industry emergency 

response plans for potential incorporation into those 

of the community. Upcoming activities include testing 

hurricane plans in both Matamoros and the neighboring U.S. city, Brownsville, Texas. 

JK

The October 2007 wildfires in Southern California destroyed 2,000 homes and caused well over $2 billion in damage. 

Left: Friends and volunteers sift through rubble in the Rancho Bernardo section of San Diego. Right: Helicopters drop 

water and retardant on the Harris fire, near the Mexican border, in an effort to stop the wildfires from advancing further. (Source: Andrea Booher, Federal Emergency Management Agency) 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 31 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

U.S. BORDER STATE


MAJOR DISASTER DECLARATIONS


(Border Counties Specifi ed) 

California 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

October 24, 2007 

October 21, 2007–March 1, 2008 

Wildfi res 

Individual and Public Assistance & Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (San Diego County and others) 

April 14, 2005 

February 16–23, 2005 

Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mud and Debris Flows 

Public Assistance & Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (San Diego Counties) 

February 4, 2005 

December 27, 2004–January 11, 2005 

Severe Storms, Flooding, Debris Flows, and Mudslides 

Individual Assistance (San Diego County) 

Public Assistance (San Diego County) 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (San Diego County) 

October 27, 2003 

October 21, 2003–March 31, 2004 

Wildfi res 

Individual Assistance & Public Assistance (San Diego County) 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (All) 

February 9, 1998 

February 2–April 30, 1998 

Severe Winter Storms and Flooding 

Individual Assistance & Public Assistance (San Diego County) 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (All) 

Arizona 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

September 7, 2006 

July 25–August 4, 2006 

Severe Storms and Flooding 

Public Assistance (Pima County and the Tohono O’odham Nation) 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (All) 

July 14, 2003 

June 17–July 15, 2003 

Wildfire (Aspen Fire) 

Public Assistance (Pima County) 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (All) 

October 27, 2000 

October 21–November 8, 2000 

Severe Storms and fl ooding 

Public Assistance (Cochise and Santa Cruz Counties) 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (All) 

32 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

New Mexico 

New Mexico 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

August 30, 2006 

July 26, 2006, and continuing 

Severe Storms and Flooding 

Individual Assistance (Doña Ana and Otero Counties) 

Public Assistance (Doña Ana, Grant, Hidalgo, and Luna Counties) 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (All) 

September 22, 1999 

July 16–August 7, 1999 

Severe Storms and Flooding 

Public Assistance (Doña Ana and Luna Counties) 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (All) 

Texas 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

August 15, 2006 

July 31, 2006 

Flooding 

Individual Assistance (El Paso County) 

Public Assistance (El Paso and Hudspeth Counties) 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (All) 

January 11, 2006 

December 1, 2005, and continuing 

Extreme Wildfi re Threat 

Public Assistance (All) 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (All) 

September 24, 2005 

September 23, 2005, and continuing 

Hurricane Rita 

Public Assistance (All) 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (All) 

November 5, 2002 

October 24–November 15, 2002 

Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding 

Individual Assistance (Cameron and Hidalgo Counties) 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (All) 

September 26, 2002 

September 6–30, 2002 

Tropical Storm Fay 

Individual Assistance (Webb County) 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (All) 

August 22, 1999 

August 22–26, 1999 

Hurricane Bret 

Individual Assistance and Public Assistance (Cameron, Hidalgo, and Webb Counties) 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (All) 

August 26, 1998 

August 22–31, 1998 

Tropical Storm Charlie (Heavy Rain and Flooding) 

Individual & Public Assistance (Kinney, Maverick, Val Verde, and Webb Counties) 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (All) 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 33 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS


All 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

September 13, 2005 

August 29, 2005, and continuing 

Hurricane Katrina Evacuation 

Specifically, FEMA is authorized to provide Public Assistance Category B (emergency protective 

measures), including direct federal assistance, at 100 percent federal funding. 

Texas 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

Declared Date: 

Incident Period: 

Incident Type: 

Assistance Type: 

February 1, 2003 

February 1, 2003 

Loss of Space Shuttle Columbia 

Public Assistance (Cameron and El Paso Counties) 

September 1, 1999 

August 1, 1999, and continuing 

Extreme Fire Hazards 

Emergency Services (Brewster, Culberson, El Paso, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Kinney, Presidio, Terrell, 

and Val Verde Counties) 

June 23, 1998 

N/A 

Severe wildfi re potential 

All 254 counties for Direct Federal Assistance, to include reimbursement for the eligible costs 

associated with prepositioning assets from the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. The 

Compact is an agreement between or among states to provide assets when possible. 

FIRE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE DECLARATIONS


California 

2005 – Border 50 Fire (San Diego County) 

2003 – Mataguay Fire (San Diego County) 

2003 – Paradise Fire (San Diego County) 

2003 – Cedar Fire (San Diego County) 

2002 – Pines Fire (San Diego County) 

2002 – Gavilan Fire (San Diego County) 

Arizona 

2003 – Ash Fire (Cochise County) 

2003 – Aspen Fire (Pima County) 

Texas 

1998 – Cibolo Creek fire (Presidio County) 

1998 – Paradise Fire (Jeff Davis County) 

Note: Other Fire Management Assistance Declarations posted on Web site without county specification are not included in this list. 

Source: http://www.fema.gov. Note that only U.S.-border counties are listed; other nonborder counties also included in original table. 

34 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

Natural Disasters 

Mexico: Domestic/International Policies/Institutions 

The primary federal Mexican entity responsible for 

immediate response to natural disasters is the National Council for Civil Protection (Protección Civil), which 

falls under the authority of the federal Secretariat of 

Government (Secretaría de Gobernación, SEGOB) and 

has state-level coordinators throughout the country. 

Its mission is to coordinate the National System for 

Civil Protection (Sistema Nacional de Protección Civil, 

SINAPROC), an arrangement of public and private 

organizations at the federal, municipal, and local, levels in Mexico with the purpose of protecting citizens 

against disasters. Well-organized and trained, Protección Civil is known for providing timely and eff ective 

assistance to Mexican citizens during natural disasters/events, including evacuation and shelter set-up 

before and during hurricanes. 

The SINAPROC national emergency response plan 

emphasizes the need for coordination among local, 

state, and federal levels of government. The plan designates municipal administrations as the fi rst responders to natural disasters and other emergencies. If they 

lack the capacity to solve the problem, they turn to the 

state government for relief; if state governments still 

are overwhelmed by the disaster, they turn to the federal government, both Protección Civil and the Natural Disasters Fund, which has resources for relief. 

SEGOB may declare a state of emergency when an 

imminent natural threat (or high probability of one) 

poses significant risk to human life and would require 

rapid mobilization. Once a state of disaster is declared, 

SEGOB is legally mandated to establish international 

agreements for civil protection and is responsible for 

coordinating both federal and, with the Secretariat of 

Foreign Relations (Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores), 

international aid. According to the 1986 Basis for the 

Establishment of the National System for Civil Protection, 

Mexico at that time had binational cooperation agreements with the United States that could be used for 

binational emergency response in the border region. 

In addition, in the 2006 Manual for the Organization 

and Operation of the National System for Civil Protection, 

Protección Civil establishes the criteria for the fulfi llment of international agreements and cooperation.

