Rio Grande Institute

  Read this excerpt for some news on Presidential  support for binational work on fire and invasive species control along the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo.  The full text of the joint Obama Calderon Statement follows the referenced paragraph –   The Presidents noted the long history of bilateral cooperation in the conservation of natural and cultural resources.  They recognized that Big Bend National Park and Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River in the United States and the Protected Areas of Maderas del Carmen, Cañon de Santa Elena, Ocampo, and Río Bravo del Norte in Mexico together comprise one of the largest and most significant ecological complexes in North America.  In doing so, they recognized that increased cooperation in these protected areas would restrict development and enhance security in the region and within this fragile desert ecosystem.  To preserve this region of extraordinary biological diversity, they expressed their support for the United States Department of Interior and the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources of the United Mexican States to work through appropriate national processes to recognize and designate Big Bend – Rio Bravo as a natural area of binational interest.  The Presidents underscored their commitment to manage the region in a way that enhances security and protects these areas for wildlife preservation, ecosystem restoration, climate change adaptation, wildland fire management, and invasive species control.  

 Tyrus G. Fain
tfain@riogrande.org  

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

May 19, 2010

Joint Statement from President Barack Obama and President Felipe Calderón

President Felipe Calderón and President Barack Obama today reaffirmed the strategic partnership between the United States and Mexico and underscored their commitment to improve the lives of all citizens in both our countries, building upon our deep ties, and working with mutual respect and mutual responsibility across a broad arc of issues.

The Presidents discussed the wide range of bilateral, hemispheric, and global issues that affect our two countries and reaffirmed the shared values that guide our approaches to economic competitiveness, environmental conservation, clean energy, climate change, nuclear non proliferation, and the safety, social and economic well-being, and security of our citizens.

Enhancing Mutual Economic Growth

Mexico and the United States enjoy a vital economic and trading partnership that the Presidents vowed to enhance, reinforcing efforts to create jobs, promote economic recovery and expansion, and shared inclusive prosperity across all levels of society in both countries.

A key component of our global competitiveness is creating a border for the Twenty-First Century.  The Presidents recognize that our border offers singular opportunities for both countries. We must develop it and manage it in a holistic fashion and in ways that facilitate the secure, efficient, and rapid flows of goods and people and reduce the costs of doing business between our two countries.  Both the United States and Mexico benefit from expediting legitimate travel through and between our two countries, especially by those who live in the border region.

The Presidents took note of the progress underway in building that Twenty-First Century Border, including the opening of three new border crossings this year, initiation of three additional binational bridge projects, and significant modernization projects at existing border facilities.  To spur further advancements in creating a modern, secure, and efficient border, the Presidents directed their respective cabinets to form a bilateral Executive Steering Committee, with appropriate representatives from each government, to implement a Declaration on Twenty-First Century Border Management, that will be released later today, to help make the Twenty-First Century Border a reality.  It will include a first-ever binational 24-month plan of action to improve cross-border trade and travel. 

The Presidents agreed that safe, efficient, secure, and compatible transportation is a prerequisite for mutual economic growth.  They committed to continuing their countries’ cooperation in system planning, operational coordination, and technical cooperation in key modes of transportation.

The Presidents also committed to significantly enhance the economic competitiveness and the economic well-being of both the United States and Mexico through improved regulatory cooperation. Such cooperation can increase economic growth in each country; lower costs for consumers, businesses, producers, and governments; increase trade in goods and services across our borders; and improve our ability to protect the environment, health and safety of our citizens. To increase regulatory transparency; provide early warning of regulations with potential bilateral effects; strengthen the analytic basis of regulations; and help make regulations more compatible, the Presidents directed the creation of a High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council, which will be comprised of senior-level regulatory, trade, and foreign affairs officials from both countries.

Innovation and investment in technology and human capital are keys to sustained economic growth and competitiveness in both Mexico and the United States.  The protection of intellectual property rights is essential to promote such innovation and investment.  With this in mind, the Presidents charged their administrations to work together to formalize and expand the efforts of the existing bilateral Intellectual Property Rights Working Group.  These efforts will include industry training (including of small and medium size enterprises); work between Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to streamline patent reviews; and collaboration, training and increased intelligence sharing among law enforcement agencies to enforce intellectual property rights more effectively.  The Presidents also reaffirmed their commitment to the negotiation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and charged their administrations to conclude these negotiations soon.

Reflecting on the progress made in the commercial relationship, the two Presidents noted that Mexico and Mexican companies are among the largest customers in the world for the U.S. Export-Import Bank (EXIM).  Mexico is poised to be first country in the world where EXIM exceeds $10 billion in financing to support U.S. exports, in turn supporting investments and the transfer of new technology to Mexico.

The Presidents also discussed ongoing differences that inevitably arise from a mature and comprehensive trading relationship, and committed to renew efforts to resolve these pending issues in a cooperative fashion. 

Meeting Energy Needs and Protecting the Environment

The Presidents recognize the close link between economic growth, competitiveness, and sustainable development and their bilateral clean energy and environment agenda.  They reaffirmed that the United States and Mexico share a common goal of achieving strong economic growth while addressing the climate change challenge and increasing the reliability of our energy infrastructure.  The Leaders reviewed the efforts both countries are undertaking to limit greenhouse gas emissions, promote green energy, and improve energy reliability in the context of the Bilateral Framework for Clean Energy and Climate Change announced during President Obama’s April 2009 visit to Mexico City.

To build on that progress, the Presidents resolved to create a Cross-Border Electricity Task Force to promote regional renewable energy markets between our two countries.  The Task Force will review opportunities and obstacles to cross border trade in renewable energy, advancing options on standards, electricity transmission, grid connections, and other policy measures that create market incentives for investment and trade in renewable energy technologies.  The leaders also committed to increasing grid reliability and resiliency, including collaboration on smart grid standards and technology to make energy use more efficient and reliable in both Mexico and the United States.

Recognizing that the cleanest source of energy is more efficient energy use, the Presidents committed the relevant agencies in each government to hold joint workshops this fall to accelerate energy efficiency improvements in the building and transportation sectors, including green building certification, enhanced trade in green building materials, and best practices in light-duty vehicle mileage regulation.

In the context of discussing a shared clean energy future, the Presidents recognized the increasing interplay of trade and climate policies and the importance of engaging directly on these.  Both committed to direct their trade authorities to commence a dialogue with other countries on these issues.  In particular, the Presidents committed to explore the possibility of early action to liberalize tariffs on climate-friendly technologies as a first step towards encouraging mutually supportive trade and climate policies.

