Overview
Title
To provide for the water quality restoration of the Tijuana River and the New River, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
S. 5075 is a plan to help clean up two dirty rivers shared by the U.S. and Mexico. It sets up teams to figure out how to work together and gives money to fix the water, but it doesn’t say exactly how or how fast they need to do it.
Summary AI
S. 5075 aims to improve the water quality of the Tijuana River and the New River. The bill calls for the establishment of specific programs to coordinate and implement water quality restoration activities between the U.S. and Mexico, involving federal, state, and local entities. It addresses pollution, urges better stormwater management, and seeks financial resources to sustain these efforts. The legislation also authorizes funding to support projects that protect public health and the environment in these areas.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The bill titled "Border Water Quality Restoration and Protection Act" proposes strategies to improve the water quality of the Tijuana River and New River, both of which cross the US-Mexico border. The legislation outlines comprehensive programs that involve collaboration between multiple levels of government, including international partnerships with Mexico. The aim is to restore public health and environmental quality by creating actionable plans, obtaining necessary funding, and ensuring cooperation among stakeholders like federal, state, and local agencies, as well as nonprofit organizations.
Summary of Significant Issues
One significant issue noted in the bill is the lack of specific timelines or measurable objectives, which could lead to prolonged implementation without tangible results. While detailed plans are required, the absence of definitive deadlines and metrics may hinder the effectiveness of the restoration efforts.
The bill also uses complex legal language and references existing legislation, making it less accessible to those unfamiliar with legal jargon. This can create barriers to understanding the implementation process and objectives.
Another issue is the broad definitions used throughout the bill. Terms such as "eligible entity" and "eligible project" in the section on border water infrastructure improvements are defined in ways that are open to interpretation, possibly leading to jurisdictional overlap and differing expectations among stakeholders. Similarly, the exclusion of projects for 'new water supply' might restrict innovative solutions to water scarcity problems.
Concerns about potential wasteful spending are also highlighted, with broad descriptions of administrative needs and expenses lacking specific guidelines or accountability mechanisms, which might lead to inefficiencies.
Impact on the Public
The proposed legislation could have a substantial impact on communities near the Tijuana and New Rivers, particularly by improving water quality and public health. If successful, the restoration efforts could reduce pollution, enhance local biodiversity, and provide recreational opportunities for residents.
However, the bill's broad and complex nature may pose challenges in effectively implementing its objectives, possibly leading to delays and increased costs. Furthermore, if funds are not managed efficiently due to vague criteria, it could result in wasted resources that might otherwise benefit community development directly.
Impact on Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders, such as federal, state, and local governments, as well as nonprofit organizations, might find opportunities for collaborative work and funding through this bill. The availability of grants and technical assistance might help these entities develop and execute projects that they could not undertake independently.
On the other hand, the bill's complex interagency and international coordination requirements could slow down urgent restoration activities, potentially causing frustrations for stakeholders eager to see immediate improvements. Additionally, the broad eligibility criteria may result in competition or favoritism in grant allocations, leading to inequitable distribution of resources.
Internationally, the bill represents an ambitious effort to collaborate with Mexico. While it opens avenues for binational projects, the alignment of interests and bureaucratic processes between countries could affect project timelines and outcomes.
Overall, while the intent of the bill to restore water quality and protect public health is commendable, its success heavily depends on the clarity of its implementation strategies and the effectiveness of its collaborative mechanisms.
Financial Assessment
The bill S. 5075 involves several financial aspects intended to address the water quality issues of the Tijuana River and the New River. The financial references in the bill include appropriations, allocations, and discussions about financial strategies for improving infrastructure and environmental conditions. This commentary explores these monetary references and highlights concerns related to the effectiveness and accountability of these allocations.
Financial Appropriations and Allocations
S. 5075 authorizes specific financial appropriations for activities related to the restoration and protection of water quality in these river watersheds. The bill mentions that $50,000,000 is proposed to be appropriated to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for each of the fiscal years from 2025 through 2035. These funds are designed to remain available until expended and are earmarked for grants, technical assistance, and other agreements to support the restoration programs (Sections 105 and 205).
