U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Office of Cooperative Environmental Management

June 10-11, 2009

El Cajon, California

Meeting of the 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board 

Record of the Proceedings
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 

Meeting Minutes..........................................................................................................................1

June 10, 2009 

Welcome and Introductions ...................................................................................................1

Environmental Priorities of Indigenous Peoples Along the US-Mexican Border.....................1

Environmental Priorities of the US-Mexican Border...............................................................2

Environmental Priorities of the Border Governors Conference ..............................................5

Priorities of the Baja California Border Region.......................................................................7

Cross Border Planning and Cooperation: The San Diego-Tijuana Region.............................9

Public Comments ................................................................................................................11

Air Quality Issues ................................................................................................................11

Water Issues in the California-Baja California Border Region..............................................14

June 11, 2009 

Approval of Minutes of Washington, DC March 2009 Meeting.............................................19

Other Business/Organizational Update................................................................................19

GNEB 13th Report Working Meeting....................................................................................25

Closing Session ..................................................................................................................28

Attachment 1: List of Participants.............................................................................................30

Attachment 2: Acronyms Used In These Meeting Minutes .......................................................31

Agenda for June 10-11, 2009....................................................................................................32
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Office of Cooperative Environmental Management

GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD

June 10-11, 2009

El Cajon, California

Minutes of the Meeting

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Cooperative Environmental 

Management (OCEM) convened a meeting of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board 

(GNEB). The proceedings were held on June 10-11, 2009 at the Sycuan Resort in El Cajon, 

California. 

Welcome and Introductions 

Paul Ganster, Chair of GNEB, called the proceedings to order at 8:30 a.m. on June 10, 2009. 

He announced that GNEB’s most recent annual report, the primary means for communicating 

recommendations to the President and Congress, was available, along with other publications. 

Management services for the Board were provided by the EPA and he thanked the agency for 

providing critical staff support to GNEB enabling it to do its work. 

Mark Joyce, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for GNEB, welcomed the attendees to today's 

meeting. He also thanked Mike Connolly and all the members of the Kumeyaay Nation for their 

assistance in organizing the meeting, as well as yesterday's informative field trip. He welcomed 

the Board members and guests, including new Board members Commissioner C.W. "Bill" Ruth, 

IBWC, Luis Florez from the Department of the Interior, and Gary Gallegos from SANDAG. He 

then opened the floor for introductions. The list of participants is appended to the minutes as 

Attachment 1. 

Environmental Priorities of Indigenous Peoples Along the US-Mexican Border 

Mr. John Beresford, president of the Native American Environmental Protection Coalition 

(NAEPC), provided an overview of NAEPC’s goals, which include environmental education, 

advocacy for environmental justice, strengthening intertribal partnerships, promoting 

environmental stewardship, providing technical training and support, and disseminating 

information to member tribes. Approximately 15 tribes currently are in the coalition and NAEPC 

provides them with information, working under an EPA grant. NAEPC is actively involved in 

activities along the US-Mexico border. Since 2004, it has been the tribal liaison for California 

Border Tribes, and it compiles the annual Tribal Accomplishments and Issues Report. 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Beresford listed the California Border Tribes and the Mexico Indigenous Communities, 

indicating on a map the border tribes' area that covers three counties--San Diego, Riverside and 

Imperial--totaling over 153,000 acres. He outlined NAEPC’s tribal priorities, which also reflect 

EPA’s strategic plan for 2006-2011. 

The first goal, funding for tribes, has been implemented through programs like the collaborative 

air project between the La Jolla and Pala bands. Ideally, the equipment used for this program 

will be available to other tribes. The second goal, clean and safe water, is being met by testing 

the water facilities in communities across the Border and drilling wells that provide safe drinking 

water. In addition, the Campo Rock Drop Project has enabled more than 60 willow grafts to be 

planted in order to reinforce rock structure engineering. 

The third goal, land preservation and restoration, led to the Torres Martinez Solid Waste 

Collaborative, which strives to clean up and prevent illegal dumping. In order to facilitate this, 

some tribes are opening transfer stations in order to prevent further contamination, maintain 

their natural elements and collect and store hazardous waste. Recycling at both locations is also 

available. 

The fourth goal, creating healthy communities and ecosystems, includes a focus on 

environmental health. For this goal, NAEPC is part of the Tribal Environmental Health 

Collaborative, in which information about tribal environmental health is collected and 

disseminated. Goal five, environmental stewardship, focuses on global climate change, 

sustainable development, and protection of natural resources. 

Discussion 

Board member, Mr. Stephen Niemeyer, commented he was impressed that NAEPC was able to 

generate so much cleanup activity on several sites. He indicated NAEPC is to be commended 

given that funds seemed to be scarce for such projects. 

Mr. Rafael Guerrero (USDA) questioned if the coalition could extend their work to cover the 

entire 2,000 mile US-Mexico border stretching into Texas and Arizona. Mr. Beresford responded 

this is being considered. 

Ms. Crystal Crawford (Mayor of Del Mar) asked if there were any issues regarding tribal 

members needing to cross back and forth over the border to engage in these activities. Mr. 

Beresford stated there were no issues. Board member Mr. Mike Connolly, stated they have an 

organization, the Kumeyaay Border Task Force, which works with the DHS. It has been 

instrumental in acquiring the proper documentation in assisting in the pass and re-pass from 

Mexico. 

Environmental Priorities of the US-Mexican Border 

Mr. Daniel Garza of the Department of Toxic Substances Control at Cal/EPA, talked about the 

environmental priorities along the US-Mexico Border. 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Garza stated they recently met with US-EPA Region 9 and the Baja California 

Environmental Secretary in Sacramento to discuss a list of Border 2012 goals. Results from 

those discussions include a primary priority to reduce water contamination, specifically to 

support Baja in its effort to develop wastewater treatment capacity along the border. The focus 

is on helping with technology transfer in regards to the Las Arenitas Wastewater Treatment 

facility. The plan is for Cal/EPA to meet in Sacramento with staff from Mexico to exchange 

information about the newest technologies in wastewater treatment plants and to compile 

information about recent efforts. 

Another priority focuses on the New River, which continues to be closely monitored. Mr. Garza 

stated the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) should also be continued, 

including establishment of pollutant limits. In order to support this effort, it is necessary to 

translate training materials for wastewater operators in Mexico and to present a seminar for 

operators from both sides of the Border. The Tijuana River Valley is another important priority in 

this area, so Cal/EPA is undertaking several initiatives to address the trash and sediment issues 

in this waterway. 

The second goal is to reduce air pollution in the region. One important focus has been in 

reducing air emissions from used vehicles that are exported to Mexico that might not meet U.S. 

emissions standards, and from vehicles idling and waiting to cross the border. Cal/EPA also 

aims to provide technical support for efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions along the 

border. In the last few years, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has led these efforts, 

but much of the responsibility has fallen primarily to Baja California officials. 

The third goal is to reduce land contamination, particularly through cleanup efforts at the Tijuana 

River and Goat Canyon areas. Prevention of garbage from being dumped, which then gets 

washed into the Tijuana River Estuary by heavy rains, is necessary. Support for these efforts 

comes through funding of various projects throughout the region, as well as environmental 

education programs. Cal/EPA has developed a K-12 curriculum enabling students in California 

to develop an environmental consciousness. In addition, Cal/EPA is involved in efforts to reduce 

tire waste. A tire flow study will contribute to the development of new projects to eliminate tire 

waste, and Cal/EPA will support Baja California in their efforts. 

The fourth goal, improving environmental health, has brought a number of agencies together to 

work on pesticide-related projects, including exposure prevention among farm workers and 

pesticide collection. A recent pesticide collection effort based in Mexicali brought in 36,000 

pounds of unused and obsolete pesticides, thereby removing them the environment. 

The fifth goal, joint readiness, focuses on coordinating with other agencies to respond to 

environmental events and joint exercises. Specifically, Cal/EPA received a grant last year to do 

firefighter training for waste tire piles, as tire fires are a big problem in California. 

The sixth goal, improving environmental performance, can be met through promotion of 

compliance with voluntary programs. For example, the green chemistry initiative expands 

pollution prevention programs to areas beyond the border region. The ―model shop‖ program 

encourages implementation of best management practices in various facilities. It is also 

achieved through compliance and pollution prevention training programs through a materials 

balance pilot project measuring the waste generated from moving raw materials across the 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

border. Northbound traffic is monitored, but it may be possible to monitor southbound traffic as 

well. 

In addition to all these programs, Cal/EPA is involved with the California Mexico Border 

Relations Council. In fact, many of its priorities in effect right now come out of the Council, and 

it will continue to use the Council as a guidepost going forward. 

Discussion 

Board member Mr. Michael Dorsey asked, given the current state of California's budget, the 

kind of impact that affects the Department in accomplishing these goals. Mr. Garza stated that 

obviously budget deficits will affect their Department, but they are partnered with other 

resources, such as the US-EPA, which may help leverage any reduction in funding. 

Board member Dr. Diane Austin commented how across the border the issues are the same. 

For instance, regarding the wastewaters operators' training program, she inquired if it was plant 

specific or more broadly defined. Mr. Garza responded the translated material came from 

Sacramento State's Office of Water Programs. The materials are available from Sacramento 

State and are not specific to the treatment facility; however, he was unsure if the material was 

copyrighted and available for purchase. Ms. Austin inquired further about translation to the 

circumstances specific to south of the border versus north of the border, wanting to know if that 

would be available. Mr. Garza stated in this case they were working with CONAGUA (Mexico’s 

National Water Commission) and the project came specifically out of the MOU between 

California and Mexico. The four-day curriculum was modified to integrate Mexican laws and 

regulations into the training in which Mexican instructors will present that part of the training. 

Board member Dr. Diane Austin asked if there were specifics about working on the issue of 

emissions from used vehicles because it was a shared issue across the border. Mr. Garza 

stated the US-EPA would take the lead via the Air Policy Forum of the Border 2012 Program. 

This issue was discussed at an April meeting in Monterrey. Representatives from Texas and 

Mexico have been tasked to look at the issue and then make recommendations to the Air Policy 

Forum. 

Board member Dr. Christopher Brown remarked about monitoring and pollution prevention 

efforts in the New River. He asked Mr. Garza to speak to the binational component of that 

because it would originate in Mexico, flowing north into the Salton Sea and wondered if 

collaborative efforts were being undertaken with Mexican researchers. Mr. Garza mentioned the 

ongoing monitoring was on the U.S. side. He was unsure of the degree of monitoring effort on 

the Mexican side. 

