Water Rights

California Water Experts Call for Cooperation on Colorado River Impasse

Fri, 30 Jan 2026 16:32:08 GMT

There are just over two weeks left for the seven states that depend on the Colorado River to come to an agreement on how to manage its dwindling water resources. This water is critical to millions of people and agricultural acres across the river’s basin, as well as key sectors of California’s fresh produce industry.

If the states can’t agree on a management plan for the Colorado River by Feb. 14, the federal government may step in with its plans. Experts doubt those plans will solve the issues facing the Colorado River, however, and say it could likely result in decades of lawsuits and uncertainty.

While the states have been at an impasse for over two years now, California water and irrigation experts are hopeful for cooperation ahead of the deadline.

“It’s important that we remember as we move forward that we’re all in this together,” says Frank Venegas, water technician for the Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe. “We have to develop partnerships. If we have some partnerships already, [we have] to make them stronger as we move forward into this next era of the negotiations.”

Venegas was one of several panelists who spoke during a Jan. 28 webinar hosted by the California Natural Resources Agency. Panelists spoke on the relevance of the Colorado River water to California, the challenges facing it, what has happened to address those challenges and what needs to happen in the future of its management.

Not Enough Water to Go Around

Seven states and Mexico depend on and share the water of the Colorado River. The states are divided into the Upper Basin (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico) and the Lower Basin (California, Arizona and Nevada).

However, much like the situation between the U.S. and Mexico on the Rio Grande , the Colorado River is overallocated.

Michael Anderson, California state climatologist, explained during the webinar that the average flow through the river from 1910 to 2000 was roughly 15 million acre-feet annually. The 1922 Colorado River Compact operated on this reality, stipulating that the Upper and Lower Basins would each receive 7.5 MAF annually. Of the Lower Basin’s total allocation, California receives the lion’s share at 4.4 MAF. This also makes it the largest single recipient of Colorado River water in the entire basin.

The 1922 compact granted any water over the states’ 15 MAF allocation to Mexico. The 1944 treaty between the U.S. and Mexico changed this, allocating an additional 1.5 MAF annually to Mexico. This brought the river’s total annual allocations to 16.5 MAF.

Since the early 2000s, however, average annual flow rates have been slightly over 12.5 MAF because of extended drought in the Colorado River Basin. Experts expect the stress on the river and its basin will continue due to climate change and continued warming in the West.

Anderson explains that a warmer West means more moisture will be pulled out of the landscape, including the Colorado River. At the same time, climate change means storms are bigger and more intense, as well as more spread out and less predictable. Warmer temperatures also mean that snowpacks, on which the Colorado River depends, are getting smaller and less dependable.

All these factors also compound on one another. For example, the drier things get, the more dust there is on the landscape.

“Dust from the deserts being blown up onto the snowpack makes it melt earlier, meaning you have that longer period of dryness in the basin to stress the landscape even further,” Anderson says. “So a lot of forces [are] working to make things more challenging in the basin, to be sure.”

California Produce Needs Colorado River Water

Challenges to the Colorado River Basin pose a threat to everyone and everything that depends on its water.

While roughly 40 million people across the entire basin depend on water from the Colorado River, the river’s water also makes specific sectors of fresh produce possible, particularly in California. Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources, points to the Imperial Irrigation District, which gets all of its water from the Colorado River Basin, as an example.

“Because they have such a long growing season with few days below freezing, the farmers in IID produce about two-thirds of the nation’s winter vegetables,” she says.

JB Hamby, vice chair of the IID board of directors and chair of the state’s Colorado River Board, quantifies the impact in another way, pointing to 600,000 acres “of highly productive farmland in production all-year round, some of the most high-value and productive in the basin.” He specifically names the Imperial Valley, Bard Valley, the land of the Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe and the Coachella Valley in his example.

Robert Cheng, assistant general manager of the Coachella Valley Water District, says the area — known for its unique produce items like dates, citrus, melons and specialty vegetables — could not survive without Colorado River water.