The funding is targeted to support the coordinated efforts between the U.S. and Mexico and to cover the execution of projects that are critical to maintaining public health and environmental standards. However, while these spending policies are explicitly stated, the criteria for the allocation, selection of projects, and the use of funds remain broad, raising potential concerns about accountability and effective use of financial resources.
Relation to Identified Issues
This financial framework ties into several issues highlighted in the bill. One of the primary concerns is the potential for wasteful spending due to broad descriptions of the administrative needs and expenses without specific guidelines or accountability measures. The sections dedicated to annual budgeting and reports (Sections 106 and 206), while addressing the need for oversight, do not provide a clear path for ensuring financial efficiency, potentially leading to the misuse of allocated funds.
Additionally, the bill's approach to financial allocations invites ambiguity through its wide definitions of 'eligible entity' and 'eligible project' (Section 301). Without precise criteria for project selection and funding, there might be overlaps in jurisdiction or funding for projects that do not align with the core objectives of solving pressing water quality issues. The exclusion of projects aimed at new water supply solutions could also limit the scope of innovative solutions, posing a further challenge in crisis response and resource sustainability.
Furthermore, the consultation and coordination processes described in Sections 103, 203, and 301, which include multiple federal, state, and international entities, could introduce bureaucratic delays. These could potentially stall financial decision-making processes, delaying critical restoration activities despite the availability of funds.
Conclusion
In summary, S. 5075 lays out significant financial commitments towards the restoration of the Tijuana River and the New River watersheds. While the funding itself is substantial and reflects a strong commitment, the bill's implementation strategy lacks specificity in financial oversight and accountability, which are crucial to ensuring that these funds make a tangible impact. Addressing these issues will be essential for the success of water quality restoration initiatives and environmental protection efforts delineated in the bill.
Issues
The bill lacks specific timelines or measurable objectives for the restoration and protection activities of the Tijuana and New River watersheds, potentially leading to prolonged implementation without accountability. (Sections 101, 105, 106, 203)
The definition and role of the 'Program Director' in both the Tijuana and New River restoration programs lack clarity, possibly causing ambiguity in the scope of authority and duties. (Sections 102, 203)
The bill includes complex legal references, such as sections of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, which might be difficult for readers who are not familiar with legal documents, limiting transparency and understanding. (Sections 106, 206)
The section on the United States-Mexico border water infrastructure program includes a broad definition of 'eligible entity', which may lead to ambiguity and potential overlaps in jurisdictions, requiring further clarification to avoid conflicts. (Section 301)
The term 'eligible project' for border water infrastructure improvements includes broad categories, potentially leading to wide interpretations and necessitates clearer criteria to avoid misunderstandings. Additionally, the exclusion of projects for 'new water supply' could limit solutions for critical water issues. (Section 301)
There is a significant potential for wasteful spending due to broad descriptions of administrative needs and expenses without specific guidelines or limits, and the document lacks clear accountability mechanisms, which might lead to misuse of funds. (Sections 106, 206, 205)
The consultation and coordination requirements span numerous international, Federal, State, and local entities, potentially creating bureaucratic inefficiencies and delaying urgent restoration activities. (Sections 103, 203, 301)
The process of selecting local government and nonprofit representatives in the Tijuana River program is not fully elaborated, which could lead to favoritism or inequitable representation. (Section 103)
The document mentions the need for enhanced scientific capacity and public engagement but provides limited detail on how this will be achieved, risking insufficient support for restoration efforts. (Sections 101, 201, 203)
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title; table of contents Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the title and contents of the "Border Water Quality Restoration and Protection Act," which includes multiple titles focusing on improving water quality and public health in areas like the Tijuana and New Rivers, developing water quality action plans, providing grants and assistance, and handling border water infrastructure improvements. It details specific programs, plans, and roles for interagency agreements and reports related to these objectives.
2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section of the bill, several terms are defined, including titles like "Administrator" and "Secretary," geographical features such as the "New River" and "Tijuana River," as well as organizations and concepts like "Indian Tribe" and "water reuse." These definitions help clarify who and what the bill is referring to when it uses those terms.
