Document ID: EPA-HQ-OA-2013-0304-0017
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2015-03-10T04:00Z

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting

June 18–19, 2008

San Diego State University

Imperial Valley Campus Library

Calexico, California

Summary

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

Contents

  TOC \o "1-2"  Welcome	  PAGEREF _Toc94531496 \h  4 

Paul Ganster, Chair, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)	  PAGEREF
_Toc94531497 \h  4 

Rafael DeLeon, Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management	
 PAGEREF _Toc94531498 \h  4 

Lorena Cedeño-Zambrano, Acting Designated Federal Officer	  PAGEREF
_Toc94531499 \h  4 

Regional Welcome	  PAGEREF _Toc94531500 \h  4 

Stephen Roeder, Dean, San Diego State University (SDSU), Imperial Valley
Campus	  PAGEREF _Toc94531501 \h  4 

Victor Carrillo, Supervisor, Imperial County	  PAGEREF _Toc94531502 \h 
4 

Imperial–Mexicali Region Air Quality:  New Approaches to Pollution
Reduction	  PAGEREF _Toc94531503 \h  7 

Brad Poiriez, Air Quality Officer, Imperial County	  PAGEREF
_Toc94531504 \h  7 

California–Baja California Border Region Energy and Renewable
Alternatives	  PAGEREF _Toc94531505 \h  11 

Alan Sweedler, Chair, Center for Energy Studies, San Diego State
University	  PAGEREF _Toc94531506 \h  11 

Endangered Species Habitat	  PAGEREF _Toc94531507 \h  15 

Christopher Brown, U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), San Diego Field
Station	  PAGEREF _Toc94531508 \h  15 

Public Comment	  PAGEREF _Toc94531509 \h  19 

Colorado River Joint Cooperative Project, U.S.–Mexico	  PAGEREF
_Toc94531510 \h  19 

Carlos Marin, U. S. Commissioner, International Boundary and Water
Commission	  PAGEREF _Toc94531511 \h  19 

Dumping on Tribal Lands:  Pala Reservation New Transfer Station	 
PAGEREF _Toc94531512 \h  22 

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

[for Lenore Volturno]	  PAGEREF _Toc94531513 \h  22 

New River and Artificial Wetlands:  Using Nature to Clean Water	 
PAGEREF _Toc94531514 \h  25 

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

New River Wetland Project	  PAGEREF _Toc94531515 \h  25 

Board Members Report-Out Presentations	  PAGEREF _Toc94531516 \h  27 

U. S. Department of Transportation—Sylvia Grijalva	  PAGEREF
_Toc94531517 \h  27 

New Mexico Environment Department—Marissa Stone	  PAGEREF _Toc94531518
\h  27 

USEPA Region 9—Enrique Manzanilla [representing Laura Yoshii]	 
PAGEREF _Toc94531519 \h  27 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—Shannon Sorzano	 
PAGEREF _Toc94531520 \h  28 

Malpai Borderlands Group—Edward Elbrock	  PAGEREF _Toc94531521 \h  28 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)—Stephen Niemeyer	 
PAGEREF _Toc94531522 \h  29 

New Mexico State University—Christopher Brown	  PAGEREF _Toc94531523
\h  29 

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—Rafael Guerrero	  PAGEREF
_Toc94531524 \h  29 

Cameron County, Brownsville, Texas—John Wood	  PAGEREF _Toc94531525 \h
 30 

Campo Kumeyaay Nation—Mike Connolly	  PAGEREF _Toc94531526 \h  30 

Approval of Minutes of the Washington, D. C., March 2008 Meeting	 
PAGEREF _Toc94531527 \h  31 

Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB	  PAGEREF _Toc94531528 \h  31 

FACA Developments	  PAGEREF _Toc94531529 \h  32 

Rafael DeLeon, Director, OCEM	  PAGEREF _Toc94531530 \h  32 

Approval & Discussion of GNEB Advice Letter to President George W. Bush	
 PAGEREF _Toc94531531 \h  35 

Rosario Marin, California State Consumer Services Agency	  PAGEREF
_Toc94531532 \h  35 

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

U. S.–Mexico Border	  PAGEREF _Toc94531533 \h  35 

Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB	  PAGEREF _Toc94531534 \h  35 

Approach to Case Studies	  PAGEREF _Toc94531535 \h  37 

Diane Austin & Ann Marie Wolf, Members, GNEB	  PAGEREF _Toc94531536 \h 
37 

Discussion of Potential Case Studies	  PAGEREF _Toc94531537 \h  37 

Selection of Case Studies and Formation of Drafting Teams	  PAGEREF
_Toc94531538 \h  39 

Public Comments	  PAGEREF _Toc94531539 \h  45 

El Paso Public Meeting Discussion—Next Steps	  PAGEREF _Toc94531540 \h
 45 

Adjourn	  PAGEREF _Toc94531541 \h  46 

El Paso Meeting, September 24–25, 2008	  PAGEREF _Toc94531542 \h  46 

Appendix 1.  Meeting Participants	  PAGEREF _Toc94531543 \h  47 

 

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Welcome

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

Dr. Ganster welcomed the group, reminding them that GNEB is an
independent advisory board created by Congress and managed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. GNEB’s job, he said, is to advise the
President and Congress about environmental issues along the southern
border of the United States. Therefore, GNEB members have met regularly
in Border communities, such as Calexico, to hear about local issues from
the local perspective. 

Rafael DeLeon, Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management 

Mr. DeLeon added his welcome and thanked the organizers, especially Dr.
Roeder, for hosting the meeting and Dr. Ganster for returning to chair
the GNEB meeting. He then introduced Acting Designated Federal Officer,
Lorena Cedeño-Zambrano.

Lorena Cedeño-Zambrano, Acting Designated Federal Officer

Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano invited meeting participants to introduce
themselves, and the following did so:  Hector Aguirre, Diane Austin,
Chris Brown, Michael Connolly, Michael Dorsey, Edward Elbrock, Tina
Forester, Paul Ganster, Gary Gillen, Sylvia Grijalva, Rafael Guerrero
(alternate USDA Board Member for Rosendo Trevino), Mark Joyce, Steven
Kahn, Susan Keith, Enrique Manzanilla (representing Lauri Yoshii),
Carlos Marin, Susan Muza, Steve Niemeyer, Brad Poiriez, Allyson Siwik,
Shannon Sorzano, Sally Spener, Marissa Stone, Al Sweedler, Ann Marie
Wolf, and John Wood. 

Regional Welcome

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

After welcoming everyone, especially Dr. Ganster and Dr. Sweedler, Dr.
Roeder pointed out that the SDSU Imperial Valley Campus is the
university campus closest to the U. S.–Mexico Border, six blocks away.
Of all the students on this campus, 86% are Hispanic, of whom almost all
are first-generation Americans, and many more are the first generation
who will obtain a college degree. In some ways the area is more northern
Mexico than southern California. In addition to the benefits of a rich
cultural heritage, the area shares an airshed and various pollution
problems, and hosting this meeting helps fulfill SDSU’s mission to
raise the educational opportunities for the people who live in this
region. 

Victor Carrillo, Supervisor, Imperial County

On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Carrillo welcomed
participants to Imperial County, a region encompassing both the Imperial
and Mexicali Valleys. He has served Imperial County in various
capacities over the past 12 years, beginning with his election to the
Calexico City Council, followed by two terms as mayor. Currently Mr.
Carrillo is in his second term on the Board of Supervisors. He
represents the board on the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG), which encompasses six counties, 187 cities, 14
sub-regions, 38,000 square miles, and 18,500,000 residents in Southern
California. Of the six counties, three are coastal—Ventura, Los
Angeles, and Orange—and three are interior, in the basin—San
Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial. Imperial County serves as the
gateway to Southern California and the rest of the nation. 

The Southern California area is the nation’s most socially,
culturally, and economically diverse region and is more populous than 47
of the U. S. states. Its agricultural base is the fifth largest in the
nation, and its transportation network is constantly struggling to keep
up with ever-growing demand. Housing is falling short of demand, and
land-use decisions made in one city can have traffic, environmental, and
economic impacts on the region as a whole. Meanwhile, air pollution
generated in one community can affect residents 100 miles away because
the area is a bowl surrounded by the Chocolate Mountains to the east,
the Laguna Sierra Madres to the west, the Coachella Valley to the north,
and the Mexicali Valley and the Sea of Cortez to the south. Because the
area is tucked away in the southeastern corner of the state, because it
is primarily agricultural, and because it is across the Border from the
state of Baja California’s capital—in fact, California and Baja
California share a 200-mile border—we must speak with a unified voice
advocating for regional priority from Sacramento, Mexicali, and
Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Carrillo represents the county on the Imperial Valley Association of
Governments, as well as the Southern California Association of Governors
(SCAG), the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), and the
Borders Committee. For all of these organizations, the primary focus for
2008 has been the air quality crisis vis à vis the movement of goods in
the region. To define and create a livable, sustainable, and successful
region, we must coordinate advocacy efforts to advance consensus among
local transportation commissions, cities, counties, sub-regional
organizations, and private sector organizations. Although considerable
progress has been made in Southern California to improve air quality,
continuing this trend toward attainment of clean air standards will be
difficult given the pace of population growth, the great activity from
sea- and air-ports, and the increasing congestion on transportation
systems. Mexicali–Calexico is the third busiest port of entry after
San Diego–Tijuana and El Paso–Juarez. These ports and the trade
through them bring $256 billion to the economy and sustain 3.3 million
jobs. The region, however, pays a heavy price for being the nation’s
loading dock because it also receives a disproportionate share of diesel
emissions and other waste from trucks, ships, and planes. 

Regional managers are proposing this year to establish and to continue
enforcing legislative and regulatory measures, to enhance mobile-force
emissions regulations so the region meets requirements of the federal
Clean Air Act, and to support the Regional Transportation Improvement
Plan (RTIP) to achieve air quality and conformity. And, climate
exacerbates the air pollution problems—Imperial County’s climate,
unlike that of San Diego, is not Mediterranean. The asphalt and concrete
at the port of entry and in the cities add another 10 to 15 degrees of
heat for pedestrians and drivers who may have to wait 1 to three hours
to cross the Border. Automobiles were not designed to idle for hours in
those harsh conditions, so, not only are the people in their cars
exposed to heat and fumes, but also the vendors—sometimes children as
young as three and four selling Chiclets, or whatever, to help support
the family, who may be there from 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. until midnight. And
every hour is now a peak hour.

The Border 2012 Program established the Imperial Valley–Mexicali Air
Quality Task Force, a cooperative effort with representatives from all
levels of government. Furthermore, Southern California, with 35
representatives, has the political clout to influence environmental
issues. So, it is fitting that SDSU in Calexico in Imperial County is
hosting this meeting because it offers a venue to come together to
brainstorm and network to effectively devise recommendations for
improvements. It is about being right and doing the right thing.

Discussion

Dr. Ganster asked Mr. Carrillo, from his perspective as county
supervisor, what the county’s top environmental issue is. Mr. Carrillo
said he would have to categorize several interrelated things as one
issue:

The New River clean-up. Since 1940—and 12 presidential administrations
beginning with Franklin Delano Roosevelt—much effort has been expended
on clean-up and alternative solutions. 

The Salton Sea. The New River feeds into the Salton Sea, and the
environmental impact will be enormous if we allow the Salton Sea to die;
that issue is being neglected as the shorelines recede.

Air quality. The wind channel that comes through the San Gorgonio Pass
impacts the Coachella Valley, the Imperial Valley, and the Mexicali
Valley and consequently their quality of air (asthma occurs very
frequently here). Activities at the ports of entry and farming practices
also impact air quality.

Ms. Grijalva said the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) intends to do
more Border wait-time studies—one in Otay Mesa is ongoing, and one in
Calexico is planned—and she knows there are advocates on the Mexican
side. Mr. Carrillo said they have already conducted two Border studies
through the SANBAG and through IVA. Ms. Grijalva countered that what is
needed now is documented wait-time studies. So far, all data are
anecdotal. The FHA wants to document wait-times objectively using, for
example, radio-frequency identification (RFID) or global positioning
systems (GPS). Also, a regional board is developing a master plan for
Baja California and California that will deal with transportation and
the Border. 

Mr. Carrillo reported recent receipt of funding through the county’s
efforts with the California Transportation Commission to fund the final
phase of the Brawley Bypass, known statewide as the C4 Corridor or the
Calexico–Coachella Cargo Corridor, to get the heavy truck traffic from
the east port of entry—on its way to Los Angeles or Long Beach or to
Interstate 10 to go nationwide—off city streets in Calexico. It is a
health issue, a safety issue, and an environmental issue. 

As far as voter studies are concerned, Imperial County has initiated
ongoing efforts and collaboration through the Mexican Federal
Government, our counterparts in Baja California. Regardless what we
decide to do on the U.S. side, it has to be done in parallel on the
Mexican side, not only for design, but to ensure delivery of a project,
and there has to be funding. We have to understand that the Government
of Mexico is more centrally organized, e.g., the mayor of Mexicali has a
direct phone line to the President of Mexico, whereas our mayor of
Calexico does not have a direct phone line to the Governor of
California, let alone the President of the United States. So we, in the
United States, have more red tape to get through. However, dialogue has
improved our relationships and partnerships so that we can match a face
to a name and a department to help move things forward.

Mr. Niemeyer stated that last year’s GNEB report was on Border
security and the environment, and touched on the issue of undocumented
immigration and the Border wall. He asked for Mr. Carrillo’s
perceptions on that. Mr. Carrillo has been on the Border Counties
Coalition, which involves two Border counties in California, four in
Arizona, three in New Mexico, and 12 in Texas. Headquartered in El Paso,
they meet twice annually at the location of the president of the
commission and then in Washington, D.C. in March, to forward legislative
policy for Border counties in particular.

Federal government reimbursements for addressing undocumented
impacts—whether it is emergency medical services, or arrest,
detention, incarceration, and adjudication in local jails—amounts to
eight cents on the dollar nationwide. For California that amounts to
more than $378 million and for Imperial County it was $7 million. 

Mr. Carrillo’s position, and that of most people along the Border, has
favored an affordable and comprehensive immigration plan. In lieu of
building the wall, we should simplify, facilitate, and improve the
process of legalizing Border crosses. It is too expensive for a family
that is already economically strapped in Mexico or elsewhere in Latin
America. The process takes 11 years now for families, and it costs
hundreds of dollars for an individual—imagine a family of four that
wants to cross the Border to shop. 

Then, we should arrange a work plan, if the intent of the comprehensive
plan is to allow workers. Those who are engaged to come to work should
be able to come and work for a year or two or three, and then return.
And we should know who they are and that they are working via income tax
statements, photo ID, or some other type of document. 

The ports of entry themselves are not built for security—they were
built 42 years of ago primarily to process the movement of people and
goods. Today’s security technology does not align with yesterday’s
ports of entry. A new port of entry, in the design stage right now, is
expected to be completed by 2012 or 2013. Our Chamber of Commerce in the
valley, as well as in Calexico, has already been demanding 32- to
36-lane highways to offset the two- to three-hour waits we currently
endure. 

There are many complex issues, e.g., our cemetery board and the Mexican
Consulate recently met to discuss the undocumented people buried in
paupers’ graves that now need to be exhumed—we have to come up with
a better system and one that will bring down costs. At the same time,
this is a nation of laws, and if you can’t enforce the law, then your
law is meaningless. 

In sum, the billions of dollars that would be used to build that fence
would be better spent on technology to facilitate the legalization of
people crossing to shop or to visit because 99% of the people who cross
the Border would like to come through the front door rather than the
back door.

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

Brad Poiriez, Air Quality Officer, Imperial County

Imperial County has about 172,000 residents and the Mexicali Valley has
about 1.3 million. Mexicali has seven incorporated cities, including the
Baja California state capital. The combined region also has major
agricultural activity, as well as commerce and services. The Imperial
County Air Quality office has 17 full-time employees, including three in
the planning section. EPA sets the health-based standards for ozone and
PM10 (particulate matter as large as 10 micrometers), based on a margin
of safety for exposure to air pollution. For example, an eight-hour
ozone standard is 0.08, and a 24-hour PM10 standard is 150 micrograms
per cubic meter. The Air Quality Office’s obligation is to try to meet
those federal standards and to demonstrate progress towards meeting
them. Typically to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) of this
nature, it takes about 18 months. This office also does air quality
monitoring, emissions inventory, modeling for the transport of air
pollutants that cross the Border, and control assessments. Ultimately an
SIP should translate into cleaner area for the region.

