June 28

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

### Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Meetin g

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 Fe deral 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 15t h 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 Arizo na) 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 Robers on
, 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 ofJune 28

- 29 , 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 2 the Big Bend

- Rio Bravo regi on 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 functio ning 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

- the

gro und 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 perspect ive. Coalesc ence of the Cooperative was fully achieved in 2010 with th e 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 grass lands, 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 wi ldlife that are dependent on the ecosystem. O utreach 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

th e 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 th e 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 discuss ing 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 ex otic specie s 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 specie s. 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 t o address this problem, incl uding (1) c ontrol exotic species, (2) seek opportunities for environmental flows (managed and delivered) and (3) link upland ecosystems (sediment transport from grasslands, migration of speci es).

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 assessment s ; 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. T he Program undertakes different activities , including wa ter monitoring and assessment, outreach and public meetings, a nd 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

35 5,000 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 quart erly) 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, municip alities and nonprofit organizations. All agencies and partners are trained by Ms. Grijalva and must use TCEQ sampling procedures. In addition, a ll 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 ) L ist.

The c hallenges to binational basin water quality include access issues ( border fence), different methods of analytical standards in the United States and Mexico, different law s of river discharges, lack of border infrastructure and jurisdiction. Adequate enforce ment 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 current ly 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 addr ess other water quality issues. For additional

informatio n, 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 Chac ó n Betancourt ( Junta Municipal de Agua y Saneamiento ) , and said that he would present in Spanish and Mr. Stephen Niemeyer (T CEQ) would translate the presentation into English.

Junta Municipal de Agua y Saneamiento Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua

– Plantas Tratadoras

Omar Chac ó n Betancourt, Chief, Department of Regulation and Sanitation, Junta Municipal de Agua y Saneamiento (Municipa l 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. Wast ewater 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 T wo new water treatmen t 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 i s seeking

ideas to address sustainability concerns and is offer ing prizes to industry and individuals for ideas on the best ways to reuse wastewater. Currently, many areas are being irrigated with reu s ed water, whereas previously the y were irrigated with p otable 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 an d using ultraviol et (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 requireme nts 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. Betanc ourt 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 t heir permit s 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 m inimum requirements of federal law.

Mr. Luis Olmed o (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 odo r. 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 UV

protective appro ach 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 treatme nt 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, bu t 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 munic ipalities 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

comm ented 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 disc ussion 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 recomm end ations 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 spe cies 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 pot ent 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 a scertained 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 s aid 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 procedure s , 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 question ed; 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 sta ted that the water quality data are given to an environmental management division that produce s monthly reports. Special studies often are planned on the Mexican section of the river, and the division review s 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 wher e sedimentation is a problem. Ms. Roberson answered that dredging canJune 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 frequentl y. Dredging is a tool that can be part of the river management tool box; 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 s pecies 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

tot al 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 cost

prohibitive. She commented that testing for antibiotics and endocrine

- disrupt ing 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 ad ditional 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 n ext 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 G NEB 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 feder al 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 mi les 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 y ear.

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 areJune 28

- 29 , 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 8 757,000 acre feet and low inflow s 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 amount s are cyclical over the years, but the rec ent 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 di strict. 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 implement ing 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, ch il i

, 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 up graded 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./Me xico 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 alo ng 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 em ployees.

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 Wate r 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 (a nnual 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 itJune 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 help s to conserve water further.

Discussion

Ms. Sylvia Grijalva ( U.S. Department of Transportation) asked ab out the New Mexico lawsuit argument. Mr. Reyes responded that the N ew M exico 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 Pas o “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 Wa shington, 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 puddle s 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 b anks. 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 Trevi ñ o (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 Rui z (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

wa ter 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 televi sion 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 Transbou ndary Water Resources

Ca rlos Pe ñ a, Principal Engineer, IBWC

Mr. Pe ñ a 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. F our aquifers are being studied; however, more could be added.

