Journal of Borderlands Studies | 24.

1 - 2009

Politics and the Perpetuation of Poverty in Arizona Colonias

Abstract: In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act
(NAHA), the first federal legislation to acknowledge the existence and needs of the colonias along the
Southwestern border. NAHA provided an official definition of colonias and mandating federal funding
for infrastructural improvements in the border communities.1 Sadly, nineteen years after this legislation
became law, and despite dedicated federal funding, colonia residents continue to suffer in conditions that
can only be compared with those of underdeveloped countries.
This study examines the disparity between the purpose of the NAHA legislation and the resulting policy
implementation, exploring the role of benevolent rhetoric in the lack of effective implementation of the leg-
islation’s stated purpose. With a focus on the colonias of Arizona, this study examines why some colonias are
positively affected, while others are detrimentally impacted.

Introduction
Certainly, most would find it hard to believe conditions such as these could exist anywhere in the
United States. Unfortunately, they do. – Congressman Dennis Hastert (TX)
Unless you have visited a colonia, chances are that you would have the same response as Congressman
Hastert upon learning of the persistent poverty that exists in these border2 communities. I was born
in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, where approximately eighty percent of the nation’s colonias can
be found, and thus have personally experienced the dilapidated housing and lack of running water or
sewage systems that characterize these areas. The catalyst for my research was the recognition that in
the forty five years since I was a child in Texas, very little progress has been made to correct the de-
plorable conditions in these communities. My quest to identify why conditions have not improved led
me to research poverty, housing policy and legislation, social construction of populations, and along
the way, to investigate the colonias in Arizona.
During my preliminary research of colonias, one consistent thread that was repeatedly pursued by
scholars is that of policy and legislation. Whether blamed for the problems or seen as the solution, an
examination of colonias inevitably leads to discussion of the implications of public policy.3 My ulti-
mate decision to explore the lawmaking process led me to the National Affordable Housing Act
of 1990, focusing on the discourse used while creating the legislation and the resulting implementa-
tion of the legislative mandates. Through its acknowledgement and recognition of the colonias and its
directive to set aside funds for improvements in the colonias, NAHA, also known as the Cranston-
Gonzalez Act, had the potential to improve conditions in the poverty-laden border communities.
Nevertheless, despite the possible benefits of this policy and the availability of federally mandated
funds, colonias persist, and their residents survive without running water, wastewater and sewage sys-
tems, and often experience viral diseases such as tuberculosis, hepatitis A, and salmonellosis at twice
the rate of other areas (Federal Reserve Bank 2006).
Each of the four states that share a border with Mexico – Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Califor-
nia – have tackled legislation and policies in their respective states designed to improve conditions in
colonias.

* Alma Alvarez-Smith, Dedman College of Humanities and Sciences, Southern Methodist University,
Dallas, TX 75206, 214-490-1613, alma.alvarez-smith@asu.edu.

51
Journal of Borderlands Studies | 24.1 - 2009

For example, in 1995, Texas passed House Bill 1001, which requires infrastructure to be installed for
all newly sold colonias, and Senate Bill 336, requiring disclosure of information on all Contracts for
Deed 4(Ward 1999). Both Arizona and New Mexico have passed legislation that limits the number of
times a landowner can subdivide their property without installing infrastructure (Donelson and Hol-
guin 2001). Despite these and similar types of legislated policies, the dismal reality of sub-standard
colonia housing and public infrastructures persists.
Specified in Section 916 of the NAHA is the official definition of what constitutes a colonia. In ad-
dition, it includes a mandate that Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California must designate up to
ten percent of their annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) set-aside program for in-
frastructure improvements in the colonias (Martinez, Kamasaki, and Dabir 1999; Ward 1999; HUD
2004b). CDBG monies can be used for infrastructure improvement projects such as bringing in water
lines and wastewater hookups, making road improvements, adding street lights, building or improv-
ing park areas, and improving housing. Two of the most critical and fundamental infrastructure
improvements that can be made to improve the quality of life in a colonia are providing safe drinking
water and sanitary sewage systems (HUD 2004c).
As I learned more about the NAHA legislation and observed what appeared to be illogical policy im-
plementation in colonias, I was prompted to examine the concept of “benevolent rhetoric.” Defined
as compassionate language, typically used by bureaucrats, which masks divisive tactics, benevolent
rhetoric can be presented as exclusionary language that translates into policy actions with potentially
detrimental consequences (Menjivar and Kil 2002). Although benevolent rhetoric can appear apoliti-
cal, its material effect is to protect access to resources, exclude marginalized people, and maintain
power and privilege, and thus maintain the status quo politics of hegemony. This study became
an exploration of benevolent rhetoric as part of the institutional apparatus of partisan politics and
government (in)action, resulting in legislation that creates its own barriers and impedes progress for
colonia improvements.
The connection between the persistent poverty seen in the Arizona colonias, NAHA Section 916, and
benevolent rhetoric will be demonstrated over the course of several sections that make up this article.
The first section includes the introduction and some background; the second section provides a brief
description of the methodology utilized in researching information for the study; the third section
includes an overview of the case study that allowed the examination of legislation implementation;
the fourth section contains the findings derived from document analysis, interviews, and fieldwork;
and the final section contains concluding remarks.