 Mexico can be a valuable ally in responding to domestic disasters in the United States. As noted previously, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Government of Mexico sent a convoy of unarmed soldiers to 

the United States to provide food and medical supplies 

to victims who had lost their homes. Mexico also sent 

a navy vessel to the Mississippi coast area with rescue 

vehicles and helicopters to aid evacuation eff orts. Although there were some problems coordinating the acceptance of the assistance, the experience has led the 

U.S. federal government to develop a new system to 

better receive foreign assistance, as discussed earlier. 

In addition, Mexican emergency responders form part 

of the Border Agency Fire Council, discussed in more 

detail in the Spotlight on Promising Partnerships section. 

Mexican states, including those along the border, 

have their own local civil protection laws that delegate 

responsibilities to the municipal administrations. For 

example, the Baja California Civil Protection Law establishes the State Council for Civil Protection, which 

has the legal mandate to reach agreements with fi rst 

response authorities of the “border region,” perhaps 

implying both Mexican and United States agencies. 

The Coahuila Civil Protection Law gives the Director for 

Civil Protection the authority to contact international 

organizations, public or private, in case of emergency. 

The Nuevo León and Tamaulipas Civil Protection Laws 

establish that international volunteer groups can register with the Municipal Civil Protection Unit to participate in emergency response actions. 

JK

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 35 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

Natural Disasters 

Binational Arrangements


In 1980, the two governments signed an agreement providing for the establishment of a U.S.-Mexico Consultative Committee on Natural Disasters 

(as mentioned in Introduction). Membership includes 

FEMA, the State Department, the Southwest Border 

Regional Commission, and Mexico’s Secretariats of 

Government, Foreign Relations, National Defense, 

Navy, Treasury and Public Credit, Communications 

and Transport, Human Settlements and Public Works, 

and Health. The purpose of the agreement is to foster 

cooperative information sharing and planning in the 

border region for natural disaster preparedness. Th e 

Committee’s mandate includes exchange of information and personnel, risk assessments, training, study 

of damage assessment techniques, and study of the 

role of communications in emergency planning. 

The agreement also specifies that each country 

shall do its best to facilitate prompt entry into and exit 

from its territory of personnel, materials, and equipment involved in cooperative programs under the 

agreement. Under the agreement, the Committee is to 

meet at least annually and may establish joint working 

groups with participation of other federal, state, or local governments and the private sector. To date, implementation of the 1980 Agreement has been limited. 

Officials at the working level from both governments, 

however, hope to meet in early 2008 to begin updating 

the agreement to make it more effective in the event of 

a disaster on either side of the border. 

Besides the 1980 Agreement, recent decades have 

seen additional U.S.-Mexico partnerships created to 

jointly move forward in areas of mutual interest, including assisting each other in times of emergency. Yet, 

officially recognized binational emergency preparedness and response remains largely limited to chemical 

and oil spills. Only in a few cases do current binational 

institutions and agreements also incorporate natural 

disasters as an issue they cover. The potential to expand from “spills only coverage” to “all hazards coverage” is a key point that should be considered by policymakers and hopefully will be addressed in the update 

of the 1980 bilateral agreement. 

Besides the limited coverage of many existing binational agreements, other challenges remain in the 

form of legal, regulatory, operational, logistical, and 

financial barriers. Legal and regulatory challenges 

make it difficult to determine the kinds of help that 

can be given and accepted, and determining this during an emergency can be a time-consuming process. 

Also, medical licensing and credentialing varies from 

country to country, raising questions in regards to interoperability. Furthermore, accepting the support of 

foreign personnel during an emergency typically requires customs duties, passport requirements, and resource manifests to be waived. Types of resources and 

communications equipment also vary, which can pose 

interoperability challenges (see Board’s Tenth Report). 

Following are descriptions of several institutions 

and agreements that figure strongly in binational policies related to emergency management. 

International Boundary and Water 

Commission 

The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) plays a major part in fl ood control work. 

Established by treaty, the IBWC is responsible for applying the boundary and water treaties between the 

United States and Mexico. It has both a U.S. Section 

(USIBWC) and a Mexican Section (La Comisíon Internacional de Limites y Agua, CILA), a structure that provides 

a solid foundation for transboundary cooperation. 

IBWC currently maintains flood control projects at 

a number of critical locations along the border. One of 

the most extensive systems is located in the Lower Rio 

Grande Valley of Texas-Tamaulipas, an area especially 

vulnerable to widespread flooding from hurricanes and 

tropical storms. Other binational flood control projects 

include the Rio Grande Rectification Project, which includes levees and floodways through El Paso, Texas-Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua; a system of levees and berms 

along the Rio Grande near Presidio, Texas-Ojinaga, 

Chihuahua; river levees along the Colorado River near 

36 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

Yuma, Arizona-Mexicali, Baja California; channel improvements at Nogales, Arizona-Nogales, Sonora; and 

a concrete flood control channel and levees for the Tijuana River, which enters the United States at the San 

Diego, California-Tijuana, Baja California, border. 

Giving additional flood protection are two international storage reservoirs built by the IBWC—Falcon 

Dam near Roma, Texas-Nueva Ciudad Guerrero, Tamaulipas, built in 1953, and Amistad Dam near Del Rio, 

Texas-Ciudad Acuña, Coahuila, completed in 1969. 

Both dams play an important role in controlling Rio 

Grande floods and protecting the Lower Rio Grande 

Valley. Recent inspections suggest that additional 

studies and strategies are needed to protect the stability of Amistad Dam from the effects of naturally occurring sinkholes. 

To provide adequate flood protection in the border 

region, the USIBWC has developed plans for fl ood control system rehabilitation in Doña Ana County, New 

Mexico, and El Paso, Hidalgo, and Cameron Counties, 

Texas. The USIBWC also is coordinating with CILA to 

jointly undertake planning activities. The goal of this 

eff ort is to restore the old levees to their original design capacity (IBWC) and to FEMA standards; for the 

international reach, the capacity was previously agreed 

to by both countries, each of which is responsible for 

maintaining its levees to the agreed standard. During 

2007, the USIBWC completed a signifi cant levee-raising project in El Paso County, with more work planned 

in the future. 

The Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project in 

South Texas is where the most work is required—an 

estimated $125 million to raise and rehabilitate U.S. 

levees. In some areas, the 100-year fl ood would overtop levees by as much as 6 feet in this hurricane-prone 

region. The USIBWC is implementing a multi-year plan 

to raise levees in critical areas using available funding. 

In Fiscal Year 2008, the agency was appropriated $21.7 

million for levee work in Texas and New Mexico—a 

significant increase over recent years when annual appropriations were $2–3 million. 

Finally, the USIBWC also has been coordinating 

with CILA on data collection and modeling. Th e goal 

is for both countries to use the information to determine flood control system needs and prepare plans for 

improvements. 

Natural disasters can trigger incidents such as hazardous materials spills. To support transborder capacity to respond 

to disasters, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducts hazardous materials response training with Mexican 

first responders. Shown: training session in the City of Acuna, State of Coahuila, Mexico (across the border from Eagle 

Pass, Texas). Participants included officials from the local fire department, hospital, public works department, police 

department, and nonprofit groups such as the Red Cross. On stage are several members of the audience dressed in different levels of personal protective equipment. (Source: Valmichael Leos, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 37 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

Border 2012 Program 

As the Board discussed in its Tenth Report (see pages 32–33), the Border 2012 program and its Emergency 

Preparedness and Response Border-Wide Workgroup 

(EPRBWWG) have played crucial roles in U.S.-Mexico 

binational emergency prevention, preparedness, and 

response related to discharges of hazardous substances. During 2007, completion of one of the objectives 

of Goal #5 (Emergency Preparedness and Response) of 

the Border 2012 program was marked by the signing 

of the 14th and final Sister City Contingency Plan. 

