Home |
Mexico |
Sonoran Desert |
Chihuahua Desert |
Baja |
Mexico Travel Services |
Mexico News Sources |
Mexico Books |
Borderlands |
Sabal, Part 1
Among all natural resource and environmental problems between the United States and Mexico, water has been the most troublesome. Because much of the 3,140-kilometer (km) boundary between Mexico and the United States passes through regions of water scarcity, there has been intense competition over the waters of two major rivers, the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo and the Colorado river...Water is fundamental to economic activity, and the presence of ample supplies of high-quality water determines whether and where sustainable development can occur." Ingram, Milich and Varady, 1994
"Throughout the history of the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas, water has remained a critical factor, limiting and directing the development of the region's natural resources. The Valley's water problems stem from the feast or famine nature of water supplies in this subtropical, semi-arid region".- Ramirez, Jr. 1986
Communities along the United States-Mexican border, from El Paso to the Gulf of Mexico, rely upon the Rio Grande as a provider of life and the primary source of water. The river provides 97 percent of water for the Lower Rio Grande Basin. The Basin extends from the Falcon dam to the Gulf along a 100 mile corridor on both sides of the river.This water is used for consumption, irrigating crops, supporting wildlife, and for recreation. Yet, as the current drought demonstrates, the water supply is often uncertain and unpredictable. Further, increased water demands from a growing urban population have raised additional concerns about the long-term water supply. It is, therefore, important to understand and address the various stresses and demands on this resource in order to ensure a sustainable water supply for the future.
To assist communities of the Lower Rio Grande Basin to work towards sustainable and rational water use and plan for the needs of wildlife and people, the National Audubon Society (NAS) assembled this report on water quantity issues. Audubon has had a long history in protecting the environment and preserving habitat critical for the survival of people and wildlife. Through its Sabal Palm Grove Sanctuary in Brownsville, Audubon is working to ensure the continuation of a unique habitat preserve in the Lower Rio Grande. Critical to this goal, as well as to the larger goal of a safe and sustainable environment, is the need for clean and sufficient quantities of water.
The sections that follow were written to assist local water management efforts and increase the general public's understanding of water issues. The information contained below assesses current and future availability of water given expected population growth and increased water demand. The document reports on how the river's waters are allocated, managed and used. Finally, actions to conserve and protect the region's water supplies are explored.
As mentioned, a wide range of social demographic, and environmental pressures affect the Lower Rio Grande region's water supply. Factors influencing the supply range from the natural to those man-made.
One of the most important factors complicating resource planning in the Basin is the Rio Grande's role as a border between Mexico and the United States. In addition, the river's path through three water-thirsty American states and numerous communities further complicates water management. The river's role as a border, and its crossing of states, means that regional and binational political considerations are essential to managing the Basin's water supply.
An additional factor which needs to be recognized is the border's explosive population growth. Rapid urban and industrial growth in the past fifteen years resulted in a 35 percent increase in municipal and industrial water use in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. The river must now provide for nearly two million people living in the Lower Rio Grande Basin. This is in addition to the population centers up-stream and along the tributaries that flow into the main channel. Furthermore, indications show that Lower Rio Grande Valley water demands will more than double over the next fifty years. This growth only adds to the urgency to improve water efficiency and increase long-term planning efforts.
Virtually all water needs in the Lower Rio Grande Basin are met by only one source of water, that provided by the Rio Grande. However, the water supplied by the river is limited and often inconsistent given the Basin semi-arid climate. The alternative water sources which exist, mainly small aquifers containing groundwater, are of such poor quality that they do not provide a real solution to the supply issue. Studies have shown that the groundwater supply is of poor brackish quality, containing high concentrations of boron and nitrates as well as dissolved solids, predominately sodium, chloride, and sulfate (McCoy, 1990).
Increased water demand has also resulted in numerous changes with the natural system of the river. In recent decades, the Rio Grande and many of its important tributaries have been damned, ditched and drained repeatedly before the river reaches its final destination at the Gulf. In addition, extensive land clearing has destroyed important riparian habitat and ground cover. Land clearing in the watershed has also contributed to increased erosion. As a result of these water and land-clearing projects, inflows from critical feeder tributaries are less assured and streamflow has decreased in the main Rio Grande channel.
