There is less than two months left for Mexico to deliver roughly a million acre-feet of water to Texas, as required by a 1944 treaty with the U.S. Since it looks like Mexico won’t deliver on that obligation — as it has struggled or failed to do increasingly in recent decades — attentions now turn to how to prevent this pattern from repeating yet again.
“The problem is that the 1944 treaty has no teeth — there’s no enforcement mechanism,” explains Sonny Hinojosa, current water advocate and former general manager at the Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 2.
“We need something that will put pressure on Mexico,” he adds, “because we cannot force Mexico to release water.”
That “something” could be the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement, which is due for renewal and possible renegotiation next year.
The USMCA took effect in July 2020, replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement, which had governed trade between the U.S., Mexico and Canada since 1994. According to the agreement, it must be reviewed by all three countries every six years.
The first review period is set to begin in July of 2026. However, the review could begin as early as September following long-running tariff disputes between the U.S. and its closest trade partners.
Tying water treaties to trade agreements
Mexico’s lack of full or regular water deliveries to Texas have already had damaging impacts on Texas agriculture. The state’s disappearing sugar industry, and produce growers who have had to cut acreage and sell off equipment are key examples of the impact of Mexico’s water deliveries being short or irregularly timed.
“The treaty specifically states it’s got to be an annual delivery of 350,000 acre feet,” explains Hinojosa.
The treaty does include flexibility on deliveries in the case of extraordinary drought, in which case, Mexico must deliver 1.75 million acre feet of water within a five-year cycle. Hinojosa stressed that this doesn’t mean Mexico can go four years of no or minimal deliveries, waiting on a big storm in the fifth year to make deliveries.
“It doesn’t work that way, so we need that mindset to change,” he says.
Part of that mindset change could be working enforcement of the 1944 treaty into USMCA during its upcoming review.
Hinojosa points to the signing of NAFTA as when Mexico’s water delivery problems got started. The improved trade environment, coupled with the country’s ability to store water along the Rio Grande’s six major tributaries, gave Mexican growers the ability and incentive to keep water that should have been delivered to the U.S. to grow produce for trade, he explains.
“They have over a million acre-feet in those six tributaries,” he says. “If they’re not going to give us our water, then implement something, some kind of penalty through the USMCA,” he continues. “If you’re not going to give us our water, we’ll then cut back the trade. Or we impose tariffs, embargoes, whatever it takes, but we need some leverage.”
Dante Galeazzi, president and CEO of the Texas International Produce Association, believes getting leverage to enforce the 1944 treaty “has to happen alongside the USMCA renegotiations” because the water issue between the U.S. and Mexico impacts all three countries.
“The lack of water impacts both U.S. and Mexico, so it only makes sense to tie the treaty to USMCA because the water that comes from the treaty is going to impact the economics of the international trade between us, Mexico and, yes, Canada,” he says. “What we are growing in both U.S. and Mexico is feeding Canadians and goes to Canada, so it’s part of the economics up there as well.”
Your next reads:
