The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) became effective on January 1, 1994. With its inauguration, NAFTA brought forth many complex issues and agendas that would be of importance to many groups and agencies throughout all three signatory nations. One of the major issues that has come under intense examination is the environment and how it will fair in the face of increased liberalization and interdependence along the border region. This chapter discusses how interdependence and integration along the Texas/Mexico border has negatively effected the environment in the region, and to what extent the signatory nations of NAFTA must alleviate increased environmental degradation. The following sections provide environmental case studies of three trans-border regions along the Texas/Mexico border, known as twin-cities. The twin cities that will be explored are Ciudad Juarez and El Paso, Laredo and Nuevo Laredo, and the Gulf Coast region that encompasses the cities of McAllen, Reynosa, Brownsville and Matamoras (Figure 1).

Figure 1

These twin-cities were chosen due to their political, economic, and geographic location. Geographically these cities are located on the border with Mexico, facilitating commerce and transportation of goods. With a large number of American multi-national corporations along the Texas/Mexico border, it is economically more feasible to locate along the trans-border region due to its close proximity to the United States. Politically, each one of these twin-cities is gaining strength due to the increasing decentralization taking place in both countries (See Brad Doll's Conclusion).

This chapter begins by looking at NAFTA and the environmental side agreements that supplemented the original document. The environmental side agreements are important to examine due to their immense task of achieving environmental sustainability within the Texas/Mexico border region. Another important aspect of the environmental side agreements is the extent to which the agreements be able to alleviate and improve environmental conditions. Next, three major environmental problems in the trans-border region will be examined: first, the current and future water dilemma, second, air pollution and third, the dumping and disposal of waste. All three sections fall within the general theme of environmental degradation, but they also will be used to show how cooperation will bring improved environmental conditions to the border region (See Chapter 12). Lastly, the issue of increased cooperation in combating environmental degradation and its effectiveness will be analyzed to show the significance of increased cooperation at every level (local/state/federal) and how this will accomplish what the environmental side agreements are unable to achieve.

The Greening of NAFTA

The implementation of NAFTA brought various issues to the negotiating table that had previously been overlooked when addressing international trade agreements. A major issue was the environment. As Baer and Weintraub agrue; "[p]erhaps the most startling development in the North American Free Trade Agreement debate was the emergence of the environment as an issue on the negotiating agenda. The mobilization of the powerful environmental lobby took US and Mexican policy makers by surprise early in the negotiating process." Originally NAFTA did not address the question of the environment and the impact to it would have in the future.

Division Appears

In August of 1993, the work of various tri-national environmental agencies had pushed policy makers in all three nations to concede unprecedented environmental concessions to NAFTA. Although environmental side agreements were eventually implemented, this did not come without the division of various environmental groups during the negotiating process of the side agreements. According to Gilbreath and Tonra;

Some differences surfaced after the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and Public Citizen pursued their lawsuit to force an environmental impact statement (EIS) on NAFTA, thereby threatening a lengthy delay or even the demise of the trade accord. Most leading US environmental groups particularly those that had set up offices in Mexico and undertaken cooperative programs with the Mexican government, were disturbed by the federal district court ruling for a NAFTA-related EIS. (This ruling was later overturned on appeal.) Other groups argued that Mexican underdevelopment would leave it prey to the depredations of international capital seeking an environmental free ride.

Each environmental group used various methods to address their problems with NAFTA. George W. Grayson states; "[e]nvironmentalists presented their ideas through multiple channels: the Office of the Vice President; the State Department, the White House's Office of Environmental Policy, headed by Katie McGinty; EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner; the National Security Council; and other agencies at the negotiating sessions."

Another hindrance to the environmental side agreements came from various policy makers and economic analysts who believed that environmental side agreements would create problems for NAFTA and be merely a smoke screen to appease environmentalists. Gilbreath and Tonra state; "[m]any trade specialists and economists looked at the environmentalists' intervention as aberrant and part of an ideologically driven campaign. Others recognized that legitimate environmental issues were at stake but insisted that it would be technically impossible and politically unwise to muddy the waters of a free trade agreement with extraneous considerations." As stated above, the negotiation process of NAFTA's environmental side agreements and its eventual addition to NAFTA divided various groups within the environmental community.

Some environmental groups saw increased liberalization and industrialization as an obstacle to environmental improvement. Author Steven Shrybman states; "[t]here is no doubt that harmonization provisions of NAFTA may ease the free flow of goods across international boundaries. But in the process, they will also curb the sovereign prerogative of governments to reflect and act upon their own societal need for, and type of, environmental regulation." Another concern towards environmental side agreements was the lack of attention and precise planning towards environmental protection. This was evident in the planning of the parallel track. The parallel track, which is discussed in the next section, was a concern with many environmentalists. According to Shrybman; "[e]xperience suggested, and the August 1992 agreement confirmed, that the practical result of this two-track approach [parallel track] would be a trade agreement with effective enforcement measures to ensure compliance and an environmental protocol with few enforcement mechanisms. Unlike trade agreements, international environmental agreements typically rely on little more than moral persuasion to encourage compliance." In the view of those opposed to NAFTA, this agreement may represent the first international trade agreement to address environmental matters, ". . . [i]t does little to elevate environmental policy objectives above the status of rhetorical ideals to which only lip service will be paid." Throughout all the criticism that existed throughout the negotiation process of the environmental side agreements an agreed upon term was eventually forged.

