By Mary Kelly

"A phenomenon noticeable throughout history regardless of place or period is the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests."
Barbara Tuchman,
The March of Folly (l984)

The RÌo Bravo no longer reaches the Gulf of Mexico -- it’s blocked by a sandbar that is the result of several years of low flow in the river. This development is symbolic of the dire state of the entire transboundary RÌo Bravo basin. And the river’s troubles are now manifesting themselves in an increasingly acrimonious dispute between the United States and Mexico.

Charges and countercharges are flying over water allocation in the RÌo Bravo basin. Some Texas politicians are threatening "retaliation" over what they say is Mexico’s failure to live up to its obligations under the 1944 Treaty that governs how the waters of this vitally important river basin are to be shared. They seem to be agreeing with the position of farmers in the Lower RÌo Grande Valley of Texas that Mexico is somehow managing its part of the basin to deliberately withhold water and put Texas farmers out of business. They have mounted a sustained campaign to convince U.S. federal officials that Mexico should be passing water through to the RÌo Grande instead of using it for irrigation in Chihuahua.

What Texas sometimes claims fail to acknowledge, however, is that northern Mexico is suffering from a severe and persistent drought that has reduced capacity in its reservoirs to dangerously low levels. One of the largest reservoirs in the Mexican portion of the basin, La Boquilla on the RÌo Conchos in Chihuahua, is at about 20% of normal capacity; further down the Conchos, the Luis LeÛn Reservoir has only 13 % of its normal storage; and Mexico’s share in the joint Amistad/Falcon Reservoir system is less than 10% of its capacity. Under these conditions, short of cutting off all irrigation, it is not practical for Mexico to repay its current deficit of about 1.4 million acre-feet under the Treaty, as many in Texas are demanding.

To date, most federal officials in Washington, D.C. have maintained a low profile with regard to negotiations on the issue. Nevertheless, the constant pressure from Texas, widespread media coverage, and the lack of perceived progress in resolving the dispute, may begin to make that approach more difficult to sustain.

The fact that Mexico does bear some responsibility for the current situation cannot be ignored. A clear-eyed look at the last decade of water management, particularly in the RÌo Conchos basin, indicates that during 1996 and 1997, at least, water managers did not cut back irrigation in response to the on-going drought. They may have thought that the relatively good rains in those years meant the drought was over. Or they may have been counting on a good hurricane or two to fill up the dams and wipe the deficit from the books.

Finally, the governments should convene a binational summit to develop an overall sustainable management plan for the basin, involving key water user groups, conservation organizations, and state and local governments. This concept was originally proposed by Mexico and embodied in a March 2001 agreement between the two countries. However, the current dispute appears to have stalled action on the idea.

Earlier this month Mexican and U.S. conservation organizations convened a forum in Chihuahua to discuss what cooperative actions can be taken to protect and restore the RÌo Conchos basin. This meeting focused not on the water deficit but on cooperatively developing some specific ideas for making progress. Here’s hoping the governments recognize their interests in doing the same.

(Mary Kelly is the director of the Texas Center for Policy Studies. She can be reached at mek@texascenter.org.)