Besides the activities of the EPRBWWG, Border 

2012 has contributed in other ways to border-region 

preparedness for emergencies. Th ese contributions 

include testing and updating the emergency notifi cation system between Mexico and the United States 

and expediting cross-border responses for people and 

equipment under the Trusted Traveler Program. More 

generally, Border 2012 has strengthened partnerships 

between U.S. and Mexico offi cials at all levels, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within DHS, 

the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM, a DOD 

asset), Protección Civil, the Mexican National Communications Center (known as CENACOM), and Aduanas (Mexico’s counterpart to CBP). In fact, EPA, 

NORTHCOM, FEMA, USAID, Protección Civil, and 

the six northern Mexico border states currently are 

collaborating to enhance Mexican hazardous materials 

disaster response capabilities through training, exercises, and a “leave behind” equipment program. 

The U.S.-Mexico Inland Joint 

Contingency Plan 

In its Tenth Report, the Board also discussed the 

Joint Response Team and its work on the Inland JCP, 

both of which originated with Annex II of the La Paz 

Agreement. The 1999 Inland JCP establishes binational cooperative measures for preparing for and responding to hazardous substance incidents along the border. 

The EPRBWWG, in its role as steering committee of 

the Joint Response Team, currently is updating the 

1999 JCP to reflect recent institutional changes and 

updates intended to ensure 24 hour/7 day a week notification capabilities on the Mexican side of the binational response notifi cation system. 

Perhaps ironically, although the Inland JCP could 

provide an effective framework for coordination of a 

binational response to a natural disaster, its authority 

is limited to releases of hazardous substances. Th erefore, unless the effects of a natural disaster include the 

release of a hazardous substance, the need to respond 

technically is outside the domain of authority under 

the Inland JCP. 

Sister City Agreements 

As mentioned earlier in this report, communities 

that lie across the border from each other often have 

extremely close ties in the form of family, friends, and 

economic interdependence. In times of crisis, including natural disasters, these neighboring communities—sometimes called sister cities—have informally 

been coming to each others’ aid for many years. 

To further strengthen and systematize these existing municipal-level networks, the Border 2012 program has facilitated the development of Sister City 

Agreements. These agreements, which are drawn up 

by the communities themselves and jointly signed, 

function as binational joint contingency plans that describe how the communities will work together to plan 

for, respond to, and recover from emergencies. Th ey 

are based on the framework for emergency preparedness and response established in the Inland JCP. In 

addition, they reinforce the close relationships among 

city mayors, fire chiefs, and other government offi cials 

from the United States and Mexico, as well as aiding in 

bridging changes in political administration. 

Fourteen sister city pairs, home to 90 percent of 

the border population, originally were identifi ed. On 

June 25, 2007, the last of the 14 originally conceived 

major Sister City Agreements was signed by the communities of El Paso, Texas; the Municipality of Juárez, 

Chihuahua; and Sunland Park, New Mexico. 

Anecdotal information suggests that the Sister 

City agreements have facilitated improved collaboration across the border. Recently, for example, Mexican 

authorities in Reynosa used the communications protocol of their Sister City Agreement to notify McAllen, 

Texas, of a small oil spill that entered the waters of the 

Rio Grande. The communications protocol also was 

used by Protección Civil in Ciudad Juárez to notify the 

U.S. National Response Center about a plastics plant 

38 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

Neighboring U.S. and Mexican communities along the 

border often have extremely close ties. To more eff ectively 

help each other in case of emergency, Sister City Agreements have been instituted by many of these communities 

and jointly signed. On June 25, 2007, the 14th Sister City 

Agreement was signed by the communities of El Paso, 

Texas; the Municipality of Juárez, Chihuahua; and Sunland Park, New Mexico. Shown, left to right: Roberto S. 

Hernandez R., Acting Mayor, Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua; 

Ruben Segura, Mayor, Sunland Park, New Mexico; John 

F. Cook, Mayor, El Paso, Texas; and Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

(Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 

explosion that had the potential to affect El Paso. 

Despite their invaluable utility, Sister City Agreements largely are limited in scope. Most apply only to 

hazardous materials releases rather than all types of 

emergencies or disasters; however, many sister cities 

continue to respond to requests for aid regardless of 

whether or not they relate to hazardous materials. In 

several instances, they have informally relied on their 

contingency plans during events such as tornadoes 

and fl oods. Further, one sister city pair—Nogales, 

Arizona and Nogales, Sonora—has formally updated 

its 2006 plan to include an all hazards approach. Activation of the updated plan in August 2007 resulted 

in a binational response team that saved lives during 

the floods. Several other sister city pairings are revising their plans to include emergencies beyond hazardous materials releases, such as fl oods, hurricanes, 

and tornadoes. This group includes McAllen-Reynosa; 

Eagle Pass-Piedras Negras; Del Rio-Cuidad Acuna; San 

Luis-San Luis Rio Colorado; Cochise County-Naco; and 

Douglas-Agua Prieta. (Note: Tohono O’dham Nation and 

other tribes also may be involved.) 

Because the Sister City Agreements are equivalent 

to Memoranda of Understanding, the U.S. and Mexican federal governments do not recognize the Sister 

City Agreements as binding. Th erefore, for example, 

any agreement between the sister city communities to 

address liability issues are unenforceable. Th eir nonbinding nature, however, allows for tremendous fl exibility in fashioning the scope of the agreements, empowering communities to address their unique needs. 

As noted in the Board’s Tenth Report, one challenge in binational emergency preparedness and response coordination is obtaining liability coverage for 

first responders and their equipment during sister city 

activation. A lack of reciprocity between American and 

Mexican insurance companies has been cited as one 

reason. Liability coverage recognized by the respective 

government in which responders are operating is important because emergency responders operating in a 

foreign country are subject to the jurisdiction and liability of that country. In response to this challenge, 

EPA’s Office of Emergency Management is investigating the feasibility of a pilot program to obtain insurance for U.S. local responders going into Mexico, but a 

more comprehensive solution is needed. 

Another challenge is quickly getting equipment 

and personnel across the border during an emergency. 

After many binational exercises along the border, inconsistencies from “port of entry to port of entry” and 

from “sister city to sister city” were identified. EPA and 

CBP currently are collaborating to formulate a solution, such as a protocol and/or procedure that would 

be applicable “border-wide” for expediting the crossing 

of equipment and personnel across the border during 

a hazardous material incident. 

Binational State-Level 

Contingency Plans 

Contingency plans drawn up by neighboring states 

across the international border would complement the 

municipal-level Sister City Agreements; however, with 

the exception of one proposed plan—between the 

states of Arizona and its Mexican neighbor state, Sonora—no formal state-to-state agreements and plans 

for emergency preparedness and response exist. 

