The challenge of equitable allocation
Water Conflict in the Borderlands
by Irasema Coronado, University of the Incarnate Word, with George Kourous, IRC
All over the world, increasing population growth and the scarcity of water in certain geographical areas have the potential to promote social unrest, political conflict, and even violence. The United Nations has reported that over 80 % of the world’s countries have inadequate water delivery systems, 40% of the world’s population struggles to meet its basic daily water needs, water supplies everywhere are being threatened by contamination, the lack of adequate water infrastructure, and mismanagement. On a local level in the greater borderlands region, there are increasing tensions regarding the use (or misuse) of water, pollution, and equitable distribution that could conceivably lead to open hostilities and conflict in the near future. In a semi-arid region like the U.S.-Mexico borderlands, managing the essential resource of water is a difficult, zero-sum game. Gradually increasing cooperation on water issues between Mexico and the U.S. promises the possibility for creative and equitable solutions to the situation, but many challenges remain.
In recent decades the U.S.-Mexico border has experienced a dramatic growth in population, and patterns in the consumption of water have reflected this trend. Water use by U.S. border states ranges from more than 20 billion gallons a day in California to about two billion gallons per day in New Mexico and totals more than a third of all freshwater use in the United States (see Water Use by Category in U.S. Border States, 1990).
Agriculture remains the largest regional water user, a historical tendency reflected in a legal framework that insures farmers access to water for irrigation. The reason is simple: irrigated agriculture is a major economic motor for the region. For example, in the Coachella and Imperial valleys (Baja California and California, respectively), agriculture generates more than $1.4 billion in annual revenue. On the U.S. side, currently established water rights ensure delivery—via government-built dams and aqueducts—of almost 25% of the annual flow of the Colorado River to agricultural users.
But as the border’s cities have grown in size and as industry has migrated to the region, demand for water has grown, and the field of players fighting for a piece of the water pie has expanded (see Water Use in the Western U.S.). Environmentalists complain that diverting water for agricultural use means that habitat and the wildlife it sustains suffer; industrialists argue that manufacturing is the economic future of the region and are demanding that water management practices change to reflect that; farmers complain that their livelihood is being strangled; and city governments are struggling to find new sources of drinking water for their rapidly growing populations. Conflicts among interest groups, states, and cities and between Mexico and the U.S. are certain to become more intense as the border’s population continues to expand.
The Colorado River
Growth rates in the three lower Colorado River basin states (Arizona, California, and Nevada) are among the highest in the country, and by the year 2020, it is expected that the lower basin population dependent on water drawn from the Colorado will have climbed to over 38 million people. The user population in Mexico is also expected to increase some 91% during the same time span.
As water demands in the upper Colorado River basin and Arizona to entitlements granted under the Colorado River Compact rise, California will lose access to the extra water it has been able to use above its allocation in recent years. Additionally, the compact was created during a period of atypically wet conditions and assumes an average flow higher than the figure suggested by recent studies. Furthermore, in 1945 Mexico obtained rights to 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water/year—about 10% of the river’s flow—in what is today the senior priority under the compact. But during times of extraordinary drought the treaty allows for reductions in that allocation proportional to reductions in U.S. consumptive use. However, the treaty does not define "extraordinary drought" or "consumptive uses." All of these factors portend increased conflict over Colorado River water.
The Rio Grande/Rio Bravo
In terms of the potential for conflict over natural resources—especially water use—the Rio Grande or El Río Bravo del Norte (as it is known in Mexico) is an interesting case study of how the competition for water resources pits citizens, communities, states, nations, and diverse business interests against one other.
Beginning in the U.S. state of Colorado, the Rio Grande flows through New Mexico, marks the border of Texas, and ends up in the Gulf of Mexico, providing drinking water along the way for over 13 million people ranging from Native American Pueblos to industrial cities like Monterrey, Mexico. It is the fifth longest river in North America and, along with its tributaries, serves as the Texas-Mexico border region’s main source of water (see Rio Grande Aquifer System). The river valley is also a place of organic beauty, nurturing a rich cultural diversity and providing habitat for various endangered species of plants and animals.
Competition for both surface and ground water is prevalent throughout the entire river basin, creating potential for conflict over water resources that is heightened due to the fact that the Rio Grande/ Río Bravo marks the international border between Texas and Mexico. The state of Texas shares its border with four Mexican states: Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas. Presently, residents in this arid border region grapple with water quality and quantity issues that are compounded both by a growing population and by rapid industrialization in northern Mexico.
