Finding Sustainability in the U.S.-Mexican Borderlands: A Look Toward Democracy and the Public Interest

Transcription

1 Finding Sustainability in the U.S.-Mexican Borderlands: A Look Toward Democracy and the Public Interest Kimberly Collins, Ph.D. Department of Public Administration California State University San Bernardino Kimberly@csusb.edu Prepared for the Public Administration Theory Conference South Padre Island, Texas May 18-20, 2012

2 1 Introduction Imperial County, California and the Municipality of Mexicali, Baja California share a common valley and have developed together since the early 1900s. This binational community shares a history, people, and culture. They also have many environmental problems in common, problems that have derived from the historical economic and community development practices. Air, water, and land pollution in the region are severe. In a community such as this, it is in the interest of everyone to develop more sustainably as each of these environmental problems impacts all levels of society. For instance, industry is hurt by rising pollution rates if productivity decreases because parents are taking sick days to care for their ill children; citizens lose as their medical costs and quality of life decreases if they or their families have health problems related to the environment; the agriculture industry is hurt by decreased production caused by air pollution; clean water supplies become more expensive and taxes/fees might increase to provide sewer services and potable water. As these losses occur then it would seem natural that cooperation to improve the environment would also increase. Unfortunately, this has not generally been the case in the Imperial-Mexicali valleys. With the border and separate agendas on both sides of the border, environmental issues have been more of a focus of a competition than cooperation. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the possibility of a more sustainable future for this binational community. Sustainability in this paper is based in the concept of permanence looking to develop policies that are for the best of the whole and for the future. It moves beyond what is currently thought as conceivable as the focus is on the best interest of the local population (not national interests) and involving locals more into the binational policy process through democracy. The questions to be answered are:

3 2 What is at risk if a more sustainable approach is not found for the U.S.-Mexico border region? What are possible options for future community building and sustainability? What are new systems of sovereignty and democracy that lead to a greater understanding of public interest? How to move the system toward a more democratic response, where the local public interest is heard and moves the agenda as opposed to the top-down movement that currently exists? This paper begins with an overview of sustainable development through previous studies and theories for the region. The next section is a discussion of regional development and environmental conflicts in the Imperial-Mexicali valleys. The final section discusses the possibilities for a more sustainable future through the development of a more democratic process, which moves past issues of sovereignty, and a system that looks toward the public interest. Sustainable Development in the U.S.-Mexican Borderlands Sustainability in the border region has been discussed by a number of authors focusing on project specifics and environmental media, the need for better institutions to deal with cross border management issues, and cross border environmental policy development (Ellman and Robbins, 1998; Liverman et al., 1999; Blatter, 2000; Stevis and Mumme, 2007; Lee and Ganster, 2012). In looking at the Ellman and Robbins (1998) on the development of wetlands in the Arizona-Sonora borderlands, they discuss the definition of sustainability found in the work of the two main institutions working on water and wastewater projects in the border region, the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank

4 3 (NADBank). The BECC and NADBank define sustainability of a project as the need for local buy-in and commitment by those who will be running and using the project. The question that comes from this definition is what does that really mean? It does not discount the input from the community but how does having local governments, non-profits, residents, and academics interested in a project make it sustainable? If any of these people move on, it is possible that the project will not maintain the same level of interest by the locals. Liverman et al. (1999) provide a comprehensive analysis of border environmental problems and show that these conflicts are not only found in the Imperial-Mexicali region. This article also provides an historical analysis of the institutions behind the development of environmental policy in the border region. There is little discussion on sustainable development in the region as they have great hope in the border institutions developed in the 1990s with the NAFTA will be successful. Much has changed since this time with the 9/11 attacks in the United States, drug wars in Mexico, the reorganization of the BECC and NADBank that included the disbanding of the citizens commission, and the severe reduction of economic resources to support development projects in the border. Government power has been much more centralized, particularly in the United States during the early 2000s, leaving the border and discussion of its environment in a different context (Pastor, 2004). In an overview of environmental policies in the border regions, Stevis and Mumme (2007) eloquently provide the reader with the fundamentals of the agreements by which decisions are made regarding the environment. Policy making in the border region is limited by sovereignty with enforcement based domestic systems of governance. There is a measure of harmonization of laws between the NAFTA nations but generally there are not common policies

