Real Problem. Real Solution.

5/28/2018 Real Problem. Real Solution.

1/217

THE U.S.-MEXICAN

BORDERENVIRONMENT

Binational WaterManagement Planning


2/217

SCERP Monograph Series, no. 8A se ri es ed it ed by Pau l Gans te r

Contributors

ISMAELA GUILAR B ARAJAS INSTITUTO T ECNOLGICO Y DEE STUDIOS S UPERIORES DEMONTERREY

BARBARAR . BRADLEY NOLTEA SSOCIATESCHRISTOPHERB ROWN NEW M EXICO S TATE U NIVERSITYJOS L UI S C ASTRO R UI Z ELC OLEGIO DE LA F RONTERA N ORTEEMIL IO DE L A F UENTE CONSULTINGE NGINEEREDWIN H AMLYN UNIVERSITY OF T EXAS AT E LPAS OOSCAR I BEZH ERNNDEZ UNIVERSIDAD A U T N O M A D EC IUDAD J UREZNANCYL OWERY SAN D IEGO S TATE U NIVERSITYDANIEL M CCOO L UNIVERSITY OF U TAHSTEPHENP. M UMME COLORADO S TATE U NIVERSITYWILL IAM A . N ITZE CENTER FOR S TRATEGIC AND I NTERNATIONALS TUDIESJORGER AMREZ H ERNNDEZ UNIVERSIDAD A UTNOMA DEB AJ AC ALIFORNIAJESS R OMN C ALLEROS UNIVERSIDAD A UTNOMA DEB AJ AC ALIFORNIACHARLEST URNER UNIVERSITY OF T EXAS AT E LPAS OD. R IC KVAN S CHOIK SOUTHWESTC ENTER FOR E NVIRONMENTALR ESEARCH AND

POLICY

R ICHARD W RIGHT SAN D IEGO S TATE U NIVERSITY

The Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP) is aconsortium of U.S. and Mexican universities dedicated to addressing environ-mental issues in the U.S.-Mexican border region through applied research,outreach, and regional capacity building.

SCERP Universities

Ar iz ona State UniversityEl Colegio de la Frontera NorteInstituto Tecnolgico de Ciudad JurezInstituto Tecnolgico y de Estudios Superiores de MonterreyNew Mexico State University

San Diego State UniversityUniversidad Autnoma de Baja CaliforniaUniversidad Autnoma de Ciudad JurezUniversity of Texas at El PasoUniversity of Utah

SCERP website: www.scerp.org

THE U.S.-MEXICAN

BORDER ENVIRONMENT

Binational Water

Management Planning

Edited by Suzanne Michel

San Diego State University Press


3/217

Published bySan Diego State University Press

5500 Campanile DriveSan Diego, CA 92182-4403

http://sdsupress.sdsu.edu

Cover photos by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

2003 San Diego State University PressAl l ri gh ts re se rv ed .

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN 0-925613-40-1

Previously published volumes in the SCERP Monograph Series,

The U.S.-Mexican Border EnvironmentNo. 1 A Road Map to a Sustainable 2020

No. 2 Water Issues Along the U.S.-Mexican Border

No. 3 Economy and Environment for a Sustainable Border RegionNo. 4 U.S.-Mexican Border Communities in the NAFTA Era

No. 5 Overcoming Vulnerabil ity: The Southwest Center for Environmental

Research and Policys Research Program (1990-2002) and Future AgendaNo. 6 Air Quality Issues along the U.S.-Mexican Border

No. 7 Trade, Energy, and the Environment: Challenges

and Opportunities for the Border Region, Now and in 2020

About this volume:

Al l ti me s ar e local

Al l mo ne ta ry fi gu re s ar e US $ un le ss ot he rw is e sp ec if ie d

The views of the authors contained herein are nor necessarily the views ofSCERP, the EPA, SEMARNAT, or other Border Institute sponsors. Theyare presented in the interest of providing a wide range of policy recom-mendations to prompt discussion and action in the U.S.-Mexican borderregion.


4/217

Contents

ForewordPreface and Acknowledgements

Abb re vi at io ns

Executive Summary. Opportunities, Costs, Benefits, andUnintended Consequences: Secure and SustainableWat er by 20 20Resumen Ejecutivo. Oportunidades, Costos, Beneficios y ConsecuenciasNo Intencionales: Agua Segura y Sostenible para el Ao 2020D. Rick Van Schoik

I. Managing Border Water to the Year 2020: TheChallenge of Sustainable DevelopmentEl Manejo del Agua en el rea Fronteriza Hasta el A o 2020: El Retodel Desarrol lo Sustentable

Stephen P. Mumme and Ismael Aguilar Barajas

II. Interdependent Border Water Supply Issues: TheImperial and Mexicali Valleys

Aspectos de la Interdependencia en el Abasto de Agua en laFrontera: Los Valles de Imperial y Mexicali

Jes s Romn Calleros and Jorge Ram rez Hernndez

III. Meeting the Water Needs of the Border Region: AGrowing Challenge for the United States and MexicoEnfrentando las Necesidades de Agua de la Regin Fronteriza:Un Reto Creciente para los Estados Unidos y Mxi co

Wil l iam A. Nitze

IV. The Challenge of Balancing Water Supply and Demandin Paso del NorteEl Reto de Equilibrar el Abastecimiento y la Demanda de Agua enel Paso del NorteCharles Turner, Edwin Hamlyn, and Oscar Ib ez Hernndez

1

51

95

145

185


5/217

Foreword

I was most honored to have been asked to participate in the openingsession of Border Institute IV, and was deeply appreciative to myfriends at the Southwest Center for Environmental Research andPolicy for the kind invitation. When I attended Border Institute IIin 2000, I was able to sense the enormous importance of this type ofgathering. I remember being especial ly impressed by the presenta-tions made by several participants on the issues relating to water andits many uses, among others.

My concerns about the border economy and other aspects ofdevelopment in this region of North America shared by Mexico andthe United States goes back more than 20 years. Then I wasinvolved in the early stages of studies that led to the creation ofCOLEF, the Colegio de la Frontera Norte, as a multidisciplinary

center in the social sciences for research and post-graduate teaching.I must confess that I was a l itt le surprised at the recommendationmade by the original working group to establish the center inTijuana, but I soon realized the significance of the proximity of thatcity to San Diego and other parts of the state of California, and tothe many research and university institutions in that area. I ampleased that COLEF has been able to expand its activities along theMexican side of the border and across to research centers and uni-versities in the other border states of the United States.

At on e of th e me et in gs I at te nd ed in Co lo ra do , ye t an ot he r st at ealso related to the border region through its waterways, I arguedthat at least in e nvironmental matters and by implication in mattersconcerning water, the notion of the border should not be l imited to

the 100 kilometers on each side that appears on maps drafted as aresult of the La Paz Agreement in the early 1980s. It should gobeyond to areas on both sides that relate directly to conditions alongthe border areas, outside of those artificial l imits. I noted that bothMonterrey and Corpus Christi are beyond the 100 kilometerl imit.

My own interest in the broader border has led me to focus on amuch bigger, encompassing view of the future: the need to pro-motein al l its different aspects through more intensive coopera-tion and coordination among institutions, government agencies, and

vi i

V. Water Without Borders: A Look at Water Sharing inthe San Diego-Tijuana Region

Agu a Si n Fr on te ras : Una Mi rad a a la Reparticin del Agu a enla Regin San Diego-TijuanaBarbara R. Bradley and Emilio de la Fuente

VI. Comparative Analysis of Transborder WaterManagement Strategies: Case Studies on the U.S.-Mexican Border

Anl isis Comparativo de Estrategias de la Gestin de AguasFronterizas: Estudio de Casos en la Frontera

Mxi co -E st ad os Un id osChristopher Brown, Jos Luis Castro Ruiz, Nancy Lowery, andRichard Wright

VII. Evolving Political Institutions: A New Water Policyand its Impact on the Border RegionDesarrol lando Instituciones Polticas: Una Nueva Polt ica del

Agua y su Impa ct o en la Re gin FronterizaDaniel McCool

Bo rder Institute IV ParticipantsIndex

24 7

27 9

36 3


6/217

Fo reword

United States, that we have a seamless border, but I think that thebasic issues have to be approached through closer cooperation onboth sides and a long-term evaluation of benefits for the great bor-der region as a whole.

I am particularly glad to note from a first look at some of thepapers presented to this Border Institute IV, that in matters of water

policy, a number of important ideas are being put forth, for instancea move from water management as such to river ecosystems manage-ment involving a participatory process. Past practices wil l have to bereplaced by innovative management arrangements in which changes

wi ll be re qu ir ed on bo th si de s o f t he bo rd er. Th is sh ou ld be co me on eof the leading components of a growing and irreversible sustainabledevelopment process. As one of the authors says clearly: Wat ermanagement in many ways exemplifies the challenge of sustainabledevelopment. Thus, water may lead the way, but I believe it is notenough to lead with one resource issue if other resources and sectorsfail to follow.

Victor L. Urquidi, former president El Colegio de Mxico

Rio Rico, Arizona, May 6, 2002

Me honra mucho el que se me haya propuesto participar en la sesinde bienvenida de este IV Instituto Fronterizo, y agradezco profun-damente a mis amigos del Centro de Investigaci n y Pol tica

Am bi en ta l de l Su ro es te la am ab le in vi ta ci n que me extendieron.Cuando asist hace dos aos al II Instituto Fronterizo en 2000, mepercat de la enorme importancia de este gnero de reuniones.Recuerdo que me l lamaron mucho la atencin, entre otras, lasponencias de varios participantes acerca del agua y sus m l t iplesusos.