The combined effects of erosion and decreased streamflow has been to narrow the river's channel size, thereby, reducing the river's capacity to absorb flood waters. These changes have negatively impacted the region's wildlife, in particular riverine and estuarine fish species dependent upon certain levels of freshwater stream flows. Some biologists attribute the extinction or reduction in certain species to the loss of habitat and decreased flows.
Perhaps more harmful to the people and wildlife of the Basin, has been the extensive dumping of large levels of human waste by communities residing along the river. The Rio Grande has been polluted with a wide range of municipal, industrial and agricultural contaminants as these border communities have grown without sufficient waste water treatment facilities.
The above pressures send a strong message that watershed management is needed in order to improve the health of the Basin and secure the region's water supply. There is an clear and intractable link between the health of the Rio Grande and the survival of the Texas and Mexico border communities. Unfortunately, the river is not in good health. This may change as public and private agencies, citizens, and community leaders increasingly recognize the state of the river and the need to change current practices. As a sign of change, Lower Rio Grande Valley and State leaders have taken steps to coordinate drought response efforts and design a comprehensive conservation plan.
While these actions are laudable and should be supported, greater efforts are needed to protect the water supply, in particular increased binational coordination and cooperation. It is the goal of this report to strengthen these efforts by providing a greater awareness and understanding of Lower Rio Grande Basin water issues.
Residents of the Lower Rio Grande Basin face an uncertain water supply. This is due not only to the increasing demands for water, but also because of the Basin's semi-arid climate. The climate along the border signifies that precipitation and inflows will periodically decline and result in a drought. A drought occurs, on average, once every seven to ten years (Salazar, 1995, Hinojosa, 1995).
Because the border region has grown so quickly, it is extremely important to prepare for droughts. Planning is needed to lessen the harmful effects of droughts and ensure that the Basin's growing water demands can be met during water shortages. This next section illustrates some of the effects of a drought and the community's response.
As of August 23, 1995, the United States' share of water in the Amistad and Falcon reservoirs had fallen to 42.8 percent of conservation storage levels, roughly 1.42 million acre feet of water. "Conservation capacity in a dam is the space available to store water above the level of the lowest outlet works and below the level of the top of the conservation pool or normal maximum operating level. This does not include any water in flood control storage (above the top of the conservation pool) (IBWC, 1995)."
Mexico's share of water has dropped to an alarming 7.95 percent of normal conservation storage levels, a little over 197,003 acre feet. Normal storage levels for Mexico should be 2,586,500 acre feet, while the United States' normal storage level is 3,464,000 acre-feet. Given the current storage levels, Mexico will run out of dependable water supplies for municipal and industrial water needs in the border in less than a year (Navarro, 1995).
In the case of the current drought, the impact on Mexican farmers could have been smaller since Mexico water authorities knew that storage levels were dropping to critical lows as of 1994. Unfortunately, Mexico did not implement conservation measures soon enough (Hinojosa 1995). Instead, those responsible for managing water seemed inclined to wait for a hurricane to answer the water shortfall. Mexican authorities only acted once the severity of the drought entered into a critical phase. Their eventual action was to suspend water for irrigation. Sadly, this came a little too late for the many farmers who had already planted crops expecting they would receive the necessary water.
According to the Matamoros Agricultural Association, 1.1 million tons of corn had been expected in Tamaulipas, however, only half that amount was harvested. Similarly, while one million metric tons of sorghum were originally anticipated for Tamaulipas, the final yield totaled 550,000 tons (Vindell, T. August 1995).
While water managers in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas have been more successful in conserving water, Valley farmers were not spared from the drought. Starr County in the Lower Rio Grande Valley was declared a disaster area, because of agricultural losses. Other border counties have applied to receive this declaration. Cameron County Extension Agent Terry Lockamy described this year's developments as a "complete wreck," resulting in the worse harvest he has witnessed during his 18 year tenure as a county agent (Lockamy, T., July 25, 1995).
The direct economic loss to Valley cotton farmers has been calculated at $143 million with US$ 30 million in losses to Cameron County (Dailey, R 1995, Taylor, M., 1995, Lockamy, T., August 1995). Grain sorghum and corn losses for Cameron County are estimated, respectively, at US$ 13.9 and US$ 3.67 million.
