Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
120360859
label
NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] - Border [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
120360859
contentType
document
title
NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] - Border [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Council on Environmental Quality (Clinton Administration)
Kathleen McGinty's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
120360859
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7432005-20120769F-Seg2-038-003-2018
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e67f8b6ea968b495
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2012-0769-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Council on Environmental Quality
Series/Staff Member:
Kathleen (Katie) McGinty
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
2895
FolderID:
Folder Title:
NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] - Border [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
61
6
1
2
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
DRAFT
the
crey
ISSUE PAPER: FINANCING THE NAFTA ENVIRONMENT PACKAGE
barde
2
ISSUE
How can Mexico, Canada and the United States fund, without
imposition of a trade tax or very large appropriations from
general revenues, specific actions related to environmental
issues associated with the implementation of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)?
BACKGROUND
I. Context
The need for financing is the single, common thread that
runs through all of the proposals for environmental projects
made in the context of the NAFTA approval process. Because of
the complexity of the issue and the ad hoc nature of many of
the proposed environmental projects, debate on how to fund the
environmental supplemental package has not progressed much
beyond confused statements about the need for "massive"
amounts of money. The areas of need that have been identified
in the NAFTA process fall into four generic categories. Each
category of need requires, by virtue of its nature, a
different type of funding, as to amount, source and form.
II. Specific Areas of Need
1. Infrastructure Within the Border Zones (100 KM on Either
Side) - Perhaps the single largest area of expenditures will
be for the mundane necessities of water, sewage, roads and
solid waste disposal. The vast bulk of this need relates to
residential and light commercial development and not heavy
industrial requirements. Both the Canadian and Mexican
border zones will be affected, but the U.S. - Mexico border
zone, on both sides of the boundary, will have the greatest
need. While we can and should begin work on this problem
promptly, it is one that can only be remedied over time, thus
reducing the upfront cost of financing. Future development
should be structured to be largely self-sustaining and user
financed.
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
DRAFT
2. Industry Retrofitting - Pollution control and prevention
equipment will be needed, primarily in Mexico, to enable
manufacturers to meet existing domestic standards. Modifying
existing facilities will be the most expensive part of this
area. In particular, Mexico needs to develop a domestic
hazardous waste disposal industry. New facilities will need
to factor the cost of pollution prevention into construction
costs. This will require an investment in both capital goods
and technology. The wide experience in the United States in
financing these kinds of activities will prove helpful.
3. Ongoing Operational/Enforcement Matters - The continuing
administration and oversite of all of the activities
identified in items 1 and 2 will require a substantial amount
of time and personnel. In addition, implementation of a
border clean-up and industry retrofitting is intertwined with
enforcement of domestic environmental laws. In this context,
enforcement does not mean fines, prosecutions and other
sanctions, but preventive and consultative inspections. The
financing of this area will require an ongoing, annual
allocation of resources. These will be largely "soft" costs;
i.e., salaries, supplies, communications, etc. not capital
goods.
4. The North American Commission on the Environment (NACE) - A
variety of environmental issues will be addressed by the NACE,
Policy
mostly relating to technical trade and environment questions,
oversite, long-term planning, public participation in
continental environmental issues and research on standards and
process. The NACE will not be directly involved in "bricks
and mortar" issues. The NACE will commence promptly upon
implementation of the NAFTA and be a permanent instituition.
III. General Considerations
While recommendations to address these needs must be
tailored to fit each specific need, there are several basic
points that are important in discussing all of these issues:
O These environmental problems existed before the NAFTA and
will persist whether or not the NAFTA is approved. Therefore,
foregoing the NAFTA will not save money. The only real issue
for much of the environmental spending is one of timing: the
longer action is delayed, the higher the ultimate cost will be.
Most of the environmental projects that require funding are
DRAFT
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
related to growth in economic activity and not the NAFTA.
Unless general economic activity is slowed, these problems
will grow worse. However, increased economic activity should
provide the primary source of funding for the NAFTA
how?
environmental package.
O
Because of the extensive engineering and construction
needed to address many of the problems at issue, effective and
efficient solutions to these problems will take a long period
of time. Expenditure of too much money in too short a time
will be counterproductive and wasteful. Therefore, it will be
more productive to focus on sources of modest, but long-term,
cashflows rather than headline grabbing totals.
IV. Existing Assets
While all of the areas of need will require new funding,
there are some existing assets upon which separate funding
packages can be constructed. Many of the assets available are
non-cash items, but some can be used in-kind and others can be
monetized.
US/Mexico 7(yes.)
1. Border Infrastructure - The International Boundary and
NOT
Water Commission (IBWC) currently owns and operates a wide
ENTHUSIA
array of public utility projects, including flood control
BUT
districts, wastewater treatment plants and even hydroelectric
KNOW
dams. In general, the capital cost of such projects has
OF
already been paid and no user fees are charged for the ongoing
by
2
operation of the projects. The dams produce saleable electric
who
power. In addition, the IBWC has an engineering department of
225 professionals who are highly experienced in the design,
How
planning and construction of large, cross-border
MUCH
REVEN
infrastructure projects.
2. Industry Retrofitting - There are three major intangible
assets that could serve as a base in this area. First, the
facilities and personnel of the U.S. National Laboratory
system (Livermore, Sandia, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge), which
are already working on matters related to environmental
remediation, represents the finest collection of scientific
research facilities in the world. Second, the U.S. has the
largest environmental equipment and remediation industry in
the world. Combined with the expertise of the National
Laboratory system, this industry could mobilize an effective
use of applied technology. In addition, the U.S.
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
DRAFT
environmental industry is well acquainted with the private
methods used to finance this type of activity. Finally, the
Clinton Administration has expressed a commitment to identify
and assist key U.S. industries. This willingness to formulate
an industrial policy is a key component in organizing the
existing assets in this area and is itself a vital asset.
3. Operational and Enforcement Activities - The Environmental
Protection Agency, in cooperation with the Department of
State, has recently initiated a small pilot project for
seconding EPA personnel to the Mexican environment ministry to
perform substantive duties for up to six months. The Mexican
government picks projects on which they need help and then the
EPA suggests EPA personnel to fill the positions. This type
state
of program could serve as the core of a program to provide
resources for operational and enforcement activities.
?Too much
4. NACE - This is the one area of need where there really are
no material existing assets that can be converted to the use
of the proposed NACE. The only possibility is (as yet
unidentified) personnel of the three governments who could be
seconded to the NACE secretariat.
Finally, there are certain miscellaneous assets that
could be used in all four areas of need. First is the
existing foreign assistance program related to the
environment. AID currently administers environmental programs
related to Latin America. These programs could be
incorporated in an overall package of activities aimed at
Mexico and Latin America. Environmental NGOs are also an
asset to be incorporated into the package. Their staff could
be detailed to work on assigned projects, and the NGOs could
there;
directly fund specified activities or studies.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Border Infrastructure -
The IBWC should be privatized, with the resulting proceeds and
future cashflows contributed to a "North American Environmental
Development Bank." This money would provide "seed" money for
the bank. This bank would fund construction of infrastructure
only.
and environmental clean-up in the border regions.
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
DRAFT
The privatization would take two forms: First, all users
a big
of IBWC services would pay regular, market fees for such
services. (These fees would fall upon both U.S. and Mexican
Seel
citizens, but these same citizens have been subsidized for
decades.) Second, the IBWC should sell, or begin commercial
uded
operation of, its hydroelectric dams and water systems. In
addition, the existing engineering department should be
commercialized and provide services to the new Bank. Since
the IBWC assets are owned jointly by Mexico and the U.S., use
instrud,
of them for this purpose also has the political benefit of
Blash
enabling Mexico to contribute to the border clean-up without
having to raise additional cash.
The new Bank would be the focal point for additional
funding sources, such as international lending institutions
and environmental funds. The new Bank could also be given, on
the same terms as a domestic bank, access to the central bank
of each of the three countries. The new Bank would invest in
infrastructure through pure grants, equity, subsidized loans
and standard commercial loans where appropriate.
Minimum land use and development standards covering
residential and industrial construction should be formulated
and implemented in the border region.
The first recommendation in the area of infrastructure
addresses past and current environmental conditions on the
border. However, unless additional action is taken, future
development will recreate the problem that exists today.
Therefore, any funding plan for border clean-up and
infrastructure must address future land use in the border
area. Texas, by way of example, has no comprehensive land use
planning. Nor does it regulate residential or industrial
development outside existing municipalities. Therefore,
infrastructure, i.e., water, sewer and streets, is often
lacking in areas of residential development. In many states,
such basic necessities must be provided before development can
occur. Gov. Richards of Texas has recently announced that
Texas will be seeking $8 billion of Federal money to pay for
the NAFTA in Texas. At this time, most such clean-up funds
come out of the EPA budget. It is unlikely that
appropriations of that size will be available. In exchange
for the Federal government, through the new Bank, taking on
the current border clean-up, states should establish minimum
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
DRAFT
development standards. This will effectively pass on the cost
of infrastructure to those who benefit: developers and
buyers. The only cost to the states will be related to the
administration of the minimum standards. The standards in
question are simple, well-established and currently in effect
throughout much of the United States. States should not be
allowed to have unregulated development, without even basic
minimum requirements, and then ask the nation to pay for the
resulting environmental damage. If states will not adopt
minimum development standards, the Federal government should
impose such standards in the border region. A similiar
situation exists in the Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area, a
Federally created scenic reserve where land ownership remains
unchanged but the Gorge Commission has formulated independent
development standards that overlay existing rules.
2. Industry Retrofitting -
A consortium of private corporations from the environmental
industry should create a new corporation, partially
capitalized by the U.S.G., to develop new environmental
remediation technology and finance the export of environmental
would
equipment. The new corporation should receive direct
the
operational support in the area of research and development
from the National Laboratory system.
This combination of government and private resources would
provide an ideal opportunity to implement a new U.S.
industrial policy. The U.S. environmental industry is a world
leader and a strategic domestic industry. In addition, Japan
and Germany are tying their international environmental aid
programs to use of their standards and equipment. The new
consortium would give the U.S. a more effective tool not only
to accomplish NAFTA related goals, but also to compete in the
global environmental market. It has been estimated that the
market in environmental commerce in North America alone is
nearly $100 billion per year. To benefit from global
markets, the new entity should be integrated into the
implementation of overall U.S. foreign policy, as well as our
international environmental assistance program.
Operationally, the corporation would concentrate on two
business lines: development and licensing of prevention and
remediation technology and financing specific retrofitting
projects, both with debt and equity. In addition, the
corporation would develop an environmental consulting business
as an adjunct to its research and development capacity and
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
DRAFT
how?
project analysis. In the area of export financing, the
corporation would identfy projects from among interested
companies, help with initial analysis, design and technology
assessment and then refer the prospective purchaser to the
appropriate U.S. supplier for the required equipment and
installation. At the same time, the corporation would work
with the purchaser to locate and arrange financing, sometimes
providing the financing itself.
The new corporation would be capitalized in such a way
that, when it is commercially successful, it could eventually
be taken public, thus providing an opportunity for the U.S.G.
to recoup its original investment. Initially, each of the
private companies would make an equity investment in the new
corporation. All members of the environmental industry would
be invited to subscribe for stock. Subseqently, new investors
need to this?
could be accommodated by issuance of more equity by the new
corporation. Each equity holder would enjoy four benefits, 1)
the opportunity to profit from their stock if the enterprise
is successful, 2) access to the technology and products
generated by the new corporation, 3) access to the orders for
environmental equipment generated by the new corporation and
4) access to the data on new foreign markets developed by the
new corporation. The investment of the U.S.G. could be in the
form of a convertible preferred with a deferred coupon and a
put feature. Other forms of the U.S.G. investment should be
considered, but any option should allow for non-cash accruals,
equity conversion and a way for the U.S.G. to force the buyout
of its investment. These features combine the business needs
of the new corporation and the political needs of any
administration that proposes a large capital investment. A
corporation so capitalized would have easy access to private
credit markets. The exact amount of the equity
capitalization, and thus the U.S.G. investment, would depend
upon the initial interest from private investors. However, if
the U.S.G. investment, including commitment of the National
Laboratory resources, were a precondition to the enterprise,
there would be little problem in attracting substantial
industry support. In no event would the U.S.G. cash
investment exceed 20% of the total.
3. Operations and Enforcement -
A program of personnel exchanges between the EPA and the
Mexican environment ministry should be established to provide
both for temporary placement of EPA experts in Mexico and for
creation of teams of U.S. and Mexican personnel to monitor
jointly and administer the NAFTA related environmental
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
DRAFT
projects. The program should eventually be expanded to
include Environment Canada.
While this recommendation will accommodate the immediate
needs in this area, upon implementation of the NAFTA some
additional funding of the domestic agencies will be necessary
over the long-term. This funding should come from general
revenues. Running this area through cooperative agreements
among the existing agencies would be most efficient and would
also allow each country to maintain sovereignty in the sphere
of domestic environmental administration and enforcement.
4. NACE -
The NACE should be funded by annual, equal appropriations from
the general treasury revenues of the three countries.
Of the four funding needs, the cost of the NACE, while not
insubstantial, will probably be the smallest. Therefore, it
is a good candidate to be funded by ongoing appropriations
from the general revenue of the three countries. In addition,
this form of funding may reassure all three countries as to
who has ultimate authority over the NACE.
CONCLUSION
All of the foregoing recommendations are in some way
interrelated. This package of financing proposals would not
only provide an integrated solution to the NAFTA-related
funding problems, but also create opportunities, both
commercial and otherwise, for the U.S. in the area of
international environmental affairs. Having said that, the
difficulty in implementing some of the recommendations has not
been underestimated, and no one recommendation is essential to
the usefulness of other recommendations. These proposals
should be viewed as the basis for further analysis and
discussion of the issue.
Drafted: KAThomas - OES/ENV
SEENV # 3661
28 April 1993
DRAFT
ISSUE PAPER: STRUCTURE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF FINANCING FOR
U.S. -MEXICO BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECTS
ISSUE
Through what form of financing, and through what structure,
should available financial resources be disbursed to fund
U.S.-Mexico border environmental infrastructure projects?
BACKGROUND
I. Context
The infrastructure needed to address environmental
degradation in the U.S.-Mexico border zone (100 KM on either
side of the boundary) is not unique: water and sewage systems,
solid waste disposal sites, roads, flood control projects,
etc. The physical setting and governmental context, however,
are unique. In addition, the nature and size of the problem
present special considerations. Any plan for the financing of
such border infrastructure projects should take into account
the following:
1. The central feature of the area is an international
boundary. This very real, but arbitrary, line of
demarcation creates an artificiality not fully present
inside a country -- even countries like Mexico and the
U.S., which both have federal systems.
2. Equally important, the area contains numerous levels of
governmental jurisdictions (two Federal governments,
four U.S. state governments, six Mexican state
governments and dozens of county and municipal
governments).
3. The problem to be dealt with, environmental pollution,
cuts across and is not inhibited by any of the numerous
jurisdictional boundaries in the border zone.
4. The amount of work to be done is very large and covers
an enormous geographical area.
5. The geographical area of interest includes two
significantly different cultures, political systems
and economies.
DRAFT
II. Implications For Financing Structure
The foregoing factors should affect the form and
structure of the required financing. In fact, if they are not
adequately addressed in the implementation of any financing
package, they could unnecessarily raise the total cost of the
infrastructure project. This is so because, in the context of
overlapping jurisdictions, the nature of the problem, i.e.,
related cross-border pollution sources, can lead to
duplication of facilities. In addition, unless regional
planning is used, there is no guarantee that facilities will
be designed and sited in the most cost efficient manner.
Given current U.S. and Mexican federal budgetary
constraints, the sheer size of the proposed projects means
that any financing mechanism should be ultimately
self-sustaining. This implies that the financing mechanism be
structured SO as to allow for private funds and for use of
cashflows from the projects. It also implies a structure that
will implement the projects over time, since it is not
possible to spend efficiently in a short period the gross
dollar amount required. Therefore, the financing structure
should encourage steady, locally based cashflows which can be
monetized through private capital.
The type of infrastructure involved requires continuous
expansion, maintenance and upgrade. To finance individual
projects without standardization of equipment or coordination
of future design and construction of all infrastructure in the
border zone would risk inconsistent and inadequate operation.
This could lead in turn to increased costs for retrofitting
and maintenance. Because money will be expended in two
countries and multiple sub-jurisdictions, each with different
approaches to public projects, there should be a common
accountability for the construction and ongoing operation of
the projects. This accountability should be comparable,
without regard to national or local differences, wherever the
project is constructed.
Finally, because the users (and ultimate financiers) of
such infrastructure are local, and because these types of
projects have been traditionally funded and administered by
local governments in both the U.S. and Mexico, the form and
structure of any financing should be able to accommodate
participation by local jurisdictions. (It is important to note
in this regard that the greatest criticism of the joint
EPA-SEDESOL Integrated Border Plan has been that local
participants had no access to its development process.)
DRAFT
KEY ELEMENTS OF FORM AND STRUCTURE
Based on the foregoing, any financing structure for
border infrastructure projects should have at least the
following key elements:
1. The ability to coordinate all jurisdictions in the border
zone in connection with the siting, design and construction of
infrastructure projects.
2. The capacity to provide independent and standardized
engineering expertise throughout the border zone.
3. The mechanism to include local jurisdictions in the
planning process and utilize their existing governmental
structures for the administration of the individual projects
and the collection of the cashflows therefrom.
4. The capacity to monitor and supervise the construction and
operation of all projects, both as a matter of technical
efficiency and as a matter of public accountability.
5. The power to provide financial incentives (short of
outright direct investment) that will facilitate access to
private capital for the construction of the projects and allow
the monetization of cashflows from the operation of the
projects or other local revenues.
PRECEDENTS
As noted, the border zone is unique and no single
existing entity has all of the listed key elements. However,
this type of problem is not without analogous solutions and
precedents. (It is interesting to note that the concept of a
"border authority" as a mechanism to coordinate more general
activities in the border area was suggested by then-Sen.
Bentsen of Texas some years ago.)
Interstate compacts have long dealt with cross-boundary
infrastructure projects. The best example is probably the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which has
successfully constructed and operated numerous joint
facilities. Two well known Federal authorities that deal with
interstate infrastructure projects are the Tennessee Valley
Authority and the Bonneville Power Administration. In the
international area, the St. Lawrence Seaway is a jointly
DRAFT
administered infrastructure project, and the International
Boundary and Water Commission constructs and operates basic
infrastructure projects along the U.S. -Mexico border. While
none of these examples individually addresses every issue
raised by the proposed projects, a combination of their
elements would.
The examples mentioned have structural elements that
would address the unique jurisdictional issues in the border
zone. Local municipal authorities provide a fiscal example to
address the basic financial requirements of the financing
structure. The same kind of bonding authority used by local
institutions could facilitate the use of private capital and
monetization of local, project-based cashflows. This
structure is highly familiar to, and accepted by, local
governments, Wall Street financiers and North American
investors.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. A new institution should be created, jointly by the
U.S. and Mexico, to implement the financing, completion and
supervision of the proposed border infrastructure projects.
2. The form of such an institution should be that of a
"Border Authority, containing elements of a number of
existing entities that deal with cross-boundary infrastructue
projects.
3. Two essential powers of such a "Border Authority"
would be the right to approve design and siting decisions for
projects in the border zone and the authorization to issue
bonds and/or guarantees of bonds used to finance the
projects. The bonds/guarantees would provide for some limited
recourse to the cashflows from the projects, the projects
themselves and the U.S. and Mexican governments, in that order.
The exact form and structure of such a "Border Authority"
should be delineated as soon as there is a consensus on the
concept.
DRAFTED: KATHOMAS
OES/ENV DOC. #3661
31 May 1993
2nd copy
PROPOSAL
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
A Binational U.S./Mexico Border Environmental Management Institution
April, 1993
The U.S.-Mexico border is truly a region under stress. With increasing economic
development and explosive population growth, it is essential to strengthen the
institutional capability for protecting the quality of the environment in the border region.
With rapidly changing conditions, existing institutions are finding it increasingly difficult
to cope with the tasks of providing environmental protection in a transboundary context.
The International Boundary and Water Commission has a long and respected
record of achievement, but its treaty mandate focuses primarily on water quantity. The
La Paz Agreement of 1983 provides an important vehicle for coordinating the border
activities of the environmental agencies of the two countries -the EPA and SEDESOL-
but the energy and attention that these hard-working agencies can given the border
region must be shared with compelling concerns throughout each of their respective
countries. With the many demands placed on these two agencies, it is difficult for them
to provide the focus and continuity essential for the difficult transboundary issues caused
by explosive growth, limited budgets and fragile transboundary environments.
The border area now requires a binational institution whose exclusive mandated
responsibility is the protection of the environmental quality of the border region itself: a
commission which would build on the advances of the La Paz Agreement, and the
achievements of the IBWC. It would supplement, not supplant, existing binational
institutions.
The NAFTA negotiations now provide an opportunity for environmental
institution building--at the trilateral level in the form of a North American Commission
on the Environment (NACE), and at the bilateral level with an International Border
Environmental Commission (IBEC) which would be a regional entity whose focused
responsibility is the protection of the U.S.-Mexico border region. The NACE and the
IBEC would coordinate their activities and thus work in tandem to provide
environmental oversight at both the continental and regional levels.
This proposal is a collective effort that builds on the thought and work of many
different scholars from both academia and NGO's. We offer it for your consideration
and review. Comments and questions should be directed to Professor Albert Utton at
the above institution.
Udall Center
(602) 621-7189
CRITERIA FOR AN EFFECTIVE BINATIONAL INSTITUTION
1.
Adequate jurisdiction over transboundary natural resources to permit it to collect
data, prepare comprehensive plans and improve environmental management
along the border.
2.
Capable of anticipating problems, setting priorities and acting prior to the
emergence of crises that erode institutional trust. Priorities should be set on the
basis of the seriousness of problems, efficient allocation of scarce resources and
sustainability of solution.
3.
Sufficient financial resources to enable it to deal pro-actively with needs and
problems before they reach the crisis stage and without the necessity of seeking
separate authorization and funding for each project from the national
governments.
4.
Should be interdisciplinary with capacity and incentives to generate broad support
for its programs, building from a base of local grassroots support as well as state
and federal backing.
5.
Responsive and directly accountable to local communities with local attitudes and
experiences built into the development of plans and priorities and with the goal of
building the capacity of local institutions to solve problems in a sustainable way
that does not initiate or perpetuate a cycle of dependence.
6.
Must fit into the already crowded space of existing institutions by helping them
meet their goals and work together more cooperatively. Other agencies, officials,
NGO's and individuals should be able to look to the institution for information
and expertise.
7.
Should be flexible to enable it to grow and change with differing conditions and
mandates.
PROPOSAL
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION (IBEC)
We propose the creation of a new border environmental institution with oversight
jurisdiction over water quality (surface and groundwater), air quality, hazardous material
and toxic waste management and other environmental quality and health matters in the
U.S.-Mexico Border Region. This should be done through codification of the annexes
under the La Paz Agreement in treaty form with designation of the IBEC as the lead
agency with responsibility for border environmental protection.
