Border

Water Policy
Scarcity and Pollution
Edmund Gordon

ABSTRACT Health on the US/Mexico Border is closely tied to the availability and cleanliness of water supplies. As a result, water pollution and scarcity have become important topics for health professionals to investigate. The abundance of factors that make the Border region especially vulnerable (e.g. low income, low numbers of insured, and high rates of migration) combine to create an interesting situation for policy makers. This paper focuses on the availability and cleanliness of water in combination with these factors, and attempts to recommend solutions that can rectify the situation. Above all, this paper highlights the problematic situation of water on the border and places it in the larger context of the regions social problems.

Introduction

The United States - Mexico border region is defined arbitrarily, as the area

100 kilometers from the international border into Mexico and 100 kilometers from the international border in the United States. Figure 1 shows the border region created by the La Paz agreement. The region also extends approximately 2000 miles east to west, from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean.1 It spans four U.S. Border States, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, and six Mexican Border States, Tamaulipas, Nuevo Laredo, Coahuila, Sonora, and Baja California Norte.2 In 2000, the population of the border region was approximately 12 million with experts expecting it to double by 2030.3 Figure 2 shows the predicted increase in border region population numbers until 2030. Figure 6, in the appendix, shows a breakdown of population growth by city region between 1940 and 2000. The United States Mexico Border Health Commission (USMBHC) describes the region as medically underserved with a population that has pressing health and social conditions, higher uninsured rates, high rates of migration, inequitable health conditions and a high rate of poverty. There is a limited amount of rainfall on the border, and surface water is scarce. 4 Declining water tables and increases in the municipal use of water along the border also threaten the availability of this 1 United States - Mexico Border Health Commission, United States - Mexico Border Health Commission | Border Region, n.d., http://www.borderhealth.org/border_region.php (accessed November 2, 2010). 2 See Figure 2 in Appendix. 3 James Peach and James Williams, Population Projections for the U.S.-Mexican Border, Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy, n.d., http://www.scerp.org/population.htm (accessed November 2, 2010). 4 United States - Mexico Border Health Commission, United States - Mexico Border Health Commission | Border Region. 2

resource. This by itself is problematic, but other factors noted by the USMBHC like high population growth, and growing poverty exacerbate the situation.

Figure 1 Map of United States Mexico Border Region 5

Figure 2 - Total Population Projection for the U.S. - Mexican Border Region 6

5 Ibid. 3

The multitude of health factors affecting the populations of the border region makes border health an important issue for policy makers and health professionals alike. Moreover, complicated logistics on the border, specifically coordination between 10 states, 2 sovereign nations and 14 sister cities7, make policy making even more challenging. Urban development issues, irrigation, sewage, and mineral contamination all effect the coordination between these entities. Also the distribution of industrial externalities, like factory pollution, disproportionately affects some areas. Particularly on the Mexican side of the border, water is scarce and sometimes unaffordable.8 Cross-cultural coordination is also important to consider as the language barrier, differences in customs, and political systems complicate matters. The Good Neighbor Environmental Board issued a report in 2010 that found that large numbers of border residents do not have access to safe potable water in their homes. In addition, hundreds of thousands of residents do not have the same levels of water and sewage services as other citizens in the United States. Compounding the situation is a $1 wastewater and water infrastructure deficit. Furthermore, many communities are forced to transport water from long distances or to desalinize saline groundwater. Both are expensive alternatives in one of the

6 Peach and Williams, Population Projections for the U.S.-Mexican Border. 7 United States - Mexico Border Health Commision, United States - Mexico Border Health Commission | Border Region. 8 Laura Norman, WR Geography, n.d., http://geography.wr.usgs.gov/staff.php?keywords=Agua+Prieta&names=William+F orney&submit=Get+Staff+by+Keyword&submitName=Get+Staff+by+Name (accessed November 22, 2010). 4