Methodological Framework
The methodological framework utilized in this study is a triangulation of ethnographic fieldwork,
case study interviews, and document analysis. These methodologies were performed singularly or
in combination at the local, county, state, and national levels to first identify the purpose of the
NAHA legislation and then to examine how one community gained colonia designation and funding
through the implementation of the legislation. By implementing multiple methodologies in this re-
search, data were viewed from different perspectives, revealing additional dimensions, and producing
a more complete interpretation.
Anchoring the document analysis is the National Affordable Housing Act, which was preceded by
multiple congressional hearings before it was enacted in 1990. Legislative testimony was reviewed
from ten congressional hearings that were conducted between 1988 and early 1990 on the topics of
Colonias, Water, Sewage Disposal, Housing, and Community Development Block Grants.
Included in these documents were testimonies and/or prepared statements from seventeen U.S.
Senators, thirty-one members of the House of Representatives, and 156 witnesses, all which
provided valuable information regarding concerns, the conditions in the border communities, and
possible solutions.

52
 Journal of Borderlands Studies | 24.1 - 2009

While many hearings were conducted in Washington, D.C., some hearings were conducted in Texas
border communities such as Eagle Pass, El Paso, and Brownsville, affording public officials the op-
portunity to travel to colonias and examine first-hand the conditions that needed their help and at-
tention. Thousands of pages of legislative testimony transcripts from these hearings were analyzed to
determine what information was made available to the public officials and how they communicated
their learnings during the law making process.
In addition to the document analysis, interviews were conducted with public officials at the city,
county, and state level, who have had a role in obtaining or granting colonia funding in Arizona. As
well, interviews were conducted with advocates who were consulted during the 1988-1990 Congres-
sional hearings and a politician who was in office at the national level when the NAHA legislation
was written and passed. The purpose of these interviews was to learn what these decision makers
knew about NAHA Section 916 and the available funding for colonias, how this information was
communicated to them, and how they communicated this information to others. To demonstrate the
existence of benevolent rhetoric, the discourse, which in this particular case was wrapped around the
process of creating and implementing legislation, was analyzed. An analysis of the available docu-
ments such as testimony, meeting minutes, and documented reports, as well as transcripts from
interviews, uncovered patterns of behavior and themes in language, meaning, and style exhibited by
policy makers and public officials at multiple levels of the process. By performing a content analysis of
documents from the national level to the local level, a blending of objectivity was achieved in content
analysis as well as the human perspective found in field work as prescribed by Altheide (1996).
To understand the implementation of this legislation, one Arizona colonia was used as a case study
to examine what was experienced in the course of gaining colonia status and obtaining associated
funding. The case study examines the processes that the community leadership experienced, as well
as what was communicated to and by decision makers who were involved in the process. When infor-
mation about this lived experience is compared to the insights gathered from the discourse analysis,
identifying the presence of benevolent rhetoric becomes possible.
Prior to the identification of the case study, primary research was done to document details about the
colonias of Arizona, as few resources have been produced to date. This research and documentation
required reviewing archived records such as city council minutes, community newsletters, Chamber
of Commerce files, county records, and newspapers to gain a historical perspective and pertinent
timelines. When available, my search also included reviewing community and federal web sites,
where I was able to locate population numbers, economic data, and community establishment dates.
In addition to identifying which colonia would be used as the case study, my research also uncovered
information about recently designated Arizona colonias that had not previously appeared on any
other colonia listings. The verification of this information confirms the latest count of Arizona colo-
nias at 104, of which 31 are incorporated communities.
Selected as my case study, Eloy, Arizona is a Latino5 community located fifty-seven miles southeast of
Phoenix, approximately halfway between Phoenix and Tucson, in Pinal County. As an incorporated
community with roots that date back to the 1800s, Eloy was selected because it embodies some of the
characteristics that set the Arizona colonias apart from the colonias of Texas. Since most of the lit-
erature on colonias is based on the Texas settlements, it is important to point out that differences do
exist from state to state and colonias are not alike in all four of the border states. The Texas colonias,
considered relatively new, have establishment dates going back only forty or fifty years, while Ari-
zona, New Mexico, and California colonias include some long standing communities with histories
dating back to the turn of the century. Approximately 30% of the Arizona colonias are incorporated
communities,6 while New Mexico has a few incorporated communities and Texas and California
have predominantly unincorporated settlements.