In August 2004 EPA reclassified Imperial County as “serious
non-attainment” for PM10. That redesignation required us to develop a
PM10 plan that shows at least a 5% reduction of total emissions each
year until the standard is met, and the plan must be developed by
December 9, 2008. The plan will address the impacts from Mexico, natural
events (high winds, forest fires), and local sources. We demonstrate
through our SIP process, through data and modeling, that there is an
impact from PM10 transported from Mexico. Then we must show that the
transgression from the flow of pollutants is associated with the
meteorological conditions, and how it impacts our monitoring network in
Imperial Valley. In 2005, Imperial County had two PM10 violations, one
attributed to a local contribution, and one to transport. In 2006, there
were four exceedences—one for natural events, one for local impacts,
and two for transport. In 2007, we had two for natural events. EPA
developed a policy for impacts caused by natural events, and our board
adopted an action program on August 9, 2005, since we have had wild
fires and high winds. (We flag the data in the state’s and the EPA’s
depository for emissions and exceedance data and exclude that from the
termination). In addition, in 2005, the Imperial County board adopted
the Fugitive Dust rules to address local sources.

The ozone standard uses a rolling three-year average, which must be
lower than 0.84 parts per million. In April 2004, Imperial County was
designated a marginal non-attainment area for ozone under the Federal
Clean Air Act. On June 15, we were reclassified to moderate
non-attainment for ozone, which requires us to institute reasonable
available control measures instead of best available measures
regionally. We are required to submit our plan to the state and get
approval by December 31, 2008. Preliminary evaluation indicates impact
from transport from Mexico, as well as from the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (Los Angeles and just to the north). Much of their
pollution flows down to the San Gorgonio Pass into Imperial County.
Because of its bowl-like nature, everything that comes here gets trapped
here, adding to the local contribution.

To establish community involvement and support for our plan, we convened
a working group composed of people from Imperial County and the Mexicali
Valley, which meets monthly. Most of our grants come from the California
Air Resources Board and EPA. The Carl Moyer Program’s aim is to reduce
air emissions by providing grants to equipment operators. In Imperial
County the most effective use for the grant money is agricultural water
pumps that irrigate the crop land. Proposition 1B, which voters approved
in November 2006, establishes a funding mechanism to retrofit, replace,
or repower diesel trucks—on-road, in-use, heavy-duty diesel trucks.
Imperial County was considered for the San Diego Border Corridor
funding, which is a billion dollars over four years. The initial monies
will go towards the retrofit—adding particulate traps to diesel
trucks. California’s Low Emissions School Bus Program awarded Imperial
County $2.6 million to retrofit or replace the most polluting school
buses; now Imperial County has three pre-1976 school buses. Also,
Imperial County has established two compressed natural-gas (CNG)
refueling stations; we match what the school districts pay the state, so
that they can get a dedicated CNG bus because it is less polluting than
a diesel bus. 

We received two EPA grants through the Border 2012 Program. One was a
$60,000 grant to assess the unpaved parking areas in the Calexico
region. This relates to trucks moving goods and trailers from south of
the Border to north of the Border in their staging yards. Approximately
27 locations—many of them are unpaved parking lots—have been
identified in the Calexico region. By identifying them, we can institute
control measures to reduce not only the emissions from the parking yards
but also from the diesel trucks themselves. We took aerial photos and
ground photos and then tried to quantify the emissions that come from
each yard. The goal is to retrofit 25 trucks, but the cost of equipment
and installation was prohibitive, so we have finished 12 trucks and we
anticipate equipping three more with the grant money. Mexican industry
was interested in participating in this program. We approached CANECAR,
which is a National Chamber of Heavy Duty Trucking in Mexicali; the
response was overwhelming. Some 10 companies lined up to receive the
money to have the emission-reduction devices installed.

Imperial County is dealing with several issues, and we have developed
some new rules to address our local air quality. The state mandates air
toxic control measures on 35 different air districts throughout the
state, so there is conformity on implementation of new types of rules
and regulations. An example of current measures is the Agricultural
Engine Registration Program. Prior to 2006, the agricultural sector was
basically exempt from all air quality rules and regulations, but the
passage of SB700 changed that; now they are considered the same as any
other industrial sector in California, and the state enacted an air
toxic control measure to switch that fleet to cleaner engines. The other
measure addresses school bus idling. Commercial motor vehicles are
required to shut their engines off if they will remain in one place
longer than five minutes and they have to restart no more than 30
seconds before departing from the site. 

The Emission Reduction Credit (ERC) Program is the heart and soul of
most of the 35 air districts rules and regulations and e-source review.
It establishes thresholds for emissions, and if the threshold is
exceeded, the offender must offset that amount to continue to operate. A
company earns ERCs by reducing emissions below the threshold of 137
pounds per day. Air district employees act as bankers. The program is an
important tool for industry new to the region. If they exceed the
threshold, they can seek offsets from a company that has already reduced
their emissions. Imperial County is only the second air district in
California to adopt this rule, which applies to operational development
fees on residential developments as well as commercial developments.

The industrial sector is covered under EPA’s New Source Review (NSR)
rule, which provides an innovative way for the air district to seek
mitigation of the emissions produced from the operation. Typically those
emissions come from the traffic associated with them—the goods moved,
vehicles associated with nearby residences, water heaters, etc. As we
move forward in our SIP planning, we anticipate this to be one of our
contingency measures that will yield further reductions than standard
rules.

Another issue is the new Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Pipeline Expansion.
Sempra Energy, Energía Costa Azul near Rosarito, is constructing a new
pipeline from the coast to the Mexicali Valley that will transport 2.7
billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas per day. Eventually the
pipeline comes to the east of us into the United States, and we are
concerned about the quality of that gas. Burning gas produces nitrous
oxides, which turn into ozone. Our concern is that impact-mitigating,
control technologies be installed either at the plant or along the
pipeline. In the Mexicali Valley, two new compressor stations will be
built, each about the size of a power plant. We also have concerns that
those compressor stations adhere to strict guidance to reduce their
emissions.

The All-American Canal is the life blood of agriculture here because it
brings water from the Colorado River into Imperial County and on to San
Diego and the Coachella Valley. Currently a project is underway to line
approximately 24 miles of the canal with concrete, which is anticipated
to save 70,000 acre-feet of water per year. However, it necessitates
moving massive amounts of material and bringing in construction
equipment with their attendant PM10 and emissions issues. In addition,
they have to bring in portable equipment because there is not much
access to electricity, but several of the contractors have submitted
dust control plans for PM (most commonly to use water trucks, drawing
water off the existing canal, to wet an area prior to grading it or
digging in the canal). Contractors have also used the Portable Emission
Equipment Registration Program, although EPA believes that that is not
an appropriate application of the program and that they should instead
get local air permits; this has occasioned some lawsuits to decide the
issue.

The Proposed Green Path and the Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Project
would connect two existing lines and provide additional transmission
capacity this region needs. But, while that would accommodate any future
power plants built in Mexicali, as well as California, it cannot be
known whether those plants would adhere to the same stringent standards
as required of U.S. companies. In addition, the transmission corridor
poses land-use and siting issues, relevant to impact-mitigation during
construction. 

EPA’s concern in the air district is that, if we build transmission
corridors and make them available to companies in Mexico to transport
energy into the United States, those power plants must adhere to the
same kind of standards and regulations that we have to protect people,
not only in the Mexicali Valley, but also Imperial County. We have been
working with our counterparts in Mexico to ensure that this will happen.

The New River empties into the Salton Sea. EPA is concerned that if the
Salton Sea shrinks, it will expose debris and make it available to high
winds and allow dust to become entrained in the atmosphere. There is a
plan to restore the Salton Sea, although the Legislature has not acted
on it.

As an air district, our board has considered the possibility of a
cross-Border emission-reduction trading program, similar to what was
done in the El Paso–Juárez region. Our state oversight agency, the
California Air Resources Board (CARB), and EPA have looked to Clean Air
Act requirements to implement such a program. Although changes to the
Act could take 10 years, we believe it is a viable option for Imperial
County and that emissions could be reduced in Mexicali. Also, facilities
that locate in Imperial County might pay for installation of
emission-reduction equipment at some of those facilities, which would
give them credit on this side of the Border. Those emissions would have
to meet local criteria, and the criteria would have to be permanent,
enforceable, and quantifiable. The Mexican government is concerned about
the enforceability of permits for sources with current staffing, and the
California Energy Commission is evaluating the feasibility of the idea.

Finally, the ports of entry are of significant concern because of
vehicles idling at the Border and producing emissions, particularly the
passenger vehicles. One of the three ports of entry is dedicated to
passenger vehicles, which go directly through downtown Calexico.
Currently the wait time is 55 minutes or longer; before September 11,
2001, it was 26 minutes. In addition to security precedures, the
additional wait time results from increased commerce and decreased
budgets of federal government staffing at Customs. But, over the past
few years, new agencies and groups have become concerned about air
quality—e.g., the Clean Air Initiative, the American Lung
Association—and they are taking a more active role in SIP development
programs, as well as Border issues.

Discussion

In response to Dr. Brown’s question about out Mexican partners in
these binational cooperation efforts, Mr. Poiriez listed government as
the major partner, including the municipality of Mexicali, but also
academia, including active GNEB members (and a past co-chair); and a
small community task force. For the latter, they are seeking innovative
ways to get people involved and get them to understand that issues in
Mexico and the United States affect people on both sides of the Border.

Dr. Austin noted that many drivers idle their buses to keep the air
conditioning on. She asked whether any projects deal with having to sit
in a hot bus. Mr. Poiriez agreed that temperatures can reach 115°F, and
that the state makes exemptions in its air toxic control measures for
such extreme situations. However, at a transit bus stop, for instance,
drivers are still required to turn off their buses after a five-minute
period; some of those may have auxiliary units that run without the
combustion component. For refrigerated diesel trucks that, e.g., deliver
food, there are additional air toxic control measures if they have a
battery that stores power so that the combustion portion does not have
to run during the time the motor is shut down.

Mr. Elbrock noticed that farmers are still burning their fields. Yes,
said Mr. Poiriez, that topic could add another half-hour to his
presentation. Currently in the California Health and Safety Code, local
air districts cannot prohibit agricultural burning; they can only
regulate burning. Currently, wheat fields are being burned. The wheat
crop is quite large this year because of favorable market conditions. 

Imperial County in 2000 adopted a Smoke-Management Program in accordance
with Title 17, which provides the mechanism to continue agricultural
burning for certain reasons. Each farmer has to notify the Air District
and get an agricultural-burn permit, which may have to be renewed daily.
Air quality data are tracked by the canal that provides water to that
field and also the nearest crossroads. If a field is within a mile and a
half of an urban or residential area, an inspector has to be present
before the burn to give permission for them to ignite that field. Beyond
that, Imperial County is divided into quadrants for its burn program, so
that only certain amounts of acreage can be burned in each quadrant of
the valley at a time to allow the smoke to dissipate.

Imperial County also has an Agricultural Emission Reduction Credit
Program. If a farmer has burned, for example, a 70-acre wheat field
annually, and chooses not to this year, the farmer can get a certificate
for emission reduction to be credited with the amount of emissions that
would have been released if they had burned the field. Each field that
is burned is logged and the local fire department is notified. To
further track burning, a staff meteorologist gives daily meteorological
information on inversion layers, wind speeds, wind directions, etc. so
each day’s burn can be mapped.

 

Ms. Wolf asked about measures taken under Rule 310 and why it was
controversial. Mr. Poiriez said it is basically a flat fee that uses an
Urbanas Model approved by the state, and it includes some exemptions and
deferments, e.g., they do not have to pay the fee until the time of
occupancy. It was controversial because it charges another fee to the
building industry at a time when the industry is in a massive down-turn.
Mr. Poiriez replied that, typically Imperial County has addressed larger
projects via the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, a
rule that applies to residential areas (e.g., people who build 15 houses
at a time in blocks). The CEQA Air Quality Handbook addresses standard
mitigation measures and voluntary measures developers can take,
including during construction. 

California–Baja California Border Region Energy and Renewable
Alternatives

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

The main issues in the Border region are energy and transfer of energy
across the U.S.–Mexico Border; environmental issues; the movement,
transportation, and treatment of water; and renewable resources.

Electricity flows between the United States and Mexico. Natural gas has
become the fuel of choice for power generation in both countries. Oil is
not used very much, and until recently, the United States’ source was
domestic. We supply most of our own natural gas and intend it to be
priced lower than petroleum. However, the two are linked, so as the
price of petroleum rises, the price of natural gas rises. And natural
gas is becoming the “new oil” in the sense that it is becoming a
globally traded commodity through the mechanism of liquefied natural gas
(LNG). Natural gas might be considered a bridge fuel between coal and
oil and ultimately the renewables—a bridge fuel that can last for
many, many decades. Currently, many natural gas pipelines cross the
Border. Natural gas has been traded along the Border for many years and
the trade is growing significantly. 

The same cannot be said for electricity. Few high-voltage, high-power
transmission lines cross the Border. In the Baja California region,
there are only two and they have only about an 800-megawatt capacity.
(By contrast, San Diego alone has about 4500 megawatts, and California
has nearly 55,000 megawatts.) The Mexican geothermal plant generates an
additional 800 megawatts. To build a transmission line into the United
States from Mexico requires a Presidential Permit, issued by the
Department of Energy. At this level, the U. S. government begins to
become involved in environmental impacts. Although the United States has
no jurisdiction in Mexico with respect to air quality, it does have
concerns and regulatory authority about transmission lines bringing
power to and from Mexico. A court case was used to try to get the
Mexican power plants to comply with U. S. air quality regulations, but
it was only partially successful. 

The La Paz Agreement deals with the environment 100 kilometers on both
sides of the Border, that is, all of San Diego County and Imperial
County, and as far south as Ensenada. A well-know factor is the
phenomenal population growth; in a few years, for the first time in
history, the population on the Mexican side of the Border will be
greater than that on the U.S. side. Now, the Mexican per-capita use of
electricity is only about a third that of people in San Diego, but usage
is increasing as the middle class emerges and the economy grows. The
energy infrastructure of the region consists of a series of gas
pipelines and power plants. On the U.S. side, most of the gas comes from
Texas and Oklahoma; it crosses the Border in the eastern section of
Imperial County and is used to power the two main power plants—one run
by Sempra and another by Intergen (which has now changed hands)—both
controversial. The plants now generally meet U. S. emissions standards,
but there is no requirement for offsets. Cross-Border offsets would
avoid such situations. The gas then travels all the way across Baja
California and powers a whole series of large oil- and gas-burning
plants near Rosarito, south of San Diego. Almost 1500 megawatts are used
to burn heavy fuel oil, which until recently was the main source of
pollution in the western part of the Border region. It also provides
some gas for some industries here.

The liquid natural gas (LNG) plant will be a huge facility, which will
more than triple available capacity. It is already opened, and it will
reverse the flow so that gas moves into the United States. It is
important to remind ourselves that natural gas and electricity
infrastructure are already integrated into the Border region. All of the
Mexican power plants use oil or natural gas except for those in
geothermal fields, in Cerro Prieto, right here just across the Border.
The Sempra plant, just north of Ensenada, is a massive construction. The
gas either comes from Indonesia or Australia; the liquid is then
reheated—the volume is decreased by a factor of about 600 to make it a
liquid, then it is stored in large tanks and shipped. Each tank holds
about a billion cubic feet of natural gas; by comparison, the total
demand for all of San Diego is only 500 million cubic feet per day. The
new pipeline will connect east of Tijuana, sending some gas to a large
complex run by the Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), and some gas
will flow north into the United States. The region will become more
dependent on the (volatile) world market, which is why developing
indigenous energy resources is so important.

We organized a study of renewable resources (the report can be
downloaded from <www.renewablesg.org>), three years ago with a variety
of other people, including representatives of the San Diego Gas and
Electric Company and San Diego State University, with input from Baja
California. We asked, “What is the technical resource availability of
renewable energy in the California–Baja California Border region?”
“Technical resource” means not how much sunshine falls in the
region, but where it falls and its intensity, variability, and
availability for rooftop solar collectors. Using satellite data, GIS,
and remote sensing, we measured the roof area and also modeled for wind.
An incredible amount of renewable resources is available to exploit,
provided the right policies were in place and the economics made
sense—much more than anticipated. The main resources in San Diego,
Imperial County, and northern Baja California are solar, in the form of
photovoltaic cells, solar in the form of concentrated solar, wind in the
southern part of the region, geothermal in the Salton Sea region. We
found that concentrated solar could produce more than 29,000
megawatts—almost half the power for the whole state of California.
Geothermal is another resource, but biomass waste burning was not so
productive because we have no forests. Nevertheless, renewable energy is
not a panacea; for one reason, it is not available at all times and you
have to have power at all times. 

