BECC Approves Three Projects; Four More Likely in January

Cyrus Reed
Texas Center for Policy Studies

The Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) approved the El Paso Water Utilities' $11.6 million wastewater reuse project at a public meeting November 15th, bringing the total number of certified projects to three in the new institution's short history. However, the Board delayed adopting a staff recommendation that the project be given a "high sustainability rating" until proper guidelines could be developed.

At the November 15th meeting, held in El Paso, the BECC Board heard from both the project promoter and several members of the public and governmental officials, most of whom supported the project. Arizona Toxics Information, a nonprofit organization based in Bisbee, questioned whether the project was being used as an industrial development tool and not simply to replace potable water with a more appropriate water source, as El Paso Water Utilities Public Service Board manager Ed Archuleta maintained.

The El Paso project will provide a new water supply source--reclaimed wastewater--to a number of golf courses, parks, and school yards, while also providing treated wastewater to industrial developments such as Johnson and Johnson, an industrial park west of El Paso and ASARCO, the metal smelting giant. When all phases of the project are complete, it should replace 2.6 million gallons per day of potable water use. The Board approved the project unanimously.

The BECC staff had also recommended that the project be given special recognition as a "high sustainable development" project. Under the BECC's criteria adopted last August, if a project goes beyond basic sustainable development criteria to incorporate more sustainable development goals, it can gain special recognition. Board member Lynda Taylor, however, argued that the BECC still needed to develop guidelines for how an applicant can receive such recognition, and wanted the public to have a chance to judge a project based upon its sustainability.

The high-sustainability rating is important to the EPWU. In addition to NADBank funding, the public utility is also exploring other funding options, including a $2-million grant written into the latest budget. However, the funds will only become available to the EPWU if the project is given the "high sustainability" rating.

At the BECC's next public meeting, to be held January 18 in Nogales, Sonora, the Commission will consider four other projects -- two in the U.S. and two in Mexico -- for certification all of which were presented at the November meeting. These include:

A $2-million upgrade of the sewer and potable water system in Douglas, Arizona.

A $2.7-million secondary wastewater treatment system for Somerton, Arizona.

A $52-million project to improve, expand and rebuild the water supply in Nogales, Sonora.

A $1-million wastewater treatment plant for the FINSA Industrial Park in Matamoros, Tamaulipas.

Both Mexican projects have caused concern n the community. In Nogales, community leaders and local NGOs worry that the high costs -- and loans -- of the $52 million project will result in large user fees, that the system will collapse. The FINSA project has been controversial since it was first presented as a candidate for certification at the September meeting. Several groups protested its inclusion, since it would purely benefit private interests, namely 13 industrial plants located in the park. In addition, the promoters -- Grupo Arguelles FINSA -- had not held a public meeting, as required by BECC criteria.

The project now appears closer to being certified. On December 7, a public meeting was held at the local CANACNITRA offices. Community representatives from the colonias asked the industrial-park managers what they would gain from the project since they too lack wastewater treatment, paved roads and even potable water. Many of the residents in the three communities surrounding the industrial park are workers in the plants, but said the salaries were not high enough to even pay for food and rent bills.

Border community organizer Domingo González told the audience that it would be less than practical to go against the need for wastewater treatment for anyone. However, González reiterated the need for the project to be more inclusive and include some benefits for the communities surrounding the plant, "serving as a model for the public/private partnerships to be funded by the NADBank. González said the communities are negotiating with the project promoters to see if residents could benefit from the plant.

The NADBank Appropriations Battle is Won, Does the War Go On?

Mark J. Spalding, J.D., M.P.I.A.