The impact of the drought has economic ramifications for the entire region. According to Dr. Merritt Taylor, a Texas A&M economist, every dollar brought into the Valley by agriculture generates an additional US$ 3.26 dollars. Considering this formula, cotton losses alone will result in a $429 million shortfall for the Valley. The full financial impact clearly increases if other crops and livestock are considered.
Perhaps more serious for the long-term health of the Valley is what may happen to agriculture producers. According to Terry Lockamy, the drought may force many farmers into bankruptcy as they find themselves unable to receive credit for next year's planting season.
Lack of metering has been cited as an important component of water management for several reasons. First off, use of meters helps communities obtain an accurate assessment of household or sectoral water use. Secondly, meters assist with cost recovery by making the billing system more precise as well as more equitable. Instead of charging consumers for water consumption using inaccurate information, consumers are fairly charged based on a precise metered amount. This helps to provide the necessary funds for maintain and expand the water systems. Finally, meters are important to any conservation effort by making consumers more aware of, and responsible for, water consumption.
Fortunately, not all communities have ignored the call to conserve water. Some have taken extensive actions to reduce water waste by conducting water audits, funding leak repair programs, and; through investments that help to secure the water supply. Specific steps for improving agriculture and urban water conservation practices will be explored later in this report.
A positive sign that things are changing in the Lower Rio Grande Valley was the recent formation of a Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Policy and Management Committee (VWPMC). The VWPMC is composed of irrigation districts, urban water managers and cooperating state and federal agencies. It was created to improve water management and coordinate drought response. Two Texas agencies, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), have also supported local needs by providing technical and financial assistance for a variety of programs. Projects include the development of a "model" drought management plan, irrigation water system evaluations, and; municipal and industrial water conservation programs. The next step is to increase binational cooperation and water planning.
As a final word, while droughts cannot be avoided in this semi-arid region, steps can be taken to reduce their deleterious effects. Alleviation requires improving how water is managed and conserved. The first step in this direction consists of recognizing the limited supply and non-dependable nature of water. This should be followed with actions to improve water efficiency such as reducing waste and preventable loss by maintaining and improving water distribution systems. Basin communities must continue to educate the public about conservation and their responsibilities. Finally, border communities need to increase cooperation regionally and binationally. Fortunately, recent actions affirm communities are moving in this direction.
The majority of the Lower Rio Grande Basin's water supply is provided by the Rio Grande. Unfortunately, nature created a situation whereby the water supply is neither constant, nor dependable. The water supply varies according to hydrological, geological and climatological conditions (Eaton and Andersen, 1987). While natural factors are extremely important in determining water availability, border residents must also consider how population demands have influenced water availability. The following section explores how these demands affect management of the Lower Basin's water supply.
Human needs impact the Rio Grande watershed and water supply and dictate how water is stored, distributed, and conserved. These needs, however, have been complicated by local, regional and international interests competing for the Basin's resources. These competing interests affect the river from its origins in Colorado until its final destination at the Gulf. One result of this competition has been the creation of various legal and political structures to manage the region's water supply. A complex set of treaties and water right laws have been established to guide how water is shared between the United States and Mexico as well as within each nation. The State of Texas has also created its own set of laws to guide water use.
Rio Grande water divisions, as well as water quality standards, are overseen by a federal agency from each country. In the United States, the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) has authority over the Rio Grande. This authority is shared with a Mexican counterpart, La Comision Internacional de Limites y Aguas (CILA). These agencies jointly operated two international storage reservoirs for water supply and flood control purposes (See Reservoirs).
Water that reaches these reservoirs is allocated between the United States and Mexico in accordance with precipitation and river in-flows (Valenzuela, 1995). Water is then divided according to guidelines stipulated in several international treaties. Based on these treaties, the United States is entitled to 56.2 percent of water in Amistad and 58.6 percent of Falcon water reserves.
The responsibility for releasing water to the Lower Rio Grande Valley rests with the Texas Watermaster's office; a position created by Texas courts in 1956. This office was subsequently incorporated into the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC). The Watermaster's office is responsible for requesting from the IBWC water diversions from the Amistad and Falcon reservoirs. According to the Watermaster, over 95 percent of water released to water right holders reaches its destination (Hinojosa, 1995). The Watermaster also oversees the transfer and use of water rights as well as charges for water supplies and storage (McCoy, 1990).
In Mexico, water quantity policies are set by the federal government administered through federal agencies. The most important agency in terms of management is the Comision Nacional de Agua (CNA). This agency instructs CILA to release water and overseas how water is managed in Mexico.
