June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 1

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) 

Meeting

June 28 – 29, 2012

Double Tree Hilton Hotel 

600 N. El Paso Street

El Paso, TX

MEETING SUMMARY

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Welcome and Introductions

Mark Joyce, Associate Director and Acting Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Office of Federal 

Advisory Committee Management and Outreach (OFACMO)

Diane Austin, Chair, GNEB

Mr. Mark Joyce (EPA) welcomed the GNEB members and thanked them for their attendance at 

this meeting as well as their hard work on the 15th GNEB Report. He thanked the day’s 

presenters for attending the meeting and providing additional information to assist GNEB 

members in the development of the 15th GNEB Report. Meeting attendees introduced 

themselves.

Dr. Diane Austin (University of Arizona) thanked the individuals who organized the field trip 

that GNEB members attended on June 27, 2012. Additionally, she thanked Board members who 

have brought knowledge and expertise to the production of the 15th GNEB Report, as well as the 

presenters for providing additional information. 

Dr. Austin explained that the goal of the presentations during the current meeting was to gain an 

understanding of specific details about the surrounding region and of issues that extend to other 

parts of the U.S./Mexico border. She commented that members should note key issues that are 

discussed because they should be included in the Report.

Environment and Water Quality 

Transboundary Conservation of Rio Grande Watershed and the Big Bend-Rio Bravo Region

Aimee Roberson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Ms. Roberson stated that the USFWS collaborates with more than 30 organizations, including 

the National Park Service, the EPA and the U.S. Department of the Interior. The importance of 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 2

the Big Bend-Rio Bravo region is highlighted by a statement from the U.S. and Mexican 

Presidents, who noted the area as being a natural area of binational interest. 

To meet the challenge of water quality in the area, many initiatives have commenced that 

promote synergistic functioning between the two countries in that region. The region consists of 

many federally and state-protected conservation areas; however, collaborations also involve 

private landowners with land draining into the Rio Grande River. Linking science to on-theground management of water in the region is imperative to improve the effectiveness of actions 

taken.

One initiative that is under way is the Big Bend Conservation Cooperative. The Cooperative 

began in 2008 and examines conservation from a landscape perspective. Coalescence of the 

Cooperative was fully achieved in 2010 with the development and signing of a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) that is highly inclusive. The more than 40 organizations involved work in 

many different ecosystem areas, including grasslands, riparian areas and wetlands. The concept 

of the initiative is to improve the Rio Grande watershed, improve resilience to climatic shifts, 

improve the health of the ecosystem, reduce the risk of flooding to municipalities, and support 

the fish and wildlife that are dependent on the ecosystem. Outreach to different funding services

has been successful, including to the U.S. Department of the Interior. 

A parallel initiative, the Big Bend-Rio Bravo Initiative, has produced a federal action plan from 

the Cooperative. This plan examines the U.S./Mexico border crossing in Big Bend National Park 

and works to connect individuals to the environment and ecotourism. Local economies also 

should be supported, as the Initiative will create ecotourism jobs along the border. 

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) has 2 years of funding to focus on 

linking ground conservation and management of the river ecosystem. The Cooperation is not 

requesting additional water resources when discussing water flow but instead is asking individual 

water managers to meet and discuss sustainability of the river. The Cooperation also works to 

control invasive species along the corridor.

A project of the CEC is the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow Re-Establishment. This fish has been 

re-introduced into the Rio Grande River and has found initial success. The habitat for that 

species still requires much work, and the project looks to influence the health of the river 

ecosystem. To assist in this effort, it is important to control exotic species and environmental 

water flow.

To restore endangered species and support native species, the river itself must be examined, 

including the changes it has undergone historically. Most of the rivers in the western United 

States have been altered significantly by human use. The constant challenge is to try and balance 

human needs with the ecosystem’s health and resilience. In 1945, the Rio Grande River had a 

wide channel, dynamic eddies and alternate sandbars that provided habitat for native species. In 

2008, a reduced river flow was found, along with exotic species in the riparian corridor and less

sediment being evacuated. The simpler river channel is not conducive to supporting biodiversity. 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 3

Many steps can be taken to address this problem, including (1) control exotic species, (2) seek 

opportunities for environmental flows (managed and delivered) and (3) link upland ecosystems 

(sediment transport from grasslands, migration of species).

The USFWS is working with many partners on various studies along the Rio Grande River. 

These studies include geomorphic examinations to understand river channel dynamics; studies to 

observe aquatic habitat and communities, reservoir operations and general physical assessments; 

and projects to assess water quality and quantity issues.

Partners in Mexico are being engaged actively. There are many challenges to address regarding 

western rivers, and if the United States and Mexico continue to collaborate and overcome 

language barriers and data issues, a difference can be made. 

Water Quality Monitoring in the Rio Grande Basin in Texas

Leslie Grijalva, Texas Clean Rivers Program, International Boundary and Water 

Commission (IBWC)

Ms. Grijalva explained that the IBWC began routine water quality monitoring after a 1977 Joint 

Report of Engineers was published. The Clean Rivers Program did not begin until 1991, and in 

1998 the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and IBWC partnership began. 

As of 2012, there are 91 monitoring sites along the Rio Grande River.

The Texas Clean Rivers Program is state funded by fees that people pay when they apply for 

state permits. Such a program exists for every river basin in Texas with support from federal, 

state and local organizations that have shared interest in the health of water bodies. The Clean 

Rivers Program collects water from rivers and assesses the river water health. The data are used 

to identify water quality issues, establish priorities and implement corrective actions. The 

Program undertakes different activities, including water monitoring and assessment, outreach 

and public meetings, and producing publications (an Annual Highlight Report and a 

5-Year Basin Summary Report). 

The Rio Grande River Basin extends from Colorado to the tip of Texas and encompasses 

355,000 square miles. The river itself is more than 1,200 miles long. Ms. Grijalva is the sole 

employee of the Program and relies on collaborators to assist in the monitoring of the river. 

River monitoring stations are selected to represent given stretches of river and capture changes in 

river characteristics. Stations are monitored on various schedules and can include grab samples 

(semi-annually, monthly or quarterly) or continuous monitoring. Monitoring includes water pH, 

temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), nutrients, salts and microbiological characteristics. Certain 

sites require more extensive monitoring (i.e., metals, organics) when specific reasons are present. 

There are 21 partners in the Program, including local laboratories, universities, municipalities 

and nonprofit organizations. All agencies and partners are trained by Ms. Grijalva and must use 

TCEQ sampling procedures. In addition, all laboratories that process samples must be accredited. 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 4

The main water quality issues in the Rio Grande River are microbiological and nutrient 

imbalance. Additional issues include depressed DO, fish kills, chemical waste, trash and exotic 

species. These assessments are important because they contribute to the state integrated report. 

Any water bodies not meeting state standards are listed on the federal Clean Water Act section 

303(d) List. 

The challenges to binational basin water quality include access issues (border fence), different 

methods of analytical standards in the United States and Mexico, different laws of river 

discharges, lack of border infrastructure and jurisdiction. Adequate enforcement across the 

border is problematic, and with the large size of the region, available resources also can be 

challenging.

The Lower Rio Grande Water Initiative currently is in the planning stages. This initiative will 

focus on water quality issues in particular river segments, will attempt to describe a binational 

watershed plan and will be a pilot project to address other water quality issues. For additional 

information, the website can be visited at the following URL: www.ibwc.gov/CRP/index.htm. 

Discussion

Mr. Doug Liden (EPA) asked if the lower Rio Grande River is listed as being impaired solely for 

microbiological reasons. Ms. Grijalva responded that it does not meet bacterial standards. 

Dr. Austin introduced the next presenter, Mr. Omar Chacón Betancourt (Junta Municipal de 

Agua y Saneamiento), and said that he would present in Spanish and Mr. Stephen Niemeyer 

(TCEQ) would translate the presentation into English.

Junta Municipal de Agua y Saneamiento Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua – Plantas Tratadoras

Omar Chacón Betancourt, Chief, Department of Regulation and Sanitation, Junta Municipal 

de Agua y Saneamiento (Municipal Board of Water and Sanitation)

Mr. Betancourt thanked the GNEB for inviting him to present at this meeting. He explained that 

the Municipal Board of Water and Sanitation is responsible for rulemaking and ensuring that 

wastewater treatment plants comply.

On March 30, 2012, new compliance with international wastewater treatment laws was signed 

into law in Mexico. Twenty million pesos were granted to assist Juarez city treatment plants in 

complying with laboratory accreditation requirements in Mexico. Wastewater treatment plants 

monitor discharges, including individual discharges to treatment plants and pretreatment areas.

Juarez is the largest city in Chihuahua and the fifth largest in Mexico. The city has the fifth 

largest economy in Mexico and the ninth best quality of life. Based on the data, it is apparent that 

not all residents in Juarez are connected to the wastewater treatment system. The number of users 

and people connected, however, has been increasing daily for many years.
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 5

Two new water treatment plants are being built, and two more are being improved. When the 

new plants are built, 100 percent of the population of Juarez will have wastewater treatment 

access.

Because Juarez is located in the desert, sustainability is a concern. The government is seeking 

ideas to address sustainability concerns and is offering prizes to industry and individuals for 

ideas on the best ways to reuse wastewater. Currently, many areas are being irrigated with reused 

water, whereas previously they were irrigated with potable water (e.g., green spaces, golf clubs, 

industrial areas).

There had been complaints about odors reaching Texas from a treatment plant in Juarez. Steps 

were taken to resolve this situation, including building biological digesters and using ultraviolet 

(UV) lamps. The pipeline used for sludge runs from the north to south of the wastewater 

treatment plant, and residents are unaware of this because the odor has been controlled.

The Juarez governor has committed to complying with international requirements and in 2013 

the city will reach 100 percent compliance for water treatment. Juarez will be the second state in 

Mexico to achieve that level. 

Discussion

Mr. Luis Ramirez (New Mexico Environment Department) asked how monitoring is verified. 

Mr. Betancourt responded that inspectors sample everything and require wastewater treatment 

discharges to be sampled every 24 hours. If compliance is not achieved, the treatment facility is 

sanctioned. If manufacturers are not in compliance, they are shut down and their permits are 

revoked. 

Mr. Jose Angel (California River Basin Region Water Quality Control Board – Colorado River 

Basin Region) questioned the laws to comply with international treaties. Mr. Betancourt replied 

that the states of Mexico must meet the minimum requirements of federal law. 

Mr. Luis Olmedo (Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.) requested clarification of the technical aspects 

of the treatment of sewage sludge and UV irradiation in the effective control of odors. 

Mr. Betancourt replied that the technology was awarded a prize for the combination of UV rays 

and inclusion of bacteria in digesters to reduce odors. 

Mr. Ramirez said that the treatment plant that the GNEB visited in Nogales was utilizing UV 

irradiation as well and also emitted no odor. Mr. Edward Drusina (IBWC) added that the plant in 

Nogales has UV irradiation as the last stage of water treatment, and there is no odor emission. 

The capturing of methane and other odors is effective, but he had not previously seen a UVprotective approach to odors.

Another participant questioned the international standards regarding the control of discharges 

from wastewater treatment plants. He also said that in Nogales there are federal laws that may 

not be strict enough to protect the Nogales treatment plant. The plant in Arizona handles a 

different standard than in Mexico. He questioned the development of the international standard. 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 6

Mr. Betancourt stated that international standards are a reference. He was unfamiliar with the 

situation in Nogales, but in Mexico, municipalities handle the regulations. 

Dr. Theresa Pohlman (U.S. Department of Homeland Security) asked Ms.Grijalva which 

organizations monitor which parts of the Rio Grande River. Ms. Grijalva replied that the 

majority of partners are municipalities and universities that either already have established 

stations or have identified areas of concern, and that is where stations are established. A majority 

of the established monitoring stations are based on data monitoring needs. Dr. Pohlman 

commented that how these partnerships function is a best practice that should be included in the 

15th GNEB Report because Ms. Grijalva is leveraging her resources optimally.

Dr. Austin reminded the GNEB that when preparing the 15th Report, there has been discussion 

of monitoring needs. A case study would be optimal to indicate the benefits of monitoring. It is 

important to showcase examples of data that exist and actions that have been taken as a result of 

those data to show that the Report’s monitoring recommendations are justified. 

Ms. Roberson said that conservation involves a great monitoring effort. She works to link 

monitoring in her region with specific actions. In exotic species control (e.g., giant cane), she is 

looking for methods to control the species and produce tangible results. Mr. Betancourt added 

that monitoring also helps to ensure compliance in wastewater treatment. Laboratories are being 

opened across Chihuahua to ensure that dischargers are complying with treatment standards; this 

is a potent example of useful monitoring with actionable results.

Mr. Greg Eckert (National Park Service) asked if there are trends of gradual changes in the 

concentrations of contaminants in the Rio Grande River. Ms. Grijalva said that the information 

could be ascertained from the data she has; however, resources are not available for such an 

analysis. Data analyses for basic bacteria and salinity are graphed; these are of concern to most 

people, but that is the extent of the current data analyses.

Mr. Ramirez said that technicians collect samples along the Rio Grande River and that the 

program is volunteer-based. He asked if the volunteers have any certifications beyond training. 

