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 Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.

MEETING SUMMARY

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, GNEB

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 on 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. It is 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, OFACMO) 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 

members and thanked them for their participation. Federal advisory committees, such as GNEB, 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, specifically, 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 on April 2, 2012, and will 

be stepping down from the Board. Mr. Takata and Region 9 have done great work compiling 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.

Dr. Austin, GNEB Chair, welcomed GNEB members to the March 2012 meeting. She explained that this 

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-Study 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 Basin state. The study is part of the reclamation program, which is 

one of several programs that fall under an initiative enacted to meet the needs of the Clean Water Act. 

The study’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 

creative 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 completed, 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 

paleoclimatology 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 scenarios to examine possible occurrences under climate change influences. 

For phase two, there are four scenarios being studied: (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. 

The 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 basin 

resources. There are limitations to the temporal and spatial scale of detail.

Phase four must include a broad range of options and strategies. Ms. Jerla presented a climate change 

scenario 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 began with 

the solicitation for public ideas. Following this 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 will 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 Environmental 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-member 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 Area 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 of the Guadalupe, San Antonio, Mission and 

Aransas Rivers and Mission, Copano, Aransas and San Antonio Bays; and (3) the river basin and bay 
4 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 2013, 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 apply only to American 

water and stakeholders.

Ms. Mary Kelly (Parula, LLC) questioned the targets for flows 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 has 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 more 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 study 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 modeling 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. This 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 positive 
March 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 locating full funding and integrating the environmental flows process with the state water 

planning process.

The 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 restore 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 specifically, the 

river is shared between the United States and Mexico, which means that a large number of people will 

benefit from healthy river regimes.

Dr. 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, vegetation 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 pollution, because 

of the fact that many issues 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 the 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 available. Getting improved 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 will 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 necessary 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 (BECC)

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 assessments 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, the 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 matching 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 Mexico bordering states indicate an overall 

$1,468,310 investment requirement (individual states requiring about $200–300 million). It is important 

to emphasize that these are new service investments and that the needs assessments do not quantify

rehabilitations or upgrade requirements. Wastewater treatment deficiencies to meet capacity are included 

in the needs assessments. 

Regarding infrastructure needs 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 for 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.

It is 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 wastewater and drinking water services 

may not be the best answer to provide adequate services in all cases; however, specialized needs (such as 
March 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 centers 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 programs 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 unmet needs. Other programs include the Community 

Assistance Program (CAP), Technical Assistance Programs and Institutional Capacity Building. 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 

than150 communities in the border region. Institutional capacity building programs provide an optimal 

opportunity for utilities to mentor each other. BECC and the North American Development Bank offer 

seminars throughout the year that help provide education and training. Border 2012 and special grants 

provide an opportunity 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 were 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 regional planning bodies in Mexico. Ms. Giner responded that with 

funds primarily coming from the EPA, the master planning process 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 planning process 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 (Ramírez Advisors Inter-National, LLC) asked for clarification on the infrastructure 

needs for the United States, specifically for Arizona. What do the indicated numbers include? Do those 

numbers refer to unserved households? Ms. 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 (Comité 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. Reed 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’ response by 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 

might be important. 

The Emerging Issues area includes several matters that are occurring at present, including: (1) decrease in 

financial resources that is greater than the increase in financial need, (2) fragmentation of habitat,

(3) rapid urbanization on the border, (4) water as a public health issue, (5) shale gas development,

(6) climate change, (7) draw-down and recharging of aquifers, (8) watershed rehabilitation, and (8) public 

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 in 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 allow 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 issues into five major sections:

sources, needs, existing infrastructure, challenges/threats and alternatives. In the outline she provided, 

these sections are fleshed out in more detail. Regarding the Needs Section, Ms. Spener indicated that 

many of these needs (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. Spener commented that in the Alternatives Section, 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 of 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. 

It is 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 other side of the 

border. Other ongoing problems involve water quality regulations. Although the Workgroup has not 

reached solid conclusions, the members 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 stated 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, 

detailed drinking water, wastewater and water infrastructure. 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) address untreated wastewater and irrigation water 

flow quality from Mexico to the United States, and (3) increase wastewater and drinking water service. 

