Bordering on disaster: the U.S.-Mexico border is an environmental mess, and NAFTA is creating even more challenges for America's Southwestern states.

THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL MESS, AND NAFTA IS CREATING EVEN MORE CHALLENGES FOR AMERICA'S SOUTHWESTERN STATES.

It has been said that no two bordering countries differ more than the United States and Mexico. The 2,000-mile border that separates the two countries divides two vastly divergent cultures, languages, economic systems, governments and approaches to public policy. Yet for the residents of the border region, the area is a single community.

Environmentally and economically, the region is borderless. Three major desert ecosystems spread over both sides of the border, rivers flow along and across the border, aquifers providing essential water lie under both countries. Major cities of the region share common airsheds and water basins. Residents freely cross the border to work and trade. American executives manage plants on the Mexico side while living in the United States.

"We can't deny that communities along the border are inextricably intertwined," comments Dede Alpert, state representative from San Diego. So are the area's environmental and health problems. "Environmental concerns don't recognize international boundaries," she adds.

Nor do infectious diseases. The highest U.S. rates of tuberculosis, typhoid fever and mumps are found along the border. A measles epidemic in Mexico in 1989-1990 caused deaths in Texas border communities. "We're still concerned about cholera and diphtheria outbreaks along the border," notes Arizona Representative Bob McLendon. "Many communities don't even have adequate sewage treatment."

Industrial pollutants also cross boundaries. Dumped into the New, Alamo and Tijuana rivers in Mexico, they flow downstream into California. El Paso can't meet its federal air quality standards because of pollution emitted from Mexican factories. Big Bend National Park has visibility problems because of coal-burning power plants in Coahuila that were built without pollution-control equipment.

Politically, however, the region is divided. Four U.S. states, six Mexican states and two national governments have jurisdiction over the environment and provide for the health of residents. Regulating the border is nearly impossible. U.S. governments can't regulate pollution from Mexico, and Mexican officials haven't the money to combat disease and air and water pollution.

Texas Representative Pete Gallego, whose district represents two-thirds of the Texas-Mexico border, says environmental problems are more affected by the Mexican peso than the dollar. "Mexico is making a good faith effort," he says, "but with the devaluation of the peso, their environmental and health programs have slowed to a trickle."

NAFTA'S ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

In the past, the region's sparse population and weak economy allowed it to remain fairly unregulated. But the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the lack of federal resources and the rapid growth in population and pollution make the border the most environmentally degraded region in this country. And it is the states, not the federal government, that suffer from and must respond to the region's environmental and health problems.

More than 9.2 million people live along the border, double the 1983 population. It is expected to double again in the next 10 years. The border is home to more than 1,800 maquiladora manufacturing plants, with more expected under NAFTA. Imports of hazardous wastes from Mexico through Texas to U.S. sites have increased sixfold since the passage of NAFTA. Air and water pollution and hazardous wastes have also increased.

"Some areas [along the border] are in Third World conditions," laments Texas Representative Roberto Gutierrez. But NAFTA didn't cause the environmental problems; he believes it has simply helped highlight the problems. "NAFTA has made people come down and see for themselves the conditions of the border."

Not all legislators agree. "All these problems are a result of NAFTA," says California Senator David Kelley. The agreement opened two new commercial ports of entry in his Senate district where before there were none.

"The negotiations on the ports were between Washington and Mexico City," he complains. "The state wasn't involved. Now we have to find the funds to build roads and develop inspection points for the 2,500 trucks a day we're expecting to come through the commercial ports from Mexico."

Assemblywoman Denise Ducheny, whose district overlaps the senator's, agrees. "NAFTA is creating huge infrastructure needs. Increased traffic, agricultural inspections, roadways, all require state efforts to make it work."

ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS

To face these problems, border state legislatures are granting stronger authority to health and environmental agencies. Cross-border cooperation between American and Mexican states also is developing. And these policies are being advanced not in response to, but in spite of, federal border programs.

Although the U.S. government can't regulate pollution generated in Mexico, it can negotiate agreements to address environmental concerns. Agreements between the two federal governments determine primary responsibility for clean water along the border and help prevent air, water and land pollution. The La Paz agreement, signed by the United States and Mexico in 1983, authorizes the governments to jointly protect a 200-kilometer conservation zone along the border.

The NAFTA negotiation created two new organizations to help develop border infrastructure: the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADBank). BECC supports projects along the border such as sewage and water treatment plants. NADBank is its financial vehicle and can also finance border projects for the U.S. or Mexican governments and provide funding for NAFTA-related community adjustment and investment.

And last year, Congress created the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission to encourage discussions on border health problems. But legislators are skeptical. "What good is the Border Health Commission?" questions Arizona Representative Andy Nichols, whose medical practice serves rural communities along the border. "There's no Mexican counterpart, and Congress hasn't appropriated any funds to support the commission. Basically, the states are on their own."

STATE RESPONSES

Border legislatures have been forced into action. Cars from Tijuana polluting the air over California's highways caused the Legislature to revise its law; now all cars traveling within the state's borders must meet California's emission standards, even if the owners live in Mexico. Arizona negotiated a pact with Sonora to limit emissions from Sonoran copper smelters.

New Mexico sought to compel developers of Mexican colonias - rural underdeveloped communities that harbor the growing population, but usually lack basic services - to meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Since the act applies to the owners or operators of a water system, the developers often sell the water rights to the residents to avoid compliance. The state's attorney general wants to close this loophole.

The Legislature recently appropriated $1.1 million to create a Border Health Office within the New Mexico Department of Health. The health office has begun tracking cases and offering basic health care.

The Texas Legislature in its 1995 session enacted laws to educate border schoolchildren and community residents on environmental degradation, and laws allowing state and local prosecutors to prosecute border developers for environmental violations. Another bill authorizes communities or Texas agencies to enter into agreements directly with Mexican states to finance environmental projects such as water treatment and solid waste disposal plants. This enables them to offer bonds to fund the projects.

Other new American law seeks to protect the rights of residents in colonias. One directs countries to record the availability of water, wastewater treatment, electric service and whether the colonias lie in a floodplain. Another sets up centers to offer financial assistance, counseling and technical assistance on installing septic systems. A third removes colonias' grandfather exemptions from water treatment requirements.

"The Texas Legislature has produced strong legislation to alleviate health conditions and halt the growth of colonias. Although such initiatives are very significant milestones, we still need to take a hard look at binational solutions to current resource stress due to industrial development, urban over-population and agricultural uses," comments Senator Carlos Truan, sponsor of several bills.

Arizona established a legislative exchange with its counterparts in Sonora. Representative McLendon, who participated in the exchange, says meeting with Mexican legislators is vital to resolving border health and environmental issues. "The problems won't be answered in a vacuum. It must be done face-to-face."

California legislators also are building relationships with Baja California legislators. "We're trying to make a connection to resolve our problems," notes Representative Ducheny.

In California, the greatest issue is water pollution. "Raw sewage and industrial toxins from Mexico dump into the Salton Sea. We have no authority, no money, and the federal authority is limited," says Senator Kelley. "As NAFTA becomes more ingrained, we must learn as states how to affect NAFTA."

The biggest water issue is sewage from the Tijuana river polluting the beaches of San Diego. "California accepts all of Tijuana's sewage and waste water," complains Representative Alpert. "There is constant flooding, and we're having to close the beaches."

Plans are under way for the two countries to build a major sewage treatment plant, but the joint project is not yet complete. Sewage still dumps into the ocean.

Oscar Ramirez from EPA's Dallas office is pleased with state responses. EPA has limited jurisdiction, and even fewer resources to address border problems, and encourages states to respond.

"States should play a big role in monitoring border activities," he notes. "They have the ability to regulate the problems. The border is just too diverse and complex for the federal government."

RELATED ARTICLE: NAFTA'S ENVIRONMENTAL SIDE AGREEMENT

Because of concerns regarding the environment, the NAFTA negotiations created two additional agreements: the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (the environmental side agreement) and the agreement establishing the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADBank). Both these agreements were considered and negotiated by Congress along with the NAFTA discussion, but stand independent of NAFTA.

The side agreement establishes a legal framework ensuring that NAFTA countries enforce their environmental laws and open the political, administrative and judicial processes to the public. It guarantees that discussions on environmental policies are open and that the laws are enforced fairly and regularly.

The purpose of the North American Commission for Environ-mental Cooperation (CEC) is to promote sustainable development, encourage improved pollution prevention, enhance compliance with environmental laws and regulations, and facilitate cooperative environmental efforts among the United States, Mexico and Canada.

The BECC's mission is to help border states, local communities and local organizations design, develop, coordinate and finance environmental infrastructure projects in the border region. Its goal is to develop effective solutions to environmental problems, particularly those having a cross-border impact.

Funding for the BECC will come from the NADBank, government grants, loans, guarantees and other financial institutions and private sources supplying investment capital for environmental infrastructure in the border region.

The NADBank was created as a vehicle to finance environmental infrastructure projects certified by the BECC, the U.S. or Mexican governments, and to provide support for communities for NAFTA-related adjustment and investment. Funding for the NADBank comes from a $450 million commitment from Mexico and the United States, which will allow the bank to leverage $4 billion in financing with an additional $4 billion available from other sources.

Doug Fatquhar tracks environmental health issues for NCSL.