March 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 1 

## Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB **)**

**Meeting Thursday**  **, March 22, 2012**  **EPA East Building 1201 Constitution Ave**  **nue ,**  **NW Washington, D** 
**. C** 
**.** 

### M **EETING** 

### S **UMMARY**

**Welcome and Introductions** Mark Joyce, EPA, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach (OFACMO), GNEB Acting Designated Federal Officer (DFO); Cynthia Jones

- Jackson, EPA, Acting Director, OFACMO; and Diane Austin, Chair, GN EB Mr. Mark Joyce (EPA, OFACMO), Acting DFO for GNEB, welcomed new and existing members to the meeting. He commented that this is the first webinar conducted by GNEB. Mr. Joyce congratulated the Board on the success of the 14th Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States and stated that work already has begun o n the 15th report (hereafter referred to as “report”)

. The Board is further along on the report than it has been for past reports at this time of the year. Itis essential that there is a clear understanding among Board members concerning the scope and organization of the report. Workgroups should have completed their assigned text by the end of May 2012 so that the contractor, The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. (SCG) , can compile and edit it into a working draft. Ms. Cynthia Jones

- Jackson (EPA, OFACM O) welcomed meeting participants . She thanked GNEB , as well as the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) for assistance and Dr. Diane Austin (University of Arizona) for her leadership . She also welcomed the new me mbers and thanked them for their participation. Federal advisory committees, such as GNE B , have proven to be an effective mechanism for advancing the priorities of the EPA and President Barack Obama while ensuring that many views are represented. This Board, sp ecifically, is essential in helping to shape the environment and improve conditions in the U.S./Mexico border region. That strength is enhanced by the unique perspectives and experiences of the Board members and the specializations that each has obtained. She thanked returning GNEB members for agreeing to serve an additional year to assist the new Board members in acclimating to the Federal Advisory Committee Act ( FACA) process. Ms. Jones

- Jackson announced that Mr. Keith Takata (EPA Region 9) is retiring o n April 2, 2012 , and will be stepping down from the Board. Mr. Takata and Region 9 have done great work compil ing the draft outline for the report

. He has been an asset to the Board , and the EPA and GNEB are grateful for his hard work.
D r. Austin, GNEB Ch air, welcomed GNEB me mbers to the March 2012 meeting. She explained that t his meeting is being conducted in a webinar /teleconference format because of EPA budgetary constraints ; the intention is to identify a system that allows the Board to conduct its work effectively in the midst of these budgetary limitations.2 March 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

The meeting is open to the public , and therefore , there must be a record of the participants. She asked the Board members, staff and other participants to introduce themselves, and then Dr. Austin reviewed the agenda for the meeting. **Reclamation: Managing Water in the West Overview of the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study**  Carly Jerla, Co

- S

tudy Manager

, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Ms. Carly Jerla stated that the cost of the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study is shared equally by each Colorado River B asin state. The study is part of the reclamation program, which is one of several programs that fall under an initiative enacted to mee t the needs of the Clean Water Act. The s tudy ’s objectives are to assess future water supply and demand imbalances during the next 50 years and develop and evaluate opportunities for resolving imbalances. It is a 2.5

-year study that began in January 2010 . The study is for planning only and is not aimed at making decisions ; it is intended to provide technical information for future studies/activities. Ms. Jerla indicated that the historical Colorado River water supply and use is highly variable but there is a definite increasing trend in water use. There were multiple occurrences of water supply issues in 1977; however, there is a large capacity for water storage along the Colorado River Basin. The study is attempting to determine what the water supply versus use trend will look like during the next 50 years. There are many factors that can affect this outcome, including storage capacity, hydropower capacity, demand alterations and population changes, among others. These challenges require innovative and c reative solutions. There are four study phases: (1) water supply assessment , (2) water demand assessment , (3) system reliability analysis , and (4) development and evaluation of opportunities. The first two phases interrelate in that approaches and scenarios involving supply and demand must be identified. Outcomes from phase three can indicate the locations of large imbalances and assist in the development of opportunities in phase four. Most of phases one and two have been complete d , and the remainder of phase two and phase three are being accomplished currently. Phase four began in November 2011 via a public outreach period in which researchers gained ideas and insight from citizens. For phase one, there are different scenarios to project water supply. One scenario is to utilize a paleo climatology tree ring method that allows the observation of water supply in the basin from 1,200 years ago to assist in forecasting future water supply. A global climate model projection method uses 112 different scenari os to examine possible occurrences under climate change influences. For phase two, there are four scenarios being studie d : (1) current projected, which examines the current patterns (i.e., “business as usual”) and the projected outcomes; (2) slow growth, which anticipates slow growth based on economic efficiency; (3) rapid growth, which observes the possible outcomes from an economic resurgence; and (4) enhanced environment, which examines the possible outcomes given expanded environmental awareness and stewardship.
T he base concept of phase three is to understand baseline reliability. Following this, the state of the system will be simulated for the next 50 years with and without various options/strategies. Metrics such as water quality, flood control and recreational resources will be used to quantify impacts to b asin resources. There are limitations to the temporal and spatial scale of detail.
P hase four must include a broad range of options and strategies. Ms. Jerla presented a climate change scenari o and the projected future water supply and demand under those constraints. The predicted water demand is greater than the water supply; however, many more imbalances must be considered (e.g., reservoir storage) before the scenario is completed.March 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 3

