Audio Associates

301/577-5882

Meeting Summary/Minutes

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

El Camino Real Hotel

El Paso, Texas

September 24-25, 2008

Administration: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Cooperative Environmental Management

Note: The members of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board have requested that the 

following caveat be inserted into all Board meeting minutes:

The minutes that follow reflect what was conveyed during the course of the meeting being 

summarized. The Board is not responsible for any potential inaccuracies that may appear in 

the minutes as a result of information conveyed. Moreover, the Board advises that additional 

information sources be consulted in cases where any concern may exist about statistics or any 

other information contained within the minutes.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 3

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

Table of Contents

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Welcome and Introductions...................................................................................................... 2

Remembrance ........................................................................................................................... 2

Regional Welcome: .................................................................................................................. 2

By José Rodriguez, El Paso County Attorney

The El Paso Smelter Issue......................................................................................................... 4

Bob Currey, Center for Environmental Resource Management

Border Environment Cooperation Commission: New Project.................................................. 6

By Daniel Chacón-Anaya and Maria-Elena Giner

Regional Approach to Water Supply-El Paso Water Utilities.................................................. 8

By Héctor Gonzáles, El Paso Water Utilities

National Coordinators Meeting Update ....................................................................................11

By Enrique Manzanilla, EPA, San Francisco and

Alheli Baños-Keener, San Diego Border Office

Public Comments......................................................................................................................12

Board Report Outs ....................................................................................................................12

GNEB 12th Report Working Meeting .................................................................................13

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Business Meeting......................................................................................................................

Call to Order .......................................................................................................................18

Approval of Minutes...........................................................................................................18

Other Business:

OIG Border 2012 Report Discussion..................................................................................18

The White House CEQ Update...........................................................................................20

Flooding in Nogales, Sonora, Mexico ................................................................................21

GNEB 2009 CY Schedule ..................................................................................................21

GNEB 12th Report Working Meeting .................................................................................22

Public Comments (None)....................................................................................................

Adjourn ...............................................................................................................................24

Appendix: Participants..............................................................................................................25
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 2

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

El Paso, Texas

September 24-25, 2008

Meeting Summary/Minutes

Day 1 –Wednesday, September 24, 2008 (9:30 a.m.)

Background

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB or the Board) is an independent advisory 

committee that is managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It advises the 

U.S. President and Congress on good-neighbor practices along the U.S.-Mexico border. The 

focus is on the environmental and infrastructure needs of the U.S. states that are contiguous to 

Mexico.

Welcome and Opening Remarks

Paul Ganster, Ph.D. Chair, welcomed Board members and guests to the Good Neighbor 

Environmental Board (GNEB) meeting, and described the nature of the GNEB, which provides 

advice to the President and the U.S. Congress mainly through the issuance of annual reports. 

Board members represent a wide-variety of governmental and non-governmental organizations,

and tribal groups, that focus on environmental issues along the Mexican border.

Rafael DeLeon, Director, OCEM, thanked Carlos Rincón for the field trip to the tire piles and 

cement factory and expressed his condolences to the families of Carlos Marín and Arturo 

Herrera, who have provided a public service to the border community. Mr. DeLeon asked for a 

moment of silence in remembrance. Chair Ganster asked members of the Board to introduce 

themselves. 

Regional Welcome

José Rodríguez, El Paso County Attorney, welcomed Board members and guests to the binational community of El Paso, and extended the welcome from County Judge Cobos, who was 

unable to attend due to budget hearings. The El Paso County Attorney’s office is involved with 

environmental enforcement by prosecuting all health and environmental misdemeanors, such as 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 3

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

illegal dumping, unlawful discharges of fluids on the ground, and illegal burning. The 

environmental fine is determined by the amount and type of illegal activity and substances. The 

Attorney’s Office employs a full-time environmental prosecutor, Christina Viesco-Santos, who 

vigorously prosecutes cases, such as improper septic systems and illegal dumping of construction 

debris. 

The recently held 8th Annual Environmental Summit was a collaborative effort with the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the City and County of El Paso , the non-profit

“Keep El Paso Beautiful,” and other interested groups and citizens. This year, the conference 

focused on illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris. Thanks to the legislative 

efforts of State Senator Eliot Shapleigh, El Paso has the first environmental court that 

exclusively prosecutes environmental crimes that affect health, the quality of life, tourism, and 

economic development. 

With regard to bi-national issues, his office has limited jurisdiction, but there has been little 

cross-border dumping from the City of Juárez. A major issue was transport of hazardous wastes

across the border. An Environmental Task Force was established with over 30 agencies involved 

in environmental enforcement, such as TCEQ, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the U. S. 

Border Patrol, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Justice Department, the city and county police 

departments, and the sheriff’s department. The purpose was to collaborate and share information 

about environmental pollution and infractions. Also, a member of his office, Christina ViescoSantos, attended the first meeting of the U.S./Mexico Border 2012 Environmental Program, and 

is a member of the Border 2012 Environmental Compliance, Enforcement and Stewardship Task 

Force. 

A major issue at the border area is the border fence. A suit was filed by several agencies and 

organizations against the Department of Homeland Security to stop the construction of the fence 

until the federal government complies with federal, state, and local laws. The Department 

Secretary had waived the federal statues including the National Environmental Protection Act, 

the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Endangered Species statute, the Historic 

Preservation statute, and some Tribal statutes. The Federal Circuit Court dismissed the case, so 

now they can petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a review. 

With regard to El Paso’s good neighbor relations with Mexico, bi-national collaboration and 

cooperation is essential because the area shares economic, cultural, and social ties. The border 

fence does not convey good neighbor, bi-national cooperation. 

Questions and Answers

The issues of concern stated by Board members included the problem of scrap tires sent to 

Juárez, Mexico, from the U. S.; the lack of cross-deputization programs between the local and 

federal governments for enforcement; bi-national cooperation, and cooperation between the 

Attorney General’s Office, the TCEQ, and the Border 2012 Environmental Compliance, 

Enforcement and Stewardship Task Force. 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 4

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

Mr. Rodríguez responded to these concerns by stating that:

 At a recent conference of the Border 2012 group, a mayor of a border town in Mexico 

suggested that the U.S. pass legislation to require puncturing of tires prior to disposal 

because then they would be of limited use to the Mexican operators.

 Discussions have been held with the U. S. Customs and Border Protection agency

regarding cross-deputization, but their focus is on illegal border crossings. He would be 

glad to prosecute cases involving federal environmental crimes, if he was given the legal 

rights to do this. 

 In regard to bi-national issues, their Mexican counterparts have been invited to attend the 

Environmental Summits, but they have not yet developed unified programs.

 The cooperation between his office and the TCEQ and the Border 2012 staff has been 

excellent.

Stephen Niemeyer, TCEQ, suggested that Mr. Rodríguez review GNEB’s 10th Annual Report on 

the border fence issues in terms of border environmental protection and border security.

The El Paso Smelter Issue

Robert Currey, Managing Director, Center for Environmental Resource Management, 

University of Texas at El Paso, stated that he serves on the Management Committee of the 

Southwest Consortium for Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP) and on the U.S./Mexico 

Joint Advisory Committee on the Improvement of Air Quality that was established under the La 

Paz Agreement. He works with three Border 2012 groups—the Tri-State Regional Work Group, 

the Binational Air Policy Forum, and the Environmental Health Work Group. Mr. Currey would 

present an overview of the issues concerning the American Smelting and Refining Company’s 

(ASARCO) smelter in El Paso.