The two Leaders reaffirmed their shared commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and stressed the importance of reaching a successful outcome in Cancun.  President Obama supported Mexico’s leadership role as chair of the 16th Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC and expressed readiness to work with Mexico.  Both leaders also underscored their commitment to the Copenhagen Accord and its implementation. 

The Presidents noted the long history of bilateral cooperation in the conservation of natural and cultural resources.  They recognized that Big Bend National Park and Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River in the United States and the Protected Areas of Maderas del Carmen, Cañon de Santa Elena, Ocampo, and Río Bravo del Norte in Mexico together comprise one of the largest and most significant ecological complexes in North America.  In doing so, they recognized that increased cooperation in these protected areas would restrict development and enhance security in the region and within this fragile desert ecosystem.  To preserve this region of extraordinary biological diversity, they expressed their support for the United States Department of Interior and the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources of the United Mexican States to work through appropriate national processes to recognize and designate Big Bend – Rio Bravo as a natural area of binational interest.  The Presidents underscored their commitment to manage the region in a way that enhances security and protects these areas for wildlife preservation, ecosystem restoration, climate change adaptation, wildland fire management, and invasive species control.

Both Presidents expressed their commitment to ensure energy security in North America and to the safe, efficient and equitable exploitation of transboundary reservoirs with the highest degree of safety and environmental standards, and instructed their teams to take steps, consistent with the findings of key investigations into the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, toward advancing that shared commitment.  In this regard, they instructed their teams to seek a moratorium on exploitation activities along the maritime boundary in the Western Gap in the Gulf of Mexico. President Obama thanked President Calderon for the offers of assistance Mexico has provided with regard to on-going efforts related to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in accordance with the United States-Mexico Joint Contingency Plan for Maritime Pollution.

Cooperating Against Transnational Organized Crime

The Presidents highlighted the abiding importance of safeguarding communities on both sides of our shared border and reaffirmed their mutual commitment to confront criminal organizations that represent a serious threat to the security and well-being of Mexicans and Americans.  They recognized that the United States and Mexico share responsibility for defeating and dismantling the illicit criminal networks that traffic drugs into the United States, and illegal weapons and illicit revenues into Mexico, and that these transnational networks are associated with much of the crime and violence occurring in Mexico today. Both Presidents evaluated on-going efforts to stem the illegal flow of weapons and bulk cash into Mexico and will seek to reinforce cooperation and efforts in this critical area.

The Presidents recognized that the Twenty-First Century Border must ensure the safety and security of residents in communities along both sides of the border and affirmed the mutual interest of Mexico and the United States to prevent entry into our countries of people who pose a threat to the national security of both nations.  The Presidents affirmed their commitment to close, continuing, and constant bilateral cooperation and coordination to combat illicit activities and transnational criminal organizations.  They pledged to work together to prevent human smuggling and trafficking.

The Presidents reviewed and endorsed the work of the U.S.-Mexico Mérida Initiative High-Level Group, which met in March, 2010, in Mexico City to lay out a shared vision for on-going and future security cooperation between the United States and Mexico.  Consistent with that vision, the Presidents directed that cooperation focus on four elements: disrupting the capacity of criminal organizations that act in both countries by weakening their operational, logistical, and financial capabilities; supporting efforts to strengthen public institutions responsible for combating organized crime, including the promotion of the full observance of rule of law, human rights, and active civil society participation; developing a secure and competitive Twenty-First Century Border; and, building strong and resilient communities in both countries by supporting efforts to address the root causes of crime and violence, especially concerning youth, promoting the culture of lawfulness, reducing illicit drug use, and stemming the flow of potential recruits for the cartels by promoting constructive, legal alternatives for young people.

The Presidents recognized the particular importance of these four elements, and of robust bilateral cooperation to act upon them, in border communities that unite our two countries, such as Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, and El Paso, Texas.  From the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific, communities on both sides of the border share deep economic and social ties, and an interest in their own safety and welfare as well as that of their neighbors.  The Presidents committed to work together against organized criminal groups in the border region and to cooperate to promote public safety and social resiliency, and to bring people and institutions together across our shared border.

They also received a progress report and took stock of the on-going efforts to define a bilateral implementation plan that includes a roadmap of next steps and the benchmarking necessary to measure success.

President Obama discussed with President Calderón a number of enhancements to U.S. civilian law enforcement efforts in the Southwest Border region to ensure that the United States is doing all that it can to safeguard the population there and deter illegal flows in both directions across that border, including the deployment of increased resources and personnel from the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice.

Both Presidents reviewed the implementation status of the Merida Initiative and the steps taken to expedite delivery of security-related resources under the Initiative to Mexico.  As a follow up to discussions at the recent High-Level Group meeting in Mexico, President Calderon welcomed President Obama’s commitment to deliver, earlier than planned, a number of fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft that will complement the Government of Mexico’s efforts against transnational organized criminal organizations.

The Presidents recognized that illicit drugs take a heavy toll on the health of our citizens and our communities and acknowledged that we must work to reduce drug use and minimize the consequences of such use, emphasizing both treatment and prevention.  They endorsed the shared priorities established at the Binational Conference on Drug Demand Reduction in February, 2010, and at the meeting of the Mérida Initiative High-Level Group.  These priorities include the development of a Bilateral Assessment on Drug Demand and Prevalence of Use; making addiction treatment a part of mainstream medical practice; implementing broadly drug screening, intervention, and referral for treatment techniques; expanding drug prevention efforts in the schools and the wider community; implementing accreditation standards for drug treatment providers; and expanding the role of the criminal justice system in ending drug abuse and reducing recidivism.

Enhancing Social Well-Being and Ties between Our People

Both Presidents underscored that human capital is one of the most important assets that our two countries share.

President Obama underscored his commitment to comprehensive immigration reform in the United States and detailed his Administration’s extensive work to engage partners in the United States Congress from both political parties to create a modern immigration system that honors our tradition as a nation of laws, and a nation of immigrants.  President Calderón reaffirmed his vision for creating a Mexico where all Mexicans have an opportunity to work and educate their children, while reiterating the importance that all immigrants be treated with full respect of their civil and human rights and acknowledging their significant contributions to the economic, social and cultural vitality of the United States.  Both acknowledged the importance of fixing the broken immigration system, securing the common border and dismantling human trafficking groups, and to set clear rules and priorities for future immigration that level the playing field for American workers while providing a mechanism to fill labor demand in the United States in excess of domestic capacity.

The Presidents also took note of the strong educational ties and close academic collaboration that the people of the United States and Mexico have enjoyed for many years.  They looked forward to expanding these programs by initiating a new exchange program for high school students to promote mutual understanding.  The Presidents committed their governments to build upon this pilot program, co-financed with the private sector, to help bring together the next generation of leaders from the United States and Mexico.

The Presidents acknowledged the contributions of the Peace Corps to the bilateral relationship and directed their respective authorities to work together to expand the presence of Peace Corps volunteers in Mexico, increasing cooperation with civil society organizations and promoting community development and volunteerism.  Since 2004, hundreds of Peace Corps volunteers have worked with Mexicans to transfer technologies, create business opportunities, and promote conservation and sustainable livelihoods.

Engaging in the Hemisphere and Around the Globe

Recognizing the importance of cooperation in various multilateral fora, President Obama and President Calderón reaffirmed their intent to coordinate closely on key issues pending before the Organization of American States, the United Nations, and the G20, among other international, multilateral institutions and fora. 

In the Americas, the Presidents reaffirmed the importance of defending the core principles and values of democratic governance, respect for human rights, and self-determination in the Hemisphere and around the world. They stressed the need for regional consensus-building to achieve greater cooperation. The Presidents discussed the importance of working together to help foster more systematic security cooperation, particularly among the United States, Mexico, Colombia, Central America, and the Caribbean, to confront the challenge of transnational illicit networks.  They also underscored the important work underway in the context of the Pathways to Prosperity Initiative and the Inter-American Social Protection Network that is promoting greater economic and social inclusion throughout the Americas. 

The Presidents reaffirmed the importance of defending the core principles and values of democratic governance, respect for basic human rights, non-intervention, and self-determination in the Americas.  In the case of Honduras, President Obama and President Calderón recognized the important strides the country has taken since the elections held in November 2009 to restore the democratic and constitutional order following the June 28, 2009 coup, and expressed their support for the on-going process of national reconciliation and for Honduras’ prompt return to full participation in the Organization of American States and in all inter-American institutions. In the case of Haiti, both Presidents reviewed their respective actions as part of the massive international relief effort following the January 12 earthquake. President Calderón commended the United States for the vital role it played in facilitating disaster response and relief actions, and President Obama thanked Mexico for its important contributions to that effort.  Both Presidents agreed to continue bilateral consultations and coordination to help consolidate Haiti’s reconstruction efforts.

As global partners who share common values, as members of the most relevant international bodies, and as part of their efforts to continue expanding the strategic dialogue between both nations, the Presidents exchanged views on several global issues of common concern.  Taking into account the presence of both the United States and Mexico in the United Nations Security Council, they paid special attention to the current situation of the non-proliferation regime and to nuclear disarmament issues in the context of the on-going Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.  The two leaders committed to work to achieve a successful Review Conference and in that regard expressed their readiness to cooperate to strengthen the capacity of the international community to enforce this regime and to progress on the full access to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy for countries that comply with their international obligations. In this regard, the Presidents underscored their full determination to decisively support the IAEA and its verification efforts by addressing situations of special concern in the relevant international bodies of the United Nations System and its Security Council, including Iran’s continued failure to meet its international obligations on its nuclear program.

President Obama and President Calderón reaffirmed the importance of the G20 as the premier international economic forum, and discussed the need for continued focus on economic recovery and job creation.  The Leaders also discussed their efforts to implement the Pittsburgh Summit commitments, and call on all G20 members to make progress on fulfilling G20 commitments in advance of the Toronto Summit.

The bilateral dialogue between Presidents Obama and Calderón underscores their commitment to strengthening the strategic partnership between both countries, and they will continue working closely together in bilateral, trilateral, and multilateral fora over the coming months, as befitting two partners and nations uniquely important for the well-being, prosperity and security of one another.

Draft 7-17-10

 Memorandum

To: Rio Grande Institute

From: Tyrus Fain, Senior Advisor, The Rio Grande Institute

July 17, 2010

Status of  the Transboundary Risk Identification and Mitigation System (TRIMS) Project

Antecedents: Threats to lives and property posed by hurricane Alex bring to mind a report the  Rio Grande Institute  provided  FEMA in 1999 and RGI’s  Cover the Border Hazard Mitigation Plan (“CTB”) adopted by the state and FEMA in 2009.  Both identified a complex array of unaddressed transboundary hazards posing grave risks to lives and property on both sides of the border; CTB proposed eleven specific mitigation actions. Although the transboundary  risks pose potentials of a catastrophe on the scale of  Katrina or Bhopal  no mitigation recommendations have been implemented. This memo deals with that astounding failure.

Sixty-six (66) border area cities and counties participated in CTB thanks to FEMA Hazard Mitigations Grants from the Texas Governor’s Division of Emergency Management (“GDEM”).  Incorrectly referred to as a “Border Plan” the focus was on border  jurisdictions that had no Hazard Mitigation Plans approved or in process and therefore were not qualified to receive federal mitigation grants. The work included all of the Rio Grande Valley, upstream through Starr , Zapata and Webb  Counties, plus several “inland” counties in South Texas and the trans-Pecos. RGI was the lead consultant on CTB and the 1999 report was based upon a mitigation needs assessment it undertook under a FEMA contract.

The CTB project followed the standard FEMA/GDEM scope of work . It met all requirements and did a fine job identifying and prioritizing  hazards and mitigation actions needed to reduce risks faced by local governments. It did not, however  cover transboundary issues or an assessment of hazards or mitigation needs of Mexican sister cities. Even those Mexican cities contiguous to US border jurisdictions were outside the project’s  scope. A binational  perspective and cross-border mitigation actions were “add-ons” inspired by the shared experience of  local Lower Rio Grande officials and RGI’s report to FEMA in 1999.

 In early 2008, once the initial draft of the CTB plan had been adopted by each city council and County government and even before the state and federal review was completed RGI began work in earnest to draw attention to the seriously neglected transboundary hazards facing border residents. Proposals for several projects, even specific  legislative actions were drafted and  forwarded to the Governor’s Emergency Management Division at DPS, FEMA’s International Office, the State Department’s Office of Mexican Border Affairs and Congressman Cuellar’s staff (Cuellar chairs the Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee in the House).

Even after travel to DC and Austin to meet with key officials no action was taken on RGI’s concerns over the need for a binational plan; the CTB has been called a great success but the transboundary hazards remain outside the scope of state and federal government concern. Failure is sure to follow.