In September 2007, the governors of the United 

States and Mexican border states issued a joint declaGood Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 39 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

ration at their XXV Border Governors Conference (see 

Introduction). The joint declaration included a number 

of items directly related to emergency planning and 

response in the border region. Th e governors agreed 

to: (1) carry out a functional binational agroterrorism 

exercise; (2) create a General Plan for Border Security, using as a basis the experiences and success cases 

shared by the member states of the Binational Border 

Security Worktable, especially those actions related to 

information exchange; the interoperability of real time 

voice, data, and video communications; and programming joint operations and joint training programs for 

both sides of the border; (3) train first responders in 

the border region on issues related to an infl uenza 

pandemic in coordination with the health committee; (4) develop a Five-Year Binational Emergency 

Response Strategic Plan that will include prevention, 

preparation, response, and recovery; and (5) develop a 

Memorandum of Understanding for mutual help in the 

event of emergencies among the 10 border states. Th e 

declaration includes the following statement: “We recognize the need to grow within a platform of regional 

cooperation, with the appropriate participation of government, to intensely promote the development of a 

border and communities that can withstand disasters, 

while taking full advantage of existing capacities.” 

Informal Binational Cooperation 

Local border-community offi cials often rely on 

more informal traditional practices and personal relations to marshal necessary binational cooperation to 

address emergencies in the absence of comprehensive 

and agile formal U.S.-Mexico agreements. Two cases 

from the Texas-Mexico border illustrate this point. In 

April 2004, fl ash flooding in the Mexican border town 

of Piedras Negras, population 200,000, caused the Río 

Escondido to rise 25 feet, trapping residents on rooftops. When Mexican army officials declined to ask for 

help from the United States, insisting it was not necessary, the mayor of Piedras Negras personally asked 

CBP to provide helicopters for search and rescue. CBP 

sent two helicopters and rescued 14 people trapped on 

rooftops. 

Three years later, in April 2007, thunderstorms 

produced two tornadoes that struck the sister cities 

of Piedras Negras and Eagle Pass, especially the latter 

(mentioned earlier in this report). To aid in rescue and 

recovery, the Mexican State of Coahuila, through its 

governor, and the Piedras Negras Mayor, off ered assistance with clean-up efforts in Eagle Pass and surrounding Maverick County. With the help of CBP, nine 

dump trucks, a loader, three backhoes, and Mexican 

volunteers crossed the border to assist in clean-up efforts. 

In California, informal cooperation also continues 

to play a key role in responding to natural disasters. For 

instance, after El Niño floods in the early 1990s and in 

1998, the City of San Diego dispatched road crews and 

work vehicles to assist Tijuana in clearing its roads of 

mudslides and debris. More recently, during the summer of 2005, the governor of Baja California asked the 

California governor for assistance in extinguishing an 

out-of-control forest fire in Mexico’s Parque Nacional 

San Pedro Mártir. California officials then turned to the 

Border Agency Fire Council (see Spotlight on Promising 

Partnerships section) and its existing relationships with 

Mexican fi refi ghting offi cials to immediately dispatch 

60 state fi refighters and a fleet of vehicles to assist Baja 

California. In addition, in 2007, Mexican fi refi ghters 

from Tijuana and Tecate aided in fighting the fi res in 

San Diego County. 

Enforcement settlements also can provide a 

mechanism to foster binational cooperation. For example, the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health received administrative settlement 

funds to purchase hazardous materials emergency 

response equipment, and then transferred the equipment to the Tijuana Fire Department for emergency 

response purposes. 

These cases illustrate the importance of local crossborder relationships in addressing incidents. Th ey also 

suggest that there is need for more assistance by state 

and federal governments to facilitate local responses. 

Next Steps for Binational 

Institutions/Policies 

Below, a number of next steps are recommended 

to improve transborder response to natural disasters. 

They address concerns that present response capabilities need to be upgraded to cover the binational border 

region to adequately protect the U.S. border communities. Although they demonstrate that signifi cant prog40 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

ress can be made through local and state initiatives, 

ultimately, the two federal governments need to make 

emergency response to natural disasters seamless in 

the border area. This may require both administrative 

arrangements and legislative initiatives. 

Establish an all disasters binational contingency plan. To seamlessly respond binationally to a 

binational disaster of any type, many jurisdictional 

levels on both sides of the border need to be engaged. 

The binational federal jurisdictional structure necessary for full engagement currently is limited, however. 

For example, the 1980 U.S.-Mexico Agreement on Cooperation During Natural Disasters has yet to be fully 

implemented. In addition, the La Paz Agreement (the 

basis for Border 2012 and the Emergency Preparedness 

and Response Border-Wide Workgroup and the Joint 

Response Team/Joint United States-Mexico Contingency Plan for Preparedness and Response to Environmental Emergencies Caused by Releases, Spills, Fires, 

or Explosions of Hazardous Substances in the Inland 

Border Area [Inland JCP]) is an agreement for the protection and improvement of the environment in the 

border area. The focus of this agreement has been to 

coordinate government efforts for man-made pollution sources, not threats or harm imposed by natural 

or other disasters, which necessitate a more complex 

response and the involvement of numerous more entities. Therefore, developing a binational emergency response coordination mechanism that covers all types 

of disasters presents a notable challenge. That said, it 

is an important goal that will take time and utilization 

of existing U.S.-Mexico agreements may not be able to 

achieve it. 

Fully implementing (and, if necessary, broadening 

to provide additional authority for U.S.-Mexico natural 

disaster contingency planning) the 1980 U.S.-Mexico 

Agreement on Cooperation During Natural Disasters, 

mentioned earlier (see also Security and Prosperity Partnership under the Government Partnerships section), 

would be a great step toward ensuring the border area 

is prepared for and capable of binationally responding 

to a binational natural disaster. Full implementation 

of the 1980 Agreement—or a future federal binational 

emergency response mechanism that covers all types 

of disasters—could build on relationships and regional and local initiatives, such as those developed under 

Sister City Agreements and the Inland JCP, already in 

place. 

Clarify and expand Sister City Agreements. 

Encourage sister city communities to expand both the 

substantive and geographic scope of their Agreements. 

Substantive scope could be expanded to include pollution, natural events, or other incidents. Expansion to 

include all hazards is extremely effective because local 

governments take ownership of the initiative, leveraged funds from other sources become available, and 

city governments engage additional levels of government such as county, state, and other local entities as 

pertinent to their areas, creating more comprehensive 

plans for emergency preparedness and response. 

In addition, encourage sister city communities to 

identify institutional and policy challenges. Key among 

these challenges is to solve the liability/indemnifi cation challenge and expedited border crossing challenges for emergency response personnel and equipment. 

Develop additional sister state/border state 

contingency proposals and plans. Th e Board endorses the excellent progress on the sister city contingency plans and encourages ongoing communication, 

planning, and exercises to improve their ability to respond to emergencies of all types. The Board also fully 

supports the recent joint declaration of the XXV Border Governors Conference and recommends that particular attention be given to natural disasters as the 

elements of the declaration are implemented. 

Build prevention and minimization of damage 

measures into existing binational agreements. For 

example, zoning codes can be developed to keep buildings/activities out of floodplains and stream channels. 

Building codes can be instituted to minimize impacts 

from earthquakes and fi res. Landscape requirements 

can be used to create a “defensible space” around built 

up areas to protect against wildfires. Grading ordinances can be used to protect against landslides and 

minimize erosion/sedimentation/flooding of stream 

channels. Each city should identify key potential natural disasters and develop plans to prevent their impact 

and minimize the need to undertake costly responses. 

