The dispute over the 1944 Mexico-U.S. Water Treaty adds to the already tense bilateral relationship where traditional issues such as migration, trade, security and borders have become challenging as never seen before.
Massive deportations from the U.S. have dramatically impacted remittances, a key component of Mexico´s economy; USMCA is under fire due to a review process where US President Donald Trump has floated the possibility of a replacement with separate free trade agreements, one with Mexico and another with Canada, thus preventing Mexicans and Canadians from joining forces to balance Washington; the US Government has labelled drug cartels as “terrorists” suggesting possible military actions against them; and last but not least, the border has been militarized particularly on the US side.
With these agendas in mind, common wisdom suggests not adding fuel to the fire, but the water dispute has reached new highs and threats of sanctions against Mexico in case it does not deliver the water it owes to the U.S.. To better understand the origins of this dispute it is necessary to analyze the origins and provisions of the agreement.
After the Mexican American War of 1847, the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Definitive Settlement (better known as the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo), was negotiated in 1848. This treaty, still very fresh in the collective memory of Mexicans stipulated that Mexico would cede more than half of its territory at that time to the US. Apart from Texas, Mexico lost California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma to the US receiving a compensation of 15 million dollars The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo also established the border between the two countries at the Rio Bravo -known as Rio Grande to the Americans- whose waters have been a source of conflict, particularly in Chihuahua state. Chihuahua is the largest state within Mexico and shares large borders with Texas and New Mexico.
In Chihuahua, the agricultural sector accounts for 6. 39 percent of the state’s GDP. Although compared to the services and manufacturing sector, agriculture is small, Chihuahua is the main producer of crops including oats, cotton, apples, pecans, green pepper and quince within the country. Also, Chihuahua is home to Alpura the second largest diary company in Mexico. Water is crucial for these and other economic activities.
The location of the Río Bravo requires a water distribution plan between Mexico and the U.S.. After years of negotiation and several failed proposals, the two countries agreed on the treaty currently in force in Washington in 1944. The treaty stipulates that Mexico retains two-thirds of the Rio Bravo’s main flow and cedes the remainder to its neighbor, which cannot be less than approximately 432 million cubic meters (Mm3) annually. In return, the US delivers 1,850 Mm3 of the Colorado River to Mexico each year. The Colorado River is mostly located within US territory but also flows along the border between the two countries before emptying into the Gulf of California, between the Mexican states of Baja California and Sonora. The U.S. has to deliver water to Mexico each year, while Mexico delivers water to the U.S. every five years. To deal with boundary and possible disputes, the treaty created the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), a binational body.
By the time the agreement was signed, the area did not experience the droughts seen in recent decades aggravated by climate change. Also, industrial activities have proliferated along the border and thus, lead to water shortages. To make things worse, the treaty does not contemplate the challenge of “extraordinary drought”, which explains why is that Mexico has not been able to comply with the delivery of water to the US as expected in recent years.
In 2020 the Mexican Government decided to use water of the Boquilla Dam to deliver water to the U.S. under the terms of the 1944 treaty. Evidently this angered Chihuahua’s farmers since they need access to water for irrigation purposes leading to clashes between them and the National Guard. Back in 1995 the dam gates did not open -again, to deliver water to the U.S.-, and many farmers, without being able to grow anything, abandoned the area looking for employment elsewhere, including the US. This experience shows that solving the dispute over the 1944 treaty is crucial because of the possible ramifications it may even have over migration.
On the American side, Texas claims that Mexico's failure to deliver its mandated share of Rio Grande water, is causing severe shortages for South Texas farmers, leading to significant economic losses and calls for federal action, including sanctions against Mexico. The Claudia Sheinbaum Government has committed to some immediate water relief, but the conflict may aggravate again soon. Texas is a very important power base of the Republican party and President Donald Trump considers it critical for next year’s midterm elections. This is why the US President has threatened Mexico with a 5 percent tariff in case it does not comply with the delivery of water as stated in the 1944 treaty by December 31, 2025. Mexico will deliver water, of course, to ease tensions. Yet the underlining problem remains unsolved: water shortages may increase in the coming months and years and a more permanent solution should be agreed.
The thing is that although many experts suggest re-opening the 1944 agreement in order to adapt it to the current circumstances and realities of the common border, others believe it is not a good time to do so, specially because of current tensions in the bilateral relationship plus the fact that the five-year period that Mexico has to deliver water may be reduced, jeopardizing conditions that, in principle, seem to favor the country.
It is undeniable however, that the concept of “extraordinary drought” needs to be addressed, since Mexico is already facing critical challenges due to water shortages in the area and some other parts of the country.
Another critical problem is the exploitation of groundwater in the common border area. Yet there is no treaty between Mexico and the U.S. to rule the extraction of groundwater. This water is not visible, contrary to the Río Bravo or the Río Colorado. Environmental groups and experts suggest that unregulated or excessive exploitation of groundwater is not advisable due to the serious environmental and social impacts it entails. The area is already facing droughts and even though groundwater may seem a “solution” in the short term it would contribute to serious environmental, social and economic consequences at both sides of the border. One of the problems to achieve an agreement on groundwater is that in Mexico is a federal issue, contrary to the U.S.. This calls for a very careful approach on the issue, that ideally must include the interests of the communities and the ecosystems involved.
Water is at the very center of many conflicts and disputes all over the world and water stress caused by climate change, pollution, and other calamities is putting places like Mexico in a very difficult position not only because of possible controversies with other countries but, clearly, as a heavy lot for its own development and investment/infrastructure plans.
Editor’s Note: The above guest column was penned by María Cristina Rosas, a professor and researcher in the faculty of political and social sciences at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City. The column appears in The Rio Grande Guardian International News Service with the permission of the author. Rosas can be reached via email at: mcrosas@prodigy.net.mx