For the states , there is nothing in the Act that affect s jurisdictions, treaties, water rights and so forth. Therefore, the object ives of the TAAP are to: (1) d evelop high

- quality, comprehensive, binational groundwater quantity and quality databases; (2) a ssess the extent, availability, quality and use of border aquifers; (3) a nalyze trends in groundwater quality, including sal inity, nutrients, toxics and pathogens; (4) d evelop and improve groundwater flow models for binational aquifers to facilitate regional water assessment and planning; (5) a ssess the movement and use of conjunctive surface ground water; (6) d evelop updated w atershed delineations; and (7) a pply the new data and models to evaluate strategies to enhance supplies and protect water quality.

M any activities have been undertaken for the TAAP

, including holding U.S. stakeholder and public meetings to identify and pr ioritize needs, developing and reviewing work plans, and preparing an interim report to the U.S. Congress.

Many s cientific s tudies have been conducted in the Mesilla Basin Aquifer System of N ew
M exico

, T exas and Chihuahua . An updated lower Rio Grande Riv er 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 g aps 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 in to 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 objecti ve is to improve the knowledge base on transboundary aquifers.

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

watershed was determined in the Convention of 1906. When there are reductions in availableJune 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 h ow groundwater pumping impacts channel conveyance efficiencies. Studies of single and multi

water 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. Pe ñ a responded that there are no treaties on groundwater and

, after the release of water from Elepha n t Butte, the gro undwater becomes surface water when it becomes part of a river. The information that will be gathered by the TAAP will assist in imp r oving water management. Additionally, links between the USGS and water institutes in Mexico will ensure

th at 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 bein g made, especially if the current drought continues. Understanding aquifer performance

, therefore, is

vital. Mr. Pe ñ a 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 l ittle 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 1 00 acre feet of land for building homes can lease those water rights to the city of El Paso. The cost per acre foo t for water delivery and tax is $32;

how e ver
, $150 is the valley average.

A participant asked if the data are collected from Mexican wells a nd stations

, and Mr. Pe ñ a 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. Pe ñ a. Mr. Pe ñ a replied that such informat ion 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 fa rmers 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. Pe ñ a 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 e xpectation 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 lett er 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. Pe ñ a 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 M inute is produced, then there is more impetus for action. Mr. Pe ñ a 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. Pe ñ a was unsure.

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

loc ation. 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 commu nications 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 a llow 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

gene rations. 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 are a, it is difficult for most irrigation districts to develop additional water resources and that system efficiency needs improvement.

Mr. Hans Huth (Arizona Departm e nt of Environmental Quality [ADEQ] ) said that the hydrogeological framework is being devel oped 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. Pe ñ a committed to findi ng 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 provide d 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 povert y 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 20 12 has connected 513,000 h ouseholds 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, harv esting 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 nex t 8 years. The same structure is in place as in Border 2020, but the focus of strategie s 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 materia ls 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 be tween enforcement agencies, identify ing 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 theJune 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 binat i onally 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

kil n disposal has been incentivized and has become a permanent disposal system. Collection of tires is no longer as problematic as the ir disposal.

U.S./Mexico Border Environment C ooperation Agreement Maria Elena Giner, General Manager, BECC; Renata Manning, Projects Director, BECC

Ms. Giner explained that t he BECC ’s mandate has been expanded to include the new sectors of municipal planning and development, international border cro ssings, 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 tr action 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 Re port 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 infr astructure requirement s 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 mor e difficult and relies almost solely on a clean water survey. One

- h alfJune 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 re gard to wastewater. The Clean Water Needs Survey is the primary instrument, and the system contains gaps. Gaps in the

number s of households connected to centralized wastewater systems in Arizona could be due to rural households. Arizona, New Mexico and wes t Texas grapple with the issue of arsenic

contaminated 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. T his need exceeds $3 billion in the United States.

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

U.S

. - Mexico Border Program, one of the most successful programs implemented to address these needs. This program prov ides 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 proj ects. The BEIF is administered by the NADB and provides construction grant funds. These programs have been efficient and effective in addressing centralized water

and wastewater service

- related needs in these communities.