I.
NESTED INSTITUTIONS DESIGN: The IBEC will not duplicate or supplant
existing institutions, but instead will serve a needed coordinating and service role
in environmental matters along the U.S./Mexico border.
A.
The IBEC will work in cooperation with the proposed Trilateral North
American Commission on the Environment (NACE) in matters affecting
the U.S./Mexico border area. NACE's primary focus can be expected to
be national legislative issues, upward harmonization of standards, and trade
sanction-type authority among Canada, the United States and Mexico.
NACE will be responsible for those transboundary environmental impacts
that have geographic implications that extent beyond the U.S.-Mexico
border region. The IBEC, in contrast, will focus its efforts on the specific
environmental issues, construction of facilities and implementation of
environmental programs in the areas contiguous to the U.S.-Mexico border.
B.
The treaty and related jurisdiction of the International Boundary and
Water Commission (IBWC) over boundary waters will continue. This
would permit the IBWC to continue its important historic role in border
water supply apportionment while allowing for coordinated management of
border environmental problems by the IBEC.
C.
The IBEC would relieve existing institutional problems faced by EPA and
SEDESOL in meeting the needs of the border area at the same time these
agencies are faced with pressing national environmental issues and
programs to administer. The IBEC would provide an institutional structure
for addressing the unique border environment with information and needed
expertise supplied by EPA and SEDESOL. Mechanisms initiated in the La
Paz process, such as working groups, will be transferred, and where
appropriate, carried forward by the IBEC.
II.
MANDATE and GOALS: Assuring that water quality, air quality, hazardous
material and toxic waste management, and environmentally related health
concerns in the U.S./Mexico border area will be addressed in ways that will
permit sustained economic development along the border. Attention should also
be paid to preservation of important ecosystems and endangered habitats and
species.
A.
Defining sustainable economic development to take into account a healthy
environment for quality of life, tourism and protection of the environment
for today's border residents and for future generations.
B.
Oversight jurisdiction covering the entire U.S./Mexico border with the
ability to designate local areas as having critical environmental
management needs.
3
C.
Not a supra-national law enforcement authority, but rather should rely on
the "intrusive sunshine" of regular reports to the public and agreements
evaluating the state of border environment and enforcement programs of
the various governmental agencies.
D.
Empowering local governments and agencies to become self supporting
through improved information, planning, and management, and enhanced
infrastructure, metering, fee collection, and bonding capability. Emphasis
should be placed on supplementing existing state and local cost sharing
arrangements.
E.
Obtaining adequate and ongoing sources of revenue to permit the IBEC to
fund pro-active planning and management activities and to provide low
interest loans, grant funding and other incentives to local areas to build
infrastructure and management capability.
F.
Striving to incrementally improve the quality of the environment and access
of water users on each side of the border to good quality water supply and
wastewater services with ongoing emphasis on what users themselves want
and are most concerned about.
G.
Develop and maintain the capability for production and open access to
environmental data in the border region through development of a border
database.
H.
Working toward the goal of self-sufficient, self-supporting utilities with cost
of service fee structures as users develop more confidence in the system
and rely less on individual solutions.
I.
Strengthening positive binational linkages along the border recognizing that
the border culture provides an important unity to the binational region.
III.
STRUCTURE: Binational commission with strong local involvement in the
border region.
A.
A binational commission supported by advisory boards.
1.
Commission co-chaired by appointees of the Presidents of Mexico
and the United States, (in U.S. confirmed by Senate), who serve at
the pleasure of the respective Presidents. Each co-chair would be a
full-time paid employee of the IBEC. The co-chairs shall have
demonstrated expertise in environmental affairs, and shall not have
vested economic interest in trade and investment arising under the
North American Free Trade Agreement.
4
2.
Fourteen commission members including the two co-chairs and
twelve members appointed by the governors of the border states
(one member for each of the six Mexican border states, two each for
Texas and California, one each for Arizona and New Mexico). The
terms for the governor-appointed members would be six years.
3.
Technical advisors and local advisory boards are to be appointed by
the Commission to provide special expertise and local input on
specific issues under consideration by the Commission.
4.
Agency resource people from such agencies as IBWC, CILA, EPA,
SEDESOL, Public Health Service, SALUD, and HHS, should be
designated to work with IBEC and be funded by their respective
agencies.
B.
Regular, open IBEC meetings in border communities.
1.
The headquarters of the IBEC should be binational and in a border
community, perhaps alternating between the two countries on a
periodic basis. Meetings of the Commission should be held in
various communities along the border, giving local residents
convenient opportunities to attend.
2.
The IBEC should meet on a regular basis, no less than four times a
year.
3.
Commission meetings should be open to public with opportunity for
public comment and presentation of proposals. Notice of all
meetings shall be publicly made at least 15 days in advance.
Executive sessions shall be held to a minimum.
4.
The IBEC also would be empowered to hold public hearings,
technical meetings, workshops and briefings relating to border
environmental matters under its own auspices or in cooperation with
other authorities and organizations. Persons and organizations may
petition the IBEC to schedule a meeting or invite written statements
concerning environmental issues in the border region, or urge the
IBEC to take action under its jurisdiction.
C.
The secretariat for the IBEC should be a binational, interdisciplinary
support staff with broad expertise in environmental affairs.
5
1.
The technical staff should emphasize social, legal, planning and
economic as well as engineering and scientific expertise to permit it
to collect, analyze and synthesize data and to make
recommendations in accord with the IBEC mandates.
2.
The secretariat will be responsible to the entire Commission but will
report on an ongoing basis to the Co-chairs.
3.
Staff will be responsible for chairing and organizing the working
groups created by the Commission.
D.
Designated Critical Environmental Management Areas (CEMA's) may be
organized in border areas identified as having significant environmental
problems.
1.
Designation of CEMA is made by IBEC, but nominations could
come from the IBEC staff or from local areas who wish to be
designated as a CEMA.
2.
Each CEMA must be provided with adequate resources to establish
a planning office to receive technical assistance from the IBEC
professional staff and work with local agencies, officials and NGO's.
IV.
FUNCTIONS AND POWERS
A.
Information collection, analysis and dissemination.
1.
First task of IBEC will be to collect, maintain and update an
inventory of border environmental resources and threats to air
quality and water quality, hazardous materials and toxic waste
problems, environmental health issues and bioresource problems
and to prepare the outlines of a plan for border environmental
management and sustainable economic development which identifies
initial Critical Environmental Management Areas.
2.
Preparation of an annual "State of the Border" environmental
resources report which incorporates information and experiences
from the CEMA's. These reports should include the following kinds
of information and should be provided to local, state and federal
agencies and NGO's for coordinated implementation of solutions.
(i)
Analyze the actions necessary to protect/manage the quality
of shared water resources to ensure adequate supplies of
6
water for the border region's population, economic
development and wildlife.
(ii)
Determine the procedures that are necessary to ensure
adequate tracking of hazardous/toxic and radioactive wastes
from "cradle to grave."
(iii)
Promote the actions necessary to encourage the reduction of
municipal, industrial, agricultural and radioactive wastes
generated within the border region.
(iv)
Analyze the necessary actions to ensure environmentally
sound treatment, storage and/or disposal capacity for toxic
and radioactive wastes located within the border region.
3.
IBEC will act as a clearinghouse for information about
-
environmental problems and related information along the border
providing information and technical assistance services to agencies,
officials, NGO's and private individuals.
4.
CEMA planning office and/or IBEC technical staff will work with
local communities, governmental agencies, utilities, and locally
based NGO's to develop more detailed environmental management
plans for local areas. The goal will be to empower local officials,
not to supplant them.
B.
Public participation and local border community involvement.
1.
The IBEC and its staff will be mandated to provide opportunities
for direct participation by interested individuals and organizations in
the planning process leading up to the annual "State of the Border"
report and supplementary reports. Some suggested means for
encouraging such participation include:
(i)
"Scoping workshops" in which interested parties are provided
background information, problem identification and proposed
solutions and are given an opportunity for oral and written
comments.
(ii)
Public hearings and participation of the public in working
groups to provide information and foster support for
recommended actions.
7
(iii) Public bulletins and newsletters describing the work and
proposed actions of the IBEC.
(iv)
Use of computer electronic mail and bulletin board systems
to disseminate information, questions and comments to
interested individuals and groups.
C.
"Ombudsman" environmental oversight function.
1.
The IBEC will be authorized to receive and investigate citizen
complaints of non-enforcement of environmental laws or other
potential problems within the Commission's jurisdiction.
(i)
The IBEC's technical staff may be directed to investigate the
matter and issue a report to the IBEC.
(ii)
If further action is deemed advisable by the Commissioners,
an official IBEC report may be issued on the matter with
findings and recommendations for action.
2.
The IBEC will also be mandated to regularly review the existing
environmental programs in the border region to identify gaps and
weaknesses and recommend needed changes. This information
would be presented through the annual "State of the Border" reports
and in supplementary reports as needed.
D.
Establishment of a Border Environmental Trust Fund (BETF) to provide
secure financing for operation of the IBEC and ongoing border
environmental planning and project implementation.
1.
The BETF should receive appropriations from the two national
governments. However, it must also have a stable source of funding
outside the federal authorization and appropriation process that is
logically connected to the increased burden on the border
environment resulting from the removal of trade restrictions. This
could be provided by a "customs processing fee" dedicated to
environment, health and other purposes, which would be a
percentage of the value of transboundary trade at a rate low enough
to avoid distortion of trade or investment activities.
2.
In addition to financing the administrative costs of the IBEC and
CEMA's, monies from the Trust Fund should be made available to
border communities through grants and low interest loans for
needed infrastructure projects identified during the planning process.
8
Such grants and loans should be directed toward building better
management capacity and opportunity for environmentally
sustainable and financially self-sufficient development in the local
border areas.
3.
Particular emphasis should be placed upon improvements in
planning, management and infrastructure to enhance the match
between user fees and cost-of-service requirements for local utilities.
4.
Funding decisions should be based on flexible cost-sharing that
acknowledges the difference in resources that exist in different
communities and different sides of the border.
E.
Build upon and strengthen the binational linkages of border communities
to facilitate joint problem-solving.
1.
Acknowledge and understand the different priorities and perceptions
of different cultural and economic groups, looking for commonalities
that reach across the border.
2.
Develop public information and educational campaigns that strength
the capacity of local bilingual media to cover natural resource and
water stories while also emphasizing the binational aspects of water
problems to non-bilingual residents.
3.
Host binational meetings and facilitate collection of binational data.
9
PROPOSAL
for a United States-Mexico
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
A Binational United States-Mexico Border Environmental Management
Institution
April, 1993
THE CITY OF PASO
CITY COUNCIL
WILLIAM B. TILNEY
MAYOR
GENE FINKE
KENNETH E. BEASLEY
DISTRICT NO 1
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
JESUS TERRAZAS, JR.
MARK ANDREW SMITH
DISTRICT NO 2
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR
TONY PONCE
DISTRICT NO. 3
STAN ROBERTS
DISTRICT NO. 4
JOE C. PICKETT
DISTRICT NO 5
An Introductory Note:
JAY J. ARMES
DISTRICT NO 6
on October 16, 1992, we co-hosted an informal meeting to discuss
critical problems faced by the El Paso/Juarez/Dona Ana area in
dealing with transboundary air quality and water problems.
In attendance were:
Alicia Chacon, Judge El Paso County
William Tilney, Mayor of El Paso
Ed Archuleta, Public Service Board, El Paso
Carolyn Brittin, Texas Development Board
Nat Campos, El Paso City Planning Office
Tyrus G. Fain, Texas General Land Office
Helen Ingram, Udall Center, University of Arizona
Travis Johnson, Senator Lloyd Bentsen
Mary Kelly, Texas Center for Policy Studies
Wesley Leonard, University of Texas at El Paso
Rick Lowerre, Attorney at Law
Martha McCabe, Texas General Land Office
Francisco C. Nunez, Water and Sewage Agency of Juarez
Stephen Riter, University of Texas at El Paso
Ambassador Alberto Szekely
Dora Tovar, Texas General Land Office
Dr. Albert Utton, Transboundary Center, University of New Mexico
Gavin Villareal, Texas General Land Office
Some attended as observers, not representatives or participants and
were not involved in preparation of this proposal. Others were
invited, but were unable to attend.
As the discussions proceeded, participants expressed an acute
awareness of three important considerations whose implications go
beyond the meeting's agenda:
- The potential for accelerated deterioration of air quality, water
resources and health conditions all along the U.S.-Mexico border
unless extraordinary action is taken.
- Uncertainty about how to meet the challenges associated with the
transition from a Bush-Quayle to a Clinton-Gore administration.
- The continued lack of any effective means to convey local,
strictly bilateral, border needs and perspectives as Canada, Mexico
and the United States negotiate sidebar agreements to the NAFTA
draft.
ElPaso
at the Corner of
FAX 541-4501
Two Civic Center Plaza
El Paso, Texas 79901-1196
915/541-4000
Texas and Old Mexico.
Page 2
There was general agreement that while we should pursue for the
El Paso region an attack on air and water problems and whatever
help can be found, we need fundamental changes in the way
transboundary issues are addressed at all levels of government.
That must involve a new compact between our governments and with
the people they are supposed to protect and serve. This need is
longstanding and must be addressed, regardless of what happens to
NAFTA.
Accordingly, a suggestion was made for several of the experts
present to take the lead in drafting a proposal for creation of a
structure to provide a new approach to U.S. -Mexico border problems.
We would like to think the proposal which follows is a direct
result of our October 16th initiative. But that would fail to
acknowledge that this is a product of years of study and work by
people like Helen Ingram, Nancy Laney, Steve Mumme, Roberto
Sanchez, Alberto Szekely and Albert Utton. We do hope, however,
that our support and encouragement has and will continue to inspire
the kind of creative thinking on transboundary issues reflected in
this
WILL William Mayor proposal. of Tilney Reg El Paso
Alecia R Chacon
Alicia Chacon
El Paso County Judge
missing pp. see other copy
USA
INTERNATIONAL TRANSBOUNDARY RESOURCES CENTER
MEXICO
CENTRO INTERNACIONAL DE RECURSOS TRANSFRONTERIZOS
PROPOSAL
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO
SCHOOL OF LAW
ALBUQUERQUE. NM
87131-1431. USA
for a United States-Mexico
(505) 277-4820
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
A Binational United States-Mexico Border Environmental Management
Institution
April, 1993
The United States-.-Mexico border is truly a region under stress. With
increasing economic development and explosive population growth, it is essential
to strengthen the institutional capability for protecting the quality of the
environment in the border region. With rapidly changing conditions, existing
institutions are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the tasks of providing
environmental protection in a transboundary context.
The International Boundary and Water Commission has a long and respected
record of achievement, but its treaty mandate focuses primarily on water quantity.
The La Paz Agreement of 1983 provides an important vehicle for coordinating the
border activities of the environmental agencies of the two countries -the EPA and
SEDESOL- but the energy and attention that these hard-working agencies can give
the border region has to be shared with compelling concerns throughout each of
their respective countries. With the many demands placed on these two agencies, it
is difficult for them to provide the focus and continuity essential to addressing the
range of the difficult transboundary issues.
The border area now requires a binational institution whose exclusive
mandated responsibility is the protection of the environmental quality of the border
region itself: a commission which would build on the advances of the La Paz
Agreement, and the achievements of the IBWC. It would supplement, not
supplant, existing binational institutions.
The NAFTA negotiations now provide an opportunity for environmental
institution building--at the trilateral level in the form of a North American
Commission on the Environment (NACE), and at the bilateral level with an
International Border Environmental Commission (IBEC) which would be a regional
entity whose focused responsibility is the protection of the United States-Mexico
border region. The NACE and the IBEC would coordinate their activities and thus
THE UDALL CENTER
for Studies in Public Policy
The University of Arizona
803/811 East First Street
Tucson, Arizona 85719
(602) 621-7189
work in tandem to provide environmental oversight at both the continental and regional
levels.
This proposal is a collective effort that builds on the thought and work of many
different scholars from both academia and NGO's.
On March 6, 1993, a group of border policy scholars met in Tucson, Arizona under
the auspices of the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy and the International
Transboundary Resources Center (CIRT) to review a range of proposals and arrive at a
common set of recommendations incorporating the principal points of agreement and
emphasis among them. Those attending the meeting were Dr. Helen Ingram and Ms.
Nancy Laney from the Udall Center, Professor Albert E. Utton from CIRT, and Professor
Stephen D. Mumme from Colorado State University.
As a result of this meeting, a draft proposal was prepared and circulated for comments
and revisions were made reflecting the input and suggestions offered. Especially helpful
suggestions were made by the following individuals:
Ty Fain
Texas General Land Office
Paul Ganster
San Diego State University
Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias
Dick Kamp
Border Ecology Project
Mary Kelly
Texas Center for Policy Studies
Roberto Sánchez
El Colegio de la Frontera Norte
Alberto Székely
CIRT - Mexico City
Certainly, no single contributor to this process is in total agreement with every aspect
of the proposal. The present proposal is just that, a proposal. It is neither the last word
nor is every detail worked out, but, it is offered in the spirit of furthering the development
of binational institutions to improve the quality of life of the inhabitants of the border
region.
2
CRITERIA FOR AN EFFECTIVE BINATIONAL INSTITUTION
1.
Adequate jurisdiction over transboundary natural resources to permit it to
collect data, prepare comprehensive plans and improve environmental
management along the border.
2.
Capable of anticipating problems, setting priorities and acting prior to the
emergence of crises that erode institutional trust. Priorities should be set on
the basis of the seriousness of problems, efficient allocation of scarce resources
and sustainability of solution."
3.
Sufficient financial resources to enable it to deal pro-actively with needs and
problems before they reach the crisis stage and without the necessity of
seeking separate authorization and funding for each project from the national
governments.
4.
Should be interdisciplinary with capacity and incentives to generate broad
support for its programs, building from a base of local grassroots support as
well as state and federal backing.
5.
Responsive to local communities with local attitudes and experiences built
into the development of plans and priorities and with the goal of building the
capacity of local institutions to solve problems in a sustainable way that does
not initiate or perpetuate a cycle of dependence.
6.
Must fit into the already crowded space of existing institutions by helping
them meet their goals and work together more cooperatively. Other agencies,
officials, NGO's and individuals should be able to look to the institution for
information and expertise.
7.
Should be flexible to enable it to grow and change with differing conditions
and mandates.
PROPOSAL
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION (IBEC)
We propose the creation of a new border environmental institution with
oversight jurisdiction over water quality (surface and ground water), air quality,
hazardous material and toxic waste management and other environmental quality
and health matters in the United States-Mexico Border Region. This should be done
through codification of the annexes under the La Paz Agreement in treaty form with
designation of the IBEC as the lead agency with responsibility for border
environmental protection.
4
B.
Oversight jurisdiction covering the entire United States-Mexico border
with the ability to designate local areas as having critical
environmental management needs.
C.
Avoiding supra-national law enforcement authority, but rather relying
on the "intrusive sunshine" of regular reports to the public and
governments evaluating the state of border environment and
enforcement programs of the various governmental agencies.
D.
Empowering local governments and agencies to become self
supporting through improved information, planning, and
management, and enhanced infrastructure, metering, fee collection,
and bonding capability. Emphasis should be placed on supplementing
existing state and local cost sharing arrangements.
E.
Obtaining adequate and ongoing sources of revenue to permit the IBEC
to fund pro-active planning and management activities and to provide
low interest loans, grant funding and other incentives to local areas to
build infrastructure and management capability.
F.
Striving to incrementally improve the quality of the environment and
access of water users on each side of the border to good quality water
supply and waste water services with ongoing emphasis on what users
themselves want and are most concerned about.
G.
Developing and maintaining the capability for production and open
access to environmental data in the border region through
development of a border database.
H.
Working toward the goal of self-sufficient, self-supporting utilities
with cost of service fee structures as users develop more confidence in
the system and rely less on individual solutions.
I.
Strengthening positive binational linkages along the border
recognizing that the border culture provides an important unity to the
binational region.
III.
STRUCTURE: Binational commission with strong local involvement in the
border region.
A.
A binational commission supported by advisory boards.
1.
Commission co-chaired by appointees of the Presidents of
Mexico and the United States, (in the United States confirmed by
the Senate), who serve at the pleasure of the respective
Presidents. Each co-chair would be a full-time paid employee of
6
C.
The secretariat for the IBEC should be a binational, interdisciplinary
support staff with broad expertise in environmental affairs.
1.
The technical staff should emphasize social, legal, planning and
economic as well as engineering and scientific expertise to
permit it to collect, analyze and synthesize data and to make
recommendations in accord with the IBEC mandates.
2.
The secretariat will be responsible to the entire Commission but
will report on an ongoing basis to the Co-chairs.
3.
Staff will be responsible for chairing and organizing the working
groups created by the Commission.
D.
Critical Environmental Management Areas (CEMA's) may be
designated in border areas identified as having significant
environmental problems.
1.
Designation of CEMA would be the responsibility of the IBEC,
but nominations could come from the IBEC staff or from local
areas who wish to be designated as a CEMA.
2.
Each CEMA must be provided with adequate resources to
establish a planning office to receive technical assistance from
the IBEC professional staff and work with local agencies, officials
and NGO's.
IV.
FUNCTIONS AND POWERS
A.
Information collection, analysis and dissemination.
1.
First task of IBEC will be to collect, maintain and update an
inventory of border environmental resources and threats to air
quality and water quality, hazardous materials and toxic waste
problems, environmental health issues and bioresource
problems and to prepare the outlines of a plan for border
environmental management and sustainable economic
development which identifies initial Critical Environmental
Management Areas.
2.
Preparation of an annual "State of the Border Environment"
Report which incorporates information and experiences from
the CEMA's as well as the rest of the border region. These
reports should include the following kinds of information and
8
(i)
"Scoping workshops" in which interested parties are
provided background information, problem identification
and proposed solutions and are given an opportunity for
oral and written comments.
(ii)
Public hearings and participation of the public in working
groups to provide information and foster support for
recommended actions.
(iii)
Public bulletins and newsletters describing the work and
proposed actions of the IBEC.
(iv)
Use of computer electronic mail and bulletin board
systems to disseminate information, questions and
comments to interested individuals and groups.
C.
"Ombudsman" environmental oversight function.
1.
The IBEC will be authorized to receive and investigate citizen
complaints of non-enforcement of environmental laws or other
potential problems within the Commission's jurisdiction.
(i)
The IBEC's technical staff may be directed to investigate
the matter and issue a report to the IBEC.
(ii)
If further action is deemed advisable by the
Commissioners, an official IBEC report may be issued on
the matter with findings and recommendations for action.
2.
The IBEC will also be mandated to regularly review the existing
environmental programs in the border region to identify gaps
and weaknesses and recommend needed changes. This
information would be presented through the annual "State of
the Border" reports and in supplementary reports as needed.