101. Findings; purpose Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress finds that the Tijuana River, which spans the United States-Mexico border, suffers from significant pollution issues due to untreated sewage and stormwater, affecting both the environment and public health. To address these concerns, Congress aims to establish a collaborative program with Mexican and U.S. entities to coordinate water quality restoration and protection efforts, accompanied by necessary funding to improve conditions in the Tijuana River watershed.
Money References
- (a) Findings.—Congress finds that— (1) the Tijuana River flows across the United States-Mexico border, through the southern United States, and into the Pacific Ocean; (2) 3⁄4 of the 1,750 square mile watershed of the Tijuana River lies in Mexico, and the remaining 1⁄4 includes the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve in the United States; (3) the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve is a partnership of Federal and State agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, California State Parks, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; (4) the Tijuana River is a significant estuary and watershed, providing— (A) economic and health benefits to the citizens of the United States and Mexico; and (B) environmental benefits as critical habitat to shore birds; (5) the economy of communities in southern California, including smaller communities, such as the City of Imperial Beach, and larger municipalities, such as the City of San Diego, may be significantly affected— (A) if the natural beauty and recreational opportunities of the Tijuana River are degraded; and (B) due to public health and environmental impacts; (6) the Tijuana River watershed is in the midst of an environmental crisis, as stormwater flows from the upper watershed, originating in Tijuana, Mexico, carrying pollutants such as bacteria, trash, and sediment that severely affect water quality; (7) coastal communities in and near the Tijuana River watershed are also affected, during certain tidal events, by a combination of treated wastewater and chlorinated-only wastewater discharged from the San Antonio de los Buenos wastewater treatment plant located 5 miles south of the United States-Mexico border in Tijuana; (8) as reported by the Government Accountability Office in February 2020, transboundary flows of untreated sewage, combined with unmanaged stormwater, bring bacteria and other contaminants into the Tijuana River Valley watershed and beaches in the United States; (9) sediment flows into the Tijuana River National Wildlife Refuge and blocks the flow of ocean water and creates an imbalance in water salinity, necessary for marsh plants, fish, and birds; (10) before the date of enactment of this Act, the City of Imperial Beach has experienced more than 1,000 consecutive days of beach closures due to the ongoing influx of sewage, industrial discharges, and trash from the Tijuana River due to risk to human health; (11) flows of untreated sewage, chemicals, and pollution from Mexico jeopardize the health of Border Patrol agents and limit the ability of those agents to operate in areas affected by these flows; (12) a March 2020 report of the Environmental Financial Advisory Board of the Environmental Protection Agency— (A) found that— (i) “stormwater knows no jurisdictional boundaries … and is a principal cause of water quality issues nationwide”; and (ii) adequate funding to manage stormwater pollution lags behind the investments made in wastewater management and the delivery of safe drinking water by decades; and (B) concluded that Federal investment will be required to address— (i) the lack of State and local funding; and (ii) multi-jurisdictional stormwater management needs; (13) during the 10-year period before the date of enactment of this Act, Federal, State, and local governments and others have identified the benefits of using natural and green infrastructure to control and manage stormwater runoff, including wetlands, coastal dunes, and retention structures; (14) during the 20-year period before the date of enactment of this Act, the United States and Mexico, through the International Boundary and Water Commission, have agreed to resolve the pollution problems in the Tijuana River; (15) the International Boundary and Water Commission has negotiated 9 Minutes to resolve water quality problems in the Tijuana River, among other subjects; (16) 1 of the most recent Minutes authorized the construction of the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant in San Ysidro to treat, on average, 25,000,000 gallons of sewage from Tijuana per day, which has reduced the sewage coming into the United States; (17) the sewer system of Tijuana is— (A) aging and deteriorating; and (B) insufficient to meet the needs of a quickly growing population; (18) in August 2023, Tropical Storm Hilary— (A) caused more than 2,000,000,000 gallons of contaminated water to flow across the border; and (B) exacerbated vulnerabilities at the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant; (19) on January 22, 2024, a record-breaking storm caused the Tijuana River to reach the highest flow ever recorded for that river at 14,500,000 gallons per day; (20) from January to June of 2024, an estimated 33,551,000,000 gallons of wastewater, treated water, and stormwater flowed from Mexico to the United States; (21) on June 17, 2024, a pump station