Sixty-thousand acre-feet of the river’s water is allocated to Mexico under the Mexican Water Treaty of 1906. Delivery across the border occurs at Fort Quitman, Texas. The 1906 treaty provides for sharing water during shortages, but it leaves the exact definition of "shortage" unclear. It also makes no mention of ground water. Mexico currently uses its allocation for agriculture; if it shifts it over to municipal use, conflict may arise over the salinity of the water delivered at Fort Quitman, since U.S. agriculture contributes to high salt levels in Rio Grande water.
North of the border, Rio Grande waters are allocated between the states of Colorado, Texas, and New Mexico under the Rio Grande Compact, which guarantees each state a certain percentage of the river’s flow. However, the compact has been interpreted differently by different parties, and disagreements have led to drawn-out litigation (see "Water Conflicts in the Paso del Norte Border Region" in this issue of borderlines).
Conflict between the U.S. and Mexico and between U.S. states over Rio Grande water certainly exists and will probably continue to exist for some time to come. Much of this conflict is between user groups on one side or the other of the border and does not necessarily occur across the international boundary. For instance, in Mexico rural users are increasingly competing with the growing use of industrial centers like Monterrey (see "Mexico’s El Cuchillo Dam Project: ‘Development’ at the Expense of a Healthy Environment" in this issue of borderlines) while in the U.S., conflict between New Mexico and Texas over the use of regional surface and ground water supplies is mounting. Texans feel threatened both by upstream water users in Colorado and New Mexico and by Mexican water users when severe droughts have compounded water problems. Communities in the lower valley are concerned about excessive water usage and pollution in western Texas as well as in Mexico, and the communities of Eagle Pass and Laredo are concerned about the potential impact of water misuse in the El Paso-Ciudad Juárez region.
Key Issues
Unequal Access to Water. Access to water is certainly not equitable in the border region. Although the majority of residents in the U.S. have abundant access to this resource, residents in colonias in both Texas and northern Mexico struggle daily to meet their basic water needs. There is, however, a privileged sector that is able to meet its water needs regardless of the side of the border on which they reside; corporations are foremost among this privileged group.
For example, in Piedras Negras, Coahuila, there is a maquiladora that produces over 21,000 pairs of permanent-press pants a day. Material must go through an elaborate process in order to become "permanent press," and, lamentably, that procedure requires an excessive amount of water. The plant boasts ten washing machines of enormous dimensions, but when plant managers were asked if they ever have water problems, the response was "no, never."
Yet just a few blocks away from this industrial park is a colonia which is wrestling with the problem of a lack of potable water (among many other issues). Should private multinational corporations have unlimited access to water while colonia residents cannot even meet their basic water needs?
Unfortunately, this situation is not an uncommon occurrence on the border. Vulnerable populations in colonias have dire needs regarding access to potable water. Why this inconsistency? Business priorities are pitted against public priorities in this context—and guess who wins and who loses?
Careful Management vs. Politics. Water conflicts can also take on different dimensions, with management decisions being fettered to narrow political objectives. For example, the states of Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas were involved in a water dispute over access to stored water in El Cuchillo Dam, located on the San Juan River, a tributary of the Rio Grande/Río Bravo. When the dam was constructed, farmers in Tamaulipas were supposed to receive some of the stored water. But the state of Nuevo Leon, in which the reservoir is located, refused because the city of Monterrey, which has a long history of water supply and distribution problems, needed to augment its supply of water. Ultimately, an agreement was reached but not without the intervention of the Comisión Nacional del Agua and the Mexican court system—and Monterrey’s influential industrialists won out over rural users in Mexico’s 26th Irrigation District. Now a new dam is going to be built in response to complaints and political pressure from the 26th district, but that dam in turn will probably negatively impact water access for ranchers near Ciudad Mier.
In another example, a few years ago the city of Laredo, Texas, initiated a water conservation program that was widely regarded by city officials as being quite successful. Water users were actually reducing the amount of water that they were consuming. But this resulted in lower water bills, and city coffers were adversely affected. So the water conservation program was stopped, because city officials were concerned about the shortfall in the budget—and also because they concluded that the water they saved "was going to go down into the Gulf of Mexico anyway."
Recurring Drought. The drought plaguing the border region over the last few years continues unabated. As of June 1, 1999, nine states in the northern half of Mexico have been declared disaster areas, and dams and reservoirs in the area are down to an average of 19% of capacity. This extended drought, combined with overpumping of ground water, has led farmers to dig ever-deeper wells. This has raised their costs at a time when bank credit has been extremely hard to come by due to the December 1994 economic crisis. An estimated $20 billion of the $72 billion that private Mexican banks hold in unpaid loans comes from the agricultural sector. Farmers complain of high interest rates and accuse the banks of being quick to foreclose—yet another face of water-related conflict.