The NADB’s Loan Programs facili tate 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 th at gives priority to funding water, wastewater and solid waste projects in economically distressed communities. Under the Technical Assistance Programs, the

BECC/NADB offer s 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 par tner in all states through its rural d evelopment 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 pla n 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 vul nerability 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 foun d 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 andJune 28

- 29 , 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 16 education, along with higher levels of use of English for Speakers of Other Langu ages (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 si gnificantly 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. Th e 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. Austi n thanked the Board Members and others who had testified at the hearing an d 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 ve rsion 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, infr astructure 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 withi n 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 technica l 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

prog ram.

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 conn ections 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 receiv ing certification can access NADB funding.

Mr. Angel asked how many o f 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 a nd 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 m onies 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

dri nking 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 wat er 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 fo r 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 contamina ted 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 tank s 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 com munities also must be

taken into account.

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

- time

services and a sked if that applied to the $3. 2 billion. Ms. Giner noted that the basis for theJune 28

- 29 , 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 18 analysis is to first ta rget 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 t he speakers for their presentation s 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 responde d that he had bee n focusing on C olonias along the border, including Mennonite C olonias 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 pr esent during the upcoming break for further discussion.

Dr. Austin next introduc ed Ed die 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 b y 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 lik e 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 Co ordinator 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 thatJune 28

- 29 , 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 19 he had spoken with the J AC previously, but there have not been any result s . 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 fu nding 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. sid e 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 million s 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 workgroup s to take this information into account if these studies were not yet on their re sources 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

wa s about to take. She gave a preview of the afternoon activities and objectives, which included identify ing gaps in the 15 th Report during the workgroup sessions and suggest ing 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 15 th Report. The recommendat ions 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 i ncluded in the 15 th Report

— the “big picture”

messages to the President and C ongress. 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 em phasized 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 cou ld 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 th at 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 face

to

- face mee ting 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 material s into a single draft report for detailed

edit ing , which ultimately will be voted on in a conference call before it is released. If this timeline did not seem feasible, a December rele ase would be the alternative. Dr. Austin asked participants to be prepared to discuss the report timing during the following morning’s session.

Context Workg roup Discussion

Mr. Treviño of the Context work group 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 popul ation and effects on water supply andJune 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 1 st and

15 th GNEB Reports. This change w ould 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 wo uld include binational, other sources (e.g., private markets, public sector debt issue), state revolving loan funds, state funds in general, and trib al

- 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 w as 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 8 th 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 not ed that the supply chapter work group 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 are a (e.g., agricultural) and the like. However, t he 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 work groups 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 rega rd to emerging issues, Dr. Reed said that the supply work group 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

work group would include this if requested. The Context work group, however, had intended to include emerging issues that would not be discussed elsewhere in the rep ort. It was agreed that

some issues could be mentioned in the Context chapter and then developed further in subsequent chapters. M r. Treviño asked the other work groups to send the Context work group 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, heJune 28

- 29 , 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 22 referred to how the 13 th Report had addressed the context of t he issues. Perhaps that report could

be referenced in the 15 th 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 15 th Report. If they had not done so previously, she asked attendees to review the 8th and 13th Reports.

Mr. Tre viño said that the Context work group also had discussed shale ga s 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 i n 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 As sessment 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 ad dressed 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 A ssessment 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 Workg roup Discussion

Mr. Ruiz note d 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 introducti on 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 th e 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 incl ude 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 Atmosp heric Administration [NOAA]) noted that many climate variability projections for the southwest involve storms and drought, both of which can significantly impact water supply. The

work group 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 refe rences 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 term s 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 salin ity, 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 I BWC would

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

efforts at s alinity 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 R iver 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 c ould 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 sect ion 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 8 th 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 add ition, 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 drink ing 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 alo ng the border. These map s could be shared with the work group.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 sho wn 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 b e 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 system s 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 defici ts 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

8 th Report concerning wor king with international watersheds. Ms. Spener encouraged the group as a whole to review the section on challenges and recommendations from the 8 th 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, cl imate 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 Work

g roup 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 chapte r.June 28

- 29 , 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 25 Water Treatment Work

g roup 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 inte nt of the recommendations rather than on how they were worded.