These should be accomplished while addressing regulatory issues that impact border-specific issues such 

as arsenic problems and treatments in the water.

From the tribal perspective, there were three recommendations: (1) ensure that capacity is built with tribal 

governments so that they have authority over their own waters, (2) develop capacity for tribal water 

quality standards, and (3) identify 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 federal government. 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 

comprehensive, 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. Niemeyer 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, 8th, 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 infrastructure 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 issues and types of coordination 

are of interest to GNEB for the 15th report. She expressed interest in learning about these from board 

members.

A participant reiterated the need for GNEB members to review the 8th and 13th reports to ensure that the 

messages conveyed in the current report do not merely repeat what already has been said. Critical 

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 helpful 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. Economic 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. Drusina 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. Dr. Eckert thought that overlapping general 

planning needs should be summarized in the report via a scenario focus. Mr. Drusina 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. Henkel 
March 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 that 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 cannot change Mexico, but it can recommend that the 

United States take actions with Mexico that will have a positive effect 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. Pohlman 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 public 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 suggested 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 important 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. Ramírez 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 Workgroup 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. Treviño 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 implement 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. Niemeyer 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 out to other Board 

members 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 an optimal strategy for engaging with Mexico is to express a desire for collaboration that 

protects the interests of both countries and ensures that communities on both sides of the border benefit. 

Mexican water office individuals should be engaged in this process.

Development 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 people can no longer afford the cost of 

watering their lawns, and the water often is dirty. It is 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 Mexico 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 

members will expire. In mid-April 2012 a process to recruit new members will commence. A participant

explained that GNEB members are appointed for 2-year terms and that it would be optimal for all 

members to be on the same cycle. Ms. Jones-Jackson asked GNEB members to recommend qualified 

candidates to be considered for Board membership. She emphasized that prospective new members 
March 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 members. They noted that current 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 

end 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 pool 

possible. Similar to federal member recruitment, letters are sent to states to alert them of this process to 

assist in efficient member recruitment. 

Ms. Ann-Marie Gantner (EPA) mentioned that members seeking reappointment must send their résumé

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 

June 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, Texas, 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 

suggestions. 

Ms. Gantner said that EPA’s Lotus system allows her to rapidly publish notes and conference materials 

and allows for GNEB members to retrieve them with ease. She previously distributed an email to help 

members register for Lotus. Quickplace is where registration occurs and allows Ms. Gantner to notify 

members 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 14th

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 should 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 constraints. She requested that Board 

members reconsider the number of hard-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 of 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 Counsel 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. Treviño suggested continuing the discussion at a later date because the meeting 

was running long. There was a general consensus among members 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 regarding the Spanish translation of the 14th GNEB 

report to Ms. Gantner by March 30, 2012.

 Workgroup drafts of sections of the 15th 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, Texas, from June 27–29, 2012. June 27 will be a 

half-day field meeting, and June 28 and 29 will be regular full-days.

 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 Mexico

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 Noé Zavaleta, Ph.D.

Director

Texas 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 Agriculture

Albuquerque, NM

International Boundary and Water Commission

Edward Drusina

Commissioner

United States Section

International Boundary and Water Commission

El Paso, TX 
16 March 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Department of the Interior

Greg Eckert, Ph.D.

National Park Service

Fort Collins, CO

Department of Commerce–National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

David Kennedy

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

Silver Spring, MD

Department of Commerce–National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

Alison Krepp

Estuarine Reserves Division

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

Silver Spring, MD

Environmental Protection Agency

Enrique Manzanilla

Director

Communities and Ecosystems Division

EPA Region 9

San Francisco, CA

Department of State

Angela Palazzolo

International Relations Officer

U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs

Washington, D.C.

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 Federal Officer

Mark Joyce

Acting Designated Federal Officer

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee 

Management and Outreach

Washington, D.C. 

EPA Participants

Alhelí Baños-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 Francisco, 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-Jackson

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee 

Management and Outreach

Washington, D.C.

Thomas Konner

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

San Francisco, CA
March 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 17

Doug Liden

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 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

Juan 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

Boulder, 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