Addressing water and wastewater disparities on the United StatesMexico border

February 17th, 2014

Hiwot Gebremariam, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, United States

Investments in water and wastewater infrastructure generate large social returns. The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that each public dollar spent on water and wastewater infrastructure yields $2.62 in economic output and each job created in the industry generates an additional 3.68 domestic jobs.1 The significance of the relationship between water and wastewater investment and economic prosperity is readily apparent in the U.S.-Mexico border region.

The U.S. and Mexico share not only centuries-old commercial and socio-economic relationships, but also share rivers and watersheds, the health of which depend on cooperation between the two countries. The region’s water pollution mainly originates from raw sewage released into shared waters due to a lack of wastewater infrastructure. Although the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (ratified in 1994) has boosted economic and trade opportunities in the U.S.-Mexico border region, investment in water and wastewater infrastructure in the area still lags. An injection of capital into this sector would further drive economic development, as well as protect the environment and promote the public health of local communities.

Cross-Border Trade

Currently, Mexico is the second largest trade partner of the U.S. (after Canada), and the U.S. is the largest export market and largest source of foreign direct investment flows into the Mexican economy.2 This commercial and financial relationship benefits both countries, particularly in the border region. On the U.S. side, border counties experience the largest trade surplus with Mexico, and Texas, Arizona, and California are, unsurprisingly, among the largest state exporters from the U.S. to Mexico. Similarly, the largest volume of exports from Mexico to the U.S. comes from Mexican states nearest to the border. Trade corridors and free trade zones located in the border region have allowed some border cities, such as San Diego and Tijuana, and El Paso and Cuidad Juaréz, to generate substantial wealth.

Economic Disparity in Border Region

Despite enhanced economic opportunities at the broader level, significant income disparity exists in the border region. The economic boom witnessed in cities such as those mentioned above is not evident in many smaller towns and rural areas in the border area. Five of the 20 poorest counties in the U.S. are U.S.-Mexico border counties. Over 25% of families in border counties in the U.S. lived in poverty in 2011. The unemployment rate for border counties (10.3%) is notably higher than the national average (8.1%); more than 30% of border counties have double-digit unemployment rates.3

Underinvestment in Water and Wastewater Infrastructure

Economic constraints inhibit investment in water and wastewater infrastructure in rural border communities. In a recent field trip to southern Arizona I witnessed this situation first-hand. I saw that the Bay Acres Colonia in southeastern Arizona does not have an adequate wastewater treatment system, and some individuals have had to abandon their homes due to septic overflow. The Community of Tintown in Bisbee, Arizona lacks access to safe drinking water and wastewater treatment. The wastewater treatment plant in Willcox, Arizona (population 3,900) is failing and requires a major upgrade. There are many similar situations across the region.

Many waterbodies in the border region are polluted by raw sewage discharge. The incidence of water- and food-borne disease is alarming – the prevalence of Hepatitis A, Salmonella, Legionella, and Shigellosis in U.S. border counties is more than three, four, five, and six times than the U.S. average (respectively).4,5,6,7,8

Feedback Loops

These rural border areas have great potential. There is significant capacity to expand productivity and further develop the economic opportunities made available through trade.9 Infrastructure is key to unlocking these opportunities. Additional water infrastructure in particular would attract new businesses, skilled labor, innovation, and tourism. For example, the failing wastewater treatment plant in Willcox, Arizona is adjacent to Cochise Lake, a popular bird watching area. Further deterioration of water quality in the lake due to raw sewage outflows directly threatens the ecosystem of the lake and, as such, tourism potential.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Efforts

Since 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has run the Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program in partnership with the National Water Commission of Mexico and in collaboration with the Border Environment Cooperation Commission and the North American Development Bank (both created under NAFTA).

Through a joint contribution agreement between the U.S. and Mexico, the Program provides grant assistance for the construction of water and wastewater treatment plants in both countries. Small communities may also obtain grants to cover the costs of planning and developing water and wastewater treatment projects, which leverages the opportunity to obtain construction funding from other sources. More than 600,000 homes on both sides of the border have received services from the Program and more than eight million residents south and north of the border are benefitting from this initiative. The EPA estimates that since the inception of the Program in 1998, the average annual Program expenditure of $65 million has resulted in an average increase in U.S. GDP of approximately $75 million annually.10 In addition to these economic benefits, the Program is a symbol of partnership and cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico that goes beyond trade and business relationships. The Program generates long-term public health, social, and environmental benefits for both countries.

The Program has been a success, but we are still faced with significant gaps that require further investment. To note, EPA’s Program funding has been decreasing over time – Program funding was $100 million annually at its height but has been reduced to $5 million annually in recent years.11 The rural and small cities of the border, despite their potential for becoming business and tourist destinations, remain under-served from a water and wastewater perspective. Both the positive economic returns and the continuing deficiencies warrant increased public investment.

References:

1. Water for Jobs (no date), ‘Investment in Water Infrastructure Creates Jobs, Drives Innovation, and Safeguards Public Health’, Water for Jobs – Water Puts America to Work. Available online at: http://www.waterforjobs.org/campaignoverview.

2. United States Census Bureau (2013), ‘Foreign Trade’, Foreign Trade: Data. Available online at: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/current/balance.html.

3. United States Census Survey (2011), ‘American Community Survey’. Available online at: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/.

4. Centers for Disaster Prevention (2012), ‘Health, United States, 2012 – Infectious Disease’. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/infectious.htm.

5. Arizona Department of Health Services (2014), ‘Office of Infectious Disease Services – Infectious Diseases A-Z’. Available online at: http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/oids/diseases.htm.

6. New Mexico Department of Health (2014), ‘New Mexico Health Data’. Available online at: http://nmhealth.org/ERD/healthdata/hdata.shtml.

7. Texas Department of Health Services (2014), ‘Infectious Disease Control Unit’. Available online at: http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/idcu/.

8. California Department of Public Health (2014), ‘Communicable Disease Data’. Available online at: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/Pages/CDdata.aspx.

9. Border Research Partnership (2013), The State of The Border report – A Comprehensive Analysis of the U.S.-Mexico Border, The Wilson Center, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, North American Center for Transborder Studies. Available online at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/mexico_state_of_border.pdf.

10. United States Environmental Protection Authority (no date), ‘U.S. Mexico Border Program’. Available online at: http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/wastewater/mexican/.

11. U.S. EPA, (no date). ‘U.S. Mexico Border Program’. Available online at http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/wastewater/mexican/.

Hiwot Gebremariam is an economics professional with a background in environmental science. She currently works as an Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Research Participant at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management. She has been providing research and program implementation support to the U.S. Mexico Border Infrastructure Program since 2012. Previously she has worked for the United Nations and the African Union Commission on private sector development and regional integration programs.

The views expressed in this article belong to the individual author and do not represent the views of the Global Water Forum, the UNESCO Chair in Water Economics and Transboundary Water Governance, UNESCO, the Australian National University, or any of the institutions to which the authors are associated. Please see the Global Water Forum terms and conditions here.