failure resulted in approximately 302,000 gallons of untreated spilling onto the public right-of-way; (22) during the 2-year period before the date of enactment of this Act, transboundary flows occurred on 317 days, on average, each year; (23) those transboundary flows contain treated wastewater, raw sewage, and urban runoff, with most of those flows associated with wet weather and stormwater; (24) during the 2-year period before the date of enactment of this Act, unprecedented dry weather flows reached approximately 10,043,000,000 gallons; (25) abnormal dry weather flows and sediment have caused pump failures, oppressive odors, and public health concerns; (26) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) has established a stormwater permit program under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, under which municipalities have the responsibility to manage and treat stormwater; (27) because of the international border and different treatment systems and standards, discharges in Mexico to the Tijuana River are not treated to the same standards as the standards to which discharges would be treated in the United States; (28) the International Boundary and Water Commission negotiated Minute 320 to find solutions for water quality, trash, and sediment in the Tijuana River; (29) the International Boundary and Water Commission negotiated Minute 328 to implement sanitation infrastructure projects in Tijuana, Baja California, and San Diego, California, that will be financed with a total joint investment of $474,000,000; (30) the United States has invested at least $300,000,000 for secondary wastewater treatment in the Tijuana River Valley by the International Boundary and Water Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency through the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and Minute 328; (31) the Environmental Protection Agency and the International Boundary and Water Commission selected Alternative 2, as described in the final programmatic environmental impact statement of the Environmental Protection Agency and the International Boundary and Water Commission entitled “USMCA Mitigation of Contaminated Transboundary Flows Project” and dated November 2, 2022, and selected in the record of decision of the Environmental Protection Agency and the International Boundary and Water Commission entitled “Joint Record of Decision for the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Mitigation of Contaminated Transboundary Flows Project” and signed on June 9, 2023; (32) the United States has also helped fund water and wastewater infrastructure along the border through the Border Water Infrastructure Program and the North American Development Bank; and (33) however, as the Government Accountability Office found in the report described in paragraph (8)— (A) the longstanding environmental and health problems associated with transboundary stormwater flows continue; and (B) while the International Boundary and Water Commission has taken the first steps to conduct long-term capital planning to resolve existing problems by proposing and analyzing alternatives, analyzing costs, identifying solutions, or establishing time frames, significant additional investment from the resources of Federal, State, Tribal, local, and Mexican entities is needed to improve the water quality of the Tijuana River watershed. (b) Purposes.—The purposes of this title are— (1) to establish a Geographic Program to plan and implement water quality restoration and protection activities; (2) to ensure the coordination of restoration and protection activities among Mexican, Federal, State, local, and regional entities and conservation partners relating to water quality and stormwater management in the Mexican Tijuana River watershed and the American Tijuana River watershed; and (3) to provide funding for water quality restoration and protection activities in the Mexican Tijuana River watershed and the American Tijuana River watershed. ---
102. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section explains terms related to the Tijuana River watershed, distinguishing between its American and Mexican portions. It also describes the Tijuana River Public Health and Water Quality Restoration Program, including its director, and defines water quality restoration and protection as efforts to improve water quality and manage stormwater using natural methods.
103. Tijuana River Public Health and Water Quality Restoration Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Tijuana River Public Health and Water Quality Restoration Program establishes a plan to protect and restore the Tijuana River's public health and water quality. The program involves coordination between numerous federal, state, and local agencies, as well as indigenous tribes and nonprofit groups, to implement science-based restoration activities, projects, and funding strategies, with ongoing cooperation formalized through agreements with U.S. and Mexican authorities.
104. Water quality action plan Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates the creation of an action plan to improve the water quality of the Tijuana River watershed, with input from relevant entities. The plan will include existing efforts, specific projects, criteria for prioritizing actions, funding options, and details of projects on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring the protection and restoration of the watershed's water quality.
