Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
treaty, Mexico agreed to provide the United States with a certain
amount of water from the Rio Grande system and, in exchange,
the United States agreed to give Mexico a certain number of acre-
feet of water from the Colorado River. (One acre-foot equals the
amount of water required to cover one acre with one foot of water.)
More recently, Texas farmers have been disputing with Mexico
and demanding millions of dollars in damages from that nation
for withholding their water! In 2005, then-Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice even became involved, and supposedly ironed
out the differences. But stay tuned. The fi ght isn't over. While the
two countries have agreed on a water conservation plan for the
upper Rio Conchos, none of the outstanding treaty issues has been
resolved, says Stephen P. Mumme, PhD, a professor of political sci-
ence at Colorado State University and recognized expert on water
issues related to the Colorado River. The farmers have fi led a pro-
test as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
dispute resolution process.
In another legal skirmish, Colorado River water is the prize.
Mumme explains this United States-versus-Mexico fi ght: In
Southern California's Imperial Valley, the fi ght emanates from the All-
American Canal, an irrigation canal constructed decades ago to bring
water from the Colorado to thirsty California. The United States
unilaterally decided to concrete line the canal to eliminate seepage
water—water that soaks into the ground and seeps under the inter-
national boundary with Mexico. Mexico has been using that seep-
age water for nearly 60 years, with as many as 30,000 poor farmers
depending on it for their crops. The argument: The water in the
canal belongs to the United States by treaty and can be better used
to fulfi ll conservation requirements and deals among the Colorado
River basin states, and with and within California itself.
21
As one prominent water attorney said, “Basically this boils down
to putting thirty thousand poor Mexican farmers out of work versus
building maybe three thousand $2 million homes in the San Diego
hills. Can that possibly be equitable?”
Of course not. Strong arguments can be made on both sides,
but because the treaty allows the United States to take a particular
position, Mexico may very well be out of luck, and many poor
people may be hurt. That's the nature of water.
