GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD (GNEB) MEETING

June 18–19, 2008

San Diego State University

Imperial Valley Campus Library

Calexico, California

SUMMARY

Audio Associates

301/577-5882
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 2

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

Contents

Welcome _____________________________________________________________________4

Paul Ganster, Chair, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) _________________________4

Rafael DeLeon, Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management __________________4

Lorena Cedeño-Zambrano, Acting Designated Federal Officer______________________________4

Regional Welcome _____________________________________________________________4

Stephen Roeder, Dean, San Diego State University (SDSU), Imperial Valley Campus____________4

Victor Carrillo, Supervisor, Imperial County ____________________________________________4

Imperial–Mexicali Region Air Quality: New Approaches to Pollution Reduction __________7

Brad Poiriez, Air Quality Officer, Imperial County________________________________________7

California–Baja California Border Region Energy and Renewable Alternatives __________11

Alan Sweedler, Chair, Center for Energy Studies, San Diego State University _________________11

Endangered Species Habitat ____________________________________________________15

Christopher Brown, U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), San Diego Field Station ________________15

Public Comment______________________________________________________________19

Colorado River Joint Cooperative Project, U.S.–Mexico______________________________19

Carlos Marin, U. S. Commissioner, International Boundary and Water Commission ___________19

Dumping on Tribal Lands: Pala Reservation New Transfer Station ____________________22

Rod Watkins, Director of Environmental Services, Pala Band of Mission Indians 

[for Lenore Volturno] ______________________________________________________________22

New River and Artificial Wetlands: Using Nature to Clean Water _____________________25

Marie Barrett, Outreach Coordinator, Citizen’s Congressional Task Force (CCTF), 

New River Wetland Project__________________________________________________________25

Board Members Report-Out Presentations_________________________________________27

U. S. Department of Transportation—Sylvia Grijalva ____________________________________27

New Mexico Environment Department—Marissa Stone __________________________________27

USEPA Region 9—Enrique Manzanilla [representing Laura Yoshii]________________________28

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—Shannon Sorzano _________________28

Malpai Borderlands Group—Edward Elbrock __________________________________________28

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)—Stephen Niemeyer __________________29
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 3

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

New Mexico State University—Christopher Brown ______________________________________29

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—Rafael Guerrero _______________________________29

Cameron County, Brownsville, Texas—John Wood ______________________________________30

Campo Kumeyaay Nation—Mike Connolly_____________________________________________30

Approval of Minutes of the Washington, D. C., March 2008 Meeting ___________________31

Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB_________________________________________________________31

FACA Developments __________________________________________________________32

Rafael DeLeon, Director, OCEM _____________________________________________________32

Approval & Discussion of GNEB Advice Letter to President George W. Bush ____________36

Rosario Marin, California State Consumer Services Agency _______________________________36

GNEB Twelfth Report: Innovation, including Incentives, to Prevent /Reduce Pollution at the 

U. S.–Mexico Border __________________________________________________________36

Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB_________________________________________________________36

Approach to Case Studies ______________________________________________________38

Diane Austin & Ann Marie Wolf, Members, GNEB ______________________________________38

Discussion of Potential Case Studies _____________________________________________38

Selection of Case Studies and Formation of Drafting Teams __________________________40

Public Comments _____________________________________________________________46

El Paso Public Meeting Discussion—Next Steps ____________________________________46

Adjourn_____________________________________________________________________47

El Paso Meeting, September 24–25, 2008 ______________________________________________47

Appendix 1. Meeting Participants _______________________________________________48
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 4

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Welcome

Paul Ganster, Chair, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Dr. Ganster welcomed the group, reminding them that GNEB is an independent advisory board created by 

Congress and managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. GNEB’s job, he said, is to advise the 

President and Congress about environmental issues along the southern border of the United States. Therefore, 

GNEB members have met regularly in Border communities, such as Calexico, to hear about local issues from 

the local perspective. 

Rafael DeLeon, Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management

Mr. DeLeon added his welcome and thanked the organizers, especially Dr. Roeder, for hosting the meeting

and Dr. Ganster for returning to chair the GNEB meeting. He then introduced Acting Designated Federal 

Officer, Lorena Cedeño-Zambrano.

Lorena Cedeño-Zambrano, Acting Designated Federal Officer

Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano invited meeting participants to introduce themselves, and the following did so: Hector 

Aguirre, Diane Austin, Chris Brown, Michael Connolly, Michael Dorsey, Edward Elbrock, Tina Forester, 

Paul Ganster, Gary Gillen, Sylvia Grijalva, Rafael Guerrero (alternate USDA Board Member for Rosendo 

Trevino), Mark Joyce, Steven Kahn, Susan Keith, Enrique Manzanilla (representing Lauri Yoshii), Carlos 

Marin, Susan Muza, Steve Niemeyer, Brad Poiriez, Allyson Siwik, Shannon Sorzano, Sally Spener, Marissa 

Stone, Al Sweedler, Ann Marie Wolf, and John Wood. 

Regional Welcome

Stephen Roeder, Dean, San Diego State University (SDSU), Imperial Valley Campus

After welcoming everyone, especially Dr. Ganster and Dr. Sweedler, Dr. Roeder pointed out that the SDSU 

Imperial Valley Campus is the university campus closest to the U. S.–Mexico Border, six blocks away. Of all 

the students on this campus, 86% are Hispanic, of whom almost all are first-generation Americans, and many 

more are the first generation who will obtain a college degree. In some ways the area is more northern Mexico 

than southern California. In addition to the benefits of a rich cultural heritage, the area shares an airshed and 

various pollution problems, and hosting this meeting helps fulfill SDSU’s mission to raise the educational 

opportunities for the people who live in this region. 

Victor Carrillo, Supervisor, Imperial County

On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Carrillo welcomed participants to Imperial County, a region 

encompassing both the Imperial and Mexicali Valleys. He has served Imperial County in various capacities 

over the past 12 years, beginning with his election to the Calexico City Council, followed by two terms as 

mayor. Currently Mr. Carrillo is in his second term on the Board of Supervisors. He represents the board on 

the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which encompasses six counties, 187 cities, 14 

sub-regions, 38,000 square miles, and 18,500,000 residents in Southern California. Of the six counties, three 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 5

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

are coastal—Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange—and three are interior, in the basin—San Bernardino, 

Riverside, and Imperial. Imperial County serves as the gateway to Southern California and the rest of the 

nation. 

The Southern California area is the nation’s most socially, culturally, and economically diverse region and is 

more populous than 47 of the U. S. states. Its agricultural base is the fifth largest in the nation, and its 

transportation network is constantly struggling to keep up with ever-growing demand. Housing is falling short 

of demand, and land-use decisions made in one city can have traffic, environmental, and economic impacts on 

the region as a whole. Meanwhile, air pollution generated in one community can affect residents 100 miles 

away because the area is a bowl surrounded by the Chocolate Mountains to the east, the Laguna Sierra 

Madres to the west, the Coachella Valley to the north, and the Mexicali Valley and the Sea of Cortez to the 

south. Because the area is tucked away in the southeastern corner of the state, because it is primarily 

agricultural, and because it is across the Border from the state of Baja California’s capital—in fact, California 

and Baja California share a 200-mile border—we must speak with a unified voice advocating for regional 

priority from Sacramento, Mexicali, and Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Carrillo represents the county on the Imperial Valley Association of Governments, as well as the 

Southern California Association of Governors (SCAG), the San Bernardino Associated Governments

(SANBAG), and the Borders Committee. For all of these organizations, the primary focus for 2008 has been 

the air quality crisis vis à vis the movement of goods in the region. To define and create a livable, sustainable, 

and successful region, we must coordinate advocacy efforts to advance consensus among local transportation 

commissions, cities, counties, sub-regional organizations, and private sector organizations. Although 

considerable progress has been made in Southern California to improve air quality, continuing this trend 

toward attainment of clean air standards will be difficult given the pace of population growth, the great 

activity from sea- and air-ports, and the increasing congestion on transportation systems. Mexicali–Calexico 

is the third busiest port of entry after San Diego–Tijuana and El Paso–Juarez. These ports and the trade 

through them bring $256 billion to the economy and sustain 3.3 million jobs. The region, however, pays a 

heavy price for being the nation’s loading dock because it also receives a disproportionate share of diesel 

emissions and other waste from trucks, ships, and planes. 

Regional managers are proposing this year to establish and to continue enforcing legislative and regulatory 

measures, to enhance mobile-force emissions regulations so the region meets requirements of the federal 

Clean Air Act, and to support the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) to achieve air quality 

and conformity. And, climate exacerbates the air pollution problems—Imperial County’s climate, unlike that 

of San Diego, is not Mediterranean. The asphalt and concrete at the port of entry and in the cities add another 

10 to 15 degrees of heat for pedestrians and drivers who may have to wait 1 to three hours to cross the Border. 

Automobiles were not designed to idle for hours in those harsh conditions, so, not only are the people in their 

cars exposed to heat and fumes, but also the vendors—sometimes children as young as three and four selling 

Chiclets, or whatever, to help support the family, who may be there from 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. until midnight. 

And every hour is now a peak hour.

The Border 2012 Program established the Imperial Valley–Mexicali Air Quality Task Force, a cooperative 

effort with representatives from all levels of government. Furthermore, Southern California, with 35 

representatives, has the political clout to influence environmental issues. So, it is fitting that SDSU in 

Calexico in Imperial County is hosting this meeting because it offers a venue to come together to brainstorm 

and network to effectively devise recommendations for improvements. It is about being right and doing the 

right thing.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 6

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

Discussion

 Dr. Ganster asked Mr. Carrillo, from his perspective as county supervisor, what the county’s top 

environmental issue is. Mr. Carrillo said he would have to categorize several interrelated things as 

one issue:

1. The New River clean-up. Since 1940—and 12 presidential administrations beginning with 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt—much effort has been expended on clean-up and alternative 

solutions. 

2. The Salton Sea. The New River feeds into the Salton Sea, and the environmental impact will be 

enormous if we allow the Salton Sea to die; that issue is being neglected as the shorelines recede.

3. Air quality. The wind channel that comes through the San Gorgonio Pass impacts the Coachella 

Valley, the Imperial Valley, and the Mexicali Valley and consequently their quality of air (asthma 

occurs very frequently here). Activities at the ports of entry and farming practices also impact air 

quality.

 Ms. Grijalva said the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) intends to do more Border wait-time 

studies—one in Otay Mesa is ongoing, and one in Calexico is planned—and she knows there are 

advocates on the Mexican side. Mr. Carrillo said they have already conducted two Border studies 

through the SANBAG and through IVA. Ms. Grijalva countered that what is needed now is 

documented wait-time studies. So far, all data are anecdotal. The FHA wants to document wait-times 

objectively using, for example, radio-frequency identification (RFID) or global positioning systems 

(GPS). Also, a regional board is developing a master plan for Baja California and California that will 

deal with transportation and the Border. 

 Mr. Carrillo reported recent receipt of funding through the county’s efforts with the California 

Transportation Commission to fund the final phase of the Brawley Bypass, known statewide as the 

C4 Corridor or the Calexico–Coachella Cargo Corridor, to get the heavy truck traffic from the east 

port of entry—on its way to Los Angeles or Long Beach or to Interstate 10 to go nationwide—off city 

streets in Calexico. It is a health issue, a safety issue, and an environmental issue. 

As far as voter studies are concerned, Imperial County has initiated ongoing efforts and collaboration 

through the Mexican Federal Government, our counterparts in Baja California. Regardless what we 

decide to do on the U.S. side, it has to be done in parallel on the Mexican side, not only for design, 

but to ensure delivery of a project, and there has to be funding. We have to understand that the 

Government of Mexico is more centrally organized, e.g., the mayor of Mexicali has a direct phone 

line to the President of Mexico, whereas our mayor of Calexico does not have a direct phone line to 

the Governor of California, let alone the President of the United States. So we, in the United States, 

have more red tape to get through. However, dialogue has improved our relationships and 

partnerships so that we can match a face to a name and a department to help move things forward.

 Mr. Niemeyer stated that last year’s GNEB report was on Border security and the environment, and 

touched on the issue of undocumented immigration and the Border wall. He asked for Mr. Carrillo’s 

perceptions on that. Mr. Carrillo has been on the Border Counties Coalition, which involves two 

Border counties in California, four in Arizona, three in New Mexico, and 12 in Texas. Headquartered 

in El Paso, they meet twice annually at the location of the president of the commission and then in 

Washington, D.C. in March, to forward legislative policy for Border counties in particular.

Federal government reimbursements for addressing undocumented impacts—whether it is emergency 

medical services, or arrest, detention, incarceration, and adjudication in local jails—amounts to eight 

cents on the dollar nationwide. For California that amounts to more than $378 million and for 

Imperial County it was $7 million. 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 7

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

Mr. Carrillo’s position, and that of most people along the Border, has favored an affordable and 

comprehensive immigration plan. In lieu of building the wall, we should simplify, facilitate, and 

improve the process of legalizing Border crosses. It is too expensive for a family that is already 

economically strapped in Mexico or elsewhere in Latin America. The process takes 11 years now for 

families, and it costs hundreds of dollars for an individual—imagine a family of four that wants to 

cross the Border to shop.

Then, we should arrange a work plan, if the intent of the comprehensive plan is to allow workers. 

Those who are engaged to come to work should be able to come and work for a year or two or three, 

and then return. And we should know who they are and that they are working via income tax 

statements, photo ID, or some other type of document. 

The ports of entry themselves are not built for security—they were built 42 years of ago primarily to 

process the movement of people and goods. Today’s security technology does not align with 

yesterday’s ports of entry. A new port of entry, in the design stage right now, is expected to be 

completed by 2012 or 2013. Our Chamber of Commerce in the valley, as well as in Calexico, has 

already been demanding 32- to 36-lane highways to offset the two- to three-hour waits we currently 

endure. 

There are many complex issues, e.g., our cemetery board and the Mexican Consulate recently met to 

discuss the undocumented people buried in paupers’ graves that now need to be exhumed—we have 

to come up with a better system and one that will bring down costs. At the same time, this is a nation 

of laws, and if you can’t enforce the law, then your law is meaningless. 

In sum, the billions of dollars that would be used to build that fence would be better spent on 

technology to facilitate the legalization of people crossing to shop or to visit because 99% of the 

people who cross the Border would like to come through the front door rather than the back door.

Imperial–Mexicali Region Air Quality: New Approaches to Pollution Reduction

Brad Poiriez, Air Quality Officer, Imperial County

Imperial County has about 172,000 residents and the Mexicali Valley has about 1.3 million. Mexicali has 

seven incorporated cities, including the Baja California state capital. The combined region also has major 

agricultural activity, as well as commerce and services. The Imperial County Air Quality office has 17 fulltime employees, including three in the planning section. EPA sets the health-based standards for ozone and 

PM10 (particulate matter as large as 10 micrometers), based on a margin of safety for exposure to air pollution. 

For example, an eight-hour ozone standard is 0.08, and a 24-hour PM10 standard is 150 micrograms per cubic 

meter. The Air Quality Office’s obligation is to try to meet those federal standards and to demonstrate 

progress towards meeting them. Typically to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) of this nature, it takes 

about 18 months. This office also does air quality monitoring, emissions inventory, modeling for the transport 

of air pollutants that cross the Border, and control assessments. Ultimately an SIP should translate into cleaner 

area for the region.

In August 2004 EPA reclassified Imperial County as “serious non-attainment” for PM10. That redesignation 

required us to develop a PM10 plan that shows at least a 5% reduction of total emissions each year until the 

standard is met, and the plan must be developed by December 9, 2008. The plan will address the impacts from 

Mexico, natural events (high winds, forest fires), and local sources. We demonstrate through our SIP process, 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 8

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

through data and modeling, that there is an impact from PM10 transported from Mexico. Then we must show 

that the transgression from the flow of pollutants is associated with the meteorological conditions, and how it 

impacts our monitoring network in Imperial Valley. In 2005, Imperial County had two PM10 violations, one 

attributed to a local contribution, and one to transport. In 2006, there were four exceedences—one for natural 

events, one for local impacts, and two for transport. In 2007, we had two for natural events. EPA developed a 

policy for impacts caused by natural events, and our board adopted an action program on August 9, 2005, 

since we have had wild fires and high winds. (We flag the data in the state’s and the EPA’s depository for 

emissions and exceedance data and exclude that from the termination). In addition, in 2005, the Imperial 

County board adopted the Fugitive Dust rules to address local sources.

The ozone standard uses a rolling three-year average, which must be lower than 0.84 parts per million. In 

April 2004, Imperial County was designated a marginal non-attainment area for ozone under the Federal 

Clean Air Act. On June 15, we were reclassified to moderate non-attainment for ozone, which requires us to 

institute reasonable available control measures instead of best available measures regionally. We are required 

to submit our plan to the state and get approval by December 31, 2008. Preliminary evaluation indicates 

impact from transport from Mexico, as well as from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (Los 

Angeles and just to the north). Much of their pollution flows down to the San Gorgonio Pass into Imperial 

County. Because of its bowl-like nature, everything that comes here gets trapped here, adding to the local 

contribution.