poorest American regions.9 The complexities of theorizing working policy for water in the region becomes further complicated as the realities of water in the region continue to become grimmer. Water is a vitally important part of human life. Drinking, eating, cooking, and sanitation depend on its cleanliness, which makes it a basic need for all people. When more water is available to communities, family incomes can rise in rural areas by boosting crop production and increasing the health of livestock. In urban areas, populations become healthier allowing them to have increased production and work availability. Water is also important for general business, like farming and manufacturing. Studies show that when safe water is provided in schools that attendance increases and drop out rates are reduced.10 In fact the United Nation recently released a draft resolution declaring access to clean water a human right.11 This is a landmark victory for international human rights lawyers, and now policies designed to achieve equitable distribution of clean water resources must occur. However, water pollution continues to be a problem in the region, and confounding factors elevate the importance of clean sources. Health hazards from unclean drinking sources affect the short-term and long-term health of residents of the region. The United States Mexico border population is continuing to grow and 9 Good Neighbor Environmental Board, Water Resources Management on the U.S.- Mexico Border: Eighth Report to the President and the Congress of the United States (Good Neighbor Environmental Board, February 2005). 10 World Health Organization, The Right to Water (World Health Organization, 2003). 11 Jess Leber, In Historic Vote, U.N. Declares Water Is A Human Right | Environment | Change.org, n.d., http://environment.change.org/blog/view/in_historic_vote_un_declares_water_is_a _human_right (accessed November 2, 2010). 5

outpace the development of new infrastructure. In many places, there is simply a lack of infrastructure to keep up with demand, a classic policy distribution problem. New policies are needed in the future in order to guarantee a healthy population and a strong base for sustainable development. Water and other basic resources provide this base. Inability of the private or public sector to solve water pollution problems while at the same time increasing the availability of other consumer products on the border, paints a bleak picture of economic incentives in both countries. State entities must address the issue if they wish to begin to solve other policy issues, like hospital overcrowding and skyrocketing healthcare costs. This paper attempts to analyze the current state of water pollution in the United States- Mexico border region, explore the negative externalities of water policy (or lack of it), and develop a vision of the future of water pollution in the region.

Water as a Human Right

The recent declaration by the United Nations is an important step in the

implementation of clean water standards and availability worldwide. Kofi Annan says that, Access to safe water is a fundamental human need and, therefore, a basic human right. Contaminated water jeopardizes both the physical and social health of all people. It is an affront to human dignity.12 Recognition of the importance in water in these terms has been only a recent occurrence as private property laws in many countries have conflicted with the ability of lawmakers to make such a statement. The legal framework needed for the declaration began in 1946 when the 12 World Health Organization, The Right to Water. 6

World Health Organization (WHO) declared that enjoyment of the highest attainable health standards is a fundamental right of all people. After several international laws, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted the right to health. The right to health outlines health as an inclusive right that is guaranteed with timely and appropriate health care and other factors that influence good health.13 In 2000, 150 states pledged to reduce by half the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water as part of the Millennium Development Goals. Also, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 2002, expanded on the previous law by declaring water an independent right. These international laws enshrine the right of every person to access clean water cumulating in the recent declaration. The excitement of human right practitioners is summed up in a recent statement by Danielle Morley, Executive Secretary of Freshwater Action Network, Weve been working towards this moment for a decade. In 160 countries in all regions of the world, governments can no longer deny their legal responsibility to provide water and sanitation to the billions of poor people lacking access.14 Now that governments can be held responsible for lack of access to clean water, they will inevitably increase policy to deal with issue. The question that logically follows is, how do states along the United States - Mexico border fare in terms of safe water availability? 13 One of the listed factors being clean and safe water. 14 WaterAid & Rights and Humanity, The Right to Water, 2010, http://www.righttowater.info/code/homepage.asp (accessed November 2, 2010). 7