Eleven Pending Transboundary Hazard Mitigation Actions

There are eleven proposed “Binational Regional Actions” from Section 18 of the FEMA-approved  Cover the Border Plan that are pending action. Excerpts follow: 

1. TRIMS – Transboundary Risk Identification and Mitigation System “(This) initiative should become an on-going bi-nationally sanctioned program to develop and implement a series of cooperative “sister jurisdiction” hazard mitigation strategies for US and Mexican border communities whose close proximity requires extraordinary cross-border communication and cooperation to deal with their shared exposure”. …. “The end-product will be a set of well defined, mutually agreed-upon, high priority mitigation actions” …..(including) .. “technical assistance and training  (for) creating comprehensive maps from a seamless GIS-based depiction of spatial data covering the physical landscape, digital elevation models, floodplains and data layers such as transportation arteries, critical facilities, toxic “hot spots” and evacuation routes – a virtual tool kit for disaster mitigation and emergency response covering both sides of the border in both languages.” “… (S)ervices will be provided to border jurisdictions by teams drawn from a consortium of US and Mexican universities, NGOs, border businesses and their consultants.….. “The sister jurisdictions …. nominated for a possible starting point were the Municipio de Reynosa and Hidalgo County , (others) mentioned (are) Cameron County and the Municipio de Matamoros as well as Webb, Zapata and Starr Counties and the Municipio de Nuevo Laredo, Eagle Pass and Piedras Negras, Del Rio and the Municipio de Acuna, Presidio and Ojinaga, as well as El Paso County and the Municipio de Juarez. as soon as possible in 2007. ( From CTB Plan, Reg. Mitigation Action # 5)

2. Floods “Participate in the IBWC’s Rio Grande Flood Control Rehabilitation Program to insure that that plans and procedures in place to warn of impending flooding and protect lives in the event of a levee failure”. (CTB Reg. Mitigation Action #1)

3. Dam and Drain Failure: “Work with the IBWC to ensure that inundation maps are available for major public dams to show potential down-stream risk areas. (Reg. Mitigation Action #3) “Complete engineering studies of local flooding problems, assess local drainage systems and develop and implement a comprehensive, systems-wide Watershed Master Plan to prioritize drainage improvements.” (Reg. Mitigation Action #4)

4 Warning System:. “ Consider options and implement a high speed, geographically based alert and warning system that covers the entire Rio Grande border region. Develop protocols for use of the system, including preprogrammed “ (Reg. Mitigation Action #12)

5. Hurricane Surge Markers:  ‘Work with the state to install hurricane surge markers in coastal jurisdictions subject to tidal surge” REG-14.

6. Stream Gages: “Establish a capability for real-time automated warning of water levels in the river, streams and on roads lacking such equipment. Assess the need for installation of stream gages to measure and record in real time water levels”. REG-15.

7. Communications Interoperability: “Implement the Rio Grande Valley Corridor Communications Plan to achieve seamless, Level-4 radio interoperable communications for command and control in emergencies. Develop effective methods to extend interoperable communications into Mexico for cross-border emergency action.”REG-#16.

8.GIS – Data Clearinghouse: ” Enhance Local Geographic Information System (GIS) data on hazards and assets at risk.  “(T)he US IBWC HEC_RAS hydraulic model (has)include two-dimensional modeling (FLO2D) using topographic LiDAR data from Willacy, Cameron and Hidalgo Counties and Mexico.” (Note: The UT Space Science Center of any one of several border universities could  serve as a clearinghouse for digital geographic data and facilitate dissemination of data to diverse regional stakeholders)  REG-#18.

9. Public Education: “Conduct a public education program in both English and Spanish on the range of risks from natural and man-caused hazards and steps individuals can take to protect themselves, their families and their livelihoods. …….The program should target hard-to-reach populations…”.  REG-20.

10. Telecommunications MOU: “Enhance coordination between radio and television stations on the Mexican side of the border and U.S. local, State and Federal emergency management officials. Negotiate Memoranda of Understanding with Mexican telecommunication authorities as well as radio and television station owners.”  REG-21.

11.HAZMAT Freight Survey:  “Undertake a Freight and Hazardous Material Movement Study to identify the types of hazmat transported and thus provide transportation planners (an ability) estimate risks”  REG-22.

Of these actions, the “TRIMS” recommendation provides a specific risk-driven action agenda that can be followed by local governments if the US and Mexico wish. It should be the focus of urgent action at this time.

Draft 7-17-10 Ty Fain

Transboundary Risk Identification and Mitigation System – Scope and Installation in Pilot Sister Cities

There is only so much a non-profit consulting organization can do about the challenges the US and Mexico face in planning to mitigate natural disasters and catastrophic accidents. The Rio Grande Institute believes that TRIMS, the system it proposed as a regional projects in Section Eighteen of its Cover the Border Hazard Mitigation Plan can provide a start but there must be leadership to overcome the many legal/political impediments to the innovation and binational cooperation required.  A TRIMS is a set of arrangements adopted by adjacent “sister jurisdictions” to identify those hazards  that extend across the border and can only be dealt with by joint action; it is about cooperation based on shared interest and  is not to be confused with being a good neighbor. Here two sets of tasks RGI has proposed as first steps.

Task I – Disaster Information Management:  Under the US-Mexico 2008 Agreement on disaster cooperation, with major involvement of  regional and local governments key stakeholders such as  FEMA, Protecion Civil, IBWC  the border states, border universities should begin organizing, staffing and launching a binational border-based “Secretariat” to provide a management structure and leadership for developing curriculum, conducting training, offering technical assistance and undertaking research and development. The working group called for in the Agreement provides a means to begin this process immediately; it should be constituted and provided the mandate and resources for:

1. Creating an accessible and functioning GIS platform for mapping informational tools such as points of risk, effects of past disasters, hydrology, physical terrain, inundation scenarios, critical infrastructure, emergency facilities  evacuation routes.

1.  Designing, developing and overseeing cross-border communications networks applicable to the needs of local and regional emergency managers and consistent with emerging requirements and technical realities of 2010 US-Mexico communications agreements.
2. Facilitating the creation and implementation of cooperative agreements regarding shared software, super-computer access and data files between entities such as  UNAM, Texas A & M,  TSU, SRSU, ITESM, UT Space Science Center, IBWC, CONAGUA, INEGI, USCG, Sec. de Marina and  NOAA. This is needed to create transboundary GIS, data storage files and (especially) inundation models for real-time use by emergency management officials dealing with tidal surges, floods and rising sea levels.
3. Creating  Mexican government and FEMA/GDEM/HS- approved templates for functional directories and contact protocols to be used by twin cities along the US-Mexico border, including completion of a prototype for the twin cities of Del Rio and Ciudad Acuna and Eagle Pass-Piedras Negras.   This is the (amazingly) still-missing  “emergency managers rolodex” – an electronic  prototype for the sister cities along the entire U.S./Mexico/Canada borders.