Wind is seasonal here:  high wind speeds are typical in January and
February, but there is virtually none in the summer. Geothermal is now
limited to Cerro Prieto, Mexico (about 800 megawatts). But in Imperial
County, there is significant potential for growth to some 2500
megawatts, mostly around the Salton Sea. Fluid must be re-injected into
the ground because, in this climate, if the water evaporates toxic salts
are produced, which the wind blows into the atmosphere, worsening air
pollution. There is a tremendous amount of roof space, which is an
attractive income option for commercial building owners, and Southern
California Edison is doing exactly that. Whether or not the potential
for solar and wind power is ever developed depends on the relative cost
and the cost of fossil fuel, which is increasing to the point that the
cost of renewable energy is becoming more competitive. But in addition
to cost usage will also depend on federal, state, and local energy
policies. 

Renewable Energy Credits, under a firm’s requirement to have 20% of
its electricity generated by renewable energy in the next few years, is
a system to give the firm credit for wind, solar, or geothermal units of
energy used. But, if the renewable energy—solar plant or the wind
farm—originates in Mexico, the firm does not qualify for Renewable
Energy Credits, a huge disincentive for utilities to develop power
plants where the resources are. So we need changes in the California
legislation and also at the federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC),
which is where the GNEB might want to focus.

The other issue is Cross-Border Emissions Credits. Certainly this is a
single airshed. Some of the conclusions from our study are that you have
to have reasonable and secure energy supplies in the Border region or
else the whole economy will collapse and everything else will come to a
halt. But the energy sector as it is currently constituted also is the
main source of environmental degradation, especially air pollution. A
very large potential exists for the development of renewable energy, but
to develop that renewable energy several things must be in place. There
must be formal coordination between the United States and Mexico in
developing energy products along the Border. We must get away from
“cowboy capitalism” and adhere to sensible regulations to avoid
chaos and environmental degradation. Coordinating construction of energy
infrastructure on both sides of the Border need not involve federal
regulations; private developers want to know what the law is. And the
law is different in Mexico than it is in the United States, but they are
penalized if they build a plant in Mexico, even though they meet
requirements of the Mexican law, because they made enemies on the U.S.
side of the Border. They need consistency, and groups like this need to
begin to think about how those rules were developed. Such groups
directly influence the federal system. We cannot impose our rules on
them and we would not expect them to impose theirs on us. But most of
the Mexican authorities and business people also want clear rules of the
road because they do not want to have to go through the lawsuits
incurred when these power plants were built in the past. 

If we are serious about integrating the Border region—commerce,
economics, education—we also have to integrate it in energy. The way
to do that is with physical infrastructure. There must be transmission
lines going back and forth to exploit the energy, but the route the
lines take may be detrimental to some areas in national or state parks.
Above all, what has been missing from the discussion is involvement with
Mexico. And yet this transmission line will have a profound impact on
what happens in the energy development on both sides of the Border. That
oversight should be avoided in the future. We must have input from both
sides when plants are being built or resources exploited. And, we need a
portfolio of different resources, including oil, gas, and traditional
resources. This is truly a cross-Border issue. Energy in this region has
to be done cooperatively or else it will not be possible to exploit
everything available. 

Discussion

Ms. Grijalva observed that a basic issue with solar energy that must be
agreed upon is standardization of the units of energy. It is a new and
promising technology, and if equipment broke, it could be difficult to
replace. Dr. Sweedler said this is an ongoing discussion in the
renewable energy community, and the technology is becoming more and more
standardized. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers sets
standards, but the important thing for this discussion is that
commercial-sized plants. The large central power plants that produce
thousands of megawatts are really going to make the difference. They are
all built by large corporations that warranty their work and will lose
money if the equipment breaks down. The standardization comes in when
you want to put something on your house, and that is a whole different
area. One way to think about this is that the commercial-sized
operations will begin to drive costs down and develop the new
technology. 

Dr. Sweedler noted that solar hot water is instantly cost effective—it
immediately cuts all your hot water bills—but it is not required, so
builders save the few thousand dollars it would cost to install. That is
something that could be implemented. Ms. Grijalva reported that in the
ongoing discussion of solar energy in Phoenix, solar only takes in the
majority technology for light, but not for heat. 

Dr. Sweedler said various things are being developed. He has worked in
the solar field a long time and is a strong supporter, but he is also a
realist and a critic. The solar industry has grown but it accounts for
less than 1% of energy production. And the reason it is a minuscule part
is that the technology still is not as available and well developed as
more traditional technologies, which means it is expensive.

The price we pay for energy does not reflect the true cost. Energy is
much too cheap—we still have the cheapest gasoline in the
industrialized world. People do not recognize that the environmental
impacts are part of the cost. The cost of renewable energy makes more
sense because it has a smaller environmental impact. So we have to find
a way to build into the price what economists call externalities so we
know the real cost. The new technologies are still in the laboratories
and will not be in the field for many, many years.

Mr. Manzanilla confirmed that Renewable Energy Credits, under the
renewable portfolio standard in California, have provisions for people
to be certified for the renewable energy component when it comes from
out of state. An out-of-country provision is relatively new. So, he
continued, is California on the way to addressing that issue? Dr.
Sweedler thought California was on the way, although it does not yet
have a national standard. The requirements, even though the electrons
are the same, are more difficult to meet than if it is in state. The new
plant in La Rumarosa will be the first test case. It is a very
complicated situation depending on the energy source, where it is
located, and transmission lines to bring the energy from Baja California
into California. For example, Judge Irma Gonzalez, the presiding judge
for the suit over transmission into California of two power plants in
Mexicali, focusing on the transmission lines, argued that the water from
the New River will be reduced in volume because some of that water will
be used for cooling and that will affect the Salton Sea. Arguments about
the transmission lines and the presidential permits will come in for
plants across the Border. All of these act as a disincentive.
Nevertheless, in this region, that is where the resource is. A lot of
the resource is also in Imperial County, which does not have to worry
them about residential permits. But we are missing a lot of the resource
on the other side of the Border.

Dr. Brown returned to the comment that our high gas prices are lower
than they would be if they reflected all of the externalities. For
example, the cost the federal government incurs to provide the military
protection it needs to maintain stability in unstable regions and to
keep the Gulf open is not included at all. To really discuss and
understand these externalities, do we need someone like economists David
Brookshire or Mark Fayer, or someone like John Dickson from the
Department of State and knowledgeable about the political dimension? We
may have to pay more in the short run to pay less in the long run. We
are not burning natural gas to generate electricity, which will keep
going up, because we have to put fuel into the tankers to bring the
natural gas from Indonesia and then the air quality people have to deal
with the NOx problems because the imported natural gas is a different
mixture. This is a game that does not have a positive outcome so we need
to have discussions that will allow us to make more logical decisions,
even if they are more expensive in the short run.

Dr. Sweedler thought the way to start any discussion is with getting the
facts and doing analysis. First of all, energy is the largest sector in
the world, even bigger than tourism. In terms of an industry, energy is
by far the biggest industry. The reality is that at least for another 50
years, every projection indicates that the world economy will be based
on carbon-based fuel. (We don’t use the term “fossil fuels”
anymore because some people think fuel, particularly natural gas, is
being generated all the time.) Even the most optimistic supporters of
renewable energy do not see greater than 10% penetration globally, which
leaves about 90% for coal, oil, and natural gas. But then you begin to
chip away at that:  coal is used primarily for electricity; oil
primarily for transportation. Renewable energy cannot be used for
transportation at this point. You still have to fly planes on jet fuel,
not solar energy. 

So you look at the transportation sector and ask how that can be
reduced, and that infrastructure took 150 years to develop and will take
at least 50 or 60 years to change. The overriding consideration is not
cost. It is the global climate change issue because that affects the
whole globe. The notion of cheap energy is literally a thing of the
past. We have never paid the true price for energy. So we have to get
used to looking at the true cost and developing the facts that relate to
the true cost. All different types of energy pretty much arise and fall
together. Energy is like air and water—it is absolutely critical for
society. We will pay and every other society will pay whatever energy
costs, since there is no such thing as an upper limit. There is no life
without energy.		

The elasticity, as economists say, is infinite. Our job, as people who
are concerned about this, is to get the best portfolio or combination of
energies that has the least environmental impact at the most reasonable
cost. I strongly discourage people from looking for a “silver
bullet.” That is the most foolish way to think about something as
important as this, whether fusion, solar, nuclear, carbon, or whatever.
One thing we have learned in the last 50 years is that there is no one
right technology. And this extends to the Border regions. My main point
is that in this region on the Border, we have enormous opportunities
that have not been exploited. 

Endangered Species Habitat

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

The Western Ecological Research Center (  HYPERLINK
http://www.werc.usgs.gov.  www.werc.usgs.gov)  is based in Sacramento;
we are part of the San Diego Field Station. Our focus is the natural
history of Southern California region. We have done everything from
writing field guides for reptiles and amphibians, fish, and birds to
doing conservation genetics. We are now using genetic techniques to
examine the impacts of urbanization and fragmentation on the landscape
of Southern California. More recently we studied the role of fire
ecology. We have been looking at regional patterns of diversity across
Southern California, identifying sensitive, threatened, or endangered
species and looking at the autocology of that species to see how we can
best maintain diversity on the reserved lands.

What regulation, what adaptive management needs to occur to adequately
protect these species in the landscape? The Southern California area is
a highly fragmented terrestrial system, so we are using standardized
sampling protocols across the whole landscape down to the Mexican
Border. We are identifying wildlife crossing sites, describing
vegetative communities, taking quantitative measurements of wildlife
species richness and abundance, and determining occupancy based on work
the USGS is doing with amphibians. We are repeating long-term sampling
at fixed sample points, which allows us to see how a population of a
given species occupies the landscape from one place to another. We are
focusing on protocol development and making sure that we and our
partners—the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.—are
using comparable protocols that will give meaningful results that can be
integrated over the long term. We are looking at reptiles and
amphibians, bats, carnivores, birds, ants, amphibians, and fish using
electronic data-collection devices (personal digital assistants; PDA) in
the field so all the data can be integrated immediately.

		

We are applying riparian studies to our fragmented terrestrial
landscape. They initially started with looking at the disturbances to
the riparian habitat for the riparian birds and then to the amphibians
and fish. More than 95% of the riparian habitat in Southern California
has been lost or altered, which has an immediate impact on a species
that has to live in that habitat, such as the southwest willow
flycatcher. For this bird, another factor is parasitism from the
brown-headed cowbird, an invasive species. Part of the program to help
these native species is to remove the brown-headed cowbird, which
requires knowing their habitat requirements, distribution of the native
species, distribution of the cowbirds, wintering habitat, breeding
habitat, ecology, reproductive success, and forging behavior. Nesting
behavior is being studied by putting cameras on the nests. Knowing all
this enables us to understand the life history and demography. Then,
this must be studied in relation to habitat restoration and as the
invasive species are removed.

For example, the lesser Bell’s vireo population went from 300 males in
1986 to more than 2500 males now, largely due to restoration efforts.
Since the mid-1990s the riparian work for amphibians has involved the
Amphibians Research and Monitoring Initiative throughout much of
Southern California, from the coastal valleys to the mountains and into
some of the desert spring areas. We are using standardized methods so we
can quantitatively assess the habitat at both the landscape level and
the micro-habitat level to determine species needs, including the arroyo
toad in the Tijuana watershed. Endangered species include the mountain
yellow-legged frog and the red-legged frog. Sensitive species include
the newt. Both frogs are presumed to be exterminated from San Diego
County, but there is still a population of the red-legged frog in Baja
California and we are looking at their genetics.

In addition, we are compiling data on terrestrial reptiles and
amphibians as to diversity, inventory, and occurrence. We have used
standardized, trapping arrays throughout Southern California; even
groups in Arizona have used some of these methods. Passive traps collect
whatever crosses that landscape. From these, we not only inventory and
monitor amphibians and reptiles but small mammals, terrestrial
arthropods, and macro-invertebrates. We also do vegetation transacts and
habitat assessments, from which we see trigger points for adaptive
management, and can detect changes and diversity of species. We can
identify species that may not be recruiting, a major signal that that
population is not doing well. We combine this information with that from
our natural history studies of specific species. And we can monitor the
occurrence of exotics. We have caught more than 46 species—36,000
reptiles and amphibians—so study sizes are nine to 33 species per
array. We have single arrays, with as many as 22 species captured in one
array. Species that occurred at 24 to 31 sites are considered Type I
species—they occur in several places and there were as many as 8800
captures. The 12 Type II species occurred at 10 to 19 sites, but have
only as many as 730 captures—these, we want to monitor. Type III
species are represented by one to 130 captures and are found only at one
to eight of the sites—these are red-flag species that we want to
investigate more intensively.

Using this method we can compare large core areas to fragments with
historical data from the 1920s to 1940s. We can look at the vehicle
miles driven per day in this region and see how the entries and mileage
have increased:  in 1995, vehicle miles driven exceeded 70,000,000 miles
and were predicted to exceed 100 million miles by 2015. The increased
vehicle miles have taken a toll on snake species, which are getting run
over. Comprehensive biodiversity studies reveal a direct relationship
between habitat size, the number of roads, and the number of species. In
addition to the reptiles and amphibians and small mammals, we are
tracking carnivores. Then we have fluctuations caused by, for instance,
a catastrophic fire, a current focus of research. In 2003 catastrophic
wild fires burned approximately 750 of mostly wild acres Southern
California; this year 300,000 acres have burned in the Cedar and Otay
fires alone. Much of these burned areas are in the Tijuana River
watershed, and a large portion of the San Diego County reserve area has
burned, so we use that as a study design for comparison. We want to
collect data for five years, starting in 2005. But another catastrophic
fire compounded our study design because most of our study sites, both
burned and unburned, got burned again. Now we have to look at the
short-term and long-terms impacts on the plants and invertebrate
communities there. We are already starting our studies of last year’s
fire on species that are breeding this spring so we can directly detect
mortality, habitat loss, loss of plant and animal food resources, soil
erosion, and stream siltation as they occur. 

We are looking at habitat conversion as well. Some of these sites were
burned and burned and burned again so we can see how shrub-lands are
converted to grasslands and how that affects species diversity. To
measure the response and recovery of the plants and the whole
invertebrate community, we are looking at the pre-burned data using the
pitfall-trap studies, and then we add the threatened or endangered
species studies and compare those to controls.

We are also monitoring nesting and migratory birds and foraging and
resting bats in San Diego County, to clarify how fire is an ecosystem
driver and a very dynamic system here. We are looking at the viability
of our reserves to see what we need to do in terms of local, state, and
federal government and in terms of adaptive management to alter the
reserve design if necessary. In addition to numbers, diversity for those
species is also markedly decreased. But, we do not see the same impacts
on the grass and woodland riparian habitats; they seemed to have less
diversity to begin with. So we are seeing some of the richly diverse
communities start to look like the grassland communities.

My focus in this program has been the arroyo toad’s response to fire.
San Diego has four seriously burned watersheds:  San Dieguito, San
Diego, Sweetwater, and the Tijuana River. We have a pretty good coverage
of San Diego study sites. Each study site behaves differently, and each
watershed has its own particular issues. For example, the San Pascual
Valley in the San Dieguito runs through an agricultural area with many
orange groves, so it will respond differently to fire than the upper San
Diego River where there is almost no agriculture. The Tijuana River runs
through the Marron Valley and is joined by Cottonwood Creek from the
north and Tecate Creek from the south. It is a dynamic system, and the
arroyo toad that lives in this area thrives in these shifting, sandy
floodplains and the open sandy washes and benches within the stream. We
found no fish or amphibians here, but we are finding many worms and only
one vertebrate, the garter snake.

But, in the Cottonwood Creek habitat, we found four amphibian and three
fish species; one of the amphibians is an exotic and three of the fish
are exotics. Cottonwood Creek flows down through urban and agricultural
areas below Barrett Reservoir, so when Barrett overflows, any species in
it gets washed into Cottonwood Creek. Since the fires, this is where we
are finding the toads, which implies that we have a species whose whole
population can shift from one section of the watershed to another in a
matter of years. Suitable habitat now also occurs south of the Border,
so not only can this species potentially move up- and downstream, but it
may be crossing the Border, as well. What happens to such a dynamic
system when a large, solid Border fence is installed? We need to
continue monitoring. At other sites in Colorado and Montana toads have
shown an initial and positive response to the fire, and then
disappeared. In some watersheds, for example the San Diego, there is a
tremendous positive response. We have found toads where we have never
seen toads before in the burned area. They have extended their range by
at least four kilometers. But in the San Dieguito, the fire has caused
so much sedimentation that we have lost a whole population of toads this
year. We have seen no recruitment because three feet of sediment were
deposited on top of the streambed, and there has been no surface flow of
water. The Tijuana River watershed is a bit more stable than these two
systems, and the toads moved up and down. 