Climate Change

One of the major concerns of observers of the borders water resources is the

effect that climate change will have on the region. The degree of what can be expected as the climate continues to change is debatable, but most experts can agree that the climate on the border will change in a few general ways. Increased warming is expected as temperatures continue to rise. Warming will lead to less snowfall in northern areas, particularly northern mountainous areas, which in turn will decrease the amount of water available in groundwater reserves because a sizable portion of the borders water comes from snow melting in the Sierra Madre and Rocky Mountains.15 Also the climate of the border is expected to get much dryer. Dryness is caused by decreased participation, which, in the border, will be a result of future jet stream shifts. Warmer, dryer temperatures will cause drought conditions affecting farmers and business. In addition, water usage will rise as people deal with hotter temperatures coupled with increased dryness. In an area already devoid of surface water, climate change presents a serious threat. Figure 3 shows the amount of surface water present on the border today. This creates a dangerous scenario for populations at the border, who are expected to grow exponentially in numbers. Infrastructure must be ready to handle the additional usage of water and to provide increased water resources from smaller reserves. Climate change is a current reality but its affects have not yet reached the border region. Water scarcity today is a

15 Good Neighbor Environmental Board, Water Resources Management on the U.S.- Mexico Border: Eighth Report to the President and the Congress of the United States. 8

result of a number of different factors that challenge current policy makers to create appropriate systems that can be expanded in the future.

Figure 3 Water of Protected Areas and Surface Water16

Water Scarcity

The United States Mexico border region has experienced rapid growth in

the past and is expected to continue to grow. This growth has contributed to the scarcity of water in the region. Much of the water available to consumers, is extracted from aquifers and, in the Paso del Norte region17, for example, extraction has exceeded the capacity of water sources to replenish their supplies. The result is not only less water availability but also associated water quality issues. Shortages are expected in the Paso del Norte region but there is no agreement on the

16 Ibid. 17 El Paso, Texas and Cuidad Juarez, Mexico are in this region. 9

seriousness of the coming shortages.18 This indicates that data for the area is undependable, perhaps an indication that institutions are having a tough time collecting valid data. In this case, the situation could be seriously dire as some estimate that potable water in the region will be exhausted by the year 2025.19 Another source believes that the 1.3 million residents of Cuidad Juarez will consume their water supply in the next 10 years.20 After all, water pumping in Ciudad Jurezs portion of the Hueco Bolson, is almost double that of pumping in El Pasos portion of the Hueco Bolson.21 In addition, the city of Las Cruses, New Mexico is expecting that by 2025 its side of the Hueco Bolson will have been completely extracted of its water. Optimistic projections still paint a bleak picture, some 400,000 people could go un-served even if all available water resources become more productive.22 At times, the reliability of water data has been questioned and contributed to the ineffectiveness of certain projects. It has been suggested that creating effective institutions could solve the data reliability issues.23 Agriculture has traditionally been a huge industry for the state of Texas.24

Many of Texass crops are water intensive and are produced in the US Mexico 18 Christopher Brown, Transboundary water resource issues on the US-Mexico border, VertigO - la revue lectronique en sciences de l'environnement, September 2005, http://vertigo.revues.org/1883 (accessed November 2, 2010). 19 Ibid. 20 Marcel Dulay, and David Eaton, How Investment in Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Infrastructure Has Affected the Mexico-Texas Border (LBJ school of Public Affairs, October 22, 2007). 21 Brown, Transboundary water resource issues on the US-Mexico border. 22 Dulay, and Eaton, How Investment in Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Infrastructure Has Affected the Mexico-Texas Border. 23 Norman, WR Geography. 24 About $80 million in revenues a year. Ibid. 10

border region. Studies have suggested that there is not enough water to meet demand of both the cities and the rural farms in southern Texas.25 Conflict has been developing between upstream and downstream farmers of the Rio Grande / Rio Bravo. New agriculture areas in the Conchos River Basin have created increased demand in the upstream regions of the river. Both downstream and upstream users proclaim their right to the water, which both legitimately have claim to. However there is just not enough water to prevent shortages.26 The conflict in this region has yet to be resolved and will not be resolved without new methods of water purification and new water supplies. Communities in the border region actively seek alternative water sources,

but options are few and require serious investment. Purchasing water rights, conservation, external pumping, and industrial water conservation policies have all been employed but the situation continues.27 Institutions are needed to facilitate productive uses of money required to gain access to water. Current infrastructure accounts for many of the important differences in water realities between the United States and Mexico. For example, a high percentage of U.S. border cities have an adequate infrastructure and institutional basis that allows for relatively high levels of clean drinking water, and wastewater treatment.28 Exceptions to this observation occur in Colonias, where social services are relatively nonexistent and

