[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LOWER RIO GRANDE RIVER WATER SECURITY & H.R. 2990, TO AMEND THE LOWER
RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND IMPROVEMENT ACT OF
2000
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
May 3, 2002 in Brownsville, Texas
__________
Serial No. 107-112
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
-------
77-881 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman
ADAM SMITH, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member
Richard W. Pombo, California George Miller, California
George Radanovich, California Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Greg Walden, Oregon, Calvin M. Dooley, California
Vice Chairman Grace F. Napolitano, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Hilda L. Solis, California
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 3, 2002...................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Hinojosa, Hon. Ruben, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, Prepared statement of...................... 5
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 7
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Rodriguez, Ciro D., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Bach, Maryanne, Regional Director, Great Plains Region,
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior..... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Campbell, Mary Lou, Volunteer Conservation Leader, Sierra
Club, Lone Star Chapter, Frontera Audubon Society.......... 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Cantu, Arnoldo, Farmer, Oral statement of.................... 51
Derham, James M., Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State....... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Feild, Frank, President and CEO, Brownsville Chamber of
Commerce................................................... 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
Garza, Salvador Trevino, General Manager, Junta de Aguas y
Drenaje, Oral statement of................................. 73
Halbert, Wayne, General Manager, Harlingen Irrigation
District................................................... 59
Prepared statement on H.R. 2990.......................... 62
Jones, Kenneth N. Jr., Executive Director, Lower Rio Grande
Valley Development Council................................. 52
Prepared statement on H.R. 2990.......................... 53
Marin, Carlos, Principal Engineer of the United States
Section, on behalf of Carlos Ramirez, Commissioner,
International Boundary and Water Commission, United States
and Mexico, Oral statement of.............................. 16
McCarthy, James A., Farm Credit Bank of Texas................ 63
Prepared statement on H.R. 2990.......................... 65
Ramirez, Carlos, U.S. Commissioner, International Boundary
and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, Prepared
statement of............................................... 17
Rubinstein, Carlos, Rio Grande Watermaster, Texas Natural
Resources Conservation Commission.......................... 55
Prepared statement on H.R. 2990.......................... 57
Sparks, Sam, President, Valley Water District and Irrigation
District................................................... 51
White, Jo Jo, General Manager, Hidalgo & Cameron Counties
Irrigation District #9..................................... 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Additional materials supplied:
Blankinship, David R., Texas Parks and Wildlife, Statement
submitted for the record................................... 76
Carpenter, George W., General Manager, Hidalgo County
Irrigation District Number One, Statement submitted for the
record..................................................... 77
Combs, Susan, Texas Agriculture Commissioner, Statement
submitted for the record................................... 77
Lucio, Hon. Eddie Jr., State Senator, Texas State Senate,
Letter submitted for the record............................ 79
Maley, Joe, Director of Organization, Texas Farm Bureau,
Statement submitted for the record......................... 81
Oliveira, Hon. Rene O., Texas House of Representatives,
Statement submitted for the record......................... 82
Prewett, Ray, Texas Citrus Mutual and Texas Vegetable
Association, Statement submitted for the record............ 83
Rosson, C. Parr III, Aaron Hobbs and Flynn Adcock, Department
of Agricultural Economics, Center for North American
Studies, Texas A&M University, Statement submitted for the
record..................................................... 84
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE LOWER RIO GRANDE RIVER WATER SECURITY--
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES; AND LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2990, TO
AMEND THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2000 TO AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS UNDER THAT
ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
----------
Friday, May 3, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Resources
Brownsville, Texas
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m.,at the
University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College,
Science, Engineering and Technology Building--Lecture Hall, 80
Fort Brown, Brownsville, Texas, Hon. Kenneth Calvert presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Water and
Power will come to order. Before I get into this hearing, this
is an official hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives, as
opposed to a townhall meeting. And, by definition, we have
certain rules in the Committee of the House of Representatives.
So I just wanted to read these out loud so everyone would
understand.
We would ask that there be no applause or demonstration in
regard to testimony as this hearing moves forward. It's
important that we respect the quorum of the House so we can
respectfully move this hearing forward. With that, this is the
oversight hearing on the Lower Rio Grande River Water Security
Opportunities and Challenges and H.R. 2990, to amend the Lower
Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and Improvement
Act of 2000 to authorize additional projects under that Act,
and for other purposes.
There isn't a day that goes by that you don't read or hear
about a drought or drought-like condition throughout this
nation. In fact, I've been through a number of states
throughout the United States--Washington State, Oregon State,
the State of Utah, Colorado, Texas today, Arizona, Nevada--and
this area, though, has certainly suffered particularly with
this drought that you are experiencing.
Participation levels and water supplies all across the
United States are at record low levels, with Governors across
the country declaring drought emergencies. In one case the
Governor declared a drought emergency saying that some areas
are facing the driest conditions in a century.
Reservoirs on the eastern seaboard are at their lowest
level in years, and water rations and restrictions are likely
for this summer. The economic impacts of drought are felt by
all.
The hearing today addresses H.R. 2990, which would amend
public law 106-576, signed by the President in the year 2000,
and issues surrounding the need for legislation. I ask the
members and the witnesses to focus on the challenges at hand,
water supply problems along the lower Rio Grande Valley.
The United States needs to work with Mexico to resolve the
current water dispute on the Rio Grande River. Of that, there
is no doubt. That's for President Bush and Presidente Fox to
resolve. We're not here to negotiate treaties between
countries, but we certainly will be listening to witnesses
stressing the problems with Mexico upholding their treaty
obligations and opportunities for us to transmit a message back
to Washington, to hopefully the Administration, and to the
Government of Mexico.
I'd like to take an opportunity to excuse Congressman
Hinojosa who had, unfortunately, a family emergency and will
not be able to attend today. And I also wanted to express for
my friend Henry Bonilla, who I've talked to on many occasions
about this emergency, who, unfortunately, was unable to be
here, and later I think he has a statement he wants to be
entered into the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Water
and Power
There isn't a day that goes by that you don't read or hear about a
drought or drought-like conditions throughout our nation as well as
areas around the world. Precipitation levels and water supplies all
across the U.S. are at record low levels with Governors across the
country declaring drought emergencies. In one case, a governor declared
a drought emergency, saying some areas are facing the driest conditions
in a century. Reservoirs on the Eastern Seaboard are at their lowest
level in years with water rationing and restrictions likely for this
summer. The economic impacts of drought are felt by all.
The hearing today addresses H.R. 2990 which would amend P.L. 106-
576 signed by the President in the year 2000 and issues surrounding the
need for this legislation. I ask the members and witnesses to focus on
the challenges at hand--water supply problems along the Lower Rio
Grande Valley. The United States government needs to work with Mexico
to resolve the current water dispute on the Rio Grande River. Of that,
there is no doubt, but that is for President Bush and Presidente Fox to
resolve.
We are not here to negotiate treaties between countries. I look
forward to hearing from the witnesses and I thank Mr. Ortiz for
inviting me to his district.
______
Mr. Calvert. I'd like to introduce Congresswoman Napolitano
from my home State of California, a good friend who's been with
me at many of these water hearings throughout the United States
and has listened and attended very beautifully, who also sits
on the Subcommittee of Water and Power. And we appreciate your
attendance here today.
Congressman Rodriguez from Texas--I should point out that
Congresswoman Napolitano was born here in Brownsville, Texas
and raised and went to high school here and moved away to
California, but I'm sure her heart is still here in
Brownsville, Texas.
Mrs. Napolitano. It's from here.
Mr. Calvert. Congressman Rodriguez from Texas, and
Congressman Hinojosa from Texas. But, certainly, I would not be
here if it wasn't for my good friend Solomon Ortiz. Solomon has
been talking to me about the problems of the Rio Grande for a
number of years and wanted me to get up here to firsthand
listen to the problems that this Valley has experienced and
what we need to help resolve those issues.
So, Solomon, I want to thank you for inviting me here and
for your hospitality, and be certain that I will do everything
possible to help, not only today, but in the future. And with
that, we'd recognize an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say that I
really appreciate you taking the time from your busy schedule
to be with us today. You are really one that understands the
seriousness of this problem, and we thank Congresswoman
Napolitano and my good friend Ciro Rodriguez.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished Committee members, and
colleagues, we thank you for taking time from your busy
schedule to hold this important water hearing in South Texas. I
appreciate the Subcommittee on Water and Power coming to
Brownsville, Texas at a crucial time when we are experiencing
unparalleled problems with extraordinary consequences that
we're facing today. I also would like to thank the University
of Texas at Brownsville for holding these hearings.
Today we're going to explore the opportunities and
challenges our border region faces given an inadequate water
supply. This is a difficult conversation for us, frankly,
because we're speaking critically of our friends and neighbors.
We have a strong relationship with our friends in Mexico, and
our friendship is longstanding. You tell the painful truth to
your friends. That is what we will do today, to be honest with
our friends. Friends care, particularly friends who are
signatories to an international treaty.
While we continue to push for compliance for the water owed
to the area under the 1944 Water Treaty, we must also address
other conservation measures and options. H.R. 2990, the other
component to this hearing, will implement water conservation
measures considered in the development of the region and
portion of the State of Texas water plan. And, of course, our
sincere hope that Mexico complies with the treaty plays a big
role in the recovery of our border area.
While the border region continues to experience extreme
drought conditions, Mexico has made little effort to deliver
the water owed to the United States under the 1944 Water
Treaty, which is extremely, extremely frustrating.
For 5 years we have pressed the highest levels of
government to work together on a plan to get Mexico to deliver
the necessary water. Recently, my good friend, Congressman
Bonilla, and I, in the Agriculture Appropriations Bill of 2002,
asked the Department of Agriculture to estimate the value of
the annual loss of United States Agriculture production due to
the deficit in Mexican water deliveries.
Early this week I was extremely disappointed when I
received this report, which stated that the Department of
Agriculture was unable to quantify such losses. I would like to
submit this report for the record, and alongside that, I would
like to also submit to the record a Texas A&M study by Dr. John
Robinson, who is here today. His report extensively details a
loss of about $1 billion in the last 2 years to our economy.
His conclusions are based on a formula associated with an
acre foot of water, 1.5 million of which have not been
delivered to the United States.
While our farmers and the region as a whole continue to
suffer devastating economic losses, there is significant data
showing that the Rio Conchos water is not being released into
the Rio Grande. I would like to submit photos of satellite
images which show the increased use of irrigation water in the
Chihuahua area of Mexico. These images depict Mexico's
increasing production of crops as well as the storage capacity
in the area reservoirs.
The economic viability likelihood of South Texas depends on
water that Mexico continues to hold and on conservation of the
water we do have. We need to continue to press the Federal
Government to work with us on the water conservation projects
currently outlined in H.R. 2990.
I look forward to listening to all of our witnesses today
as we work in a joint effort to ensure both water compliances
as well as adequate water supply. We want to do all this in a
spirit of cooperation and understanding with our friends in
Mexico.
Chairman, I thank you again for this historic opportunity,
and I know that we have some very qualified expert witnesses
today, and I hope that all of us in this room can learn from
the statements that we will be listening to in the next few
minutes. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Mr. Chairman, distinguished committee members, and colleagues,
thank you for taking time from your busy schedules to hold this
important water hearing in South Texas.
I appreciate the Subcommittee on Water and Power coming to
Brownsville, Texas, at a crucial time when we are experiencing
unparalleled problems with extraordinary consequences.
I also would like to thank the University of Texas at Brownsville
for hosting this hearing.
Today we will explore the opportunities and challenges our border
region faces given an inadequate water supply.
This is a difficult conversation for us to have because we are
speaking critically of our friends and neighbors.
We have a strong relationship with our friends in Mexico, and our
friendship is longstanding.
You tell the painful truth to your friends; you do not sugar-coat
it.
That is what we will do today, be honest with our friends.
Friends share; particularly friends who are signatories to
international treaties.
While we continue to push for compliance of the water owed to the
area under the 1944 water treaty, we must also address other
conservation measures and options.
H.R. 2990, the other component to this hearing, will implement
water conservation measures considered in the development of the Region
M portion of the state of Texas water plan.
The Achilles heel of our plan is that Mexico's compliance with the
treaty plays a big role in the recovery of our border area.
While the border region continues to experience extreme drought
conditions, Mexico has made precious little effort to deliver the water
owed to the United States under the 1944 water treaty, which is
extremely frustrating.
For five years, we have pressed the highest levels of government to
work together on a plan to get Mexico to deliver the necessary water.
Recently, my good friend Congressman Bonilla and I, in the
Agriculture Appropriations Bill of 2002, asked the Department of
Agriculture to estimate the value of the annual loss of U.S.
agricultural production due to the deficit in Mexican water deliveries.
Early this week, I was extremely disappointed when I received this
report, which stated that the Department of Agriculture was unable to
quantify such losses.
I would like to submit this report for the record, and alongside
that, I would like to also submit for the record a Texas A&M study by
Dr. John Robinson who is here today.
His report extensively details a loss of about $1 billion in the
last two years to our economy--his conclusions are based on a formula
associated with an acre-foot of water--1.5 million of which have not
been delivered to the U.S.
While our farmers--and the region as a whole--continue to suffer
devastating economic losses, there is significant data showing that the
Rio Conchos water is not being released into the Rio Grande.
I would like to submit photos of satellite imagery which show the
increased use of irrigation water in the Chihuahua area of Mexico.
These images depict Mexico's increase in production of crops as
well as the storage capacity in the area reservoirs.
The economic viability and livelihood of South Texas depends on the
water that Mexico continues to hold--and on conservation of the water
we do have.
We need to continue to press the federal government to work with us
on the water conservation projects currently outlined in H.R. 2990.
I look forward to listening to all of our witnesses today as we
work in a collaborative effort to ensure both water compliance as well
as an adequate water supply.
We want to do all this in a spirit of cooperation and understanding
with our friends in Mexico.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this historic opportunity.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for his opening
statement.
Mr. Ortiz. I would like to include the statement of my good
friend, Mr. Hinojosa for the record. He couldn't make it. He
had a family emergency, and I would like to introduce it.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, the statement of Mr.
Hinojosa will be entered into the record and also the reports
and photos that was mentioned in the gentleman's opening
statement will be entered into the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ruben Hinojosa, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I join my South Texas Colleagues in
welcoming the Water and Power Subcommittee to the Rio Grande Valley!
Let me begin by commending you for holding this field hearing here
today. Water security is one of the most important issues faced by the
people of South Texas, and you have clearly illustrated your dedication
to addressing this issue by convening this important hearing. I thank
you, and my constituents thank you, for all of your support.
Let me also thank your staff for all of their hard work and
interest in this issue. The Subcommittee staff have been extremely
helpful in our efforts and I give both you and your staff my most
sincere appreciation.
Mr. Chairman, everyone here knows that water resources have posed a
challenge to South Texas for years. However, this region has now come
to a crisis situation. Our reservoirs are dangerously low. Mexico now
owes us more than 1.5 million acre-feet of water under the 1944 Treaty.
This is water that we have every reason to believe is being used by
Mexico for its own irrigation purposes.
Meanwhile, our farmers cannot even plant their crops because they
do not know if they will have any water to irrigate them, and cannot
afford to waste the seed. As a result, we are in jeopardy of seeing the
largest number of farmers ever leave the business this year.
The drought does not only affect farmers, however. Agriculture is a
fundamental part of the South Texas economy, and the devastating
effects of the drought upon our farmers are rippling throughout the
entire economy. Economists have estimated that the water shortage has
cost the Texas economy almost one billion dollars in the last ten
years, and costs are now mounting at a pace of up to $400 million
annually.
Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that the water shortage has cost
our area thousands of jobs and millions of dollars. Given our chronic
double digit unemployment rate, these are simply jobs that we cannot
afford to lose.
Furthermore, our agricultural and economic losses are not the only
areas in which the drought has had a serious negative effect; the
environmental impacts have been harmful as well. The Rio Grande River
no longer flows into the Gulf of Mexico, which has adversely impacted a
number of economically and ecologically important marine species.
In written testimony, Mr. David R. Blankenship of the Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department outlines the manner in which the loss of
habitat resulting from the drought is disturbing to the marine
ecosystems of South Texas. I ask unanimous consent that his testimony
be entered into the record.
Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that the drought, compounded by
Mexico's refusal to comply with the terms of the 1944 Water Treaty, is
having a devastating effect upon all aspects of our community. While we
must certainly find a way to press Mexico to deliver the water that it
owes us, we must also be more efficient in transporting what little
water we have. The legislation before the Subcommittee today, H.R.
2990, will go a long way towards helping us modernize our antiquated
water delivery systems.
Currently, we lose up to 25% of our water to evaporation and
seepage. Our legislation would allow the Bureau of Reclamation to
conduct infrastructure improvement projects that would significantly
improve conservation of our scarce water resources. I am grateful that
the Subcommittee is acting on this important legislation.
Let me close by once again thanking the Subcommittee and the
witnesses for their dedication to this issue. I am confident that with
the continued increase in attention at both the federal and state
levels, we will be able to find long-term solutions to the water
security challenges faced by our region.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
______
Mr. Calvert. Is there additional opening statements?
Mr. Rodriguez.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let
me take this opportunity to thank you because I know that we
would not be able to be having this hearing without your help
and your assistance. So I want to personally thank you for
coming down here, and I know that--we call him our dean--
Congressman Ortiz, without his help and assistance and his
efforts, we wouldn't be able to have this. So I want to thank
both of you.
I personally have the distinction also of representing both
Starr and Zapata at this time, and we have been devastated with
the tourism around Zapata and the Falcon Dam and the situation
that we find ourselves in, and it's an issue that as time goes
on, unless we begin to deal with it now, it's only going to get
worse. So it behooves us to get on this as soon as possible and
start dealing with it.
I know that in the last 5 years since I've been a
Congressman, it's an issue that has come up time and time
again. It's an issue that we have brought in before two
administrations, as well as the third administration and
President Fox, and we haven't been able to--we've been--we have
received promises, but we haven't been able to get anything
done.
So we're hoping that as we hear testimony--and I would ask
that if there is anyone that has any suggestions or
recommendations as they make their testimony, we're willing to
look at that and see what approaches might be the most
appropriate to take.
But I want to personally thank you for coming out here. I
know how difficult it is to go to other states and other
regions of the country, so I want to personally thank you and
also express my sincere thanks to Congresswoman Napolitano
coming all the way from California and being here with us. I
know that Congressman Bonilla, who represents the region also,
as well as Congressman Hinojosa, would be here if they could,
but I know they have other emergencies that they couldn't be
here. So I want to thank you personally.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman. Congresswoman
Napolitano.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and, again, I echo
the remarks of my colleagues about your willingness to come to
a district that has been very impacted by the lack of water. We
just need to move on with this hearing, but I certainly want to
thank the people who took time off to come and help us
understand the situation better.
But may I remind you that while this Committee and your
representatives have been asking for action for years, it may
go beyond that. You may need to talk to not only your Federal
representatives, which you already have here--you know, he's
been the one advocating for movement on this--but also your
President because he is your very own. And he should be able to
get the President of Mexico to sit down and resolve the issue
with a Governor who doesn't want to come to the table. It may
come to that, rather than the long strained affair of going
through judicial courts. And I hope it won't come to that
because we don't have time for that.
So I'm willing to move whatever direction we can with you,
Mr. Chair, your willingness to be able to be open to the dialog
that's going to ensue, and let's hope that we can bring this to
a higher level priority so that we can help this area recover
and help this economy move forward and help the farmers. Thank
you very much for having us.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Now we're going to introduce our
first panel. The first panel includes Maryanne Bach, the
Regional Director of the Great Plains Region, Bureau of
Reclamation, United States Department of Interior. Please step
forward and take your seat at the dais. Jim Derham, the Deputy
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs,
United States Department of State. Carlos Marin, the principal
engineer of the United States Section, International Boundary
and Water Commission.
Mr. Calvert. Let me remind the witnesses that, under our
Committee rules, they limit their oral statements to 5 minutes.
We'll have in that--so if you have any additional statement
that you would like to have entered into the record, we will do
so. We would like you to limit that so we'll have time to ask
questions from the panel.
And with that, I would recognize Maryanne Bach, on behalf
of the Administration, to testify. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF MARYANNE BACH, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, GREAT PLAINS
REGION, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Ms. Bach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee and the Committee and the U.S. House of
Representatives. Thank you for this opportunity to testify this
morning. I do request that my formal prepared testimony be
entered into the record in full.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Bach. And I'd like to abbreviate my comments from that
written testimony. The Department applauds the efforts to
improve and encourage water efficiency and to responsibly
manage water supplies in the border. The Administration, the
Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Reclamation share
the concern of this Committee, the Subcommittee, the State of
Texas, and the water users over the severe water shortages that
exist in this area.
The Administration supports the goals to amplify and make
more efficient use of the current water supply. The
Administration is committed to working with this Subcommittee
to effectively address these water supply concerns.
The Department of the Interior testified in general support
for the previous legislation that did become public law 106-
576. H.R. 2990, which does amend that prior statute, appears to
maintain the intent of the existing law while authorizing
additional projects and increasing the funding ceilings. In the
spirit of working with the Committee and recognizing the goals
of the intention of the bill, the Administration looks forward
to working with the Subcommittee to address some provisions of
the bill.
We are aware that this is an area that has experienced a
drought that began nearly a decade ago, putting a great strain
on water delivery systems and causing farmers to change crop
patterns, to stop farming altogether in some cases.
The Department's involvement in the Lower Rio Grande
Irrigation Districts dates back almost 50 years when
reclamation began cooperative efforts to modernize facilities
and improve water efficiency.
Since enactment of the bill, reclamation has been working
successfully and cooperatively with local entities in the Lower
Rio Grande, the Texas Water Development Board, and the Texas
Agricultural Extension Service of Texas A&M University on its
implementation. And, in fact, through the Great Plains Region
we were able to implement the criteria that are called for in
the legislation and did so within 6 months after enactment of
the legislation. That was public law 106-576.
Reclamation has worked closely with districts that were
involved in the first four authorizations. Funding for
reclamation to begin preparation of a project plan and report
has been advanced from one of the districts, and we would note
that in order to implement the legislation that is--the
proposal that is in front of you, that we would also need
additional appropriations for that assistance.
We applaud the many efforts taken by the universities, the
state and local governments, and other Federal agencies. We
pledge to continue the Department's coordination and
cooperation as we all work together to conserve the water
resources that are in such short supply.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee and U.S.
Congress, we are very concerned about the effects of the water
shortage in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, and we recognize the
importance of improving the efficiency of water use and
delivery in this part of the country, especially in light of
the current drought conditions.
Reclamation would be happy to work with Representative
Ortiz, Hinojosa, and the Chairman of the Subcommittee, and to
address the water supply problems as well as what reclamation
can bring to the table. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bach follows:]
Statement of Maryanne Bach, Regional Director, Great Plains Region,
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department's views on
H.R. 2990, which amends P.L. 106-576, the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water
Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 and to discuss water
issues in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.
H.R. 2990 aims to provide areas in Texas that are facing a drought,
with some important water saving measures. The Department lauds efforts
to improve and encourage water efficiency, and to responsibly manage
water supplies in the border region. The Administration, the Department
of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) share the
concern of the Committee, the State of Texas, and the water users over
the severe water shortages that exist in this area. The Administration
supports the goals to amplify and make more efficient use of the
current water supply. The Administration is committed to working with
the Committee to effectively address these water supply concerns.
H.R. 2990 would amend P.L. 106-576 by authorizing 15 additional
projects in West Texas and in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas.
H.R. 2990 would increase the authorization for report preparation to
$8,000,000, institute a 50% cap on federal report preparation costs,
and increase the authorization for project funding to $47,000,000.
The Department of the Interior testified in general support (with
some suggested revisions) of the legislation that became P.L. 106-576.
H.R. 2990 appears to maintain the intent of the existing law while
authorizing additional projects and increasing the funding ceilings.
However, given the numerous other demands on Reclamation's budget and
the number of already authorized but unfunded projects, we have
concerns about adding additional projects to Reclamation's workload at
this time. We also have concerns over the lack of Administration review
in the process for projects in this bill. It is important to note that
appropriations will be needed in order to implement the original Act
and any new authorizations.
We are aware that this area is experiencing a drought that began
nearly a decade ago, putting a great strain on water delivery systems
and causing farmers to change cropping patterns or stop farming
altogether. During that time, the area has received only a small
portion of the precipitation that would normally occur. Amistad and
Falcon Reservoirs, international storage dams operated by the
International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) along the Lower Rio
Grande, remain at record low levels. Further upstream, the Bureau of
Reclamation reservoirs of the Rio Grande Project in southern New Mexico
(Elephant Butte and Caballo) are also at their lowest levels since
1982. Without a significant above average spring snowmelt runoff in
2002, a curtailment in supply to water users in U.S. and Mexico will
occur.
On a frequent basis, we coordinate with the U.S. Section of the
IBWC. We recognize that the U.S. IBWC has responsibility for monitoring
water deliveries, treaty compliance and water availability along the
international border. We defer to the witnesses from the State
Department and the IBWC as to any comment on issues that relate to the
treaty and water availability along the international border.
Reclamation Background in the Lower Rio Grande
The Department's involvement with the Lower Rio Grande irrigation
districts dates back almost 50 years when Reclamation began cooperative
efforts to modernize facilities and improve water use efficiency.
Beginning in 1954, investigations identified the need for
rehabilitation of existing distribution systems and construction of
main drain outlets for the La Feria and Mercedes Districts. Public Laws
85-370 and 86-357 authorized the rehabilitation projects for La Feria
and Mercedes districts respectively. Rehabilitation of the diversion,
distribution, and drainage systems were accomplished through contracts
among the local entities and Reclamation. Both the La Feria and
Mercedes districts have paid out their repayment obligation associated
with their projects and Reclamation is currently in the process of
returning title to the La Feria lands conveyed to the United States as
part of their contractual obligation. In addition, Reclamation entered
into contracts with numerous irrigation districts in Harlingen, Hidalgo
and Cameron counties pursuant to the Small Reclamation Projects Act of
1956. All contracts are now paid out, with Donna Irrigation District
being the most recent to fulfill its repayment obligation in 2001.
Through the years, Reclamation has also prepared technical reports
covering water conservation and basin studies to identify specific
problems and needs of the area. For example, in September of 2000,
Reclamation sponsored a Water Conservation Field Services workshop in
Weslaco, Texas to present current information and technology updates to
local irrigation districts regarding water measurements, management,
and conservation.
P.L. 106-576
In 2000, this subcommittee held a hearing, at which we testified,
on H.R. 2988, the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation
and Improvement Act, whose Senate companion bill, S. 1761, became P.L.
106-576 in December of that year.
This legislation was an effort to provide some important water
saving measures to an area of Texas that had suffered from drought.
Briefly, the law directed the Secretary, acting through the
Commissioner of Reclamation, to undertake a program, in cooperation
with the State of Texas, water users and other non-Federal entities, to
investigate and identify conservation and efficiency improvement
opportunities. This was to include review of studies or planning
reports prepared outside of Reclamation and the evaluation of
alternatives such as lining irrigation canals and increasing the use of
pipelines and other water delivery facilities.
Within six months of enactment, the Secretary was to develop and
publish a set of criteria to determine which projects would qualify and
have the highest priority for financing. P.L. 106-576 provided certain
minimum criteria and required the Secretary to make a determination of
whether the project meets the criteria within a year of submittal of a
request. The law also outlined the report, plan and cost-sharing
requirements a project sponsor would need to fulfill to secure federal
funding. The law authorized four projects and $10,000,000 for their
construction if they later met these criteria and project requirements.
The federal cost share was capped at 50% of any construction, with up
to 40% to be contributed by the State. The remainder of the non-federal
share was authorized to include in-kind contributions of goods and
services, including funds previously spent on feasibility and
engineering studies.
Since enactment of the bill, Reclamation has been working
successfully and cooperatively with local entities in the Lower Rio
Grande, the Texas Water Development Board, and the Texas Agricultural
Extension Service of Texas A&M University on its implementation. As
noted, a requirement of P.L. 106-576 was issuance of criteria by which
Reclamation would administer the law and determine project eligibility
for federal funding. Reclamation prepared and shared criteria with
state, local and other federal entities. The criteria were finalized in
late June 2001, within the six month timeframe provided in P.L. 106-
576.
Reclamation also has worked closely with those districts involved
in the four authorized projects and with the Texas Water Development
Board to address funding necessary to begin planning, designing, and
reviewing the project plans and reports. Funding for Reclamation to
begin preparation of a project plan and report has been advanced from
one district. Three other districts are funding similar work by
consultants. To date, three projects have been submitted to
Reclamation. The authorized projects in the original bill have not been
appropriated Federal funds.
Reclamation will continue its efforts to implement the Lower Rio
Grande Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 to help
make the most efficient use possible of the available supply.
Reclamation is also working with several entities in the Valley to
field test various methods of controlling water hyacinth and hydrilla.
These noxious plant species are spreading rapidly and are increasingly
clogging irrigation district canals and intakes to pumping plants all
of which greatly restrict the flow of water both within the irrigation
systems and in the Rio Grande as well.
The Department's activities in the Lower Rio Grande Valley are
important components of government service in the area, but they are
only one part. We applaud the many efforts taken by universities, state
and local governments, and other federal agencies. We pledge to
continue the Department's coordination and cooperation as we all work
together to conserve the water resources that are in such short supply.
H.R. 2990
Project Authorization: Under P.L. 106-576, projects would include
on-farm activities to enhance water conservation, such as water
application metering, concrete lining of canals and other irrigation
system management improvements. The proposed legislation would continue
these activities and also enable the Secretary to use cooperative
agreements to work with the State of Texas, non-Federal entities, and
institutions of higher education, to develop educational programs and
establish on-farm training programs for state-of-the-art water
application and conservation techniques. We are concerned that this
bill, like the earlier bill, authorizes projects without first
undergoing the Administration review required by Executive Order 12322.
Project Eligibility Requirements: In 2000, the Commissioner of
Reclamation testified on the legislation that became P.L. 106-576,
stating that funding and eligibility decisions should be made on the
basis of the relative costs associated with water conservation
opportunities. The amendments presented in H.R. 2990 adopt the criteria
established by Reclamation under the 2000 legislation. The Department
supports this approach, as it provides more certainty to applicants by
ratifying Reclamation's standards in law.
One aspect of improving efficiency is ensuring that the
improvements made provide the highest return. Reclamation's guidelines
will assist in that. However, given that the authorization level is
proposed to increase to $47 million, it also may be appropriate to
analyze the projects (or sets of projects) in the context of the
established Principles and Guidelines. A simplified approach to the
analysis could possibly be used, such as a recent model for this area
prepared by Texas A&M University as a potential tool for evaluating
projects in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.
