**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

**N ote: 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 an**  **y 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 Jos é Rodri gue z , El Paso County Attorney The El Paso Smelter Issue
................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 4 Bob Cur rey , Center for Environmental Resource Management Border Environment Cooperation Commission: New Project
................................ .................. 6 By Daniel Chac ó n - Anaya and Maria
- Elena Giner Regional Approach to Water Supply
- El Paso Water Utilities
................................ .................. 8 By H é ctor Gonz á les , El Paso Water Ut ilities National Coordinators Meeting Update
................................ ................................ .................... 1 1 By Enriqu e Manzanilla, EPA, San Francisco and Alheli Baños
- Keener , San Diego Border Office Public Comments
................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 12 Board Report Outs
................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 1 2 GNEB 12 th Report Working Meeting
................................ ................................ ................. 1 3
**Thur sday, September 2**  **5**

**, 2008** Business Meeting
................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... Call to Order
................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 1 8 Approval of Minutes
................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 1 8 Other Business: OI G Border 2012 Report Discussion
................................ ................................ .................. 1 8 The White House CEQ Update
................................ ................................ ........................... 2 0 Flooding in Nogales, Sonora, Mexico
................................ ................................ ................ 21 GNEB 2009 CY Schedule
................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2 1 GNEB 12 th Report Working Meeting
................................ ................................ ................. 2 2 Public Comments (None)
................................ ................................ ................................ .... Adjourn
................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 2 4 Appendix: Participants
................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 2 5The Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 2

September 24

- 25, 200 8

**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 th e 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 Environment al 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. B oard 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 Rinc ó n for the field trip to the tire piles and cement factory

and expressed his condolences to the families of Carlos Mar í n 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 **Jos é**  **Rod r** **í guez, El Paso Cou**  **nty Attorney,** welcome d Board members and guests to the bi
national 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 asGood Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 3

September 24

- 25, 2008

**Audio Associates 301/577**  **- 5882**  illegal dumping, unlawful discharges of fluid s on the ground, and illegal burning. The environmental fine is determined b y the amount and type of illegal activity and substances . The Attorney ’s Office employ s a full
- time environmental prosecutor , Christin a Viesc o - Santos , who vigorousl y prosecutes cases, such as improper septic sy stems and illegal dumping of construction debris. The recentl y held 8 th Annual Environmental Summ it 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 focus ed on illegal dumpi ng 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 crime s 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 Ju árez. A major issue was transport of hazardous waste s across the border. An Environmental Ta sk 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, an d the sheriff’s department. The purpose was to collaborate and share information about environmental pollution and infractions. Also, a member of his office, Christina Viesc o Santos , 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 b y several agencies and organizations against the Department of Homela nd 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, th e S afe Drinking Water Act, the Endangered Species statute, th e 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, b i
- 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 Th e issues of concern stated by Board members included the problem of scrap tires sent to Ju árez, Mexico , from the U. S.; the lack of cross
- deputization programs between the local and federal governments for enforcement; bi
- national cooperation, and cooperat ion between the Attorney General’s Office , the T C EQ , 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 b y 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 Protec tion 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 Mexi can counterparts have been invited to attend the Environmental Summits, but they have not yet developed unified programs.  The cooperation between his office and the T C EQ and the Border 2012 staff has been excellent. Stephen Niemeyer

, TCEQ, suggested th at Mr. Rodríguez review GNEB’s 10 th 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, Univers**  **ity 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 unde r the La Paz Agreement. He works with three Border 2012 groups