Task II – Create a Model to Follow:   As a pilot undertaking for replication along the border create a model mitigation plan for twin cities of Del Rio and Ciudad Acuna and Eagle Pass-Piedras Negras; focusing on prioritized risks involving floods, dam failure inundations, HAZMAT emergencies, humanitarian evacuations and communications breakdowns.

1. Create A Risk-Based Planning Area - Set action priorities based upon shared clearly “mapped” risks and related mitigation,  response and recovery actions to be taken.
2. Harmonize Communication Technologies-    Make certain critical communication technologies  will be compatible in emergencies.
3. Define Channels for Cooperation- clearly delineate communication and command protocols and train  staff  to follow them; create a means for assuring back-up and replacement training
4. Insure Teamwork: -Develop interpersonal staff ties that will facilitate rapid cross-jurisdictional teamwork across the border.
5. Reduce the Language Barrier- Assure that key staff  needing to communicate in English or Spanish can do so effectively.
6. Homeland Security/ Mexican Government Cooperation – Undertake the above with full awareness, cooperation and support by border security officials.

— DOI —

8 • Desert Candle – Spring 2005

THE RIO GRANDE

BORDER

By Tyrus G. Fain

______________________

The river has had many names. Paul

Horgan, in Great River, listed seventeen,

including P’Osoge, meaning great river in

Tewa, and Rio de Las Palmas, a name

bestowed in 1519 by the Spanish explorer

Pineda.

The Rio Grande I learned about in school was an

“American” river, our third longest. It began in the

Rocky Mountains of Colorado, flowed through New

Mexico and Texas and ended at the Gulf of Mexico. In

truth, the river needed help in reaching the sea,

counting on a hefty contribution from the Conchos

tributary – water generated by rains that fall in

Chihuahua and the Sierra Madre mountains of

Mexico.

The entire Rio Grande/Rio Bravo basin drains an

area of 182,215 miles extending across the jurisdic-

tion of two sovereign nations, three US and two

Mexican states, a number of Indian tribes and count-

less irrigation districts. That has produced a moun-

tain of treaties, minutes, laws, regulations, adjudica-

tions and claims affecting who owns what water, who

keeps it flowing clean and who speaks for the river.

To understand this river it helps to think in terms

of a series of “halves.” The first “half” (really a third)

runs from Colorado down to Elephant Butte reservoir

in New Mexico; it’s a beautiful western US river. Then

from El Paso and Cd. Juarez through the second

“half” of its run to the sea, this is the Rio Grande/Rio

Bravo, a shared resource and an international bound-

ary. Half the river is Mexico, the other half is the USA.

The big Elephant Butte Dam effectively truncates

the Rio Grande just it before it reaches Texas. When

the river leaves El Paso County there is virtually no

flow – usually only a trickle of treated urban run-off

and sewage plus “used” water returned by irrigators.

Unless there are rainstorms, there is no significant

water until the Conchos comes in a couple of hun-

dred miles downstream near Presidio and Ojinaga.

Through the Big Bend and the 196-mile stretch desig-

nated as one of the U.S. Wild and Scenic Rivers, virtu-

ally all of the water is from Mexico.

This river was indeed once great (grande) and wild

(bravo) but when it became a boundary everything

began to change. Its stewardship became highly frag-

mented, unaccountable and with no unified leader-

ship; it was not to be a conventional river.

As border towns grew into cities and Mexico indus-

trialized, we began to see water demand outstrip sup-

ply and problems overwhelm a US-Mexico Boundary

and Water Commission that had virtually no authori-

ty over water matters. Because of so many claims on

the river from so many jurisdictions, its waters have

been over allocated, meaning there is not enough to

go around. Stream flow is so weak the river some-

times can’t reach the sea. Salt cedar (tamarisk) and

giant cane (arundo) are choking out the cottonwood

and willow. Around cities the river has become foul

and in recreational areas where the river runs weak

but still clean (like Big Bend), there is apprehension.

The US and Mexico are in an escalating war of fin-

ger pointing; New Mexico and Texas are surly and

litigious; farmers in Chihuahua and the Lower Rio

Grande Valley are rebellious. We can call it by two

names, but the US can’t care for just half the river; and

neither can Mexico. The approach we are following is

not working.

The Growth of a “Borderland”

Through history, like everywhere on earth, the

rivers of North America were unifiers; they attracted

settlers, watered farmlands, powered mills and nur-

tured communities as they grew and became towns

and cities. Before there were highways there were

waterways. But history dealt our Rio Grande a most

peculiar fate; its lower stretch was made an interna-

tional boundary — split in half.

In 1848, after a fierce and bitter war, a treaty of sur-

render formally moved the Texas border south, mak-

ing Mexico’s Rio Bravo the new international bound-

ary, to be known henceforth (at least in the US) as the

Rio Grande. A stretch of river roughly 1000 miles long

was to define the outer limits of each nation’s sover-

eignty. Legal authority, control, ownership – all that

sovereignty suggests – was to begin and end at mid-

stream.

Then, after peace was restored and for most of the

next 150 years not much happened to provoke any

strict assertion of border sovereignty by either gov-

ernment. Border clampdowns during the Mexican

revolution didn’t endure; enforcement of border

security was sporadic on both sides, aimed mainly at

smuggling and banditry.

Vast numbers of people living and working along

the river crossed freely back and forth every day with

easily obtained papers and sometimes just a figura-

tive nod and a wink from immigration authorities on

either side. Determined migrants with destinations

deeper into the US found their way across the river

and through immigration restrictions best described

as “porous.” For millions of Mexican-Americans,

crossing the Rio Grande became a symbolic highlight

in their migration – an “Ellis Island” experience repre-

senting the last obstacle and the first “American”

place in the journey.

All along the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo where the

human interaction that goes with work, family,

friends and faith has become a routine of life, a

unique “borderlands” culture has taken root. It is

deeply appreciated by those who live in it but misun-

derstood and distrusted by those plagued with fear

and prejudice. In rural areas along the river there has

always been an easy interaction across the border – it

is part of being a neighbor in any remote place and

has little to do with nationality or ethnicity. A sense of

identity comes from it, as does trust and camaraderie.