To establish community involvement and support for our plan, we convened a working group composed of 

people from Imperial County and the Mexicali Valley, which meets monthly. Most of our grants come from 

the California Air Resources Board and EPA. The Carl Moyer Program’s aim is to reduce air emissions by 

providing grants to equipment operators. In Imperial County the most effective use for the grant money is 

agricultural water pumps that irrigate the crop land. Proposition 1B, which voters approved in November 

2006, establishes a funding mechanism to retrofit, replace, or repower diesel trucks—on-road, in-use, heavyduty diesel trucks. Imperial County was considered for the San Diego Border Corridor funding, which is a 

billion dollars over four years. The initial monies will go towards the retrofit—adding particulate traps to 

diesel trucks. California’s Low Emissions School Bus Program awarded Imperial County $2.6 million to 

retrofit or replace the most polluting school buses; now Imperial County has three pre-1976 school buses. 

Also, Imperial County has established two compressed natural-gas (CNG) refueling stations; we match what 

the school districts pay the state, so that they can get a dedicated CNG bus because it is less polluting than a 

diesel bus. 

We received two EPA grants through the Border 2012 Program. One was a $60,000 grant to assess the 

unpaved parking areas in the Calexico region. This relates to trucks moving goods and trailers from south of 

the Border to north of the Border in their staging yards. Approximately 27 locations—many of them are 

unpaved parking lots—have been identified in the Calexico region. By identifying them, we can institute 

control measures to reduce not only the emissions from the parking yards but also from the diesel trucks 

themselves. We took aerial photos and ground photos and then tried to quantify the emissions that come from 

each yard. The goal is to retrofit 25 trucks, but the cost of equipment and installation was prohibitive, so we 

have finished 12 trucks and we anticipate equipping three more with the grant money. Mexican industry was 

interested in participating in this program. We approached CANECAR, which is a National Chamber of 

Heavy Duty Trucking in Mexicali; the response was overwhelming. Some 10 companies lined up to receive 

the money to have the emission-reduction devices installed.

Imperial County is dealing with several issues, and we have developed some new rules to address our local air 

quality. The state mandates air toxic control measures on 35 different air districts throughout the state, so 

there is conformity on implementation of new types of rules and regulations. An example of current measures 

is the Agricultural Engine Registration Program. Prior to 2006, the agricultural sector was basically exempt 

from all air quality rules and regulations, but the passage of SB700 changed that; now they are considered the 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 9

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

same as any other industrial sector in California, and the state enacted an air toxic control measure to switch 

that fleet to cleaner engines. The other measure addresses school bus idling. Commercial motor vehicles are 

required to shut their engines off if they will remain in one place longer than five minutes and they have to 

restart no more than 30 seconds before departing from the site. 

The Emission Reduction Credit (ERC) Program is the heart and soul of most of the 35 air districts rules and 

regulations and e-source review. It establishes thresholds for emissions, and if the threshold is exceeded, the 

offender must offset that amount to continue to operate. A company earns ERCs by reducing emissions below 

the threshold of 137 pounds per day. Air district employees act as bankers. The program is an important tool 

for industry new to the region. If they exceed the threshold, they can seek offsets from a company that has 

already reduced their emissions. Imperial County is only the second air district in California to adopt this rule, 

which applies to operational development fees on residential developments as well as commercial 

developments.

The industrial sector is covered under EPA’s New Source Review (NSR) rule, which provides an innovative 

way for the air district to seek mitigation of the emissions produced from the operation. Typically those 

emissions come from the traffic associated with them—the goods moved, vehicles associated with nearby 

residences, water heaters, etc. As we move forward in our SIP planning, we anticipate this to be one of our 

contingency measures that will yield further reductions than standard rules.

Another issue is the new Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Pipeline Expansion. Sempra Energy, Energía Costa 

Azul near Rosarito, is constructing a new pipeline from the coast to the Mexicali Valley that will transport 2.7 

billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas per day. Eventually the pipeline comes to the east of us into the 

United States, and we are concerned about the quality of that gas. Burning gas produces nitrous oxides, which 

turn into ozone. Our concern is that impact-mitigating, control technologies be installed either at the plant or 

along the pipeline. In the Mexicali Valley, two new compressor stations will be built, each about the size of a 

power plant. We also have concerns that those compressor stations adhere to strict guidance to reduce their 

emissions.

The All-American Canal is the life blood of agriculture here because it brings water from the Colorado River 

into Imperial County and on to San Diego and the Coachella Valley. Currently a project is underway to line 

approximately 24 miles of the canal with concrete, which is anticipated to save 70,000 acre-feet of water per 

year. However, it necessitates moving massive amounts of material and bringing in construction equipment 

with their attendant PM10 and emissions issues. In addition, they have to bring in portable equipment because 

there is not much access to electricity, but several of the contractors have submitted dust control plans for PM 

(most commonly to use water trucks, drawing water off the existing canal, to wet an area prior to grading it or 

digging in the canal). Contractors have also used the Portable Emission Equipment Registration Program, 

although EPA believes that that is not an appropriate application of the program and that they should instead 

get local air permits; this has occasioned some lawsuits to decide the issue.

The Proposed Green Path and the Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Project would connect two existing lines

and provide additional transmission capacity this region needs. But, while that would accommodate any 

future power plants built in Mexicali, as well as California, it cannot be known whether those plants would 

adhere to the same stringent standards as required of U.S. companies. In addition, the transmission corridor 

poses land-use and siting issues, relevant to impact-mitigation during construction. 

EPA’s concern in the air district is that, if we build transmission corridors and make them available to 

companies in Mexico to transport energy into the United States, those power plants must adhere to the same 

kind of standards and regulations that we have to protect people, not only in the Mexicali Valley, but also 

Imperial County. We have been working with our counterparts in Mexico to ensure that this will happen.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 10

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

The New River empties into the Salton Sea. EPA is concerned that if the Salton Sea shrinks, it will expose 

debris and make it available to high winds and allow dust to become entrained in the atmosphere. There is a 

plan to restore the Salton Sea, although the Legislature has not acted on it.

As an air district, our board has considered the possibility of a cross-Border emission-reduction trading 

program, similar to what was done in the El Paso–Juárez region. Our state oversight agency, the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB), and EPA have looked to Clean Air Act requirements to implement such a 

program. Although changes to the Act could take 10 years, we believe it is a viable option for Imperial 

County and that emissions could be reduced in Mexicali. Also, facilities that locate in Imperial County might 

pay for installation of emission-reduction equipment at some of those facilities, which would give them credit 

on this side of the Border. Those emissions would have to meet local criteria, and the criteria would have to 

be permanent, enforceable, and quantifiable. The Mexican government is concerned about the enforceability

of permits for sources with current staffing, and the California Energy Commission is evaluating the 

feasibility of the idea.

Finally, the ports of entry are of significant concern because of vehicles idling at the Border and producing 

emissions, particularly the passenger vehicles. One of the three ports of entry is dedicated to passenger 

vehicles, which go directly through downtown Calexico. Currently the wait time is 55 minutes or longer; 

before September 11, 2001, it was 26 minutes. In addition to security precedures, the additional wait time 

results from increased commerce and decreased budgets of federal government staffing at Customs. But, over 

the past few years, new agencies and groups have become concerned about air quality—e.g., the Clean Air 

Initiative, the American Lung Association—and they are taking a more active role in SIP development 

programs, as well as Border issues.

Discussion

 In response to Dr. Brown’s question about out Mexican partners in these binational cooperation

efforts, Mr. Poiriez listed government as the major partner, including the municipality of Mexicali, 

but also academia, including active GNEB members (and a past co-chair); and a small community 

task force. For the latter, they are seeking innovative ways to get people involved and get them to 

understand that issues in Mexico and the United States affect people on both sides of the Border.

 Dr. Austin noted that many drivers idle their buses to keep the air conditioning on. She asked whether 

any projects deal with having to sit in a hot bus. Mr. Poiriez agreed that temperatures can reach 

115°F, and that the state makes exemptions in its air toxic control measures for such extreme 

situations. However, at a transit bus stop, for instance, drivers are still required to turn off their buses 

after a five-minute period; some of those may have auxiliary units that run without the combustion 

component. For refrigerated diesel trucks that, e.g., deliver food, there are additional air toxic control 

measures if they have a battery that stores power so that the combustion portion does not have to run 

during the time the motor is shut down.

 Mr. Elbrock noticed that farmers are still burning their fields. Yes, said Mr. Poiriez, that topic could 

add another half-hour to his presentation. Currently in the California Health and Safety Code, local air 

districts cannot prohibit agricultural burning; they can only regulate burning. Currently, wheat fields 

are being burned. The wheat crop is quite large this year because of favorable market conditions. 

Imperial County in 2000 adopted a Smoke-Management Program in accordance with Title 17, which 

provides the mechanism to continue agricultural burning for certain reasons. Each farmer has to 

notify the Air District and get an agricultural-burn permit, which may have to be renewed daily. Air 

quality data are tracked by the canal that provides water to that field and also the nearest crossroads. 

If a field is within a mile and a half of an urban or residential area, an inspector has to be present 

before the burn to give permission for them to ignite that field. Beyond that, Imperial County is 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 11

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

divided into quadrants for its burn program, so that only certain amounts of acreage can be burned in 

each quadrant of the valley at a time to allow the smoke to dissipate.

Imperial County also has an Agricultural Emission Reduction Credit Program. If a farmer has burned, 

for example, a 70-acre wheat field annually, and chooses not to this year, the farmer can get a 

certificate for emission reduction to be credited with the amount of emissions that would have been 

released if they had burned the field. Each field that is burned is logged and the local fire department 

is notified. To further track burning, a staff meteorologist gives daily meteorological information on 

inversion layers, wind speeds, wind directions, etc. so each day’s burn can be mapped.

 Ms. Wolf asked about measures taken under Rule 310 and why it was controversial. Mr. Poiriez said 

it is basically a flat fee that uses an Urbanas Model approved by the state, and it includes some 

exemptions and deferments, e.g., they do not have to pay the fee until the time of occupancy. It was 

controversial because it charges another fee to the building industry at a time when the industry is in a 

massive down-turn. Mr. Poiriez replied that, typically Imperial County has addressed larger projects 

via the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, a rule that applies to residential areas 

(e.g., people who build 15 houses at a time in blocks). The CEQA Air Quality Handbook addresses 

standard mitigation measures and voluntary measures developers can take, including during 

construction. 

California–Baja California Border Region Energy and Renewable Alternatives

Alan Sweedler, Chair, Center for Energy Studies, San Diego State University

The main issues in the Border region are energy and transfer of energy across the U.S.–Mexico Border; 

environmental issues; the movement, transportation, and treatment of water; and renewable resources.

Electricity flows between the United States and Mexico. Natural gas has become the fuel of choice for power 

generation in both countries. Oil is not used very much, and until recently, the United States’ source was 

domestic. We supply most of our own natural gas and intend it to be priced lower than petroleum. However, 

the two are linked, so as the price of petroleum rises, the price of natural gas rises. And natural gas is 

becoming the “new oil” in the sense that it is becoming a globally traded commodity through the mechanism 

of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Natural gas might be considered a bridge fuel between coal and oil and 

ultimately the renewables—a bridge fuel that can last for many, many decades. Currently, many natural gas 

pipelines cross the Border. Natural gas has been traded along the Border for many years and the trade is 

growing significantly. 

The same cannot be said for electricity. Few high-voltage, high-power transmission lines cross the Border. In 

the Baja California region, there are only two and they have only about an 800-megawatt capacity. (By 

contrast, San Diego alone has about 4500 megawatts, and California has nearly 55,000 megawatts.) The 

Mexican geothermal plant generates an additional 800 megawatts. To build a transmission line into the United 

States from Mexico requires a Presidential Permit, issued by the Department of Energy. At this level, the U. 

S. government begins to become involved in environmental impacts. Although the United States has no 

jurisdiction in Mexico with respect to air quality, it does have concerns and regulatory authority about 

transmission lines bringing power to and from Mexico. A court case was used to try to get the Mexican power 

plants to comply with U. S. air quality regulations, but it was only partially successful. 

The La Paz Agreement deals with the environment 100 kilometers on both sides of the Border, that is, all of 

San Diego County and Imperial County, and as far south as Ensenada. A well-know factor is the phenomenal 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 12

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

population growth; in a few years, for the first time in history, the population on the Mexican side of the 

Border will be greater than that on the U.S. side. Now, the Mexican per-capita use of electricity is only about 

a third that of people in San Diego, but usage is increasing as the middle class emerges and the economy 

grows. The energy infrastructure of the region consists of a series of gas pipelines and power plants. On the 

U.S. side, most of the gas comes from Texas and Oklahoma; it crosses the Border in the eastern section of 

Imperial County and is used to power the two main power plants—one run by Sempra and another by 

Intergen (which has now changed hands)—both controversial. The plants now generally meet U. S. emissions 

standards, but there is no requirement for offsets. Cross-Border offsets would avoid such situations. The gas 

then travels all the way across Baja California and powers a whole series of large oil- and gas-burning plants 

near Rosarito, south of San Diego. Almost 1500 megawatts are used to burn heavy fuel oil, which until 

recently was the main source of pollution in the western part of the Border region. It also provides some gas 

for some industries here.

The liquid natural gas (LNG) plant will be a huge facility, which will more than triple available capacity. It is 

already opened, and it will reverse the flow so that gas moves into the United States. It is important to remind 

ourselves that natural gas and electricity infrastructure are already integrated into the Border region. All of the 

Mexican power plants use oil or natural gas except for those in geothermal fields, in Cerro Prieto, right here 

just across the Border. The Sempra plant, just north of Ensenada, is a massive construction. The gas either 

comes from Indonesia or Australia; the liquid is then reheated—the volume is decreased by a factor of about 

600 to make it a liquid, then it is stored in large tanks and shipped. Each tank holds about a billion cubic feet 

of natural gas; by comparison, the total demand for all of San Diego is only 500 million cubic feet per day. 

The new pipeline will connect east of Tijuana, sending some gas to a large complex run by the Comisión 

Federal de Electricidad (CFE), and some gas will flow north into the United States. The region will become 

more dependent on the (volatile) world market, which is why developing indigenous energy resources is so 

important.

We organized a study of renewable resources (the report can be downloaded from <www.renewablesg.org>), 

three years ago with a variety of other people, including representatives of the San Diego Gas and Electric 

Company and San Diego State University, with input from Baja California. We asked, “What is the technical 

resource availability of renewable energy in the California–Baja California Border region?” “Technical 

resource” means not how much sunshine falls in the region, but where it falls and its intensity, variability, and

availability for rooftop solar collectors. Using satellite data, GIS, and remote sensing, we measured the roof 

area and also modeled for wind. An incredible amount of renewable resources is available to exploit, provided 

the right policies were in place and the economics made sense—much more than anticipated. The main 

resources in San Diego, Imperial County, and northern Baja California are solar, in the form of photovoltaic 

cells, solar in the form of concentrated solar, wind in the southern part of the region, geothermal in the Salton 

Sea region. We found that concentrated solar could produce more than 29,000 megawatts—almost half the 

power for the whole state of California. Geothermal is another resource, but biomass waste burning was not 

so productive because we have no forests. Nevertheless, renewable energy is not a panacea; for one reason, it 

is not available at all times and you have to have power at all times. 

Wind is seasonal here: high wind speeds are typical in January and February, but there is virtually none in the 

summer. Geothermal is now limited to Cerro Prieto, Mexico (about 800 megawatts). But in Imperial County, 

there is significant potential for growth to some 2500 megawatts, mostly around the Salton Sea. Fluid must be 

re-injected into the ground because, in this climate, if the water evaporates toxic salts are produced, which the 

wind blows into the atmosphere, worsening air pollution. There is a tremendous amount of roof space, which 

is an attractive income option for commercial building owners, and Southern California Edison is doing 

exactly that. Whether or not the potential for solar and wind power is ever developed depends on the relative 

cost and the cost of fossil fuel, which is increasing to the point that the cost of renewable energy is becoming 

more competitive. But in addition to cost usage will also depend on federal, state, and local energy policies. 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 13

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

Renewable Energy Credits, under a firm’s requirement to have 20% of its electricity generated by renewable 

energy in the next few years, is a system to give the firm credit for wind, solar, or geothermal units of energy 

used. But, if the renewable energy—solar plant or the wind farm—originates in Mexico, the firm does not 

qualify for Renewable Energy Credits, a huge disincentive for utilities to develop power plants where the 

resources are. So we need changes in the California legislation and also at the federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC), which is where the GNEB might want to focus.