Board member Dr. Christopher Brown asked what happened to the collected 36,000 pounds of 

pesticides. Mr. Garza stated it would probably go to a Class One landfill to be properly 

disposed. 

Board member Mr. Daniel Darrach asked Mr. Garza to elaborate on the northbound inspections 

for trucks and the potential for starting southbound inspections. Mr. Garza stated currently 

California and San Diego County inspectors inspect northbound trucks to ensure hazardous 

materials and hazardous waste manifests line up with the loads. With regard to southbound 

inspections, the Calexico staff is checking to ensure nothing illegal is being sent to Baja 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

California. The idea is to prevent illegal shipment of hazardous waste both ways. Mr. Darrach 

asked for clarification of inspecting only declared HazMat vehicles. Mr. Garza deferred to Mr. 

Dorsey, who is more involved in the truck inspection program. 

Board member Mr. Michael Dorsey responded to Mr. Darrach stating that inspections have 

been performed on vehicles moving southbound. In collaboration with U.S. Customs, vehicles 

are inspected for hazardous waste and the same thing occurs on the northbound side. Spot 

checks do occur as well. Mr. Darrach asked where the inspections occurred and Mr. Dorsey 

said in Otay, Tecate, and Calexico. 

Board member Mr. Stephen Niemeyer stated that Texas collects pesticides, but it does so 

throughout the state, not just along the border. He indicated some waste could not be put in 

landfills because of disposal requirements and were instead incinerated. He also stated Texas 

had a bill requiring a study of electronic tracking of hazardous waste generated in Mexico being 

brought back to the U.S. As a result, a report revealed that mass balance was next to 

impossible. While California’s efforts are to be commended, Cal/EPA might want to look at that 

report to get some more insights. 

Commissioner Bill Ruth commented that only about 50% of desalinization plants in Mexico are 

operable, due in large part to a lack of knowledge about maintenance and operational 

procedures. Any kind of training in how to maintain and operate these facilities would be 

valuable. 

Mr. Gary Gallegos (SANDAG) shared that there are a lot of California Highway Patrol (CHP) 

facilities throughout California and other facilities along the border encompassing multiple 

functions, including courts to collect fines. California is working with Caltrans and the federal 

government to create a state-of-the-art site that would bring together both the regulators and the 

enforcers to handle everything in one location instead of requiring the affected parties to travel 

to multiple sites. 

Environmental Priorities of the Border Governors Conference 

Mr. Daniel Garza of the Department of Toxic Substances Control at Cal/EPA, spoke about the 

environmental priorities set at the most recent Border Governors Conference. During the 2007 

conference, the ten Border States made a series of declarations that would define their 

priorities. The first priority was to regulate emissions at ports of entry, a goal that has only 

recently seen any concrete action. The conference members have since petitioned the federal 

governments of the U.S. and Mexico to review the issue and provide resources via funds or 

grants to address this problem. The second declaration concerned waste tires, but hopefully the 

tire flow study mentioned earlier will lead to new solutions to this longstanding issue. 

During the meeting in 2008, the governors discussed a new set of priorities and from those 

discussions they wrote Addendum #4, addressing climate change, under which the ten Border 

States would begin to develop greenhouse gas emission inventories. The governors also made 

new declarations. The first declaration concerned scrap tires. At the same time, EPA and 

SEMARNAT developed a tire initiative providing specific guidelines for addressing scrap tires, 

which received the support of the environmental secretaries in all ten states. 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The second declaration revolved around utilizing the ever-dwindling resources allocated for 

border programs. The governors petitioned the federal government to start appropriating funds 

to those programs back to their previous levels; and to allow the Border Environmental 

Infrastructure Fund to review projects encompassing up to the allowable 300 km of Mexican 

land. 

Declarations for this year’s conference are still in negotiation, but they are likely to involve 

petitioning the U.S. and Mexican governments to work with Canada to complete transboundary 

environmental impact assessments; addressing pollution, particularly greenhouse gases; and 

preventing environmental impacts through source reduction and other ―green chemistry‖ 

principles. 

Discussion 

Board member Dr. Diane Austin asked if it was a good idea for the expansion to include up to 

300 km on the Mexican side, especially with the current budget restraints. At that time, there 

was no objection, but due to the current resource crunch the focus should be on the 100 km on 

both sides. 

Board member Ms. Patti Krebs inquired if the green chemistry principles had been drafted yet 

and if they would reflect California’s Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) principles. 

Mr. Garza stated the green chemistry principles were the 12 seen in literature. The first step in 

pollution prevention programs and policies is just beginning. 

Board member Mr. Luis Florez asked if the Department had considered a cradle-to-grave 

management for tracking tires, involving the manufacturers in the solution process. He observed 

the symptoms were being treated, but the cure to tire waste was missing. He stated it seems as 

if these problems are only addressed at the end of the product cycle rather than mitigated in the 

beginning and that perhaps looking at tire composition could be helpful. Mr. Garza stated 

regarding the Board of Governors conference, discussions revolved around market 

development and support of those efforts. Last year, an international tire conference was held 

where they partnered with rubber manufacturers and discussed engineering uses for tires. A 

project in development is the idea of looking at the car as a whole unit, as a "green car" and its 

disposal. 

Board member Dr. Christopher Brown asked for elaboration on opportunities to perform a 

transboundary environmental impact assessment at the binational level. Board member Mr. 

Stephen Niemeyer indicated there is nothing preventing the three federal governments 

(Canada, the U.S. and Mexico) from concluding an agreement regarding federal issues. It is 

something that needs to happen, it should have happened, and is long-delayed. The synergies 

are there and the complementarities are there. 

Board member Dr. Christopher Brown asked if the IBWC would consider a pilot project to look 

at a transboundary environmental impact assessment. Commissioner Ruth stated there is 

opportunity to go into the binational field with some type of program. Some agencies have 

attempted it, but with little success, but since both the U.S. and Mexico are interested in it, other 

efforts are likely. 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Priorities of the Baja California Border Region 

Mr. Sócrates Bastida Hernández, secretary of the Baja California Environmental Protection 

Agency, outlined the priorities of his agency concerning the environmental health of the Baja 

California border region and the shared air quality between the U.S. and Mexico. 

Secretary Bastida stated that 80% of the pollution is environmental, which included residential 

waste and vehicular emissions. He indicated the problem is how the government is defined into 

five separate municipalities creating five separate sets of laws and regulations; unification 

between the five municipalities is needed. 

Another issue is the level of pollution generated due to the age of vehicles. Most autos brought 

over the border are over 10 years old and catalytic converters are removed once the vehicle is 

brought to Baja California. He also noted there is no smog check program in existence in Baja 

California. 

Secretary Bastida addressed the issue of sanitary landfills. Again, when working with five 

different municipalities it is hard to have one set of rules. The country is looking for a holistic 

alternative to landfill waste and recycling units are needed. Currently, Baja California is growing 

at a rapid rate. The government needs to involve the private sector and some sort of waste 

treatment organization needs to be established between the two. 

Waste tires are also a huge problem in Baja California. A technological treatment which would 

change the tire from waste to something else is needed. Secretary Bastida explained 

environmental issues included the need for an environmental lab to help with water issues. 

Eighteen years ago no water was being treated and currently 90% of the water is undergoing 

treatment; however, water resources are scarce and there is over exploitation of natural 

resources. Infringement is occurring in forested areas and a formal re-forestation project has 

begun. He indicated there is over exploitation of oil as well. 

Secretary Bastida outlined the need for a State Climate Action Plan as no coordination for this 

existed and the government should take a leadership role. Air monitoring is needed and then 

mitigation and reduction strategies implemented. He indicated a "Clean Beaches" program was 

necessary, starting with wastewater treatment facilities. Agricultural burning of waste should be 

stopped. 

Lastly, Secretary Bastida stated investment in clean energy such as wind generation and water 

projects should be studied. Also, educating the K-12 students about the environment and 

pollution impacts would be a very important step forward. 

Discussion 

Board member Mr. Michael Connolly spoke about the issues with sub-standard drinking water 

and assessment of fees asking if these issues had been resolved. 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Gary Gallegos (SANDAG) asked about the tire issues and using asphalt pavement which 

includes tire waste. Secretary Bastida stated this could not be done in Baja California due to the 

lack of technology. It is not economically feasible for companies to pursue this type of recycling. 

Board member Mr. Luis Florez stated there is a solution to the rubberized asphalt issue. 

However, it’s surprising that asphalt companies say it is either not economically feasible to use 

it, or that they lack the technology, especially when so many of the highways in this area are 

made of rubberized asphalt. This should remain a topic of discussion, and perhaps the agencies 

can work with the contractors to find a solution. 

Mr. Gary Gallegos (SANDAG) volunteered to work with the secretary to share information and 

possibly link him with contractors and producers of asphalt rubber in California. 

Board member Mr. Luis Florez stated the same could be done in Arizona. He asked the 

secretary to comment on the impacts of their ports of entry on the environment in Baja 

California. Secretary Bastida stated border crossings are a big issue, with both time waiting and 

idling of vehicles. A third port of entry is in the process of being built. 

Chairman Ganster stated the problem with rubberized asphalt is that municipal governments are 

expected to pave as much as possible rather than using longer-lasting materials. Municipal 

governments are only in existence for three years, so although asphalt is a little more 

expensive, the municipalities' goals are to pave the maximum possible. Paving is not reviewed 

on the basis of its impact on air pollution or tire waste disposal. The states need to push for a 

comprehensive assessment, since considering all those factors could lead to a better solution. 

Chairman Ganster stated recent data shows an alarming spike in pollution from cars waiting to 

cross the border from Mexico at San Ysidro, thus resulting in numerous health problems. This 

may lead to a larger focus on the environmental health costs of the border crossings and not 

just production of pollution. 

Mr. Daniel Garza (Cal/EPA) commented at the most recent Ten States Retreat, the states were 

encouraging BECC to fund new projects in Mexico related to asphalt. In fact, a lot of the current 

research is designed to make the case for promoting rubberized asphalt. 