Speaking from the viewpoint of the U.S./Mexico Joint Advisory Committee, and using a series 

of slides, Mr. Currey delineated the location of the Smelter at the point where Texas, Chihuahua, 

and New Mexico come together on the map, which was 2-3 miles from the GNEB meeting 

location. In 2002, ASARCO applied to renew its air quality permit and the renewal has been 

contested. The smelter was issued a permit in 1992 by the Texas Air Control Board for a 10-

year period. In 1993, the Smelter implemented a CONTOP (Continuous Top Feed Oxygen 

Processing) plant that reduced pollution and they have spent millions of dollars modernizing its 

plants. The 820 foot stack emits a plume high in the air and further downwind than previously. 

The primary product now is copper, but previously included lead and zinc, which had polluted 

the soil of the nearby communities. 

Mr. Currey delineated the history of health problems, such as lead poisoning and possibly 

multiple sclerosis. ASARCO had to pay considerable fines to EPA in 1999, regarding Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste disposal. In 2000, studies revealed high levels of 

lead in the soil of residential properties. EPA confirmed the contamination and ASARCO is in 

the process of cleaning up the top six inches of soil in the yards of nearby neighborhoods. 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 5

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

Several public citizen groups have contested the permit renewal for health reasons. Supporters 

of the permit renewal are former employees and businesses.

In 2005, an administrative law review by two judges addressed several questions, two of which 

were: Will the operation of the smelter cause or contribute to air pollution? Does ASARCO’s 

compliance history warrant renewal? After several hearings, the TCEQ issued an order that 

start-up would require meeting several maintenance and technical conditions. ASARCO is in 

compliance with the order, but the ownership is in bankruptcy and may not be able to complete 

the required conditions. EPA has demanded a new source review with much higher standards 

than for a renewal. 

The Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) has made the following recommendations:

1. A new source review by the TCEQ of the air pollution permitting requirements.

2. Whether legacy issues of the plant’s operations merit cleanup before closure.

3. The establishment of a Bi-national Citizens Advisory Committee

4. A comprehensive on-and-off site sampling of the area to determine the past 

contamination and what would be the future dispositions of emissions.

Questions and Comments

Sally Spener, IBWC, commented on the issues regarding contamination of the American Canal 

and contamination from the ASARCO site, which has prevented the re-building of the upper 

section of the canal. The U. S. Section of the IBWC has become a party to the bankruptcy case 

with a claim against ASARCO for funds to do the cleanup. Mr. Currey responded that there may

not be any money to do the cleanup.

Mike Connolly, Campo Kumeyaay Nation, asked three questions: (1) Was there any groundwater 

contamination? (2) Why did former employees want the plant to run again? (3) Why are no 

additional environmental impact statements required?

Mr. Currey responded to the questions as follows:

 There have been no significant reports of groundwater contamination.

 Former employees had good paying jobs and could not always grasp the long-term health 

consequences.

 The TCEQ reviewed the Executive Director’s report which stated that there were no 

scientific, regulatory, or legal reasons to deny the permit. At this point, ASARCO is in 

compliance with the order.

Christopher Brown, NM State University, asked for an explanation of the JAC recommendation 

regarding on-site and off-site sampling in the U.S. and Mexico and the modeling that has been 

done on the distribution and background levels of contamination. Mr. Currey explained that the 

debate centered on the 9-10 years when hazardous waste was being recycled at the plant, and the 

major concern was about persistent organic and nuclear pollutants. Looking at the modeling and 

the downwind dispersion in the IH-10 (Interstate Highway 10) corridor, specifically for heavy 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 6

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

metals, many other industries could have contributed to it, such as chrome recovery operations 

and fertilizer plants. Tests on the blood levels of children did not show anything unusual. 

Allyson Siwik, GRIP, asked if Texas had any financial assurance requirements for cleanup. Mr. 

Niemeyer responded that when they issued the permit, ASARCO could not start up operations 

unless they met all of the requirements in the Executive Director’s report. If ASARCO fails to 

complete the requirements the matter would be referred to the State Office of Administrative 

Hearing for a contested case hearing. Due to the pending litigation, he was unable to comment 

further. Mr. Currey added that banks were asking for certificates of inspection before they

would grant a loan. 

Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC): New Project Areas

Daniel Chacón -Anaya, General Manager, Border Environment Cooperation Commission 

(BECC, or COCEF in Spanish), described the work of BECC and in new project areas. The 

first slide showed the sectors that they worked with, of which water was at the center. The 

climate change challenges included the threat to water, which would require having good 

relations with the public and private sectors. Waste management would be up-scaled to handle 

waste more efficiently. A continuous issue is road paving, because most Mexican cities have 

low paving coverage. Two new projects related to energy would be described with PowerPoint 

slides. 

BECC’s work could be grouped into seven programs, as follows:

1. Certification of clinical assistants’ program

2. Environmental management that includes programs and projects in Region 6 and Region 

9 in coordination with EPA personnel

3. An EPA grant for Border 2012 programs

4. Strategic planning program to define the long-term and mid-term needs for the border 

area.

5. Production of reports, projects, studies to increase knowledge to inform the border 

communities about the construction projects

6. Public participation and community-capacity building to share the benefits and possible 

increases in tariffs. For example, of the 141 certified projects, there was only one 

community that did not want the project. 

7. Build-up of community-capacity that enhances the ability of communities to handle, 

understand, and promote their own environmental projects.

Of the 141 certified projects, worth $3.1 billion, 75 are in Mexico and are worth $2 billion; and 

76 are in the U.S. and are worth $1.1 billion. The state of Texas has the most investment in the 

U.S. and the state of Baja California in Mexico, because these are major population centers that 

have major environmental infrastructure challenges. 

Two new energy projects are a methane recovery project using manure to produce electrical 

power, and a project converting grease to a bio-diesel fuel to use at gas stations and for refineries 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 7

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

to blend with diesel fuel. The cost of the latter project is $35 million, with the final capacity to 

be the production of 25 million gallons of bio-diesel fuel per year.

Mr. Chacón-Anaya described 86 other projects in the pipeline including solid waste, paving, 

energy, water, wastewater, clinical assistance, technical assistance, and construction financing. 

For example, $35 million in financing has been used for technical assistance. The Border 

Environment Infrastructure Program (BEIF) program has been very successful. In water 

distribution, Mexican cities have 96 percent coverage; and sewer coverage has increased from 70 

to 86 percent since 1995. At present the border area is above the rest of Mexico in wastewater 

coverage, which has only 35 percent coverage.

Mr. Chacón-Anaya described the funding situation, which has varied over the years. The trend 

was $50 million a year, but in 2007, the proposal was reduced to $26 million, and for 2008 

around $20-25 million was approved, but for 2009 only $10 million is proposed. The sharp 

decline in funding is problematic because the needs are still unmet. Mexico has also matched 

funds for BEIF money. The funds were used for water treatment plants, water distribution 

systems, wastewater treatment plants, and sewer collection systems. In 2005, 149 applications 

for funding were received, 135 were applicable, and only 27 were funded. In the next period, 

222 applications were received, 152 were applicable, and 71 were funded. 