Still, binational conflict over water has arisen from time to time. For example, toward the end of the last century river use up-stream from El Paso resulted in decreased flows to Ciudad Juárez. This led the Mexican Consulate in El Paso to lodge a formal complaint with the Mexican Foreign Minister in Washington. Two years later, the United States responded with a request to study the situation.
The United States Secretary of State authorized the United States Commissioner of the International Boundary Commission to survey water distribution and recommend a plan for the equitable distribution of Rio Grande water. The eventual result of the initial complaint was the construction of the Elephant Butte Dam in New Mexico to create a more dependable water supply.
Several diplomatic efforts followed, the most important being the 1906 Convention for the Equitable Division of Waters of the Rio Grande and the Water Treaty of 1944. These binational treaties and agreements created a process for monitoring, crediting and dividing the surface waters of the Rio Grande. The Convention of 1906 provided for the division of the Rio Grande above Fort Quitman. This convention resulted in the pledge that the United States would deliver 60,000 acre-feet annually to Mexico from the Elephant Butte Dam except at times of extraordinary drought or serious accidents to the system (Friedkin, 1968).
The subsequent Water Treaty of 1944 required the United States and Mexico to divide the Rio Grande river's water below Fort Quitman and provided Mexico with an additional 1.5 million acre-feet of water per year to be supplied from the Colorado River. The two nations agreed to share water in Amistad and Falcon based on inflows. The United States receives credit for water originating on American soil and is granted a third of the flow from the Mexican tributaries: Rio Conchos, Arroyo De Las Vacas, Rio San Rodrigo, Rio Escondido and Rio Salado.
The United States receives a little over fifty percent of the water contained by Amistad and Falcon according to the treaties. Further, the United States is guaranteed a minimum of 350,000 acre-feet per year averaged over a five year cycle (Eaton and Hurlbut, 1992). In case of a severe drought resulting in the inability of Mexico to provide this minimum amount, Mexico is required to make up any deficiencies during the subsequent five-year cycle.
Mexico obtains credit for its tributaries and for a share of United States water. Furthermore, water in the main channel of the Rio Grande that is not otherwise allocated is divided equally between the two countries (Navarro, 1995). Mexico retains total rights to the flow of Mexican tributaries reaching the main channel of the Rio Grande downstream from Falcon dam such as Rio San Juan and Alamo (Eaton and Hurlbut, 1992).
Amistad is located approximately 13 miles upstream from Ciudad Acuna and Del Rio. It was completed in June 1969 with a conservation storage capacity of 3.38 million acre-feet. Seventy-five miles downstream of Laredo is Falcon Dam. This reservoir was completed in 1954 although water impoundment actually began in the summer of 1953. Falcon has a conservation storage capacity of 2.67 million acre-feet.
While these reservoirs help provide a more predictable source of water and help to control flooding, there are negative aspects to their existence. First off, there is significant loss of water to evaporation and percolation during storage. According to Eaton and Andersen (1987), as "water is stored, gravity pulls some fraction of the water down into...aquifers and the climate induces some fraction of the water into the atmosphere."
For all the expense to build the reservoirs, they also have a limited life span. For instance, the Rio Grande is an alluvial river that carries large quantities of soil. Soil continuously enters into the reservoirs, filling the dams with sedimentation. The sedimentation is slowly taking away the reservoirs' storage capacity. IBWC has stated that sedimentation will not impair storage capacity over the next fifty to one hundred years (Valenzuela, 1995). Fifty to one hundred years, however, is not that great a span of time in terms of community longevity.
The collective effect of impoundment, water withdrawals, and degradation of water returned to the rivers, according to one water watcher, has been profound. "The activities have reduced flows, altered historic flow patterns, altered estuarine ecosystems and reduced stream productivity, impeded sediment transport, increased stream erosion, and caused flooding of resources. They have degraded water quality by reducing oxygen levels, altering temperatures, and introducing nutrients, toxic wastes, and pathogens hazardous to people (Kaye, 1994).
After Falcon Dam was completed, the river channel's capacity in the Brownsville-Matamoros area declined from 30,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 20,000 cfs (Ramirez, 1986). As Ramirez notes, "the virtual absence of flood flows due to river impoundments has eliminated the scouring of sediments from the river bed. This has resulted in the aggradation of the river bed with subsequent reduction in channel capacity (Ramirez, 1986)." Ironically, this reduced capacity actually contributes to a greater potential for flooding as it takes less streamflow before water overflows the riverbanks.