More than 140 options were submitted by the public to the study regarding water management, and there are four broad categories that encompass the majority of these options. These categories are : increase water supply, reduce water demand, modify operations, and governance and implementation. Most of the public suggestions involve ideas for reducing water demand. The process for developing and evaluating options and strategies for water supply and demand beg an with the solicitation for public ideas. Following thi s process step, the researchers will develop and evaluate representative options, package options into portfolios and evaluate their performance, and identify key elements of robust portfolios. When options are packaged into portfolios, these portfolios wi ll be arranged, for example, by low cost options, feasibility options, certainty options and so forth. Packaging of innovative ideas is necessary to successfully navigate water supply/demand imbalances. The study timeline indicates that technical updates will be published presently, a final draft study report will be published in June 2012, and a final study report will be published in July 2012.
Discussion
Mr. Robert Apodaca (U.S. Department of Agriculture [ USDA ] Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS ] ) supported the idea of continued dialogue with USDA ’s NRCS as results continue to be identified. Ms. Jerla indicated that the PowerPoint presentation is considered public information and can be made available on request.
**Environmental Flows and the SB 3 Process**  Ron Ellis, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Manager, Water Rights Permitting and Availability Section
Mr. Ron Ellis said that the TCEQ provides support for environmental flows processes with staff from the Texas Environme ntal Advisory Board and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. In 2007, Congress passed House Bill 3 and Senate Bill 3 (SB 3) that referred to the environmental flow process in Texas. SB 3 specifically was related to the development, management and preservation of the water resources of the state. SB 3 established a nine

- me mber Environmental Flows Advisory Group from Texas. This group then appointed the Statewide Science Advisory Committee (which has the objective to provide advice) and the Basin and Bay Are a Stakeholder Committees (which represent many interests including agriculture, cities, industry, environment and so forth). Each stakeholder committee appoints an Expert Science Team for its environmental system. According to the schedule established by SB 3, the Expert Science Team has 1 year to develop an environmental flow regime analysis and recommend environmental flow regimes. The stakeholder committees then have 6 months to review and develop recommendations to submit to the TCEQ. After submission of recommendations to the TCEQ, each stakeholder committee and Expert Science Team must develop a work plan. Currently, only one stakeholder group has submitted a work plan. The TCEQ examines the recommendations and work plans and considers them in context of the Texas Water Code, Section 11.147(b)(1)

–(10). For implementation of the rulemaking requirements of SB 3, the TCEQ will conduct three separate rulemakings: (1) the river basin and bay system consisting of the Trinity and San Jacinto Rivers and Galveston Bay and the river basin and bay system consisting of the Neches Rivers and Sabine Lake Bay; (2) the river basin and bay system consisting of the Colorado and Lavaca Rivers and Matagorda and Lavaca Bays and the river basin and bay system consisting o f the Guadalupe, San Antonio, Miss i on and Aransas Rivers and Mission, Copano, Aransas and San Antonio Bays; and (3) the river basin and bay4 March 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

system consisting of the Neuces River and Corpus Christi and Baffin Bays ; the river basin and bay system consisting of the Rio Grande, the Rio Grande estuary and the Lower Laguna Madre ; and the Brazos River and its associated bay and estuary system. The first rulemaking was adopted in April 2011, the second and third are scheduled to be adopted by September 2012 and 201 3, respectively. SB 3 is an adaptive management process , and information on group activities and progress in all of the basins is available at the TCEQ website (http://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/water_rights/eflows).
Discussion Dr. Cyrus B.H. Reed (Conservation Director, Sierra Club) indicated that SB 3 was considered important legislation because it was the first to take state resources and assess environmental flows of rivers into bays. Many interest groups are involved and the process is of high importance. 

### Mr. Edward Drusina ( Commissioner, International Boundary and Water Commission) commented that the report on the Rio Grande River segment is pending , and he questioned its completion. Mr. Ellis indicated a June 1, 2012 , deadline. A participant questioned the incorporation of Mexico on the Rio Grande issue. Mr. Ellis responded that the statute is specific in regarding scientific teams that appl y only to American water and stakeholders. Ms. Mary Kell y (Parula, LLC) questioned the targets for flo ws for healthy rivers regarding the river itself and said that it is a scientific exercise in the Rio Grande for determining what a healthy river looks like. **Nongovernmental Organization ( NGO**  **) Perspective and Commentary**  Mary Kelly, Parula, LLC Ms. Kelly commended Ms. Jerla and her team at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on their hard work on that important study. The timeline is aggressive , which is challenging because the basin is massive with highly vocal stakeholders from all perspectives. The Bureau ha s been open and fair in encouraging input from all stakeholders . From the NGO perspective, the Colorado River Basin Study described by Ms. Jerla is important because it examines future demand scenarios that are operational. A healthy river encompasses mo re than just flow targets and endangered species , and this is recognized in the study. NGOs do not support studies designed to observe potential futures that are based solely on “business as usual” scenarios , and the Colorado River Basin Study takes this into account by studying various scenarios. Ms. Kelly asked about the next steps in the s tudy because the result will not be in the form of a decision document. Taking the study to the “next step” is important to ensure that it achieves a desired impact. As has been observed during the past decade, river and water conditions can go from healthy to supply shortage rapidly , so handling this challenge should not be postponed. The Colorado River Basin Study has indicated that knowledge is lacking in river mode ling capacity. If GNEB could work for better modeling across the Mexican border as well, the result would be exciting.
Ms . Kelly commented that SB 3 is a massively

- sized experiment that attempts to set water flow regime targets for every basin in Texas. T his encompasses developing the science for understanding what a healthy river looks like and how to attain that. Standards currently are being set for every basin in the state. The aspirational idea supporting SB 3 was to avoid having river management mandated solely by endangered species concerns. There is positiveMarch 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 5

stakeholder involvement in the rulemaking process for these basins. Two challenges that must be addressed are l ocating full funding and integrating the environmental flows process with the state water planning process