Llevo ya ms de veinte aos interesado en la econom a de laregin de la frontera y en otros aspectos del desarrollo de estosterritorios compartidos por Mxico y Estados Unidos, desde la pocaen que me toc participar en estudios preliminares que condujerona la creacin del COLEF, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, comocentro multidisciplinario de las ciencias sociales en materia de inves-tigacin y docencia de posgrado. Cuando el grupo de trabajo origi-nal propuso que dicho instituto se estableciera en Tijuana, quedu npoco perplejo, pero no tard en darme cuenta de la s ignificacin que

ix

The U.S.-Mexican Border Environment

civil society organizationsa pr ocess of sustainable development.By sus ta inable development I mean not only environmenta limprovement, but an expanded definition implicit in the originalconcept put forth in the Brundtland Report the gradual creationof better conditions of social equity for ever-larger portions of thepopulation and labor force, institutional development to help

induce such improvements and conditions, and greater participationof civil society in the whole process under increasingly democratictrends. I am aware that in spite of the lofty declarations on the sub-

je ct at th e Un it ed Na ti on s Co nf er en ce on En vi ro nm en t an dDevelopment held at Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and the deluge ofstatements and further declarations made throughout the worldsince those days, very l itt le has been achieved, even in narrowlydefined environmental conditions. Reports by United Nations agen-cies and many national and regional reports, as well as the watchdogactivities of non-governmental agencies, academic centers, and themedia, are constant reminders of the lack of commitment to envi-ronmental improvements, let alone to the beginnings of a process ofsustainable development. Energy savings, and in particular the l im-

itation of carbon emissions that contribute to global warming, havenot gone far enough. Nevertheless, if the future of the humanspeciesand not only the endangered animal and plant species isto mean anything, al l efforts must move decisively and simultane-ously in the direction of sustainable development.

The Mexican border region is stil l lacking in the kind of commit-ment I have in mind, involving al l of the components of the localsocieties, be they governmental, household, or business activities.

Wat er is ev id en tl y a re so ur ce th at ha s be co me le ss ab un da nt an dmore expensive to make available to different types of consumers,and I hope Border Institute IV will enhance the understanding andimportance of a proper social and environmental valuation of waterin al l its qualities and forms of sourcing and delivery. I also hope it

is not to be taken as an isolated issue but one closely related to otherresources and environmental problems. Moreover, it is my expecta-tion that these issues may become more closely interrelated acrossthe many points of contact on the U.S.-Mexican border.

I believe there is a need for a long-term study of the gradualimplementation of sustainable development policies on both sides ofthe border, taking into account, of course, al l the current issuesalready identified, including water, energy, and waste disposal. Ido nt share the view, held by some scholars in both Mexico and the

vii i


7/217

Fo reword

importar el futuro de la especie humanay no s lo el de especies dela fauna y la florase rnecesario dirigir todos los esfuerzos posiblesde manera decisiva y simultnea hacia el objetivo del desarrollosustentable.

La zona mexicana de la frontera no ha adquirido an el compro-miso requerido al que me refiero, que abarque todos los elementos

componentes de las sociedades locales, sean autoridades guberna-mentales, los hogares o los sectores empresariales. El agua es a todasluces un recurso cada vez ms escaso y ms costoso si se ha desatisfacer la demanda que puedan ejercer los distintos tipos de con-sumidores, y espero que este IV Instituto Fronterizo sirva paralograr mayor comprensin y dar mayor importancia a la valoraci nsocial y ambiental adecuada del agua en todas sus calidades y formasde obtencin y de entrega al consumidor. Espero adems que el aguano se considere de manera ais lada sino como asunto que deba rela-cionarse con otros recursos y problemas del ambiente. Ms an,esperara yo que estos temas se interrelacionen cada vez m s a travsde los puntos de contacto en la frontera entre los Estados Unidos yMxico.

Considero que hace falta emprender un estudio a largo plazo de laaplicaci n gradual de pol ticas de desarrollo sustentable en amboslados de la frontera, teniendo en cuenta, por supuesto, todos lostemas ya identificados, entre el los los del agua, la energa y ladisposicin de desechos. No comparto la idea que algunos acadmi -cos sostienen tanto en los Estados Unidos como en Mxico, de queya te- nemos una frontera sin l neas divisorias; creo sin embargo quelos problemas fundamentales debern abordarse mediante mayorcooperacin entre ambas partes y con una evaluacin de los benefi-cios a largo plazo para la gran regi n de la frontera en su totaldimensin.

Me complace en especial advertir al examinar algunos de los tra-bajos presentados en esta Conferencia que, en materia del agua, se

entregan algunas ideas importantes. Por ejemplo, la de que hay quepasar de la administracin del agua como tal a la administracin deecosistemas hdricos en que se tenga en cuenta un proceso de parti-cipacin ciudadana. Las viejas prcticas habrn de reemplazarse porsistemas de administracin innovadores, que requieran cambios enuno y otro lado de la frontera. Ello deberconvertirse en uno de loscomponentes principales de un proceso creciente e irreversible dedesarrollo sustentable. Como lo afirma con claridad uno de losautores: La administracin del agua ejemplifica de muchas maneras

xi


te n a la proximidad a San Diego y a otras partes del estado deCalifornia, as como a las muchas instituciones universitarias y deinvestigacin en esa zona. Es satisfactorio comprobar cmo elCOLEF ha extendido sus actividades a lo largo de la parte mexicanade la frontera y en contacto adems con centros y universidades enlos dems estados l im trofes de la Unin Americana.

En una de las reuniones a las que asist en otro estado de la UninAm er ic an a, Co lo ra do , so st uv e qu e al me no s en ma te ri a am bi en ta l, ypor ende en asuntos referentes al agua, la zona de la frontera nodebiera l imitarse a los 100 kilmetros de cada lado que aparece enlos mapas como resultado del Acuerdo de La Paz de los aos ochen-ta, s ino que ser a necesario ir ms allde esos l mites artificiales enasuntos que se refirieran directamente a las condiciones imperantesen la zona de la frontera. Advert que Monterrey y Corpus Christieran ciudades situadas fuera del l mite de los 100 kil metros.

Mi propio inters en los temas de una zona ms amplia de fron-tera me l levaron a considerar una visin ms extendida del futuro: lanecesidad de promover, en todos sus variados aspectospor mediode una cooperacin y coordinacin intensos entre instituciones,

dependencias oficiales y organizaciones de la sociedad civilunproceso de desarrollo sustentable. Por desarrollo sustentable entien-do no slo el mejoramiento ambiental s ino, adoptando una defini-ci n ampliada que est implcita en el concepto original propuestoen el Informe Brundtland, la creaci n gradual de mejores condi-ciones de equidad social para proporciones cada vez m s amplias dela poblacin y de la fuerza de trabajo, con el desarrollo institucionalnecesario para inducir tales mejoras y tales condiciones, y la parti-cipacin creciente de la sociedad civil en el proceso general con baseen tendencias cada vez ms democrticas. S bien que no obstantelas elevadas declaraciones sobre la materia en la Conferencia de lasNaciones Unidas sobre Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo efectuada enRo de Janeiro en 1992, y los torrentes de declaraciones y tomas de

posiciones anunciados en todo el mundo desde esa poca, es bienpoco lo que se ha logrado, aun en las s ituaciones ambientales conc-retas que suelen definirse. Los informes de los organismos de lasNaciones Unidas y muchos otros de carcter regional y nacional, as como las actividades de vigilancia de las organizaciones no guberna-mentales, los centros acadmicos y los medios de comunicacin, nosrecuerdan a cada instante que ha habido poco compromiso pormejorar las condiciones ambientales, y mucho menos por emprenderun proceso de desarrollo sustentable. A pesar de el lo, s i nos ha de

x


8/217

Preface and Acknowledgements

This volume is the record and substance of Border Institute IV,Binational Water Management Planning, held in Rio Rico,

Ar iz on a, May 6- 8, 20 02 . Si nc e th e fi rs t Bo rd er In st it ut e in 19 98 ,this annual event has established itself as a key venue for considera-tion of important border environmental issues. The two days of the

wo rk sh op pr ov id e ti me fo r di re ct ed an d wi de -r an gi ng di sc us si onamong a diverse group of researchers, practitioners, and borderstakeholders. Not only are current issues dissected, but also consid-erable reflection occurs regarding future scenarios in the borderregion. This, in turn, enriches discussions about near-term policyoptions.

The border institutes are based on a series of commissioned papersproduced by leading scholars and practitioners. These papers, whichare sent out to participants prior to of the meetings, provide theinformational base upon which the discussions are constructed.These essays form the core of this present volume. Additionally, anexecutive summary is included that captures key points of the pan-els and break-out sessions at Border Institute.

Many individuals contributed to the success of Border Institute IVand this volume. Rick Van Schoik, Managing Director of theSouthwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP),organized the meetings and identified the authors of the papers. Healso drafted the first version of the e xecutive summary. The expert-ise and dil igence of the authors who prepared papers for the BorderInstitute is also acknowledged. The panelists and other participants,especial ly commissioners Arturo Herrera Sol s of the ComisinInternacional de Lmites y Aguas and Carlos Ram rez of the

International Boundary and Water Commission, were important insetting the tone for the discussions. The facil itators and rapporteursfor the break-out sessions deserve special recognition for theirlabors, especial ly Jessica Swartz Amezcua, Christopher Brown,Kimberly Collins, Bob Currey, Denise Moreno Ducheny, CraigForster, Erik Lee, Nancy Lowery, Suzanne Michel, David Rohy, PaulRasmussen, Elsa Saxod, Alan Sweedler, and Erin Ward.

Many individuals participated in the production of this book.Am y Co nn er, SC ER P s managing editor of publications, copy-editedand coordinated the production of this volume. Graphic artist Jenny

xii i


el desafo que plantea el desarrollo sustentable. As , el agua podrmostrar el camino a seguir, pero a mi juicio no basta abrir brechacon un s lo recurso si los dems recursos y sectores no emprenden elmismo camino.