“We really depend pretty heavily on the Colorado River Basin,” he says, noting that Colorado River water makes up 75% or more of the area’s imported water annually. “And despite holding senior Colorado River water rights, we also very much understand the importance of working these issues out collaboratively.”

Feb. 14: Deadline to a Decision

Collaboration on the Colorado River Basin has been complicated, however.

The 2007 agreement governing how water is managed along the Colorado River during times of shortages expired at the end of 2025. The 2007 rules will remain in effect until the end of the 2026 water year on Sept. 30. In what is often called “the post-2026 negotiations,” the seven basin states have been attempting to come up with a replacement management plan that all parties agree on for the past two years.

Thus far, no agreement has been reached.

On Jan. 16, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation released its own version of a water management plan for the Colorado River in the form of a draft environmental impact statement .

“The Department of the Interior is moving forward with this process to ensure environmental compliance is in place so operations can continue without interruption when the current guidelines expire,” Andrea Travnicek, USBR assistant secretary for water and science, said in the group’s announcement from Jan. 9. “The river and the 40 million people who depend on it cannot wait. In the face of an ongoing severe drought, inaction is not an option.”

The draft environmental impact statement examines five different strategies for managing Lake Powell and Lake Mead, the two key reservoirs along the Colorado River. While USBR has not identified a preferred alternative out of the five, it has given the seven states a Feb. 14 deadline to come up with an agreement or it may select one within its jurisdiction to pursue.

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times , some of those alternatives are alarming for California and could “lead to lengthy litigation,” according to Shivaji Deshmukh, the general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Metropolitan is the country’s largest water district, serving almost 20 million people, and half of those who depend on the Colorado River for water.

Cooperation is Key

Deshmukh, who spoke at the Jan. 28 webinar, outlines the importance of the Colorado River water to his largely urban constituents. However, he also stresses the importance of partnership and collaborative efforts to reduce demand and cooperate with all water users.

“We have not pitted ourselves against flows of water in the environment or for agriculture, but rather figured out ways to partner, whether it is looking at ways to partner with the state on programs to better balance water supply throughout the state of California or very unique and agency-specific partnerships with our agricultural partners, including IID, Coachella Valley and the Quezon Tribe,” he says.

“We know that without a consensus approach to these negotiations, we could be left with some really severe cuts along the river,” he adds.

All other panelists and participants also call for cooperation and collaboration among the seven states.

“We’re really focused with working across states,” says Wade Crowfoot, secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency.

“We know that the future is going to be better when the seven states actually decide the path forward versus looking to the federal government or, at worst, getting mired in litigation, which really characterized so much water management over the last century in the basin,” he says.

Water Fight With Mexico Leaves South Texas Farmer Unable to Plant Half His Acres

Mon, 22 Dec 2025 19:27:57 GMT

For South Texas farmers, the ongoing water dispute between the United States and Mexico isn’t an abstract policy issue. It’s a crisis that has reshaped planting decisions, reduced production and injected deep uncertainty into every growing season along the Rio Grande.

Brian Jones, a South Texas farmer, says years of shorted water deliveries under the 1944 Water Treaty have forced him and many of his neighbors to dramatically scale back their operations. What once was a fully irrigated farming system has turned into a constant struggle to stretch limited water supplies across fewer acres.

“I believe it really starts to reach a crescendo in the 2023 crop year,” Jones says. “For 2024 and 2025, basically I’m only able to plant half of my farm because we don’t have enough water.”

Jones says the water shortages are not the result of drought alone, but of Mexico failing to live up to its treaty obligations. Under the 1944 agreement, Mexico is required to deliver water to the United States through the Rio Grande basin. However, U.S. officials and South Texas producers argue those deliveries have fallen well short in recent years.

“That’s exactly right,” Jones says, confirming that he has been unable to plant roughly half of his acres. “Going from fully irrigated to basically only being able to plant half the farm — and not even having full irrigation for that half — has been quite a struggle over the last couple of years.”