Ms. Grijalva responded that no certification is required; however, some volunteers were certified 

in previous work. She personally trains volunteers in using TCEQ procedures, but resources are 

not available for additional training or activities. She said that one contract laboratory recently 

lost its accreditation and its data have been questioned; otherwise, there have been no faulty data 

issues. Mr. Drusina commented that Ms. Grijalva works very hard; however, many individuals 

that she trains are recruited by other employers and she often has to train new individuals.

Ms. Grijalva stated that the water quality data are given to an environmental management 

division that produces monthly reports. Special studies often are planned on the Mexican section 

of the river, and the division reviews the drafts and scope of work, and then the work is done 

with its approval. Clean River work is accomplished with the collaboration of entities along the 

Mexican section of the river. 

Mr. Mike Ortega (Cochise County Board of Supervisors) asked why dredging is not employed in 

sections of the river where sedimentation is a problem. Ms. Roberson answered that dredging can 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 7

be used in specific areas to protect municipalities and create habitat, but it is not a practice that is 

done frequently. Dredging is a tool that can be part of the river management toolbox; however, it 

has special and unique applications.

Mr. Angel said that Juarez is online with sewage coverage mostly. He questioned the locations of 

the areas lacking sewage treatment. Mr. Bancourt responded that some individuals have septic 

systems and that these systems are pumped frequently.

Mr. Mike Vizzier (County of San Diego) requested clarification on the bacterial analyses that 

have been performed. Specifically, he questioned if they test for total fecal coliforms or 

determine exact bacterial species and strains. Additionally, he asked if water is tested for 

endocrine-disrupting compounds, antibiotics and medications. Ms. Roberson responded that 

Texas Clean Rivers is relied upon for that data. Ms. Grijalva replied that some partners test for 

total fecal coliform, and the rest of the partners collect bacterial samples and run analyses for 

Escherichia coli. Some partners conduct DNA analyses, but such analyses can be costprohibitive. She commented that testing for antibiotics and endocrine-disrupting compounds is 

expensive and is not done unless a private laboratory or university completes the analyses. 

Mr. Vizzier pointed out that such details are important to know. Mr. Betancourt added that 

Mexican regulations do not require testing for those additional compounds due to the involved 

expense.

Responding to a question, Mr. Betancourt said that Juarez residents use 71 gallons of water per 

capita per day. They have water service every day of the year and will be able to maintain this 

level for the next 50 years. 

Ms. Roberson said that the USFWS collaborative group seeks to network and establish 

communication with other transboundary programs. Good models and contacts are needed, and 

there is much to be learned. She said that any contacts that the GNEB could provide would be 

greatly appreciated.

Water Supply Perspectives

Local Water Management

Jesus Reyes, General Manager, El Paso County Water Improvement District #1

Mr. Reyes explained that the El Paso Reclamation Project works closely with federal partners 

and that he would discuss the water management of the city. The Bureau of Reclamation is a 

taxing entity that was formed under Texas code. The Board members are elected. 

The city of El Paso gets water from Elephant Butte Lake, which is 120 miles away. The lake can 

hold 2.5 million acre feet of water; however, in the current drought situation, it is about 350 acre 

feet full. The drought began in 2003, and there was a recovery in 2004 and 2005, but the inflows 

to the lake were not optimal last year. 

The lake is responsible not only for the drinking water for El Paso, but also for the irrigation of 

690,000 acres of land. The Bureau of Reclamation averages that high inflows into the lake are 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 8

757,000 acre feet and low inflows are 573,000 acre feet. These numbers were altered recently, 

however, due to the drought. Low inflows dropped to 400,000 acre feet in March 2012, 172,000 

acre feet in April and dropped further to 141,000 acre feet in June. Inflow amounts are cyclical 

over the years, but the recent drought has been problematic. Fortunately, El Paso has some 

internal waters that can be utilized. 

Usable water that is available from the lake in 2012 is 230,000 acre feet and must be divided 

among El Paso, Mexico and the Elephant Butte irrigation district. About 30,000 acre feet of 

water are lost in the transport of that water to El Paso and Mexico. This loss is due largely to 

seepage. A “stage two” situation has been prepared for this year to deal with the low levels of 

water (e.g., no lawn or park watering); however, the need for implementing this has not occurred. 

Irrigation for farmers is necessary and is part of the water plan for the Elephant Butte Lake 

waters. The El Paso Valley contains many pecan orchards, as well as cotton, corn, wheat, chili, 

onion and hay farms. 

Infrastructure upgrades are being made continually as resources become available. These 

upgrades are to the urban canal system, which began construction in the 1800s and was 

completed in 1926. Ninety miles of canals have been upgraded thus far with concrete and 

structures (e.g., partidor structure). Mr. Drusina supports this updating process and has been very 

helpful. The federal government has provided assistance by awarding grant money to upgrade 

the canal system. 

The U.S./Mexico border fence impacts the canal structures and because the canals run along the 

border, there have been disputes about where the fence should be placed. Other issues include 

“tire dragging” by border control agents. Border control agents drag tires along the border to 

track foot movement in those areas, and this creates large dust clouds that coat nearby 

neighborhoods and foul the canals. This issue has been resolved by cooperation and 

collaboration between border control agents and water reclamation employees. 

Irrigation water allocations at most are 4 acre feet, but currently are down to 2 acre feet. Fifty 

percent of the water from Elephant Butte Lake goes to El Paso city. The allocation of water 

between El Paso city, Texas farmers and the New Mexico Elephant Butte area has been agreed 

upon and if an entity underutilizes the water allocated, it is allowed to “carry over” that surplus 

water for use in the following year. Currently, El Paso is 120,000 acre feet under its water 

allotment because it also uses 62 internal wells that feed into the canal system. 

Regional Approaches and Challenges

Jesus Reyes, General Manager, El Paso County Water Improvement District #1

Mr. Reyes continued that when he became the General Manager of the El Paso County Water 

Improvement District #1, there were 18 pending lawsuits that involved water issues. He has since 

resolved those lawsuits, and only one remains. This final pending lawsuit is with the state of 

New Mexico regarding the aforementioned operating agreement (annual water allotment per 

entity) that was signed in 2008. El Paso has been able to carry over water from one season to the 

next under this agreement, and New Mexico contends that this water should be allocated to it 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 9

because the state has not been able to conserve as well. The agreement includes a cap of 232,000 

acre feet of water that can be carried over from one year to the next, and El Paso generally 

exceeds this cap due to its conservative water practices. This is optimal for the city of El Paso 

because it allows the city to give farmers the water they need for proper irrigation. Farmers in 

turn upgrade their watering systems and ditches, which helps to conserve water further. 

Discussion

Ms. Sylvia Grijalva (U.S. Department of Transportation) asked about the New Mexico lawsuit 

argument. Mr. Reyes responded that the New Mexico state engineers feel that the operating 

agreement was signed unfairly because El Paso has been able to conserve so much more water 

than New Mexico. New Mexico contends that El Paso “got the best” of the operating agreement. 

Mr. Reyes conceded that all managers and officials have to work for their communities and 

protect them. 

Mr. Olmedo asked about the nature of tire dragging along the border. Mr. Reyes replied that he 

visited Washington, D.C., and interacted with the Department of Homeland Security to discuss 

the tire dragging practice. He said that the tire dragging creates ruts and that the El Paso border 

region gets about 8 inches of rain annually. The ruts develop into puddles due to this irrigation. 

The resulting upkeep is significant for the irrigation district. Mr. Reyes was able to stop the tire 

dragging practice entirely in some regions; in other areas, a chemical spray has been used to 

harden the ground along the canal banks. The first of these sprays was utilized 3 years ago, and 

that land remains hard like pavement to this day. Mr. Reyes asked the Department of Homeland 

Security to help fund those areas of concern that require tire dragging. 

Mr. Timothy Treviño (Alamo Area Council of Governments) commented that conservation 

measures are being implemented on the front-end, and Mr. Reyes affirmed this. He added that 

helping farmers is essential (e.g., concrete lining and laser leveling of small ditches). 

Mr. Thomas Ruiz (New Mexico Environment Department) praised the conservation that has 

occurred in El Paso and asked about the specific methods and resources available at the 

residential level. In Columbus, NM, a reverse osmosis system has been installed that improves 

water quality but also increases the cost. Mr. Reyes responded that El Paso water utilities have 

been helped by the efforts of the General Manager in installing showerheads that reduce water 

usage, as well as promoting education through advertising on television and radio. Programs also 

have been implemented that allow irrigation only on certain days, times and locations. All of 

these practices have helped to benefit the El Paso community. 

A GNEB member asked if tire dragging is common all along the border. Mr. Reyes confirmed 

that it is. The Board member asked if the practice affects water quality, and Mr. Reyes said that 

dust flow is a large problem caused by tire dragging. Many local residents have their homes and 

yards powdered in dust, which is a larger issue. Additionally, the dust covers farm fields of corn, 

cotton and so forth. Each time dragging is undertaken, a large dirt cloud ensues. Because tire 

dragging occurs 10 to 12 times a day, this can be a significant problem.
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 10

Shared U.S./Mexico Transboundary Water Resources

Carlos Peña, Principal Engineer, IBWC

Mr. Peña provided an update on the work that has been conducted under the Transboundary 

Aquifer Assessment Program (TAAP). The project team includes the Texas Water Resources 

Institute, the New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute, the Arizona Water Resources 

Research Institute and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), among others.

Groundwater is the major water resource for the area, and availability of this resource is 

imperative. Currently, adequate information is lacking on the extent of the quality and quantity 

of groundwater as well as on the interaction of aquifers. In 2006, a law was enacted

(U.S./Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act) that authorized $50 million over a 

10-year period to develop scientific knowledge of the binational aquifers. Four aquifers are being 

studied; however, more could be added. 

For the states, there is nothing in the Act that affects jurisdictions, treaties, water rights and so 

forth. Therefore, the objectives of the TAAP are to: (1) develop high-quality, comprehensive, 

binational groundwater quantity and quality databases; (2) assess the extent, availability, quality 

and use of border aquifers; (3) analyze trends in groundwater quality, including salinity, 

nutrients, toxics and pathogens; (4) develop and improve groundwater flow models for binational 

aquifers to facilitate regional water assessment and planning; (5) assess the movement and use of 

conjunctive surface ground water; (6) develop updated watershed delineations; and (7) apply the 

new data and models to evaluate strategies to enhance supplies and protect water quality.

Many activities have been undertaken for the TAAP, including holding U.S. stakeholder and 

public meetings to identify and prioritize needs, developing and reviewing work plans, and 

preparing an interim report to the U.S. Congress. 

Many scientific studies have been conducted in the Mesilla Basin Aquifer System of New 

Mexico, Texas and Chihuahua. An updated lower Rio Grande River hydrologic model of the 

Rincon Valley and Mesilla Basin have been integrated with an agricultural water-use model, 

geochemical analyses of the water are being performed, and existing hydrogeologic framework 

models will be evaluated. Additionally, data gaps for the Mesilla Basin will be identified 

following the development of a binational hydrogeologic model. 

A comprehensive literature review of U.S. research was undertaken so that the TAAP does not 

duplicate efforts. The literature is being compiled into a hydrogeological monitoring database. 

The hydrologic connection between the Mesilla Basin and adjacent basins also is being studied. 

The Arizona-Sonora TAAP activities include publishing material for a database, modeling the 

transport of contaminants, developing runoff monitoring, and documenting the area with a 

binational report. There is a joint cooperative framework, and the U.S./Mexico section objective

is to improve the knowledge base on transboundary aquifers.

A U.S./Mexico system of distribution for waters that originate in the upper Rio Grande River 

watershed was determined in the Convention of 1906. When there are reductions in available 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 11

water, both Mexico and the United States get a proportional reduction in water delivery. 

Recently, issues arose regarding the reduced delivery of water; valuable lessons learned from 

that interaction include initiating early contingency planning with all irrigation entities, 

understanding how channeled surface water interacts with aquifers, and understanding how 

groundwater pumping impacts channel conveyance efficiencies. Studies of single and multiwater usage will be examined to provide better tools and information for handling water. Water 

scarcity is a major concern for stakeholders, and the TAAP is working to provide adequate 

information on this issue.

Discussion

Mr. Drusina commented that the TAAP mandate encompasses surface water and not 

groundwater. Mr. Peña responded that there are no treaties on groundwater and, after the release 

of water from Elephant Butte, the groundwater becomes surface water when it becomes part of a 

river. The information that will be gathered by the TAAP will assist in improving water 

management. Additionally, links between the USGS and water institutes in Mexico will ensure 

that necessary information is gathered and that needed agreements are developed.

Mr. Drusina said that the IBWC’s involvement in treaties relating to the United States and 

Mexico is to recognize and describe for Mexico why certain water allocations are being made, 

especially if the current drought continues. Understanding aquifer performance, therefore, is 

vital. Mr. Peña agreed and said that Mexico requests information on how much surface water is 

being lost to groundwater and that the TAAP so far has had little information on this.

Mr. Angel questioned the priority rights for the Water Improvement District #1. Mr. Reyes 

responded that the district has an authority agreement that allows the ownership of up to 3,000 

acre feet of land. Developers with up to 100 acre feet of land for building homes can lease those 

water rights to the city of El Paso. The cost per acre foot for water delivery and tax is $32; 

however, $150 is the valley average.