Additionally, cattle ranchers on both sides of the border have been adversely affected due to the drought. Cattle are dying in both Texas and northern Mexico because of the limited amount of grazing land available. Growing feed for cattle also requires the consumption of water. Thus, agricultural interests in Mexico and the United States are engaged in intense conflict over the use of water as well as striving to stay afloat economically.
Over the last several years, drought has consistently compounded the problem of access to water and has heightened the potential for conflict. In 1996, for instance, Texas Governor George Bush complained that Mexican agriculturists were overpumping water from the Rio Grande. His concerns were twofold: that Mexico was extracting water in violation of existing water treaties and that Texan farming interests were being affected. Despite his previous friendliness toward Mexico, Bush exhibited a grave concern for the perceived misuse of water and indicated that he would be firm in dealing with Mexican authorities on this issue.
Neighbor vs. Neighbor. One of the biggest concerns over water rights and usage is the potential for neighbor-to-neighbor vigilantism. In south Texas, during the hot summer months when water use is greatly curtailed, neighbors who do not abide by the water restrictions guidelines have been turned in by neighbors. Residents who do not want to sacrifice their lawns have openly violated the water conservation restrictions. On several occasions, these disputes between neighbors have turned into violent conflicts. Likewise, in the Mexican state of Nuevo Leon, sanctions have been imposed on citizens who were wasting water washing cars and watering lawns. Though it is important to conserve water, measures that focus on small-time domestic users rather than other urban water consumers like amusement parks, car washes, and factories ignore the biggest potential for conservation.
Decentralizing and Sharing Responsibility
The potential for conflict over water in the borderlands region can pit neighbor against neighbor, business against business, community against community, state against state, and nation against nation. Seasonal and regional water shortages may exacerbate social tensions and precipitate violence. In order to attempt to minimize the potential for conflict over water resources, it would be wise to use a case-by-case approach—for example, sister cities could elaborate an equitable plan to share water resources, always keeping in mind the needs of other communities and water users in the region. This would require that water equity be measured in a binational context. For example, if Ciudad Juárez and El Paso were to elaborate a water sharing plan with sustainable development goals in mind, which city’s water consumption habits should be used?
During this legislative session, Texas Senator Carlos Truan introduced Senate Bill 76, which, if passed, will require the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) to develop a water availability model for the Rio Grande and to conduct studies to determine the future reliability of the Rio Grande’s water supply. In addition to that step in the right direction, Senate Bill 76 acknowledges that the Rio Grande is an international river that flows through Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and four Mexican states with water rights shared by several jurisdictions that must be taken into account during the modeling process.
Establishing truly meaningful region-wide and binational planning and management efforts as well as forums for discussion is a difficult, necessary task. On the U.S. side, the New Mexico/Texas Water Commission represents a first step; internationally, the La Paz/Border XXI Water Group theoretically provides a framework for binational cooperation.
But although it is imperative to minimize the potential for water conflicts in the region and work to collaborate at the policy level, it is also crucial that residents, policymakers, environmentalists, and competing business interests cooperate to raise an awareness of the complex challenges involved in sharing water resources. Education can play a key role in changing water use patterns and shifting tomorrow’s development paradigm, and is essential to promoting water conservation by city dwellers today.
At the local level, alternatives need to be explored, like shifting agricultural production to non-water intensive plants, switching from flood to drip irrigation and using treated household effluent in irrigation, industry, and facilities like golf courses and urban parks. Low income areas and communities without access to public utilities must be supplied with potable water for basic human needs. This need not be accomplished via traditional, large-scale delivery systems but could be accomplished by trucking in assured-quality water or by establishing neighborhood water centers.
The Rio Grande/Rio Bravo is not only a boundary but it is also a river of life for the inhabitants of the region. It provides indispensable water for human consumption, crop production, cattle. and industry. It offers both natural beauty and wildlife habitat. The equitable and just distribution of its water must be a goal for all residents of the area. Future generations deserve a healthy environment, a bountiful river, and the opportunity to live in the border region.
Irasema Coronado is a professor in the political science department at the University of the Incarnate Word in San Antonio, TX.
borderlines 57 Index | borderlines Home Page | IRC Home Page
Please send comments, questions, information on new resources or changes to borderlines@irc-online.org