. T he Texas Water Matters website (http://texaswatermatters.org/) is a good source for further information.
Discussion A participant commented that the Rio Grande study will be available soon and that the report will be helpful . Ms. Kelly responded that the Rio Grande is a divided basin that is more fully appropriated on paper. The process currently is in motion to examine restoration possibilities and their future impacts. The upper river segment is driven by flows , and to rest ore flow in the upper segment, the water source(s) must be investigated. Ms. Kelly foresees that the tools utilized in the Colorado River Basin Study will assist the United States and Mexico in jointly examining these issues. For the Rio Grande River speci fically, the river is shared between the United States and Mexico, which means that a large number of people will benefit from healthy river regimes.
D r. Greg Eckert (Restoration Ecologist, U.S. National Park Service) questioned the scope of restoration opportunities (i.e., flow quantity or other ecosystem attributes). Ms. Kelly replied that both are taken into account , and the weight of the restoration type would depend on the exact location and factors at that location (e.g., riparian, aquatic, vegetatio n and so forth). Dr. Austin said that narrowing the focus of this report to address conditions in the border region has been challenging because water issues extend beyond the border region , in both supply and p ollution , because of the fact that many iss ues are being handled at the state level. Responding to a participant, Ms. Kelly commented that a Commission for Environmental Cooperation grant is not expressly examining water flows from the Conchos but is beginning to study irrigator attitudes about th e water issues at hand. The reference for that report has not been finalized, however. General Discussion Ms. Jerla reiterated that the Colorado River Basin Study is a U.S. action to study healthy river flow and types of water delivery/imbalances, and this directly impacts Mexico. When considering the next steps for this project, Mexico should play a role in the discussion. Dr. Austin questioned whether fully appropriated rivers include in

- stream flows , and Ms. Jerla responded that in

- stream flows rights are adjudicated and would be included in appropriate analyses. Ms. Jerla pointed out that the “fully appropriated” terminology does not necessarily mean that all of the water is being used. Mr. Ellis added that if a basin is mostly or fully appropriated, however, most of the stream water is accounted for. Mr. Stephen M. Niemeyer (Borders Affairs Manager and Colonias Coordinator , TCEQ) said that the Watermaster Program currently is in effect in two basins (Rio Grande and South Texas) , and the TCEQ is hoping to expand the program to other basins. The Watermaster Program basically controls water rights and withdrawals and has active monitoring of diversions. Ms. Kelly stated that regarding monitoring and computer modeling, challenges are experienced when individuals have specific questions to be addressed because the models are inadequate to handle such tasks . The water availability models in Texas for appropriations or ecological flow modeling need to be updated. Mr. Ellis responded that TCEQ has a contract with Texas A&M University to update these models.6 March 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Mr. Niemeyer questioned whether the Rio Grande stream gauging was sufficient. Years ago , the Mexican states were adamant concerning improved stream gauging in Mexico because it was unclear how much was av ailable. Getti ng improve d gauges can be challenging. Mr. Drusina mentioned that the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) has invested several million dollars in updating a stream accounting system to achieve a state

- of

-the

- art system. This wi ll be accomplished by the end of 2012. More work is necessary in Mexico, and that is a focus because simultaneous monitoring on a website would be optimal. Water accounting is important ; however, water quality also is highly valuable. Water quality is a ne cessary focus because many river segments used by numerous people, especially in the Laredo, Texas, area, are impaired. Ms. Jerla commented that a major enhancement that is necessary to the modeling effort is ecological responses on smaller scales. Such an enhancement can assist in understanding performance; however, to achieve that modeling enhancement, data must be gathered at that smaller spatial scale. Uncertainties in modeling begin to “snowball ” when the scale resolution is not optimal. Ms . Kelly agreed and said that it is a technical challenge. Mr. Thomas Ruiz (

### New Mexico Environment Department, Office of the Secretary) said that groundwater is a significant issue in New Mexico. Comparing aquifer data with Mexico concerning water quality and flow (which is important for usage) is an important issue and priority.
**State of Water Infrastructure in the U**
**. S** 
**. -**  **Mexico Border Region** Maria Elena Giner, General Manager, and Renata Manning

- Gbogbo, Projects Director, Border Environment Cooperation Commission (B ECC)
Ms. Renata Manning

- Gbogbo indicated that the BECC state of the water infrastructure includes needs assessments, needs versus investment resources , and sustainable development. Six states in Mexico have developed and published their needs assessments. The needs assessment s for the United States are under development. Ms. Maria Elena Giner commented that the United States’ needs assessments are expected to be completed by early summer (Texas and California) or in a couple of weeks (Arizona). In Mexico , t

he water services coverage has significantly increased, especially in wastewater treatment. These projects are instrumental in removing wastewater discharge from water bodies, but the current national average is approximately 42 percent. Significant achievement has been influenced by U.S./Mexican border funds . U.S. states have contributed investments to those projects , and federal funds have been a catalyst for obtaining match ing funds from Mexico. Whether the projects are in the United States or Mexico, they all must document a benefit to the United States. Results for the needs assessments in the six M exico bordering states indicate an overall $1,468,310 investment requirement (individual states requiring about $200

–300 million). It is important to e mphasize that these are new service investments and that the needs assessment s do not quantify rehabilitations or upgrade requirements. Wastewater treatment deficiencies to meet capacity are included in the needs assessments. Regarding infrastructure ne eds in the United States, attaining access to data was more difficult than for Mexico. In the United States, there were individual wells and onsite disposal systems that complicated analyses and assessments of service coverage . Another confounding factor f or models and analyses is that many states do not collect data and connect water systems . For example, Texas does not manage wastewater collection. The assessment required a dependence on the federal Clean Water Needs Survey; however, this requires states to report county