5 4 for the region. This has led to the many conflicts and lack of collaboration on key environmental issues as will be discussed further below. Blatter s (2000) discussion of sustainability helps to develop a stronger understanding of the role of institutions in developing sustainable policies in border regions. His findings show that with the development of binational institutions come interest groups and disagreements that inhibit true sustainable regional cooperation. Blatter proposes that what needs to occur for sustainability to take hold is complementarity in which the actors and their institutions complement each other rather than compete. The Southwest Consortium for Environmental Research and Policy held an institute on sustainable development in This institute brought together government officials, private industry representatives, and academics to discuss the major issues regarding sustainability for the border region. Though the topics varied, most of those in attendance saw a need for a new way of doing things (Lee and Ganster, 2012). The discussion of the environment and sustainability has covered the issues of public participation but there has little discussion on what is in the public s interest or any form of democracy in the development of the policies. Public participation has generally been top-down with the federal and state governments soliciting information from the community. This paper therefore moves these concepts further to explore the development of democracy and public interest in regions that are fractured by their history and from domestic interests. These interests form policies that are in the nationally based but possibly not in the locally based. In this paper sustainability is defined from Lucas Seghezzo s definition of sustainability, which focuses on the place, people, and permanence (2009). As shown in figure 1, sustainability is the connector between each of the concepts of place, people, and permanence.

6 5 Figure 1: Sustainability Triangle (Adapted from Seghezzo 2009) Inter-generational justice Permanence ( t ) Sustainability Intra-generational justice Place ( x,y,z ) People ( i ) Identity, happiness Place: the three dimensions of space (x,y and z); Permanence: the fourth dimension of time (t); People: the fifth, human dimension (i) Place is an important concept in the border region for it is defined by human activity as well as the physical location (Masuda and Garvin, 2008). The actual limitations of the border speak to levels of crime, the trust in police, access to public services, government regulation, and for some defining who you are. Oscar Martinez s (1995) definition of the Borderlander, what makes each category special is related to the place understood as the U.S-Mexican border region. It does not matter if one considers themselves as part of only one culture, either U.S. or Mexican, what is important is that culture is based on the notion of the border and that they do not interact with the other side. The idea of permanence is also extremely important in the context of the border region for there has been little discussion regarding the future of the region but more of how to correct today s problems or the problems generated by past activities. The future is discussed in

7 6 government documents through the projection of the number of people expected to live in the region. This indicator is important but does not look at policies that will help create this idea of permanence. Permanence is a critical concept to move into the policy discussion regarding development forward in the region. The majority of the conversations do not seem to be focused on the future development of the region as a common space. Public policies in the border region have primarily focused on expanding international trade, immigration, security issues related to drug trafficking and other crimes, and environmental issues. National domestic policies dominate as seen with the focus of the U.S. public policy since September 2001 on border enforcement (against security and immigration), and continuing the trade linkages. Results from these policies can be seen in the border crossing data provided by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (RITA/BTS). In looking at data for the whole border, in 1995, 2.86 million trucks and 32.8 million pedestrians crossed north. These numbers changed to 4.4 million trucks and 50.3 million pedestrians in 2002, and 4.9 million trucks in 2008 and 44.8 million pedestrians in Since 2002, the number of trucks has continued to increase (500,000 in a recessionary economy), while the number of pedestrians has decreased (5.7 million) (USDOT). Finally, the people and understanding the happiness of local residents provides insight into the connections of the residents with society. Happiness has been related to autonomy, freedom, achievement, and the development of deep interpersonal relationships (Kahneman and Sugden 2005, 176; taken from Seghezzo 2009, 550). In other research conducted by the author, the majority of residents are happy with their lives in the region (Collins, n.d.b.). Many border

8 7 residents have disconnected from the system creating a measure of freedom, autonomy, and have close relationships based on family and friends. Regional Development and Competition Mexicali is the capital of the State of Baja California, with more than five universities and the majority of Baja California s political elite living in the city. Mexicali s economy is based on manufacturing, retail and wholesale commerce, and services. Imperial County is a semi-rural/growing suburban county in southeast California. The economy of the county s southernmost city, Calexico, is dependent upon Mexicali residents and manufacturing plants with retail and transportation/logistics the primary sectors. These two economic sectors are also important to the rest of Imperial County but overall the majority of employment is held in the government and agricultural sectors. Mexicali and Calexico in some instances seem to be a contiguous community, except for the border fence and port of entry that runs through the downtown area. In many ways, Calexico is a suburb of Mexicali, with residents living in both cities. In a survey of border crossers in 2007, close to 40 percent of those who crossed were going from home to work. These are both northbound and southbound crossers. People also cross the border for shopping, to visit family, and go to school (Parker and Collins, 2007). The cities are linked through their residents and the economy. The terrain in the region is low desert with farmland irrigated by Colorado River water. The area s settlement is relatively recent beginning with migration to the area to work in agriculture in the early 1900s (Collins et al., 2004). In the beginning of the years of settlement in the region there were more residents living on the U.S. side than on the Mexican side. By 2010, the opposite has occurred with the population of Imperial County at approximately 175,000,