Over the past fifty years or so commerce and

industry have turned little border towns into big cities

- transportation hubs where the products of NAFTA

are carried on millions of truck trips and local

economies are sustained by millions who work in the

maquiladoras, warehouses, shops and stores. Some

are cross-border commuters who display a sense of

shared experience and fraternal identity with the bor-

der. You find them in growing numbers in the sister

cities: often bilingual, bicultural, well to do, imbued

with a border “hipness”.

The notions that a “borderland” culture is rooted

in the regional psyche or that rivers produce some

kind of social cement doesn’t always hold up and can

bog down in sappy hands-across-the-border babble.

I know people in Mexico and the US who don’t dream

of crossing that border; they are victims of prejudice

or carry emotional wounds they don’t want

reopened. Still, there is a “borderness” phenomenon

that sociologists, cultural anthropologists and market

researchers see emerging.

Of course cultural conflict is a companion of

diversity, so naturally some incidents that involve

Anglo-Hispanic-Native American ethnic divisions get

violent. But civility and neighborliness is the norm

among law abiding borderland folks, even among

those who can’t understand everything the neighbor

says.

Terror Threatens the Borderland

There is a growing fear that prospects for a closely-

knit “borderland” are in danger. The US has asserted

its sovereignty at the Rio Grande and hardened its

border like never before. Those of us who live on the

border have sometimes thought we are on some kind

of battleground when drug gangs fought or aggres-

sive enforcement inconvenienced us at a border stop.

Then, with the horrors of 9/11 and what followed we

got a glimpse of a real battleground and began seeing

just how far a government can go to assert authority

and control over its borders. Necessary or not, it has

not been fun.

There is another threat to the borderland and it is

using the war on terror as a pretext. As the US and

Mexico try to deal with the dilemmas involved in

immigration policy, there is a growing and often uni-

formed popular outcry for “control of our borders”.

That public concern is being exploited by dema-

gogues in politics and tabloid journalism, leading to

useless posturing by government or the vigilantes.

Fain is President of Rio Grande Institute. Contact him at:  tfain@riogrande.org

Vo2_No

From The Houston Chronicle of Sept. 16, 2007

In storm, Valley’s levees vulnerable to flooding
Without $125 million to bolster Rio Grande structures, hurricane flooding is a threat

By DUDLEY ALTHAUS
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

HIDALGO — Perhaps no region in Texas stands more at risk from the torments, and torrents, of hurricanes than the borderlands.

Though the state has been spared a major storm since 1990, government agencies and outside critics have warned that heavy rains from a hurricane, or even a tropical storm, near the mouth of the Rio Grande could well cause catastrophic flooding.

In such an event, the river’s levees could be topped or toppled, existing flood plains overwhelmed. Towns and cities in the Rio Grande Valley that house more than 2 million people could be inundated. Thousands of people could be displaced, unknown numbers killed or injured. Property worth billions of dollars could be destroyed.

“The levees are too low to sustain a 100-year flood on either side of the river,” said Tyrus Fain, whose Rio Grande Institute is taking part in a federally funded study of ways to mitigate the impact of floods and other hazards on the border. “It’s a disaster waiting to happen.”

The International Boundary and Water Commission — or IBWC, the joint U.S.-Mexico agency that oversees the Rio Grande where it serves as the border — has estimated that $125 million is needed to bolster the levees along the last 100-mile stretch of the river. But Congress has allocated less than $5 million annually for the task.

Had Hurricane Dean slammed the region last month, as early predictions suggested, “it would have been an absolutely devastating event,” Gov. Rick Perry said on a recent visit to Mexico City.

With Dean packing 165 mph winds in the Caribbean, Perry and Texas officials rushed National Guard units to border cities, readied 3,000 buses for evacuations and sent military aircraft into Brownsville to carry away the elderly. They also set up shelters far inland to handle the expected rush of refugees.

As it happened, Dean killed 20 people as it crossed the Caribbean, tore through the Yucatan Peninsula and then made a second landfall in Mexico hundreds of miles south of the border. When it died in the country’s central mountains, Texas officials shrugged off suggestions they had overreacted.

Little wonder. Counting Humberto, which made landfall just east of Houston at High Island last week, Texas has been hit by 13 hurricanes and nearly as many tropical storms in the past 40 years. But only four hurricanes have made landfall since 1989.

 Many experts think Texas is overdue for a bad one. And to some of those experts, no one seems more exposed than the growing population along the Lower Rio Grande.

“This area of the state is very vulnerable to any number of natural and man-made hazards,” said Jo Ann Howard, president of Austin’s H2O Partners, which is also working on the hazard study. “The cities and counties on the border are extremely concerned.”

Fast-growing cities

What Texans call the 100-mile-long Lower Rio Grande Valley actually is a sprawling flood plain, flat as a parking lot in most places and often nearly as impermeable.

More than 1 million people now live on the Texas side of the river from McAllen east to the Gulf of Mexico, a distance of 56 miles. Nearly twice that number have swollen the neighboring Mexican cities of Reynosa, Rio Bravo and Matamoros.

Shantytowns, middle-class neighborhoods and industrial parks have sprouted on flood-prone land on either side of the boundary.

As part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s nationwide review of U.S. levees in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. branch of the boundary commission decertified Rio Grande levees in January. Commission officials judged the levees in the Lower Valley incapable of withstanding more than routine flooding.

A major flood, the commission estimated, would overcome at least 38 miles of levees near McAllen, one of the fastest-growing U.S. cities. Another 56 miles on the Mexican side of the river would be topped or breached as well.

“They are all susceptible to failure,” said Joe Tucker, an engineer who spent 31 years supervising the maintenance of the Rio Grande levees for the boundary commission and now is one of the major critics of the failure to improve them.

“There’s all kinds of possibilities,” Tucker, 80, said as he gave a tour of the river levees and flood control dams. “But somebody is going to get hurt somewhere.”

That assessment led FEMA to reconsider the threat to the Texas borderlands, potentially classifying entire cities and counties as flood-threatened. If made formal, that destination will force homeowners and businesses — anyone with a mortgage — to buy flood insurance.

A 2004 impact study done for the boundary commission suggests that the levees at risk protect at least $322 million in property along the Texas side of the final stretch of river.