A participant asked if the data are collected from Mexican wells and stations, and Mr. Peña was 

unsure. Information is available on the TAAP website. Due to “trumping laws,” a participant was 

surprised that the TAAP could use certain pieces of data in the fashion outlined by Mr. Peña. 

Mr. Peña replied that such information will be used by the state and not by the TAAP 

specifically.

Mr. Robert Apodaca (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]) said that New Mexico and Texas

rely on water resources and that the drought is affecting growth. From a policy perspective, he 

asked about the major aspects that those states need to work on to address long-term aspects of 

water, economies and population growth. Mr. Reyes responded that the most important regional 

task is to limit how much water can be pumped from aquifers. Allowing farmers to pump 

unlimited amounts of water is improper, and permits for drilling wells should be required. 

Mr. Luis Romero (Puerto Rico) asked about the availability of the TAAP searchable database 

and reports online. Mr. Peña said that some are available already and that he would provide URL 

links. 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 12

Mr. Romero pointed out that historical water charts indicate a declining but cyclical nature of 

water availability and drought. Currently, the region appears to be in a “down” stage, and he 

wondered about the expectation for next year. Mr. Reyes hoped that the drought would end soon. 

Mr. Niemeyer said that in 2008, the highest per capita water use was in Briscoe, TX, whereas 

El Paso, TX, was 33rd in water usage per capita. He said that the TCEQ drafted a letter to 

President Obama in 2011 on the transboundary environmental impact assessment. An agreement 

with Mexico was in a Principal Engineers Report, but not in a Minute Report. Mr. Peña added 

that a Principal Engineers Report is a technically based agreement, and that joint reports are 

technically based, which can lead to the development of a Minute Report. Also, Technical 

Reports usually are signed. 

Mr. Niemeyer stated that colleagues in other states work on transboundary assessment programs 

and that if a Minute is produced, then there is more impetus for action. Mr. Peña replied that 

whether a U.S./Mexico agreement is a Minute Report or a Technical Report, all parties follow up 

appropriately. Mr. Niemeyer asked that if Mexico installs a well outside of a 5-mile zone, but 

technically it is next to the Rio Grande River, do the Mexicans have to report that they are taking 

flow from that river? Mr. Peña was unsure.

Mr. Drusina said that the IBWC’s jurisdiction is limited along the border and can change with 

location. It therefore has the authority to impact individuals who infringe on those zones; 

however, the IBWC does not have a mandate to be involved with groundwater. Groundwater 

issues are handled through the Bureau of Reclamation. The IBWC facilitates communications 

regarding groundwater to help gain a better understanding of the issues. He added that Engineers 

Reports and Minutes are interpretations of treaties and carry similar force. Mr. Niemeyer stated 

that water withdrawals along the border should not allow for the disaggregation of groundwater 

and surface water because they are connected. Mr. Drusina agreed. Mr. Niemeyer said that under 

Texas water rights if a groundwater pump is located next to a river and surface water is being 

withdrawn, it is okay; however, if individuals in Mexico do the same, then they are taking water 

that belongs to Texas water holders. Mr. Drusina agreed and said that if this occurrence 

continues in the United States, it is uncertain how much water will remain after several 

generations. The IBWC is working to clarify that issue.

Mr. Vizzier questioned the advance notice needed for a water order. Mr. Reyes responded that 

water is delivered usually in 4 to 5 days following an order. Mr. Vizzier said that in the southern 

border area, it is difficult for most irrigation districts to develop additional water resources and 

that system efficiency needs improvement. 

Mr. Hans Huth (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality [ADEQ]) said that the 

hydrogeological framework is being developed in individual river basins. He also pointed out 

that in Minute 276 there is no security for wastewater flows from north of Nogales to Nogales, 

AZ. He asked if that is considered in the watershed boundary assessment program. Mr. Peña 

committed to finding this information. Mr. Huth said that he suspects it is not and that this would 

be a good recommendation for the 15th GNEB Report.
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 13

Resources

Border 2020 Update

Doug Liden, EPA, Region 9

The Border 2020 Program spans 18 years, and Mr. Liden provided a review of the 

accomplishments. 

The U.S./Mexico border region has an estimated population of 14 million people and is expected 

to grow to 22 million by 2020. This population is divided evenly between the United States and 

Mexico. Unemployment and poverty are higher than the national average in this area. 

Additionally, there is poor air quality, insufficient infrastructure and needed improvements in the 

management of solid waste. 

In the goal to reduce water pollution, Border 2012 has connected 513,000 households to 

wastewater systems and 55,000 households to safe drinking water systems. These benefits reach 

8.5 million border residents. Many small pilot projects were invested in along the border to 

facilitate this goal, including composting toilets, harvesting storm water, pervious pavement 

projects and so forth. 

The goal to reduce air pollution included the retrofitting of diesel trucks and the completion of 

climate change action plans. Additional goals were achieved, including reducing land pollution 

(e.g., scrap tires were removed from clandestine dump sites along the border), improving 

environmental health (e.g., pesticide safety education) and improving emergency preparedness 

and response.

A new approach in the program has a key emphasis on the next 8 years. The same structure is in 

place as in Border 2020, but the focus of strategies will shift to climate change, environmental 

health, children’s health, underserved communities and strengthening tribal, state and 

international partnerships. A 2-year action plan has been developed to account for resource 

changes, and there is an increased focus on leveraging viable resources. 

The Border 2020 goals are to reduce air pollution (in four airsheds), improve access to clean and 

safe water; promote materials management, waste management and clean sites; enhance joint 

preparedness for environmental response (e.g., updating the U.S./Mexico contingency plan); and 

enhance compliance assurance and environmental stewardship (e.g., improving information 

sharing between enforcement agencies, identifying top emitters). The goal of improving access 

to clean and safe water has the subgoals of increasing homes connected to safe drinking water 

and wastewater treatment, helping such utilities function more efficiently and sustainably, 

reducing binational surface water contamination in four priority watersheds, and improving 

access to water quality data and beach alerts. The goals have a geographic and watershed focus. 

In all four of the watersheds of interest (i.e., Lower Rio Grande River below Falcon, Santa Cruz 

River, New River and Tijuana River), there are bacterial problems.

Border 2020 has a 2-year action plan that intends to summarize all of the projects with funding 

so that agencies on both sides of the border can list their projects. For example, with the 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 14

summarized list of projects, overlapping projects have been identified with sister agencies in 

Mexico. Such overlap has funded the formation of a volunteer cleanup in Mexico. 

On August 8, 2012, there will be an official Border 2020 signing ceremony and in January 2013,

the finalized 2-year regional action plans will be in place. Resources are not as ample as would 

be optimal; however, it is hoped that these fiscally tight times will be temporary.

Discussion

Mr. Eckert asked if work would be done on underground storage tanks. Mr. Liden responded that 

an EPA underground storage tank program exists, but for the Border 2020 program there has 

been more focus on binationally impactful projects. Mr. Enrique Manzanilla (EPA) said that the 

2-year action plan allows for issues such as storage tanks to enter the dialogue and be addressed. 

Mr. Eckert agreed and added that this issue is relevant to groundwater development projects.

Mr. Ramirez asked about the outcome of the salvaged tires. Mr. Liden said that the majority of 

them were sent to a cement kiln as direct tire fuel. This is not an ideal use. Ms. Maria Elena 

Giner (Border Environment Cooperation Commission [BECC]) said that tires are an issue that 

she has worked on in Juarez, Mexico. Juarez generates 1 million waste tires per year. Cement 

kiln disposal has been incentivized and has become a permanent disposal system. Collection of 

tires is no longer as problematic as their disposal. 

U.S./Mexico Border Environment Cooperation Agreement

Maria Elena Giner, General Manager, BECC; Renata Manning, Projects Director, BECC

Ms. Giner explained that the BECC’s mandate has been expanded to include the new sectors of 

municipal planning and development, international border crossings, energy transmission/

distribution of energy, production of goods, and other infrastructure designed to minimize future 

negative environmental impacts in the region. 

The BECC has 194 certified projects that equal a $4.317 billion total investment. Based on the 

14th GNEB Report, since July 2011, seven renewable energy projects have been certified. All 

U.S. projects have been supported by federal programs. There are two additional energy projects 

and five more in development. 

The BECC is gaining traction in the industry as private sector businesses now contact it for 

discussions. Several states have contacted the BECC to request legal and design help in crafting 

projects. The Border Energy Forum will be held in Sonora this year, and the 14th GNEB Report 

should be presented at that time. Due to the GNEB’s efforts, the BECC has focused technical 

assistance in 2012 on energy audits for water utilities. Energy audits have been started in Baja 

California. 

Ms. Manning said that the needs assessments infrastructure requirements in Mexico total 

$810 million. In the United States, there are challenges to collecting data, such as numbers of 

households connected to water systems. Drinking water systems numbers are easier to analyze; 

however, wastewater is more difficult and relies almost solely on a clean water survey. One-half 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 15

of the counties on the U.S./Mexico border do not report numbers for households connected to 

wastewater treatment. 

Needs assessment in this area presents challenges, especially with regard to wastewater. The 

Clean Water Needs Survey is the primary instrument, and the system contains gaps. Gaps in the 

numbers of households connected to centralized wastewater systems in Arizona could be due to 

rural households. Arizona, New Mexico and west Texas grapple with the issue of arseniccontaminated water, making the need to understand the water systems there imperative. There 

must be drinking water connections and centralized wastewater connections, and where there is 

one, there should be both. This need exceeds $3 billion in the United States. 

The BECC and the North American Development Bank (NADB) have participated in the EPA’s 

U.S.-Mexico Border Program, one of the most successful programs implemented to address 

these needs. This program provides assistance to border region communities through the Project 

Development Assistance Program (PDAP) and the Border Environment Infrastructure Fund 

(BEIF). The PDAP, which is administered by the BECC, provides grants for the technical 

development of projects. The BEIF is administered by the NADB and provides construction 

grant funds. These programs have been efficient and effective in addressing centralized waterand wastewater service-related needs in these communities. 

The NADB’s Loan Programs facilitate construction in eligible sectors, including water and 

wastewater. The loans can be leveraged with special bond programs such as Build America, 

private programs and private-public partnerships. The Community Assistance Program (CAP) is 

a new program that gives priority to funding water, wastewater and solid waste projects in 

economically distressed communities. Under the Technical Assistance Programs, the 

BECC/NADB offers grants for institutional strengthening and project development.

Specific funding sources are available for water and wastewater through the BECC/NADB 

process. These allow leveraging of resources between state, federal and other funding sources. 

The USDA is a critical BECC/NADB funding partner in all states through its rural development

effort. Challenges have arisen, however, in combining sources for construction tasks. These 

challenges are addressed with the USDA on a case-by-case basis. Other important funding 

partners include state grant programs, State Revolving Loan Funds, and the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, through its Community Development Block Grants. 

The BECC/NADB investment strategy recommendations include allowing for sufficient 

investment in planning, including conducting needs assessments, master plan investments and 

ongoing interagency coordination and streamlining of processes. Additional recommendations 

include generating new revenues for self-sustaining utilities, and optimizing new and leveraged 

program resources. 

Ms. Giner then described a vulnerability analysis of border counties that the BECC had 

conducted recently, which showed that these counties contain vulnerable populations. Indicators 

included age, household income, home ownership and language, among others. Every border 

county was found to be significantly below the state average in income; had significantly higher 

averages of elderly and under age 18 populations; and had lower levels of home ownership and 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 16

education, along with higher levels of use of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). 

She noted that, in these regions, the BECC/NADB and others are providing first-time services 

and meeting primary water quality standards, as opposed to rehabilitating services that already 

are in place in most of the country. This region is significantly disadvantaged from the rest of the 

country, and it is important to communicate this message to the EPA and others.

Discussion

Mr. Ruiz complimented the BECC on its April 2012 testimony before New Mexico Senator Tom 

Udall and the U.S. Senate’s Subcommittee on Children’s Health and Environmental 

Responsibility regarding needs along the New Mexico border and efforts to address them. He

expressed optimism that similar information could be presented to state entities in New Mexico. 

Ms. Giner added that New Mexico’s Senator Jeff Bingaman, who is retiring, was a strong 

advocate for the U.S. Mexico Border Program. Senator Udall has agreed to take on this advocacy 

role. She said that this is a good time to push for additional funding for the program. The 

program still receives approximately 200 applications and can fund only 20 to 25 of them. 

Senator Udall can advocate for additional funding for this program from the EPA. Dr. Austin 

thanked the Board Members and others who had testified at the hearing and noted the importance 

of taking advantage of these kinds of opportunities to educate others about the needs in these 

areas. 

Dr. Cyrus Reed (Sierra Club) asked whether the BECC needs assessment had compared the data 

on water and wastewater needs in Texas with the data contained in the plan developed by the 

state’s water board. If not, this would be an additional source of information. Ms. Manning 

indicated that the BECC had reviewed an earlier version of the state plan and planned to review 

the updated version very soon. Potential opportunities may exist for leveraging funding to 

conduct surveys. 

Dr. Reed noted that the Texas Water Development Board requires funding recipients to have 

developed a water conservation plan for utilities to avoid leaks, infrastructure issues and the like, 

and asked if the BECC had explored this issue. Ms. Manning said that, although water 

conservation planning is not required to access funding, it is considered when projects are being 

developed and in certification criteria. 