Agreed Upon Terms

Considered the ". . . [f]irst international trade agreement to explicitly address questions of environmental protection, NAFTA, in a side agreement known as the "parallel track", brought new regulations and environmental restrictions to Mexico as well as the US and Canada." The "parallel track" containing environmental provisions culminated in the North American Agreement on Environment Cooperation (NAAEC); this agreement was to "provide new means of international environmental protection. The "parallel track" would do this by outlining specifically what nations can and cannot do according to the environmental guidelines established within the agreement. Specifically, signatory nations, while being able to establish their own level of environmental protection, are not allowed to roll back environmental reform in an attempt to encourage investment. Likewise, each nation ". . . [i]s obliged to ensure that its laws and regulations provide for high levels of environmental protection and to strive to continue to improve those laws and regulations." This agreement also Included a ban the import of products that did not meet its own environmental standards.

According to the NAAEC, conflicts involving environmental factors and enforcement of environmental regulations are addressed to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). This organization is made up of a council of the "environmental ministers of the three countries", a secretariat that is elected by the council, and a 15 member advisory committee made up of an equal number of delegates from each nation. This commission's primary goal is to facilitate cooperation and public participation to foster conservation, protection and enhancement of the North American environment for the benefit of present and future generations. The CEC does not work to strengthen the environmental legislation of any one country, rather, it is set up to ensure that the signatory nations comply with their own environmental laws, and to sanction those that do not by their own rules or those established in the NAAEC. For example, if a nation feels that businesses within another member nation violate either the environmental rules of the second nation, or are exporting goods that were in violation of the complaining nations' environmental laws, then the plaintiff can take the issue to the CEC. The CEC, in theory, then prepares a report on the complaint, and if two-thirds of the commission decides that a law has been broken, the CEC can impose trade sanctions to punish the non-compliant nation.

Many believe that environmental side agreements will make ecological as well as trade history, and lead future agreements between countries along the same guidelines. These landmark side agreements marked the first time where groups (NGO and Government) which have historically been pitted against each other, have come together to form environmentally friendly side agreements. Even though division among environmental groups was apparent, many groups throughout all three countries saw the final implementation of environmental side agreements as a stepping stone to increased environmental protection and cohesion between the governmental bodies of NAFTA's member nations.

Many environmental groups such as the National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Audubon Society, Conservation International, World Wildlife Fund approved of NAFTA. As stated above, environmentalists and governmental figures came together to see increased cooperation as a means to alleviate the environmental pressures put upon the borders of Texas and Mexico. Former Texas Governor Ann Richards was one of the many politicians who had rallied behind NAFTA and believed that the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement would foster environmental improvement along the border region of Texas and Mexico. Richards pointed out that NAFTA "is the first real opportunity to bring these (environmental) problems to the forefront. Before the agreement was negotiated, Richards said, "[n]either the United States nor Mexico paid much attention to environmental problems along the border." As former Governor Richards pointed out, NAFTA is essential due to its ability to bring awareness to environmental problems currently afflicting the Texas/Mexico border. During the negotiations environmental side agreements brought groups together, but on the other hand, it divided many groups within the environmental community as seen above. Eventually, all sides came together and agreed upon the best plan possible for the time being. It is evident that other avenues must be explored to find a more micro-level solution to environmental problems existing within the border regions of Texas and Mexico. We must consider problems with the current environmental side agreements for future policy reform. The environmental side agreement supplemented to NAFTA in 1993 is trying to solve micro-level problems with macro-level solutions.

The lack of addressing environmental cooperation at a more local level (glocalization) is an important shortcoming of the environmental side agreements. The implementation and understanding of "glocalization" will be crucial for future policy reform. "Glocalization" is the process in which important issues and concerns are addressed at a local city/state level (See Introduction). As asserted above, cooperation has brought about increased environmental awareness and policy reforms, but we need to address the importance of even more cooperation at all levels of the government (See Chapter 12). If this is not done, the environment that all three countries share will be compromised. Increased cooperation at all levels of policy making is essential to the signatory nations of NAFTA; as citizens of a global community we must look for answers pertaining to the environment's condition. The following section searches for these answers by examining three environmental case studies: water, air, and waste pollution along the twin-cities of the Texas and Mexican border. These problems will be essential to our consideration of policy reforms designed to address the negative externalities of deepening in particular and globalization in general.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

Contaminated Waters

The issue of water along the Texas/Mexico border is one that has dated back more than 120 years. Tom Barry and Beth Sims of the Inter-Hemispheric Education Resource Center state that; "[d]isputes over the international sharing of the Colorado River and Rio Grande date back at least to the 1870s." While water distribution has been an important issue over the last century, recently water quality has been the main issue of concern to environmentalists and citizens living in the major twin-cities within the Texas/Mexico border. The Natural Resources Journal states that, "[w]ithout question, however, the most significant bi-national water quality problems in the border region are related to effluent in the major twin-cities." These twin cities with their increasing population and industrialization (See Texas/Mexico Socio-Economic Chapter) are trying to find new ways to combat water contamination. This section will look at the problems of water quality caused by interdependence by examining specific examples along the border land regions of Texas and Mexico (twin cities). These issues include the complexities of allocating funds for water quality projects, population growth, and increasing health concerns. Finally, this section will look at various agencies combating water contamination within the trans-border region to illustrate what cooperation has done and what it can do for future environmental improvement.