With the stroke of a pen, a staffer in Senator McConnell's (R-KY) office struck out the funding for the NADBank in what is a clear example of an effort to make a policy change without a hearing. On September 14, 1995, I heard a rumor from a Washington, D.C., contact that Senator McConnell had reduced to zero the appropriation of paid-in and callable capital for the North American Development Bank ("NADBank") contained in HR 1868 (The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for 1996). The bill, with Senator McConnell's strikeouts, was then passed by the Senate Sub-Committee on Foreign Operations -- which he chairs. The next day I spotted the deletions:

"[Struck out->] North American Development Bank [Struck out->] For payment to the North American Development Bank by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the United States share of the paid-in portion of the capital stock, $56,250,000, to remain available until expended. [<-struck out]

[Struck out->] Callable Capital [<-struck out]

Struck out->] The United States Governor of the North American Development Bank may subscribe without fiscal year limitation to the callable capital portion of the United States share of the capital stock of the North American Development Bank in an amount not to exceed $318,750,000. [<-struck out]"

I am uncertain how I would have found these two sentences in the voluminous Congressional Record without the aid of the Internet and a computer word search of the daily transcription of House and Senate floor debates and of all legislation (in its various forms as it passes through the system).

What happened next included almost daily reporting on the status of HR 1868 based on the daily Congressional Record, the Daily Digest or through telephone calls to Washington. I also searched the Internet for the names and e-mail addresses of Senators from the border states and the members of the Senate Sub-Committee on Foreign Operations. By publishing the names and e-mail addresses of the key contacts in Washington and letting others subscribed to "BECCnet" and other list services know about the defunding, we were able to have hundreds of messages from concerned border residents stream into Senate offices.

We focused at first on Senators Domenici (R-NM) and Gramm (R-TX), as representatives of border states, who had seats on the Senate Appropriations Committee where the bill had gone after the Foreign Operations Sub-Committee was done with it. This effort failed. We then sought support from all border Senators to have the funding restored on the Senate Floor before a vote on the bill. Reportedly, the many messages from border residents (constituents) helped NADBank's Deputy Managing Director Victor Miramontes gain access to border Senators' offices to lay out for them the importance of preserving this funding.

On Thursday, September 21, 1995, Senator Leahy (D-VT) said, as he introduced the bill on the Senate floor, "I was disappointed that we were unable to provide a contribution to the North American Development Bank which will provide funding to address acute environmental problems along Mexico-United States border." Near the end of the day, Senator Domenici offered an amendment to replace $25 million of the NADBank's funding and said "some of today's most pressing environmental problems are along the United States-Mexico border. Rapid population growth along both sides of the border have created situations where large numbers of people are living in areas that have inadequate drinking water, wastewater, or municipal solid waste facilities." The bill and Domenici's amendment were passed and the legislation went to a House-Senate conference committee.

To some, this was a glass half-full rather than half-empty: "instead of a $56 million gap, we only have to make up $31 million in the Conference Committee." This positive spin, however, is too generous. Domenici and Gramm could have used their position and pull to reverse the zero-out in committee. On the Senate floor, Domenici could have requested full funding, but inexplicably asked for less than half. In other words, there should have been no gap. In fact, this should never have been an issue for an appropriations bill to begin with. Congress had already approved the BECC/NADBank agreement (which included the US' obligation to contribute $56.25 million for four years). Unless there was a very good reason to question this prior decision, and the commitments made based upon it (questions that should have been raised in public), there should not have been any question about this funding.

Ultimately, thanks to efforts by San Antonio banker Tom Frost and lawyer Jose Villarreal, the Free Trade Alliance San Antonio, the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, the National Council of La Raza in Texas, Representative Torres and Senators Boxer and Feinstein of California, the White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and many other players who weighed in, the Conference Committee restored the NADBank's funding in full.