53
Journal of Borderlands Studies | 24.1 - 2009

Texas colonias are almost exclusively Hispanic, while New Mexico is predominantly Hispanic with
a few Native American tribal communities. California has Hispanic, Native American, and some
Anglo colonias, and Arizona has the most diverse colonia representation of all, including Hispanic
communities, Black communities, Anglo communities (mostly retirees), as well as seven Native
American tribal reservations that have gained colonia status (Esparza and Donelson 2008; Mukhija
and Monkkonen 2007).
Eloy, a Case Study
Eloy proved an interesting case study to examine the implementation of legislation because as an
incorporated community with an established decision-making body in place, it was easier for the city
to apply for colonia designation than it would be for a small unincorporated community. Small, unin-
corporated communities often lack the leadership, organization or capacity to administer the bureau-
cratic requirements to apply for colonia designation and associated funding. Their process to colonia
designation is more cumbersome because the help of an agency or outside source is often necessary.
Adding to the difficulty is the fact that oftentimes, the residents of the small border settlements do
not speak English and cannot negotiate the bureaucratic red tape of colonia designation.
When I began my research on Eloy, it had already gained its colonia designation, having attained it in
1999. Through interviews with city and county officials, I learned that the colonia designation came
about as a result of the city’s efforts to obtain funding for water and wastewater improvements. When
searching for available funds, city employees contacted the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Rural
Development, where they were informed about the colonia program. Rural Development representa-
tives advised the Eloy city employees that the colonia program could provide funds to address infra-
structure needs such as the ones that Eloy was experiencing.
The first step of the designation process was to get the resolution approved by the city council, so
they could advance it to the County Board of Supervisors for passage. Behind the scenes, there was
discussion among administrators and managers regarding the pros and cons of gaining a colonia des-
ignation, but they did not consult with or advise the citizens of Eloy regarding this designation and
potential labeling. Without exception, every interviewee indicated that the colonia designation was
not perceived to be a negative label, but rather they were considering the advantages that the com-
munity would gain from the designation. It was agreed among the decision makers that the designa-
tion would benefit the community and there was no potential downside to the action. With guidance
from Rural Development representatives, the city attorney drew up the resolution to apply for colonia
designation.
The resolution was presented to the Eloy City Council as a positive move that would make the city
eligible for additional funding, which came from funding that was only accessible to cities with
the colonia designation. The presenters explained that by getting a colonia designation, Eloy would
receive preferential treatment when applying for funds from the federal government and the funds
would be used to make the desperately needed upgrades to the water system in the community. There
was no objection to the resolution, it was approved by the City Council, and advanced to the County
Board of Supervisors (Personal interviews 2007).
By April 1999, when the Eloy resolution came before the Pinal County Board of Supervisors, they
had already seen and approved two other resolutions to designate communities in Pinal County as
colonias; Maricopa was approved in February of 1998 and Saddleback Vista was approved in January
of 1999.7 The Board of Supervisors was sufficiently familiar with the resolutions that they relegated
them to consent items on their meeting agendas. Consent items are items that do not need discussion
or further input before they are moved to a vote. During interviews with the supervisors, it became
evident that they were only slightly more knowledgeable about colonias than were the decision mak-
ers in Eloy. They knew of colonias by name because they had approved the resolutions, some had
driven through or visited a colonia, or lived near one, but they were not learned about the demo-
graphics, the history, or the extent to which colonias exist outside their county.