We need to continue to monitor. We need to document the habitat changes
over time and see where the suitable habitat appears and disappears. We
need to continue studies of sensitive species and other species that
barely survive, such as the Baja leopard lizard or Cope’s leopard
lizard, a species that may move populations from one side of the Border
to the other. How fragmentation along the Border region affects these
populations will be the focus in the coming years.

Discussion

Dr. Ganster said that GNEB’s last report focuses on the effect of
natural disasters on the Border environment and one of the things noted
was the effect of these catastrophic fires on natural systems and
natural species. But it seems that that these fires can be bad or can be
good, depending on the species and the location. Dr. Brown said the
frequency of fire is a major factor in how the species respond and
whether the habitat allows the species to be flexible in that fire. If
the fire comes through at a long enough interval, it allows the species
to recover from it and to move upstream or downstream. With having huge
fire upon huge fire, we are finding low species diversity in those areas
because they do not have time to recover between fires, and the fires
are so catastrophic, so large, that there are no refuges for the
population to hold out and recover. 

Ms. Keith said the topic of GNEB’s report this year will be innovation
and incentives along the Border area to reduce pollution. Is there an
arena for innovations or incentives in species’ habitat? 

Dr. Brown thought there was. Part of the impact to the species results
from the huge levels of various contaminants from human hormones to
agricultural by-products that end up in the watersheds. If we can keep
the water cleaner going through the Tijuana River watershed, it could
benefit the arroyo toad in that area. The water definitely smells of
chemicals and we found no aquatic vertebrates in the water. It would be
good to both monitor the water quality and capture some of the runoff to
determine its constituents. 

When we look at the burn area we are looking at the components of the
ash. We fly over and get a spectral signal of the reflection of the ash
throughout San Diego and then on ground trips, we get samples of the ash
to determine what will end up in the watershed, affecting those species.
There is a need for technology both in the monitoring and in recovery
for these species.

Ms. Keith clarified that innovation would not necessarily apply to the
habitat prevention aspect but might apply to recovery of a habitat. Dr.
Brown meant that stopping the point source of these fires would be a
major, major victory. If we could apply technology to keeping the fire
from flowing through there, to stopping the sources of the fire, to
reducing the ignition sources, that would be a major victory as well.

Dr. Brown [NM] asked about the reach below Tecate Creek, a particular
interest because the dissolved oxygen was absolutely nil and the fecal
coliform contents were 108 to 1010 colony-forming units per 100
milliliters. In their work they found that the metals in that part of
the basin were about equal to the metals in Santa Monica Bay—on a par
with what you would expect of a North American urbanized industrial
area, but the bacteriological contamination was off the scale. What has
happened with any plans for Tecate, Baja California to fix the
wastewater problem? It was a fairly simple, straightforward
problem—they were dumping large quantities of poorly and untreated
sewage. Are you still seeing those kinds of bacteriological
concentrations? Dr. Brown [CA] said they have no results from the
bacteriological components yet, although dissolved oxygen is almost
zero, in the range of 3 to 5%. The water did not have the raw sewage
smell in 1995 that is does now. It was a much more chemically, much more
a detergent smell, so they are really interested in getting some water
quality samples later this fall.

Dr. Ganster said Mexican students and faculty at the Chemistry
Department at the Autonomous University of Baja California have done a
number of studies, although he was not sure how far rehabilitation of
the Tecate Sewage Treatment Plant had gotten. Tecate has functioned
quite well and they have worked with others through the Border 2012
Program and are installing an artificial wetlands in the Rancho la
Puerta area. The important thing is that people in Tecate have become
aware of the river and the need to do something about it. The problem
remains hostage to rapid urbanization and scant funding. Dr. Brown
thought this related to the question of a focal point of innovative
opportunities—Rancho la Puerta is a very expensive spa, and it is
immediately upstream from this area. Between the constructed wetland and
the rehabilitation and the possibility of passive recreation, there
might be an opportunity for innovation.

Mr. Niemeyer asked what kind of permits researchers need to get from the
Mexican government to do research in Mexico. Secondly, California state
park rangers complained about the fence that was built a few years ago
because it allowed additional sedimentation, which killed the plants and
they mentioned the number of plateaus that had endemic plant species. If
this triple fence is erected, it would damage or even wipe out these
plant species. Dr. Brown agreed that the triple fence is a big concern
because this area is the northernmost extent of some of these species.
So a species from the United States could easily be in this area, and
may or may not have protection in Mexico, making it of concern to the
USGS as well as the Fish and Wildlife Services. 

For all of Dr. Brown’s fieldwork, such as the red-legged frog or the
other toad surveys, they are using Mexican permits for fieldwork,
usually conducted through Universidad Autónoma de Baja California
(UABC).

		

Public Comment

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

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

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

The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) has been working
very hard on this cooperative program in the Colorado River. There was
an agreement between Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne and
Mexico’s Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan for which enforcement and
development was assigned to the IBWC. Each of the seven basin states is
very protective of its water. There are four working groups and each
state wants to be represented in each working group. As an international
agency with a U.S. and a Mexican Section, IBWC’s responsibility is
applying the boundary and water treaties between the two countries and
settling the differences that arise in their application. 

The three international river basins in which the IBWC works along the
Border are:  the Tijuana River Basin, the Rio Grande Basin, and the
Colorado River Basin. In the Colorado River Basin there are seven U.S.
basin states. We represent Mexico’s as the eighth interest. The Rio
Grande basin basically operates under the 1944 Treaty and the 1906
Convention. The 1906 Convention provides for delivery to Mexico of
60,000 acre-feet of water at El Paso–Ciudad Juarez; the rest of the
state of Texas is governed by the 1944 Treaty. For the Colorado River,
annually,  the United States delivers 1.5 million acre-feet of water to
Mexico, with water generated from the seven basin states. We deliver
Colorado water at Morelos Dam, and any surplus water to as much as 1.7
million acre-feet. In the event of extraordinary drought, Mexico’s
allotment is reduced in proportion to the reduction of U.S. users.

Lake Powell and Lake Mead, because of the severe drought, are about 50%
full at this time, although a wet winter this past year helped to store
water and prevent shortages for a year or two. Inflows depend on
snowfall in the northern states that drains into the Colorado River
system and then is stored at Lake Powell or Lake Mead. The Bureau of
Reclamation has adopted shortage guidelines for the lower three basin
states. One of the things that the shortage criteria identify is that
the shortage would come to the three lower basin states. 

In dealing with issues on the Colorado River, in 1995 IBWC established
five working groups composed of members of IBWC’s U. S. and Mexican
Sections, the Bureau of Reclamation and Mexico’s National Water
Commission (CONAGUA). The groups considered issues such as sediment,
salinity, ecosystems in the delta, the history of the All American Canal
Lining, conveyance capacity and boundary preservation. The sediment
issue arose because of floods on the Colorado River in 1982 and 1992
that brought some 20 million cubic yards of material into the system,
raising the river channel about 10 feet, increasing groundwater levels,
and transporting a considerable amount of sediment into Mexico. 

Minute 242 relates to a well system in the United States used to dilute
the water coming from the United States to meet salinity requirements
before it goes into Mexico. We monitor salinity daily to make sure that
the deliveries meet the requirement. When Mexico receives irrigation
water that comes back into the system, a spike in salinity from the U.S.
side would prevent them from using the water because salinity would
affect germination of the seeds and so forth. Water managers in both
countries are concerned by increased demands, drought, and potential
shortages. In two to three years we will likely be imposing shortage
criteria on the seven basin states plus Mexico. 

We also started a project related to conveyance capacity and boundary
preservation to re-establish the boundary. We have not had an agreement
with Mexico since 1972 on the actual alignment on the Colorado River
within the limitrophe section. Because of the meander of the river
caused by the 1982 flood and the 1992 flood, Mexico would lose territory
if we used the low-flow channel, the criterion mentioned in the 1970
Boundary Treaty, and Mexico has never agreed to it. So officially the
1972 maps determine where the center of the channel would be even though
the channel is no longer there. Mexico’s constitution of course does
not allow them to lose territory, although we do have some situations in
which we exchange territory but it has to be in equal acreage on both
sides.

Minute 306, signed in 2000, addresses ecosystems in the Colorado River
delta. We established a separate work group for environmental issues and
ensuring that we preserve the delta. The IBWC agreed to establish the
framework for cooperation on the ecosystem in the Colorado River, delta,
and limitrophe. An advisory group of representatives from the United
States and Mexico was established to propose various restoration and
conservation projects. There are 18 projects identified to restore the
ecosystem in the area, projects related to improving flow regime, native
vegetation, and hydraulic modeling. In the delta area, we have the
Wellton-Mohawk salinity canal, which transports the high-saline water
from the agricultural fields in the Wellton area to the Gulf of
California. About 90 to 99% of the time, a 23-mile portion of the
Colorado River is completely dry, which is a very controversial issue
with Mexico. 

According to the 404 Plan, the State of California was to be put on a
water diet, i.e., their allocation was to be 4.4 million acre-feet per
year instead of 5.3 million to 5.4 million acre-feet with no excess
flows. Therefore the State of California was seeking other methods of
replacing that water, and one method was lining the All-American Canal
to be paid for by the State of California. This lining would conserve
67,000 acre-feet of water, most of which would be delivered to the San
Diego County Water Authority. Of course Mexico opposed reduction of the
flow because it would affect their well system and wetlands, which,
according to them, were developed from this canal seepage. Despite
extensive consultation with Mexico, we could never reach an agreement.
Finally it ended up in court and was decided in favor of the United
States. Construction, begun in 2007, is expected to be completed by
2010. 

Minute 301 represents the first time we looked at desalination
cooperatively with Mexico. Under Minute 301, there is a bi-national
feasibility study for a bi-national aqueduct to convey Colorado River
water to urban areas in Baja California and California. Bi-national
coastal desalination plans were also considered and IBWC facilitated
cooperation between the San Diego Water Authority, the State of
California, and Mexican federal and state agencies. Our agency’s
primary role is to facilitate cooperation between the two countries. We
convene our stakeholders or our technical advisors from other federal
agencies, state agencies, and so forth, and then we facilitate
discussions and the outcome of projects. Once a project is established,
it has federal backing from both countries. 

Minute 310 concerns water conveyed through the United States and
delivered to Mexico in Tijuana at Otay Mesa; Mexico pays for all the
operation and maintenance related to the volume of water. This Minute
will expire in November of this year, but we already have a draft to
extend this agreement for another five years. 

The joint statement issued by the U.S. Department of the Interior and
Mexico’s ambassador indicates that IBWC should be utilized to expedite
discussions on Colorado River cooperation on the following issues: 
study of the hydrological system, potential impacts of climate change,
including the effects of ongoing Colorado River drought, environmental
priorities including Colorado River delta habitat protection and
enhancement, opportunities for water conservation storage and supply,
augmentation such as seawater desalination and reuse, strategies aimed
to ease variations in the Colorado River system, and more efficient
Colorado River water deliveries to Mexico. Participants of the U.S. Core
Groups include IBWC, the Bureau of Reclamation, the State of California,
the State of Arizona, the State of Nevada, a representative from the
four upper basin states, and nongovernmental organizations. Mexico’s
Core Group includes the Mexican Section of IBWC, the National Water
Commission, the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources, the
State of Baja California, the State of Sonora, the Embassy of Mexico
Ministry of Foreign Relations, and various nongovernmental
organizations. Each country has established its objectives for the
cooperative process. The objectives are pretty much the same, but the
priorities differ. The IBWC promotes cooperation by developing a task
force to help remedy the situation.

Discussion

Mr. Guerrero asked what had become of the Texas farmers’ project of a
few years ago to put in an irrigation system both for delivery and
conveyance, as well as for on-farm irrigation in Mexico. Mr. Marin
replied that Mexico was not meeting their treaty requirements, and at
one point were 1.5 million acre-feet behind in Rio Grande water
deliveries to the United States. Finally, Mexico paid up its debt in
September 2005. But, this year (and the cycle year ends October 1), they
have delivered only about 45,000 of the required 350,000 acre-feet. As
for the money provided by NADBank, some $80 million was put into the
irrigation systems—$40 million for the United States, $40 million for
Mexico. Mexico invested its $40 million in the Delicia areas for the
improvements of their system; that is covered under the Commission’s
Minute 309. 

IBWC's role is to monitor and ensure that Mexico delivers to the United
States water that is conserved. They are supposed to release that water
during the months of November through January to prevent excess
evaporation, but they normally release it in March and, so far this
year, not at all. Mexico has a complaint on that issue. The Secretary of
the Treasury and the Secretary of Hacienda met before that Minute was
approved and discussed providing Mexico $100 million for additional
conservation, but the money was never appropriated, so Mexico does not
feel compelled to adhere to the delivery schedule.

 

Mr. Manzanilla asked what the order of magnitude difference is in
per-capita water consumption of Colorado River users in Mexico versus
the United States. Mr. Marin said that normally the per-capita used in
Mexico is much less than in the United States. Currently most of the 1.5
million acre-feet we provide Mexico yearly is used for agriculture, and
a small portion is put in the Mexican aqueduct and taken to Tijuana. But
that system is outdated and the capacity does not meet the need, so now
they are also using our system. 

Mr. Manzanilla asked for clarification on Nevada’s proposed
desalinization plant. Is that so they can use Mexico’s allocation
because the desalinization plant would be for Mexico’s use? Mr. Marin
said Mexico would treat the water, but that water would go to
California, and then Nevada would take California water. Mr. Manzanilla
surmised and Mr. Marin agreed that Mexico would be interested if they
could get more than the usual allocation. Mr. Marin added that Nevada is
so desperate for water that they will pay for the plant. Mr. Manzanilla
thought desalination plants were also big energy users. Mr. Marin
agreed, saying that is why they want to build it in Mexico closer to
more energy sources, which might be cheaper than U.S. sources. Mr. Marin
said Nevada talked in billions of dollars.

Ms. Grijalva asked how salty is the water in the 242 wells, how much
water is involved, and where that water comes from. Mr. Marin replied
that the East Main and West drains or canals provide water to the
irrigation systems south of Yuma, and much of it returns as salty water.
The water in another system contains about 3500 parts per million, and
that must be diluted to about 1200 parts per million, so when it gets to
its destination it contains 1500 to 1800 parts per million. To do this,
we turn on enough pumps to get non-salty water.

Ms. Siwik asked whether similar joint cooperative processes were in
place for areas that depend on groundwater, noting that, so far, those
aquifers are shared on both sides of the border. Ms. Marin said that
groundwater is a state issue in the United States; it is not managed by
the federal government. But, the IBWC is trying to establish bi-national
cooperation under a bill by Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, who acquired
$5 million to study and quantify trans-boundary aquifers. Surface water
is treated differently than groundwater because the states own the
rivers. For the Rio Grande—even though we monitor, we measure, we
control it, we release it—we do not own a single drop of it. Rio
Grande water is entirely owned by the State of Texas. For the Colorado
River, the Bureau of Reclamation is the delivery agent, but not the
owner. 

Dr. Brown recalled that in 1995 IBWC established the Colorado River Task
Force. In 2007, when IBWC produced the Seven States White Paper, the
response from the Department of Interior and the Mexican Ambassador
established another cooperative working mechanism, with four work
groups. He wondered if these were related. Mr. Marin said that the first
set of task groups responded to an IBWC initiative to address the issues
facing both countries. The second group is a bit more formal.
Eventually, we will establish a Minute that outlines a process so that
future programs will at least have the framework to get those groups
going. This will facilitate establishing a group to consider the
recommendations made. We are working with the State Department to get
approval of the Minute that would establish the process. 

Dumping on Tribal Lands:  Pala Reservation New Transfer Station

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

[for Lenore Volturno]

Tribal environmental programs were established in 1997 to exert more
tribal sovereignty. Tribes on the reservations often use the word
“sovereignty,” much as Mexico would say to the United States, we are
a separate country and we have our own way of doing things. The goal of
the environmental programs is to protect the environment and public
health, including solid waste issues, which include junkyards, illegal
dumping, waste tires, off-reservation solid waste sources, trash
disposal, hazardous waste, and renters. (Fee land, which is land within
the boundaries of the tribal reservation, but is not owned by the tribe
and is not part of the reservation.) We regularly celebrate resolution
of these issues on Earth Day.

We have grants from EPA for air quality, water quality, and pesticides.
Originally the solid waste program was not a large part of our
operation. Then in 2001 the Tribal Executive Committee opted to fund
these remediation programs by themselves. Since then we have been doing
community outreach to educate people about solid waste and what to do
with it. The public, in this instance, is limited to tribal members on
the Pala Reservation, which houses a band of Mission Indians just south
of Riverside County about five miles east of the Route 15, on the very
north end of San Diego County.

