Here we go again with the demands by U.S. water users to pressure drought-stricken Mexico to fork over its water obligations of a treaty based on conditions that date back some 70 years.
Thirty five members of the Texas Congressional delegation sent President Barack Obama a letter this week asking him to intervene in the 1944 Water Treaty between the United States and Mexico.
The move was spearheaded by by U.S. Rep. Filemon Vela, D- Brownsville, and U.S. Sen. John Cornyn.
News reports say that the letter states that the group is frustrated by Mexico’s lack of commitment to regularly deliver water to the United States as required by the treaty.
“We are approaching a critical juncture and feel strongly that the matter must be elevated from the IBWC (International Boundary and Water Commission) to the highest levels of the United States government in order to mitigate further harm to the U.S. and avoid detrimental impact to the relationship between our two countries,” a portion of the letter states.
The 1944 water sharing treaty between Mexico and the United States obligates Mexico to deliver water to the United States in cycles of five years. The current five-year cycle began in October 2010 and ends in October 2015, which means Mexico has until then to deliver the water it owes, officials said.
The total volume Mexico must deliver before the end of the five-year period is 1,750,000 acre-feet — providing there are no exceptional drought conditions in Mexico, officials said.
The IBWC has been trying to resolve the issue and recently developed a model to show how the water should be distributed equally and how it isn’t, said Carlos Rubinstein, chairman of the Texas Water Development Board, in an earlier interview. Although the model was shared with Mexico, the responses they provided to the U.S. were “not very promising,” he said.
The total volume Mexico must deliver before the end of the five-year period is 1,750,000 acre-feet — providing there are no exceptional drought conditions in Mexico, officials said.
The IBWC has been trying to resolve the issue and recently developed a model to show how the water should be distributed equally and how it isn’t, said Carlos Rubinstein, chairman of the Texas Water Development Board, in an earlier interview. Although the model was shared with Mexico, the responses they provided to the U.S. were “not very promising,” he said.
Defenders fo teh Mexican side say that in the 70 years since the treaty was signed, agriculture and urban development have exploded on the U.S. side and that recent drought conditions have made it impossible to deliver the amounts of water demanded by communities and their representatives on the U.S. side. Additionally, the flocking of U.S. and other multinational corporations to the border area to take advantage of cheap labor on the Mexican side has also placed unforeseen industrial and population pressures on water use there, they say.
Most of the water used in Texas originates in the watershed of the Rio Grande River.
According to the International Water and Border Commission, "the entire Rio Grande/ Rio Bravo watershed covers an area approximately 924,300 square kilometers (335,000 square miles), with approximately half the watershed in the United States and the other half in Mexico. 
Roughly 50,000 square miles of the watershed are within Texas. The river runs 1,255 miles along the international boundary with Mexico. The Rio Grande Basin encompasses this international reach of the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo from the New Mexico/ Texas/ Chihuahua border (El Paso/Cuidad Juarez area) to the Gulf of Mexico (Brownsville/ Matamoros area)."
The IWBC further states that "Water diverted for agricultural use has long been the primary use of water from the Rio Grande. Seventy-five percent of the water is currently allotted for agriculture. The concentration of dissolved solids can effect whether the water can be used for farming or drinking which can lead to increased costs for treatment of the water."
Further, it states that: "It is projected that municipal use (on the U.S. side) will increase by one-hundred percent over the next fifty years and industrial use will increase by forty percent (Texas Water Development Board, "Water for Texas: Summary of the Regional Water Plans").
Much has happened in that time and projections are that the continued growth along the border fueled by industrialization and population growth will place more stress on the rapidly depleting resource.
"As a result of the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the border area along the Rio Grande faces many challenges in the years to come. The Rio Grande supplies water for drinking and irrigation uses for more that 6 million people and 2 million acres of land. Both groundwater and surface water resources have become and remain seriously threatened by the border regions' rapid industrialization coupled with increased population explosions.
"The availability of a relatively inexpensive labor force has brought rapid economic business growth along the border. The majority of these businesses include the assembly plants commonly referred to as maquiladoras. As the region continues to grow, some of the new residents establish themselves in unincorporated communities, known as colonias.
"From El Paso to the Lower Rio Grande Valley near Harlingen, Texas, nearly 400,000 people live in colonias. Even in the incorporated areas along the border, the infrastructure to adequately handle the environmental consequences of human and industrial waste generation and disposal is lacking."
Things are vastly different today than they were 70 years ago, and the continued clamor by representatives on the U.S. demanding Mexico's compliance with a seven-decades old treaty is not helping matters any, say representatives of various government and business groups in that county.
"These groups should be looking to modernize and renegotiate this treaty in light of the vastly changed conditions on both sides of the border," said an attorney with a Mexican business group. "Simply demanding Mexico to turn over its water without taking the changed situations into consideration – while it plays well with their constituents and is good politics – isn't helping matters much."
8 comments:
Let's modify the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The U.S. "Paid" the Republic of Mexico 15 million bucks for the great "Mexican Cession". The Constitution has been modified many times. The water treaty can also be modified to the present changing times .
If you research, I believe you will find that during the winter months 80% of all vegetables and fruit that is consumed in teh US and Canada come across the US/Mexico border at Nogales, Arizona. Most of these food items are grown in Central America and Mexico (about 90% Mexico). Who grows these food items? Large US corporate agricultural entities that operate south of our border. And these are the guys using the water that should be delivered to Texas through the 1944 treaty. Don't be so naive as to believe that our government is going to upset the applecart of these very powerful financial political contributors.
The Mexican side of the river has grown much faster than the US side. It will continue to expand while places like the Valley will decline in growth. Mexico should get even more water. And, what about reparations for all the land stolen by the US?
Make the Nueces River the boundary like it should be and problem solved. That way Cristal City would be in Mexico and Gilberto can go back home.
Nomas lo que le conviene al gobierno, como no repetaron al "treaty of Guadalupe " cuando qutaron tirras para hacer la mugrosa pared."
Fuck Mexico.
The debate between Davis and Abbott seems to indicate that both officials and even the moderators seem to "poo-poo" conflicts with Mexico and problems on the border. While moderators jumped with joy about hosting the debate, the two candidates seem to downplay problems in and with Mexico. Clearly Abbott was the winner of the debate. Poor Wendy Davis seemed like a deer caught in car headlighters. She talked but she had no emotion and no movement.
We must ask why our officals don't have the moral courage to stand up to Mexico and its unwillingness to negotiate.
Texas monthly magazine July issue 2014, page 81, rated Our beloved Rick Perry as follows: 1. transparency and ethics (C) 2. Criminal justice (B plus and minus) 3. The environment (D plus) 4. Economic development (A) 5. Public education (D) higher education (B--) 6. Public health (D-) transportation (C) if you want Abbot-and the Republican Party here it is. To paraphrase Gov. Perry, "I am against Medicaid for you! "
Texas' water problems will be resolved; annex Mexico.
Post a Comment