The United States and Mexico s hare stormwater

, wastewater t reat m e nt and wastewater conveyance infrastructure in the border region

. P rotecting existing and new investments in

infrastructure wil l require U.S. federal government coordination with Mexico in new and innovative ways. For north

- flowing watersheds, specific recommendations for Mexican engagement follow:

1. M exico lacks regulations for stormwater and nonpoint source pollution control fro m municipalities. The United States needs to translate and share information regarding its own policies for Mexico’s consideration in shared watersheds to prote ct the environment in the

United States.

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

control of industrial discharge s that cross into the United States

. The Water Policy Forum should lead an effort to encourage e ffective pretre a t ment 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 orig inating in Senora (reference to be included in the report).

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

waste water quality discharges to the municipal conveyance system. S ome Mexican state and

local entitie s adhere to a broad federal standard

, known as SEMARNAT1996NOM001, which may n ot be sufficient for protecting receding wastewater treatment infrastructure and receding waters in the United States. Under these circumstances, the W ater P olicy F orum needs to en courage local limits that will protect shared infrastructure and the environment in

binational watersheds.

4. Given their role as a stak e holder, U.S. states must be allowed to participate in M inute 304 meetings ( Minute 3 04 is summarized for the report )

.

5. The f ed eral g overnment must engage U.S. companies operating in Mexico regard ing the potential impact their discharges and supply chains are having on shared infras tr u c ture in the

environment in binational watersh eds

.

6. Recommend b ui lding inst it utional capac i ty to ensure reliable operation and maint e n a nce of publically owned wastewater treatment facilities

, including collection system s

. This includes

p eriodic compliance assurance and industrial pretreatment to ensure that investments in

wastewater infrastruct ure continue to provide reliable wastewater infrastructure discharging into binational waterways.June 28

- 29 , 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 26 7. Recommend i ncreased w aste w ater and d rinking w ater service for border residents who currently lack it , while addressing the regulations that make it increasin gly 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 s hould be given the highest priority in accessing federal funding for treatment infrastructure.

9. The Southwest B order C ommission s h ould be revi ta lized to address the infrastructure issues

for water and wastewater challenges on the U.S.

- Mexico border.

10. The U

. S

. g o v er n men t should assume full responsibil it y over the U.S. portion of shared

binational infr astructure w he re state and local g overnments have no authority to manage the operation and maintenance of the Mexican portion of the shared infrastructure.

11. Tr ibes need to c on tinue building capacity so that they can take on greater authority over

tribal waters

. With funding from the EPA, tribes continue to seek t reatment 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

stand a rds. With growing tribal authority, it becomes critical for tribes and sta t es t o 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 p ower pla n t s install larger capa c i ty 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.

D r. 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 c ame 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 wastewaterJune 28

- 29 , 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 27 conveyance and other infrastructure with Nogales, S onora. 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 wastew ater 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 ent ails 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 communi ty 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 particip ant 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) aske d 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 conc erning 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 regular ly 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

- the

border 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. The se 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 consolid ated.

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 th e 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 t o 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 sec tion 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 mi ght be replicated borderwide.June 28

- 29 , 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 28 Dr. Austin said that some work group chairs had mentioned that their case studies were being

re visited and perhaps changed or trimmed. She asked groups with few case studies to consider adding additional studies to their sect ions. 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 a

bout 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 be fore 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 recommendati ons 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 i f 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. Nonfedera l membership is an open nomination process that garners attention from postings on the Federal Register websit e, as well as various listservs. The posting for GNEB members should be distributed widely by current members. In addition, b road distribution is relied upon heavily to gain membership.

The GNEB member s 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 enc ouraged to consider individuals who would fill in some of the gaps in membership listed on the membership matrix.

Mr. Trevi ñ o questioned the status of an issue from the previous day’s proceedings. Mr . Joyce said that the issue was with a participant’s fir m and he thought that he had approval, but did not.

The GNEB seeks equal representation across states and categories. Mr. Joyce added that GNEBJune 28

- 29 , 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 29 members must actively represent a group or organization and

, unfortunately, cannot be retired

person s

.