The BECC/NADBank structures are intended to provide public goods: wastewater treatment, quality water supply, and solid-waste disposal. Those affected are often the poorest communities on our border that must function everyday without these basic public goods. It has been established over and again that infrastructure, such as that proposed to be financed by the NADBank, is exactly the type of infrastructure that helps to end poverty. And, the NADBank can provide these public goods without grants or giveaways; the money that Congress was asked to appropriate will create a self-supporting lending institution that will be focused on financing the needs of the border communities. Despite these positive qualities, the defunding of the NADBank almost happened, because two Senators, Gramm and Domenici, from border states, allowed the zero-out to pass through the Senate Appropriations Committee on which they sit. No hearings were held on these measures, thus depriving us of a basic right to be heard in the decision making in our Congress.

[In a related manner, the BECC's guaranteed authorization was almost withdrawn as part of the "Dismantling of the Department of Commerce Act" rider to the Seven-Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995 (HR 2491). Again, quick action resulted in a reversal that preserved the BECC's authorization.]

Mark Spalding can be reached at mspalding@ucsd.edu.

NADBank to Announce Public Meetings

NADBank will hold a series of public seminars in border communities throughout 1996. Dates and locations will be announced by the end of January on BECCnet.

Minutes from the December NADBank public meeting will be available to the public in late January. For more information contact Annie Alvarado, NADBank Community and Government Affairs Officer, at (210) 231-8000.

Communication Corner

BECCnet Update

BECCnet is a free Internet service that provides information on BECC/NADBank-related activities and news. It also allows people to exchange comments and information related to the U.S.-Mexico border environment with individuals and groups on both sides of the border.

BECCnet has grown from 30 subscribers to 230 in its first year. About seven percent of the subscribers are in Mexico, reflecting an Internet infrastructure difficulty. Members have used the network to communicate with one another about BECC and NADBank rules, procedures and project proposals.

E-mail systems are best used for short documents: inquiries, discussion, and summaries. Long documents are best placed on Web sites for retrieval. The Udall Center is constructing a home page now, which will include back issues of Perspectivas and links to the BECC home page, also forthcoming.

Subscribe to BECCnet

Letters and Comments

Tell us what you think about BECC activities. We want your ideas and comments. Write us in Spanish or English, but try to keep your comments to no more than 250 words.

Brownsville BECC Metting

Terry Sprouse

At the Brownsville meeting, on September 28, 1995, BECC approved two wastewater treatment projects, one in Brawley and one in Ensenada. The Board also postponed consideration of three others until the next meeting in January.

After introductory comments, presentations were made by Jorge Aguirre Martínez, Technical Director of BECC, describing each of the five projects under consideration for certification by the Board. The five projects, in order of presentation, were the Brawley water-treatment plant in California, the Ensenada wastewater treatment plant in Baja California, the "reclaimed" water project in El Paso, Texas, the FINSA Industrial Park (composed of 27 maquiladoras) water- treatment plant in Matamoros, and the water treatment plant in Ciudad Juárez. Following the presentations, the Advisory Council made its recommendations regarding the projects, and endorsed all five projects. The FINSA and Juárez projects, however, were conditionally endorsed, pending more information on how FINSA would impact the community, and assurances that the Juárez project have more public meetings.

Discussion of the FINSA project drew the most vehement responses from the audience. Opposition focussed on the lack of community input and the inclusion of FINSA on the list of possible projects to be certified only two weeks before the meeting, not allowing the public sufficient time to evaluate the project.

Board discussion centered around the FINSA project and the members generally agreed that private-organization sponsorship was a good thing. However, since the project was not on the original agenda, and because it needed additional public input, the board decided not to consider it for certification at this meeting.

The Board unanimously approved the Brawley and Ensenada projects. The Juárez project was postponed for consideration, with only one member voting to certify it at this meeting. The El Paso and FINSA projects were both unanimously postponed.

BECC General Manager Roger Frauenfelder announced that Charles Sheehan would be replacing Greg Cooke as executive counsel for BECC. Sheehan had previously worked for the Department of Justice. Cooke announced that the general manager is working on guidelines for public input into the certification process, to be placed on BECCnet when completed.