Victor L. Urquidi, ex presidente de El Colegio de M xico

6 de Mayo

xi i


9/217

Abbreviations

AAC Al l- Am er ic an Ca na laf acre-feetBECC Border Environment Cooperation

CommissionCEA Comisin Estatal del AguaCEC Commission for Environmental

CooperationCESPM Comisin Estatal de Servicios Pblicos de

MexicaliCESPT Comisin Estatal de Servicios Pblicos de

TijuanaCNA Comisin Nacional del AguaCoAPAES Comisin de Agua Potable y Alcantaril lado

del Estado de SonoraCOBRO Committee on Binational Regional

OpportunitiesCOLEF El Colegio de la Frontera Nortecfs cubic feet per secondEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency GNEB Good Neighbor Environmental Boardgpc/d gallons per capita per day IBWC-CIL A Inte rnational Boundary and Water

Commission-ComisinInternacional de L mites y Aguas

IID Imperial Irrigation DistrictINEGI Instituto Nacional de Estadstica, Geografa

e InformticaITESM Instituto Tecnolgico y de Estudios

Superiores de MonterreyIWTP International Wastewater Treatment Plant

JMAS Jun ta Muni ci pa l de Ag ua s y Sa ne am ie nt okm kilometersLGEEPA Ley General del Equilibrio Ecolgico y la

Proteccin al AmbienteMAF million acre-feetMGD million gallons per day

Mm 3 million cubic metersMWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern

xv


xi v

Carlsson reproduced many of the figures used in the volume.Guillermo Torres Moye, of the Universidad Autnoma de BajaCal i fornia , provided the Spanish-language t rans la t ions of theExecutive Summary and chapter abstracts. The Center for Strategicand International Studies kindly granted permission for the use ofBil l Nitzes key article.

The many SCERP partners who assisted in co-sponsoring BorderIns t i tute IV are a l so acknowledged. The U.S. Environmenta lProtection Agency (EPA) Office of International Affairs , the BorderTrade Alliance, and the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce al l pro-vided valuable assistance. Finally, SCERP wishes to recognize theefforts of its EPA Program Officer, Paul Rasmussen. Paul has doneyeoman duty in coordinating EPA participation in the annual bor-der institutes and has provided important suggestions for substan-tive improvements in the program contents. His enthusiasm has setthe positive and collaborative tone that characterizes this annualendeavor.

Paul Ganster

SCERP Monograph Series Editor


10/217

Executive Summary

Opportunities, Costs, Benefits, andUnintended Consequences:

Secure and Sustainable Water by 2020

D. Rick Van Schoik

INTRODUCTION

Water has emerged as a first-tier issue between the United States andMexico, a s ituation that has potential ly serious implications for the

wh ol e of th e bi la te ra l re la ti on sh ip . Bo rd er In st it ut e IV, he ld in Ri oRico, Arizona, from May 68, 2002, successfully initiated anotherlevel of binational dialogue on border water issues, a necessary first

step toward long-term planning and regional sharing of water andwa te r- re la te d re so ur ce s.

Wat er ma na ge me nt in ma ny wa ys ex em pl if ie s th e ch al le ng e ofsustainable development. As population explodes in the borderregion, the demand for clean water increases. This increased demandintensifies competition among water users, including the economy,communities, and the environment itself. The challenge is to bal-ance the needs of natural resourceswh ic h re pr es en t th e fu tu re

wi th cu rr en t de ma nd s fr om th e tw o na ti on s economies and citizens.Because border rivers and aquifers are inherently binational and

because the institutional capacity to address groundwater issues islacking, the Institute participants generally agreed that the federalgovernments of the United States and Mexico should take more

proactive roles in addressing border water issues. Even top-leveldecision makers recognize the need for long-term planning. As theNew York Timesreported on May 24, 2002: President [Vicente] Foxsays Mexico has spent decades squandering what it has wi th ou tplanning, without sense. Similarly, water use and distribution areless-than-optimally distributed in the United States because waterpolicy is based more upon precedent than principle.

Some efforts by the federal governments to implement river basinplanning have been successful at integrating various components of

1


CaliforniaNADBank North American Development Bank NAFTA North American Free Trade AgreementNEPA National Environmental Policy ActNGO non-governmental organizationppm parts per mill ion

SANDAG San Diego Association of GovernmentsSEMARNAT Secretar a de Medio Ambiente y RecursosNaturales

TDS total dissolved solidsTEIA Transboundary Environmental Impact

As se ss me ntTRW Tijuana River WatershedUSBR U.S. Bureau of ReclamationUSDA U.S. Department of AgricultureUSDI U.S. Department of the Interior

xv i


11/217

Opportunities, Costs, Benefits, and Unintended Consequences

executive summaries and this volume in the SCERP MonographSeries, are widely disseminated to decision-makers and other borderstakeholders. Presentations from Border Institute IV are availableonline at www.scerp.org.

OVERV IEW OF WATER ISSUES

There is no more important issue than water. Few substances are asvital to the borders future as water and no subject has dominatedthe past decades headlines as the scarcity of water and its humandimensions. Furthermore, water capital on the border to the year2020 is shaped by two fundamental factors: first, the variable supplyof naturally occurring water, and second, the steadily ris ing waterdemand. The sources of conflict stem from competition among usergroups, as summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Competition among Water User Groups

Source: Author

Other usersincluding tribal nations, ecological resources, andrural communitiesnow compete for water of which they were oncethe sole user. Water is becoming such a major international issuethat many foresee serious conflicts emerging from worsening ten-sions and disputes over this resource.

3


overall environmental quality. The U.S.-Canadian InternationalJoi nt Co mm is si on (I JC), fo r ex am pl e, mo ni to rs an d re gu la te s wa te rdrawn from the Great Lakes. However, long-term planning to meetdemand in the United States is confounded by states rights overgroundwater and some surface water, while in Mexico, water is

wh ol ly a fe de ra l ma tt er. Th es e in st it ut io na l an d ju ri sd ic ti on al mis-

matchesc learly necessitate a carefully constructed, high-level reso-lution by the two nations.

OB J EC T IV E S A N D FOCUS OF THE BORDERINSTITUTE SERIES

The Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy(SCERP) created the Border Institute series in 1998 because it rec-ognized the need for a binational forum that would facil itate envi-ronmental policy discussions within the complex framework ofBorder XXI. SCERP foresaw the potential value of translating theresults of scientific investigation into solid environmental policy.Hence, the purpose of the Border Institute series is to convene aca-demics, policymakers, industry leaders, and other border stakehold-ers in a collegial yet highly work-intensive atmosphere to formulatepolicy recommendations and devise potential solutions to pressingenvironmental border problems. Participants are encouraged tofocus on the region as a whole and on the current year plus twen-ty horizon, a conceptual two-decade window and landscape scalethat foster the development of long-term policy recommendations.

Each Border Institute addresses the policy implications of select-ed border environmental issues. It must be emphasized, however,that the Institutes are not a series of isolated conferences. Rather,the thematic focus of the Institutes seeks to address border environ-mental policy problems in a programmatic way. Border Institutes I,

II, and III investigated, respectively: Demographics and economic development asymmetry acrossthe border

Environmental infrastructure, natural capitalism, and envi-ronmental accounting

Energy and its interdependencies in the border region

Recommendations from the Border Institutes, in the form of

2

Upstream UsersSurface SourcesUrban InhabitantsEconomicAgricultureDrought Years

Downstream UsersGround SourcesRural InhabitantsEnvironment and EcologyCities and IndustryNormal Years


12/217

5

Opportunities, Costs, Benefits, and Unintended ConsequencesThe U.S.-Mexican Border Environment

WAT ER A LO NG T HE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY

Al th ou gh wa te r in th e ar id U. S. -Mexican border region has a longhistory of negotiation and engineering, it remains a highly con-tentious issue. Water is locked up by treaties, pipes, and channels.The 1944 Treaty for Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and

Tijuana Rivers and the Rio Grande stil l serves as the principal pointof reference for the two nations on questions of boundary waters,although many consider it to be too l imited in todays context ofdemographic growth and drastically shrinking supply.

The current binational appropriation structure is a hopelessanachronism. While al l recognize the difficulty of changing thetreaty, most also realize that it has greater flexibil ity than many real-ize and can be used to deal with current and emerging problems.

For water planning purposes, the border region can be dividedinto three subregions (Figure 2): the western region, which is dom-inated by the Colorado River watershed (the Californias, western

Ar iz on a, an d we st er n Sono ra ); th e ce nt ra l re gi on , do mi na te d by nolarge or single river system (Sonora, Arizona, New Mexico, and

we st er n Texa s) ; an d th e Ri o Gran de /Ro Bravo drainage (easternNew Mexico, Texas, and the four eastern Mexicanborder states).

It is important to remember that many tribal nations are also inthe border region and that they face important water issues. Forexample, the very existence of the Cocopah or People of the River,

wh o on ce ha d fl ou ri sh in g co mm un it ie s al on g th e lo we r Co lo ra doRiver and delta, is now threatened because of decreasing river flows.

INTERDEPENDENCIES AND D ISCONTINUITIES

Water is connected to nearly al l measures of quality of l ife (human

health, environmental processes, ecological integrity, and economicvitality), yet is subject to control by disparate agencies and compet-ing interests. Water quality cannot be divorced even sl ightly from

wa te r qu an ti ty, no r can gr ou nd wa te r is su es be se pa ra te d fr om su r-face water concerns. Flows of water underneath the border, forexample, not only replenish aquifers but can also transport contam-inants. Additionally, water is intimately l inked with energy, airquality, and economic development issues.