Memo Re garding t o 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 tha t due to budgetary constraints, Ms. Jackson decided not to attend the current

GNEB me e ting; 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 ho ld 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 meet ing 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 r equests of federal agencies should be mad e 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 delive r the 15th Report in November, the contractor (SCG) will require

receiv ing 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 re minded 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. Trevi ñ o, 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 de adlines 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. Trevi ñ o 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 thatJune 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 delive ry 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

need ed to produce the best Report possib le. 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 review ed 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 d ate 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 maintai ned, 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 no t possible. A decision must be made pre sently 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. Trevi ñ o said that regardless of t he 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 r esources 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 vacatio ning dur in g 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 D ecember 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 Bo rder 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 a re 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. H uth said that interim deadlines are a good idea. He also stated that the GNEB is consensus

driven

, a nd 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 face

to

- 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 t o 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 cou ld 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 Re port

, with the recommendations being easily accessible. Ms. Spener agreed and said that p ast Reports

had included recommendations “at a glance,” a one

- page summary and six recommendations, with more details in the individual chapters. Previous Reports ther efore 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 ca n 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 question ed whether each chapter would reiterate the recommendations with more

details or if there would be a separate recommendation s 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 b eing 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. Trevi ñ o said that recommen dations 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

incor porated 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 b e 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, includ ing 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 condense d, 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 Qu ality 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

Treatme nt w orkgroup 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 f ocus 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 b order 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 t hat t he 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

infrastru cture. Additionally, he indicated the following:

O ften at the state level

, it is said that it is the federal government ’ s responsibility alone ; however, the fed eral government do es not have the resources or staff to address the issue.

The problems at th e international plant have created difficulties for Nogales, AZ

, but

Mr. Reed hesitate d to endorse a recommendation that the U

. S . g overnment should

assume full responsibility for those problems

.

The statement , “Recommend increased wastewater and drinkin g water service for border residents who currently lack it, while addressing the regulations making it increasingly costly to treat arsenic, uranium and fluoride i n drinking water along the U.S./ Mexico

border

, ” could be interpreted as the GNEB asking that hea l th

- 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 recommendation s 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 updat ing 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 W ater Supply workgroup :

(1) Continue to support a flexible Lower Colorado River Multi

- Species Conservation Program, including support this p rogram has offered for model projects such as Yuma East Wetlands, Hunters Hole and the Miguel Aleman site across the

C olorado 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 C alifornia. The B oard

support s efforts by the Bureau of Reclamation to en sure 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

M exico 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, p articularly 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 B oard

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 f inds 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 specif ically 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

, su pport efforts to increase participation, institutional flexibility and collaborative efforts across political boundaries.

(10) Develop binational data protocols and

, where appropriate, harmoniz e 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 count r ies.

(11) The B oard finds that recent efforts to include environmental flows in water planning, such as that authorized in the s tate of Texas or being considered in the Colorado River Study, are a positive development, and future water pl anning 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 f

ederal g overnment could and should play a role in distributing best practices in these are as. 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 in dividual 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 drought

management 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

. F ish and W ild life S ervice and participating

states to be more flexible with the Lower Colorado River Multi

- SpeciesJune 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 C olorado River from Hunters Hole.

(2) GNEB support for the recent cooperative approach to binational negotiations on

the C olorado 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 en sure th at 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 th e broad

- based participation that has occurred in the

C olorado 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 promoti ng information dissemination regarding existing grant pro grams in border communities. M any 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 evaluat e existing programs, grants and initiatives.

Mr. Trevi ñ o said that the Context chapter includes an explanation and recommendation regarding seeking a dditional 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 fund s and the ability to refinance debt.

Ms. Palazzolo said tha t 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 Repor t 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 impo rtant. 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 ba cteria 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 bo rder. 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 w ere mentioned that do not have a binational component. Such issues could reference disadvantaged communities. A balanced recommendations approach would ensure that the GNEB distinguish es 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 Colora do 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. Trevi ñ o 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 gra nt 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 g rant 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 fi lled 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 sim ilar 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 a re pointing at facts. The Water Treatment workgroup’s recommendations wereJune 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 wit h 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 posit ive 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

, an d 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 t he 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. s tandards 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 avo id argument s, 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. M any recommendations do not require resources, merely engagement.

R ecommendations 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 equipm ent 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

recomm endations.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 t his, 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 t heir 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, photograph s 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. Trevi ñ o 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 t hat 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 dur in g the first week of December.