9 8 while the Municipality of Mexicali had about 950,000 inhabitants (U.S. Census, 2011; INEGI, 2011). This population growth has been driven by the economic policies. An aggressive agribusiness sector was developed with U.S. federal financial support and an international manufacturing industry was developed on the Mexican side of the border through policies made by both governments (Collins, 2006). There have been a number of conflicts surrounding environmental issues in the region. These conflicts are based fundamentally in issues of sovereignty and competition between governing institutions supported by special interests. Both the United States and Mexico are democratic republics in which voters select individuals to represent them in federal, state, and local legislative bodies. There are differences in the systems found in the concepts of federalism (fiscal and governing), intergovernmental management, political parties, term limits, and power. Each of these is fundamental to the systems and support the perceived need for sovereignty and political positioning. The conflicts are based in all different type of environmental media, energy development, air quality, and water supply. These challenges cross over and are interrelated but for the purposes of this paper, conflicts based in water, air, and energy resources be discussed. First, water supply and access to water is obviously critical in a desert that has agriculture as a major industry. In the 1980s, the U.S. Congress passed legislation providing for the lining of the All-American Canal in order to conserve water from the Colorado River 1. This legislation was further supported by the signing of the water transfer agreement between the Imperial Irrigation District and the San Diego County Water Authority in early 2000s. To understand the 1 The partition of the Colorado River is a long and complex situation which has brought about a measure of tension and disagreement, to put it mildly, among states, water districts, industry, agriculture interests, and environmental groups. For a comprehensive analysis of this situation, see the University of Colorado s Western Water Assessment Website at

10 9 historical context of this decision by U.S. agencies, before the 1930s and the U.S. federal public works project to bring secured supply of water to the Imperial Valley, the Colorado River ran into Mexico and was diverted south of the border to the Imperial Valley for irrigation purposes. This lack of control of the water and an engineering accident a number of years earlier led to the building of the All-American Canal, which runs along the border. As the canal was not lined, there had been seepage into a large aquifer on the Mexican side of the border, which supplied Mexican farmers and landowners with water for their crops, and supported wetlands on the Mexican side. Clearly, the lining of the canal was going to do harm to residents, business, and the environment on the Mexican side. In 2003, the governor of Baja California and the Mexican Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriors officially requested the U.S. government to cancel the lining of the canal. The request was rebuffed by the U.S. State Department and local officials with the Imperial Irrigation District. In 2006, a federal lawsuit was filed by Consejo de Desarrollo Economic de Mexicali, a group of business and political leaders from Baja California, along with a group of U.S. farming and environmental interests under two non-profit groups, Citizens United for Resources and the Environment and Desert Citizens Against Pollution. The purpose of this lawsuit was to stop the lining of the canal and possibly the water transfer agreement with San Diego. With the lawsuit, the lining project was postponed briefly but the plaintiffs lost the suit in the courts (Cortes Lara et al., 2009). The project has been completed and it is not clear if any remediation was conducted for the Mexican side. This conflict does though set a precedent for negotiations based in conflict instead of cooperation between the two nations. There was very little input by local residents, who watch from the sidelines and wonder how is it in their interest (Collins, 2004). The only local voice was from the City of Calexico who supported the plaintiffs and was admonished by