The other issue is Cross-Border Emissions Credits. Certainly this is a single airshed. Some of the conclusions 

from our study are that you have to have reasonable and secure energy supplies in the Border region or else 

the whole economy will collapse and everything else will come to a halt. But the energy sector as it is 

currently constituted also is the main source of environmental degradation, especially air pollution. A very 

large potential exists for the development of renewable energy, but to develop that renewable energy several 

things must be in place. There must be formal coordination between the United States and Mexico in 

developing energy products along the Border. We must get away from “cowboy capitalism” and adhere to 

sensible regulations to avoid chaos and environmental degradation. Coordinating construction of energy 

infrastructure on both sides of the Border need not involve federal regulations; private developers want to 

know what the law is. And the law is different in Mexico than it is in the United States, but they are penalized 

if they build a plant in Mexico, even though they meet requirements of the Mexican law, because they made 

enemies on the U.S. side of the Border. They need consistency, and groups like this need to begin to think 

about how those rules were developed. Such groups directly influence the federal system. We cannot impose 

our rules on them and we would not expect them to impose theirs on us. But most of the Mexican authorities 

and business people also want clear rules of the road because they do not want to have to go through the 

lawsuits incurred when these power plants were built in the past. 

If we are serious about integrating the Border region—commerce, economics, education—we also have to 

integrate it in energy. The way to do that is with physical infrastructure. There must be transmission lines 

going back and forth to exploit the energy, but the route the lines take may be detrimental to some areas in 

national or state parks. Above all, what has been missing from the discussion is involvement with Mexico. 

And yet this transmission line will have a profound impact on what happens in the energy development on 

both sides of the Border. That oversight should be avoided in the future. We must have input from both sides 

when plants are being built or resources exploited. And, we need a portfolio of different resources, including 

oil, gas, and traditional resources. This is truly a cross-Border issue. Energy in this region has to be done 

cooperatively or else it will not be possible to exploit everything available. 

Discussion

 Ms. Grijalva observed that a basic issue with solar energy that must be agreed upon is standardization 

of the units of energy. It is a new and promising technology, and if equipment broke, it could be 

difficult to replace. Dr. Sweedler said this is an ongoing discussion in the renewable energy 

community, and the technology is becoming more and more standardized. The Institute of Electrical 

and Electronics Engineers sets standards, but the important thing for this discussion is that 

commercial-sized plants. The large central power plants that produce thousands of megawatts are 

really going to make the difference. They are all built by large corporations that warranty their work 

and will lose money if the equipment breaks down. The standardization comes in when you want to 

put something on your house, and that is a whole different area. One way to think about this is that 

the commercial-sized operations will begin to drive costs down and develop the new technology. 

Dr. Sweedler noted that solar hot water is instantly cost effective—it immediately cuts all your hot 

water bills—but it is not required, so builders save the few thousand dollars it would cost to install. 

That is something that could be implemented. Ms. Grijalva reported that in the ongoing discussion of 

solar energy in Phoenix, solar only takes in the majority technology for light, but not for heat. 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 14

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

Dr. Sweedler said various things are being developed. He has worked in the solar field a long time 

and is a strong supporter, but he is also a realist and a critic. The solar industry has grown but it 

accounts for less than 1% of energy production. And the reason it is a minuscule part is that the 

technology still is not as available and well developed as more traditional technologies, which means 

it is expensive.

The price we pay for energy does not reflect the true cost. Energy is much too cheap—we still have 

the cheapest gasoline in the industrialized world. People do not recognize that the environmental 

impacts are part of the cost. The cost of renewable energy makes more sense because it has a smaller 

environmental impact. So we have to find a way to build into the price what economists call 

externalities so we know the real cost. The new technologies are still in the laboratories and will not 

be in the field for many, many years.

 Mr. Manzanilla confirmed that Renewable Energy Credits, under the renewable portfolio standard in 

California, have provisions for people to be certified for the renewable energy component when it 

comes from out of state. An out-of-country provision is relatively new. So, he continued, is California 

on the way to addressing that issue? Dr. Sweedler thought California was on the way, although it does 

not yet have a national standard. The requirements, even though the electrons are the same, are more 

difficult to meet than if it is in state. The new plant in La Rumarosa will be the first test case. It is a 

very complicated situation depending on the energy source, where it is located, and transmission lines 

to bring the energy from Baja California into California. For example, Judge Irma Gonzalez, the 

presiding judge for the suit over transmission into California of two power plants in Mexicali, 

focusing on the transmission lines, argued that the water from the New River will be reduced in 

volume because some of that water will be used for cooling and that will affect the Salton Sea. 

Arguments about the transmission lines and the presidential permits will come in for plants across the 

Border. All of these act as a disincentive. Nevertheless, in this region, that is where the resource is. A 

lot of the resource is also in Imperial County, which does not have to worry them about residential 

permits. But we are missing a lot of the resource on the other side of the Border.

 Dr. Brown returned to the comment that our high gas prices are lower than they would be if they 

reflected all of the externalities. For example, the cost the federal government incurs to provide the 

military protection it needs to maintain stability in unstable regions and to keep the Gulf open is not 

included at all. To really discuss and understand these externalities, do we need someone like 

economists David Brookshire or Mark Fayer, or someone like John Dickson from the Department of 

State and knowledgeable about the political dimension? We may have to pay more in the short run to 

pay less in the long run. We are not burning natural gas to generate electricity, which will keep going 

up, because we have to put fuel into the tankers to bring the natural gas from Indonesia and then the 

air quality people have to deal with the NOx problems because the imported natural gas is a different 

mixture. This is a game that does not have a positive outcome so we need to have discussions that 

will allow us to make more logical decisions, even if they are more expensive in the short run.

Dr. Sweedler thought the way to start any discussion is with getting the facts and doing analysis. First 

of all, energy is the largest sector in the world, even bigger than tourism. In terms of an industry, 

energy is by far the biggest industry. The reality is that at least for another 50 years, every projection 

indicates that the world economy will be based on carbon-based fuel. (We don’t use the term “fossil 

fuels” anymore because some people think fuel, particularly natural gas, is being generated all the 

time.) Even the most optimistic supporters of renewable energy do not see greater than 10% 

penetration globally, which leaves about 90% for coal, oil, and natural gas. But then you begin to chip 

away at that: coal is used primarily for electricity; oil primarily for transportation. Renewable energy 

cannot be used for transportation at this point. You still have to fly planes on jet fuel, not solar 

energy. 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 15

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

So you look at the transportation sector and ask how that can be reduced, and that infrastructure took 

150 years to develop and will take at least 50 or 60 years to change. The overriding consideration is 

not cost. It is the global climate change issue because that affects the whole globe. The notion of 

cheap energy is literally a thing of the past. We have never paid the true price for energy. So we have 

to get used to looking at the true cost and developing the facts that relate to the true cost. All different 

types of energy pretty much arise and fall together. Energy is like air and water—it is absolutely 

critical for society. We will pay and every other society will pay whatever energy costs, since there is 

no such thing as an upper limit. There is no life without energy.

The elasticity, as economists say, is infinite. Our job, as people who are concerned about this, is to get 

the best portfolio or combination of energies that has the least environmental impact at the most 

reasonable cost. I strongly discourage people from looking for a “silver bullet.” That is the most 

foolish way to think about something as important as this, whether fusion, solar, nuclear, carbon, or 

whatever. One thing we have learned in the last 50 years is that there is no one right technology. And 

this extends to the Border regions. My main point is that in this region on the Border, we have 

enormous opportunities that have not been exploited. 

Endangered Species Habitat

Christopher Brown, U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), San Diego Field Station

The Western Ecological Research Center (www.werc.usgs.gov) is based in Sacramento; we are part of the 

San Diego Field Station. Our focus is the natural history of Southern California region. We have done 

everything from writing field guides for reptiles and amphibians, fish, and birds to doing conservation 

genetics. We are now using genetic techniques to examine the impacts of urbanization and fragmentation on 

the landscape of Southern California. More recently we studied the role of fire ecology. We have been 

looking at regional patterns of diversity across Southern California, identifying sensitive, threatened, or 

endangered species and looking at the autocology of that species to see how we can best maintain diversity on 

the reserved lands.

What regulation, what adaptive management needs to occur to adequately protect these species in the 

landscape? The Southern California area is a highly fragmented terrestrial system, so we are using 

standardized sampling protocols across the whole landscape down to the Mexican Border. We are identifying 

wildlife crossing sites, describing vegetative communities, taking quantitative measurements of wildlife 

species richness and abundance, and determining occupancy based on work the USGS is doing with 

amphibians. We are repeating long-term sampling at fixed sample points, which allows us to see how a 

population of a given species occupies the landscape from one place to another. We are focusing on protocol 

development and making sure that we and our partners—the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

etc.—are using comparable protocols that will give meaningful results that can be integrated over the long 

term. We are looking at reptiles and amphibians, bats, carnivores, birds, ants, amphibians, and fish using 

electronic data-collection devices (personal digital assistants; PDA) in the field so all the data can be 

integrated immediately.

We are applying riparian studies to our fragmented terrestrial landscape. They initially started with looking at 

the disturbances to the riparian habitat for the riparian birds and then to the amphibians and fish. More than 

95% of the riparian habitat in Southern California has been lost or altered, which has an immediate impact on 

a species that has to live in that habitat, such as the southwest willow flycatcher. For this bird, another factor 

is parasitism from the brown-headed cowbird, an invasive species. Part of the program to help these native 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 16

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

species is to remove the brown-headed cowbird, which requires knowing their habitat requirements, 

distribution of the native species, distribution of the cowbirds, wintering habitat, breeding habitat, ecology, 

reproductive success, and forging behavior. Nesting behavior is being studied by putting cameras on the nests. 

Knowing all this enables us to understand the life history and demography. Then, this must be studied in 

relation to habitat restoration and as the invasive species are removed.

For example, the lesser Bell’s vireo population went from 300 males in 1986 to more than 2500 males now, 

largely due to restoration efforts. Since the mid-1990s the riparian work for amphibians has involved the 

Amphibians Research and Monitoring Initiative throughout much of Southern California, from the coastal 

valleys to the mountains and into some of the desert spring areas. We are using standardized methods so we 

can quantitatively assess the habitat at both the landscape level and the micro-habitat level to determine 

species needs, including the arroyo toad in the Tijuana watershed. Endangered species include the mountain 

yellow-legged frog and the red-legged frog. Sensitive species include the newt. Both frogs are presumed to be 

exterminated from San Diego County, but there is still a population of the red-legged frog in Baja California 

and we are looking at their genetics.

In addition, we are compiling data on terrestrial reptiles and amphibians as to diversity, inventory, and 

occurrence. We have used standardized, trapping arrays throughout Southern California; even groups in 

Arizona have used some of these methods. Passive traps collect whatever crosses that landscape. From these, 

we not only inventory and monitor amphibians and reptiles but small mammals, terrestrial arthropods, and 

macro-invertebrates. We also do vegetation transacts and habitat assessments, from which we see trigger 

points for adaptive management, and can detect changes and diversity of species. We can identify species that 

may not be recruiting, a major signal that that population is not doing well. We combine this information with 

that from our natural history studies of specific species. And we can monitor the occurrence of exotics. We 

have caught more than 46 species—36,000 reptiles and amphibians—so study sizes are nine to 33 species per 

array. We have single arrays, with as many as 22 species captured in one array. Species that occurred at 24 to 

31 sites are considered Type I species—they occur in several places and there were as many as 8800 captures. 

The 12 Type II species occurred at 10 to 19 sites, but have only as many as 730 captures—these, we want to 

monitor. Type III species are represented by one to 130 captures and are found only at one to eight of the 

sites—these are red-flag species that we want to investigate more intensively.

Using this method we can compare large core areas to fragments with historical data from the 1920s to 1940s. 

We can look at the vehicle miles driven per day in this region and see how the entries and mileage have 

increased: in 1995, vehicle miles driven exceeded 70,000,000 miles and were predicted to exceed 100 million 

miles by 2015. The increased vehicle miles have taken a toll on snake species, which are getting run over. 

Comprehensive biodiversity studies reveal a direct relationship between habitat size, the number of roads, and 

the number of species. In addition to the reptiles and amphibians and small mammals, we are tracking 

carnivores. Then we have fluctuations caused by, for instance, a catastrophic fire, a current focus of research. 

In 2003 catastrophic wild fires burned approximately 750 of mostly wild acres Southern California; this year 

300,000 acres have burned in the Cedar and Otay fires alone. Much of these burned areas are in the Tijuana 

River watershed, and a large portion of the San Diego County reserve area has burned, so we use that as a 

study design for comparison. We want to collect data for five years, starting in 2005. But another catastrophic 

fire compounded our study design because most of our study sites, both burned and unburned, got burned 

again. Now we have to look at the short-term and long-terms impacts on the plants and invertebrate 

communities there. We are already starting our studies of last year’s fire on species that are breeding this 

spring so we can directly detect mortality, habitat loss, loss of plant and animal food resources, soil erosion, 

and stream siltation as they occur. 

We are looking at habitat conversion as well. Some of these sites were burned and burned and burned again 

so we can see how shrub-lands are converted to grasslands and how that affects species diversity. To measure 

the response and recovery of the plants and the whole invertebrate community, we are looking at the pre-
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 17

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

burned data using the pitfall-trap studies, and then we add the threatened or endangered species studies and 

compare those to controls.

We are also monitoring nesting and migratory birds and foraging and resting bats in San Diego County, to 

clarify how fire is an ecosystem driver and a very dynamic system here. We are looking at the viability of our 

reserves to see what we need to do in terms of local, state, and federal government and in terms of adaptive 

management to alter the reserve design if necessary. In addition to numbers, diversity for those species is also 

markedly decreased. But, we do not see the same impacts on the grass and woodland riparian habitats; they 

seemed to have less diversity to begin with. So we are seeing some of the richly diverse communities start to 

look like the grassland communities.

My focus in this program has been the arroyo toad’s response to fire. San Diego has four seriously burned 

watersheds: San Dieguito, San Diego, Sweetwater, and the Tijuana River. We have a pretty good coverage of 

San Diego study sites. Each study site behaves differently, and each watershed has its own particular issues. 

For example, the San Pascual Valley in the San Dieguito runs through an agricultural area with many orange 

groves, so it will respond differently to fire than the upper San Diego River where there is almost no 

agriculture. The Tijuana River runs through the Marron Valley and is joined by Cottonwood Creek from the 

north and Tecate Creek from the south. It is a dynamic system, and the arroyo toad that lives in this area 

thrives in these shifting, sandy floodplains and the open sandy washes and benches within the stream. We 

found no fish or amphibians here, but we are finding many worms and only one vertebrate, the garter snake.

But, in the Cottonwood Creek habitat, we found four amphibian and three fish species; one of the amphibians 

is an exotic and three of the fish are exotics. Cottonwood Creek flows down through urban and agricultural 

areas below Barrett Reservoir, so when Barrett overflows, any species in it gets washed into Cottonwood 

Creek. Since the fires, this is where we are finding the toads, which implies that we have a species whose 

whole population can shift from one section of the watershed to another in a matter of years. Suitable habitat 

now also occurs south of the Border, so not only can this species potentially move up- and downstream, but it 

may be crossing the Border, as well. What happens to such a dynamic system when a large, solid Border 

fence is installed? We need to continue monitoring. At other sites in Colorado and Montana toads have shown 

an initial and positive response to the fire, and then disappeared. In some watersheds, for example the San 

Diego, there is a tremendous positive response. We have found toads where we have never seen toads before 

in the burned area. They have extended their range by at least four kilometers. But in the San Dieguito, the 

fire has caused so much sedimentation that we have lost a whole population of toads this year. We have seen 

no recruitment because three feet of sediment were deposited on top of the streambed, and there has been no 

surface flow of water. The Tijuana River watershed is a bit more stable than these two systems, and the toads 

moved up and down. 

We need to continue to monitor. We need to document the habitat changes over time and see where the 

suitable habitat appears and disappears. We need to continue studies of sensitive species and other species that 

barely survive, such as the Baja leopard lizard or Cope’s leopard lizard, a species that may move populations 

from one side of the Border to the other. How fragmentation along the Border region affects these populations 

will be the focus in the coming years.

Discussion

 Dr. Ganster said that GNEB’s last report focuses on the effect of natural disasters on the Border 

environment and one of the things noted was the effect of these catastrophic fires on natural systems 

and natural species. But it seems that that these fires can be bad or can be good, depending on the 

species and the location. Dr. Brown said the frequency of fire is a major factor in how the species 

respond and whether the habitat allows the species to be flexible in that fire. If the fire comes through 

at a long enough interval, it allows the species to recover from it and to move upstream or 

downstream. With having huge fire upon huge fire, we are finding low species diversity in those areas 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 18

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

because they do not have time to recover between fires, and the fires are so catastrophic, so large, that 

there are no refuges for the population to hold out and recover. 