4

Figure

2.

U.S.-

Me

xican

Border

Source:Author


13/217

6


7

There is a kaleidoscope of jurisdictions on the border. Theseinclude hydrological, jurisdictional, and competing sector disconti-nuities as well as mismatches between the two governments, amongthe levels of governments, and even within governments. For exam-ple, the water supply, water treatment, wastewater treatment, andpublic health agencies are often separate organizations with differ-

ent organizational cultures operating in different locations. Instituteparticipants concluded that strategic planning is necessary to getdisconnected agencies to connect and march together.

Figure 3. Lower Colorado River System AverageWater Budget 1977-1999

Sources: Jessica Swartz Amezcua and Harry Johnson


Year

Event

Objectives

1848

TreatyofG

uadalupeHidalgo

Definitionoftheinternationalboundary

1889

ConventionthatcreatedtheInternational

Boundarya

ndWaterCommission

(IBWC)

Obse

rvanceoftherulesoftheBoundaryTreatiesandthe

Conv

entioninrelationtothechangesofcou

rseinthe

internationalrivers

1944

TreatyforU

tilizationofwatersofthe

ColoradoandTijuanaRiversandofthe

RioGrande

Allocatedwatersoftheinternationalriversb

etweenthetwo

coun

triesandextendedthefunctionsofthe

IBWC

1983

Agreement

fortheProtectionand

Improveme

ntoftheEnvironmentinthe

BorderArea(LaPazAgreement)

Providedformalguidelinesforthebinationalparticipation

ofvariousgovernmentlevelsinthedesignan

d

implementationoftransboundaryenvironmentalsolutions

bysp

ecificworkgroups

1992

Releaseoft

heIntegratedEnvironmental

PlanfortheU.S.-MexicanBorderArea

(IBEP)

Stren

gthenedenforcementofenvironmental

laws,increased

cooperativeplanning,completedtheexpansionof

waste

watertreatmentfacilities

1993

CreationoftheBorderEnvironment

CooperationCommission(BECC)and

theNorthAmericanDevelopmentBank

(NADBank

)

Assistscommunitiesonbothsidesofthebor

derin

coord

inatingandcarryingoutenvironmenta

linfrastructure

projects

1996

ReleaseofB

orderXXIprogram

Promo

tessustainabledevelopmentintheborderregion

Ta

ble1

.Princ

ipa

lEven

tsin

the

Evo

lutiono

fWa

ter

Managemen

tbe

tween

the

Un

ite

dStatesan

dMex

ico

Source:ChristopherBrown,StephenMumme,andMark

Spalding


14/217


Al th ou gh Ci ud ad Jurez relies almost solely on groundwater, the

allocation of 74 mill ion cubic meters per year (Mm 3/year) of surfacewa te rs fr om th e Ri o Gr an de is es pe ci al ly cr it ic al . Wat er de ma nd s inCiudad Jurez are increasing and its source of groundwater, theHueco Bolsn aquifer, is over-extracted and declining in quality.The impact of increasing water shortages on many dimensions of

quality of l ife wil l be felt on both sides of the border.Of course, al l water availabil ity is threatened by global cl imatechange. Already, the warmer temperatures have caused greaterevapotranspiration and there is some indication that less precipita-

tion occurs regionally in the border zone.

CURRENT SOLUTIONS

Many engineering and technology solutions to water crises exist.Satel l ite or decentralized facil it ies, for example, save money by moreeffectively addressing local needs, replacing extensive lengths ofpipes with less expensive systems, and reducing flow rate fluctua-

tion. Another scenario involves reuse of water within a single com-munity. This option entails re-treating water within a twin-city pair,rather than transferring water over long distances, which ofteninvolves high energy and infrastructure costs.

Ad di ti on al ly, cu rr en t wa te r lo ss co ul d be re du ce d on th e or de r of50% if efficient irrigation practices were applied. Low efficiency inagricultural water management results primarily from the use ofgravity irrigation systems, where evaporation and infiltration lossesoccur through open and unlined channels. The main challenge forthe region is to increase irrigation efficiency. The solution is in theintroduction of high technology irrigation infrastructure and prac-tices coupled to rational management of water resources under sus-tainability criteria.

Yet an ot he r po in t of vi ew re co gn iz es th at de ma nd fo r wa te r isabsolute and growing, water availabil ity is f lexible but shrinking,

wa te r pr ic es ar e va ri ab le bu t re la te d t o s up pl y, a nd wa te r us e mu st beprioritized according to grades, ultimately providing potential lymore and sometimes cheaper water to various users. Currently, par-tial , traditional, and additional treatment of wastewater makes itavailable for use for groundwater recharge, industry, agriculture,landscaping, and parks. Soon, wastewater wil l probably be used forcooling new power plants. Any number of grades of water can safe-

9


There are also unnecessary and potential ly damaging l inks in the1944 treaty addressing border water issues. The Colorado River andRio Grande, for example, are l inked by mention in the same treaty,yet each possesses different issues and has diverse mechanisms toresolve problems. Furthermore, groundwater is not included in thebilateral treaties between Mexico and the United States.

PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE TRENDS

Wh il e th e region has been water-scarce for decades, extreme short-ages and higher costs are looming. Historic and current usage pat-terns ref l ec t the asymmetry in water ava i lab i l i ty and pr ice.

Ag ri cu lt ur al us e is re la ti ve ly co ns ta nt , us in g be twee n 60 % an d mo rethan 80% of surface waters while municipal withdrawals range from10% to 30%, depending on location. However, increased demandfor water is being driven by urban growth. Per capita use is higherin the U.S. border cities than Mexican border cities (Figure 4;Figure 5). Likewise, information quality, institutional capacity, andbudget size is better on the U.S. s ide.

Figure 4. Per Capita Water Use Trends in El Paso andCiudad Jure z

Source: Edwin Hamlyn

8

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Year

PerCapitaWaterUse

(liters/person/day) 606

848El Paso

350Ciudad Jurez


15/217

1110

However, the water should be applied through a drip irrigation sys-tem for maximum safety. Although the farmer should bear some ofthe costs because drip irrigation alone will increase yields, this is acost that should not be borne by the farmer alone. The current sit-uation should actually be reversed. Instead of the farmer first receiv-ing and using the water, which then gets treated and passed on tothe city, clean water from rivers or aquifers should be run throughthe city, partially treated, and then applied to farmland. Currently,shared aquifer storage and reuse of recycled water represent largelyuntapped, yet valuable, options. Through injection of aquifers

wh ic h ar e ac ce ss ib le fr om bo th si de s of th e bo rderrecycled watercould overcome some of the transport barriers caused by urbandevelopment.

Figure 6. Examples of Potential Binational WaterExchanges

Source: SCERP

Since three existing wastewater treatment plants and four futureplants in the San Diego-Tijuana region are potential sources of recy-cled water, several alternatives may emerge for large-scale aquiferstorage and reuse. One possibil ity is to combine plants for conjunc-tive use resulting in transboundary sharing and multiple benefits .Conjunct ive use i s the coordinated management of surface,reclaimed, and groundwater supplies. In addition to trades of agri-cultural drainage and fresh, brackish, ground, and reclaimed water,other potential options for water sharing include binational facil i-ties such as aqueducts, treatment plants, storage facil it ies, recharge

ly and economically be used for additional purposes. For example,brackish groundwater may soon be used directly to irrigate somesalt-tolerant crops; it may also be treated less expensively than ocean

wa te r fo r ge ne ra l ir ri ga ti on pu rp os es .

Figure 5. Surface Water Allocation

Source: Edwin Hamlyn

It is clear that the opportunity to match and trade across the bor-der exists . The challenge is to motivate current users to make thedifferent grades available for trade. For example, a Mexican farmershould be compensated for saving water (or perhaps temporarily fal-lowing) and delivering the saved water to a broker. The broker, inturn, could sel l the water to a farmer in Texas, or to a government

agency that wants to restore a habitat (Figure 6). In the year 2000,for example, agencies paid $61 mill ion for just over 397Mm3 of

wa te r fo r ha bi ta t re st or at io n. Cl ea rl y th e po ss ib il it ie s of movi ngwa te r ac ro ss th e bo rder ar e ma ny an d wa st ed , re cl ai me d wa te r ca n beengineered to serve either s ide without topographical hindrancesand associated costs.

Ideally, wastewater treatment for agriculture should be primaryor no more than secondarytreated wastewater, as this maximizesthe fertil izer content while minimizing the concentration of salts .

Opportunities, Costs, Benefits, and Unintended ConsequencesThe U.S.-Mexican Border Environment

JurezMunicipioChihuahua

El Paso County

Texas

Doa Ana CountyNew Mexico

333M

m3

36,400ha 174,682

255Mm3

27,900ha

679,622 74

Mm3

12,10

0ha

1,218

,817

Surface Water Allocation (in Mm3)

Irrigated Land (in ha)

Population

Groundwater recharge

Power plant cooling


16/217


su rface waters in accord with the treaties. As surface waters arecommitted, used, degraded, and evaporated, prospective usersincreasingly look to groundwater as new and permanent sources ofless-brackish water. Furthermore, water is drawn from subsurfacesources a t increas ing ra tes without unders tanding theconsequences or even developing binational or watershed agree-ments for sustainable use. There is no movement toward l imitationson wells , a necessity if dry or salinated wells are to be averted.

2. The 1944 Water Treaty did not discuss groundwater, and therehas been little progress s ince. IBWC, however, is proposing a com-prehensive program to assess transboundary aquifers. The Border

XX I Prog ra m ha d a fr am ew or k fo r as se ss in g co nt am in at io n ofgroundwater resources, and hopefully the successor bilateral pro-gram, Border 2012, wil l continue in the same vein. Since manygroundwater basins are rapidly being depleted or contaminated, thetwo nations cannot afford to wait for detailed studies.