D.
Border Environmental Trust Fund (BETF) to provide secure financing
for operation of the IBEC and ongoing border environmental planning
and project implementation.
1.
The BETF should receive appropriations from the two national
governments. However, it must also have a stable source of
funding outside the federal authorization and appropriation
process that is logically connected to the increased burden on the
border environment resulting from the removal of trade
restrictions. This could be provided by a "customs processing
10
GENERAL LAND OFFICE
GARRY MAURO
COMMISSIONER
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 14, 1993
TO:
Jose Villareal, Susana Valdez
FROM:
Garry Mauro Garry Maus
SUBJECT:
Action on U.S./Mexido Border, NAFTA and related
issues
This is my understanding of how we concluded Tuesday's visit
about how the administration can begin fulfilling commitments on
Southwest Border problems.
First: Through our joint efforts key leaders and underutilized
experts will be brought into informal consultation with a small
group of Administration staffers you will identify and have
convened. This ad hoc work should begin before the April 25 IAF
meeting in El Paso on border pollution.
Purpose: We are seeking to:
1. Bring to the forefront of Clinton Administration concern
some critical issues that are unique to the U.S. -Mexico
border and in danger of being neglected by the transition
from campaigning to governing.
2. Facilitate access and participation by heretofore
underutilized, highly committed people from the border
region who are, in one combination or another, experts,
officials, leaders or Clinton loyalists. They all want to
be involved in changing how we deal with border problems.
Between now and the end of April we will work with you on:
a. Organizing a multi-jurisdictional border working group
which will take responsibility for convening a southwest
border policy conference for this spring in El Paso.
b. Working to organize and instruct a longer term White
House task force or Border Environmental Board, with
responsibility to recommend federal policy, suggest
legislative action, inform the public and build consensus on
Page 2
border issues. Its range of attention will include NAFTA
sidebar agreements, joint commissions with Mexico, and
funding mechanisms to deal with special border problems.
C. Organizing a meeting, as appropriate, between border
leaders and the President.
Much of our work can be done by telephone and by facilitating
contact between people ready to work. We needn't wait for formal
designation to begin proposing and planning. We should meet, or
at least confer by phone no later than April 21. (I may be in
Washington for a day or so that and the following week.)
Note: Copies of recent memos on border issues and our concerns
are attached for background reading.
GENERAL LAND OFFICE
GARRY MAURO
COMMISSIONER
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 14, 1993
TO:
Garry Mauro
FROM:
Ty Fain
SUBJECT:
Border Initiative: Next 90 Days Targets
A. By April 30:
Get go-ahead from White House. (Or informally support border
leaders as they proceed on their own.)
B. By May 15:
Get okay on attached IBEC draft for a Border Commission bill from:
Coleman, de la Garza, Richardson, Pastor, Bingaman, Krueger,
Feinstein, Boxer, DeConcini.
C. By June 15:
Have okay on IBEC draft from participants in border summit in El
Paso. (Hispanic Organizations, BTA et al, Mayors and Judges,
Governors and others.)
D. At Border Summit:
Announce Consensus Border Agenda. (1) Commission bill, (2) NAFTA
sidebars, (3) Executive Orders on Administration policy and follow-
up Task Force (or de la Garza's Border Board).
TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE
GARRY MAURO
MEMORANDUM
COMMISSIONER
March 10, 1993
From: Garry Mauro
RE: NAFTA & the S.W. Border - A New Initiative
Note: This memo addresses only one element of the many issues involved in
how the U.S. government should deal with environmental problems
associated with Mexico and NAFTA. It has been prepared in consultation
with state and local officials, non-governmental organizations, business
leaders and Members of Congress from the four states on our land border
with Mexico. It is an outgrowth of many meetings and discussions along both
sides of the Border, in Washington and in Mexico City. We are joined in this
effort by strong supporters of the Clinton administration who know the
problems of the border and are ready to give of their time and talent.
A Domestic Issue As trade between Mexico and the United States increases,
border states and communities anticipate new and greater strains on our
environment, public health and safety, and physical and social infrastructure.
How will such strains affect people who live on our Southwest Border and
what, if any, extraordinary federal action should precede NAFTA?
The Reagan-Bush Effort After a NAFTA became a likely possibility and there
was an outcry over environmental and labor issues, the Administration
proposed a number of border environmental projects. They were developed
by the EPA, the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) and
Mexican Government agencies. The planners employed a process sanctioned
by the La Paz Agreement and presented in 1991 as "The Integrated Border
Environmental Plan" (IBEP). They were severely criticized for failure to
involve, or even consult with, state and local governments, business leaders,
non-governmental organizations and Congress.
The top-down, non-inclusive process employed on the U.S. side of the border
was uncharacteristic of EPA, more akin to the planning style often attributed
to the IBWC and the Government of Mexico. Whatever merit its projects
may have, the IBEP has a bad reputation and deals with only a few of the
many environmental problems of the border region. Even if the plan were
comprehensive, a myriad of complex non-environmental problems face
border residents and remain unaddressed. Furthermore, the source of
funding cited for the first two years of the U.S. commitment was vague at best
and non-existent for the second phase. In short, IBEP was a narrowly
conceived, poorly conducted process; a failure in terms of policy planning,
politics and public relations.
A Proposed Clinton Initiative Before NAFTA is presented for
implementation, the Clinton administration should demonstrate its
commitment to change on the S.W. Border, break with the past and "put
people first" through a new initiative on the Southwest border.
The first step is creation of a Presidential task force to identify and
recommend action on unique problems local communities and states suffer
by virtue of their being on our international border with Mexico.
Attention should be balanced between existing problems and those that may
arise or be aggravated by increased cross-border activity. The initiative must
be planned and conducted in close cooperation with state and local leaders
from the public, business and non-profit sectors of the region. It must be
cognizant and respectful of current budgetary restraints. Members of Congress
from effected districts and committees with jurisdiction must be consulted,
and as appropriate, engaged.
Findings and recommendations should be developed expeditiously and some
progress reports issued almost immediately to demonstrate to taskforce-weary
border citizens that this administration wants meaningful action.
A Presidential Task Force Within the Task Force three working groups
should be constituted and instructed to come forward with a workable and
sustainable domestic border plan within a short period of time (under a year).
1. The Border Region Working Group
This working group should be composed largely of local and state leaders
from four Border states. It is to include unpaid appointees, balanced between
officials, business and labor leaders, technical experts and representatives
from the nonprofit sector. Although they may meet as a full group, most of
their work will be on task-oriented teams of short duration.
Members will be appointed by the President and their work will be supported
by a small professional staff. In due course, perhaps within a year, members
should move into positions on such things as the EPA's IBEP advisory group,
or the Border Environmental Board, created under legislation enacted last
year and still unfilled.
This working group is essential to bring local and grass roots participation
into planning the Border's future. It is vital to provide integrity to the IBEP
and credibility to the Clinton administration's commitment to the border.
page 2
President Clinton has been sent a letter on the need for this working group by
El Paso County Judge Alicia Chacon and Mayor William Tilney. They and
their staff have contributed to this memo. We have consulted with most of
their counterparts in Texas cities. Judge Chacon is the incoming Chair of the
Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF) which is working with
other Hispanic groups to secure more attention to border problems as
NAFTA moves forward.
In addition, a number of grass roots and non-governmental organizations on
the Border have expressed an interest in a new approach to these issues.
Earlier this week a number of the environmental groups were brought
together by Governor Richards's staff and produced a set of recommendations
for "sidebar" agreements within the NAFTA. They are consistent with this
initiative and are attached.
Mary Kelly of the Texas Center for Policy Studies, Professor Al Utton of the
University of New Mexico Center on Transboundary Resources and Helen
Ingram of the Udall Center at the University of Arizona are in touch with us
on this initiative and have provided input from recent meetings in San
Diego, Tuscon and Santa Fe.
Simply put, help is available to the Administration from the grassroots. The
goodwill is there. They need a structure and a mandate from Washington.
2. The Cabinet Working Group on the S.W. Border
Cabinet members with relevant border responsibilities , their alternates and
selected others, will be instructed by the President to serve on this special
committee. It is to have its own small (detailed) staff and be charged with
moving the findings and recommendations from the working groups of the
task force into national policy, through the budget process and into
administration programs.
The formation and work of this committee should not delay meritorious
federal projects ready to proceed. They must be given highest priority,
especially if they support the national economic stimulus program. Similar
priority should be given matters needing legislation in this session of
Congress or incorporated into parallel NAFTA agreements.
3. A Congressional Commitment
The Congressional leadership should be asked to designate Members and staff
to undertake a special parallel initiative on federal policy toward the S.W.
Border. Its job will be to propose policies and projects as well as deal with
problems and proposals presented by the Cabinet Committee and the citizens'
task force.
Congressional involvement at the outset is key to the success of the
President's initiative. House Agriculture Chairman de la Garza is a leader on
NAFTA border issues and very well connected in Mexico. His bill for a
bilateral border environmental board was enacted last year. Senator Bob
Krueger is an expert on Mexico and the border region. Ron Coleman of El
Paso sits on the Appropriations Committee. Bill Richardson of New Mexico is
a leader in Congress and the Hispanic community. He has legislation pending
on border issues as do Senators de Concini and McCain of Arizona. From
California to Texas and into the heartland there is Congressional concern
about the problems, risks and opportunities we face on our border with
Mexico.
The Bilateral Dimension The principal short term mandate of these three
"working groups" will be to recommend coordinated federal domestic
policies and actions that can be funded, if needed, and implemented. Each
working unit must, however, have designated members and staff prepared to
address relevant bilateral matters. As such matters arise or attention turns to
them, the task forces must proceed in accordance with U.S. policy toward
Mexico, treaties and agreements in force, etc.. This will require a close staff
working relationship with the State Department, the EPA-SEDASOL group
and the U.S. Trade Representative.
In addition, a procedure acceptable to the Government of Mexico, the
Treasury Department and the institutions concerned is needed to confer on
resource requirements and plans with the World Bank, Interamerican
Development Bank and other bodies funding border projects on the Mexican
side.
White House Action Each element of this three party initiative - state/local,
executive and congressional - is essential to expeditiously create a sound
federal policy on the Southwest Border. A level of intergovernmental
cooperation is required which is unlikely to occur without a Presidential
mandate and White House oversight.
But there is more involved than simply bringing all the parties together. The
initiative must move expeditiously and not lag behind NAFTA
implementation. Given the pressure to move NAFTA forward at almost any
cost, the power and prestige of the White House needs to be available to
indelibly stamp a "put people first" on this administrations approach to
NAFTA and Border issues.
Recommendation: An executive order should be drafted for the President's
signature creating a Presidential Task Force on the Southwest Border, as
described above, and giving it a clear mandate to produce recommendations
for action by a date certain. After informal consultation, a communication
should be sent to the leadership of Congress asking for the equivalent of a
legislative task force to work alongside those created by the President.
BASIC PRINCIPLES -- ENVIRONMENTAL SIDEBAR AGREEMENT
draft, 3/9/93
I. FUNDING
A. Restore EPA funding for border environmental investments
and remediation to at least $300 million in FY 94. Require EPA to set
realistic resource estimates for implementing the first phase of the
Integrated Border Environmental Plan (IBEP), and request necessary
appropriations for implementation.
B. Identify new funding sources to generate additional and
substantial revenues needed for infrastructure (water, wastewater, soiid
waste, certain transportation improvements), regulatory activities and
enforcement. (SEE GEPHARDT STATEMENTS) Options: phased-out
tariffs, transaction or user fees, direct appropriations, industry
contributions, other sources.
Create a new financing institution (such as a regional
development bank) with authority to issue bonds, award grants, and loan
funds for capital construction projects. A portion of the new revenues
should be dedicated for infrastructure development and distributed
through this mechanism. (SEE WYDEN/RICHARDSON PROPOSAL)
For the U.S. only, guarantee that some specified portion
of any funds (50-75 percent) generated within a state would be returned
to that state. Maximize the state role in identifying infrastructure
projects for funding, and require that the financing institution defer to
the state's priorities in awarding grants and loans except in cases where
compelling international problems require adjustments to those
priorities. (State priority lists could be subject to review by EPA or the
NACE for consistency with the Integrated Border Environmental Plan
or successor border plans.) Other funds not dedicated to infrastructure
development should be distributed primarily through existing
arrangements such as EPA-state agreements for environmental
enforcement.
II. NORTH AMERICAN COMMISSION ON THE ENVIRONMENT
(NACE)
Create a North American Commission on the Environment as
agreed to in principle by the three NAFTA countries last year and
essentially embodied by SENATOR BAUCUS' PROPOSAL. Specifically,
the NACE should:
include state, local, and public members;
in addition to general environmental oversight, provide
a focal point for consideration of transborder problems (air pollution,
hazardous waste transportation across international boundaries, acid
rain, etc.) not addressed by other bilateral agreements;
have investigative powers and authority to refer
problems to dispute resolution panels;-or other enforcement agencies
retain a permanent staff with adequate funding
(provided by a portion of the new revenues generated by a transaction
fee or other mechanism);
oversee environmental law enforcement and
implementation of environmental agreements between all three NAFTA
countries;
monitor trends and identify problems related to common
biological resources and biodiversity;
have authority to accept and respond to complaints
(including citizen complaints) regarding inadequate environmental
enforcement, authority to recommend corrective action to appropriate
governmental agencies, and authority to refer cases to NAFTA dispute
resolution panels if a country fails to correct an identified problem;
guarantee public access to information and public
participation in all proceedings;
NOT be charged with developing minimum
environmental standards.
III. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Specific language is needed to clarify a number of issues in the
NAFTA related to dispute resolution. These include (but may not be
limited to -- see lists to be submitted by Environmental Defense Fund
and Natural Resources Defense Council):
The structure and operations of the dispute resolution
panels must be clearly defined, as well as the standard of review they will
apply. Dispute panel hearings must be open to the public and invite
public participation. The role of these panels relative to existing federal
and state regulatory agencies, and federal and state regulatory standards
and rules, must be clarified. Strong provisions must be included to
confirm that the NAFTA protects the rights of states to set standards
more stringent than federal or international standards so long as those
standards are not specifically designed to discriminate against Mexican
or Canadian goods or services.
New provisions must expand Annex 104.1 to extend the
NAFTA's exemption to all international environmental agreements that
employ trade restrictions (e.g., MARPOL treaty restricting ocean
dumping, various wildlife agreements).
Language is needed to clarify that NAFTA provisions
affecting the energy sector do not preclude the ability of any country or
state to create incentives for energy efficient products and renewable
energy resources, or to limit regulatory strategies that encourage energy
conservation.
IV. INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS
A. International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC):
reform the United States Section of the IBWC to clarify and limit its
responsibilities (and limit its role in activities such as water quality
activities under the direct jurisdiction of EPA and state authorities);
restructure the IBWC's board to provide for state and local government
representation through formal advisory committees, and force its
operations to be more accountable to the public.
B. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Create a new EPA
regional or field EPA field office in El Paso, Texas, charged with
coordinating EPA's border activities. (REP. RON COLEMAN
PROPOSAL.)
C. La Paz Agreement: Explore strengthening the 1983
agreement to require meaningful participation by state and local
governments and the public and to clarify procedures by which the
consultation envisioned in the agreement must occur.
V. OTHER ISSUES
A. Wildlife trade, wildlife habitat protection, biodiversity issues.
(SEE LANGUAGE TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE INTERIOR
DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY.)
B. "Right to Know" provisions applied to U.S. companies
operating in Mexico.
TO: KATIE MCGINTY/DAN BLANK
Don-1 whot of
FROM: S. VALDEZ
DATE: APRIL 23, 1993
The
RE: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMISSION TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE
ENVIRONMENT WITH REGARD TO THE BORDER STATES AND THE NAFTA
AGREEMENT
GARRY MAURO, the commissioner of the TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE,
has been in continuing contact with the office of Public Liaison
here at the White House seeking the President's ear on an issue
that is of great importance to him. He is concerned about-the
possible negative environmental impact passage of the NAFTA
agreement may have on the US states bordering Mexico. His
concerns, which are shared by many in the region, are stated
concisely in a study commissioned by THE UDALL CENTER, at the
UNIVERSITY OF AZ: "the US-Mexico border is truly a region under
stress. With increasing economic development and explosive
population growth, it is essential to strengthen the
institutional capability for protecting the quality of the
environment in the border region."
One proposal put forward by the UDALL CENTER to address the
potential impact of expanded trade on the environment of the
region calls for the establishment of an INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION (IBEC), which would be a binational
border environmental management institution. IBEC would not
duplicate or supplant existing institutions, but instead serve a
needed coordinating and service role in environmental matters
along the US-Mexico border.
This, however, was not the commission meant when MAURO asked for
presidential action. He was looking at that stage only for a
demonstration of the Adminstration's firm commitment to engage
itself on this issue. A suitable start would take the form of a
unilateral US commission to look into the structure and spending
of any bilateral effort. This is what MAURO and TYRUS FAIN, a
cohort, call the TASK FORCE.
The MAURO request and the UDALL CENTER proposal were hatched from
different eggs, but come from the same chicken. Each idea sprang
of its own accord, but are both designed to address what is
generally feared to be potentially catastrophic results on the
ecosystem of the region in the name of free trade. And they
beauty of it the two ideas are: they fit nicely together. The
creation of IBEC could be facilitated by a US commission which
preceded it.
It would seem as though this is the most natural fit as well.
Indeed, it seems already to have taken place to some degree. In
a memo from FAIN to MAURO, a 90 day schedule has been drawn up to
push the IBEC idea. A commission to help identify the problems on
this side of the US border before any multi-national commission
comes into existence followed later by that multi-national
commission seems to be the way they want to head.
It is hard to image what sort of objections could be raised to
this approach from the inside. One drawback to this approach,
which is likely to be raised from the outside, is obvious: money.
Is there money to spend, and will it be well spent? That
determination, however, must come from more thorough analysis.
There is also a further possible stumbling block.
When NAFTA first seemed as though it might become a reality,
people down in the border region cried out over such issues as
the environment. To deflect some of this concern, the Bush
Administration proposed something called the INTEGRATED BORDER
ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN (IBEP). This plan was severely criticized for
failing to consult local groups. It was, in the words of MAURO,
"a narrowly conceived, poorly conducted process."
But as is the case elsewhere in the world, a bureaucracy which
has failed to serve its function well nonetheless lives on in the
form of those who are on the payroll. Any attempt to sidestep
this bureaucracy may cause problems for those wishing to do it.
As stated by FAIN: "There could also be a perceived diminution,
even replacement, of entrenched processes and working
relationships in the Integrated Border Environment Plan (IBEP)
On the other hand, few of those who elected Bill Clinton and want
real action on the Border are entrenched in the IBEP
process
"
This is probably something that needs to be thought about when
considering what action to take.
That is the situation as it stands now. There are of course
other players, and other aspects to this idea, but they do not
form the core of the issue at the moment. I will however list
the names of some of those you may need to know.
GARY MAURO; TYRUS FAIN (both of the TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE) i
WILLIAM TILNEY, Mayor of El Paso; ALICIA CHACON, El Paso County
Judge; THE UDALL CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY at U of AZ; on the 90
day schedule mentioned above (all from the Hill) COLEMAN; DE LA
GARZA; RICHARDSON; PASTOR; BINGAMAN; KRUEGER; FEINSTEIN; BOXER;
DECONCINI.
03/12/93
16:01
ICAHS G.L.U.
03-08-1993 03:04PM
FROM
TO
9151247506808777
P.03
WILLIAM S. TILNEY
THE CITY OF PASO
CITY COUNCIL
GENE FINKE
KENNETH E. BEASLEY
INSTRICT to I
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
JESUS TERRAZAS JR.
MARK ANDREW SMITH
DISTRICT NO :
EXECUTIVE WRITANT to THE M.DLV
TONY PONCE
DISTRICT NO ;
March 4, 1993
STAN ROBERTS
LYSTIGLE w. 4
JOE C. PICKETT
DISTRICT NO. 3
JAY J. ARMES
The Honorable William Clinton
DISTRICT NO. 0
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
When you say you support NAFTA, "but only with environmental
safeguards", we, who live on the border, believe you are talking
about us.
As border residents, we are committed to working for NAFTA's
success: however, we are insistent that NAFTA contain clear and
effective federal environmental protection. Without these
safeguards, our border area will predictably suffer far-reaching
consequences. The new administration brings hope and the promise
of leadership. A demonstration of this would be aggressive,
inclusive action which proposes solutions to the border's
environmental concerns. The NAFTA timetable demande it.
Accurate information and planning is essential to the creation
of a sound NAFTA environmental policy. Currently, there is a lack
of policy and consensus directed at border environmental issues.
To significantly address this void, it is our recommendation that
a President's Environmental Task force on the U.S./Mexico Border be
appointed immediately.
The focus of this professionally staffed, unpaid Task Force
would include environmental-spacifid issues such as:
*
initiation of a new Border Commission
*
a Border Development Bank
special disease control and public health protection
a revenue stream for infrastructure investment linked to
border transaction
*
changes in the enabling law underlying the U.S. section
of the IBWC
*
the adequacy of the LA Paz Agreement
*
the Integrated Border Environmental Plan
*
cross-border cooperation by federal officials
*
need for federal agency offices on the border
*
protection and management of transboundary natural
resources
ElPaso
at the Corner of
EI Paso, Texas 79901-1196
915/541-4000
FAX 541.4501
Texas and Old Mexico.
Two Civic Center Plaza
03/12/93
10:02
1=A40 G.L.O.
03-08-1993 03:05PM FROM
TO
9151247506808777
P.04
The Honorable William Clinton
March 4, 1993
Page 2
Specifically, the Task Force would be charged with:
a) identifying environmental issues within border
communities:
b)
proposing policies, enabling legislation, and bilateral
agreements on both domestic and bilateral border
environmental issues; and
c) recommending federal regulatory enforcement standards.
Present efforts, such as those which address available
economic stimulus, public health, environmental remediation, and
research funding along the border, must work concurrently with the
Task Force. It is equally important that projects such as the
EPA'S bilateral border program with SEDASOL and our joint health
project with Mexico continue. Expansion of the IBWC should be held
in abeyance, but neither the 1944 Treaty nor the appointment of a
new U.S. Commissioner need be affected.
The Environmental Task Force, operating with the authority of
the White House, would be a strong indicator that the
Administration is committed to issues that deeply concern border
residents. Our feeling is that appointments to the Tack Force
should not be more than thirty participants. Local and state
officials from the border area, representatives from the private
and non-profit sector, representatives from appropriate Cabinet
departments, federal agencies, and Congressional involvement as
well as technical advisors would provide an inclusive membership.
Additionally, direction concerning bilateral consultation and
participation would be an essential planning procedure. We are
ready to submit specific recommendations on structure and
membership, upon request.
From Texas to California, public officials, business leaders,
editorial writers, scholars and activists, join us in urging the
creation of the President's Environmental Task Force on the U.S./
Mexico Border. Further, we offer our commitment in advising the
creation of the Task Force 38 well would accept appointment to its
membership.