 Ms. Keith said the topic of GNEB’s report this year will be innovation and incentives along the 

Border area to reduce pollution. Is there an arena for innovations or incentives in species’ habitat? 

Dr. Brown thought there was. Part of the impact to the species results from the huge levels of various 

contaminants from human hormones to agricultural by-products that end up in the watersheds. If we 

can keep the water cleaner going through the Tijuana River watershed, it could benefit the arroyo toad 

in that area. The water definitely smells of chemicals and we found no aquatic vertebrates in the 

water. It would be good to both monitor the water quality and capture some of the runoff to determine 

its constituents. 

When we look at the burn area we are looking at the components of the ash. We fly over and get a 

spectral signal of the reflection of the ash throughout San Diego and then on ground trips, we get 

samples of the ash to determine what will end up in the watershed, affecting those species. There is a 

need for technology both in the monitoring and in recovery for these species.

Ms. Keith clarified that innovation would not necessarily apply to the habitat prevention aspect but 

might apply to recovery of a habitat. Dr. Brown meant that stopping the point source of these fires 

would be a major, major victory. If we could apply technology to keeping the fire from flowing 

through there, to stopping the sources of the fire, to reducing the ignition sources, that would be a 

major victory as well.

 Dr. Brown [NM] asked about the reach below Tecate Creek, a particular interest because the 

dissolved oxygen was absolutely nil and the fecal coliform contents were 108to 1010 colony-forming 

units per 100 milliliters. In their work they found that the metals in that part of the basin were about 

equal to the metals in Santa Monica Bay—on a par with what you would expect of a North American 

urbanized industrial area, but the bacteriological contamination was off the scale. What has happened 

with any plans for Tecate, Baja California to fix the wastewater problem? It was a fairly simple, 

straightforward problem—they were dumping large quantities of poorly and untreated sewage. Are 

you still seeing those kinds of bacteriological concentrations? Dr. Brown [CA] said they have no 

results from the bacteriological components yet, although dissolved oxygen is almost zero, in the 

range of 3 to 5%. The water did not have the raw sewage smell in 1995 that is does now. It was a 

much more chemically, much more a detergent smell, so they are really interested in getting some 

water quality samples later this fall.

 Dr. Ganster said Mexican students and faculty at the Chemistry Department at the Autonomous 

University of Baja California have done a number of studies, although he was not sure how far 

rehabilitation of the Tecate Sewage Treatment Plant had gotten. Tecate has functioned quite well and 

they have worked with others through the Border 2012 Program and are installing an artificial 

wetlands in the Rancho la Puerta area. The important thing is that people in Tecate have become 

aware of the river and the need to do something about it. The problem remains hostage to rapid 

urbanization and scant funding. Dr. Brown thought this related to the question of a focal point of 

innovative opportunities—Rancho la Puerta is a very expensive spa, and it is immediately upstream 

from this area. Between the constructed wetland and the rehabilitation and the possibility of passive 

recreation, there might be an opportunity for innovation.

 Mr. Niemeyer asked what kind of permits researchers need to get from the Mexican government to do 

research in Mexico. Secondly, California state park rangers complained about the fence that was built 

a few years ago because it allowed additional sedimentation, which killed the plants and they 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 19

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

mentioned the number of plateaus that had endemic plant species. If this triple fence is erected, it 

would damage or even wipe out these plant species. Dr. Brown agreed that the triple fence is a big 

concern because this area is the northernmost extent of some of these species. So a species from the 

United States could easily be in this area, and may or may not have protection in Mexico, making it of 

concern to the USGS as well as the Fish and Wildlife Services. 

For all of Dr. Brown’s fieldwork, such as the red-legged frog or the other toad surveys, they are using 

Mexican permits for fieldwork, usually conducted through Universidad Autónoma de Baja California 

(UABC).

Public Comment

Dr. Ganster reported that no one had signed up to make a public comment, so participants would continue 

with the next scheduled presenter. 

Colorado River Joint Cooperative Project, U.S.–Mexico

Carlos Marin, U. S. Commissioner, International Boundary and Water Commission

The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) has been working very hard on this cooperative 

program in the Colorado River. There was an agreement between Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne

and Mexico’s Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan for which enforcement and development was assigned to the 

IBWC. Each of the seven basin states is very protective of its water. There are four working groups and each 

state wants to be represented in each working group. As an international agency with a U.S. and a Mexican 

Section, IBWC’s responsibility is applying the boundary and water treaties between the two countries and 

settling the differences that arise in their application. 

The three international river basins in which the IBWC works along the Border are: the Tijuana River Basin, 

the Rio Grande Basin, and the Colorado River Basin. In the Colorado River Basin there are seven U.S. basin 

states. We represent Mexico’s as the eighth interest. The Rio Grande basin basically operates under the 1944 

Treaty and the 1906 Convention. The 1906 Convention provides for delivery to Mexico of 60,000 acre-feet of 

water at El Paso–Ciudad Juarez; the rest of the state of Texas is governed by the 1944 Treaty. For the 

Colorado River, annually, the United States delivers 1.5 million acre-feet of water to Mexico, with water 

generated from the seven basin states. We deliver Colorado water at Morelos Dam, and any surplus water to 

as much as 1.7 million acre-feet. In the event of extraordinary drought, Mexico’s allotment is reduced in 

proportion to the reduction of U.S. users.

Lake Powell and Lake Mead, because of the severe drought, are about 50% full at this time, although a wet 

winter this past year helped to store water and prevent shortages for a year or two. Inflows depend on 

snowfall in the northern states that drains into the Colorado River system and then is stored at Lake Powell or 

Lake Mead. The Bureau of Reclamation has adopted shortage guidelines for the lower three basin states. One 

of the things that the shortage criteria identify is that the shortage would come to the three lower basin states. 

In dealing with issues on the Colorado River, in 1995 IBWC established five working groups composed of 

members of IBWC’s U. S. and Mexican Sections, the Bureau of Reclamation and Mexico’s National Water 

Commission (CONAGUA). The groups considered issues such as sediment, salinity, ecosystems in the delta, 

the history of the All American Canal Lining, conveyance capacity and boundary preservation. The sediment 

issue arose because of floods on the Colorado River in 1982 and 1992 that brought some 20 million cubic 

yards of material into the system, raising the river channel about 10 feet, increasing groundwater levels, and 

transporting a considerable amount of sediment into Mexico. 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 20

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

Minute 242 relates to a well system in the United States used to dilute the water coming from the United 

States to meet salinity requirements before it goes into Mexico. We monitor salinity daily to make sure that 

the deliveries meet the requirement. When Mexico receives irrigation water that comes back into the system, 

a spike in salinity from the U.S. side would prevent them from using the water because salinity would affect 

germination of the seeds and so forth. Water managers in both countries are concerned by increased demands, 

drought, and potential shortages. In two to three years we will likely be imposing shortage criteria on the 

seven basin states plus Mexico. 

We also started a project related to conveyance capacity and boundary preservation to re-establish the 

boundary. We have not had an agreement with Mexico since 1972 on the actual alignment on the Colorado 

River within the limitrophe section. Because of the meander of the river caused by the 1982 flood and the 

1992 flood, Mexico would lose territory if we used the low-flow channel, the criterion mentioned in the 1970 

Boundary Treaty, and Mexico has never agreed to it. So officially the 1972 maps determine where the center 

of the channel would be even though the channel is no longer there. Mexico’s constitution of course does not

allow them to lose territory, although we do have some situations in which we exchange territory but it has to 

be in equal acreage on both sides.

Minute 306, signed in 2000, addresses ecosystems in the Colorado River delta. We established a separate 

work group for environmental issues and ensuring that we preserve the delta. The IBWC agreed to establish 

the framework for cooperation on the ecosystem in the Colorado River, delta, and limitrophe. An advisory 

group of representatives from the United States and Mexico was established to propose various restoration 

and conservation projects. There are 18 projects identified to restore the ecosystem in the area, projects 

related to improving flow regime, native vegetation, and hydraulic modeling. In the delta area, we have the 

Wellton-Mohawk salinity canal, which transports the high-saline water from the agricultural fields in the 

Wellton area to the Gulf of California. About 90 to 99% of the time, a 23-mile portion of the Colorado River 

is completely dry, which is a very controversial issue with Mexico. 

According to the 404 Plan, the State of California was to be put on a water diet, i.e., their allocation was to be 

4.4 million acre-feet per year instead of 5.3 million to 5.4 million acre-feet with no excess flows. Therefore 

the State of California was seeking other methods of replacing that water, and one method was lining the AllAmerican Canal to be paid for by the State of California. This lining would conserve 67,000 acre-feet of 

water, most of which would be delivered to the San Diego County Water Authority. Of course Mexico 

opposed reduction of the flow because it would affect their well system and wetlands, which, according to 

them, were developed from this canal seepage. Despite extensive consultation with Mexico, we could never 

reach an agreement. Finally it ended up in court and was decided in favor of the United States. Construction, 

begun in 2007, is expected to be completed by 2010. 

Minute 301 represents the first time we looked at desalination cooperatively with Mexico. Under Minute 301, 

there is a bi-national feasibility study for a bi-national aqueduct to convey Colorado River water to urban 

areas in Baja California and California. Bi-national coastal desalination plans were also considered and IBWC 

facilitated cooperation between the San Diego Water Authority, the State of California, and Mexican federal 

and state agencies. Our agency’s primary role is to facilitate cooperation between the two countries. We 

convene our stakeholders or our technical advisors from other federal agencies, state agencies, and so forth, 

and then we facilitate discussions and the outcome of projects. Once a project is established, it has federal 

backing from both countries. 

Minute 310 concerns water conveyed through the United States and delivered to Mexico in Tijuana at Otay 

Mesa; Mexico pays for all the operation and maintenance related to the volume of water. This Minute will 

expire in November of this year, but we already have a draft to extend this agreement for another five years. 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 21

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

The joint statement issued by the U.S. Department of the Interior and Mexico’s ambassador indicates that 

IBWC should be utilized to expedite discussions on Colorado River cooperation on the following issues: 

study of the hydrological system, potential impacts of climate change, including the effects of ongoing 

Colorado River drought, environmental priorities including Colorado River delta habitat protection and 

enhancement, opportunities for water conservation storage and supply, augmentation such as seawater 

desalination and reuse, strategies aimed to ease variations in the Colorado River system, and more efficient 

Colorado River water deliveries to Mexico. Participants of the U.S. Core Groups include IBWC, the Bureau 

of Reclamation, the State of California, the State of Arizona, the State of Nevada, a representative from the 

four upper basin states, and nongovernmental organizations. Mexico’s Core Group includes the Mexican 

Section of IBWC, the National Water Commission, the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources, 

the State of Baja California, the State of Sonora, the Embassy of Mexico Ministry of Foreign Relations, and 

various nongovernmental organizations. Each country has established its objectives for the cooperative 

process. The objectives are pretty much the same, but the priorities differ. The IBWC promotes cooperation 

by developing a task force to help remedy the situation.

Discussion

 Mr. Guerrero asked what had become of the Texas farmers’ project of a few years ago to put in an 

irrigation system both for delivery and conveyance, as well as for on-farm irrigation in Mexico. Mr. 

Marin replied that Mexico was not meeting their treaty requirements, and at one point were 1.5 

million acre-feet behind in Rio Grande water deliveries to the United States. Finally, Mexico paid up 

its debt in September 2005. But, this year (and the cycle year ends October 1), they have delivered 

only about 45,000 of the required 350,000 acre-feet. As for the money provided by NADBank, some 

$80 million was put into the irrigation systems—$40 million for the United States, $40 million for 

Mexico. Mexico invested its $40 million in the Delicia areas for the improvements of their system; 

that is covered under the Commission’s Minute 309. 

IBWC's role is to monitor and ensure that Mexico delivers to the United States water that is 

conserved. They are supposed to release that water during the months of November through January 

to prevent excess evaporation, but they normally release it in March and, so far this year, not at all. 

Mexico has a complaint on that issue. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Hacienda 

met before that Minute was approved and discussed providing Mexico $100 million for additional 

conservation, but the money was never appropriated, so Mexico does not feel compelled to adhere to 

the delivery schedule.

 Mr. Manzanilla asked what the order of magnitude difference is in per-capita water consumption of 

Colorado River users in Mexico versus the United States. Mr. Marin said that normally the per-capita 

used in Mexico is much less than in the United States. Currently most of the 1.5 million acre-feet we 

provide Mexico yearly is used for agriculture, and a small portion is put in the Mexican aqueduct and 

taken to Tijuana. But that system is outdated and the capacity does not meet the need, so now they are 

also using our system. 

 Mr. Manzanilla asked for clarification on Nevada’s proposed desalinization plant. Is that so they can 

use Mexico’s allocation because the desalinization plant would be for Mexico’s use? Mr. Marin said 

Mexico would treat the water, but that water would go to California, and then Nevada would take 

California water. Mr. Manzanilla surmised and Mr. Marin agreed that Mexico would be interested if 

they could get more than the usual allocation. Mr. Marin added that Nevada is so desperate for water 

that they will pay for the plant. Mr. Manzanilla thought desalination plants were also big energy 

users. Mr. Marin agreed, saying that is why they want to build it in Mexico closer to more energy 

sources, which might be cheaper than U.S. sources. Mr. Marin said Nevada talked in billions of 

dollars.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 22

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

 Ms. Grijalva asked how salty is the water in the 242 wells, how much water is involved, and where 

that water comes from. Mr. Marin replied that the East Main and West drains or canals provide water 

to the irrigation systems south of Yuma, and much of it returns as salty water. The water in another 

system contains about 3500 parts per million, and that must be diluted to about 1200 parts per 

million, so when it gets to its destination it contains 1500 to 1800 parts per million. To do this, we 

turn on enough pumps to get non-salty water.

 Ms. Siwik asked whether similar joint cooperative processes were in place for areas that depend on

groundwater, noting that, so far, those aquifers are shared on both sides of the border. Ms. Marin said 

that groundwater is a state issue in the United States; it is not managed by the federal government. 

But, the IBWC is trying to establish bi-national cooperation under a bill by Senator Bingaman of New 

Mexico, who acquired $5 million to study and quantify trans-boundary aquifers. Surface water is 

treated differently than groundwater because the states own the rivers. For the Rio Grande—even 

though we monitor, we measure, we control it, we release it—we do not own a single drop of it. Rio 

Grande water is entirely owned by the State of Texas. For the Colorado River, the Bureau of 

Reclamation is the delivery agent, but not the owner. 

 Dr. Brown recalled that in 1995 IBWC established the Colorado River Task Force. In 2007, when 

IBWC produced the Seven States White Paper, the response from the Department of Interior and the 

Mexican Ambassador established another cooperative working mechanism, with four work groups. 

He wondered if these were related. Mr. Marin said that the first set of task groups responded to an 

IBWC initiative to address the issues facing both countries. The second group is a bit more formal. 

Eventually, we will establish a Minute that outlines a process so that future programs will at least 

have the framework to get those groups going. This will facilitate establishing a group to consider the 

recommendations made. We are working with the State Department to get approval of the Minute that 

would establish the process. 

Dumping on Tribal Lands: Pala Reservation New Transfer Station

Rod Watkins, Director of Environmental Services, Pala Band of Mission Indians

[for Lenore Volturno]

Tribal environmental programs were established in 1997 to exert more tribal sovereignty. Tribes on the 

reservations often use the word “sovereignty,” much as Mexico would say to the United States, we are a 

separate country and we have our own way of doing things. The goal of the environmental programs is to 

protect the environment and public health, including solid waste issues, which include junkyards, illegal 

dumping, waste tires, off-reservation solid waste sources, trash disposal, hazardous waste, and renters. (Fee 

land, which is land within the boundaries of the tribal reservation, but is not owned by the tribe and is not part 

of the reservation.) We regularly celebrate resolution of these issues on Earth Day.

We have grants from EPA for air quality, water quality, and pesticides. Originally the solid waste program 

was not a large part of our operation. Then in 2001 the Tribal Executive Committee opted to fund these 

remediation programs by themselves. Since then we have been doing community outreach to educate people 

about solid waste and what to do with it. The public, in this instance, is limited to tribal members on the Pala 

Reservation, which houses a band of Mission Indians just south of Riverside County about five miles east of 

the Route 15, on the very north end of San Diego County.

Now we have a full-time recycling transfer station run by a supervisor and five employees; tribal government 

has been very supportive. We purchased the property to build a transfer station from a trucking company, 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 23

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

which had used the area for a mechanic shop. We began, in 2001, with reservation clean-ups. In earlier days, 

reservation property was allotted to tribal members and their families to generate revenue because the land 

was not good for agriculture. Some tribal members turned their property into dumps, and people would pay 

them to dispose of cars, boats, trailers, and what-have-you on their property. This made clean-up a significant 

issue, although it has not been as bad for the Pala tribe as for some others. For example, the Torres-Martinez 

Reservation has to have state intervention and involvement of county and other people in their program. 