Now we have a full-time recycling transfer station run by a supervisor
and five employees; tribal government has been very supportive. We
purchased the property to build a transfer station from a trucking
company, which had used the area for a mechanic shop. We began, in 2001,
with reservation clean-ups. In earlier days, reservation property was
allotted to tribal members and their families to generate revenue
because the land was not good for agriculture. Some tribal members
turned their property into dumps, and people would pay them to dispose
of cars, boats, trailers, and what-have-you on their property. This made
clean-up a significant issue, although it has not been as bad for the
Pala tribe as for some others. For example, the Torres-Martinez
Reservation has to have state intervention and involvement of county and
other people in their program. Many reservations have the same issues,
and then once you create a problem like a stack of cars or garbage, it
generates more; like graffiti, if you leave it, it seems to breed on its
own.

After 1997 Pala residents started hauling refuse off-site with our own
dump trucks. At the same time the tribe developed a solid waste disposal
plan, but tribal members were still dumping their trash at the old
landfill site, and over a very brief period, it became the biggest dump
site on the reservation.

We also had issues with hazardous waste, oil in this case. We had issues
with tires. To haul this material off-site we contracted with local
waste haulers who brought in roll-off dumpsters, which we filled and
they hauled away for appropriate disposal. However, people still need to
get rid of their garbage. We began to collect garbage at that time, but
we needed to get rid of it in such a manner that would be a good example
to the community. So we opened an area and started reclaiming the
landfill site and actually making it a landfill. Then we fenced off a
temporary transfer station, which we recently closed because we have a
new transfer station. Reservations are typically isolated, so they tend
to attract roadside dumping. In our Lilac Road project, 27 tons from
non-tribal property was removed, for a total of 44 tons of trash removed
from the reservation.

We have funded these programs creatively combining California Integrated
Waste Management Board grant money ($94,000), tribal money, an EPA fund,
and Bureau of Indian Affairs money ($2700). We have had some really good
projects, some combined with the county, e.g., tire removals, household
hazardous waste days. The county brought in two roll-off dumpsters, our
crews filled them and the county hauled them away. Now that everything
has been hauled away, only one roll-off sits there. 

Being a sovereign nation makes disposal easier. For example, on a
property where someone passed away, and the family wanted all of his
things moved out, we did not have to get paperwork to remove the two
vehicles. The State of California would have required a lot of
paperwork. Now there is a significant effort to remove mobile homes. For
example, when another tribal member passed away, he had seven old
beat-up, substandard mobile homes. His renters are being evicted and the
trailers are being pulled down to the bottom of the hill and demolished.

When the local school has Earth Day, it also is called Cupa Cultural
Days. Cupa is the band of Indians from whom the Pala Band of Mission
Indians originated. We use the occasion to educate the children and hand
out information, and we tried to promote our brand-new waste management
program. In September at Pala, the Institute for Tribal and
Environmental Professionals (ITEP) will offer a training program for
transfer station people to educate them on procedures. We are going to
be hosting it there; ITEP will provide the staff and do the training.

However you feel about Indian gaming, many good things result from it,
e.g., building the transfer stations, and several other projects are
underway. When you start trying to teach people that they cannot just
throw their garbage out the window and leave it on their property, you
have to give them an alternative. The State of California passed a law
on electronic-waste (e-waste) disposal prohibiting e-waste in the
landfill, but they did not give anybody an alternative method of
disposal. It has to be handled specifically as e-waste, but proper
disposal was not part of the legislation. Pala dealt with that issue by
laying asphalt, fencing the area, and bringing in roll-off dumpsters. We
laid out pallets where we collect TVs and computer monitors; then we
call an e-waste handler in San Diego to come and get it.

Also, we have roll-off dumpsters for metal recycling, which is free, and
we have a redemption program for bottles and plastic bottles, which we
recycle and pay the California redemption rate. We compress cardboard
with our $70,000 compactor, which also packs the cardboard into
1800-pound bales. The bottles are much lighter, but this method
increases the efficiency of handling them. And, we designated a
hazardous waste storage area.

We have enforcement tools, solid waste management plans, long-term
plans. We don’t really dispose of anything at our location, so the
transfer station is a big part of the effort to transfer the waste to
the appropriate site for disposal. We work with the county and other
operators for the disposal of the garbage, tires, e-waste, and hazardous
waste. We take people to court, we fine them. In conclusion, this is a
multi-faceted approach and a work in progress. 

Discussion

Dr. Brown was interested in the educational and outreach component. The
dynamic results from a long-standing set of behaviors based on lack of
options and perhaps of understanding of the environmental outcomes. Dr.
Brown wanted to know more about the educational component and how the
tribe is working to change people’s behaviors and beliefs. Mr. Watkins
said they provide a consistent program. They meet with the various
classes and give the children handouts and things they can take home to
their parents. They regularly send information to the tribal newsletter.

As part of the air quality outreach program, they are monitoring indoor
air quality, offering test kits for mold and radon. But, for solid
waste, they have a refuse collection system for about 430 customers.
Within the last three weeks, they have distributed more than 200 big,
blue recycling containers with wheels, which are so labeled and across
the top specify what can be collected in them. Once the Refuse
Department picks up the containers in a truck that follows the truck
that picks up garbage, all these materials are sorted at the transfer
station—the bottles separated from plastics from paper and so forth.
The process helps educate people and gets them thinking about what they
can do. The original plan was that all tribal members would get free
refuse service for all their garbage from the transfer station, and
nobody else would be able to use the system. But, in February, the
Tribal Executive Committee opened the station to everyone, and is
charging everyone.

Now tribal members are starting to see the value of it, and transfer
station usage has picked up significantly. This is a bit about educating
people on the importance of making things look good and be healthy and
clean and taking pride in what they are doing. And, we have stressed the
pride part of it, taking advantage of Indian tribes’ great sense of
pride of community and of Mother Earth and taking care of those kinds of
things, that they should take pride in themselves and in their tribe and
in Mother Earth and the responsibility they have to her.

Dr. Austin asked what is the proportion of fee land to tribal land, and
what is the number of tribal members and non-tribal residents of the
reservation. Mr. Watkins said the Pala Tribe has 12,000 acres of trust
and reservation lands and another 3,500 acres they have purchased.
Within the reservation boundary, there are about 500 non-members; and
there are some 1500 tribal members, but some live off the reservation. 

New River and Artificial Wetlands:  Using Nature to Clean Water

Marie Barrett, Outreach Coordinator, Citizen’s Congressional Task
Force (CCTF), New River Wetland Project

Ms. Barrett distributed a brochure on the New River Wetlands Project for
which the CCTF won the California Governor’s 2006 Environmental Award.
The New River flows across an international Border and it has been very
dirty for very long. Valley residents have dealt with this for more than
90 years, and finally they decided to get together as a citizens’
group. In 1997, they formed the CCTF on the New River.

First, we needed money and permits; then we constructed two small sites
to prove to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of
Fish and Game and other government agencies that wetlands would work,
despite the fact that wetlands have been working for millennia. They are
known as nature’s filters. We also installed an aeration structure
along New River. The New River flows from Mexicali for 20 or 30 miles
before it drops and creates aeration. So by putting an aeration
structure closer to the Border, we might be able to add some dissolved
oxygen. Both the New River, which flows along the west side of Imperial
Valley, and the Alamo, which flows along the east side of the Imperial
Valley, enter the Salton Sea. But the contents of New River are
basically agricultural runoff, containing fertilizer, etc. Raw sewage
comes across the Border, as does foam from the phosphates used in soap,
and organic compounds, metals, pesticides, and various disease-causing
organisms. The CCTF decided that wetlands would be the least expensive
and most effective way to clean up these pollutants because wetlands
break down many different pollutants and excess nutrients. Meanwhile,
wetlands provide a wonderful habitat for many creatures, and they absorb
heavy metals, filter out toxins, and provide a massive food base. They
also offer recreation and bird-watching opportunities. 

Most constructed wetlands are used for domestic wastewater, for sewage
treatment. The agricultural wetlands differ in that we also have to
remove sediment. For pilot projects (these lands were donated), we
selected the Imperial site, which is about 68 acres; it will have a
settling pond and four wetlands. The Brawley site is about seven acres
on the Imperial Research Station using New River water, which has to be
pumped; we built a settling pond and two wetlands. The water goes into
the settling pond and then through the different “fingers” and then
back to the New River. We have about 30 wet acres. We were concerned
about how soon the wetland will fill up; they have been in since about
1999 and we have not had to dredge them yet.

We have received about $4.5 million dollars, much of which was spent on
six years’ worth of monitoring. Dissolved oxygen improved so
biological activity is taking place (3.5 mg per liter is necessary to
sustain life). We had almost a 50% decrease in total nitrogen, 40%
decrease in phosphorus, 20% decrease in selenium (bacteria break down
selenium in warm waters), and 94% decrease in suspended solids—the
dirt, silt, etc. In addition, wetlands are very effective in decreasing
fecal coliform. Under the observation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
and the California Department of Fish and Game, we monitored sediment,
fish eggs, and bird eggs. 

We hope to acquire 4000 acres for the wetlands project; we think that
would allow delivery of clean water to the Salton Sea and to the people
around the Salton Sea. We have identified sites, have done biological
and archaeological surveys, and have obtained the permits, so as soon as
we get funding, we can begin construction. Currently we are working on
the Shank Road Wetlands; it is 65% complete and may be finished in May.
We also started a Holtville site. The city of Holtville is very
supportive, and as soon as we have more funding, we will finish it. We
have a small grant for outreach from the Bureau of Reclamation, which we
use for a basic curriculum, which any school can use. We also work with
the Calexico New River Committee in the Calexico Aeration Study. We need
a sediment basin for some of the dirt and other particles to settle out.

We have worked with:  the Wildlife Conservation Board, Salton Sea
Authority, California Department of Fish and Game, U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and the county. We have worked
with the cities to put in wetlands as wastewater treatment plants. We
fund the Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program to arrange school
bus tours to the wetlands. We also work with the colleges:  currently we
have a display at Imperial Valley College on the New River and Salton
Sea. The University of California at the Desert Research Station has a
program for winter visitors and schoolchildren; 80,000 people had gone
through this program. To prevent salt cedars from growing in the wetland
and increasing salinity, we schedule volunteers for salt cedar clean-up
days.

We recently published a master plan executive summary that shows that
wetlands do remove substantial pollutant loads. Moreover, wetlands incur
lower capital operating and management costs and lower risk to wildlife
than some other projects. Everything is on our Web site, but the proof
is in the wildlife that has moved into the wetland. At the Salton Sea
International Bird Festival, more than 100 different species, including
the black rail, were sighted and seem to be doing well. We also have
brown pelicans, dragon flies, bobcats, bass, catfish, snakes, and
snapping turtles.

Discussion

Mr. Dorsey asked whether the CCTF had to file a full Environmental
Impact Report (EIR), how long it took CCTF to go through California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, and what was the cost of
CEQA compliance. Ms. Barrett replied that CCTF had to comply with the
Act, as any other organization would, but they did get help from Fish
and and Wildlife Service, so it was not a large part of their costs.
CCTF’s biggest cost is monitoring, which CEQA requires. They did not
have to obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NDPES)
permit.

Ms. Grijalva understood that the General Services Administration had
requested the state of Baja California and the city of Mexicali to work
on the water quality of the New River because of the expansion of the
new port of entry being built there, and that they have progressed on
that. Did the monitoring indicate a difference? Ms. Barrett referred Ms.
Grijalva to the Colorado River Quality Control Board, which monitors
daily, whereas CCTF has monitored for six years and now only does it
quarterly.

 

Dr. Austin asked who designs the wetlands. Was there one design for all
of them or is each designed independently? Ms. Barrett said they
contracted with a local engineering company to survey and inventory.
They base the design on elevation because they want all the wetlands to
use gravity flow rather than pumps; this water is hard on pumps. Some of
the design work is done by the Bureau of Reclamation.

Mr. Niemeyer asked the best time of the year to view these wetlands, Ms.
Barrett thought fall or early spring when the bullrushes start growing
and there are more birds.

As for water quality, Dr. Brown noted that the river registers 91,000
mpn (most probable number) fecal coliform in Imperial County, closer to
the Mexican Border, but then it goes to 1.3 million mpn. Ms. Barrett
said agricultural drain water reads about 91,000 mpn. The New River’s
1.3 million count is caused by the numerous birds, especially red-winged
blackbirds at this time of year, in addition to the cattle in the area.
We do not distinguish between the different types of fecal coliform,
e.g., E. coli; therefore she cannot say, for instance, that 20% is
caused bird defecation and 50% by raw sewage. 

Dr. Ganster wondered if these wetlands are becoming a major destination
for birders. Do people come to the valley primarily to visit these
sites, or do is a visit just part of a general visit to the valley? Has
CCTF calculated the economic impact? Ms. Barrett said this wetland is a
“life lister.” Everyone will come to that spot to look for that
bird, but overall, when people come to bird-watch, the major attraction
is the Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge, the wetlands, the
Fig Lagoon, depending on what species are in the valley, which depends
on the season. Now, our egg-lands are a great draw for birds. The
mountain plover, which can be a life lister, are found in agricultural
fields. We have almost as many species in the Imperial Valley as they do
in the Rio Grande Valley. Our birding festival usually brings in about
200 people and our questionnaire indicates that they are sending $300 to
$400 per person.

Dr. Roeder clarified that a minute amount of New River water goes
through the wetlands, which, he said, partly explains why the pollution
is not completely remediated. Ms. Barrett believes they need 4000 acres
of wetlands to effectively clean both the New and the Alamo Rivers.
Currently, they have about 50 acres at this site, 250 acres at the Shank
Road site (which they have $450,000 to finish), and another 100 acres at
the Holtville site. Building enough wetlands to remediate all the
pollution depends on funding.

Board Members Report-Out Presentations

U. S. Department of Transportation—Sylvia Grijalva

Last week in Laredo, Texas, the U. S.–Mexico Joint Working Committee
met. Members represent U. S. federal agencies and their Mexican
counterparts, e.g., the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the
Department of State (DOS) on the U. S. side; and the Secretaría de
Transportation & Communication Ministry (SCT) and the Secretaría de
Relaciones Exteriores (SRE) on the Mexican side. They have bi-annual
work plans, one of which is studying Border wait-times. 

To devise regional Border master plans, we decided to ask for input from
USEPA and SEMARNAP (the Mexican Environment, Natural Resources &
Fisheries Ministry) so we understand the requirements and the North
American Development Bank (NADBank) relationship, which is important
because of the way SCT is going to concession the new ports of entry. We
want to document the guidelines more clearly and help people getting
loans and grants from NADBank to better identify environmental benefits.
It is harder for people on the Mexican side because they don’t have
the infrastructure to document environmental benefits as we do on the
U.S. side. 

New Mexico Environment Department—Marissa Stone

The New Mexico Environment Department is working on several initiatives,
including the proposed Desert Rock Coal-fired Power Plant, proposed by
the Navajo Nation and opposed by Governor Richardson. We are requesting
a more thorough review from EPA because there are grave concerns about
the air quality implications. 

In addition, we are concerned about the potential adverse effects on New
Mexico air quality of a re-start of the Asarco Copper Smelter in El
Paso, which the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
recently approved and permitted. 

We continue to work on several climate change initiatives, including,
the Western Climate Initiative.

And, we are recycling many, many tires along the Border.

USEPA Region 9—Enrique Manzanilla [representing Laura Yoshii]

For the last several years, USEPA Region 9 has been working with the
Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) to support the
allocation of Border 2012 funds. Our solicitation for $1 million has
already closed and we should be making selection decisions around August
15. 

Region 6 in Dallas is also managing its solicitation through the Border
Environment Cooperation Commission. Its $800,000 solicitation opened
June 17 and will close August 29; selection decisions should be made by
the end of October. (The RFP is on the BECC website at <cocef.org>).

Over the past year, the Border 2012 program has embarked on
“mid-course refinements,” reviewing program objectives. A draft of
our revisions was circulated last March through April and we are
expecting to finalize the document and circulate it at the National
Coordinator’s Meeting in September.

The BECC is also prioritizing its projects. We expect to announce that
solicitation in August or September; applications will be due 45 days
after that.

We are beginning to publish short newsletters, probably every two
months, focusing on different goals from the Border 2012 program and
other projects. The first edition covers improving air quality in
Arizona/Senora and describes three different efforts in that area. The
next one may be on water. 

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

HUD continues to work with the colonias along the U. S.–Mexican
Border, working with non-profit organizations, constructing new homes,
and helping in housing counseling programs and starting small business
incubator programs. 