Such preventative approaches could be incorporated 

into an existing binational partnership to encourage 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 41 
section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

such front-end preventative actions to be taken on 

both sides of the border. 

Strengthen both informal and cross-agency binational collaboration. Continue to work with U.S. 

Customs and Border Patrol within the Department of 

Homeland Security and its Mexican counterparts (e.g., 

Aduanas) to enhance capabilities for quick, cross-border emergency response mobilization. The Board supports the joint statement issued under the Security 

and Prosperity Partnership calling for progress in that 

arena. (These issues also were addressed in the Board’s 

Tenth Report.) 

To initiate cross-border assistance, triggers and 

organizational roles and responsibilities should be 

established. Once assistance is initiated, equipment 

logistics and interoperability, command and control 

over personnel, and reimbursement of expenses and 

fund transfers must be defined more clearly. In regards 

to public affairs, messages must be clear and consistent for both countries. Cross-border evacuation plans 

should be developed. In looking forward, current initiatives at all governmental levels should be reviewed 

and coordinated in an effort to develop the same comprehensive, all-hazard approach to cross-border emergency management with Canada and Mexico as the 

United States practices domestically. 

JK

42 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
section three: Spotlight on Promising Partnerships www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb

Spotlight on Promising 

Partnerships 

Note to readers: As in its past reports, the Board has assembled a sampling of projects and partnerships already 

underway that demonstrate how the issue it has identified for its report already is being addressed. Some have been in 

place for years, while others are new. In addition, other projects may be underway that are not included. 

The purpose of including these partnerships is to highlight some of the good work already being carried out, identify possible templates to be replicated elsewhere, highlight some of the complexities, and reinforce the need for continued strategic support on the federal level for all types of partnerships that contribute to progress. 

Note also that for this particular topic—managing natural disasters along the U.S.-Mexico border—several partnerships have been included that currently are limited in scope (e.g., cover only hazardous spills). The Board encourages policymakers to examine all effective emergency management projects to determine the possibility of broadening 

their scope to include natural disasters. 

Finally, note that some partnerships already have been discussed in detail within the previous section on current 

institutions and policies and so are not listed below. These include initiatives such as the Sister City Agreements, the 

Border 2012 Emergency Preparedness and Response Border-Wide Workgroup, and the 1980 U.S.-Mexico Agreement 

on Cooperation During Natural Disasters. 

Natural Disasters 

Government Partnerships


Border Liaison Mechanisms (BLMs). Th e 

BLM was created in the 1990s by the U.S. Department 

of State and Mexico’s Secretariat of Foreign Relations 

to respond to the need for greater coordination at the 

local level between entities on both sides of the border. 

The mechanism brings together state and local entities on both sides of the border to discuss any issues 

of concern. Although some of the most active BLMs 

have been those between sister cities, such as Tijuana 

and San Diego, BLMs also exist between consulates 

that are not directly across from each other. For example, the U.S. Consulate in Nuevo Laredo not only 

has a BLM with the Mexican consulate in Laredo but 

also with the consulates in Del Rio and Eagle Pass. 

Many BLMs have subcommittees for transportation, 

commerce, and safety issues that can serve as useful 

platforms for building positive working relationships 

as they apply to disaster response. 

International Red Cross and Red Crescent 

Societies’ Guidelines. In November 2007, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies’ International Disaster Response Laws, 

Rules, and Principles (IDRL) Programme submitted 

Draft Guidelines for the Domestic Facilitation and Regulation of International Disaster Relief and Initial Recovery 

Assistance to the 30th International Conference of the 

Red Cross and the Red Crescent in Geneva, SwitzerGood Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 43 
section three: Spotlight on Promising Partnerships www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

land. The IDRL Programme facilitates and supports the 

development of laws, rules, and principles to enhance 

the effectiveness of international disaster response. 

Its guidelines provide guidance to nations seeking to 

improve their domestic legal, policy, and institutional frameworks concerning international disaster response and recovery. Such guidelines may be of value 

to the governments of the United States and Mexico 

when considering gaps, needs, and frameworks for cooperation. 

Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). 

As mentioned in the Introduction to this report, on 

August 27, 2007, the Heads of State of the 3 countries 

issued a joint statement under the SPP that called for 

their nations to continue to work together to “better 

prevent, prepare for, and respond to disasters, either 

natural or man-made.” The statement calls for continuing to “define, develop, and coordinate appropriate 

responses to catastrophic incidents in North America and develop bilateral and trilateral protocols and 

procedures to manage the movements of goods and 

people, including emergency responders, across our 

shared borders during and following an emergency, 

and to improve communications among governments 

and between governments and industry, particularly 

during times of increased threat.” 

“The consequences of catastrophic events often 

transcend national borders,” the leaders stated. “Preparation and planning can mitigate the impact of such 

events on people and our economies. Much work has 

been undertaken between our countries at national, 

subnational, and local levels to develop common approaches for responding to major incidents. We ask 

our ministers to continue this work and to address any 

obstacles preventing critical equipment, supplies, and 

personnel from being deployed expeditiously to those 

parts of North America where they are needed. We 

also ask them to develop procedures for managing the 

movement of goods and people across our shared borders during and following an emergency.” Th e Board 

recognizes the importance of this initiative and stresses the need to bring this to the level of implementation 

in the U.S.-Mexico border region. 

Officials from relevant U.S. government agencies 

met at the working level in November 2007 to discuss 

how to implement the leaders’ directive on emergency 

management and preparedness. One of the recommended courses of action from this group was to update the two bilateral agreements that exist between 

the United States and Canada and the United States 

and Mexico on cooperation during disasters (as discussed in the Binational Arrangements section). 

JK

Natural Disasters 

University Partnerships


Many border region universities are conducting 

applied research on emergency management, including natural disasters. Following are several relevant 

examples. 

Cover the Border Hazard Mitigation Plan. 

Texas A&M International University, in partnership 

with the Rio Grande Institute, is sponsoring the development of a comprehensive Hazard Mitigation 

Plan for the cities and counties in a 10-county area of 

Texas. Th e effort is funded by a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant from the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA). Major hazards will be identifi ed, including transboundary hazards, and a mitigation plan 

will be developed to address the hazards. Th e process 

has included significant public input from both sides 

of the border, including a meeting in Reynosa during 

2007 with local Mexican offi cials and nongovernmental organizations. 

Social Dynamics Modeling Project. New Mexico State University, in collaboration with Los Alamos 

National Laboratory, is using transportation modeling software to study evacuation behaviors and traffic congestion in a portion of El Paso where English 

frequently is not the native language of residents. Spe44 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
section three: Spotlight on Promising Partnerships www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

cifically, the partners are looking at how the method of 

delivering information about a threat aff ects human 

response and traffi c congestion. The goal is to foster 

understanding of social dynamics in chaotic situations 

so as to improve emergency response and evacuation 

procedures, including natural disasters. 