Many reservations have the same issues, and then once you create a problem like a stack of cars or garbage, it 

generates more; like graffiti, if you leave it, it seems to breed on its own.

After 1997 Pala residents started hauling refuse off-site with our own dump trucks. At the same time the tribe 

developed a solid waste disposal plan, but tribal members were still dumping their trash at the old landfill site, 

and over a very brief period, it became the biggest dump site on the reservation.

We also had issues with hazardous waste, oil in this case. We had issues with tires. To haul this material offsite we contracted with local waste haulers who brought in roll-off dumpsters, which we filled and they 

hauled away for appropriate disposal. However, people still need to get rid of their garbage. We began to 

collect garbage at that time, but we needed to get rid of it in such a manner that would be a good example to 

the community. So we opened an area and started reclaiming the landfill site and actually making it a landfill. 

Then we fenced off a temporary transfer station, which we recently closed because we have a new transfer 

station. Reservations are typically isolated, so they tend to attract roadside dumping. In our Lilac Road 

project, 27 tons from non-tribal property was removed, for a total of 44 tons of trash removed from the 

reservation.

We have funded these programs creatively combining California Integrated Waste Management Board grant 

money ($94,000), tribal money, an EPA fund, and Bureau of Indian Affairs money ($2700). We have had 

some really good projects, some combined with the county, e.g., tire removals, household hazardous waste 

days. The county brought in two roll-off dumpsters, our crews filled them and the county hauled them away. 

Now that everything has been hauled away, only one roll-off sits there. 

Being a sovereign nation makes disposal easier. For example, on a property where someone passed away, and 

the family wanted all of his things moved out, we did not have to get paperwork to remove the two vehicles. 

The State of California would have required a lot of paperwork. Now there is a significant effort to remove 

mobile homes. For example, when another tribal member passed away, he had seven old beat-up, substandard 

mobile homes. His renters are being evicted and the trailers are being pulled down to the bottom of the hill 

and demolished.

When the local school has Earth Day, it also is called Cupa Cultural Days. Cupa is the band of Indians from 

whom the Pala Band of Mission Indians originated. We use the occasion to educate the children and hand out 

information, and we tried to promote our brand-new waste management program. In September at Pala, the 

Institute for Tribal and Environmental Professionals (ITEP) will offer a training program for transfer station 

people to educate them on procedures. We are going to be hosting it there; ITEP will provide the staff and do 

the training.

However you feel about Indian gaming, many good things result from it, e.g., building the transfer stations, 

and several other projects are underway. When you start trying to teach people that they cannot just throw 

their garbage out the window and leave it on their property, you have to give them an alternative. The State of 

California passed a law on electronic-waste (e-waste) disposal prohibiting e-waste in the landfill, but they did 

not give anybody an alternative method of disposal. It has to be handled specifically as e-waste, but proper 

disposal was not part of the legislation. Pala dealt with that issue by laying asphalt, fencing the area, and 

bringing in roll-off dumpsters. We laid out pallets where we collect TVs and computer monitors; then we call 

an e-waste handler in San Diego to come and get it.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 24

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

Also, we have roll-off dumpsters for metal recycling, which is free, and we have a redemption program for 

bottles and plastic bottles, which we recycle and pay the California redemption rate. We compress cardboard 

with our $70,000 compactor, which also packs the cardboard into 1800-pound bales. The bottles are much 

lighter, but this method increases the efficiency of handling them. And, we designated a hazardous waste 

storage area.

We have enforcement tools, solid waste management plans, long-term plans. We don’t really dispose of 

anything at our location, so the transfer station is a big part of the effort to transfer the waste to the 

appropriate site for disposal. We work with the county and other operators for the disposal of the garbage, 

tires, e-waste, and hazardous waste. We take people to court, we fine them. In conclusion, this is a multifaceted approach and a work in progress. 

Discussion

 Dr. Brown was interested in the educational and outreach component. The dynamic results from a 

long-standing set of behaviors based on lack of options and perhaps of understanding of the 

environmental outcomes. Dr. Brown wanted to know more about the educational component and how 

the tribe is working to change people’s behaviors and beliefs. Mr. Watkins said they provide a 

consistent program. They meet with the various classes and give the children handouts and things 

they can take home to their parents. They regularly send information to the tribal newsletter. 

As part of the air quality outreach program, they are monitoring indoor air quality, offering test kits 

for mold and radon. But, for solid waste, they have a refuse collection system for about 430 

customers. Within the last three weeks, they have distributed more than 200 big, blue recycling 

containers with wheels, which are so labeled and across the top specify what can be collected in them. 

Once the Refuse Department picks up the containers in a truck that follows the truck that picks up 

garbage, all these materials are sorted at the transfer station—the bottles separated from plastics from 

paper and so forth. The process helps educate people and gets them thinking about what they can do. 

The original plan was that all tribal members would get free refuse service for all their garbage from 

the transfer station, and nobody else would be able to use the system. But, in February, the Tribal 

Executive Committee opened the station to everyone, and is charging everyone.

Now tribal members are starting to see the value of it, and transfer station usage has picked up 

significantly. This is a bit about educating people on the importance of making things look good and 

be healthy and clean and taking pride in what they are doing. And, we have stressed the pride part of 

it, taking advantage of Indian tribes’ great sense of pride of community and of Mother Earth and 

taking care of those kinds of things, that they should take pride in themselves and in their tribe and in 

Mother Earth and the responsibility they have to her.

 Dr. Austin asked what is the proportion of fee land to tribal land, and what is the number of tribal 

members and non-tribal residents of the reservation. Mr. Watkins said the Pala Tribe has 12,000 acres 

of trust and reservation lands and another 3,500 acres they have purchased. Within the reservation 

boundary, there are about 500 non-members; and there are some 1500 tribal members, but some live 

off the reservation. 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 25

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

New River and Artificial Wetlands: Using Nature to Clean Water

Marie Barrett, Outreach Coordinator, Citizen’s Congressional Task Force (CCTF), New River Wetland 

Project

Ms. Barrett distributed a brochure on the New River Wetlands Project for which the CCTF won the California 

Governor’s 2006 Environmental Award. The New River flows across an international Border and it has been 

very dirty for very long. Valley residents have dealt with this for more than 90 years, and finally they decided 

to get together as a citizens’ group. In 1997, they formed the CCTF on the New River.

First, we needed money and permits; then we constructed two small sites to prove to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish and Game and other government agencies that wetlands would 

work, despite the fact that wetlands have been working for millennia. They are known as nature’s filters. We 

also installed an aeration structure along New River. The New River flows from Mexicali for 20 or 30 miles 

before it drops and creates aeration. So by putting an aeration structure closer to the Border, we might be able 

to add some dissolved oxygen. Both the New River, which flows along the west side of Imperial Valley, and 

the Alamo, which flows along the east side of the Imperial Valley, enter the Salton Sea. But the contents of 

New River are basically agricultural runoff, containing fertilizer, etc. Raw sewage comes across the Border, 

as does foam from the phosphates used in soap, and organic compounds, metals, pesticides, and various 

disease-causing organisms. The CCTF decided that wetlands would be the least expensive and most effective

way to clean up these pollutants because wetlands break down many different pollutants and excess nutrients. 

Meanwhile, wetlands provide a wonderful habitat for many creatures, and they absorb heavy metals, filter out 

toxins, and provide a massive food base. They also offer recreation and bird-watching opportunities. 

Most constructed wetlands are used for domestic wastewater, for sewage treatment. The agricultural wetlands 

differ in that we also have to remove sediment. For pilot projects (these lands were donated), we selected the 

Imperial site, which is about 68 acres; it will have a settling pond and four wetlands. The Brawley site is 

about seven acres on the Imperial Research Station using New River water, which has to be pumped; we built 

a settling pond and two wetlands. The water goes into the settling pond and then through the different 

“fingers” and then back to the New River. We have about 30 wet acres. We were concerned about how soon 

the wetland will fill up; they have been in since about 1999 and we have not had to dredge them yet.

We have received about $4.5 million dollars, much of which was spent on six years’ worth of monitoring. 

Dissolved oxygen improved so biological activity is taking place (3.5 mg per liter is necessary to sustain life). 

We had almost a 50% decrease in total nitrogen, 40% decrease in phosphorus, 20% decrease in selenium 

(bacteria break down selenium in warm waters), and 94% decrease in suspended solids—the dirt, silt, etc. In 

addition, wetlands are very effective in decreasing fecal coliform. Under the observation of U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Services and the California Department of Fish and Game, we monitored sediment, fish eggs, and 

bird eggs. 

We hope to acquire 4000 acres for the wetlands project; we think that would allow delivery of clean water to 

the Salton Sea and to the people around the Salton Sea. We have identified sites, have done biological and 

archaeological surveys, and have obtained the permits, so as soon as we get funding, we can begin 

construction. Currently we are working on the Shank Road Wetlands; it is 65% complete and may be finished 

in May. We also started a Holtville site. The city of Holtville is very supportive, and as soon as we have more 

funding, we will finish it. We have a small grant for outreach from the Bureau of Reclamation, which we use 

for a basic curriculum, which any school can use. We also work with the Calexico New River Committee in 

the Calexico Aeration Study. We need a sediment basin for some of the dirt and other particles to settle out.

We have worked with: the Wildlife Conservation Board, Salton Sea Authority, California Department of Fish 

and Game, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and the county. We have worked with the 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 26

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

cities to put in wetlands as wastewater treatment plants. We fund the Imperial Valley Regional Occupational 

Program to arrange school bus tours to the wetlands. We also work with the colleges: currently we have a 

display at Imperial Valley College on the New River and Salton Sea. The University of California at the 

Desert Research Station has a program for winter visitors and schoolchildren; 80,000 people had gone 

through this program. To prevent salt cedars from growing in the wetland and increasing salinity, we schedule 

volunteers for salt cedar clean-up days.

We recently published a master plan executive summary that shows that wetlands do remove substantial 

pollutant loads. Moreover, wetlands incur lower capital operating and management costs and lower risk to 

wildlife than some other projects. Everything is on our Web site, but the proof is in the wildlife that has 

moved into the wetland. At the Salton Sea International Bird Festival, more than 100 different species, 

including the black rail, were sighted and seem to be doing well. We also have brown pelicans, dragon flies, 

bobcats, bass, catfish, snakes, and snapping turtles.

Discussion

 Mr. Dorsey asked whether the CCTF had to file a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR), how long 

it took CCTF to go through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, and what 

was the cost of CEQA compliance. Ms. Barrett replied that CCTF had to comply with the Act, as any 

other organization would, but they did get help from Fish and and Wildlife Service, so it was not a 

large part of their costs. CCTF’s biggest cost is monitoring, which CEQA requires. They did not have 

to obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) permit.

 Ms. Grijalva understood that the General Services Administration had requested the state of Baja 

California and the city of Mexicali to work on the water quality of the New River because of the 

expansion of the new port of entry being built there, and that they have progressed on that. Did the 

monitoring indicate a difference? Ms. Barrett referred Ms. Grijalva to the Colorado River Quality 

Control Board, which monitors daily, whereas CCTF has monitored for six years and now only does 

it quarterly.

 Dr. Austin asked who designs the wetlands. Was there one design for all of them or is each designed 

independently? Ms. Barrett said they contracted with a local engineering company to survey and 

inventory. They base the design on elevation because they want all the wetlands to use gravity flow 

rather than pumps; this water is hard on pumps. Some of the design work is done by the Bureau of 

Reclamation.

 Mr. Niemeyer asked the best time of the year to view these wetlands, Ms. Barrett thought fall or early 

spring when the bullrushes start growing and there are more birds.

 As for water quality, Dr. Brown noted that the river registers 91,000 mpn (most probable number) 

fecal coliform in Imperial County, closer to the Mexican Border, but then it goes to 1.3 million mpn. 

Ms. Barrett said agricultural drain water reads about 91,000 mpn. The New River’s 1.3 million count 

is caused by the numerous birds, especially red-winged blackbirds at this time of year, in addition to 

the cattle in the area. We do not distinguish between the different types of fecal coliform, e.g., E. coli; 

therefore she cannot say, for instance, that 20% is caused bird defecation and 50% by raw sewage. 

 Dr. Ganster wondered if these wetlands are becoming a major destination for birders. Do people 

come to the valley primarily to visit these sites, or do is a visit just part of a general visit to the valley? 

Has CCTF calculated the economic impact? Ms. Barrett said this wetland is a “life lister.” Everyone 

will come to that spot to look for that bird, but overall, when people come to bird-watch, the major 

attraction is the Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge, the wetlands, the Fig Lagoon, 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 27

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

depending on what species are in the valley, which depends on the season. Now, our egg-lands are a 

great draw for birds. The mountain plover, which can be a life lister, are found in agricultural fields. 

We have almost as many species in the Imperial Valley as they do in the Rio Grande Valley. Our 

birding festival usually brings in about 200 people and our questionnaire indicates that they are 

sending $300 to $400 per person.

 Dr. Roeder clarified that a minute amount of New River water goes through the wetlands, which, he 

said, partly explains why the pollution is not completely remediated. Ms. Barrett believes they need 

4000 acres of wetlands to effectively clean both the New and the Alamo Rivers. Currently, they have 

about 50 acres at this site, 250 acres at the Shank Road site (which they have $450,000 to finish), and 

another 100 acres at the Holtville site. Building enough wetlands to remediate all the pollution 

depends on funding.

Board Members Report-Out Presentations

U. S. Department of Transportation—Sylvia Grijalva

 Last week in Laredo, Texas, the U. S.–Mexico Joint Working Committee met. Members represent U. 

S. federal agencies and their Mexican counterparts, e.g., the Department of Transportation (DOT) and 

the Department of State (DOS) on the U. S. side; and the Secretaría de Transportation & 

Communication Ministry (SCT) and the Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores (SRE) on the Mexican 

side. They have bi-annual work plans, one of which is studying Border wait-times. 

 To devise regional Border master plans, we decided to ask for input from USEPA and SEMARNAP 

(the Mexican Environment, Natural Resources & Fisheries Ministry) so we understand the 

requirements and the North American Development Bank (NADBank) relationship, which is 

important because of the way SCT is going to concession the new ports of entry. We want to 

document the guidelines more clearly and help people getting loans and grants from NADBank to 

better identify environmental benefits. It is harder for people on the Mexican side because they don’t 

have the infrastructure to document environmental benefits as we do on the U.S. side. 

New Mexico Environment Department—Marissa Stone

 The New Mexico Environment Department is working on several initiatives, including the proposed 

Desert Rock Coal-fired Power Plant, proposed by the Navajo Nation and opposed by Governor 

Richardson. We are requesting a more thorough review from EPA because there are grave concerns 

about the air quality implications. 

 In addition, we are concerned about the potential adverse effects on New Mexico air quality of a restart of the Asarco Copper Smelter in El Paso, which the Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality (TCEQ) recently approved and permitted. 

 We continue to work on several climate change initiatives, including, the Western Climate Initiative.

 And, we are recycling many, many tires along the Border.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 28

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

USEPA Region 9—Enrique Manzanilla [representing Laura Yoshii]

 For the last several years, USEPA Region 9 has been working with the Border Environment 

Cooperation Commission (BECC) to support the allocation of Border 2012 funds. Our solicitation for 

$1 million has already closed and we should be making selection decisions around August 15. 

 Region 6 in Dallas is also managing its solicitation through the Border Environment Cooperation 

Commission. Its $800,000 solicitation opened June 17 and will close August 29; selection decisions 

should be made by the end of October. (The RFP is on the BECC website at <cocef.org>).

 Over the past year, the Border 2012 program has embarked on “mid-course refinements,” reviewing 

program objectives. A draft of our revisions was circulated last March through April and we are 

expecting to finalize the document and circulate it at the National Coordinator’s Meeting in 

September.

 The BECC is also prioritizing its projects. We expect to announce that solicitation in August or 

September; applications will be due 45 days after that.

 We are beginning to publish short newsletters, probably every two months, focusing on different 

goals from the Border 2012 program and other projects. The first edition covers improving air quality 

in Arizona/Senora and describes three different efforts in that area. The next one may be on water. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—Shannon Sorzano

 HUD continues to work with the colonias along the U. S.–Mexican Border, working with non-profit 

organizations, constructing new homes, and helping in housing counseling programs and starting 

small business incubator programs. 

 Through our university partnership program, Hispanic-Serving Institutions Assisting Communities 

(HISIAC), we have given a grant to Imperial Valley College to help them work with people in 

colonias to get them ready to participate in the workforce. We teach them not only a trade, but work 

ethic, personal accountability, reliability, and responsibility. 

 We also gave a HISIAC grant to San Diego State University at Imperial Valley to teach people from 

the colonias skills, such as computer literacy, leadership, problem-solving, and decision-making.