- level data , and these data were not always high quality.
Itis estimated that nearly $8.46 billion is needed to provide safe and satisfactory centralized drinking and waste water services to all U.S. border communities. Centralized wastew ater and drinking water services may not be the best answer to provide adequate services in all cases ; however, specialized needs (such asMarch 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 7

arsenic problems in New Mexico and Arizona) must be considered. One priority area is addressing a lack of wastewater connections to the water system

. This gap in centralized service primarily exists in rural settings and requires an investment to make improvements or connect to centralized service. The data gathering process in Mexico involves accessing publicly available data on connections to a centralized system. When data are collected and conclusions made, this information is shared with state agencies. Data gathering in the United States center s around meeting with individuals across sectors to collect the data. Inherent in this process is ascertaining data gaps. Tribal lands play an important role in the data gathering process. Lack of tribal data does not necessarily imply that the data have not been gathered but that there is a gap in the data reporting process. There have been several successful program s addressing infrastructure needs. In the most recent solicitation , there were 25 U.S. projects that were Category 1 (addressing acute human health issues) and were not funded; this represented $160 million of u nmet needs. Other programs include the Community Assistance Program (CAP), Technical Assistance Programs and Institutional C apacity B uilding. The CAP program (financed by the NADB) focuses on small, economically distressed community projects. The Technical Assistance Programs , including the Project Development Assistance Program (PDAP), funded by the EPA, play an important role in helping BECC work with communities by providing grants to more than 150 communities in the border region. Institutional capacity building programs provide an optimal opportunity for utilities to mentor each other. BECC and the N orth American D evelopment Bank offer seminars throughout the year that help provide education and training. Border 2012 and s pecial grants provide an opportu

nity to work closer with the EPA and establish potential opportunities. Program funding has become increasingly challenging as appropriations have declined. This requires meticulous prioritization of needs in the process cycles. There are a consistently large number of applicants with large investment needs; however, only 23 of the 200 applications we re accepted in the last cycle. GNEB should consider in its report the need for sufficient investment in planning (i.e., needs assessments, master plan investments, funding source collaboration), self

- sustaining utilities , and new and leveraged program resources.
Discussion A participant questioned the coordination of resource contributions from U.S. states with community planning organizations ( CPOs ) and re gional planning bodies in Mexico. Ms. Giner responded that with funds primarily coming from the EPA, the master p lanning p rocess has been completed (drinking and waste water are not considered urban development planning)

. This is positive because the U.S. community provides input , process and planning. Although the master p lanning p rocess is slow, technical assistance worth nearly $34 million has been provided; 75 percent of these funds have gone to planning and feasibility, and 85 percent to implemented projects.
Mr. Luis E. Ramírez ( Ramí rez Advisors Inter

-National, LLC ) asked for clarification on the infrastructure needs for the United States, specifically for Arizona. What do the indicated numbers include? D o those numbers refer to unserved households? M s. Manning

- Gbogbo responded that the numbers reflect households and are intended to display that they are not connected to a centralized system. Mr. Ramírez pointed out that this should not imply that they are unserved (e.g., septic tanks) , and a participant indicated that private drinking wells also could be in use. Ms. Manning

- Gbogbo responded that identifying the appropriate methodology for ascertaining unserved households is difficult. Ms. Giner added that these are macro

- level analyses based on reporting requirements. It is important to examine deeply the assessment and determine the water quality issues present and their magnitude. Mr. Luis Olmedo ( Comit é Civico Del Valle, Inc .) commented that there is a similar problem for California data. In California, there is a process that serves assessment needs. The process is integrated and required by statutes following application for an infrastructure grant. Examining watershed management plans will allow for a greater assessment of California needs.8 March 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Dr. Re ed commented that it would be helpful if BECC could provide GNEB with a program list that indicates the money obtained by individual states and tribes . This could be included in the report. **Report Out From Workgroups on the**  **15th Report** Context Workgroup Mr. Timothy Treviño, Sr. Director of Strategic Planning and Agency Communications, Alamo Area Council of Governments
Mr. Timothy Treviño said that the first chapter of the Context Workgroup draft would be at the general overview level , and the subsequent chapters would be more focused. Referring to the Workgroup draft that was disseminated, the Demographics and Census section handles water quality/quantity and examines this in the context of demographics to identify the character of a population. Based on data availability, the population can be broken down by user classification ( e.g. , residential, commercial, industrial). The Overview of Issues section identified five issue areas : financial resources, differences in water regulatory agencies ’ respon se b y state, binational understandings and treaties/agreements with Mexico, tribal issues, acknowledgements of interdependence , and emerging issues

. Mr. Treviño noted that the Colorado River Process is being showcased in the draft and that GNEB should suggest any others that mi ght be important. The Emerging Issues area includes several matters that are occurring at present, including: (1) d ecrease in financial resources that is greater than the increase in financial need , (2) f ragmentation of habitat , (3) rapid urbanization on the border , ( 4 ) water as a public health issue , ( 5 ) s hale gas development , ( 6 ) c limate change , ( 7 ) d

raw - down and recharging of aquifers , ( 8 ) w atershed rehabilitation , and (8) p ublic safety and related responses. While perusing documents , Mr. Treviño found that it may be cogent to include a chapter on the state of the current water infrastructure.
Mr. Treviño also commented that in Texas there is a litigation issue on pumping and related matters