3. It is particularly difficult to negotiate groundwater use because

groundwater is a property right and an issue dealt with by U.S.states. But it is a federal matter in Mexico. To further complicatematters, there is a disincentive to establish serious dialogue betweenU.S. and Mexican states, or between the U.S. and Mexican federalgovernments, s ince many U.S. and Mexican states compete for waterresources.

4. IBWC-CILA has recently shown its adaptabil ity to new challengesand is encouraged to continue to evolve in the near future. Minute306 on binational technical committees and ecosystems in the lowerRio Colorado is seen by many as a s ign of this new direction.

5. IBWC-CILA has recently demonstrated its interest and capacity

for dealing with groundwater issues by approaching each of the U.S.states to encourage them to begin their conversations with theMexican federal government about groundwater agreements. TheMexican Commissioner of CILA, Arturo Herrera Sol s, and the U.S.Commissioner of the IBWC, Carlos Ram rez, agree that the respec-tive sections of IBWC-CILA can extrapolatefrom existing modelsto include assessment, testing, use, and recharge of groundwater aspart of their regular activities.

13


and extraction systems, desalination plants, and recycling/reclama-tion plants.

Furthermore, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can act as adecision-support system by showing spatial water data and temporalprojections. Currently, one GIS map is being developed for the Pasodel Norte; a preliminary map already exists for the many water flowsacross the California-Baja California border.

IN S TI T UT I ON A L A N D FUNDING FRAMEWORK

For long-term solutions to border water problems, the current insti-tutional framework and financial mechanisms are inadequate. Toil lustrate this, participants cited not a water scarcity but an insti-tutional scarcity. While al l agree that revisiting the binationaltreaties is either unlikely or counterproductive, the existing agencymodel can be extrapolated to include these tasks.

Al th ou gh ex is ti ng in st it ut io ns ca n be ca ta ly st s fo r ch an ge , th eyare not yet al lowed to be. The International Boundary and WaterCommission (IBWC) can incrementally expand its activities to

become a process convener and the North American DevelopmentBank (NADBank) has the financial instruments in its low-interestfund to build the necessary conservation projects. Many BorderInstitutes agreed that this is a good opportunity for NADBank to berelevant. However, the problem is that so few organizations, such asirrigation districts or watershed councils , can handle the scope ofthe challenge of water management planning, much of which entailspromoting conservation. Eleven conservation projects have beenproposed but they need sponsors. The NADBank can only do half.

There was a clear consensus among many of the participants that,wh il e st at es an d lo ca l en ti ti es ha ve im po rt an t ro le s to pl ay, mu chmore federal attention is needed to help resolve pressing trans-boundary water issues. A comprehensive approach to addressing bor-

der water issues appears necessary to meet current and future chal-lenges.

The following points made by Institute participants suggest aclear role for the federal governments in binational water manage-ment planning:

1. Compacts and treaties al locate the existing interstate surfacewa te rs . Th e IBW C an d it s Me xi ca n co un te rp ar t, Co mi si nInternacional de Lmites y Aguas (CILA) distributes international

12


17/217


and leisure use of water Bil l ions of dollars of biodiversity are lost due to habitat

destruction

There are 450 plant and animal species native to the region and700 migratory species are found in the border area. Thirty-one per-cent of al l species in the United States l isted by the Department ofInterior as threatened or endangered are found in the borderlands.On the Mexican side of the border, 85 species of plants and animalsare in danger of extinction. The border regions many parks and

wi ld li fe re fu ge s ne ed pr ot ec ti on fr om wa te r tr an sf er s th at wo ul d fu r-ther jeopardize ecosystem health.

Al l of th e af or em en ti on ed ad d up to se ri ou s pr ob le ms fo r th eregions bottom line. If left unaddressed, these multiple environ-mental stresses wil l ultimately have dire consequences for theregions economic health.

The risks are not just to Mexico, which is running out of waterfas ter than acros s the border . Water i s sues in Mexico wil lboomerang back to the United States if they are not addressed,resolved, and indeed, shared. Few want to guess at the full extent oftransboundary effects if water becomes too expensive or l imited forone sector or country to provide an adequate supply for its buyersand users. If the negotiations for the Transboundary EnvironmentalImpact Assessment (TEIA) were not stal led in Mexico City and

Washi ng to n, D. C. , now wo ul d be th e be st ti me to ex pa nd th e sc op eof TEIA to address such questions as water supply and to mitigateand minimize impacts.

SC EN AR IO S F OR RESOLUTION

Solutions mean addressing the asymmetries and differences acrossthe border. The cultural and socioeconomic impacts of water avail-

abil ity and price must be studied and appreciated for both the U.S.and Mexican sides of the border.

As su mi ng ac ti ve ro le s by th e fe de ra l gove rn me nt s, so lu ti on sc e-narios are possible. An examination of binational case studies revealsboth obstructions to successful water management planning as wellas guiding principles. Numerous factors that impede cooperationinclude inflexible water al location systems, different legal systems,different economic pressures and financial capabilities, centralizedversus decentralized institutional structures, history of water dis-

15


6. Commissioner Herrera recommends that the Mexican federal gov-ernment:

Reduce state-to-state competition by allocating groundwaters Provide grants to fix water infrastructure leaks and ineffi-

ciencies Facil itate fee structures as revenue streams to finance bonds

7. Additionally, and significantly, the United States GeologicalSurvey has promoted groundwater issues by proposing the develop-ment of a groundwater inventory in conjunction with IBWC-CILA.However, other federal agencies should step up to their roles asbinational water management facil itators and leaders.

Interestingly, the federal governments had agreed to do exactlywh at th ey ha ve be en ca ll ed to do . At th e su mm it of th e ne w U. S. an dMexican presidents in March 2001, they proposed a binational sum-mit on border water issues. This has not yet materialized.

Wh il e ma ny tr ad it io na l wa te r su bs id ie s ar e pe rv er se an d co un te r-productive, conservation depends upon a series of positive and neg-ative incentives. An abundance of overly subsidized, overly water-intense irrigation projects are wasting water. Water is grosslyunderpriced. In many cases the price merely constitutes the costneeded to move the water to the user. The Comisin Nacional del

Ag ua es ti ma te s 60 % of ag ri cu lt ur al wa te r is wa st ed an d be tw ee n35% and 53% of municipal water in Mexico is lost through leakage.

Wat er pr ic in g sh ou ld be re vi se d to en co ur ag e co ns er va ti on . Ne wdevelopment can pay the higher true cost of water while al lowingcurrent users to pay only incrementally more immediately, easingthe transition to full pricing. Wat er is to o ch ea p to co ns er ve ,w asa refrain heard frequently at Border Institute IV.

R ISKS OF THE STATUS QUO

Significant risk exists if the current situation continues. Indeed, thecost of implementing remedies is s ignificantly less than addressingthe long-term consequences of business as usual. Due to the acceler-ation of water degradation and scarcity, the U.S.-Mexican borderregion suffers tangible economic costs. It is estimated that:

More than $1 bil l ion are accrued in health costs Nearly $1 bil l ion are lost due to water pollution Approximately $1 bil l ion are lost due to decreased recreational

14


18/217


Alternative negotiation, such as the New Mexico-TexasWat er Co mm is si on formed as a result of a l it igation settle-ment between El Paso and several New Mexico entitiesto avoid long, expensive, and polarizing lawsuits

Expansion of bi-state task forces to binational task forcessuch as the Paso del Norte Water Task Force, which unites

wa te r ma na ge rs , wa te r us er s, ex pe rt s, an d ci ti ze ns to wo rkcooperatively to promote a tri-state binational perspective on

wa te r is su es th at im pa ct s th e fu tu re pr os pe ri ty an d lo ng -t er msustainability of the region

Evolving role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)such as the Ro Bravo/Rio Grande Coalition, whose purposeis to support and strengthen grassroots groups of citizens

wo rk in g to su st ai n th e ri ve r ba si n Implementation of Promagua, a program in Mexico designed

to attract private investment to water projects via federalsubsidies

Open and transparent processes such as the Citizen Forumsprogram, which was recently implemented by IBWC

Recognition of states rights issues by beginning subregional,state-to-state negotiations

RECOMMENDATIONS

Binational Water Management Planning

For far too long there have been calls on both sides of the border forwa te r ma na ge me nt pl an ni ng th at is bi na ti on al , wi th tr an sp ar en t an dtransdisciplinary public participation. This also includes the call forcomprehensive planning that addresses al l the competing sectors inFigure 1, and that is wasteland-based in scale and scope. However,this has not been the reality.

Many NGOs, including academia as independent and science-based facil itators, have tried to catalyze water discussions or agree-ments among users. The process itself is straightforward. The stepsneces sary to implement the planauthorizing the proces s ,convening stakeholders, approving the findings, and funding thebulk of the recommendationsare confounded by jurisdictionalmismatches. This underscores the urgent need for the federal gov-ernments to play an active, facil itative, and supportive role. Ideallythe two nations should grant joint planning authority to an existing

17


putes, cultural differences that influence water use, different per-spectives, and lack of comprehensive information regarding the

wa te r re so ur ce s of th e re gi on . Pr in ci pl es of bi na ti on al co op er at io nshould rule water issues. One goal should be to build upon the suc-cess of local watershed councils and encouraging their capacitythrough small grants should be goals. Water sharing agreements canbe supported by providing a broker and a database of potentialbuyers and sel lers.