Maria-Elena Giner, Deputy General Manager, BECC, explained that even though U.S. funds 

are used on the Mexican side they have to have a positive trans-border impact related to water 

and/or wastewater that may reduce water-borne diseases. The $500 million in BEIF funds have 

been leveraged to fund $1.5 billion worth of infrastructure. At present, BECC is working on 

needs assessments with Mexico and the U.S. states of Texas, California, and Arizona. The 

unmet needs in Mexico are close to $1 billion for basic water, sewer, wastewater, and solid waste 

sectors. The sectoral plans are completed regarding paving and solid waste, such as scrap tires, 

and a new project is being launched in the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Basin to encourage 

communities to get involved in improving these rivers. 

BECC is working on regional and border-level objectives to measure results. The goals are 

being discussed with the stakeholders and other entities, such as Border 2012. To get an 

assessment of the public health and the environment, organizations and agencies need to 

coordinate and cooperate through synergies, consensus, regulations, funds, and initiatives. 

Indicators need to be developed to assess whether objectives have been met. 

With the EPA grants and Border 2012 funds for environmental management, there are 93 

projects in Region 9, of which 72 are in the pipeline, and 21 have been completed. In Region 9, 

there are 21 new projects selected this year at $1.1 billion. There are four Region 6 projects 

underway and 40 proposals for new projects. Two new projects include one in which two 

communities will assess the capacity for methane production to become part of EPA’s Methane 

to Market program. The other project in Reynosa and Matamoros is to collect all of the 

household hazardous waste at various sites in the city, then send the waste to legal disposal sites. 

In the Rio Grande Valley, near El Paso and Juárez, we are going to assess the health conditions 

of residents in 11 small communities related to the EPA-funded projects.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 8

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

For information management, documents are being transformed in a systematic way into 

databases so we can have information collected and processed as needed for quality assurance. 

Standardization of documents is difficult, but is needed for entry into databases. 

In regard to Border 2012 programs, there are four common areas: water pollution, air pollution, 

soil, and environmental health. Other areas to consider are energy, irrigation water, climate 

change, the loss of bio-diversity, and planning for sustainability in the border communities. 

BECC is trying to reduce greenhouse gas and its use of energy by reducing employee car-driving 

by car pooling and teleconferencing, reducing the use of paper, and planting of trees. 

Questions and Answers

Patti Krebs, Industrial Environmental Association, asked if the states in Mexico had any plans to 

join the Western Climate Initiative and how the carbon reduction from planting trees would be 

calculated. Mr. Chacón-Anaya responded that Mexico’s federal government is taking part in that 

effort. Mexico’s Border States are interested in working with the U.S. states’ initiatives by

partnering with them on climate change. A group is working on the method to calculate the 

carbon reduction.

Christopher Brown asked if the PowerPoint presentation could be posted on the GNEB website, 

and Chair Ganster thought it could be done. 

Regional Approach to Water Supply-El Paso Water Utilities

Héctor González, Government Affairs Manager, El Paso Water Utilities, discussed the 

organization, the issues faced, and the regional approach to water supply. El Paso is located in 

the Chihuahuan Desert with the Hueco Bolsón and the Mesilla Bolsón as the primary sources of 

water, plus the Rio Grande River. The utility has purchased land outside of El Paso for the right 

to import water from these ranches. 

The major drivers are planning, regional issues and challenges, water conservation, ground water 

management, reclaimed water, stormwater management, partnerships, and natural resource 

stewardship. Ed Archuleta, President and CEO, has described the basic foundation for a 

successful utility as having good policies and, good resources, planning, and technical 

knowledge. 

Under planning, the utility has a 50-year Water Resource Management Plan, a 10-year Strategic 

Plan, a 10-year Capital Improvement Plan, a five-year Financial Plan, and does customer surveys

every other year. 

El Paso Water Utilities has taken the lead in groundwater modeling and research in cooperation 

with the University of Texas at El Paso, New Mexico State University, and Texas A. & M.

University. Federal funding is being sought for research. The utility is involved regionally with 

several organizations: 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 9

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

 Tri-Regional Planning that includes Juárez, El Paso, and New Mexico

 Paso Del Norte Water Task Force with representatives from Texas, New Mexico, and 

Mexico

 Paso Del Norte Water Group, which includes the business community in Juarez and El 

Paso. Juárez is included because they share ground water and surface water supplies. 

With the growing population there is a need for more infrastructure and regional water 

management policies

Some of the accomplishments between the El Paso and Juarez utilities include a December 1999 

Memorandum of Understanding to agree to work together, to meet, and to exchange information 

on technology and ground water modeling along the river, and best water resource management 

practices. In the area of water reclamation, the Reclaimed Water Program continues to expand. 

The criteria for planning projects includes a benefit to both countries, surface water alternatives, 

using groundwater data, maximizing the use of existing infrastructure, minimizing costs, and the 

best way to incorporate these projects within ongoing initiatives. 

Some of the regional challenges of working bi-nationally include differences in the laws, sources 

of water, planning approaches, private vs. public governance, resources, and leadership changes. 

In El Paso, the governing board makes decisions on budget and policies, whereas in Mexico, 

policies are governed by the National Water Commission or the State. 

Some of the opportunities for cooperation are the ability to exchange information on bi-national 

projects and to cooperate in efforts to reduce the amount of pumping and preserve ground water. 

They also have a Joint Public Information Campaign centered on water reclamation and they

used television to educate people about water reclamation and conservation. Another benefit is 

to be able to present bi-national projects for funding to both governments in Mexico City and 

Washington, DC. More recently, the private sector has been included to assist in carrying out 

projects and providing political support.

The major change that will affect the water supply is the arrival and projected increase of a large 

number of troops at Fort Bliss, which would more than double the population over the next 20 

years. Over $800 million would be spent on capital improvements over the next 10 years. Two 

facilities, the TecH20 Learning Center and the Desalination Plant, are on Fort Bliss property. 

The Learning Center is used to educate the public about water issues. 

The water conservation program has been a success. Water usage has been reduced from 220 

gallons to 134 gallons per person per day by the end of 2007. Peak demands have been reduced 

from 195 million gallons per day to 154 million gallons per day, which defers about $300 million 

in capital expenditures. Groundwater levels have declined because Juárez is 100 percent 

dependent on ground water, but less pumping is occurring under conservation. The reclaimed 

water program will be expanded to supply water for irrigation and industrial use. 

Recently, the responsibility for managing storm water was given to the Board by the El Paso 

City Council. The agency agreed to set aside a separate fee dedicated to storm water 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 10

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

management, planning, and maintenance. El Paso’s water rates are relatively low in comparison 

to other cities. 

The El Paso Water Utilities partnered with the Department of Defense in completing the 

desalination plant, which produces 27.5 million gallons a day. Another area of cooperation is 

with the BECC and the North American Development Bank (NADBank) by participating in 

operator training at the TecH20 Center for utility officials from both sides of the border. The new 

laboratory is considering testing water from Juárez and outlying areas, so many of the projects 

are bi-national in nature. 

In conclusion, we have diversified our resources, conserved and reclaimed water, and may be 

importing water from outlying areas. Increasing communication, continuing regional planning, 

and including people from the public and private sectors in the planning process is part of our 

future goals. 

Questions and Answers

In response to a question about private funding, Mr. González responded that they do not have 

any private funding, but have been successful in obtaining federal funding for a total of $12 

million over three years. 