105. Grants, interagency and other agreements, and assistance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section authorizes the Administrator to provide grants and technical assistance to various entities, including governments and nonprofits, for priority projects. It allows for interagency agreements, sets criteria for grant allocation, and permits the construction and maintenance of projects, with up to $50 million authorized annually from 2025 to 2035. The section also includes provisions for cost-sharing, administration of funds, and a possible transfer of funds to the Commissioner.
Money References
- — (1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this section $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2035, to remain available until expended.
106. Annual budget plan Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The President is required to include estimates of spending and proposed budget details for various projects and administrative expenses in their annual budget submission to Congress. This information must cover the current year, the next budget year, and the following five years, and should include details for projects listed as priorities and for each federal agency involved.
107. Reports Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates that the Administrator must submit a report to Congress within one year of the act being enacted and every two years afterward. This report should include details about projects that received funding, their status, and an evaluation of how well each project is being operated and maintained.
201. Findings; purpose Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress provides an account of the historical context and severe pollution issues of the New River, along with past initiatives and current efforts to restore and protect the water quality and habitats of the river through cooperative projects involving the United States, Mexico, and other stakeholders. The goals include improving water management, sustaining habitats, enhancing public access, and increasing public engagement and scientific research to ensure effective and lasting water quality improvements.
Money References
- (a) Findings.—Congress finds that— (1) the New River was born out of— (A) occasional flows of the Colorado River into the Salton Sink; and (B) the erosion of the New River channel, which formed the deep river canyon between 1905 and 1907; (2) the New River— (A) starts in Mexicali, Mexico; (B) flows north into the United States through Calexico; (C) passes through the Imperial Valley; and (D) drains into the Salton Sea approximately 66 miles north of the international boundary; (3) the sub-watershed of the New River covers approximately 750 square miles, of which 63 percent is in Mexico and 37 percent is in the United States; (4) the New River has been widely recognized for significant water pollution problems, primarily because of agricultural runoff, raw sewage, pesticides, and discharges of wastes from domestic, agricultural, and industrial sources in Mexico and the Imperial Valley; (5) by the 1980s, the New River acquired the reputation of being 1 of the most polluted rivers in the United States, with many pollutants in the New River posing serious human health hazards to local populations, particularly in Calexico and Mexicali; (6) in 1992, Minute 288 of the International Boundary and Water Commission— (A) established a sanitation strategy for the water quality problems of the New River at the international border; and (B) divided sanitation projects into 2 immediate repair projects, the Mexicali I and Mexicali II, that— (i) totaled approximately $50,000,000; and (ii) were funded by both the United States and Mexico through the North American Development Bank; (7) in 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency provided funds to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to monitor and document the water quality at the international boundary on a monthly basis; (8) in the late 1990s— (A) the United States and Mexico spent $100,000,000 (of which 45 percent was paid by Mexico and 55 percent was paid by the United States) to build the Las Arenitas and Zaragoza wastewater treatment plants; and (B) after the construction of those plants, untreated water from the New River was passed through 4 microbial treatment cells at the Las Arenitas wastewater treatment plant, which was then chlorinated and fed into a reforestation project along the desiccated Rio Hardy, which stretches to the Sea of Cortez; (9) a 10-year effort by community groups, lawyers, regulatory agencies, and politicians addressed the problem of water quality in the New River at the source by— (A) federally funding a new sewage treatment plant in Mexicali; and (B) developing a site plan for the portion of the New River in the United States; (10) in 2009, the State of California required the California-Mexico Border Relations Council— (A) to create a water quality plan to study, monitor, remediate, and enhance the water quality of the New River to protect human health; and (B) to develop a river parkway suitable for public use; (11) in 2012, the California-Mexico Border Relations Council approved the strategic plan for the New River Improvement Project that was prepared by the New River Improvement Project Technical Advisory Committee; (12) in 2016, the New River Improvement Project Technical Advisory Committee revised the recommended infrastructure of the New River Improvement Project, and the State of California appropriated $1,400,000 to provide grants or contracts to carry out the necessary planning, design, environmental review, and permitting work; (13) the revised New River Improvement Project includes the installation of a large trash screen, a conveyance system, aeration devices, a new pump station, and managed wetlands; and (14) the existing and ongoing voluntary conservation efforts at the New River necessitate improved efficiency and cost effectiveness, increased private sector investments, and coordination of Federal and non-Federal resources. (b) Purposes.