Through our university partnership program, Hispanic-Serving
Institutions Assisting Communities (HISIAC), we have given a grant to
Imperial Valley College to help them work with people in colonias to get
them ready to participate in the workforce. We teach them not only a
trade, but work ethic, personal accountability, reliability, and
responsibility. 

We also gave a HISIAC grant to San Diego State University at Imperial
Valley to teach people from the colonias skills, such as computer
literacy, leadership, problem-solving, and decision-making.

Malpai Borderlands Group—Edward Elbrock

The Malpai Borderlands Group has been working with Border Patrol on the
Border fence. They wanted to build an access road with vehicle barriers
along the border in an area that had no access, although natural
barriers already exist. Apparently they reached their conclusions from
looking at a map, but, after a mule ride to see the area, the district
supervisor of the Border Patrol agreed that there are already enough
barriers there.

 

We do the planning and identify the plots for prescribed burns. The
Forest Service carries them out on the forest land, and the State Land
Department on state land. We scheduled one for 250 acres, but the wind
blew up, and about 4000 acres were burned; luckily no structures were
damaged. The Forest Service plans to burn 2500 acres next week. The one
for today will burn 21,000 acres. We think prescribed burns are doing
some good, although we cannot be sure until we see what happens over the
long term.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)—Stephen Niemeyer

The Board of Governor’s Conference meets monthly. The 10 U. S. states
have seven representatives who work on declarations throughout the year,
which the governors sign as a joint communication.

Carlos Rubenstein, who is our Rio Grande Water Master, effective
yesterday, became TCEQ’s Deputy Executive Director. He is still going
to be our point person on water negotiations with Mexico.

We worked with Eagle Pass to dispose of some 240,000 tires through the
Border 2012 program, and now Cuidad Acuna wants to dispose of tires by
shipping them to Piedras Negras, which will then send them to CEMEX
cement kiln in Monterey. The problem is that there is no freight line
between Acuna and Piedras Negras, and they are about an hour and a half
apart by road.

Finally, May 28 and 29, there was a Bi-National Water Infrastructure
conference in San Diego hosted by the Water Education Foundation. The
Coachella irrigation district is lining their canal at a cost of $83
million because they are losing about 30,000 acre-feet of water a year.
The California Department of Water Resources is paying $80 million of
that. 

Texas approved a permit in February for Asarco in El Paso, Texas.
However, the city of El Paso has filed a complaint with EPA regarding
the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) part of the permit.

New Mexico State University—Christopher Brown

We are the GIS consultants for the Joint Working Community and
Bi-National Transportation project. We are conducting the phase II
bi-national infrastructure needs assessment, which allows data
compilation with U. S. and Mexican Departments of Transportation to pull
together current information and plan future transportation
infrastructure and needs assessments. New Mexico has a similar interest
to pull together geospatial data that would support NADBank proposals.

At the 25th Anniversary Seminar for the Colegio de la Frontera Norte in
Tijuana, I was invited to submit a written report (which took no less
than nine months to pull together), which I have submitted; it will be
published in Spanish. 

We are also in discussions with people at the U. S. International
Boundary and Water Commission concerning a proposal for a Science
Advisory Board. The commissioners and their senior staff get together
regularly to talk about important issues and we want this to be one of
those important issues. 

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

Secretary Juan Elvira Quesada has invited Arlen Lancaster, chief of the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, to Mexico City to explore the
possibility of a joint collaboration for the creation of a bi-national
Border-land ecological restoration program. Mr. Lancaster has accepted.
The initiative would look at water conservation, as well as efforts to
combat this certification. 

Mr. Guerrero distributed brochures from his agency that describe the
work they do with farmers and ranchers. He also distributed copied of an
article published in Time magazine, “Why California is Burning.”

Cameron County, Brownsville, Texas—John Wood

Secretary of the Department of Homeland (DHS) Security Michael Chertoff
has waived about 37 laws and regulations to build a fence in the Rio
Grande Valley. They seem to think “one size fits all.” In our area,
we will be putting homes, farmland, businesses, and subdivisions on the
other side of the proposed fence, between the fence and the river. They
have suggested giving some of the farmers keys or garage-door openers to
open the gates so the farmers can tend their crops and cattle. 

The Texas Border Coalition, a coalition of counties and cities, has
filed suit against the DHS, joining a Brownsville woman who has filed a
suit protesting their taking her property.

About six weeks ago, we had one of the regular drills to prepare for
hurricanes. The Border Patrol, along with other law enforcement
agencies, normally participate in these drills because of their role in
the event that we have to evacuate these people and take control of the
area. Part of the plan is to use local school buses to pick up people
who don’t have transportation and take them to a centralized point
where they get off the school buses. Here, they are wrist-banded to know
where they came from, so the state can keep track of them when they put
them on other buses and take them to our evacuation point in San
Antonio. This time, however, a Border Patrol agent was standing at the
state’s bus wanting to verify people’s legal status, which created a
big problem. Although this was a drill, it made headlines. It has caused
people to be extremely fearful of the possibility of having to evacuate
and not knowing what might happen to them or their family members. They
may be legal, but some of their family members may not be. So that is
going to create problems for all of us and threaten human lives.

Many people live in colonias, which have received bond monies (one for
about $14 million and the other about $7 million) to do street repairs
and street building and to improve drainage.

For about seven years, we have been working on relocating to the west of
both cities, the 100-year-old rail line that goes through downtown
Brownsville and downtown Matamoros. This will improve environmental
issues, as well as safety in transporting hazardous cargo. We should
start construction on the new rail line and the bridge across the river
no later than next February. Normally crossings in international borders
take longer than seven years to get to this point.

Flooding the Bahia Grande area to return 10,000 acres to wetlands is a
project that has won TCEQ state awards. 

About three months ago, we had a congressional hearing in Brownsville,
which included congressmen from California, Colorado, Texas, and
elsewhere. Of the 12 people who testified, only two thought the Border
fence was a good idea. Congressman Taveredo suggested putting the border
fence on the north side of Brownsville, an idea that was not well
received.

Campo Kumeyaay Nation—Mike Connolly

The Tohono O’odham Tribe is working with Department of Homeland
Security to find ways that minimize the impact of the Border fence on
migratory animals that come through the area and also to help them issue
pass/repasses for tribal members who live on the Mexican side of the
border.

The Mesa Grande Tribe is developing a manufacturing facility in Otay
Mesa. It will have a panelized green building design, which they will
introduce first on the reservation as part of an economic development
project.

 

The Torres Martinez Tribe, at the north end of the Salton Sea, has a
successful wetlands restoration project.

The tribes on the Colorado River have a serious and ongoing problem with
the zebra mussels, which are so prolific that they clog intake pipes.

Campo is one of three tribes that has joined the Climate Registry, an
organization that was formed by U. S. states and expanded to Canadian
provinces and Mexican states. They are developing a standardized method
for reporting and quantifying greenhouse gases. At present this registry
is voluntary, but will probably become mandatory. They have been
successful in having big corporations join voluntarily and report their
greenhouse gas emissions because they see the benefit of establishing
their baselines before a mandatory system comes into place.

At Campo we are continuing to work on renewable energy, in particular
wind, and are working with other tribes regionally and nationally. One
goal is to have our casino be energy neutral and establish a net-metered
wind-energy generation facility there. We are planning to expand the
existing 50-megawatt wind-energy facility to 300 megawatts. If we were a
state, we would be the 21st in wind energy production.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

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

Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB

Dr. Ganster asked for discussion and comment on the minutes of the last
meeting followed by a response from staff members.

Mr. Niemeyer asked for clarification—is the document in hand a draft
of an executive summary or of actual minutes? It is difficult to know
who asked the questions and who said what; in the public comment, it is
impossible to tell. In a number of places, Mr. Niemeyer questioned the
accuracy of the report; this seems very different from the way things
were done previously. If the intent was to capture actual minutes, it
failed abjectly; if the intent was to give a summary it is alright.

Ms. Wolf and Mr. Dorsey had similar concerns, but for Ms. Wolf, another
concern is that the document reads like a statement or a report, not a
discussion among board members. Even more disturbing to Mr. Dorsey is
that the person giving the report-out is not identified.

Dr. Austin was concerned that in many places detailed information was
given, without associating anybody’s name with it. In other places it
said, “the board discussed….” If this is an executive summary, we
need some kind of rules of inclusion, and they would have to be reviewed
on a higher level than minutes because minutes simply tell what
happened.

Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano explained that the document is an executive
summary. They do have detailed minutes of the meeting, which report
everything that occurred, but copies are not now available for everyone.
Mr. Niemeyer retorted that that is the actual transcript and it is about
100 or 150 double-spaced pages with numbers on the side so you refer to
specific lines. In previous minutes, or whatever we call these things,
he recalled that it was possible to know who said what, why they said
it, and what actions would be taken. After each person spokes, these
minutes say, “discussion,” and it was a discussion but it was also a
question-and-answer period of the panelists or of the speaker. This
document does not really reflect that. Perhaps the company that was
hired this time, did it differently.

Ms. Marin thought the points well taken. She thought the solution was
reformatting to name speakers and bring a revised document to the next
meeting. Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano offered to provide the transcript to those
who want it. Mr. DeLeon will tell the contractor that we were unhappy
with this product:  it is different in tone and nature from those we
approved in the past; and we would like them to attribute the statements
in this document. 

Dr. Ganster asked if this solution would suitable to everyone. Dr.
Austin thought that in addition to adding names, wherever they say
“the board discussed,” more detail should be given. Mr. DeLeon said
he can tell them generally what the problems are, but he would like
specific concerns sent to Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano so they can be sure to
address all of the concerns.

 

Ms. Keith said that if this is an executive summary, the important thing
is not to state what each person said, but to summarize and integrate
the main concerns and points. Mr. Dorsey suggested that, instead of
going back and redoing the executive summary, they discard it and just
publish the minutes. But when Dr. Ganster reminded participants that
these summaries are already posted on the Web, Mr. Dorsey changed his
mind. Dr. Ganster concluded that, since they like to have a document
that is understandable and well written, Mr. DeLeon’s proposed
solution would achieve that.

Mr. Niemeyer said he would turn in his marked-up copy of the minutes to
the DFO, indicating proposed changes. Mr. DeLeon offered to post both
documents on the Web, but Dr. Ganster  said the motion is that we have
this document revised and consider it at the next meeting. Participants
do not need to vote on it because they are not approving or disapproving
it, but asking for adjustments.

FACA Developments

Rafael DeLeon, Director, OCEM

In addition to FACA, Mr. DeLeon will discuss lobbying, by-laws, term
limits, and measures.

FACA

Mr. DeLeon’s office has oversight of all of the EPA’s federal
advisory committees and he wanted to discuss some changes afoot in the
FACA (Federal Advisory Committee Act) world, namely House Bill 5687 as
it relates to FACA at EPA, in particular. The new legislation is an
example of something with good intentions, but unintended consequences.
FACA is a response to concerns about conflicts of interest and
transparency, and this bill would create more stringent requirements.
For example, this board is a representative group—you represent
industry, business, or tribal, state, or local government. We also have
special government employees (SGE), whom we pay for their expertise, and
this is where controversy has arisen. Under the bill, all of you would
be subjected to those conflict-of-interest rules that now apply only to
the SGE. The agency objects to that because we think representative
groups are not a threat to conflict-of-interest standards.

Furthermore, the bill would define membership as not only persons
serving on committees and subcommittees, but also to anybody who
provides advice to a committee or a subcommittee, including work groups.
(Work groups have been used as a fast, easy way to get information and
expertise.) The bill would also require that we post on the Web not only
summary minutes, but also verbatim transcripts of each meeting. The
current version of FACA does not require transcripts or even minutes,
just a summary of the meeting.

Some people think the new ruling would lead to an explosion of
committees and subcommittees because everything you do is subject to
FACA. Others say the agencies would retreat and not do as much because
it would be too burdensome. A healthy debate is underway, but, if passed
as introduced, the bill will result in significant changes for agencies
like EPA.

Discussion

Ms. Keith asked for clarification of application of the proposed
legislation, and Mr. DeLeon said, yes, groups like the GNEB would it be
subjected to these requirements. They are government-wide,
conflict-of-interest regulations. All Federal Advisory Committees are
operated under FACA, and some, like the Good Neighbor Boards, are
statutory—required by law. Others are discretionary—the agency set
them up. Right now, SGEs are subject to the conflict-of-interest rules
because agencies are buying their expertise, and the government wants to
know what their business interests are, whereas representative members
(like those on the Good Neighbor Board) are not. In a committee like
this, members were appointed because they represent a sector, so we
assume that you will advocate for your sector. Notwithstanding, we do
expect all of you to disclose to your colleagues a conflict should it
apply to one of the discussions. 

Ms. Keith asked about the need to post an agenda 15 days before a
meeting, which they do in Arizona under the Open Meeting Law. Complying
with this law means that nothing can be discussed that is not on the
agenda. Mr. DeLeon agreed that that is one possible consequences. Right
now, he said, we are supposed to give notice that the meeting will be
held and we do post the agenda. The bill requires that you give the
public all the information that you are going to discuss. The lawyers
have said one of the unintended consequences could be that you cannot
discuss anything that has not been announced to the public. Mr.
DeLeon’s understanding is that most of the federal agencies oppose the
bill and have made that known to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). Ms. Keith said that Arizona’s Open Meeting Law has been
interpreted that way; for instance, two elected officials cannot get
together and discuss something offline. 

Mr. Connolly asked whether Mr. DeLeon had heard any complaints regarding
the GNEB’s transparency, and whether he knew what happened with which
FACA committee that inspired this legislation. Mr. DeLeon has heard no
complaints with respect to the transparency of the GNEB. In fact, he
commended GNEB members for establishing excellent transparency. There
are always have opportunities for the public to comment, and at past
meetings the galleries have been full of people. As for the inspiration
for the proposed changes, Mr. DeLeon thought it was no particular
committee, but, according to the newspapers, there have been a number of
federal advisory committees in which some of the members have been
viewed as being very conflicted in the advice they gave to the agency;
and the advice of some committee’s was ignored when the agency took
action. 

Mr. Gillen encouraged Mr. DeLeon’s office to continue to object
because he thought the proposed legislation would stifle the free
exchange of information. When he served on a state agency in Texas, the
staff attorney interpreted the open-record rules in the most stringent
way and it really stifled discussion. Sometimes the tangents in a
discussion are fruitful, but if notice was not given that the matter
would be discussed, you could not talk about it. Moreover, members are
not paid to be here; we are giving up our time (with reimbursement for
expenses). More stringent requirements would mean more reporting. In
Texas, if you hold the same kind of a position, you have to fill out a
15-page report, which it is quite onerous; in fact we hire a CPA to do
it. Such reporting requirements would deter qualified members.

Lobbying

Within the next 30 days or so, Mr. DeLeon will sign an internal guidance
document on lobbying for members of federal advisory committees and
members of other committees. In essence, you can do what you want to on
your own time before and after meetings, but during a meeting you cannot
go to the Hill. If you do go to the Hill, you must make clear that you
are not speaking on behalf of the committee, but in your capacity as a
private citizen or constituent. There will be other minor provisions,
but these are the main things. 

Discussion

Mr. Dorsey thought that, in addition to the Border state
representatives, non-Border representatives and senators should receive
copies of reports because they are the ones who would really benefit
from the information; there is a lack of education in some areas of the
county about what is going on at the Border. 

Mr. Niemeyer agreed that education is key. In past reports, we have
written letters, for example to Norman Dicks, Chairman of the House
Interior and the Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, who makes a
difference in many of these issues. For example, one problem we have
with the Border is that the rest of the county is benefiting from NAFTA
while the Border is suffering because of it. 

Mr. DeLeon thought progress had been made in getting our congressional
office engaged. How do we determine which reports need to go to every
member of Congress? Perhaps it is not every single person. Ms. Grijalva
suggested posting reports on the Web and then notifying everybody that
it had been posted. Congressmen get so much information, they cannot
possibly read it all. Mr. DeLeon understood that every GNEB report is
already posted the Web and is hot-linked to various sites. 

Dr. Brown thought a single piece of paper—announcing the release of
our annual report, which is available at the following Web site, and
giving the main points and recommendations—would have a better chance
of being read. 

Dr. Ganster pointed out that the report begins with a page or two that
summarizes key points. That was done specifically to address these
concerns, but he invited more discussion of this at the El Paso meeting.

Term Limits

Mr. DeLeon reported that his office had had internal discussions about
the length of time committee members now serve on the board and decided
to limit terms to six years, allowing exceptions for seven or possibly
eight years. A statement to that effect will be issued.

By-laws

Mr. DeLeon said EPA is asking committees to develop standard operating
procedures (SOP) rather than by-laws per se, and they will be issuing
guidance for the committees as part of the bigger EPA effort.