Ms Krebs, IEA, asked if the storm water utility was a special district. Mr. González said that the 

storm water utility is a separate unit, but is incorporated into the agency and shares many of the 

same staff. Ms. Krebs also wanted to know how the fees were structured. Mr. González replied 

that residential, commercial, and industrial fees are based on different aspects. For residences, it 

is based on square footage and imperviousness of soil. On the commercial side the fees were 

divided up tenant by tenant. Industrial sites have the largest areas and the largest fees. 

In response to a question from Michael Dorsey, San Diego DEH, about replenishment of the 

ground water, Mr. González noted that there is some recharge, but very little rainwater. 

Importation of water and desalination would provide some water resources, as well as

diversification and reduction of demand. The 50-year Water Resource Management Plan is 

looking at this.

Mr. Guerrero, USDA, asked if landowners that sell property rights could get assistance in how to 

preserve the surface water for agriculture. Mr. González said the water right leases are for 50-75 

years for water from the river, but that most of the leases are for small properties. The large 

tracts would probably be used for industrial purposes. They work closely with Texas A. & M. 

University and the TecH20 Center to encourage people to use native plants.

Dr. Brown asked if they had included the City of Juárez in their 100-year planning assumptions 

for ground water resources, and what the plan was for the disposal of concentrate at the 

desalination plant. Mr. González said that the modeling plans included pumping of ground water

by the City of Juárez. For the disposal of concentrate, the concentrate is piped 22 miles away

from the plant and re-injected into the ground. The quality of the brine being injected is better 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 11

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

than what is taken out of the ground. Very extensive environmental studies were done and this 

was the most feasible option.

Enrique Manzanilla, EPA, asked if the Department of Defense was contributing to the price tag 

for expansion and improvements at Fort Bliss. Mr. González replied that in exchange for the 

land leased from DOD, they have given them a reduction in their water rates. The $800 million 

is an estimate and is based on a variety of options, such as importation of water. DOD provided 

some funds for environmental studies for the desalination plant and for test drilling.

National Coordinators’ Meeting Update

Enrique Manzanilla, USEPA, Region 9, San Francisco, reported on the National Coordinators 

Meeting, which was set up under the 1983 La Paz Agreement for the two agencies, U.S. EPA 

and SEMARNAT (Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources) in Mexico to meet on a 

regular basis to report accomplishments under the umbrella of Border 2012. He introduced 

Alhelí Baños-Keener, of the San Diego Border Office and the U.S/Mexico Border Program, to 

provide a brief overview of the National Coordinators meeting.

Alheli Baños-Keener announced that she would be the EPA staff support for completion of the 

12th Annual Report. She discussed the EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Report and 

provided an update on the Border 2012 grants. The Border 2012 Mid-Course Refinements 

provided an opportunity to review the objectives and emerging priorities. The Joint 

Communiqué at the 2008 National Coordinators’ Meeting announced what the goals and focus 

would be for the next five years. For example, one of the priorities is reduction of greenhouse 

gas emissions by building information capacity, expanding voluntary reduction programs, and 

developing institutional capacity to manage electronic waste and used oil. 

The Mid-Course Refinements include input from the ten U.S./Mexico Border States, 26 U.S. 

tribes, communities in Mexico, and federal and state environmental offices. The MCR

formalizes the program’s focus, reaffirms commitments, and incorporates emerging issues. The 

significant changes that were made in each of the goals include the following: 

1. Reducing Water Contamination was expanded to include connecting additional homes to 

potable water supply, wastewater collection and treatment systems, and to improve 

quality of transboundary waters.

2. The Air Quality Goal added as a new objective to build Border Greenhouse Gas 

Information Capacity and to expand voluntary, cost-effective greenhouse gas emission 

reduction programs.

3. Reducing Land Contamination was expanded to focus on clean up of waste tire piles 

through prevention of build-up at the source, recycling, and management of waste 

streams, including electronic waste and lead acid batteries. 

4. Environmental Health was modified to focus on minimizing exposure to household 

pesticides, obsolete and surplus pesticides and using less toxic pesticides. 

5. The name of this goal has changed to Enhanced Joint Readiness for Environmental 

Response and the objective of uplifting four sister city plans each year, so that any given 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 12

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

plan is only four years old, was added. Also added was supplementing 75 percent of the 

Joint Contingency Plans with certified training, risk analysis, and capacity building by

2012.

6. Improving Environmental Performance was still relevant, so the objectives were only 

slightly modified.

In regard to the OIG report the Office of International Affairs is the lead for EPA and they will 

respond to the Report by December 2008. The recommendations were to develop a strategic 

plan, operational guidance, and performance measures. 

Ms. Baños-Keener announced that 65 proposals for Border 2012 funds were received based on 

the criteria of measurable results, leveraging, partnerships, and self-sustainability in FY2008. 

Twenty-eight projects were selected. The results will be released soon and GNEB will receive a 

copy. In 2007, $500 for every $1000 was leveraged. 

Enrique Manzanilla added that under the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program 

promotional campaigns and workshops are being used to encourage recycling. The City of 

Laredo was awarded a $300,000 Community Action for Renewed Environment (CARE) grant 

from EPA to conduct a stakeholder, city-wide intervention plan of preventive education to 

address environmental priorities. The priorities include reduction of levels of lead, mercury, and 

arsenic, untreated wastewater, air pollution, illegal dumping, and port-related commercial 

activities. Several cities have begun scrap tire reduction through co-processing. A cleanup of a lead 

smelter in Tijuana should be completed by mid-October. 

Public Comments: There were no public comments

Board Member Report Outs

Rafael Guerrero, Natural Resources Manager, USDA, said that USDA plans to continue its 

planning process at a meeting with Mexico to be held in mid-October, 2008. Meeting 

participants will include staff from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, agronomists, 

plant material experts, and a hydrologist. 

Shannon Sorzano, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, HUD, announced that 

over $1 million dollars was given to the Hispanic-Serving Institution Assisting Community

(HSIAC) grant program for Colonias involved in energy-saving programs and activities. The 

focus is on loans to upgrade homes to Energy Star levels, build affordable green houses, and 

passive solar homes. Quick tips have been published on how to save money by taking certain 

energy-saving steps. 

Edward Elbrock reported that the Malpai Borderlands Group is working with Homeland 

Security on issues regarding the security fence. The fence will not be built where there are 

natural physical barriers that vehicles cannot drive over or through, so there may be some open 

space for animals to pass through.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 13

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

Michael Dorsey, Chief, Community Health Division, San Diego County Department of 

Environmental Health, said he made a presentation at the California Environmental Health 

Association Conference on the activities of the Board and had presented GNEB’s 10th and 11th

Annual Reports. He wrote a brief article about GNEB, which will be published in the 

organization’s journal. On the state level, the child lead prevention program’s budget will be cut 

by $1 million dollars. The vector control program has been working on reduction of mosquito 

vectors that carry the West Nile Virus. In San Diego County they had 18 human cases. They do 

flyovers over communities and locate the green swimming pools and storm water conveyance 

systems which may be breeding mosquitoes. 

John Wood, County Commissioner, Precinct 2, Cameron County, Brownsville, Texas, reported 

on the damage from Hurricane Dolly, which has left flood waters in the northern part of the 

county. The irrigation districts did not want the water pumped into their ditches because of 

possible contamination. Debris removal is still a problem in the Corpus Christi areas. Another 

problem is with the border fencing in Cameron County; however, one of the criteria of the 

appropriation was for Homeland Security to talk to the leaders and property owners about their 

issues. Wind power generation is increasing in the area. 