But officials in Hidalgo County, which is anchored by McAllen and is considered the most vulnerable to levee failure, estimate that at least $8 billion worth of property could be threatened should the Rio Grande levees be breached in Texas and in Mexico near Reynosa.

“For us to get a whole bunch of rain right now would be devastating,” said J.D. Salinas, the county’s chief executive. “Our system is already at capacity.”

When many border natives discuss the potential for trouble, they usually recall 1967′s Hurricane Beulah. After making a September landfall just north of the border, the storm chewed through the ranch and farm country of the Lower Valley. Beulah poured nearly 3 feet of rain in many places over just 36 hours before expiring in the northern Mexico desert.

Flooding in the San Juan River, which rises in the mountains outside Monterrey and feeds the Rio Grande upstream from McAllen, sent a surge of water into the Lower Valley, overwhelming the flood-prevention systems of the time.

Harlingen and other Texas cities were flooded, the water rising as much as 45 feet in some areas near the coast, Tucker said.

“I saw people hurt real bad, propertywise,” Tucker said. “There would be a lot of flooding in the Valley with a repeat of Beulah. I wouldn’t expect a big loss of life, but there would be a huge economic loss.”

Years of neglect

In the aftermath of Beulah, the levees were improved and a new flood-control dam was built to withstand a storm of similar intensity. But years of neglect and the changing conditions along the river render those measures obsolete, Tucker and other experts say.

The amount of water that the river’s channel can accommodate has been reduced, Tucker said, by soil that has been deposited from upstream and by thick vegetation that has grown along its banks, in part because of federally controlled wildlife corridors.

Rainfall so far this year in northern Mexico and the borderlands has been much greater than normal. The two large Mexican reservoirs on the Rio San Juan are nearly filled to capacity.

Significant amounts of new rain would simply wash into the Rio Grande, overwhelming the levee system.

“You don’t know what will happen, but there could be flooding along the entire floodway system,” Tucker said.

Of course it doesn’t take a hurricane to bring a deluge. Tropical storms or thunderstorms can also do the trick.

Locally torrential rains last summer spawned severe flooding in El Paso and its sister city across the Rio Grande, Ciudad Juarez. Storm drains on both sides of the river were unable to handle the runoff. Preparations were made to evacuate huge areas of El Paso when a dam in Ciudad Juarez threatened to break.

More than 4,000 homes were destroyed in the Mexican city, 1,500 in Texas. Damage was estimated at nearly $500 million.

Another storm in April 2004 killed at least 34 people in Piedras Negras, a Mexican border city of 200,000 upriver from Laredo, when a flash flood sent a 25-foot surge of water through a small tributary to the Rio Grande.

With communities and farms along its 1,900-mile course often requiring more water than the river has in it, the Rio Grande dwindles to merely a trickle below El Paso until it is replenished by the Rio Conchos flowing out of Mexico’s western mountains.

From trickle to torrent

The Rio Grande has sometimes dried up before reaching the Gulf of Mexico, or is only a few feet wide and walk-across shallow at its mouth. But the river’s feebleness is deceiving; it becomes a torrent with the slightest rain.

‘The majority of people in the Valley have no idea what this is about,” Tucker said of the potential for flooding. “They haven’t been exposed to it.”

So far, Congress has ignored the warnings and heavy lobbying by border politicians, continuing to earmark just a few million dollars a year for levee repairs.

Facing both the threat of an actual disaster and the costly increase in federally required flood insurance, Hidalgo County commissioners this year approved a $40 million effort funded by local taxpayers to begin raising the height of the levees.

“We all decided it was best to do it ourselves,” said Mayor Norberto Salinas of Mission, one of Hidalgo County’s larger cities, parts of which could be flooded if the levees fail. “The federal government is not going to come up with the money.”

Hidalgo County officials hope they’ll be paid back the money they’re spending. State and federal officials are trying to pressure Congress into approving the funding, but it’s not certain the money will be available any time soon.

“What surprises me is that I thought after Katrina and all, Congress would appropriate the money,” said Tucker, the retired levee engineer. “But I guess not.

“A little talk here and there, but no improvements made. Really, there’s been nothing.”

dudley.althaus@chron.com

TRIM SUMMARY and SCOPE

TRANSBOUNDARY RISK IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION PROJECT -  PREVENTING DISASTERS THROUGH COOPERATION ON IN TWIN CITIES ON US-MEXICO BORDER 

This pilot  project begins a program to improve  the capacity of “paired”  cities, counties and “Municipios” along the US-Mexico border  to identify and mitigate certain risks to human life, property and economic activity from those natural disasters and catastrophic events whose impacts can extend into communities on both sides of the international border.  The project involves, in part, implementation of a regional mitigation action included in the fourteen county Cover the Border Hazard Mitigation Plan  that has been submitted to Region VI of FEMA through the Governor’s Division of Emergency Management (see www.covertheborder.net  for a copy of the plan and information on its sponsors).

The Transboundary Risk Identification and Mitigation (TRIM) Program is intended as a long term initiative to provide expert disaster planning, technical assistance and training  teams to participating jurisdictions through a regional  “TRIM Consortium” organized for the express purpose of  helping local governments create  transboundary disaster mitigation action plans and acquire (or improve) the capacity to sustain and update those plans as needed.

Such an extraordinary planning and training initiative will help US and Mexico improve their capacity to anticipate  events, reduce the risks they pose as well as respond to emergencies. It represents a new level of engagement and cooperation between US and Mexican local governments who believe their close proximity requires extraordinary cross-border communication and cooperation to anticipate, mitigate, respond to and recover from natural disasters and catastrophes. 

The first TRIM Project is being organized for two sister jurisdictions on the Rio Grande by a binational planning support team composed on Texas A & M International University, the Rio Grande Institute, the Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon and  Mundo Sustentable, AC

June 2008

.   

CONTEXT: US- MEXICO  COOPERATION ON TRANSBOUNDARY RISK IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION (TRIM)

Border-wide Vision:  This first TRIM project will develop the templates and protocols needed for a process of local-level cooperation and capacity building that will progress incrementally along the entire length of the US-Mexico border

TRIM Agreements: Each set of sister communities will be joined by a cooperative agreement and approve a scope of work for a TRIM planning team to develop a locally focused TRIM project that is in harmony with US-Mexico treaty objectives and on-going federal and state binational cooperation programs and the on-going work of  local Emergency Management Coordinators, Consular Sister City Initiatives, the International Boundary and  Water Commission,  Homeland Security, Border 2012, Border Governors Work Groups etc.