In conclusion, when considering the benefits of building dams, communities must also weigh the numerous costs and effects. In the end, the trade-offs may not justify their construction.
Water allocation in the Texas-Mexico border is not only affected by international relations and diplomacy, it is also influenced by competition within each nation as well as between different sectors such as municipalities and agriculture. Guiding the allocation of surface water in Texas is the doctrine of water rights, while water use in Mexico is controlled by the federal government.
In Texas, the development of surface water rights has been complicated because the state adhered to a dual-doctrine utilizing initially the riparian doctrine, and later superimposing the doctrine of prior appropriation. According to the riparian doctrine, "the property owner adjacent to a watercourse has the right to use its water. Neither the amount of water nor purpose of use is specifically limited so long as it is reasonable (Chang and Griffin, 1992)." The doctrine of prior appropriation, which the Texas later adopted, holds that a water user "must obtain a license to divert a specified quantity of water to be applied in a specific beneficial use (Chang and Griffin, 1992)." This doctrine developed in the arid west to help regulate the water supply.
In Mexico, "the ultimate ownership of all natural resources in Mexico rests with the government of the nation. Riparian rights have never existed in Mexico (Rodriguez Langone, A, 1968)." The right to use water from rivers, streams and springs does not equate permanent ownership. If certain requirements are not complied with, the right to the water can be taken away.
The modern water rights system in Texas has been confusing due to the use of two doctrines. While still a republic, Texas adopted the English riparian doctrine that allowed property owners bordering streams the right to divert water for all reasonable uses.
The Texas Legislature later passed a series of acts in 1889 and 1895 stating the riparian rights would no longer be recognized and that water users would need to obtain water rights from the state. This change in policy was adopted to address the water needs in the arid regions of Texas. In addition, the state claimed all unappropriated waters in arid parts of Texas as state property (Chang and Griffin, 1992). As Chang and Griffin note, these acts did not do away with pre-existing riparian rights. Rather, the statutes "permitted new appropriation so long as it could not harm preexisting riparian rights (Chang and Griffin, 1992)."
By 1913, Texas required that anyone wanting to appropriate water would need a state permit. However, the declaration did not resolve the apparent conflict between the riparian and appropriation doctrine. For instance, during a severe drought in the early 1950s, the claimed water rights in the Lower Rio Grande Valley surpassed the actual water supply. It became clear during this period that a new approach to control the distribution of water was needed. The result was the filing of a lawsuit by the State of Texas in 1956 against 40 water districts and hundreds of individuals and corporations. The suit sought to answer who had and who did not have water rights.
It would take fifteen years before the process was concluded. However, prior to its completion, the state passed the Water Rights Adjudication Act to pool all surface water rights claims into a permit system (Chang and Griffin, 1992). Nearly 3,000 water right claims were filed for Rio Grande water below Fort Quitman, and, approximately 800 of these claims were recognized.
As part of the eventual settlement, Valley municipalities received double the amount of water rights they had as of 1965 (Long, VMS). Unfortunately, this settlement greatly underestimated future population growth in Valley municipalities (McCoy, 1990). As a result of urban population increases, many municipalities soon found themselves without sufficient rights.
The court decreed that 60,000 acre feet would be reserved for municipal, industrial, and domestic uses. This reserve has since grown to over 200,000 acre-feet. The court's decision also created a system of irrigation water priorities or classes. These classes were differentiated by when a water right was originally established and for what purpose is water used. The initial class system for irrigation rights was subsequently reorganized into a Class A and B categorization.
The current water rights system in the Valley has been compared to a banking system where each water right holder has a right to no more water than the quantity specified by the water right. The actual water allocation process, however, is based upon a system of priorities. Under this system, municipalities maintain the highest priority to water while agriculture has the lowest. The agriculture water rights are further prioritized using the Class A and B categories: Class A has 1.7 times the priority to water as Class B.
Despite the creation of this complicated system of water rights, the system remains over-allocated. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, over 1.9 million acre-feet of water rights exist, while firm yield1 is only 1.3 million acre-feet. To help meet municipal and industrial water rights, the Watermaster's office reserves 225,000 acre-feet for these categories in the international reservoirs.