Funding and Cost Sharing: The cost sharing provisions adopted in
P.L. 106-576 establish a 50 percent federal maximum for construction
costs. H.R. 2990 would amend Section 4 (b) of P.L. 106-576 to stipulate
that the 50 percent federal maximum be applied to total project costs
(e.g. studies, designs, reviews, approvals, construction) rather than
just construction. This change would simplify the application of cost
sharing provisions between the federal and non-federal contributions
for completing a project. The $47 million amount for construction is
subject to further review when project reports are developed.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, we are very concerned about the effects of the water
shortage in the Lower Rio Grande Valley and we recognize the importance
of improving the efficiency of water use and delivery in this part of
the country, especially in light of the current drought conditions.
Reclamation would be happy to work with Representative Hinojosa and the
Committee to continue to address the water supply problems.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department's views. I
am pleased to answer any questions.
______
Mr. Calvert. Jim Derham, the deputy assistant secretary of
Western Hemisphere Affairs, United States Department of State,
be recognized.
STATEMENT OF JIM DERHAM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF
WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Derham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe we submitted
a formal statement to the staff.
Mr. Calvert. Your full statement will be entered into the
record.
Mr. Derham. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. You may begin.
Mr. Derham. Mr. Chairman and member of the Committee, I am
pleased to discuss our recent diplomatic efforts to obtain
Mexican water deliveries pursuant to the 1944 treaty on the
utilization of the waters of the Colorado, Tijuana, and of the
Rio Grande.
This treaty governs the allocation between the United
States and Mexico of the waters from those rivers. It has
served for almost 60 years as an effective model of cooperation
between nations sharing a common border and a common resource
in a manner that has been beneficial to both nations.
Today our overall relationship with Mexico is strong. Both
of our countries are committed to cooperative efforts across a
broad range of activities. The strong relationship with Mexico
is integral to the well-being and security of the United
States. Our bilateral relationship is grounded, in increasing
measure, in shared values and perspectives on the world.
However, today we see how increasing strains and competing
demands on a finite resource, a shared resource, have put
strains on our relationship. The Department of State would have
not been invited to testify today if we did not have a serious
problem with Mexico on water. And we believe Mexico must take
additional measures to make water available to the United
States in accordance with the 1944 treaty.
Under this treaty, Mexico must delivery Rio Grande water to
the United States from six of its tributary rivers in no less
than an average annual amount of 350,000 acre feet in
consecutive 5-year cycles. In situations of extraordinary
drought, any deficiencies existing at the end of a 5-year cycle
must be made up in the following 5-year cycle.
In 1969 the United States and Mexico agreed in IBWC Minute
234 that any deficit in a 5-year cycle must be made up in the
following 5-year cycle, together with any quantity of water
required to avoid a deficiency in that cycle.
Mexico ended the prior water accounting cycle, the one that
ended in 1997, with an unprecedented deficit of over 1 million
acre feet. Mexico has claimed it was unable to provide more
water due to extraordinary drought. The term ``extraordinary
drought'' is not defined under the treaty, nor do the two
governments have an agreed-upon interpretation of that term.
Deliveries in the current cycle are also lagging far behind
what is called for under the treaty. Unless significant water
deliveries ensue, Mexico could end the current cycle with a
cumulative deficit of almost 1.7 million acre feet of water
owed to the United States.
This poses a very difficult situation for our two
countries. It is a fundamental tenet of treaty law that the
parties must respect the obligations arising under treaties and
implement those obligations in good faith.
We believe that, in accordance with Minute 234, Mexico must
cover the deficit by September 30th of this year and that the
current cycle obligation is due at the same time, although as a
practical matter, Mexico may not be able to do so.
Since this issue was brought to our attention, the
Department of State has been actively supporting the IBWC's
efforts. The U.S. And Mexican government entrusted the IBWC
with application of the treaty and with the settlement of any
disputes that arise under it. The IBWC is the appropriate forum
for developing specific plans for water delivery schedules due
to its technical expertise.
The Department of State's role has been to negotiate,
mediate, and prod Mexico on this issue in both Washington and
Mexico City. The Department and our embassy have done that, and
Mexico has partially responded. For the past two water cycle
years, Mexico has delivered more water than the annual average
of 350,000 acre feet required under the 1944 treaty. This
effort was made in what was some of the driest years of the
past 10 years.
The Department of State has also put this matter at the top
of the agenda for the last session of the U.S./Mexico
Binational Commission Committee meeting convened in September
of 2001. We raised it in the Border Affairs Working Group, with
the participation of Secretary of State Powell and Mexican
Foreign Secretary Castaneda.
Our Ambassador to Mexico City, Jeff Davidow, has worked
particularly hard to focus the Mexican government's attention
on the need to make greater progress. The Secretary of State
has held lengthy discussions on this issue with the Mexican
Foreign Secretary.
No less than three other U.S. Cabinet officials,
Secretaries O'Neill, Norton, and Veneman, have urged Mexico to
make their immediate water deliveries in conversations they
have held with their counterparts in the last few months.
The concern and urgency about this issue is shared by the
President. President Bush has repeatedly raised the problem
with President Fox. On multiple occasions President Bush has
impressed upon President Fox the need for Mexico to do more to
meet its commitments.
It was President Bush's efforts in Guanajuato at his first
meeting with President Fox that led to the conclusion of Minute
307 last March. This effort at partial fulfillment under the
treaty represented a good faith effort by Mexico. It is
unfortunate this positive first step was not followed up, and
to date Mexico has failed to comply with the terms of 307, not
only with respect to water deliveries for the past year, but
also to the commitment to develop a schedule of deliveries for
this year.
President Bush again raised the water problem with
President Fox in strong terms in past March in Monterrey.
Following that meeting, National Security Advisor Rice
contacted the Mexican Under Secretary of Foreign Relations,
Enrique Berruga, and stressed the need for immediate water for
the benefit of Texas farmers.
In response, the Under Secretary expects to come to
Washington soon. Recognizing the urgency of this problem for
Texas farmers, we intend to again stress to Mexico the critical
need to redress this matter. We believe we must work together
for the mutual benefit of both of our countries. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Derham follows:]
Statement of James M. Derham, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Western
Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to discuss with you today recent diplomatic efforts of the
United States Government to obtain Mexican water deliveries on the
Lower Rio Grande pursuant to the 1944 Treaty between the United States
and Mexico on the Utilization of the Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana
Rivers and of the Rio Grande (1944 Water Treaty).
This treaty governs the allocation between the United States and
Mexico of the waters from those specified rivers and tributaries. It
has served for almost 60 years as an effective model of cooperation
between nations sharing a common border and a common resource in a
manner that is beneficial to both nations.
Today our over-all relationship with Mexico remains solid. Both of
our countries are committed to furthering cooperative efforts across a
broad range of activities. A strong relationship with Mexico is
integral to the well-being and security of the United States. Our
bilateral relationship with Mexico is grounded, in increasing measure,
in shared values and perspectives on the world.
However, today we see how increasing strains and competing demands
on a finite resource a shared resource have put strains on our
relationship. We would not have been invited to testify before you
today if we did not have a serious problem with Mexico on water. It is
undeniable that this region and its neighbors across the border have
suffered from prolonged drought. Nonetheless, we believe Mexico must
take additional measures to make water available to the United States
in accordance with the 1944 Waters Treaty.
Under this treaty, Mexico has an obligation to deliver to the
United States one-third of the flow reaching the main channel of the
Rio Grande from six Mexican tributary rivers. The treaty mandates this
delivery be not less as an average amount in cycles of five consecutive
years than 350,000 acre-feet of water annually. In situations of
extraordinary drought or serious accident to the hydraulic systems on
the measured Mexican tributaries, any deficiencies in water deliveries
existing at the end of a five-year cycle are to be made up in the
following five-year cycle.
In 1969 the United States and Mexico agreed in IBWC Minute 234 that
in the event of a deficit in a five-year cycle, the deficit must be
made up in the following five-year cycle, together with any quantity of
water that is required to avoid a deficiency in that cycle.
Mexico ended the 1992-1997 water accounting cycle with an
unprecedented deficit of over one million acre-feet of water. Mexico
has claimed that it was unable to provide more water in the 1992-1997
period due to extraordinary drought. The term ``extraordinary drought''
is not defined under the treaty, nor do the two governments have an
agreed upon interpretation of that term. Deliveries in the current
water accounting cycle, i.e. from 1997-2002, are also lagging far
behind what is called for under the treaty. Unless significant water
deliveries ensue, Mexico could end this water accounting cycle with a
cumulative deficit of almost 1.7 million acre-feet of water owed to the
United States.
This poses a very difficult situation for our two countries, and is
simply not acceptable. It is a fundamental tenet of treaty law that the
parties must respect their obligations arising under treaties and
implement those obligations in good faith. It is also well established
that disputes concerning a treaty should be settled in conformity with
the terms of the treaty and principles of international law.
We believe that, in accordance with Minute 234, Mexico must cover
the deficit by September 30, 2002, and that Mexico also has a current
cycle obligation due at the same time, although as a practical matter
it may not be possible for Mexico to do so. Mexico has stated that it
has paid off the past cycle deficit and that due to the continued
existence of extraordinary drought conditions, it has an additional
five-years in which to cover the shortfall. However, the final water
accounting of the waters Mexico has delivered in the 1997-2002 period
and assignment of those waters to either the past or current cycle has
not taken place. Thus, whether or not Mexico has paid off the deficit
and fulfilled the current cycle obligation will not be determined until
after September 30, 2002.
Since this issue was brought to our attention in 2000, the
Department of State has been actively supporting the efforts of the
International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) to redress this
issue. The U.S. and Mexican Governments entrusted the IBWC with the
exercise of the rights and obligations of the two governments under
this treaty and with the settlement of any disputes that arise under
it. The IBWC is the appropriate forum for developing specific plans for
water delivery schedules due to its technical expertise in the area of
water management. Since 1997 this issue has been at the forefront of
the IBWC agenda.
The Department of State's role has been to negotiate, mediate and
to focus attention on this issue in both Washington and Mexico City.
The Department and our Embassy in Mexico City have done that and Mexico
has partially responded. For the past two water cycle years, Mexico, in
what we interpret as a positive step, delivered more water than the
annual average of 350,000 acre-feet required under the 1944 Waters
Treaty. This effort was made in what was most likely some of the driest
of the past ten years.
The Department of State has put this matter at the top of the
agenda for the last session of the U.S.-Mexico Binational Commission
Meeting that was convened in Washington in September of 2001 and
highlighted its importance in the Border Affairs Working Group, with
the participation of Secretary of State Colin Powell and Mexican
Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda. Once again we stressed the high
importance of this issue to the United States Government. We urged
Mexico to make more water available on the lower Rio Grande in order to
make a good faith repayment on the debt and to avoid a deficit in the
current cycle.
Our Ambassador in Mexico City, Jeffrey Davidow, has worked
particularly hard to focus the Mexican Government's attention toward
the need to make greater progress in this area. The Secretary of State
has held lengthy discussions on this issue with the Mexican Foreign
Minister. No less than three other United States cabinet officials have
urged Mexico to make immediate water deliveries in conversations held
with their Mexican counterparts in the last few months.
Everyone in this Administration is aware of the high priority and
genuine concern President Bush has for this issue. Every meeting and
every conversation President Bush has had with President Fox has been
an opportunity to impress upon President Fox the need for Mexico to do
more to meet its commitments. It was President Bush's efforts at his
first meeting with President Fox at Guanajuato that led to the
conclusion of Minute 307 last March. This effort at partial fulfillment
of its obligation to the United States under the 1944 Waters Treaty
represented a true good faith effort by Mexico. It is unfortunate that
this positive first step, was not followed up, and that, to date,
Mexico has failed to comply with the terms of
Minute 307, not only with respect to water deliveries for the past
year, but also with respect to the commitment to develop a schedule of
deliveries for this year by December 2001.
In all of our efforts, we have stressed that any plan to be
developed must be coupled with a commitment to long-term solutions. We
urged Mexico to work within the IBWC to develop a comprehensive
solution to this problem and to develop a formula that would give the
highest priority to honoring its treaty obligations to the United
States. We recognize that measures to improve infrastructure and
conserve water are a must on both sides of the border, as evidenced in
the legislation you have come to consider. Water is too precious a
commodity to waste.
When President Bush traveled to Monterrey in March, he again raised
the water problem with President Fox in strong terms. Following the
meeting, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice contacted the
Mexican Under Secretary of State, Enrique Berruga, and stressed the
need to have a commitment to make immediate water deliveries for the
benefit of Texas farmers. In response, the Under Secretary has
consulted with Mexican officials and expects to come to Washington
soon. Recognizing the urgency of this problem for Texas farmers, we
intend to meet with Under Secretary Berruga's delegation and again
impress upon Mexico the critical need to redress this matter. We
believe that neighbors can not be allowed to become estranged but must
work together for the mutual benefit of both of their peoples.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be pleased
to respond to any question you or other members of the Committee may
have.
______
Mr. Calvert. Carlos Marin, the principal engineer, United
States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission.
You may begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF CARLOS MARIN, THE PRINCIPAL ENGINEER OF THE UNITED
STATES SECTION, INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION
Mr. Marin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'd like
to request that the written testimony be entered into the
record.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Marin. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am
Carlos Marin, principal engineer for the U.S. Section of the
International Boundary and Water Commission. I am pleased to
come before you today to present this testimony on behalf of
Carlos M. Ramirez, commissioner for the U.S. Section, which is
normally referred to as IBWC, concerning the deliveries of
waters to the U.S. Section--United States under the 1944 Water
Treaty.
The deficiency of these water deliveries by Mexico is a
great concern to Commissioner Ramirez. He is aware of the
hardship that the drought and the shortfalls of Mexico
deliveries have had on the South Texas Region. He has given a
top priority to the effort of the IBWC to arrive at a
satisfactory water delivery plan for the short and long-term.
I have not--Mr. Derham here has covered the requirements of
the 1994 treaty, and I will just skip that portion of my
testimony here since that would be repetitive here.
The U.S. Section, though, continues to urge Mexico to
provide water from Mexican allocation and insists that Mexico
provide technical information concerning the conditions in the
Rio Grande Basin in Mexico.
The IBWC conducted several technical meetings toward this
end in 1997, '98, '99, 2000, and 2001, and continues even
today. These meetings often included the participation of South
Texas irrigators and officials from the State of Texas.
Apparently those technical meetings--in those technical
meetings the IBCW continues discussions aimed at arriving at a
short and medium-term water delivery plan from Mexico water
sources and for a long-term effort in assuring deliveries of
the U.S. Allocation.
Mexico indicated that drought conditions and low storage in
its reservoirs made it difficult to make the deliveries. The
U.S. Section supports the Department of State or just Mexico to
provide water to the United States from its treaty tributary
reservoirs and other sources in order to deliver approximately
400,000 acre feet of water immediately to Texas users.
In early 2000 Mexico agreed to this request and
subsequently transferred ownership to the United States of
188--138,000 acre feet in storage at the international
reservoirs. Additionally, it agreed to assign the United States
for a limited amount of time its share of water from the Rio
Grande from unmeasured tributaries, water normally shared 50/50
between the two countries.
This action resulted in a delivery by Mexico during the
1999/2000 cycle year of approximately 400,000 acre feet. In
late 2000 negotiations between the two sections of the IBWC
focused on a plan for the 2000/2001 cycle year.
President Bush reinforced the need for Mexican water
deliveries at his meeting with Mexican President Fox in early
2001. In response to President Bush's initiative, IBWC
negotiated results in Minute 307 signed in March of 2001. The
agreement provided a frame work of action for Mexico to deliver
600,000 acre feet during the 2000/2001 cycle year. The Minute
also provided a framework for additional discussions for long-
term solutions.
Unfortunately, Mexico deliveries under Minute 307 only
reached 227,000 acre feet. Mexico urged--argued that low
precipitation in the basin prevented it from reaching the
required volume of 600,000 acre feet. The United States urged
Mexico to release water from Mexican reservoirs to cover the
shortfall with contingency plan provided for in Minute 307.
The United States also urged Mexico to arrive at a water
delivery plan for the final year of the current accounting
cycle and to develop understanding to target the United States
allocation in the future.
Mexico continues to assert that drought and those storage
conditions allow for the need to satisfy its own water needs,
making it difficult to provide water. The United States Section
continues to assert that with present storage and projected
inflows into the Mexican reservoirs and reduced irrigation in
Mexico, that there is sufficient water available in Mexico to
deliver to the United States a partial fulfillment of its
obligations.
The U.S. IBWC will continue to work actively on behalf of
the U.S. Government and State of Texas, and we welcome your
support for our efforts. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. And I will be pleased to respond on behalf of
Commissioner Ramirez to any questions that you or the other
members of the Committee may have.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ramirez follows:]
Statement of Carlos M. Ramirez, United States Commissioner,
International Boundary and Water Commission
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to come
before you today to present this testimony concerning deliveries of
waters by Mexico to the United States under the United States-Mexico
Treaty for Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and
of the Rio Grande, signed February 3, 1944 (1944 Water Treaty) and on
the efforts made by the United States Section of the IBWC to obtain
additional water deliveries from Mexico in fulfillment of its
obligations to the United States under the 1944 Water Treaty.
Background
The IBWC is an international organization charged by the United
States and Mexican Governments with the execution of the provisions of
the 1944 Water Treaty and settlement of differences that may arise from
such application. The IBWC is made up of a United States Section and a
Mexican Section. The United States Section is an independent federal
agency that operates under the foreign policy guidance of the
Department of State.
The Treaty allocates to each country the waters of the Rio Grande
from Fort Quitman, Texas to the Gulf of Mexico, a length of some 1,100
miles. The Treaty assigns to the IBWC the responsibility to jointly
measure and account the waters allocated to each country. The IBWC is
also responsible, pursuant to the 1944 Treaty, for the construction,
and operation and maintenance of international storage dams (Amistad
and Falcon Dams) that allow both countries to make the maximum use of
their allotted waters. Amistad and Falcon Dams allow control and
storage of waters from sources in the two countries, which can then be
released for later use as needed. The Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas
depends on these stored waters for irrigation and municipal and
industrial uses.
Allocation of Waters
Under Article 4 of the 1944 Water Treaty, the United States is
allotted all the waters from tributaries in the United States. Mexico
is allotted all the waters from tributaries in Mexico below Falcon Dam.
Both countries are allotted one-half of the flows in the main stem of
the Rio Grande and from unmeasured tributaries not specifically
allotted. Mexico is allotted two-thirds of the waters that arrive in
the Rio Grande from six Mexican tributaries between Fort Quitman, Texas
and Falcon Dam (treaty tributaries). The United States is allotted one-
third of the flows that arrive in the Rio Grande from those treaty
tributaries a minimum of 350,000 acre-feet as annual average in cycles
of five years. Should a cycle of five years end in deficit for reasons
of extraordinary drought or serious accident to the system, that
deficit shall be made up in the next five year cycle. This provision
was established because of the erratic nature of the flows in the
Mexican tributaries. The treaty also considered this erratic nature of
the flows when it authorized the IBWC to construct and operate and
maintain the International Dams Amistad and Falcon.
Water Deliveries 1992-1997
During the period between October 3, 1992 and October 2, 1997,
Mexico delivered to the United States 726,151 acre-feet of water
towards fulfillment of its obligation under Article 4, Paragraph B of
the 1944 Water Treaty. This resulted in a deficit of 1,023,849 acre-
feet of water owed to the United States as of September 30, 1997.
Water Debt Coverage 1997-2000
In late 1997, the United States Section of the IBWC (U.S. Section)
requested agreement with the Mexican Section of the IBWC on the volume
in deficit and application of provisions in IBWC Minute No. 234 for
coverage of the deficit with waters from Mexico's portion of the Treaty
Tributaries and the transfer to United States ownership of Mexican-
owned water in storage at the international Falcon and Amistad
Reservoirs. Mexico provided the U.S. Section a debt payment proposal
however in April 1999, the U.S. Section objected to the proposal and
urged application of the Minute No. 234 provisions for debt coverage
with Mexican waters and requested a technical meeting with the Mexican
water authorities, in the context of recent agreements that Mexico
provide more detailed information concerning conditions in the Treaty
Tributary basins. During a technical meeting in 1999, Mexico informed
that drought conditions had made it difficult for Mexico to provide the
runoff and reiterated Mexico's intention to cover the deficit when
excess flows became available. Mexico stated that Rio Conchos Basin
reservoirs were at 26 percent of conservation capacity and that the
reservoirs in the Salado Basin, the larger of the Treaty Tributary
Basins was at 11 percent of storage capacity. Mexico reported lower
than normal precipitation for the 1993 1998 period.
The U.S. Section requested more detailed information but observed
in late 1999, that based upon the limited information Mexico had
provided there appeared to be an opportunity for Mexico to operate its
Treaty Tributary reservoirs in a manner that would allow application of
provisions of Minute No. 234 relating to debt coverage with Mexican
owned waters. Further, the U.S. Section observed that storage of
Mexican owned waters at the international reservoirs was such that
there was also an opportunity for Mexico to transfer ownership of some
of those waters to the United States as provided in Minute No. 234.
Finally, the U.S. Section observed that water deliveries in the current
cycle (1997-2002) were significantly below the annual average of
350,000 acre-foot obligation and urged the operation of Mexico's Treaty
Tributary reservoirs in a manner that targets the United States
allotment. At technical meetings in early 2000, Mexico informed that
the deficit could only be covered in the event of excess flows, but
agreed to an emergency release of waters from the Rio Conchos to
increase Mexican storage at the international dams where the waters
could be transferred to United States ownership.
The U.S. Section in March 2000, reiterated its call for a good
faith implementation plan comprised of immediate water releases from
the Conchos River and parallel mid and longer term planning efforts
designed to cover the deficit and to target the U.S. allocation in
future years. In tandem with these efforts, the United States
Department of State initiated a series of demarches with the Mexican
Foreign Ministry in which it urged Mexico to honor its treaty
obligations to the United States. In response, the Mexican Section in
March 2000, agreed to transfer ownership of 137,821 acre-feet from
international storage in Amistad and Falcon Reservoirs to the United
States and to temporarily assign to U.S. ownership its 50 percent share
of the unmeasured tributary flows from Mexico in the Rio Grande reach
between Fort Quitman and Falcon Dam. These actions were intended to
provide to the United States the minimum annual average of 350,000
acre-feet and an additional volume, which the U.S. Section considered
as a total target goal of 400,000 acre-feet for the water year of
October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2000. This volume coincided with
the request of Texas irrigators.
At the close of the third year of the present five-year accounting
cycle, that is from October 1, 1997 September 30, 2000, Mexico had
delivered a total of 407,087 acre-feet of water leaving a prior cycle
deficit and the current cycle obligation of 1,381,362 acre-feet of
water.
U.S. Allocation Target Framework Talks 2000-2001
In June 2001, the IBWC opened discussion concerning a framework
that Mexico could adopt with respect to management of its treaty
tributary reservoirs that would target the annual United States
allotment as a high national priority. However, these discussions were
deferred in order to develop a water delivery plan for the October 1,
2000 September 30, 2001 cycle year.
Minute No. 307 Water Deliveries
In August 2000, the U.S. Section urged the Mexican Section to
release more waters from storage in Luis L. Leon Dam on the Conchos
River and Venustiano Carranza Dam on the Salado River; resume technical
discussions on watershed conditions; continue assignment of Mexico's
allocation of the unmeasured tributary waters to the U.S.; and adopt a
framework for Treaty Tributary reservoir operations that would target
the annual obligation to the United States as a high national priority.
Mexico agreed to release waters from Luis L. Leon Dam and Venustiano
Carranza Dam, of which one-third would be allotted to the United States
and agreed as well to the limited assignment of its portion of the
unmeasured tributary waters to the United States. In the months that
followed, the U.S. Section urged Mexico to commit to deliver 600,000
acre-feet of water to the United States between October 1, 2000 and
September 30, 2001, i.e. the fourth year of the current cycle to cover
the 350,000 acre-foot annual average and a good faith effort in
repayment of the outstanding deficit. President Bush reinforced the
need for Mexico to commit to making additional water deliveries at his
meeting with Mexican President Vicente Fox on February 28, 2001 in
Guanajuato, Mexico. In response to the President's initiative, IBWC
negotiations resumed in Washington under the auspices of the Department
of State. This resulted in the conclusion of IBWC Minute No. 307. Under
Minute No. 307, Mexico and the United States agreed to a framework of
actions by Mexico committed to ensure that 600,000 acre-feet of water
would be provided to the United States by September 30, 2001, at the
latest, based on runoff scenarios described in the agreement. Minute
No. 307 also identified contingent sources of water should the runoff
scenarios not produce the water envisioned. Under Minute No. 307 the
United States and Mexico also agreed to continue discussions within the
IBWC to arrive at additional measures concerning the prior cycle
deficit and the current cycle obligation by December 2001. Finally,
Minute No. 307 called for cooperation by the two Governments concerning
drought management and sustainable management of the Rio Grande basin
from Fort Quitman to Falcon Dam.
Mexico halted releases from Carranza dam before the volume to be
delivered to the United States under Minute No. 307 was accomplished.
Mexico stopped the releases because of alleged environmental impact
resulting from low storage. Further, Mexico had overestimated the
storage. Mexico also faced protests by its affected water users.
Concurrently Mexico was providing to the U.S., flows for the unmeasured
tributaries and treaty tributary. In July 2001, injunctions were filed
in Mexican Federal courts preventing any further transfers of the
unmeasured tributary waters to the U.S. The U.S. Section insisted that
Mexico comply with the obligation assumed in Minute No. 307 concerning
this source of water. The lifting of these injunctions let to the
transfer of 92,421 acre-feet to the U.S. ownership in February 2002,
which was applied to the period that ended on September 2001.
By February 2002, Mexico had been credited with delivering 427,544
acre-feet of the 600,000 acre-feet it had ensured that it would provide
in Minute No.307. This leaves a shortfall of 172,456 acre-feet.
From October 1, 1997 September 30, 2001, Mexico delivered a total
of 1,120,032 acre-feet. As of September 30, 2001, the prior cycle
deficit and the current cycle obligation totaled 1,303,818 acre-feet of
water owed to the United States.
Current Situation
The U.S. Section on a number of occasions since October 2001 has
asserted its concerns to Mexico that the terms of Minute No.307 have
not been fully met and has requested technical talks to arrive at a
remedy for the Minute No. 307 shortfall and a water delivery plan for
the fifth year of the current cycle as required under Minute No. 307.
The U.S. Section developed a plan for the fifth year and a formula
under which Mexico would prioritize its treaty obligation to the United
States in December 2001 and put forth that plan for the consideration
of the Mexican Section in early January 2002. To date the Mexican
Section, although continually pressed to do so by the U.S. Section, has
not given a formal response. The Department of State has likewise urged
Mexico to conduct immediate technical talks within the IBWC towards
resolution of this matter. President Bush raised the outstanding
deficit in waters owed to the United States during his bilateral
meeting with President Fox at Monterrey, Mexico on March 22, 2002 and
urged immediate water deliveries to the United States towards
fulfillment of Mexico's treaty obligation. The Mexican Government
continues to assert that it does not have sufficient water under
current climatic conditions to make additional water deliveries to the
United States and has diverted attention for immediate deliveries to
the need to develop long-term conservation measures within Mexico
supported by funding from the North American Development Bank.
The U.S. Section of the IBWC intends to continue its efforts to
press the Mexican Section for technical talks aimed at identifying
additional sources from which Mexico can provide additional water in
partial fulfillment of its obligations under the 1944 Water Treaty. The
U.S. Section of the IBWC remains committed as well toward reaching
agreement with Mexico on a formula by which Mexico would commit to
giving the highest priority to honoring its treaty commitments to the
United States in future years. The U.S. Section of the IBWC believes
that the 1944 Water Treaty can be made to work and should remain in
force for the benefit of both the United States and Mexico.
The U.S. Section is also well aware of the urgent need for water,
and the economic hardships that the South Texas irrigators are
suffering. We continue to urge Mexico to consider the various water
sources and volumes identified in recent technical talks that would
make certain volumes f water available to the South Texas irrigators.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions you or other members of the Committee may
have.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the panel for their testimony. I'll
start the question period.
From the testimony and from a meeting that we had this
morning, I think the panel understands the problem,
specifically, one, that there has been a drought, certainly;
but, two, there has been a lack of compliance on the part of
Mexico to the treaty obligations that are outlined by you, Mr.
Derham.
Specifically, obviously, the President--this has the
attention of the President of the United States. He's brought
it up, as you mentioned, a number of occasions with Presidente
Fox in an attempt to get the Administration in Mexico to move
forward to immediately start helping to resolve the immediacy
of this problem.
It seems to me that even if H.R. 2990 was made law
tomorrow--and, certainly, it's worthwhile legislation that Mr.
Ortiz, along with others, have introduced that we need to move
on--that will not resolve the immediate problem that we have
today. And that is that Mexico needs to move forward to make
sure that the treaty obligations are met.
What can you do to assure this panel and to relay a message
to your superiors in Washington that this is something that can
be moved on very rapidly?
Mr. Derham. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in the statement,
President Bush raised this with President Fox 6 weeks ago in
Monterrey. And my understanding was that this was essentially
the first subject he raised when he met with President Fox. And
following that meeting, National Security Advisor Rice spoke to
Mr. Berruga, who was actually also present in Monterrey, to
make sure that there was a clear transmittal of communication
of this message on water.
At that point we had been told by the Mexican side that
they are doing some internal deliberations and hoped to be able
to get back to us on this.
I spoke to Mr. Berruga yesterday before I came down here,
and he hopes to get to Washington in very short term. I think
the message has been transmitted very forcefully by the
President, and I think--I think the Mexican side is aware of
the urgency on our side about this. But we need to see some
results, and we are hopeful that in the very short-term that we
will get some--a response from the Mexican government.
Mr. Calvert. One of the reasons we're here today is to--not
only to listen to the testimony and to ask questions, it's to
help bring attention to this issue. We don't need to bring
attention to the Valley, we need to bring better attention to
our friends in Mexico and other places to make sure that the
short-term solution, which is additional water from Mexico, is
addressed.
In regards to the long-term solution, Ms. Bach, H.R. 2990--
and I'm reading through your testimony, which, by the way, we
have recently admonished the Administration again, no matter
what the Administration, we try to get this testimony in as
soon as possible. And, as I understand, we just received your
testimony yesterday.
Ms. Bach. Mr. Chairman, you're being generous about
yesterday.
Mr. Calvert. I mentioned this to Mr. Raley, the Department
of Interior, to his secretary. I try to do my job and read the
testimony, but it's very difficult to do so without the
testimony at hand. So please relay that message back.