Malpai Borderlands Group—Edward Elbrock

 The Malpai Borderlands Group has been working with Border Patrol on the Border fence. They 

wanted to build an access road with vehicle barriers along the border in an area that had no access, 

although natural barriers already exist. Apparently they reached their conclusions from looking at a 

map, but, after a mule ride to see the area, the district supervisor of the Border Patrol agreed that there 

are already enough barriers there.

 We do the planning and identify the plots for prescribed burns. The Forest Service carries them out on 

the forest land, and the State Land Department on state land. We scheduled one for 250 acres, but the 

wind blew up, and about 4000 acres were burned; luckily no structures were damaged. The Forest 

Service plans to burn 2500 acres next week. The one for today will burn 21,000 acres. We think 

prescribed burns are doing some good, although we cannot be sure until we see what happens over 

the long term.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 29

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)—Stephen Niemeyer

 The Board of Governor’s Conference meets monthly. The 10 U. S. states have seven representatives 

who work on declarations throughout the year, which the governors sign as a joint communication.

 Carlos Rubenstein, who is our Rio Grande Water Master, effective yesterday, became TCEQ’s 

Deputy Executive Director. He is still going to be our point person on water negotiations with 

Mexico.

 We worked with Eagle Pass to dispose of some 240,000 tires through the Border 2012 program, and 

now Cuidad Acuna wants to dispose of tires by shipping them to Piedras Negras, which will then 

send them to CEMEX cement kiln in Monterey. The problem is that there is no freight line between 

Acuna and Piedras Negras, and they are about an hour and a half apart by road.

 Finally, May 28 and 29, there was a Bi-National Water Infrastructure conference in San Diego hosted 

by the Water Education Foundation. The Coachella irrigation district is lining their canal at a cost of 

$83 million because they are losing about 30,000 acre-feet of water a year. The California 

Department of Water Resources is paying $80 million of that. 

 Texas approved a permit in February for Asarco in El Paso, Texas. However, the city of El Paso has 

filed a complaint with EPA regarding the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) part of the 

permit.

New Mexico State University—Christopher Brown

 We are the GIS consultants for the Joint Working Community and Bi-National Transportation 

project. We are conducting the phase II bi-national infrastructure needs assessment, which allows data 

compilation with U. S. and Mexican Departments of Transportation to pull together current 

information and plan future transportation infrastructure and needs assessments. New Mexico has a 

similar interest to pull together geospatial data that would support NADBank proposals.

 At the 25th Anniversary Seminar for the Colegio de la Frontera Norte in Tijuana, I was invited to 

submit a written report (which took no less than nine months to pull together), which I have 

submitted; it will be published in Spanish. 

 We are also in discussions with people at the U. S. International Boundary and Water Commission 

concerning a proposal for a Science Advisory Board. The commissioners and their senior staff get 

together regularly to talk about important issues and we want this to be one of those important issues. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—Rafael Guerrero

 Secretary Juan Elvira Quesada has invited Arlen Lancaster, chief of the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, to Mexico City to explore the possibility of a joint collaboration for the 

creation of a bi-national Border-land ecological restoration program. Mr. Lancaster has accepted. The 

initiative would look at water conservation, as well as efforts to combat this certification. 

 Mr. Guerrero distributed brochures from his agency that describe the work they do with farmers and 

ranchers. He also distributed copied of an article published in Time magazine, “Why California is 

Burning.”
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 30

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

Cameron County, Brownsville, Texas—John Wood

 Secretary of the Department of Homeland (DHS) Security Michael Chertoff has waived about 37 

laws and regulations to build a fence in the Rio Grande Valley. They seem to think “one size fits all.” 

In our area, we will be putting homes, farmland, businesses, and subdivisions on the other side of the 

proposed fence, between the fence and the river. They have suggested giving some of the farmers

keys or garage-door openers to open the gates so the farmers can tend their crops and cattle. 

 The Texas Border Coalition, a coalition of counties and cities, has filed suit against the DHS, joining 

a Brownsville woman who has filed a suit protesting their taking her property.

 About six weeks ago, we had one of the regular drills to prepare for hurricanes. The Border Patrol, 

along with other law enforcement agencies, normally participate in these drills because of their role in 

the event that we have to evacuate these people and take control of the area. Part of the plan is to use 

local school buses to pick up people who don’t have transportation and take them to a centralized 

point where they get off the school buses. Here, they are wrist-banded to know where they came 

from, so the state can keep track of them when they put them on other buses and take them to our 

evacuation point in San Antonio. This time, however, a Border Patrol agent was standing at the state’s 

bus wanting to verify people’s legal status, which created a big problem. Although this was a drill, it 

made headlines. It has caused people to be extremely fearful of the possibility of having to evacuate 

and not knowing what might happen to them or their family members. They may be legal, but some 

of their family members may not be. So that is going to create problems for all of us and threaten 

human lives.

 Many people live in colonias, which have received bond monies (one for about $14 million and the 

other about $7 million) to do street repairs and street building and to improve drainage.

 For about seven years, we have been working on relocating to the west of both cities, the 100-yearold rail line that goes through downtown Brownsville and downtown Matamoros. This will improve 

environmental issues, as well as safety in transporting hazardous cargo. We should start construction 

on the new rail line and the bridge across the river no later than next February. Normally crossings in 

international borders take longer than seven years to get to this point.

 Flooding the Bahia Grande area to return 10,000 acres to wetlands is a project that has won TCEQ 

state awards. 

 About three months ago, we had a congressional hearing in Brownsville, which included 

congressmen from California, Colorado, Texas, and elsewhere. Of the 12 people who testified, only 

two thought the Border fence was a good idea. Congressman Taveredo suggested putting the border 

fence on the north side of Brownsville, an idea that was not well received.

Campo Kumeyaay Nation—Mike Connolly

 The Tohono O’odham Tribe is working with Department of Homeland Security to find ways that 

minimize the impact of the Border fence on migratory animals that come through the area and also to 

help them issue pass/repasses for tribal members who live on the Mexican side of the border.

 The Mesa Grande Tribe is developing a manufacturing facility in Otay Mesa. It will have a panelized 

green building design, which they will introduce first on the reservation as part of an economic 

development project.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 31

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

 The Torres Martinez Tribe, at the north end of the Salton Sea, has a successful wetlands restoration 

project.

 The tribes on the Colorado River have a serious and ongoing problem with the zebra mussels, which 

are so prolific that they clog intake pipes.

 Campo is one of three tribes that has joined the Climate Registry, an organization that was formed by 

U. S. states and expanded to Canadian provinces and Mexican states. They are developing a 

standardized method for reporting and quantifying greenhouse gases. At present this registry is 

voluntary, but will probably become mandatory. They have been successful in having big 

corporations join voluntarily and report their greenhouse gas emissions because they see the benefit 

of establishing their baselines before a mandatory system comes into place.

 At Campo we are continuing to work on renewable energy, in particular wind, and are working with 

other tribes regionally and nationally. One goal is to have our casino be energy neutral and establish a 

net-metered wind-energy generation facility there. We are planning to expand the existing 50-

megawatt wind-energy facility to 300 megawatts. If we were a state, we would be the 21st in wind 

energy production.

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008

Approval of Minutes of the Washington, D. C., March 2008 Meeting

Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB

Dr. Ganster asked for discussion and comment on the minutes of the last meeting followed by a response 

from staff members.

Mr. Niemeyer asked for clarification—is the document in hand a draft of an executive summary or of actual 

minutes? It is difficult to know who asked the questions and who said what; in the public comment, it is 

impossible to tell. In a number of places, Mr. Niemeyer questioned the accuracy of the report; this seems very 

different from the way things were done previously. If the intent was to capture actual minutes, it failed 

abjectly; if the intent was to give a summary it is alright.

Ms. Wolf and Mr. Dorsey had similar concerns, but for Ms. Wolf, another concern is that the document reads 

like a statement or a report, not a discussion among board members. Even more disturbing to Mr. Dorsey is 

that the person giving the report-out is not identified.

Dr. Austin was concerned that in many places detailed information was given, without associating anybody’s

name with it. In other places it said, “the board discussed....” If this is an executive summary, we need some 

kind of rules of inclusion, and they would have to be reviewed on a higher level than minutes because minutes 

simply tell what happened.

Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano explained that the document is an executive summary. They do have detailed minutes 

of the meeting, which report everything that occurred, but copies are not now available for everyone. Mr. 

Niemeyer retorted that that is the actual transcript and it is about 100 or 150 double-spaced pages with 

numbers on the side so you refer to specific lines. In previous minutes, or whatever we call these things, he 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 32

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

recalled that it was possible to know who said what, why they said it, and what actions would be taken. After 

each person spokes, these minutes say, “discussion,” and it was a discussion but it was also a question-andanswer period of the panelists or of the speaker. This document does not really reflect that. Perhaps the 

company that was hired this time, did it differently.

Ms. Marin thought the points well taken. She thought the solution was reformatting to name speakers and 

bring a revised document to the next meeting. Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano offered to provide the transcript to 

those who want it. Mr. DeLeon will tell the contractor that we were unhappy with this product: it is different 

in tone and nature from those we approved in the past; and we would like them to attribute the statements in 

this document. 

Dr. Ganster asked if this solution would suitable to everyone. Dr. Austin thought that in addition to adding 

names, wherever they say “the board discussed,” more detail should be given. Mr. DeLeon said he can tell 

them generally what the problems are, but he would like specific concerns sent to Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano so 

they can be sure to address all of the concerns.

Ms. Keith said that if this is an executive summary, the important thing is not to state what each person said, 

but to summarize and integrate the main concerns and points. Mr. Dorsey suggested that, instead of going 

back and redoing the executive summary, they discard it and just publish the minutes. But when Dr. Ganster 

reminded participants that these summaries are already posted on the Web, Mr. Dorsey changed his mind. Dr. 

Ganster concluded that, since they like to have a document that is understandable and well written, Mr. 

DeLeon’s proposed solution would achieve that.

Mr. Niemeyer said he would turn in his marked-up copy of the minutes to the DFO, indicating proposed 

changes. Mr. DeLeon offered to post both documents on the Web, but Dr. Ganster said the motion is that we 

have this document revised and consider it at the next meeting. Participants do not need to vote on it because 

they are not approving or disapproving it, but asking for adjustments.

FACA Developments

Rafael DeLeon, Director, OCEM

In addition to FACA, Mr. DeLeon will discuss lobbying, by-laws, term limits, and measures.

FACA

Mr. DeLeon’s office has oversight of all of the EPA’s federal advisory committees and he wanted to discuss 

some changes afoot in the FACA (Federal Advisory Committee Act) world, namely House Bill 5687 as it 

relates to FACA at EPA, in particular. The new legislation is an example of something with good intentions, 

but unintended consequences. FACA is a response to concerns about conflicts of interest and transparency, 

and this bill would create more stringent requirements. For example, this board is a representative group—

you represent industry, business, or tribal, state, or local government. We also have special government 

employees (SGE), whom we pay for their expertise, and this is where controversy has arisen. Under the bill, 

all of you would be subjected to those conflict-of-interest rules that now apply only to the SGE. The agency 

objects to that because we think representative groups are not a threat to conflict-of-interest standards.

Furthermore, the bill would define membership as not only persons serving on committees and 

subcommittees, but also to anybody who provides advice to a committee or a subcommittee, including work 

groups. (Work groups have been used as a fast, easy way to get information and expertise.) The bill would 

also require that we post on the Web not only summary minutes, but also verbatim transcripts of each 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 33

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

meeting. The current version of FACA does not require transcripts or even minutes, just a summary of the 

meeting.

Some people think the new ruling would lead to an explosion of committees and subcommittees because 

everything you do is subject to FACA. Others say the agencies would retreat and not do as much because it 

would be too burdensome. A healthy debate is underway, but, if passed as introduced, the bill will result in 

significant changes for agencies like EPA.

Discussion

 Ms. Keith asked for clarification of application of the proposed legislation, and Mr. DeLeon said, yes, 

groups like the GNEB would it be subjected to these requirements. They are government-wide, 

conflict-of-interest regulations. All Federal Advisory Committees are operated under FACA, and 

some, like the Good Neighbor Boards, are statutory—required by law. Others are discretionary—the 

agency set them up. Right now, SGEs are subject to the conflict-of-interest rules because agencies are 

buying their expertise, and the government wants to know what their business interests are, whereas 

representative members (like those on the Good Neighbor Board) are not. In a committee like this, 

members were appointed because they represent a sector, so we assume that you will advocate for 

your sector. Notwithstanding, we do expect all of you to disclose to your colleagues a conflict should 

it apply to one of the discussions. 

 Ms. Keith asked about the need to post an agenda 15 days before a meeting, which they do in Arizona 

under the Open Meeting Law. Complying with this law means that nothing can be discussed that is 

not on the agenda. Mr. DeLeon agreed that that is one possible consequences. Right now, he said, we 

are supposed to give notice that the meeting will be held and we do post the agenda. The bill requires 

that you give the public all the information that you are going to discuss. The lawyers have said one 

of the unintended consequences could be that you cannot discuss anything that has not been 

announced to the public. Mr. DeLeon’s understanding is that most of the federal agencies oppose the 

bill and have made that known to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Ms. Keith said that 

Arizona’s Open Meeting Law has been interpreted that way; for instance, two elected officials cannot 

get together and discuss something offline. 

 Mr. Connolly asked whether Mr. DeLeon had heard any complaints regarding the GNEB’s

transparency, and whether he knew what happened with which FACA committee that inspired this 

legislation. Mr. DeLeon has heard no complaints with respect to the transparency of the GNEB. In 

fact, he commended GNEB members for establishing excellent transparency. There are always have 

opportunities for the public to comment, and at past meetings the galleries have been full of people. 

As for the inspiration for the proposed changes, Mr. DeLeon thought it was no particular committee, 

but, according to the newspapers, there have been a number of federal advisory committees in which 

some of the members have been viewed as being very conflicted in the advice they gave to the 

agency; and the advice of some committee’s was ignored when the agency took action. 

 Mr. Gillen encouraged Mr. DeLeon’s office to continue to object because he thought the proposed 

legislation would stifle the free exchange of information. When he served on a state agency in Texas, 

the staff attorney interpreted the open-record rules in the most stringent way and it really stifled 

discussion. Sometimes the tangents in a discussion are fruitful, but if notice was not given that the 

matter would be discussed, you could not talk about it. Moreover, members are not paid to be here; 

we are giving up our time (with reimbursement for expenses). More stringent requirements would 

mean more reporting. In Texas, if you hold the same kind of a position, you have to fill out a 15-page 

report, which it is quite onerous; in fact we hire a CPA to do it. Such reporting requirements would 

deter qualified members.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 34

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

Lobbying

Within the next 30 days or so, Mr. DeLeon will sign an internal guidance document on lobbying for members 

of federal advisory committees and members of other committees. In essence, you can do what you want to 

on your own time before and after meetings, but during a meeting you cannot go to the Hill. If you do go to 

the Hill, you must make clear that you are not speaking on behalf of the committee, but in your capacity as a 

private citizen or constituent. There will be other minor provisions, but these are the main things. 

Discussion

 Mr. Dorsey thought that, in addition to the Border state representatives, non-Border representatives 

and senators should receive copies of reports because they are the ones who would really benefit from 

the information; there is a lack of education in some areas of the county about what is going on at the 

Border. 

 Mr. Niemeyer agreed that education is key. In past reports, we have written letters, for example to 

Norman Dicks, Chairman of the House Interior and the Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, 

who makes a difference in many of these issues. For example, one problem we have with the Border 

is that the rest of the county is benefiting from NAFTA while the Border is suffering because of it. 

 Mr. DeLeon thought progress had been made in getting our congressional office engaged. How do we 

determine which reports need to go to every member of Congress? Perhaps it is not every single 

person. Ms. Grijalva suggested posting reports on the Web and then notifying everybody that it had 

been posted. Congressmen get so much information, they cannot possibly read it all. Mr. DeLeon

understood that every GNEB report is already posted the Web and is hot-linked to various sites. 

Dr. Brown thought a single piece of paper—announcing the release of our annual report, which is 

available at the following Web site, and giving the main points and recommendations—would have a 

better chance of being read. 

 Dr. Ganster pointed out that the report begins with a page or two that summarizes key points. That 

was done specifically to address these concerns, but he invited more discussion of this at the El Paso 

meeting.

Term Limits

Mr. DeLeon reported that his office had had internal discussions about the length of time committee members 

now serve on the board and decided to limit terms to six years, allowing exceptions for seven or possibly 

eight years. A statement to that effect will be issued.

By-laws

Mr. DeLeon said EPA is asking committees to develop standard operating procedures (SOP) rather than bylaws per se, and they will be issuing guidance for the committees as part of the bigger EPA effort.

Measures

Lastly Mr. DeLeon said that every DFO at EPA is being tasked to discuss and develop measures for their 

committees. Measures should distinguish between outputs and outcomes; this won’t be easy. The goal really 

is to be able to look at a committee in six, eight, or 10 years, and know whether it has been effective. He will 

ask the DFO to put GNEB measures on the agenda for the El Paso meeting. 