Mr. Gary Gallegos (SANDAG) added it is difficult to convince people to adopt asphalt rubber, 

particularly in Mexico, but the government could be instrumental in catalyzing its adoption 

through financial incentives and promoting the benefits in cost, health, noise, and air quality. It 

was difficult to make that transition in the U.S., but assistance is available if Mexico is 

interested. 

Board member Mr. Luis Ramirez-Thomas asked Secretary Bastida if it would be better to 

extend the three-year term for government municipalities. Secretary Bastida responded this is a 

question for Congress. There is a lot of municipality power but very little time in office to 

accomplish that which is necessary. 

Chairman Ganster presented Secretary Bastida Hernóndez with a GNEB pin and thanked him. 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cross-Border Planning and Cooperation: The San Diego -Tijuana Region 

Ms. Crystal Crawford, mayor of Del Mar, California, and representative on the SANDAG 

Borders Committee, talked about SANDAG’s recent activities. She began her presentation with 

an overview that used satellite imagery of how the region has changed over the last 25 years 

and the challenges that have arisen from the development of communities along the border. 

SANDAG is part of a collaborative process including binational planning projects, the California 

Biodiversity Council and the Border Master Plan. She stressed though progress seems to be 

slow, patience is necessary to continue these sustained efforts. 

Ms. Crawford then gave a brief overview of SANDAG, which is heavily involved in issues 

surrounding growth along the border. It is active in planning and coordination in 18 cities and 

San Diego County, and along the way it has become a forum for regional decision making. Its 

members include mayors, council members, supervisors, and local tribal representatives, and 

its advisory members come from the transit authorities, water authorities, and the Consul 

General from Mexico. SANDAG also has a number of committees, including the Borders 

Committee, which reflects increased activity across the border and includes outreach and 

communication to surrounding counties. 

Some of SANDAG’s projects include the Regional Transportation Plan and the Regional 

Comprehensive Plan, which attempts to bring together information about all the jurisdictions in 

the county to facilitate county-wide planning efforts on water, energy, transportation, and other 

issues. The plan also includes a Borders Chapter, which addresses border-specific issues. 

SANDAG’s involvement in binational planning began with the creation of COBRO, which allows 

for better communication between agencies in the U.S. and Mexico. The Borders Committee 

has since expanded this program to include elected officials. These efforts have led Instituto 

Nacional de Planeación (IMPLAN) to invite SANDAG into its discussions in Mexico, which has 

enabled even greater collaboration. 

SANDAG has taken part in several binational projects. In estimating the economic impact of 

border wait times, interviews with people at major border crossings have revealed significant 

financial, environmental, and health impacts related to long wait times, and that information was 

useful in getting the attention of policy makers. The Estimating Economic Impacts of Border 

Wait Times April 2006 report showed that billions of dollars are being lost at the border because 

of the long wait times, in addition to the impacts on air quality and quality of life. 

The Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan looked at transportation, 

housing, public health issues, employment, industrial areas, and environmental conservation 

activities in San Diego and in Tijuana. It greatly helped in the siting and development for the 

east Otay Mesa border crossing. It was a great pilot project for the binational strategic planning 

between SANDAG and Mexico. 

Ms. Crawford discussed her role on the California Biodiversity Council. CBC includes 42 

representatives from federal, state and local agencies, who meet to develop strategies to 

ensure that all agencies are working together and communicating with one another. In 2006, 

CBC met in San Diego and toured several biodiversity hotspots along the border. The end result 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

was the formation of two working groups, the Las Californias Working Group and the Tijuana 

Estuary Issues Working Group that have had some success in preserving those spots. In 

addition, Baja California has talked about forming a sister biodiversity council that would work 

with CBC. 

The Border Master Plan, SANDAG’s most recent project, was adopted and praised by the 

participating agencies, and efforts are underway to replicate it along the border. Its purpose was 

to assess the transportation needs on both sides of the border and coordinate the planning and 

delivery of the resulting projects. Six land ports of entry were studied, which were ranked, and 

those numbers helped SANDAG rank the importance of each port of entry. 

Discussion 

Chairman Ganster commented on Ms. Crawford's statement on need for patience. It is 

important to balance political turnover with the longer timeframes required to develop and 

complete many of these projects. Some continuity can be achieved by NGOs and business 

associations that can ensure these projects remain priorities from one political term to another. 

Ms. Crawford concurred with Chairman Ganster's comments, noting that success depends on 

stakeholder involvement and not complete dependence on elected officials who might come and 

go. 

Board member Mr. Stephen Niemeyer stated he felt disheartened after seeing the picture of the 

Tijuana Estuary before the triple security fence was built. Though the border might be safer 

now, he stated a representative from DHS should be present at board meetings to talk about 

how to balance these two issues. This representative should have an eye towards an 

international focus, since so many of GNEB’s priorities require working with Mexico. Ms. 

Crawford commented it was good for the region and the whole southwest to have former 

Governor Napolitano now as Secretary of Homeland Security. Ms. Napolitano has visited the 

region and understands the Arizona border, as well as the dynamics in dealing with border 

issues. Ms. Crawford stated it is easier to preserve the habitat rather than to go back and 

mitigate, but now that it's been done the fencing issues have to be addressed. 

Mr. Mark Joyce, DFO for GNEB, stated this issue will be reviewed at tomorrow's meeting. 

Preliminary discussions with CEQ reveal interest in the fence. Representatives from DHS and 

other federal agencies need to be appointed to the board. 

Board member Dr. Christopher Brown commented an international context may broaden the 

discussion past what CBP and DHS only care about, which is security. He asked if she could 

clarify the relationship between the Border Committee within SANDAG's internal administrative 

structure and COBRO. Ms. Crawford stated the COBRO is a working group. Once the Borders 

Committee was created in 2002, the COBRO now reports to Borders and the Borders 

Committee reports to the full Board. 

Mr. Gary Gallegos (SANDAG) stated a lot of this work is only possible through the participation 

of stakeholders and people with expertise in specific areas. They are able to provide information 

to the working groups and committees, who then bring it to the board; COBRO plays that role. 

Ms. Sylvia Grijalva (Department of Transportation) expressed her gratitude and pleasure in 

working with SANDAG and Caltrans and their great working relationship. 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Gary Gallegos (SANDAG) shared accomplishments occurred by de-politicizing the 

environment. The investments are grounded by criteria; policy and not politics. 

Board member Mr. Michael Connolly complimented SANDAG in the incorporation of tribal 

representatives, which has been valuable to regional planning initiatives. The tribes in San 

Diego control more than 20% of developable county land, but the County Department of 

Planning and Land Use has refused to build out reservations as part of their long-term planning. 

Due to the inter-governmental nature of SANDAG it has provided a forum to bring these types of 

issues into discussion. 

Public Comments 

Chairman Ganster opened the floor for public comments; no participants responded. 

Air Quality Issues 

Mr. Michael Gibbs, assistant secretary for regional climate initiatives at Cal/EPA, discussed the 

effects of climate change on the Border Regions and provided an update on California’s climate 

change programs. A history of California's Climate Activities includes promotion of an energy 

efficiency portfolio. It set the standard by creating a registry for greenhouse gas emissions, and 

its regulations concerning emissions standards for vehicles, which has now reached the federal 

level. Moreover, in 2006, the state legislature enacted SB 1368, a bill that required setting 

emissions performance standards for new power plant capacity, the first in the nation to do that. 

The governor issued a Market Mechanisms Executive Order to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions and to set low carbon fuel standards. 

Last year, the state passed a law requiring regional planning organizations to set greenhouse 

gas emissions targets and incorporate them into their planning initiatives. No other state has this 

requirement, so if it succeeds, it could provide a model for how other states could guide 

planning and growth towards reducing these emissions. 

One reason California has been so active in environmental reform is because there is concern 

about what is at stake. There has been a lot of literature speaking to the impact of climate 

change; and those risks are exacerbated due to the size of the state. California’s agencies are 

drafting a research report that will assess the physical and economic impacts of climate change 

on what is at stake. This includes water resources, public health and air quality, coastal and 

ocean resources, agriculture and forestry, hydroelectric power, and wildfires. 

While a number of programs were already in place, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, 

AB 32, created the framework in which the state now addresses climate change. For example, 

the act aims to bring greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020; several advisory 

committees are devoted to environmental justice and economic and technology advancement; 

and a review board looks at how the various pieces can fit together in a larger framework. The 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Air Resources Board adopted the Scoping Plan last December which creates a roadmap for 

how all this comes together. 

A mandatory reporting rule requires facilities to report their emissions of greenhouse gases. The 

law was adopted in 2007, and the first set of reports was due June 1. Third-party verification is 

not required this first year, but it will be required going forward. This rule applies to stationary 

sources that emit a minimum of 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2. These facilities are also 

required to report the emissions produced elsewhere that enter the state. 

While many of the requirements in AB 32 will take a long time to implement, some measures 

can go into effect immediately. The low carbon fuel standard, for example, requires the fuel 

used by cars and trucks to have lower carbon content, through advanced biofuels or another 

source, leading to a 10% carbon reduction by 2020. Not only would this have the largest 

emissions impact, but it also diversifies the fuel supply. The Scoping Plan in AB 32 includes a 

range of measures that can reduce emissions, including a cap and trade program, vehicle 

standards, increased investment in energy efficiency, and a diversified fuel portfolio that 

includes wind and solar power. 

The Western Climate Initiative (WCI), which includes seven Western states and four Canadian 

provinces, has proposed a cap and trade standard that could be adopted by each state and 

province and trading could take place across the entire region. Observer states, which include 

six Mexican Border States, observe and participate in WCI’s discussions, and they have the 

opportunity to lend a perspective on the issues that affect them. For example, an emissions 

offset project would improve efficiency in the border region, which could produce cap and trade 

credits to be used in WCI’s program. The cap and trade program would operate in two phases. 

In the first phase, facilities would see their standards ratcheted down as the program 

progressed, and then in 2015 transportation fuel standards would be introduced. The standards 

would start at actual emissions, until a 15% goal is achieved by 2020. 

Mr. Gibbs noted that climate change is better managed at the regional level than at the local 

level because greenhouse gases have a global impact, and so the source of the emissions is 

irrelevant. A regional program encompasses more sites in more jurisdictions, thus creating a 

larger impact, and has more influence over a national program, such as the proposed guidelines 

under discussion in Washington right now. While federal action would be welcome, it does not 

mean that regional actions can fall away. If the federal program is enacted, California will adjust 

its program so that it is more efficient while still contributing to the federal program. 