The reduced water supply has forced farmers to make hard decisions, prioritizing which crops and fields can survive with limited irrigation. Jones says even the acres that do get planted are often under-irrigated, increasing risk and lowering yield potential.

“Mexico has willfully held back water that they had,” Jones says. “That puts us in a huge shortfall.”

Hope on the Horizon?

Earlier this month, USDA announced it had reached an understanding with Mexico to release 202,000 acre-feet of water to the U.S., following heightened pressure from the Trump administration — including threats of tariffs if Mexico failed to comply. The announcement marked the most significant movement on the issue in years. But for growers on the ground, the news has been met with cautious optimism.

“I would say I’m both hopeful and skeptical,” Jones says. “I’m hopeful because President Trump and his administration really take the bull by the horns on this and bring the fight to Mexico.”

Jones says farmers in South Texas have long felt ignored as water shortages worsened, and he credits the current administration for taking a more aggressive stance.

“Under the previous administration, it’s like talking to a brick wall,” he says. “Under this administration, President Trump and Secretary Rollins really pick up the club and use it to bring Mexico to the table.”

Despite the agreement, Jones says trust remains an issue. Years of unmet commitments have made farmers wary of celebrating until water is actually flowing into the Rio Grande and irrigation systems.

“On the other hand, I’m still skeptical because Mexico has willfully withheld the water for a number of years,” Jones says. “Until it really starts flowing and they meet that full agreement of the 202,000 acre-feet, we’re still skeptical.”

Water Releases Reported to Start Immediately

According to Jones, Mexico indicates water releases should begin immediately, though geography and infrastructure mean the impact is not instantaneous for South Texas farmers.

“It should start this week,” he says. “It takes about three to four days for the water, once they release it in the lower parts of Mexico, to reach the Rio Grande. Hopefully by now, we start seeing that flow.”

Beyond the immediate relief, Jones says the water dispute highlights deeper concerns about fairness and competition. He believes the issue should be addressed in broader trade discussions, particularly as the U.S. reviews the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

“We actually hope it is a point of contention,” Jones says. “Not only is Mexico withholding water, they’re using that water to grow products we normally grow here in South Texas and compete directly in our marketing window. That creates a trade imbalance.”

Water Issue Could Be at the Center of USCMA Review

Jones says Texas lawmakers and agricultural groups are pushing to bring the issue into USMCA negotiations, arguing water compliance should carry real consequences.

“We’re hoping to use USMCA as a tool to put some punitive measures and some teeth into the water-sharing agreement,” he says.

Planting Decisions Uncertain

As planting season approaches, uncertainty remains front and center. Jones says decisions for the 2025 crop year will hinge almost entirely on whether Mexico follows through on its promises — and how quickly water arrives.

“We’re about 45 days from corn planting here in South Texas,” he says. “I’ll definitely get all my corn in, then switch over to milo. Cotton is the big question mark.”

Cotton planting typically begins in mid-March, leaving little margin for error if water deliveries fall behind schedule.

“All the details are supposed to be out by January 31, and they’re guaranteeing all that water by the end of March,” Jones says. “By early- to mid-March, we should know where they stand on deliveries, and that will shape how I plant this upcoming year.”

For now, Jones and other South Texas farmers are watching river levels, weather forecasts and diplomatic negotiations with equal intensity — hoping that this time, the water fight turns into real relief on the ground.

Water Issues Headlined 2025 and Will Likely Stay There in 2026

Fri, 19 Dec 2025 19:29:39 GMT

The year 2025 saw several big water issues hit the news, both nationally and in some of the biggest produce-growing states. Many of these stories will continue into 2026’s headlines.

For example, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers set a water milestone late in the year when they finally released their long-awaited updated definition of Waters of the U.S. with implementation expected in February or March of 2026.

The announcement was made Nov. 17, and the proposed rule was released Nov. 20. This update was spawned by the 2023 Supreme Court’s Sackett decision, and — according to the EPA — will bring the definition in line with that ruling .