TRIM Projects: Each project will focus on mitigation of risks and capacity building for sister jurisdictions that concur in having a continuing need to work together to deal with catastrophic storms and other deadly events.. Each will begin with a disaster simulation event at an international bridge sponsored by the sister jurisdictions and community leaders. That will launch a hazard mitigation planning process adapted in part from the Cover the Border initiative underway by TAMIU and the Rio Grande Institute (RGI) for fourteen US border counties.(www.covertheborder.net)

The focus of TRIM planning will be on identifying and mitigating hazards that are likely to have a direct adverse impact on lives, property and the natural environment across the border in either direction. The end-product will be a set of well defined, mutually agreed upon, high priority mitigation actions that can reduce the risk that the border community neighbors face from loss of lives, property or critical assets in their natural environment and cultural heritage.

A disaster prevention and response “tool kit” focused on binational cooperation will be developed with the EMCs of  local communities  including comprehensive maps from a seamless GIS-based depiction of spatial data the physical landscape, digital elevation models, floodplains and specific data layers such as transportation arteries, critical care facilities, toxic “hot spots” and evacuation routes. Communication protocols and compatible systems will be a key element as will the translation of all audio and print materials.

The plan and the “kit” will be developed with an explicit training component to make certain that each participating community has an in-house capability to update and improve upon the plans and materials once the project is completed. The specific content or curriculum, for that training will be developed for each community based on needs, but can be assumed to cover real-time GIS, emergency communications management, risk assessment for flooding, hazmat, wind storms, evacuations.

Tabletop simulations will be held at the start and conclusion of each TRIM project, probably on or near the international bridge. These will not only help engage key local EM staff and leaders but the larger community as well.

TRIM Teams:  Project development and planning services will be provided to border jurisdictions by teams drawn from a consortium of US and Mexican universities, NGOs, border businesses and their consultants. The work on each project will be closely coordinated with key state and federal agencies, building on vital work done by Homeland Security, TxDOT, GDEM, TCEQ, EPA, SEMARNAT, Water Development Board, CNA etc. Two non-profit organizations, the Rio Grande Institute (RGI) and Mundo Sustentable, AC (MS), will lead TRIMCO’s NGO section. Texas A&M International University, along with the Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon and/or the Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey will co-chair the university section. The 2006-2007 planning meetings for this initiative were hosted by the Camara Nacional de Industrias de Transformacion (CANACINTRA) which will co-chair the TRIM Consortium’s  private sector liaison section along with a US counterpart organization.  RGI and MS are co-managers of the TRIM Consortium (TRIMCO) which is being organized as an association under applicable US and Mexican law.  Laurel Lacey, one of the outstanding disaster management planning expert is a consultant to TAMIU and RGI on the Cover the Border Hazard Mitigation Plan and has agreed to join this new initiative. She will work with another expert consultant who served in local management positions for border cities for many years. Dr. Alfonso Martinez will head the MS group, drawing upon his professional background in training and the experience he gained as a Regional Director for the Secretaria del Medio Ambiente y Recursos, the principal federal environmental agency in Mexico.

Strart-up  Pairings: The RGI is interested in launching the first TRIM pairing in Cameron County and the Municipio de Matamoros because they have greatest exposure to threats from hurricane disasters.  In 2007 Regional officials of the Consejo Nacional de la Industria de Transformacion (CANACINTRA) and and Mundo Sustentable facilitated informal discussions in Cd. Reynosa on a sister city mitigation project.. Other potentially paired jurisdictions where TAMIU and RGI have some relevant experience are Webb, Zapata and Starr Counties paired with the Municipio de Nuevo Laredo; Eagle Pass (Maverick County)  paired with Piedras Negras; Del Rio paired with the Municipios de Acuna; Presidio County paired with the Municipio de Ojinaga as well as El Paso County and the Municipio de Juarez.

CURRENT PROJECT: TRIM I  -  CROSS-BORDER  CAPACITY BUILDING FOR DISASTER PREVENTION

Project  Objective: The  purpose of the start-up project for the TRIM Program is to design and apply a technical assistance protocol and training curriculum for transboundary hazard assessment and mitigation in a pair of sister jurisdictions on the US-Mexico border. There will be two outcomes:

1.    a sustainable disaster protection strategy and action plan for participating communities within the two “pilot” jurisdictions.

2.    a tool kit for the technical assistance and training  that will serve as the basis for a series of transboundary hazard assessment and disaster prevention projects among other sister jurisdictions along the entire US-Mexico border.

Estimated start/completion dates:  The kick-off project in two paired jurisdictions will begin in July 2008 and extend over 12 months until June 30, 2009.

SCOPE OF WORK – TASK and TIMELINE

TASK ONE – Capacity Assessment   Months 0-3:

This will precede the mitigation planning and lay the groundwork for capacity building.

A binational team of experts will inventory the needs of participating communities for

technical assistance and training. As part of a self-discovery strategy for local residents and

officials a table top event or workshop will be conducted in the first weeks of the Project

focused on several preventable transboundary incidents.                            

TASK TWO – Hazard Identification, Analysis and Risk Assessment including GIS, Months 2-5:

A team of consultants will develop and follow a systematic check-list to uncover hazards whose origins and/or impact has a transboundary dimension. The GIS will provide a fairly simple means to display, communicate and begin to analyze those hazards.

TASK THREE –Mitigation Planning Months 4-8:

Through a systematic process of discovery, evaluation, consultation and budgeting that includes negotiation for burden sharing on burden –sharing for the specific projects the jurisdictions will develop a joint mitigation strategy on the identified hazards. The plan will include specific mitigation actions to be taken and draft agreements required to move them forward.

TASK FOUR –  Mitigation Plan Adoption Months 9-11:

A second and final table top will introduce the plan and the mitigation process to residents

Each local government will be asked to bring the plan to its governing body for adoption.

TASK FIVE- Post-Planning Evaluation and Follow-up Training/Education Month 12.

Continuing needs for training and plans for involving local institutions on a continuing basis

will be will be identified.

TASK SIX –  Future Projects Month 12

TRIM Partners in consultation with potential future partners will issue a strategic proposal for the border region on joint sister city disaster prevention planning.

US and Mexican Contact Points:  For the TRIM Consortium working with Paired Jurisdictions (Contact Dr. Alfonso Martinez at amartinez@gen.tv or  Tyrus Fain tfain@riogrande.org ) For the academic collaborators: Dr. Ken Tobin, ktobin@tamiu.edu