Lastly, to improve access between Mexico and the U.S., the West Rail Relocation Project will 

move the rail outside the cities of Brownsville and Matamoras to improve safety. Brownsville 

wants to expand the Veterans Bridge to improve the flow of truck traffic. Mexico has funds and 

is willing to expand the bridge. Also, electronic billboards will be used to control traffic based 

on trucking companies and freight forwarders information.

Stephen Niemeyer said his TCEQ staff will be the liaison with the Laredo Health Department on 

the Community Action for Renewable Energy (CARE) project. A major problem currently is 

flooding in the Rio Grande due to water releases by Mexico from the Rio Conchos. All of the 

reservoirs are full and the Presidio-Ojinaga Port of Entry is under water. Conference calls will 

he held with all of the county judges on the U.S. side regarding the full international reservoirs. 

Mr. Niemeyer reported on several meetings that would take place: The Border 2012 

Environmental Health Work Group on October 15, 2008; the Border Energy Forum of the 

General Land Office in Monterrey, Mexico from October 23-25, 2008; and the Border 2012 

Environmental Compliance, Enforcement and Stewardship Task Force, will meet in October, 

2008. He also reported that Diana Borja, formerly a GNEB member, had retired at the end of 

August, 2008.

Commissioner Wood mentioned an excellent video developed by the California Department of 

Water Resources explaining the needs for infrastructure, and water and waste water levies that 

might be instructive for the Board to review. 

GNEB 12th Report Working Meeting: “Innovation, Including Incentives to 

Prevent/Reduce Pollution of the U.S./Mexico Border.”
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 14

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

Chair Ganster introduced Mary Spock ̧ an OCEM contractor, who would be helping in writing, 

editing, and putting the report together. The challenges that faced the workgroups included:

 Tightening up and refocusing the case studies to make sure the case studies are related to 

the general thrust.

 Discussing the overall concept of the report, the focus, and the important stories.

 Developing conclusions and recommendations.

Chair Ganster turned the meeting over to Diane Austin to facilitate and focus the workgroup 

discussions. Anne Marie Wolf would help with compilation of the workgroup report. Dr. Austin

enumerated the steps to be taken in each of the five workgroups: Solid Waste, Air, 

Water/Wastewater, Energy and Communication/Outreach. The steps that each workgroup 

needed to take were the following:

 Try to group the topics into chapters and avoid overlapping.

 Concentrate on innovations needed to solve problems.

 Decide whether the report structure defined at the last meeting really fits the subject 

matter.

 Decide whether the case studies are all applicable to the topic and whether anything is 

left out that is not in the case studies.

 Delineate the exact problems that arise from the case studies that could lead to 

innovations and then specify the root problem. 

 Delineate the specific efforts that have been made to solve the problem and decide 

whether they could be part of the innovative solutions.

 The private/public sector needs to be included in each workgroup by answering three 

questions: (1) What was the private/public cooperation? (2) What are the links between 

policy and action? and (3) Is policy driving action or vice versa? 

 Address local/state/federal/bi-national cooperation, where it is relevant. 

 Delineate the specific innovations that address the specific problems.

 Look for the linkages between workgroup subjects, such as bio-diesel fuel, which fits in 

several places, such as, air, water, and energy. 

 Develop federal policy and action recommendations.

The overall message of the report needs to be determined after the workgroups report. For 

policy recommendations there may be several levels: those that would be part of the Executive 

Summary, or the Introduction, or the Final Conclusions. Workgroups should list the expert 

reviewers for each section who could comment on the subject, and list what is missing from the 

reports. At the end of the day, there will be a brief report out from each group; and then the 

facilitators will compile the reports and report back to the group tomorrow for further discussion.

Dr. Austin continued to give instructions to the workgroups. The case studies should be used as 

written, but the problems could be expanded beyond the case studies. Questions provided by Dr. 

Austin would form the basis for the introduction, chapters, and sections. Each workgroup would 

report on the structure, uniqueness, specific problems, existing efforts, innovations, crossovers to 

other workgroups, and recommendations. The report’s introduction would include the border 

background, reasons for selecting the topics, uniqueness, and the problems. Members were then 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 15

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

chosen for different groups based on their knowledge and experience. Groups were asked to 

report back by 5:00 p.m.

Workgroup Report Outs

After the workgroups met, Ms. Wolfe reported for the Communication and Outreach workgroup 

on the report’s structure, which would have an Executive Summary, followed by

Recommendations at a Glance, and then the workgroup reports. The U.S. Border Region is 

unique because each side impacts the other and shared problems require joint solutions. Barriers 

to cooperation were cultural, educational, empowerment, and a lack of community responsibility. 

With regard to existing efforts, the efforts by businesses, communities, and on sustainability need 

to be reported and built on. Innovations included educational institutions’ education and training 

for industry and community leaders, technology transfer, culturally-sensitive and appropriate 

program, neighbors working with neighbors, building rapport between communities and 

businesses, incentives for change, and encouraging corporate and community responsibility. This 

workgroup’s content would cross over to every other workgroup. 

Recommendations included diversity in the funding process; encouraging cooperation between 

academia, business, and communities to increase technology transfer; continuing to be culturally 

sensitive and appropriate; and encouraging corporate and citizen responsibility. The group had a 

list of potential reviewers.

Allyson Siwik reported for the Solid Waste workgroup that the proposed report structure was fine. 

The scrap tire problem was unique because of economic asymmetries. The specific problem is 

uncontrolled dumping and large piles of scrap tires in the border area leading to health effects, 

such as vector-borne diseases, and air, water, and land contamination. Across the border there is 

no integrated system of management. 

Existing efforts to address the problem include cleanup of the largest tire piles, qualified disposal 

services, EPA efforts, and the Border 2012 tire management initiative that is focused on 

prevention. For example, New Mexico uses scrap tires for engineering application. Cementos 

de Chihuahua derives fuel from scrap tires and this will be expanded. Other efforts include 

Arizona’s use of rubberized asphalt, tire enforcement amnesty programs, sustainable markets for 

used tires, and California’s tire hauling regulation.

The innovations include efforts by Border 2012 to encourage Border States to cooperate to deal 

with scrap tire management, public/private partnerships on tire shredding, and implementation of 

the Border 2012 initiative. The crossover with other workgroups includes Energy and Air

Quality.

Recommendations include government support for re-use and recycling of used tires,

development of management strategies, government support for using rubber in asphalt 

resurfacing, and developing markets for chrome rubber. Export data from the U.S. could be 

provided to Mexico to keep track of the volume of tires going to Mexico. Enforcement and 

education are also needed. The workgroup had a list of potential reviewers.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 16

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

Christopher Brown reported that the Water/Wastewater workgroup thought the report framework 

was fine. The uniqueness of the border area is based on economic disparities and such issues as 

rapid urbanization, population growth, industrialization, and environmental and human needs 

and challenges. These issues are all bi-national and transboundary in nature, as each side affects 

the other side. There are several layers of jurisdictions and institutions that make policy

development and implementation difficult.

Problems include the region’s aridity, sudden flooding, and the lack of infrastructure, nonpotable water supplies, wastewater management, and flood control. Flood risk generates loss of 

life, contamination of water supplies, human health problems, and contamination of wetlands. 

Three of the case studies were related to wetlands problems.

Efforts in the past that have not worked are due to lack of funding for infrastructure, lack of 

technical expertise, changes in political regimes in Mexico, rapid population growth and lack of 

adequate up-front planning. Innovative approaches include using wastewater as a resource 

instead of being of a waste product. 

Crossover with other workgroups includes the Ecoparque with pollution prevention, and 

environmental education. A similar crossover is with the Bahia Grande project where there is 

education of children; and production of wildlife habits, open space, and green space. 

Recommendations from the group include use of low-cost, low-tech solutions, grassroots efforts, 

dealing with costs and time for big projects, and adequate capacity and funding. Base funding 

from bi-national organizations, such as BECC, NADBank, and the Inter-American Development 

Bank is necessary. Border 2012 is an excellent model through which the federal government 

provides money for projects. The federal governments could provide financial incentives to 

communities to re-use wastewater. Regulatory and administrative relief could be provided to 

municipalities for water reclamation projects. Innovative means of regional cooperation similar 

to the San Diego Metro Commission’s Joint Powers Agreement might be needed to allow 

municipalities to work together. The Southwest Consortium for Environmental Research & 

Policy (SCERP) should be fully funded. Dr. Brown listed some reviewers for different sections.

Dr. Austin reviewed the Alternative Energy workgroup report. The workgroup liked the report 

structure and thought that energy should be retained as a chapter. Uniqueness is related to 

having access to Mexico as a source of power through natural gas or the use or renewables 

meeting the Minimum Portfolio Standards. The specific problems include the increased demand 

for energy, the relationship of water solutions to the increased use of energy, reduction of 

greenhouse gases through use of alternative energy sources, poverty, and the need for economic 

development. 

Some efforts are solar power, Minimum Portfolio Standards, Environmental Management 

Systems, using energy from Mexico instead of developing renewable sources, and energy

conservation. Most of the efforts address the problems of the middle and upper classes and are 

not feasible for low income residents.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 17

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

Innovative approaches include bio-diesel conversion that increases energy and reduces air and 

water pollution, and technologies for wind power. Innovations in regard to reduction of 

greenhouse gases include the Western Climate Initiative, the Climate Registry, and cap-and-trade

programs for carbon emissions. Crossovers to other areas could include solid waste, wastewater,

and air. 

Policy recommendations include the following:

 More consistent federal policies in the area of tax credits

 The need to fund studies for pilot projects through venture capital or government grants

 Support for local and regional networks to cooperate and coordinate activities

 Recognition of unintended consequences.

Some of the large themes for the whole report would be that innovation requires passion and 

commitment, flexible institutional structure and behavior, education of leaders and the 

community, cooperation between producers and users, and more revenues.

Stephen Niemeyer reported for the Air Quality workgroup, which recognized that they could use 

previous reports about air quality to delineate the problem; however, the case studies and reports 

need to be updated. The bi-national Joint Air Quality Advisory Committee (JAC) that deals with 

air pollution problems in El Paso, Juárez, Chihuahua and Doña Ana County, New Mexico, 

should be the focus of this report. Victor Valenzuela staffs the JAC and he could list their 

accomplishments. The report could be a model for other border areas. The GNEB 9

th Annual 

Report also could be used as background information. 

Linkages to other workgroups include scrap tires burning under solid waste and community

outreach. Policy recommendations include local involvement in decision-making, federal cochairs, good data sources for monitoring, and resources to support staff. A potential list of 

reviewers was suggested.

Gary Gillen said if there were going to be photographs in the report; he would need an outline of 

the report. Dr. Brown added that he could help with any maps that were needed. Each 

workgroup was asked to provide a list of needed visuals. Dr. Austin concluded the meeting by 

asking workgroup leaders to email their reports to her at daustin@uarizona.edu. 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 18

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

Day 2 September 25, 2008 (8:46 a.m.)

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Business Meeting

Present: The same Board members and staff as on Day 1. (Allyson Siwik was present the 

second day according to the transcript.)

Business Meeting Call to Order

Lorena Cedeño-Zambrano, Acting GNEB Designated Federal Officer (DFO), opened the 

meeting with a discussion of the Travel Authorization form for non-federal members. Members 

would be sent a voucher back electronically for them to sign. The agency would prefer that 

members receive payment by direct deposit.

Approval of Minutes

Chair Ganster asked for any corrections to the minutes from the March 2008 GNEB Meeting in 

Washington, DC, and the June 2008 Meeting in Calexico, California. He noted that minor 

corrections could be sent to DFO Cedeño-Zambrano. The March 2008 Washington, DC minutes 

had been corrected for minor items. Ms. Sorzano motioned to approve the minutes, and Mr. 

Niemeyer seconded the motion. The minutes were approved as written.

The June 2008 Calexico, CA, minutes were discussed. Ms. Shannon had several corrections to 

Commissioner Marin’s report which she thought was due to the fact that the writer did not have 

access to the PowerPoint presentations. She asked that the PowerPoint presentations be attached 

to the minutes. Chair Ganster added that the transcriber and the summary writer should have 

access to the PowerPoint presentations. Ms. Shannon, Mr. Niemeyer, and Dr. Brown, would 

provide minor corrections to DFO Cedeño-Zambrano. After some discussion, Ms. Sorzano

moved to approve the minutes. Mr. Wood seconded the motion, and the minutes were approved 

unanimously.

Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) Border 2012 Report Discussion

Chair Ganster stated that in reviewing the OIG Report that it did not capture the work of Border 

2012, and that GNEB should send a letter of comment on the Report. For example, Border 2012 

has accomplished a lot of good work in the Border region and volunteers from all sectors carry

out the work. 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 19

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

Enrique Manzanilla said the deadline for comments set by the Office of International Affairs 

(OIA) was 90 days. EPA has accepted the three recommendations re Border 2012 and is 

developing a strategic plan. The sooner the Board comments, the better, he noted.

Dr. Brown had three overarching comments: (1) the OIG and the Office of International Affairs

(OIA) were at odds with their approaches in identifying accomplishments; (2) the organization of 

Border 2012 consists of many different workgroups and task forces and is cumbersome and 

unwieldy; and (3) a letter of comment would be needed.

Ms. Keith thought it was standard to evaluate organizations on results as opposed to efforts, but 

some environmental improvements cannot always be measured. For example, if people received 

training on how to report spills, the results should be in terms of whether they understood the 

training after a period of time, rather than how many took the training. 

Dr. Brown agreed that the outcome measures needed to be improved, but that noteworthy 

achievements should be reflected in the report to provide an overview of the program.

Mr. Niemeyer thought that the EPA OIG officers were trying to measure accountability in terms 

of dollars spent, but they missed the mark of what Border 2012 is doing bi-nationally. The 

report does not name the people who were interviewed. The valid criticisms have been dealt 

with by EPA in the Mid-Course Review. 

Chair Ganster added that the criticisms reminded him of the ones directed at BECC and 

NADBank when these institutions were being developed. It needs to be understood that these 

are bi-national organizations between Mexico and the United States that have very different 

perspectives. The GNEB needs to review and comment on the state of lowered funding.

Additional Board members’ comments included the following:

 Either the OIG office had a pre-conceived idea of what they would find regardless of the 

evidence, or the proper documentation was not reviewed. (Brown)

 The $442,794 spent for the audit might have been better spent on the program. (Wood)

 A lot of documentation was provided to OIA by the regional offices, but the documents 

from the quarterly meetings with the Deputy Administrator may not have been included. 

(Manzanilla)

 If the Board sends a response, it should be noted that the program promised expanded 

funding to the communities, but the funding has been reduced. (Austin)

 A GNEB response should point out Border 2012 accomplishments but should not attack 

the recommendations, specifically on the need to improve management, because the 

management needs to be tightened up. The auditors can only look at what is being 

counted, so maybe the outcome measures should be improved. (Gillen)

 The outcomes of training could be documented to show the real benefits. (Grijalva)

 The Government Performance Results Act has emphasized differentiating between 

outputs and outcomes and EPA is trying to measure environmental results. (Manzanilla)
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 20

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

 A major problem is the difficulty in counting the number of people in a given 

community, so it is difficult to count the numbers who were doing things. (Austin)

 GNEB needs to alert the new administration about the importance of what Border 2012 

has accomplished. (Austin) (Fiore)

Rafael DeLeon, Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, EPA, reminded 

them that OIA had accepted the recommendations of the OIG Report, but that the OIA could do 

a better job of publicizing the accomplishments of Border 2012. A letter of advice to the 

President and Congress should not criticize the findings of the Report, but focus on Border 2012 

accomplishments.

Chair Ganster concluded the discussion by asking everyone to send him their comments and he 

would draft a report based on today’s discussion focused on Border 2012’s achievements and 

how Border communities have been helped. 

The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Update

DFO Lorena Cedeño-Zambrano provided a brief update on the White House CEQ. A new 

representative from the White House has been named and this person will be provided a copy of 

the March 2008 GNEB report and will be updated at a joint meeting. The report will be 

reviewed by the staff at CEQ who will still be in place after a change in administration. 

In response to a question from Dr. Austin about the effect of a change in administration on the 

GNEB Annual Report topics, Mr. DeLeon said that both the Board’s preferred topics and those 

that the Administration might propose would be considered. Briefing papers would be provided 

incorporating the Board’s and EPA’s issues and concerns for the new administration’s transition 

team. Mr. DeLeon asked the Board to delineate the top two or three key issues and challenges to 

be included in the briefing to the transition team. The Board needs to decide whether the topics 

for the annual report should be determined now or after the new administration is in place.

Dr. Austin discussed the schedule for the rest of the day. The workgroup summaries were 

completed and could be discussed now, and then sent out for more comments. She suggested 

that members needed time to review the summaries, pinpoint the highlights for the Executive 

Summary, and exclude anything that should not be in the report. After this, the major topics or 

issues to present to EPA for the transition team ought to be discussed. 

DFO Cedeño-Zambrano suggested that in the Annual Report some of the innovative projects 

accomplished by the Border 2012 program could be highlighted. 

Chair Ganster recommended that the Board first talk about scheduling the GNEB 2009 

meetings; then talk about important topic; and lastly, discuss the GNEB Annual Report.

Director DeLeon thanked everyone for their great efforts. He reminded them that several 

member positions would be expiring in March 2009, but all present members should come to the 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 21

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

March meeting. GNEB’s charter was just renewed and goals and expected outcomes were part 

of the new charter. For example, for every meeting and report an impact should be delineated. 

Flooding in Nogales, Sonora, Mexico

Ann Marie Wolf, Sonora Environmental Research Institute (SERI) reported on the flooding in 

Nogales, Sonora earlier this year due to heavy rain and the installation of barriers in tunnels in 

Mexico by Homeland Security that prevented the water from draining. IBWC had no knowledge 

of the installation. Several homes and buildings were destroyed and a few people died. Ms. Wolf

requested that GNEB send a letter to EPA emphasizing the need for cooperation between 

agencies, especially between Homeland Security and the IBWC.

Mr. Gillen suggested taking excerpts from past reports that emphasized better coordination 

among federal agencies. The GNEB report on Border Security and the Environmental Protection 

would be an example. The letter would be drafted by Ms. Wolf and circulated, along with 

evidence of the damage, to knowledgeable people and Board members. 

GNEB 2009 CY Schedule

Chair Ganster stated that the Board needed to talk about topics for next year and set a 

preliminary schedule for 2009. The spring GNEB meeting would be in March when Congress is 

in session. Chair Ganster suggested meeting in Southern Arizona in the border area in the fall. 

After considerable discussion based on the possibility of field trips, hotels, and the likelihood of 

local support, it was decided to meet in the border area in Nogales or nearby in Rio Rico. There 

are several significant water, wastewater, and groundwater issues at that Border, and there is 

deteriorating infrastructure in the Nogales Wash. Also, the bio-diesel project related to the 

GNEB report is right on the border. 

Several members offered their support: Dr. Austin for translation services; Ms. Spener for 

IBWC; Mr. Niemeyer for the TCEQ Border Affairs staff; and Mr. Guerrero for NRCS.

A representative of the Department of Homeland Security and the EPA CEQ would be invited to 

the meeting.

For the summer meeting, Ms Wolf suggested the Sycuan Resort Casino Complex, because it is on 

a reservation and near Tecate. Mr. Connolly added that there was an EPA office at the Campo 

Nation and at other tribes in the area. A lot of work has been done on Campo Creek, which 

becomes the Tecate River in Mexico. One of the issues is with discharges into the Tecate River 

from the Tecate Brewery. Chair Ganster added that there was a Border 2012/local partners 

project to build a wetlands. Mr. Brown said that SCERP had funded research in the area. Mr. 

Manzanilla alerted the Board to a National Coordinators meeting in late Spring or early Fall in 

the San Diego area. 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 22

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

Chair Ganster suggested forming a committee to explore the San Diego area and the possibility 

of meeting at the Sycuan or San Diego reservation. Mr. Dorsey said he works closely with the 

tribal government, and if they were given notice, it would not be a problem. Mr. Joyce asked 

them to identify a two-week time span for the fall meetings, such as the middle of March, early

June, and the last two weeks in October.

For 2009 topics, Mr. Connolly suggested “Measuring Results in the Border Area” as a title for

the 2009 report. This would be a report on the different methods used to measure results for 

Border 2012 and state initiatives. Other topics mentioned were as follows;

 Water issues are related to the locations of the upcoming GNEB meetings.

 Energy would include the environment, security, wind power, solar power, greenhouse 

gas reduction, and other pollutant reductions. 

 Looking Ahead to the year 2020 to new project areas in the environment; this could be 

tied into measuring now and in the future.

 Climate change which includes water, wildfire, habitat, endangered species issues, and 

future impacts the border area. Climate change was the theme of the Border Governors 

Conference this year 

 The impact of the growth of goods transportation at the coastal ports and the crossborder traffic. 

Mr. Joyce suggested providing a list of 8-10 topics, which could be refined after the first of the 

year and discussed with the new CEQ representative. Chair Ganster said the list would be typed 

up and sent to him, and he could circulate it to the Board for their input, modifications, and 

additional ideas. Dr. Brown offered to send him the list that he had just typed. 

GNEB 12th Report Working Meeting: “Innovation, including incentives, to 

Prevent/Replace Pollution at the U.S.-Mexico Border”

Ms. Ann Marie Wolf stated that each workgroup had turned in their files and they were reviewed 

by the facilitators. Today they would review the reports and then each group should send in the 

comments and feedback to Dr. Austin and Ms. Wolf within two weeks. The Proposed Report 

Structure would be reviewed first, using the same categories that each workgroup used in their 

reports. Dr. Austin asked members to look at the other workgroups reports to look for gaps or 

significant problems. 