54
 Journal of Borderlands Studies | 24.1 - 2009

They had been advised that a colonia designation was of financial benefit to the community and of no
cost or negative impact to the county. They saw the designations as tools for the communities to im-
prove their infrastructure and based on those perceptions, all resolutions for colonia designations that
came before the board were approved. The resolution from Eloy for colonia designation was approved
by the Pinal County Board of Supervisors on April 7, 1999 (Pinal County 2008).
Once the resolution was passed and they had their colonia designation, Eloy applied for and received
funding to make improvements to their water and wastewater systems. The water pipes in Eloy were
old, corroding, and in need of replacement. In addition, many of the residents were still hooked up to
septic tanks and this was seen as an environmental issue that needed immediate attention. Over the
next few years, old water pipes were dug up and replaced by new ones, and pipes were installed for the
collection system that would take residents off septic tanks and connect them to the city sewer system
(Personal interviews 2007).

Findings
Research produced key insights into the disparity between the National Affordable Housing Act of
1990 legislation and its implementation. The findings pertaining to the NAHA legislation will be
covered in detail here, beginning with the examination of discourse through content analysis.
Content analysis was performed on legislative testimony from ten selected congressional hearings that
took place between 1988 and 1990. Throughout the fact-finding process that led up to the NAHA
legislation in 1990, political decision makers were presented with information that painted a clear
picture about the dire circumstances affecting colonias. Trips to colonias were made by some of the
legislators to get a first-hand look at the conditions and to visit with the residents in their environs.
Witnesses were called upon to testify during the hearings as to the experiences, the hardships, and
the hope for a better future in the border communities. Some of the legislators even testified that they
grew up in or near a colonia and were intimately aware of the conditions that were being addressed.
The following are examples of some of the comments made by politicians regarding the need to ad-
dress conditions in the colonias:
“It is very difficult for us in these marbled halls, to feel first hand the distress, the poverty, the an-
guish……..the lack of basic water and sewer facilities that we take for granted in a civilized society
in the 20th century, yet find them totally lacking in the colonias.” Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez
(TX). Colonias Housing and Community Development Assistance Hearing, September 1988.
“In our country, where we have the working of this nation living in the kinds of conditions….de-
scribed really is just something that should be unacceptable to the congress.” Congressman Joseph P.
Kennedy II (MA).
Colonias Housing and Community Development Assistance Hearing, Sept. 1988.
These comments provide a small sampling of the discourse articulated by politicians during the se-
lected hearings. They reflect an understanding of the situation on the border, while at the same time
suggest concern and empathy towards the residents of colonias. Legislators repeatedly commented on
the tragedy of the situation and the need for the United States government to take a leadership role in
correcting the persistent conditions. Some of those statements include:
“It is time for Congress to put the issue of affordable and available housing back on our legislative
priority agenda.” Senator Alan J. Dixon (IL). National Affordable Housing Act Hearing, Sept. 1988.
“These practices and realities of life in colonias will not change until the Federal government, work-
ing with other concerned units of government, directly addresses these facts of existence in colonias.”
Congressman Solomom P. Ortiz (TX). Colonia Water and Sewage Service Act Hearing, Sept. 1988.
On several occasions during the hearings, colleagues and witnesses who were called to testify warned
the politicos about the pitfalls of writing legislation, including managing the needs of special interest
groups and guarding against writing legislation that attempts to include everyone.

