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

August 2, 2002

Rio Grande Valley water crisis...
Farmers skeptical of
State Department efforts

By Mike Barnett
Editor

Attempts by a State Department official on July 17 to explain U.S. government tactics to get Mexico to honor a 1944 water treaty were met with skepticism by Rio Grande Valley farmers scorched by Mexico's refusal to release irrigation water.

Speaking to a roomful of frustrated farmers, Dennis Linskey, U.S. State Department coordinator of U.S./Mexico border affairs, explained the rationale behind the recent Minute Order 308, which resulted in a meager release of 90,000 acre feet of water at a time that was too little and too late to do drought-hammered crops in the Rio Grande Valley any good.

Minute 308 is the most recent addendum to the 1944 treaty under which Mexico is required to send an average of 350,000 acre feet a year annually to the United States from its Rio Grande tributaries. That same treaty requires the United States to send 1.5 million acre feet from the Colorado River to Mexico. The United States has met its obligation every year since the treaty was signed. Unless they release more water soon, Mexico will probably owe the United States about 1.6 million acre feet of water by Oct. 2—the end of the current five-year repayment cycle.

According to Linskey, the immediate effect of Minute 308 was to transfer 90,000 acre feet of water to the U.S. However, if inflows in Mexico are not enough to replenish that 90,000 acre feet, the U.S. would have to give the water back.

The other parts of Minute 308 are statements of intentions and are not legally binding, the State Department official said.

The primary element would be $400 million in grant money to the Rio Grande Valley and Mexico to improve irrigation and conservation systems.

"But that money does not get released to Mexico unless we have good progress on implementing the water treaty where we start having priority given in Mexico's water allocation to the United States," Linskey said. "We will no longer accept receiving Mexico water when an occasional storm comes by and the reservoirs are filled. This money is going to have to be used by Mexico to make some of its internal adjustments to make sure this happens. It's not a give away."

Skepticism abounds

To producers attending the meeting, it was another round of "same old, same old."

Said Dale Jeske, Texas Farm Bureau state director and citrus grower: "Everything that Mr. Linskey said is the same thing we've heard before from the State Department and from every other direction that has come down with anything about water. There's nothing new, nothing good. They're basically stalemating us."

Hidalgo County Farm Bureau President Tim McDaniel agreed: "It seemed like another meeting of `I feel your pain.' I don't think they (State Department) really understand what we're actually talking about down here. It's another way for Mexico to put off paying the debt and say they're working on it. And we've heard that for eight years at least."

Grower Bobby Sparks said the State Department needs to work a long-term solution with Mexico to where 350,000 acre feet is delivered on an annual basis and "maybe a little bit more to work on their debt."

"Mexico is waiting on a storm," he said, echoing a thought expressed by many. "They're hoping a storm comes and the debt is forgiven. That's what they're betting on."

Sparks sees few problems with grant money being used to improve Mexico's irrigation infrastructure, with one caveat.

"We can't give them any grants if they're not going to work with us on repaying the debt," he explained. "That's just foolish. It's a two-way street. We've got to work together. And they've already told us they're not willing to work with us. So why do we want to give them money when they're not willing to work with us?"

Irrigation manager perspective

Meanwhile, local irrigation district manager Gordon Hill spoke of a meeting he and other irrigation managers had with Linskey.

"The situation we're in today completely falls on the shoulders of the State Department and IBWC (International Boundary Water Commission)," Hill said. "They were aware of it for the last seven years and they've done nothing. We told them the situation was going to come down to this. And they did absolutely nothing to assist us and help us stop this. And it's their fault 100 percent.

"They have no new plans. They did invite us to some meetings to join them to find a solution. And they said they're under a deadline of two and one-half months. Because Oct. 2 Mexico falls in default.

"We asked them, 'What's the hurry? We've already lost this year's crops. Mexico doesn't have the water. So we will not get the 600,000 acre feet we need by the end of the year for next year's crops. So we're totally 100 percent dependent on the weather right now. So why be in a hurry to make another bad deal?'

"We talked to them about cutting off the water on the Colorado to make Mexico come to the table and settle this deal. We need them to actively pursue this issue on behalf of the United States citizens. We need to protect our own first. And if that means cutting the water off at the Colorado and wiping out agriculture in Baja, California, then that's what that is. Mexico took our water. We need to cut off theirs.

"We want a solution to this problem."