One of the major problems effecting the water quality along the Texas/Mexico border is the lack of wastewater treatment plants, especially in Mexico. The few plants that are available cannot combat the millions of gallons of raw sewage, chemical matter, and industrial waste disposed in the waters surrounding the border. Mexico's current economic crisis has hampered wastewater treatment projects in the twin-cities during the last five years. Jeffery Stoub, editor of Environment Watch: Latin America, quotes; "[w]hen it comes to new wastewater treatment projects which come to mind in the wake of the economic downturn are "maybe next year" or "out of the question." It is estimated that Mexico and the U.S. will have to invest more than 4 billion dollars over a 16 year period to combat water quality issues. The United States will have to come up with 2 billion, whereas Mexico will have to come up with a little over 2 billion. Recently groups such as the Border Environment Cooperation Commission and other bi-national agencies have come together to consolidate funds needed for projects such as wastewater treatment plants. However, some border communities disagree with the BECC and other bi-national lending agencies. According to Baer and Weintraub; "[b]order communities have reacted cautiously to this (bi-national lending agencies) and previous proposals. They point out that numerous border funding schemes have been advanced since the fast-track debate of 1991. They want funding that can be easily controlled at the local, rather than the federal, level." Border communities are not the only ones leery of infrastructure building within the Texas/Mexico border. Some US officials and outside lending groups are also skeptical of Mexico's ability to generate funds and Mexico's true intentions in building environmental facilities.

These skeptics are unsure of supporting Mexico due to its inability to lure in financial backing for much needed environmental infrastructure. Jeffery Stoub states that; "Mexico has not been successful at attracting international private financing; it simply isn't happening," said Cowan of Apogee International (Research Agency). He said that one example of Mexico's inability to lure investment is the failure to attract international pension funds to invest in municipal wastewater projects." This may be in part due to the loss of confidence in Mexico's economy due to the economic crisis which rocked the foundations of Mexico's economy three years ago. Mexico was on the verge of defaulting on its loans and borrowed approximately twenty billion dollars from the United States. Another key reason why Mexico has been unable to obtain capital to launch environmental projects is the bureaucratic tape that is involved in lending for such projects. As Business Mexico points out that;

The fact is that the institutional barriers faced by would-be investors are profound. State and local governments are currently incapable of signing private deals without federal involvement because of the bureaucratic process that local governments have to go through to negotiate such projects. Also, the governments have been unable to provide guarantees for foreign exchange, which has turned off many investors unsure of the peso's stability.

The issue of funding is just another key problem that is negatively effecting the water quality along the Texas/Mexico border.

Increased population and scarcity of proper sanitation and water facilities in the colonias along the Rio Grande also contributes to the lack of suitable treatment plants. With nearly 4 percent annual rate of population growth along the Texas/Mexico border the sustainability of water quality is difficult. Urbanization brought forth by increased population and industrialization has been one of the most publicized examples of water contamination. This region is incapable of accommodating the massive influx of people who have been coming to the Texas/Mexico border for the past three decades. With the implementation of NAFTA, increased liberalization will bring even more people to the border in search of low-skilled positions. Mexicans are lured to the border region in search of better economic situations (See Chapter 9). Water treatment plants in Mexico are unable to manage wastewater because of increased population (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Mexico and bordering Texas will both have to contend with the inability to manage wastewater. As will be seen below, the situation of untreated waters will effect both sides of the border.

As Nick Johnstone points out; "[o]nly one percent of the colonias which border the Rio Grande in Texas have sewer connections and until the late 1980s, Las Cruces, New Mexico dumped untreated sewage directly into the Rio Grande". Traditionally, Mexican families have dealt with their wastewater problem as generations before them did, by letting it disappear into the dark streets and waters of the border. Barry and Sims quote; "[f]inding more sanitary alternatives has usually not been a priority for either the poor Mexican family or the financially strapped municipal government." It seems as if wastewater treatment projects have taken a back seat to other problems afflicting Mexico. Controlling wastewater in Mexico may not be as visible of a problem as the current economic situation, but if this problem continues Mexico will face a much bigger challenge than its current economic situation. If wastewater remains untreated, the trans-border region will turn into a breeding ground for diseases and other illnesses affecting local communities.