California has an MOU with SEMARNAT that covers vehicles, tires, water, and other issues, but 

it also contains a climate change component, under which the two agencies will exchange 

information about carbon markets and emissions registries. Cal/EPA is currently initiating the 

next round of research on which it would like to collaborate with SEMARNAT. In addition, it will 

hold workshops discussing the new vehicle emission standards and carbon fuel standards. 

Discussion 

Mr. Gibbs stated in response to Board member Mr. Stephen Niemeyer's question that AEO 

meant Annual Energy Outlook produced by the Energy Information Agency. Mr. Niemeyer 

asked if cap and trade made sense versus a national carbon tax. Mr. Gibbs stated California is 

moving in the cap and trade direction. Congress is heading toward a cap and trade program. 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Debate continues about which is better, easier, more effective, less subject to manipulation, 

better protective, and which would create a more level playing field. With cap and trade, more 

certainty towards goal would be more achievable than with a carbon tax, which does not 

guarantee or bring one closer to goal over a period of time. On the other hand, if concern exists 

about market manipulation and inability to provide effective oversight to that market, then 

movement to a carbon tax direction would be suggested. 

Board member Mr. Stephen Niemeyer stated that economists' models show if everything was 

done according to plan and absent BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries taking a 

role, by the year 2050 only a 6th percentile change would occur in CO2 generated. Mr. Gibbs 

stated that the U.S. and Europe cannot work alone. It is important for a strong global agreement 

between other countries, India and China in particular, to get involved in these initiatives. The 

foundation for international discussions on this issue was set in 1992 in the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change, with a goal of bringing developed and 

underdeveloped countries together to work towards emissions reduction globally. Mr. Niemeyer 

stated the U.S.’s history with natural resources will make it difficult to convince other nations to 

be sensitive to environmental impacts, using as an analogy development of water resources in 

the U.S. and the U.S. NGO attempts to stop Chilean development of hydroelectric power. Mr. 

Gibbs noted there still remains lack of agreement on the issue of needing renewable power 

facilities, but nowhere to site these stations and that the U.S. needs to be a leader to convince 

the BRIC nations to reduce CO2 emissions. 

Board member Ms. Ann Marie Wolfe asked if environmental justice issues regarding the cap 

and trade were reviewed during the scoping process. Mr. Gibbs stated the environmental justice 

component of the Scoping Plan was highly visible and a series of meetings occurred. The 

environmental justice representatives on the committee were not satisfied with the end result. 

Discussion continues. The objective is to put together a balanced program that delivers the cost 

effective benefits required by law while also putting in place an enduring policy that will achieve 

the long-term goals. 

Mr. Gary Gallegos (SANDAG) stated the biggest producers of GHG are the transportation and 

energy sectors. He asked what role technology will play in a way that protects both quality of life 

and Mother Earth. Mr. Gibbs looks at this problem in time sections; between now and 2020 what 

should be done; from 2020 to 2035 and then 2040 on. Between now and 2020, new technology 

is not needed. The ability to site, fund and build energy stations and retrofit existing buildings to 

make them more efficient is necessary. Between 2020 and 2035, penetration of new technology 

will be seen, most likely in the transportation sector. California has tried to approach the three 

pieces of transportation at the same time: The vehicles themselves by emission reduction 

requirements from the tailpipe; the fuel by starting with the low carbon fuel standard; and the 

requirements for travel itself, the SB 375 impact, which is the most innovative and most 

experimental of all three. Aligning the incentives is the challenge. 

Board member Dr. Christopher Brown in response to Mr. Niemeyer's comments stated if we 

cannot address the BRIC we're sunk. Only by leading by action can one hope to ask and argue 

for change from the other nations. Dr. Brown asked how one would change from an observer to 

a participant in the Western Climate Initiative. Mr. Gibbs stated the WCI partners are committing 

to do the cap and trade program. In order do this a Climate Action Plan and an Emissions Goal 

are required. The WCI is not trying to gather new partners currently. Dr. Brown asked where 

was Texas in the WCI. 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Board member Mr. Stephen Niemeyer responded Texas is the leading provider of wind energy 

in the nation. However, the cap and trade program proposed in the Waxman-Markey bill would 

cause a lot of economical problems for Texas, and if Texas suffers, the rest of the country will 

follow suit. Texas produces 40 percent of the nation’s petrochemical products. 

Mr. Jose Garcia (EPA) asked how much research has been done looking at the cost 

effectiveness of leasing roof space in California for establishment of erecting solar arrays. Mr. 

Gibbs stated a couple of programs are in place. SB 1, the California Solar Initiative, provides 

incentives for this. SCE has a rent-a-roof program to create this capacity. It is seen as a very 

valuable and available resource. There is a large-scale solar program, which is not roof oriented 

but would go in the desert, and this is an important part of the solution. 

Board member Ms. Patti Krebs asked what does stage four generation mean in biofuels. Mr. 

Gibbs could not answer her question. 

Board member Mr. Michael Connolly requested that Mr. Gibbs speak to the Climate Registry. 

Mr. Gibbs is a voluntary program for corporations and other organizations to report GHG 

emissions in a consistent way using well-recognized and robust protocols. The Climate Registry 

is made of 40 states, the District of Columbia, 12 Canadian provinces, 6 border states, and 4 

tribes. Though Texas has not joined, there are companies based in Texas that do report. 

Dr. Efrain Nieblas is the head of environmental planning for Secretaría de Protección al 

Ambiente, Baja California (SPABC). He discussed the greenhouse gases initiative taking 

place in Baja California. Since 2005, the government has taken action towards climate 

change, whereby a national strategy has been implemented. In 2008, an agreement was 

signed, the PEAC-BC, and a series of work groups were created to address the issues of 

climate change on agriculture, health and ecosystems. 

Dr. Nieblas provided an overview of the Plan Estatal de Acción Climática – Baja California 

(PEAC-BC), noting it includes external experts with technical knowledge and government 

agencies. An inventory on GHG was established using 2005 as the base year in order to 

development guidelines. He provided regional and local results, reviewed temperature changes, 

and precipitation data. He noted climate change would impact health, agriculture, energy, water, 

and tourism. He indicated mitigation measures of GHG needed development, but currently no 

state funding existed so they were looking toward federal funding. 

Discussion 

Chairman Ganster asked how things were progressing in California and Baja California. Dr. 

Nieblas stated they had a meeting last week at SANDAG's invitation. They are working on a 

climate change action plan that will hopefully comply with SB 375. 

Mr. Gary Gallegos (SANDAG) stated to make that goal easier to achieve, it is important to work 

with Mexican agencies so that everyone is working towards the same goal. 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Issues in the California -Baja California Border Region 

Mr. Hernando Durán Cabrera, director of the Comisión Estatal de Servicios Públicos de 

Tijuana, gave an overview of Tijuana’s water treatment and supply programs. He explained 

CESPT is a state water and wastewater entity serving 500,000 homes and businesses. It has 

1,764 employees, 3 potabilization plants, and 13 wastewater treatment plants in 7 districts. He 

reviewed bar graphs showing population growth and effect on water coverage from 1990 to 

2009. 

Mr. Durán indicated water was a development instrument, outlining current projects such as the 

Colorado River Aqueduct expansion, the Florido Popotla Hydraulic System, the Valle de Las 

Palmas System, the Valle Redondo Works, the Coastal Zone, and the desalination project. The 

aim of water development is to not turn away any investment opportunities due to lack of water. 

Binational issues include the Tijuana River Watershed; and the signing of the 1944 Water 

Treaty, which has current implications. National issues include the Zero Discharges Initiative; 

the Wastewater Treatment Plants in Monte de los Olivos and La Morita; and the Purple Pipe 

Project. Goals of the Purple Pipe Project are to increase green areas for Tijuana and Rosarito 

beaches; increase recycled water consumption to 20% by 2013; install purple pipe lines 

throughout the city where recycled water is available; and reduce treated water discharges to 

the Pacific Ocean. 

Discussion 

Mr. Gary Gallegos (SANDAG) and Commissioner Bill Ruth congratulated and applauded 

CESPT on the excellent work accomplished. 

Ms. Halla Razak (San Diego County Water Authority) asked if there were private uses for the 

treated water. Mr. Durán stated currently there were none, but businesses have expressed 

interest in buying, treating and reselling the water. Ms. Razak asked if there were planned uses 

for potable water. Mr. Durán responded there was a business plan in development and studies 

are being done. The water needs to be taken from further upstream in order to create a natural 

potabilization system. There would be an impact on rates for the end user. 

Board member Mr. John Wood asked if CESPT conducted many general public presentations 

and what was the public's response. Mr. Durán replied it was not necessary to hold public 

hearings and they were meeting their government's standards. 

Ms. Halla Razak, Colorado River Programs Director of the San Diego County Water Authority, 

talked about water supply issues affecting San Diego. The San Diego County Water Authority is 

a wholesale water agency that includes 24 member agencies and 35 board members. The 

group serves 3 million people, or 97% of the county’s population, over 920,000 acres. 

Contrary to popular belief, only about 18% of San Diego’s water comes from within the county. 

The rest is imported, most notably from the Sacramento Bay Delta and the Colorado River. 

Because of new pumping restrictions in the Bay Delta, San Diego had to declare a water 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

emergency in April, which led to water reductions and allocations of 13% in the metropolitan 

area and 8% by the Water Authority. These allocations will be in place until June 2010. 

The long-term water supply outlook is focused on diversifying San Diego’s water sources. A 

$3.6 billion Capital Improvement Program was launched to improve water delivery and storage 

and create an emergency supply system. In an effort to expand local water supplies, the Water 

Authority is greenlighting projects around recycled water, groundwater, seawater desalinization 

and conservation. These programs are performed in tandem with efforts to secure new imported 

water supplies and resolving issues in the Bay Delta. 

Several imported water supplies were secured under the Quantification Settlement Agreement, 

including the Imperial Irrigation District and the Imperial Valley of San Diego, as well as two 

canal lining projects. This has increased the imported water supply by 280,000 acre feet per 

year over several decades. Since 1991, the water supply portfolio has been greatly diversified, 

and will continue to branch out through 2020. 

The Water Authority has also been involved in cooperative programs with Mexico, which are 

overseen by IBWC, which strive to improve the water supply, management and efficiency in 

both countries. Much of the dialogue taking place now stemmed from challenges that arose in 

prior projects. For example, some projects helped reduce excess water from the Colorado River 

to Mexico, but they took as long as 20 years to complete. 