JK

Natural Disasters 

Multi-Sector Partnerships


Federal Agencies, Local Organizations. Many 

federal agencies carry out their work related to natural 

disasters via the partnerships they already have established on a local level. For example, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

works with municipal water districts or water boards to 

discuss strategies to alleviate known fl ood areas aff ecting colonias and migrant/farmworker communities. In 

New Mexico, HUD staff worked with local partners to 

provide information on how the state provides funds 

for water, wastewater, and flood control. Partners included officials from the Village of Hatch, the Town 

of Mesilla, the City of Sunland Park, and several nonprofit and faith-based organizations, as well as Doña 

Ana County, FEMA, the U.S Environmental Protection 

Agency, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. After 

several meetings, Doña Ana County received funding 

to build a flood control levee and other infrastructure 

in the southern portion of the county as well as in the 

Village of Hatch. 

JK

Natural Disasters 

Hurricane/Flood Specifi c Partnerships


El Paso Plan To Avoid Development on Arroyos. The city of El Paso Open Space Master Plan, adopted in 2007, identifies preservation of undeveloped 

arroyos as a high priority. The Plan recommends that 

drainage washes be left in their natural state to provide 

natural greenbelt areas in the city rather than channelizing them, as has been the traditional practice. It 

also proposes a change in subdivision regulations to 

require preservation of 75 percent of the land area of 

existing arroyos in undeveloped areas. An added benefit of this nonstructural flood control practice is that 

the approach also results in maintaining open space 

and greenbelts. 

Lower Rio Grande Wildlife Corridor. In the 

Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project in Texas, the 

USIBWC, in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has modified traditional vegetation management practices, establishing a “no mow” zone in the 

Rio Grande floodplain as a wildlife corridor. Th e region 

is home to various endangered species including two 

cats—the ocelot and jaguarondi. Restricting mowing 

in critical areas is part of an agreement that provides 

protection for wildlife while allowing other areas to be 

mowed as part of flood control project maintenance. 

Rio Grande Canalization Collaborative Project. The Rio Grande Canalization Project is a water 

delivery and flood control project covering 106 river 

miles from Percha Dam, New Mexico, downstream to 

El Paso, Texas. The goal is to integrate flood control and 

conveyance functions with habitat restoration. Th e 

U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water 

Commission (USIBWC; see Binational Arrangments section) is participating in a collaborative effort with project stakeholders, including the Elephant Butte IrrigaGood Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 45 
section three: Spotlight on Promising Partnerships www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

The Rio Grande, which forms the U.S.-Mexico border 

for 1,254 miles, historically has experienced cycles both 

of drought and devastating flooding. Although overall 

rainfall in the region is relatively low compared to other 

parts of the United States, the rain often comes in brief, 

but intense, weather events, making fl ash fl oods common 

in the desert. Shown is Rio Grande flooding during 2005 

at El Paso, Texas-Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua. (Source: 

International Boundary and Water Commission, U.S. 

Section) 

tion District, World Wildlife Fund, and Environmental 

Defense along with a 30-member stakeholder group. 

Technical work is being conducted by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers under contract to the USIBWC. Th e 

project also entails modeling environmental fl ows for 

floodplain restoration, considering safe harbor agreements whereby a landowner who voluntarily restores 

habitat for endangered species will not be penalized 

with future restrictions on land use or water operations, development of habitat conservation plans, and 

consideration of potential use of water for environmental purposes through Special Water Users Associations. 

A variety of alternative approaches are being examined. In addition to raising levees, the USIBWC 

would consider control of invasive species (especially 

salt cedar), modification of grazing leases along the Rio 

Grande as an erosion control strategy, planting of native riparian species, stream bank reconfiguration to facilitate over bank flows and restoration of native plant 

species in the floodway, opening of river meanders and 

modification of arroyo mouths to increase habitat diversity, arrangements for seasonal pulse flows of water 

46 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 

to allow for over bank flows for environmental purposes, and establishment of voluntary conservation 

easements beyond the federal right of way. 

State-Level Response to Hurricane Dean, 

August 2007. Each of the four U.S. border states has 

developed emergency response plans that are put into 

action when natural disasters strike. For example, as 

Hurricane Dean made its way through the Caribbean 

becoming a Category 5 storm and moving westward, 

the State of Texas, as well as FEMA, worked with local authorities along the coast to prepare for a massive 

evacuation of Lower Rio Grande Valley residents. 

On August 17, Governor Perry issued a disaster 

declaration and requested federal assistance from the 

President, which was granted on August 18. Preparations included: mobilization of 4,000 Texas Army National Guardsmen and 3,000 school buses to evacuate 

Lower Rio Grande Valley residents; airplanes to move 

1,800 nonambulatory residents; 47 helicopters; 250 

boat crews (from just one agency); and fuel stations 

to assist motorists fleeing to San Antonio. Fortunately 

for Texans, the hurricane changed course, but the state 

took its preparations seriously. 

Tijuana River Flood Warning System. Officials from the United States and Mexico signed an 

agreement in 2003 for an Integrated Binational Flood 

Warning System in the Tijuana River Watershed. Th e 

purpose of the project is to provide real-time rainfall 

and stream flow information to emergency offi cials on 

both sides of the border to enable eff ective decisionmaking during floods in the Tijuana River Watershed. 

Th e flood warning system is the first of its kind along 

the U.S.-Mexico border. 

Project participants are from a broad spectrum of 

organizations: USIBWC and the Mexican Section of 

the IBWC (La Comisíon Internacional de Limites y Agua, 

CILA); Mexico’s National Water Commission (Comisión Nacional del Agua); the U.S. National Weather Service; County of San Diego; City of San Diego; the Civil 

Protection agencies of Baja California, Tijuana, and 

Tecate; State of California Department of Parks and 

Recreation; San Diego State University; and El Colegio 

de La Frontera Norte. In addition, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provided early 

leadership. 
section three: Spotlight on Promising Partnerships www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

U.S.-Mexico Agreement for Rio Grande 

Maintenance at El Paso, Texas-Ciudad Juárez, 

Chihuahua. Following the flood in the Rio Grande at 

El Paso, Texas-Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, in August 

and September of 2006, USIBWC and CILA developed 

a plan to maintain the river channel and fl oodways. 

The Joint Report of the Principal Engineers, signed 

in 2007, identifies critical areas where the river channel has problems conveying normal and fl ood fl ows 

as a result of sediment, vegetation growth, and poor 

condition of the flood control levees. Th e agreement 

specifies the river reaches where each section will be 

responsible for desilting activities, levee repairs, and 

other improvements. 

JK

Natural Disasters 

Earthquake and Wildfi re Specifi c Partnerships


Border Agency Fire Council (BAFC). Th e BAFC 

was formed during the 1995 fire season in the San 

Diego-Baja California border region. It includes more 

than 30 organizations representing fire protection, law 

enforcement, elected offi cials, the health sector, natural resource managers, and others from both sides of 

the border. BAFC meets quarterly and approximately 

every 6 weeks during the fire season. It operates under a mutual assistance agreement with Mexico that 

is facilitated by the U.S. and Mexican consulates in the 

region. BAFC has improved communications across 

the border, held many joint training exercises, implemented fire safety campaigns on both sides of the 

border, coordinated development and maintenance of 

fire breaks along the border, and jointly conducted prescribed burns along the border. BAFC also coordinates 

crossborder assistance for wildfires. For example, as 

mentioned earlier, in the fall of 2007, 60 Baja California fi refighters crossed the border to help with the San 

Diego County firestorm; previously in June 2006, 10 

engines and crews from the California Department of 

Forestry and Fire Protection crossed into Baja California to support Mexican fire authorities for 6 days with 

a fire that burned 5,200 acres. 