The rivers and bodies of water along the Texas/Mexico border look like a medieval castle's moat . The color of the water transformed from a dingy green to a darkish brown with the throw of a rock. The levels of contamination vary from twin city to twin city, with the most dire levels of water contamination in the cities of Juarez and El Paso. With the absence of wastewater treatment, the cities of Juarez and El Paso, which are home to more than 1 million citizens, produce more than 30 to 60 million gallons of untreated wastewater daily. Wastewater is dumped directly into the Rio Grande or into agricultural areas. This example is not isolated. The twin cities of Laredo and Nuevo Laredo are another example of the importance of alleviating water quality problems along the Texas/Mexico border. "Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas across the river from Laredo, Texas disgorges twenty four million gallons of untreated sewage into the Rio Grande, resulting in significant degradation." Another story pertaining to Laredo and Nuevo Laredo is given by the New York Times and describes how the death of a child was attributed to the pollution of the Rio Grande. The story mentions a 13 year-old child from Laredo, Texas who died from a brain infection after swimming in the Rio Grande. According to the New York Times; "[t]he infection was eventually traced to the city of Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, where twenty four million gallons of raw sewage is dumped daily." This example is testament to the horrendous condition of the water along the Texas/Mexico border.

As stated above, contaminated water not only affects area residents first-hand, but can also contaminate the daily staples they consume. Contaminated waters that are siphoned from the Rio Grande infiltrate fields used for agricultural purposes and in turn poison daily staples. In areas such as the lower Rio Grande Valley where up to ninety-percent of the water used in this region is taken from the Rio Grande River, it is difficult to combat the cross-border water contamination. Barry and Sims state that; "[t]he transboundary dimensions of contamination reach beyond the air and water to food. Fruits and vegetables sold on the streets of U.S. border cities are cultivated using wastewater for irrigation, and the produce is then often carried by hand across waterways like the Rio Grande that are highly contaminated with raw sewage." The contamination of food products has attributed to the spread of diseases such as hepatitis, dysentery, and cholera, which run wild in this region. "Texans living near the Rio Grande are three to five times more likely than other Texas residents to suffer from illnesses contracted by contaminated waters. Near El Paso, Texas a small community has an unusually high percent of hepatitis. In this community ninety percent of all adults contract hepatitis by age thirty-five, and there are more cases of tuberculosis in El Paso County than are found in nineteen states." The Rio Grande River has proven to be one of the biggest culprits of transborder water contamination.

In the Gulf of Mexico region in the cities of McAllen, Reynosa, Brownsville, and Matamoros, the fear of disease and contamination is a daily concern. In this region pregnant mothers have had to deal with the agony of waiting to see if their sons and daughters will be born with damaged brains and spinal cords. The Los Angeles Times reports that; "[b]rain defects are occurring here at three times the national rate. And no one knows why. The most ominous explanation, however, is proposed by a lawsuit making its way through Texas courts. Nineteen families are blaming their children's deaths and disabilities on pollution from U.S.-owned factories across the river in Matamoros, Mexico." These mothers and fathers have had to live with this burden simply because they live in an area that has been contaminated resulting from increased urbanization and industrialization. Studies are currently underway to fully understand what years of contamination have done due to increased interdependence along the Texas/Mexico border. It has been a difficult task uncovering and detecting individuals or groups who have contributed to the illnesses and diseases in the region. According to The Los Angeles Times; "[a] year-long study by the Centers for Disease Control and the Texas Department of Health was unable, however, to point to an environmental explanation for this abnormally high incidence of brain damage." However, many groups in the region such as the Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras, local communities, and various health officials believe that the maquila industry is the main source of health problems in the region. Studies have been done linking the disposal of industrial solvents xylene and toluence into bodies of water by maquiladoras to various neural stem defects in newborn babies. Water contamination in the Texas/Mexico border region has a wide range of consequences. Due to the wide range of repercussions stemming from water contamination, several organizations are currently working cooperatively in an attempt to control water contamination.

The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank(NADBank) are three bi-national groups that are combating the water problem along the Texas and Mexico border. The IBWC was founded in 1889 by the United States and Mexico. This agency divides and shares international waters, it also resolves cross-border water problems. The US Department of State Dispatch points out that; "[m]ost recently, the commission has contributed to public health by working with environmental, water, and public health agencies in both countries to resolve border sanitation problems." The IWBC is one of the leading agencies fighting for increased water quality along the Texas and Mexico border. According to the Natural Sciences Journal; "[t]he IBWC has thus taken the lead in investigating water-related environmental problems along the border." The IBWC plans on working cooperatively with the BECC and NADBank in issues pertaining to the environment.

The BECC and NADBank were both incorporated into the environmental side agreements of NAFTA. Both agencies were established to assist border-area communities in meeting environmental infrastructure needs. The Congressional Research Service Report for Congress states that; "[t]he BECC and the NADBank are perhaps best viewed as parts of a broader equation for solving border and transboundary environmental problems that are largely associated with trade-related [interdependency] economic growth." These two agencies, like those mentioned above, are geared towards the improvement and preservation of our border region. The next environmental issue of major concern along the trans-frontier border region is air quality. The following section examines the air quality situation along the Texas/Mexico border.