There were also political conflicts. Seepage from the All American Canal was providing water 

for an aquifer, and Mexican farmers used that water, so when project began to line the All 

American Canal, Mexico opposed it. However, the U.S. referred to treaty requirements that 

barred Mexico from using that water. In addition, the U.S. is building a Drop 2 structure that will 

catch excess flows going into Mexico, and a pilot Yuma desalinization program will affect both 

water supply to Mexico and the environment in the region. The issues arising from these 

projects have led to greater dialogue between the two countries, as well as some litigation. 

The Colorado River Basin States have worked together to complete shortage criteria. The 

Colorado River has flowed in such a way that it hasn’t seen significant drought, but there has 

been a drought over the last seven years, raising questions over water allocation. So the Basin 

States were told to find a solution to the shortage sharing issue. However, Mexico was not 

involved in those discussions. There were also informal conversations about cost-sharing 

projects with Mexico. All these issues combined made a strong case for working with Mexico on 

future water projects. 

Among the current water resources issues, climate change is critical, as it is difficult to predict 

how the river will act under its impact, so it is important to have a system for dealing with any 

potential shortages and maintaining water quality. Mexico has long complained that their 

incoming water is heavily salinated, so it is asking the U.S. to examine this and other water 

quality issues. The system operations are under review that will make existing facilities more 

efficient. For example, Mexico is interested in moving some of its water through the All 

American Canal, from the Colorado River to Tijuana on the coast. 

In these binational initiatives, the U.S. State Department and Mexico’s SRE have delegated 

authority to IBWC and CILA, respectively. Each agency oversees core groups and work groups 

that concentrate on specific aspects of these efforts; the four work groups are focused on new 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

water supply, water conservation, system operations, and environmental issues. These groups 

are not trying to change the 1944 treaty with Mexico; rather, they are trying to develop concepts 

that enable both countries to work within the treaty, thus allowing for better shortage 

management and beneficial changes to system operations. 

The U.S. and Mexico are continually looking at potential projects in both countries, including 

ocean desalination sites, irrigation improvements in the Mexicali Valley, the Colorado Delta 

wetlands, and New River water treatment. When looking at these projects, both countries 

consider how to deal with potential conflicts before they happen, better water management at 

the river basin, benefits for areas on both sides of the border, and how to improve international 

relations. However, there are also challenges concerning legal and institutional issues, 

differences in federal and state laws, and issues that might supersede water management, such 

as homeland security. In addition, people on one side of the border might not trust the 

authorities on the other side, so it is important to share what is being done and why with the 

people these projects will impact. 

The work groups and core groups meet every other month, and this regular contact has made a 

significant difference in what both sides are doing and how they work together. 

Discussion 

Mr. Rafael Guerrero (USDA) asked if the agricultural land where water was lost from transfer to 

the urban areas had been seeded so it was protected from wind erosion. Mr. Guerrero also 

asked if the IBWC process for binational cooperation was implemented in the Rio Grande basin. 

Ms. Razak stated on the agriculture to urban transfer, the area was seeded and no erosion 

occurred. Fallowing farmers do not like it, though they can sell the unused water, but seed 

companies and workers who are also dependent on farming are negatively socio-economically 

impacted. Commissioner Bill Ruth stated with regard to the IBWC and the Rio Grande basin, the 

process is very complex and dialogue is continuing. 

Board member Dr. Christopher Brown spoke of the elephant in the room not being identified. He 

brought up the lining of the All American Canal, as well as establishment of the Drop 2 

Reservoir. He stated in all cases Mexico's water supply is reduced dramatically. He challenged 

the collective in the room to think about the equity issues involved. He stated in all instances a 

transboundary environmental impact assessment was missing. 

Board member Mr. Daniel Darrach responded to Dr. Brown's comments, stating Commissioner 

Ruth urged everybody to work towards solution of some of the equity issues, though plans are 

still in process. It brings Mexico, the U.S. and NGOs together to find a cooperative solution to 

the impact on the wetlands. Orders were given to build the Drop 2 Reservoir and congressional 

orders were followed. 

Mr. Craig Nettleton, co-chair of the Tijuana River Valley Recovery Team and president of Open 

Oceans Global, provided an update to the recovery team’s effort. The Tijuana River Valley is 

defined by highlands with canyons that run across the border. It has three major water entry 

points: the Main Channel in San Ysidro, Smuggler’s Gulch, and Goat Canyon. The biggest 

problem in the valley is the sedimentation that occurs after a rainfall as well as the trash and 

contaminants that collect and affect water flow. Even before the 1944 Treaty, the U.S. and 

Mexico were talking about how to handle wastewater coming from both sides of the border. 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When IBWC’s plan for secondary treatment at the International Wastewater Treatment Plant 

was developed, it created an opportunity to address the issues in the valley, and so the Tijuana 

River Valley Recovery Team was created. The team is primarily focused on the trash and 

sediment aspects of the valley. However, there are complex answers to the question of who 

owns the property, who regulates it, who uses it and why. The challenge is how to integrate 

those disparate parts and players into a team that can work together and also reach out to the 

Mexican agencies. 

The team includes more than 30 federal, state and local agencies from the U.S. and Mexico. Its 

four action teams work together under the guidance of one policy committee. Its vision is to rid 

Tijuana River Valley of trash and sediment now and in the future, and to maintain the physical 

and chemical integrity. The mission is to bring together government agencies, regulators and 

funding agencies to seek advice from the scientific and environmental community to find ways 

to eliminate accumulations and restore the valley’s ecosystem. 

The team takes a linear approach, and to criticism from those who prefer a more 

comprehensive approach, Mr. Nettleton noted that many activities occur simultaneously and in 

parallel, and if those activities succeed, then larger goals can be achieved. Many of those 

solutions involve stopping trash and sediment at the source using strategically placed bar 

screens, assessing where accumulation occurs and how much, and removing unwanted trash 

and sediment and transferring it to recycling centers. Sedimentation basins can collect and 

dredge out sediment, which can be used for beaches or commercial applications. 

The team has four action teams: 

 The Border Action Team develops and implements solutions in the immediate vicinity of 

the valley. 

 The Cleanup Action Team cleans up trash and manages sediment in the valley in an 

environmentally sensitive way. 

 The Restoration Action Team plans, coordinates and implements the restoration of the 

valley. 

 The Binational Action Team works with agencies in Mexico to determine how they can 

work together. 

More than 30 agencies, including government agencies, citizen groups and environmental 

groups, are involved in these efforts, and many others are asking to get involved. The team’s 

successes so far have a lot to do with that. The team has been awarded large grants to assess 

the trash and sediment in the valley, implement cleanup efforts, and to test nets in Goat Canyon 

to catch trash. In addition, the team is in discussions with Tijuana about working together, it has 

created a website, and it has published ―The River Team Update.‖ 

Future projects include applications for grants to sweep the valley surface free of trash and to 

plan a sedimentation basin in Smuggler’s Gulch. The team is also researching additional grant 

opportunities, which will help raise the several million dollars needed to complete these projects. 

If the team’s work is completed, the cost savings, while not yet calculable, would be seen 

among several state and local agencies. 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In terms of its relationship to GNEB, the River Team is a prime example of ―good neighbor‖ 

practices. It is focused on the environmental infrastructure needs of the land touching the 

border, and it welcomes advice from GNEB. 

Discussion 

Board member Dr. Christopher Brown asked if Mr. Nettleton could speak to the management 

mechanism. Mr. Nettleton stated Clay Phillips heads this and welcomes the high level of 

interest, appreciating all members and their input. 

Board member Mr. Stephen Niemeyer GNEB asked if it was only U.S. involvement. Mr. 

Nettleton stated they have a binational team working with agencies on the Mexican side of the 

border. Mr. Niemeyer stated they just completed the 12th report which deals with innovative and 

practical approaches to solving border environmental issues, and this presentation would have 

fit nicely with it. Perhaps the next report can incorporate more case studies in this area. Mr. 

Nettleton stated the idea is to build communities of interest such as an international ocean 

group, along with others that share global issues. 

Conclusion 

Chairman Ganster excused the guests and other participants, but asked the GNEB members to 

remain. Mr. Mark Joyce, DFO for GNEB concluded the day’s proceedings by introducing and 

thanking members of EPA’s staff in Washington, D.C., Ann-Marie Gantner and Stephanie 

McCoy. Mr. Joyce discussed membership issues, noting the distribution of materials from the 

administrator’s office, which needed acceptance, signatures and return. With no further 

discussion or business brought before GNEB, Chairman Ganster recessed the meeting at 5:50 

p.m. on June 10, 2009. 

Approval of Minutes of Washington, DC March 2009 Meeting 

Chairman Ganster reconvened the GNEB meeting at 8:15 a.m. on June 11, 2009, and asked 

the Board to approve the minutes of the March 2009 meeting. Mr. Gillen moved to approve the 

minutes of the September 2008 meeting, and Mr. Florez seconded. The motion carried 

unanimously. 

Regarding the March 2009, meeting minutes, Mr. Niemeyer asked that the penultimate 

paragraph on Page 8 which started ―Other 2008 BGC declarations include‖ be changed to 

―Another 2008 BGC declaration included.‖ Mr. Gillen stated he liked the way these particular 

minutes were laid out as items were easy to track. Mr. Niemeyer asked approval of the minutes 

be deferred until the next meeting. Chairman Ganster replied there had been ample time for 

review. Mr. Ramirez-Thomas made a motion to approve the March 2009 minutes and Ms. Wolf 

seconded. The motion carried unanimously. 

Other Business 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planning for the September Meeting 

Chairman Ganster opened the floor for discussion about the next GNEB meeting, which is 

scheduled for September 24-25, 2009, in Tucson, Arizona. Chairman Ganster said the venue 

was still in question and suggested reopening that discussion. 