The release followed numerous listening sessions seeking input from states, industry, agriculture and other stakeholders. A resounding theme was the need to maintain state’s rights on the one hand and streamline the WOTUS determination process so landowners can easily determine if something on their operation counts as a jurisdictional water.

The proposed rule is up for public comment through Jan. 5, 2026.

The five-year water cycle ended, but the story continues for Texas

Late October 2025 saw the end of the most recent five-year water delivery cycle from Mexico to Texas according to the 1944 treaty. As expected, Mexico did not deliver the 1.75 million acre-feet it is required to within that five-year span, only sending just over 50% of that.

However, it did deliver more than a year’s worth of water (350,000 acre-feet) between late April and Oct. 24. That is good in the short-term, but Texas water and produce experts warn that the pattern of late or non-existent Mexican water deliveries is not sustainable for the state. They worry more crops, including the Texas citrus industry, will go the way of its sugar industry .

A common refrain from Texans is that Mexico is not keeping up it’s end of the bargain, having instead built up its permanent agriculture in arid Chihuahua and capturing water that should flow to Texas for those water-hungry crops. Experts have pushed for some ability to enforce the 1944 treaty, potentially through the upcoming U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement renegotiations .

But the story is and will continue into 2026. Early in December, President Donald Trump demanded Mexico deliver 200,000 acre-feet of water on its debt by Dec. 31. Mexico’s president called that impossible but said Mexico and the U.S. are working on an agreement for the future to pay down the water debt.

California’s water woes and their impact grow

The economic value of water to California’s produce drew the limelight early on in 2025. In April, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced the Golden State had become the fourth-largest economy in the world . But that rank is tenuous and could be threatened if the state does not take action to ensure its water future.

Up to 3 million acres of farmland, 67,000 ag jobs and $39.5 billion from the economy could be lost if the state doesn’t invest in water storage and other strategies, according to a University of California, Davis study . All of this played out on a backdrop of ongoing, many say man-made , drought and disappointing water allocations even when there is water available.

As the year came to a close, California’s largest irrigation district released its economic impact review report, which found that water restrictions had wide-reaching negative impacts on the state and its people. In short, when water is cut, the production of fresh fruits and vegetables declines, more acres are fallowed, jobs and economic benefits are lost and more.

As the new year kicks off, the 2026 irrigation allocations will start to trickle in, so growers in the Golden State will know how to plan for their coming crops.

Less Ag Water Means Fewer Jobs, Deeper Poverty, More Sickness

Thu, 18 Dec 2025 22:03:19 GMT

Everyone in ag knows how interconnected every element of the ecosystem — literal and figurative — is to the wider community. But a recent report quantified just how widely the ripple effects of water restrictions in one irrigation district can reach.

On Dec. 17, the Westlands Water District released the fourth installment of its Economic Impact Report , which examined economic data from 2022 (most recent complete). While the report found the agricultural production enabled by water from WWD directly supports thousands of jobs and billions in economic activity in the area — 20,456 jobs and $2.41 billion, respectively — plus more indirectly, it also highlighted the negative impacts of water restrictions.

“Decreased water availability reduces the number of jobs and level of economic activity within Westlands Water District,” declared the report’s executive summary.

These reductions amounted to about 7,500 fewer ag jobs in WWD’s region, which includes two of the poorest counties in the state, and a decrease of almost $25 million in local government revenues in 2022 compared to 2019.

Direct economic findings

The new impact report uses data from 2022, and updates the 2022 report, which used data from 2019. A key difference between those two data years was that 2019 was a year where WWD received 75% of its surface water allocation and 2022 was a year where WWD got no surface water allocation.

The 2019 report found that WWD “is directly and indirectly responsible for some $4.7 billion dollars of economic activity and nearly 35,000 jobs across the economy.” By comparison, that number for 2022 was $3.55 billion and about 28,000 jobs respectively.