We appreciate your attention to our concerns and remain in
enthusiastic support of the Administration's efforts to serve our
constituents.
Sincerely,
Alicia
Alicia R. Chacon
Wed.Je Mayor, City of El Pasg
William S. Tilney
El Paso County Judge
1X,
frontera audubon society
P.O. Box 8124
Weslaco, Texas 78596
(512) 968-3275
March 11, 1993
Katie McGinty
Deputy Assistant & Director
The White House Office on Environmental Policy
old Executive Office Building
Room 358
Washington, D.C. 20501
Dear Ms. McGinty:
We are excited that President Clinton and Vice President Gore put an
Environmental Office in the White House and placed you in charge. We see
this as a giant step forward in elevating the environment to the priority
it deserves, and we wish you the very best. Please let us know if there
is ever anything we can do to help you.
This region's natural resources can already use your assistance. We believe
our suggestions will result in savings of federal tax monics, internationally
important wildlife resources, and the economies dependent upon them. Mike
Cattaruzza and I will be coming to Washington from South Texac to testify
before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior on Wednesday, March
24th. We hope that you will find time to meet with из during our week in
Washington to further discuss our request. We have attached Information
Sheets detailing the items we wish to discuss. In brief:
First, we ask that the International Boundary & Water Commission (IDWC) be
directed to work hand-in-hand with their sister federal agency, the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, to obtain both flood control and wildlife resource
protection with the least expenditure of federal monies. Appointment of
a Commissioner who is sensitive to Use economic and environmental realities
of this region to head the IBWC would be a giant first step in accomplishing
that goal.
Second, please assure US that the Clinton Administration will view the
currently-planned and newly-proposed bridges linking the United States and
Mexico in a regional, cumulative light; that you will make certain there
is a demonstrated need for bridges before they are considered for Presidential
Permits; and that the Clinton Administration will make certain federal
agencies work together SO that permitted bridges (as well as other major
federal projects) will be built in an environmentally and fiscally sound
manner. Putting a hold on new Presidential Permits for Bridges until the
cumulative impacts are assessed would be a logical first step.
"To Increase Environmental Awareness"
recycled paper
Katie McGinty
Page 2
Both of these requests are grounded in our belief that all major federal
decisions/actions here and elsewhere should be reviewed for fiscal and
environmental soundness. As you know, our nation's natural resources and
treasury are suffering in part because we have created bureaucracies that
are at odds with each other, are ignorant of each other, or duplicate efforts.
We can no longer afford to have sister agencies ignoring, duplicating, or
un-doing each other's efforts. We see a fully functional and enforceable
Council on Environmental Quality as a step sorely needed to lessen these
burdens.
We respectfully request a meeting with you while we are in Washington. We
testify Wednesday morning and are unavailable at that time. Does your
schedule have any openings on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday of the
week of the 22nd? We look forward to hearing from you. Please once again
accept our heartfelt hope that you will be able to accomplish much for the
environment from the White House. You have our very best wishes for success.
Sincerely,
mause Haas/rr
Maurie Haas
MH/cc
Enc.
FRONTERA AUDUBON SOCIETY (FAS)
March, 1993
INFORMATION SHEET ON IBWC & FWS
International Boundary & Water Commission (IBWC) & U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service (FWS). The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has spent fourteen years
working on one of our nation's highest priority level habitat acquisition
projects - the Lower Rio Grande valley National Wildlife Refuge. Congress
has generously funded the project and there are numerous state, county, city
and private efforts underway in the region to complement the federal effort.
Together we are working to piece together the remants of an undeniably
valuable, unduplicated international wildlife treasure of plants and animals
found no where else in the United States; to connect those pieces via
"wildlife corridors"; to make certain that the diverse ecosystems found here
are available for future generations; to keep threatened species from finding
their way onto the endangered species list; to remove species already on
the endangered species list; and to bolster and stabilize our local economies
via natural and cultural resource protection industries such as tourism,
hunting, and fishing.
Over the years we have often found ourselves at odds with the International
Boundary and Water Commission, the federal agency controlling our regional
floodway systems, including the Rio Grande and our natural drainage system,
the Arroyo Colorado. IBWC has consistently made decisions running counter
to natural resource protection, directly un-doing the work undertaken by
FWS, and harming the ability of the floodway system to properly work. IBWC
decisions are often not based on scientific, engineering, or hydrologic data.
What are results of this federal agency frequently acting above the law?
A floodway system with major flaws. Lost wildlife resources of immense
heritage and economic value. At best, two agencies ignorant of each other's
actions regarding the same "turf" and at worst at odds with each other,
resulting in unnecessary expenditures of federal tax monies as one agency
undoes the work of the other.
We strongly believe this does not need to happen. Wildlife and people can
co-exist in this region if the federal agencies will work together. Please
help us make that happen. Have President Clinton appoint a Commissioner
to head IBWC who will be sensitive to the big picture of this region - seeking
to provide flood protection, wildlife protection, and economic benefits while
also reducing federal spending overall. Make certain that federal agencies
like FWS & IBWC work together and that federal decisions are reviewed to
address resource and financial soundness.
FRONTERA AUDUBON SOCIETY (FAS)
March, 1993
INFORMATION SHEET ON INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES
International Bridges. The possibility of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) moving forward puts additional strain on an area that
already feels the pressures of overpopulation. of particular concern is
the proliferation of bridges and bridge proposals. (The newest bridge here
is already called "The Free Trade Bridge.")
Bridges compromise our ability to complete the Wildlife Corridor along the
Lower Rio Grande. (See preceding Information Sheet on IBWC & FWS.) They
are destructive to the corridor and bring increased pressure to develop
(for-other-than-wildlife-uses) areas near the bridges. In each instance
this makes the recovery of already endangered species difficult or impossible
and increases the probability of adding new species to the endangered list.
In addition to the environmental costs associated with bridges, they cost
money - not only for the bridge itself but for the connecting roads,
railroads, customs and border patrol facilities/staffs, maintenance, etc.
Federal costs associated with continued and additional endangered species
protection also rise.
Any need for additional bridges should to be evaluated on a regional basis
so the total and cumulative costs and impacts associated with those bridges
can be addressed. Cumulative assessments would result in the best savings
possible of both money and wildlife resources. Then only those bridges
shown to be needed would be permitted/built and only with the best fiscal
and environmental requirements in place.
Presidential Permits are required to build an international bridge. Please
make certain that these environmental and fiscal restraints are in place
before issuing and renewing any permits. Please also direct the Coast Guard,
who also must permit each international bridge built across the Rio Grande,
to work with their sister agency, FWS, to make certain that cumulative impacts
are addressed and that wildlife needs are taken into consideration in bridge
design and construction. Consistent positions from both FWS and the Coast
Guard regarding bridge permits would make it easier for applicants to know
what is expected. Time, money, and natural resources would be saved.
OFF. OF ADMIN.
003
ATTACHMENT #4
EPA MEXICAN BORDER ACHIEVEMENTS
EPA and SEDESOL (The Mexican Secretariat for Social Development) are currently
carrying out activities recommended in the 1992 Environmental Plan, The Border
Plan outlines plans to protect human health and natural ecosystems within 100 km
(60 miles) on either side of the international border.
Key objectives of the Plan include: strengthened enforcement of existing laws;
reduction of pollution through new initiatives; increased cooperative planning,
training, and education; heightened public awareness of the border environment; and
increased public and state/local government roles in Border Plan implementation.
Examples of our achievements include:
Pollution Prevention - EPA and SEDESOL have just released the first of a
series of bilingual pollution prevention manuals focusing on the metal
finishing industry. Other manuals will be developed in the coming months to
focus on key industries. We also hope to work together to establish a
binational voluntary toxic reduction program.
Emergency Planning and Response - Cooperative programs have been
initiated in all of the 14 sister cities along the Border involving transborder
planning, accident prevention and response.
Hazardous Waste/Solid Waste - Initial development of a database system to
track the transboundary movement of hazardous waste from generation to
disposal, technical exchange and training projects to enhance compliance with
the regulatory program, and identification of inactive and abandoned waste
sites in the border area.
Cooperative Enforcement . EPA has provided training to over 200 SEDESOL
inspectors in the last year. Almost 20 federal and state enforcement actions
were begun on the U.S. side of the Border. More than 200 facilities in
Mexico were temporarily or permanently shut down by Mexican officials for
failure to comply with Mexico's environmental laws.
Air - Work includes field studies in the El Paso . Juarez area, the placing of
a monitoring stations in the San Diego - Tijuana area; and workshops on air
quality data in Imperial Valley-Mexicali.
Water - Construction is underway for the Tijuana/San Diego wastewater
treatment system, in Nuevo Laredo and in Ambos Nogales. In the U.S.
Colonias, EPA closely with the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development to construct wastewater
systems and assure safe drinking water for the more than 200,000 residents of
these communities in Texas and New Mexico.
V(
/
March 30, 1993
TABLE 1. U.S.-MEXICO BORDER
INTERNATIONAL AND U.S. COLONIA
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUNDING NEEDS
-- U.S. COVERNMENT SKARE
" Million)
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Boyund
Total
Tijuans (1)
70
41
--
:
--
--
(122)
Moxicall (2)
10
65
--
--
-
--
I 751
Nogales 831
5
13
40
--
-
-
( 56)
--
C. Acuña (3)
5
--
28
--
20
( 53)
Reynood (3)
--
5
63
S
--
70
(103)
Other
int'le (4)
--
26
108
342
129
119
(768)
Texas
Culonian (5)
50
so
50
50
27
--
(227)
New Mexico
Coloniae(5)
10
--
--
--
--
--
( 10)
TOTALS
150
200
329
391
156
209
(1462)
NOTES:
(2) U.9. chare based on known needs and negotiated cost chares.
(2)
U.S. share based on signed Minute (International agreement) that sete a $75 million goal for U.S.
participation.
(3) based on Corpo of Engineers (COS) study for International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). U.S.
chare will be determined during negotiation of individual project minutes prior to detailed project
planning. negotiating goal is to achieve U.S. benefite with U.S. cost share at son or less.
U.S. chare assumed to be 500 of total need,
(4) See note J. COK cost extimating study included abl border city-paire with significant international
wadtewater treatment neode outstanding.
(5) Colonia cast estimates provi by the States. Assumen 508 state match.
JUN CO 20 Dorn cocco64010
Date: 6/25/93
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
FROM:
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph. D.
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response
Telephone: (202) 260-4610
Fax: (202) 260-3527
TO:
KATTE MCGINTY
OFFICE OF ENV, POLICY
FAX:
456-2710
Pages to follow:
2
Regarding:
Possible mexican initiative for
technology - Bob Sussman asked me to
call, but I missed you today attached
is a proposal/concept which live thenk has
merit as well as resource issues We that
this has much greater patential for success
than remediation
DAN IS THIS YOURS?
KEITH
6128
05.56PM
06/23/93
20:20
32022000004
06/23/1993 16:05 FROM EPA ARA DALLAS REG 6
TO
82022603861
DRAFT #2
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
PUBLIC/PRIVATE POLLUTION PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP (ETP5)
FOR THE U.S./MEXICO BORDER
The following blue print presents a program to create an environmental partnership involving
business and government for demonstration of pollution prevention opportunities and
technologies along the U.S./Mexico border. The program would build on efforts underway by
the U.S./Mexico Pollution Prevention Workgroup and border states to pursue pollution
prevention opportunities along the border. The combined effort will be designed to both address
critical environmental problems in the border area and to promote the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In order to make the program work on a large scale we must have
commitment and buy-in as the highest levels from both the U.S. and Mexico.
ESTABLISH A PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
Establish a partnership of U.S. manafacturing industries, U.S. technology and service
providers, the Maquila Association, and key government and non-government
organizations. Working with the U.S./Mexico Pollution Prevention Workgroup, other
possible participants might include:
American Institute for Pollution Prevention
Environmental Business Council
Maquila Association
Border States
U.S. and Mexico Universities
Agency for International Development
Department of Commerce
COLLECT BASELINE DATA ON INDUSTRIES AND POLLUTANTS
Identify priority industries and pollutants/wastes/emissions for prevention assessments and
demonstration projects.
Select pollutants which are most prevalent and pose the greatest exposure potential in the
border area.
Identify those technologies and pollution prevention practices that can be implemented
to reduce identified pollutants.
Seek commitments from individual companies and plants to serve as pilot facilities for
demonstration of new technologies.
06/23/93
JUN 25 20:21 '93 05:57PM OSWER/AA 2022604610_FX2022603527
06/23/1993 16:06 FROM EPA ARA DALLAS REG 6
TO
32022603861 P.04
DRAFT #2
-2-
CONDUCT ASSESSMENTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS
Conduct pollution prevention assessments at target industries to identify opportunities for
reduction and the use of new technologies.
Work with border states to assist in selected projects to promote pollution prevention in
the border area.
Conduct a technical conference and trade show in conjunction with the November 1993
Maquiladora Conference.
TRAINING AND CAPACITY BUILDING
Continue development of bilingual manuals for selected industries for use in pollution
prevention awareness and education efforts with Maquiladora industries.
Translate existing EPA/State Pollution Prevention documents, videos, studies and training
materials and provide to selected industries.
Conduct technical conference and seminars for industry and community members to build
support for environmental improvements.
Work with universities in Mexico to establish pollution prevention training and technical
assistance centers.
Work with U.S. and Mexico universities along the border to develop a public awareness
program for pollution prevention methods applicable for private individuals.
ESTABLISH A LONGER TERM POLLUTANT REDUCTION PROGRAM
Work in partnership with states to establish a voluntary pollutant reduction program
which would take the specific situation of the maquiladoras into consideration, but would
include reduction goals, participation in a community environmental project and a
reporting mechanism to track proposed reductions. The program should be flexible to
allow facilities to set their own ertission reduction goals and time frames for voluntary
reductions.
NOTE; While we support this program wholeheartedly, reality is that additional human
(FTE) and financial resources must be placed directly in this program in both Region 6 and
Region 9 in order for it to be successful.
Texas Shrunp Association
Environmental Intector
Postal Drawer AT
Port Isabel, Texas 78597
Flow Bill Gore Texas Fost Aransas 126 W.
Shrimp Association
Cleveland
Office Box 1020
Pass, Texas 78336
The
July 6, 1993
The
giventy
The Hon. Max Baucus
The Hon. Gerry Studds
Unted States Senate
United States House of Representatives.
511 Hart SOB
237 Cannon HoB
Washington, D.C. 20510
Washington, D.C. 20515
Attention: Mr. Mark Smith
The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention
a rapidly-developing situation on the Texas Coast, and that of
Northern Mexico, involving a variety of federal agencies, juris-
dictions, and the military.
I am sending this to you, since you are sponsoring a ver-
sion of the Endangered Species Act, now up for consideration by
the United States Congress.
I hope this is helpful to you, since you will be faced with
the challenge of balancing trade, coastal economics, and conser-
vation of the Gulf of Mexico, especially with the advent of the
free trade in North America, treaty or no treaty.
The kernel of the situation is the move to extend the Gulf
of Mexico Intracoastal Waterway into Mexico, to Tampico, Vera-
cruz, and on to the Yucatan; the re-location of the United States
Naval Underwaterwater Mine Warefare Training School from Charles-
ton, South Carolina, to Ingleside, Texas; and the presence of en-
dangered species, protected species, and straddling-stocks of trans-
boundary, estuarine-dependent, marine species of shared resource
assets of the native, historical, artesan fisheries of at least
four nations: gulf shrimp: brown, white, and pink.
I am sure that you are very much aware of the extraordinary
efforts, and the vast resources that have been poured into the sea
turtle question in the Western Gulf of Mexico: Headstart, DOC and
DOI, and the Unites States Coast Guard; and the TED regulations, to
name just two. Apparently, however, these two agencies and their en-
forcement agency, have not correlated the date on distribution of
sea turtles, and other species, such as porpoises, and SO forth,
whose habitat will be affected by the 2 800-acre magnetic fields
associated with the installation of the Navy's facility near Corpus
Christi; or the enormous potential for damage associated with intra-
coastal waterway construction: suspension of contaminated sediments,
saltwater intrusion into estuaries, coastal erosion, not to mention
the disposition of dredged materials, and the effects of dumping on
benthic communities, wetlands, uplands, marshes, and SO on. At this
Page two, letter on ESA, NDB for TSA, 7/6/93
point, one can assume at the very least, that no environmental
impact statement has been conducted on either proposed project,
and in the case of the re-location of the facility from Charles-
ton, to Ingleside, did not take into consideration the fact that
the Navy had already installed the underwater magnetic fields in
the Atlantic, (or perhaps the conservationists there had begun
to object due to the stringent sea turtle conservation projects
there, and decided to send this to the Texas Coast). In the
case of the extension of the GIWW, the lack of an environmental
impact statement is unacceptable, because the need for such is
highly questionable: the western gulf is very sensitive and vi-
tal to the gulf's food-web, since 98% of its fauna is estuarine-
dependent, and the coast has many good ports for cargo: Houston,
Corpus Christi, Brownsville, Tampico, and Veracruz. This being
the case, TSA feels that improvements should be made to accomo-
date any increase in the transportation appropriate for the sea
be made to the existing infrastructure, since the fisheries of
the Gulf Rim Nations are of such economic importance, and that
the migratory species of mammals, as well as reptiles, and the
Atlantic stocks of the shared resource assets of swordfish and
tuna, migratory species, utilize the gulf in the winter, for
feeding and breeding.
I look forward to working with you on the issues. Please
consider this a formal request to investigate how these plans
got so far with no EIS, and why the existing program on inter-
agency coordination (the Gulf of Mexico Program, Stennis Space
Center, Mississippi), has not considered the rndanged species
question, or the importance of the estuaries of the Western Gulf
to the system's natural function as habitat for resource assets,
and protected species. Please call on TSA for amplification of
these issues, as the ESA is considered, as well as the budgets
for the USCOE, DOC, and DOI. The Corp's Mitigation Banking Plan
for the Texas Coast is also an issue; it is reportedly at OMB,
and as far as TSA knows, no EIS on this plan exists either, for
the marine species and the marine/estuarine interafce has not
been considered from the fisheries' point of view. Please do not
hesitate to call on TSA for information.
Very truly yours,
Deejaun Boudreaux
Mrs. Ronald Boudreaux
Rnvironmental Director
(210) 943-2788
Call first to FAX
1984
SHRIMP IN THE WESTERN GULF OF MEXICO A TRANSBOUNDARY STOCK
Ralph Rayburn and Kristin L. Vehrs
Texas Shrimp Association
403 Vaughn Building
Austin, Texas 78701
Abstract
Fishery pioneers used large drag seines
set close to shore and hauled by men or
Through the mid-1970's, much of the
horses.
Gulf of Mexico shrimp harvesting indus-
try was established and capitalized on
Using this method, shrimp harvest-
the ability to shrimp in domestic waters
ing was worthwhile only when shrimp were
of the U.S. and the waters off the Mexi-
abundant near shore. The otter trawl
can coast; operating about ten to ele-
was introduced into the shrimp fishery
ven months of the year.
between 1912 and 1917. However, even
using this gear, the fishermen continued
In 1976, the Mexican government
to shrimp entirely in bays and shallow
declared a 200 mile exclusive economic
water. The otter trawl did reduce the
zone and negotiated a bilateral treaty
seasonality of the fishery. Eventually
with the U.S. to phase out all U.S.
the industry expanded and fishing
shrimping in their zone by January 1,
grounds in the offshore region were
1980.
discovered.
The shrimp stocks in the Western
As the industry developed from its
Gulf of Mexico are a resource shared by
conception along the coastal shores to
both Mexico and the United States. Re-
its current status as a multi-million
sults of joint U.S./Mexico shrimp migra-
dollar contributor to the economy, two
tion studies indicate that shrimp cross
distinctive sectors emerged. These are
the international boundary in both
the Gulf shrimp fishery with larger
north-south and south-north directions.
vessels capable of sustained operation
The management activities of each na-
in the open Gulf of Mexico and the bay
tion, therefore, impact those of the
shrimp industry which is primarily smal-
other.
lcr vessels which operate in state wa-
ters generally inside of the barrier
In recent years, some of the South
islands.
Texas fleet have shrimped in waters off
the Mexican coast. The Mexicans operate
As the shrimp industry expanded in
almost entirely inshore and, therefore,
the post World War 11 period, some mem-
the offshore resource is not being fully
bers of the industry left their native
utilized. Until December, 1982, the
Louisiana, Florida and other areas to
Mexicans were not even enforcing their
establish a base of operation in Texas.
zone. This condition has now developed
During the late 1940's and early 1950's
into conflict between the U.S. shrimp
Texas had a resident requirement for
industry and Mexican gunboats and the
shrimp licenses and new immigrants to
U.S. shrimp industry and the U.S. Coast
the state were not allowed to catch or
Guard.
unload shrimp in state waters which
extend out to 9 nautical miles. In
response to this, a number of shrimper/
1. Introduction
settled in the Brownsville-Port Isabe)
area of south Texas and began fishing.
The warm water shrimp fishery of
off the coast of Mexico.
the United States originated in the bays
and estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico.
9
Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States of America
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
WHEREAS the Government of the United States of America desires to
facilitate the wise development and use of the oceans consistent with interna-
tional law;
WHEREAS international law recognizes that, in a zone beyond its territory
and adjacent to its territorial sea, known as the Exclusive Economic Zone, a
coustal State may assert certain sovereign rights over natural resources and
related jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS the establishment of an Exclusive Economic Zone by the United
States will advance the development of ocean resources and promote the
protection of the marine environment, while not affecting other lawful uses of
the zone, including the freedoms of navigation and overflight. by other States;
NOW. THEREFORE, 1. RONALD REAGAN, by the authority vested in me as
President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, do
hereby proclaim the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the United States of
America and confirm also the rights and freedoms of all States within an
Exclusive Economic Zone. AO described herein.
The Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States is a zone contiguous to the
territorial sea, including zones contiguous to the territorial sea of the United
States. the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (10 the extent consistent with the Covenant and the United
Nations Trusteeship Agreement), and United States overseas territories and
possessions. The Exclusive Economic Zone extends 10 a distance 200 nautical
miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is
measured. In cases where the maritime boundary with B neighboring State
remains to be determined. the boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone shall
be determined by the United States and other State concerned in accordance
with equitable principles.
Within the Exclusive Economic Zone, the United States has, to the extent
permitted by international law. (a) sovereign rights for the purpose of explor-
ing. exploiting conserving and managing natural resources. both living and
non-living. of the seabed and subsoil and the superjacent waters and with
regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the
zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds;
and (b) jurisdiction with regard to the establishment and use of artificial
islands. and installations and structures having economic purposes, and the
protection and preservation of the marine environment.
This Proclamation does not change existing United States policies concerning
the continental shelf. marine mammals and fisheries. including highly migra-
tory species of tuna which are not subject to United States jurisdiction and
require international agreements for effective management.
