Binational water management along the US—Mexican border is changing as a result of new institutions and approaches growing out of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In this study we examine the two leading border water-management agencies today, the venerable International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) and the new Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), to understand better the post-NAFTA prospects for policy innovation in this issue area. The two agencies, IBWC and BECC, are analyzed from the perspective of two prominent theoretical explanations for agency behavior, structural choice politics and interorganizational implementation, to identify their political and institutional limitations as binational water-management agencies. We then chart the prospects for further innovation in binational water management along the US—Mexico border.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agreement, 1983, “Agreement Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area”, 14 August 1983, TIAS 10827
2.
Agreement, 1993, “Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States Concerning the Establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank”, 16 November; available on the Border Environment Cooperation Commission website: http:cocef.interjuarez.com
3.
AudleyJ, 1993, “Why environmentalists are angry about the North American FreeTrade Agreement”, in Trade and the Environment Eds ZaelkeDOrbuchPHousmanR F (Center for International Environmental Law and Island Press, Washington, DC) pp 191–203
4.
BardachE, 1977The Implementation Game (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
5.
BathC R, 1981, “Resolving water disputes”, in Mexico — United States Relations Ed. PurcellS K (Praeger, New York) pp 181–188
BrowneH, 1996b, “Waiting for NADBANK”Borderlines4(11) 1–3
8.
BrowneH, 1997, “Search for new management team tops busy agenda for BECC”Borderlines2(5) 1–3
9.
ChaseG, 1979, “Human services implementation: how hard will it be?”Public Policy27385–435
10.
DOT, 1993, “Fact Sheet on the US/Mexican Agreement on the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADBANK)”US Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC
11.
EPA, 1996, “US — Mexico Border XXI Program, Framework Document”, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
12.
GAG, 1994, “North American Free Trade Agreement; Structure and Status of Implementing Organizations”, GAO/GGD-95–10BR, US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC
13.
HjernBPorterD O, 1982, “Implementation structures: a new unit of administration analysis”Organization Studies2211–227
14.
HeymannP, 1987The Politics of Public Management (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT)
15.
IngramHFiederleinS, 1988, “Traversing boundaries: a public policy approach to the analysis of foreign policy”Western Political Quarterly41725–746
16.
IngramHLaneyNGillilanD, 1995aDivided Waters (University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ)
17.
IngramHMilichLVaradyR G, 1995b, “Toward better policy design in transnational environmental management: learning from the US — Mexico example”, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
18.
IBWC, 1995, “Minute No.294, Facilities Planning Program for the Solution of Border Sanitation Problems”, 24 November, International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, United States Section, 4171 N. Mesa, Suite C-310, El Paso, TX 79902
19.
IBWC, 1997, “Minute No.298, Recommendations for Construction of Works Parallel to the City of Tijuana, B.C. Wastewater Pumping and Disposal System and Rehabilitation of the San Antonio de los Buenos Treatment Plant”, 2 December, International Boundary and Water Comission, United States and Mexico, United States Section, 4171 N. Mesa, Suite C-310, El Paso, TX 79902
20.
KellyM, 1993, “NAFTA's Environmental Side Agreement: a review and analysis”, Texas Center for Policy Studies, Austin, TX
21.
KhademianH, 1996Checking on Banks: Autonomy and Accountability in Three Federal Agencies (Brookings Institution, Washington, DC)
22.
KnoxJ, 1996, “Figuring out the relationship between the BECC and the IBWC”BECC/COCEF Perspectivas4(1) 1
23.
LevinMFermanB, 1985The Political Hand (Pergamon Press, New York)
24.
MendosaR, 1994, “The 3 billion dollar political plum”Hispanic Business16 (December) 24–26
25.
MilwardH B, 1993, “What does the ‘hollow state’ look like”, in Public Management: The State of the Art Ed. BozemanB (Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA) pp 309–322
26.