. There is a “right

-to

- capture” doctrine i n Texas and so the following questions arise : What are the limitations on pumping within aquifers? Are there limited caps? Texas is in an uncertain state at present.
Mr. Treviño explained that the “shale gas development” issue under “Emerging Issues” is incorrect because drinking water does not belong in that subcategory. Drinking water is, however, being used in the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) process and small communities al low the purchase of their municipal water by oil companies. This is an issue of concern because of the supply and demand of water for economic development. Water Supply Workgroup Sally Spener, Public Affairs Officer, International Boundary and Water Commission
Ms. Sally Spener said that the Water Supply Workgroup divided its iss ues into five major sections : sources, needs, existing infrastructure, challenges/threats and alternatives. In the outline she provided, these sections are fle shed out in more detail. Regarding the Needs Section, Ms. Spener indicated that many of these nee ds (e.g., agriculture, domestic, aging infrastructure, population growth and fracking) contain a substantial amount of information. Federal employees on the GNEB could provide further information on water supply projects along the border region. Ms. Spene r commented that in the Alternatives S ection, research has been done on population growth, water supply and so forth, and it has been found that many people will face significant future concerns about adequate water supply. There was some overlap between the Water Supply Workgroup outline and that of other Workgroups.March 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 9

Water Quality Workgroup David Henkel, Ph.D. , Professor Emeritus, School of Architecture and Planning , University of New Mexico
Dr. David Henkel echoed Ms. Spener’s observation about overlapping Workgroup outlines

. The Water Quality Workgroup outline begins with a section on purpose. Following this, there are several sections of focus (i.e., introduction, management and regulation of the resource, key water quality issues, responses and new facilities/approaches )

. The issues discussed in this report are complex , so there is a risk of losing certain audiences if the report deliberations are overly complicated. For example, in considering surface and groundwater, space is necessary to detail rural and urban components, as well as nonpoint source issues. Nested issues such as these are important to link to other Workgroups; however, they cannot all be addressed in the detail they deserve. Report readers should be informed o f ways they can become involved. Dr. Henkel said that if certain topics match up with those of other Workgroup sections, they should be cross referenced. Doing so will allow users to follow certain threads of interest in a linear fashion.
Itis important not to underestimate the complexity of how topics and situations are linked to each other. Situations exist regarding water management and emerging threats where municipalities on one side of the U.S.

- Mexico border withdraw water without realizing the impact this has on the o ther side of the border. Other ongoing problems involve water quality regulations. Although the Workgroup has not reached solid conclusions, the me mbers are working to organize themselves across workgroups and identify all such issues.
Dr. Teresa R. Pohlman (U.S. Department of Homeland Security) added that it is important to ensure that the same areas are not covered by multiple Workgroups ; responsibility must be delineated. Water Treatment Workgroup Robert Apodaca, Assistant Chief

– West , USDA/NRCS
Mr. Apodaca s tated that the Water Treatment Workgroup began its outline with an introduction into water treatment along the U.S.

- Mexico border. The original outline, compiled by Arizona Workgroup members, detail ed drinking water, wastewater and water infrastruc ture. The Workgroup decided that a broader view of water treatment programming in the four border states and tribes was needed. From a 19

-page outline, the Workgroup identified three areas that were the most important to the four different border states: ( 1) build capacity for wastewater treatment plants , (2) a ddress untreated wastewater and irrigation water flow quality from Mexico to the United States , and (3) i ncrease wastewater and drinking water service. These should be accomplished while addressing re gulatory issues that impact border

- specific issues such as arsenic problems and treatments in the water. From the tribal perspective, there were three recommendations: (1) e nsure that capacity is built with tribal governments so that they have authority o ver their own waters , (2) d evelop capacity for tribal water quality standards , and (3) i dentify permitting processes for power plants that address the water and wastewater released into areas affecting tribal governments. These themes strongly resonated with the nontribal themes.
Mr. Niemeyer , co - chair of the Workgroup, commented that any area of the outline can be a major topic of discussion for the whole report. The Workgroup agreed on the above three topics, however, as the most pertinent. Drinking water issues regarding water treatment were considered, but most of the focus was on wastewater. Education on these issues is important and GNEB must decide on ideas that can be presented as recommendations for the f ederal g overnment. A main constituent in dealing with wastewater treatment is the EPA (because of the Clean Water Act); however, local authorities play a major role.10 March 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

General Discussion Dr. Austin inquired whether further information gaps existed. A participant replied that the report is comprehens ive, but to identify missing components it will be necessary to pinpoint the exact message that the report will deliver. Dr. Reed responded that managing water supply for future needs is one concept that is missing. A participant commented that states and municipalities have difficulty handling certain water issues (e.g., wastewater, waste and stormwater conveyance, infrastructure) because they involve active engagement with Mexico, which is difficult for a state or municipality to achieve.
Mr . Niemeye r indicated that the major water issues are supply and demand. He questioned whether there is enough water to sustain all of the water uses along the border. Agriculture consumes 80 percent of water along the border , and as the population increases, that will become more problematic. He suggested that GNEB members examine the 5th , 8 th , and 13th GNEB reports because of the information that is conveyed on water issues and to assist in developing a message for the current report. He also thought that the infra structure needs outlined by BECC, which total $8.5 billion, should be mentioned in the report. Ms. Angela Palazzolo (U.S. Department of State) asked what binational i ssues and types of coordination are of interest to GNEB for the 15th report . She express ed interest in learning ab out the s e from board me mbers. A participant reiterated the need for GNEB members to review the 8 th and 13th reports to ensure that the messages conveyed in the current report do not merely repeat what already has been said. C riti cal elements from earlier reports should be referenced

. A participant noted that there is an economic and financial theme that holds constant throughout the issues discussed. Financial resources are not a trivial element , and if the report highlights these contexts, it will be more he lpful for decision/policy makers. Dr. Austin repeated the major issues that the GNEB mentioned in the meeting , including better engagement with Mexico, ensuring ample water for an increasing population, ensuring clean water, and caring for other needs such as lack of water. E conomic and drought considerations are common themes across these issues