Dr. Reed asked if there is an additional program or funding need to focus on leak detection, basic 

infrastructure and other prevention/protection issues. Ms. Manning responded that this is done 

with the PDAP source funding when such efforts can fit within the scope of a project. The BECC 

is looking for ways to implement these recommendations through other sources as well, 

including the CAP program, which currently includes a micrometering project. Ms. Giner noted, 

however, that significantly more technical assistance funds had been allocated in the past and 

included activities such as leak detection. This is no longer part of the program and must be tied 

in when possible. For the future, she recommended including such activities as a clear part of the 

program. 

Mr. Olmedo asked for a clarification of the term “unserved.” Does it include recipients of canal 

water, for example? He also asked for additional information on what is meant by “certification.” 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 17

Ms. Manning responded that only centralized water connections were assessed in the study. 

Water coming through other means such as via canals or delivery of drinking water to homes 

was not included. Ms. Giner indicated that projects receiving certification can access NADB 

funding. 

Mr. Angel asked how many of the 25 percent of applications received that are processed for 

funding are Colonias Projects, and how many Colonias Projects, specifically in the El Paso area, 

have been funded during the last 5 years. Ms. Manning said that she would have to locate that 

information for Mr. Angel. She added that many of the funded projects are Colonias Projects 

because these projects address areas that do not have water/wastewater service. Dr. Austin 

requested that the information be given for the entire border area. 

Mr. Angel asked Mr. Liden what he anticipated in terms of budget implementation for Border 

2020. Mr. Liden responded that, typically, each region has used a little less than $1 million for 

the projects, and several million more for staff, program management and so forth. The program 

was cut by approximately 40 percent last year. Next year’s amount might be similar to that for 

FY 2012. Mr. Manzanilla read the following figures to the group: 2011 actual, U.S.-Mexico 

border = $4.8 million; FY 2012 enacted = $4.3 million; 2013 President’s budget request = $4.5 

million; for infrastructure assistance on the Mexico border: 2011 actual = $14.7 million; 2012 

enacted = $5 million; 2013 President’s budget request = $10 million. Mr. Liden noted that these 

figures include monies for tribes and special appropriations. Mr. Manzanilla added that the 

national program for infrastructure assistance under the Clean Water Act was reduced by 

$291 million between the President’s budget request and the enacted amount for 2012; for 

drinking water, the enacted amount for 2012 reduced the amount requested in the President’s 

budget by $67.9 million. Dr. Pohlman noted that not all reductions are acted upon.

Mr. Ramirez asked about the $8.6 billion versus $3.28 billion figures shown on some of the 

slides and whether the communities actually have access to centralized water systems or depend 

on other water sources. Ms. Manning said that the priority is the $3.2 billion, which is to be used 

to connect homes that already receive centralized water to a centralized sewer system. These 

homes can be expected to be in more densely developed areas, with smaller lot sizes and higher 

levels of water use. As a result, the risk of not having a centralized wastewater connection could 

be more significant for these communities. The $8.6 billion figure is based on 100 percent of the 

households being connected to centralized services. 

Dr. Austin asked whether data are available on communities that are connected to safe wells 

versus wells that may be contaminated or those who have water trucked in. If such data are not 

available, it may be problematic. Ms. Manning said that these differences currently are not 

documented. Ms. Giner noted that the likelihood of rural communities not having functioning 

septic tanks is very high, and the wells also may be problematic because of naturally occurring 

arsenic and fluorine. It is important that the data reflect the variety of possible scenarios that may 

be encountered in different communities. The demographics of the communities also must be 

taken into account. 

Mr. Ramirez referred to the statement about elevating the priority of projects for first-time 

services and asked if that applied to the $3.2 billion. Ms. Giner noted that the basis for the 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 18

analysis is to first target those who have water connections who do not have wastewater 

connections; that is the $3.2 billion, which is only a fraction of what is needed. For some 

perspective, the Texas Water Development Board’s annual budget is $4 billion.

Dr. Austin thanked the speakers for their presentations and introduced the Public Comment 

period. 

Public Comments

Dr. Austin reported that three individuals had signed up to provide comments, and asked 

Tom Barry of the Center for International Policy, Washington, D.C., to speak first.

Mr. Barry said that he had been traveling in northern Mexico and looking at water issues and had 

come to the meeting to learn more. He has been focusing mainly on groundwater issues such as 

drilling, electricity and cost. He had no specific comment to make at the time, but he hoped to be 

able to speak with other meeting participants during the break. 

Dr. Reed asked Mr. Barry if he had been exploring any areas that related to transboundary 

resource issues. Mr. Barry responded that he had been focusing on Colonias along the border, 

including Mennonite Colonias that are right on the border. Hundreds of new deep wells have 

been installed in these areas in recent years. 

Dr. Austin thanked Mr. Barry for his comments and noted that he would be present during the 

upcoming break for further discussion.

Dr. Austin next introduced Eddie Chew of Border Interfaith. Mr. Chew introduced himself as a 

member of Border Interfaith and the University Presbyterian Church in El Paso, TX. He said that 

he came to raise an air quality concern and noted that there is a steel plant in Vinton, TX, and 

three more steel plants in the area. His organization has been working with the ArcelorMittal

plant in Vinton since 2005, when residents of the nearby Westway community began expressing 

concerns about smoke, dust, vibrations and illness. Mr. Chew described the process by which the 

plant received an air quality permit that the plant had protested and eventual measurements of 

stack effluent that were within the limits set by the existing permit. There have been no air 

quality violations by the plant to date, but the combined effects of the multiple steel plants, 

Interstate Highway 10 traffic, nearby truck stops and other sources had not been assessed. The 

community would like to see more air quality monitoring conducted in that area, as well as 

health studies in the Westway community. This area is northwest of El Paso, approximately 13 

miles from the border. 

Mr. Ruiz introduced himself as the Border Environmental Issues Coordinator for the 

New Mexico Environment Department and said that, although not in New Mexico, those 

facilities affect the airshed in New Mexico as well. He asked if Mr. Chew was aware of the joint 

advisory committee (JAC) on air quality in that area, and noted that the committee has existed 

for approximately 15 years to address these kinds of issues that affect the states in this area. He 

encouraged Mr. Chew to bring this matter to the attention of the JAC. Mr. Chew indicated that 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 19

he had spoken with the JAC previously, but there have not been any results. Mr. Ruiz 

recommended bringing the matter to the attention of the JAC again.

Dr. Reed asked what the main contaminants of concern are in the area. Mr. Chew responded that 

carbon monoxide emissions were at about 2,400 tons per year and recently had been reduced to 

about 1,000 tons per year. Nitrogen oxides are a concern, and USA Today has cited manganese as 

a problem in the local school. Thus, heavy metals and particulates are seen as problematic. The 

plant has two electric arc furnaces that were built perhaps in the early 1950s. 

Dr. Reed noted that Mr. Niemeyer of the TCEQ was in attendance and asked about TCEQ plans 

for monitoring in that area in 2013, and whether the TCEQ requires fence-line monitoring.

Mr. Niemeyer responded that he was not familiar with this plant’s particular permit, but the 

TCEQ probably does have fence-line monitoring and stack emissions testing requirements in that 

area, although he did not know the specifics. He added that there may be monitors in 

New Mexico that are closest to the site and noted that the TCEQ is experiencing budget cuts in 

the area of monitoring, including from the EPA, and monitoring sites were being reconfigured. 

Mr. Angel added that Region 9 has monitoring stations that are funded by the EPA for the border 

area and asked whether the EPA has monitoring stations in the Vinton area. Mr. Manzanilla was 

not familiar with the specifics of what was available in the Vinton area, but noted that most EPA 

monitoring funding is distributed through the states. It now appears that a planned expansion 

may not go into effect. 

Dr. Austin thanked Mr. Chew for presenting his information, noted the GNEB’s interest in air as 

well as water issues, and said that a record of this information will be kept. 

Dr. Austin called upon Rick Van Schoik of the Southwest Consortium for Environmental 

Research and Policy to comment next. 

Mr. Van Shoik explained that the consortium is a collaboration between five universities on the 

U.S. side of the border and five universities in Mexico. The consortium’s website contains 

background material and monographs on transboundary water issues. He noted that he had 

attended 12 GNEB meetings during the last 15 years and characterized the GNEB meetings as an 

important outlet for disseminating the consortium’s behind-the-scenes research. 

Mr. Van Shoik described two recent consortium studies. One was on the trading of water 

allocations across the border and found that this practice saves tens of millions of dollars per year 

in foregone infrastructure investment. The second study addressed transboundary water banking 

and found that it saves tens of billions of dollars per year in forgone investment, mostly in areas 

other than infrastructure. He added that the consortium hopes that both of these studies will be 

considered in the GNEB Report. 

Dr. Austin thanked Mr. Van Shoik for his comments and urged the appropriate workgroups to 

take this information into account if these studies were not yet on their resources lists. 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 20

A participant said that he had received about eight pages of comments from a colleague who 

could not attend and asked how they could be introduced. Dr. Austin noted that another public 

comment period had been scheduled during the next day of the meeting and asked if he could 

circulate the material to the Board and perhaps prepare a synopsis and answer questions during 

the next comment period. 

Dr. Austin noted that there would be several sessions following the lunch break that the group 

was about to take. She gave a preview of the afternoon activities and objectives, which included

identifying gaps in the 15th Report during the workgroup sessions and suggesting how they 

might be addressed. She asked participants to identify topics that had not been addressed and 

submit those topics to the workgroup chairs for discussion during the workgroup breakouts. In 

the later afternoon session, participants would be asked to identify the key recommendations to 

be made in the 15th Report. The recommendations would be discussed further during the 

following day’s sessions. 

Workgroup Discussions of the 15th Report

Dr. Austin thanked the participants for their hard work during the previous sessions and asked 

them to focus on the key recommendations to be included in the 15th Report— the “big picture” 

messages to the President and Congress. The Board’s recommendations must be made at the 

federal rather than the state level. 

In discussing the timeline for the Board’s report-related activities, Dr. Austin emphasized the 

August 17, 2012, date on which the files must be sent to the contractor, The Scientific 

Consulting Group, Inc. (SCG), if the final report is to be printed and released by November 8, 

2012. If this deadline does not seem feasible, the Board could choose to release the report in 

December instead. This would require a December meeting in Washington, D.C. She asked the 

attendees to be prepared to discuss possible dates for such a meeting during the following 

morning’s session. It was anticipated that the next fiscal year’s funding would allow for one 

face-to-face meeting to release the report and discuss the topic for next year’s report. For the 

next report, a March teleconference was anticipated, to be followed possibly by a summer faceto-face meeting and a teleconference in the late summer/fall to vote to approve the report. 

In preparation for sending this year’s report to SCG by August 17, 2012, Dr. Austin noted that 

workgroup chairs must send in their updated chapters to her and Ms. Ann-Marie Gantner (EPA) 

no later than July 11, 2012. SCG will combine the materials into a single draft report for detailed 

editing, which ultimately will be voted on in a conference call before it is released. If this 

timeline did not seem feasible, a December release would be the alternative. Dr. Austin asked 

participants to be prepared to discuss the report timing during the following morning’s session. 

Context Workgroup Discussion

Mr. Treviño of the Context workgroup reported that the group had rearranged the order of the 

elements of this chapter as follows: introduction, demographics, water governance, financial 

resources and critical/emerging issues. The demographics section previously had been intended 

to cover population characteristics and increasing population and effects on water supply and 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 21

demand. After that morning’s BECC presentation, however, the workgroup thought that this 

section should portray the current state of the border and what has occurred between the 1st and 

15th GNEB Reports. This change would be open to discussion by the group as a whole. The 

water governance section would include summaries from each of the groups, followed by 

sections on binational, state/local and tribal contexts, and interdependence in governance. 

Financial resources would include binational, other sources (e.g., private markets, public sector 

debt issue), state revolving loan funds, state funds in general, and tribal-specific funding. The 

critical/emerging issues section would conclude the chapter and address additional important 

elements that would not be the subject of a separate chapter. 

With regard to groundwater governance, the Context workgroup suggested recommending that 

the IBWC, in its overall mission or charter, consider groundwater management in addition to

surface water management. Mr. Treviño asked if this would be appropriate to include. Ms. Sally 

Spener (IBWC) said that state representatives on the GNEB might be unlikely to agree with such 

a recommendation. Mr. Treviño responded that the recommendation was made because of the 

uncertainty of the adequacy of the water supply in this area during the next 50 years. Dr. Reed 

noted that the supply chapter includes some discussion of groundwater management issues and, 

borrowing from the 8th Report, updates the U.S./Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment 

Act. It probably will be difficult to make a recommendation for the IBWC to cover groundwater 

issues. It may be reasonable, however, to consider a role for the IBWC in bringing stakeholders 

together in such areas as data-sharing protocols and planning. 

Dr. Reed noted that the supply chapter workgroup had questioned whether that chapter should 

include a brief section that gives an overview of the water supply on the U.S.-Mexico border, 

demands on water in the area (e.g., agricultural) and the like. However, the group did not want to 

duplicate what will be included in the Context chapter. Mr. Treviño answered that the other 

groups may want to provide the Context group with an “executive summary” of their topic that

can be included in the Context chapter. The Context chapter can provide a preview of/segue into 

the other chapters. Dr. Austin agreed and added that the workgroups other than Context include 

subject matter experts who should prepare introductions of their subject areas that the Context

group can synthesize into the Context chapter. This will allow the Context chapter to focus on 

the state of water and preview the other chapters, with much of the detail to be presented in the 

remaining chapters. 