MoeT, 1989, “The politics of bureaucratic structure”, in Can the Government Govern? Eds ChubbJ EPetersonP (The Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC) pp 267–328
27.
MummeS P, 1992, “New directions in transboundary environmental management: a critique of current proposals”Natural Resources Journal32539–562
28.
MummeS P, 1993, “Innovation and reform in transboundary resources management: the United States” Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico”Natural Resources Journal30661–684
29.
MummeS PMooreS T, 1990, “Agency autonomy in transboundary resources management: the United States' Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico”Natural Resources Journal30661–684
30.
MuntonDKirtonJ, 1994, “North American environmental cooperation: bilateral, trilateral, and multilateral”North American Outlook4 (March) 59–87
31.
OjedaM, 1983, “The future of relations between Mexico and the United States”, in Mexico and the United States Eds ReynoldsC WTelloC (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA) pp 315–330
32.
PastorR ACastanedaJ C, 1988Limits to Friendship (Alfred A Knopf, New York)
33.
PorterD O, 1985, “Administrative theory recast: managing programs through implementation structures”, paper presented at Conference on Multi-Actor Policy Analysis, Umeå, July; copy available from the author, Idaho Department of Commerce, State Capitol, Boise, ID 83720
34.
PressmanJWildavskyA, 1973Implementation (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
35.
Public Citizen, 1996, “NAFTA's broken promises: the border betrayed”, Public Citizen, Global Trade Watch, 1600 20th Street NW, Washington, DC 20009
36.
RomzekBDubnickM, 1987, “Accountability in the public sector: lessons from the Challenger tragedy”Public Administration Review47 (May/June) 227–238
37.
SalamonL (Ed.), 1989Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government Action (Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC)
38.
SanchezR, 1990, “El Medio Ambiente Como Fuente de Conflicto en La Relacion Binacional Mexico — Estados Unidos” [Environmental protection as a source of conflict in Mexico — United States bilateral relations], El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Tijuana
39.
SanchezR, 1993, “Public participation and the IBWC: challenges and options”Natural Resources Journal33283–298
40.
SepulvedaC, 1983La Frontera Norte de Mexico, Historia, Conflictos, 1762–1983 [Mexico's northern border, its history and conflicts, 1762–1983] (Editorial Porrua, Mexico City)
41.
SpaldingM, 1996, “The Border Environment Cooperation Commission Meetings and the Border XXI Unveiling Meeting”The Journal of Environment and Development5 (Winter) 101–106
42.
SpaldingM, 1997, e-mail postings on BECCNET under the heading, “BECC and hazardous waste”, 12 February and 14 February; beccnet@listserv.arizona.edu
43.
SpaldingM JAudleyJ J1997, “Promising potential for the US — Mxico border and the future: an assessment of the BECC/NADBank institutions”, National Wildlife Federation, 1400 16th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036–2266
44.
SpragueD, 1996, “A study of the Internatioal Boundary and Water Commission and the Border Environment Cooperation Commission: strengths and weaknesses”, professional paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of Arts Degree, Department of Political Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
45.
SprouseTBrownC, 1995, “The emergence of BECC: new approaches in addressing environmental issues in the US - Mexico region”, paper presented to the 8th Annual Symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, Tucson, AZ, 14–15 September; copy available from Dr Sprouse, Santa Cruz Active Management Area, Department of Water Resources, State of Arizona, 857 West Bell Road, Suite 3, Nogales, AZ 86521
46.
SuarezEChavezO E, 1997, “Profile of the United States — Mexico border”, Universidad Autonoma de Juarez, Cd. Juarez, Chihuahua
47.
Treaty, 1944Treaty Regarding Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande February 3, United States –Mexico Stat. 1219, T. S. No. 994
48.
VaradyR GColnicDMeridithR, 1997, “How has BECC fared? Perspectives on the first two years”BECC/COCEF Perspectivas3(2) 1–4
49.
WeintraubS, 1990A Marriage of Convenience (Oxford University Press, New York)
