Return to TFB Main Page
Return to Current Edition
Texas Agriculture Archive

March 15, 2002

Tapped Out

Mexico's failure to honor water treaty obligations leaves Valley farmers high and dry...

Part 1 of 2 part series

By Mike Barnett
Editor

"Hasta mañana," the old Spanish saying goes: "Until tomorrow."

Rio Grande Valley farmers have so far survived years of tomorrows, waiting with fading hope for the Mexican government to fulfill treaty obligations and release water that feeds into the Rio Grande River so they can water an increasingly thirsty land.

Irrigated farmers in the Valley are facing a desperate situation this year, said Carlos Rubinstein, Rio Grande watermaster, with water levels at Amistad and Falcon reservoirs, which store water for the entire Valley, at the lowest levels since the current drought began eight years ago.

"If you track it compared to what occurred to us in 1998, then potentially we could be in the very low 20 percent capacity or lower by August, depending on weather and utilization," Rubinstein said. "Farmers know what they have to use and it's not much. And they know it's being depleted rather rapidly."

Rapidly, indeed. Jo Jo White, manager of the Hidalgo and Cameron Counties Irrigation District No. 9, said the situation in his district is critical.

"To give you an idea, this district has the most water rights, 177,151 acre feet," he said. "I have 34,306 acre feet of water—19.1 percent of what I could hold. I need a minimum of another 120,000 acre feet to meet this year's demand, assuming we don't get the local rainfall that in this drought stage we haven't seen."

Treaty of 1944

The problem stems from a water treaty signed by the U.S. and Mexico in 1944. Under the terms of that treaty, the U.S. would allow 1.5 million acre feet of water annually to flow out of the Colorado River between Arizona and California into the Mexican states of Baja California and Sonora. In return, Mexico was to deliver 350,000 acre feet of water (as an average in five year cycles) annually, flowing out of six tributaries in Mexico into the Rio Grande, to help meet Texas needs in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.

Other types of water are also designated in the treaty. On the Texas side, 100 percent of the water that comes from the Devils and Pecos Rivers is U.S. water. Then, out of the six named tributaries in Mexico, the U.S. gets one-third of that amount, and Mexico retains two-thirds of the amount that flows into the river. This water is stored in Amistad and Falcon. Then, unaccounted water—that water that flows into the river from small streams and arroyos during rainfall events—is split 50-50.

The problem started back in 1992, when the Mexican state of Chihuahua started withholding water in interior reservoirs. With both international reservoirs full, U.S. officials weren't too concerned that Mexico hadn't met its treaty obligation.

The U.S. still had plenty of water in 1993 and 1994, when Mexico withheld even more water.

"We started 1995," White recalled, "Mexico just basically cut us off, in a sense. And what remaining water we had in '95 in the reservoirs, we basically depleted it. And we started '96 and that's when we had the crisis. That's when we ran out of water."

According to the treaty, five-year cycles are started when the reservoirs are full. When reservoir levels start dropping, Mexico must start paying their water obligations.

"We got through '96, and '97 came. That cycle ended and Mexico owed us a million acre feet of water," White said. "Questions started being asked."

Meanwhile, a state-funded venture called the Integrated Valley Plan hired a subcontractor—a hydraulic engineer out of Austin—to model water resources in Mexico.

According to White, this engineer studied the entire system, collected all the data from the Mexican reservoirs from Mexican officials, and the results were "shocking."

"When he compiled it and put it all together, in that first year cycle, as an average, Mexico had between 80 and 90 percent of its normal rainfall," White said, noting that treaty provisions say Mexico can withhold treaty water during "extraordinary drought (extraordinary drought is not defined). "Mexico had over 7 million acre feet of water that was not used during that time that was stored in those reservoirs. But the nail in the coffin was, the last reservoir on the Conchos River (the largest tributary on the Rio Grande)...they had water stored in the flood pool three out of the five years."

White maintained that if the U.S. government had acted then to enforce the treaty, using the data collected by the engineer as evidence, the water situation wouldn't be near as serious as it is today. But Valley pleas fell on deaf ears.