With regard to emerging issues, Dr. Reed said that the supply workgroup had discussed the idea 

of a new effort/emphasis on water for environmental needs, in addition to consumption, 

agriculture and manufacturing. This will be discussed in the supply chapter but may be 

appropriate to include in the Context chapter as well. Mr. Treviño said that the Context

workgroup would include this if requested. The Context workgroup, however, had intended to 

include emerging issues that would not be discussed elsewhere in the report. It was agreed that 

some issues could be mentioned in the Context chapter and then developed further in subsequent 

chapters. Mr. Treviño asked the other workgroups to send the Context workgroup topics that

they would like to see included in the Context chapter.

Mr. Manzanilla added that the Context chapter should define why the border area is different 

from other areas (e.g., economically, demographically, linguistically). As an example, he 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 22

referred to how the 13th Report had addressed the context of the issues. Perhaps that report could 

be referenced in the 15th Report. Mr. Treviño agreed. 

Dr. Austin noted that it can be appropriate to repeat recommendations (e.g., from report to 

report). She also suggested that the GNEB consider how previous reports will be referenced so 

that this is done in a consistent manner throughout the 15th Report. If they had not done so

previously, she asked attendees to review the 8th and 13th Reports.

Mr. Treviño said that the Context workgroup also had discussed shale gas development as an 

emerging issue. He noted that 1,200 new oil and gas wells are being drilled in Webb County in 

connection with the Eagle Ford project. Research has shown that developing a natural gas well 

requires 4 to 6 million gallons of fresh water in a 28-day period. As Webb County is located on 

the border, he asked Ms. Spener whether the IBWC had researched the use of that water and the 

potential impacts on the river and surface water. Ms. Spener replied that the U.S./Mexico 

Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act has identified several priority aquifers, but groundwater 

in Webb County has not been included in that effort. Commissioner Drusina is very interested in 

surface water/groundwater interactions in this region, but this traditionally has been addressed by 

the border states rather than the federal government. Attempts to change that process may not be 

viewed favorably by the jurisdictions that are involved, and the IBWC has been working through 

means such as the U.S./Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act to address these issues. 

Dr. Reed and Mr. Niemeyer agreed that this topic should be included as an emerging issue. 

Dr. Austin added that the issue of management crosses many of the chapters.

Water Quality Workgroup Discussion

Mr. Ruiz noted that Mr. David Henkel (University of New Mexico), chair of the Water Quality

workgroup, was not able to attend. The group made a change in the chapter introduction to 

include a discussion of both groundwater and surface water. In addition, the introduction refers 

to the 4th, 8th and 13th Reports for context. With regard to implications of water quality, the 

group decided to focus on the areas of (1) public health and (2) ecosystems and address each area 

in its own section, rather than merely mentioning the areas in the introduction. 

Additional items to be addressed include why special attention should be paid to water quality in 

the border region, as well as federal and state monetary resources for improving water quality in 

this region. 

The workgroup is in the process of determining where the tribal discussion should be presented 

in the chapter. More context will be added regarding the need to separate out water quality issues 

in tribal areas. 

Other important water quality issues to be addressed include emerging threats and environmental 

justice (EJ). It was suggested that EJ be used as a means to prioritize the issues on a “worst to 

first” basis. The group also plans to include boxes that describe unique ongoing and emerging 

threats and relevant case studies from each state in the border region.
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 23

Dr. Pohlman raised the topic of climate change adaptations (CCA) and said that, although these 

adaptations affect many environmental issues, it is not entirely clear how they affect water 

quality. The chapter could reference possible future changes such as snow melt and the like. 

CCA is a “hot” topic right now, but the connections are not entirely clear. The group was not 

sure whether to include CCA in the chapter. Ms. Alison Krepp (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]) noted that many climate variability projections for the 

southwest involve storms and drought, both of which can significantly impact water supply. The 

workgroup raised the questions of where topics may best be served within the report, and how to 

best address the immediate concerns along the border region (e.g., runoff). Would it be more 

appropriate to cover these topics in the Water Supply or Water Quality chapters? Dr. Reed 

suggested that the Water Quality chapter include references to climate variability and the 

connection between water quality issues and water quantity; for example, smaller amounts of 

water may be more significantly impacted by pollution. 

Mr. Olmedo encouraged the group to avoid explaining the issue in terms of “dilution is the 

solution.” Dr. Austin added that, in situations where there is less water, dilution cannot be the 

solution any longer, although there was a time when it had been an accepted approach.

Ms. Spener praised the group for addressing salinity, a critical issue with respect to water quality 

in this region. It is an ongoing area of concern in the U.S.-Mexico relationship. The IBWC would 

like to send the workgroup additional information regarding salinity issues, including ongoing 

efforts at salinity control. With regard to the case studies, the IBWC was pleased to see that the 

Tijuana River watershed was included as a case study and will provide the workgroup with 

additional information on that area as well, including the work of the Tijuana River Recovery 

Team. She added that the chapter does a good job of describing the importance of water quality 

in general terms and suggested that information from Ms. Leslie Grijalva’s presentation be 

included to provide more specifics. For example, a map could be included to show areas of 

quality and bacterial impairment along the Rio Grande River. 

Mr. Liden said that the Water Quality chapter outline is intended first to state water quality 

concerns based on such items as the states’ Clean Water Act section 303(d) listings, potential 

violations and other surface water and groundwater concerns. The next section will address why 

the water quality parameters are being exceeded, and the third section will discuss remedial 

actions. 

Mr. Angel said that, after the Washington, D.C., meeting, he thought the plan was to use existing 

data and rely on the 8th Report in writing this chapter. He expressed appreciation for all of the 

work that Dr. Henkel had done in further developing the ideas for this chapter. In addition, he 

suggested relying on the existing 303(d) listings from the states to bolster the actual water quality 

(i.e., the status of the watersheds and groundwater issues). He also suggested including when a 

community is not serviced by a centralized drinking water supply, because the water supply is 

unreliable in those situations. This information is available in the assessment reports. Mr. Liden 

added that maps were developed for Regions 6 and 9 in 2006 that showed areas with water 

quality impairments along the border. These maps could be shared with the workgroup. 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 24

Water Supply Workgroup Discussion

Ms. Spener said that the group recommended including maps, charts and graphs in either the 

Water Supply chapter or the Context chapter. Some of the maps shown earlier by Ms. Leslie 

Grijalva would provide useful information. The group planned to continue editing and 

restructuring the chapter text. The intent was to begin with a review of water supply resources 

and infrastructure. Additional information could be added on the Colorado River system, and the 

information on the Rio Grande River infrastructure could be cut back. Some of the text on water 

distribution and treatment might be moved to other chapters. In addition, the chapter will discuss 

existing systems for measuring and monitoring surface water and groundwater and agencies that 

play a part in that, along with water supply challenges (which is being moved up in the chapter). 

Water supply deficiencies will be covered next, including BECC needs assessment data; care 

should be taken to avoid overlapping with the Context chapter. This will be followed by a 

section on federal programs that support border water supply projects and activities, including 

identification of challenges, needs, infrastructure deficits and what the federal government has

done/can do to help. Case studies will follow, including agricultural conservation and tribal case 

studies, to be followed by a recap/update of the challenges and recommendations made in the 

8th Report concerning working with international watersheds. Ms. Spener encouraged the group 

as a whole to review the section on challenges and recommendations from the 8th Report and 

recommend any additional areas that should be included in this chapter. The chapter will end 

with new recommendations. 

Dr. Reed added that the group planned to frame the challenges discussion in terms of managing 

resources for the future, rather than simply as “supply versus demand.” This will entail including 

concerns such as drought management, climate variability, and human and environmental needs, 

and how water conservation will continue to be bolstered in the future as a resource to meet 

those challenges. 

Water Treatment Workgroup Discussion

Mr. Apodaca reported that the Water Treatment group looked at the section and had no major 

revisions. The group assessed the case studies that were included on water treatment for each 

state in terms of context and made content recommendations that were specific to different 

states. The intent was to focus on framing the recommendations so that they would apply to 

general border initiatives. The group planned to discuss the recommendations in more detail on 

the following day; in general, discussion points were expected to include U.S./Mexican 

engagement on border issues, operation and maintenance recommendations for wastewater 

treatment, and building water treatment capacity along the border. An additional section was 

planned to address tribal recommendations. 

Recommendations Discussion for the 15th Report

Dr. Austin asked the GNEB to consider whether the recommendations should be presented with 

each chapter or in a separate section. A separate recommendations section was used previously 

because many of the recommendations pertained to more than one chapter. 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 25

Water Treatment Workgroup Recommendations

Mr. Huth read the recommendations for the Water Treatment group. He noted that the wording 

of the recommendations had not yet been finalized. Dr. Austin asked the group to focus at this 

point on the main intent of the recommendations rather than on how they were worded.

The United States and Mexico share stormwater, wastewater treatment and wastewater 

conveyance infrastructure in the border region. Protecting existing and new investments in 

infrastructure will require U.S. federal government coordination with Mexico in new and 

innovative ways. For north-flowing watersheds, specific recommendations for Mexican 

engagement follow:

1. Mexico lacks regulations for stormwater and nonpoint source pollution control from 

municipalities. The United States needs to translate and share information regarding its own 

policies for Mexico’s consideration in shared watersheds to protect the environment in the 

United States. 

2. Some border municipalities lack effective regulations, training and resources in regards to 

control of industrial discharges that cross into the United States. The Water Policy Forum 

should lead an effort to encourage effective pretreatment of industrial discharges that enter 

the United States by evaluating the service areas, training inspectors, purchasing sampling 

equipment and engaging the regulating community on the significance of pretreatment in 

binational watersheds. Implementation of these strategies has significantly reduced metals in 

wastewater originating in Senora (reference to be included in the report).

3. Mexico operates under a different set of standards for regulating industrial and commercial 

wastewater quality discharges to the municipal conveyance system. Some Mexican state and 

local entities adhere to a broad federal standard, known as SEMARNAT1996NOM001,

which may not be sufficient for protecting receding wastewater treatment infrastructure and 

receding waters in the United States. Under these circumstances, the Water Policy Forum

needs to encourage local limits that will protect shared infrastructure and the environment in 

binational watersheds. 

4. Given their role as a stakeholder, U.S. states must be allowed to participate in Minute 304

meetings (Minute 304 is summarized for the report).

5. The federal government must engage U.S. companies operating in Mexico regarding the 

potential impact their discharges and supply chains are having on shared infrastructure in the 

environment in binational watersheds.

6. Recommend building institutional capacity to ensure reliable operation and maintenance of 

publically owned wastewater treatment facilities, including collection systems. This includes 

periodic compliance assurance and industrial pretreatment to ensure that investments in 

wastewater infrastructure continue to provide reliable wastewater infrastructure discharging 

into binational waterways.
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 26

7. Recommend increased wastewater and drinking water service for border residents who 

currently lack it, while addressing the regulations that make it increasingly costly to treat 

arsenic, uranium and fluoride in drinking water along the U.S.-Mexico border.

8. The rural communities that lack the essential drinking water and wastewater treatment 

infrastructure are relying on untreated drinking water sources. These should be given the 

highest priority in accessing federal funding for treatment infrastructure. 

9. The Southwest Border Commission should be revitalized to address the infrastructure issues 

for water and wastewater challenges on the U.S.-Mexico border.

10. The U.S. government should assume full responsibility over the U.S. portion of shared 

binational infrastructure where state and local governments have no authority to manage the 

operation and maintenance of the Mexican portion of the shared infrastructure.

11. Tribes need to continue building capacity so that they can take on greater authority over 

tribal waters. With funding from the EPA, tribes continue to seek treatment as a state status 

that will allow for delegated authority. An important consideration is how programs on tribal 

lands are funded. Helping tribes to develop this capacity allows tribes to become better 

stewards. 

12. In developing this capacity, tribes may have the authority to set their own water quality 

standards. With growing tribal authority, it becomes critical for tribes and states to find 

greater coordination so that consistent water quality standards can be developed. Also, there

is the emphasis on states respecting tribal standards and seeking greater consultation with 

tribes. 

13. As power plants install larger capacity infrastructure and expand service delivery, it is 

important that the permitting process that governs water releases also is updated. Power 

plants provide ever-expanding services, and as they seek permits for wastewater releases, 

these permits must address the increase in load and eventual effluent. 

Mr. Huth added that the point of these recommendations is to capstone and make a borderwide 

recommendation from the specific recommendations that are summarized in the case studies. 

Discussion

Dr. Austin asked Mr. Huth to send her the list of recommendations so that she could circulate it 

to attendees for their review that evening. She asked the group as a whole to be prepared to 

discuss the recommendations on the following day. 