“When that water disappeared, obviously it had significant impacts on the economy,” said Michael Shires, former professor and vice dean at the Pepperdine School of Public Policy and co-author of the report, in a preview event on Dec. 16. “Westland still has a tremendous economic impact. I mean, you can’t ignore $3.6 billion and 28,000 jobs, especially in this region.”

The report credited the lack of water allocations, plus the impact of California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act on groundwater growers can pump, for more fallowed acres in 2022 (227,563) versus 2019 (158,103) in the area served by WWD.

And more fallowed land means less production.

“Nationally, farms in Westlands provide 3.3% of the national production of fresh fruit and nuts and 2.8% of the national production of vegetables and melons,” the report notes. It added that the 2.8% share of vegetable and melon production is down from 5.4% in 2015.

“These are the fresh produce that we need, that we want to have in our system if we’re going to have a healthy economy,” Shires said.

More indirect, wider-reaching impacts

Reduced production also has other health impacts, according to the report. It means fewer jobs and less economic activity. Shires highlighted how this connects to poverty in the area.

“The reduction in availability of surface water has led to significant economic impacts, both in terms of economic production and overall activity, but more importantly, in the lives of the people that economic activity reflects,” he said. “These tend to be the poorest in some ways in our communities, but once they lose their jobs, they join the group of poverty.”

He noted that the 20,456 jobs directly supported by WWD represent about 42% of total farm employment in the region, and that Fresno County has roughly 50% higher rates of poverty than the state rate average.

“So, [water reductions] affect these vulnerable populations the most,” he said. “It also affects local tax revenues that you need to support those populations as they grow.”

Disease and pilot endangerment

The report also found potentially unexpected negative impacts associated with water restrictions and more fallowed land; increased disease and pilot endangerment through increased bird strikes.

During the preview event, Shires pointed out the association between the incidence of Valley Fever — a fungal infection of the lungs resulting in flu-like symptoms that is also called San Joaquin Valley fever — and the volume of fallowed acres in the area.

“When land lies fallow and dust blows, there are spores in the dust that infect people’s lungs and create health complications,” he said. “That is a phenomenon that is exploding across the state in the last 10 years especially.”

Another, more indirect health concern is in play as well, according to the report: Threats to pilots at area airports.

The path from water cuts to pilot endangerment has a few steps to it. Reductions in water availability for growers can result in both more fallowed land and more abandoned orchards. Both fallowed fields and abandoned orchards can host massive rodent populations .

“Then the owls and the hawks come and eat them. The raptors obviously then concentrate in those areas and you end up with a higher incidence of bird strikes,” Shires explained. This can be costly because a bird strike can damage or even destroy planes, including the very valuable military jets at the nearby Naval Air Station Lemoore, and risk the lives of pilots.

“Surface water has direct implications to the safety of those pilots and everybody that’s there,” Shires summarized.

Allison Febbo, general manager of WWD, echoed this perspective in the group’s announcement of the report.

“Thousands of families, small businesses and essential public services depend on the economic activity generated by agriculture in our district,” Febbo said. “This report reaffirms how central reliable water supplies are to keeping our communities strong and healthy.”

Taking a Moment with the 1944 Treaty’s Minutes

Wed, 17 Dec 2025 14:33:10 GMT

While a trickle of information was coming out on the recently announced water deliveries from Mexico to Texas, the U.S. and Mexico finalized another water-related agreement dealing with the 1944 Treaty.

On Dec. 15, the International Boundary and Water Commission, the agency responsible for applying and overseeing the boundary and water treaties between the U.S. and Mexico, announced that both governments had signed Minute 333. The agreement seeks to address the long-running issue of Mexican sewage reaching San Diego via the Tijuana River. More on that below, but first: What is a Minute when it comes to the 1944 Treaty?

Minutes are basically amendments to, or proposals of action within, the 1944 Treaty . They are also something that make the treaty “visionary” and “one of its kind in the world,” according to Rosario Sanchez, Texas A&M AgriLife Research senior research scientist at the Texas Water Resources Institute and director of the Permanent Forum for Binational Waters.