Mr . Joyce sai d 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 Sutle y 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 Mee ting 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 thei r 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 dete rmine 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 Grand e 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 Superv isors 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, CAJune 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 Comm ission

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 Admi nistration 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. Environ mental 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, TXJune 28

- 29 , 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 43 Gilbert Telle z U.S. Environmental Protection A gency 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 Per ez 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 Cooperati on 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 Pe ñ a International Boundary and Water Commission

Jesus Reyes El Paso County Water Improvement District El Paso, TX

Ivonne Santia go 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 Consultin g Group, Inc. Gaithersburg, MDJune 28

- 29

, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 44



### G ood N e ig hb or E n vi r o n m e n t a l

B o a r d

Dou b le T re e b y H i lton Hot e l E l P aso

Do wn to w n 600 No r th E l P aso S tr e e t

El P aso, T e xas 79901



### AGENDA

T h u r s da y , June 28

8:00 a. m

. R egi s t ra t i on

8:30

- 8: 4 5 We l c o me and In t rod u c t i o n s

Mark Jo y ce A sso c iate Dir e ctor a n d A ct in g De s i g n ated F e d e r a l O ff i cer O ff i ce of Fed er a l A d vis o r y C o m mittee M a n age m e n t a n d Ou t r ea c h

Di ane A u s ti n Cha i r G o od N eig h bor E n vir o n m e n tal B o a r d

8:45

- 10 : 00 E n vi r o n me n t and Wa t e r Q ua l it y
A imee R obe r s o n

– Tr a n s bo u n da r y C onser v ati o n of R io G r a n de

Wate r s h ed a n d t h e B ig B e nd

- R io B r a vo R egion

U

. S . Fi s h a n d W i l d l i f e S e r vi c e

L e sl i e G ri

j al v a

– R io G r a n de Water Qu a l ity

T e x as Clean R i ve r s P r o g r am, Inte r n ati o n al B ou n d a r y and W a ter

C o m m iss i o n

O mar Cha c ó n B e t a n co u r t
Ch i e f , De p a r tm e n t of R e g u lat i on a n d S a n it a tio n , J u n ta M u n i c ipal

de A g u a y S a n ea m i e n to ( M un i c i p al Boa r d o f W ater a n d S a n ita t io n )

10:00

- 1 0:15 B reak

10:15

- 1 1:30 Wa t er S u p p l y P e r s pe c t i ves J es u s R ey e s

– L o cal W a t e r Ma n age m e n t
General Ma n a g e r , El P a s o C o u n ty Water Im pr ov e m e n t Di s t r i c t # 1June 28

- 29

, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 45

J es u s R ey e s

– R egional Appr oach a n d C h a l l e n ges
P aso d el N o r te

Ca r los P e ñ a

– Tr a n sbo un da r y A q u i f er A ssess m e n t P r o gr am
P r i n c i p al E n g i n ee r , I n te r n ati o n al Bo u n da r y a n d Water C o m m is s ion

11:30

- 1 2:15 R esources
D ou g L iden

- B or d e r 20 2 0 U p date

Env i r o n m e n t al P r ot e ct i o n A g e n c y , R e g ion 9

Ma r ia El e n a G i n er

- B E C C Up d ate
General Ma n a g er, B or d e r Env i r on m e n t C o o p e r a ti on Co m mis s ion

12:15

- 1 2:45 P u bl i c C o m m e n t s

12:45

- 1 : 45 L u nch

1:45

- 3: 0 0 Di s cus s i on of 1 5 t h R ep o rt

3 :00

- 3: 1 5 B reak

4:00

- 6: 0 0 Di s cus s i on of 15 t h R ep o rt

6:00 A djo u rn

Mee t i ng D a y 2

Fr i da y , Ju n e 29

8:30

- 9: 3 0 Di s cus s i on of N e x t M ee ti n g s and O t her B u s i ne s s

9:30

- 11 : 00 Di s cus s i on of 15 t h R ep o rt

11:00

- 1 1:15 B reak

11:15

- 1 : 30 Di s cus s i on of 15 t h R ep o rt

1: 30

- 2: 0 0 P u bl i c C o m m e n t s

2:00 A djo u rn