55
Journal of Borderlands Studies | 24.1 - 2009

Individuals explicitly identified flaws in the proposed legislation that would create barriers and make
it difficult and often impossible for many colonias to gain access to earmarked funds. Examples of
some of these comments include the following:
“Many rural areas would be incapable of even completing the required application….In short, block
grants would not work in rural communities because local communities do not have the capability to
administer the resources…” R. J. Godin, Jr. President, Council for Rural Housing and Development.
National Affordable Housing Act Hearing, September 1988.
“Given the likely level of funding involved and the contribution requirement, many communities
may not be able to participate – and the poor are the ones who will suffer.” James Rouse, Chairman,
National Housing Task Force. National Affordable Housing Act Hearing, Sept. 1988.
“One of the primary ways in which rural areas are different, Mr. Chairman, as I am sure you are
aware, is in capacity. There are few of the support networks that are often taken for granted in urban
settings.” Harold O. Wilson, Executive Director, Housing Assistance Council, Inc. National Afford-
able Housing Act Hearing, September 1988.
Among the many other warnings issued to the legislators, the most prophetic warning came from
Floyd Carter, Vice President of the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association. Mr. Carter
represented individuals who interface with citizens in need on a daily basis. This voice of experience
was heard during the National Affordable Housing Act Hearing held in September 1988, when Mr.
Carter warned the legislative committee about the perils of implementation. In part, his testimony
read:
“The problem we always get into is the implementation of a good idea….from the point of idea to
implementation, it winds up with so much dilution, for various reasons, that it doesn’t work as well at
the implementation stage as was envisioned at the planning stage.”
The content analysis performed on available data indicates that: 1) legislators understood the dire
circumstances in the colonias, 2) they had the knowledge necessary to address the very specific needs
of the small and often unincorporated communities, 3) despite the numerous warnings that were
communicated to them by colleagues, witnesses, and colonia residents, they chose to craft legislation
that by its vast inclusiveness to meet the needs of the majority, rendered many colonias voiceless and
disenfranchised, and 4) by passing a bill that is embroiled in restrictive implementation language, leg-
islators virtually ensured that many of the small colonias that need the help most would not be able
to access the funds.
The investigation and identification of benevolent rhetoric consists of the deconstruction of discourse
that is expressed, examination of the subsequent actions, and assessment of the congruence between
the two. In the case of the NAHA, the discourse that was articulated during legislative hearings
that led up to the passing of the bill was compassionate and conveyed a concern for the individuals
living in the border colonias. The subsequent action, that is, the writing and passage of legislation
that did not meet the needs of all the colonias and rendered some of them voiceless, is contradic-
tory to the discourse that was expressed. In addition, benevolent rhetoric is often practiced to protect
access to resources and to exclude marginalized populations. This was accomplished by directing
funds through Community Development Block Grants, which are often beyond the reach of small,
unincorporated colonias that do not have the capacity to file appropriate paperwork and as a result,
exclude low-income, working poor. Dale Stuard, President of the National Association of Home
Builders, tried to shed light on this barrier during the National Affordable Housing Act Hearing in
September 1988, when he warned Congress that “Our concern with the set-aside units is that they go
unused in the majority of cases.”
The content analysis conducted and described in the first part of this Findings section indicates that
benevolent rhetoric played a role in the passing of the NAHA legislation. Using a second methodol-
ogy of interviews, the presence of benevolent rhetoric was confirmed, although the discourse was not
as effusive as the rhetoric found in the content analysis.

56
 Journal of Borderlands Studies | 24.1 - 2009

The research uncovered that the discourse surrounding the availability of funds for colonias remained
consistent from the city to county to state to national level. When the city of Eloy first learned about
and then applied for colonia designation, they were told that the colonia designation would make it
easier for them to obtain funding (Personal interviews 2007). That was the message that the city em-
ployees heard from the representatives of Rural Development and the message that was conveyed to
the City Council, who approved the decision to apply for the designation. It was also the message that
the County Board of Supervisors based their actions on when they approved the resolution for Eloy
to gain colonia status (Personal interviews 2007). When interviewed, a politician who was in office at
the time that the NAHA was passed, indicated an understanding that the colonia designation would
allow communities easier access to funding. The discourse heard at all levels of the process referred to
the ease of obtaining available funds and the benefits that would be derived. The interviews uncov-
ered that benevolent rhetoric was demonstrated throughout the process because the public officials
consistently addressed only what the constituents wanted to hear, the positive aspects of gaining the
colonia designation. Negative aspects and barriers of the designation were not discussed.
The impact of benevolent rhetoric is seen in a variety of implementation examples including the
bureaucratic red tape surrounding the NAHA Section 916. In the case of settlements that are not
incorporated and do not have decision-making bodies in place, the Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) guidelines require a unit of general local government to administer the distribution of CDBG
funds for the community. The onus is on the colonia residents to organize themselves as a non-profit
entity and apply for funds directly (HUD 2004b). Examples of communities organizing themselves
as non-profit entities can be seen among the Arizona colonias in such instances as Arizona City
Sanitation District in Pinal County and Marana Domestic Water District and Avra Valley Water Co-
operative in Pima County. These districts require some level of leadership to be present in the com-
munity to organize and then to maintain the ongoing operations of the entity. Oftentimes, the small
colonias that need the most help do not have the leadership or the capacity to organize themselves or
to establish a governing board. This is one area where the legislation has fallen short of its promise to
provide for these communities, despite all the compassionate rhetoric that was espoused during the
1988-1990 hearings.
Probably the greatest reinforcement of the presence of benevolent rhetoric in NAHA Section 916 is
the recent release of a report by the HUD Office of the Inspector General (OIG) entitled, “HUD’s
Community Development Block Grant Set-Aside for Colonias was not Used for its Intended Pur-
poses.” In this report, dated July 29, 2008, the OIG confirms, as the witnesses and experts during the
legislative process in 1990 predicted would happen, that funding is not reaching the intended popula-
tion due to poor and improper implementation (HUD 2008).
Due to a lack of administrative guidelines and processes, HUD has allowed inconsistent definitions
and practices to flourish, resulting in inappropriate distribution of funds. Of the four border states,
Arizona has the most lax interpretation of the definition of colonias, permitting incorporated com-
munities to apply for and gain colonia designation (HUD 2008). Incorporated communities are
more politically sophisticated than small unorganized settlements and they have capacity to process
necessary paperwork, which gives them an advantage and more access to funds (Esparza and Donel-
son 2008).
In addition, the practice in Arizona has allowed CDBG funds to be distributed by Councils of Gov-
ernment (COGs), who negotiate amongst themselves to determine what projects get funded. This
practice has permitted the co-mingling of CDBG Set-Aside funds, which are earmarked specifically
for colonias, and general CDBG funds, resulting in misallocation of funds, failure to ensure colonia
needs are prioritized, and the absence of tracking documentation.
In 1988 Floyd Carter warned the legislators about potential implementation perils. He and others
testified as to the obstacles and problems that could arise if administrative responsibility was given to
HUD and attention was not given to the implementation process.