—the Tri
- State Regional Work Group, the Bin ational Air Policy Forum, and the Environmental Health Work Group. Mr. Currey would present an overview of the issues concerning the American Smeltin g and Refining Compan y’s (ASARCO ) s melter 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 Mex ico come together on the map, which was 2
- 3 miles from the GNEB meeting location. In2002, 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
- ye ar period. In 1993, the Smelter implemented a CONTOP (Continuous Top Feed Oxygen Processing ) plant that reduced pollution and they have spent millions of d ollars modernizing its plants . T he 820 foot stack emits a plume high in the air and further downw ind than previously
. The primary

product now is copper, but previously included lead and zinc , which had polluted the soil of the nearb y communities. Mr. Currey delineated the history of health problems, such as lead poisoning and possibl y multiple scl erosis. 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 emplo ye es and busine sses . 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 b y the TCEQ of the air pollution permitting requirements
. 2. Whether legacy

issues of the pl ant’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 IBW C has become a party t o the bankruptcy case with a claim against ASARCO for funds to do the cleanup. Mr. Currey responded that there may not be an y money to do the cleanup. Mike Connolly, Campo Kumeyaay Nation , asked three questions: (1) W as there an y 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 c ontamination.  Former employees had good paying jobs and could not alway s grasp the long
- term health consequences.  The T C EQ reviewed the Executive Director’s report which stated that there w ere no scientific, regulatory , or legal reason s to den y 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, specificall y for heav yGood 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 operati ons and fertilizer plants. Tests on the blood level s of children did not show any thing unusual. All y son Siwik, GRIP, asked if Texas had an y financial assurance requirements for cleanup. M r. 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, Bo**  **rder Environment Cooperat**  **ion Commission (BECC**  **, or COCEF in Spanish**

**),** describe d 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 rel ated 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 i n 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 communiti es 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. Bu il d
- up of c ommunity
- 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 ar e 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 refineriesGood 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 ye ar . Mr. Chacó n -

Anaya described 86 other projects in the pipeline including solid waste, paving, energy , water, wastewater, clinical assistance, technical assistance, and construc tion financing. For example, $35 million in financ ing has been used for technical assistance. The Border Environment Infrastructure Program ( BE IF ) program has been very successful
. Inwater distribution , Mexican cities have 9 6 percent coverage; and sewe r 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 ha s 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, th e 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 stil l unmet. Mexico has also matched funds for BEIF money . The funds were used for water treatment plants, water distribution sy stems, wastewater treatment plants, and sewer collection sy stems. In 2005, 149 applications for funding were received, 135 were a pplicable , 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 hav e 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 assess ment s with Mexico and the U.S. states of Texas, California, and Arizon a. 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, suc h as scrap tires , and a new project is being launched in the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Basin to encourage communities to get involved in i mproving these rivers. BECC is working on regional and border
- level objectives to measure results. The goals are being discussed with the stake holders and other ent ities, such as Border 2012. To get an assessment of the public health and the environment, organizations and agencies need to coordinate and cooperate through s ynergies, consensus, regulations, funds, and initi ative s . 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. InRegion 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 R ey nosa and Matamoros is to coll ect 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 Ju árez, 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 s ys tematic way into databases so we can have informatio n 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**  , discuss ed the organization, the issues faced, and the regional approach to water suppl y. El Paso is located in the Chihuahuan Desert wi th the Hueco Bolsón and the Mesilla Bols ó n 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 issue s and challenges, water conservation, ground water management, reclaimed water, stormwater management, partnerships, and natural resource stewardship. Ed Archuleta, President and CEO , has describe d the basic foundation for a successful utility

as having goo d policies and, good resources, planning, and technical knowledge. Under planning, the utility has a 50
- ye ar Water Resource Management Plan, a 10
- year Strategic Plan, a 10
- year Capital Improvement Plan, a five
- ye ar Financial Plan , and does customer surve ys 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 r esearch. The utility is involved regionall y with several organizations:Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 9

September 24

- 25, 2008

**Audio Associates 301/577**  **- 5882**   Tri
- Regional Planning that includes Ju árez, El Paso, and New Mexico  Paso Del Norte Water Task Force with representatives from Texas, New Mexico, and Mexico  Paso Del Norte Water Grou p, which includes the business community in Juarez and El Paso. Ju árez 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 Som e 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 re source management practices. In the area of water reclamation, the Reclaim ed Water Program continues to expand. The criteria for planning projects includes a benefit to both countries, surface water alternatives, using groundwater data, maximizing the us e 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 b y the National Water Commission or the State
. Some of the opportunities fo r 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 recentl y, the private sector has been includ ed to assist in carrying out projects and providing political support. The major change that will affect the water suppl y 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 ye ars. Over $800 million would be spent on capital improvements over the next 10 years. Two facilities, the Tec H 2 0 L earning Center and the Desalination Plant , are on Fort Bliss property. The Learning Center is used to educate the public about w ater 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 waterGood 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 coo peration is with the BECC and the North American Development Bank (NADBank) by participating in operator training at the TecH 2 0 Center for utility officials from both sides of the border. The new laboratory