Ms. Bach. I most certainly will, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I would appreciate that. But we have a number
of challenges throughout the United States, as you well know,
and I know that your department has been challenged with the
budget you have and the requirements that you have to meet.
But, certainly, I can't think of--and, of course, I can
think of a number of priorities and challenges throughout the
country, but I can't think of any area that we ought to look at
more closely than this. So I hope that I can work with the
Administration and we can work together to move positive to a
past point. With that I'll recognize Mr. Ortiz.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman I would like to ask Mr.
Marin a question to see if maybe I can understand the issue any
better.
The International Boundary and Water Commission, if I
understand correctly, you do have some--your counterpart on the
Mexican side?
Mr. Marin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ortiz. As created by the treaty?
Mr. Marin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ortiz. But now I understand that recently the Mexican
government has appointed a water czar. Is this a rumor, or is
this correct?
Mr. Marin. It is our understanding, sir, that the request
from the Secretary of Foreign Relations has gone to the State
Department to assign a counter to an ambassador, that, like you
say, they have assigned.
The State Department, though, has gone on record
acknowledging that request, but has also reinformed Mexico that
the State Department does not intend to assign a counter to
this individual at this time.
Mr. Ortiz. Now, when you go to Mexico to have talks with
the Mexican government, do you talk to your counterpart or do
you talk to the water czar now? Who are you dealing with?
Mr. Marin. Well, the Mexican commissioner is present at all
our binational meetings, but recently on this topic this
embassador for water has been present.
Mr. Ortiz. So this is very frustrating to us that--this is
another part of the treaty that they're not really applying the
treaty, they're not adhering to the treaty by getting somebody
else to do the work that the Boundary Commission is supposed to
do.
Mr. Marin. Well, the--I think the State Department has been
very clear in stating that they need to empower the Mexican
commissioner to deal with us to deal on this issue, again, like
it was in the past. This individual, again, he has been at the
meetings, so--and, again, mainly is the main speaker at the
meetings.
Mr. Ortiz. What do you think about this, the State
Department, that this has transpired?
Mr. Derham. Mr. Ortiz, and Mr. Marin has just commented, we
think we have the channels and the structures to deal with this
issue. Obviously, if the Mexican government wishes to designate
somebody to be involved and we really don't comment on that--
and in a way it indicates a certain amount of high level
attention on their part. But we are really interested, frankly,
in results and don't really see the need to change our
structure to deal with this problem. We know what the problem
is. We know we need to resolve the problem. And so, for this
reason, we felt that working with the IBWC working toward
diplomatic channels, we have the means of communicating and
working on this issue that we need.
Mr. Ortiz. You touched a little bit on 234, and the way I
see it, there is no way that Mexico would be able to repay the
water. Now, is the State Department considering any type of
penalties against Mexico if they do not pay, which I know they
won't be able to pay for the water?
Mr. Derham. Well, we don't consider this cycle closed,
obviously. We still have another four or 5 months. We have
certainly received indications from the Mexican side that some
deliveries will be possible before the cycle is over.
Whether they are able by the end of September to meet their
commitment for this cycle as well as the deficit for the
previous cycle, I would agree with you, seems like a remote
possibility. At that point we'll assess where we are and see
what our options are.
Mr. Ortiz. Of course, that would help some of the people.
But what crops do we plant in September? That's not going to
help the farmers at all.
Mr. Derham. Well, we are pushing Mexico right now for
deliveries this month. And that was--that was the message that
President Bush gave President Fox in Monterrey, and that's why
we are eagerly awaiting a detailed proposal from the Mexican
side.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlemen. Mr. Rodriguez.
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you very much. Let me just keep
following up on that. We've talked--and I'm wondering if there
is any other discussions regarding any other types of punitive
actions. Say that we find ourselves in September, they haven't
delivered any. What are the considerations that can be given to
other punitive types of actions that might be able to be taken?
Mr. Derham. Well, at that point, Mr. Rodriguez, we would--
obviously, we have some recourse for noncompliance with
treaties. We have other things, dispute resolutions perhaps we
can look at. I would say we're not there yet. And right now
what we're really trying to focus on are the immediate water
deliveries and see what sort of progress we can make there. In
September we'll assess what the shortfalls were and see where
we go from there.
Mr. Rodriguez. The problem is that, you know, just like
with oil--you anticipate a certain amount of revenues coming in
when you sell oil. You also anticipate--if you're anticipating
that you're going to be operating with a certain amount of
water and then all of a sudden it's not there, then we have--
you know, the farmers here and people here have to make
decisions. So it's almost now in terms of how we're going to be
dealing with those situations. So, you know, maybe I know that
there is a real need for us to look at some alternatives there,
and I don't know maybe some recommendations from you as to what
is best. Now, let me ask the International Boundary, basically
what's your responsibility?
Mr. Marin. We're a technical organization, sir, that we
look for alternatives to settle these issues, technical
alternatives.
Mr. Rodriguez. Do you have any powers or any leverage?
Mr. Marin. In our dealings with the Mexican section we're
responsible to do, I guess, what's required under the treaty in
order to comply with the treaty.
Mr. Rodriguez. Do you have any rights to sue on your own?
Mr. Marin. No, sir.
Mr. Rodriguez. Do you have any other rights that you can
take, any other types of actions?
Mr. Marin. No, sir. We would have to get guidance from the
State Department or the White House.
Mr. Rodriguez. Have you all looked at developing a plan of
action that might help to respond to the situation that we find
ourselves in?
Mr. Marin. We developed considerable number of plans, and
most of those were forwarded to Mexico as alternatives in order
to resolve this issue or at least to provide immediate water
needs for South Texas. Unfortunately, most of those have been
unanswered.
Mr. Rodriguez. Any of those plans deal in terms of how the
United States has to deal with Mexico in order to make this
happen?
Mr. Marin. Yes, sir. We identify--we look at their system.
We identify resources or sources of water that they have. We
identify how they could operate their system in order to
provide this water.
Mr. Rodriguez. Have you asked our government in terms of
specifically as to what is a plan that could be presented to
our administration to be presented to them in terms of making
it happen?
Mr. Marin. I guess all of our plans go to different levels
of government, State Department and so forth. And so we figure
that that is our document to them that would identify these
issues. And, of course, we would provide any kind of technical
support for any of the alternatives that the Administration
would like to present forward.
Mr. Rodriguez. So what I gather is that you make
recommendations in terms of water conservation efforts that
could be made in Mexico. Have we provided any guidance or
resources that would have to take place in order for that to
happen?
Mr. Marin. Most of our alternatives that come out are not
considering water conservation but water utilization of what
they've got now. We look at their system, we identify the
quantities of water that are in the system, and then we tell
them, ``Well, if you release from this reservoir, we can get so
much if you release this.'' If we change the proportions of the
treaty, maybe change within Minute--the treaty and Minute 234
that Mexico can provide the U.S. This quantity of water. So we
don't deal on the conservation part, I guess.
Mr. Rodriguez. My understanding is that, at least from
previous comments, you indicated that they have released a
certain amount of water, or it was just proposed--or it was
proposed, and they were hoping to do it or did it or didn't do
it?
Mr. Derham. Well, under Minute 307, which was signed last
year following the meeting in Guanajuato, they committed to
release a certain quantity of water during the rest of that
year. I think it was on the order of 600,000 acre feet. They
actually delivered 430,000.
Mr. Rodriguez. So they delivered 430,000?
Mr. Derham. That's correct, of that 600.
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Ms. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Very interesting. Mr. Marin,
how much water, acre feet of water does a U.S. Farmer normally
utilize?
Mr. Marin. It's my understanding, ma'am, about 1.2 million
acre feet a year in the Valley here.
Mrs. Napolitano. And alongside in the same area what is the
development of the irrigation upstream in Mexico, and has it
increased in years, are they supported by the Federal Mexican
government, and how much acre feet of water do they use per
foot for their farming?
Mr. Marin. I guess it's been stated earlier, I think, in
this U.S. Department of Agriculture and the University of Texas
study that increase in farming in the Rio Conchos basin has
increased.
Mrs. Napolitano. That's the Mexican side?
Mr. Marin. Mexican side, yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Napolitano. By?
Mr. Marin. I don't know the acreage myself.
Mrs. Napolitano. Percentage? 5, 10, 50?
Mr. Marin. I would say more like 50 percent or so, and this
is just a figure that I've heard. I don't know it for a fact.
And in the past few years, in fact, last year, Mexico used
approximately 745 million cubic meters of water in that
district up there, in the Delicias district.
Mrs. Napolitano. How does that translate to acre feet?
Mr. Marin. About 650,000 acre feet.
Mrs. Napolitano. Per year?
Mr. Marin. Well, last year. And what actions the IBWC did--
because we noticed in the records that we received from Mexico
they actually started doing the same thing this year. We
immediately informed Mexico that we were noting this. We were
putting on the record, you know, that they started irrigation,
and we figured that they would be using or following the same
trend that they did last year, and we've--again, they responded
back to us that that water was already allocated and they would
intend to use it for irrigation. And right now I believe they
intend to use close to 600,000 acre feet or 600 million cubic
meters, which would be about 500,000 acre feet.
We've expressed to Mexico that we figure that that's one of
the basins that has water or one of the reservoirs that they
can make a good faith effort to provide to the U.S. Water.
Mrs. Napolitano. How much water is being released?
Mr. Marin. It's 20,000 cubic meters per second, or 20 cubic
meters per second, which is 35--about 600 cubic feet per
second.
Mrs. Napolitano. Is it funded by the Mexican government,
water systems?
Mr. Marin. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Napolitano. And there has been some estimate of the
per-acre water use for farming. Do you have that?
Mr. Marin. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. And that is?
Mr. Marin. Well, we understand the volume that they use,
and it all depends on the crops that they farm. And, of course,
that area in Delicias, they've planted a lot of pecan orchards,
which are heavy users of water. And there is some records that
show that they use as much as maybe five feet of water per acre
to irrigate while the U.S. Uses 1 or 1.5 feet or so.
Mrs. Napolitano. So it's 1.5 versus 5?
Mr. Marin. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Napolitano. Roughly, give or take. I think I had a
question for Ms. Bach. In that--or maybe Mr. Derham. I'm not
sure which one would be able to answer it. This has to do with
the Colorado River, since this is also addressed by the same
treaty.
How much water does the U.S. Have to deliver to Mexico each
year from the Colorado, and has the U.S. Ever been in debt to
Mexico through the Colorado allocation, and is this comparable,
because being in California, we deal with the Colorado, and we
are being pressured by Mexico and some of the environmentalists
to release more and more water, even though, from our vantage
point, we are giving the full allocation of their water on the
treaty.
And I'm concerned, do we--have we been in debt? Are we in
any way, shape, or form able to negotiate maybe Colorado versus
Rio Grande water? Because, to me, if we are on the same treaty,
how--why have we not addressed it in that manner?
Mr. Derham. Ms. Napolitano, we provide--under the treaty we
are asked to provide, I believe, about a million and a half
acre feet per year.
Mrs. Napolitano. For?
Mr. Derham. From the Colorado River to Mexico. And my
understanding is that we have been in compliance with that
obligation. Whether further down the road we would look at that
in connection with the Rio Grande situation is something we
really haven't addressed yet.
Mrs. Napolitano. May I ask why not?
Mr. Derham. Well, because we had been hopeful that we'd be
able to resolve this in terms of the Rio Grande.
Mrs. Napolitano. But we're at 5 years, and we're at a
critical situation here. We're in an emergency.
Mr. Derham. I understand that. Certainly, under the first 5
years the treaty does make provisions for the repayment of that
in that second cycle. It is as we approach the end of the
second cycle that we see that we're in a situation that might
be difficult to remedy, and in that context--
Mrs. Napolitano. But doesn't that bring up something that
the Mexican government is now saying, that they now have five
more years to be able to pay it back?
Mr. Derham. Well, we don't accept that interpretation.
Mrs. Napolitano. But this is their interpretation
currently?
Mr. Derham. Well, I have certainly heard intimidations
that, yes, that's--that they have some argument that says that
they are not meeting their commitments. We don't agree with
that at all.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman I'll wait for the
next round.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Ortiz.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Marin, your agency, I understand, put out a
report just recently. Am I correct?
Mr. Marin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ortiz. And many are saying that that--many are much
critical that information that was contained in that report was
omitted. Can you elaborate a little bit on that?
Mr. Marin. Yes, sir. In our publication of that report,
since the document--there was a document published in 2000, I
believe, with Dr. Brandes, which was sponsored by the lower Rio
Grande users here, and this report now became an agency report.
And the only deletions that were made to the report was any
kind of treaty interpretation or personal opinion. And a lot of
those personal opinions were changed from being opinions to
facts, by just changing a few wordings in the document itself.
So, I mean, I reviewed the document considerably, and I
just think the only issues that are--or the only information
that is lacking in that report is actually what was considered
as treaty interpretation. And I don't think we're in a position
where the agency--again, I would defer to the State Department
to make that kind of definition or those interpretations of the
treaty.
So, as far as I'm concerned, the document contains most
of--or I would say 90, 95 percent of the information that was
there previously. All that it's lacking is treaty
interpretations or opinions that were removed.
Mr. Ortiz. But sometimes those of us who read between the
lines are not satisfied because we need to have somebody who
advocates our needs. And sometimes we wonder whether the
agencies that are out there, whether it's the State Department,
IBWC, the Department of Agriculture, whether they're really
advocating our position. And there is a lot of people that feel
the same way I do. And this is very, very disturbing. And I was
glad to hear Mr. Derham say that when you testified that you do
not agree that Mexico has complied just because they have given
us 350,000 acre feet of water. Am I correct?
Mr. Derham. That's correct.
Mr. Ortiz. But there is a lot of people out there that this
is very confusing. We need for our State Department, for all
these agencies, to come out and let the Federal Government know
that you are advocating for our people, for South Texas. And I
hope that we can make it clear to Mexico that, you know, our
government and the Congress and those of us who represent this
area in Texas are working together. This is--this is critical.
I mean, when you go out--and there is a report that came
out the other day about what we pay for water. You try to go
out and get a bottle of water. It's 1.50, higher than gasoline.
That should send us a signal that water is going to be a very,
very serious problem. And I would much rather have seen the
entire report because people out there feel that this report
has been doctored, and maybe it hasn't been doctored, but
that's the message that's out there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Rodriguez.
Mr. Rodriguez. We talked earlier in terms of our
interpretation of where Mexico ought to be in terms of the next
5 years or not, whether they should be paying back. Can you
talk a little bit more about that? Because if they come back
and say ``Our impressions are that we have an additional 5
years within to have to pay it back,'' you know, what's--you
know--
Mr. Derham. Mr. Rodriguez, my understanding of this is--or
our interpretation of the treaty and the obligations under the
treaty are that in a 5-year cycle if they do not meet the
350,000 acre feet annual deliveries, they can, in cases of
extraordinary drought, carry that over until the next cycle.
And, in fact, that's what they did from the '92 to '97
cycle. However, our interpretation is, and I believe it's
spelled out fairly clearly in Minute 244, which dates back to
1969, is that in the following cycle they need to make the
350,000 acre feet per year deliveries. 243, I'm told, is the
minute number--234.
In the following cycle, they have to not only make the
350,000 acre feet per year delivery, but make up that previous
deficit. Now, if there is some sort of argument that, well, no,
you really--you know, you get one more cycle and then, you
know, you get into that cycle and they can kick it forward, at
some point we really lose that water, or we never really get it
delivered. So that is certainly not our interpretation of the
treaty.
Mr. Rodriguez. And then you've also talked about the fact
that you just recently went and renegotiated a certain amount.
And we've only gotten 600,000 or so, and we only got a little
more than half on that amount delivered. And so if you have
that ruling also and they didn't deliver on that one, what--do
we have anything that we can do because of that?
Mr. Derham. Well, the only thing I would add on that is
Minute 307, which was the agreement reached last year, was in
the context of this--of this double cycle problem that we're
dealing with. And this was our attempt or both side's attempt
to try to focus on deliveries for that year with that quantity
of water and a scheduled delivery for the remaining year, but
it is assumed in that overall debt problem. So it didn't add a
new--I would say it didn't add a new element. It was part of
the original problem.
Mr. Rodriguez. What leverage do we have, because we hear
about the politics of the state politics and the Federal
politics on the other side. What leverage do we have, either
legal or other ways, that--because if President Fox chooses to
say, ``I'm willing to deliver, but I'm not able to make the
state to deliver,'' that kind of thing, what are our leverages
that we can possibly muster up to make it happen?
Mr. Derham. Well, I would respond there are two most
immediate leverages. One is the fact that it is a treaty
obligation. And, certainly, my experience working in Mexico is
the Mexican government takes their treaty obligations very,
very seriously. And that is--in dealing with the Mexicans on
this problem, that is strong leverage, and it helps us sort of
dealing with the government, and it also helps us in a public
diplomacy sense, making our case to the Mexican society,
because a treaty obligation is taken very seriously.
We also have the leverage that the U.S./Mexico relationship
is very important to both sides. It's very important to
President Fox. When President Fox goes into a meeting with
President Bush and the first subject that President Bush raises
is water delivery for South Texas and then follows that up with
Condoleezza Rice calling down to Mexico City to make sure that
that message was understood and picked up, that is very strong
leverage for the Mexicans as well.
I mean, I think--my own sense of this is on the Mexican
side there is a very strong good faith effort to try to be
responsive to this. It is--but there are problems, obviously,
and that--but they are doing or trying to do what they can. I
think it's important that we keep exercising this leverage.
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Ms. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. I appreciate your statement, but how can
we now consciously say the Mexican government is really being
upfront with us when on one hand they're supplying the tools
for the continuing agricultural development in the area where
the dams that were built and doing everything they can to
utilize the water there and then not putting pressure on a
Governor that is sitting there to release that water? It just
doesn't quite make sense. And if I'm hearing correctly, in some
of the statements that have been given to us before, not
necessarily in this hearing, that there is political
ramifications.
Well, we need to be able to get beyond that, and somehow
the State Department should be able to help us identify to plan
a commitment, or at least a vehicle that we can start utilizing
all the time. I mean we're hurting here in this area, and, to
me, all of the United States should be supporting what we're
trying to do, and that's move forward with getting that water
delivered. I mean, I'm frustrated.
Mr. Derham. And I share this frustration, and I think the
Department of State, Secretary Powell shares it, the President
obviously shares it. And I'm not here to defend the way the
Mexican side has responded on this. They do have, obviously,
though, competing pressures on this, and it's not an easy issue
for them. And looking in sort of a broader sweep of our
relationship with Mexico, the Fox government has been very
cooperative, very responsive to us in a number of areas.
Mrs. Napolitano. But not through enforcement.
Mr. Derham. Water enforcement.
Mrs. Napolitano. Not to actual deliver the water.
Mr. Derham. Exactly, and so I would--to me that would
indicate, given their record in all these other areas, that
it's not a question of being sort of just cavalier with us on
this, but that it presents them some very serious difficulty.
Mrs. Napolitano. So what is the next step, sir?
Mr. Derham. Well, we need to see what happens immediately,
based on the contacts the President and Ms. Rice had, and see
what the Mexican side can offer us, and then we need to assess
that and see what deliveries we'll get for the remainder of
this cycle year, and then we have to see where we are.
Mrs. Napolitano. But this region can't wait for
bureaucratic solutions, unfortunately. So I'm asking what else
can we do?
Mr. Derham. Well, we would hope that part of this process
or part of the Mexican response would be some immediate water
deliveries.
Mrs. Napolitano. But we've been waiting for 5 years. So
we're back to square one.
Mr. Derham. Well, we would--we are owed a response on this
certainly within the next week. And I would hope that we'd be
able to see something.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. Ms. Bach, the bureau, do
they have any--let's see, any projects in this area?
Ms. Bach. In terms of specific reservoir development for
irrigation purposes down here, no, we do not, but we have the
authorization per--
Mrs. Napolitano. Are you funded?
Ms. Bach. We are not funded for implementing the bill that
was passed by the Committee in the last 106th Congress. What I
have done within my region is I have reprogrammed money up to
my ability to do so, but in order to enter into construction, I
would need direct appropriations.
Mrs. Napolitano. And what does that consist of?
Ms. Bach. Under the initial bill under the public law for
the 106th Congress--
Mrs. Napolitano. Which bill was that?
Ms. Bach. That was 106-576, and the bill before you today
is amending that bill. The original legislation was for four
authorizations. It was for a 50/50 cost share bureau reparation
with the local entities for a 50/50 cost share. And that would
be to allow them to do actual water conservation. In our
language, it's construction dollars, and I would need direct
appropriations for that.
Mrs. Napolitano. You're talking about amending the prior
106th Congress law. Again, we're going into studies, into
moving forward on figuring out what's necessary. I'm concerned
as to how soon can we get any information to this area through
the bureau to assist them, whether it's a desal
constructionsite, because that would alleviate the use of muni
water for use for ag water, correct?
Ms. Bach. There is quite a variety of opportunities and
options for--
Mrs. Napolitano. How much money would it take or would H.R.
2990--does it carry money?
Ms. Bach. It's an authorization for appropriations.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. How much would it take, given--if it
would pass and get funded, how much would it take for the
bureau to work with the munis and this whole region to be able
to address the current situation?
Ms. Bach. The amount of funds that would be needed are in
the order to implement both pieces of legislation, both last
year--last Congress's and this, for the 50 percent that
reclamation would pay off is approximately $55 million.
Mrs. Napolitano. 55?
Ms. Bach. 55 for fully funding both pieces of legislation.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. We're going to wrap this panel up,
but I'm going to make a final statement. Clint Eastwood said in
one of his famous statements, ``You've got to know your
limitations.'' As Chairman of this Committee, I deal with
domestic issues of water within the 50 states, but here we need
some help.
Technical compliance until October won't help the farmers
here in September, as Mr. Ortiz mentioned. Overdevelopment of
land within Mexico, that, apparently, may be the reason for
noncompliance. I don't believe, based upon the testimony I've
heard so far and the information I've received, it's not
extraordinary drought. It's probably extraordinary expansion of
water utilization within Mexico.
This President has paid close attention to this problem,
and I certainly appreciate his attention and the attention of
Presidente Fox. Unfortunately, this should have been addressed
a number of years ago and when that utilization of water and
land development within Mexico was taking place. And today
we're here. Mexico expanded their water utilization. They put
themselves in the position where they find themselves in a very
difficult position to meet their responsibilities under the
1944 water treaties that we have entered into.
Now we're faced with an emergency that I've experienced as
Chairman of this Committee, unfortunately, a number of times,
and one that I don't think is of any less peril will be found
in the southern part of Oregon and northern California, what we
deem Klamath Valley, which was truly a calamity.
The largest public hearing in the U.S. House of
Representatives history, as I understand, took place in the
Klamath Valley, a community of 15,000 people, where almost the
entire town showed up. We don't want to experience that here.
So I would move the gentleman, as I excuse this panel, and I
know you all have to catch airplanes and leave, but I would--
please let the Administration know and the State Department
know that this is at a critical point, that this water needs to
be released and released soon.
For our friends in Mexico, we want to maintain our close
friendship and reliance upon one another as great trading
partners. This won't help if we have this continue in the near
future. So with that, I thank the witnesses for their testimony
and for their answering our questions. You're excused.
Mr. Calvert. Our next panel. Jo Jo White, please come up to
the dais, General Manager of the Hidalgo and Cameron Counties
Irrigation District No. 9. Mary Lou Campbell, the
conservationist, is here as well, Sierra Club, Lone Star
Chapter, Frontera Audubon Society. Frank Feild is President and
CEO of the Brownsville Chamber of Commerce. Please take your
seats.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. White, you've probably heard from our
previous witnesses. We need to attempt to keep our testimony to
within the 5-minute rule so we can have time for questions.
This applies to the rest of the panel. If you have extended
remarks for the record, we'll be more than happy to address
that.
Mr. White, you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF JO JO WHITE, GENERAL MANAGER, HIDALGO AND CAMERON
COUNTIES IRRIGATION DISTRICT NO. 9
Mr. White. I will be brief. Obviously, there is a lot of
information already with this first panel that I was going to
testify on. I'm not going to be repetitive. We do appreciate
you coming down here from Washington to see the crisis that is
facing this part of the United States.
Obviously, you've heard that the Rio Grande River is our
only viable source of water, and this water supply is supposed
to be protected by the 1944 Water Treaty. It was noted that
this treaty is very beneficial to both nations. Obviously,
there are geographical areas within each nation that receive
waters that are generated within the boundaries of the other
nation. Without these waters, these particular geographical
areas could not be a viable entity.
Obviously, as mentioned before, the United States has never
failed on its--on meeting its obligations on the Colorado River
provisions, even during the most droughty situation in
California, Arizona, and everything.
Well, there was a reason for this. Not only was there
prudent water management in the western states, but also there
was the insistence of our Federal Government that our treaty
obligations to Mexico would be fulfilled. That was the main
reason that water kept going to Mexico.
Unfortunately, as you all have heard now, Mexico has failed
in meeting its obligations on the Rio Grande provisions. They
have claimed that extraordinary drought was the reason for
their first cycle deficit. Yet, there has been a mass, a mass
of evidence and data now that has come forward that show Mexico
had ample rainfall during that time period in question and that
it had ample reservoir levels in the interior storage lakes in
Chihuahua where they could have met their obligations.
It is extremely unfortunate that we presented this
information to the State Department, to these guys sitting
behind me that were here in the last panel, we presented this
to them over 4 years ago. As a matter of fact, it was here in
Brownsville, Texas that all this documentation was presented to
them that show Mexico could have met their obligations.
Yet this--the State Department and the IBWC would not
challenge Mexico on its assertion that it had extraordinary
drought that caused this deficit. They said that this would be
admitting then that this deficit was illegal and, therefore,
there was a treaty violation. They told us they would not go
there. They said, ``The reality of the situation is, boys, you
all are going to have to go through these next 5 years, and
Mexico will have to pay this deficit off during this cycle.''
We then asked the State Department and the IBWC at that
time, ``Would you please force Mexico into an aggressive
repayment plan at the beginning of the cycle?'' We warned them
that if they did not do this, then the scenario would take
place where they could not pay off the deficit.
Well, obviously, the State Department did not force Mexico
into any aggressive repayment plan. Since Mexico was not forced
to the table, they basically gambled on mother nature in paying
off their deficit. They continued to use the waters that were
generated with the interior of Chihuahua to meet their own
needs there without delivering adequate amounts to the Rio
Grande to meet treaty obligations. This gamble now has failed.
The big climatic event, the big hurricane that they gambled
would come and fill up the reservoirs did not occur.
Now with the remaining timeframe left in the treaty,
approximately 5 months, this timeframe is like a noose
stretching and closing in on Mexico's neck, and now they're
trying to squirm out of this noose by saying they have another
5-year cycle to pay off this present cycle's deficit because
they've already paid off the first cycle's deficit with waters
that have come in during this cycle.
As said before, this is in direct contradiction to Minute
Order 234. You all have just heard testimony from the State
Department that they agreed with our position that Mexico must
stay current in a present cycle while paying off a previous
cycle's obligation.
It's very funny, though. We asked the State Department over
3 years ago if they agreed with that interpretation, and they
did. They verbally said they did, just like they did right now.
We asked them for written interpretation and documentation of
that stance. We wanted to have something concrete in our hands.
To this day we have not gotten one bit of written confirmation
of their stance.
The real reasons for Mexico's deficit has already been
brought out. Mexico has no interior water management plan on
its interior reservoirs that has treaty compliance obligations
taken into consideration. They have admitted to that. The other
reason is overexpansion of crop production in the State of
Chihuahua.
That overproduction now has reached the point that the
water shed in that area can no longer supply the needs of that
overproduction and still meet treaty obligations. It's those
reasons that we have a deficit situation now. It's not
extraordinary drought.
Unfortunately, the main reason to have a water treaty in
the first place is to make sure there are adequate supplies of
water during times of shortage. Each party in a water treaty
has to be protected. Why have a water treaty in the first place
if there is always going to be ample waters that's going to
meet everybody's needs? The reason for a water treaty is to
have something in place to protect those in times of shortage.
Mexico has not had shortages. They've had mismanagement and
overproduction. Yet where our bitterness and our frustration is
focused is not only on Mexico, because if our State Department
and past and present administration had addressed this very
aggressively years ago after we presented them with all the
documentation of what Mexico was doing, at that time, if they
had addressed this issue, we would not be sitting here today.
President Bush has always promoted the theme of ``Just do
the right thing.'' There is a lot of speculation now that this
region is going to be sacrificed on this issue even though
we're being illegally exploited by Mexico in order to further
other agenda items with Mexico that affects the whole United
States. This very unfortunate.
If President Bush allows these other agenda items to
compromise his position on this, he is not practicing what he
preaches.
Obviously, without going into any further detail, our
problem has been with the State Department, the IBWC, and the
past and present administrations. I now urge you, representing
the legislative branch of the government, to see what you all
might be able to do.
Obviously, one of the first things that you could do, that
really won't help us now, is to have a Congressional inquiry
into the State Department's inability or ineptness or whatever
to handle this situation. Also, you could consider adding
language to pending and future legislation that deals with
Mexico that has treaty compliance in it.
Congressmen, we are on our knees. This is the worst year
since this crisis--since this water shortage has started. This
is the worst year of all. Our all-time reserves are at their
lowest level ever. We have many growers that have gone out of
business, and there is many of them sitting right here in this
auditorium that are on the brink. We need assistance
immediately.
I beg of you, please do what you can do from the
legislative branch, because, obviously, the executive branch
has not addressed this. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. White follows:]
Statement of Jo Jo White, Hidalgo & Cameron Counties Irrigation
District 9
The Rio Grande Valley, due to its unique climate, soil, and river
delta characteristics, has been a nationally recognized area for
agricultural production. Citrus, sugar cane, vegetables, corn, melons,
cotton, grain, etc. have been produced in this region for years and
this production is the fuel which drives the regional economy.
Population has literally exploded in this area and it now has one of
the fastest growth rates in the United States. Because of having a
semi-arid climate, the key to the continued prosperity and growth in
South Texas is the assurance of an adequate water supply.
The only viable source of fresh water for use in this region is
from the Rio Grande River. This source of water is supposedly protected
by the provisions of the 1944 Water Treaty between the U.S. and Mexico.
This Treaty is essential to certain geographical areas in each nation
that depend upon water supplies produced within the boundaries of the
other nation. The U.S. is obligated to furnish northwestern Mexico a
minimum amount of water yearly from the Colorado River and Mexico, in
return, is obligated to furnish South Texas a minimum amount of water
in a 5 year timeframe. Obviously, this Treaty benefits each nation in
respective regional areas that do not have alternative water sources.
As a note, the U.S. has never failed to meet its Treaty obligations to
Mexico on the Colorado River provisions.