Lifting the Brown Clouds

The trans-frontier border region is one of dark billowing clouds polluted with dangerous and contaminating fumes. Water contamination along the Rio Grande may be more visible, but the air quality in the region is equally important. Environmental columnist Martha Mendoza asserts; "[i]n Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, plumes of black gush from brick-making kilns each night. The smoke drifts over the border before dawn, and by 7 a.m. schoolchildren in neighboring El Paso, Texas, are being told to stay indoors." The air quality in the region is depleted due to vehicle emissions, unpaved roads, and the burning of waste used to facilitate homegrown productions along the Mexican border. Air pollution is one battle that the United States and Mexico are both losing. Both governments are currently powerless in their efforts to curb unwanted air coming mostly from our neighbors to the south. The levels of air pollution vary from city to city, like the section above, increased air pollution is generally encountered in areas with increased overpopulation and urbanization (twin- cities). In this section air quality will be the main focus as it pertains to vehicle emissions, unpaved roads, and examples relating to the burning of unwanted material. To conclude, groups and agencies that address the maintenance of air quality will be examined.

Vehicle emissions contribute to high levels of carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, and hydrocarbons. The interdependent Cidad Juarez-El Paso twin cities are largely affected by vehicle emissions. Nick Johnstone posits; "[i]n the case of Ciudad Juarez-El Paso the two cities are entirely interdependent with respect to air quality, being located in a valley running along the Rio Grande with mountains to the north and south." Air movement in the region moves back and forth various times in any given day. "With respect to pollution, the effects of environmental interdependence are exacerbated by the frequency of atmospheric inversions in the air shed due to topographical and meteorological conditions." One of the major concerns in air quality is the average age of vehicles on the Texas/Mexico border.

Vehicles in Juarez, Mexico average more than twice the age of their counterparts across the border. In El Paso the Average vehicle fleet is nearly four years older than the national average. Cars along the border lack modern day pollution control devices that combat the emissions of carbon monoxide and other toxic matter. Jesus Reynoso, supervisor of the El Paso City-County air-quality program points out that; "[m]any Juarez residents buy a clunker in the U.S. for a few hundred dollars, drive it till it drops, abandon it, and buy another. This "disposable fleet," lacking documents and pollution controls, numbers more than 60,000." The number of vehicles purchased by Juarez citizens has recently fallen due to the economic crisis that had cut the price of the Mexican peso in half.

The unavailability of high quality unleaded gasoline and the resources to purchase spark plugs and points for vehicles has also augmented the emissions of toxic matter into our borderless atmosphere. It has been noted that new spark plugs and points can reduce the emissions of a vehicle up to 99 per cent. Mexicans along the border region opt to use lower quality gasoline due to its price and availability, which jeopardizes the region's air quality. "Not only are Mexican vehicles generally older and poorly maintained, but they also use low-quality gasoline. On the U.S. side, regular gasoline has 0.1 grams of lead per gallon and unleaded contains just 0.05 grams, but in Mexico regular Pemex gas is loaded with 1 to 2 grams of lead, and unleaded gas also has a higher lead content."

Another pressing issue concerning vehicle emissions is the lack of enforcement of emissions regulations along the Mexican border. Recently regulations have been imposed along the Mexican border region due to increased pressures from both U.S. and Mexico. Barry and Sims assert; "[i]t was not until 1991 that Mexico mandated that all new cars produced for the domestic market have pollution control devices." In the past years alone the levels of air quality have shown increased improvement due to the cooperation of both programs and citizens on both sides of the border. According to The Christian Science Monitor states; "[e]l Paso has had no violations for particulates or fine dust in two years and for carbon monoxide in a year. Heat causes ground-level ozone, or smog, to form, but last summer when temperatures topped 100 degrees F. for 24 day in a row, the city exceeded ozone limits on just five days." Groups on both sides of the river as mentioned above have spurred on these improvements to air quality. "Officials attribute the progress to wintertime sales of cleaner-burning oxygenated gasoline in El Paso, and to road-paving projects and vehicle-inspection programs in both cities."

The lack of paved roads along the Texas/Mexico border is the second largest contributor to air pollution. The negative effects of unpaved roads along the Texas/Mexico border can be seen in the city of El Paso; its neighboring city Juarez only has thirty percent of its streets paved. This example is not an isolated one either, because the entire border region is filled with unpaved streets. On the U.S. border many cities and towns are beginning to realize the dire ramifications of unpaved roads. "In an attempt to meet federal air-quality standards, El Paso has recently begun to pave most of its dirt alleys and roads." Mexico on the other hand is a labyrinth of unpaved roads interconnecting from street to street. "The central portions of the Mexican border towns generally have paved, streets, but outside the downtown areas extends an uncharted maze of dusty roads. Barren hillsides are covered with concrete and plywood shacks, and ankle-deep dust covers many of the streets during the dry season." Unpaved roads, like vehicle emissions, contributes to air pollution in this region in turn creating increased atmospheric misery. The burning of waste and matter is another issue plaguing the atmosphere in the Texas/Mexico region.