The pr inc iples l eading to b inat ional coordinat ion andcooperation on water use are:

Exchange of information, technology, and equipment Joint use of transfer and storage projects Local water exchanges and trades Emergency transfers across the border Binational approaches to watershed management Cooperative transborder groundwater recharge Protection of transboundary riparian habitat Understanding the differences (economic, perspectives,

capacity, etc.) on both sides of the border Binational restoration of natural hydrology and flows Joint U.S. and Mexican flood control

Succes s s tor ies discussed at Border Ins t i tute IV inc lude thefolowing features:

Local coordinating mechanisms, such as the Border LiaisonMechanism, that enable local and state officials in the borderregion to talk directly about binational issues

Joint university initiatives such as SCERP water quality,wa te rs he d, an d wa te r at la s pr oj ec ts

The Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities(COBRO), a public advisory committee of the San Diego

As so ci at io n of Go ve rn me nt s (S AN DA G) th at ad dr es se s cr os s-

border planning in areas such as environmental managementand water supply Binational environmental infrastructure such as the interna-

tional wastewater treatment and reclamation plants at sometwin cities

Recognition that surface and groundwaters are connected The creation of transborder consejos de cuencas, or

wa te rs he d co un ci ls Increased conjunctive use/perpetual reuse

16


19/217


ar e extending their local water supplies by improving brackishgroundwater quality, and by blending surface and groundwater sup-plies. Water agencies are examining the possibil ity of desalinatinggroundwater resources with elevated salt levels due to the increasingcosts and uncertainties associated with water transfers (particularlyfrom the Colorado River). Since groundwater does not evaporate,groundwater storage is emerging as a vital water banking option tostore water during wet years to use during times of drought.

Recommendations for binational water sourcing include: Reducing physical losses to the system by seepage, evaporation,

and transpiration Avoiding contamination of sources that renders them unusable Planting less water-intensive and more salt-tolerant crops Improving storage, particularly subsurface storage Re-plumbing infrastructure to benefit the environmental

and ecological systems Managing the intensities and durations of droughts

Drought Management

Al l Bo rder Institute participants agreed that droughts are an oppor-tunity and a call for action for both short-term solutions and long-term strategies. Solutions are available within the context of currentand anticipated climate and weather patterns. Water managementalso requires drought management, which includes setting up munic-ipal reserves in anticipation of severe and extended dry spells.

Addi ti on al ly, ma nd ator y c on se rv at io n me asur es sh ou ld be es ta bl is he dduring droughts and post-drought assessments should be conducted.

Conservation

Conservation must be a priority for all border planning organiza-tions. The priority has to be water conservation, but that is not cur-

rently a mission of existing border institutions. Water savings clear-ly start with agriculture. On average, agriculture uses 78% of all the

wa te r in th e re gi on , bu t al l se ct or s ca n sa ve . Th e Mexi can gove rn -ment is drafting legislation to productively reorganize irrigation dis-tricts and units based on the criteria of efficient water usage and pro-ductive competition.

Irrigation districts can make tremendous savings, but these willhave their costs. In the border region, most water conservation proj-ects must focus on irrigation systems, which must be funded partial-

19


commission. Repeatedly, at Rio Rico and elsewhere, the IJC is citedas a potential model to emulate for reaching consensus aboutgroundwater, water quality, ecosystem services, and other con-tentious issues. Already the Border Environment CooperationCommiss ion (BECC)/Comis in de Cooperac in Ecolgica Fronteriza (COCEF), whose mandate expansion includes water con-servation, is investigating such a mechanism at the local level.Ultimately a binational water bank could be created that:

Provides storage capacity during wet years Allots those reserves during dry years Adjudicates among potential buyers Allocates portions for natural systems and services Facil itates the mix and match trade schemes as il lustrated in

Figure 6

In the area of water quality, approaches such as lagoons, wetlands,and other SCERP-developed techniques hold promise in the borderregion as alternative wastewater treatment technologies. These alter-natives, which require relatively inexpensive land and labor costs,should be recognized as viable options, and planned, funded, andpromoted for small-scale applications and for rural and remote set-tings.

Sourcing, Transfers, and Storage

Because transferring water over long distances from traditional usersoften has unintended consequences, local water should be used first.The proposal to fal low fields in the Imperial Valley in order to send

wa te r to Sa n Di eg o th re at en s th e vi ab il it y of th e in la nd Sa lt on Se a,wh ic h de pe nd s on ag ri cu lt ur al dr ai na ge fl ow s fr om Im pe ri al Val le yagriculture. Since many cities are depleting their water sources,

wa te r tr an sf er s ar e se en as op ti on s. Howe ve r, wa te r tr an sf er s sh ou ld

only be authorized for savedwater and only if al l parties, includ-ing natural systems, are not harmed.Groundwater recharge standards are needed to take advantage of

reclaimed water. For example, groundwater planning must beginwi th th e un de rs ta nd in g th at an in cu rr ed de bt to aq ui fe rs mu st bepaid before renewed pumping may begin.

Throughout the U.S.-Mexican border region, water agencies arefocusing upon conjunctive use of groundwater as a cost-effectivesource of water, even in times of drought. Numerous municipalities

18


20/217


Perhaps the environment can be better understood as an in -between user to store, filter, and move water. The public perceptionof wastewater needs to shift from that of wa st et o recyclable.

Database/Knowledge Sharing, Monitoring, andIndicators

The issues need to be quantfied understand and r esolve them.Indeed, there is as much disinformation as misinformation about

wa te r. Few co ns is te nt lo ng -t er m da ta se ts , al on g wi th a ne ed fo rcomparable methods of data analysis , have resulted in data stress.The harmonization of protocols would improve the process of col-lecting, analyzing, and distributing water data.

Wat er us e in di ca to rs ar e ne ed ed to de te rm in e ho w to di re ct fu nd -ing for this work, as well as to encourage appropriate sourcing, con-servation, sequential reuse, and sharing. Academia is especial ly goodat determining and maintaining data quality; gaining access to gov-ernmental or proprietary data; and aggregating up or disaggregatingdown in scales, both temporal and spatial . Better presentation of

existing data is necessary to support border water policy decisions.Al th ou gh ex is ti ng da ta ne ed to be im pr ov ed an d mo re da ta co ll ec t-ed, Institute participants agreed that decisions should not bedelayed due to lack of complete, perfect, or symmetric databases.

Water Education

Water, which traditional cultures have considered sacred since timeimmemorial, has become transformed into a mere util ity. As such,drought education is crucial to sensitize and prepare people to deal

wi th th e re al it ie s of wa te r sc ar ci ty. As co mp et it io n fo r wa te r co nt in -ues to increase (and the cost of exploiting new water resources isoften prohibitively expensive) it is imperative to institute water edu-

cation programs to promote a more realistic and appreciative water-conscious culture. These programs should involve schools, com-munities, and the media. Additionally, conservation measures mustbe shared among all people, including the wealthy, and that waterfor al l sectorsespecial ly for the most vulnerable, including thepoor, tribal nations, and the environmentis distributed sensiblyand equitably. In essence, the sanctity of water needs to berediscovered.

21


ly by grants. It is estimated that the cost of irrigation systemimprovements for Texas is $400 million and $100 million for theLower Rio Grande Valley.

Equity Issues

The existing framewo rk is in ad eq ua te to de fi ne or as su re eq ui tabl e

distribution of water. Existing water resources are inequitably dis-tributed across the border and among sectors. Because many groupslack sufficient access to information and institutions, institutionsshould incorporate various mechanisms to insure their flexibility andaccessibility. Solutions to equity issues that should be taken intoaccount to promote sustainable use of resources should include flex-ible and inclusive binational planning mechanisms; regulated marketmechanisms, including creative and flexible water pricing schemes;the reallocation of subsidies; water education; and a leveling of theplaying field through capacity building. The recognition that equi-table use needs rigorous attention to integrate science, environmen-tal justice, and social welfare considerations is a significant researchchallenge for SCERP and others.

Ecosystems

Transferring water away from natural communities and processestoday reduces water quality and quantity for human uses tomorrow.Ecological use of water is recognized by the 1983 La Paz Agreementand later by IBWC-CILA minutes, especially Minute 306 addressingthe Lower Colorado River Delta. Advantages offered by natural sys-tems and ecosystem services include flood control, navigation, pollu-tion abatement, climate buffering, and fisheries and other naturalhabitats for economically important species. The numerous benefitsassociated with allocating water to the environment include:

Increased wildlife habitat and biodiversity

Increased groundwater recharge Increased surface and groundwater storage Increased economic developme nt potential for communities Increased water quality Decreased storm water peak discharge rate Decreased stream channel erosion Decreased frequency of local flooding Decreased pollution through cleaning action of riparian

vegetation

20


21/217

Resumen Ejecutivo

Oportunidades, Costos, Beneficios yConsecuencias No Intencionales: Agua

Segura y Sostenible para el Ao 2020

D. Rick Van Schoik

INTRODUCCIN

El agua ha surgido como uno de los problemas de primer orden entrelos Estados Unidos y Mxico, constituyendo una situacin quepotencialmente puede tener implicaciones serias para la relaci nbilateral. El IV Instituto Fronterizo, que se l lev a cabo en Ro Rico,

Ar iz on a, de l 6 al 8 de ma yo de 20 02 , ex it os am en te in ic iotro niveldel dilogo binacional sobre la problemtica del agua fronteriza, lo

cual constituye un primer paso necesario hacia la planeacin a plazolargo y la comparticin regional del agua y los recursos relacionadoscon el agua.

La gestin del agua ejemplifica en muchas maneras el desafo quepresenta el desarrollo sustentable. Conforme crece la poblacin enla regin fronteriza, la demanda de grandes cantidades de agual impia aumenta. Esta mayor demanda intensifica la competenciaentre los usuarios del agua, incluyendo la econom a, las comu-nidades y el medio ambiente mismo. El desafo estriba en equilibrarla s neces idades de los recursos natura lesque representan elfuturocon las demandas actuales que presentan las economas y losciudadanos de las dos naciones. El desafo que representa l levar acabo una planeacin mientras se estfrente a recursos menguantes esque cambian los tiempos, las poblaciones, las econom as y lariqueza, nicamente permanece igual el f lujo de agua.