25 Dulay, and Eaton, How Investment in Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Infrastructure Has Affected the Mexico-Texas Border. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 11

health problems are compounded.29 Even so, realities on the Mexican side are little more troublesome. Mexicos National Water Commission believes that the Mexican side of the border region has the capacity to treat only 34 percent of the wastewater it generates.30 Infrastructure demands are not met on the Mexican side in general, particularly in rural communities.31 Violators of the La Paz Agreement32, escape disposal costs by dumping waste. Sewerage, from industry and other sources, can flow north across the border, creating externalities in both countries.33 The reality of shared health conditions on the border makes cross border co-operation an important goal. Equally as important is the timely development of infrastructure, which requires a comprehensive institutional network.

Water Institutions on the Border

Water management on the border is a complete bi-national effort. The 1944 Water Treaty was introduced to administer water problems in the border region. It created the Created International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). The IBWC demarcates the boundary between US and Mexico, distributes waters of the 29 David C. Warner and Lauren R. Jahnke, U.S./Mexico Border Health Issues: The Texas Rio Grande Valle (Regional Center for Health Workforce Studies Center for Health Economics and Policy The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, April 2003), 9. 30 U.S. General Accounting Office, The U.S.-Mexican Border region: binational solutions to environmental problems. | Latin America > Mexico from AllBusiness.com, Government Finance Review (February 1, 1997), http://www.allbusiness.com/management/606930-1.html (accessed November 2, 2010). 31 Ibid. 32 Signed in 1983. Requires waste from US corporations to be transported back to US soil for disposal. 33 Mary E. Kelly, Free Trade: The Politics of Toxic Waste, Report on the Americas 26, no. 2 (1992): 48. 12

Tijuana, Colorado and Rio Grande, and applies boundary and water treaties. It also gives the IBCW a role in border sanitation.34 Several NGOs do work on the border that pertains to water pollution. United States NGOs include Environmental Defense, Good Neighbor Environmental Board, Sierra Club, Mexico-Texas Borderlands Information Center, the Texas Center for Policy Studies, and the Sonoran Environmental Research Institute, the Texas Center for Policy Studies, and the Association for Borderlands Studies. Mexican NGOs include the Mexican Federation of Private Associations for Health and Community development Border Environmental Education Project (Proyecto Fronterizo de Educacin Ambiental), ProFauna, A.C. and BioDesert, A.C, and the Ecological Association of the Users of the Hardy and Colorado Rivers (Asociacin Ecolgica de Usuarios del Ro Hardy y Colorado AEURHYC).35 Cross-border NGOs include the Southwest Consortium for Environmental Research and Policy, The Border Ecology Project, and the Rio Grande/ Rio Bravo Basin Coalition.36 NGOs are an important part of the institutional structure of the border region. They document the ability of governmental institutions and hold them accountable through legal recourse. NGOs also develop water infrastructure projects and help communities find other sources of clean water. In addition, they educate the public about the dangers of unsafe

34 Good Neighbor Environmental Board, Water Resources Management on the U.S.- Mexico Border: Eighth Report to the President and the Congress of the United States. 35 Ibid. 36 Dulay, and Eaton, How Investment in Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Infrastructure Has Affected the Mexico-Texas Border. 13

water and preventative health measures.37 The continued development of NGOs and support for there initiatives is key in continuing to battle water pollution.

Differences in Water Rights

The United States and Mexico have different policies, which govern the use of water in each country. The differences are not nominal, they are fundamental and add to the difficulty of coordinating across the international border. In Mexico, water is a national resource. This means that the federal government regulates it. The government creates interstate watershed councils that preform planning activities and resolve differences between states. In the United States, individual states have control over their own waters. This includes surface and groundwater.38 However, the administration of groundwater can be extremely tricky because multiple states could potential share the same source of groundwater. For example, when two states have rights to the same body of groundwater, one of the states could extract as much water form it as they would like. While this is a legal practice, the other state will inevitably feel cheated and may over-extract in response. In this scenario there is no winner and water resources are depleted in an inexcusable manner. In addition to the larger bodies of water administration in both countries, local irrigation districts, in both countries, provide water for agriculture and cities. These bodies represent the smallest administrative bodies and the bodies most responsible for the majority of bi-national coordination. 37 Good Neighbor Environmental Board, Water Resources Management on the U.S.- Mexico Border: Eighth Report to the President and the Congress of the United States. 38 Ibid. 14

Pollution

Pollution of water sources is a huge problem in the border region. Cross-

border flows of contaminated wastewater affect lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, streams and other marine environments. As a result, surface water remains a concern despite improved water treatment in recent years. Specifically, the Rio Grande and Colorado rivers have extreme salinity problems and need extra infrastructure to return the water to usable form. In addition, the New River wetlands have problems with bacteria and heavy metals. The amount of these pollutants is so high that the pollutants are having serious effects on water quality. 39 Waste created by industrial and domestic sources in Mecicali is considerable more than infrastructure that the area can handle. More than 200 industrial businesses have polluted water supplies and compounded health issues, particularly in the new river. Agricultural runoff, originating in California, also pollutes the New River.40 Moreover, maquiladoras have sprung up at a rapid pace in the border region following the ratification of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). This is important because, a study conducted in 1999 (jones) indicated that how close someone lived to an industrial area correlated more to neurological disorders and cancers, than did proximity to standing water, streams, or agriculture. This rapid industrialization has led to two watersheds in Cameron County, the Lower Rio Grande and South Laguna Madre, to be ranked among the six worse in Texas in terms of pollution. Cameron also has the 39 Ibid. 40 The U.S.-Mexican Border region: binational solutions to environmental problems. | Latin America > Mexico from AllBusiness.com, Government Finance Review (Saturday 1, 1997), http://www.allbusiness.com/management/606930-1.html (accessed December 6, 2010). 15

second highest percentage of contaminated surface water of all the counties in Texas.41 Solid Waste disposal has been a particularly interesting issue on the border.

Communities around the border have not been able to develop adequate infrastructure to collect and dispose of solid waste properly. The Mexican cities of Reynosa and Matamoros are particularly burdened in this regard and have serious solutions problems as a result. In this area, waste is also openly burned in city streets creating pollutants, which eventually get deposited back in groundwater reserves. Illegal dumping in the streets or in informal dump creates serious issues for policy makers on the Mexican side of the border. The Texas side of the border currently has enough infrastructural capacity to meet its solid waste disposal needs for the next 10 years. Future inclusion of Colinas in to the infrastructure network and increased maquiladora activity will eat away at this capacity and requires immediate action.42 Figure 4 shows how ground pollutants contaminate groundwater reserves. Pollution along the border is a serious threat to the health of its citizens and their ability to procure clean water supplies. Infrastructure is needed in order to combat this situation, however adequate infrastructure has been a difficult goal to achieve.

41 Good Neighbor Environmental Board, Water Resources Management on the U.S.- Mexico Border: Eighth Report to the President and the Congress of the United States. 42 The U.S.-Mexican Border region: binational solutions to environmental problems. | Latin America > Mexico from AllBusiness.com. 16


Figure 4 - Groundwater Contamination Process 43

Infrastructure
Infrastructure encompasses the depth of the problem of water pollution along the border. In places with adequate infrastructure there is a noticeable lack of pollution, however in places that lack adequate infrastructure pollution threatens populations. On the United States side of the border the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) handles the federal budget for water and wastewater funding. The current EPA budget for water and wastewater funding is $10 million. While this may seem like a sizable investment, in reality, it is far from it. There have been more than $1.1 billion in project requests for 2010. This represents a $1 billion dollar gap between what is needed and what is provided. This gap has existed historically and continues to rise. In 2005, there were 135 million project requests totaling $894 43 Dulay, and Eaton, How Investment in Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Infrastructure Has Affected the Mexico-Texas Border. 17

million. In 2009, this number jumped to 212 million project requests totaling $1.1 billion. These projections will continue to rise in the future, while the gap between demand and supply widens. If something isnt done soon the situation will only get exponentially worse. Figure 5 below shows the unmet water treatment needs from 2005 to 2010.