—The purposes of this title include— (1) coordinating water quality restoration and protection activities relating to the New River among Mexican, Federal, State, local, and regional entities and conservation partners; and (2) carrying out coordinated restoration and protection activities relating to the New River and providing technical assistance for those activities— (A) to sustain and enhance fish and wildlife habitat restoration and protection activities; (B) to improve and maintain water quality to support fish and wildlife, as well as the habitats of fish and wildlife; (C) to sustain and enhance water management for volume and flood damage mitigation improvements to benefit fish and wildlife habitat; (D) to improve opportunities for public access to, and recreation in and along, the New River consistent with the ecological needs of fish and wildlife habitat; (E) to maximize the resilience of natural systems and habitats under changing watershed conditions; (F) to engage the public through outreach, education, and citizen involvement to increase capacity and support for coordinated water quality restoration and protection activities relating to the New River; (G) to increase scientific capacity to support the planning, monitoring, and research activities necessary to carry out coordinated water quality restoration and protection activities relating to the New River; and (H) to provide technical assistance to carry out water quality restoration and protection activities relating to the New River. ---
202. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, the bill describes key terms such as "program," which refers to the California New River Public Health and Water Quality Restoration Program. Additionally, it defines "water quality restoration and protection" for the New River watershed as efforts to improve water quality, manage stormwater, and use natural infrastructure to reduce pollution and prevent flooding.
203. California New River Public Health and Water Quality Restoration Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The California New River Public Health and Water Quality Restoration Program is established to improve water quality and public health around the New River, involving coordination with various federal and state agencies, organizations, and the Government of Mexico. The program includes developing and implementing restoration activities, providing grants and technical assistance, and entering into cooperative agreements to enhance water quality and public health outcomes.
204. Water quality action plan Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section details an action plan developed by the Administrator in collaboration with specified entities to enhance and protect water quality in the New River watershed. This plan, to be issued within one year and updated every five years, will include criteria for project selection, necessary funding amounts, and potential funding sources. It also involves creating a priority list of projects to manage and treat wastewater and stormwater, using scientific assessments and coordinating funding efforts to address water quality and transboundary flow issues.
205. Grants, interagency and other agreements, and assistance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text outlines how the Administrator can provide grants and work with other agencies to support projects in the U.S. and Mexico, outlining criteria and funding details for these activities. It also mentions that $50 million is authorized annually from 2025 to 2035 for these purposes, and that the Administrator can use up to 5% of this money for administrative expenses.
Money References
- — (1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this section $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2035, to remain available until expended.
206. Annual budget plan Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The President is required to submit a detailed budget plan to Congress every year, outlining estimated expenses and proposed funding for various projects, including administrative costs, over the current year, the next budget year, and the following five years. This plan must cover all projects, especially those on a priority list, for each federal agency mentioned in a specific section of the law.
207. Reports Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Administrator to submit a report to Congress one year after the law is enacted and every two years after that. The report must describe projects funded under the title, their current status, and evaluate how well each project is being operated and maintained.
301. United States-Mexico border water infrastructure program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes a program to help fund and support water infrastructure projects near the US-Mexico border. The projects must address health or environmental issues, focus on benefiting the US, and be legally and environmentally compliant, and they cannot be for new water supplies or enable new development. The program prioritizes the most impactful projects and allows for collaboration with various governmental agencies.
401. Role of the Commissioner and international agreements Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the power of the Commissioner to manage water quality projects in the Tijuana River and New River watersheds, including the ability to work with Mexico on joint projects. It also states that projects partially in Mexico can receive U.S. funding if they meet certain criteria, and clarifies that the International Boundary and Water Commission's authority is not limited by this section.