Unfortunately, since 1992 Mexico has failed to meet its Treaty
obligations and now owes the U.S. over 1,400,000 acre-feet of water.
Mexico claims that the deficit was caused by ``extraordinary drought''
which is very debatable due to the findings of the Brandes Report that
faults Mexico's drought assertion. During the timeframe in question,
Mexico experienced over 80% of its normal rainfall, had an aggregate of
over 7 million acre-feet of water remaining in its interior reservoirs
after each year's growing season was completed, and had numerous years
when water was stored in the flood pool in the last reservoir on the
Rio Conchos River before it reaches the Rio Grande. These events
contradict Mexico's assertion that it did not have available water to
meet Treaty obligations. Yet, even with this documentation, the U.S.
State Department would not challenge Mexico on its position.
Furthermore, Mexico has recently stated that the first cycle deficit
has been repaid and it now has another 5 years to pay off this current
5-year cycle deficit. This action is not allowed because of Minute
Order 234, which specifically states that Mexico must stay current in
present water obligations while paying off a preceding cycle deficit.
This language is crucial because it prevents Mexico from rolling a
deficit over from cycle to cycle.
The failure of Mexico to provide its obligated Treaty water has
devastated the Region's economy. Texas A&M University has calculated
that the economic losses directly attributable to this amount of
unavailable water has amounted to $1,000,000,000. Being one of the
poorest regions in the U.S., this type of economic loss is extremely
hard to swallow. Farmers have gone out of business and others are on
the brink. The repercussions from these failures have negatively
affected the lives of all residents who live in the region. Due to the
lowest water reserves on hand since this inequity began, this year will
be the most damaging of all.
Regional stakeholders have pleaded to the State Department and past
and present Administrations to take the necessary actions to force
Mexico into compliance. These entities were warned that if aggressive
water repayments were not implemented by Mexico, the scenario would
eventually take place where Mexico would not be able to pay its debt
within the remaining Treaty deadline date. The State Department did not
heed our warnings and this predicted scenario has now arrived. Mexico
opted to gamble that Mother Nature would provide a climatic event that
would fill the reservoirs within the current 5 year Treaty cycle. This
gamble has failed and Mexico is now trying to escape its obligations by
ignoring Minute Order 234 and claiming it has another 5 years to pay
off its existing debt. If our Federal Government had forced Mexico into
aggressive water repayments years ago as we urged, this unprecedented
scenario would not now exist. Are U.S. citizens now to suffer the
consequences because of the failure of our Government to force
compliance? We believe that it is just as important for the Federal
Government to prevent a Treaty violation from occurring, as it is to
react after a violation has occurred. As of present, Mexico still has
not addressed repayment and the deficit has continued to grow. Many
farmers are now out of irrigation water and the consequences are
evident financial ruin. At the same time, agricultural production in
Chihuahua is booming and record yields have been reported by Mexican
authorities. The success of this area in Mexico is directly the result
of the illegal diversion of obligated Treaty water to produce these
record yields. For years, the State Department has been notified that
this unprecedented Mexican action has been taking place but no
corrective actions have come from Washington.
The Region's state mandated 50-year water plan to meet future water
needs was based upon receiving the Treaty obligated water from Mexico.
This plan is now invalid if these obligated waters will not be made
available. Without these water sources, agricultural water supplies
will no longer be sufficient to meet the conversion to municipal use.
Being one of the fastest growing regions in the U.S., municipal water
demands are escalating tremendously. Full Treaty compliance is
mandatory if these municipal needs are to be fulfilled.
Without forced insistence from the U.S. Government, Mexico will
never meet its Treaty obligations in the future under normal climatic
conditions. Agricultural water needs in the State of Chihuahua now
exceed what the watershed will produce due to its over expansion of
farming acreage and still be able to meet Treaty obligations. This over
expansion of farmland in Chihuahua not only has caused Treaty obligated
waters to be withheld from the U.S. but also to other Mexican states
downstream on the Rio Grande. Mexico has admitted that it does not have
a water management plan is use on the interior Mexican watersheds that
takes Treaty obligations into consideration. Past Treaty compliance was
by accident instead of purposely planned. Basically, adequate rainfall
fell in areas where Mexico could not capture it behind their numerous
reservoirs.
It is somewhat perplexing that Washington may be willing to
sacrifice a U.S. regional area being illegally exploited by Mexico in
order to further other agenda items between the two nations. It would
be more understandable if Mexico's illegal acts benefited its nation as
a whole instead of just one agricultural region in one Mexican state.
The question should be why would Mexico act illegally to only promote
an isolated interior area and risk other agenda items that affect its
entire nation? The answer is obvious Mexico will continue to illegally
divert Treaty obligated waters to benefit one agricultural region
because of the lack of punitive actions from the U.S. Government.
Mexico continually uses existing drought conditions as the reason
to justify its water debt position. The most important reason to have a
water treaty in force is to have the legal right to water in times of
climatic shortages. Why have a water treaty if ample water supplies are
always available to both parties. Drought alone is not the reason for
Mexico's water deficit. Instead, it is because of having no water
management strategy in practice which has resulted in the over use of
water to meet over expansion in the State of Chihuahua. California,
Arizona, Nevada, and other western states have experienced crippling
droughts in the past, but prudent water management and forced Federal
insistence has insured that U.S. water obligations to Mexico were
always fulfilled on the Colorado River system. Obviously, these western
states would love to have the water that is obligated for Mexico. The
U.S. Government would act swiftly to prevent a western state from
diverting the Treaty water. Yet, the Mexican Federal Government has not
acted to prevent the State of Chihuahua from illegally doing the very
exact thing.
The Subcommittee on Water and Power has the ability to expose this
unprecedented crisis facing this U.S. region to the full House of
Representatives. Due to the lack of adequate addressment by the State
Department and Administration, hopefully this legislative branch of the
U.S. Government will explore ways to pressure resolution to the
impasse. We are regional U.S. citizens who solely depend upon the fully
executed mutual provisions of a ratified international Treaty in order
to survive and prosper. Likewise, regional northwestern Mexican
citizens also depend upon the same 1944 Treaty for their sole water
source from the Colorado River. They have never been illegally denied
this water by the U.S. We are at the mercy of our Federal Government to
force Mexico into compliance on the Rio Grande provisions of the same
Treaty. Your immediate attention is urgently needed and most
appreciated. Time is of the essence!
______
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, gentleman. Mary Lou Campbell,
Sierra Club, be recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARY LOU CAMPBELL, CONSERVATIONIST, SIERRA CLUB,
LONE STAR CHAPTER, FRONTERA AUDUBON SOCIETY
Ms. Campbell. Welcome, members of the Committee, andwelcome
home, and welcome home for you. It is a privilege to be here
this morning. I do represent a section of the community that is
not often heard from or considered to be a water user, but they
are. And I'm talking about animals and wildlife and the people
who enjoy them.
We have found in the Valley that there is a terrific amount
of people out there who want to come for nature tourism. And
nature tourism depends upon water to a great extent. As always
before, nature tourism depends also on agriculture and, thus,
agriculture gets the water, and then the birds and the animals
also get the water. It is a cycle. You may think because I am
not an irrigator--although I do live on a farm, and we do
irrigate hay for our horses. But, still, why am I here, why am
I speaking to you is because it is important to the overall
life and economy of the Valley to have the treaty go forward,
but not only that, to plan with Mexico. And I think there we
are somewhat at fault because we have not looked at Mexico and
said, ``They are our partner in the river and we must plan
together.'' And that, to me, is the most important thing that
we can do.
We cannot say, ``You can't plant this and we can plant
that.'' What we have do is say, ``Let us work together and see
how we can all benefit each other and still have water for the
whole basin of the Rio Grande Valley because--and we're talking
about the Mexican basin as well as ours, because we share that
river, and there is no line down the middle of the river, and
yet we know that each of us are dependent upon it.
The farmers of Tamaulipas are hurting as much as our
farmers are. I went to a symposium recently held by Congressman
Hinojosa that was held in Weslaco, and at that symposium were
two gentlemen from Tamaulipas who said, ``Let us work with you.
Let us see what we can do together.'' And that was a very
encouraging thing to hear.
I'm not talking about State Department level. I'm talking
about people-on-people level, because that's what we do best in
the Valley is work with others. Otherwise, I, as a
conservationist, would not be asked to be here today to tell
you about why we depend upon agriculture and agriculture
depends upon us.
Many of the farmers and ranchers are looking at the
wildlife and saying, ``There is an opportunity here. We'll have
hunting, white-tail deer. For long times we have hunted
whitewing, and we've looked after that crop, if you will, and
it is almost an annual crop in Texas. But, also, people are
looking at bow hunting, wild hogs. They're looking at a variety
of things, wildlife. Not only wildlife but wild flowers and
butterflies.
Every town and village has a festival built around
wildlife, from Willacy County, which they call Wild in Willacy,
to Mission where there is a butterfly festival. There is
birding on the Island and in other spots.
Also, a farmer, rancher and his wife have discovered
something else, that these people make great guests, and so
there are family enterprises built around bed and breakfasts.
And sometimes it's mistakenly called--or maybe not--bird and
breakfast. But, at any rate, those are the ways that we can
work together to conserve.
Now, to talk about the bill, which is 2990, I think it
very, very important that we have that. About 6 years ago the
four counties got together for water planning, Willacy,
Cameron, Hidalgo, and Starr County. And at that time we said we
have to have on-farm water conservation and we need the ability
to get the water to the farmers through the irrigation systems
in a way that is not wasteful and in a way that will be cost
effective, and we don't charge--we don't charge nearly what
water is worth because water is the one thing that man cannot
do without, water and air.
But in order to make the connection between agriculture and
water, we can't make it too expensive either or the farmer
couldn't afford to grow. So that is why we're coming to
Congress with H.R. 2990--well, the amendments to the Resources
Act, to ask for money so that we may be able to retrofit the
irrigation systems.
Many of the municipalities have already done this. The city
of Brownsville has put in new pipes. They had old leaky pipes.
They found they were losing a terrific amount of water doing
that, having those pipes. So they have done that type of work.
We need improvements in the irrigation districts. Many people
cannot afford them or think that they cannot. Also, there is
training to be done because how will we use these new
irrigation systems? And the technology is developing a lot in
other countries, and also in California I know that there is
much work being done with using low flow to get the same effect
that you might get from flood irrigation, and that's not to say
that everyone in the Valley uses flood irrigation, but it's
very popular, and if you don't have the means to do something
else, you may do that.
When I talk about--and I really want to talk about
conserving the river. And you may think that's funny if you've
been down to the mouth of the river now, because the mouth of
the river is blocked. The Rio Grande no longer flows. And to us
it is a tragedy because it was once a mighty river, and now--
partly because of the dams in Mexico because that's where we
get our water. We do not get our water from the Sangre de
Cristo range. That's all used up before we get it down here.
So we get almost all of our water from Mexico. So there is
two reasons why the treaty is very important and also there is
two reasons why we need, again, to have water planning. I can't
stress that too much. I think if you do anything or if you take
home anything today, think about planning for the future for
our children and our grandchildren, if not, the Valley will
simply not be as it once was. It's no longer as it once was,
but as we live here and we see it develop, we want it to
develop in a way that we can leave it to our children and to
our grandchildren, and I think you who live here realize that.
You in California have your areas.
All of us wish that we could leave something better for our
children. So we need to look at better ways to manage water,
better ways to use water. We need to look at desalination, both
groundwater and seawater. We have a vast reservoir out here in
the Gulf of Mexico, and many of the cities and towns are
banding together to talk about desal and having a desalination
plant that will serve various communities.
You say, ``Well, that won't help the farmers,'' but it will
because it will free up water for farm use. The municipalities
have first call on the water in the Valley. They are supposed
to get it no matter what else happens. But if they will go more
and more toward desalination, that means that the farmers will
have that much more water. Groundwater is the same way.
So I appreciate your coming. I appreciate your listening to
me. I do want you to take home a thought that what the
whitewing says, it says, ``Who cooks for me?'' And that is what
the farmers and ranchers have been hearing when they see the
bird and breakfast people come, ``Who cooks for me?'' So there
you are. Thank you for being here.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Campbell follows:]
Statement of Mary Lou Campbell, Mercedes. Texas
It is my privilege and duty to come before you today to share my
thoughts on the subject at hand--Lower Rio Grande River Water
Security--Opportunities and Challenges. I am speaking today on behalf
of Sierra Club and Frontera Audubon Society, although I am a member of
many local, state and national organizations having the well-being of
our environment as their goal. It is important to note that I represent
the environmental community on Region M, Rio Grande Regional Water
Planning Group.
The Rio Grande River rises in the Sangre de Christo Mountains and
flows through the San Luis Valley. Here in the Lower Valley of Texas
the once mighty Rio Grande has been reduced to a mere trickle that
cannot reach the Gulf of Mexico. A sand bar has closed the mouth of
this river estuary. The torrent that once carried sand and gravel, yes,
even flecks of gold ore, to build and replenish our Gulf of Mexico
beaches is no more. The Rio has been dammed and diverted, over-used and
blocked by invasive, introduced varieties of plants and trees. The
water that once flowed from the Sangre de Cristo Range of Colorado and
New Mexico no longer reaches the Valley. We must depend on the Pecos
and a few small tributaries from the United States. The principal
source of water for the Lower Rio Grande comes from Mexico--the Rios
Conchos, San Juan, Salado and others. The major rivers have dams on
them to supply Mexico's burgeoning population and industrial growth.
(Much of it the result of NAFTA policies.) This growth, compounded by a
major drought in Northern Mexico, leaves little water for South Texas.
Even if Mexico would or could pay the due portion of the Treaty of 1944
debt, this water would not solve our long term problems. I would like
to join others who have suggested that we turn this seeming impasse
into an opportunity to work with Mexico on water planning for the
future of both nations.
Although Texas Senate Bill One suggests a fifty-year horizon for
the purpose of water planning for Texans, the members of the committee
of Region M must deal with the realities of here and now. We are in the
process of amending our original plan to more properly reflect the
changes and challenges that we see. To be effective the plan must be a
living document. The municipalities have first call on water so long as
it is available, in reality the municipal and irrigation users must
depend on each other. The cities and towns do not all have pump
stations on the river, so some must rely on irrigation transport to get
their water to them. The Region M plan calls for an aggressive approach
to water conservation and use and reuse by municipalities, thus making
more water available in the system. Part of conservation is also the
updating of lines and meters within the towns so that the system can
operate with minimal water loss.
Not only must we think of water conservation, we must look for new
sources of water. This strategy must include desalination of both
ground water and sea water. There are several small programs running on
desalination of ground water, with more planned as we learn about
sources of supply. The Texas Water Development Board is currently
working on a Ground Water Availability Report for our area. The coastal
regional water planning groups, in order to optimize available
resources, are working together to plan for desalination of sea water.
Certainly, desalination of sea water is a viable option. The region is
located on the Gulf of Mexico. We believe that problems of cost and
waste disposal can be worked out for an efficient and bountiful supply
of water not only for our coastal communities, but, in time, for the
entire Valley.
Prior to Senate Bill One, which established the regional planning
groups, the lower Rio Grande Valley formed a water planning group. That
group was the nucleus for Region M. Key to the plan were improvements
to the irrigation canal delivery system and on farm conservation. This
is as true today as it was in 1996, when the group first met. Some of
the improvements identified were:
LImprovements to irrigation canals, many are very old with
cracked concrete linings, leaks, breaks etc
LApplication of region-wide on-farm metering and
volumetric pricing
LInstallation of on-farm high-tech application methods
LTraining for on-farm high-tech management
LNon-agricultural water conservation
LImpacts of urbanization on irrigation water requirements
LRegion-wide water accounting system for accurate
measurement of the Water Conservation Projects
LSCADA System to more effectively monitor and manage the
delivery of water from the Falcon-Amistad Reservoir system to the Lower
Rio Grande Valley
While we recognize that this is a very impressive list of
improvements, we believe that they are essential to the long term
viability of agriculture in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. We have been
noted and still are a ``bread-basket'' to the world. However, without
water-saving improvements to our water systems, we will no longer be
able to sustain that place and honor. The committee acknowledges the
help of the United States Agricultural Research Center in Weslaco, the
Texas Agricultural Extension Service of the Texas A&M University System
in Weslaco and the Department of Agricultural Sciences of Texas A&M
University of College Station, Texas in planning. We will depend upon
them for help in training for the implementation of these water saving
methods.
I ask for your support of H.R.2990 and the amendments thereto that
pertain to the viability of agriculture in the Rio Grande Valley of
Texas.
As a volunteer for the environment, I believe that human and
wildlife values for water are of equal importance. Some of our plants
and animals live in a water dependent locale, others need only access
to water for drinking or food source and yet others can thrive in an
arid atmosphere. Yet, they all need some type of moisture, if only
limited to the occasional drop of dew. We must consider wildlife and
their habitat in our planning for water. One thought would be to ensure
adequate freshwater flows in the river. On the United States side
almost none of the water taken from the river is returned whether for
domestic or on-farm use. In Mexico, much of what is returned is not
treated and may even prove a risk to both man and animals. The (once
and future) estuary at the mouth of the river is an important nursery
for white shrimp, bait fish and sportsfish, namely snook. The bays and
estuaries of Texas are a multimillion dollar nursery ground for the
Gulf of Mexico.
In the past the leaking canals and wide-spread use of ``flood
irrigation'', proved to be a source of water for wildlife. Other than
the Rio Grande and the Arroyo Colorado, we do not have springs and
streams in the lower valley, so the wildlife has become dependent on
canals, livestock tanks and overflow of antiquated irrigation towers.
Many of our species have ``moved to town'' where a source of fresh
water is often the runoff from lawn watering and car washing.
Recognition is growing throughout the valley of the value of native
birds, plants and animals. Nature parks and nature trails are being
established. Texas Parks and Wildlife has established the regional
birding trails. Again under the umbrella of Texas Parks and Wildlife a
Texas Birding Center is being built in the Valley with satellite
centers in seven valley cities. A National Butterfly Center is planned
for Mission.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages three National Wildlife
Refuges: Santa Ana, Laguna Atascosa and Lower Rio Grande.
These refuges, when completed, will establish a wildlife corridor
along the Rio Grande from Boca Chica Beach to Roma and Rio Grande City.
In addition Laguna Atascosa has both beach and bay habitat for bird and
animal and plant species. These three refuges represent millions of
dollars worth of expenditures both to buy and maintain. They are an
important part of the economy to the Valley. We are learning that
hunters and fishers, birders and hikers bring new dollars.
Tourism is the third largest industry in Texas. Nature tourism is
the fastest growing sector of the tourism industry. Wildlife watching
is the Number One sport in the United States, with birding the fastest
growing hobby. Texas is the Number One birding destination in the
United States. The Rio Grande Valley is the Number One birding
destination in Texas, with over 500 species sighted, including more
than 40 rare or endangered species. Over 200,000 people come to watch
birds and wildlife every year, accounting for more than $100 million in
spending. Using a multiplier effect of 1.7, wildlife watching accounts
for over $170 million in local economic impact annually. Nature tourism
in the Valley sustains over 2,000 jobs and accounts for approximately
$100,000 per year in local spending. It is essential that we have
enough water to maintain habitat.
For the above and other good reasons that others will testify to,
we ask for funding so that the Valley will continue to thrive and that
we who live here can use our resource both wisely and well.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, Mary Lou Campbell
______
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Feild, from Brownsville Chamber of
Commerce.
STATEMENT OF FRANK FEILD, PRESIDENT, CEO, OF THE BROWNSVILLE
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Mr. Feild. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. Welcome to the end of the river. Thank you for
taking time from your families and busy schedules to visit us.
Water issues in our area are extremely complicated. There
are a lot of agencies and players involved. Many claim to be in
charge while few want to accept responsibility. Our water
source is an international boundary, and anything we do
requires agreement with Mexico, who has the same problem with
their own agencies, players, and responsibility.
Brownsville's National Weather Bureau chief says we're in
the third or fourth year of a seven to 9-year drought. Our
water reserves are dangerously low. In Brownsville, we pray for
hurricanes, since their rains will fill our reservoirs.
Mexican farmers in the Rio Conchos basin are using water
that belongs to Rio Grande Valley farmers and then using their
increasing wealth and political muscle to keep Mexico from
releasing our water in compliance with the 1944 treaty.
What water we do have coming down the river is blocked by
aquatic plants, requiring the watermaster to use our farmers'
water just to push the municipal water downstream. This
aggravates an already desperate situation.
When the water reaches municipalities, particularly on the
Mexican side of the river, they don't have reservoirs for
storing the excess. So we watch as millions of gallons rush
past us toward the ocean every day.
Finally, the mouth of the Rio Grande River has been plugged
by a sandbar for most of the last 15 months, obscuring the
international boundary and causing unimaginable environmental
consequences.
I wish I could offer you a package of silver bullets to fix
these problems. What I can offer is the assurance that we're
not going to just whine about our lot in life, but we're going
to do all we can to ensure that we have a reliable, cost-
efficient, quality water supply for municipal, industrial, and
agricultural use. If we fail, not only will our crops and
landscape dry up and blow away, but so will our economy.
But at the end of the river we're blessed with creative
leadership in this time of crisis. Brownsville's Public Utility
Board has spent years developing strategies to efficiently use
water and move away from reliance on the river.
I've provided fact sheets on four of their key programs.
The Brownsville Weir and Reservoir Project is an in-river
reservoir designed to catch and hold some of this excess water.
Our brackish groundwater desalination plant will provide nearly
half of the city's daily water needs when it becomes
operational. The resaca restoration project will give us
additional water storage capacity and protection from flooding
during future hurricanes. The water reclamation project will
use treated effluent for landscaping and agriculture.
Congressman Salomon Ortiz is intimately familiar with each
of these critical projects and will be asking for your help to
move them along. Please support our Congressman and you'll be
helping this community.
We also need to modernize our agricultural water delivery
systems, which currently use 85 percent of the water taken from
the river. Even modest savings here could equal more water than
municipalities use. We support 2990 legislation.
Experts tell us the solution of choice for the aquatic
plant blockage is chemicals. However, the Mexicans are afraid
their water processing plants can't filter out the chemicals.
We may have to assist them with technical and financial support
to upgrade their capabilities, or even begin selling them
treated water.
Another alternative might be a major Corps of Engineers
dredging operation to remove aquatic plants from the river. Our
problems are mild compared to what the 600,000 plus inhabitants
of our sister city, Matamoros, Mexico, are facing. They're
trying to run an antiquated water processing and distribution
system for a population that is growing by leaps and bounds.
They are also victims of the Mexican agriculturalists in the
Rio Conchos basin who are withholding water. But Matamoros is
our neighbor, and we have a moral obligation to help them if we
can.
The Cross Border Institute for Regional Development, known
by the acronym CBIRD, is a binational public/private initiative
to promote regional partnerships, introduce new technologies,
and encourage strategic economic development visions. It was
conceived by Dr. George Kozmetsky, architect of Silicone Valley
and the Austin Telecommunications Corridor.
CBIRD recognizes that unless we solve the water and
telecommunications problems in our region, we will never move
forward. CBIRD is currently developing a binational, regional
program to address our water issues. This is not just another
agency trying to take charge, but an honest broker and
facilitator who can pull together diverse players to
communicate, cooperate, and collaborate. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Feild follows:]
Statement of Frank E. Feild, President & CEO, Brownsville Chamber of
Commerce
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Welcome to
the end of the river.
Thank you for taking time from your families and busy schedules to
visit us.
Water issues in our area are extremely complicated. There are a lot
of agencies and players involved. Many claim to be in charge, while few
want to accept responsibility. Our water source is an international
boundary, and anything we do requires agreement with Mexico--which has
the same problem with their own agencies, players, and responsibility.
Brownsville's National Weather Bureau Chief says we are in the 3rd
or 4th year of a 7 to 9 year drought. Our water reserves are
dangerously low. In Brownsville, we pray for hurricanes'since their
rains will fill our reservoirs.
Mexican farmers in the Rio Conchos Basin are using water that
belongs to Rio Grande Valley farmers; and then using their increasing
wealth and political muscle to keep Mexico from releasing our water in
compliance with the 1944 treaty. What water we do have coming down the
river is blocked by aquatic plants; requiring the watermaster to use
our farmers' water just to push the municipal water downstream. This
aggravates an already desperate situation. When the water reaches
municipalities, particularly on the Mexican side of the river, they
don't have reservoirs for storing the excess; so we watch as millions
of gallons rush past us toward the ocean every day. Finally, the mouth
of the Rio Grande river has been plugged by a sandbar for most of the
last 15 months; obscuring the international boundary and causing
unimaginable environmental consequences.
I wish I could offer you a package of silver bullets to fix these
problems. What I can offer is the assurance that we are not going to
just whine about our lot in life, but do all we can to insure we have a
reliable, cost efficient, quality water supply for municipal,
industrial and agricultural use. If we fail, not only will our crops
and landscape dry up and blow away, but so will our economy.
But, at the end of the river, we are blessed with creative
leadership in this time of crisis. Brownsville's Public Utility Board
has spent years developing strategies to efficiently use water and move
away from reliance on the river. I have provided Fact Sheets on four of
their key programs. The Brownsville Weir and Reservoir Project is an
in-river reservoir to catch and hold excess water. Our brackish
groundwater desalination plant will provide nearly half of the City's
daily water needs when it becomes operational. The resaca restoration
project will give us additional water storage capacity and protection
from flooding during future hurricanes. The water reclamation project
will use treated effluent for landscaping and agriculture. Congressman
Solomon Ortiz is intimately familiar with each of these critical
projects and will be asking for your help to move them along. Please
support our congressman and you will be helping this community.
We also need to modernize our agricultural water delivery systems,
which currently use 85 percent of the water taken from the river. Even
modest savings here could equal more water than municipalities use. We
support the 2990 legislation.
Experts tell us the solution of choice for the aquatic plant
blockages is chemicals. However, the Mexicans are afraid their water
processing plants can't filter out the chemicals. We may have to assist
them with technical and financial support to upgrade their
capabilities, or even begin selling them treated water. Another
alternative might be a major Corps of Engineers dredging operation to
remove aquatic plants from the river.
Our problems are mild compared to what the 600,000 (+) inhabitants
of our sister city, Matamoros, Mexico are facing. They are trying to
run an antiquated water processing and distribution system for a
population that is growing by leaps and bounds. They are also victims
of the Mexican agriculturalists in the Rio Conchos Basin who are
withholding water. But, Matamoros is our neighbor and we have a moral
obligation to help them if we can.
The Cross Border Institute for Regional Development, known by the
acronym CBIRD, is a bi-national, public-private initiative to promote
regional partnerships, introduce new technologies and encourage
strategic regional economic development visions. It was conceived by
Dr. George Kozmetsky, architect of Silicone Valley and the Austin
Telecommunications Corridor. CBIRD recognizes that unless we solve the
water and telecommunications problems in our region, we will never move
forward. CBIRD is currently developing a bi-national, regional
conceptual program to address our water issues. This is not just
another agency trying to take charge, but an honest broker and
facilitator who can pull diverse players on both sides of the river
together to communicate, cooperate, collaborate, coordinate and
integrate.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank you, gentleman. Mr. White, I
understand your anger, and I understand your frustration.
Before I got into this kind of work, I was a businessman, and I
dealt with daily problems, regulations, and payroll, and the
rest of it.
You can deal with issues that you can control, but it's
difficult to deal with things that are outside of your control.
And that's what you're faced with, something that's not the
fault of your own, but you're placed into a situation that is
extremely frustrating.
I want to assure you, though, that this President--and I'm
certainly going to convey the message to him, and all of us,
certainly our colleagues, Mr. Bonilla, and all to the President
the suffering that's taking place here and the problems that
will only grow in severity in the next number of weeks and
months if this isn't addressed immediately.
Unfortunately, I'm sitting here looking at a senate
resolution that apparently was passed Wednesday, calling on
Vicente Fox not to give anymore water to the United States
that's not part of the previous bilateral agreement. Of course,
this is a part of the bilateral agreement, but I would like to
get the authority of the President to make sure the water is
delivered to the United States as per the treaty.
But I can imagine that you're representing not only
yourself and your irrigation district and the farmers that take
place, but all of the farmers in this entire Valley, and the
reason we're here, at Mr. Ortiz' insistence--and he didn't have
to insist too hard, because I understand. I, unfortunately,
have to go around the country, and I've heard problems within
our own country, but we can deal with those generally. It's
difficult to deal, as I mentioned earlier, with things that are
outside the province of the Congress. But the State Department
certainly can, essentially, and we'll do everything we can to
help.
Mr. White. I appreciate that, sir. I would like to say,
obviously, due to the situations that we face now, unless we
don't get some immediate relief soon and continued relief
monthly, this is going to become a boiling point down here, and
it's going to be very unfortunate if incidents take place that
would be detrimental to both the United States and Mexico.
Mr. Calvert. I understand. And I'll certainly work with the
people represented here on this panel, who--to work toward
appropriations on public law 106-576 and to work with Mr. Ortiz
on his legislation. We have legislation throughout the United
States and we need to have better water policy through the
country, certainly in the west and in the southwest, on water
because these crises are going to grow throughout this country
and we need to address it more specifically in our priorities.
Ms. Campbell and Mr. Feild mentioned this also in his
testimony the issue of nonnative species of plants that have
entered into this system. This, obviously, is taking up a lot
of water. This is something that's happening throughout the
United States, by the way, Orlando, and now this other species
that apparently is not only blocking the river, but I'm sure
absorbed up a lot of water in the process.
I don't know how the environmental community feels about
this, and so I guess I'm going to ask you, since you're here,
about using extraordinary ways to try to rid the river of this
species. Sometimes it takes extraordinary means to do something
like this. Has there been talk in the environmental community
of using chemicals that in the short run may seem somewhat
odious, but in the long run could provide for better and more
healthy river systems?
Ms. Campbell. There are problems, yes, I'll be frank with
you. We are dealing, though, with an invasive species,
nonnative species, exotic species, if you will. Never mind how
it got there.
Yes, it is an exotic species. It is not native. It is not
something--we prize our native plants, but this is not a native
plant. We have been attending the meetings. Right now it is in
the hands of Mexico. It is not in the hands of the
environmentalists.
We, as a rule, do not believe that spraying should be
introduced into the river. There are, however, some products
that are more short-lived than others, and so we have--we are
looking at it. We're not saying that we do--across the board do
not approve. We are saying that there is a question in our
minds because the Rio Grande, when it is open, is a very
important estuary to the Gulf of Mexico. It is terrifically
productive, particularly for white shrimp, for snook, which is
a game fish. The only place that snook breed, other than
Florida, is at the mouth of the river.
So we need to be very, very careful about what we do.