57
Journal of Borderlands Studies | 24.1 - 2009

Their warnings fell on deaf ears and the legislation was passed with broad definitions and left to
HUD to administer. The result today, in varying degrees across our four border states, is the absence
of a significant improvement of conditions in colonias.

Conclusions
When the selected hearings were taking place in 1988-1990, the concerns and issues of the colonias
were front and center and many people in the political arena and in the state of Texas “became aware”
these settlements along the Southwest borderlands. Colonias received media attention, had politi-
cians visiting, and residents were invited to testify for Congress. Once the legislation was written and
passed, the attention and activity died down gradually until the colonias sunk back into the shadows
and again became largely invisible. Although legislation is now in place that is meant to help these
communities, their specific form as hammered out through political negotiation and compromise
produced counterproductive bureaucratic requirements. For example, if they are too small and do not
have the capacity to apply for designation or funds, the legislation is useless to them even though they
need the most help. They are rendered “voiceless.” The current implementation process for this legisla-
tion makes it difficult for many colonias to access the designated funds
As demonstrated through the content analysis in this study, benevolent rhetoric is not a new tactic; it
has been practiced by political decision-makers for some time, it just was not called by name. A recent
example of benevolent rhetoric was witnessed in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina hit the Louisiana
coast. News cameras transmitted images of the devastation and the world “became aware” of the
large number of poverty stricken families who lost their homes to the flood. Although these families
had been there for many years, they had remained virtually invisible. When Katrina hit, the enor-
mity of the problem could no longer be ignored. Several days into the Katrina disaster, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced the provisioning of FEMA trailers for use as
temporary housing for the victims. In an appalling demonstration of benevolent rhetoric, the major-
ity of those trailers went unused because FEMA regulations prohibited placing them in “flood-prone”
areas (Lipton 2006). Eventually, some trailers were successfully placed and occupied by hurricane
victims, only to learn that the trailers are linked to hazardous amounts of toxic formaldehyde (New
York Times 2008).
With Katrina, as with the colonias nineteen years ago, action was taken because the world was
watching, but the public record shows that despite compassionate rhetoric indicating willingness to
help, any benefits were minor and federal efforts actually were detrimental to those most in need of
assistance.
The action taken on behalf of colonia residents, as well as Katrina victims, ultimately maintains the
status quo and repeats the cycle of socially constructing a subordinate class. When Congress was
called upon in 1990 to pass legislation that would help address the needs in the colonias, they had
the opportunity to make a difference. They understood the needs, knew what needed to be done, and
were warned of the barriers to avoid. In an effort to be all-inclusive and not alienate pools of constitu-
ents, the legislation was passed with terms and implementation leeway so broad that many colonias
are left voiceless. Some cannot access the earmarked funds, many cannot apply for the desperately
needed designation, and in Arizona specifically, the implementation process leaves colonias at the
mercy of the COGs, who decide where the funds are expended.
The compassionate sentiments voiced in conjunction with NAHA legislation, at conception and
ongoing, are categorized as benevolent rhetoric because they are not followed by the promised or ex-
pected action. The existing poverty in colonias is perpetuated through the absence of effective policy.
Change requires that we, as a society, recognize benevolent rhetoric for what it is and hold politicians
accountable for their actions, otherwise those who have power will continue to be powerful, and
those who have little or are considered politically valueless will continue to be marginalized.