Figure 5 - Unmet Water Treatment Needs44

44 Good Neighbor Environmental Board, Water Resources Management on the U.S.- Mexico Border: Eighth Report to the President and the Congress of the United States. 18

Indigenous and Tribal Water Issues

Indigenous and tribal communities have a history of marginalization and

neglect by policy makers and state apparatuses. The border region has been no different for these populations. As a result, water quality issues disproportionately affect indigenous communities and tribal communities. Indigenous communities refer to native populations on the Mexican side of the border and tribal communities refer to native populations on the US side of the border. These populations have experienced a loss of water rights due to state regimes and their strategies of affording water rights. In effect, there are questions of their legitimacy. Drainage of wetlands has also occurred at an accelerated rate. For indigenous and tribal populations this means the loss of valuable marine life, which these populations use as the main mean of sustenance. This leads to changes in fishing and hunting habits, which severely affects these groups way of life. Surprisingly, an Executive Memorandum was signed on November 5, 2009. It requires federal agencies to comply with laws that require collaboration with tribal officials in the development of federal water policies in their areas. This legislation could go a long way in protecting these communities but by itself is insufficient to solve long-term problems.

Policy Recommendations
Policy makers must keep in mind the economic, political, and social conditions of the populations that they legislate for. Marginalized populations like indigenous and tribal peoples must be included in policy considerations, instead of continuing to be excluded. As modernity continues, policies inevitably get more

19

complex and must cover the multiple dimensions of existence. Water pollution in particular is caused by a myriad of factors some that cannot be determined at the time of legislation. If we hope to mitigate this potential for externalities then we must carefully consider all the factors of a certain situation. The following is a brief exploration of the policy considerations of water on the border, and preliminary recommendations that aim to create a cleaner, more equitable environment. How do we balance the exponential growth of border cities, and their needs,

with the needs of indigenous, tribal, and rural communities? Indigenous and tribal communities have a tie to the land that is far from the

realities of modernity. Their ability to fish and grow crops has been compromised by industrial growth and the huge water demands of cities. The infrastructure deficit also affects these communities because conservation of water has not been regulated in any real way. One solution is to allot indigenous and tribal communities with water reserves that will sufficiently provide for their needs. This, however, is a problematic policy as other, perhaps more visible, populations will inevitable demand their right to these waters as well. On the United States side, policy makers could explore the use of some water reserves from federally protected lands for consumption by tribal communities. While on the surface this is problematic because of concerns over degradation. Tribal communities have a lower effect on the resource degradation and aim to conserve as a core belief. It is not true, however, that these communities are one with nature. They exist as a middle ground between use and no use, and thus should be allowed to participate in extraction

20

with the understanding that their impact is less harsh than other more modern communities.45 How do we bridge the gap between the infrastructure needs and the funds that are currently available for this purpose? The infrastructure deficit is the crux of the problem on the border and must be fixed fast. Rapid growth experienced on the border region is expected exacerbate this situation in ways that policy makers have yet to fully explore. The obvious answer to this question is to invest more money into infrastructure on the border. However, no policy is this simple. Where the money will come from, the uneven nature of infrastructure investments (infrastructure on the U.S. outpacing Mexican infrastructure), and which communities to invest in are all issues that policy makers must tackle. Monetary support for the construction of infrastructure technologies requires that either water prices be raised (at the price of marginalized populations) or that governments incur sizable amounts of debt. A solution to this situation is to develop technologies in concert with infrastructure that change the ways in which people relate to water. For example, toilets that separate solid waste from liquid waste have begun to appear in more affluent areas of the United States, investing in this technology on the border could seriously curtain water pollution. Another example is requiring additional investment in pollution control strategies for maquiladoras on the border. This strategy could negatively effect low-income populations as administrators attempt to reclaim profits in other ways, but 45 Janis B. Alcorn, Indigenous Peoples and Conservation, Conservation Biology 7, no. 2 (June 1993): 424-426. 21