Sometimes we think, ``Well, this is for a very good reason, so
let's go ahead and do it,'' but then we don't think of the
consequences. And these invasive species were introduced,
quote, unquote, for a good reason, perhaps, but without looking
at the consequences of how they might block the river. And,
yes, we are aware that they use water, and, yes, we are aware
that they are there, and, yes, we have been down to the river.
So we will try our best to work within the parameters that we
are given, but we will also be there to advise or to point out
problems that may arise.
And Mexico is right to question because they don't want to
poison their people by something. And, you know, I can't speak
for Mexico except to say that I have been in meetings. They do
want biological studies. And that appears to me to be what is
holding up the poison, if you will, of the invasive species.
Mr. Calvert. Appreciate your help. Thank you. Mr. Ortiz.
Ms. Campbell. By the way, I do have written testimony, and
I would ask that that be--
Mr. Calvert. It will be entered into the record, and we
will keep the hearing open to enter any testimony into the
record.
Ms. Campbell. Very well. Thank you.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the
witnesses for their eloquent testimony this morning. I feel
like my good friend Mr. White. We've been working on this issue
for many years. I am angered by what has transpired in the
past, and I can assure you these members who are here will not
let you down. We're going to fight for you, and we're going to
fight for our community, and I have in the last few weeks
considered maybe imposing sanctions on Mexico. And this is only
on my own personal. We need to be sure that they get our
attention, and trade is very important because it's two
countries, and maybe formulate a plan that those areas where
they are using or utilizing some of this water, prohibit their
exports from coming into this country. This is only a
consideration now. I hope that we can in a very amicable way
arrive soon at a solution.
Do you think, Mr. White, that sanctions might work?
Mr. White. Congressman, I don't know. Obviously, any type
of punitive actions possibly could do some good. The problem we
have now, we're so behind the eight-ball in time that by the
time those sanctions take effect and would force Mexico to the
table, we might be out of business. That's our concern right
now.
Obviously, though, for the future, they're going to have to
be considered. Short time approaches. I really don't know with
the limited supply of water Mexico has. They do have some
water, though. They can give us some water that will help
alleviate our position right now and can do that continually at
least through the growing season.
No, it will not meet all of our needs, but it will reduce a
lot of our losses. One thing that might be considered is actual
economic reparations to these people that have suffered down
here because of the inability or the unwillingness of our
Federal Government to protect us. It is the State Department's
responsibility to protect U.S. Constituents who are impacted by
this treaty. If they are not going to do that, then these
people should be entitled to reparations for the damages that
inactivity has cost them. So that could be something else also
considered.
Mr. Ortiz. We'll look at that because I think that we have
the responsibilities--sometimes those of us, you know, might
not have the votes to get things done.
Mr. White. I understand.
Mr. Ortiz. But, as you can see, this is a bipartisan
committee. And I love my Chairman. He's a great guy. No, we
have worked--not only do we--are we members of this National
Resources Committee and a member of this Subcommittee, but
we're also members of the Armed Services Committee. And you'll
see that most of the members serve on both committees, as Mr.
Rodriguez, myself, and my Chairman here.
But I think that they understand the frustration that this
community and other communities are going through, and we want
for you to give us your recommendations as to how you see or
what we need to do to repair this damage. And I agree with like
when the gentleman in the State Department said, ``Maybe by
September we'll get the water.'' Well, this is not going to
help the farmers. There is a season for planting. September is
not the season to begin planting at all.
And I know that this is one of the second--next to Las
Vegas, Nevada, this is the second largest populated place in
the nation, growing by leaps and bounds.
Mr. Feild, how is that impacting now, you know, that since
we're growing so much, and, economically, has this community
felt the impact?
Mr. Feild. This community has not really felt the impact
yet, Mr. Congressman. I think we're just beginning to wake up.
Some of the leadership here has seen the problem coming and has
tried to plan for it. I--without appearing to throw bricks, our
media has not kept our people informed of the problem and, all
of a sudden, we have a crisis thrust upon us which has created
a lot of fear and panic in the community.
Realistically, we constantly have to be looking for
solutions. Not just solutions for today's problems, but 5
years, 10 years, 20 years down the road. Those are the things
that we need to be looking at. All we can do right now is
react. We--the factor of being able to plan has been taken away
from us. We can plan for what's going to happen in 10 years,
and that's where we need to be.
As far as what impact that this is going to have on our
economy, obviously, there is a great deal of uncertainty now as
to what our water futures are. That impacts on recruitment of
new industries. It impacts on expansion of existing industries.
And the fact that we are tied at the hip with Mexico,
Matamoros, and sister city relationships all up and down the
border means that what happens in one area is going to impact
dramatically in the other area.
So we can't look at this just as the U.S.'s problem. We
can't look at it just as U.S. Farmers' problem. It also
involves the municipalities. It also involves Mexico, their
farmers, their municipalities. It's a regional problem for all
of the people who drink from the river.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you. You know, somebody told me one time
that they had developed a herbicide by the name of Komeen or
something like that. Has that been tested? Is that a safe
chemical?
Mr. White. Yes, sir. We use it all the time on our interior
canal systems. It's used widely throughout the Valley, even in
a lot of water treatment plants in your--you know, in the
reservoirs and everything. It's just a copper-based product
that basically the plant will take up and will fragment its
cells. It's used quite commonly everywhere.
Mr. Ortiz. Because, if I understand correctly, Ms.
Campbell, the hydrilla is eating up the native plants. Am I
correct when I say that, or is it not?
Ms. Campbell. I really wouldn't say that. That's not my
understanding of the hydrilla eating up the native plants. What
it is doing is taking up space in the river and taking up
water, and that is the problem, and blocking the flow of water.
Komeen is something that is being studied, and it can be
used if properly applied. It does have a rather short life. It
just needs to be--it should be applied in flowing areas, which
right now the river is not. But, there again, I would leave
that to other people, except tell you what I know about it. I
am neither a chemist nor a scientist.
Mr. Ortiz. But if I understand correctly, Mexico government
is against utilizing these chemicals. Is that a problem?
Ms. Campbell. They are against using the chemicals, yes,
sir, mainly because many of their processing--they do not in
many places have water processing testing plants that might
screen out chemicals. Some people even use the water directly
from the river for domestic purposes.
Mr. White. Congressman, the Mexican border towns now
realize that this is a tremendous, tremendous problem and
something has to be done. They have agreed now to have a
chemical treatment as a experimental project done below the
intake of Matamoros, which is the last, you know, draining
water intake on the Mexico side.
So there is going to be a test pilot, so to speak, where
they will use some different chemicals to see how they will
work and also what the end results will be. They will be
monitored and everything. So they realize that the problem is
just as--it's probably greater for them than it is for us in
certain situations. So they want to do something just as much
as we do.
Mr. Ortiz. Do they have an effective date when they might
start doing such a thing?
Mr. White. Supposedly, all this has to be arranged through
the IBWC, and let me tell you, as you can see from our
experiences with IBWC on this water issue, there is no telling
how long it will take.
Mr. Ortiz. We'll put a little fire under that. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Rodriguez.
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Feilds, and I
guess all three of you, I wanted to ask you one question and
I'll also make some comments. But one basic question. And I
gather from some of your comments that the seriousness of the
situation has not filtered down to the grass roots, and at
least maybe some indications of that are that we still have
some segments of the community that might not understand how
serious this situation is.
And I would want maybe to get some feedback from all three
of you as to what else we might be able to do, informing
coalitions or other groups or working with the other side, in
helping to educate each other as to what needs to happen on
both sides in order for it to occur.
And I know that, you know, from my perspective, I've worked
real hard to get a World Birding Center in Starr and Hidalgo,
and I don't know if people understand the importance of the--
what the Audubon Society has done for the birds. Two-thirds of
all the species of North America--Mr. Chairman, two-thirds of
all the bird species of North America come through Cameron,
Hidalgo, and Starr, those three counties, and most people don't
realize that. And we--it's not only in terms of the importance
of those species, but also the importance of the tourism and
the dollars that it brings.
And I know Mr. Feilds realizes the resource that it
brings. A lot of people think of, ``Well, birds, what does that
mean to me?'' But it means dollars. It means a lot of other
things, and I know that it's difficult. I reside in an urban
area and I have a--and I also represent rural area, and I have
a rough time explaining to urbanites the importance of farmers
and the fact that we all have a stake in farming, and we all
eat, and we all have a stake. If the farmers are having
trouble, we're all having trouble.
And so I also want to just indicate that I heard all three
of you loud and clear. I also heard, Mr. White, your
frustrations with both the State Department and any Federal
administration, and I would say that that occurs also not only
with the Democrats but Republicans aside. We always--we seem to
have as a Congress from the legislative branch, you know, have
difficulty with the bureaucrats, and we sometimes share that
same frustration from that perspective, but I wanted to get
your feedback as to what else we might be able to do to help
educate, help coordinate, and help get support both from Mexico
and from this side on the subject.
Mr. White. Congressman Rodriguez, I'd like to say one
thing. The A&M report out now shows that the lack of having
this treaty obligated water, this 1,500,000 acre feet of water,
has cost this region $1 billion, and that's with a ``B.''.
We are the lowest per capita income region in all of the
United States. You can't tell me that it hasn't affected
everybody indirectly in this whole region when you take $1
billion out of the economy. That's from Brownsville all the way
to McAllen, whatever. Everybody has been affected.
Mr. Rodriguez. If I can interrupt you right there, for the
Chairman and for Grace Napolitano, Starr County, which I
represent, in the 2000 census was one of the poorest counties
in the entire United States.
Mr. White. Yes, sir. And taking this amount of revenue out
of our economy has been a huge hickey, and right now the sad
thing is this is the worst year that we're facing. What the
damages are going to be this year could far overshadow what
that $1 billion did from each of the other past years. It could
very well double or triple individual years within that $1
billion timeframe. It's very scary, very, very scary.
Mr. Rodriguez. I want to get some feedback from all three
of you as to maybe what other recommendations you might have as
to what else we could do to reach out to the other side, those
people that might feel the same way that we do in terms of kind
of making things happen.
Mr. White. Well, Congressman, I'll shut up after one other
thing, but I know we have had a conservative effort to get with
the Mexican growers on the Tamaulipas side, and this is getting
to be a very good union now. We're holding our hands because we
realize that the problem to our whole situation--their water
comes from our same source, this Rio Grande River, and for
every drop that we're supposed to get from the treaty, they get
two drops. Well, since we haven't gotten our one drop, it's
been a double impact on them.
They know that the State of Chihuahua has been illegally
hoarding and using this water. We are in agreement on that and
we have reached out to them. So in the sense of making it known
throughout the community, we have gotten that working now in a
binational sense where we're going arm in arm together.
Ms. Campbell. I think regional water planning is very
important, and by the region I'm talking about the whole basin.
But I would also say that perhaps we might look at the--the
Texas experience with Senate Bill 1 where we were divided into
regions and each of us in the regions where we lived then
studied those problems and those good things that we had and
are coming up with recommendations.
Now, the Senate Bill 1 has a 50-year life-span, if you
will, and most of us won't be around at the end of that time.
But we do feel that we are looking ahead and that we are
planning ahead. How we might make a sovereign country come to
the table and do that type of planning with us, I can't give
you that answer. But I can say that perhaps through diplomatic
sources we might get them to look at similar problems that we
have had in Texas and then to look at planning with Mexico.
Now, in our region and committee, which I sit as an
environmental representative, strangely enough, we always have
an interpreter present. People from Mexico and from the Mexican
water authorities are always welcome. And that is part of our
plan.
We have had to revise our plan over what it was because we
did not get the water from Mexico, and it does not look as if
we are going to have it in the conceivable future. So we are
looking then at other more innovative ways, which I spoke
about, and also we are looking, and the farmers and ranchers
are looking, at ways to augment their income by tourism and
that nature tourism that I spoke about, and that you spoke
about the World Birding Center, which was one of the entities
of this whole nature tourism in the Valley because now almost
every little town has a nature center and they invite birds and
they put out feed for them and they leave native plants for
them.
And I have a little bit of just a few suggestions that I'll
bother you with, but it is in my testimony also. Over 200,000
people come to the Valley to watch birds and wildlife every
year, every year, accounting for more than 100 million in
spending.
Now, I'm not saying that that should surpass agriculture.
I'm not saying that at all, and I don't want to leave that
impression. What I am saying is that we can work together on
this and that we can look at agriculture to go on, because
we've been known as a bread basket since the '20's. At any
rate, we want to continue to be a bread basket. We're proud of
that.
We do not want to see our Valley become a parking lot, if
you will. And that is what may very well happen if we do not
keep agriculture alive. If our growers cannot continue to grow
and work, then that land will have to be sold at some time. And
where will it go? It will go to that urban sprawl, and that's
what scares a lot of us. And that would also dry up one of the
life bloods of the Valley, which is nature tourism. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Gentleman, time has expired. Ms.
Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There were comments
by Mr. White that I also was questioning who and why the State
Department hadn't moved forward on this years ago since they
know--and I know I was briefed by Congressman--my colleague,
Solomon Ortiz a year and a half ago, who called me to his
office, ``The water commissioner is here, why don't you talk to
him?'' And so we sat and talked about it.
Well, you kind of expect agencies to take care of things,
but, somehow, it's been lacking. For whatever reason they have
not moved forward. That's why I had suggested earlier that
maybe a congressional inquiry, as was brought up, might move it
forward. But even that, that's not going to help now. The
crisis is here now.
Is there any movement by the affected communities, their
mayors, to appeal to the Governor for emergency legislation to
be able to draw Federal funds, declare it an emergency area,
and at least begin the process of being able to address this?
We do it for hurricanes. We do it for fires. We do it for other
things. Why not--I mean, you're in dire straits.
You're losing not only money, you're losing habitat, you're
losing a lot of businesses. The economy and the people are
being affected, not just on this side, but on the other side.
How do we maybe get some of these folks to sit and understand
how critical--how important this is? Then the other--and I'm
sorry that my friends from the Bureau and from the State
Department left because one of the things--
Mr. White. I'm not surprised.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, we really should have them sit and
answer some questions because one of the questions I have is
dredging. What can they do? And my specific question to the
lady was ``Are you funded?'' And, of course, they're not.
Well, excuse me, then how do you expect to be able to help
the region be able to address some of the issues if you don't
have the funds to carry out projects?
Dredging is essential. Now, if it's choking the lifeline
out of the river, then we need to get the Bureau to move on
that, and that's some of the things that I was hoping that
somebody would--they're still here? No? OK. But both agencies.
And one of the other things is do the agencies talk to each
other?
Mr. White. I don't know that. I really don't know.
Mrs. Napolitano. Do they communicate? And especially for
this area as regards this region, any idea?
Mr. White. The only thing I can tell you is over 4 years
ago I was in Washington. We were sitting in the State
Department, we had some very high State Department people in
there. And after we pled our case to them, they said, ``I want
you to know this is of the highest priority, of the highest
priority.'' And, I mean, they hit the table, ``This is of the
highest priority to get this thing resolved.''.
Mrs. Napolitano. How long? For 5 minutes maybe.
Mr. White. Oh, yeah, but just kept hammering, ``It is the
highest priority.'' Well, by God, that was 4 years ago. I
wonder what has happened to the low priority items. That was 4
years ago.
Mrs. Napolitano. And one of the things is the
Administration has changed. Sometimes with leadership changes
they take different priorities. But maybe if we find out who in
the State Department to talk to and we start with them and
bring them to the table and say, ``OK. What have you done in 4
years?''.
Now, one of the other things that I wanted to ask are the
water districts in the communities prepared to take action if
the Federal assistance comes down? Anybody?
Mr. White. In what way, ma'am? I don't quite follow you.
Mrs. Napolitano. In dealing with trying to address the
immediate need.
Mr. White. Economically?
Mrs. Napolitano. Economically. Of course, water deliveries
and other things. But, I mean, if you--and I'm not saying about
release of water because that's still very contentious.
Mr. White. Well, obviously, what I was referring to a while
ago about economic reparations, that would go more or less to
the ag community. As it is now, the cities in a sense have not
been impacted by this water shortage because of the unique way
we run the Rio Grande System. Their water supplies are
protected. They have not had a shortage.
Mrs. Napolitano. But if you were able to take some of that
muni water and transfer it to water, wouldn't that be of some
help if you had ability to deal with additional water supply to
the muni?
Mr. White. Oh, yes. I mean, any type of water supply would
help.
Mrs. Napolitano. I mean, putting everything into a puzzle,
fitting a puzzle, it isn't just one thing that's going to help
address this, it's many things, and it's all agencies working
together. Am I correct?
Mr. White. That's correct. As a matter of fact, the next
panel coming up, they're going to address that in depth.
Mrs. Napolitano. Then with Ms. Campbell, I agree with you,
we need to look at desalination. We need to be able to look not
only at desal, but conservation, which California has done,
also storage, because you apparently don't have aquifers. So
maybe storages.
Ms. Campbell. Well, we do have some aquifers. But some of
that water is not potable. And so we're looking at desalination
of groundwater also as well as seawater. So, yes, and we have
some--we do use some wells in the Valley. I myself have three
wells. So we look at everything, or try to.
And as far as dredging in the river, there has been some
dredging. A cutter dredge has been used to work the hydrilla.
But one of the things about it is it makes small particles and
then they go off and grow more. It kind of acts like a mother
and lets it go every place. So it would have to be a dredging--
a large dredging operation. I'm not sure.
Mrs. Napolitano. With some pesticide added to it so it
doesn't come back.
Ms. Campbell. Perhaps. And I'm not advocating that, you
understand. We're just brainstorming here. Because I would have
to look at all the measures to see--to support that.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, gentlelady. OK. I certainly thank
this panel for your testimony and for answering our questions.
We appreciate it very much. Mr. White, I can tell you have a
final comment.
Mr. White. Mr. Chairman, there is one grower sitting right
behind me that came up and wants to know if he could just make
one brief comment during this segment.
Mr. Calvert. We'll make an exception here, and we'll have
this gentleman make a brief comment so we can move on to the
last panel. Please, for the record, please state your name.
STATEMENT OF SAM SPARKS, PRESIDENT, VALLEY WATER DISTRICT AND
IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Mr. Sparks. My name is Sam Sparks, and I'm president of
Valley Water District and Irrigation District. We have released
our manager. We let him go because we have no water to sell so
we had no income, and, as a result, we have paced the district
way down.
But as far as seeking out support in Mexico to help us as
we deal with this, I think the political ramifications would
spark tremendous movement on behalf of Mexican interest if we
just said, ``Look, a million and a half acre feet of water
that's flowing down to you from Colorado--the Arizona and the
California interest can do that and put in new lands and do
with that water and will make great use of it. Now, you're
getting a million and a half there and you're getting 60,000
for Juarez, and you owe us 450,000 and you can't pay us 450,000
while we're delivering a million and a half plus 60,000 to
you?''.
Just take that water and say to Mexico--the beneficial
users over in Mexico, if they saw they were going to lose
Colorado water, don't think they wouldn't put pressure on Fox
to deliver water out of the Rio Conchos down here to this area.
But we could just say, ``Look, we're going to take the Colorado
water and we're going to sell it to the Arizona and the
California interest, and we're going to take that money and
come to the Rio Grande Valley and we're going to shrink the
irrigation districts down to 40 percent of the size they are
now, and we're going to only count on water that originates in
the United States to meet this need.''
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you, gentleman. I thank this
panel.
Mr. Cantu. May I have permission to address you?
Mr. Calvert. Just a very quick statement. Please state your
name and occupation for the record.
STATEMENT OF ARNOLDO CANTU, FARMER
Mr. Cantu. My name is Arnoldo Cantu. I'm a retired teacher,
retired lieutenant coronal from the Air Force. I'm farming and
doing a beautiful job of planting seed in dry land. I wish you
would--before I start, how many of you are farming on the
panel? Are you a farmer?
Mr. Calvert. No, sir.
Mr. Cantu. Well, only a farmer can tell you right now the
problems that we have. Not one farmer would cease planting to
feed the people in the United States. We do not have the water
to even make our money. We have been for 5 years we had a
horrible time. Who do we talk to?
For the last few years a tremendous amount of people have
tried to help us. We cannot keep on blaming the lack of water.
It's a whole situation. In Oregon and California a little
sardine kept the farmer from getting the water. Here we have a
lot of things keeping us from getting the irrigated water. We
need help and we need help yesterday, not today.
Congressman Ortiz will verify that I was in Washington in
April, and we addressed a Hispanic group of congressmen out
there, and yet--they're wonderful people, but being wonderful
doesn't help to survive. The dinosaurs disappeared. We don't
know now why. Farmers will disappear from this area if we do
not get help.
And I want to thank you people for being here, and look
closer to what we're doing. We're all trying to help one
another. We need help now, not tomorrow. Thank you very much.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, gentleman. I appreciate your
comments, and that's why we're here. And I'm going to introduce
the last panel, Mr. Ken Jones, executive director, Lower Rio
Grande Valley Development Council; Carlos Rubinstein, the Rio
Grande Watermaster, Texas Natural Resources Conservation
Commission; and Wayne Albert, General Manager, Harlingen
Irrigation District; and James McCarthy, rancher and farmer.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the witnesses. You've probably--you've
been in the audience and heard our request. Please keep your
testimony to within 5 minutes. Any additional comments,
exhibits, et cetera, will be entered into the record. And with
that, Mr. Jones, you may begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF KEN JONES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LOWER RIO GRANDE
VALLEY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, members, good afternoon. It's good
to have each of you here. It's a pleasure to be here with you
today.
For the record, my name is Ken Jones, and I'm the executive
director of the Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council,
the regional council of government serving Cameron, Hidalgo,
and Willacy County.
My testimony today will focus on H.R. 2990 and how this
legislation relates to the regional water supply plan completed
for this region.
In addition to the Development Council, I'm also
representing today the Rio Grande Regional Water Planning Group
that is comprised of eight counties. These counties included,
in addition to the aforementioned three, Starr, Zapata, Jim
Hogg, Webb, and Maverick.
Region Water Planning Group was created as a part of
implementing Senate Bill 1 as approved by the Texas legislature
in response to the statewide drought conditions that occurred
here in the late 1990's. There are 16 water regional planning
groups in Texas charged with the development of the statewide
water supply plant.
The development council was selected by the Water Planning
Group as the designated political subdivision to provide the
administrative support and physical accountability for the
planning for within the same county region.
Prior to the passage of SB1, the Rio Grande Valley took the
initiative to seek and receive funding to develop an integrated
water resource plant. Referenced on page 2 of my written
testimony are the detailed recommendations cited within that
particular plan. And for the purposes of saving time, I want to
focus on the first one, which states the irrigation canal
system must be improved to reduce the transmission losses to
the maximum extent possible.
This recommendation was the basis for the Lower Rio Grande
Valley Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of
2000, which H.R. 2990 proposes to amend.
As the Texas statewide process got under way, the Rio
Grande Regional Water Planning Group built on this prior
planning for all eight counties within this region. This
expanded planning was completed in January of 2001 and later
approved by the Texas Water Development Board.
On page 3 of my written testimony is the outlining of the
water management goals identified within this most recent plan,
and I want to focus briefly on the first two priorities that
occurred in more recent regional planning. That is to optimize
the supply of water available from the Rio Grande and minimize
irrigation shortages through the implementation of agricultural
water conservation measures.
As noted in the recommendations of both of these plans,
improving the infrastructure for water conveyance systems and
on-farm conservation measures provide the maximum water yield
for every dollar spent. And that's worth repeating.
As noted in the recommendation of both of these plans,
improving the infrastructure for water conveyance systems and
on-farm conservation measures provides a maximum yield for
every dollar spent.
So, in conclusion, as a region we have united to assess our
water supply needs. Priorities have been set, and plans have
been completed. And with your support of H.R. 2990 we'll be one
step closer to plan implementation. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
Statement of Kenneth N. Jones, Jr., Executive Director, Lower Rio
Grande Valley Development Council
My name is Kenneth N. Jones, Jr., Executive Director of the Lower
Rio Grande Valley Development Council (LRGVDC). The LRGVDC is the
Regional Council of Governments representing the three (3) southernmost
counties in Texas: Cameron, Hidalgo and Willacy Counties. The LRGVDC is
a voluntary association of local governments created in 1967 to deal
with the regional planning needs that cross the boundaries of
individual local governments, and this is accomplished through
cooperative action by Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy counties. The
LRGVDC provides an effective link between both federal and state
government programs and the cities and counties where people are
served. Membership in the LRGVDC include cities, counties, school
districts, educational institutions, special purpose districts and
others. The LRGVDC has more than 35 years of experience and performance
in intergovernmental cooperation.
My testimony today will focus on the extensive planning that has
taken place in the region to address water supply needs, and to provide
supporting documentation as to the critical importance and urgent need
for the passage of H.R. 2990.
REGIONAL WATER PLANNING EFFORTS
1995 - 2002
In late 1995 at the conclusion of the hurricane season, it became
painfully evident that inflows into the Amistad and Falcon Reservoir
system were continuing to decline with no relief in sight. As reservoir
levels were rapidly approaching the lowest levels since the
construction of Falcon Dam in the late 1950's, water rights holders
within this region rallied together to assess the situation and
determine the next steps that should be taken.
Through these initial meetings and deliberations, a general
consensus was reached that a comprehensive water supply plan was needed
to evaluate the current and projected water supply situation for all
water users and provide recommendations for meeting the water supply
demands for the region.
As support expanded for the development of this water supply plan,
the LRGVDC was successful in 1997 to secure federal, state and local
funding to prepare an ``Integrated Water Resource Plan'' (IWRP) for
Cameron, Hidalgo and Willacy Counties. To guide this process, a Policy
Management Committee was created comprising representatives of
municipal, agricultural, industrial, private and environmental
interests. This planning process was successfully completed in February
1999 with final Plan approval by the Region. Recommendations cited for
immediate action included the following:
The Irrigation Canal System must be improved to reduce the
transmission losses to the maximum extent possible.
Justification--The irrigation canal system delivers untreated water
to both irrigators and domestic customers throughout most of the Lower
Rio Grande Valley. The study revealed significant water losses in this
aging delivery system. Also, the full benefit of the on-farm water
savings cannot be achieved without these canals improvements. A program
to reduce these loses will provide a greater quantity of water for
beneficial use.
Economic incentives must be established to encourage irrigators to
implement on-farm water conservation measures such as, metering, poly
or gated pipe and drip or micro jet systems and to provide education to
receive maximum benefit.
Justification--Since approximately 85% of the current water
consumption in the Lower Rio Grande Valley is in agricultural
production, water conservation will have a significant impact.
Additionally, agricultural economics is marginal for many crops
produced.
An enhanced region-wide municipal and industrial water conservation
program must be established.
Justification--Water conservation programs have been adopted by
many of the municipalities and water supply corporations. The ``Water
Smart'' program has been pursued Valle-wide.
A region-wide water accounting system must be established to permit
the accurate measurement of the efforts of implementation of water
conservation projects.
Justification--In the development of the technical analysis for
these recommendations, a number of water related data sets available
from sources in the Valley and at the State level were reviewed and
utilized. In many cases, inconsistencies were noted between the data
sets and the level of accuracy was inadequate. To measure water
conservation actions recommended, a reliable and complete region-wide
water accounting system is needed.
As the region's IWRP process was getting underway, there was also a
statewide drought occurring. During 1997, the 75th Texas Legislature
enacted Senate Bill 1 (SB 1). S.B. 1 established a ``grass roots''
approach to plan for the State's future water supply. This approach
called for the preparation of regional water plans by appointed
Regional Water Planning Groups (RWPG's). The IWRP process took place
during the development of the S.B. 1 legislation which incorporated
many aspects of the Lower Rio Grande Valley's planning efforts.
The Rio Grande Regional Water Planning Group (RGRWPG) for Region
``M'', is one of 16 local bodies established by the Texas Water
Development Board (TWDB). The RGRWPG consists of 19 voting members
representing 10 of the 11 interest group categories specified in S.B.
1. Only one category was excluded which is, river authorities, since no
river authority exists in this region. The RGRWPG also consists of non-
voting members representing federal and state agencies and Mexican
representatives.
Eight counties are represented within the RGRWPG which are:
Cameron, Hidalgo,, Jim Hogg, Maverick, Starr, Webb, Willacy and Zapata
Counties. The objectives of these regional water plans was to assess
future water demands against current and projected water supplies and
include specific recommendations for meeting identified water needs
through the year 2030, and longer term needs through the year 2050. The
Regional Plan was adopted by the RGRWPG in December of 2001 and adopted
by the TWDB in April 2002.
The RGRWPG Plan noted five (5) Water Management Goals to meet the
region's water supply needs. These goals are:
LOptimize the supply of water available from the Rio
Grande;
LMinimize irrigation shortages through the implementation
of agricultural water conservation measures and other measures;
LReduce projected municipal water supply needs through
expanded water conservation programs;
LDiversify water supply sources for domestic, municipal
and industrial (DMI) uses through the appropriate development of
alternative water sources (e.g., reuse of reclaimed water, groundwater
and desalination;
LRecognize that the acquisition of additional Rio Grande
water supplies will be the preferred strategy of many DMI users for
meeting future water supply needs.
As it is clearly noted in the recommendations of the RGRWPG Plan
and the earlier IWRP, priority emphasis is placed upon improving
infrastructure in both the water conveyance systems and on-farm
conservation measures. When considering achieving the maximum water
yield for every dollar spent, these infrastructure improvements rise to
the top. If these Plan recommended improvements are fully implemented,
a water savings of approximately 260,000 ac-ft/yr could be achieved
which is an amount equivalent to meeting the current raw water DMI
needs of Cameron, Hidalgo and Willacy Counties. These three counties
comprise over 80 percent of the total population in the RGRWPG's eight
(8) County region. This amount is also approximately equivalent to the
additional DMI water demand projected for the year 2050.
In summary, it is clear that H.R. 2990 is in direct support of, and
consistent with, the water supply planning that has been conducted for
this region. Additionally, H.R. 2290 is crucial to the economic
survival of the agricultural community in our Region. Further, this
Bill provides for a major step in the implementation of the IWRP and
RGRWPG Plans. The drought coupled with Mexico's non-payment of water
consistent to meet that country's obligations under the terms of the
1944 Treaty, heightens the urgency for approval of H.R. 2990. As a
region we have united to access our water supply needs, to set
priorities and to complete the plans. Now, as a region, we are seeking
your support for H.R. 2990 to take a positive step towards Plan
implementation.
Thank You.
______
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Rubinstein.
STATEMENT OF CARLOS RUBINSTEIN, RIO GRANDE WATERMASTER, TEXAS
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Mr. Rubenstein. Mr. Chairman, more extensive comments were
submitted to the Committee, and I'll be as brief as I can.