Golden Guardian Exercise. The Golden Guardian Exercise Series, first introduced in California in 

2004, is an exercise program conducted annually to 

coordinate the activities of city, county, and state governments; first responders; volunteer organizations; 

and the private sector in response to potential acts of 

terrorism and natural disasters. The goal of the Series 

is to build on lessons learned from both simulation exercises as well as real-world events. The 2008 Golden 

Guardian Exercise will focus on the earthquake scenario. 

JK

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 47 
Glossary of Acronyms/Terms

glossary: Acronyms/Terms www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

Aduanas	 La Administración General de Aduanas 

(Mexico’s Customs Agency) 

BLM	 Border Liaison Mechanism (sometimes this 

acronym can also refer to the Bureau of 

Land Management) 

CBP	 Customs and Border Protection (U.S.) 

CHIPS	 Texas Colonia Health, Infrastructure, and 

Platting Status 

CILA	 La Comisión Internacional de Límites y Agua 

(Mexican Section of the International 

Boundary and Water Commission) 

CLAM	 Comité Local de Ayuda Mutual 

(Local Commitee of Mutual Assistance) 

CNA	 Comisión Nacional del Agua 

(Mexico’s National Water Commission) 

DFIRMs Digital Fire Insurance Rate Maps 

DHS Department of Homeland Security (U.S.) 

DOC Department of Commerce (U.S.) 

DOI Department of the Interior (U.S.) 

DOJ Department of Justice (U.S.) 

DOT Department of Transportation (U.S.) 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.) 

EPRBWWG Emergency Preparedness and Response 

Border-Wide Workgroup 

ESF Emergency Support Functions 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(U.S.) 

GAO Government Accountability Office (U.S.) 

GSA Government Services Agency (U.S.) 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

(U.S.) 

HSPD Homeland Security Presidential Directives 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (U.S.) 

IAS International Assistance System 

IBWC International Boundary and Water 

Commission 

IC Annex International Coordination Annex 

Inland JCP Inland Joint Contingency Plan 

IDRL International Disaster Response Laws, 

Rules, and Principles Programme 

Marine JCP Marine Joint Contingency Plan 

NIMS National Incident Management System 

NRF National Response Framework 

NRP National Response Plan 

NWCG National Wildfire Coordinating Group 

OFDA Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance 

SEGOB Secretaría de Gobernación (Mexico’s 

Secretary of Government) 

SINAPROC Sistema Nacional de Protección Civil (Mexico’s 

National System of Civil Protection) 

SPP Security and Prosperity Partnership of 

North America 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USIBWC U.S. Section of the International Boundary 

and Water Commission 

48 Good Neighbor E ighbor Environmental B onmental Board Eleventh R eventh ReportNatural Disasters and t ers and the Environment A nment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Business Report

business report www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

50 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 

Council on Environmental Quality Response to 10th Report 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 51 

business report www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

Comment Letter 
business report www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

52 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 

Comment Letter (continued) 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 53 

business report www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

Comment Letter (continued) 
business report www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

54 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 

Comment Letter 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 55 

business report www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

Comment Letter (continued) 
business report www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

56 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 

Comment Letter (continued) 
business report www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

Note: Following listing includes all those who served on the Board during calendar year 2007. Asterisk (*) indicates those who completed 


their terms either during 2007 or prior to the release of the Eleventh Report on March 19, 2008. It does not include those new members 


appointed on March 15, 2008. 

NONGOVERNMENTAL, STATE, LOCAL, 

TRIBAL MEMBERS 

Paul Ganster, Ph.D., Chair 

Director 

Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias 

San Diego State University 

5500 Campanile Drive 

San Diego, CA 92182-4403 

619-594-5423; 619-594-5474 (fax) 

E-mail: pganster@mail.sdsu.edu 

Christopher P. Brown, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor 

New Mexico State University 

P.O. Box 30001/MSC MAP 

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001 

575-646-1892; 505-646-7430 (fax) 

E-mail: brownchr@nmsu.edu 

Ron Curry* 

Secretary 

New Mexico Environment Department 

1190 St. Francis Drive, P.O. Box 26110 

Santa Fe, NM 87502-6110 

505-827-2855; 505-827-2836 (fax) 

E-mail: ron.curry@state.nm.us 

Michael P. Dorsey 

Chief 

Community Health Division 

San Diego County Department of Environmental Health 

9325 Hazard Way 

San Diego, CA 92123-1217 

858-694-3595; 619-778-1991 (cell); 858-694-3559 (fax) 

E-mail: michael.dorsey@sdcounty.ca.gov 

Edward Elbrock 

Malpai Borderlands Group 

P.O. Box 25 

Animas, NM 88020 

575-548-2270; 505-538-1812 (cell) 

E-mail: elbrock@vtc.net 

Gary Gillen 

President 

Gillen Pest Control 

1012 Morton Street 

Richmond, TX 77469 

281-342-6969; 281-232-6979 (fax) 

E-mail: gary@gillenpestcontrol.com 

Susan Keith 

Director 

Southern Regional Operations 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

400 W. Congress, Suite 433 

Tucson, AZ 85701 

520-628-6883; 520-628-6745 (fax) 

E-mail: sjk@azdeq.gov 

Patti Krebs 

Executive Director 

Industrial Environmenal Assocaiton 

701 B Street, Suite 1040 

San Diego, CA 92101 

619-544-9684; 619-544-9514 (fax) 

E-mail: iea@iea.sdcoxmail.com 

Rosario Marin 

Secretary 

California State Consumer Services Agency 

915 Capitol Mall, Suite 200 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

916-653-2979 

E-mail: rmarin@scsa.ca.gov 

Jennifer A. Montoya* 

Senior Program Offi cer 

Chihuahuan Desert Program 

World Wildlife Fund 

100 E. Hadley Street 

Las Cruces, NM 88001 

575-525-9537; 505-523-2866 (fax) 

E-mail: jatchley@zianet.com 

Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E. 

Policy Analyst 

Intergovernmental Relations Division/Border Aff airs 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

MC-121, P.O. Box 13087 

Austin, TX 78711-3087 

512-239-3606; 512-239-3335 (fax) 

E-mail: sniemeye@tceq.state.tx.us 

Ned L. Norris, Jr.* 

Chairman 

Tohono O’odham Nation 

P.O. Box 837 

Sells, AZ 85634 

520-383-2028 

E-mail: ned.norrisjr@tonation-nsn.gov 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 57 
business report www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

Robert Varady, Ph.D.* 

Deputy Director and Research Professor 

Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy 

The University of Arizona 

803 E. First Street 

Tucson, AZ 85719 

520-626-4393; 520-626-3664 (fax) 

E-mail: rvarady@email.arizona.edu 

Ann Marie A. Wolf 

President 

Sonora Environmental Research Institute, Inc. 