Mr. Ruth recommended Nogales, which is suffering a number of environmental issues that the 

Board could examine firsthand. Fieldtrips could be taken in order to highlight some of the areas 

of concern. A new wastewater treatment plant was being commissioned this month. Dr. Austin 

seconded that idea, particularly because of the new facility opening in the vicinity, noting easy 

travel in the city. Ms. Krebs asked to confirm the proposed dates did not conflict with the 

National Border Coordinators Meeting, which it would not. Dr. Brown supported Mr. Ruth's 

proposed site, listing Sonora, Mexico, as a field trip site, which has a wastewater treatment 

facility and would provide a great opportunity for a binational discussion. Mr. Ramirez-Thomas 

volunteered to assist in the planning of a meeting in Nogales. In addition, the meeting could be 

timed to coincide with a groundbreaking of the Mariposa Reconfiguration Project. 

Chairman Ganster confirmed the meeting will likely be held in Nogales, but the dates are still to 

be confirmed and asked the members to keep the days around September 24-25 open until the 

dates could be finalized. 

Board Member Report Outs 

Chairman Ganster asked the members to provide updates on their respective organizations. 

TCEQ: 

Mr. Niemeyer passed out the updated TCEQ Border Initiative, which they also translate into 

Spanish. He noted they are trying to define ―extraordinary drought.‖ At a drought conference in 

March 2009, options were provided to Mexican colleagues, and TCEQ is waiting for their 

feedback. The definition must be set and be presented to the Border Governors Conference by 

2009. 

Ramirez Advisors Inter-National: 

Mr. Ramirez-Thomas said the Mariposa project, which was funded in the Recovery Act, is near 

completion. That port of entry is one of the most congested on the border, far exceeding its 

traffic capacity. The funding was used to double the capacity for inspection of vehicles, and it 

will have pedestrian crossing facilities. Other improvements are being made on the Mexican 

side of the border. The San Luis 2 crossing will see a ribbon cutting ceremony before the end of 

the year. Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) has undertaken a 26.2 mile high-speed 

connector road from San Luis 2 to Interstate 8, and the ribbon cutting ceremony will take place 

around that same time. The safety inspection facility for incoming trucks should be completed as 

well. In the San Luis-Yuma area, in those four projects, $175 million worth of investments will 

come on line, dramatically impacting border wait times, safety, and economic development for 

the entire southwest of the state and the northwest corner of Sonora. A new partnership by the 

Arizona-Mexico Commission and other stakeholders used contributions to build two new lanes 

at the Lucville inspection facility, which should be completed before early next year. A 

presentation was made for the Commission demonstrating long wait times and old infrastructure 

has cost Arizona 4 million visitors annually. Most visitors have to wait at least 45 minutes to 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cross despite decreasing traffic. Ms. Grijalva commented this is the first time Mexican money is 

being put into a port entry in the U.S. and it was a private-public partnership. Arizona and 

Sonora are to be congratulated on their efforts. 

Department of Transportation: 

Ms. Grijalva commented that the Department of Transportation is trying to collect data on border 

wait times and performance measures. Only anecdotal data is currently shared. Baseline data is 

being collected in El Paso, Nogales, Otay, Laredo and other sites, so this should create a set of 

hard data in this area, which would be useful in demonstrating the cost savings and other 

benefits of the ideas discussed earlier. "Greening" the border and environmental issues are 

priorities. Chairman Ganster reported a study by a San Diego State master's student looking at 

CPB data on wait time along the border has been done. Mr. Rodriguez-Thomas talked about a 

University of Arizona research study, available online, that examined the characteristics of 

border crossings. The study concluded Mexican visitors spend over $7 million in Arizona every 

day. Mr. Gallegos asked if they knew the average spending by crosser. Mr. Rodriguez-Thomas 

stated only averages were reported. 

Border 2012 Program: 

Mr. Torres provided handouts, which included topics for the Summer 2009 meeting, Regions 6 

and 9 recent accomplishments, and 2009 RFPs. He stated the next National Coordinators 

meeting takes place October 27-29. For the first time, it will be held on a tribal reservation at the 

Rincon tribe, and the format might change from working groups to more interactive panels that 

include industry and NGOs. Both regions have started to submit their RFPs for Border 2012 

funding. Region 9 will conclude its process this month, while Region 6 will begin June 1. This 

year’s focus is on climate change and greenhouse gas projects, so some money is set aside for 

those types of projects. The EPA National Coordinator, Scott Fulton, has been nominated to the 

Office of General Counsel. Michelle DePass has been nominated for the assistant 

administrator's position at EPA’s Office of International Affairs (OIA). The Border States Climate 

Change Workshop in April was very successful, bringing together many stakeholders and 

experts to discuss climate change and effects of GHG. A report on the activities by the Border 

States is available online. Chairman Ganster asked how arrangements with BECC have been 

working out in terms of flow of funding. Mr. Torres stated EPA entered into an agreement with 

BECC in Region 9 three years ago, and this has enabled EPA to fund projects from Mexican 

organizations. The agreement will expand into Region 6. Everything has been working well with 

the arrangement. Mr. Niemeyer asked if Mr. Fulton's position required confirmation, which Mr. 

Torres affirmed. Mr. Niemeyer asked about Ms. DePass' background. Mr. Manzanilla indicated 

she was from the East Coast and her bio will be made available to the Board. Mr. Niemeyer 

asked if Pete Silva had been confirmed by the Senate. Mr. Torres stated nothing official has 

occurred. Mr. Ruth indicated Pete Silva’s confirmation was out of the committee but as of Friday 

he had not gone through confirmation by the Senate. Mr. Manzanilla stated several appointees 

were traveling in a group through the confirmation process. 

San Diego Department of Environmental Health: 

Mr. Dorsey said assembly bill 1079 is in the state legislature. The bill would create a New River 

improvement project account, and the funds would expand activities related to New River. CBC 

would oversee the state agencies involved in the project. The author of the bill is Assemblyman 

Manuel Perez. 

University of Arizona: 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Austin commented that the Border 2012 information meetings could disseminate bilingual 

versions of the proceedings, rather than an English version for the U.S. and a Spanish version 

for Mexico. She stated collaboration with BECC is going smoothly. One example of the success 

of Border 2012 is in providing composting toilets for areas that will not see any wastewater 

treatment services in the foreseeable future. Those toilets have been built, and federal funding 

helped those families who could not afford to pay for their own toilets. Chairman Ganster 

commented it took approximately eight years for sewage services to be installed in newly 

established colonias in the Tijuana Region. He asked about the length of the process in 

Nogales. Dr. Austin stated it depended on each colonia, but this particular site was not one 

Nogales was going to pursue. 

USDA: 

Mr. Guerrero said grant money is available for the planning and implementation of conservation 

practices and USDA is working with a number of tribes and landowners. USDA continues to 

work with SEMARNAT on the Plant Materials Center Initiative. A trip was planned for the spring, 

but the H1N1 virus forced it to be postponed indefinitely. USDA is working with Animal, Plant, 

Health and Inspection Service to address the issue of cattle tick fever, providing planning 

assistance to help control and eradicate the disease. 

Campo Kumeyaay Nation: 

Mr. Connolly said he gave a presentation on GNEB at the Department of the Interior’s April 

workgroup. He is currently working across San Diego County with other tribes developing a 

consortium on water issues with the state and county. Many conveyance systems were paid for 

with federal funds for the purpose of providing water to tribes and other groups, but so far no 

tribe has seen a benefit from these systems. The consortium is addressing that issue. The tribe 

signed an MOU with San Diego Gas & Electric in the hopes of adding to its existing wind power 

project. Construction should start next year. 

New Mexico State University: 

Dr. Brown said his group is on the Joint Working Committee as a technical consultant for 

binational transportation planning efforts. The next JWC meeting will be in mid-July in Santa Fe. 

A project funded by the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency is underway to revise the 

curriculum for GIS tools. Dr. Brown related information regarding the Environmental Trunk 

Project, stating it has gone full circle with two graduate students implementing this project 

successfully. 

SANDAG: 

Mr. Gallegos reported that ground has broken on the last piece of State Route 905, which will 

connect the Otay Mesa border crossing to the freeway system. The federal government is 

redoing the port at San Ysidro, and despite some struggles with GSA, progress has been made. 

However, the State Department could assist in this effort, particularly on a southbound 

pedestrian crossing on the east side. Right now, pedestrians have to navigate the highway to 

cross, so this lane would create a safer alternative for crossing. SANDAG has secured 

infrastructure bond dollars from the state, which will be used to improve access to the port of 

San Diego. An intermodal center will increase both vehicle and rail capacity for shipping. 

Changes to the border crossing at Otay East are in progress. If successful, the model can offer 

a new way of investing in the border infrastructure, specifically generating enough revenue to 

cover the costs of the infrastructure and operations. It has also garnered interest from the 

business community, which could create other opportunities for funding. SB 375 requires that 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SANDAG develop a sustainable community strategy to demonstrate how it would get a target 

from ARB and how it would achieve it. Because a lot of people work on one side of the border 

and live on another, it is necessary to factor in the impact on greenhouse gases associated with 

that cross-border travel. Mr. Darrach commented on the Otay Mesa East Project, noting border 

crossing projects require agreement among dozens of federal, state and local agencies on both 

sides of the border. California held regular meetings over three years before going to the federal 

government for funding for its current projects. Mr. Gallegos provided highlights of the 

partnership between Mexico and the U.S. for this particular project. 

IBWC: 

Commissioner Ruth reported that IBWC is now constructing secondary treatment facilities for a 

wastewater treatment plant that began operating in 1997. The project is scheduled to be 

completed in two years. FEMA has been accelerating its plans and schedules for requiring flood 

insurance on all projects. IBWC received $220 million in stimulus money and is currently 

seeking flood protection projects in New Mexico and Texas. The first contract is expected to be 

issued July 6. Levee projects are being completed in those areas so that they can meet revised 

FEMA standards. Presidio, for example, was struck by a huge and unexpected flood, but their 

levees were able to protect the town. IBWC is performing emergency repairs on the levees 

protecting the town of Presidio and should have it completed sometime in June. Nogales 

presents tremendous challenges in terms of both storm water and wastewater, and it will cost a 

lot of money to repair those structures. Some pipelines are more than 30 years old, and they 

need repairs. Meanwhile, the growth rate is tremendous, and so IBWC is trying to work with city, 

state and other agencies to develop a comprehensive plan to deal with Nogales. IBWC is 

starting a dialogue with Mexico regarding the Rio Grande, specifically reinstituting the Rio 

Grande Summit. 

National Park Service: 

Mr. Florez introduced himself as the program manager for the International Conservation 

Program, where he assists different parks in the U.S. in securing funding for projects with 

Mexico and Canada. He offered assistance to those agencies that need it. Mexico proposed 

expansion of the protected area around Big Bend National Park and make it a binational entity. 