Burning along the Mexican border is a frequent occurrence. Plumes of toxic clouds move back and forth from city to city along the border region. These clouds are created by the burning of trash, tires, and other unwanted material. Another cause of air pollution caused by burning are the open fires that many Mexican families use to heat their homes. Many of these families lack electricity and therefore must burn anything available to keep their families warm. Brick making is also another issue of major concern in this region. Due to the extreme poverty along the Mexican border, the task of stopping or reducing the burning is a daunting one.

The making of bricks is a business that has prospered in the Texas/Mexico border; but it is also one of the main polluters of the air. According to The Los Angeles Times; " [s]moke from brick making may not seem like a tremendous problem, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists brick making as the third-largest polluter along the U.S.-Mexico border, after automobiles and dust from dirt roads. Bricks are molded out of clay, set out in the sun to dry and then baked for about 24 hours in kilns that burn old tires and other trash." The city of Juarez alone has over 266 primitive brick kilns fueled by anything and everything. After the signing of NAFTA, the Mexican government made it illegal to burn material such as tires and sawdust in brick making kilns. The law restricting the burning of tires has had little effect, illustrated by the lack of brick makers abiding by these environmental laws. They are able to burn whatever they want in the evenings when government inspectors are long gone and no where to be found. Brick makers do not abide by the law due to the economic issues with which they must contend. "At night, many brick builders &endash; who earn less than $2,000 a year per family &endash; revert to low-budget fuels such as tires, used car oil and plastics. Others bury themselves in eight-foot-deep pits filled with chemical-laden sawdust from furniture factories and spend fiery hours shoveling sawdust into the kilns." Due to the lack of small brick makers to comply with federal mandates, the United States has intervened and is currently assisting Mexican cities to curb the degradation of air quality in the Texas/Mexico region.

The United States and Mexico are teaming up to fight the atmospheric problem effecting citizens on both sides of the border. Scientists in the United States are currently designing newly engineered kilns that burn more efficiently and cause less atmospheric damage. The Los Alamos National Laboratory is one of the leading groups who is studying new ways to design cleaner burning kilns. "Los Alamos National Laboratory materials engineer Karl Staudhammer sits at a computer, drawing pictures of how to cause kilns to burn cleaner. He models different shapes, air flows and temperatures, and dreams of clear blue skies."

In El Paso, US businesses (El Paso Natural Gas) along with Mexican environmental groups are lending a hand both financially and technically to have Mexican brick makers reduce the damages to air quality. They have opened a brick-making school that is aimed at teaching Mexican brick makers to use gas instead of environmentally harmful waste and fuels. Though much effort is being made to control the black clouds emanating from harmful kilns, many brick makers are still very uncertain due to the economic difficulties in converting to these kilns. "Even with their own school, brick makers hesitated to convert. It was simply too expensive. A sample converted kiln at the school cost about $8,000 to build, and used huge amounts of gas." With the cost of conversion the Texas/Mexico border is looking for answers and ideas from people like Karl Staudhammer who are willing to donate their time to come up with new kilns that will revolutionize current kilns being used in this region. All these efforts are important, but air pollution still remains a significant problem, and requires a comprehensive US policy to be formulated to adequately address the issue. This policy will be provided in the Southern Policy Report. The following section describes the most visible pollutant to the Texas/Mexico border. This issue cannot be blown away with the wind or washed down a river. The problem of waste disposal is one that can be seen with the naked eye on a day to day basis.

The Dumping and Disposing Dilemma

The improper disposal of trash and toxic waste is a problem that has effected the Texas/Mexico border over the past thirty years. Increased industrialization and overpopulation have led to unsuitable disposal techniques, which negatively effect soil, ground water, and health conditions. This section will look at examples of illegal toxic waste disposal and solid waste disposal. Next, it will examine the repercussions of illegal dumping as it applies to soil conditions and health problems. Lastly, it will examine what groups are currently involved in regulating the disposal of trash and other hazardous materials.

Many cities along the Texas/Mexico border lack the capacity to collect and manage solid waste. The Mexican border region is the worst case example. "In cities such as Matamoros and Reynosa, municipal garbage collection trucks are in poor condition and too few in number to meet local needs." The lack of collection trucks and proper landfills has led many Mexican citizens to turn to illegal means of discarding their waste. They have had to rely on illegal trash collectors to take away their unwanted trash. These collectors dispose of this waste in the various illegal dumpsites and vacant lots that dot the city's outskirts. "These collectors use horse-drawn carts and usually dispose of trash illegally, including dumping it into the Rio Grande River." Many of the much smaller cities that are less urban do not even have city garbage collectors and proper dumpsites to dispose of trash.

The Gulf Coast Region is another region that is being effected by improper waste disposal. Along the beaches and shores of this region one can find almost anything wash up from the waters. The Houston Post quotes; "[a] five-pound bag of cocaine, pregnancy test kit, a refrigerator door, two toilet bowls and a tagged bag of radioactive material were among the items that washed up on Texas' shores recently, indicating the Gulf of Mexico remains a prime ocean dumping zone." According to many officials and environmental agencies the trash being found along the Texas beaches are much more daunting than the beaches of San Diego. Kathy O'Hara, director of pollution prevention for the Center for Marine Conservation states; "[t]he Gulf of Mexico has the best trash," and if "you compare Texas to California, California is basically boring." Texas beaches are not only being polluted by its neighbors to the south, but by nations as far away as the Caribbean.

