Water has become an issue of internal and external conflict for the Mexican government in recent months. On November 25, the US State Department reported on a meeting between Mexican and US officials, in which it claimed it had “put pressure” on Mexico to comply with its obligations – set out in the 1944 Water Treaty – and provide the “maximum amount of water possible” to Texas users. “Lack of fluid supplies has exacerbated shortages in Texas and contributed to hundreds of millions of dollars in crop losses,” they warned.
The claim is an echo of several months of complaints made by farmers in the southern United States, by Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Agriculture Secretary Brock Rollins, and Republican Senator Ted Cruz, some of the voices that have put the most pressure on Mexico to comply with what was agreed to in 1944, in the bilateral treaty that manages the distribution of water from three rivers: the Colorado River, the Bravo or Grande River, and the Conchos River, to US residents. Both countries.
Under the 1944 treaty, the United States must send 1.85 billion cubic meters from the Colorado River annually to Mexico, and Mexico 2.185 million cubic meters from the Rio Grande in five-year cycles. The last cycle (2020-2025) ended last October with less than half of the quota delivered.
For Rodrigo Israel González Velasquez, a water management specialist at Colegio de la Frontera Norte (COLEV), the binational treaty is a reference because it was one of the first agreements in the world managing water distribution between the two countries. However, there are internal disagreements that have become complicated: “Legally, due to the agreements signed, Mexico has a deficit in its supply, although the United States has delivered less water in Colorado, but this was before an agreement was reached between the two countries. It has been easier for the actors in the Colorado River to reach an agreement and there are minutes signed by the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), which is like an extension of the treaty, which facilitated this. But in the Rio Grande Basin or Rio Grande, it has been It’s very complicated; they’ve been trying to reach an agreement on this for years, since the 1990s, to figure out who should surrender.
The general conditions in northern Mexico do not facilitate negotiations abroad either. Specialists in the matter confirm that the unjust exploitation of aquifers, “excessive privileges,” the growth of cities, and the decrease in rainfall in the region by up to 20%, in addition to other climate fluctuations, make the panoramic scene worrying within the same Mexican territory. This makes it difficult for Mexico to respond to the United States with more efficient measures to deliver corresponding waters.
Mexico must hand over to the United States at least 1,750 million cubic meters in five-year cycles, recalls María del Socorro Marquina Sánchez, an academic and jurist at the UNAM Faculty of Law. The United States, for its part, must supply Mexico with 1,850,000 cubic meters from the Colorado River. “If Mexico does not comply in a five-year cycle, as has happened since the 1990s, when there were delays, it is established (in the treaty) that it can be compensated in the following five-year period. This has raised disputes, especially the latter, where we are in a very critical situation because we have not even reached half of the delivery that should be made. This means that we are getting worse in complying with the agreement,” he points out.
The administration of President Donald Trump knows this well. Since last April, he has threatened to impose sanctions on Mexico if it does not adhere to the treaty. Through the Truth Social network, the Republican demanded that more than 1,520 million cubic meters be delivered to agricultural producers in South Texas. “I will ensure that Mexico does not violate our treaties or harm our Texas farmers,” he wrote on April 10. “(…) We will continue to escalate consequences, including tariffs, and perhaps even sanctions, until Mexico complies.”
Specialists recognize that Mexico has mismanaged its resources at various times, and that the landscape it faces becomes complex with the demands of nationalist farmers and other political issues ultimately hampering the landscape. Gonzalez Velasquez adds to the equation the lack of continuity in agreements and work within the National Water Commission (Conagua), the federal body responsible for making decisions on the Mexican side. “There is a lot of disconnection among employees,” he says. “All of a sudden, there are personalities who come in to make agreements, but then they change them, put someone else in their place, and those agreements that have already been made are not respected.”
Pressure from Mexican farmers
Amid US demands for Mexico’s non-compliance, President Claudia Sheinbaum’s government has faced several weeks of pressure from national farmers who have rejected her proposal to reform the national water law. The social protest, which blocked federal roads and highways in more than 20 states of the country, among other slogans, rejected the changes proposed by the executive branch, which would significantly modify the transfer and renewal of agricultural use concessions.
After several days of blockades and public disputes, Morena lawmakers in the House of Representatives began finalizing law changes with farmers considering amendments to water use concessions.
Dr. Marquina Sanchez highlights that the water problem on the various open fronts that the Mexican government is currently facing is more serious because the solution to delivering water to the northern neighbor may involve turning off the tap to many communities in the north of the country.
“Certainly, if there is not good internal coordination in Mexico, it is difficult to comply with international obligations. If things are bad at home, it is clear that we will not be able to comply satisfactorily abroad.” Marquina also highlights that there is “water mismanagement” in Mexico with structural problems, aging infrastructure, without well-maintained dams or water works. It also ensures that there is an overallocation of permits to farmers, without measuring the circulating water. “Many of us look forward to good years, and hope that next year will be better and that there will be more rain, but it is not about that,” he says.
President Sheinbaum said on October 30 that Mexico would adhere to the treaty: “There will be water delivery now that there are more resources, without jeopardizing human consumption and agriculture.”
In its November 25 statement, the State Department responded: “We remain committed to working with Mexico to resolve this issue through diplomatic channels, while continuing to evaluate all available options to ensure Mexico meets its obligations.”