11 10 other local agencies in Imperial County along with the editorial board by the Imperial Valley Press (Imperial Valley Press, 2005). Geographically, the Imperial Valley is at a lower elevation than Mexicali and water flows north to the Salton Sea. The development of the valleys was based upon this natural drainage system with the New River seen as a mechanism of discharging all waste water. This established a system by which treated and untreated residential, industrial, and agricultural waste from Mexicali and Imperial County is discharged into the New River. The New River is considered by many as the most polluted river in North America and has been discussed at federal, state, and local levels for close to 50 years. As stated this river flows north through the population centers in Mexicali and Imperial. There is a high concern for the health of residents and has become a method by which people cross the border illegally. A local Calexico city commission was formed in 2000 to lobby for U.S. Federal or California State funding to enclose the portion of the New River that passes through the city in an underground, covered channel (Calexico New River Committee, 2010). Interestingly, this plan was modeled on work completed previously by Mexicali, with some funding support by the U.S. government through the shared Border 2012 program. The one part of the project that was completed was the U.S. Border Patrol did install a gate at the border to stop people from traveling up the river. The other plans which include covering the river as it runs by residential neighborhoods and building a wetlands at the northern section in Calexico, still have not received any funding. Residents in Calexico have had a very difficult time accessing resources for the project on their side and the fact that Mexicali completed it already has been a point of contention for them. The Calexico New River Committee continues to advocate for the region

12 11 and the residents but little has actually been done to improve the local quality of life or to really take residents interests into consideration. The region s air quality is extremely contaminated from local conditions as well as pollution drift from the Los Angeles basin. Imperial County and Mexicali consistently have the highest number of days exceeding ozone and particulate matter (PM10) air quality standards (U.S. EPA and Mexico SEMARNAT, 2011). As part of the Border 2012 program (a descendent of the La Paz Agreement between the United States and Mexico), a binational group has been meeting for 10 years or so to discuss ways to collaborate and improve air quality in the region. This group has been supported by the federal governments in the United States and Mexico, and has been fairly successful in conducting regional studies. Unfortunately, the needs are great and there is a lack of sufficient funding to support actual infrastructure build-up and remediation projects to make a difference. This local group competes with others throughout the border region, creating more of an atmosphere of competition and resignation that little will be done to actually make any real change. In the mid-2000s, citizens, nongovernmental organizations from both Mexico and the United States, and the local government in Imperial County protested the building of two new natural gas power plants in Mexicali, a project supported by the Mexican federal, state, and local governments and U.S. federal government through the Department of Energy. The basis for this conflict was that the U.S. companies were not going to supply any off-sets to reduce emissions in an already contaminated airshed. This conflict was manifested in the U.S. judicial system with an environmental advocacy group suing the U.S. federal government for not conducting adequate environmental analysis on the plants and providing a presidential permit to the companies to transmit the power into U.S. territory. Representatives from the U.S. Congress eventually

13 12 stepped in and forced one of the companies to put in better emissions control. The lawsuit did not stop the plants or obtain the off-sets requested and the plaintiffs in this case basically lost. The Mexican response to this intervention and criticism in the U.S. was defensive and implying that the U.S. was trying to control Mexico s development once again and wanted to keep the country poor for its own advantage. The reasons for this non-cooperative atmosphere are complex. First, the border governance structure limits cooperation, as it is primarily based on who is in office and the people change frequently, especially in Mexico with its system of term limits. Second, many of the community members are disenfranchised from the process. In a survey conducted by the author regarding environmental perceptions in the region, most people in Calexico do not even recognize that there are environmental problems in their city. If they do state that there are problems, they find the fault completely in Mexicali (Collins, n.d.a.). Third, the concepts of Marcuse discussed by Box (2003) in which the political and economic system swallows up knowledge of alternatives, as the world tends to become the stuff of total administration, which absorbs even the administrators (Marcuse, 1964, p. 169 as quoted in Box, 2003, p. 247). With this atmosphere of conflict and disagreement, it is difficult to ever envision a more sustainable future for the region. How can the community ever reach the concept of permanence provided by Seghezzo? The next section of this paper proposes that we need to look toward changing the ideas of sovereignty, democracy and public interest to achieve a new concept of shared space in this border region. Obtaining a More Sustainable Future Sustainable development is based on the ability of the people within a place to develop policies and programs that look toward the future (permanence). This is missing from the