is considering testing water from Juárez and outl yi ng 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 b een successful in obtain ing 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 man y 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 foota ge 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 resource s , as well as diversification and reduction of demand. The 50
- year Water Resource Management Plan is looking at this. Mr. Guerrero , USDA, as ked 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 ye ars for water from the river, but th at most of the leases are for small properties . T he large tracts would probabl y be used for industrial purposes. They work closel y with Texas A . & M
. University and the TecH 2 0 Center to encourage people to use native plants. Dr. Brown asked if they

had included the City

of Juárez in their 100
- ye ar 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 betterGood Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 11

September 24

- 25, 2008

**Audio Associates 301/577**  **- 5882**  than what is taken out of the ground. Very extensive environment al 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 lea sed from DOD, they have given them a reduction in the ir water rates. The $800 million is an estimate and is based on a variety of options, such as importation of water
. D OD 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. H e introduced **Alhel í**  **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 s he would be the EPA staff support for completion of the 12 th Annual Report
. Sh e discuss ed the EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Report and provide d an update o n 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, on e 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 Mi d
- 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, re affirms commitments, and incorporates emerging issues. The significant changes that were made in each of the goals include the following: 1. Reducing Water Contamination was e xpanded to include connecting additional homes to potable water suppl y, wastewater collection and treatment systems, and to improve qu ality of transboundary

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

and to expand voluntary , cost - ef fective greenhouse gas emission reduction programs. 3. Reducing Land Contamination was expanded to focus o n 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 house hold 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 ye ar, so that any givenGood Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 12

September 24

- 25, 2008

**Audio Associates 301/577**  **- 5882**  plan is only

four ye ars old, was added. Also added was supplementing 75 percent of the Joint Contingency

Plans with certified training, risk anal ys is, and capacity building by 2012. 6. Improving Environmental Performance was still relevant, so the objectives were onl y 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 b y December 200 8 . The recommendations were to develop a strategic plan, operational guidance, and perfor mance measures. M s . 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 GNE B 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 recycli ng. 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 reducti on 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 smelt er in Tijuana should be completed by mid
- October. 

### Public Comments : There were no public comments 

### Board Member Report Outs Rafael Guerrero, Na tural Resources Manager, USDA , said that USDA plans to continue its planning process at a meeting with Mexico to be held in mid
- O ctober, 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 ove r $1 million dollars was given to the Hispanic
- Serving Institution Assisting Community (HSIAC) grant program for Colonia s involved in energy
- saving programs and activities. The focus is on loans to upgrade homes to Energy Star levels, build affordable gre en houses, and passive solar homes. Quick tips have been published on how to save money b y taking certain energy- saving steps. Edward Elbrock reported that the Malpai Borderlands Group is working with Homeland Security on issues regarding the securit y fence. The fence will not be built where there are natural ph ys ical 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 10 th and 11 th Annual Reports. He wrote a brief article about GNE B, 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 Count y the y had 18 human cases. They do flyovers over communities and locate the green swimming pools and storm water conveyance sy stems which may

be breeding mosquitoes. John Wood, County Commissioner, Precinct 2, Cameron County, Brownsville, Texas, reported on the damage from Hurricane Doll y, 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 p roblem 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
. Lastl y, 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 Bridg e 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 N

i emeyer said his TCEQ staf f will be the liaison with the L aredo 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 f

ull and the Presidio
- Ojina g a 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 Borde r 2012 Environmental Health Work Group on October 15, 2008; the Bo rder Energy Forum of the General Land Office in Monter r ey , 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 W

ood mentioned an excellent video developed b y the California Department of Water Resources explaining the needs for infrastru cture, and water and waste water levies that might be instructive for the Board to review. 