The United States began the year with the least amount of
water for January at Amistad and Falcon as compared to any year
within the current 10-year cycle. Texas water utilization and
markedly reduced inflows over the past few months, coupled with
Mexico's low reserves have caused water levels at Falcon Lake
to drop rapidly.
We have increased our releases from the upstream reservoir,
Amistad, to maintain Falcon and meet our water demands in the
lower Rio Grande. Given current conditions, we are predicting
that by the end of May or mid-June, both Amistad and Falcon
will reach new low levels. This will not only impact
recreational activities, but they also impact power generation
capabilities at both international reservoirs.
Lack of water inflows to the Rio Grande, be it from drought
or lack of water deliveries by Mexico, directly and singularly
affect irrigation water use. Within the court mandated system
we operate from the Rio Grande, irrigation water rights have a
lower priority of use as compared to municipal.
Irrigation, however, remains a critical and integral part
of our local economy. Impacts due to lack of irrigation water
over the past 10 years includes the following: Average
irrigation diversions from the Rio Grande below Amistad for the
United States just prior to cycle 25, or 1992, total 1,333,000
acre feet per year. Average irrigation use from 1997 to 2001
was reduced to 770,000 acre feet, a 563,000 acre-foot or 42
percent reduction on average.
Irrigation districts in the lower Rio Grande began April
2002 with 266,000 acre feet less water than they had in April
2001. This deficit equates to slightly over 1 month of total
peak irrigation water use.
All of this has contributed to a loss of approximately
103,000 acres of irrigated land in Cameron and Hidalgo counties
alone as compared to 1992 totals.
The highest priority pool held by the TNRCC's Rio Grande
Watermaster program at the Amistad and Falcon is the water
reserved for all municipal uses. It is reestablished monthly to
cover roughly 1 year's average municipal diversions. Municipal
releases from Falcon, downstream along the Rio Grande and it's
conveyance through irrigation districts rely heavily on
irrigation water being in the conveyance channels. In essence,
municipal water rides on top of irrigation water.
As irrigation districts run out of irrigation water, they
will require pushwater to simply convey municipal water to end
users. Authorizing the use of pushwater represents an
additional in-system loss that directly affects all irrigation
water right accounts.
At least three irrigation districts in the lower Rio Grande
are likely to run out of irrigation water in the coming weeks--
in the coming months. Each of these districts serve various
municipalities.
While present before the drought, growth of noxious aquatic
vegetation, particularly water hyacinth and hydrilla, has been
aided by the lower than normal flows and warmer weather and
water temperatures. The growth of these non-native aquatic
weeds has inhibited water flows, increased water use as well as
water loss due to increased plant consumption as well as
evaporation.
Additionally, the weed mats have reduced channel capacity
for water conveyance and affected telemetry flow measurement
stations.
Of principal concern to the Rio Grande Watermaster program
is the amount of water in excess of actual demand that at times
has been released from Anzalduas Dam to push the demand water
to the end users. At times the release has been increased by as
much as 500 cubic feet per second above calculated demand to
ensure timely delivery of water within travel time estimates.
The amount of water over demand released to meet U.S. Needs
approached 1,000 acre feet per day during the spring and summer
months of 2001.
Over a peak 1-week period, the amount released in excess of
demand roughly represents the total amount of water that many
of our small and medium-size municipalities utilize in an
entire year. These releases over demand result in an overall
system loss that is to the detriment of the entire system and
to irrigation water right holders and accounts in particular.
Many Federal and state funded remedial actions have been
implemented over the past few years to include mechanical
removal of the weeds as well as introduction of predatory
insects. A pilot project, the introduction of predatory fish,
or triploid carp, is nearing completion. Once approved, as many
as 20,000 triploid carp, costing between $5 and $10 apiece,
will be required to address weed infestation.
Other folks have already testified about our efforts to use
chemicals in the Rio Grande to combat this problem. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rubinstein follows:]
Statement of Carlos Rubinstein, Rio Grande Watermaster, Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission
BACKGROUND
The Rio Grande Watermaster is responsible for allocating,
monitoring and controlling the use of surface water in the Rio Grande
Basin from Fort Quitman to the mouth of the Rio Grande. The
jurisdiction covers 1173 miles of Rio Grande, 382 miles of U.S.
tributaries and approximately 1600 water right accounts.
Unlike elsewhere in Texas where water is a flow resource, surface
water in the Rio Grande below Amistad is a stock resource meaning that
water accumulates in Amistad and Falcon reservoirs and is released on
demand. Amistad and Falcon reservoirs are considered one system with
water frequently released from the upstream dam (Amistad) to replenish
Falcon reservoir and meet the demands in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.
The watermaster is the authorized agent allowed to request releases of
United States water held in storage at Amistad/Falcon.
Water rights and distribution in the Rio Grande are based on two
factors: 1. the maximum volume assigned by law to each water right
holder, by use, and 2. priority of the use. All water rights have a
maximum annual allowable, but because the total legal demand for water
always exceeds the supply, only the highest priority uses receive the
full amount of their water right. The following are the weighted
priorities:1) Domestic Municipal and Industrial (DMI) uses (highest
priority), 2) operational, and 3) carry over balances for irrigation
water accounts. In order to provide for and protect this municipal
based priority system the watermaster divides all U.S. waters held in
storage at Amistad/Falcon into three distinct pools. The highest
priority pool is the water reserved for all municipal uses. It is
reestablished monthly to cover roughly one year's average municipal
diversions (225,000 acre-feet). The second highest priority pool,
reestablished monthly, is water held in reserve (75,000 acre-feet) to
cover in system losses and ensure conveyance of water even in periods
of low flow and drought. The lowest priority pool is reserved for
agricultural interests and consists of leftover water after the
Municipal and Operating pools have been reestablished. This irrigation
water pool consists of leftover irrigation storage that has not been
used and new net inflows. Consequently, it is the irrigation reserve
that is directly affected by in system losses exceeding inflows and
lack of water deliveries. This priority based system also mandates that
municipal water be treated differently from irrigation in the
allocation process. At the beginning of the calendar year, each
municipal water right holder's account is replenished to its full
amount. No leftover water is rolled over to the new year. Agricultural
accounts on the other hand are replenished only when monthly inflows
are in excess of losses and the water needed to reestablish the
Municipal and Operating reserves.
CURRENT CONDITIONS
Lake Levels
The United States began the year with the least amount of water for
January at Amistad/Falcon (32.49% or 1,080,676 acre-feet) as compared
to any year within the current 10 year drought cycle. Mexico's storage
balances at Amistad/Falcon have, since late 2000, consistently remained
at or near record low levels. Texas water utilization and markedly
reduced inflows over the past few months coupled with Mexico's reserves
have caused water levels at Falcon lake to drop rapidly. We have
increased our releases from the upstream reservoir (Amistad) to
maintain Falcon and meet our water demands in the lower Rio Grande. It
is however evident that absent a significant weather pattern change
resulting in beneficial inflows, both Amistad and Falcon reservoirs
will hit new low levels this year.
Amistad's previous low level was recorded on August 4, 1998 at an
elevation of 1058.4' consisting of 763,121 acre-feet. Falcon's low
level was recorded on August 3, 2001 at 246.98' or 199,434 acre-feet.
On 4/24/02 Amistad was at 30.92% capacity with an elevation of 1067.47'
or 974,471 acre-feet, while Falcon was at 9.62% capacity with an
elevation of 250.62' or 255,373 acre-feet. The United States reserves
have consistently remained below previous levels for this time of the
year, now having dropped to 30.1% or just slightly over 1,000,000 acre-
feet. (At conservation capacity the United States can store 3.3 million
acre-feet at Amistad/Falcon).
Given current conditions we are predicting that by the end of May
or mid June both Amistad and Falcon will reach new lows. This will not
only impact recreational activities but may also impact power
generation capabilities at both international reservoirs.
Irrigation Water Supply
Lack of water inflows to the Rio Grande, be it from drought or lack
of water deliveries by Mexico, directly and singularly affects
irrigation water use. Within the court mandated system we operate for
the Rio Grande, irrigation water rights have the lowest priority use.
Irrigation however remains a critical and integral part of the local
economy.
Impacts due to lack of irrigation water over the past 10 years
include the following:
LAverage irrigation diversions from the Rio Grande below
Amistad for the United States just prior to cycle 25 (1992-97) totaled
1,333,071 AF. Average irrigation use from 1997 - 2001 was reduced to
770,036 AF, a 563,035 AF or 42% reduction.
LIrrigation Districts in the Lower Rio Grande began April
2002 with 266,000 acre-feet less water than they had in April 2001.
This deficit equates to slightly over one month of total peak
irrigation water use.
LThe estimated loss of approximately 103,120 acres of
irrigated land in Cameron and Hidalgo counties as compared to 1992
totals.
Municipal Water Supply
The highest priority pool held by the TNRCC's Rio Grande
Watermaster program at Amistad/Falcon is the water reserved for all
municipal uses. It is reestablished monthly to cover roughly one year's
average municipal diversions (225,000 acre-feet). Municipal releases
from Falcon, downstream along the Rio Grande and its conveyance through
irrigation districts rely heavily on irrigation water being in the
conveyance channels. In essence, municipal water ``rides'' on top of
irrigation water. As irrigation districts run out of irrigation water
they will require ``pushwater'' to simply convey municipal water to end
users.
Authorizing the use of pushwater represents an additional in-system
loss that directly affects all irrigation water right accounts below
Amistad, to the benefit of the accounts that use pushwater and the
detriment of all others, particularly in reduced allocations and
increasing the possibility that negative allocations may have to be
implemented from the irrigation accounts further reducing the amount of
water available for irrigation.
At least three irrigation districts in the lower Rio Grande are
likely to run out of irrigation water in the coming summer months. Each
of these districts serve various municipalities.
Aquatic Weeds
While present before the drought, growth of noxious aquatic
vegetation (i.e. water hyacinth and hydrilla) has been aided by the
lower than normal flows and warmer weather and water temperatures. The
growth of these non-native aquatic weeds has inhibited water flows,
increased water use as well as water loss due to increased plant
consumption as well as via evaporation. Additionally, the weed mats
have reduced channel capacity for water conveyance and affected
telemetry flow measurement stations at Anzalduas pool near Mission,
Texas and downstream to the Gulf of Mexico.
Of principal concern to the Rio Grande Watermaster program is the
amount of water, in excess of actual demand, that at times has been
released from Anzalduas dam to ``push'' the demand water to the end
user. At times the releases have been increased by as much as 500 cfs
above demand to ensure timely delivery of water within travel time
estimates. The amount of water over demand released to meet U.S. needs
approached 1,000 acre-feet per day during spring and summer months of
2001. Over a peak week's period the amount released in excess of demand
roughly represents the total amount of water that many of our small to
medium size municipalities utilize in one year. These releases, over
demand, result in an overall system loss that is to the detriment of
the entire system and to irrigation and mining water right holders and
accounts in particular.
Many federal and state funded remedial actions have been
implemented over the past few years to include mechanical removal of
the weeds as well as introduction of predatory insects. A pilot
project, the introduction of predatory fish (triploid carp), is nearing
completion. Once approved as many as 20,000 triploid carp costing $5-
$10 per fish will be required to address the weed infestation.
Discussions continue with Mexico regarding the use of approved
aquatic herbicides to further combat the noted explosive growths along
the lower reaches of the Rio Grande.
______
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Halbert.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE HALBERT, GENERAL MANAGER, HARLINGEN
IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Mr. Halbert. Mr. Chairman, Committee members, we, again,
appreciate the opportunity to be here and speak to you. My name
is Wayne Halbert. I'm general manager of the Harlingen
Irrigation District, and I represent irrigation districts that
supply water to over a million acres of farmland and raw water
to municipalities that service 1.5 million people.
Our testimony is in support of H.R. 2990, and that's what I
will try to stick to mostly, and I will--I have submitted full
testimony, and I'll try to summarize that at this time.
For the past several years, as has already been testified,
the Rio Grande Valley and the border region has been involved
in integrated resource management studies that have tried to
determine what our resource is, what our resource potentials
are going to be over the years, and where we can get to from--
through conservation efforts and through whatever efforts might
be out there to make our resource stretch through the year
2050.
The Rio Grande Valley districts have partnered with Bureau
of Reclamation since the 1950's doing conservation projects,
and we have--so we have some idea of what projects we might
could do in the future to fit into this integrated resource
management program.
This program has revealed some very important things to us
and has showed us that what projects are--give us the most bang
for the buck and how we might--how we might seek other ways to
supply our water needs. Many developed projects that we worked
on back in the '50's and '60's and '70's remain undone and are
still very viable projects, but they remain undone simply
because there was not enough funds to accomplish them and the
funding chain through BOR dried up as far as the loans were
concerned.
Various changes in water resource conditions have made this
slow process of trying to each district develop its
conservation work. It's made that slow process unworkable and
unacceptable. Dryer than normal conditions over the past 9
years have exhausted much of our water supplies, explosive
developments in Mexico which have utilized much of the water
that we expected to get over the years, that explosive
development has taken away much of that water and deprived the
U.S. Of greater amounts of water resource and accelerating the
crisis.
Admittedly, part of the Mexico issue may be drought
related, but the greater part is a change in Mexico's
operations of their system that's deprived the U.S. Users of
that water.
Population explosion of the Rio Grande Valley is something
that we've already experienced and something that these studies
tells us is even going to be much, much worse. Expect to double
our population over the next several years, and, obviously, the
need for that type of water is on an all-time increase.
All of these pressures have turned up the heat on the water
resource for the Rio Grande. Today you've heard Valley concerns
and frustrations over various issues, and we're pleased that
you're here to hear these issues. But what we really want to
offer you is a blueprint for at least some of the solutions. We
know that many of these issues are going to be very difficult
issues to work through, and though I'm as frustrated as anyone
else, and being a farmer myself, we need water today just like
everyone else does, but we also have to look to see where we're
going to be tomorrow, next week, or next year irregardless of
what happens today. And we want to give you a blueprint of some
of the solutions for that.
The comprehensive water resource studies that you've been
provided through the testimony and through other means show us
that we do have solutions that could provide a balance to the
fragile economy and environment of the border region.
We know that through conservation projects that have been
listed and have shown--been shown--a part of which have been
shown to you and a part of which are in this bill could supply
at least the amount of water that the municipalities use in any
given year.
Now, our 2990 does not provide that much water, but 2990 is
a significant beginning for being able to do that. And we know
that--we know that through projects like the ones that are in
2990 that we have the opportunity to get there through
conservation projects.
You all saw the slides this morning that showed some of the
amounts of money that were needed for us to be able to get
there in 2050, and, obviously, we're talking about a portion of
that in these projects, but it is a beginning.
Agriculture use is 85 percent of the water today that's
available in our system. And, therefore, agriculture has to be
the target for the major conservation projects. 2990 provides
that means by which we can get there, and most of the
irrigation systems that are listed in 2990 are projects that
would greatly improve their ability to deliver water not only
to farmers, but free up water for them to be--to utilize to
spread that throughout the farming community and also make
available water for urban growth in the area.
Most of the irrigation systems, as I said, were built in
the early 1900's, and many of the delivery systems that are the
life blood of these municipalities and irrigation districts
also need to be and must be renovated. There has been in a lot
of cases very little improvements done to much of that
irrigation system since that particular time.
The agricultural economy is extremely important to our
region. A large portion of the workforce is dependent on the
agricultural industry. The border aspects of the region only
increases this problem and the agricultural layoffs create
immediate social problems far beyond the normal expectations,
social problems that affect both sides of the river because
much of our work force is so dependent on agriculture.
We testified a couple of years ago that an undependable
water supply could do irreparable damage and would push our
local unemployment figures out of sight. And now you have a
Texas A&M report that estimates that as many as 30,000 jobs
have been lost over the past 9 years, and that's directly
related to the Mexico shortfall alone.
We have a greater shortfall than just the Mexico issue that
the conservation issues could address. But just the Mexico
issue alone is involved in that A&M study.
The importance of this legislation has been escalated and
accelerated, obviously, by the past several years of drought,
Mexico's use of the water resource without complying with the
treaty. And we recognize that we may have to live and grow in
the future on less water than what we've been accustomed to.
The latest work at A&M University economy has documented
losses approaching $1 billion. You've heard all that testimony
before over the past 9 years, again, attributed solely to the
Mexico withholding of water. But I think there is a greater
story here than just the Mexico withholding of water. We are
actually using--we are actually using approximately 5 to
600,000 acre feet less per year than we were accustomed to
before, and, obviously, the 350,000 acre feet that we're not
getting from Mexico is a great portion of that, but it's not
the total problem.
We have a problem here that's far beyond just the Mexico
issue. It's a problem of conservation that we have to deal with
in our issues also, and I think we need to say that.
We continue to lose farms and businesses that have been a
part of the Rio Grande Valley heritage for over a hundred
years, mostly because the water resource demands the past 7
years have been inadequate. The greatest impacts of these
losses today are to our agricultural community. However,
associated impacts are obviously beginning to crop up in our
communities also. We're seeing community businesses that have a
problem with their businesses simply because of the overflow
from the agricultural problem.
Water shortages, shortages to the general populace have
been held to a minimum, but we are rapidly approaching a crisis
in this arena. As I told you all this morning, that when we
take the Mexico issue out of the water, we all of a sudden
increase our municipal use from 15 percent to about 50 percent
of our water, and that puts agriculture in an extremely
critical position even quicker.
This legislation allows us to turn these tragic losses
around and provide new life and new hope to the whole Rio
Grande border region. The infrastructure that is needed to
solve these problems is apparent. Districts have planned these
needed projects for years and anticipated accomplishing them
over the next 20 or so years.
Testimony today has shown you that we do not have that
luxury. We have to get to where we thought we were going to get
to 20 years down the road, we have to get to there as quickly
as possible. Every few acre feet of water not conserved is
another family farm gone, another few jobs lost, another
business who had to close their doors. Our future, I must tell
you again, is in your hands. We appreciate your support of H.R.
2990. And thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Halbert follows:]
Statement of Wayne Halbert, General Manager, Harlingen Irrigation
District Cameron County 1, President, Texas Water Conservation
Association, Vice President, Texas Irrigation Council
Mr. Chairman, Committee Members and staff, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of the communities
and water districts along the Texas Border. I am Wayne Halbert, General
Manager of the Harlingen Irrigation District and represent irrigation
districts that supply irrigation water to over a million acres of
farmland and raw water to municipalities for over 1.5 million people.
Our testimony is in support of H.R. 2990, which amends the Lower Rio
Grande Valley Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000, to
authorize additional projects under that Act, and for other purposes.
For the past several years the Border Region has been deeply
involved in Integrated Resource Management studies to determine a
direction for our communities to take in water resource management. The
State of Texas gave direction to these studies in 1997 with legislation
that required even more comprehensive determinations of water resource
status. These studies have given us some stark revelations as to
unprecedented predictions in population growth and needs for water
resources over the next few years. The Rio Grande Valley Irrigation
Districts have partnered with the Bureau of Reclamation on projects
since the early 1950's. Most of the Districts have utilized BOR loan
programs to do conservation projects. Many developed projects remain
undone due to a lack of funding available to meet the needs. Districts
have systematically chipped away at these projects within their budget
restraints.
Various changes in the water resource condition have made this slow
progress unacceptable and has placed the agricultural and municipal
supply needs in peril. Drier than normal conditions over the past nine
years have exhausted water supplies and caused thousands of acres of
land to become unproductive and unable to sustain the industry that
depends on that production. Explosive developments in Mexico, which
share the waters of the Rio Grande, have deprived the United States of
a greater amount of the water resource, accelerating the crisis.
Admittedly a part of the Mexico issue is drought related but a greater
part is a change in Mexico's operations of their system that has
deprived the U.S. users of over a year's supply of water and placed
Mexico in violation of the terms of the 1944 Water Treaty.
The population explosion in the Rio Grande Valley area is escalated
by the massive legal and illegal migration from Mexico for which
Congress continues to struggle with solutions even today. As if our
population problems are not enough, Mexico's along the border are many
times worse and they draw from the same resource.
All of these pressures turn up the heat on the water resources for
the Rio Grande. Today you have heard valid concerns and frustrations
over various issues that we desperately need congressional help with,
but we also want to offer you a blue print for at least some of the
solutions.
In the comprehensive water resource studies of which you have been
provided testimony today, an emphasis was made to seek solutions that
would provide balance to the fragile economy and environment of the
border region. The committees and consultants were charged with the
responsibility of finding ways to provide an adequate water supply for
the least amount of impact, both financial and physical. Our goal was
to find enough firm yield water to provide for the municipal,
industrial, environmental and agricultural needs of the region and to
dovetail that plan into the expected growth needs of the Valley.
The studies looked at desalinization, reverse osmosis, runoff
reuse, groundwater recovery, new dam sites, long distance pipelines and
any other opportunity that presented any semblance of credible water
supply. After several years of study it has become apparent that
because agriculture uses 85% of the water available, agriculture must
be the target for the major water conservation projects.
H.R. 2990 provides the authorization for the Bureau of Reclamation
to implement the programs and projects that surfaced as the most cost
effective way to provide for the water resource needs of the Texas
Border region. Most of the irrigation systems were built in the early
1900's and many of the delivery systems that are the lifeblood of the
municipalities as well as agriculture must be renovated. Improvements
to these canals would provide annually one half of a years current
municipal needs in saved water. Other conservation projects that
include volumetric accounting of the water and new technologies in
water delivery could save another 75% of the municipal current annual
needs. All of these projects can be accomplished for construction costs
of from $0.02 to $3.07 per 1000 gallons which projects on a debt
service basis from a fraction of a cent to $0.23 per 1000 gallons of
water saved. The projects outlined in this legislation could more than
double the water available for municipal and industrial use without
collapsing the agricultural economy.
The agricultural economy is extremely important to our region as a
large portion of the workforce is dependent on the agriculture
industry. The Border aspects of the region only increases this problem
and agricultural layoffs create immediate social problems far beyond
the normal expectations. We testified a couple of years ago that an
undependable water supply could do irreparable damage and would push
our local unemployment figures out of sight. We now have a report from
Texas A&M that estimates as many as 30,000 jobs have been lost over the
past nine years directly related to the water shortage on the Mexico
shortfall alone.
The importance of this legislation has only been accelerated by the
past several years drought condition and recent information that
indicate explosive demands in Mexico on the water resource. We
recognize that we may have to live and grow on less water than we have
been accustomed to. The latest work by Texas A&M University economist
have documented losses approaching one billion dollars over the past
nine years attributable solely to Mexico's withholding of water from
the four county region of the Lower Rio Grande Valley. We continue to
lose farms and businesses that have been a part of the Rio Grande
Valley heritage for over a hundred years, mostly because water resource
demands the past seven years have been inadequate. The greatest impacts
of these losses today are to our agricultural community; however, the
associated impacts are beginning to take their toll to the Border
Region as a whole. The cost of water to the general public is on the
rise and will continue to do so as the scarcity of the resource
manifests itself. Water shortages to the general populace have been
held to a minimum but we are rapidly approaching a crisis in this arena
also.
This legislation allows us to turn these tragic losses around and
provide new life and new hope to the whole Rio Grande Border Region.
The infrastructure that is needed to solve these problems is apparent.
Districts have planned these needed projects for years and anticipated
accomplishing them over the next twenty or so years. Testimony today
has shown you that we do not have that luxury. Every few acre feet of
water not conserved is another family farm gone, another few jobs lost,
another business who had to close their doors. Our future is in your
hands.
We appreciate your support for H.R. 2990. Thank you for your
attention.
______
Mr. Calvert. Mr. McCarthy.
STATEMENT OF JAMES McCARTHY, RANCHER AND FARMER
Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here on behalf
of the people and the agricultural communities of Texas Border
Region in support of H.R. 2990.
My name is James McCarthy. I'm a member and former chairman
of the board of directors of the Farm Credit Bank of Texas,
which is the headquarters bank of the Tenth District of the
Farm Credit System, a nationwide network of cooperative lending
institutions that provide credit and financially related
services to farmers, ranchers, and their cooperatives.
I am also--I'm not totally active right now, but I was a
farmer and rancher all my life. I've operated farms and ranches
in the Rio Hondo area of the Rio Grande Valley for over fifty
years producing cotton, sugar cane, cattle, and children, not
necessarily in that order.
Both as a director for the Farm Credit Bank of Texas and as
a farmer and rancher, I'm very concerned about the critical
water shortages facing southern Texas. I applaud you good folks
for your introducing 2990 to amend the Lower Rio Grande Valley
Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 to
authorize additional projects to conserve and improve the
supply of water in the Valley.
Likewise, I applaud you for holding this legislation
hearing here today and all the members of the Texas delegation
and the Chairman and the little lady from California.
Appreciate you for being here too.
Mrs. Napolitano. Also a Texan.
Mr. McCarthy. Especially my friend Solomon Ortiz for this
work you do for your constituents. We who live and farm along
the border of Texas are very fortunate to have Members of
Congress who work so hard with our best interest at heart to
improve the infrastructure to which we depend on for our
livelihood and quality of life.
Agriculture is a critically important part of the economy
of the Texas border region. Every year it produces tens of
millions of dollars worth of food and fiber and amounts to one
in five jobs in the region.
Agriculture needs water to survive. Along the border
agriculture makes up over 80 percent of the area's demand for
water, as you've heard a good bit of testimony here today.
However, the region is also experiencing tremendous growth
in its municipal populations and other industries. As a result,
the municipal and industry water use, which now amounts to a
little over 15 percent of total water consumption, is projected
to double to 30 percent by midpoint of the century. And my
colleague, Mr. Halbert, has already made mention of 50 percent,
and I imagine he's closer to right than I am.
Unless efforts are undertaken to improve the region's
supply of water, the only way to meet the increased demand for
municipal and industrial growth in the region will be to reduce
the amount available to agriculture, which would be
devastating.
The 2000 Act is clearly a step in the right direction, but
more must be done to enable agriculture to survive in the
region and to ensure that burgeoning municipal water needs are
met.
What H.R. 2990 does is to authorize funding for 15
additional projects, which we definitely sorely need, that will
repair and improve canals, install needed pipelines, pumping
equipment, and other water conservation improvements all up and
down the river. It also increases the funding authorization for
these projects from 10 million to 47 million, and there is no
question that these projects are needed because of the water
crisis in this region. Thus, I urge the Committee to report the
bill favorably to the house.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, you should know that there is
another serious situation that has made a bad agricultural
water shortage in the Texas Border Region even worse, the
failure of Mexico to honor its obligation to deliver the water
to the area that they have agreed to by treaty. The problems we
now face would not be so critical if they had done what they're
supposed to do.
I would like to address this matter while I'm here because
a resolution of this problem will determine just as much as the
good work you and the Administration will do with this
legislation, whether our region can overcome our water crisis.
After all, water conservation measures are meaningful only when
we have water to conserve.
Under the treaty Mexico has a duty to make up deficits, and
there is no justifiable reason for Mexico not to do so. Despite
water shortages in Texas in the 1990's, Mexico in the area of
six tributaries received 90 percent of normal rainfall and has
stored water available to begin eliminating the deficit.
In 2000 our government pressed Mexico for action on the
deficit, and Mexico agreed to take some steps to correct the
problem. However, since then Mexico has only partially complied
with the promises. In July of 2000 I testified before this same
Committee on water shortage problems. At that time it was
brought to your attention to this problem with Mexico's failure
to honor its treaty obligations. I asked them for Federal
action on Mexico's failure and specifically suggested
withholding U.S. Obligated agricultural and industrial water
from Mexico on the Colorado River System or the upper Rio
Grande System as a way of forcing Mexico to honor its
obligations on the lower and Middle Rio Grande. A number of
congressmen at the hearing agreed with my recommendation.
Unfortunately, the government never took action.
Let's look where we are now. Almost 2 years later, the
deficit has only increased. Quiet diplomacy on the part of the
United States has failed. Also, I understand from the news
reports and from talking to people involved that Mexican
President Vicente Fox has made every effort he can to solve
this problem. However, he has encountered incredibly stiff
resistance from entrenched political machines in some of the
northern Mexican states. These forces don't care about Mexico's
legal obligations nor the harm their actions might cause to
U.S./Mexico relations. And they can care less about their
people in the state of Tamaulipas, across the border from us,
who are suffering equally as much as we are from the water
shortage. They ignore everything--they ignore everything but
their own selfish political agenda.
In summation, the people of the Texas Border Region along
with their counterparts across the Rio Grande, the farmers in
the state of Tamaulipas in Mexico, can survive only if the
treaty is honored. President Fox has done all he can. It's time
now for the U.S. Government to take real action. Close the gate
on the Colorado River and the treaty will be honored. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCarthy follows:]
Statement of James A. McCarthy, Farm Credit Bank of Texas
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Resources, thank you
for this opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the people and
agricultural communities of the Texas Border Region in support of H.R.
2990.
My name is James McCarthy. I am a member and former Chairman of the
Board of the Farm Credit Bank of Texas, which is the headquarters bank
of the Tenth District of the Farm Credit System, a nationwide network
of cooperative lending institutions that provide credit and financially
related services to farmers, ranchers, and their cooperatives.
I am also a farmer and rancher. I have operated farms and ranches
in the Rio Hondo area of the Rio Grande Valley of Texas for over fifty
years producing cotton, sugar cane, cattle, and other commodities.
Both as a director for the Farm Credit Bank of Texas and as a
farmer/rancher, I am very concerned about the critical water shortages
facing Southern Texas. I applaud Congressmen Ortiz along with
Representatives Bonilla, Gonzalez, Reyes, Rodriguez, and Hinojosa for
introducing H.R. 2990, to amend the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water
Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 to authorize
additional projects to conserve and improve the supply of water in the
Valley.
Likewise, I applaud you for holding this legislative hearing today,
and all the members of the Texas delegation, especially my close
friend, Solomon Ortiz, for the work you do for your constituents. We
who live and farm along the border of Texas are very fortunate to have
Members of Congress who work so hard with our best interests at heart
to improve the infrastructure on which we depend for our livelihood and
quality of life.
Agriculture is a critically important part of the economy of the
Texas Border Region. Every year, it produces tens of millions of
dollars worth of food and fiber and accounts for one in five jobs in
the region. And, agriculture needs water to survive. Along the Border,
agriculture makes up over 80 percent of the area's demand for water.
However, the region is also experiencing tremendous growth in its
municipal populations and other industries. As a result, the municipal
and industry water use, which now accounts for a little over 15 percent
of the region's total water consumption, is projected to double to 30
percent by the midpoint of this century.
Unless efforts are undertaken to improve the region's supply of
water, the only way to meet the increased demand for municipal and
industrial growth in the region will be to reduce the amount available
to agriculture, which would be devastating.