The United States will exercise these sovereign rights and jurisdiction in
accordance with the rules of international law.
Without prejudice to the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the United States,
the Exclusive Economic Zone remains an area beyond the territory and
territorial sea of the United States in which all States enjoy the high seas
freedoms of navigation, overflight. the laying of submarine cables and pipe-
lines. and other Internationally lawful uses of the sea.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of
March. in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-three, and of the
Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and seventh.
Ronald Reagon
VALLEY
D Section
Saturday, October 17, 1992
Valley Morning Star
Extending intracoastal
Who goes first?
Mexican navy
seizes 2 PI
waterway south studied
fishing boats
Towing Co. will do a trial run with barg.
By MARK WAITE
es on that segment of the gulf this fall,
By MARK WAITE
Star News Staff
Behrhorst said.
Star News Staff
SOUTH PADRE ISLAND - Task forc-
The U.S. task force concluded that a
es from the U.S. and Mexico have begun
Mexican intracoastal waterway should
PORT ISABEL - Two' Port
extend at least as far south as Tuxpan,
Isabel-based fishing vessels:
to study the extension of the Gulf Intra-
which is 163 miles from Mexico City, a
have been chased down and
coastal Waterway into Mexico, Vernon
direct connection to the Mexican heart-
seized by the Mexican navy in
Behrhorst, executive director of the Gulf
Intracoastal Canal Association told del-
land.
the Gulf of Mexico for allegedly
egates at the 87th annual GICA conven-
A system of coastal lagoons exists on
fishing illegally in Mexican ter-
tion Friday.
the Mexican side, similar to the U.S.
ritorial waters.
The extension of the waterway into
where there is the Laguna Madre.
Lt. Jim Munroe. of the U.S.
Coast Guard's 8th District head-
Mexico has been the subject of GICA res-
But the shallow lagoons in the U.S. are
dredged to a depth of 12 feet by the U.S.
quarters in New Orleans said.
olutions since 1947, Behrhorst said.
Army Corps of Engineers, a cost that
Friday the boats, identified as
Interest was rekindled during North
may be very prohibitive for Mexico.
the Jennifer C and Quien Sabe
American Free Trade Agreement talks in
and their six crewmen were
Mexico in which Mexican officials con-
The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway ex-
taken to Tampico to be turned
tacted the GICA.
tends over 1,200 miles from Brownsville
over to local Mexican officials
In June 1991, both countries signed a
to St. Mark's in the Florida Panhandle.
there.
memorandum of intent to study the
There were 116 million tons of cargo
"Specifically what they're
issue.
transported on the Gulf Intracoastal Wa-
"There's came many questions, issues
going to be doing with them and
terway in 1990
when, I don't know. Of course,
from the U.S. side of this proposal," Be-
"We discussed congestion at the border
we've notified the U.S. Em-
hrhorst said.
and how this will go about relieving the
bassy," Munro said.
Just before a meeting with Mexican of-
congestion," Behrhorst said.
Seizure of the vessels on
ficials recently on that topic, Mexican
Gerry Schwebel, chairman of the Bor-
President Carlos Salinas de Gortari an-
Thursday followed what the
der Trade Alliance, urged GICA members
Coast Guard said was "hot pur-
nounced he was privatizing the Mexican
to establish a link with Mexican ports
suit" into international waters
ports.
and help close the gap with our southern
by the Mexican naval vessel
The Mexican government proposes to
neighbors as part of the North American
Dragaminas.
pay for part or all of the construction of
Free Trade Agreement.
Munroe said the Coast Guard
the intracoastal waterway with tolls, Be-
He said in Laredo, there are 2,216
Kodiak
Island
hrhorst said
perv
days
border
Schwebel
VALLEY
D Section
Saturday, October 17, 1992
Valley Morning Star
when, I don't know. Of course,
im the U.S. side of this proposal," Be-
"We discussed congestion at the border
we've notified the U.S. Em-
horst said.
and how this will go about relieving the
bassy," Munro said.
Just before a meeting with Mexican of-
congestion," Behrhorst said.
Seizure of the vessels on
ials recently on that topic, Mexican
Gerry Schwebel, chairman of the Bor-
Thursday followed what the
resident Carlos Salinas de Gortari an-
der Trade Alliance, urged GICA members
Coast Guard said was "hot pur-
sunced he was privatizing the Mexican
to establish a link with Mexican ports
suit" into international waters
its.
and help close the gap with our southern
by the Mexican naval vessel
The Mexican government proposes to
neighbors as part of the North American
Dragaminas.
:v for part or all of the construction of
Free Trade Agreement.
Munroe said the Coast Guard
e intracoastal waterway with tolls, Be-
He said in Laredo, there are 2.216
cutter Kodiak Island verified the
horst said.
truck crossings per day at the border.
Mexican navy's "hot pursuit:
That poses some problems in the U.S.
2 have a totally free waterway." he
But Schwebel disputed the media myth of
claim after stopping the fishing
a transportation gridlock at the border.
boats in international waters.
rid.
It said the United States rec:
In a related matter, Lt. Col. James
Other questions included whether Mex-
Arenz of the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
ognizes the internationally ac'
o has the equipment for constructing
neers Galveston district, said a $300,000
cepted right of "hot pursuit" in
nd maintaining the ports and water-
section 216 study this coming year to an-
enforcing a country's laws gov-
ays, if there are good connections be-
alyze the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway be-
erning waters over which it has
ween the coastal ports and the heartland
Mexico and if there are adequate ship-
tween Corpus Christi Bay and Port Isa-
jurisdiction.
The Coast Guard said the
ards.
bel will study rerouting the waterway
around Long Island.
U.S. boats allegedly were fishing
The Jones Act, which forbids foreign
south of the international
ag ships from maritime traffic between
There have been complaints about the
boundary in Mexican territorial
I.S. ports, is also a possible obstacle, he
danger of a sharp curve at Long Island
waters in violation of Mexican
aid.
and fears about a collision between cargo
law when the chase began.
The plan is for the intracoastal water-
vessels and small pleasure craft.
It is the second time a crew
ay to be routed into the open Gulf of
But Arenz said if the waterway is re-
from the Quien Sabe has been
Iexico from the Brownsville Ship Chan-
routed the City of Port Isabel could be
Star photo by Keith Medrano
in trouble with the authorities
el to a point eight miles south of the
responsible for the cost of dredging the
old channel which would no longer be in
Vanessa Nicole, 6, and Andrew Solis, 4, stand at the top of a slide at
In August 1991, its crew was
order.
federal jurisdiction.
Lincoln Lee Elementary School, Lyford, perhaps wondering if this is such
one of four cited by the Coast
This is to avoid environmentally sensi-
a good idea. The children are attending the Head Start Program at the
Guard for fishing in Mexican
ve South Bay and the building of a cost-
Relocating utility and water lines could
school.
waters. A total of 489 pounds of
lock on the Rio Grande. McKinney
also cost $3 million to $4 million, he said.
shrimp was confiscated from the
FOCUS: INLAND WATERWAYS
UNITED STATES
Galveston
Brownsville
MEXICO
of
Mexico
Malamoros Gulf Campeche
Goin' South
By David Krapt
Existing GIWW
Contributing Editor
Feasible Extension
Possible Extension
S ratification of the pro-
The success of the North
Nafta will almost certainly result in increased
U.S. Mexico trade. To handle the increased ton-
A
posed North American
American Free Trade
nage, infrastructure improvements in Mexico are
Free Trade Agreement
needed. A long-term solution would be an exten-
Agreement - which hinges
sion of the GIWW south of Brownsville, Texas.
(Nafta) nears, discussion
on an adequate transporta-
Most leel construction of a 360-mile stage from
has intensified on how to improve
Malamoros 10 Tuxpan, Veracruz, is leasible and
Mexico's inadequate transportation
tion infrastructure in Mexico
a 1,000-mile extension running from Matamoros
infrastructure to handle the anticipated
to central Campeche a possibility.
increase in U.S. trade.
- has rekindled interest in
Some talk has centered on an idea
the extension of the Gulf
first presented in 1905 - the con-
Intracoastal Waterway
Advantages, costs
struction of an intracoastal waterway
Transportation costs could be
along the Gulf Coast of Mexico.
south of the Rio Grande.
"reduced significantly" if shallow-
However, while this may be a viable
draft, oceangoing vessels or barges
long-term solution, most U.S. trans-
port, maritime and economic develop-
could be used to link two large pro-
portation officials feel Mexico must
ment officials and the country's Natta
duction and market areas in mid-
first concentrate on improving exist-
negotiators.
America and mid-Mexico by the
ing shallow-draft facilities and
His group has formed it task force
"waterbridge" that exists today - the
expanding its antiquated rail and high-
to discuss the proposal 10 build the
Mississippi River system, the GIWW
way systems. The country's lack of a
GIWW extension and to coordinate
and the Gulf of Mexico, said John
major inland waterway system, cou-
maximum use of existing transporta-
Pisani, director of the Maritime
pled with inefficient rail and truck car-
tion systems connecting the two coun-
Administration's (MarAd) office of
riage, jeopardizes trade growth.
tries in the interim. The group, com-
Port and Intermodal Development.
"Nafta can become a success only
prised entirely of U.S. members, held
"The economic benefits of shal-
if we have an adequate transportation
its first meeting in September. Among
low-draft vessels and barges could
infrastructure to carry these millions
their concerns are the extent of the
permit low-cost access to mid-
of tons of cargo and carry them at
Mexican government's support and
America on a mutually profitable
freight rates which will keep both our
Jones Act implications.
basis," he said.
countries competitive with countries
Currently, barge transport IS a for-
Currently, 60 percent of cargo
outside of Nafta," Vernon Behrhorst,
eign concept in Mexico, partly
shipped on barges in the United States
executive director of the Gulf
because of the difficulty of developing
moves on the Mississippi and the
Intracoastal Canal Association
two-way traffic. The flow of barges
GIWW. And, according to the
(GICA), said in Mexico City earlier
laden with U.S commodities moving
American Waterways Operators, one
this year.
south 10 Mexico is not a concern. The
gallon of fuel will move one ton of
"The present transportation infra-
problem lies in the return trip or
cargo 514 miles by inland barge. This
structure is incapable of meeting these
backhaul. from Mexico.
compares to 59 miles by truck and
future requirements. The objectives of
But increased barge use - ocean-
202 miles by rail. More importantly, a
Nafta cannot be achieved with a trans-
going, through the GIWW or by trans-
dry-cargo barge's capacity of 1,500
portation gridlock," he said.
shipment 10 deep-draft vessels -
tons is equal to 50 trucks or 15 rail
Behrhorst, who addressed members
offers favorable economies of scale.
cars. Mexican exporters could realize
of Mexico's Academy of Sciences on
Currently, millions of tons of cargo
potential savings of $2 to $3 a ton on
the relationship between the U.S.
move between Mexico and the United
a 1,500-ton barge load, according to
inland waterway system and the pro-
States by expensive - and often lim-
some estimates.
posed extension of the Gulf
ned - truck and rail transport through
But harge interests are taking a
Intracoastal Waterway into Mexico,
congested land-based ports and border
wait-and-see approach to the Nafta
has had discussions with Mexican
crossings.
95
proposal, said Behrhorst. In the mean-
time, exporters who transport solely
cargo-handling systems.
floating bridges, one rail bridge II
by truck or rail from Mexico City to
A Mexican official put the cost of
three sets of locks may be needed. I
Guadalajara, north to Laredo, Houston
the proposed 1,300-mile waterway
the entire project, 33 floating bridg
and San Antonio must be more flexi-
from Matamoros to Cancun at $750
three rail bridges and 13 locks may
ble. "They are shipping millions of
million to $1 billion - or about
required.
tons of commodities by rail and truck.
$577,000 to $769,000 per mile. Most
They must change their mindset to
studies, however, center on a canal of
Long-term commitment
[accept] water transport," claimed
about 1,000 miles running from
For now. the two countries mi
Behrhorst.
Matamoros to central Campeche.
focus on developing existing faciliti
Steve Valerius, vice president of
The first 360-mile stage. from
and making better use of marine tec
Houston-based Hollywood Marine
Matamoros to Tuxpan. Veracruz.
nology and not wait for the GIW
Inc., agreed. "It (the GIWW exten-
would cost an estimated $200 million
extension to become a reality, sa
sion] makes a heck of a lot of sense.
- over $555,000 a mile - and take
MarAd's Pisani. "It's a long way o
We are in the liquid business and
two to four years to complete,
I'm sure there have to be major en
Mexico trucks quite a bit of petroleum
Mauricio Porraz, general secretary of
ronmental considerations. It's som
product. There is a lot of potential for
the Mexican Academy of Sciences,
thing that can't be done overnight.
movement by barge."
said last year. Another factor is oper-
"We support this kind [GICA ta
Valerius, whose company special-
ating and maintenance costs, which
force] of a look at it. It's a long-ter
izes in liquid-tank barges, thinks the
were about $13 million for the 1,109-
solution," he said. "The near-ter
GIWW extension is a definite possi-
mile GIWW in 1991. according to the
economic attractiveness is servir
bility. "If you can get by without a
Army Corps of Engineers.
Mexico directly by deep-draft
lock at the Rio Grande, it could be
The project would also require
combination shallow-draft/oceang
feasible in a decade."
large amounts of dredging and exca-
ing [vessels]."
vation. Porraz estimated that 127 mil-
Anatoly Hochstein, director of the
Problems loom
lion cubic meters of dredged material
Louisiana State University Ports an
Despite the enthusiasm from some
and 166 million cubic meters of exca-
Waterways Institute, agreed will
quarters, the extension faces many
vated material would have to be
Pisani. "It's a very nice dream, a goc
obstacles, including financing, envi-
removed. And these estimates do not
project for the long term. But W
ronmental considerations and the need
include the project's third stage. Also,
should be more interested in some
to first improve existing shallow-draft
in the first stage alone, at least six
thing immediate [such as] the deploy
Where can you hear marine professionals
address the Issues you deal with regularly and
discuss these issues with your colleagues?
The 1992 Marine Industry Symposia,
November 5 & 6 at the Boston Park Plaza
Hotel & Towers in historic downtown
NEW ENGLAND TRAWLER EQUIPMENT CO.
Boston, Massachusetts.
Hear and leam about the latest developments In the marine industry
Manufacturers of Custom Engineered Marine Deck Machinery
and discuss topics of importance with the leading experts In the fieldl
For Over 65 Years
SPEAKERS INCLUDE:
Anchor Windlasses for Chain
Dr Peter Cressy RADM (Ret). USN. President
Massachusetts Marilime Academy
1/2" to 4". - A.B.S. Certified
Mr Alan Swimmer, President. Essex Credit Corporation
Mr John Sterling. President Marine MGA, incorporated
Mr Miles Beam. Marine Engineer. Underwriters Labs
Mr Guy Collona, Engineer National Fire Protection Association
Winches - Traction, Mooring,
Mr Bruce Dining. Director. Marine Energy Systems
Oceanographic, Anchoring
Round table discussions with experts in the neld to include
Small Commercial Creft Construction Marine insurance & Marine Financing
Towing
Shipboard Safety Trends. Shipboard Fire Fighting & Prevention
New Developments in LP & CNG Systems.
your business involves the surveying,
Capstans- Warping Heads up
salo. Insuring. financing, designing.
construction, or repair of yachts
to 36" in Diameter
and small craft:
Do not miss this educational opportunity!
Cranes - Hoists
CE credits given to reciprocating association members.
For Further Information & Your Registration Kit,
Hydraulic Power Units
Call: 1-800-344-9077
DON'T MISS OUTI PLAN NOW TO ATTENDI
Computer Alded Design
The 1992 Marine Industry Symposia is sponsored by:
Designed to Fit Your Needs Not Ours
SOCIETY OF ACCREDITED
291 EASTERN AVE. - CHELSBA, MASSACHUSETTS 02150
26
1
ment of river-ocean vessels that are
widely used in other parts of the
Rail-barge service to link U.S.-Mexico
world. It doesn't require any [new]
investment.
Hochstein said the development of
A
n integrated rail-barge service will soon link the United States and Mexico through the
Port of Galveston, Texas.
free-trade zones in Mexico is another
Protexa Burlington International SA de CV (PBI), a joint venture between Burlington
possibility. Once developed, the
Northern Inc. and Grupo Protexa SA de CV, signed an exclusive lease with the port in May.
GIWW could then be extended 10 or
Grupo Protexa is a major industrial, construction and marine services company based in
20 miles into the FTZ. "It doesn't
Monterrey, Mexico.
Under the agreement, BN trains will connect at the Port of Galveston with Protexa rail
require a huge investment and is more
barges bound for the eastern Mexico ports of Altamira, Veracruz and Coatzacoalcos. Once
realistic," he said.
there, Ferrocarriles Nacionales de Mexico, Mexico's national railway system, will distribute the
For now, shallow-draft cargo ves-
freight cars inland.
sels that can navigate both inland
PBI was formed late last year, becoming the "first joint transportation venture to facilitate
waters and the Gulf of Mexico are an
trade by integrating rail and barge services between interior points in Mexico and the United
economical transport mode that
States, and eventually Canada," BN said.
should be utilized more. Pisani said.
"The PBI system, joined now by the Port of Galveston, essentially allows BN to undertake a
Also, rail-barge operations, like
strategic and critical role in transportation opportunities between Mexico and the U.S., which in
Burlington Northern Inc.'s service
turn gives U.S., Canadian and Mexican transportation customers greater exposure to the North
scheduled to begin in late fall at the
American market," said William E. Greenwood, BN's chief operating officer.
"We are confident that PBI will be able to take full advantage of Galveston's superior rail
Port of Galveston, Texas, is another
access and closeness to the open Gulf of Mexico to make this a very efficient link in the new
alternative. (See accompanying article.)
system," said Doug J. Marchand, Port of Galveston's general manager and director.
Pisani said integrated tug-barge
Galveston was picked because of its proximity to the Gull and the expected transit time of
systems should also be looked at.
three-and-a-half to four days to Coatzacoalcos, said BN spokesman Jim Sabourin.
"They can easily serve Mexico's Gulf
Grain will be the first cargo moved through Galveston, but future shipments may include
Coast ports by oceangoing barge." He
automobiles and automobile parts, chemicals and consumer products.
said these systems have never been
The weekly service between Galveston and Coatzacoalcos was to begin in September, but
employed to their full potential. "This
has been postponed to late fall, a result of construction delays at the southern Mexican port
is possibly a combination of apathy
located in the Bay of Campeche, said Sabourin.
and lack of market analysis."
WB
If volume increases substantially through Galveston, "we would look at other [Gulf] ports"
where BN has tracks, such as Houston, said Sabourin.
-D. Krapf
Spill response proven
on the job,
PROFESSIONAL
not just on paper.
SCALE MODELS
If fast-response recovery vessels are in
Serving The Marine Industry World-Wide
your plans, don't just buy a good idea,
buy a boat that gets the job done.
Specializing in detailed reproductions of
Kvichak SRVs are doing just that right
actual vessels or prototypes.
now contact us today for details on
AutoCAD used in creation of laser cut parts.
meeting your requirements.
For Further Information, Call or Write
Kvichak
615 North 34th Street
Seattle, WA 98103 USA
SCALE REPRODUCTIONS
Phone (206) 545-8485
Fairhope, Alabama 36532
Marine Industries, Inc.
FAX (206) 545-3504
16346 County Road 13
(205) 928-3829
FAX (205) 928-1859
CIRCLE 77 ON READER SERVICE CARD
CIRCLE 76 ON READER SERVICE CARD
SPONSOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKBOAT SHOW
97
022-8
Texas Agricultural Extension Service
14 ot
Date
To
Pirt Julel jlep 78578
PO Descript A.F
Derann Dann Boudreauf
For your Information
Material you requested
For your files
For appropriate action
Please return
For your approval
Comments Hi, then itill
telhing of Rich A
Signature
CEA-M
Title
Educational programs conducted by the Texas Agricultural Extension Service
serve people of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex,
religion, handicap or national origin.
The Texas A&M University System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County
Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating
28
San Antonio
Commentary II
6-B
Frances.
Thursday, June 24, 1993
Let's preserve people, too
All of us recognize the beauty
and symbolic majesty of the Amer-
Comment
ican bald eagle. We are committed
"
Protection of endangered species is one
to maintaining the species at al-
By Vernie R. Glasson
most any cost.
of those 'warm and fuzzy' issues that almost
Few of us would deny that it is
everyone is 'for' until they hear the bottom
important to preserve our national
spite our best efforts. Dinosaurs
bird for the enjoyment of future
managed to die out long before hu-
line.
generations. Certainly there are
mans could become the villain of
the story, as so many are eager to
Are you willing to forfeit your job or
other animals and plants that are
important to our ecosystem, and
cast us today.
control of your property in the name of
we have strong interests in pro-
The present Endangered Spe-
tecting them as well.
cies Act, or ESA, was enacted in
preserving every living thing on the planet?
It is time, however for serious
1973. Its purpose was to preserve
It could come to that.
reflection on the question of endan-
and enhance the existence of both
gered species protection.
plants and animals whose exis-
For many, it already has.
"
tence was threatened.
Have we as a society gone
somewhat overboard in our eager-
Since the inception of the act,
ness to maintain each and every
there have been fewer than five
a determination.
It is important that people in-
species that exists today?
species whose numbers have re-
Studds has introduced legisla-
volve themselves in this process.
Just how important is the con-
covered to the point that they
tion to accomplish these ends, and
Jobs are being lost, important pro-
could be removed from the list of
he is seeking co-sponsors for his
jects stopped or delayed and prog-
tinued existence of the blind sala
mander, the golden-cheeked war-
the endangered. Here in Texas we
bill.
ress denied in the name of environ-
have approximately 50 species on
mentalism.
bler, the red-cockaded woodpecker
Those of us who would like to
and a wide assortment of inverte-
the list as actually endangered.
see modification of the ESA want
We are not suggesting that de-
brate cave beetles?
There are another 300 species of
to strengthen the scientific data re-
velopment must always go for-
All of these are the subjects of
either plants or animals about
quirements prior to listing species.
ward despite the environmental
which there is not sufficient data
We also want to recognize the
cost.
expensive preservation efforts.
to make a decision. They are listed
Protection of endangered species
rights of individual landowners to
We do think, however, that the
as threatened or as candidates for
is one of those "warm and fuzzy"
use their property. Further, we be-
human species is at least as impor-
issues that almost everyone is
listing. ESA protections don't cur-
lieve there are ways to expand the
tant as plants and animals.
"for" until they hear the bottom
rently cover this group.
numbers of endangered species
As it is enforced today, the En-
line.
A fierce battle is now being
through economic incentives to
dangered Species Act is an ex-
waged in Congress between those
landowners.