“The built in Minutes process is basically the adaptation of the treaty over the years,” she explained earlier this year . “That’s the way the treaty has evolved, and it’s pretty unique for that.”

Keeping up with the water times

So far, the treaty has been updated or amended 333 times with the signing of this most recent Minute, and it is likely there will be more soon.

While fielding press questions about the water delivery shortfall to Texas during her Dec. 10 morning address , Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said, while whole treaty might need to be renegotiated in the near future, the Minute system could prevent such a massive overhaul.

“According to all the experts, the 1944 Treaty is very favorable for Mexico,” she said. “Entering into a renegotiation process of the entire treaty might not be necessary. What does need to be done are additional agreements or Minutes, depending on the amount of water available.”

“More than renegotiating the 1944 Treaty, we need to be in constant dialogue with the United States government to address the needs of both countries, based on the rainfall cycle and how much water is actually available.”

So, what is Minute 333?

The signing of Minute 333 is not part of that dialogue as far as Texas water deliveries are concerned, but it is still part of the conversation between the U.S. and Mexico on shared water issues,” Sheinbaum added. “In this case, the Tiajuana River.

For several decades, raw sewage from Mexico has been carried by the Tiajuana River to Pacific Ocean beaches, including in San Diego. Minute 333 seeks to address this issue through a variety of means, including:

Conducting feasibility studies on adding to, expanding or repairing existing Mexican wastewater treatment facilities
Completing the building of a the new Tecolote-La Gloria Wastewater Treatment Plant by Dec. 2028
Creating new sediment management systems and finding appropriate cost-share opportunities for existing sediment and trash management projects
Creating a new account at the North American Development Bank to provide for Mexico’s ongoing operations and maintenance of sanitation infrastructure

“Thanks to the leadership of Presidents Trump and Sheinbaum, I am proud to be signing Minute 333 today,” said Chad McIntosh, U.S. Commissioner of IBWC in the group’s announcement of the agreement.

McIntosh’s Mexican counterpart, Adriana Reséndez, described the new minute as a continuation of Mexico’s commitment to “resolving the border sanitation problem at San Diego-Tijuana, pursuant to the provisions of the 1944 Water Treaty and to benefit the environment and the health of residents on both sides of the border.”

Details Unclear on Promised Water Deliveries From Mexico

Mon, 15 Dec 2025 20:22:58 GMT

Texas will supposedly get up to 202,000 acre-feet of water from Mexico in accordance with the 1944 Treaty beginning this week, the week of Dec. 15, according to the USDA.

However, it is unclear where this water will come from because Mexico doesn’t have that volume of water in its international holdings. Depending upon source, it is also unclear how useful this release will be to Texas agriculture.

“They don’t have a whole lot of the international storage and international reservoirs,” says Sonny Hinojosa, current water advocate and former general manager at the Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 2 in San Juan, Texas. He does note Mexico has some water in its internal reservoirs, however.

During her daily morning address on Dec. 15, Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, told the press “we are not giving away water that we don’t have or that would affect the Mexican people.”

Backstory to the 202,000-acre-feet announcement

USDA’s Dec. 12^th announcement was the main outcome of a series of meetings between the U.S. and Mexico that was kicked off on the afternoon of Dec. 8, when President Donald Trump demanded Mexico release 200,000 acre-feet of water by Dec. 31 on threat of an additional 5% tariff in a Truth Social post.

“Mexico continues to violate our comprehensive Water Treaty, and this violation is seriously hurting our beautiful Texas crops and livestock,” he wrote.

President Donald Trump’s Dec. 8 Truth Social post.

(Screen capture)

This is a reference to Mexico’s failure to deliver 1.75 million acre-feet of water to Texas via the Rio Grande by the end of the most recent five-year cycle, which ended on Oct. 24. According to the 1944 treaty, when Mexico fails to deliver the full amount within the five-year cycle, the remainder is carried over into the next cycle as debt. Water debt must be paid in addition to the current cycle’s volume.