Agriculture doesn't have enough water now to begin with. In recent
years, we have experienced severe droughts that have devastated the
region's farmers and ranchers. The massive losses of crops and
livestock due to lack of water have run into the hundreds of millions
of dollars, and resulted in many farm and ranch bankruptcies and
foreclosures.
Thus, farmers were pleased when Congress enacted the Lower Rio
Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000.
That Act recognizes the need to stretch our water supplies with
projects that foster water conservation. Under the 2000 Act, the
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation works with the State
of Texas and local governments to develop and fund projects to make
improvements to irrigation canals and pipe lines, to install water
meters in irrigation canals, and to take other actions to improve the
distribution of water to farmers and ranchers.
The 2000 Act is clearly a step in the right direction, but more
must be done to enable agriculture to survive in the region and to
ensure that burgeoning municipal water needs are met.
The 2000 Act only authorized the funding of four water management
improvement projects, and the potential for additional water
conservation in the region is so much greater. For example, most of the
irrigation systems in the region were built in the early 1900s, are
inefficient in conserving water, and still are waiting to be renovated,
even with the 2000 Act in place.
What H.R. 2990 does is to authorize funding for 15 additional
projects, projects that will repair and improve canals, install needed
pipe lines and pumping equipment, and make other water conservation
improvements all up and down the river. It also increases the funding
authorization for these projects from $10,000,000 to $47,000,000. There
is no question that these projects are needed because of the water
crisis in this region, and thus I urge the Committee to report the bill
favorably to the House.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, you should know that there is another
serious situation that has made a bad agricultural water shortage in
the Texas Border Region even worse the failure of Mexico to honor its
obligation to deliver the water to the area that was agreed to by
treaty. The problems we now face would not be quite so critical as they
are if that water were to be made available to us.
I would like to address this matter while I am here because a
resolution of that problem will determine just as much as the good work
you and the Administration will do with this legislation whether our
region can overcome our water crisis. After all, water conservation
measures are meaningful only when we have the water to conserve.
In 1944, a treaty was signed by the United States and Mexico called
the ``Utilization of the Colorado and Tijuana River and of the Rio
Grande,'' February 3, 1944, 59 Stat. 1219. The intent of this treaty,
which is still in effect, is to allocate the surface waters of the Rio
Grande and Colorado Rivers between Mexico and the United States. The
two countries agreed that, in exchange for Mexico drawing 1,5000,000
acre feet of water annually from the Colorado river (which lies
primarily in the United States), we would receive 350,000 acre feet of
water annually from six measured tributaries of the Rio Grande that lie
in Mexico.
However, as has been recognized by the Mexican and U.S. Sections of
the International Boundary Water Commission, which oversees
implementation of the treaty, Mexico for almost a decade now has been
in a state of deficit with respect to its obligations under the treaty
to deliver Rio Grande water to the United States.
During the 1992 through 1997 cycle, Mexico accumulated a deficit of
1,023,849 acre-feet of water it was supposed to provide (at the rate of
350,000 acre feet a year) from the six Rio Grande tributaries. During
the current five-year cycle, beginning October 1, 1997, through
September 30, 2001, the deficit is an additional 279,970 acre-feet, for
a total deficit of 1,303,819 acre-feet. Of more immediate concern, so
far this fiscal year (through April 6, 2002), Mexico has only provided
7,912 acre feet of the 350,000 it is supposed to provide during the
year.
Under the treaty, Mexico has the duty to make up its deficits, and
there is no justifiable reason for Mexico not to do so now. Despite
water shortages in Texas in the 1990s, Mexico in the area of the six
tributaries received 90 percent of normal rainfall, and has stored
water available to begin eliminating the deficit.
In 2000, our government pressed Mexico for action on the deficit,
and Mexico agreed to take some steps to correct the problem. However,
since then Mexico has only partially complied with its promises the
deficit continues to be over 1,300,000 acre-feet.
In July 2000, I testified before this same committee on the water
shortage problem, and at that time brought your attention to this
problem with Mexico's failure to honor its treaty obligations. I asked
then for Federal action on Mexico's failure, and specifically suggested
withholding U.S. obligated agricultural and industrial water for Mexico
on the Colorado River system or the Upper Rio Grande System, as a way
of forcing Mexico to honor its obligations on the Lower and Middle Rio
Grande. A number of the congressman at that hearing agreed with my
recommendation. Unfortunately, the Government never took that action.
Look where we are now, almost two years later the deficit has only
increased. Quiet diplomacy on the part of the United States has failed.
Also, I understand from news reports and from talking to the people
involved that Mexican President Vicente Fox has made every effort he
could to solve this problem. However, he has encountered incredibly
stiff resistance from the entrenched political machine in some of the
northern Mexican states. These forces don't care about Mexico's legal
obligations nor the harm their actions might cause to U.S.-Mexico
relations. And, they could care less about their people in the State of
Tamulipas across the border from us who are suffering equally as much
as we are from the water shortage. They ignore everything but their own
selfish political agenda.
In summation, the people of the Texas Border Region along with our
counterparts across the Rio Grande, the farmers in the State of
Tamulipas in Mexico can survive only if the treaty is honored.
President Fox has done all he can. The time is now for the U.S.
Government to take real action. Close the gate on the Colorado River,
and the treaty will be honored.
Thank you for allowing me to present this testimony today.
______
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, gentleman. Regarding the issue of
H.R. 2990 and to approve public law 105-676, which I'm sure
I'll be working with my colleagues to initiate some
appropriations for hopefully in this budget year, lining
canals, improving your irrigation system, have you calculated
how much water you can conserve doing that?
Mr. Halbert. Yes, we have. We have calculated--well, I
don't have the figures right here in front of me for how much
just the canal lining or pipelines, but through the total
projects that we have we've calculated that we can save
approximately the amount of water that's--hold on. Maybe I do
have that. Ken, why didn't you speak up?
OK. Here it says that improvements to irrigation canals
cumulative cost of $98,000 would create a water savings of
119,700 acre feet of water per year.
Mr. Jones. I wish it was $98,000. It's $98 million.
Mr. Halbert. $98 million. I'm sorry. Just a few decimal
points will make that work. $98,400,000 will give us 119,700
acre feet per year, and there is an additional 139,600 acre
feet for our own farm improvements, which also include some
stuff that's within districts. That has not been split out
actually to what we may most traditionally think of as on-farm
improvements.
Mr. Calvert. You've got a 120,000 acre feet of additional
yield plus an additional--
Mr. Halbert. 139,000 acre feet of yield for an additional
105 million. That was the figures that we gave you this
morning. Approximately 203 million will produce approximately
259,000 acre feet per year.
Mr. Calvert. And what's your--just for the record, again,
what's your present consumption on water in the Valley right
now?
Mr. Rubenstein. Consumption of water for municipalities
downstream from Amistad is roughly 225,000 acre feet per year.
Irrigation typically would need 1,300,000. Because of the water
shortage that's been on average reduced to 770,000.
Mr. Calvert. So this would literally double the amount of
water as far as domestic--
Mr. Rubenstein. And half make up the average deficit for
irrigation.
Mr. Jones The approximately 260,000 acre feet, put in
another perspective, looking at year 2050 on the increased
water supply demands for municipal industrial use, that annual
amount would more than adequately cover the year 2050 projected
growth and demand for M&I water use. That's pretty significant.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Ortiz.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman I'm just curious, you
know, Congressman Bonilla and I introduced legislation to
commission the Agricultural Department to conduct an impact
study as to how this has impacted not only the agricultural
community but all the community here. And, Mr. McCarthy, you
are--have been a farmer for many years, a president of the Farm
Bureau or whatever for many years. Did they ever call you?
Mr. McCarthy. No.
Mr. Ortiz. Did they contact any of you?
Mr. Jones. No, sir.
Mr. Halbert. No, they didn't contact us. We did send
inquiries telling them that information--we could give them
information or point them toward information, and we received
no effort whatsoever back from them to do so.
Mr. Rubenstein. Congressman, we provided the water use data
that I've testified to here today.
Mr. Ortiz. Have you had a chance to read the report?
Mr. Rubenstein. I have not.
Mr. Ortiz. Not much to read. It's inconclusive. 2990, you
know, this is our bill. Most of us who represent South Texas
co-sponsored this bill. We support it. We're going to go back.
We're going to talk to our Chairman, continue to talk to him.
He's receptive. And I think we can get some of the other
members to support this bill. This is very, very important
report. To be able to conserve some of the water and, of
course, you need some of the money to be able to do that.
And, that's right. Mr. McCarthy appeared before our
Committee in Washington and this was his recommendation, shut
off the water from the Colorado River, and nothing was done
about that. And maybe this is the time, Mr. McCarthy, that we
need to do that and be serious about that this time.
Mr. McCarthy. Get them off the dime.
Mr. Ortiz. I'll tell you what, this has been great
testimony today, and we appreciate your testimony, and I know
that my other great friend, Mr. Rodriguez, has a question.
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let
me--you indicated in terms of the bill is, I think, 55 million,
and is that based on--I think it's based on some kind of match;
is that correct?
Mr. Halbert. That's correct. The bill is based on a 50
percent cost share.
Mr. Ortiz. This other 98 million that you talked about,
that's in addition above that, or part of that?
Mr. Halbert. No, no, it's a part of that. It's a part of
that. Yes, sir. We--the problem that we ran into when we first
originally submitted or began to work on the legislation, the
prior legislation, we ran into problems with--I don't want to
say problems, but we ran into the concerns with the Bureau of
Reclamation that we did not have--though we felt comfortable
with the projects, that we did not have enough information on
each one of those projects to submit them in the bill.
So what we did was we carried it down to the ones that we
had sufficient planning already done to be able to document
what was needed. And there is--there is continued--there is
other projects that are in the planning stage now that will be
able to be submitted in an amendment in a year from now.
Mr. Ortiz. But in order for us to either yield or save
259,000 acre feet, we were saying that we need that $98 million
from the fed and then you do the match?
Mr. Halbert. That's correct.
Mr. Ortiz. So it's not 55, but 98?
Mr. Halbert. That's correct. On the--right. Now, that's
not--that wouldn't--that will cover more projects that are
listed in the bill.
Mr. Ortiz. I understand, but it's projects that would
yield--that let me get one other clarification. Of the 350,000
acre feet that they owe us per year, that now it's over 1.5
million acre feet, two-thirds of that goes to the other side?
Mr. Rubenstein. That's correct.
Mr. Ortiz. So it's only about 100--
Mr. Rubenstein. No, no, no. Mexico is required to deliver
to the United States 350,000 acre feet on average per year.
However, where it comes from is the Mexican tributaries. The
water that enters the Rio Grande from those tributaries is
split, two-thirds to Mexico, one-third to the U.S. So Mexico
would have to release or deliver to the Rio Grande three times
that amount of water for us to get the 350.
Mr. Ortiz. But we only yield that 350?
Mr. Rubenstein. That's correct.
Mr. Ortiz. On our side?
Mr. Rubenstein. Minimum.
Mr. Ortiz. Is that correct?
Mr. Halbert. I think there is a misunderstanding in what
you're saying and what Carlos is saying. The 350,000 is what
they are required to give or one-third of the inflows that
reach the Rio Grande, but at a minimum 350. In other words, if
the inflows into the Rio Grande out of those six major
tributaries amounts to more than a million acre feet, for
instance, then our portion of that would be greater than the
350, but they are required to give us the 350.
Now, other waters from the Rio Grande from our side are
included--we get other inflows from our side that raise the
amount. The 350 is not all that we have a yield of from us.
Mr. Ortiz. And I know--as a rancher, I know that you have
to plan for, you know, what to plant. As farmers you have to
plan what you have to do next year. And I recall we had a
meeting with President Fox, and one of the things he told us,
Mr. Chairman, was that as we talked about oil, you know, most
of their revenues from Mexico, 80 percent, come from the oil
revenues that we purchase from them.
And one of the things that he was asking of us was that he
would prefer a constant price on the oil versus the
fluctuation. And, of course, he likes it when it's up, but he
doesn't like it when it's down. But he would prefer a deal that
would be constant because of the fact that that allows him to
run the government and the flow of resources.
But the same applies to the rancher and farmer. You need to
know the flow that's coming in in anticipation of what's going
to occur next year, and I think that's very key. If we look at
some negotiations that we establish at least some understanding
for the next so many years that this amount is going to be
coming in so that the farmer can plan on that and assume that
that's the amount of water that's going to be there, otherwise,
you find a situation that you can't afford to plant if you
don't know what is expected and that doesn't come in.
Mr. Halbert. Can I respond a little bit to that? The reason
for the fluctuation was that originally it was more difficult
for Mexico to--it was more difficult for Mexico to determine
how much that water would be because under flood conditions or
excess water, there would be more water coming to the system.
There has been a lot of talk about in previous
conversations about the dams that Mexico has built. The reality
is the dams are not the problem. The dams should make it easier
for Mexico to do exactly what you said. They can even out the
amount of flow that they allowed the U.S. To have and still
plan for their own management, but they've refused to do this.
But the dams are not the problem. They should be a tool for
them to use, not a tool to use against us.
Mr. Calvert. Ms. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple of things.
Mr. Rubinstein, what is the No. 1 priority project to address
the water issues in the basin, and how can the government help?
Mr. Rubenstein. Again, as has been testified by Mr. Jones,
the biggest bang for the buck to actually generate additional
water for us is the irrigation improvements that have already
been identified in the regional water plan.
Mrs. Napolitano. Is there a coalition to begin moving
forward on that, on those projects?
Mr. Rubenstein. The regional water plan is mandated by the
state. It gets state approval for those projects to carry
forward. It represents the interest of this region, so,
obviously, you have at least that advocacy group being carried
forward, and also the irrigation districts that are represented
here today.
Mrs. Napolitano. Is it being funded?
Mr. Jones. Through a reclamation at this time, no. That's
why the appropriations are needed to make it happen. At the
state level the regional water planning groups are in the
process of submitting an infrastructure financing report to the
state probably to this next state legislative session to look
at the actual situation within each of the regions on what the
water providers are able to pay for and what they're not able
to pay for. So we're hopeful that at this next state session
that we'll have some financial assistance opportunities at the
state level to assist in whatever appropriations may be
available at the Federal level to make some of these things
happen.
Mrs. Napolitano. Has there been a coalition formed to move
forward with all the parties that are concerned that are
affected?
Mr. Jones. In terms of--I think so, yes. In terms of 2990
and the--
Mrs. Napolitano. I'm not talking about 2990. I'm talking
overall the issues to--I believe to get not only the release of
water, but also all the different things that you're supposed
to look at that are purportedly in the study that was released.
Mr. Jones. Yes, and many of the players are here in this
room today.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Mr. Halbert, in your report you talk
about many developed projects remain undone for lack of
funding. Is that state funding, Federal match? What are you
referring to?
Mr. Halbert. Back in the 1950's, '60's, and '70's, the
Bureau of Reclamation had a small projects program where the
districts were able to receive funding from the Bureau of
Reclamation on loans. They were loaned fundings that they were
able to use those fundings to do these projects. Those funds
ran out, and when those funds ran out, the districts were no
longer able to finance the projects so that a lot of those
projects have remained undone.
Mrs. Napolitano. Do we know why the Bureau has not
continued funding these projects, and has there been a push to
be able to get them refunded or funded again?
Mr. Halbert. We've made the effort. I guess we're asking
you to make that push. We've made the effort definitely from
this end. But we have had a very difficult time getting the
Bureau funding.
Mrs. Napolitano. In looking at some of the testimony you
have presented to us, you indicated that studies looked at
desal, reverse osmosis, et cetera, et cetera, and all those,
and yet, as stated before, 80 percent of the water available is
used by ag. In not having the studies before me or having the
synopsis of them to being able to understand what they are
recommending, what out of those can help be able to work with
moving this forward?
Mr. Halbert. Well, the studies--what the studies will tell
you is that there is--that you can do certain projects for so
many cents a thousand gallons, say, and you can do other
projects for so many cents a thousand, and so on down the road.
And what the studies actually tell you is that these projects
that we're talking about for the construction projects on
irrigation on irrigation facilities give you the greatest yield
of water for the dollars spent, and that's what those studies
tell us.
They don't tell us that desal and these other projects are
bad projects. They just tell us that they don't return to us
the amount of water per dollar spent that the irrigation
project returns to us. So that's the reason that we're pushing
so hard for--
Mrs. Napolitano. Are they broken down in short-term, long-
term?
Mr. Jones. In terms of the water planning and two
components to the year 2030 considered as near term and for the
year 2050 as long-term.
Mr. Rubenstein. And if I may add, the principal water
management strategy for meeting our needs for municipalities
goes through the year 2050. The acquisition of water rights
within the Rio Grande System. That assumes, obviously, a
conversion of irrigation water rights to municipal use and that
comes at a price within the system we operate in. The sooner
you can make the improvements to conserve the water to actually
increase the yield in irrigation, the more feasible it will
become for municipalities to be able to implement that
management strategy.
Mrs. Napolitano. Which brings to mind another question.
What are you doing for conservation? Are you doing municipal-
wide water conservation? Are you retrofitting tanks? Are you
retrofitting the shower heads? What's going on? Are you at
least moving in that direction?
Mr. Rubenstein. Yes, ma'am. In fact, this morning we had
representatives from PUB with us, and I'll mention that they
are but one example of municipalities that are looking at their
water conservation ordinances. They've reduced the thresholds
for when mandatory--in other words, the amount of water that a
household will have to use before increased rates kick in to
promote conservation, promotion of water conservation systems
within the city, looking at reuse of waste water as a
conservation measure.
Mrs. Napolitano. I'd like to ask has the Bureau of
Reclamation been helpful in getting funding for the replacement
of low flush toilets? That has saved us an inordinate amount of
money.
Mr. Jones. That particular issue I'm not aware of any
participation.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, lady. I want to thank this panel.
Back in 1973--we mentioned the Colorado River--I wrote my term
paper on the issue of the Colorado River as it entered into
Mexico, and that was the year of the big drought, if everybody
remembers, back then in 1972, and a huge issue of Mexico. Of
course, it wasn't the quantity of water because, as mentioned
in earlier testimony, we have always met our treaty obligation
to Mexico. We had a quality issues back that day as far as the
water because of solidity of the river because of the drought.
But it's worth noting that this year is the lowest level that
community has ever been at in the last 30 years since the year
1970. And so we are potentially facing another drought
condition on the Colorado River.
And, by the way, the Colorado River, as you probably all
know, is the most adjudicated river in the United States and
maybe in the world. And I'm in the mist of right now trying to
work out some agreements on it. So it's an interesting concept
to take a look at using the Colorado River and, certainly, I'm
sure we'll get some publicity in Nevada, and Arizona and other
states, and California, and it's certainly something the State
Department, I'm sure--that would get the attention of Mexico.
No doubt about it. I certainly thank this panel. I appreciate
your being here, and you're excused, and we hope to see you
again soon. Mr. Ortiz, I understand that you have--
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Chairman, we have with us today a young man
who understands the seriousness of the problem we're facing
today, the critical situation we're in. His name is Ingeniero
Salvador Trevino Garza. Mr. Trevino Garza is the general
manager of the Junta de Aguas y Drenaje. And we've been talking
about the possibility of maybe having an open alliance between
our two countries, and you have some time now, Mr. Trevino
Garza, to say something to this panel.
STATEMENT OF SALVADOR TREVINO GARZA, GENERAL MANAGER, JUNTA DE
AGUAS Y DRENAJE
Mr. Trevino Garza. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
members of the board. Thank you for the brief time to say
something. Matamoros is, of course, the friendship, that Mr.
Ortiz said, city here with Brownsville. We're the last city of
the river.
For the last 2 years we've been without water for the
citizens in our city. There are some things that you've been
saying here, and probably one of them was from Mrs. Campbell,
if I can recall correctly the name, about working together,
working with people.
We have been really working very good with the people here
in the Valley, with PUB, with the watermaster, and Texas
Natural Resources to even help our city of Matamoros. And part
of the situation that we feel it will help the lack of water
that not only the farmers or the city of the--let's say the Rio
Grande Valley or Texas area, but also in Tamaulipas we're
suffering, is, of course, because of the lack of water or maybe
because it's not getting into the river from the people that it
should take it over there.
Maybe we can work together on different issues, planning,
you know, our infrastructure. Mr. Feild, I think, from the
Brownsville Chamber of Commerce said whatever happens to
Matamoros is going to affect Brownsville. Well, whatever
happens to Brownsville is going to affect Matamoros. Whatever
the Rio Grande Valley gets affected is going to affect us.
But if we can work something together for planning for
infrastructure on both sides of the border, planning for
conservation--I mean, we did already have a visit from the
Texas Natural Resources & Conservation of what do we do in our
city for us to make some conservation of water to try to also
talk to our agriculture farm people, you know, to don't waste
much water.
So I think we can try to work together with all these
issues also, of course, with the compliance of the treaty
between both countries. I mean, our Governor is working on
Tamaulipas, and we do have a group that is fighting, of course,
but we don't have water.
Farms are with zero the last 2 years. They haven't been
able to get water from their irrigation systems. And, like I
told you also, the city has already suffered. But if there is a
possibility for you as members of the board to also try to look
for some kind of an alliance work between Mexico and the U.S.,
not just at higher levels, but here, like Ms. Campbell said,
you know, we're very good to work with people, and there is few
people here from Brownsville and the area can say that, to also
make a force, and I'll take it also to our mayor and our
Governor to try to work together because this lack of water is
not just hurting like I've been hearing, you know, on the U.S.
Side. It's also the Mexican side.
Mr. Calvert. Question. And I certainly appreciate the
gentleman coming forward. Obviously, your community is
suffering as much as Brownsville. And so you're suffering if,
in fact, this treaty obligation is not being met by Mexico, it
seems, based upon earlier testimony. And maybe you can help me
understand the political reality of what's going on in Mexico
today. Is it true--we have a Governor of one particular state
that is--that said he's not going to release water. And that
not only affects Brownsville, but that affects you. And I
believe we heard testimony for every gallon of water that's
released, that you're supposed to get two gallons of that. Is
that basically correct?
Mr. Trevino Garza. Well, Matamoros is, let's say, four
times bigger than Brownsville, our population. And, yes, in
this case not just Matamoros, but the state is suffering if the
water is not released. We do our work, and we do have the
statistics, like I heard Mr. Ortiz say, we have the satellite
picture of the irrigation on Chihuahua state, you know, what's
going on.
We also have the precipitation that has been going on for
the last 10 years, and there is a drought, but it has rained.
So what I'm saying is I think that if we work something
together between both Governors, not just at the higher level,
but also here with the community, the Valley and also, in this
case, Tamaulipas, can get the benefit because right now
whatever water, even if it's not being complied with the treaty
that they've been giving to the U.S., basically it's not
getting to Tamaulipas.
So it's not really just Matamoros. It's not just the U.S.,
it's also Tamaulipas. So I've been willing to take what I've
heard very interesting this day to my mayor and to my Governor,
and with the Governor we do have already all the community or
different representative areas from the citizens to get
involved for the water issues to maybe work something out also
together with the people.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Ortiz.
Mr. Ortiz. I think that it would be important for you to--
and you know most of the players in this room, am I correct
when I say that?
Mr. Trevino Garza. That's correct.
Mr. Ortiz. For you to get together and maybe start from the
grass roots and move up and get our Governor, our friend
Yarrington on the Mexican side of Tamaulipas. He understands
the seriousness of the problem as well because it is impacting
on his constituents.
Mr. Trevino Garza. That's correct.
Mr. Ortiz. And I'll be willing to work with you, and I know
most of the members of this Subcommittee, and we talked to
President Fox--this is why it's very frustrating, because we've
been to the top levels. But maybe since we've been to the top
levels, let's begin with a grass roots movement and look at the
different angles, including sanctions and all.
You know, I worked very hard to get money for two
substations to inspect vehicles coming in from Mexico to this
country, and they have to realize that this is a two-way
street, not a one-way street. We're going to put a lot of fire
up maybe after this hearing this morning.
Carlos, you know what we can do. Let's get together and I
think that this would be an open alliance to let people in both
countries know that we mean business, and that we're going to
do something about it.
Mr. Trevino Garza. And one of the reasons that I came to
ask you if I could come forward was, you know, when you
mentioned penalties, we already have a penalty over there
without water. And, of course, it would be tougher to have
another one.
There are some things to be looked at, and that is one of
those. But there were some other simple issues, you know, Jo
White mentioned here about the chemicals on the river and all
that. Matamoros, we're already using those chemicals. The
hydrilla is on my lagoon now. It's not only on the river. So
those are some things that we can work out with our people here
and see if we can get the support from higher levels to some
kind of work, an alliance to push for the whole area, not
just--it's a region, like they said.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you very much.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I want to close this by thanking
all the witnesses that came forward today, certainly the
audience and the members of the media that hopefully will
report this story far and wide, because, obviously, attention
needs to be brought to this issue. I want to thank our host,
Mr. Solomon Ortiz, for his hospitality in hosting our Committee
here in the community and we look forward to working with you
and this administration.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for making time for us
in this community, and we hope that this will not be the last
visit.
We thank Congresswoman Napolitano, Congressman Rodriguez,
the staff did a fine job, and all the witnesses and the
audience who were with us this morning. Thank you so much.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, the Subcommittee was adjourned].
The following information was submitted for the record:
LBlankinship, David R., Texas Parks and Wildlife,
Statement submitted for the record
LCarpenter, George W., General Manager, Hidalgo
County Irrigation District Number One, Statement submitted for
the record
LCombs, Susan, Texas Agriculture Commissioner,
Statement submitted for the record
LLucio, Hon. Eddie Jr., State Senator, Texas State
Senate, Letter submitted for the record
LMaley, Joe, Director of Organization, Texas Farm
Bureau, Statement submitted for the record
LOliveira, Hon. Rene O., Texas House of
Representatives, Statement submitted for the record
LPrewett, Ray, Texas Citrus Mutual and Texas
Vegetable Association, Statement submitted for the record
LRosson, C. Parr III, Aaron Hobbs and Flynn
Adcock, Department of Agricultural Economics, Center for North
American Studies, Texas A&M University, Statement submitted for
the record
[A statement submitted for the record by Mr. Blankinship
follows:]
Statement of David R. Blankinship, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
In February 2001, the estuary of the lower Rio Grande was separated
from the Gulf of Mexico by a sand bar. The confluence of the Rio Grande
with the Gulf of Mexico has been lost since this date except for a 3-
month period from the end of July to the first week of November 2001
when a channel was opened using machinery. The formation of the sand
bar resulted from the normal sand transport process along the western
Gulf of Mexico and low flows in the Rio Grande. Since the mid-1990's,
flows from the Rio Grande to the Gulf have been low enough to result in
a gradual closing of the river mouth. Today, the river mouth remains
closed even though water flows past the last gauge near Brownsville.
The net amount of water that reaches the mouth of the river is not
enough to reconnect or maintain a confluence with the Gulf of Mexico.
As a result of the loss of the estuary of the Rio Grande, estuarine
dependent organisms that normally utilize the habitat during part of
their life cycles have been unable to do so. Studies conducted in the
months following the closing of the river mouth have shown that some
economically and ecologically important species have been impacted.
Production of white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus), common snook
(Centropomus undecimalis), and striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) have
been drastically reduced.
The estuary of the lower Rio Grande is unique in this arid region
despite its relatively small size. There is not another river that
flows into the Gulf of Mexico for more than 100 miles to the north or
south making the Rio Grande all the more important for the production
of some estuarine dependent species. One of these species is the common
snook mentioned above. Common snook do not reproduce in large numbers
farther north than the mouth of the Rio Grande yet its relative
abundance in the estuary of the Rio Grande has shown that the estuary
is an important habitat for juvenile production.
The loss of habitat such as the estuary of the Rio Grande is
potentially disturbing to the marine ecosystem of south Texas and
northern Tamaulipas. The loss of such an estuary due to reduction of
freshwater inflows might also give us warning of the potential for
similar occurrences in other regions of the United States if freshwater
inflows are not insured. Freshwater inflows are the lifeblood of our
bays and estuaries.
______
[A statement submitted for the record by Mr. Carpenter
follows:]
HIDALGO COUNTY IRRIGATION DISTRICT NO. ONE
P.O. BOX 870
EDINBURG, TX. 78540 WILLARD FIKE, PRESIDENT
D.L. MCGUFFIN, VICE PRESIDENT
MARK J. FRYER, SECRETARY
R.L. (BOBBY) BELL,JR, DIRECTOR
LAWRENCE RICE, DIRECTOR
KIRBY CAVIN, ATTORNEY
GEORGE W. CARPENTER, DISTRICT MANAGER
ESTELLA GARZA, TAX ASSESSOR/COLLECTOR
The Honorable Solomon Ortiz
U.S. House of Representatives
3505 Boca Chica Blvd. Suite 200
Brownsville, Texas 78523
Re: Written Testimony -- Congressional Field Hearing
Dear Congressman Ortiz,
On behalf of Hidalgo County Irrigation District Number One, its
Board of Directors and farmers, I want to express our gratitude for
your untiring and aggressive efforts to resolve the water crisis in the
Lower Rio Grande Valley.
HCID 1 has a project (Curry Main Pipeline Project) approved under
Public Law 106-576.
A more extensive project (North Branch East Main Project) is
included as a part of H.R. 2990.
The Congressional Subcommittee Field Hearing held on May 3, 2002,
in Brownsville included testimony regarding H.R. 2990.
Although, I was not appointed to give oral testimony at the
hearing, your staff thought that written testimony might be accepted
which was in fact delivered to the subcommittee staff at the beginning
of the hearing.
Because our testimony was not officially accepted for the record by
the chairman, I am sending you a copy to either be submitted or used by
you in any way which may be beneficial in passing this amendment.
Thanking you again for your efforts,
George W. Carpenter
District Manager
cc: Larry Meyers, Meyers and Associates
______
[A statement submitted for the record by Ms. Combs
follows:]
Statement of Texas Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs
I want to thank U.S. Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz for convening this
timely hearing today examining the growing water crisis in the Lower
Rio Grande Valley and ways to assist the region with water conservation
projects included in H.R. 2990. The water crisis in this region has
been fueled by Mexico's failure to completely abide by the 1944 U.S.-
Mexico Water Treaty. This failure has had a dramatic impact on the
entire Lower Rio Grande Valley economy but especially agriculture. I am
hopeful this hearing will demonstrate to Congress the importance of
H.R. 2990 and other such efforts to ensure the Lower Rio Grande Valley
has an adequate water supply.