Are you willing to forfeit your
treme law. Missing are economic
job or control of your property in
who seek to modify the Endan-
Our legislation was introduced
balance, respect for private prop-
the name of preserving every liv-
gered Species Act and those who
by U.S. Rep. Jack Fields of Hum-
erty and solid scientific data.
ing thing on the planet?
want to extend and expand it.
ble and co-sponsored by several
Our Texas congressional delega-
The chairman of the Merchant
It could come to that.
members of the Texas delegation,
tion needs to give the Fields-
Marines and Fisheries Committee;
including: Billy Tauzin, Jack
For many, it already has.
Tauzin bill a fair hearing and con-
U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass.,
Brooks, Charles Wilson, Bill Sarpa-
sider signing on as a co-sponsor.
Can we prevent extinction? We
is for an expansion of the ESA pro-
lius, Chet Edwards, Greg Laughlin,
don't really know yet. Should we
visions. He would also like to apply
Solomon Ortiz, Charles Stenholm,
Vernie R. Glasson is executive
even try in each and every case?
the ESA to those species on which
Ralph Hall, Sam Johnson, Lamar
director of the Texas Farm Bu-
Species go extinct every year, de-
there is not sufficient data to make
Smith and Henry Bonilla.
reau.
NOV 8 '93 13:10 FROM JOSEPH A. TYLER
PAGE. 001
P.S. Aug can't so to her home town of nogates
without taking Hepatitis shots a not eating a Frinking
in her home town.
444 W. MIDDLE TPKE., 70-U
MANCHESTER, CT. 06040
FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM
TRANSMIT TO:
UPsere c/o MichaelRackes
CONTACT PERSON
UP affice
BUSINESS NAME
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
1-202-456-2710
FAX #
TRANSMITTED
FROM:
SUE & JOE TYLER
CONTACT PERSON
444 W. MIDDLE TURNPIKE, 70-U
MANCHESTER, CT 06040
BUSINESS NAME
(203) 646-1030
FAX (203) 649-7170
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE #
(203) 649-7170
FAX #
# OF PAGES:
95
(INCLUDE COVER PAGE)
DATE:
TIME:
11/8/93 11:40 All
NASTA Dems.
REMARKS, SPECIAL INFORMATION OR INSTRUCTIONS:
Re.Hofta
(1) Buy time and sat Republicanon position of putmoney
until money is appropriated and authorized
where mouth is by delaying vote on NAFTA
(2) One NAFTA vote is taken, if passed
Congress for forder Jean up and job re training
IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THIS TRANSMISSION
and authorized fa job retraining and bordy
you PLEASE really CALL think JOB TYLER you AT (203) will 1030 get money appropriated
clean up? Jisten to Len Gramm of Teles. He
willonly say wewillletfree enterprise
NOV
8
'93
13:11
FROM JOSEPH A. TYLER
PAGE. 002
444 W. Middle Take., 70-U
Celler seul
Manchester, Ct. 06040
May 4, 1991
Representative Barbara B. Kennelly
204 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
A.delegalion
Barbara;
This letter merely expresses some concerns regarding the North
American Free Trade Agreement from a 25 year Connecticut resident whose
birthplace and home town is Nogales, Arizona (see attached article).
Nogales, a major produce point for winter vegetables and fruits entering
the U.S. in hundreds of trucks daily, used to be a small bucolic but
cosmopolitan community centered around this industry. I'm saddened when 1
read articles such 25 this one describing my community as hazardous to
one's health. The Nogales Wash (or arroyo) runs through the center of the
community and is laced on both sides by commercial establishments,
restaurants, motels, homes, etc. As + toxic sewage dumo it affects the
entire community. After reading this article, I now have to great deal of
anxisty about taking my yearly sojourn to my hometown. What disease might
I return to Connecticut with?
Nogales, Arizona is about twice the size today compared to my
childhood days, but Nogales, Mexico is now a large city catering to
"maquiladoras", primarily U.S., some Japanese. These maquiladoras have
spurred a migration from other parts of Mexico to the border for jobs.
Meanwhile, many businesses and jobs on the Arizona side of the line have
also moved to Mexico. We must ask why. It's not just for cheaper labor
costs, as the Wash attests.
Ambos Nogales (both Nogales, Arizona and Mexico) have a unique
Angle-Mexican border culture. A fence separates the two sides, but the
border culture transcends this dividing line and will continue to do SO.
Our ultimate future, I believe, rests with this acceptance and eventually
thinking of ourselves as North Americans, with insensitive "Yankee"
diplomacy and exploitation of Latin Americans as something our descendants
will read about only in history books. The Mexican migration to the U.S.
will possibly speed this North Americanizing process.
However, at this point in time Mexico's population is out of control
for the current economic opportunitites, and environmental concerns lag
far behind. WE are all victims of this neglect. The toxic wastes may flow
through downtown Nogales, but 1.3 billion pounds of produce in 75,000
trucks cross that border ennually---much of that produce with very
questionable chemicals ingested by all of us.
A North American marriage is probably in the cards for the
future-after all. Anglo-Mexican marriages are a matter of course on the
border im many families. A healthy Mexican economy is essential in
resolving illegal alien problems, drug wars, and trade issues. I have
great admiration for President Salinas, but I'm not certain at this time
that we can afford rushing into a free trade pact without cereful
qualifications. With whatever agreement that is decided upon, one need not
be a "crazed environmentalist' or an "environmental wacko" to believe that
corporations and governments should work together to ensure the safety of
the people in my hometown as well 85 my current Connecticut neighbors who
consume those fruits and vegetables that cross the border on those several
hundred trucks every day.
Sincerely:
See
Sue A. Tyler
NOV
8
'93
13:11
FROM JOSEPH A. TYLER
PAGE 003
"All the News
That's Fit to Print"
The New York Times
NEW YORK, SUNDAY MARCH 31, 1991
- - Yerk City,
VOL.CXL
No. 48,556
Copyraption HR The New York Tume
POWER STRUGGLE
Recession and Guilt Pare
Dining Trade and Menus
IN KUWAIT BLOCKS
By MOLLY O'NEILL
NEW GOVERNMENT
in the last two years, the
venerable Gage & Tollner Restau-
mistle Closed for Reservation -
rent in downtown Breaklyn, - à
has nearly actipred the Happy
& 1 # I
OLD DIVISIONS DEEPENING
Neur signs in the windows of New
centum
come
-
go;
that's
the
York City restaurants. Crowds
busines: Good operators garvive
have chinned in the best dining
and adapt," be said. "The tright-
rooms. Same-day reservations
enting thing mest the drop is -
Rulers Face Reform Demands
are rerely . problem.
here or - change in speading.
New York City restauratours
it's due accide change."
of Merchant Families and
are warried about the paring of
corporate expense accounts for
The New York restaurant world
Newer Educated Class
restaurant meals in the last few
has been especially vulcarable to
years. They cite the erosive reces-
even shight shift in spending
atom, which has CULL into tourrism
to the fabulous free-spend-
mg N/A - réstaurants popped
By JOEN KIFNER
and entertainment, and the grow-
- number of young families ent-
up faster than care in a last pan. is
Special - the How Vash Terms
in at home.
butlding
restaurants,
the
all's
KUWAIT
CITY,
March
30
More
matte and spend,"
than a month after Kinweit's liberation
Emberrassment of Riches
and * left many places heavily to
from Iraqi rule, efferts so form a new
But what werries restaurateurs
debt. Rents mared and operating
government bure are peralyzed by
more are customers like Eric
costs
climbed
By
I
proût
power struggie that pitz the hereditary
Wyka. As be walted to check his
morghts were so sight the to lose
ruters, the Sabah family. against - -
camel's hair cost before dinner at
a
damno
customers
a
day
could
postion documenting more democracy.
the Reimbow Room recently.
mean not paying the vegetable
glanced over Ms shoulder ner-
The contration seems
MIL
vousty. "IV be real emborrased
Mrom the way all weakb transfermed
"Restearents throughout the
if - of my friends who's been
day emirate imo a unique society.
Ind off saw me here." Mr. Wyke,
country are taking is on the chin.
On one level, the opposition demands
but the - is exacurated to
the restoration of Purlinment and is
a 49-year-old lawyer, muranized
to
his
It's
New York City by higher rental
not
critical of the way the
and union difficul-
like I - mat - much more.
named Government has partormed.
time," Charles Burnetals, edisor of
but I feel cort of autity going out at
Mation's Restaurant News,
a
Emergence of New Class
all."
To restauratement, this mend
trade journal, wrees last month
But the struggle also Involves afforts
change is scarter times dipping
to other parts of the country.
by Karwait's major merchant
rest accounts for $ or 6 parcent of
$ regain the predentinence they hold
check averages and empty chairs.
monthly sales. in New York City,
before the off become that followed World
"We bad the good times and new
we're desp in guilty times," mid
a restaurant's rest can eat up as
Wer 11, and before the emergence of a
- as 20 percent of mins, even
new,
advanted
1
without
influention)
David Linderman, who cards the
Broadway Grill and closed bis
when sales are good. to recent -
families, crested by the
tract
Forces
Move
to
Crush
second restaurant, Class Louis,
serviews, 35 New York restaura-
state.
Iraq asserned yesterday that it was succeeding in crushing rebellions as
last week to curvert st - a -
town clied docitions to - of to
Among the Kawaitis themselves, re-
thousands of civiliens Bed abouttire in the northern dy of Dohuk. Shine
expensive dining recom.
extate
butwoom
I
who
Continued on Page 20, Column I
Menicane in the south disputed the Government's claim that is controlled
Peter Aschisenary, owner of the
stayed to the country to restet Iruel a
experion and these who sat out the war
the city of Karbala, where fighting damaged this monque. Page &
a comfortable a Norwnith citizens
make UP only a parties of the montly
Border Boom's Dirty Residue
foreign pepulation, and only a small
authority of chose citizens are eligible to
Hunt for Marcos's Billions Yields
1
Imperils U.S.-Mexico Trade
What styles Manth a democracy
movement here is really - oligarchy
More Dead Ends Than Hard Cash
movement, diplomate - others may.
They add that True's virtual destruc-
By ROBERTO sure
time of Kewait has given rise to hereb
By SETS MYDANS
Mr Rev THE Junes
about the way the country
After & five-year hum through the
and making danie with Mr.
NOGALES,
Artz
Limite
more
this
the
true
trade
agreement
that
Prest-
has been run by the Sabaha. How the
courts - banking systems of three
widnw, Imelda.
a muddy creek when it starts flowing
dest Bush wants to negrature with Mex-
questions are reselved could change
consinents, the Philippine Government
Lawyers and Government effictab
down a billside in Mexico, the Nogales
ice as $ way to compete accommically
the country professity.
has uncovered yachts and paintings
involved in the search now say it will
Wash passes by factories, alamiytowns
with Europe and Japan The Menican
Pressure From Americans
and silver services and & few hundred
probably never be known just have
notery commercial streets before k
Government's environmental affort is
American officials bere have been
million dollars, but net much more of
much Mr. Marces, who died in
reaches an invisible the and them and
in its tufancy. and a b struggling with
the $ billion or more Fordinated E.
in 1989, stole from the Philippines der
denly becomes a swirling, stinking for-
working bettind the aceass - press the
standards and enforcement.
Marcos to said to have atation from his
ing his 20 years as President Whistever
eign policy problem for der Both Ad-
Subub family into reforms. It is the
Influential environmental grunps to
country.
ministration.
Americans, particularly the Army civil
the total, they any. # is now class the
the United States, the the National
As the atx year term of President
only a small portine will be recovered.
When it crosses the border Inco the
Wildlife Federation, and others who op-
affetrs trumps, who are actually undersides-
Coreson C. mears its end next
issering ment of Kuwait. in some cases.
Clastriate Tab is $6,000
United States. the Nogates Wash is
pase the tree trade agreement, the the
year, a touch of desperation has #
American seldiers have interved
laced with toxic industrial pollutants
tered the search and her Government
Cleaser Partade, a former member
and Indoes with untreated sewage. A
Continued on Page MR. Column 3
Continued OR Page & Column 3
has begun talking of cutting its Insured
the agency seeking to recever the Mar
public health emergency has team to
- funds, the Presidential Commis
serce on the Artsme a for -
ston on Good Government, per the pos
months Income the incidence of hope-
sible total recevery # $ billion to SLI
utile has climbed to 20 times the -
Between Home and Heaven, a Ball Field
billion.
cloun) average.
"There is a large what
was
statem
1
what
to
I
Pollution Through Trade Pact
to - you look at the
The russway pollution and
by SARA RIMER
records you this OR are of her trips
nying health threats - be found to
The approach of spring to Washing
Imelda was abio to spend $6,000 - the
virtually may city along the United
too Heights, the Sambo Damingo of New
first day for checulates. That to the
States-Mexico horder, which has
York: People filing upon their windows,
kind of We style that used up the
dergone an economic explantent to re-
and
tate
tememack
apartments
many
cont years with the construction of has-
comes the call of merengue, a dozen
in the Philippines, peremptory con-
dreds of highly profitable American-
I
from
flocations of property, drain with
owned factories operating under upe-
of Mr. Marces's "crenies"
scores
cial trade rules. The American owners
speakers in bedrges and record stores
of civil suits have wes the Government
pay very low wages to the marly half
- care craising Broadway. And they
about $100 milks is cash and another
- ready for bestball.
million Mexicas they employ and are
Every I
$100 critilent is assets that redge
not chiliged to use expensive
I at about $ - their
herees to hatels and
way
to
factory
jobs
in
New
Jerusy.
the
applicant.
sugar plantations.
The pollution problems have become
the
States
-
grants are Manny Remires
so grave that they have emerged as a
the star of their own George Wash
major
setential obstacle to
Continued - Page 13. Column I
NOV
8
'93 13:12
FROM JOSEPH A. TYLER
PAGE. 004
Border Industry's Nasty Byproduct Imperils Trade
Continued From Page
and and touted regularly.
CA.
NML
N.M
Croded Juárez damps all of its ran
APLCIO. have comended that the
-
500
sewage into a camel that parallels the
of the Negales Wash
e Pate
Rte Grande. in towns on the American
LA
side of the Rio Grands, the incidence of
- other profestion profilents along the
border are just previews of what will
due
TEXAS
hepatitis from contaminated well
Clubut
water is - acute that à recent study to
Implem across Menico # tarth and
Regular
Juliet
the town of Son Elizaria, Tes., showed
other trade barriers are related, w
- Rice
that everyone bed been exposed to
niting 0 rush to develop new industries
Chap
Engle Pass
hepatitis at least once by the time be or
and spows are
Classical
Lorado
she was 30 years old
Marcover,
Democrate
in
Asults
Human wastes are not the only trom-
say
any
will
resist
efforts
for
Name Leredo
blessome substances that have seeped
1
of
a
free
trade
from the Nogales Wash ente the aqui-
Mc/Min
less
the
White
House
-
fer, Mr. Zortck sald.
MEXICO
Roymeon
Last year, government and private
time
with
The
White
House
newith experts on both sides of the bor-
his
ast
said
was
der repeatedly rested water supplies in
The New York
the in American cities, EVEN
the Nogales area and found widespread
the - committed advocates of free
pollution can be found in virtually any city along the United
contamination by suspected or known
trade
typist
that
existing
border. Hundreds of American-owned factories oper-
carcinogens normally found to indes-
E
should
be
ate under special trade rules in Mexican border cities. where expensive
trial sulvents.
forw free trade becomes reality.
$
the
and
equipment is not required.
Although only a few samples showed
who
air
drink
unsale levels of concemination, the -
the water along the are the
malts showed the the pollution was
- say we support free trade - that
contibued that - contained potyvi-
could Imprem all over Mexico w a free
spreading Grungh the negatier, said
- - wast # long-term plan for the
and deferide. Written - the cardhoard
trade agreement produces the same
Dick Kamp, director of the Barder
- F. Jottroy
walls are warnings the the furmer
kind of fast development with no real
Ecology Project, a research and policy
chairmen of the Border Trade
I
1
release
attention to buman needs.
study organization that participated in
I I I that
names.
Behind Mr. Ramos's home was one
the water study. и securied to originate
-
behalf
of
"This is - of the best stuff be
of the community outhouscs med by
in the industrial zone of Magales, Mext-
local
governments
and
-
cause it is rest thick and keeps the rest
residents of the shantysown. A title
co. where there are meny Mexican-
of the burder.
dat," sald Jum Rome, standing out1
duch from the outhouse led to # bigger
owned workshops as well as the Amer-
The along the burder
side a two-ream surrenare that served)
ditch that flowed to a creek in the bot
Iran plants.
- the parent from rew sewage to
# home for list and five relatives. AR
tem of a revine that flowed Into the No,
"This to the ment extensive study of
wood smoke to highly taxic industrial
had worked in the plants. Their waser
gales Wash. 0 streem that grown to stire
water proflution done anywhere along
supply was scared in & 55-gation drum
with the cemous. While viraly Mexicant
the border. Mr. Kamp said, "and what
Web Environmental Damage
that was also refune from the plants.
border towns have no newage treat
a shows is that We have # problem but
Acress the Ris Grande from El Pass,
bright yellow and arrange label Identi-
nest plants, Negales has one, bes its
that - for we don't know the source of
for instance, firewood is the child
Red its former contants # a
bypessed by the sheatytowns of Stegal
n or its full scope."
squatives.
More than 2,000 Americant-owned
and heating fuel for most of the 13
residents
of
Charled
Juliet.
After creating the border. the No
plants generate bazardnus waste but
Rubber three are burned to Address that
gales Wash to custained within -
unly 30 percent of these have complied
make decorative bricks - time.
Sewage becomes
crote embankments as # flows through
with Mexican rates requiring them to
Along with polletion from motor
the couter of Negales, Artz. High COR
file information - how they handle
due and industry, the amake from
a foreign-policy
centrations of have wastes M the
chose wastes, according to * report
theme fires proforms - acrid
check
wash are blamed for the hepatitis ept
Issued last November by the Secre-
over to cities to cortain weather.
problem.
drazic that produced 98 cases and
teriet of Urban Development and Ecot-
1 1
many surpecied cases foot year, mk
ФБУ. the Mexican Covernment's
plating shops due fied
Patrick Zarich, deputy director of the
equivalent of the Environmental Pro-
in Celtfornia now
Same Cruz Country Health Department
tection Agency. Only 19 percent of the
- Mexico, producting
I
ben a - values are total #
plants wring soxte materials could show
Contractions to Acquirez
from
-
it
that they had disposed of westes prop-
Recreational use of de itip Grambe
The starting was for a
Some of the cases involved people
crty, the report concluded.
below Lareda, Tex., has long been com
worker to shout 22,900 perso, or about
who had direct contact with the water
Mexico's rules governing the use of
tidered because its states city in
S3T, for . - week. More-experi-
where и firers through a popular recre
hazardrus materials went into effect
Minder, Nume Larado, dumps about #
anced workers receive as - as
attonal area outside of town or by chili
only to 1988. Most of the regulations are
gallons of intreated wwage
140,000 - about 547. in addition
dres who skateboard on the embank
part as strict as they are to the United
into the liver every day.
to fringe beautits like # subsidiend
ments. Others apparently Involved -
States, but standards for specific sub-
Much of the and growth
lunch.
log establishments and supermarkets
stances and the enforcement mech-
along the border came as a result of the
Catalina Deames, a public health
along the wash where files carried the
enlems are an being established.
MNS between the two
specialist at the Collegio de Sendra,
disersion from the water to food.
The U.S. two't white to hundle heard-
tries that allowed American
research instructs, who has conducted
More onlineus, Mr. Zurick said, $ the
ous wastes efficiently and so you car't
mine to - up operations - the Mind-
studies to Nugules, had this
contentancian of an aquirer that rune
expect и of Mexico where this problem
can side. The American factories and
a my about the struction: "In the
on both sides of the border. Numerous
is JUST now being addressed, said Joe
plants,
called
of just a few years the magalia-
homes and establishmento
King. president of the Merbah Carpo-
import almost at new materials and
darse
the
Industrial
revolution
draw water from private wells tapped
ration. a company based to El Page
depart almost products virtually
and all that - with it to a region that
Date the admitter, be mid, including stry
that specializes in waste disposal on
empt from tariffs and other trade TO
was for a.
eral worehouses where fruits and
both sides of the hunder.
strictions.
"In the short serm this is a postive
Imported from Mexico are
Protecting the environment has be
New Mr. Buck - to = further
become a job is between
a down and prepared for shipment
come a pelitical priority in Mexico,
the
trade
agreement,
which
- - job and because living condi-
throughout the world. in October du
Mr. King sald "R has peputer support.
- - all tarking and trade harriers be.
time where them people came from
wells in those warehouses were de
But the infrastructure to totally miss-
twoon the countries. A negative vote by
were also terrible. in the king term,
clared public water supplies by the
ing. and building R will involve astro-
either home of Congress before June
though,
1
happened
in
Negales
county, requiring that they be chlorin
nomical costs and a lot of time."
would day Mr. Budh the authority to
present the legislators with a -
agreement to be accepted or re-
jucted
Columbia Teacher in Line for U.S. Education Post
"Almag the bender we already know
happens who free trade
rest economic growth to Mexico,
By ROBERT a REFAUDEN
retary plassed "wo put people in place
provement from HAS to
mid Mayor Suzane Attr of E) Paso.
Diane S. Revitch, ao auther and
as quickly as possible, but he decimed
Ms. Revitch is also the author of
"We've seen the benefits but we have
veher of Matery and education at
to discuss the names of possible -
"The Great School Wars: A History of
- - - very tough environ-
mental problems that are directly
Teachers College at Columbia Univer-
pointees or the theing of assounce-
the New York City Public Schools,
sity who has written for many years
ments.
which appeared in 1974, and "The
caused by that kind of growth.'
about education in America, will be
The Pest said Mr. Cress, who has
Schools We Deserve," in 1985, both by
Cownth - to 1000's
nominated this week as one of the top
been the amount for research and -
Basic Books, and "The American
deputies to the new Secretary of
provenient since 1989, was considering
Reader.
which was published last
The American plants grew
after the repid develuation of the
Education. Government officials said
"several leadership positions 8 the
year
- - marting to 1902 brought the
new - Including one # the official
in charge of Federal mid for students.
le some recent writings, Ms. Revitch
wage of Medican worker down
The officials said the 93-year-old Ms.
Rartich work be named to secored
Ms. aviach, the author of 10 beeks
has opposed prepases for special
- came - hour. Since then the
1
of
-
Christopher T. Cress as Asststant Sec-
- 200 articles for megatives, news-
schools and programs that would an-
to nearly LSB from - 202. They
papers and academic journels, has
service to enhance esteem emong mi-
Neary for remarch - improvement.
been for many years a leading com-
norky students by segregating them.
produce almost anything that
The appointment, which would
tot of labor, from car - de-
Swante approval, is - of several -
memaior on educational arends and
She has said such programs would fall
pacted to be amounced shertly by
change in public education.
to provide adequate academic training
Alumander, who become Secre-
She has other criticized curricalate
and enight increase recial and ethmic
On the entskirts of Nagabo, a claster
of the plants site a helpsp. Big, box-
tary of Education two weeks age
and programs the provide
tensions
for public bigh school sto-
Ms. Revitch, who was term in Hum-
the they do not have any
Speciting - the condition of -
dance to and history. One of
ton, received a backetor's degree from
- caroling twere
tryanity because the appointment has
they are used for assembling compo-
ber best-known books, 1983
Wellesley College in 1999 and a doctor-
but been formally announced, efficials
- rather them manufacturing parts
who work closely with Mr. Alexander
Base Books, was "The Troubled
ate from Columbia University in 1975.
said Ms. Revitch would work clearly
Crusade: American Education, 1945-
She has been an adjunct professor at
or precessing raw materials.