14 13 conversation and from policy making in the Imperial-Mexicali valley, and for much of the border region. The environmental conversation is controlled by the federal government with some state and large NGO participation but there is very little local input. To complicate matters, since the September 11 attacks on the United States, the conversation has been controlled by border security. This has been heightened by the drug wars in Mexico, which give security forces on both sides of the border more reasons for being. There is little integration of sustainable development principals and community building. In fact, in many instances national security concerns have trumped the environment as seen in the building of roads through sensitive habitat for Border Patrol vehicles. Local government actors in the border region generally understand the need to cooperate but it is difficult to maintain working relationships (Saint Germain 1998, 2000; Tuman and Neeley, 2003). The relationships between agencies many times are based on individuals as opposed to the institutions themselves, which limits trust and cooperation. Additionally, the lack of institutional support for cooperation and public interest makes it difficult for local actors to meet. Box (2001, 2007) discusses the difficulty of obtaining a clear idea what is in the public s interest. In the shared communities along this U.S.-Mexican border this is even more complex. In the border region, as the area is treated as a federal zone with local and state interests, the public interest discussion is driven by federal officials. Input from local officials is taken, but this generally is not a democratic process. This is partially due to programs formed under the concept of New Public Management and the use of markets to provide public goods and services (Box et al, 2001). What is at risk if a more sustainable approach is not found for the U.S.-Mexico border region? There will be a further depletion of environmental resources, particularly water, which

15 14 would be further complicated by global climate change (Lee and Ganster, 2012). This will be exasperated as communication and trust between the communities is further eroded through competition and decreased interaction because of border security policies which are cutting linkages. With the dire discussion thus far, what are possible options for future community building and sustainability? The task seems insurmountable but steps need to be taken or impacts will be severe, not only for the local residents in border communities but throughout the United States and Mexico. An initial step to changing the conditions in the border region is to find means for change by analyzing the system and its institutions with new eyes. We need to change our concepts of sovereignty and democracy, which will lead to new ways to formulate the interests of the public. From there, it is hoped that greater buy-in from residents will be obtained for if the locals see that they are able to make a change, they will be more likely to participate in the process. With greater buy-in and participation from local residents, a new discussion of the future and what life in the region will look like can be developed this will help to plan for and manage future challenges. What are these new systems of sovereignty and democracy that lead to a greater understanding public interest? Mostov (1998) has a developed a convincing argument of the need to move away from hard borders and strict definitions of sovereignty to ideas that borders are fluid with both legal and illegal movements. With this comes the ability to redefine political space and who can participate in the decisions that impact the everyday lives of people of different nationalities. Mostov leads to the conclusion that there are transnational citizens who are left out of the system because sovereignty limits their contributions. Each of the environmental conflicts discussed in this essay were basically set because of the nation-state

16 15 limitations people put on themselves and others. Negotiations were between federal officials that left the local residents and others concerned on the sidelines to comment but not truly part of the decision process. These federal officials include members of the judiciary who made the final decisions on the lining of the All-American Canal; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) negotiating with Mexican officials to spend U.S. dollars to improve the wastewater infrastructure in Mexicali yet not providing large measures of support for the Calexico New River Committee; the U.S. President s Office and Department of Energy officials who approved the transmission line to bring energy produced in Mexico and exported to the United States without any comment by the public until after the fact; U.S. Senator who made the U.S. power plant company to put on additional environmental systems to reduce their emissions; the environmental workgroups developed and funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Mexico s SEMARNAT that listen to public comments but move forward their agendas by funding what they think is important. Each conflict was supported one way or another by the current institutional framework that protects the sovereignty of the nation but not the people in the region. How to move the system toward a more democratic response, where the local public interest is heard and moves the agenda as opposed to the top-down movement that currently exists? Box and his colleagues from the University of Nebraska in 2001 wrote an article on New Public Management and substantive democracy that proposes a solution for this problem. In this article, the authors describe the move toward using the market as a base for public administration and the limiting effects on democracy. An example of this is found in the decision of the Department of Homeland Security to have people get a pre-clearance to cross the border by paying a fee and submitting to a background check. This market mechanism is designed to

17 16 control those who by necessity or desire need to cross the border faster than the overcrowded and unreasonably slow lanes found on the free side of the border. If a person does not comply with their system then they are not able to cross or they are inconvenienced by waiting in inspection areas for long periods of time. This removes the democratic process from the system for both individuals who are part of the system through the purchase of the border pass and those who are outside of the system. Clearly, the border and how it is handled sets the tone in the binational community for democracy and cooperation that impacts other areas of community concern. Public administrations working with the governments are perceived as outsiders who are to control residents and not help, therefore, many residents disengage from the system. The public interest is lost further as people do not want to get involved as it might only cause them problems. The solution proposed is for officials to create a relationship based on shared knowledge and decision making rather than control or pleasing and placating (Box et al., 2001, p. 616). I propose moving this concept further by including all members of the community in this relationship, residents of both the United States and Mexico thus fundamentally changing how society functions at the local level. The federal systems need to open the process so that people are involved and feel that they can make a difference. By eliminating the conversation of the others from the other side who want to do us harm, local residents move forward to create a region that best enables them to prosper and is a place that will support their children s lives as well.

18 17 References Blatter, J Emerging Cross-Border Regions as a Step Towards Sustainable Development? International Journal of Economic Development, 2(3): Box, R.C Contradiction, Utopia, and Public Administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 25(2): Box, R.C Redescribing the Public Interest. The Social Science Journal, 44: Box, R.C., Marshall, G.S., Reed, B.J. and Reed, C.M New Public Management and Substantive Democracy. Public Administration Review, (September/October) 61(5): Calexico New River Committee Retrieved from Collins, K. n.d.a. Environmental Perceptions in Calexico and Mexicali. LASPAU, Mimeo Collins, K. n.d.b. Life in the U.S.-Mexican Border Region: Residents Perceptions of the Place. (Currently under review). Collins, K Perceptions of Imperial Valley Business Leaders Regarding the Impacts of the 2003 Water Transfer Agreement with San Diego. Prepared for the Imperial Valley Socioeconomic Impact Committee and Imperial Irrigation District. Collins, K Local Government Capacity and Quality of Life in the U.S.-Mexican Border: The Case of Calexico and Mexicali. Diss. El Colegio de la Frontera Norte. Collins, K., P. Ganster, C. Mason, E. Sanchez Lopez, and M. Quintero-Nunez, eds Imperial-Mexicali Valleys: Development and Environment of the U.S.-Mexican Border Region. San Diego: San Diego State University Press, Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias. Cortez Lara, A.A., Donovan, M.K., Whiteford, S The All-American Canal Lining Dispute: An American Resolution over Mexican Groundwater Rights? Frontera Norte, (enero-junio) 21(41): Ellman, E. and Robbins, D Merging Sustainable Development. Journal of Environmental Health, (Mar) 60(7): Imperial Valley Press Our Opinion: Calexico lines up against AAC lining project. November 10. Retrieved from: INEGI - Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas Geografia e Informática (2011). Información Nacional, Por Entidad Federativa y Municipios. Retrieved from

19 18 Lee, E. and Ganster, P. eds The U.S.-mexican Border Environment: Progress and Challenges for Sustainability. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University Press. Liverman, D., Varady, R., Chavez, O., & Sanchez, R. (1999). Environmental issues along the United States-Mexico border: Drivers of change and responses of citizens and institutions. Annual Review of Energy & the Environment, 24(1), Martínez, O.J Troublesome Border. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Masuda, J.R. and Garvin, T Whose Heartland?: The politics of place in a rural urban interface. Journal of Rural Studies, (January) 24(1): Mostov, J Soft Borders. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Pastor, R.A North America s Second Decade. Foreign Affairs (January/February) 83(1): Parker, R. and Collins, K Imperial County Cross-Border Survey. Prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments and the Imperial Valley Association of Governments (June). Saint Germain, M.A Re-Presenting the Public Interest on the U.S.-Mexico Border. In D. Spener and K. Staudt eds., The U.S.-Mexico Border: Transcending Divisions, Contesting Identities, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Saint Germain, M.A Impacts of NAFTA on Intergovernmental Relations for U.S. and Mexican Municipalities. In S. Nagel ed., Handbook of Global Political Policy, New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. Seghezzo, L The five dimensions of sustainability. Environmental Politics. 18(4): Stevis, D. and Mumme, S Rules and Politics in International Integration: Environmental Regulation in NAFTA and the EU. Environmental Politics, (Winter), 9(4): Tuman, J.P. and Neeley, G.W Public Management in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region: Toward Increased Cooperation between Texas and Mexican Officials? State and Local Government Review, (Winter) 35(1): U.S. Census Bureau State and County QuickFacts. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics Border Crossing/Entry Data, (Based on data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and OMR database). Retrieved from

20 U.S. EPA and Mexico SEMARNAT Border 2012: U.S. and Mexico Environmental Program, State of the Border Region Indicators Report, (May) Retrieved from 19