Mexico has also added five protected areas. Chairman Ganster welcomed Mr. Florez to the 

Board. 

City of Brownsville: 

Mr. Wood congratulated Ms. Wolf on her award. He thanked the IBWC for the levee rehab in 

Cameron County, which is complete. He said GSA went to Brownsville to talk about expanding 

one of its bridges, which would thus expedite traffic, but it would require closing a main street. 

After a lengthy discussion, GSA will adjust its plans to keep the road open. The Veterans Bridge 

expansion is going well, as is the West Rail relocation to the west of the town. Brownsville 

continues to have issues with a border fence being built by DHS. There is a flood valve that is 

supposed to be fenced off, but discussions are under way to find another solution. 

Membership Issues 

Mr. Joyce discussed membership issues with the Board. As some terms expire, EPA hopes to 

replace outgoing members with a full compliment of federal members. Several agencies can be 

represented, so EPA wants to ensure that GNEB has a diverse group from within the federal 

government. 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GNEB 13th Report Overview 

Mr. Joyce then discussed GNEB’s recent advice letter outlining important issues for the 

administration. He said CEQ wants greater focus on the border fence. EPA staff met with CEQ 

and provided the most recent reports. There has not yet been any feedback, but now that CEQ 

is responsible for responding to these reports, it should be coming soon. Mr. Joyce also listed 

some of Nancy Sutley’s input on the advice letter. She requested the following: 

 More specific, detailed suggestions on how recommendations can be put into effect. 

 Additional emphasis on the highest priority issues while still listing everything that is 

deemed important. 

 Adaptation measures to climate change, including drought, precipitation, and water 

quality issues. 

 Preservation of major water resources and how to better coordinate multiple efforts. 

 Renewable energy and how these efforts can be best coordinated; how renewables can 

tie into economic revitalization, and how stimulus funds can create green jobs. 

 Improved electrification at points of entry and the resulting environmental benefits. 

 Reducing PM problems. 

 How to build onto existing agreements and leverage the associated goals. 

 How can these recommendations be implemented? 

Discussion 

Mr. Brown asked since a lot of issues in recent reports have focused on security if more insight 

might be gleaned into how DHS can better collaborate with agencies so they can work together 

to address more specific issues. Mr. Joyce responded given CEQ’s interest in the fence, GNEB 

might want to send a second advice letter. For example, the border fence will raise different 

issues at different points along the border, such as the activities around Mount Cuchama do not 

appear to be environmentally sensitive; perhaps the use of sensors or cameras which would be 

more sensitive to this sacred site. The advice letter pointing to specific detailed instances would 

speak volumes, noting these have been concerns in the past and remain so today. 

Ms. Grijalva stated the letter should not only point out specific problems but include potential 

solutions to those issues, including some that have worked in past situations. 

Mr. Connolly has been told the barriers are not for people but for vehicles and the area around 

Mount Cuchama is dangerous and difficult terrain. Mr. Joyce stated this is a perfect example of 

why a more reasoned and thoughtful approach is needed. 

Dr. Austin indicated in the areas where the fence has been built, the suggestions could be easily 

implemented. However, the areas where it has not been built require greater effort, so GNEB 

can demonstrate its expertise by giving specific ideas. It may help to choose a specific area and 

focus ideas there before spending the money. 

Dr. Brown noted while taking a recent tour of the US-Mexico border, it was clear that some 

areas are well designed and secure, while others are not. This is the best illustration of what can 

happen when there is healthy discussion between DHS and local groups, and what happens 

when there is not. 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Ruth stated the decision to build the fence was made so quickly that it removed any chance 

for dialogue. The people of Hidalgo County consulted IBWC, who recommended creating a wall 

out of levees that meet FEMA certification. Presidio is doing the same thing, and it is more 

aesthetically pleasing. However, this could have been done in other areas where those 

concerns arose had there been more discussion among the different stakeholders. Dialogue is 

necessary versus mitigation after the fact. 

Mr. Niemeyer said it would be helpful to revisit the language from the 10th report, which talked 

about border security and the environment. DHS ignored the recommendations. He reiterated 

that a DHS member be involved in the meetings on a regular basis. Specifically, that person can 

read the 10th report and see the ideas that GNEB was putting out. Mr. Niemeyer reviewed past 

happenings in the 1990s, when a committee where the late Barbara Jordan was appointed chair 

by President Clinton recommended national identification cards to prevent illegal immigration. 

While that idea was criticized, it was based on a consensus, and it might be worth suggesting 

again as part of the overall goal of keeping illegal immigrants away. That is the purpose of the 

fence, but an ID card has merit as well. 

Mr. Wood stated walled levees work well for towns that have levees, but for those that do not, 

grants are available to make drainage improvements. Some grant money was used for the 

levee wall system, which may be reimbursable, but it has to be appropriated by Congress. They 

are not guaranteed reimbursement, so without that funding those drainage systems will not get 

built, and those areas will flood. 

Mr. Dorsey said the discussion should stay away from illegal immigration, which was addressed 

at length in the 10th Report, and focus more on other areas where solutions can be found. 

Mr. Connolly asked if this letter was to be in the form of a follow-up to the 10th Report. Chairman 

Ganster responded it will be just a stand-alone advice letter. 

After the Board agreed that a second advice letter was needed, members made suggestions. 

Mr. Gallegos stated the letter needs to recognize the need for security while providing examples 

of what did and did not work. Chairman Ganster said the letter will be written with Board input 

via conference calls and various drafts as the Board operates on a consensus basis. Mr. Gillen 

stated he would gladly participate in the writing of this letter. Mr. Niemeyer stated care should be 

taken when noting comments from conference calls. He said there needs to be a way to ensure 

the agreed upon language is reflected in the writing of the document. Chairman Ganster stated 

it is actually a very timely process to get out a quick letter and he did his best in scripting the 

document. Mr. Wood stated each member should lend their respective expertise in their specific 

areas. There are some places still without contractual implications and it would be great to get 

input for better problem solving prior to contracts and build out. Mr. Joyce indicated it is 

incumbent upon each member to send specific examples during the drafting stage before 

approval of the letter. Mr. Gallegos asked for clarification of standard Board operating 

procedures, which Mr. Joyce provided. 

The drafting committee will consist of Mr. Gillen, Ms. Wolf, Mr. Wood, and Mr. Brown, who will 

chair the effort. Mr. Niemeyer volunteered to record members’ changes. Ideally, the committee 

will draft a letter in the next few weeks, circulate it and then schedule a conference call where 

members will submit their changes. 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GNEB 13 th Report Working Meeting 

13th Chairman Ganster initiated a discussion about what to include in the report, with a 

recommendation to focus on only a few issues. He asked for suggestions on how to create 

workgroups. The top priorities are air quality, and water quantity and quality. Other possible 

topics include cross-cutting coordination of efforts, i.e. a breaking down of the traditional silo 

approach; climate variability; and GHG. Chairman Ganster asked the Board for comments. 

Dr. Austin indicated GNEB’s suggested topics should be enfolded with the topics raised by 

CEQ. Mr. Joyce said responses to Ms. Sutley should not be the sole basis of report, but rather 

additional areas needing emphasis. Dr. Austin agreed, noting examples such as water supply fit 

well with preservation of water resources, and air quality fits with reduction of PM10. Therefore, 

the workgroups can address the general issues with a specific focus per Ms. Sutley’s feedback. 

Mr. Torres stated there could be a focus on President Obama’s recent announcement on 

framework on energy and climate change. Many of the issues discussed with CEQ could be 

incorporated into that context. For instance, rather than have a separate portion for air quality, 

discuss climate and GHG. 

Mr. Gallegos asked where infrastructure fit into the priorities. He indicated contamination could 

be mitigated if there were better infrastructures in Mexico, or more efficient ports of entry as a 

way to improve air quality. Chairman Ganster stated infrastructure is implicit in the reports. 

Ms. Krebs commented climate change is broad enough to envelop several subcategories, such 

as electrification at ports or reduction of PM10, so it might be useful to take the topics from Mr. 

Gibbs’s presentation and organize them under the climate change heading. She stated the 

topics should cover implementable ideas. Some topics might be too ambitious right now, but 

others, while they might face obstacles, could be achieved in the short term. 

Dr. Brown said since so many greenhouse gas emissions come from electricity generation, the 

report could talk about their impact, especially since it touches on climate change, greenhouse 

gases, and green jobs on the border. Coming up with actionable recommendations that would 

create financial or labor incentives would generate a lot of interest. Chairman Ganster reiterated 

this needs to be a stand-alone document which can refer to other reports, but it has to be 

understandable on its own. 

Mr. Niemeyer stated the report needs to be simple, focusing on two or three main topics. It can 

reference other specific aspects, but it should not stray from those few general topics. Also, it 

should include concrete recommendations. Chairman Ganster noted agreement that few lead 

topics are needed. 

Mr. Joyce noted while the main topics need to be the primary focus, it is still possible to touch 

on other topics such as border issues. Given there is a new administration and great resources 

available it would be best not to completely ignore the longstanding border problems. 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Manzanilla indicated since CEQ has provided a framework that builds on the agreement 

between presidents Obama and Calderon, it creates a great opportunity to press for quicker 

action on specific issues that have been discussed for several years. 

Dr. Brown stated strong agreement with Mr. Manzanilla's and Mr. Torres' statements. He asked 

the Board to support their ideas as the driving theme of the report structure as it is current and 

enfolding right before us. He stated the urgency of certain pressing issues should be 

emphasized. It might not come through in all topics, but it could affect the areas where 

immediate action is possible. From that, other topics can be incorporated. 

Dr. Austin remarked there is no question that adaptation to climate change must be included, 

but there is a question as to whether it should be the leading topic or whether it should run 

through more specific topics. Mr. Manzanilla stated water resources and public health and air 

quality seem to be relevant topics to the border. Chairman Ganster noted water supply and 

water quality issues have always been linked. Mr. Joyce indicated whatever organizational 

framework is adopted CEQ’s suggestions should be incorporated. 

Mr. Connolly stated little attention is paid to the unintended consequences of planned actions. 

For example, he asks what the net impact of solar panels is as they relate to the manufacturing 

process, and how much impact comes from transporting water from desalinization plants. Mr. 