. Dr. Henkel added natural habitat issues to this list. A participant elaborated that stormwater management (including soil moisture retention and intense flooding) is related to increased urbanization along the border in financial “watersheds. ” Better engagement with Mexico on these and financial issues is imperative. Dr. Austin questioned how the Context Workgroup outline can be maintained in less than a 200

-page document, especially regarding the handling of redundancies. Mr. Niemeyer commented that the Context Workgroup outline could actually outline the entire report. He agreed that key issues related to water along the border include improved coordination with Mexico, projecting future water demands , and drought issues. He suggested that GNEB choose three to four issues and devote the report to them, with issues such as fracking consuming minimal report space. Ms. Alison Krepp (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) agreed. Ms. Palazzolo said that previous reports contain subsections on coordination mechanisms with Mexico. These could be examined by GNEB and she suggested focusing on specific recommendations because they are more constructive than general comments.
Mr. Dru s ina commented that border issues with Mexico must have an emphasis on localities. Localities must work to address water issues within their community , and if these issues cross the border, then work must continue with Mexico via the legislative arena. He said that the report should focus on population growth and the related impact on water quality and volume. D r. Eckert thought that overlapping general planning needs should be summarized in the report via a scenario focus. Mr. Dru s ina thought there is a focus on process planning , which is usually funded by extra community funds; however, poorer border communities do not have that ability. The report should demonstrate that such a need exists. Dr. HenkelMarch 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 11

added that local funds could be utilized in a more coordinated manner with state funds. He suggested that the report examine a range of small cases th at exemplify certain major issues, and the composite of these cases will illustrate the issues in general. Dr. Austin pointed out a contradiction between local

- level planning on the U.S. side of the border and financial master planning on the Mexico side of the border. The Board must consider its exact message in this regard. Mr. Niemeyer agreed that GNEB canno t change Mexico, but it can recommend that the United States take actions with Mexico that will have a positive e ffect on U.S. communities along the border. He also pointed out that the term “climate change” has now been replaced by “climate variability.” A participant thought all of the water issues raised during the discussion could be placed in two categories: (1) planning for the future and (2) infrastructure needs.
Dr. P ohlman said that one alteration to the “climate change” term is “climate change adaptation.” She expressed that the topic garnering the most interest and discussion time during public meetings is employment . She warned against being too “clinical” in the water issues analysis and not being sensitive to the main issue with which the pub lic is concerned , which is jobs. Dr. Austin responded that regardless of the direction the report takes, resources will be required to build infrastructure , and that requires people and jobs. Dr. Austin strongly suggested GNEB consider the case study approach to the report. Workgroups can consider planning for future infrastructure needs and water supply in the context of case studies. Dr. Pohlman suggested that Board members should refine the existing Workgroup outlines and make them adhere more tightly to the two emphasis areas

—future planning and infrastructure needs. A participant proposed adding a section on economic development and water demand , and Dr. Pohlman concurred. A participant commented that the outlines are a positive step forward and sug gested that the Board determine the areas of overlap between the Workgroups and then decide which group should work on what areas. Mr. Niemeyer agreed with Dr. Pohlman that jobs are key ; therefore , the report should mention that water by the border is im

portant to population economics. He emphasized the need for simplicity in the report to adequately reach policy makers. He mentioned that water planning is not accomplished at the federal level but instead at local and state levels; therefore, GNEB should determine what the federal government actually can achieve toward ensuring sufficient water in the border area

. Mr. Ramí rez added that the report should make the important connection between economics and water infrastructure to ensure that it is relevant to current needs. Dr. Henkel suggested that the Context Workgroup state the major issues from its outline and focus them into categories related to future demands. Three issues should be examined in detail. Ms. Krepp pointed out that the GNEB report should offer advice on these border issues but it is not intended to educate the audience on each issue. Dr. Austin said that the Workgroup structures would remain the same but the Workgroups ’ efforts should focus on the identified key drivers. Each Workgrou p should look to answering how these issues will be managed and moved forward. The outlines should be focused on actions that the federal government has the authority to take . Case studies (e.g., urbanization, rural issues) could point to the different levels of need and speak to different water topics. A participant agreed and asserted that members should consider specific recommendations to the federal government to address a failing water system. Mr. Trevi ñ o questioned whether case studies should be identified by specific states because the states handle these issues differently. Dr. Henkel responded that regions, watersheds and states can take different approaches to water issues. This substantial variation means that each case study does not have to move in “ lock

- step. ” Readers should be able to view a variety of scenarios and approaches.12 March 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Mr. Joyce agreed that emphasizing themes by considering case studies is a positive step. An emphasis should be placed on actions that the federal government can imp lement and not scenarios in which only a state government can act. GNEB should remember that this report is submitted to President Barack Obama and the federal government. Dr. Austin confirmed that the idea is to use an introductory chapter in the report to cover background issues (e.g., water quality, water supply) and use case studies to make important points. Dr. Henkel agreed and said that the Workgroups should remain as they are, and each group can contribute information for location case studies that are chosen. Dr. Austin reiterated that each Workgroup can choose four case studies that address different aspects of the discussed issues. She indicated that the chosen case studies should not be anomalies from the border region but should be representative case studies that emphasize the discussed water issues. A participant suggested one case study be utilized per Workgroup to encapsulate that Workgroup’s focus. Dr. Austin said that one to two case studies per Workgroup should be adequate , and Mr. Nieme yer agreed. He also mentioned that the report should specify that complex water issues along the border become more multifarious because of dealings with Mexico. Dr. Austin reminded GNEB that if a particular Workgroup requires further input , it can reach o ut to other Board me mbers in a different Workgroup. Dr. Austin suggested that Workgroup drafts of recommendations be completed by the end of April 2012. Mr. Joyce confirmed that date and said that by the end of May 2012 Workgroup final drafts will be given to Dr. Erinn Howard (The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.) for compilation and light editing. The compiled report will be distributed to the Board members for the June 2012 meeting.
**Public Comments** Dr. Austin called for public comments.
Ms. Lucy Camacho (El Paso , Texas ) commented that there is not an equal collaboration with Mexico. She suggested that a