The case of illegal dumping of hazardous waste and material may be the gravest problems related to improper dumping. Large multi-national corporations (MNCs) realize the economic advantage of dumping their toxic matter south of the border. They are moving their most hazardous operations out of developed nations and into lesser-developed areas (Mexico) where environmental standards are looser or uncontrolled. "They run away to what some economists call pollution havens. In these less regulated locations they can dump toxic chemicals and ignore standard occupational safety standards without any government agency looking over their shoulder." With lax environmental regulations MNCs are able to cut costs that they would otherwise be paying if they had to dispose of this matter through proper legal channels in their home countries. Corporations are taking their toxic industrial waste and dumping it into unsuitable locations that are incapable of holding this matter. Many times these hazardous materials seep into the surrounding areas creating environmental catastrophes.

One of the most horrendous examples of improper dumping was the case of the "Cobalt Man". The man's name is Vicente Sotelo Alardin, and he is currently in a Juarez jail cell for the illegal dumping of radioactive cobalt 60 from a cancer-therapy machine. Mr. Alardin, while a custodian/electrician at a Juarez hospital claims that he was instructed by his superiors to dump a cancer-therapy machine which contained radioactive cobalt 60 in a local dumpsite. "After collecting dust in the hospital storeroom for six years, the device was hauled away to a Juarez junkyard that later sold the machine along with other scrap metal for recycling by two steel foundries, one of which is a subsidiary of a St. Louis company." The radioactive material would eventually expose more than 4,000 people on both sides of the border. It was an incident that was transnational in nature. Even though it did not originate in the United States, residents felt some of the negative effects of illegal dumping. The radiation from the cobalt 60 isotope was detected as far away as Santa Fe, New Mexico were alarms were set off at the Los Alamos National Laboratories due to the amounts of radioactive matter.

In Texas, a similar case occurred in which a person is being incarcerated for hispart in illegally dumping hazardous waste. This example is not as extreme, but again we can see how interdependence and the disappearance of a border have led to increased environmental mishaps. According to Texas Environmental Compliance Update; "[a] Colorado man who was part of a conspiracy to dump PCBs in Colorado, Texas, and Mexico was sentenced on June 29 to one year in prison, the maximum sentence available under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)." The man, Rodriquez Castro had conspired to bring various toxic drums and electrical capacitors from Denver to El Paso and eventually reach his destination into Mexico. His plans were foiled when local officials in El Paso reported to the FBI the findings of various drums and capacitors in a local site.

As stated above, the major motivating factor of illegal or legal dumping of hazardous waste is economic gain. When companies can pay forty dollars to dump or have their waste recycled in Mexico instead of paying up to one thousand dollars per barrel in their own country, the companies opt for the most economical. "The ease with which vehicles can enter Mexico makes illegal dumping of U.S. wastes a low-risk gamble. On the U.S. side the chances of being detected are remote since U.S. Customs normally does not check the cargo but only the accompanying paperwork, which is easily doctored." The ease of cross-border transportation and increasing costs of disposing toxic matter in the United States are both key elements to increased illegal dumping.

Not only is Mexico attracting hazardous waste from all parts of the world, it produces it themselves. It is estimated that over 6 million tons of hazardous matter is produced annually in Mexico alone. Business Mexico points out that, "[o]f the 6 million tons of toxic waste generated annually in Mexico, less than 200,000 tons are disposed of in SEDESOL (Secretariat of Social Development)-permitted facilities." The rest is either stored at various industrial plants or illegally dumped in sewers, rivers or unlicensed dumpsites. With the miniscule amount of treated toxic waste within Mexico compounded with MNCs unwanted toxic waste the border regions are turning into toxic slums. The consequences of toxic dumping are only recently being seen as important issues that must be addressed. In the early stages of industrialization along the border, waste was not an issue because the majority of businesses were geared toward the production of garments. "But the diversification into electronics, electrical components, chemicals, automotive, and other high-tech industries has resulted in the predominance of those sectors most likely to used hazardous substances." Due to this shift we must be aware of the dangers and problems that can arise from inadequate dumping and discharge of toxic chemicals.

Toxic waste, much like the polluted waters mentioned above, has an extremely negative effect on the Texas and Mexico terrain. Instead of water trickling into the soil, hazardous toxic waste is draining into the soil and reaching underground aquifers. Nick Johnstone states; "Soil pollution arises from the seepage of pollutants from landfill sites located in the recharge areas of cross-border aquifers and is particularly problematic in the border region since a number of aquifers (Hueco Bolson, Mesilla Bolson, and others) cross the border and can thus be contaminated from seepage on either side." The pollution of the soils can have various consequences, ranging from contaminated agriculture to tainted waters.