Cook also described the proposed Conflict of Interest Policy for the Board members. This proposed policy will be submitted to the public and voted on by the Board in January.

NGOs Meet with BECC and Each Other

Cyrus Reed
Texas Center for Policy Studies

Approximately 45 representatives from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from both sides of the border discussed their concerns and hopes with the BECC staff, several BECC directors and members of the Advisory Council at a unique meeting held November 15th following the public Board of Directors meeting. The meeting was called by the BECC to provide a forum to discuss rules and procedures as well as the BECC process in general.

What was most surprising about the meeting was the different perspectives the NGO participants brought to the table. Also clear was that in general the U.S. groups came with a fairly detailed knowledge of the BECC process and the draft rules and regulations, while many of the Mexican representatives arrived with general concerns about the new institution and their role in it, the economic crisis and democracy, but not with particular knowledge about the BECC.

"There's a false dichotomy being created here," Texas Center for Policy Studies representative Domingo González, based in Brownsville, Texas told the participants. González explained that many of the Mexican groups seemed to feel the discussion was being controlled or limited by time and subject, when in fact the BECC was seeking input -- NGO participation -- on specific rules and regulations.

The first part of the meeting was intended to discuss the rules and regulations having to do with confidentiality, conflict of interest, filing a complaint, and procedures for public notice and comment on project applications. Many of the U.S. groups, including Arizona Toxics Information and Border Ecology Project, had met the night before and drafted a list of changes needed in each of the documents to make them more acceptable. Several other U.S. NGOs signed a joint communiqué, which was presented to the BECC staff.

Important points raised in this letter included:

• Expanding the time to notify the public about public meetings and the possible certification of projects from 30 to at least 60, and perhaps 90 days.
• Making sure that information about a proposed project is available for public viewing at both the BECC offices and at an accessible location near the project site.
• Limiting the number of projects considered for certification to four per meeting.
• Limiting documentation considered confidential only to trade secrets and/or intellectual property.

Mexican groups, on the other hand, discussed their willingness to participate in BECC projects and public meetings, but stressed their lack of resources. Many of the groups made suggestions related to these concerns, asking for help in accessing electronic mail, establishing an inventory of "true" NGOs, allowing NGOs to participate in the formal review of projects, and providing funding for NGOs to attend the meetings.

Following the "official" NGO-BECC meeting, approximately 20 groups, the majority of them from Mexico, stayed to discuss how NGOs might utilize their strengths to continue and influence the BECC process. In particular, participants felt the BECC was doing a better job in the U.S. informing NGO groups about the BECC process than in Mexico. Without NGO pressure and participation from both sides of the border, it was unlikely that the types of changes many NGOs would like to see will in fact occur.

Clearly, it was up to the NGOs to do a better job of informing one another. One mechanism is the BECCnet, a discussion group set up by the Udall Center on the Internet. However, many of the groups in Mexico lack the resources to hook up to the Internet. Another vehicle discussed at the meeting was the preparation of a discussion piece detailing what has happened so far in the formation of the BECC. "Como Van las Cosas en la COCEF? (How Are Things Going in the BECC?)," prepared by the Texas Center for Policy Studies after the meeting, was sent out to all the participants in early December. Finally, participants agreed that they needed to have liaisons in each region who would attempt to send and receive information.

The participants also scheduled an informal meeting the night before the next public meeting January 18th in Nogales, Sonora. At that meeting, they will discuss how to better incorporate public participation into the BECC process, private vs. public projects and conflict of interest issues.

For copies of the report "Como Van las Cosas en la COCEF?" call Cyrus Reed at (915) 577-9676. An English translation will soon be available.

Border XXI Program Unveiled

Terry Sprouse
The Udall Center

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Border XXI Program is a successor to the U.S.- Mexico Integrated Environmental Plan (IBEP), which was in effect from 1992 to 1994. The goal of the IBEP was to identify important environmental issues and develop ways to address those issues.