n optimal strategy for engaging with Mexico is to express a desire for collaboration that protects the interests of both countries and ensures that co mmunities on both sides of the border benefit. Mexican water office individuals should be engaged in this process.
D evelopment in the border region has increased water consumption in local communities over time, and the public has had to consistently pay more for water. Many p eople can no longer afford the cost of watering their lawns, and the water often is dirty. Itis necessary to find methods to reuse water and clean up the available water for homeowners ’ use and for irrigation. General Discussion Mr. Niemeyer commented that premium rates have increased , which causes water rates to increase. A Board member said that examining regional water plans can address Ms. Camacho’s concerns, especially regarding water reuse. Dr. Henkel responded that in Mexic o there are residential properties that utilize gray water for irrigation. Domestic reuse of water is a great solution. 

### Board Business Membership Recruitment
Ms. Jones

- Jackson said that on December 17, 2012 , or January 18, 2013 , the terms for the Board mem bers will expire. In mid

- April 2012 a process to recruit new members will commence. A participant explained that GNEB members are appointed for 2

-ye ar terms and that it would be optimal for all me mbers to be on the same cycle. Ms. Jones

- Jackson asked GNE B me mbers to recommend qualified candidates to be considered for Board membership. She emphasized that prospective new membersMarch 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 13

should be from various sectors (e.g., academia, federal government, non - governmental organizations, industry, tribal governments ). Mr. Joyce and Ms. Jones

- Jackson explained that the EPA Administrator sends letters to government agencies to recruit potential GNEB members from the government sector. This process is separate from that for the recruitment of nongovernment member s
. They noted that c urrent members can be reinstated for another term . There is an internal policy, however, that members cannot serve on the Board for more than a 4

- to 6

- year period. Ms. Jones

- Jackson informed members that the appointment process does not en d with her ; member appointment goes through review , and the Administrator is the one with the authority to appoint members. Therefore, some candidates recommended for Board membership may not be approved. Mr. Joyce said that when the Federal Register notice becomes available, GNEB members should distribute it broadly in a broadcast announcement. This will allow for the largest recruitment po ol possible. Similar to federal member recruitment, letters are sent to states to alert them of this process to assi st in efficient member recruitment.
Ms. Ann

- Marie Gantner (EPA) mentioned that members seeking reappointment must send their r é sumé with a letter explaining their interest in being considered for reappointment. June Meeting Discussion Ms. Gantner said that a committee has been formed to plan the June meeting , and it has chosen various Ju ne meeting dates. If any members are interested in participating in the meeting committee, they should inform Ms. Gantner. The June meeting will take place in El Paso, T exas, from June 27 through June 29, 2012. The 27th currently is scheduled as a half

- day field day. June 28 and 29 are regular meeting days. Dr. Austin explained that the committee identified sites for members to see, as well as speakers and agenda sugges tions. Ms. Gantner said that EPA’s Lotus system allows her to rapidly publish notes and conference materials and allows for GNEB me mbers to retrieve them with ease. She previously distributed an email to help me mbers register for Lotus. Quickplace is where registration occurs and allows Ms. Gantner to notify me mbers of new documents to be retrieved. In response to Ms. Gantner’s question about how best to manage sharing information about documents that are received, Dr. Austin suggested that Ms. Gantner send Board members a “weekly digest” describing new materials for them to retrieve on the Lotus system

. Dr. Austin stated that two Board members have volunteered to review the translated version of the 14 th report. Mr. Niemeyer and Dr. Rincón additionally have agreed to assist in this process. Comments and edits will be provided to Ms. Gantner by March 30, 2012. Mr. Joyce confirmed that there s hould be no Internet circulation of the Spanish version of the report until it has been ensured to be an accurate representation.
Ms. Jones

- Jackson expressed the monetary difficulties of distributing a large number of hard

- copies of the 14th GNEB report resulting from recently imposed budgetary con straints. She requested that Board me mbers reconsider the number of h ard

- copies that they require and consider the distribution of an electronic version. The updated number of reports that each member needs should be communicated to Ms. Gantner. Dr . Henkel commented that one hard

- copy should be placed in the state library o f each border state, which would allow access by many states and individuals.14 March 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Interaction With Congress
Ms. Jones

- Jackson indicated that interaction with Congress via a written document has been considered. Discussions with the U.S. Office of General C ounsel regarding the office providing written documentation has not yet yielded success because they are overburdened. Mr. Tim Sherer ( OFACMO) and Mr. James McCleary ( OFACMO ) were invited to the GNEB meeting to discuss these issues more in depth because of their familiarity with FACA, the charter and other related documentation regarding lobbying. Dr. Austin commented that as members of an advisory board , GNEB members are prohibited from lobbying

. Mr. Niemeyer and Mr. Trevi ñ o suggested continuing the disc ussion at a later date because the meeting was running long. There was a general consensus among mem bers to postpone this discussion. Dr. Austin thanked the presenters and Board members for their participation in the new meeting format. She stated that when a document regarding Congress interaction is obtained , it will be distributed to the Board for discussion, possibly during a teleconference. Dr. Austin adjourned the meeting at 5 : 30 p.m.