Joyce echoed Mr. Connolly's remarks, asking what are total costs associated with possible 

solutions. 

Mr. Florez asked how issues are generated. Mr. Joyce reviewed the process stating the Board 

will generate a short list of important issues, followed by discussions with CEQ, and 

subsequently returning back to the Board. Mr. Florez stated presentations contain concrete 

solutions that can be implemented immediately and should be issue driven. They could be 

incorporated into the report without straying from the larger issues. Mr. Joyce indicated page 6 

of the letter addresses the issues of approaches and solutions. 

Mr. Niemeyer stated water supply is the most important issue; without water there is no 

economic development. Air quality comes in a close second. 

Discussion then moved to the structure and theme of the report. Dr. Brown stated a rough draft 

of an outline can open with climate change and energy and then narrow to impacts on the 

border region. Focus on the first two topics from Mr. Gibbs’s presentation, and then map them 

to Ms. Sutley’s recommendations. 

Mr. Ruth agreed water supply should be the top priority. He indicated conservation needs to be 

interwoven into the discussions about water because it is the cheapest way to augment 

supplies. In order to achieve conservation an educational program is necessary, which needs to 

start by informing the children. 

Mr. Joyce opined while the agreement between the U.S. and Mexico is important, it should not 

be the framework for the entire report. 

Mr. Manzanilla did not mean to imply it needed to be the framework of the report; however, it is 

a significant agreement. The issues need to be looked at as holistically as possible, which will 

provide a greater understanding of them and will help break the silos that currently exist. 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Torres reiterated the GNEB needs to examine the relevant and emerging issue and take 

advantage of it. Wrap discussions on air and water into what the whole world is looking at. His 

message is not to miss this opportunity. 

Ms. Wolf asked about the working title of ―Environmental Challenges along the US-Mexico 

Border Caused by Climate Change.‖ It would incorporate everyone’s concerns and the topic is 

broad enough, yet could provide focus on one to two issues. Chairman Ganster stated the title 

―Border Environmental Issues: New Challenges‖ might be more suitable as climate change is 

not the only issue. Dr. Austin indicated it cannot be too specific because the focus might 

become too narrow which could produce misleading cause-and-effect scenarios. Ideally, the 

report brings some issues to the table, and EPA will address them no matter how specific 

GNEB’s focus. Mr. Connolly suggested the title "Priorities and Adaptations to Changing 

Conditions in the Border Area,‖ and Dr. Brown suggested ―Environmental Challenges along the 

US-Mexico Border: Adaptations and Coping Mechanisms,‖ with chapters devoted to water 

resources, climate change, and population growth impacts. Mr. Niemeyer stated the report 

should include a brief history and overview of the Border Region, the major challenges and 

issues, and the steps that need to occur to address them. Mr. Dorsey noted population growth 

can be incorporated as long as it focuses on the impact of population growth and not a solution 

to the issue. 

Chairman Ganster shifted the focus of the meeting to the drafting process. Workgroups will be 

assigned to the following topics: 

 Water resources and supply 

 Air quality, climate change and energy provision 

 Population growth impacts and potential solutions 

 Additional priorities/areas for additional work 

 Specific recommendations, including cross-cutting mechanisms 

 A group to outline the report and define the approach 

Each of those topics should include stressors, and population growth and additional topics could 

be written as smaller chapters. Dr. Austin said the outline should be directed by the expertise of 

each member, but Dr. Brown disagreed, saying the outline will direct the focus and discussion. 

Dr. Brown will draft an outline and then send it to the other members of the workgroup. Once 

finalized, the outline will be distributed to the other members. 

The workgroups are assigned as follows: 

 Outline: Dr. Brown, Ms. Wolf, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Niemeyer, Mr. Torres 

 Water: Mr. Ganster, Mr. Dorsey, Mr. Wood, Ms. Spener, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Gallegos 

 Air Quality: Ms. Krebs, Ms. Siwik, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Gibbs 

 Cross-Cutting Mechanisms: Mr. Ganster, Mr. Manzanilla, Mr. Brown, Mr. Wood, Mr. 

Niemeyer, Mr. Martinez 

Some draft text should be ready by the meeting scheduled for September. At that time, the 

writer/editor would make revisions based on members’ comments. In order to have a draft by 

then, the draft should be written by September 1, thus giving the other members time to review 

it before the meeting. The outline workgroup will schedule a conference call on June 17 at 1:00 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

p.m., MST, and receive an outline by June 19. After revisions are made, it will go to the entire 

Board by June 29. The Board would then provide feedback over the next two weeks, until July 

10. During that time, the workgroups will schedule their conference calls and draft their chapters 

through July and August. 

Closing Session 

Chairman Ganster thanked everyone for their participation. The next GNEB meeting will be 

held in September 2009, with dates TBD. With no further discussion or business brought before 

GNEB, Chairman Ganster adjourned the meeting at 1:00 p.m. on June 11, 2009. 

I hereby certify that to the best of my 

knowledge, the foregoing Minutes of the 

proceedings are accurate and complete. 

___________________ __________________________________ 

Date Paul Ganster 

GNEB Chair 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT 1

List of Participants 

GNEB Members Designated Federal Officer 

Mr. Paul Ganster, Chair Mr. Mark Joyce 

Dr. Diane Austin 

Dr. Christopher Brown EPA Representatives 

Mr. Michael Connolly David Fege 

Mr. Daniel Darrach Jose Garcia 

Mr. Michael Dorsey Michael Gibbs 

Mr. Luis Florez Alheli Baños-Keener 

Mr. Gary Gallegos Enrique Manzanilla 

Mr. Gary Gillen Alexis St. Julien 

Ms. Patti Krebs Tomas Torres 

Mr. Stephen Niemeyer Stephanie McCoy 

Mr. Luis Ramirez-Thomas Ann-Marie Gantner 

Mr. Bill Ruth 

Ms. Ann Marie Wolf 

Mr. John Wood 

Guest Presenters and Members of the Public 

John Beresford (Native American Environmental Protection Coalition)

Hernando Durán Cabrera (CESPT)

Cami Compton (TCEQ)

Crystal Crawford (Mayor of Del Mar)

Toribio Cueva (CESPT)

Rafael Guerrero (USDA)

Sócrates Bastida Hernández (SPABC)

Lisa Gover (Governmental Advisory Committee, Campo Band EPA)

Sylvia Grijalva (Department of Transportation)

Jack Keener (Geocom)

Lisa Nakagawa (The San Diego Foundation)

Dr. Efraín Nieblas (Secretaria de Protección al Ambiente)

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Nettleton (Open Oceans Global)

Halla Razak (San Diego County Water Authority)

Sally Spener (International Boundary and Water Commission)

Paula Stigler (The San Diego Foundation)

Dolores Wesson (National Advisory Committee)

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT 2 

Acronyms Used In These Meeting Minutes 

ARB --- Air Resource Board 

BECC --- Border Environment Cooperation Commission 

BRIC --- Brazil, Russia, India, and China 

CBC --- California Biodiversity Council 

CEQ --- Commission on Environmental Quality 

CESPT --- Comision Estatal de Servicios Publicas de Tijuana 

CHP --- California Highway Patrols 

COBRO --- Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities 

DFO --- Designated Federal Officer 

DHS --- Department of Homeland Security 

EPA — Environmental Protection Agency 

FEMA --- Federal Emergency Management Agency 

GHG --- Greenhouse Gas 

GNEB --- Good Neighbor Environmental Board 

IBWC --- International Boundary and Water Commission 

IMPLAN --- Instituto Municipal de Planeación 

MOU --- Memorandum of Understanding 

NAEPC --- Native American Environmental Protection Coalition 

NGOs — Non-Governmental Organizations 

OCEM — Office of Cooperative Environmental Management 

OIA --- Office of International Affairs 

SANDAG --- San Diego Association of Governments 

SEMARNAT --- Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales 

SPABC --- Secretariat de Proteccion al Ambiente, Baja California 

TMDL --- Total Maximum Daily Load 

USDA --- United States Department of Agriculture 

WCI --- West Coast Initiative 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good Neighbor Environmental Board 

June 10-11, 2009 

Sycuan Resort, El Cajon, CA 

AGENDA 

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 

8:00 A.M. Registration 

8:30 Welcome and Introductions 

Welcome: Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB 

Rafael DeLeon, Director 

Office of Cooperative Environmental Management 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Mark Joyce* GNEB Designated Federal Officer 

Board Members, Attendee Self Introductions 

9:00 Welcome from the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

9:30 Environmental Priorities of Indigenous Peoples along the U.S.-Mexican Border 

10:00-12:20 Environmental Priorities of the U.S.-Mexico Border 

California’s Border Environmental Priorities (Ricardo Martinez*, Deputy 

Secretary for Border Affairs, Cal/EPA) 

Baja California’s Border Environmental Priorities (Sócrates Bastida Hernández, 

Secretary, SPABC)) 

Environmental Priorities of the Border Governors Conference (Dan Garza*, 

DTSC, Cal/EPA) 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Cross Border Planning and Cooperation: The San Diego-Tijuana Region 

(Crystal Crawford*, SANDAG Board and Mayor, Del Mar) 

12:20 Public Comments 

01:00 Lunch 

02:00 Air Quality Issues 

Climate Change: A California Perspective (Michael Gibbs*, Assistant Secretary 

for Regional Climate Initiatives, Cal/EPA)

Baja California’s Greenhouse Gasses Initiative (Efraín Nieblas, SPABC)

03:30 Water Issues in the California-Baja California Border Region 

Tijuana’s Water Treatment and Supply Programs (Toribio Cueva*, CESPT) 

San Diego Water Supply Issues, (Halla Razak*, Colorado River Programs 

Director, San Diego County Water Authority) 

Tijuana River Valley Recovery Team (Carl Nettleton, Co-Chair, Tijuana River 

Valley Recovery Team, and President, Open Oceans Global) 

05:00 Adjourn 

Thursday, June 11, 2009 

7:40 A.M . Registration 

8:00 Business Meeting Call to Order 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8:10 Approval of Minutes 

Washington, D.C., March 2009 Meeting 

Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB 

8:30 Other Business: 

9:00 GNEB 13th Report Working Meeting: “Environmental Priorities along the U.S.-

Mexico Border” 

Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB 

11:30 Public Comments 

12:00 Adjourn 

GNEB Meeting Minutes June 10-11, 2009 Page 35