### GNEB 12 **th** 

### 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:  Tighten ing up and refocus ing the case studies to make sure the case studies are related to the general thru st.  Discuss ing the overall concept of the report, the focus, and the important stories.  Develop ing conclusions and recommendations
. Chair Ganster turned the meeting over to Diane Austin to facilitate and focus the workgroup discussions
. Anne Marie W olf w ould help with compilation of the workgroup report. Dr. Austin enumerated the steps to be taken in each of the five workgroups: S olid W aste, A ir, W ater /W astewater, Energy

and C ommunication/O utreach. The steps that each workgroup needed to take were the f ollowing:  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 reall y fits the subject matter.  Decide whether the case studies are all applicable to the topic and whether any thing 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 th ey could be part of the innovative solution s .  The private/public sector needs to be included in each workgroup b y 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 linkag es 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 S ummary , or the Introduction, or the Final Conclusions. W orkgroups 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 w ould 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, an d the problems. Members were thenGood 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 b y 5:00 p.m. Workgroup Report Outs After the workgroups met, Ms. W olfe reported for the Communication and Outreach w orkgroup on the report’s structure , which would have an Executive Summary , followed by Recommendations at a Glance, and then the workgroup reports. T he 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 ef forts, the efforts b y 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, culturall y- sensitive and appropriate program, neighbors working with neighbors, building rapport between communities and businesses, incenti ves 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 culturall y sensitive and appropriate; and encouraging corporate and citizen responsibility
. The group ha d a list of potential reviewers. Allyson Siwik reported for the Solid W aste workgroup th at the proposed report structure was fine. The scrap tire problem was unique because of economic asy mmetries. The specific problem is uncontrolled dumping and large piles of scrap ti r es in the border area leading to health effect s, such as vector
- borne disease s , and air, water, and land contamination. Across the border there is no integrated s ys tem 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 ti res 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 b y Border 2012 to encourage Border States to cooperate to deal with scrap tire management , p ublic/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, devel opment 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, non
potable water supplies, wastewater management, and flood control. Flood ris k generates loss of life, contamination of water supplies, human health problems, and contamination of wetlands. Three of the case studies we re related to wetlands problems. Efforts in the past that have not worked are due to lack of funding for infrastr ucture, 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 solution s , grassroots efforts, dealing with costs and time for big project s , and adequate capacity and funding. Base funding from bi
- national organizations, such as BECC, NADBank, and the Inter - American Development Bank is n ecessary . 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 togeth er. 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. Un iqueness is related to having a c cess 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 P ortfolio Standards, Environmental Management Sy stems, 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 r esidents.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 C limate Registry , and c ap - and
- trade program s 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 ne ed 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 b e 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 q uality to delineate the problem; however, the case studies and reports need to be updated. The b i
- national Joint Air Quality Advisory Committee (JAC) that deals with air pollution problems i n El Paso, Juárez , Chihuahua and Doña Ana Count y, New Mexico , should be the focus of this report. Victor Valenzuela staff s the JA C and he could list their accomplishments. The report could be a model for other border areas. The GNEB 9 th Annual Report al so 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 co
chairs, 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 b y asking workgroup leaders to email their reports to her at daustin@uarizona.edu
. 

### Adjournm **ent :**  Th e meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 18

September 24

- 25, 2008

**Audio Associates 301/577**  **- 5882**  **D ay 2**  **September 25, 2008 (**  **8:46 a.m.)** 

### Good Neighbor Environm **ental Board (GNEB) Business Meeting**
**Present:** The same Board members and staff as on Day 1. (All ys on Siwik was present th e 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 woul d be sent a voucher back electronicall y for them to sign. The agency would prefer that members receive pay

ment 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. N iemeyer 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 a ccess 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 minute s . Mr. Wood seconded the motion , and the minutes were approved unanimously
. 

### Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) Bo **rder 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 i n 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 day s . EPA has accepted the three recommendations re Border 2012 and is dev eloping 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 alway s be measure d . 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 need ed to be improved, but that noteworth y achievements should be reflected in the report to provide an overview of the program. Mr. Niemeyer thought that the EPA OI G officers were trying to measure acco untability 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 Ganste r 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 b y the regional offices, but the documents from the quarterl y meetings with the Dep uty Administrator may

not have been included. ( Ma nzanilla )  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 2 012 accomplishments but should not attack the recommendations, specificall y on the need to improve management, because the management needs to be tightened up. The auditors can onl y look at what is being counted, so may

be 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 need s 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 wo uld draft a report based on today ’s discussion focused on Border 2012’s achievements and how Border communities have been helped.
**The White House C**

**ouncil on Environmental Quality (C EQ**  **) Update**  DFO Lorena Cedeño

- Zambrano provided a brief update on the Wh ite House CEQ. A new representative from the White House has been named and this person will be provided a cop y of the March 2008 GNEB report and will be updated at a joint meeting. The report will be reviewed b y the staff at CEQ who will still be in pla ce 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 t o 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 we re completed and could be discussed now, and then sent out for more comments. She suggested that members need ed time to review the summaries, pinpoint the highlights for the Executive Summary , and exclude any thing 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 b y the Border 2012 program coul d 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 re minded them that several member positions would be expiring in March 2009, but all present members should come to theGood 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 meet ing 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. IB W C had no knowledge of the installation. Several homes and buildings were destro ye d and a few people died. Ms. Wolf requested that GNEB send a letter to EPA emp hasizing the need for cooperation between agencies, especially

between Homeland Securit y 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. 

### G **NEB 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 s pring GNEB meeting would be in March when Congress is in session. Chair Ganster suggested meeting in Southern Arizona in the border area in the f all
. After considerable di scussion 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 Bord er , 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 I BWC ; Mr. Nieme

yer 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 S ycuan 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 Natio nal Coordinators meeting in late Spring or earl y 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 S ycuan or San Diego reservation. Mr. Dorsey said he works close ly with the triba l 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 week s in October. For 2009 top ics, 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 A head 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 Bo rder Governors Conferen ce this year  The impact of the growth of goods transportation at the coastal ports and the cross
border traffic. Mr. Joyce suggested providing a list of 8
- 10 topics, which could be refined after the first of the ye ar and discussed with the new CEQ repre sentative. Chair Ganster said the list would be ty ped 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 12 **th** 

### Report Work**ing 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. T oday

they would review the report s 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 membe rs 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 rep ort, follow ed b y the recommendations. Workgroup c omments on uniqueness were similar from each workgroup. The major problems were selected from each group and placed in the “Overall” category . E ach chapter would have the specific problems. At the end there w ould b e 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 conserv ation and suppl y 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 th ink should be left out of the report.  Each wo rkgroup needs to delineate their specific photographs and graphics.  Under the Air chapter, a complete revision was needed, bec ause the case study was outdated. T he focus should be on J oint 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 L a s 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. C hair Ganster said those could not be used because they were not border
- specific. Mr. Guerrero brought up the irrigation conveyance sy stem that BECC and NADBank invested in during a drought as a possible case study. Dr. Rinc ó n 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 Ri o Grande. Funds were provided b y 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. M s . K eith 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 aqui f er 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 i tems 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 wor king 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 styl e. Mr. Guerrero asked if the report could be published electronicall y 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 D r. Rinc ó n for se tting 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**  

### A **ppendix M**  **eeting 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, Californi a  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  Ally son Siwik, Executive Director, Gila Resources Information Project (GRIP), Ty rone, 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  S yl via 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 Des ignated 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, EPAGood Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 26

September 24

- 25, 2008

**Audio Associates 301/577**  **- 5882**  **Guests:**  Anthony

Cobos (Day

2)  Maria Elena G iner, BECC  John Cook (Day

2)  El g in Domin guez, 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  D aniel 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 Goo d Neighbor Environmental Board The Good Neighbor Environmental Board was created b y 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 is sues 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 b y the Environmental Protection Agency
.