Health issues also arise from the discarding of hazardous toxic waste in the Texas/Mexico border region. In Brownsville, Texas the parents of sixteen babies born without brains have filed suit against eighty-eight US and Mexican corporations who they believe are the responsible for their child's death. "The suit, which does not specify monetary damages, alleges that the companies' assembly plants across the Rio Grande improperly stored and discarded toxic wastes that polluted local air and water, causing the rare birth defects." This lawsuit and investigation is one of many currently underway along the trans-frontier border region of Texas and Mexico. The families of these children hope to bring attention and justice for the deaths of their babies. "Brownsville attorney Tony Martinez believes the lawsuit will establish a link between the nation's highest rate of rare birth defects--including anencephalyóand the activities of scores of maquiladora plants owned by major U.S. corporations, including General Motors, AT&T, Fisher Price and Hunter Fans." The dangers of toxic and solid waste endanger all those who reside in this region. Hazardous waste wherever it may end up, affects both sides of the border. As seen above, the ill fates and conditions of contaminated grounds and waters due to illegal dumping effortlessly move back and forth across the border.

Groups such as the Texas Department of Health, Texas Water Commission, EPA, SEDESOL and other agencies are currently studying the effects and conditions of individuals due to increased toxic and solid waste disposal in the area. The Texas Department of Health has had difficulties in linking increased industrialization and abnormal birth defects. "Dr. Dennis Perrotta, who heads the epidemiology branch at the Texas Department of Health, says the inquiry has not shown that U.S. owned plants in Mexico caused the birth defects." The Texas Water Commission, like all the above mentioned agencies fighting toxic and solid waste, believes that more transnational agreements and cooperation between both nations needs to be achieved. Without it these interdependent regions will be left to combat a problem that is transnational in nature, which in today's global society is difficult to achieve. Increased cooperation will bring both nations together and bring a halt to environmental degradation.

BI-NATIONAL COOPERATION ALONG THE FRONTERA

Cooperation and bi-national agreements have spanned as far back as the 1800s with the signing of the International Boundary Commission in 1889 which was later restructured into the IBWC in 1944. Because pollution on the border area is an issue that involves both Mexico and the United States, the two countries have forged a relationship throughout the years. In 1983, the La Paz agreement was established to resolve transnational pollution questions. Although these previous agreements did not solve the environmental problem, they raised the issue and made important strides to improving the border environment. They provided a framework through which Mexico and the United States could tackle these new problems.

Scholar Nick Johnstone states that, "[m]any of the initiatives of the IBWC and the La Paz Agreement have now been incorporated into the Integrated Border Environment Plan. The Plan's first stage (1992-1994) involves the following four main objectives: strengthening enforcement of existing laws; reducing pollution through new initiatives; increasing cooperative planning, training, and education, and; improving understanding of the border environment. Cooperative efforts will be further strengthened in the second stage (1995-2000)." The plan's first stages can be seen with the coordination of SEDESOL and the U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA) creating the Environmental Plan for the U.S.-Mexico border area in February of 1992.

In late 1993, in anticipation of the implementation of NAFTA, more changes came about within the U.S./Mexican plan to improve the border's environment. Together, they signed an agreement to develop a North American Development Bank (NADBank) and a Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC). The BECC was designed to develop plans of action and provide ". . . [e]nvironmental, technical and financial expertise to infrastructure projects" for the border's local governments." The BECC does not develop or manage the projects themselves, but instead they certify projects that the NADBank will then fund through its various channels. The NADBank allocates its money from both the United States and Mexico, and it also expects financial assistance from outside lending agencies as well. The Congressional Research Service Reports that, "[t]he NADBank is modeled after the multilateral development banks(e.g.World Bank or Inter-American Development Bank) and shares some features with the State Revolving Funds used to finance environmental infrastructure in the United States." Through this analysis it seems as if the future of both nations will be one of cooperation at all levels of governing bodies. Agreements and policies will be fashioned into one cohesive unit; efforts thus far have been cooperative and successful, but many problems still exist. This task force (See Chapter 12) will outline policy proposals that address existing problems with NAFTA and facilitate a greener, more sustainable NAFTA.

CONCLUSION

It has been my intention throughout this chapter to illustrate the negative effects on the environment resulting from globalization, illustrated by the NAFTA agreement, and the interdependencies inherent to the globalization process (See Gabriel Grant's Introduction) on the Texas/Mexico border. The three environmental case studies of the water, air, and waste disposal all have shown what interdependency, as well as lack of realistic policy and proper enforcement have done to this region. It is for that reason why increased cooperation at (multiple levels) in policy making and unity will be the most practical option for environmental improvement (Southern Policy Report). Groups have come together on both sides of the border. NAFTA has brought them into the same arena, now it is imperative that each group and agency contribute and cooperate to the improvement of the trans-border region. As relationships along the border deepen, twin-cities will create a sense of global interconnection and a relationship that will prosper as borders begin to disappear in the coming future. Twenty first century trade agreements will not have merely economic concerns, but instead will have to address the importance of the environment and its relation to economic stability. The chapter on southern border policy by Valeria Leonardi explores in detail current environmental problems and the policies that must be used to achieve improved environmental conditions.