### Action Items
 Board members should send comments and edits re garding the Spanish translation of the 14th GNEB report to Ms. Gantner by March 3 0 , 2012.  Workgroup drafts of sections of the 15 th report are due by the end of April 2012.  Workgroup final drafts are due by the end of May 2012, when they will be given to Dr. Howard at SCG for compilation and editing.  Board members interested in participating in the committee for planning the June GNEB meeting should contact Ms. Gantner.  The June GNEB meeting will be held in El Paso, T exas, from June 2 7

–2 9 , 2012. June 2 7 will be a half

- day field meeting, and June 2 8 and 29 will be regular full

- day s
.  Board members should revise the number of hard

- copy reports that they require and send this information to Ms. Gantner.  Ms. Gantner will send emails to the GNEB members about conference call dates and subsequent reminders.March 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 15 

### Good **Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB**  **)**

**Meeting Participants Nongovernment, State, Local, and Tribal**  **Members of the Board Diane Austin, Ph.D., Chair**  Associate Research Anthropologist Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology University of Arizona Tucson, AZ **Cecilia E. Aguillon** Director Market Development and Government Relations KYOCERA Solar, Inc. San Diego, CA
**Evaristo Cruz** Director Environmental Management Office Ysleta del Sur Pueblo El Paso, TX
**Veronica Garcia** Deputy Director Waste Programs Division Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Phoenix, AZ **David Henkel, Ph.D.** Professor Emeritus Community and Regional Planning Program School of Architecture and Planning University of New Mexi co Albuquerque, NM **Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E.** Borders Affairs Manager and Colonias Coordinator Intergovernmental Relations Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Austin, TX
**Luis Olmedo** Executive Director Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc. Brawley , CA **Mike Ortega** Cochise County Administrator Board of Supervisors Bisbee, AZ **Luis E. Ramírez, MSFS** President Ramirez Advisors Inter

-National, LLC Phoenix, AZ **Cyrus B.H. Reed, Ph.D.** Conservation Director Lone Star Chapter Sierra Club Austin, TX
**Thomas Ruiz, M.S.**  Border/Environmental Justice Liaison Office of the Secretary New Mexico Environment Department Las Cruces, NM **Timothy Treviño** Director of Public Relations Alamo Area Council of Governments San Antonio, TX
**Antonio No é**  **Zavaleta, Ph.D.** Director T exas Center for Border and Transnational Studies University of Texas at Brownsville Brownsville, TX
**Federal Members of the Board and Alternates**  Department of Agriculture

– Natural Resources Conservation Service **Robert M. Apodaca** Assistant Chief

– West Natural Resources Conservation Service U

. S . department of A griculture Albuquerque, NM International Boundary and Water Commission **Edw ard Drusina**  Commissioner United States Section International Boundary and Water Commission El Paso, TX16 March 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Department of the Inte rior **Greg Eckert, Ph.D.** National Park Service Fort Collins, CO Department of Commerce

– National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration **David Kennedy** N ational O ceanic and Atmospheric A dministration Silver Spring, MD Department of Commerce

– National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration **Alison Krepp** Estuarine Reserves Division N ational O ceanic and Atmospheric A dministration Silver Spring, MD Environmental Protection Agency **Enrique Manzanilla** Director Comm unities and Ecosystems Division EPA Region 9 San Fr ancisco, CA Department of State **Angela Palazzolo** International Relations Officer U.S.

- Mexico Border Affairs Washington, D.C. Department of Homeland Security **Teresa R. Pohlman, Ph.D.** Director Occupational Safety and Environmental Programs Office of Chief Administrative Officer Management Directorate Department of Homeland Security Washington, D.C. International Boundary and Water Commission **Sally Spener** Public Affairs Officer International Boundary and Water Commission El Paso, TX **Acting Designated Fede ral Officer**  **Mark Joyce** Acting Designated Federal Officer Good Neighbor Environmental Board U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach Washington, D.C. **E PA Participants**  **Alhel í**  **B a**  **ñ os**  **- Keener**  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 San Diego, CA **James Downing** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach Washington, D.C. **Douglas Eberhardt** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 San Franci sco, CA
**Ann**
**- Marie Gantner**  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach Washington, D.C. **Jose Francisco Garcia, Jr.** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 San Francisco, CA **Cynthia Jones**
**- Ja**  **ckson** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach Washington, D.C.
**T h**  **om as**  **Konner** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 San Francisco, CAMarch 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 17

**Doug Liden** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regio n 9 San Diego, CA **James McCleary** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach Washington, D.C. **Megan Moreau** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach Washington, D.C. **Carlos Rincón, Ph.D.** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 El Paso, TX
**Tim Sherer** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach Washington, D.C.
**Tomas Torres** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 San Diego, CA **Other Participants Dave Anderson**  FORM Sustainable Planning & Community Development **Lucy Camacho** University of Texas at El Paso El Paso, TX
**Ron Ellis** Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Austin, TX
**Ju an Antonio Flores**  North American Development Bank San Antonio, TX **Maria Elena Giner** Border Environment Cooperation Commission Juárez, Mexico
**Hans Huth** Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Phoenix, AZ **Carly Jerla** U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Bould er, CO **Mary Kelly** Parula, LLC Austin, TX **Renata Manning**
**- Gbogbo**  Border Environment Cooperation Commission El Paso, TX
**Dean Moulis** Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Phoenix, AZ
**Lauren Oertel** Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Austin, TX
**Luis Romero** Puerto Rico **Jock Whittlesey** U.S. Department of State Washington, D.C. **Royisha Young** University of Arizona Tucson, AZ Contractor Support
**Erinn Howard ,**  **Ph.D.** Senior Science Writer The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. Gaithersburg, MD