The report structure would include an Introduction, an Executive Summary, and 

Recommendations. The Executive Summary would include the framework for the report, 

followed by the recommendations. Workgroup comments on uniqueness were similar from each 

workgroup. The major problems were selected from each group and placed in the “Overall”

category. Each chapter would have the specific problems. At the end there would be a list of 

proposed reviewers. The task was to decide what should be in the Executive Summary.

The facilitators and other comments on the various chapters were as follows:
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 23

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

 The Water/Wastewater chapter should be expanded to address broader water 

conservation and supply issues. For example, case studies of drought could be included.

 Under Energy, a text box or a case study could be added on solar energy.

 Feedback is needed on the exact items that workgroups think should be left out of the 

report.

 Each workgroup needs to delineate their specific photographs and graphics.

 Under the Air chapter, a complete revision was needed, because the case study was 

outdated. The focus should be on Joint Advisory Committee with a text box on the Great 

Border Trade Out. Other text boxes would be added on transboundary emissions, 

reduction plans, and reforestation. 

 Case studies would require rewriting and editing.

Dr. Brown discussed two case studies on solar energy in Las Cruces. Southwest Environmental 

Center (SWEC) was able to obtain a state grant to put a 6-megawatt solar installation on a roof. 

The energy will be sold back to El Paso Electric utility. A similar installation was done at 

NMSU using the roof of a parking structure for 3-megawatts of solar energy. Chair Ganster said 

those could not be used because they were not border-specific. 

Mr. Guerrero brought up the irrigation conveyance system that BECC and NADBank invested in 

during a drought as a possible case study. Dr. Rincón said that the project was important 

because of the policy issue, because the farmers rendered some of their water rights back. The 

saved water was returned to the river, which flowed into the Rio Conchos and the Rio Grande. 

Funds were provided by the NADBank of $40 million to both the U. S. and Mexican sides. 

Mexico provided $300 million. Ms. Spener thought this project should not be included as a case 

study, because the technology was not new and both sides felt that the other side did not live up 

to their commitments. 

Ms. Keith brought up an example from Cochise County in the Upper San Pedro River where they

are reusing wastewater, such as roof run-off and storm water, for watering yards. This would 

decrease the pumping from the main aquifer in Southeastern Arizona. A unique regional water 

authority was set-up with governmental officials and the public. 

Dr. Austin warned the groups to look critically at the case studies to be sure that they are 

appropriate and tell the whole story. The focus should be on what was learned, even if things did 

not work out perfectly. She requested that the workgroup reporters send a list of actual or 

needed photos to Mr. Gillen and graphics to Dr. Brown. She also asked them to alert her to any 

items that should not be in the report and any items that should be included.

Ms. Wolf said the document would be emailed to members to review and to send comments back 

by October 10, 2008. Then, Dr. Austin and Ms. Wolf would review the accumulated materials, 

discussion, and comments and write a working draft. DFO Cedeño-Zambrano said that she 

would distribute the case studies to the board members. Mr. Joyce said a contractor would do 

the editing and writing of the final draft. All of the workshop materials and comments, photos, 

graphics, and working drafts would be turned over to the contractor, who would also be 

responsible for the final graphics and layout of the report. 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 24

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

Mr. Joyce asked members to think about the overall format and style as to whether it should be 

the same as previous reports or changed. Chair Ganster thought it would be best to stay with the 

same format and style. Mr. Guerrero asked if the report could be published electronically or in 

some other format. Mr. Joyce answered that the report would be in a PDF format on the website 

for downloading; and could be put on CD ROMs. The central repository in Cincinnati for old 

reports could be queried as the number of copies of past reports remained in order to determine 

the correct number to be printed. 

The Board agreed that hard copies were more likely to be read and have an impact than a CD. 

People on Capitol Hill were impressed with the one-pager that was handed out last year. The 

report should be published in both English and Spanish. 

Chair Ganster thanked the EPA staff for their assistance and Dr. Rincón for setting up the field 

trip and providing staff for registration and printing. The next GNEB meeting would be March 

12-13, 2009. {Date to be confirmed.}

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:22 p.m.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 25

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

Appendix

Meeting Participants

Non-Federal Board Members:

 Diane Austin, Ph.D., Professor, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

 Paul Ganster, Ph.D., Director, Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias, San Diego 

State University, Chair, San Diego, California

 Christopher P. Brown, Ph.D., Associate Professor, New Mexico State University, Las 

Cruces, New Mexico

 Mike L. Connolly, Councilman, Campo Kumeyaay Nation, Campo, California

 Michael P. Dorsey, Chief, Community Health Divisions, San Diego County Department

of Environmental Health

 Edward Elbrock, Rancher, Malpai Borderlands Group, Animas, New Mexico

 Gary Gillen, President, Gillen Pest Control, Richmond Texas

 Susan Keith, Director, Southern Regional Operations, Arizona Department of 

Environmental Health (ADEQ), Tucson, Arizona

 Patti Krebs, Executive Director, Industrial Environmental Association (IEA), San Diego, 

California

 Shannon Sorzano, U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

 Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E., Border Affairs Manager, IGR/Border Affairs, Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Austin, Texas 

 Allyson Siwik, Executive Director, Gila Resources Information Project (GRIP), Tyrone, 

New Mexico

 Ann Marie A. Wolf, President, Sonora Environmental Research Institute (SERI), Tucson, 

Arizona

 John Wood, Commissioner, Cameron County, Brownsville, Texas

Federal Board Members:

Resource Specialists and Agency Alternates

 Frank Fiore, NMED

 Sylvia Grijalva, Department of Transportation (DOT)

 Rafael Guerrero, National Resource Manager, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

USDA, Ft. Worth, Texas

 Carlos Rincón, Ph.D, Border Office Director, U.S. EPA Region 6

 Salvador Salinas, USDA

 Sally Spener, Public Affairs Officer, IBWC, El Paso, Texas

EPA/OCEM Staff and Management:

 Lorena Cedeño-Zambrano, Acting GNEB Designated Federal Officer (DFO)

 Rafael DeLeon, Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, EPA

 Mark Joyce, Associate Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, EPA

 Geraldine Brown, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, EPA 

 Ann-Marie Gantner, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, EPA
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 26

September 24-25, 2008

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

Guests:

 Anthony Cobos (Day 2)

 Maria Elena Giner, BECC

 John Cook (Day 2)

 Elgin Dominguez, El Paso County Attorney’s Office

 Erica Molina Johnson, El Paso Times

 Heidi McIntyre, TCEQ

 Carlos Peña, IBWC, U.S. Section

 Mary Spock , SCG

 Victor Valenzuela, TCEQ

 Maria Dora Vazquez, EPA Border Office, El Paso (Day 2)

Speakers:

 José Rodriguez, El Paso County Attorney

 Bob Currey, CERM, UTEP

 Daniel Chacón-Anaya, BECC

 Héctor Gonzáles, El Paso Water Utilities

 Enrique Manzanilla, EPA Region 9

 Alheli Baños-Keener, EPA Border Office, San Diego

These minutes are an accurate description of the matters discussed during this meeting.

_______________________________________

Paul Ganster

Chair

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board was created by the Enterprise for the Americas 

Initiative Act of 1992. The board is responsible for providing advice to the President and 

Congress on environmental and infrastructure issues and needs within the states contiguous to 

Mexico. The findings and recommendations of the Board do not represent the views of the 

Agency, and this document does not represent information approved or disseminated by the 

Environmental Protection Agency.