3202 E. Grant Road 

Tucson, AZ 85716 

520-321-9488; 520-321-9498 (fax) 

E-mail: aawolf@seriaz.org 

John Wood 

County Commissioner, Precinct 2 

Cameron County 

City of Brownsville 

1100 E. Monroe 

Brownsville, TX 78520 

956-983-5091; 956-983-5090 (fax) 

E-mail: jwood@co.cameron.tx.us 

FEDERAL MEMBERS 

Department of Agriculture 

Rosendo Treviño III 

Special Assistant to the Chief 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

5563 De Zavala, Suite 290 

San Antonio, TX 78249 

210-691-9248 

E-mail: rosendo.trevino@tx.usda.gov 

Department of Commerce (currently vacant) 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Marilyn DiSirio 

Associate Director for Global Health 

National Center for Environmental Health 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

1600 Clifton Road, N.E., MS-E97 

Atlanta, GA 30333 

404-498-0909; 404-498-0064 (fax) 

E-mail: mdisirio@cdc.gov 

Department of Homeland Security 

Gary Robison 

Acting Associate Chief 

Office of Border Patrol/Headquarters 

Customs and Border Protection 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 6.5 E 

Washington, DC 20229 

202-344-2115; 202-344-3140 (fax) 

E-mail: gary.robison@dhs.gov 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Shannon H. Sorzano 

Deputy Assisstant Secretary for International Aff airs 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

451 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 8112 

Washington, DC 20410 

202-708-0770; 202-708-5536 (fax) 

E-mail: shannon_h._sorzano@hud.gov 

Department of the Interior 

James Stefanov 

Deputy Director 

Investigations and Research 

Texas Water Science Center 

U.S. Geological Survey 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

8027 Exchange Drive 

Austin, TX 78754-4733 

512-927-3543 

E-mail: jestefan@usgs.gov 

Department of State 

Daniel D. Darrach 

Coordinator 

U.S.-Mexico Border Aff airs 

U.S. Department of State, WHA/MEX 

2201 C Street, N.W., Room 4258 

Washington, DC 20520 

202-647-8529; 202-647-5752 (fax) 

E-mail: darrachdd@state.gov 

Department of Transportation 

Linda L. Lawson 

Director 

Safety, Energy and the Environment 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Room W84310 

Washington, DC 20590 

202-366-4416; 202-366-0263 (fax) 

E-mail: linda.lawson@dot.gov 

58 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 
business report www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Carl Edlund 

Director 

Multimedia Planning and Permiting Division 

Region 6 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, MC 6PD 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

214-665-8124 

E-mail: edlund.carl@epa.gov 

International Boundary and Water Commission 

Carlos Marin 

Commissioner 

U.S. Section 

International Boundary and Water Commission 

4171 N. Mesa, Suite C-100 

El Paso, TX 79902 

915-832-4101; 915-832-4191 (fax) 

E-mail: carlosmarin@ibwc.state.gov 

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER 

Elaine M. Koerner 

Designated Federal Offi cer 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Cooperative Environmental Management 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code 1601M 

Washington, DC 20460 

202-564-2586; 202-564-8129 (fax) 

E-mail: koerner.elaine@epa.gov 

RESOURCE SPECIALISTS 

(non-Board members who work closely with the Board) 

Federal Agency Alternates 

Candice Abinanti 

International Relations Specialist 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

500 C Street, S.W., Room 714 

Washington, DC 20472 

202-646-2786; 202-646-3397 (fax) 

E-mail: candice.abinanti@dhs.gov 

Lana Corrales, M.P.H. 

Office of Global Health 

National Center for Environmental Health 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

1600 Clifton Road, N.E., MS-E97 

Atlanta, GA 30333 

404-498-0335; 267-808-1870 (cell); 404-498-0064 (fax) 

E-mail: lfcorrales@cdc.gov 

Miguel Flores 

Director 

Water Quality Protection Division 

Region 6 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, MC 6PD 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

214-665-8587 

E-mail: fl ores.miguel@epa.gov 

Sylvia Grijalva 

US- Mexico Border Planning Coordinator 

Federal Highway Administration 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

One Arizona Center 

400 E. Van Buran Street, Suite 410 

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

602-510-7986; 602-379-3608 (fax) 

E-mail: sylvia.grijalva@fhwa.dot.gov 

Rafael Guerrero 

Natural Resource Manager 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

501 W. Felix 

Building 23 

Fort Worth, TX 76115 

817-509-3490 

E-mail: rafael.guerrero@ftw.usda.gov 

Rachel Poynter 

Office of Mexican Aff airs 

U.S. Department of State 

2201 C Street N.W., Room 4258-MS 

Washington, DC 20520 

202-647-9364; 202-647-5752 (fax) 

E-mail: poynterrm@state.gov 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 59 
business report www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb 

RESOURCE SPECIALISTS (continued) 

(non-Board members who work closely with the Board) 

Christina Machion Quilaqueo REGION 9 BORDER OFFICE


Program Analyst Tomas Torres


U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S.-Mexico Border Program Coordinator


451 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 8112 Region 9


Washington, DC 20410 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


202-708-0770; 202-708-5536 (fax) 610 W. Ash Street (905)


E-mail: christina.machion@hud.gov San Diego, CA 92101


619-235-4775; 619-235-4771 (fax)


Sally Spener E-mail: torres.tomas@epa.gov


Public Aff airs Offi cer 


International Boundary and Water Commission REGION 6


4171 N. Mesa, Suite C-100 Gina Weber and Joy Campbell


El Paso, TX 79902 US-Mexico Border Program Coordinator


915-832-4175; 915-832-4195 (fax) Region 6


E-mail: sallyspener@ibwc.state.gov U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


1445 Ross Avenue, 12th Floor


EPA Regional Offi ce Contacts Dallas, TX 75202-2733


214-665-6787 (Ms. Weber); 214-665-8036 (Ms. CampREGION 9 bell); 214-665-7263 (fax) 

Hector F. Aguirre E-mail: weber.gina@epa.gov; campbell.joy@epa.gov 

U.S.-Mexico Border Specialist 

Region 9	 REGION 6 BORDER OFFICE 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	 Carlos Rincon, Ph.D. 

75 Hawthorne Street Border Offi ce Director


San Francisco, CA 94105 Region 6


415-972-3213; 415-947-8026 (fax) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


E-mail: 	aguirre.hector@epa.gov 4050 Rio Bravo, Suite 100


El Paso, TX 79902


915-533-7273; 915-544-6026 (fax)


E-mail: rincon.carlos@epa.gov


Note of Th anks 

In addition to those listed in the 2007 Membership Roster—which includes Board Members, Federal Agency Alternates, and EPA Regional Office Contacts—the following individuals also provided valuable contributions to the preparation 

of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report: 

California State Consumer Services Agency – Manolo Platin; Conservation Biology Institute – Michael White; Department of Housing and Urban Development – Lorenzo “Larry” Reyes; Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service – Mark Kaib; Department of Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration – Mark Capelli; 

Environmental Protection Agency – Jocelyn Adkins, Lisa Almodovar, Dave Gravallese, Beatriz Oliveira, Dana Tulis (Headquarters); Hal Zenick (Research Triangle Park); Ragan Broyles, Mary Kemp, Valmichael Leos, Bill Luthans, Ashley Phillips, 

Maria Sisneros (Region 6); and Barbara Maco (Region 9); Gillen Pest Control – Terrie Bering; International Boundary and 

Water Commission, U.S. Section – Steve Smullen; Native American Environmental Protection Coalition – Nina Hapner; 

New Mexico Environment Department – Marissa Stone; San Diego Foundation – Paula Stigler; San Diego State University – Bertha Hernández, Krissy Meckel-Parker, and Reynaldo Rojo; Sony Electronics – Doug Smith; Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality – Martin Ramirez; and Tohono O’odham Nation – Ty Canes. 

60 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Eleventh Report Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border