In this issue’s Q&A, Texas+Water Editor-in-Chief Dr. Todd Votteler interviews Rodrigo Israel González-Velázquez and Jose Luis Castro-Ruiz about their recent article in the Texas Water Journal, “Water Management in the Rio Conchos Basin: Impacts on Water Deliveries Under the 1944 Treaty.”

Rodrigo Israel González-Velázquez studied Civil Engineering and has a master’s in Integral Water Management. He also studied at the Colegio de la Frontera Norte (El Colef) from 2018 to 2020 and obtained an honorable mention with the thesis “Factors that influence the deliveries of the Water Treaty of 1944. The case of the Río Conchos, period 1992- 2020.”. Rodrigo is experienced in the planning, administration, and implementation of projects in response to humanitarian crises, as well as in the design of infrastructure and urbanization. Since June 2021, he has served the southern border states of Mexico, giving humanitarian response related to drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene, especially for children in migration and in schools.

Jose Luis Castro-Ruiz is a professor-researcher at El Colegio de la Frontera Norte in Monterrey, Mexico. He holds a Ph.D. in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Southern California. His primary research interests include urban development problems, urban water management, and transboundary water management along the border region between the U.S. and Mexico. His academic production includes works in both Spanish and English languages. He has done consulting work for different government levels in Mexico and the U.S., as well as international environmental agencies.

What do you consider to be the main challenge facing water cooperation in the Rio Grande basin in the future?

The recurring droughts that have impacted the regions adjacent to the Rio Grande since the 1990s have affected cooperation between the two countries since Mexico failed to comply with its obligations to deliver water under the 1944 Water Treaty. Despite the signing of Minute 325, as a sign of good faith and help so that Mexico could cover its shortages in the last period of deliveries without neglecting its own needs, the challenge remains for the following years, and new ways of cooperative work in the longer term, which are not limited to compliance with the Treaty. So, the main challenges are climate change, competence for water, and governance between the American and Mexican states.

Is the 1944 Water Treaty sufficient to face all situations of cooperation?

The treaty cannot and should not be modified. However, the same Minutes of the Treaty will address the challenges of cooperation. There is already an experience of proposals raised through the Acts that must be considered and implemented. Examples of this are the signing of Minute 320 due to the stakeholders’ work and effort in the Tijuana River binational basin or the proposal of research groups and joint binational work proposed in Minute 325 to seek solutions regarding the environmental management of the Rio Grande Basin. So, the Treaty is a solid base to work from that allows a way of coordination that can solve the different problems and matters between countries.

If you were in the United States section of the International Boundary Water Commission (IBWC), what actions would you look to take?

The work carried out by both sections of the IBWC is essential to promote and maintain constructive and friendly cooperation between both countries. Although their creation precepts subordinate them to the federal governments in each country, the closeness and interaction with the local spheres have acquired growing importance, and it is essential at present to attend to it. In this sense, the U.S. section has a flexibility that allows it to effectively interact with state and local governments in U.S. border entities compared to its Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas (CILA) counterpart. In addition, this relationship would facilitate carrying out, for example, information and cooperation actions for better managing water resources that involve actors in those spaces.

Also, because of the constant droughts, it is necessary to coordinate contingency plans between the seven American states that use the Colorado River water. A plan is needed that allows the reduction of water in the most difficult years of droughts, but it should be prepared by the user states, and then the IBWC can provide feedback on the plan. This practice is consistent with governance and bottom-up policy models.

If you were in the Mexican section of the IBWC, what actions would you look to take?

As mentioned, the Mexican section of IBWC needs to have the flexibility of its U.S. counterpart. The Mexican section’s scope of action is exclusively international as part of the federal government. Everything related to water management at the local and subnational levels is the sole function of the National Water Commission (CONAGUA), the agency that centralizes water management in the country, and local and state governments cannot interact with CILA in issues of cooperation or joint work in favor of their regions. Despite these conditions, the example of Minute 320 shows that it is possible to promote actions that involve local actors who contribute knowledge and work to find solutions to their problems around water. These actions should include promoting spaces that already exist, such as the CILA citizen councils in different Mexican border cities.

Also, they need contingency plans to manage multiyear droughts better.

In your opinion, what are the weaknesses and strengths of the water treaty?

Weaknesses:

• The Treaty was signed under different growth and water demand conditions along the US-Mexico Border. This point has been the subject of some criticism.
• The Treaty does not consider transboundary groundwater resources. An issue that grows in importance through time.
• The drought scenarios considered in both rivers are not enough now because of climate change.

Strengths:

• The Treaty has been recognized for pioneering this type of accord between countries sharing international watersheds and for its resilience over time.
• The system of Minutes has proved to be an important mechanism to approach issues not contemplated in the Treaty.
• There is always a good synergy between the IBWC of both countries.
• IBWC’s personnel usually serve a long time in their positions, allowing for continuity in the negotiations.

In your opinion, what will happen at the end of this cycle (36)?

At this point, it is difficult to predict the situation at the end of the current cycle. The possibilities of an exemplary scenario will depend to a large extent on the efforts of understanding and cooperation that Mexico and the U.S. develop, regardless of the effects of the increase in the needs of each country and the impacts of climate change.

As Albert Einstein once said, “Do not look for different results if you always do the same,” it is necessary to incorporate new mechanisms and contingency plans to face the recurrent droughts resulting from climate change.

What do the Rio Conchos water use trends indicate for deliveries under the 1944 Treaty?

The Conchos River is Mexico’s most important tributary for its water deliveries to the Rio Grande River under the 1944 Treaty, and it is a strategic system for the country’s northern states. As a result, the changes registered in its basin affect not only compliance with Mexico’s obligations but also CONAGUA’s commitments at the national level.

It is necessary to establish percentages of deliveries between the Mexican tributaries of the Rio Grande River. There are at least five important rivers, so it is necessary to be clearer with this, so as not to overtax one river so much.