As mentioned, all water rights for Texas have been fully adjudicated. This means that all rights to use Rio Grande streamflows in Texas have been claimed and no new water rights will be sold. While no new water rights are available, existing rights can be transferred, leased, bought or sold through several legal mechanisms established by the Texas administrative code. Further, since 1986, it has been legal to sell water rights anywhere along the middle and lower reaches of the Rio Grande. This means a Valley irrigator can sell water rights to Laredo, Eagle Pass or Del Rio. Water rights, however, cannot be transferred to destinations above Amistad (Chang and Griffin, 1992).
During the last two decades there has been an "active market" for water rights (Chang and Griffin, 1992). Most of the water rights come from local irrigation districts. As agricultural land is removed from production, these rights are sold to cities. Chang and Griffin note that during the last twenty years a total of 74,966.2 acre-feet went from agriculture use to municipal use. These transfers make up over 94 percent of all transfers (Chang and Griffin, 1992). When a municipality purchases irrigation water rights, it purchases a full acre-foot of water that sells from $240-320 per acre foot. Prices will fluctuate according to water availability, time of the year, and agriculture needs.
When municipalities purchase agriculture water rights they do not receive the entire amount because municipal rights are given greater priority compared to irrigation. Therefore, transfer or sale of water rights has a conservation repercussion. The level of conservation depends on what class of water is sold. For instance, a class A irrigation right has a factor of 0.5 and provides the buyer of each acre-foot with only 50 percent of purchase, while Class B provides 40 percent.
As the above article displays, a complicated system has arisen to manage and allocate Rio Grande water. This system has been formed through complex diplomatic and legal proceedings resulting in the creation of various state and federal agencies. Despite all of the treaties and legal principles, simply having a right to a certain amount of water does not assure that the state, city, or individual water right holders will ever receive any water. The final determination of water deliveries always depends on the availability of water which is dependent on acts of nature and upstream consumption.
Water demand is typically categorized by type of use, such as irrigation, municipal, or industrial. In terms of the lower reaches of the Rio Grande, water utilization figures are inadequate. According to Eaton and Andersen, Mexican water withdrawals are "guesstimates or statements of intent; rarely do figures reflect actual water measurements (Eaton & Andersen, 1987.)" Available data regarding irrigation and manufacturing water use also appears to be flawed on both sides of the border. Nonetheless, water analysts have warned that water shortfalls along the Rio Grande will become an increasing reality due to the growing population.
In the past two decades, overall water consumption has fluctuated in the Lower Rio Grande. After 1985, water use increased for the entire Valley, but began to drop in 1990 in the two largest counties, Cameron and Hidalgo.
When agricultural water consumption is separated from the municipal and industrial (M&I) sector, water use patterns display that agriculture use has tended to be more erratic. M&I water consumption, on the other hand, has been steadily growing. The vacillation in agricultural water consumption is closely related to natural and economic factors such as the weather, market prices, and crop production. For example, after a freeze destroyed vast tract of citrus orchards in the Valley's two largest counties, Cameron and Hidalgo, irrigation water withdrawals plunged.
Irrigation has risen significantly in Tamaulipas since the sixties. Unfortunately, acreage expansion beyond planned capacity stressed the total irrigation system causing problems such as erosion, salinization, and water distribution problems. Water efficiency during distribution is also affected by the lack of concrete lined canals that help to reduce water loss. A benefit of this water, however, is that it promotes canal-side habitat growth.
Water in the Valley is extremely inexpensive compared to rates in other major agriculture areas of the United States like California. Currently, one acre-foot sells for around US$ 0.20 (Hinojosa, 1995). Water rates are based upon the operation budget of the Watermaster's office.
The budget is written by the Watermaster and requires approval from the Water Commission. Costs have been kept relatively low due to the efficiency of the Watermaster operations. The whole Valley might benefit, in the long-run, from increasing the price of water. This would encourage conservation and provide capital to improve the water distribution system. However, there is great resistance to this option.
Go to part two.
Contact David Berger via email: dberger1@hotmail.com
Eco Travels in Mexico Borderlands Guide
Home |
About |
Advertise! |
Books |
Central America |
Ecotourism |
Headlines
Learn Spanish |
Mexico |
Media |
Site Map |
South America |
World Travel |
Updates