1980," - examination of public educa-
Teachers College of Columbia Univer-
Dren the HALL, the neet industrial er-
with bim - ways to improve the no-
childecture gives way W remarkle
time's public schools.
time in the pesswar era.
sity since 1975. She was a Guggenheim
Fellow in 1977-78
dwettings Inchicated Frees cardboard
Ms. Revitch, reached at ber heree to
What Deart They Know?
Ms. Revitch to a director of the
and scraps of wood taken from the
New York yesterday. would not com-
Ms. Revish and Chester E Firm Jr.
Woodrew Wilson Merional Fellowship
plants' trush These are the
ment - the appointment, which was
were the authors of a 1087 stady, pub-
Foundation and a trustee of the New
of maquiladora workers,
them
first reported yesterday by The Wash-
Mahed by Perentel/Herper & Row,
York Public Library. Her marriage to
who have migrated from
ington Past. She acknowledged only
"What Do Our 17-Year-Olds Know?
RM
Revisch, former chairman of
Mextor's agricultural regions to search
that Mr. Alexamder had consulted her
which concentrated on what high
the 1
written Am-
of standy pay.
recently.
actual
sentors at that
did not
charity and a condidate in the 1999
in about a duzzn shecks the
Juhn Bertak, . spottention for Mr.)
forew. Mr. Fine was Assistant Secre-
Democratic mayoral primary in New
NOV
8 '93 13:14
FROM JOSEPH A. TYLER
PAGE. 005
your information on source background
JOSEPH .A. TYLER
444 W. MIDDLE TURNPIKE, 70-U
MANCHESTER. CT 05040
(203) 646-1030
FAX (203) 649-7170
Tyler Helps Protect Returning Desert Storm Troops
One evening in
Tyler's curiosity,
to work, could be
through the cur-
August 1990. Joe
Congress corrected
subject to pre-exist-
rent session of
Tyler, Western Mas-
the situation retroac-
ing conditions claus-
Congress. and it
sachusetts Office,
tively so that return-
es, a new waiting
was signed by
was doing what
ing reservists would
period. or even decli-
President Bush
almost everyone else
not have any prob-
nation, which could
on March 18-
in America was
lems getting their
make it very difficult
right before the
doing-watching
coverage reinstated.
for them to restore
reservists started
CNN coverage of
Tyler's efforts
their previous cover-
coming home
Operation Desert
involved a series of
age." Tyler set out to
"I hope now
Shield. That evening,
steps and some back-
mend the situation.
the reservists that
Tyler listened as a
ground investigation.
His first step was
are coming back
reservist lamented
He was already
to make sure New
from active duty
the fact that his
aware that certain
York Life was doing
are going to
employer had termi-
federal acts protect
the right thing. which
return to a situa-
nated his health
the rights of full-time
was to have a provi-
tion in which
insurance because he
military personnel
sion that backed
they didn't real-
would now be cov-
and reservists. One
active duty reservists
ize there was H
ered by the military
such act is the Veter-
in EPI plans. He
problem in the
health plan. Tyler
an's Reemployment
contacted Executive
situation was before
science and public
first place." he
wondered, "What
Act. Even though
Management Con-
being called up,
administration, but
says. "I think this is a
will happen when
this act ensures that
sultant Don Pittman
whether you had
he has also worked
fine example of COT-
that soldier comes
any person returning
of the EPI Division.
dependent coverage
on a mayor's staff,
porate America as
back to work?" Tvler
from service in the
and together they
or not, that's what
with a governor's
well as the govern-
discovered that if
U.S. Armed Forces is
worked on getting
you had when you
staff, and be and his
ment wanting to do
employers discontin-
to be "reemployed
the company to
got back." Tyler says.
wife. Sue. a high
the right thing by
ued employees'
without loss of
develop a clause that
He also helped
school U.S. history
getting a problem
health insurance COV-
seniority," it also
would correct this
Congress to see the
teacher. have even
solved before a lot of
erage while they are
states that these per-
problem. As a result,
potential ramification
covered national
people even knew it
engaged in active
sons "shall be enti-
on December 10 an
of the problem and
political conventions
existed." Tyler is also
military duty. and if
tled to participate in
Agency Communica-
hoped he could be a
and the Watergate
grateful he had a
their insurance carri-
insurance or other
tion informed agents
facilitator in helping
scandal as a freelance
chance to help make
ers refused to rein-
benefits offered by
that when an
a difference: "I saw a
to resolve questions
radio news team.
state their original
the employer pur-
employee returns
and problems
Tyler contacted
problem and did
policies. then these
suant to established
from active duty, the
between private
the staff of the Sen-
something about jt.
employees could be
rules and practices
employee (and
Anyone can make a
insurers' concerns
atc Veterans' Affairs
faced with a big
relating to employees
dependents. if appli-
Committee and got
difference, you just
and Congress's con-
problem upon their
On furlough or leave
cable) would have a
cerns in setting pub-
involved in making
have to get off your
return. Namely, they
of absence
no-hassle restoration
duff and do some-
lic policy. Surely,
sure Congress dealt
could now be subject
This is where
of his/her coverage-
most people would
with this problem.
thing." He also said,
to new underwriting
Tyler discovered the
no probationary peri-
either not have the
Tyler participated by
"Never discount your
rules. waiting peri-
loophole: "The hole
od. TK) evidence of
backround of varied
courage. the will, or
providing assistance
ods. increased premi-
in the act," he says.
insurability. and
even the know-how
and advice in helping
experiences. You
"is in the use of rules
no pre-existing con-
never know when
ums. etc. However.
to approach
to draft a section for
thanks in part to
for leave of absence
ditions clauses.
a bill that would COT-
these different expe-
Congress. but Tyler
The concept was
riences can be of ser-
or on furlough.'
understands govern-
rect the problem.
because this means
one of no loss/no
ment affairs. He not
The bill was rushed
vice to people."
that a lot of people,
gain whatever your
only has a master's
when they get back
degree in political
NYLIC Review May 1991
11
EC-PUI-Da
July 16, 1993
THE NAFTA PACKAGE: FUNDING NEEDS AND OPTIONS¹
Introduction
This paper sets forth our pragmatic estimate of the environmental funding needs
associated with the NAFTA package and sets forth options that would satisfy our concern for
secure and adequate funding. Part I considers the following needs: (1) operation of a North
American Commission on the Environment ("NACE"); (2) environmental infrastructure in
the border areas; (3) border cleanup, i.e., removal of existing contamination; and (4)
conservation projects in Mexico. Funding for these items will be referred to collectively as
"NAFTA funding." Part II of the paper evaluates preferred alternatives for meeting those
needs. Appendix A sets forth more detailed and additional estimates of funding needs.
Appendix B shows how one option might meet those needs under varied economic
assumptions.
We have not included certain environmental or partially environmental funding needs
in this paper because of limited information on those needs, uncertainty as to whether such
needs are already covered by other sources (such as multilateral developments banks and
state and local governments), and/or questions whether Mexico needs or seeks funding from
its NAFTA partners for such needs. The needs not covered here are (1) regulatory and
enforcement costs and (2) infrastructure with both environmental and non-environmental
benefits (i.e., increased capacity at border crossings that generally facilitates transportation
and trade, but also reduces exhaust emissions from waiting vehicles).²
Executive Summary
Funding Needs
Assuming that NACE would require a professional staff of 100 or 250, we project an
annual operating cost (for all three parties) of $29 million or $73 million,
respectively.
We estimate that environmental infrastructure, such as sewage treatment plants and
drinking water supply, on both sides of the US-Mexican border will cost
approximately $7.6 billion for the first decade of NAFTA (1994 through 2003).
The major areas of uncertainty that could represent substantial costs are (1) costs for
¹This analysis was prepared by Alan Nessman for the National Wildlife Federation and the
Environmental Defense Fund, in consultation with Defenders of Wildlife, National Audubon Society,
The Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund.
²These needs are addressed in a funding paper being prepared by the Sierra Club.
2
cleanup on the Mexican and Canadian sides of the border and (2) environmental
funding needs associated with the US-Canadian border. Any funding solutions must
address such uncertain needs.
Basic conservation needs throughout Mexico, i.e., preservation of natural areas,
wildlife and biodiversity, could be addressed through a "Green Fund" that would
generate $5 million annually out of an initial endowment of $75 million.
Funding Options
We recommend the use of a leveraging mechanism, such as the proposed Border
Environment Fund or North American Development Bank, to fund environmental
infrastructure needs. These mechanisms maximize the benefits achieved through
government spending while placing much of the spending burden on infrastructure
users. Assuming a relatively conservative leveraging ratio³ of 3:1, $7.6 billion in
environmental infrastructure (first decade needs on the US-Mexican border) could be
financed with $253 million per year from both governments.
A fee on imports (crossing one or both borders) is a possible source for capitalizing
the leveraging mechanism and funding other environmental needs because (1) it could
be "dedicated" through the bilateral or trilateral agreement permitting the fee; (2) it
would provide a new source of funds; and (3) accordingly, it would not increase the
federal deficit (although it would affect the prices of some goods). Leveraging would
allow the fee needed to cover environmental needs to be quite small. For example,
assuming 3:1 leveraging, a fee of 0.4% on imports between the US and Mexico could
cover known environmental needs on that border, while leaving room to cover
uncertain future costs such as cleanup.
Earmarking a portion of tariffs prior to their phase out is an alternative to a cross
border fee but it has several disadvantages. It is not a "new" source of funding,
earmarking is difficult to achieve, and the revenue would decline to zero in 15 years.
An earmarked increase in corporate taxes is another possible means of initially
capitalizing the leveraging mechanism. It would not target the beneficiaries of free
trade as precisely as a cross border fee or tariff earmarking. But corporations are
better situated to adapt to, and benefit from, economic dislocations caused by NAFTA
than are individual taxpayers.
3 "Leverage" is used here to refer to the amount of infrastructure financed through bonds per
government dollar of government spending. Thus, a 3:1 leveraging ratio means that $3 million in infrastructure
can be financed with only $1 million in government funding budgeted.
3
Part I: Funding Needs
A. NACE
The amount of funding necessary to operate NACE depends on what responsibilities it
undertakes. This paper assumes that the extent of NACE's duties will be proportional to its
staff size. We have considered budgeting for two sizes of NACE, a small Commission with
a professional staff of 100 and a larger Commission with a professional staff of 250.
Budgeting is extrapolated from the budget of an institution analogous to NACE, the
International Joint Commission ("IJC") between the US and Canada. Based on the per capita
costs of IJC, with a greater allowance for travel and outside experts, we project a budgeting
requirement of $293,000 per professional staff, or $29.3 million for a NACE with 100
professional staff and about $73 million for a NACE with a staff of 250 (total funding from
all three parties). (See Appendix A, section 1 for more details on this estimate.)
B. Infrastructure on the borders
1. The US-Mexican Border
Trying to assemble totals for this type of environmental infrastructure is an effort to
add apples and oranges. The numerous existing estimates cover different geographic regions,
time frames, infrastructure types, etc. The following are fairly comprehensive estimates from
which we derived our estimate of $6.3 billion for the first decade. Other estimates are found
in Appendix A.
A. State of Texas Estimates. These figures are revised upward from those released in
Spring 1993. We have not listed the state's estimates for hazardous waste and air quality
because those are private sector and/or regulatory costs. ( See Appendix A, Section 2 for a
discussion of additional Texas estimates.)
Wastewater
$1,607 (million)
Drinking water
716.3
Solid waste
90.0
Total
2,413.3
B. The International Boundary and Water Commission ("IBWC") issued a September
1992 estimate, prepared by the US Army Corps of Engineers, for wastewater treatment and
collection in 10 major Mexican border cities. The estimate is $2.48 billion for construction
costs through 2008 and $992 million for operating and maintenance costs through 2010. The
4
estimates do not include the cost of land in Mexico or collection systems other than trunk
lines. On the other hand, the estimates figured the cost of more expensive secondary
sewage treatment. According to OMB, Mexican law requires only primary treatment, which
is considerably cheaper. Even if not required under existing Mexican law, treatment plants
along the border should include secondary treatment in order to protect border water quality.
In addition, it appears that construction costs were based on construction in US sister cities.
The State of Texas, however, assumed that costs in Mexico were generally only 60% of
those across the border in Texas.
C. A rough 10 year total for environmental infrastructure
Based on certain available estimates, we have done a rough extrapolation of total
environmental infrastructure costs on the US-Mexican border, arriving at a figure of $7.6
billion for the first decade of NAFTA (1994 through 2003). We used that time frame
because funding needs and sources become highly speculative after that point.
For US funding, we have started with Texas' estimate of approximately $2.4 billion
in infrastructure needs through 2010 and adjusted them for needs through 2003. We have
then assumed, based on the breakdown of top three and top ten infrastructure costs by the
Border Trade Alliance (see Appendix.A Sect. B.2), that Texas needs account for about 60%
of US needs along the Mexican border. This provides a total of about $3.28 billion for the
US. For Mexico, we have started with the IBWC's late 1992 estimate of approximately $3.5
billion in sewage treatment needs until 2005 and adjusted that for the 1994 through 2003 time
frame, as was done for Texas. Based on Texas' estimates, sewage treatment should be 66%
of total costs for environmental infrastructure,⁴ giving a total of $4.3 billion through 2003.
The total for both sides of the US-Mexican border is $7.6 billion. (See Appendix A, Sect.
B.2 for a more detailed discussion of this estimate).
2. Infrastructure and Resource Needs on the US-Canadian Border.
We are aware of no figures for infrastructure needs on the US-Canadian border,
although there appear to be some outstanding needs, such as for sewage treatment plants on
Vancouver Island to reduce impacts in Washington State. In addition there are other natural
resource problems on the US-Canadian border that may require funding, such as mitigation
of acid rain impacts, restoration of salmon fisheries degraded by logging and mining along
⁴This figure does not account for the cost of pollution control equipment on border power plants owned
by the Mexican government, for which we have not seen a total cost estimate. For just one set of such power
plants, Carbon I and Carbon II, which affect air quality in Big Bend National Park in Texas, the costs are
estimated at $500 million. Washington Post, June 22, 1993. In the US, air pollution control equipment is
generally a private sector cost since most power plants and factories are not government owned. If costs for air
pollution equipment on all border power plants (and perhaps PEMEX facilities) owned by the Mexican
government were to be included in NAFTA environmental funding, this would substantially increase funding
needs, although we have seen no estimate of the magnitude of those costs.
5
the Inside Passage, and Arctic impacts due to oil and gas development in Alaska and the
Northwest Territories.
C. Cleanup on the borders
This paper uses the term "cleanup" to describe the removal or remediation of
contamination already in the environment, typically the remediation of hazardous waste sites.
We understand that there are also problems with non-hazardous solid waste sites, i.e., open
garbage dumps in Mexico, although we expect that the predominant share of cleanup costs
will go to the much more expensive remediation of hazardous waste sites.
The primary cleanup needs are in Mexico and perhaps in Canada. Contaminated
sites in the US should be remediated with monies from Superfund or collected from
responsible industries through CERCLA liability. While these are by no means ideal funding
sources, they should generally suffice. Where delays in cleanup under Superfund or
CERCLA liability are causing transboundary problems, however, it may be necessary to
expedite the cleanup with border fee funds, and then recoup them from potentially
responsible parties under CERCLA and/or from Superfund.
Our understanding is that Mexico and Canada currently have no analogous cleanup
funds or liability schemes, although President Salinas has indicated that Mexico may enact a
version of Superfund. We have not seen estimates for the number of waste sites on the
Mexican or Canadian side of the border or for the cost of remediating known sites. 5 We
expect, however, that such cleanup costs may prove to be substantial, perhaps rivaling or
exceeding infrastructure costs. Any funding solution must allow for that possibility, as
discussed in Part II.
On the US side, the Northeast-Midwest Institute estimated in 1989 that it will cost
$2.8 to 3.4 billion to remediate 10 selected "toxic hot spots" in the Great Lakes area.⁶ We
do not know whether there have subsequently been problems with prompt remediation of
those sites or whether such problems are causing transboundary impacts. EPA has
previously identified 450 possible hazardous waste sites on the US side of the US-Mexican
border and had initiated remedial action at five sites on the Superfund priority list. EPA and
its Mexican counterpart were to begin studies to locate waste sites throughout the border area
⁵The Sierra Club is developing an extrapolation of cleanup costs in Mexico based on the amount of
hazardous material that is not returned to the US by the maquiladoras as is required by the La Paz Agreement.
Actual cleanup costs, however, may very greatly depending on a variety of factors including the amount of
hazardous waste actually released into the environment; whether those releases are into the soil, surface water,
groundwater, etc.; the degree of danger to nearby populations; the level of cleanup required by the Mexican
government; and the type of remediation chosen at each site (i.e., encapsulation on site vs. removal and disposal
elsewhere).
⁶Cate Leger, Cleaning Up the Great Lakes Areas of Concern: How Much Will It Cost? September
1989.
6
in 1993. We have not, however, seen information on the status or results of that study.
D. Conservation in Mexico.
We are concerned that Mexico does not have the conservation infrastructure that is
necessary to deal with long term natural resource planning and to address the numerous
threats to the country's biological diversity -- threats which could be exacerbated by the rapid
economic growth associated with NAFTA. Some of these infrastructure needs could be
developed with the establishment of a $75 million "Green Fund" that would generate
approximately $5 million per year for conservation and ecosystem protection in Mexico. (The
initial capitalization could come from a cross-border fee, an earmarked portion of tariff
revenues or an earmarked increase in corporate taxes.) The funds would be available to
Mexican governmental and non-governmental organizations to mitigate impacts of NAFTA-
related trade on ecosystems and strengthen protection of critical habitats. Funds could also
be used to promote the use of environmental planning, research and monitoring, and to
encourage the use of environmentally compatible development.
Part II: Recommended Options
The following options would satisfy our demand for secure and adequate funding for
environmental needs. They would also place the burden primarily on the users of
infrastructure and the polluters who necessitate cleanup. All of the options described below
(1) would require bilateral or trilateral negotiations; and (2) minimize the need for
government funding by utilizing a leveraging mechanism.
The options below combine the three leading proposals for leveraging institutions
(Border Environment Fund, North American Development Bank ("NADBank") and
NADBank run through the Inter-American Development Bank) with three preferred sources
for capitalizing the leveraging mechanism, and for funding NACE, cleanup and the
conservation Green Fund. Those sources are: (1) a cross-border fee on imports; (2) an
earmarked portion of existing tariffs; and (3) an earmarked increase in corporate taxes.
1. Options Initially Funded By a Cross-Border Fee
Option 1A: This option is generally based on the Wyden-Richardson proposal. A
cross-border fee on imports between the US and Mexico would initially capitalize a bilateral
Border Environment Guaranty Fund or Border Environment Fund ("BEF") for infrastructure
funding. The fee would also capitalize a "Green Fund" for conservation projects throughout
Mexico. It would also directly fund (without leveraging) cleanup and the US and Mexican
shares of NACE.
USEPA, SEDUE, Integrated Environmental Border Plan for the Mexican-U.S. Border Area (First
Stage, 1992-1994) (undated but apparently 1991) at III-23, V-33, 34.
7
Description: A cross-border fee on imports between US and Mexico⁸ would
capitalize the BEF, a binational finance corporation with bonding authority. The amount of
the fee would depend on refined estimates of infrastructure and cleanup needs, and on the
degree of leverage achieved by the BEF. Chart 1 in Appendix B sets forth the percentage
fee required, based on various assumptions such as the growth of trade and the degree of
leveraging possible. Depending on these factors, the fee covering known and anticipated
environmental costs might be in the range of 0.1% to 0.5%. The US and Mexico would
agree that the cross-border fee, which would otherwise violate NAFTA, could only be
collected if used for specified NAFTA environmental needs.
Distribution between the parties. Each party's share would be determined by how
much it imported from the other party. According to the most recent statistics available,
Mexico would provide slightly more than half of the funding. This is not unreasonable since
Mexico appears to require the majority of the infrastructure funding and would receive all of
the cleanup and conservation funding.
Infrastructure and the BEF. The BEF would be a bilateral funding institution created
and overseen by the NACE and run by a Board of Directors. Infrastructure priorities would
be determined by the BEF Board of Directors with ample input from the local communities
most affected. The BEF would facilitate the funding of infrastructure by guaranteeing the
repayment of bonds issued by public and private financial institutions. Those bonds would
be low investment grade bonds (BBB) guaranteed by the BEF but not by the governments
themselves. This would allow the greatest amount of infrastructure financing per government
dollar (although the cost of financing would be higher than with the high grade bonds used in
the NADBank scheme). Where appropriate, the BEF would seek financing participation from
state and local governments. Infrastructure bonds would, where possible, be repaid through
user fees on the infrastructure. Where such fees were inappropriate (i.e. colonia residents
unable to pay for sewage lines) repayment could be sought from state and local governments
or other sources. The money currently budgeted by the US and Mexico for infrastructure
(approximately $170 million for FY 19949, which would not be repaid by infrastructure
users, could be freed up for other environmental needs related to NAFTA, such as
enforcement.
Cleanup. Because sites on the US side of the border can generally be cleaned up
through Superfund or through CERCLA liability, the cross-border fee would primarily fund
cleanup of contaminated sites on the Mexican side of the border. Where sites on the US side
caused urgent transboundary pollution problems, however, cleanup could be expedited by the
use of border fee funds that would later be recouped from Superfund or parties liable under
⁸To reduce administrative burdens, the fee could be waived for low value imports, such as those
brought in by tourists.
⁹See footnote 4 in Appendix A for a discussion of recent rumors regarding cuts in this latest budget
proposal.
8
CERCLA.
Cleanup in Mexico would be administered by the Mexican government with advice
and technical assistance from EPA and oversight from NACE. To maximize cleanup
capability, the Mexican government would first seek voluntary cleanup by the potentially
responsible industries, using incentives similar to those employed in the US (the opportunity
to design a more cost-effective remediation and limited protection from further liability). If
border fee funds were required, they would be recouped, to the extent possible, by the
responsible or potentially responsible industries through some or all of the following:
pollution prevention and cleanup performance bonds, a special levy on Maquiladoras, a
Mexican Superfund counterpart (hopefully without the flaws of the original), and liability
schemes.