All the empirical evidence available to us indicates that water is
available to meet the terms of this treaty, and that drought is not an
issue. We have satellite photos showing reservoir shoreline changes
during high irrigation periods in Chihuahua starting in March and
ending in September and October. In addition, a recent Texas A&M
University Extension Service analysis of acreage, yields and crops in
Chihuahua from Mexico's agricultural agency, SAGARPA, demonstrates that
the region has been changing its crop profile. Over the last decade,
agricultural production in Chihuahua has moved from low-value crops
that require lower amounts of water, such as barley, wheat and soybeans
to higher-value crops that require more water, such as alfalfa,
peanuts, tree fruits, cantaloupes and onions. Interestingly enough,
this changeover has occurred during a drought. In fact, the same Texas
A&M University report found that 1997--a drought year--was a record
year for acreage and production of irrigated crops in Chihuahua. The
report also has found that overall, Chihuahua crop yields are up 8
percent during the drought years of 1995-99.
In contrast, it is estimated that the aggregate value of the 1.5
million acre-foot water debt to the United States since 1992 has
amounted to a nearly $1 billion net loss to the Lower Rio Grande
Valley's overall economy. This damage includes lost wages, rents,
interest, profits and other net income, along with 30,000 jobs
eliminated from 1992-2002, according to another Texas A&M University
study on the value of Rio Grande Valley irrigation water.
Based on Mexico not providing its annual 350,000 acre-feet of
water, the direct loss in crop sales in this region is approximately
$11 million per year. Based on the entire debt of 1.5 million-acre feet
of water, the overall direct loss in crop sales is approximately $477
million. A minimum of 1,720 farmers in Cameron, Hidalgo, Maverick,
Starr, Webb, Willacy and Zapata counties are estimated to be affected
by the water debt to the United States.
On behalf of these farmers, Texas agriculture and the Lower Rio
Grande Valley's economy, I urge you to consider all means available to
bring relief to those affected, including H.R. 2990 and S.1577, and to
develop a resolution to this dispute that is acceptable to all parties.
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Mr. Lucio follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9406.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9406.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9406.003
[A statement submitted for the record by Mr. Maley
follows:]
Statement of Joe Maley, Director of Organization, Texas Farm Bureau
Texas Farm Bureau greatly appreciates Congressman Ortiz and
Chairman Calvert for arranging this field hearing on this important
issue. It is an honor to have the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Water, in the Rio
Grande Valley of Texas.
The U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty of 1944 has been a critical instrument
in guiding the development of the Rio Grande Valley. Cities,
agriculture and industry have all relied upon the assurances provided
by the treaty in making long term investments in this region. While
some may try to characterize this as a ``local issue'', it is not--it
is an ``International issue'' for both the United States and Mexico. It
is vital that both the countries honor the treaty.
The 1944 treaty obligates Mexico to allow an average of 350,000
acre feet of water flow to the Rio Grande River annually during five
year cycles, while obligating the U.S. to allow an average of 1,500,000
acre feet of water flow to Mexico from the Colorado River. During the
1992-1997 cycle, Mexico accrued a deficit of 1, 024,000 acre feet. That
deficit has continued to increase during the 1997-2002 cycle, and could
total approximately 1,700,000 acre feet by this October. Mexico has
failed to accept responsibility for this deficit or address existing
problems in order to ensure future compliance.
Severe water shortages in the Rio Grande Valley have caused South
Texas severe economic consequences. Many agricultural operations in the
region have gone out of business, or, are in dire jeopardy due to the
lack of Treaty obligated water. U.S. water reserves for use in this
region are at all time lows. Even greater economic losses will occur
this year unless there is a resolution to this crisis. While our focus
is on U.S. producers, we understand the same crisis exists for neighbor
boarder areas in Mexico which also depend upon the Rio Grande River.
The Rio Grande Valley area has experienced a decline of over
100,000 acres of irrigated farmland since 1992. This has resulted in a
dramatic decline in income for many producers. Agricultural related
business and industry and the communities they serve have suffered from
the loss of economic activity.
Job opportunities have also suffered due to Mexico's failure to
meet its obligations. Farm laborers play a vital role in the production
of food and fiber. With the reduction in irrigation, and the depressing
effect that has on farm production and capital, the need for farm
workers has diminished. This creates hardships for these workers and
their families. It also threatens the long term availability of an
adequate farm labor workforce.
We need to reduce our dependence upon Mexico and the weather to
supply significant portions of water resources to meet regional needs.
Improvements in the irrigation canal systems need to be expedited. The
proposals contained in H.R. 2990, which was introduced by Congressmen
Hinojosa, Ortiz, Bonilla, Gonzalez, Reyes and Rodriguez, contain many
needed improvements to the canal system. Their favorable consideration
and expedient completion should be a priority.
Advances in technology and conservation need to be implemented to
better utilize the limited available water. Alternative water sources
need to be explored and developed, along with water quality improvement
efforts.
Agricultural producers have made long term investments based upon
the assurance that our government will protect those investments by
enforcing the Water treaty. Producers have suffered financially from
our government's failure to force Mexico to comply with the treaty.
Federal compensation or support of these producers must be given
serious consideration.
It is important to point out that producers may also suffer by
having their normally irrigated crop land considered ``dryland'' for
crop insurance purposes. An irrigated farm without a dryland history is
assigned the county T-yield, which is dramatically lower than irrigated
yields. Also, due to the greater risk involved with raising non-
irrigated crops, the premium is greater. This results in irrigated
producers paying more in premiums for coverage that provides less
protection than they would normally have.
Texas Farm Bureau calls upon the federal government, through the
State Department, to aggressively enforce compliance with the 1944
Water Treaty. Should these efforts fail, other options can and should
be considered by Congress. We encourage efforts to improve efficiencies
in the water system. We also call upon the federal government to
provide adequate protection or compensation for producers who suffer
losses caused by treaty non-compliance.
Texas Farm Bureau calls upon Mexico to make timely and diligent
efforts to pay down its water debt. We also call upon Mexico to make
changes in its water policy and reservoir management practices to
ensure that it can and will comply with the treaty in the future.
Again, ``Thank you'' to the Committee for holding this hearing to
bring attention to this critical issue. Thanks also to the committee
for considering improvements contained in H. R. 2990 to the current
water canal system. Texas Farm Bureau will continue to work to bring
about a positive resolution to the treaty issue.
Summary:
Texas Farm Bureau requests that the Federal Government ensure that
Mexico comes into, and stays within, compliance with the U.S.-Mexico
Water Treaty of 1944, Minute No. 234 and Minute No. 307.
______
[A statement submitted for the record by Mr. Oliveira
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Rene O. Oliveira, Member, Texas House of
Representatives
I respectfully request that this be entered as written testimony
for consideration by your distinguished committee. Given the urgency of
our region's water problems, and as the local state representative, I
am grateful that you selected Brownsville to conduct your hearing.
The Rio Grande Valley of Texas is an area precariously caught
between international agreements, unfavorable climate cycles, and the
impact of the water management practices of another nation on the Rio
Grande, our primary water source.
Mexico's repayment of the existing water debt, and future adherence
to the 1944 treaty, are essential to the well being of local
agriculture. Our problems do not stop there, however. Other long-term
issues, such as improving irrigation infrastructure, the implementation
of large-scale regional desalinization and reverse osmosis programs,
and improving the Rio Grande's water quality, should be given careful
Congressional consideration.
As you will hear today, our current irrigation system is largely
outmoded, resulting in large levels of water evaporation and water
losses through irrigation canal seepage. Above ground irrigation
systems also lose large amounts of water due to diminished water
pressure and lack of water volume at the field pump outlet as a result
of these conveyance inefficiencies. Combined, existing water conveyance
systems result in a loss of an estimated 25 percent of our local water
supply.
By improving water conveyance through the lining and covering of
irrigation canals and using drip pipe irrigation, thousands of acre
feet of water could be saved each year. Our goal must be to use less
water while increasing crop yields. Federal assistance, such as the
elimination of a required local match for irrigation system
improvements, is essential in ensuring that these much-needed
improvements are made.
To ensure the region's future water supply needs, federal
assistance is also vital to the development of desalinization and
reverse osmosis programs in the Rio Grande Valley which is expected to
exceed a population of 2.1 million residents by 2050. In the portion of
the Mexican state of Tamaulipas adjacent to the Rio Grande, where the
corresponding local population currently exceeds 2 million residents,
population growth is projected to be proportionately greater than in
the Rio Grande Valley.
In Tamaulipas, the water use ratio of agriculture to municipal use
is even greater than it is in Texas where agriculture uses the vast
majority of water. This will place even greater demands on an already
strained and degenerating Rio Grande River, now the principal water
supply for cities on both sides of the river.
Additionally, local water experts affirm that in Brownsville's
corresponding Mexican city of Matamoros, Tamaulipas, with an estimated
population exceeding 500,000 residents, the municipal water delivery
system is antiquated, resulting in a loss of at least half of the water
that city draws from the Rio Grande. Again, management of our shared
resource is impacted by factors beyond our local or state control.
Water quality is also of vital concern as usage of the Rio Grande
increases. Pesticide runoff, nutrients, volatile organic compounds,
dissolved solids, trace elements, and the presence of myriad chemicals
from increased industrialization near the river are affecting the
safety of the water source. High nutrient levels have also driven the
proliferation of water hyacinth and hydrilla, plants which are
obstructing river flow, depleting water oxygen levels, and negatively
impacting the river's riparian habitat.
Further, because of reduced flows in the Rio Grande, salt water
from the Gulf of Mexico has encroached further upriver, increasing
salinity, and thereby diminishing the quality of water for both
agricultural and municipal uses. Also due to decreased river flows, the
mouth of the Rio Grande at the Gulf of Mexico recently closed requiring
bulldozers to reopen it. Its flow to Gulf of Mexico is of great
importance to shrimp estuaries and the reproductive migrations of red
drum, snook and spotted sea trout.
Federal assistance in vitally needed as testimony will underscore
today. The water debt and 1944 treaty compliance, federal assistance
with improvements in irrigation improvements and desalinization and
reverse osmosis projects, Mexico's impact on our shared water source,
and attention to Rio Grande water quality should be closely examined by
the federal government. Your assistance and leadership are greatly
appreciated.
______
[A statement submitted for the record by Mr. Prewett
follows:]
Statement of Ray Prewett, Texas Citrus Mutual and Texas Vegetable
Association
On behalf of the Texas citrus and vegetable industries, I
appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement for the record.
Both of these associations have been very active in addressing this
water issue. We commend this committee on holding this important
hearing. We particularly appreciate the hearing being held in our area
as opposed to it being in Washington D.C.
Agriculture in South Texas is on the verge of disaster. Many
farmers are on the verge of going broke. The agricultural industry and
the substantial number of related businesses and jobs are getting more
desperate every day.
Citrus and sugar cane growers are winding up a reasonably good
season, but disaster is right around the corner for them. Recently a
Texas A&M representative characterized the growing conditions for
cotton as ``off to a very poor start''. Vegetables like melons probably
have enough water to finish out the season because harvest has already
started. Will there be enough water to plant onions this fall? Will
citrus and sugar cane have enough water for this next season? Growing
cotton and grain sorghum as dry land as opposed to irrigated is a poor
alternative especially on soil that is not conditioned to growing these
crops on a dry land basis. Citrus, sugar cane and vegetables cannot be
produced as non-irrigated crops.
Crop insurance is supposed to be a safety net for agriculture, but
the irrigation water shortage and our government's interpretation of
the rules for our current water situation have dramatically reduced the
usefulness of this program. We have discussed this issue with top
officials in USDA, but they are not receptive to the basic notion the
problem we face is beyond our control and requires ``thinking outside
of the box''. We believe strongly that our government is at least
partly responsible for this water shortage problem because they have
failed to enforce the terms of an international treaty.
At least one of the 28 irrigation districts may be completely out
of irrigation water in two weeks. Some farmers are already out of
water. Most districts will be out or at least nearly out of irrigation
water by August.
Mexico claims they do not have the water to pay back the 1.5
million acre-feet they owe. Yet irrigation usage in Chihuahua, the
heart of the Rio Conchos river basin, has increased in the last 10
years while irrigated acreage in this Rio Grande Valley area has been
declining. If you were a farmer in South Texas, how would these
circumstances make you feel?
Texas A&M University has estimated that $652 per acre-foot of water
not used is the value of that water to the regional economy. If you
apply this value of water to the 1.5 million acre-feet owed, you come
up with a total impact on the regional economy of $978 million. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture finally released their report on the
impact of the Mexico deficit 60 days late and mostly what they had to
say was they had trouble finding data to determine the impact of this
deficit. How can the USDA fail to find data to measure a loss of
approximately $1 billion!
Producers in the Rio Grande Valley realize Mexico is not capable of
paying back their debt of 1.5 million acre-feet unless there is a
hurricane or similar large rain event in their watershed. Producers do
not want a handout but someone needs to provide at least some
``bridge'' assistance in this situation. The water debt was unexpected
until a few years ago and is totally out of the control of producers.
Bridge assistance in terms of cash assistance is needed to tide farmers
over until Mexico pays back its debt. H.R. 2990 will help conserve
water in this area in may be five years if the projects are authorized
and funded right away, but that may be too little too late. Farmers in
this area need help in the next two months and not in five years.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. I would
like to add in closing that if the federal government is serious about
helping with this crisis, a number of us are willing to sit down
starting tomorrow and work out the kind of assistance that would be
most helpful.
______
[A statement submitted for the record by Mr. Rosson
follows:]
A Preliminary Assessment of Crop Production and Estimated Irrigation
Water Use for Chihuahua, Mexico
C. PARR ROSSON, III
AARON HOBBS
FLYNN ADCOCK
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
CENTER FOR NORTH AMERICAN STUDIES
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
MAY 2, 2002A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF CROP PRODUCTION AND ESTIMATED
IRRIGATION WATER USE FOR CHIHUAHUA, MEXICO
Executive Summary
In May 2002, Mexico's accumulated water debt with the United States
had reached 1.5 million acre feet. Prolonged drought in South Texas and
northern Mexico, trade growth and increased agricultural production
spurred by NAFTA, and an increasing population and industrial base on
both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, have placed greater pressure on
the Rio Conchos/Rio Grande water system. During this time, 1994-99,
crop irrigation and production have continued in Chihuahua, which
contains the Rio Conchos basin, a major Mexican water source of the Rio
Grande River.
Irrigated production of the crops grown in the Mexican state of
Chihuahua and analyzed in this study increased 200 percent between 1980
and 1999, going from 1.0 million metric tons (mmt) to 3.0 mmt.
Irrigated harvested area increased 35 percent over the same period from
554,613 acres to 750,430 acres. From 1995 and 1999, irrigated
production was up 11.2 percent while irrigated harvested area increased
3.3 percent. Average irrigated crop yields increased nearly eight
percent over this same period, ranging from 0.4 percent for barley to
83 percent for cantaloupe.
Although the total acreage under irrigation has increased only
marginally, producers in Chihuahua have reduced harvested area for the
grains, soybean, and cotton crop category by 30,000 acres and forages
by 3,000 acres. Vegetables, melons, fruits, and nuts, however, account
for an increase of 55,700 irrigated acres, leading to a net gain of
22,700 acres under irrigation, an increase of 3.13 percent. This change
in irrigated crop mix was most likely profit driven as producers
switched from crops with relatively low prices, such as grain sorghum,
barley, rye and soybeans, to those with higher prices, such as alfalfa,
cantaloupe, peanuts, peppers, potatoes, and watermelon. It should be
noted that many of these alternative crops are more water-intensive
than crops previously produced in Chihuahua.
Irrigation water use, while down from its peak of 2.3 million acre
feet (maf) in 1997, increased five percent from 1995-99, with the
largest increase, 47 percent, between 1996 and 1997. Increased
irrigation water use was due to larger acreage of water-intensive crops
such as alfalfa, apples, pecans, melons, vegetables, and corn. It is
estimated that irrigated alfalfa acreage increased 11 percent from
1999-2001, while production tripled, due mostly to higher yields.
Despite prolonged drought, producers in Chihuahua have continued to
grow irrigated crops. Although total irrigated acreage has increased
only marginally, producers have switched from crops that use less water
to crops that use more water, causing total water use to rise by more
than the increase in total irrigated acreage. While Mexico claims that
surface water use has fallen, it appears that the use of wells for
irrigation has increased. Continued groundwater irrigation in the
region will likely reduce stream runoff and limit the flow of water
from the Rio Conchos basin into the Rio Grande, though the precise
amount is not measurable with existing data.A Preliminary Assessment of
Crop Production and Estimated Irrigation Water Use for Chihuahua,
Mexico
Drought in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (LRGV) and northern
Mexico has focused recent attention on the importance of the Rio
Conchos watershed as a major source of shared water between the two
countries. Trade growth and increased agricultural production spurred
by NAFTA, along with an increasing population and industrial base on
both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, have placed greater pressure on
the Rio Conchos/Rio Grande water system. In the Rio Conchos basin,
agricultural irrigation represented 92.7 percent of total water use in
1995 (Kelly, p. 16). In the LRGV of Texas, irrigation accounts for 85
percent of water use.
Mexican authorities claim that the drought (1994-99) has reduced
available water so that they cannot deliver the 350,000 acre feet (af)/
year agreed to in the Water Treaty of 1944. Mexico's accumulated water
debt has reached 1.5 million acre feet (maf). Recent articles in the
Austin-American Statesman document the growing water shortages in
Chihuahua, where many of the tributaries draining into the Rio Conchos
originate. Some authorities in Texas and the United States claim that
Mexico is in violation of the treaty and are calling for a resolution
of the issue. These views are documented in the Brownsville Herald and
the McAllen Monitor, and most recently in major news reports by the
Associated Press and Washington Post.
The purpose of this study is two-fold:
1. To document recent trends in irrigated production of major crops
grown in the Mexican state of Chihuahua, focusing on the drought period
1994-99, and
2. To estimate the amount of irrigation water used in Chihuahua to
sustain crop production under semi-arid conditions in the region.
All results reported in this study are preliminary and may change
as additional data become available and are incorporated into the
analysis.
Chihuahua and the Rio Conchos
Chihuahua is a diverse agricultural production region. Although
historically known for production of apples, peaches, and pecans, more
recently there has been increased production of peanuts, alfalfa,
cantaloupe, and watermelon. Crops are grown under semi-arid conditions.
Rainfall averages from 13.8-16.7 inches per year, with two-thirds
occurring from May-October, and peak rainfall from July to September
(CROPOWAT 7.0). October-January is relatively dry with less than 1.0
inch falling in most months. Since 1960, temperatures at the Chihuahua,
Chihuahua weather station have averaged from a low of 50 degrees
Farenheit in late November through January to a high 80.6 degrees in
early June (USDA, FAS, PECAD).
It has been documented that annual inflows to La Boquilla,
Chihuahua's largest reservoir, were 33 percent lower during the period
1994-99, 699,000 af, compared to the long-term historical average,
1.043 maf (Kelly and Comision Nacional del Agua-CNA). The major
irrigation districts in the Rio Conchos basin reduced water use between
42 percent to 15 percent during the drought period (1994-99, Kelly).
The Texas Center for Policy Studies report noted that as surface water
availability has declined, the use of wells for irrigation has
increased. This led to high extraction rates for some of Chihuahua's
major aquifers, with use exceeding recharge by 19 to 127 percent. It is
not clear that overuse of these aquifers has reduced water flows into
the Rio Conchos and its tributaries, but concerns have been raised
about this possibility. Some analysts believe that drought in Mexico
and Texas, coupled with increased water use from wells in Chihuahua,
likely exacerbated the water problem, leading to reduced water
availability for irrigation in the LRGV of Texas and in the Mexican
state of Tamaulipas. It was estimated that annual average rainfall in
the Rio Conchos basin was 47 percent of normal in 1994 and 69 percent
of normal in 1995. For 1993, 1996, and 1997 rainfall was estimated at
about 80 percent of normal levels (Kelly from the Brandes Report).
Surface water represents about 20 percent of the available
irrigation water supply in the Delicias irrigation district, with the
major sources being the La Boquilla and Francisco Madero reservoirs
(Kelly). Together, these two reservoirs account for 77 percent of
storage capacity in the Rio Conchos basin (Center for North American
Studies-CNAS estimate). The San Gabriel and Pico de Aguila supply the
Rio Florido irrigation district, which uses primarily surface water for
irrigation. The Bajo Rio Conchos district relies primarily on the Luis
L. Leon reservoir. CNA estimates indicate that water use efficiency in
the Rio Conchos basin is about 40 percent (Kelly). It is likely that
these high rates of water loss represent system delivery inefficiencies
due to seepage and evaporation in canals as well as irrigation losses
due to runoff, wind, evaporation, and improper irrigation water
application. It is uncertain exactly what proportion of total
irrigation water is represented by surface sources and groundwater
throughout the Rio Conchos basin.
Crop Production Trends
Irrigated crop production in the Mexican state of Chihuahua has
increased 200 percent since 1980, from 1.0 million metric tons (mmt) to
3.0 mmt in 1999 (table 1). Irrigated harvested area increased 35
percent over the same period from 554,613 acres to 750,430 acres.
Yields for all irrigated crops increased 114 percent to 4.03 mt/acre.
For 1999, grains, soybeans, and cotton accounted for 41 percent of
irrigated production in Chihuahua, followed by forages (22 percent),
tree nuts, fruits, and peanuts (20 percent), and vegetables (17
percent). It is estimated that irrigated production represents about 82
percent of total agricultural production in the state, but this varies
widely by crop.
The peak in irrigated acreage and production in Chihuahua was 1997
when 1,106,341 acres were harvested to produce 4.274 mmt of output
(table 1). Since then, irrigated acreage has fallen 32 percent,
production is down 29 percent, but irrigated crop yields have declined
only four percent. Irrigated corn, alfalfa, cotton, pecans, apples, dry
beans, and green peppers represented 73 percent of total irrigated crop
acreage in Chihuahua for 1999.
Grains, Soybeans, and Cotton
Irrigated corn acreage was 38 percent of total corn acreage in
1999, but accounted for 85 percent of corn production. Since 1995
irrigated corn acreage has increased 23.2 percent, from 123,861 acres
to 152,414 acres (table 1). Production of irrigated corn increased 63
percent, while yields were up by 33 percent. Peak irrigated corn
production occurred in 1992 at 725,000 mt. Irrigated corn acreage,
however, peaked in 1993 at 327,845, with yields peaking in 1999 at
2.784 mt/acre or about 110 bushels/acre.
Mexico's Servicio de Informacion Y Estadistica Agroalimentaria Y
Pesquera (SIAP) reports that for the 2001 crop year Chihuahua's total
corn for grain production was 657,120 mt while total acreage was
560,455. Center for North Americas Studies estimates of irrigated corn
production and acreage are 523,987 mt and 191,115 acres, respectively.
The irrigated corn yield for 2001 was calculated to be 2.74 mt/acre or
108 bushels. These estimates assume that irrigated corn acreage was
34.1 percent of total in 2001 which was the average from 1995-99 and
that irrigated corn production was 79.74 percent of total corn
production, reflective of the same five year average. These estimates
would indicate that between 1999 and 2001 irrigated corn acreage in
Chihuahua increased by 25 percent and that irrigated corn production
was up 23 percent.
Irrigated cotton acreage has declined nearly 10 percent since 1995
and peaked at 158,000 acres in 1997. Irrigated production was off by
the same amount, but yields held steady at about 1.43 bales per acre.
Irrigated acreage of soybeans, grain sorghum, rye grass, wheat and
barley have all declined over the periods 1990-99 and 1995-99. In 1999
there were only 1,600 acres of barley for grain and 300 acres of
soybeans harvested in the state.
Forages
Alfalfa is the number one irrigated forage crop produced in
Chihuahua accounting for 69 percent of acreage and 64 percent of
irrigated forage production in 1999 (table
1. Oats, corn, sorghum, and wheat account for a majority of the
remaining output.
Alfalfa acreage has increased 14 percent since 1995, but 110
percent since 1990 and was not reported in any significant amount
before 1987. Alfalfa production has expanded 64 percent since 1995,
while yields have increased 44 percent over the same period. For 2001,
SIAP estimates indicate that alfalfa acreage was up by 11 percent in
2001 over 1999, while production nearly tripled to 2.0 mmt with yields
up 159 percent to 15.51 mt/acre. Corn, sorghum, and oats forages have
all declined in acreage since 1995, but oats forage production has
increased by 26 percent due to higher yields.
2. Tree Nuts, Tree Fruits and Peanuts
Irrigated apples and pecans accounted for 84 percent of tree fruit,
tree nut, and peanut acreage in 1999 (table 1). Apple acreage was up
nine percent since 1995 and 31 percent since 1990, while pecan acreage
increased by 21 and 53 percent, respectively, over the same period.
Irrigated apple output increased 17 percent, while pecan production was
up 54 percent. Peanuts, the next most important irrigated crop of this
category with 20,119 harvested acres in 1999, were up 303 percent in
acreage and 313 percent in production since 1995. Peanut acreage also
increased 20 percent from 1990-99, while output was up 71 percent over
the same period.
Melons and Vegetables
Irrigated vegetable and melon acreage has increased 23 percent
since 1995 and 177 percent since 1990, while production is up 41 and
255 percent for the same periods (table 1). Peak acreage and production
occurred in 1997, with total acreage falling 30 percent and production
off 18 percent since then. Irrigated dry beans, green peppers, and
onions accounted for 73 percent of total irrigated reported vegetable
acreage and 64 percent of irrigated vegetable production. Potatoes, dry
peppers, watermelon, cantaloupe, and tomatoes represent the other major
vegetable crops grown in the region. All other vegetable crops reported
declines in acreage and production, but accounted for only 1,600
harvested acres.
The largest proportional increases in vegetable and melon acreage
were for watermelon, dry peppers, potatoes, cantaloupe and onions.
Acreage increases for 1995-99 ranged from eight percent for tomatoes to
116 percent for watermelon. Increases in irrigated production (1995-99)
ranged from 230 percent for watermelon and 110 percent for cantaloupe
to 96 percent for potatoes and 43 percent for onions. Irrigated
production of tomatoes and dry peppers experienced declines of 31 and
11 percent, respectively.
Over the 1990-99 period irrigated watermelon acreage was up 600
percent, followed by tomatoes (517 percent), dry beans (151 percent),
cantaloupe (132 percent), green peppers (120 percent), and onions (61
percent). Production increases over the same period were 891 percent
for watermelon, 702 percent for tomatoes, 452 percent for cantaloupe,
180 percent for green peppers, 160 percent for dry beans, and 83
percent for potatoes.
Summary
From 1995-99, producers in Chihuahua have reduced harvested area
for the grains, soybean, and cotton crop category by 30,000 acres and
forages by 3,000 acres. Vegetables, melons, fruits, and nuts account
for an increase of 55,700 irrigated acres, leading to a net gain of
22,700 acres under irrigation, an increase of 3.13 percent. This change
in irrigated crop mix was likely profit driven as producers switched
from crops with relatively low prices, such as grain sorghum and
soybeans, to those with higher prices, such as alfalfa, cantaloupe,
peanuts, peppers, potatoes, and watermelon. It should be noted that
many of these alternative crops are more water-intensive than crops
previously produced in Chihuahua.
Estimated Irrigation Water Use
Irrigation water use estimates were derived using irrigated acreage
numbers from the above analysis and applying them to the CROPWAT model
version 7 developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations. CROPWAT 7 calculates irrigation water use for various
crops after accounting for local evapo-transpiration rates, water use
efficiency, rainfall, soil type, and optimum yields for each crop. To
estimate water use in Chihuahua, CROPWAT was adjusted to reflect actual
evapo-transpiration rates for Chihuahua based upon semi-arid climactic
conditions, local rainfall amounts, a medium soil, 50 percent water use
efficiency, and optimum yields for each crop analyzed. Data were
lacking for four crops, potatoes, cucumbers, other fruits, and other
vegetables, so the estimates in this report reflect a lower bound for
the actual irrigation water used in the state. It should be emphasized
that these estimates are preliminary and may change as this analysis is
refined.
Total estimated irrigation water use in Chihuahua has nearly
doubled since 1980 from 1.2 maf to a peak usage of 2.3 maf in 1997
(table 2). Since 1980, average annual irrigation water use increased by
five percent each year up to the peak usage. The single largest year-
to-year increase in the use of water for irrigation occurred from 1995
to 1996 when usage expanded by 47 percent, likely due to worsening
drought conditions in the Rio Conchos basin. Since 1997, irrigation
water use has fallen to 1.58 maf in 1999, a drop of 31 percent. Between
1995-99 irrigation water use increased five percent, indicating that
while reservoirs in the Chihuahua may have fallen due to drought,
producers switched to underground water sources for irrigation.
Five crops used 1.173 maf of irrigation water in 1999 and accounted
for 74 percent of irrigation water use. In order of importance, these
were: corn (293.6 thousand acre feet-taf), alfalfa (261 taf), cotton
(224.2 taf), apples (193.9 maf), and pecans (174.8 taf) (table 2).
Among these top five crops, water use per acre ranged from a low of
1.92 af for corn to a high of 3.38 af for apples. Due to relatively low
water delivery efficiency in most of the region and to low water use
efficiency on farm, these per acre usage figures could increase as this
analysis is refined to more accurately reflect the actual efficiency of
water use in the region. It has been estimated that 90 percent of the
alfalfa and most of the pecan orchards in the region are flood
irrigated, leading to relatively high rates of water loss due to runoff
and evaporation (Kelly and Personal interview, Julie Watson Associated
Press 5/1/02).
Green peppers, grain sorghum, and wheat together used 197.3 taf of
irrigation water in 1999 (table 2). Other major crops using irrigation
water were oats, dry beans, onions, peanuts, and watermelon, which
together used an estimated 159.3 taf of irrigation water in 1999. Dry
peppers, tomatoes, peaches, rye grass, and cantaloupe accounted for
most of the remaining irrigation water use. Among these crops, peaches
is the most water intensive on a per acre basis (3.38 af), followed by
tomatoes (2.91 af), cantaloupe (2.03 af), dry peppers (1.76 af), and
rye grass (1.03 af).
2. Conclusions
Despite prolonged drought, irrigation and agricultural production
have continued in Chihuahua, Mexico. While total irrigated acreage has
declined 32 percent from the peak in 1997, it has increased over the
period 1995-99 by three percent, while irrigated production rose 11
percent. Producers have switched from relatively low profitability
crops to alternatives that are more profitable and more water-
intensive. As a result, irrigation water use, while down from its peak
of 2.3 maf in 1997, increased five percent from 1995-99, with the
largest increase, 47 percent, between 1996 and 1997. It is estimated
that irrigated alfalfa acreage has increased 11 percent from 1999-2001,
but production tripled due to higher yields. It is uncertain what
proportion of total irrigation water is from surface and groundwater
sources. Increased use of aquifers in the Rio Conchos basin, however,
will most likely lower the water table in the region, leading to
reduced runoff and less surface water availability downstream in the
Rio Grande River.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9406.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9406.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9406.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9406.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9406.008