So the second cycle started in 1998. Under the terms of the treaty, under "extraordinary drought" circumstances, Mexico could use the next five year cycle to pay back water debt. A Minute Order to the treaty in 1969 said that a deficit that occurred in one cycle must be paid back in the second cycle, along with all necessary water to prevent a deficiency in the second cycle.

"Very simply put, you've got to stay current," White said. "Now, in this second cycle, at the end of the first four years, they owe us 400,000 acre feet of water. Now, in the last year, they have to come up with another 350,000. Mexico owes us 1 million for the first cycle. So they've got to come up with roughly 1,750,000 acre feet in seven months."

Even the most optimistic say that's a pipe dream. Said longtime Valley agricultural broadcaster Jim Hearne: "The possibilities of Mexico repaying the water in the next 7 months to satisfy the treaty of 1944...it's just not going to happen. So we've got to get them to release some water. But at the same time we've got to get a workable plan with Mexico to make sure that this crisis doesn't keep happening."

Current situation

Frustration and despair is evident everywhere when talking to Valley farmers. They've teetered on the edge of no irrigation water the last few years, and this year could put many over. Planting time in late February saw the ground bone dry and irrigation allotments at best, a trickle of what is needed.

"The major problem is water," one young farmer, who wished to remain anonymous, said. "When I was growing up you could plant whatever you want and irrigate as many times as you wanted to pay for it. But now, nobody's happy anymore. It's hard to get up in the morning and go to work. It's kind of disgusting with Mexico owing us the water they won't pay."

That thought is echoed by mid-Valley farmer Mike England: "There's not optimism here at this point. Just between commodity prices the way they are and the water situation like it is, everyone is forcing themselves to smile."

The water shortage has caused significant changes in England's operation this year. On Feb. 27 he was in his third day of dusting in sorghum seed, basically "hoping for a rain to sprout it." The ground is so dry that he is having to pre-irrigate some crops up, using his precious allotment, realizing he has half an irrigation left to finish the crop. Some of the ground he farms has no water at all, because he grew a vegetable on it last fall. "So those landlords won't, unless it rains, have a crop on the ground," he said.

Sound confusing?

"This year, I don't know what I'm doing," England says. "You wake up in the morning and ask God to give you a little wisdom. This is my third day of planting and evidently I've been told to start planting because I'm doing it," he said. "I'm hoping for a rain. If I get a rain, fine. If I don't...I can only worry about today."

Crop insurance woes

The lack of irrigation water has brought other woes as well, for row crop farmers like England and for citrus and sugarcane producers—crop insurance uncertainties, for example.

Steve Bauer, who farms 650 irrigated acres mid-Valley, said irrigated farmers, without a proven water supply, are considered dryland farmers. Since irrigated farmers don't have proven dryland yields, they have to go to county t-yields. For his county on cotton, that's about 300 lbs.

"A lot of cotton growers around here, their average irrigated yields are anywhere from 700 to 900 pounds of lint. When you forfeit that due to no water and take a county dryland yield, look at the pounds you're giving up," Bauer said. "I'm not taking anything away from the dryland guys, but I don't think it's our fault we don't have water...just like it's not their fault if it doesn't rain. I think they ought to pay us irrigated guys our insurance on our proven irrigated yields."

"That kills you," broadcaster Hearne said on the crop insurance situation. "A lot of these guys are finding out that the coverage that they're buying is virtually worthless. The crop insurance deal alone is going to be a major obstacle for these growers."

Ray Prewitt, executive director of Texas Citrus Mutual, said the treaty situation has serious implications for both citrus and sugarcane next fall.

"If growers are notified by their water districts that they don't have enough water to water their sugarcane or citrus for the next year, there's a possibility that policy could be entirely cancelled," he said. "If the policy is cancelled for drought then that means, for example, with citrus and sugarcane, there's no freeze coverage, either. And then if we happen to have a freeze, we're looking at the possibility of losing on a permanent basis a substantial part of both of those industries."

Hasta mañana, until tomorrow—certainly. The problem for Valley agricultural producers is it's looking like tomorrow may never come.

(Editor's note: The second part of the series will look at economic implications of a broken treaty, possible effects on Valley municipalities, the politics of the treaty and what might be done to force Mexico's hand.)