58
 Journal of Borderlands Studies | 24.1 - 2009

Endnotes
1
Colonias are often referred to as settlements - being a demographic presence of individuals with little to
no social infrastructure, or communities - referring to a demographic presence of individuals with a social
infrastructure based on shared norms, goals, or values (Ward 1999). For ease and fluidity in reading, the
terms are used interchangeably in this article.
2
For the purposes of this article, the definitions of “border” and “borderlands” set forth by Stoddard and
Hedderson (1987) will be used. The term border refers to an “imaginary political-legal boundary line”
that separates Mexico and the United States, and “borderlands” refers to a “jurisdictional area consist-
ing of the four border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas” (Stoddard and Hedderson
1987).
3
Some of the many references to policy as it pertains to colonias include existence of “fuzzy” definitions
(Stuesse and Ward 2001), “lack of political will and/or leadership” (Ward 1999), the need for strong net-
works to impact policy (Dabir and de la Garza 1996), acknowledgment that reluctance to recognize co-
lonias prevented provisioning of funds (Martinéz, Kamasaki, and Dabir 1999), recognition that policies
have ignored the poor (Saenz and Ballejos 1993), concluding that “the reaction (or lack thereof) of local,
state, and federal government…has had significant impact on this region” (Betts, Slottje, and Vargas-
Garcia 1994).
4
Contracts for Deed, used extensively in Texas colonias prior to 1995, are mortgage vehicles that are 1)
negotiated between two private parties; 2) characterized by low cost, minimum down payments, and
no banks or third party involvement; and 3) because the title remains in the owner’s name until the full
amount is paid, the agreement is subject to forfeiture if even one payment is missed (Ward 1999).
5
The terms Latino and Hispanic are used interchangeably in this paper.
6
This number is fluid as colonias are newly designated on an ongoing basis.
7
In September 1995, the community of Mammoth became the first colonia in Pinal County, but they did
not seek approval from the Pinal County Board of Supervisors. They gained their designation by passing
a resolution through their town council, approved by their mayor and city attorney and attested by the
town clerk (Mammoth Town Council records).

References
Acuña, Rodolfo F. Occupied America: A History of Chicanos. New York: Pearson Longman, 2004.
Altheide, David L. Qualitative Media Analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 1996.
Arizona Department of Health Services. “Arizona Geneology Birth and Death Certificate Results.” 2005.
http://www.geneology.az.gov/search.asp
Betts, Dianne C., and Daniel J. Slottje. Crisis on the Rio Grande: Poverty, Unemployment, and Economic
Development on the Texas-Mexico Border. With Jesus Vargas-Garcia. Boulder: Westview Press, 1994.
City of Eloy, 2008. http://eloyaz.govoffice2.com.
Dabir, Surabhi, and Diego de la Garza. The Border Colonias Regions: Challenges and Innovative
Approaches to Effective Community Development. Washington, DC: Housing Assistance Council, 1996.
Donelson, Angela J., and Esperanza Holguin. “Homestead Subdivisions/Colonias and Land Market
Dynamics in Arizona and New Mexico.” In Irregular Settlement and Self-Help Housing in the United
States. Memoria of a Research Workshop, edited by Angela C. Stuesse and Peter M. Ward. Cambridge,
Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2001.
Duncan, Cynthia M. Worlds Apart: Why Poverty Persists in Rural America.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999.
Edelman, Murray. “The Political Language of the Helping Professions.” In Language and Politics,
edited by Michael J. Shapiro, 44-60. New York: New York University Press, 1984.
Esparza, Adrian X., and Angela J. Donelson. Colonias in Arizona and New Mexico: Border Poverty
and Community Development Solutions. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2008.
Faulkner, Tina. “Native Communities of the Borderlands: An Introduction.” With George Kourous.
Borderlines 62, 7 no. 11 (December 1999), http://americas.irc-online.org/borderlines/1999/bl62/bl62.
html. (accessed May 19, 2006).

59
Journal of Borderlands Studies | 24.1 - 2009

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. “Texas Colonias: A Thumbnail Sketch of the Conditions, Issues,
Challenges and Opportunities.” 2006. http://www.dallasfed.org/ca/pubs/colonias.html
Gonzales, Manuel G. Mexicanos: A History of Mexicans in the United States. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1999.
HUD. See U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Huntoon, Laura and Barbara Becker. “Colonias in Arizona: A Changing Definition with Changing
Location.” In Irregular Settlement and Self-Help Housing in the United States. Memoria of a Research
Workshop, edited by Angela C. Stuesse and Peter M. Ward. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy, 2001.
Hyland, Stanley, and Michael Timberlake. “The Mississippi Delta: Change or Continued Trouble.”
In Forgotten Places: Uneven Development in Rural America, edited by Thomas A. Lyon and
William W. Falk, 76-101. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1993.
Lipton, Eric. “Trailer Dispute May Mean Thousands Will Go Unused.” The New York Times,
February 14, 2006.
Luckenbill, Bradford. Minorities in Phoenix: A Profile of Mexican American, Chinese American,
and African American Communities, 1860-1992. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1994.
Magaña, Lisa. Mexican Americans and the Politics of Diversity: ¡Querer es Poder! Tucson:
University of Arizona Press, 2005.
Martinéz, Zixta Q., Charles Kamasaki, and Surabhi Dabir. “The Border Colonias: A Framework for
Change.” In Housing in Rural America: Building Affordable and Inclusive Communities,
edited by Joseph N. Belden and Robert J. Wiener, 49-60. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 1999.
Menjivar, Cecilia, and Sang H. Kil. “For Their own Good: Benevolent Rhetoric and Exclusionary
Language in Public Official’s Discourse on Immigration-Related Issues.” Social Justice 29, (2002): 160-76.
Mukhija, Vinit, and Paavo Monkkonen. 2007. What’s in a Name? A Critique of Colonias in the United
States. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 31 (2): 475-488.
New York Times. “FEMA’s Formaldehyde Foul-Up.” Nytimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2008.
Pinal County Board of Supervisors, 2008.
http://pinalcountyaz.gov/Departments/Recorder/Pages/DocumentType.aspx
Saenz, Rogelio, and Marie Ballejos. “Industrial Development and Persistent Poverty in the Lower Rio
Grande Valley.” In Forgotten Places: Uneven Development in Rural America, edited by
Thomas A. Lyson and William W. Falk, 102-124. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1993.
Salazar, Gus. “Growing Community Responds to Educational Needs.” The Eloy Enterprise,
December 9, 1999, pp. 19B.
Schneider, Anne, and Helen Ingram. “Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for
Politics and Policy.” American Political Science Review 87 no.2 (June 1993): 334-347.
Stoddard, Ellwyn R., and John Hedderson. Trends and Patterns of Poverty Along the U.S.-Mexico Border.
Borderlands Research Monograph Series No. 3. Las Cruces: Joint Border Research Institute, New Mexico
State University, 1987.
Stuesse, Angela C., and Peter M. Ward. Irregular Settlement and Self-Help Housing in the United States.
Memoria of a Research Workshop. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2001.
U. S. Bureau of the Census. “United States Census 2000.” 2006.
http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Colonias Water and Sewage Service Act. 100th Cong.,
2d sess., 1988. S. Rep. 100.114.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs. Colonias Housing and
Community Development Assistance. 100th Cong., 2d sess., 1988. S. Rep. 100-86.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs. Developing a National
Housing Policy. 100th Cong., 2d sess., 1988. S. Rep.100-59.

60
 Journal of Borderlands Studies | 24.1 - 2009

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Hunger. Colonias: A Third World Within Our Borders. 100th
Cong., 1st sess., 1989. S. Rep. 101-6.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. National Affordable Housing
Act. 100th Cong., 2d sess., April 1989. S. Rep. 241-28.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. National Affordable
Housing Act. 100th Cong., 2d sess., September 1988. S. Rep. 241-11.
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Colonias Quick Facts.” Homes & Communities.
2004a. http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/colonias/.
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Community Development Block Grant Program
- CDBG.” Homes & Communities. 2004b.
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/.
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Notice CPD-03-10. 2004c.
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/lawsregs/notices/2003/03-10.pdf.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Notice 24 CFR Part 570 “Community
Development Block Grant Program; Revision of CDBG Eligibility and National Objective Regulations;
Final Rule.” Federal Register 71, no. 100 (May 24, 2006): 30031.
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Audit Report Number 2008-FW-0001 “HUD’s
Community Development Block Grant Set-Aside for Colonias was not Used for its Intended Purposes.”
2008 http://www.hud.gov/utilities/intercept.cfm?/offices/oig/reports/files/ig0860001.pdf
Vélez-Ibáñez, Carlos G. Border Visions: Mexican Cultures of the Southwest United States. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press, 1996.
Ward, Peter M. Colonias and Public Policy in Texas and New Mexico: Urbanization by Stealth. Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1999.

61