Water supply gaps at the beginning of the next cycle (2015-2020) led many to believe that Mexico would again fail to meet its water commitments. Two weeks before the October 24, 2020 deadline, Mexico had paid 89 percent of its water payment to the United States, but owed an additional 240 million cubic meters of water, according to the Comisión Nacional del Agua (Conagua). This corresponded to about 20% of the water that flowed through the Conchos River and flowed into the la Boquilla, El Granero and Las Vírgenes dams in the state of Chihuahua. Although Mexico had finally fulfilled its water commitments for the round, significant conflicts had arisen in the weeks leading up to 24 October. Water scarcity along the U.S.-Mexico border also threatens the natural environment. As water is diverted to farms and cities, rivers are deprived of the river needed to support habitats, fish populations, and the overall health of the river. Beyond learning how to manage the Colorado River, long-term sustainable solutions to the Rio Grande`s water supply require a number of policy measures: the 1944 Water Treaty contains guidelines that govern water storage, hydropower, sanitation, and flood prevention. However, the most important power listed in the treaty concerns the regulation of the water of the Colorado River and the Rio Grande. The 1944 water treaty was silent on nature conservation. For all its strengths, it simply allocates water from the Rio Grande and Colorado rivers. It does not take into account the ecological side of water use. The prolonged drought over the middle of the Rio Grande since the mid-1990s means less Mexican water flows into the United States.
The Colorado River basin, which serves seven U.S. states and two Mexican states, is also at an all-time high. In 2017, the United States and Mexico signed a « temporary shortage-sharing solution. » This agreement, signed under the authority of the 1944 treaty, allowed Mexico to store part of the water in its contract in American reservoirs upstream. Vanda Felbab-Brown discusses the stressors of water resources that are developing in the U.S.-Mexico border areas, which have suffered from water scarcity for decades, and will increasingly experience it as water availability decreases and becomes more unpredictable. This article was originally published by Mexico Today de La Reforma. While the origins of the IBWC date back to 1889, the 1944 treaty changed the Commission and expanded its power. The main function of the IBWC, which is responsible for managing conflicts related to border management and water sharing, serves as the main arbiter in binational debates on water management. In fact, a 2005 report found that the IBWC has resolved most of the disputes over border waters that have arisen since the treaty was adopted in 1944. The 1944 Treaty conferred considerable powers on the IBWC, including the possibility of drafting protocols or legislation on the interpretation and implementation of treaties.
Although the protocols are direct extensions of the Treaty and are considered binding agreements, they are unique in that they offer flexibility for compliance with the Treaty by allowing for appropriate adjustments if necessary. They play a crucial role in promoting bilateral cooperation and have covered a variety of issues in the past, such as: « Operation and maintenance of transboundary wastewater disposal facilities, water transport during droughts, dam construction and water salinity issues. » Since the ratification of the treaty in 1944, 179 minutes have been ratified. Second, they require the identification and development of new sources of water, para. B example by desalination or water supply from wetter areas. Finding new water sources is often the preferred solution for water users and some water managers. This is necessary, but insufficient. « We appreciate the efforts of Mexican government officials to fulfill their contractual obligations in a timely manner, » said Jayne Harkins, U.S. commissioner of the International Boundary and Water Commission that oversees the treaty. « This agreement puts us on the right track to improve the management of the Rio Grande in the future for the benefit of both countries. » The agreement also establishes two working groups, one for hydrology and the other for policy. The groups will help in sharing data and improving the management of the common flow. This growth is driven by a booming, water-dependent manufacturing industry in Mexico that exports products to U.S.
markets. Irrigated agriculture, livestock and mining compete with growing cities and the expansion of the industry for scarce water. Finally, such a common approach to rio Grande water sustainability requires targeted enforcement on both sides of the border: use and payments must be monitored and water use violations punished. Water law enforcement, in turn, requires technological innovation, more resources for law enforcement, and a greater willingness to enforce regulations at the national level, including through tougher and more frequent sanctions – as well as problem solving. It also requires a common determination to make binational and local agreements work. In addition, minute 325 also called for the creation of a Working Group on Rio Grande Hydrology to be overseen by the Rio Grande Policy Working Group. Both working groups are tasked with improving river management and developing solutions for water sharing as the Rio Grande basin becomes drier. Newly created joint teams of experts will review treaty compliance and recommend other changes needed to manage climate-threatened waters along the U.S.-Mexico border in a sustainable and cooperative manner. The Colorado River flows through seven states in the United States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) until it reaches Mexico. 97% of the river basin is located on American territory.
At the time of the contract`s first implementation, water flow from the Colorado River was estimated at 16.8 million acre-feet (AF), but recent reports show that the current average flow is closer to 14.4 million AF per year. Under the 1944 treaty, the United States is required to give Mexico 1.5 million AF of water per year, the equivalent of 10% of the annual river. Agriculture accounts for 75% of water consumption in the southwestern United States and on the Mexican side. Power generation, industry and water-hungry hydraulic fracturing are other important attractions. Water is also needed for human consumption, with populations in the Rio Grande and Colorado basins having increased significantly in recent decades. Global warming has reduced water flows, as the replenishing snowpacks in mountainous headwaters melt earlier and faster and accumulate less. Global warming has also led to less rain and increased evaporation, exacerbating droughts. Cumulatively, these changes reduced the water supply, while demand increased well beyond what was expected in 1944. Depletion is putting enormous pressure on watersheds and has decimated the river ecosystems necessary for the sustainable hydrological functioning of watersheds. Surface waters along the U.S.-Mexico border were administered by the Peace and Friendship of 1848 and the 1906 Agreement between the United States and Mexico on the Equitable Distribution of the Waters of the Rio Bravo/Grande. Although initially quite narrow, the 1906 Convention laid the foundation for the best-known water management treaty, the Treaty between Mexico and the United States on the Use of the Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana rivers and the Rio Grande, better known as the 1944 Water Treaty. This treaty developed water allocations for Mexico and the United States and created the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) / Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas (CILA).
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has escalated the controversy by involving the Trump administration and seeking to get involved in resolving the dispute. Since the initial conflicts over water transfer, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) has repeatedly said that Mexico will provide the water, arguing that non-compliance with the treaty and attempt to negotiate with Trump is not in Mexico`s best interest, as it could potentially lead to higher tariffs or even border closures. He even went so far as to say that the protests were a « rebellion » funded by the region`s pecan producers and strategically organized by politicians for private gain. AMLO called the Withdrawal of the National Guard from La Boquilla « cautious » because he had tried to avoid violent clashes with farmers. Brett Walton writes for Circle of Blue on agriculture, energy, infrastructure, politics, and water economics in the United States. He is the recipient of two reporting awards from the Society of Environmental Journalists and received the Sierra Club Distinguished Service Award in 2018. Northern Mexico, one of the country`s most economically prosperous regions, has always been a conservative stronghold. This is in direct contrast to AMLO, whose policies tend to be more liberal and whose supporters are more likely to come from the working class. .