Discussion

 Ms. Marin cautioned that we must not forget our initial goal and purpose, which is specified in law. 

Our measures must be absolutely consistent with what the law says is our purpose and goal.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 35

Audio Associates

301-577-5882
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 36

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

Reimbursements

As long as discussion had turned to procedural issues, Mr. Niemeyer wanted to mention delays in his 

reimbursements. He would appreciate anything that can be done to expedite direct deposits or 

reimbursements. He had still not been reimbursed for a one-night hotel stay in Washington, D.C.

Discussion

 Mr. DeLeon was pained to learn that there are still issues with travel—it is inexcusable. He 

apologized and will address the issue with staff members. Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano agreed, saying they 

have already contacted the appropriate people. One additional difficulty is that they are undergoing a 

transition from one system to another and are heavily backed-up. 

 Dr. Brown suggested the benefits of preparing the information and putting it on the right desk would 

expedite things. Also, frequently, he could have gotten cheaper tickets. Mr. DeLeon agreed that 

sometimes using the preferred carrier is cheaper, sometimes more expensive. But, without a preferred 

carrier, his office would become a travel agency because everybody’s travel for all five committees 

would have to be booked through one person, and that is not the answer.

 Dr. Ganster expressed appreciation for Mr. DeLeon’s efforts and those of his staff. These sorts of 

arrangements will be particularly valuable as the number of cancelled flights increases and the 

occupancy rate increases. So, having a more agile alternative will be very valuable.

Approval & Discussion of GNEB Advice Letter to President George W. Bush

Rosario Marin, California State Consumer Services Agency

Luis Ramirez, who could not be present today, wrote an outstanding and thoughtful letter, which everybody 

has seen. Ms. Marin moved that this version be approved and submitted to the President and the Congress as 

mandated by law. Ms. Grijalva seconded the motion, noting for the record, that DOT recused itself.

Discussion

 Mr. Wood suggested adding Brownsville on page 2, where it talks about central lanes. Ms. Grijalva 

said there are some 300 communities with central lanes, but Brownsville can be added. 

 Dr. Brown recalled a comment as to why we are not sending this letter to the Senate Majority and 

Minority leaders. He asked what the final version says about who receives a copy. Ms. Marin said, 

traditionally they have sent it only to the people the law stipulates, but she saw no reason not to send 

it to other people, as well.

 Since the letter is unanimously accepted, Dr. Ganster asked Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano to get it ready to 

send out.

GNEB Twelfth Report: Innovation, including Incentives, to Prevent /Reduce Pollution at the 

U. S.–Mexico Border

Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB

GNEB members must decide which case studies to present and who will research them and write them. This 

must be resolved fairly soon so we can meet production deadlines. Mr. Joyce has agreed to identify a copy 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 37

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

editor and graphics people to take what we produce, that is, the case studies and integrating them into a 

document with introductions and transitions. Mr. Joyce said he intends to have this contractor at the El Paso 

meetings. Dr. Ganster thought that would make life easier for everyone, noting that members can still add and 

subtract and change wording.

Dr. Ganster wanted to talk about individual topics and then about methodology. He cautioned that cases must 

be Border-specific in a bi-national context. Actual practices and problems should have been solved 

innovatively. The topics have to have advocates who will work on them. There are 24 cases in the packet and 

others may surface; we need five or six, which should be finished by September 1.

Title

 Ms. Wolf and Dr. Austin thought the title unwieldy and perhaps no longer an accurate reflective of 

what the board is thinking about. They suggest “Innovations to Prevent Pollution along the U. S.–

Mexico Border.” 

 Mr. Niemeyer agreed, saying the title would cover everything without being restrictive. He drew 

attention to page 12, second to last paragraph, “the report’s overall theme will be innovation.”

 Dr. Ganster suggested selecting a working title that is easy to remember; then making a final decision 

in El Paso. Mr. Niemeyer suggested “Innovative Environmental Strategies along the U. S.–Mexico 

Border,” and, after discussion, the group agreed.

Case Studies

 Dr. Austin thought the real challenge of doing case study research is pulling the case studies together 

and looking at what you are learning from them and what recommendations you want to make. Much 

remains to be done before GNEB is ready to pass a document to a contractor. The main part of the 

report has to comply with a template so the projects used can be readily applied anywhere along the 

Border.

 Ms. Keith thought the main part of the report was not the projects, but what was learned from the case 

studies and how that could be applied elsewhere.

 Ms. Grijalva saw the problem with this report as not having an overarching problem statement to 

which to address the examples (i.e., case studies), which could then be replicated.

 Mr. Dorsey suggested changing the agenda of the El Paso meeting, and spending half a day on 

presentations related to the case studies they would be working on, but Dr. Austin thought that would 

not allow the time needed.

 Mr. Niemeyer thought using this title as a framework would be good start; then, as discussed in 

Washington, they could highlight some of the successes in the Border area, and trumpet that to the 

rest of the nation. Mr. Gillen thought they had a good story to tell, and he envisioned storytelling as a 

framework. 

 Ms. Keith said, they work with the Border and its issues so much that they forget they are dealing 

with such a unique place. One issue is, that uniqueness makes it extra hard to deal with the 

environmental issues because you have different governments, different cultures, and different sets of 

resources on each side of the Border. 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 38

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

 Ms. Grijalva still thought it was missing something to weave it together. There is nothing that is 

letting these case studies be part of a single theme, which is why she thought of a problem statement. 

In transportation, they often fall into these situations because gadgets and electronics—that is, the 

solutions—are available, but you don’t know for what. You have to identify the problem for your 

solution.

 Ms. Wolf suggested asking Dr. Austin to go through the framework because when they wrote the 

framework, they addressed these concerns, including the problem statement and an overview that they 

had hoped would tie it together.

 Mr. Manzanilla wanted to know what has worked, what are the problems being solved, and how 

successes can it be replicated. He said this is really what would benefit his agency.

Approach to Case Studies

Diane Austin & Ann Marie Wolf, Members, GNEB

The minutes report that we approved the topic “incentives to advance innovation that would lead to pollution 

prevention.” As a draft, we grouped the case studies by type of innovation (see page 2): partnerships, use of 

resources or resource efficiency, education and outreach, and policy and procedures, including management 

systems. The innovation may be applying something to very small businesses. Clusters are appearing already, 

for example, how people treat wastewater from housing—the wetlands approaches, and the composting toilets 

approach. 

From this we need to derive the results, the lessons learned. As each case is being developed, people should 

think about the national implications and what the Border has to teach other people. All that information is 

then woven together in a final report ending with some kind of recommendation.

Discussion of Potential Case Studies

 Several members complimented Dr. Austin’s and Ms. Wolf’s framework.

 Mr. Manzanilla was concerned about the limits of categorization. The big problems must be 

articulated and fit into this organization. 

 To Ms. Keith is seemed like a good model, and perhaps can be used for future reports. It is also 

helpful for people trying to make sense of all the discussions that have occurred over phone calls. It 

provides a framework to go forward. We not need to worry about grouping the case studies before 

they are written up and categorized. We may have the case studies in a chapter for each one or all of 

them in one chapter or in appendices. It is how you weave the lessons learned into the bigger pictures 

that are the innovation discussions. 

 Dr. Austin was asked to put the framework together, and she is willing to write her case studies. She 

suggested that when people present their cases, they should state whether they intend to write up the 

case. It would also be good to think about how long a project has been in operation. If we bring that 

out in our cases, we won’t overstate something that we think is going to work, but in another year 

proves to be a disaster. Maybe the report could have a section of future innovations that might be a 

good idea for the Border.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 39

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

 Ms. Wolf hoped everyone could agree on the structure proposed in the framework and whether the 

type of data we want for the case study. Then types of data can be considered when we are reviewing 

cases.

 Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano noted that there are innovative projects across the nation, but the highlight 

here is the conditions of the border region and what makes the border region or a particular project 

within the Border region unique. We need to know what makes the case study innovative within the 

Border region. How is cleaning up a river in New Mexico different from cleaning up one in 

Pennsylvania? 

 Mr. Dorsey thought it important to go through the case studies from the standpoint of what specificity 

to the Border, but he was unclear how to define Border-specific.

 Regardless of innovation, Mr. Manzanilla saw more opportunities working in this bi-national setting 

to address some severe problems that other parts of the country do not face.

 Ms. Wolf suggested that the introduction be more than the introduction, and explain not just what is 

innovative, but say why it is innovative.

 Ms. Grijalva saw a problem because, first, pollution has to be demonstrated. That is, there has to be a 

reason to prevent a particular type of pollution. You have to have an underlying problem. Then you 

can demonstrate why you need to do this and what is innovative about it.

 Ms. Keith thought it might be good to make sure that we have at least one case study for each 

strategy. Maybe some can be combined, e.g., similar studies in different states.

 Ms. Marin recalled last year’s Border of Governors’ Worktable on Science and Technology, where 

they reported on resources along the Border. We need to consider, not only the amount of resources in 

the Border region, but also the significant challenges and problems, how we deal with them, and the 

innovations needed to solve those problems. And, while we state the problems, we need to look at the 

great things that are taking place and how these projects and how these strategies are furthering the 

effort to solve them.

 Mr. Niemeyer did not think the word “strategy” was a term to get locked into. He thought the group 

should just discuss projects and how they should be categorized.

 Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano thought the purpose now was for those who presented a possible case, to 

discuss it. Asking questions would give an overview of the possibilities or options, and those 

discussions will facilitate selection. It is important to have the opportunity to discuss your selections 

and what makes them innovative.

 Mr. Joyce stated that in this section of the agenda, people would give a two-minute presentation of the 

case they suggested, why they suggested it, and the key points. Going through the entire list, it would 

become clear that some cases are not pertinent to the points we want to make. Then the discussion 

will concentrate on the ones that are left, and the case studies will come from that subset. The initial 

data and information is going to form the real crux of the report, the ultimate recommendations that 

will tie all this together. These case studies are essential because they illustrate particular cases where 

environmental problems have been addressed on the Border using innovative approaches. Whoever 

volunteers to be on the work groups to draft these case studies will gather that information together 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 40

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

and that will be used to make the recommendation section of the final report.

 Dr. Ganster concluded that there is agreement that the framework as presented, with some 

modification, is suitable to everyone and that it provides a basis for moving forward. Now, members 

need to go through the list and briefly present their cases, pointing out whether they are willing to 

participate actively. If they are not willing to carry it forward, we cannot consider the case now.

Selection of Case Studies and Formation of Drafting Teams

Mr. Gillen: Rubber Manufacturers Association. The presentation in Washington should be one of the case 

studies because it is a good example of where an industry voluntarily did something that was good for the 

environment. Mr. Joyce reported that Dr. Ganster believes he has enough information to draft a case study on 

that.

Dr. Brown: Renewable energy. Referring to Dr. Sweedler’s presention, he is convinced that this is a critical 

area with tremendous potential, and he is willing to do the research. 

Ms. Keith: Diesel emission school bus retrofit. This project is not unique to the border and should be 

dropped. 

Dr. Austin: Biodiesel capacity building. In terms of innovation, the idea is to take restaurants’ waste 

vegetable oil and that from the maquiladoras. Because of the maquiladoras, border communities have large 

volumes of waste vegetable oil. In production of biodiesel farm fuel, waste vegetable oil is not unique to the 

border and not innovative, but it is innovative in terms of partnerships—it involves departments from both 

countries. Mexico has an issue about competing with Penex in the sale of fuel, but the project is voluntary. It 

probably also has a role in education and outreach. Dr. Austin is willing to do the work to develop it, but the 

project is not very far along. The Instituto Tecnológico de Nogales has converted a lab and is making 

biodiesel to run their buses. That, in and of itself, is not unique, but it does address both air quality of the 

diesel fuel vehicles and the reuse of vegetable oil.

Ms. Keith: Arizona–Mexico International Green Organization. AMIGO was developed to reduce the amount 

of hazardous waste generated by the maquiladoras because the waste is U. S. owned and has to come back to 

the United States. It is an example of partnerships increasing technical knowledge and fostering networking, 

communities, and environmental stewardship and an example of how to increase exposure for pollution 

activities. Dr. Austin thought this might fit into a suite of discussions of ways to inform people about what the 

laws are and getting people comply with them where resources are insufficient to enforce them. 

Dr. Austin: AMIGO fibrous concrete. A material has come out of the AMIGO program—fibrous concrete, 

which is 50 to 80% recycled paper. That is mixed with water and then sand, ash, and concrete. A house in 

Nogales, Sonora, has been built with it, and it has a very high thermal mass. The maquiladoras have been 

involved in the work. They calculated that with just the waste going to the landfill—not counting anything 

that is being pulled aside for recycling—you could build a house every three weeks in Nogales and remove 

that paper from the landfill. Mr. Niemeyer said the unique aspect of the AMIGO program is that it is a binational recognition program for maquiladoras in Mexico. The governors of both Arizona and Senora handed 

out the award. Ms. Keith added environment management system training to the maquiladoras as a Border 

training or cross-cultural training course.

Ms. Wolf: Promotora model. This project trains women in the community to work with businesses to reduce 

pollution and change practices in the businesses. So far, they have gone to 173 businesses—primarily auto 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 41

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

repair shops, print shops, and nail salons—and 49% are participating in some pollution-prevention activity 

within three months. And, results are measurable: nail shops have switched from using acetone to a different 

type of polish remover; auto shops have switched from solvent degreasers to water degreasers. Getting them

the women the training and the confidence they needed to go to work with the businesses was probably the 

biggest struggle we have had with the program. It is innovative as far as partnerships because we work with 

the University of Arizona and the regulatory agencies to get technical training, and it is innovative in 

achieving voluntary reductions in pollutants in these communities.

Mr. Dorsey: Automotive industry in Tijuana. When he was Chief of the Hazardous Material Division, they 

received a USEPA grant to do green business outreach to the automotive industry in Tijuana, and they worked 

with the Tijuana Chamber of Commerce. This could help pull that information together.

Dr. Ganster: For two years, he has studied the flow of used tires from California to Baja California that 

resulted in the accumulation of huge numbers of scrap tires in Mexico. Border 2012 has done terrific work on 

cleaning up the residual piles, but the causes of the formation of the piles have not been addressed. What 

kinds of solutions are there over the long term that would prevent the piles from accumulating in Mexican 

communities? Mr. Dorsey believed that recently USEPA and the State of California set aside over $1 million 

to work on this issue with Mexico. Mr. Gillen agreed with the importance of such a project. Dr. Ganster 

thought a public–private partnership would resolve this issue; it cannot be done in a regulatory way. We have 

to figure out what the economics and economic incentives are; then it will be resolved. But that is the 

innovative aspect, and this is clearly a Border problem because the Border is what is driving this flow of 

materials.

Ms. Marin: Fuel cell applications in wastewater treatment. This is an innovative use of fuel cells and fuel 

cell applications are seldom seen in the Border area. And it is a pretty innovative idea to power wastewater 

treatment plants. Mr. Manzanilla could see some applicability—it all fits under the rubric of innovation 

towards better sustainability. Ms. Grijalva thought Ms. Marin’s volunteer writers should stress the 

applicability to the Border.

Mr. Dorsey: Construction, demolition, and inert recycling facilities. In California, we have a 50% diversion 

and we are heading possibly to a 75% diversion from landfills to recycling because of ordinances that require 

construction and demolition materials to be recycled. He is willing to work on this case. Dr. Ganster added 

that Tijuana is really getting interested in solid waste management; they have the same issues and there is a 

history of a bi-national recyclables market, so there might be a good trans-Border connection there.

Mr. Dorsey: Biofuels. An entrepreneur who had an egg ranch in the county recently purchased 120 acres in 

the valley where he is growing sugarcane to create biofuel similar to what they are doing in Brazil. This is 

unique to the Border area. California Energy and Resource and Development Commission, in 2005, started 

looking into this and there is supposedly a tax break and other incentives. Mr. Joyce thought sugarcane 

required a lot of water. Mr. Dorsey said, yes, the man pays $17 an acre-foot for water per year (which is cheap 

water), but sugarcane needs no fertilizer, so it is cheap to grow. Mr. Gillen heard that people in Canada are 

using switch grass for biofuel, which apparently takes less water and gives more fiber. Dr. Austin: In 

Louisiana, where they grow a lot of sugarcane, they are discussing using the bagasse for biofuel and still 

producing sugar from the cane. So, it is certainly not unique. Furthermore, sugarcane is a very inefficient 

producer of biofuel.

Ms. Marin: Hazardous waste prevention. This has to do with the training similar to the promotoras project. 

Mr. Dorsey recalled similar projects in Tijuana, which might tie in nicely; he offered to coordinate that. Dr. 

Ganster: A lot of their training is aimed at small- and medium-sized companies, which have special problems 

because they don’t have full-time environmental managers, so they have to do training at night because they 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 42

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

can’t leave their businesses during the day. A whole set of training issues seems to be emerging that could be 

pulled together.