USDA’s Dec. 12^th announcement included that there are ongoing negotiations between the countries to finalize a plan by the end of January 2026 for Mexico to repay its outstanding water debt of roughly 800,000 acre-feet.

Appreciation from Texas

The announcement was widely welcomed by Texas agricultural groups.

“I applaud President Trump for putting American farmers first and holding Mexico’s feet to the fire to get this treaty honored,” said Texas’ Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller in an announcement on Dec. 14.

“For years, producers in the Rio Grande Basin have been shorted the water they are legally owed, causing the loss of crops, jobs, industries, and livelihoods,” he added. “Let me be clear: Texas farmers expect Mexico to fully meet its obligations — not just today, but for years to come. Water is the lifeblood of agriculture.”

In a letter to the editor sent out midday Dec. 15, various Texas produce and row crop groups expressed gratitude to the Trump administration, including U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau. But the co-signed groups and their leaders also urged quick implementation and consequences for inaction.

“While Mexico did deliver some water this year, thanks to pressure by the Trump administration, it was not enough to cover the debt,” wrote Dante Galeazzi, president and CEO of the Texas International Produce Association.

“This new understanding must be quickly implemented. The U.S. must not allow Mexico to delay fulfilling its obligations, or it risks Mexico overusing water resources that should be shared. A tactic taken by Mexico for years without penalty or accountability,” Galeazzi continued.

Dale Murden, president of Texas Citrus Mutual, similarly applauded the move, but urged the administration to push Mexico to “honor this new agreement or face consequences.”

“The short- and long-term impacts on Texas farmers are beyond the data on paper,” Murden wrote. “Livelihoods have been uprooted, and the region’s agricultural landscape may never be the same again. Meanwhile, Mexico continues to expand its agricultural production that directly competes with U.S. producers … with water that should have been delivered to the U.S.”

Where will that water come from?

The co-signed groups and Hinojosa, who helped provide data for the meetings held between the U.S. and Mexico, all noted details from USDA on this new water transfer are currently unknown. What is known is that Mexico doesn’t have 202,000 acre-feet of water in the international dams.

According to public records (based on Nov. 29 conditions, most recent) from the International Boundary and Water Commission, the U.S. side of the group that adjudicates the water treaties between the U.S. and Mexico, Mexico’s water ownership at the Amistad and Falcon dams amounts to just under 166,000 acre-feet.

The Rio Grande reservoirs and tributaries in Mexico. From pg. 4 of Assistant Rio Grande Watermaster Jose A. Davila’s 2023 presentation for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

(Image and presentation from the U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission)

Sheinbaum told reporters Dec. 15 that Mexico “examined different river basins to determine how we could meet the United States’ request.”

Hinojosa reports hearing that the near-term repayment could include water from the Rio San Juan, which fits with Sheinbaum’s description. However, the Rio San Juan is not one of the original six Rio Grande tributaries covered by the 1944 treaty. It is also a problematic source, according to Hinojosa.

“We can’t capture or store that water,” he said. This means that such water would be of little use to farmers, but could be used for municipal purposes. “We’ve utilized it in the past, but [Mexico has] restrictions as far as what they can release.”

Those restrictions mean that the full 202,000 acre-feet could not come from that source alone, and certainly not by the end of December. Regardless, the agreement could be too little, too late for Texas growers who have already suffered tremendous losses, Hinojosa said.

“Once again, our spring crops are planted in late February, and I know our farmers; they’re not going to go on a limb and invest unless they know that we have the water,” he said. “So we might be looking at a fourth year of limited row crops. Now, if this continues and we get that 202,000 acre-feet, maybe it’ll help our vegetable farmers come next September or October, but we’ll be facing a fourth year of shortage.”

Mexico’s perspective

The U.S. and Mexico do not agree on the why behind the short water deliveries. While stakeholders on the U.S. side have pointed to growth of Mexico’s, especially Chihuahua’s, irrigated agriculture in recent years, Mexico has given a variety of reasons for not delivering sufficient water in a timely way.

