Photo credit: www.yahoo.com

Trump Administration’s Water Policy Decision Raises Concerns for Future Negotiations with Mexico

The recent decision by the Trump administration to withhold a water delivery to Mexico has triggered significant concern among experts, who warn that this unprecedented act could threaten future negotiations in a region grappling with severe water scarcity.

This decision marked the first denial of such a request in 81 years and relates to Mexico’s appeal for additional Colorado River water for Tijuana. The U.S. State Department justified this refusal by alleging that Mexico had not fulfilled its commitments to Texas as outlined in a 1944 water-sharing treaty.

Stephen Mumme, a political scientist at Colorado State University, criticized the decision, labeling it as both irrational and potentially detrimental.

Mumme, who also holds a position as a nonresident fellow at the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, expressed frustration on behalf of the seven Colorado River basin state commissioners, who are engaged in essential negotiations with Mexico over shared water resources. He stated, “This move does not foster cooperative relations with Mexico, and could lead to delays in future negotiations,” highlighting the risks associated with such a decision.

Under the 1944 treaty, which governs the “utilization of waters of the Colorado and Tijuana rivers and of the Rio Grande,” the U.S. committed to delivering Colorado River water to Mexico, while Mexico agreed to supply the U.S. with water from the Rio Grande.

Additionally, the treaty established the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), tasked with overseeing water deliveries and the necessary infrastructure.

Mexico is allocated 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water annually, reflecting the river’s historical flow to the Gulf of California in Sonora, Mexico. For comparison, the U.S. Colorado River basin states are entitled to 15 million acre-feet, with the average American family consuming around 1 acre-foot of water per year.

Regarding Rio Grande water allocations, the treaty stipulates that Mexico must deliver 1.75 million acre-feet to the U.S. within a five-year cycle, allowing for carryover of deficits from one cycle to the next. However, over time, Mexico has accrued a significant water debt associated with Rio Grande deliveries.

The U.S. State Department has emphasized these shortfalls, stating that they “are decimating American agriculture.” However, Mumme argued that Mexico’s adherence to the treaty is valid, noting that it provides for “extraordinary drought” conditions and mechanisms for both nations to negotiate emergency measures.

As of December, approximately 55.4 percent of the Rio Grande basin was classified by the North American Drought Monitor as experiencing moderate to exceptional drought.

Data from the IBWC indicates that since the initiation of the current five-year cycle in October 2020, Mexico has delivered only 488,634 acre-feet of water, amounting to 28 percent of its total commitment. Mumme expressed skepticism that Mexico would be able to meet its obligations within the cycle, which concludes this October.

This situation mirrors a similar scenario from 1997, where treaty provisions allowed the U.S. to exercise forbearance and permit Mexico to rollover its debt into a subsequent cycle.

Gabriel Eckstein, a law professor at Texas A&M University, concurred with Mumme, foreseeing that Texas officials may react strongly to the situation since “there’s no way they’re going to meet the obligation.” He noted that only significant rainfall could alleviate ongoing drought conditions.

Recently, heavy rainfall led to flash floods in the Rio Grande Valley, which Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller described as a “devastating tragedy,” highlighting the destruction despite the critical need for moisture. He pointed out that this rain is unlikely to alleviate water scarcity in the Falcon Reservoir.

In November, the U.S. and Mexico formalized the Minute 331 agreement, aimed at enhancing the reliability of Rio Grande water deliveries. This agreement included suggestions for alternative tributaries to facilitate water transfers.

Maria-Elena Giner, the U.S. commissioner for the IBWC, acknowledged the overstressed water resources, stating that the existing situation was untenable. The agreement also promoted conservation and efficiency improvements through new infrastructure, water reuse technologies, and modernization projects.

Mumme viewed Minute 331 as a positive development, albeit one that may not satisfy South Texas irrigators’ needs. He emphasized that the response to drought must involve proactive engagement from Texas, which has not been forthcoming.

Eckstein echoed this sentiment, expressing hope that stakeholders would cooperate similar to the Colorado River initiative, indicating that an effective grassroots effort from the U.S. side could facilitate improvements.

Mumme criticized the Trump administration’s latest stance as a form of manipulation, suggesting it misuses the treaty’s intent and may lead to detrimental outcomes for Texas farmers in future negotiations.

Eckstein labeled the current strategy as “awkward politics,” with the Trump administration trying to leverage one basin to affect negotiations in another, creating tension between parties that should ideally be collaborative.

In response to the U.S. decision, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum acknowledged the situation as “important,” assuring that it would be dealt with through the IBWC and Mexico’s national water utility, Conagua. Eckstein perceives that Mexico’s current leadership is receptive but may react negatively to aggressive tactics. He warned that Mexico might consider diversifying its agricultural markets if trust deteriorates further.

Mumme also pointed out that Trump’s decision is unlikely to yield more water for Texas farmers, potentially complicating future agreements instead of simplifying negotiations.

The expert consensus suggests that it is essential to approach Mexico as a partner rather than an adversary to facilitate productive discussions regarding water management and equitable resource sharing.

Source
www.yahoo.com