Dr. Reed asked what was meant by the recommendation about flexibility on uranium and 

arsenic. He also asked about the reference to the U.S. federal government needing to maintain 

the infrastructure. In addressing the second question, Mr. Huth said that it came from the 

Nogales case study. In the Nogales region, there is a binational watershed with a population of 

220,000 living south of the border. Nogales, AZ, with a population of 20,000, shares wastewater 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 27

conveyance and other infrastructure with Nogales, Sonora. In October 2010, there was a major 

failure of the international outfall interceptor. It was discovered that the invert at the interceptor 

at the border had been scoured and no longer existed. Operation and maintenance protocols are 

unique for wastewater conveyance in Nogales, Sonora. The city of Nogales, AZ, is being asked 

to pay 50 percent of the costs associated with a preliminary engineering review to devise a 

solution for rehabilitating or replacing the international outfall interceptor. This entails a cost of 

$750,000 for this small community, and the eventual remedy probably will cost much more than 

that. Small communities such as Nogales, AZ, cannot be expected to cover those kinds of costs 

for infrastructure that is being impaired by a community located south of the border and over 

which they have no regulatory control. The recommendation is that the U.S. government should 

take ownership of such infrastructure to avoid these kinds of problems. 

With regard to flexibility on arsenic, a participant responded that small communities have 

difficulty affording arsenic and fluoride treatment. The recommendation is to continue to provide 

assistance to those communities in dealing with these issues. 

Ms. Angela Palazzolo (U.S. Department of State) asked about the recommendation that the U.S. 

government should work with U.S. companies on the Mexican side of the border regarding 

environmental standards. Mr. Huth replied that this recommendation grew out of a U.S.-Mexico 

commission action item in 2009 concerning cadmium coming from Mexico to Arizona through 

the international outfall interceptor that was discussed earlier. The commission devised a strategy 

to address the metals that were coming from Mexico. Personnel from both sides of the border 

met regularly to discuss the impacts of the metals in the water. This coordination/cooperation led 

to a dramatic reduction in the amount of cadmium released. Communicating with south-of-theborder colleagues was found to be essential in this effort. This effort also included identifying 

cost-effective strategies, and U.S. companies were found to be willing to donate equipment and 

provide training. Such efforts, however, should not be left to the states. The binational watershed 

should be viewed as a federal issue. These recommendations were provided to the IBWC for 

follow-up and leadership. This will enable the states to address issues over which they have 

jurisdiction north of the border.

Mr. Angel suggested that some of the recommendations probably could be consolidated. 

Dr. Austin asked if any other groups had recommendations to put before the larger group. She 

asked the groups to send them to her via email so that she could circulate them to the group as a 

whole for review that evening.

Mr. Huth reported that the city of Tucson, AZ, has a series of municipal ordinances on water 

harvesting that have proven effective in controlling storm water and conserving water. He 

offered to share a summary of the ordinances with the Water Supply group if the group would 

like to consider them with regard to the border region. Dr. Reed noted that the Water Supply

group had discussed to what extent the group should go into detail about current activities in 

similar areas and concluded that it could be advantageous to include a section on recent 

developments and recommendations without getting into too much detail. Similarly, Ms. Krepp 

added that the Water Quality group had discussed including a “best practices in action” section 

to highlight various efforts along the border that might be replicated borderwide. 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 28

Dr. Austin said that some workgroup chairs had mentioned that their case studies were being 

revisited and perhaps changed or trimmed. She asked groups with few case studies to consider 

adding additional studies to their sections. It would be helpful to link the case studies to the 

recommendations. She suggested that, when discussing areas that are not in the jurisdiction of 

the federal government, the federal government still could take the role of disseminating 

information about best practices. This would be discussed further during the next day’s meeting.

Dr. Austin thanked the attendees for their hard work and previewed the next day’s schedule. She 

reminded attendees to bring their calendars to facilitate the scheduling of subsequent meetings. 

She also asked them to review the recommendations before they are discussed further the next 

morning. In particular, she asked them to consider whether additional material needed to be 

added to the chapters to support the recommendations being made. She also pointed out an EPA 

policy memorandum concerning who the GNEB reports to that had been circulated and would be 

discussed the next day or tabled for further discussion during a subsequent conference call. 

The session was adjourned at 6:07 p.m.

Friday June 29, 2012

Discussion of Next Meetings and Other Business

GNEB Membership

Mr. Joyce drew GNEB members’ attention to a membership matrix that he distributed. The 

matrix identifies areas of expertise that are needed on the GNEB. A Federal Register notice for 

nominations to the GNEB has been distributed to all current GNEB members. Current members 

should assess their time commitments and inform Ms. Gantner if they would like to be 

nominated to be GNEB members again. 

The process for federal or state government GNEB membership involves the EPA Administrator 

sending letters to the heads of departments and agencies, as well as to governors of the Border 

States, requesting nominations. These letters will be sent out imminently. Nonfederal 

membership is an open nomination process that garners attention from postings on the Federal 

Register website, as well as various listservs. The posting for GNEB members should be 

distributed widely by current members. In addition, broad distribution is relied upon heavily to 

gain membership. 

The GNEB members are not chosen solely on their representation of a specific state or 

committee, but also for their expertise or interest in certain topics and group interests. Dr. Austin 

added that members are encouraged to consider individuals who would fill in some of the gaps in 

membership listed on the membership matrix.

Mr. Treviño questioned the status of an issue from the previous day’s proceedings. Mr. Joyce 

said that the issue was with a participant’s firm and he thought that he had approval, but did not. 

The GNEB seeks equal representation across states and categories. Mr. Joyce added that GNEB 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 29

members must actively represent a group or organization and, unfortunately, cannot be retired 

persons. 

Memo Regarding to Whom the Board Reports

Dr. Austin said that Ms. Cynthia Jones-Jackson (EPA), being the Acting Director of the 

OFACMO, asked for advice from the Acting Assistant General Counsel. The response was 

summarized in an email, and basically it details that the GNEB currently is reporting correctly. 

The GNEB provides advice to the U.S. Congress and the President of the United States. The 

reports produced by the GNEB initially are given to the President and then to the U.S. Congress. 

Mr. Joyce added that due to budgetary constraints, Ms. Jackson decided not to attend the current 

GNEB meeting; however, she sent her regrets and hopes to attend the subsequent meeting.

Other Meetings

On July 17, 2012, the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) will hold a Southwest 

Interagency Workgroup meeting. This meeting is for all of the federal agencies with programs or 

activities in the U.S./Mexico border region. One issue on that agenda will be an update on the 

current GNEB meeting and the 15th Report. The meeting will be an opportunity for the GNEB to 

request information from federal agencies. Dr. Pohlman said that she attends these meetings 

regularly and that Mr. Joyce represents the GNEB superbly. She added that GNEB requests of 

federal agencies should be made as specific as possible.

Dr. Austin stated that the GNEB will need to identify “holes” in the 15th Report by July 17, 

2012, so that request(s) for information can be made of the CEQ.

15th GNEB Report Deadline and Outline

Dr. Austin said that to deliver the 15th Report in November, the contractor (SCG) will require 

receiving the Report in its entirety by August 17, 2012. After SCG compiles and edits the 

Report, the GNEB will have an opportunity to read and agree on the finalization of the Report. 

She reminded the GNEB that August 8 – 10, 2012, is the National Coordinators Meeting (NCM) 

and that Independence Day vacations also were nearing. 

In answering a question from Mr. Treviño, Mr. Joyce clarified that all of the text, graphics, 

photographs, tables, references and so forth for the Report must be finalized and completed by 

August 17, 2012, for SCG. Dr. Austin said that the “internal review” mentioned on the timeline 

that she distributed is SCG’s internal timeline.

Mr. Joyce said that the mentioned deadlines are necessary for a November delivery of the 15th 

GNEB Report, and that if the delivery date is moved to December, the timeline could be relaxed 

by 1 month.

Mr. Treviño asked what the “final review by EPA” is and Mr. Joyce replied that the review is 

nonsubstantive; it is to ensure that photographs are placed near the appropriate text and that 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 30

graphics appear where they should be in the correct order. It is not a content review. Dr. Austin 

agreed.

Mr. Angel pointed out that a November Report delivery will be difficult if any of the chapters 

will require major changes. Mr. Niemeyer appreciated this point, but indicated that a November 

delivery would be best for optimal Report visibility. 

Ms. Krepp questioned what the November deadline means for the CEQ meeting. Mr. Joyce 

responded that with an election in November, it is difficult to say if there is a best strategic time 

for the Report to be delivered. He emphasized that the GNEB should focus more on the time 

needed to produce the best Report possible. Ms. Krepp said that more time would produce a 

better Report and that the delivery date should be in December. 

Mr. Joyce mentioned that the individual workgroups will dissolve soon, following one more 

round of edits, and then the Report will be reviewed by the Board as a whole. 

Mr. Manzanilla said that the most benefit to the EPA will come from a well-informed Report, 

and with various time constraints for GNEB members, the later delivery date would be best.

Dr. Pohlman asked if a December delivery date for the Report would shift the entire SCG 

timeline by 1 month and Dr. Austin affirmed this. 

Mr. Niemeyer emphasized that all GNEB members maintain busy schedules and that producing 

the Report earlier is better. If the November timeline can be maintained, then that is what should 

be the goal; however, after time passes if the GNEB realizes that it is an unattainable goal, then 

the deadline for delivery can be moved to December. Mr. Joyce indicated that this was not

possible. A decision must be made presently because of the need for Federal Register notices, 

meeting and hotel reservations, and so forth.

Dr. Austin asked if GNEB members were satisfied with a December 8, 2012, delivery date for 

the 15th GNEB Report. 

Mr. Treviño said that regardless of the November Presidential election, for most GNEB 

members, it is “just another day.” Members committed to being on the Board and therefore 

should adjust their schedules to meet GNEB expectations for a November delivery date. 

Ms. Krepp emphasized that the resources to fill data gaps and graphics will be difficult to garner 

for a November delivery date, and that the recommendations offered should be well thought out 

and not rushed. Ms. Veronica Garcia (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality) said that it

is important for the GNEB to focus on providing excellent recommendations and that an extra 

month of work will assist in attaining that.

Ms. Sylvia Grijalva said that new data were obtained from the current meeting, many federal 

employees will be vacationing during the following week and if the Report is due in mid-July for 

editing, the Board will not have adequate time to contact the individuals as needed to gather 

information for the Report.
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 31

Mr. Manzanilla said that interim deadlines for the GNEB will help in achieving the chosen 

deadline. Dr. Austin agreed. She indicated that she prefers a November delivery date for the 

Report, but recognizes that this may not produce an optimal product and that December may be a 

better choice. Mr. Joyce added that a December delivery date would give adequate time for 

workgroups to incorporate information they receive from federal agencies at the NCM. 

Mr. Manzanilla said that the signing of Border 2020 is followed immediately by the NCM and 

the drafting of a 2-year Border 2020 action plan. The 2-year plan should be reflective of what 

needs to be done in those watersheds. This indicates a strategic component that should be taken 

advantage of, and it does not require the full delivery of the Report on paper. The states are well

represented at NCM and can carry any needed messages. Mr. Vizzier asked if the July 1, 2012,

election is being considered at the NCM meeting.

Mr. Huth said that interim deadlines are a good idea. He also stated that the GNEB is consensusdriven, and there should be a deadline for the recommendations, the Report and a consensus. 

Mr. Niemeyer and Dr. Pohlman agreed. Dr. Austin said that consensus is helped by having faceto-face Board meetings. 

Dr. Austin asked if any GNEB members still maintained that a November delivery deadline was 

optimal. There was no response. Dr. Austin said that specific deadlines for recommendations and 

chapter sections are necessary. Workgroups should compile recommendations, and a small 

workgroup will need to be formed to examine the recommendations for overlap. 

Mr. Huth said that policy makers will need the recommendations to be easy to find in the Report. 

Ms. Sylvia Grijalva suggested developing an executive summary (ES) for the Report and that the 

recommendations could be included there. Dr. Austin said that an ES is a good idea and asked 

Board members if they would prefer to have the recommendations in the front or back of the 

Report. Mr. Huth and Ms. Sylvia Grijalva agreed that an ES should be in the front of the Report,

with the recommendations being easily accessible. Ms. Spener agreed and said that past Reports 

had included recommendations “at a glance,” a one-page summary and six recommendations, 

with more details in the individual chapters. Previous Reports therefore were in agreement with 

the current idea.

Dr. Austin said that she had received requests for a handout for the 14th GNEB Report; however, 

there were no more hardcopies. An idea is to create a PDF file that is about four pages in length 

that people can print out easily and take to meetings for distribution. The four-page PDF could 

summarize the Report and be available as a file on the GNEB website 

(http://www.epa.gov/ocempage/gneb/index.html). Mr. Joyce said that it could be a summary of 

the Report and include major recommendations and major issues. 

Dr. Austin said that an ES can be created with “at a glance” recommendations and then each 

chapter can lay out background material, justifications and so forth for the recommendations.

Dr. Austin questioned whether each chapter would reiterate the recommendations with more 

details or if there would be a separate recommendations chapter at the end of the Report. 

Mr. Joyce said that general recommendations in the front of the Report are not helpful because a 

detailed explanation of what the federal government is being asked to do is imperative. 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 32

Dr. Austin clarified that “at a glance” recommendations does not mean they have to be 

generalized; it means that they all have been moved to the front of the Report.

Ms. Sylvia Grijalva said that the ES should stand alone, but be concise, specific and clear.

Dr. Joyce suggested that the condensed PDF version of the Report could consist of the ES and 

recommendations. Dr. Austin agreed.