The Border XXI program differs from the IBEP in that it plans to broaden the scope of issues, increase local involvement, and expand coordination between state, local, and federal governments in both the U.S. and Mexico. Lack of public input was seen as a downfall of the IBEP. According to EPA, a goal of Border XXI will be to determine long-term environmental objectives and gather continuous public input to assure that local needs of the border communities are addressed. EPA's budget request for 1996 includes $177 million for border activities.

The EPA held a series of public meetings in border communities during the Fall of 1995. Each meeting began with an introduction to Border XXI, followed by statements by federal, state, and local government agency representatives. After questions, local residents were divided into one to five groups, depending on attendance, to discuss unaddressed issues. Residents ranked the most important environmental issues for their community.

Members of the BECCnet listserver who attended Border XXI meetings made three general observations about the meetings: first, it remains unclear what Border XXI is supposed to be; second, attendance was low at some of the meetings; and third, there was no mention of coordinating Border XXI activities with BECC.

People are still uncertain exactly what Border XXI is. Scott Graves observed, "at present it seems to be a rhetorical clearinghouse for all things government officials like to talk about these days ('public participation,' 'local empowerment,' 'interagency coordination,' 'sustainable development,' and the like)." Nicola Zeuner stated, "the whole process at this point obviously raises more questions instead of delivering answers." Mark Spalding commented, "the Border XXI the EPA rolled out is rather empty; it has structure, but no substance." Spalding went on to say that lack of substance is intentional and allows "Border XXI to be whatever those who live on the border want to make of it."

Attendance at some border meetings has been surprisingly low. Scott Graves noted that "one of the most striking things about the Laredo meeting was the relatively small number of 'concerned citizens' who actually attended." Of the twenty people in attendance, Graves said "more than half . . . seemed to work for various city, county, or state agencies." Graves made the point that if the EPA's desire is "to follow the dictates of ordinary citizens and 'empower local communities' . . . it seems clear that people cannot begin to be 'empowered' until they are involved in the process." Zeuner reported attendance of only 30 and 20 in Nogales and Douglas, respectively. She affirmed Graves' observations, and said "if the EPA wants to reach other people than just officials and the usual parties from the NGO community, they will have to think up better ways of making these meetings public, and of how to go about 'community empowerment' in the context of Border XXI."

Border XXI doesn't mention coordination of activities with BECC. Graves pointed out that "the Border XXI program can be most useful and effective to the extent that it does not duplicate responsibilities already being carried out by other institutions (such as BECC). Yet more than half of the EPA money for FY 95 and 96 is being devoted to the planning, design, and construction of wastewater treatment plants. Would it not be better to consolidate funds for such activities with the NADBank and run these projects though the emerging BECC application process, which is in the process of institutionalizing citizen participation and sustainable development criteria?" Zeuner agreed that BECC and Border XXI activities should be integrated. She felt "that all environmental infrastructure projects on the border should go through the BECC certification process . . . no matter if the funding comes from the NADBank, World Bank, the federal government or elsewhere."

To EPA's credit, the agency is just beginning a new program that seeks to be based on local input. No doubt Border XXI's mission will become more clear as input from the communities is synthesized and incorporated into the plan. However, based on the BECCnet comments of people attending the Border XXI meetings, there is room for clarification of its goals, a need to increase attendance at meetings, and a need for some reconciliation of Border XXI activities with the activities of other border institutions such as BECC.

For assistance in joining BECCNet or receiving BECC/COCEF Perspectivas via regular mail, please contact The Udall Center or call the Udall Center at (520) 621-7189.

Articles and letters are solicited, in English or Spanish, presenting pros and cons of various issues and discussions of how individualsand groups in the community might be affected by proposals to or actions by BECC. If possible send material intended for publication on diskette to:

Perspectivas
The Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy
803/811 East First Street
Tucson, AZ 85719
Phone: (520) 621-7189
Fax: (520) 621-9234