Debido a que los r os y acuferos fronterizos son inherentementebinacionales y dado que es insuficiente la capacidad institucionalpara resolver la problemtica relacionada con las aguas freticas, losparticipantes en el Instituto acordaron en general que los gobiernosfederales de Mxico y los Estados Unidos deben tener un desempe oms proactivo hacia la solucin de la problemtica del agua fronter-iza. Aun quienes tienen el poder de tomar decisiones al ms alto

23


CONCLUSION

Water issues along the border are infinitely complex and includeincessantly ris ing demands; a finite, depleting, and degrading sup-ply; competing sectors; and, in some cases, cumbersome and anti-quated regulating institutions on both sides of the border. Because

of the interconnectivities and interdependencies of water and otherconcerns, a solution for one issue often becomes a problem foranother. As a result, the U.S.-Mexican border faces unprecedentedsustainability challenges. It is time for policymakers on both sides ofthe border to accept proactively the reality that water scarcity is thenorm rather than an anomaly. These challenges underscore theimportance of tackling solutions collectively, which is the primarypurpose of the Border Instituteto bring together academics, poli-cymakers, industry leaders, and other border stakeholders from bothsides of the border to address key issues. Solutions were formulatedduring Border Institute IV and many of the possible outcomes wereelucidated and dissected to avoid unintended consequences.

Because of the sheer complexity of these problems, however, solu-

tions wil l have to emanate from compromise. At best, solutionsshould work for al l sectors; at worst, they should not harm any.Interdisciplinary and sustainability scienceSCERP s aim andmantrashould be at the forefront to ensure long-term solutions.

Wh et he r or no t th es e pr op os ed so lu ti on showever imperfectafter implemented, the United States and Mexico will face conse-quences. If actions are not taken, many (if not al l) sectors wil l beaffected; institutions and individuals wil l have to change theirhabits and large sums of money will have to be invested. In short,everyone and all institutions wil l have to conserve. The 1998reportings of the first Border Institute were clear: The border pop-ulation will l ikely increase by 6.3 mill ion people by 2030. Unlessmost of the recommendations from Border Institute IV are followed,

the burgeoning population will lead to increased demand forwa te rwa te r th at is al re ad y in ad eq ua te in te rm s of qu an ti ty an dquality. The current situation is s imply unsustainable. All sectorsface untold and irreversible ramifications if border water scarcity isnot addressed now. Put simply, the U.S. and Mexican federal gov-ernments must take proactive roles and competing sectors must

wo rk to ge th er to av er t en vi ro nm en ta l, ec on om ic , an d so ci al di sa st er.

22


22/217

Oportunidades, Costos, Beneficios y Consecuencias No Intencionales

desarrollo de recomendaciones sobre pol tica a largo plazo.Cada Instituto Fronterizo se aboca a las implicaciones que ciertos

problemas ambientales fronterizos selectos tienen sobre las polticas.Sin embargo, debe enfatizarse que los Institutos no son una serie deconferenc ias a is l adas . Ms b ien, e l enfoque temt ico de losInstitutos es buscar, de una manera programtica, la solucin deproblemas en cuanto a l a pol t ica ambienta l f ronter iza . LosInstitutos Fronterizos del I al III investigaron:

La asimetra que existe a lo largo de toda la frontera encuanto a cuestiones demogrficas y de desarrollo econ mico

La infraestructura ambiental, el capitalismo natural y la con-tabil idad ambiental

La energa y sus interdependencias en la regin fronteriza,respectivamente

Las recomendaciones del Instituto Fronterizo, a manera dere smenes ejecutivos y un tomo en la Serie de Monografas delCIPAS, se diseminan ampliamente entre quienes formulan las deci-siones y otros interesados/afectados en la regin fronteriza. Las pre-sentaciones del IV Instituto Fronterizo se encuentran disponibles eninternet en www.scerp.org.

PANORMICA DE LA PROBLEMT IC A D EL AGUA

Ningn tema es ms importante que el agua. Pocas sustancias son tanindispensables para el futuro de la frontera como el agua y ningn temaha dominado los encabezados en las ltimas dcadas como la escasez deagua y sus dimensiones humanas. Ms aun, el capital hidrolgico en lafrontera en el ao 2020 lo conforman dos factores fundamentales:primero, las existencias variables del agua que ocurren de manera natu-ral y, en segundo lugar, la demanda de agua que constantemente va enaumento. Las fuentes del conflicto derivan de la competencia que se da

entre grupos de usuarios, como se resume en Figura 1.Los usuarios no tradicionalesincluyendo las naciones tribales, los

recursos ecolgicos y las comunidades ruralesahora compiten por elagua de la cual alguna vez fueron el nico usuario. El agua se est con-virtiendo en un problema internacional tan grande que se prevee quemuchos conflictos graves surgirn al empeorar las tensiones y los con-flictos relacionados con este recurso.

25

ni vel reconocen que existe la necesidad de una planeaci n a plazolargo. Como report el New York Times el 24 de mayo de 2002: ElPresidente Fox dijo que Mxico durante dcadas ha malgastado loque tiene sin ninguna planeacin, sin sentido.De modo parecido,el uso del agua y su distribucin se l leva a cabo de una manera quedista mucho de ser la ptima en los Estados Unidos debido a que lapo l t ica rela t iva a l agua se basa ms en precedentes que enprincipios.

Al gu no s es fu er zo s re al iz ad os po r lo s go bi er no s fe de ra le s pa raimplantar una planeacin relativa a las cuencas hidrolgicas hantenido xito en cuanto a integrar el desarrollo econmico, la calidadambiental y el bienestar social . La Comisin Conjunta InternacionalEstados Unidos-Canad (IJC, por sus siglas en ingl sInternational

Joi nt Co mm is si on ), po r ej em pl o, mo ni to re a y re gu la el ag ua qu eproviene de los Grandes Lagos. Sin embargo, la planeaci n a plazolargo para cumplir con la demanda en los Estados Unidos se ve com-plicada por los derechos de los estados sobre los mantos freticos yalgunos cuerpos de agua superficiales, mientras que en M xico elagua es completamente un asunto federal. Estos desfasamientosinstitucionales y jurisdiccionales claramente requieren de una solu-ci n a alto nivel cuidadosamente elaborada por las dos naciones.

OB JE TI VO S Y ENFOQUE DE LA SE RI E D EL

INSTITUTO FRONTERIZO

El Centro de Investigaci n y Pol tica Ambiental de Suroeste(CIPAS) cre la serie del Instituto Fronterizo en 1998 porquereconoci que exist a la necesidad de tener un foro binacional quefacil itara las discusiones sobre la pol tica ambiental dentro delmarco complejo de Frontera XXI. CIPAS previel valor potencial detraducir los resultados de la investigacin cientfica a una pol ticaambiental firme. Por lo tanto, el propsito de la serie del InstitutoFronterizo es agrupar a los acad micos, a quienes formulan laspo l ticas, a los l deres de la industria y a otros interesados/afectadosen la frontera en una atmsfera acadmica, pero al mismo tiempoconducente al trabajo muy intenso con la finalidad de formularrecomendaciones sobre pol ticas y disear soluciones potencialespara los problemas fronterizos m s apremiantes. A los participantesse les exhorta a que se enfoquen en la regin como un todo y en elhorizonte temporal del ao actual ms veinte, una ventana con-ceptual de dos dcadas y una escala del entorno que promovern el


24


23/217


27


Figura 1. Competencia entre Grupos de Usuarios

Fuente: CIPAS

EL AGU A A LO LAR GO D E LA FRONTERAINTERNACIONAL

Aunque el agua en la rida frontera entre Mxico y los EstadosUnidos tiene un largo historial de negociaciones y de ingenier a,contina siendo un tema altamente contencioso. El agua se encuen-tra encerrada en tratados, tuber as y canales. El Tratado de 1944para la Utilizacin de las Aguas del Ro Colorado, el Ro Tijuana yel Ro Grande/Ro Bravo an sirve como el principal punto dereferencia para las dos naciones en lo que se refiere a dudas sobre lasaguas fronterizas, aunque muchos lo consideran demasiado limitadoen el contexto actual de crecimiento demogr fico y reduccin dr s-tica de las existencias.

La estructura binacional actual para la asignaci n [de cuotas deagua] es un anacronismo irremediable. Aunque todo el mundoreconoce cun difcil ser a cambiar el Tratado, la mayor a de las per-sonas comprenden que ste tiene mayor flexibil idad de lo quemuchos suponen y puede usarse para l idiar con los problemasactuales y los que surjan.

Para el propsito de la planeacin sobre el agua, la regi n fron-teriza puede dividirse en tres subregiones: la regi n occidental,dominada por la cuenca h idrolgica del Ro Colorado ( la sCalifornias, la parte occidental de Arizona y la parte occidental deSonora); la regin central, que no se encuentra dominada porningn sistema grande ni por un solo r o (Sonora, Arizona, NuevoMxico y la parte occidental de Texas); y los desages del RoGrande/Ro Bravo (la parte oriental del estado de Nuevo M xico, elestado de Texas y los cuatro estados orientales de Mxico).

26

Ao

Evento

Objetivo

1848

TratadodeGuadalupeHidalgo

Definirlalneainternacional

1889

ConvencinquecrelaComisinInternacionalde

LmitesyAguas(CILA)

ObservarlasreglasdelosTratadosFronterizosyla

Convencinenrelacinaloscambiosdec

ursoenros

internacionales.