Mr. Treviño said that recommendations being “at a glance” is a good idea; however, he preferred 

having the recommendations included in a separate chapter. As a separate chapter, it is always 

clear where the recommendations are located within the Report. If the recommendations are 

incorporated into the ES, then that would necessitate the recommendations being overly concise, 

unless the ES was made into its own chapter. Dr. Austin said that the ES could be a chapter and 

the chapter that follows could be the more detailed recommendations. Mr. Huth expressed 

concern about presenting the recommendations as concise and summarized because that may not 

generate action due to excessive generality and simplicity. He suggested that the ES be a “hook” 

for the Report and that the full recommendations be presented in a separate chapter at the end of 

the Report. Ms. Sylvia Grijalva said that most readers will not read past the ES because they lack 

the time. 

Mr. Joyce said that a stand-alone ES could be distributed widely at various forums, especially at 

forums at which distribution of the full Report may not be appropriate. This would assume that 

the recommendations are condensed in the ES. Mr. Joyce expressed confusion as to how an ES 

would be written without mention of the recommendations that will be made.

Mr. Niemeyer said that an ES should be constructed and that the recommendations should be 

attached. Mr. Angel said that previous Reports functioned well and, therefore, previous formats 

should be utilized.

Mr. Olmedo was unsure how the President and Congress view the Report, and he expressed 

concern about an overly condensed list of recommendations because, without context, the Report 

could be misinterpreted by the public. 

Ms. Krepp mentioned that the 13th Report had an ES for context, and each chapter had 

recommendations on one page. She said that had equaled three pages containing 63 

recommendations. That many recommendations seemed excessive. Mr. Manzanilla said that in 

the 8th Report, for each recommendation, the context was expressed, including the barriers 

present and next steps that should be taken. These next steps were the recommendations. This 

format led to the recommendations being scattered throughout the Report. He suggested that 

recommendations not be diluted by being overly condensed, be specific and be moved to the 

front of the Report. 

Dr. Austin confirmed the Board’s decision to have an ES followed by the recommendations. She 

said this will be followed by the Context, Water Supply, Water Quality and Water Treatment 

chapters. The GNEB agreed.
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 33

15th GNEB Report Recommendations

Dr. Austin said that the GNEB must produce completed recommendations by July 17, 2012. She 

also stated that the Water Treatment workgroup as well as Mr. Eckert had sent recommendations 

to the GNEB via email. Mr. Angel said that the Water Quality workgroup has not yet fully 

formulated its recommendations.

Because some GNEB members were leaving the meeting early due to travel arrangements, 

Dr. Pohlman suggested a July 9, 2012, conference call for the Water Quality workgroup to wrap 

up its recommendations. Mr. Ruiz agreed.

Ms. Palazzolo said that the Board should focus on untenable items because they are easier to 

discuss in person. Dr. Austin agreed and re-listed the recommendations from the Water 

Treatment workgroup that were listed on the previous day.

Mr. Drusina expressed concern about these recommendations because water treatment 

issues along the U.S./Mexico border are binational and are not problems that are due 

solely to Mexico. He suggested that the focus shift from blame to successes that have 

occurred in handling binational water problems. For example, the Tijuana Recovery 

Project is a collaboration between the United States and Mexico that has succeeded. The 

Report should attack problems along the border and not “point the finger” at Mexico.

Dr. Austin said that the recommendations and opening paragraph can be restated. 

Mr. Drusina said that the opening paragraph could be viewed as a local, state, county and 

federal matter that should be addressed by all parties to find a solution to transborder 

water treatment issues. The recommendations should reflect that these issues are 

international in scope.

Mr. Reed provided comments via email about the Water Treatment workgroup’s 

recommendations. He said that the U.S. government should assume full responsibilities over the 

U.S. portion of shared binational infrastructure where state and local governments have no 

authority to manage the operation and maintenance of the Mexican portion of the shared 

infrastructure. Additionally, he indicated the following:

Often at the state level, it is said that it is the federal government’s responsibility alone; 

however, the federal government does not have the resources or staff to address the issue. 

The problems at the international plant have created difficulties for Nogales, AZ, but 

Mr. Reed hesitated to endorse a recommendation that the U.S. government should 

assume full responsibility for those problems. 

The statement, “Recommend increased wastewater and drinking water service for border 

residents who currently lack it, while addressing the regulations making it increasingly 

costly to treat arsenic, uranium and fluoride in drinking water along the U.S./Mexico 

border,” could be interpreted as the GNEB asking that health-based standards for 

residents for drinking water be relaxed because treatment is expensive. Mr. Reed 

indicated that the Sierra Club would not support that recommendation. 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 34

Ms. Sylvia Grijalva said that the Water Treatment workgroup’s recommendations can be 

reworded so that they are not as pointed, and Dr. Austin agreed. Mr. Drusina said that the 

opening paragraph needs to express the international nature of these issues, and that all of the 

recommendations should be reworked. 

Ms. Spener said that the Water Supply workgroup was updating the recommendations from the 

8th GNEB Report. Those recommendations can be reiterated and updated because they mostly 

are still valid. These recommendations are located in the 8th GNEB Report on pages 50 – 52 and 

on page 60. 

Dr. Austin read recommendations that were sent from Mr. Reed via email that stemmed from 

discussions in the Water Supply workgroup:

(1) Continue to support a flexible Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation 

Program, including support this program has offered for model projects such as 

Yuma East Wetlands, Hunters Hole and the Miguel Aleman site across the 

Colorado River from Hunters Hole.

(2) Support a continued cooperative approach to binational negotiations on the 

Colorado River, led by the U.S. Department of the Interior and IBWC.

(3) Continued institutional and financial support for the Colorado River Basin Study. 

The study is a vital piece of better management of the Colorado River over the 

long term, including in ways that affect Arizona and California. The Board 

supports efforts by the Bureau of Reclamation to ensure that the solutions 

examined include those that promote healthy river flows in the Lower Basin.

(4) The appropriate federal agencies, led by the IBWC, would open a set of talks with 

Mexico that are modeled on the broad-based participation that has occurred in the 

Colorado River area and that aims to find common ground for sustainable 

management of shared water resources, including protection of environmental 

values in both countries, particularly given the climatic variability and 

vulnerability of the border region. 

(5) Promote binational sharing of information about transboundary aquifers, and 

devote more resources to data collection, especially groundwater data. The Board 

finds that the issues related to the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer 

Assessment Act continue to be relevant and important, and that the Act must 

continue to be enforced. 

(6) Continued support for federal grant funding to help make BECC/NADB water 

and wastewater projects possible is vital, and the current levels of funding, which 

have ranged from $50 to $5 million over the last 5 years, are woefully inadequate. 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 35

(7) The BECC and NADB should continue to look at additional funding and lending 

vehicles. In addition, the Board finds that BECC and NADB funding should 

continue to require that applicants include water conservation efforts, such as 

water auditing, leak detection, measurements of water and management plans, as 

part of their efforts, in addition to funding aimed specifically at water 

conservation efforts. 

(8) Fully exploit current institutional missions and the current legal framework of the 

BECC and NADB.

(9) For water management issues, support efforts to increase participation, 

institutional flexibility and collaborative efforts across political boundaries. 

(10) Develop binational data protocols and, where appropriate, harmonize and apply 

them, including to issues related to salinity, reservoir levels, precipitation and 

inflows of tributaries into the major rivers that supply water to both countries. 

(11) The Board finds that recent efforts to include environmental flows in water 

planning, such as that authorized in the state of Texas or being considered in the 

Colorado River Study, are a positive development, and future water planning 

involving binational waters should evaluate, consider and plan for environmental 

flows needed for aquatic species, habitat and human recreational uses of water. 

(12) Support and promote federal programs that assist utilities, municipalities, 

industrial and agricultural interests to achieve water conservation objectives. We 

find that in addition to institutional and financing support by the federal 

government, the federal government could and should play a role in distributing 

best practices in these areas. The BECC and NADB and the EPA’s Border 2020 

Plan are appropriate areas in which these best practices can be distributed to 

relevant city, industrial and agricultural stakeholders. 

(13) Water planning must address climate variability and vulnerability. The GNEB

finds that water management and planning along the border must develop future 

use scenarios based upon environmental limitations and historical drought 

conditions. Requiring that drought management plans be developed in water 

planning, and even in individual municipal and irrigation projects, is a necessary 

first step. Again, the federal government can play a role both in institutional and 

financial support, as well as in the promotion of best practices in droughtmanagement planning.

Ms. Spener read the recommendations from the 8th GNEB Report that Mr. Eckert developed and 

that should be restated for the current Report:

(1) I think it would be helpful for the GNEB to express support for the recent efforts 

of the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and participating 

states to be more flexible with the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 36

Conservation Program, in particular the support this program has offered for 

model projects such as Yuma East Wetlands, Hunters Hole and the Miguel 

Aleman site across the Colorado River from Hunters Hole.

(2) GNEB support for the recent cooperative approach to binational negotiations on 

the Colorado River, led by the U.S. Department of the Interior and IBWC, also 

would be desirable.

(3) Support the Colorado River Basin Study. That study will be vital to better 

management of the Colorado River over the long term, including ways that affect 

Arizona and California. Because the study is not final, it is difficult to formulate

“recommendations,” but general support for the Bureau of Reclamation to ensure 

that examined solutions include those that promote healthy river flows in the 

Lower Basin would be helpful.

(4) On the Rio Grande, support for federal leadership in opening a set of talks with 

Mexico that are modeled on the broad-based participation that has occurred in the 

Colorado River talks and that aims to find common ground for sustainable 

management of shared water resources, including protection of environmental 

values in both countries.

(5) Finally, continued support for federal grant funding to help make vital

BECC/NADB water and wastewater projects possible would seem to be a useful 

recommendation.

Ms. Spener suggested the additional recommendation of promoting information dissemination 

regarding existing grant programs in border communities. Many good programs are available 

and if border communities were more broadly aware of them, they could be utilized more 

efficiently. 

Mr. Olmedo mentioned that the term “continued support” is used often in recommendations and 

assumes that existing programs are functional. He said that many programs and initiatives have 

not been successful. Problems in existing programs should be evaluated before recommendations 

are made that support broadly continuing them. Dr. Austin asked him to indicate a specific need. 

Ms. Sylvia Grijalva commented that a recommendation could be made to evaluate existing 

programs, grants and initiatives.

Mr. Treviño said that the Context chapter includes an explanation and recommendation 

regarding seeking additional grant funding and identifying new lending vehicles (e.g., a low 

interest rate lending facility). Specifically, new lending vehicles could include subsidized 

lending, revolving loan funds and the ability to refinance debt. 

Ms. Palazzolo said that 2012 is an election year in the United States and Mexico and that 

transitional teams in both countries will be reading the Report. Current U.S. relations with 

Mexico, as well as future relations, should be considered to keep the recommendations and 

Report constructive and encourage engagement. 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 37

Mr. Vizzier said that many water treatment recommendations overlap with those concerning 

water quality. He added that many U.S. water standards were adopted in Baja California because 

they worked well and were important. He added that the GNEB should recommend the 

establishment of a commission that analyzes the gaps between water treatment standards in the 

United States and Mexico without the assumption that U.S. standards are superior. Mr. Vizzier 

continued that bacteria and nitrates are major water quality concerns. These are recognized as 

man-made problems stemming from the use of pesticides, fertilizers and antibiotics in 

agriculture. This issue is not unique to the border region, but it is a problem along the border. 

This issue affects water quality in aquifers and in surface water.

Mr. Manzanilla said that regarding the recommendations from the Water Treatment group, the 

water issues are binational; however, it would balance the recommendations if some issues were 

mentioned that do not have a binational component. Such issues could reference disadvantaged 

communities. A balanced recommendations approach would ensure that the GNEB distinguishes

where specific problems exist and how to change that infrastructure. He indicated that this 

should not dilute binational issues; however, domestic issues exist that should be addressed.

Mr. Drusina said that cooperative efforts have led to substantial advances in Mexico. Mexico is 

adapting technical analyses for the Colorado River, and such analyses are under consideration for 

the Rio Grande River as well. Dr. Austin said that the 15th GNEB Report will be an opportunity 

to display the positive work that has been accomplished and investments that have been made.

Mr. Treviño pointed out that access to grant funding is given first to communities on the U.S. 

side of the border. He indicated that the Board should remember that some projects are for more 

centralized systems and that even though some communities have access to grant funds, that 

does not mean that the allocated resources will be handled adequately at the local level. He said 

that a recommendation should be made to consider a potential recipient’s institutional capacity to 

manage funds and be realistic in advancing grant funding.

Ms. Krepp said that many current needs have been identified; however, there is a knowledge gap 

concerning the prioritization of these needs. The method by which resources are applied often 

can be outdated, and this knowledge gap should be filled to ensure that needs are identified and 

met appropriately. Mr. Olmedo commented that when momentum is gained in a certain direction, 

projects should not be endorsed merely because they already exist. Mexico and the U.S. federal 

government have shown a willingness to collaborate and solve current problems. A good 

recommendation is to not endorse projects because they already exist, but conscientiously 

consider what projects are missing and consider those as well. Dr. Austin pointed out that this 

was similar to a recommendation made by Ms. Krepp. 

Mr. Angel suggested that the GNEB focus on infrastructure recommendations because he 

thought that this is what the GNEB had decided should be the theme of the 15th Report. 