Measures

Lastly Mr. DeLeon said that every DFO at EPA is being tasked to discuss
and develop measures for their committees. Measures should distinguish
between outputs and outcomes; this won’t be easy. The goal really is
to be able to look at a committee in six, eight, or 10 years, and know
whether it has been effective. He will ask the DFO to put GNEB measures
on the agenda for the El Paso meeting. 

Discussion

Ms. Marin cautioned that we must not forget our initial goal and
purpose, which is specified in law. Our measures must be absolutely
consistent with what the law says is our purpose and goal.

Reimbursements

As long as discussion had turned to procedural issues, Mr. Niemeyer
wanted to mention delays in his reimbursements. He would appreciate
anything that can be done to expedite direct deposits or reimbursements.
He had still not been reimbursed for a one-night hotel stay in
Washington, D.C.

Discussion

Mr. DeLeon was pained to learn that there are still issues with
travel—it is inexcusable. He apologized and will address the issue
with staff members. Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano agreed, saying they have
already contacted the appropriate people. One additional difficulty is
that they are undergoing a transition from one system to another and are
heavily backed-up. 

Dr. Brown suggested the benefits of preparing the information and
putting it on the right desk would expedite things. Also, frequently, he
could have gotten cheaper tickets. Mr. DeLeon agreed that sometimes
using the preferred carrier is cheaper, sometimes more expensive. But,
without a preferred carrier, his office would become a travel agency
because everybody’s travel for all five committees would have to be
booked through one person, and that is not the answer.

Dr. Ganster expressed appreciation for Mr. DeLeon’s efforts and those
of his staff. These sorts of arrangements will be particularly valuable
as the number of cancelled flights increases and the occupancy rate
increases. So, having a more agile alternative will be very valuable.

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

Rosario Marin, California State Consumer Services Agency

Luis Ramirez, who could not be present today, wrote an outstanding and
thoughtful letter, which everybody has seen. Ms. Marin moved that this
version be approved and submitted to the President and the Congress as
mandated by law. Ms. Grijalva seconded the motion, noting for the
record, that DOT recused itself.

Discussion

Mr. Wood suggested adding Brownsville on page 2, where it talks about
central lanes. Ms. Grijalva said there are some 300 communities with
central lanes, but Brownsville can be added. 

Dr. Brown recalled a comment as to why we are not sending this letter to
the Senate Majority and Minority leaders. He asked what the final
version says about who receives a copy. Ms. Marin said, traditionally
they have sent it only to the people the law stipulates, but she saw no
reason not to send it to other people, as well.

Since the letter is unanimously accepted, Dr. Ganster asked Ms.
Cedeño-Zambrano to get it ready to send out.

GNEB Twelfth Report:  Innovation, including Incentives, to Prevent
/Reduce Pollution at the U. S.–Mexico Border

Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB

GNEB members must decide which case studies to present and who will
research them and write them. This must be resolved fairly soon so we
can meet production deadlines. Mr. Joyce has agreed to identify a copy
editor and graphics people to take what we produce, that is, the case
studies and integrating them into a document with introductions and
transitions. Mr. Joyce said he intends to have this contractor at the El
Paso meetings. Dr. Ganster thought that would make life easier for
everyone, noting that members can still add and subtract and change
wording.

Dr. Ganster wanted to talk about individual topics and then about
methodology. He cautioned that cases must be Border-specific in a
bi-national context. Actual practices and problems should have been
solved innovatively. The topics have to have advocates who will work on
them. There are 24 cases in the packet and others may surface; we need
five or six, which should be finished by September 1.

Title

Ms. Wolf and Dr. Austin thought the title unwieldy and perhaps no longer
an accurate reflective of what the board is thinking about. They suggest
“Innovations to Prevent Pollution along the U. S.–Mexico Border.” 

Mr. Niemeyer agreed, saying the title would cover everything without
being restrictive. He drew attention to page 12, second to last
paragraph, “the report’s overall theme will be innovation.”

Dr. Ganster suggested selecting a working title that is easy to
remember; then making a final decision in El Paso. Mr. Niemeyer
suggested “Innovative Environmental Strategies along the U.
S.–Mexico Border,” and, after discussion, the group agreed.

Case Studies

Dr. Austin thought the real challenge of doing case study research is
pulling the case studies together and looking at what you are learning
from them and what recommendations you want to make. Much remains to be
done before GNEB is ready to pass a document to a contractor. The main
part of the report has to comply with a template so the projects used
can be readily applied anywhere along the Border.

Ms. Keith thought the main part of the report was not the projects, but
what was learned from the case studies and how that could be applied
elsewhere.

Ms. Grijalva saw the problem with this report as not having an
overarching problem statement to which to address the examples (i.e.,
case studies), which could then be replicated.

Mr. Dorsey suggested changing the agenda of the El Paso meeting, and
spending half a day on presentations related to the case studies they
would be working on, but Dr. Austin thought that would not allow the
time needed.

 

Mr. Niemeyer thought using this title as a framework would be good
start; then, as discussed in Washington, they could highlight some of
the successes in the Border area, and trumpet that to the rest of the
nation. Mr. Gillen thought they had a good story to tell, and he
envisioned storytelling as a framework. 

Ms. Keith said, they work with the Border and its issues so much that
they forget they are dealing with such a unique place. One issue is,
that uniqueness makes it extra hard to deal with the environmental
issues because you have different governments, different cultures, and
different sets of resources on each side of the Border. 

Ms. Grijalva still thought it was missing something to weave it
together. There is nothing that is letting these case studies be part of
a single theme, which is why she thought of a problem statement. In
transportation, they often fall into these situations because gadgets
and electronics—that is, the solutions—are available, but you
don’t know for what. You have to identify the problem for your
solution.

Ms. Wolf suggested asking Dr. Austin to go through the framework because
when they wrote the framework, they addressed these concerns, including
the problem statement and an overview that they had hoped would tie it
together.

Mr. Manzanilla wanted to know what has worked, what are the problems
being solved, and how successes can it be replicated. He said this is
really what would benefit his agency.

Approach to Case Studies

Diane Austin & Ann Marie Wolf, Members, GNEB

The minutes report that we approved the topic “incentives to advance
innovation that would lead to pollution prevention.” As a draft, we
grouped the case studies by type of innovation (see page 2):
partnerships, use of resources or resource efficiency, education and
outreach, and policy and procedures, including management systems. The
innovation may be applying something to very small businesses. Clusters
are appearing already, for example, how people treat wastewater from
housing—the wetlands approaches, and the composting toilets approach. 

From this we need to derive the results, the lessons learned. As each
case is being developed, people should think about the national
implications and what the Border has to teach other people. All that
information is then woven together in a final report ending with some
kind of recommendation.

Discussion of Potential Case Studies

Several members complimented Dr. Austin’s and Ms. Wolf’s framework.

Mr. Manzanilla was concerned about the limits of categorization. The big
problems must be articulated and fit into this organization. 

To Ms. Keith is seemed like a good model, and perhaps can be used for
future reports. It is also helpful for people trying to make sense of
all the discussions that have occurred over phone calls. It provides a
framework to go forward. We not need to worry about grouping the case
studies before they are written up and categorized. We may have the case
studies in a chapter for each one or all of them in one chapter or in
appendices. It is how you weave the lessons learned into the bigger
pictures that are the innovation discussions. 

Dr. Austin was asked to put the framework together, and she is willing
to write her case studies. She suggested that when people present their
cases, they should state whether they intend to write up the case. It
would also be good to think about how long a project has been in
operation. If we bring that out in our cases, we won’t overstate
something that we think is going to work, but in another year proves to
be a disaster. Maybe the report could have a section of future
innovations that might be a good idea for the Border.

Ms. Wolf hoped everyone could agree on the structure proposed in the
framework and whether the type of data we want for the case study. Then
types of data can be considered when we are reviewing cases.

Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano noted that there are innovative projects across the
nation, but the highlight here is the conditions of the border region
and what makes the border region or a particular project within the
Border region unique. We need to know what makes the case study
innovative within the Border region. How is cleaning up a river in New
Mexico different from cleaning up one in Pennsylvania? 

Mr. Dorsey thought it important to go through the case studies from the
standpoint of what specificity to the Border, but he was unclear how to
define Border-specific.

Regardless of innovation, Mr. Manzanilla saw more opportunities working
in this bi-national setting to address some severe problems that other
parts of the country do not face.

Ms. Wolf suggested that the introduction be more than the introduction,
and explain not just what is innovative, but say why it is innovative.

Ms. Grijalva saw a problem because, first, pollution has to be
demonstrated. That is, there has to be a reason to prevent a particular
type of pollution. You have to have an underlying problem. Then you can
demonstrate why you need to do this and what is innovative about it.

Ms. Keith thought it might be good to make sure that we have at least
one case study for each strategy. Maybe some can be combined, e.g.,
similar studies in different states.

Ms. Marin recalled last year’s Border of Governors’ Worktable on
Science and Technology, where they reported on resources along the
Border. We need to consider, not only the amount of resources in the
Border region, but also the significant challenges and problems, how we
deal with them, and the innovations needed to solve those problems. And,
while we state the problems, we need to look at the great things that
are taking place and how these projects and how these strategies are
furthering the effort to solve them.

Mr. Niemeyer did not think the word “strategy” was a term to get
locked into. He thought the group should just discuss projects and how
they should be categorized.

Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano thought the purpose now was for those who presented
a possible case, to discuss it. Asking questions would give an overview
of the possibilities or options, and those discussions will facilitate
selection. It is important to have the opportunity to discuss your
selections and what makes them innovative.

Mr. Joyce stated that in this section of the agenda, people would give a
two-minute presentation of the case they suggested, why they suggested
it, and the key points. Going through the entire list, it would become
clear that some cases are not pertinent to the points we want to make.
Then the discussion will concentrate on the ones that are left, and the
case studies will come from that subset. The initial data and
information is going to form the real crux of the report, the ultimate
recommendations that will tie all this together. These case studies are
essential because they illustrate particular cases where environmental
problems have been addressed on the Border using innovative approaches.
Whoever volunteers to be on the work groups to draft these case studies
will gather that information together and that will be used to make the
recommendation section of the final report.

Dr. Ganster concluded that there is agreement that the framework as
presented, with some modification, is suitable to everyone and that it
provides a basis for moving forward. Now, members need to go through the
list and briefly present their cases, pointing out whether they are
willing to participate actively. If they are not willing to carry it
forward, we cannot consider the case now.

Selection of Case Studies and Formation of Drafting Teams

Mr. Gillen:  Rubber Manufacturers Association. The presentation in
Washington should be one of the case studies because it is a good
example of where an industry voluntarily did something that was good for
the environment. Mr. Joyce reported that Dr. Ganster believes he has
enough information to draft a case study on that.

Dr. Brown:  Renewable energy. Referring to Dr. Sweedler’s presention,
he is convinced that this is a critical area with tremendous potential,
and he is willing to do the research. 

Ms. Keith:  Diesel emission school bus retrofit. This project is not
unique to the border and should be dropped. 

Dr. Austin:  Biodiesel capacity building. In terms of innovation, the
idea is to take restaurants’ waste vegetable oil and that from the
maquiladoras. Because of the maquiladoras, border communities have large
volumes of waste vegetable oil. In production of biodiesel farm fuel,
waste vegetable oil is not unique to the border and not innovative, but
it is innovative in terms of partnerships—it involves departments from
both countries. Mexico has an issue about competing with Penex in the
sale of fuel, but the project is voluntary. It probably also has a role
in education and outreach. Dr. Austin is willing to do the work to
develop it, but the project is not very far along. The Instituto
Tecnológico de Nogales has converted a lab and is making biodiesel to
run their buses. That, in and of itself, is not unique, but it does
address both air quality of the diesel fuel vehicles and the reuse of
vegetable oil.

Ms. Keith:  Arizona–Mexico International Green Organization. AMIGO was
developed to reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated by the
maquiladoras because the waste is U. S. owned and has to come back to
the United States. It is an example of partnerships increasing technical
knowledge and fostering networking, communities, and environmental
stewardship and an example of how to increase exposure for pollution
activities. Dr. Austin thought this might fit into a suite of
discussions of ways to inform people about what the laws are and getting
people comply with them where resources are insufficient to enforce
them. 

Dr. Austin:  AMIGO fibrous concrete. A material has come out of the
AMIGO program—fibrous concrete, which is 50 to 80% recycled paper.
That is mixed with water and then sand, ash, and concrete. A house in
Nogales, Sonora, has been built with it, and it has a very high thermal
mass. The maquiladoras have been involved in the work. They calculated
that with just the waste going to the landfill—not counting anything
that is being pulled aside for recycling—you could build a house every
three weeks in Nogales and remove that paper from the landfill. Mr.
Niemeyer said the unique aspect of the AMIGO program is that it is a
bi-national recognition program for maquiladoras in Mexico. The
governors of both Arizona and Senora handed out the award. Ms. Keith
added environment management system training to the maquiladoras as a
Border training or cross-cultural training course.

Ms. Wolf:  Promotora model. This project trains women in the community
to work with businesses to reduce pollution and change practices in the
businesses. So far, they have gone to 173 businesses—primarily auto
repair shops, print shops, and nail salons—and 49% are participating
in some pollution-prevention activity within three months. And, results
are measurable:  nail shops have switched from using acetone to a
different type of polish remover; auto shops have switched from solvent
degreasers to water degreasers. Getting them the women the training and
the confidence they needed to go to work with the businesses was
probably the biggest struggle we have had with the program. It is
innovative as far as partnerships because we work with the University of
Arizona and the regulatory agencies to get technical training, and it is
innovative in achieving voluntary reductions in pollutants in these
communities. 

Mr. Dorsey:  Automotive industry in Tijuana. When he was Chief of the
Hazardous Material Division, they received a USEPA grant to do green
business outreach to the automotive industry in Tijuana, and they worked
with the Tijuana Chamber of Commerce. This could help pull that
information together.

Dr. Ganster:  For two years, he has studied the flow of used tires from
California to Baja California that resulted in the accumulation of huge
numbers of scrap tires in Mexico. Border 2012 has done terrific work on
cleaning up the residual piles, but the causes of the formation of the
piles have not been addressed. What kinds of solutions are there over
the long term that would prevent the piles from accumulating in Mexican
communities? Mr. Dorsey believed that recently USEPA and the State of
California set aside over $1 million to work on this issue with Mexico.
Mr. Gillen agreed with the importance of such a project. Dr. Ganster
thought a public–private partnership would resolve this issue; it
cannot be done in a regulatory way. We have to figure out what the
economics and economic incentives are; then it will be resolved. But
that is the innovative aspect, and this is clearly a Border problem
because the Border is what is driving this flow of materials.

Ms. Marin:  Fuel cell applications in wastewater treatment. This is an
innovative use of fuel cells and fuel cell applications are seldom seen
in the Border area. And it is a pretty innovative idea to power
wastewater treatment plants. Mr. Manzanilla could see some
applicability—it all fits under the rubric of innovation towards
better sustainability. Ms. Grijalva thought Ms. Marin’s volunteer
writers should stress the applicability to the Border.

Mr. Dorsey:  Construction, demolition, and inert recycling facilities.
In California, we have a 50% diversion and we are heading possibly to a
75% diversion from landfills to recycling because of ordinances that
require construction and demolition materials to be recycled. He is
willing to work on this case. Dr. Ganster added that Tijuana is really
getting interested in solid waste management; they have the same issues
and there is a history of a bi-national recyclables market, so there
might be a good trans-Border connection there.

Mr. Dorsey:  Biofuels. An entrepreneur who had an egg ranch in the
county recently purchased 120 acres in the valley where he is growing
sugarcane to create biofuel similar to what they are doing in Brazil.
This is unique to the Border area. California Energy and Resource and
Development Commission, in 2005, started looking into this and there is
supposedly a tax break and other incentives. Mr. Joyce thought sugarcane
required a lot of water. Mr. Dorsey said, yes, the man pays $17 an
acre-foot for water per year (which is cheap water), but sugarcane needs
no fertilizer, so it is cheap to grow. Mr. Gillen heard that people in
Canada are using switch grass for biofuel, which apparently takes less
water and gives more fiber. Dr. Austin:  In Louisiana, where they grow a
lot of sugarcane, they are discussing using the bagasse for biofuel and
still producing sugar from the cane. So, it is certainly not unique.
Furthermore, sugarcane is a very inefficient producer of biofuel.

Ms. Marin:  Hazardous waste prevention. This has to do with the training
similar to the promotoras project. Mr. Dorsey recalled similar projects
in Tijuana, which might tie in nicely; he offered to coordinate that.
Dr. Ganster:  A lot of their training is aimed at small- and
medium-sized companies, which have special problems because they don’t
have full-time environmental managers, so they have to do training at
night because they can’t leave their businesses during the day. A
whole set of training issues seems to be emerging that could be pulled
together.