Uncertain costs. The magnitude of some costs, particularly cleanup costs, will not be
known for years. (Judging from Superfund experience, for example, it is likely to take many
years to identify waste sites in Mexico, determine the extent of contamination, and design
and approve cleanup plans.) To account for such uncertainties, we suggest setting the border
fee somewhat above that necessary to capitalize the BEF for known needs. As revenue from
the fee grows with trade, it will create an increasing pool of funds to cover cleanup and other
previously unknown costs. Chart 2 in Appendix B indicates the growth of revenue from
projected increases in trade. After 5 or 10 years, the parties could reassess the adequacy of
the border fee in light of trade growth and new information on cleanup and other
environmental needs.
NACE would be funded by equal shares from each of the three parties. The US and
Mexico would pay their shares directly from the border fee. (Because Canada would not
participate in the cross-border fee, it would raise its share from other sources.)
The "Green Fund" for conservation projects in Mexico would be capitalized by a
payment of $60M from the cross border fee to reduce $75 million of existing Mexican debt
owed to the Export-Import Bank and/or CCC debt (based on an estimated 80% discount rate
for such debt). The $75 fund thus created would then generate about $5 million per year
for projects by governmental and non-governmental organizations to mitigate impacts of
NAFTA-related trade on ecosystems, strengthen protection of critical habitats, promote
environmental planning, research and monitoring, and to encourage the use of
environmentally compatible development. The Fund should be structured in a manner to
allow meaningful participation by NGOs, including representation by local NGOs on its
board.
Advantages:
1) The border fee would provide a dedicated source of funding for US-Mexican
border needs and for NACE because both governments could collect the fee only if
used for specified purposes. This would provide additional assurance that NACE
9
would be able to make objective recommendations unhindered by the concern that its
funding might be affected.
2) This is an equitable way of funding NAFTA-related environmental concerns.
Bonds for infrastructure would be repaid by the infrastructure users and by local
communities that benefit from it. Where cleanup is not conducted voluntarily by
responsible industries, the costs would be recouped, where possible, from the
responsible parties. The initial financing of both items would be by primary
beneficiaries of liberalized trade, those businesses that trade across the US-Mexican
border.
3) The border fee provides growing pool of money for items such as cleanup that are
presently uncertain, but are likely to be substantial in the future.
4) The BEF would provide a leveraging mechanism that would substantially multiply
the amount of environmental projects funded per government dollar spent.
5) Because of the BEF leveraging mechanism, the border fee could be so small that it
would be difficult for industry to argue that it will have a substantial impact on free
trade or put US and Mexican businesses at a competitive disadvantage.
6) The BEF would have a clear and focused mission (environmental needs on the US-
Mexican border) and would be less expensive because of its limited scope.
Disadvantages:
1) A cross-border fee is a tax on trade and would discourage trade.
2) The BEF would not address environmental needs on the US-Canadian border.
4) The BEF would not address social and development needs.
5) The BEF would not tap the large source of revenue found in US-Canadian trade.
6) Because the BEF would not issue the bonds itself, but would guarantee the bonds
other bond issuing institutions, funding in Mexico may be limited by the lack of
developed bond institutions and markets there. 10
7) It is our understanding that customs is already generally required to determine the
value of all imports crossing the border, even those that are not subject to tariffs.
There may, however, be a greater burden involved in collecting the fee, as opposed to
¹⁰See 1992 Report of the International Committee of the Environmental Financial Advisory Board of
the USEPA, Feb. 10, 1993 draft, at 4-8.
10
merely gathering statistics.
Option 1B: Same as Option 1A but the bilateral BEF would be replaced with a
trilateral North American Development Bank encompassing environmental problems along
the US-Canadian border, and social and development needs.
The cross border fee would be trilateral under this option, covering trade between all
three parties. Because of the much larger volume of US-Canada trade, as opposed to trade
across the US-Mexican border, a far larger quantity of funds would be available and/or the
fee could be set at an even smaller percentage.
Funding Distribution between the parties. Based on the latest trade data available,
approximately half of the border fee would be collected by the US, one third by Canada, and
the remainder by Mexico. 11
The NADBank would be run by a Board of Directors selected by the three
governments in proportion to their capital contributions. The Board would select an
Oversight Group representing environmental groups, local governments, labor and other
pertinent interests. The Bank would provide for a transparent process to facilitate the
involvement of such interests in its decisionmaking.
Environmental infrastructure (and other projects funded by the NADBank) would be
financed by bonds issued by the Bank itself (as opposed to mere guarantees by the BEF). The
Bank would seek to achieve the highest bond rating possible in order to have the lowest
priced financing. Unlike the BEF, the Bank would fund projects in Canada, and projects to
address NAFTA impacts in the interiors of the three countries to the extent that funds
remained after border needs. Bank proponents predict that it will be able to employ
leveraging as high as 10:1 or more, but OMB is skeptical, noting that the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development had only about a 3:1 leverage ratio.
Cleanup. Because the cross border fee would be trilateral, it would be appropriate to
use it to fund cleanup needs on the Canadian, as well as the Mexican, side of the border.
NACE. Because the fee would be collected by all three NAFTA parties, the NACE
contribution of each party would come from the cross border fee.
The Green Fund would be the same as under Option 1A.
Advantages:
11 The NADBank proposal by Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda and Steven Davidson does not contemplate
capitalizing the Bank through a cross border fee. Instead, it proposes that 60% of the capitalization come from
the US, which is slightly higher than the US share as determined by share of imports.
11
--See Advantages 1-5 (cross border fee and leveraging) for Option 1A.
-- It would have a broader mission than a BEF, addressing Canadian needs, social
problems associated with development, and, to some extent, environmental and socio-
economic problems in the interiors of all three countries.
--The larger flow of trade across the US-Canadian border could be tapped for
funding.
--Involving Canada is also likely to improve the leveraging mechanism's bond rating
by spreading the risk to across another wealthy country.
Disadvantages:
--Because of the broader agenda of the Bank, it will require substantially more
funding than the BEF, unless that difference is made up by greater leveraging
capability.
--Environmental projects will have to compete with non-environmental projects for
financing.
Option 1C: Same as Option 1B but the NADBank would be run through the Inter-American
Development Bank, with an adjustment to the IDB's charter to allow funding for projects in
the US and Canada. In most respects, the setup, advantages and disadvantages would be the
same as for the regular NADBank proposal in Option 1B. The few differences are discussed
below.
Advantages:
--This may allow a substantial increase in the leveraging capability of the NADBank.
--The use of an existing international institution may simplify the negotiations
necessary to create the NADBank.
--If worked properly, the increased local and citizen access to the decisionmaking
process of the NADBank may trigger similar reforms throughout the IDB.
Disadvantages:
--Some in the environmental community are concerned that the problems that the IDB
shares with other multilateral development banks, such as lack of sensitivity to
environmental concerns, lack of transparency, and non-responsiveness to local
concerns, will be carried over to the NADBank.
12
--This may require certain changes in or amendments to the IDB charter in order to
allow financing of projects in the US and Canada.
2. Options With Primary Funding From An Earmarked Portion of Tariffs That Are
Being Phased Out.
Options A through C above could be initially funded by earmarking a portion of
tariffs that will be phased out over 10-15 years. Because the US tariffs are at lower levels
than those of its NAFTA partners, the US would have to earmark a larger portion of its
tariffs if funding were to be contributed equally by the parties.
The main problem with these options is that tariff revenues are not new funds, they
are already spoken for. Every dollar earmarked for NAFTA funding would have to be taken
from other programs, increase the deficit or come from new taxes. In addition, Congress is
reluctant to earmark funding. Finally, tariff revenues are a declining source of revenue that
is scheduled to disappear completely. This is less of a problem if the leveraging mechanism
can be fully capitalized prior to the phase out of tariffs, but alternate funding would have to
be found for the ongoing costs of cleanup and operating the NACE.
3. Options With Primary Funding By An Increase In Corporate Income Taxes.
Options A through C above could receive primary funding by earmarking a portion
of an increase in corporate income taxes. This would provide a large funding pool that could
be dedicated, assuming that earmarking is possible. It could be implemented just
domestically or bilaterally or trilaterally. Based on our understanding that the three parties
have similar corporate rates, the same increase in the rates of all parties involved would
result in the US paying the predominant share of NAFTA funding, because of its
substantially larger economy.
While this would not precisely target the beneficiaries of increased trade, it would
target some of the primary beneficiaries of NAFTA. It would also be more equitable than
reliance on general revenues which burdens the average taxpayer (while many corporations
can shift their operations to take advantage of the economic shifts caused by NAFTA, the
average taxpayer cannot).
Appendix A: More Detailed and Additional Funding Estimates for NACE and
Infrastructure
A. NACE
The amount of funding necessary to operate NACE depends on what responsibilities it
ultimately undertakes and the extent of its involvement with respect to each of those
responsibilities. For example, most proposals contemplate that NACE would investigate
citizen complaints concerning specific instances of lax enforcement of environmental laws.
Budgeting for this task will depend on how many investigations NACE conducts annually and
the extent of those investigations (i.e, examination of existing data, or on-site inspections,
hearings and independent testing).
This paper handles that issue by assuming that the extent of NACE's duties will be
proportional to its staff size. We have considered budgeting for two sizes of NACE, a small
Commission with a professional staff of 100 and a larger Commission with a professional
staff of 250. Budgeting is extrapolated from the budget of an institution analogous to
NACE, the International Joint Commission ("IJC") between the US and Canada. 1 The US
budget for its section of the IJC, which has a professional staff of 15, is approximately $3.6
million. Because it will be operating continent-wide, we expect that NACE will have a
significantly larger travel budget than the IJC, which is focused on a single border. Also,
while the IJC pays about $0.5 million for US Geological Survey technical consultation, we
expect that NACE would have higher per capita technical consultation requirements given the
broad array of tasks and issues with which it will be involved. Accordingly, we assume that
NACE would require twice the per capita travel and consultant expenses of the IJC. This
provides a budgeting requirement of $293,000 per professional staff, or $29.3 million for a
NACE with 100 professional staff and about $73 million for a NACE with a staff of 250.
These figures are for total funding from all three parties.
B. Environmental Infrastructure on the US-Mexican Border
The greatest number of infrastructure estimates are for Texas, including the state's
estimate of just over $2 billion for purely environmental infrastructure, as discussed below.
New Mexico has estimated $300 million in total infrastructure but we have not yet seen a
breakdown of what proportion are environmental costs. As to the other two states on the
Mexican border, we have heard (from a source that did not wish to be cited) that the total
estimates for all infrastructure needs, not just environmental, are $1 billion for California and
only $50 million for Arizona.
¹We have not seen a detailed breakdown of the budget for the International Boundary Water
Commission ("IBWC") which would allow us to use that for a cost estimate. We also attempted to get budget
figures for a larger analogue, the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. Unfortunately, those figures
were not available and we were told that it would be difficult to determine since many items of the CSD budget
may not be separate from the general UN budget.
2
1. EPA
According to the 1992 Report of the International Committee of the Environmental
Financial Advisory Board (Feb. 10, 1993 Draft), EPA has estimated that water, wastewater
and solid waste disposal projects along the Mexican side of the border will cost between $5
and $7 billion. No time frame is given for this estimate. We have not been able to obtain
further information from EPA regarding this estimate.
2. Border Trade Alliance, 1993
The estimates below are for infrastructure projects that could be initiated in the near
future. It is prioritized according to the 3 most important and 10 most important projects for
each of the 14 border communities along the US-Mexican border. The final category
appears to include all priority projects sought by those communities. In 1992 BTA released
an estimate five times higher for total infrastructure (approximately $5.7 billion) but that was
scaled back in the more recent report to numbers that were deemed more politically feasible
(just over $1 billion for total infrastructure).
top 3 projects
top 10 projects
"total cost projects:
all projects deemed
priority needs
Texas
100
145.5
418.6
New Mexico
13.1
13.1
13.1
Arizona
6.4
15.45
15.65
California
49.3
63.2
63.2
Total
168.8
237.95
510.55
3. State of Texas Estimates.
a. Most recent estimates.
The figures below are from about June 1993. They are not provided in the detailed
format of the Spring 1993 estimates discussed below. For example, we have seen no
breakdown of needs according to time periods (i.e., short term, long term).
wastewater
$1,607 (million)
drinking water
716.3
3
solid waste
90.0
total
2,413.3
b. Estimates from Spring 1993.
The following two charts are derived from Environmental Infrastructure Along the
Texas Border, Spring 1993 (subject to revision). The first chart provides a comparison to
the numbers listed above for public infrastructure costs.
wastewater
$1,070 (million)
drinking water
717
solid waste
108
total
1,895
The second chart provides a breakdown by time frame and includes amounts for
hazardous waste and air pollution which we have not considered because they are private
sector and/or regulatory costs. The figures listed for Mexican needs are, in some cases,
based on an extrapolation from Texas numbers rather than an evaluation of existing
infrastructure and needs.
immediate
medium term
longer
total
1994-1995²
1996-2000
term
2001-
2010³
Texas
907(million $)
378
742
2,027
Mexico (along
534
1299
353
2,186
Texas border)
Total
1,441
1,677
1,095
4,213
Annual Amount
720.5
335
109.5
---
²No time frame is given for the "immediate" infrastructure needs but we have assumed that the proper
time frame is from the beginning of 1994 (the target implementation date for NAFTA) until the beginning of the
next time frame in 1996.
³The figure on page 2 of the report indicates that the "longer term" funding is for 2006-2010 but this
would leave a five year gap between the intermediate term and longer term time frames. A review of Table 3
indicates that the longer term begins in 2001.
4
4. Other Estimates
A. Sewage Treatment and Systems
$3.3B for 10 Mexican border communities through 2010. US Army Corps of
Engineers estimate for IBWC, Sept. 1992.
--$720M water and wastewater for colonias in Texas through 2010. IBWC.
--$2.01B on wastewater and water for Texas border counties for the next 50 years.
Texas Water Dev. Bd.
B. Drinking Water
--$675M for Texas water supply through 2010. IBWC.
C. Hazardous Waste
--$36M for physical facilities, personnel & equipment to handle hazardous waste
response and containment for Texas side of border. Texas Dept. Commerce, Oct. 91
5. An Extrapolation of Total Funding Needs for the US-Mexican Border.
Based on certain available estimates, we have done a rough extrapolation of total
environmental infrastructure costs on the US-Mexican border, arriving at a figure of $7.6
billion for the first decade of NAFTA (1994 through 2003). We used that time frame
because funding needs and sources become highly speculative after that point.
For US funding, we have started with Texas' estimate of approximately $2.4 billion
in infrastructure needs through 2010 and adjusted them for needs through 2003. Texas'
Spring 1993 breakdown of costs by time frame (see above) suggests that funding needs
through 2003 would be about 82% of the total. 82% of 2.4 billion is $1.97 billion. We:
have then assumed, based on the breakdown of top three and top ten infrastructure costs by
the Border Trade Alliance (see above), that Texas needs account for about 60% of US needs
along the Mexican border. This provides a total of about $3.3 billion for the US.
For Mexico, we have started with the IBWC's late 1992 estimate of approximately
$3.5 billion in wastewater needs through 2010. We have included the roughly $1 billion in
operating and maintenance costs to account for the IBWC's non-inclusion of costs for sewer
collector systems (other than the main trunks), the cost of land in Mexico, and sewage needs
outside of the 10 major border cities. We believe that these missing items may also be made
up for by the fact that the IBWC construction estimates appear to be based on US costs,
instead of lower Mexican costs. We have then adjusted the estimate for the 1994 through
5
2003 time frame, as was done for Texas (assuming that 82% of total needs would be in the
first decade) for a figure of $2.87 billion. Based on Texas' estimates, sewage treatment
should be 66% of total costs for environmental infrastructure,⁴ giving a Mexican total of
$4.3 billion through 2003. The total estimate for both sides of the US-Mexican border is
$7.6 billion.
6. Money already budgeted for the US-Mexican Border Plan: environmental
infrastructure and total
1992
1993
1994
total
($million)
US funding
104.6 actual
82 actual
90
276.6
clearly for
previously
environmental
proposed⁵
infrastructure
US total
138.1 actual
211.1
221
570.2
commitment
actual
previously
proposed
Mex. funding
245
clearly for
proposed
env.
infrastructure
total Mexican
446.3
proposed
commitment
From the numbers above, the joint contribution of the US and Mexico that is clearly devoted
4This figure does not account for the cost of pollution control equipment on border power plants owned
by the Mexican government, for which we have not seen a total cost estimate. For just one set of such power
plants, Carbon I and Carbon II, which affect air quality in Big Bend National Park in Texas, the costs are
estimated at $500 million. Washington Post, June 22, 1993. In the US, air pollution control equipment is
generally a private sector cost since most power plants and factories are not government owned. If costs for air
pollution equipment on all border power plants (and perhaps PEMEX facilities) owned by the Mexican
government were to be included in NAFTA environmental funding, this would substantially increase funding
needs, although we have seen no estimate of the magnitude of those costs.
⁵We have heard rumors that the latest budget proposal would budget $35 million to complete the
Tijuana/San Diego wastewater project, leaving other border projects in a larger pool to compete with non-border
needs. In the earlier proposal reflected here, approximately $40-45 million in funding for the San Diego
wastewater project was supposed to switch from federal funding to state revolving loan funds in FY 1994.
6
to environmental infrastructure would be about $172 million for 1994. By comparison,
Texas' estimates indicate annual environmental infrastructure costs, for the Texas/Mexico
border alone, of over $700 million annually for the next two years; $335 annually for the
period from 1996-2000; and $109.5 annually for the years 2001-2010.
Appendix B: Estimates of Actual Funding Under Option 1A.
This appendix employs relatively crude economic assumptions to project the size of a
bilateral border fee needed under Option 1A (US-Mexican import fee capitalizing a Border
Environment Fund¹) depending upon varied economic assumptions. Chart 1 shows how
different leveraging ratios affect the size of a cross border fee necessary to fund NACE and
$7.6 billion of environmental infrastructure needs we have estimated for the US-Mexican
border during the first decade. Chart 2 takes the 3:1 leveraging ratio from Chart and shows
the amount of extra money for cleanup that an assumed 11% growth in US-Mexican trade
would generate over the first decade.
Chart 1 - Border Fee Percentages Based On Various Leveraging Ratios - Does Not Cover
Cleanup - Assumes Trade Remains Constant During First Decade of NAFTA.
Assumptions and Limitations:
Only for the first decade of NAFTA (1994 Through 2003).
No adjustment for inflation.
Very conservative assumption that trade does not increase after the first year of
NAFTA. Assumes US-Mexico trade grows at 11% annually from the 1991 level (last
year for which figures were available) of approximately $65B until 1994 and then
stays at $89B for the rest of the decade. The 11% growth rate is a rough average of
the International Trade Commission estimates that exports from the US to Mexico
will grow at 5.2 to 20.1% and exports from Mexico to US will grow at 3.4 to
15.4%.
Assumes environmental infrastructure needs for both sides of the US-Mexican border
would be $6.3B over first decade or $630M per year. Annual cost of NACE is
assumed to be $29M/year (100 professional staff)
No "revolving" of money in Border Environment Fund ("BEF"), i.e., there is no
payoff of initial bonds available to fund new projects later in the first decade.
Assumes no attempt to fully capitalize BEF for needs beyond first decade, i.e., the
BEF would continue to need capitalization after first decade to cover the needs of
following decades.
¹We have not yet done estimates for a NADBank (Options 1B and 1C) because we do not yet have
estimates for the non-environmental infrastructure needs that the Bank would cover or for the environmental
needs on the US-Canadian border that would also be encompassed by the Bank. We understand that estimates
for at least some of these items will soon be released.
2
Leveraging
Annual
ann. infra.
Border Fee
Ratio
capital for
+ $29M/yr
Needed
infrastructur
for NACE
e
1:10
$76M
$105M
0.12%
1:4
190
219
.25%
1:3
253
282
.32%
1:2
380
409
.46%
Chart 2 - Funds Available For Cleanup Assuming 0.4% Fee, 11% Trade Growth and
3:1 Leveraging Ratio
Assumptions and Limitations are the same as for Chart 1, except:
Border Fee set at 0.4% of value of US-Mexican imports.
Assumes US-Mexican trade would grow at 11% annually.
BEF would achieve 3:1 leverage ratio. (This ratio is used because it is approximately
what was achieved by the analogous European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development.)
NACE would cost $29M/year to operate. Annual costs for NACE and environmental
infrastructure would be $29M and $253M for a total of $282M (see chart 1).
Green Fund to be fully capitalized in first 3 years with $20 million for each of those
years.
year
US-Mexican
revenue
funds remaining for
trade volume
from 0.4%
cleanup (revenue minus
in $billion @
fee (in $
$282M and minus an
11% growth
million)
add'l $20M for Green
Fund in 1st 3 yrs)
1994
$89B
$356M
$54M
95
99
396
94
96
110
440
138
97
122
488
206
3
98
135
540
258
99
150
600
318
2000
166
664
382
2001
185
740
458
2002
205
820
538
2003
228
912
630
Aines
FUL
-Ddh
NOTE TO KATIE FROM DAN
RE: BORDER INITIATIVE DEPUTIES MEETING
7/19/93
Background
I talked to Ken Thomas (State/OES) regarding the options
laid out in the OMB paper for today's Deputies meeting. He said
that, although he thought Rivlin did a good job in pulling
together the paper, there are a couple problems: 1) that there
really wasn't as reported a consensus around option "1.B." or the
parallel financing mode; and 2) that State's preferred option
("1.A.") wasn't correctly portrayed.
As presented in the OMB paper, both options 1.A. and 1.B.
are based on expanding the role of the IBWC. State would like to
see a new institution that would take over some of the duties
(and all of the capital) of the IBWC, but Ken emphasized that he
thought it needed to be something new. Transparency and openness
to the public are big issues for the NGOs and a problem with the
way the IBWC is currently run. The new institution would have to
do better in this regard. (This approach could address one of
the concerns raised by CEA -- that the folks on the Hill that we
need to sell this to are not likely to be big fans of the IBWC.)
The issue with parallel financing is that (according to Ken)
it doesn't bring in the capital markets and is still focused on
each country taking care of the issues only on its own side of
the border. This doesn't get at the need for a regional approach
to cut across jurisdictions (which was emphasized by local
officials from both Mexico and US at the recent San Antonio
conference).
CEA seems to be interested in pushing Option 2 (the NADBank
or IDB window). While this too would be a new institution, Ken
points out a couple issues: 1) political -- Congress is not
likely to approve funding in the $b's range for a new development
bank; 2) still inconsistent with regional approach -- since the
IDB can't lend to the US, it will still be limited by
jurisdictional lines. One could design a new type of development
bank with expanded powers, but Ken wonders if we are going to
make something new why bother.
Ken said that he thought Bentsen was in favor of just
tweaking the IBWC, but could support the "new institution"
approach.
Recommendation
While I think there are some good arguments for the NADBank
approach, I am leaning toward the State recommended new Option
1.A. I believe that the regional / new institution approach is
the right one, and that the political realities of starting a new
development bank make that option a non-starter.