Dr. Austin clarified that the themes of the report are the environment and infrastructure.

Mr. Huth said that some challenges in the border region have been addressed; however, many 

remain that must be recognized. Although some recommendations appear as “finger pointing,” in 

actuality they are pointing at facts. The Water Treatment workgroup’s recommendations were 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 38

developed from case studies and all are wholly defensible. They are not accusatory toward 

Mexico, but rather indicate the need for federal leadership on these issues of engaging with a 

foreign country. States and municipalities have no jurisdiction in Mexico and therefore no 

recourse to engage a foreign country. Ms. Sylvia Grijalva clarified that the recommendations are 

not problematic; it is the tone that requires modification. She added that she is the coordinator of 

a binational committee and is aware that Mexico is sensitive because of the disparities between 

Mexico and the United States. Mr. Joyce reiterated the need for a nonaccusatory tone in the 

recommendations because a positive tone will help promote the GNEB’s ultimate objectives. 

Mr. Apodaca and Mr. Niemeyer agreed and said that the tone would be modified. Mr. Niemeyer 

added that water issues along the border can be contentious, and the Report language should not 

indicate that certain parties are right or wrong. Dr. Austin said that increasing population and 

demand on water supplies, especially during the current drought, make issues more challenging 

and contentious.

Mr. Olmedo said that challenges should be recognized, and handling details of recommendations 

can be difficult. For example, people can agree that water is necessary, but the details attached to 

that as a recommendation can become problematic. 

Dr. Pohlman said that considering EJ communities is important to the GNEB’s deliberations and 

recommendations. 

Mr. Eckert pointed out that the recommendations can be modified to make the tone more 

positive, but the GNEB should ensure that the U.S. Congress and President know that the word 

“neighbor” is contained in the title “Good Neighbor Environmental Board.”

Mr. Drusina said that he appreciated the GNEB’s comments and recognized that there are 

challenges in dealing with a country whose gross domestic product (GDP) is one-fourteenth that 

of the United States. U.S. standards are in place to protect U.S. interests and technologies; 

however, Mexico is a good neighbor and a sovereign nation, and many GNEB members have 

friends and family located in Mexico. Maintaining a reasonable tone and relying solely on facts 

will avoid arguments, and developing the 15th Report with that in mind will indicate U.S. 

cooperation. Mr. Huth responded that many of the Water Treatment workgroup’s 

recommendations were drawn from information gained by the ADEQ in its work with 

municipalities. Many recommendations do not require resources, merely engagement. 

Recommendations may stem from ADEQ efforts, but the federal government must be involved

because the recommendations go beyond ADEQ’s jurisdiction. Many U.S. corporations want to 

donate equipment to Mexico at no cost, and this may require only a telephone call to these 

corporations.

Ms. Sylvia Grijalva commented that the recommendations should relay jurisdictional 

responsibilities and possibilities appropriately. 

Dr. Austin agreed that there are roles for local, state, federal and binational entities and that 

programs (such as Border 2012 and Border 2020) establish mechanisms that allow these entities 

to engage with Mexico. The GNEB must provide case studies that offer examples for the 

recommendations. 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 39

Mr. Angel said that there are impairments on the U.S. side of the border that are due to discrete 

point sources (e.g., 303d listed areas), and these must be addressed. Not all recommendations 

should be for resource allocation and infrastructure; there is a regulatory component as well.

Mr. Olmedo commented that the GNEB Reports go not only to the President and U.S. Congress, 

but also can be examined by the public. This should be considered when recommendations are 

reviewed. Dr. Austin affirmed this, but said that the Report can focus only on recommendations 

for the federal government. 

Dr. Austin asked for comments on the order of the day’s GNEB meeting. Ms. Krepp suggested 

that members meet in their workgroups to discuss, evaluate and work on their recommendations. 

Mr. Manzanilla agreed and said that he would appreciate time to work on tribal 

recommendations with Mr. Cruz specifically. Dr. Austin said that any GNEB members with 

tribal expertise also should work with Mr. Manzanilla and Mr. Cruz. 

Dr. Austin said that a small workgroup will need to form that will compile all of the GNEB 

recommendations, edit and structure them, as well as remove redundancies. 

Mr. Joyce reminded the GNEB that it should begin determining which graphics, photographs and 

so forth should be included in the Report. These graphics should be inserted in the text version of 

the Report, and SCG will integrate them into the final Report document. He also reminded the 

GNEB that strong case studies are important and that one case study for each state is not 

necessary. Case studies should be chosen because they illustrate a specific point in the Report or 

recommendations. 

Dr. Austin said that workgroup draft chapters should be sent to her by July 13, 2012. 

Mr. Treviño stated that the Water Treatment workgroup still needs to send its introductory 

summary to the Context workgroup. 

Dr. Austin asked GNEB members if there were dates that would not work for a conference call. 

She said that a date could not be finalized yet, but that the Board could determine dates that 

would not work. She also added that the NCM dates will not be considered. She asked if the end 

of August and early December are optimal times for GNEB meetings.

Ms. Krepp mentioned a conflict with November 25 – 30. Dr. Austin said that the Colorado River 

Water Users Association meeting is December 12 – 14. Mr. Angel said that the first week in 

December would present a conflict. Dr. Austin asked if there were any major meetings during

the first week of December. 

Mr. Joyce said that a face-to-face meeting in Washington, D.C., before final transmittal of the 

Report will be necessary; however, some flexibility in the date will be required to ensure that 

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and CEQ Chair Nancy Sutley will be in attendance. A 

teleconference can be used to formally approve the Report in a public context. 

Dr. Austin said that the next teleconference at the end of August would be to approve the Report. 

Mr. Romero mentioned that the League of Cities and Towns Meeting is August 27 – 29 and that 

the Mexico/U.S. Border Governor’s Meeting is August 24.
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 40

Public Comments 

Dr. Austin called for public comments and there were none.

Adjournment

Dr. Austin thanked the GNEB members for their hard work. Mr. Joyce reiterated Dr. Austin’s 

sentiment and thanked all of the participants who attended. Mr. Angel thanked Dr. Austin and 

the GNEB staff for their dedicated work.

Dr. Austin adjourned the meeting at 2:00 p.m.

Action Items

 The Water Treatment workgroup should send their introductory summary to the Context

workgroup via Mr. Treviño.

 Board members interested in participating in the workgroup committee for compiling 

recommendations and assuring that they are not redundant should contact Dr. Austin.

 Workgroups should determine the final photographs, images and graphics that will be used in 

the workgroup chapters and insert them into their chapters.

 Workgroup final chapters are due by July 13, 2012, to Dr. Austin.

 Workgroups should identify the information that they will request from federal agencies for 

the 15th Report at the CEQ meeting on July 17, 2012. 

 Ms. Gantner will send emails to the GNEB members about conference call dates and 

subsequent reminders. 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 41

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) 

Meeting Participants

Nongovernment, State, Local, and Tribal 

Members of the Board

Diane Austin, Ph.D., Chair

Associate Research Anthropologist

Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

Jose Angel

Assistant Executive Officer

California River Basin Region Water Quality

Control Board – Colorado River Basin Region

Palm Desert, CA

Omar Chacón Betancourt 

Chief, Department of Regulation and Sanitation 

Junta Municipal de Agua y Saneamiento 

(Municipal Board of Water and Sanitation)

Evaristo Cruz

Director

Environmental Management Office

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo

El Paso, TX 

Veronica Garcia

Deputy Director

Waste Programs Division 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Phoenix, AZ 

Leslie Grijalva 

Environmental Protection Specialist

Rio Grande Water Quality 

Texas Clean Rivers Program 

International Boundary and Water Commission

Hans Huth

Border Programs Coordinator 

Southern Regional Office 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Phoenix, AZ

Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E.

Borders Affairs Manager and Colonias 

Coordinator

Intergovernmental Relations Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Austin, TX

Luis Olmedo

Executive Director

Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.

Brawley, CA

Mike Ortega

Cochise County Administrator

Board of Supervisors

Bisbee, AZ

Luis E. Ramírez, MSFS

President

Ramirez Advisors Inter-National, LLC

Phoenix, AZ

Cyrus B.H. Reed, Ph.D.

Conservation Director

Lone Star Chapter Sierra Club

Austin, TX

Thomas Ruiz, M.S.

Border/Environmental Justice Liaison

Office of the Secretary

New Mexico Environment Department

Las Cruces, NM

Timothy Treviño

Director of Public Relations

Alamo Area Council of Governments

San Antonio, TX

Mike Vizzier

Chief, Hazardous Materials Division

County of San Diego

San Diego, CA
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 42

Federal Members of the Board and 

Alternates

Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources 

Conservation Service

Robert M. Apodaca

Assistant Chief–West

Natural Resources Conservation Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Albuquerque, NM

International Boundary and Water Commission

Edward Drusina

Commissioner

United States Section

International Boundary and Water Commission

El Paso, TX 

Department of the Interior

Greg Eckert, Ph.D.

National Park Service

Fort Collins, CO

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Sylvia Grijalva 

U.S./Mexico Border Planning Coordinator

Office of Planning

Department of Commerce–National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

Alison Krepp

Estuarine Reserves Division

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Silver Spring, MD

Environmental Protection Agency

Enrique Manzanilla

Director

Communities and Ecosystems Division

EPA Region 9

San Francisco, CA

Department of State

Angela Palazzolo

International Relations Officer

U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Aimee Roberson 

Transboundary Conservation of Rio Grande 

Watershed and the Big Bend-Rio Bravo 

Region 

International Boundary and Water Commission

Sally Spener

Public Affairs Officer

International Boundary and Water Commission

El Paso, TX

Department of Homeland Security

Teresa R. Pohlman, Ph.D.

Director

Occupational Safety and Environmental 

Programs

Office of Chief Administrative Officer

Management Directorate

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, D.C.

Acting Designated Federal Officer

Mark Joyce

Acting Designated Federal Officer

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee 

Management and Outreach 

Washington, D.C. 

EPA Participants

Doug Liden 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

San Francisco, CA

Carlos Rincón, Ph.D. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6

El Paso, TX

Maria Sisneros

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6

El Paso, TX
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 43

Gilbert Tellez

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6

El Paso, TX

Dora Vasquez

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6

El Paso, TX

Other Participants

Arturo Aguila

El Paso Interreligious Sponsoring Organization, 

Border Interfaith

Tom Barry

Center for International Policy

Carolina Perez Castilla

Sontamunicipal de Agua Juarez

Daniel Chacon

Junta Municipal de Agua y Saneamiento 

(Municipal Board of Water and Sanitation)

Eddie Chew

Border Interfaith

El Paso, TX

Laurence Gibson

Sierra Club

Maria Elena Giner

Border Environment Cooperation Commission

Juárez, Mexico

Lorena Diaz Gutierrez

Junta Municipal de Agua y Saneamiento 

(Municipal Board of Water and Sanitation)

Alex Hinojosa

North American Development Bank

Renata Manning

Border Environment Cooperation Commission

El Paso, TX

Dean Moulis

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Phoenix, AZ

Gina Pasada

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Carlos Peña

International Boundary and Water Commission

Jesus Reyes

El Paso County Water Improvement District

El Paso, TX

Ivonne Santiago

University of Texas at El Paso

El Paso, TX

Rick Van Schoik

North American Center for Transborder Studies 

-Southwest Consortium for Environmental 

Research and Policy

Contractor Support

Erinn Howard, Ph.D.

Senior Science Writer

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.

Gaithersburg, MD 
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 44

Good Neighbor Environmental 

Board

Double Tree by Hilton Hotel El Paso 

Downtown

600 North El Paso 

Street

El Paso, Texas 

79901

AGENDA

Thursday, June 28

8:00 a.m. Registration

8:30-8:45 Welcome and Introductions

 Mark Joyce

Associate Director and Acting Designated Federal Officer

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

 Diane Austin

Chair

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

8:45-10:00 Environment and Water Quality

 Aimee Roberson – Transboundary Conservation of Rio Grande

Watershed and the Big Bend-Rio Bravo Region

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Leslie Grijalva – Rio Grande Water Quality

Texas Clean Rivers Program, International Boundary and Water

Commission

 Omar Chacón Betancourt

Chief, Department of Regulation and Sanitation, Junta Municipal 

de Agua y Saneamiento (Municipal Board of Water and Sanitation)

10:00-10:15 Break

10:15-11:30 Water Supply Perspectives

 Jesus Reyes – Local Water Management

General Manager, El Paso County Water Improvement District # 1
June 28-29, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 45

 Jesus Reyes – Regional Approach and Challenges

Paso del Norte

 Carlos Peña – Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program

Principal Engineer, International Boundary and Water Commission

11:30-12:15 Resources

 Doug Liden - Border 2020 Update

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9

 Maria Elena Giner - BECC Update

General Manager, Border Environment Cooperation Commission

12:15-12:45 Public Comments

12:45-1:45 Lunch

1:45-3:00 Discussion of 15th Report

3:00-3:15 Break

4:00-6:00 Discussion of 15th Report

6:00 Adjourn

Meeting Day 2

Friday, June 29

8:30-9:30 Discussion of Next Meetings and Other Business

9:30-11:00 Discussion of 15th Report

11:00-11:15 Break

11:15-1:30 Discussion of 15th Report

1:30-2:00 Public Comments

2:00 Adjourn