ultimately it will contribute to the safety of the region. Uneven infrastructure development is problematic because of issues associated with sovereignty. In the wake of the new United Nations water declaration international pressure could be used as a tools to force governments into action. The situation on the Mexican side of the border is not as dire today, as it has once been. However, both sides must pay attention to water as populations continue to grow. How do we respond to the predicted drastic changes in climate due to climate change? Climate change has become an inevitability, and policy makers are scattering to try to offset its ramifications. Warming and drying of the region is already occurring and mark the beginning of a seemingly unchangeable cycle. Water conservation and also the discovery of new water sources will be crucial in order to offset this change. Infrastructure investments, while already low, must increase substantially just to keep pace but will be even more important in the face of climate change. The realities of increased infrastructure investment were touched on in the above recommendation, and are closely linked with the ability of regions to cope. How do we balance the need for agriculture with the externalities of this practice? The battle between agriculture produce and waste has been historic. Farmers provide the sustenance we need to survive but also contribute a lot of pollution to the region at large. Agricultural runoff is a huge cause of water pollution, which negatively affects human health, but agricultural products are a huge benefit to 22

human health. A solution to this could be to facilitate the move of agricultural centers away from water reserves, especially water reserves that are important to large populations along the border. Tax incentives could be used as a strategy to facilitate this move, a move that will be resisted by established farms.

23

Bibliography
Alcorn, Janis B. Indigenous Peoples and Conservation. Conservation Biology 7, no. 2 (June 1993): 424-426. Brown, Christopher. Transboundary water resource issues on the US-Mexico border. VertigO - la revue lectronique en sciences de l'environnement, September 2005. http://vertigo.revues.org/1883 (accessed November 2, 2010). Dulay,, Marcel, and David Eaton. How Investment in Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Infrastructure Has Affected the Mexico-Texas Border. LBJ school of Public Affairs, October 22, 2007. Good Neighbor Environmental Board. Water Resources Management on the U.S.- Mexico Border: Eighth Report to the President and the Congress of the United States. Good Neighbor Environmental Board, February 2005. Kelly, Mary E. Free Trade: The Politics of Toxic Waste. Report on the Americas 26, no. 2 (1992): 48. Leber, Jess. In Historic Vote, U.N. Declares Water Is A Human Right | Environment | Change.org, n.d. http://environment.change.org/blog/view/in_historic_vote_un_declares_wat er_is_a_human_right (accessed November 2, 2010). Norman, Laura. WR Geography, n.d. http://geography.wr.usgs.gov/staff.php?keywords=Agua+Prieta&names=Wil liam+Forney&submit=Get+Staff+by+Keyword&submitName=Get+Staff+by+ Name (accessed November 22, 2010). Peach, James, and James Williams. Population Projections for the U.S.-Mexican Border. Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy, n.d. http://www.scerp.org/population.htm (accessed November 2, 2010). The U.S.-Mexican Border region: binational solutions to environmental problems. | Latin America > Mexico from AllBusiness.com. Government Finance Review (Saturday 1, 1997). http://www.allbusiness.com/management/606930- 1.html (accessed December 6, 2010). U.S. General Accounting Office. The U.S.-Mexican Border region: binational solutions to environmental problems. | Latin America > Mexico from AllBusiness.com. Government Finance Review (February 1, 1997). http://www.allbusiness.com/management/606930-1.html (accessed November 2, 2010).

United States - Mexico Border Health Commision. United States - Mexico Border Health Commission | Border Region, n.d. http://www.borderhealth.org/border_region.php (accessed November 2, 2010). Warner, David C., and Lauren R. Jahnke. U.S./Mexico Border Health Issues: The Texas Rio Grande Valle. Regional Center for Health Workforce Studies Center for Health Economics and Policy The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, April 2003. WaterAid & Rights and Humanity. The Right to Water, 2010. http://www.righttowater.info/code/homepage.asp (accessed November 2, 2010). World Health Organization. The Right to Water. World Health Organization, 2003.

25

Appendix

Figure 6 - Border Population Table 46

46 Warner and Jahnke, U.S./Mexico Border Health Issues: The Texas Rio Grande Valle. 26