1944

TratadoparalaUtilizacindelasAguasdelosRos

ColoradoyTijuanaydelRoBravo

Asignarlasaguasdelosrosinternaciona

lesentrelosdos

pasesyampliacindelasfuncionesdela

Comisin.

1983

Acuerdopara

laProteccinyMejoradelMedio

Ambienteen

laReginFronteriza(AcuerdodeLaPaz)

Proporcionarpautasformalesparalapart

icipacinbinacionalde

losdiferentesnivelesdegobiernoeneldiseoyla

implementacindesolucionesambientalestransfronterizaspor

gruposdetrabajoespecficos.

1992

Lanzamiento

delPlanAmbientalIntegradoparala

ReginFronte

rizaMxico-EstadosUnidos(IBEP,siglas

eningls)

Fortalecerlaejecucindelasleyesambientales,incrementla

planeacinencolaboracin,completlaam

pliacindelas

instalacionesparaeltratamientodeaguas

residuales.

1992

Creacindela

JuntaAmbientaldelBuenVecino

(GNEB,sigla

seningls)

AsesoraralPresidenteyalCongreso[delosEstadosUnidos]sobre

temasrelacionadosalmedioambienteyl

ainfraestructura.

1993

Creacindela

ComisindeCooperacinEcolgica

Fronteriza(BECC/COCEF)yelBancodeDesarrollode

AmricadelN

orte(BANDAN)

Asistiralascomunidadesenambosladosdelafronterapara

coordinaryllevaracaboproyectosdeinfraestructuraambiental.

1996

Lanzamiento

delprogramaFronteraXXI

Promovereldesarrollosustentableenlafrontera.

Ta

bla1

.Even

tos

Princ

ipa

lesen

laEvo

luc

in

de

laGes

ti

n

de

lAguaporparte

de

Mx

icoy

los

Es

tados

Unid

os

Fuentes:ChristopherP.Brown;StephenMumme;Mark

Spalding


24/217


29


Es importante recordar que muchas naciones tribales tambin seencuentran en la regin fronteriza y que stas se enfrentan a impor-tantes problemas relacionados con el agua. Por ejemplo, la existen-cia misma de los Cucup o Gente del Ro quienes en un tiempote n an comunidades florecientes a lo largo de la parte baja y el deltadel Ro Colorado, se encuentra amenazada debido a la disminucindel caudal del r o.

IN T ER D EP E ND E NC I AS Y D ISCONTINUIDADES

El agua estconectada a casi todas las medidas de la calidad de vida(salud humana, procesos ambientales, integridad ecolgica y vitali-dad econmica) y sin embargo se encuentra sujeta a controles pordependencias desiguales e intereses en competencia. La calidad delagua no puede separarse en lo ms mnimo de la cantidad de agua,ni los temas relativos a los mantos freticos pueden estar separadosde las inquietudes relativas a las aguas superficiales. Las corrientesde agua por debajo de la frontera, por ejemplo, no s lo reabastecenlos acuferos s ino que tambin pueden transportar contaminantes.

Ad ic io na lm en te , el ag ua se en cu en tr a ntimamente vinculada con laenerga, la calidad del aire y temas relativos al desarrollo econmico.Exisle un caleidoscopio de jurisdicciones en la frontera que a

menudo se encuentran en conflicto las unas con las otras, en lugarde algn tipo de cooperacin para abocarse a la solucin de lacompleja problemt ica del agua. Entre el l a s se encuentrandiscontinuidades hidrolgicas, jurisdiccionales y de sectores encompetencia, as como tambin los desfasamientos que se dan entrelos dos gobiernos, los diferentes niveles de gobierno y aun dentro delos gobiernos mismos. Por ejemplo, las dependencias a cargo delabasto de agua, del tratamiento del agua, del tratamiento de aguasresiduales y de la salud pblica son a menudo organizacionesseparadas con diferentes culturas organizacionales que se encuentran

operando en distintos lugares. Los participantes del Institutoconcluyeron que se necesita la planeacin estratgica para lograr quelas dependencias desconectadas se conecten y caminen juntas.

28

Fuente:AuthorF

igura

2.

Las

Su

breg

iones

de

laFron

tera

Mx

ico-E

stadosU

nidos

O d d C f C lh S d


25/217


Figura 3. El Sistema de la Parte Baja del R oColorado Presupuesto Promedio de Agua 1977-1999

Fuente: Jessica Swartz Amezcua y Harry Johnson

31


Tambin existen vnculos innecesarios y potencialmente da inosen el tratado que trata sobre la problemtica del agua en la frontera.Los Ros Colorado y Bravo, por ejemplo, se encuentran vinculadosya que se les menciona a ambos en el mismo tratado; s in embargo,cada uno presenta problemas sumamente diferentes y tiene mecanis-mos diversos para la soluci n de problemas. Ms an, el tema de losmantos freticos no se encuentra incluido en los tratados bilaterales

entre Mxico y los Estados Unidos.

TENDENCIAS PASADAS, PR ES EN TE S Y FUTURAS

Aunque la regin desde hace dcadas ha sufrido de escasez de agua,una escasez extrema y costos altos se encuentran en el horizonte,acercndose probablemente a un lado de la frontera m s rpida-mente que al otro. Los patrones de uso histricos y actuales reflejanla asimetr a tanto en la disponibil idad del agua como en su precio.El uso agr cola se encuentra relativamente fijo (util izando de un 60a ms de un 80 por ciento de las aguas superficiales mientras que elconsumo municipal var a de un 10 a un 30 por ciento, dependiendo

de la ubicacin) y que el incremento en la demanda de agua estsiendo impulsado por el crecimiento urbano. El uso per c pita esmayor en las ciudades fronterizas estadounidenses que en lasciudades fronterizas mexicanas. De igual manera, la calidad de lainformacin, la capacidad institucional y el presupuesto son mejoresdel lado estadounidense.

Au nq ue Ci ud ad Jurez depende casi exclusivamente del agua en el

subsuelo, la asignacin de 74 millones m 3/ao de aguas superficialesdel Ro Colorado es especialmente cr tica. La demanda de agua enCiudad Jurez est aumentando y su fuente de agua subterr nea, elac ufero Hueco Bolsn, se estsobreexplotando y estdeclinando encalidad. El impacto de una escasez de agua cada vez ms severasobre muchas dimensiones de la calidad de vidase sentir en

ambos lados de la frontera.Desde luego que toda la disponibil idad de agua se encuentra ame-

nazada por los cambios globales en el cl ima. Las temperaturas m scl idas ya han ocasionado mayor evapotranspiracin y existen ciertasindicaciones de que a nivel regional hay menos precipitacin.

30

O t id d C t B fi i C i N I t i lTh U S M i B d E i t


26/217


canales abiertos y sin revestimiento. El reto principal para la reginestriba en incrementar la eficiencia en el riego. La solucin seencuentra en la introduccin de una infraestructura y de prcticasde riego de alta tecnologa aunadas a un manejo racional de losrecursos del agua bajo criterios de sostenibil idad.

Figura 5. Asignacin de Aguas Superficiales

Fuente: Edwin Hamlyn

Au n ot ro pu nt o d e vi st a r ec on oc e qu e la de ma nd a d e ag ua es ab so -luta y crece a diario, que la disponibil idad del agua es flexible peroque cada vez hay menos, que los precios del agua son variables peroque estn ligados a la cantidad existente y que se debe realizar unapriorizacin del agua de conformidad con ciertos grados (vase elesquema en Figura 6), logrando asf inalmente poder proporcionarms agua y a un costo m s barato a varios usuarios. Actualmente, eltratamiento parcial , tradicional y adicional de las aguas residualeshacen que estdisponible para reabastecer los mantos fraticos, parala industria, la agricultura, la jardiner a y los parques. En poco tiem-po, el agua residual probablemente se usar para enfriar las nuevasplantas de energa el ctrica. Diferentes grados de agua pueden serusados de manera segura y econmica para propsitos adicionales.Por ejemplo, el agua salobre del subsuelo pronto podr usarse demanera directa para regar algunos cultivos tolerantes a la sal ;

33


Figura 4. Uso Per Cpita de Agua en El Paso yCiudad Jure z

Fuente: Edwin Hamlyn

SOLUCIONES ACTUALES

La ingeniera y la tecnologa ofrecen muchas soluciones para la cri-s is del agua. Las instalaciones sat l ite o descentralizadas, por ejemp-lo, ahorran dinero ya que pueden resolver de manera m s eficientelas necesidades locales al reemplazar tramos extensos de tuberas consistemas menos costosos y con una reduccin en la fluctuacin de lavelocidad del caudal. Otro escenario implica el reutil izar el aguadentro de una misma comunidad. Esta soluci n implica volver a

tratar el agua dentro de un par de ciudades gemelas, en lugar detransportar el agua sobre largas distancias que a menudo implicacostos elevados de energa y de infraestructura.

Ad ic io na lm en te , la s prdidas actuales de agua podr an disminuiren un 50 por ciento si se aplicaran pr cticas de riego eficientes. Labaja eficiencia en la gestin del agua para usos agr colas deriva prin-cipalmente del uso de sistemas de riego por gravedad, donde se pre-sentan prdidas por la evaporacin y la infiltracin a lo largo de

32

Condado de El PasoTexas

Municipio de JurezChihuahua

255Mm3

27,900ha

67

9,622

74Mm3

12,100ha

1,218

,817

255Mm3

27,900ha

679,622

Condado de Doa AnaNuevo Mxico

Asignacin de Aguas Superficiales (Mm3)

Terrenos de Riego (ha)

PoblacinCiudad Jurez

El paso

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Ao

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

UsoPerCpitadeAgua

(litros/personal/d

a)

848

350

606

Oportunidades Costos Beneficios y Consecuencias No IntencionalesThe U S M

Real Problem. Real Solution.

Documents

Transcript of Real Problem. Real Solution.