Mr. Connolly: Campo Kumeyaay Nation wind energy project. There are several projects on the Indian 

Reservations in the Border zone, but because he was unsuccessful in getting submissions, he will submit wind 

project he mentioned. This project is the largest wind energy project on a reservation in the United States. It is 

also the only commercial-scale wind project in San Diego County. It has been going on since the first windenergy studies in 1990, so a part of the write up will include a discussion of the long-term energy policy and 

its inconsistencies in the United States and how that has both inspired and impeded these types of projects.

These types of projects are considerably influenced by state and federal incentives. This particular project was 

a revenue producer for a low-income community. It also addresses reduction of carbon emissions and it 

highlights some of the obstacles for these types of facilities, not only on Indian reservations, but throughout 

the country. It is also the closest wind farm to the Border. Dr. Ganster thought it illustrated connected energy 

systems in the Border region, certainly a key part of the alternative and renewable fuels.

Ms. Spener: New River Wetlands Project. This trans-boundary water is polluted in Mexico when it comes 

into the United States. The project addresses a solution that can be done in the United States, and a solution 

that provides effective treatment, at least for some of the indicators like fecal coliform, as well as providing 

habitat. They have six years of data; Ms. Spener offered to develop the case study. 

Dr. Austin: Eco Park, Tijuana. They basically take the waste black-water from colonias and treat it on site, 

and they have created a huge park in the middle of Tijuana that might go with the theme of alternative ways 

of treating wastewater. It is a Mexican project that has implications for a U. S. watershed that comes across 

the U. S. border. Dr. Ganster said that that project had actually started on the U. S. side, got kicked off of 

IBWC land, and was eventually reconfigured; there is a long and twisted history to it. They may not have real 

monitoring data, but it might fit in. That brings up the whole issue of the effectiveness of the types of 

treatments and the issue of decentralized treatment versus centralized treatment.

Ms. Siwik: Solar energy. This was a partnership between New Mexico State University and Southwest 

Environmental Center where they installed the photovoltaic (PV) unit on the roof of their building, which 

they will be metering. The other thing about this project is that there is an environmental education 

component so that the students at New Mexico State have the opportunity to learn how to install these 

systems. Secondary schools were incorporated so the kids learned how to use GPS units. Similarly, New 

Mexico State is taking a leadership role at the Institute for Energy and the Environment, demonstrating 

commercialized clean-energy technologies that can be replicated. New Mexico State has a PV system on top 

of a parking structure at the Health Clinic, which provides electricity, powering lights, saving energy, and 

reducing pollution. The Albuquerque project does not occur at the Border, but it could be replicated in the 

Border region.

Dairy to biomass. This is another innovative project that uses a two-stage anaerobic bio-fermentation process 

to reduce dairy waste and then produces methane gas that is used for power. They use that compost at a 

greenhouse. It, too, has applicability for other areas of the Border. A number of dairies in New Mexico are 

doing this.

Performance energy contracting in schools and public facilities. This is happening around the country, but it 

provides the resources to do that in low-income communities and provides a cost savings to schools and 

municipalities in the Border region, and it could be replicated.

Ride share program. Mobile sources are obviously a huge contributor to air quality pollution. Las Cruces 

Ride Share Programs are successful. It is happening around the country, but again it can be expanded to the 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 43

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

Border region. Dr. Ganster asked whether there has been any organized, bi-national ride-share programs along 

the Border; Ms. Siwik find out.

Education. We are having much success in combining environmental education and real-life experience 

through our projects, e.g., the scrap tire project in Palomas and Ascension. School children went into the field 

and located scrap tire piles using GPS. In their computer labs, they learned how to use GIS systems to map 

the location of tire piles. Then, back in the field and they helped collect the tires.

Ms. Stone: Dairy wastewater reuse project. Dairies use a great deal of water. A private company is 

converting dairy wastewater into clean, usable water, and the State of New Mexico is supporting it.

Truck stop electrification. New Mexico has joined California and other states in the clean cars initiative and is 

considering truck stop electrification to reduce air emissions. Tractor trailers would plug into electrical outlets 

at facilities around the state to reduce air emissions.

Tire Recycling Grant Programs. The New Mexico Environment Department recently gave a grant to Akima 

Pueblo where they converted used tires into an athletic field.

Meth lab clean-up initiatives. New Mexico may be the first state to require home owners to disclose when a 

property was used as a meth lab.

Mr. Elbrock: Reduced school week. Animas School went to a four-day school week, which immediately 

resulted in a 20% reduction in pollution and energy use for heating and cooling of the school buildings and 

running the school buses. Animas has a 72-mile school bus route, so it really cut down on the diesel fuel use.

But, there was a lot of opposition to it, and they will probably go back to a five-day school week. It could be a 

cross-Border initiative.

Mr. Niemeyer: Micro-grids—colonias using renewable energy. Texas Engineering Experiment Station 

(TEEXA) is testing using micro-grids, a variety of renewable energy—biodiesel, wind, and solar—for some 

remote colonias that have no easy way to get power. If the test on one colonia works in just a few households, 

it will be expanded to others. Some 400,000 people live in colonias on the Texas–Mexico Border. This is a 

public–private partnership using an EPA grant, and money is being passed through to TEEXS.

Water quality. In a storage pool for farmers in the lower Rio Grande Valley, we have a real-time surfacewater quality monitor. Just upstream is a salt drain from Mexico that could affect salinity. The salinity levels 

are critical to the farmers because if the salinity in the river is too high, irrigating with the water will kill the 

crops. 

Bahia Grande Restoration Partnership. Years ago when they built the boundary ship channel, they cut off 

some of the water supplied to this area, so the whole Bahia Grande turned into a dry land. A number of people 

with various interests established a partnership and over a number of years, they studied the area, got water to 

it, and restored the wetlands. This project also a Texas Environmental Excellence Awards.

The world’s largest inland desal plant. El Paso needs water. They have brackish water, so the city of El Paso 

partnered with Fort Bliss to desalinate 27.5 million gallons of this water. It is the world’s largest inland desal 

plant. After they treat the water, they dispose of it in an isolated formation so it won’t go anywhere; our 

agency had to approve that permit. And they created a teaching center, the Carlos Ramirez H2O Tech Center.

Site Assistance Visits. The twin plant on the U.S. side was basically just a warehouse. We got permission from 

the Mexican Environmental Enforcement Agency (PROFEPA). 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 44

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

Great Border Trade-out. Under a Border 2012 grant we held workshops at a number of these auto-body 

shops. They were using spray guns to paint in auto-body shops; the paint volatilized readily and contributed to 

the ozone formation. So we gave them these high-vapor, low-pressure guns and destroyed the old ones. And 

we have quantifiable data to show what we accomplished. We worked with our small business unit and 

demonstrated to the body-shop owners how to do it and how it works, and these guys signed off on the 

project.

Brick Kiln Project. El Paso Electric needed to reduce their NOx emissions to reduce 1000 tons and had no 

way of trading. (In 1999, legislation permitted emissions trading and banking in Texas; unfortunately, there 

was no one in El Paso with whom to trade, as in Dallas and Houston.) They passed legislation allowing not 

only for trans-boundary pollutant trading, but cross-pollutant trading. That is to say, for example, El Paso 

Electric could trade their NOx for carbon monoxide and particulate matter. They built brick kilns developed 

by a New Mexico State researcher and they quantified how much they would get in reductions. They have 

since built 32 brick kilns; when they built the new ones, they destroyed the old kilns.

Fuel cell applications and wastewater treatment plants. This is a California project (page 4). 

Site assistance visit program. We have done this at a number of maquiladoras in the Border region; we 

stopped in 2003, but they still send us their data. They would go on-site with the PROFEPA representative 

(the plants were nervous at first) and tour the plant looking for ways they could minimize waste, save water, 

save energy. At the end, they have a brief talk with management. PROFEPA (after a while) was happy with 

this program. They come back and make recommendations.

Landfill biogas project. Getting methane to market is happening everywhere, including Mexico, but 

Administrator Johnson mentioned this specifically at our last meeting and talked about dedicating a new 

plant.

Summary

 Dr. Ganster summarized: We have 24 cases; we need five or six case studies and the framework. Ms. 

Wolf grouped the cases into four areas—energy, materials, recycling (including scrap tires and inert 

materials at the landfill, and the necessary training), and treatment (including wastewater treatment 

and the wetlands). We have generated many new ideas and I am not quite sure how to proceed. One 

possibility might be to produce a template where we ask people who are willing to advocate for a 

project to fill it in and send it to us so we can distribute it for everyone’s review.

 Dr. Brown asked how we get our bundles of innovations lined up with the case studies. Energy use 

and resource efficiencies were one group of ideas. The second was training and outreach programs 

concerning small businesses. The third was solid waste recycling and diversion, which bundles many 

things. And the last was treatment ideas and the two thrusts that came up were wetlands and the 

dairies in reducing wastewater and recycling. What might be useful is to task teams today to sign up 

for those four groups and let those groups start getting ideas and cases together. We have lots of good 

ideas and more will come. I think we need that framework to hang these ideas on. And, Ms. Wolf 

added, we agreed on the framework.

 Dr. Austin suggested that people develop the case studies; perhaps specific cases could be discussed 

in the appendices. Now we need people to collect data and present it, maybe much earlier than 

September 1.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 45

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

 Dr. Ganster is skeptical about appendices because he thinks people will not read them. He thinks the 

main ideas should be in the main body of the text—appendices are a convenient way to dump a huge 

amount of material you don’t want to have to process. Also, the report should not be too long.

 Mr. Gillen thought some of the stories could be presented as boxed text, which would lead readers to 

information elsewhere. Dr. Ganster agreed that was a good mechanism. Another would be to revise 

the template, taking into account what was discussed. Then the template could be sent to people and 

they could apply the template to the case studies they were advocating, making sure that they have 

everything that is needed, and then resubmitting them. We will have to have a conference call to 

discuss the material when we are a little further along and people have gone over these ideas to see if 

they are really practical. Maybe that is the stage where somebody will say this is a good idea, not 

enough material, but we know there was something from Mexicali or from California or Texas, and it 

can be reconfigured as a collective case study.

 Mr. Joyce thought the problem the board runs into every year is that a few people end up putting in a 

lot of time late in the process to finish the report. The intent this time was to start early to avoid that. 

We need to produce the real crux of the report, which is the recommendation.

 Dr. Ganster thought the problem is that, in the packet we intended to have a complete listing and 

description of the projects we were going to consider. But that is not so, because we have a number of 

other things that need to be added (basically because Chris didn’t do his homework, to quote him). So 

I think that, although this has been a very helpful discussion, we are still where we were some time 

ago. We need more information from every area along the Border. 

 Ms. Wolf added that we will eventually need to revise the framework, but the section of the 

framework that deals with the structure of the case study has not changed. So people can go back and 

get the data for each section of the framework, write that up, and submit it in two or three weeks. 

When we get all of those, we can distribute them; people may send them to me, and I will group them 

based on the four groups. Then, we form a committee or work group for each of the sections and let 

each work group go through the case studies, which are now in a standard format. Dr. Brown though 

Ms. Wolf’s approach excellent because state teams will get data on projects they know about in their 

region. What was successful when they compiled and wrote the tenth report was finally settling into 

those work groups. After that the conference calls were shorter with fewer people, and it was easier to 

put people on the spot for things they said they would do. 

 Dr. Austin thought there were two options. She agreed with Ms. Wolf’s organizational suggestion, 

but an exemplary case would be much stronger if it referenced several other examples of similar 

projects. The cases reviewed today do not give a balance across the four areas.

 Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano asserted that one thing that should be worked out today is establishing a date 

for people to submit their case studies. Mr. DeLeon offered five quick points to help move things 

forward: 

1. The framework is good.

2. We have identified to some extent the universal cases, some with the add-ons.

3. Revisions according to the established framework should be submitted by July 14. 

4. We should have a conference call the week of July 21 to decide the final groupings. 

5. Finally, we need to have everyone participate, even those who did not suggest a case study.

If we establish work groups by state, it would be easy to know who submitted the projects and 

members of the work group. We cannot go another 30 or 60 days not knowing who is on a work 
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 46

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

group and who will be helping with submitted the projects. Mr. Joyce thought the state grouping was 

an artificial distinction. That was just the way we originally categorized the things that came in. It 

wasn’t meant to be a state-by-state competition. Mr. Dorsey agreed that the arrangement by state 

probably would not work.

Public Comments

None were given.

El Paso Public Meeting Discussion—Next Steps

 Dr. Ganster thought, in terms of the work groups, probably a single person would write each case 

study, but that person will probably work with others. If anyone wants help from others who are 

interested, they can round that up. And, if you are interested in a topics, you should let the person who 

is heading that topic know so you can participate. Perhaps Mr. Niemeyer would work with me, as 

well as do his specific topic.

 Ms. Wolf was willing to take the lead on the training and the small businesses cases. Mr. Dorsey will 

be involved in two projects, assisting Ms. Wolf and writing up the construction/demolition/inert 

process. If anybody is interested, he will gladly accept assistance.

 Ms. Keith said she would have her staff write up cases she thought should go forward.

 Dr. Brown liked the idea of having a work group established today. He summarized: energy and 

resource efficiencies as a topical bundle, training outreach programs concerning small businesses as 

the second, solid waste and recycling and diversion is the third, and treatment ideas including 

wetlands and dairies as the fourth. The four work groups together will flesh out the case studies in 

those groups instead of everyone doing it individually. 

 Ms. Grijalva saw the work groups working on a chapter in the report, so a work group fleshes out that 

chapter, not necessarily the case studies, because case study would be assigned to the individual who 

submitted it. That group is going to have to take those nuggets out of those case studies and weave 

them into the story. 

 Mr. Dorsey didn’t think the groups were fully formed yet, but he saw the need to flesh out the 

projects. If people are interested in a topic, they should get in touch with the person who introduced 

the topic. When we come together on the 14th and decide which topics to use, we can define the work 

groups.

 Dr. Ganster thought the members needed to get these case studies reconfigured so that they fit the 

agreed-upon format, then they will fall naturally into these groupings. So the first step is to write 

those up, get them in, and then we can put them into the suggested groupings. Then we need to have a 

conference call to decide which of the case studies, which of the groupings, and who is doing what at 

that point. But from now until the 14th it is really individuals taking things they are interested in, 

putting them in the proper format, and getting them out.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 47

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

 Ms. Spener suggested scheduling a conference call for next week to get it on the calendar. After that, 

we get into the fourth of July holiday. She proposed the 25, 26, or 27 of June. Mr. Joyce agreed. 

There is a working group, a planning committee, for the El Paso meeting. He thought scheduling a 

conference call was one of the first things to be dealt with, starting with those three dates.

 Mr. DeLeon suggested Friday the 11th or Friday the 18th.

 Dr. Ganster thought decisions on which cases to use and how they will be grouped could be made the 

week of July 21. He asked Ms. Wolf to help write something up that could be sent to the others.

Adjourn

El Paso Meeting, September 24–25, 2008
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 48

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

Appendix 1. Meeting Participants 

Nongovernmental, State, Local, and Tribal Members of the Board

Paul Ganster, PhD, Chair

Jerry C. Agan*

Diane Austin, PhD

Christopher P. Brown, PhD

Michael L. Connolly

Michael P. Dorsey

Edward Elbrock

Gary Gillen

Susan Keith 

Patti Krebs*

Rosario Marin

Stephen M. Niemeyer, PE

Luis E. Ramírez Thomas, MSFS*

Allyson Siwik

Marissa Stone

Ann Marie A. Wolf

John Wood

Federal Members of the Board

Department of Agriculture

Rosendo Treviño III*

Department of Commerce

[currently vacant]

Department of Health and Human Services

Marilyn DiSirio*

Department of Homeland Security

Gary Robinson*

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Shannon H. Sorzano

Department of the Interior

James Stefanov*

Department of State

Daniel D. Darrach*

Department of Transportation

Linda L. Lawson*

Environmental Protection Agency

Enrique Manzanilla [for Laura Yoshii]
Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008 49

Audio Associates

301-577-5882

International Boundary and Water Commission, U.S. Section

Carlos Marin

Designated Federal Officer

Lorena R. Cedeño-Zambrano

Resource Specialists

Candice Abinanti*

Lana Corrales, MPH*

Silvia Grijalva

Rafael Guerrero

Rachel Poynter*

Christina Machion Quilaqueo*

Jeff Scott*

Sally Spener

EPA Regional Office Contacts

Hector F. Aguirre*

Joy Campbell*

Rafael DeLeon

Mark Joyce

Carlos Rincon*

Tomas Torres

Speakers & others

Marie Barrett

Christopher Brown (CA)

Victor Carrillo

Tina Forester

Brad Poiriez

Susan Muza

Alan Sweedler

Steven Roeder

Rod Watkins

[* = absent]