Mr. Connolly:  Campo Kumeyaay Nation wind energy project. There are
several projects on the Indian Reservations in the Border zone, but
because he was unsuccessful in getting submissions, he will submit wind
project he mentioned. This project is the largest wind energy project on
a reservation in the United States. It is also the only commercial-scale
wind project in San Diego County. It has been going on since the first
wind-energy studies in 1990, so a part of the write up will include a
discussion of the long-term energy policy and its inconsistencies in the
United States and how that has both inspired and impeded these types of
projects. These types of projects are considerably influenced by state
and federal incentives. This particular project was a revenue producer
for a low-income community. It also addresses reduction of carbon
emissions and it highlights some of the obstacles for these types of
facilities, not only on Indian reservations, but throughout the country.
It is also the closest wind farm to the Border. Dr. Ganster thought it
illustrated connected energy systems in the Border region, certainly a
key part of the alternative and renewable fuels.

Ms. Spener:  New River Wetlands Project. This trans-boundary water is
polluted in Mexico when it comes into the United States. The project
addresses a solution that can be done in the United States, and a
solution that provides effective treatment, at least for some of the
indicators like fecal coliform, as well as providing habitat. They have
six years of data; Ms. Spener offered to develop the case study. 

Dr. Austin:  Eco Park, Tijuana. They basically take the waste
black-water from colonias and treat it on site, and they have created a
huge park in the middle of Tijuana that might go with the theme of
alternative ways of treating wastewater. It is a Mexican project that
has implications for a U. S. watershed that comes across the U. S.
border. Dr. Ganster said that that project had actually started on the
U. S. side, got kicked off of IBWC land, and was eventually
reconfigured; there is a long and twisted history to it. They may not
have real monitoring data, but it might fit in. That brings up the whole
issue of the effectiveness of the types of treatments and the issue of
decentralized treatment versus centralized treatment.

Ms. Siwik:  Solar energy. This was a partnership between New Mexico
State University and Southwest Environmental Center where they installed
the photovoltaic (PV) unit on the roof of their building, which they
will be metering. The other thing about this project is that there is an
environmental education component so that the students at New Mexico
State have the opportunity to learn how to install these systems.
Secondary schools were incorporated so the kids learned how to use GPS
units. Similarly, New Mexico State is taking a leadership role at the
Institute for Energy and the Environment, demonstrating commercialized
clean-energy technologies that can be replicated. New Mexico State has a
PV system on top of a parking structure at the Health Clinic, which
provides electricity, powering lights, saving energy, and reducing
pollution. The Albuquerque project does not occur at the Border, but it
could be replicated in the Border region.

Dairy to biomass. This is another innovative project that uses a
two-stage anaerobic bio-fermentation process to reduce dairy waste and
then produces methane gas that is used for power. They use that compost
at a greenhouse. It, too, has applicability for other areas of the
Border. A number of dairies in New Mexico are doing this.

Performance energy contracting in schools and public facilities. This is
happening around the country, but it provides the resources to do that
in low-income communities and provides a cost savings to schools and
municipalities in the Border region, and it could be replicated.

Ride share program. Mobile sources are obviously a huge contributor to
air quality pollution. Las Cruces Ride Share Programs are successful. It
is happening around the country, but again it can be expanded to the
Border region. Dr. Ganster asked whether there has been any organized,
bi-national ride-share programs along the Border; Ms. Siwik find out.

Education.  We are having much success in combining environmental
education and real-life experience through our projects, e.g., the scrap
tire project in Palomas and Ascension. School children went into the
field and located scrap tire piles using GPS. In their computer labs,
they learned how to use GIS systems to map the location of tire piles.
Then, back in the field and they helped collect the tires.

Ms. Stone:  Dairy wastewater reuse project. Dairies use a great deal of
water. A private company is converting dairy wastewater into clean,
usable water, and the State of New Mexico is supporting it.

Truck stop electrification. New Mexico has joined California and other
states in the clean cars initiative and is considering truck stop
electrification to reduce air emissions. Tractor trailers would plug
into electrical outlets at facilities around the state to reduce air
emissions.

Tire Recycling Grant Programs. The New Mexico Environment Department
recently gave a grant to Akima Pueblo where they converted used tires
into an athletic field.

Meth lab clean-up initiatives. New Mexico may be the first state to
require home owners to disclose when a property was used as a meth lab.

Mr. Elbrock: Reduced school week. Animas School went to a four-day
school week, which immediately resulted in a 20% reduction in pollution
and energy use for heating and cooling of the school buildings and
running the school buses. Animas has a 72-mile school bus route, so it
really cut down on the diesel fuel use. But, there was a lot of
opposition to it, and they will probably go back to a five-day school
week. It could be a cross-Border initiative.

Mr. Niemeyer:  Micro-grids—colonias using renewable energy. Texas
Engineering Experiment Station (TEEXA) is testing using micro-grids, a
variety of renewable energy—biodiesel, wind, and solar—for some
remote colonias that have no easy way to get power. If the test on one
colonia works in just a few households, it will be expanded to others.
Some 400,000 people live in colonias on the Texas–Mexico Border. This
is a public–private partnership using an EPA grant, and money is being
passed through to TEEXS.

Water quality. In a storage pool for farmers in the lower Rio Grande
Valley, we have a real-time surface-water quality monitor. Just upstream
is a salt drain from Mexico that could affect salinity. The salinity
levels are critical to the farmers because if the salinity in the river
is too high, irrigating with the water will kill the crops. 

Bahia Grande Restoration Partnership. Years ago when they built the
boundary ship channel, they cut off some of the water supplied to this
area, so the whole Bahia Grande turned into a dry land. A number of
people with various interests established a partnership and over a
number of years, they studied the area, got water to it, and restored
the wetlands. This project also a Texas Environmental Excellence Awards.

The world’s largest inland desal plant. El Paso needs water. They have
brackish water, so the city of El Paso partnered with Fort Bliss to
desalinate 27.5 million gallons of this water. It is the world’s
largest inland desal plant. After they treat the water, they dispose of
it in an isolated formation so it won’t go anywhere; our agency had to
approve that permit. And they created a teaching center, the Carlos
Ramirez H2O Tech Center.

Site Assistance Visits. The twin plant on the U.S. side was basically
just a warehouse. We got permission from the Mexican Environmental
Enforcement Agency (PROFEPA). 

Great Border Trade-out. Under a Border 2012 grant we held workshops at a
number of these auto-body shops. They were using spray guns to paint in
auto-body shops; the paint volatilized readily and contributed to the
ozone formation. So we gave them these high-vapor, low-pressure guns and
destroyed the old ones. And we have quantifiable data to show what we
accomplished. We worked with our small business unit and demonstrated to
the body-shop owners how to do it and how it works, and these guys
signed off on the project.

Brick Kiln Project. El Paso Electric needed to reduce their NOx
emissions to reduce 1000 tons and had no way of trading. (In 1999,
legislation permitted emissions trading and banking in Texas;
unfortunately, there was no one in El Paso with whom to trade, as in
Dallas and Houston.) They passed legislation allowing not only for
trans-boundary pollutant trading, but cross-pollutant trading. That is
to say, for example, El Paso Electric could trade their NOx for carbon
monoxide and particulate matter. They built brick kilns developed by a
New Mexico State researcher and they quantified how much they would get
in reductions. They have since built 32 brick kilns; when they built the
new ones, they destroyed the old kilns.

Fuel cell applications and wastewater treatment plants. This is a
California project (page 4). 

Site assistance visit program. We have done this at a number of
maquiladoras in the Border region; we stopped in 2003, but they still
send us their data. They would go on-site with the PROFEPA
representative (the plants were nervous at first) and tour the plant
looking for ways they could minimize waste, save water, save energy. At
the end, they have a brief talk with management. PROFEPA (after a while)
was happy with this program. They come back and make recommendations.

Landfill biogas project.  Getting methane to market is happening
everywhere, including Mexico, but Administrator Johnson mentioned this
specifically at our last meeting and talked about dedicating a new
plant.

Summary

Dr. Ganster summarized:  We have 24 cases; we need five or six case
studies and the framework. Ms. Wolf grouped the cases into four
areas—energy, materials, recycling (including scrap tires and inert
materials at the landfill, and the necessary training), and treatment
(including wastewater treatment and the wetlands). We have generated
many new ideas and I am not quite sure how to proceed. One possibility
might be to produce a template where we ask people who are willing to
advocate for a project to fill it in and send it to us so we can
distribute it for everyone’s review.

Dr. Brown asked how we get our bundles of innovations lined up with the
case studies. Energy use and resource efficiencies were one group of
ideas. The second was training and outreach programs concerning small
businesses. The third was solid waste recycling and diversion, which
bundles many things. And the last was treatment ideas and the two
thrusts that came up were wetlands and the dairies in reducing
wastewater and recycling. What might be useful is to task teams today to
sign up for those four groups and let those groups start getting ideas
and cases together. We have lots of good ideas and more will come. I
think we need that framework to hang these ideas on. And, Ms. Wolf
added, we agreed on the framework.

Dr. Austin suggested that people develop the case studies; perhaps
specific cases could be discussed in the appendices. Now we need people
to collect data and present it, maybe much earlier than September 1.

Dr. Ganster is skeptical about appendices because he thinks people will
not read them. He thinks the main ideas should be in the main body of
the text—appendices are a convenient way to dump a huge amount of
material you don’t want to have to process. Also, the report should
not be too long.

Mr. Gillen thought some of the stories could be presented as boxed text,
which would lead readers to information elsewhere. Dr. Ganster agreed
that was a good mechanism. Another would be to revise the template,
taking into account what was discussed. Then the template could be sent
to people and they could apply the template to the case studies they
were advocating, making sure that they have everything that is needed,
and then resubmitting them. We will have to have a conference call to
discuss the material when we are a little further along and people have
gone over these ideas to see if they are really practical. Maybe that is
the stage where somebody will say this is a good idea, not enough
material, but we know there was something from Mexicali or from
California or Texas, and it can be reconfigured as a collective case
study.

Mr. Joyce thought the problem the board runs into every year is that a
few people end up putting in a lot of time late in the process to finish
the report. The intent this time was to start early to avoid that. We
need to produce the real crux of the report, which is the
recommendation.

Dr. Ganster thought the problem is that, in the packet we intended to
have a complete listing and description of the projects we were going to
consider. But that is not so, because we have a number of other things
that need to be added (basically because Chris didn’t do his homework,
to quote him). So I think that, although this has been a very helpful
discussion, we are still where we were some time ago. We need more
information from every area along the Border. 

Ms. Wolf added that we will eventually need to revise the framework, but
the section of the framework that deals with the structure of the case
study has not changed. So people can go back and get the data for each
section of the framework, write that up, and submit it in two or three
weeks. When we get all of those, we can distribute them; people may send
them to me, and I will group them based on the four groups. Then, we
form a committee or work group for each of the sections and let each
work group go through the case studies, which are now in a standard
format. Dr. Brown though Ms. Wolf’s approach excellent because state
teams will get data on projects they know about in their region. What
was successful when they compiled and wrote the tenth report was finally
settling into those work groups. After that the conference calls were
shorter with fewer people, and it was easier to put people on the spot
for things they said they would do. 

Dr. Austin thought there were two options. She agreed with Ms. Wolf’s
organizational suggestion, but an exemplary case would be much stronger
if it referenced several other examples of similar projects. The cases
reviewed today do not give a balance across the four areas.

Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano asserted that one thing that should be worked out
today is establishing a date for people to submit their case studies.
Mr. DeLeon offered five quick points to help move things forward:  

The framework is good.

We have identified to some extent the universal cases, some with the
add-ons. 

Revisions according to the established framework should be submitted by
July 14. 

We should have a conference call the week of July 21 to decide the final
groupings. 

Finally, we need to have everyone participate, even those who did not
suggest a case study.

If we establish work groups by state, it would be easy to know who
submitted the projects and members of the work group. We cannot go
another 30 or 60 days not knowing who is on a work group and who will be
helping with submitted the projects. Mr. Joyce thought the state
grouping was an artificial distinction. That was just the way we
originally categorized the things that came in. It wasn’t meant to be
a state-by-state competition. Mr. Dorsey agreed that the arrangement by
state probably would not work.

Public Comments

None were given.

El Paso Public Meeting Discussion—Next Steps

Dr. Ganster thought, in terms of the work groups, probably a single
person would write each case study, but that person will probably work
with others. If anyone wants help from others who are interested, they
can round that up. And, if you are interested in a topics, you should
let the person who is heading that topic know so you can participate.
Perhaps Mr. Niemeyer would work with me, as well as do his specific
topic.

Ms. Wolf was willing to take the lead on the training and the small
businesses cases. Mr. Dorsey will be involved in two projects, assisting
Ms. Wolf and writing up the construction/demolition/inert process. If
anybody is interested, he will gladly accept assistance.

Ms. Keith said she would have her staff write up cases she thought
should go forward.

Dr. Brown liked the idea of having a work group established today. He
summarized:   energy and resource efficiencies as a topical bundle,
training outreach programs concerning small businesses as the second,
solid waste and recycling and diversion is the third, and treatment
ideas including wetlands and dairies as the fourth. The four work groups
together will flesh out the case studies in those groups instead of
everyone doing it individually. 

Ms. Grijalva saw the work groups working on a chapter in the report, so
a work group fleshes out that chapter, not necessarily the case studies,
because case study would be assigned to the individual who submitted it.
That group is going to have to take those nuggets out of those case
studies and weave them into the story. 

Mr. Dorsey didn’t think the groups were fully formed yet, but he saw
the need to flesh out the projects. If people are interested in a topic,
they should get in touch with the person who introduced the topic. When
we come together on the 14th and decide which topics to use, we can
define the work groups.

Dr. Ganster thought the members needed to get these case studies
reconfigured so that they fit the agreed-upon format, then they will
fall naturally into these groupings. So the first step is to write those
up, get them in, and then we can put them into the suggested groupings.
Then we need to have a conference call to decide which of the case
studies, which of the groupings, and who is doing what at that point.
But from now until the 14th it is really individuals taking things they
are interested in, putting them in the proper format, and getting them
out.

Ms. Spener suggested scheduling a conference call for next week to get
it on the calendar. After that, we get into the fourth of July holiday.
She proposed the 25, 26, or 27 of June. Mr. Joyce agreed. There is a
working group, a planning committee, for the El Paso meeting. He thought
scheduling a conference call was one of the first things to be dealt
with, starting with those three dates.

Mr. DeLeon suggested Friday the 11th or Friday the 18th.

Dr. Ganster thought decisions on which cases to use and how they will be
grouped could be made the week of July 21. He asked Ms. Wolf to help
write something up that could be sent to the others.

Adjourn

El Paso Meeting, September 24–25, 2008

Appendix 1.  Meeting Participants 

Nongovernmental, State, Local, and Tribal Members of the Board

Paul Ganster, PhD, Chair

Jerry C. Agan*

Diane Austin, PhD

Christopher P. Brown, PhD

Michael L. Connolly

Michael P. Dorsey

Edward Elbrock

Gary Gillen

Susan Keith 

Patti Krebs*

Rosario Marin

Stephen M. Niemeyer, PE

Luis E. Ramírez Thomas, MSFS*

Allyson Siwik

Marissa Stone

Ann Marie A. Wolf

John Wood

Federal Members of the Board

Department of Agriculture

Rosendo Treviño III*

Department of Commerce

[currently vacant]

Department of Health and Human Services

Marilyn DiSirio*

Department of Homeland Security

Gary Robinson*

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Shannon H. Sorzano

Department of the Interior

James Stefanov*

Department of State

Daniel D. Darrach*

Department of Transportation

Linda L. Lawson*

Environmental Protection Agency

Enrique Manzanilla [for Laura Yoshii]

International Boundary and Water Commission, U.S. Section

Carlos Marin

Designated Federal Officer

Lorena R. Cedeño-Zambrano

Resource Specialists

Candice Abinanti*

Lana Corrales, MPH*

Silvia Grijalva

Rafael Guerrero

Rachel Poynter*

Christina Machion Quilaqueo*

Jeff Scott*

Sally Spener

EPA Regional Office Contacts

Hector F. Aguirre*

Joy Campbell*

Rafael DeLeon 

Mark Joyce

Carlos Rincon*

Tomas Torres

Speakers & others

Marie Barrett

Christopher Brown (CA)

Victor Carrillo

Tina Forester

Brad Poiriez

Susan Muza

Alan Sweedler

Steven Roeder

Rod Watkins

Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008						             
     PAGE  34 

Audio Associates

301-577-5882