During her Dec. 9 press meeting , Sheinbaum summarized the reasons why Mexico had not delivered more water in the past cycle as two-fold; Mexico’s own water needs and the limiting factor of the pipeline that carries water to the Rio Grande. However, she said the governors of the Mexican states, including Chihuahua, are united “to find the best agreement with the United States.”

On Dec. 15^th, she answered questions specifically about the details of the meetings, saying: “[the U.S.] requested that a certain amount of water be delivered by December, and we said that this was not possible, not only because it’s physically impossible, but also because it would have consequences if done in such a short time. So, an agreement was reached to deliver it over a longer period.”

She also cited drought and lack of rain in Mexico.

“So, an agreement was reached in this regard,” she said. “The agreement is typically for a five-year period, but now we will determine, based on the amount of rainfall during the rainy season, how to make up for the water that wasn’t delivered in the previous five years due to the drought.”

Sheinbaum also brought up the possibility that the 1944 Treaty, which she noted is very favorable to Mexico, might need to be renegotiated.

“Various experts say that Mexico may no longer be able to comply with this treaty, since the exceptional drought provision has been invoked in the last three cycles,” she said on Dec. 10. “It seems that the drought situation, or the lack of water to comply with the treaty, is no longer an exceptional one, but rather a reality.”

“Action 5” to Increase Water to California’s Central Valley

Mon, 08 Dec 2025 20:02:21 GMT

Late on Thursday, Dec. 4, the Bureau of Reclamation announced it was adopting Action 5, an updated operation plan for the Central Valley Project and the State Water Plan in California.

Among other things, the plan is projected to increase annual water deliveries to central and southern California, will remove seasonal protections for the Delta smelt, and will require that any actions that restrict the water supply “provide a material benefit to listed species.”

“Action 5 represents a forward-looking approach to water management that balances the needs of California’s communities, agriculture and ecosystems,” said Andrea Travnicek, Bureau of Reclamation assistant secretary for water and science, in the group’s announcement.

According to the Record of Decision for Action 5, the updated operations plan will increase annual CVP water deliveries by 130,000 to 180,000 acre-feet, and SWP deliveries by 120,000 to 220,000 acre-feet, “depending on hydrologic conditions and subject to the state’s adoption of Action 5.”

Praise for the plan

The move was welcomed by agricultural voices in the Golden State.

“These changes will help ensure that our growers have the water they need to support local communities and the nation’s food supply, while also protecting California’s wildlife,” said Allison Febbo, general manager of Westlands Water District, in a statement. The district delivers water to the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley and has experienced disappointing allocation levels this year , despite comparatively good water supplies.

Westlands expressed gratitude for the rapid development and adoption of Action 5. It additionally estimated that, for its service area specifically, the updated plan is expected to deliver an average of 85,000 acre-feet per year of additional water. Such an increase will help keep more Central Valley agricultural land in production and reduce reliance on groundwater, the group said.

Western Growers also welcomed the updated plan.

“Considering the fact that the farms that pay for the Central Valley Project have only received 45% of their contracted allocations over the last 20 years, totaling many millions of acre-feet of water cutbacks, this modest potential rebalancing represents a welcome return of common sense,” said Dave Puglia, Western Growers president and CEO, in a statement.

What is in Action 5?

Action 5 is an update of a CVP operations plan adopted in December 2024 in light of President Donald Trump’s Jan. 24 executive order . The order directed Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum “to operate the CVP to deliver more water and produce additional hydropower including by increasing storage and conveyance and jointly operating federal and state facilities, to high-need communities…”

Among the key operational changes in Action 5 compared to the 2024 plan were a pair of species-focused changes:

Removing Delta smelt protection — Action 5 removes the Delta Smelt Summer-Fall Habitat Action , which California’s Delta Stewardship Council called “a critical component” of the SWP for Delta smelt survival. Action 5, however, cites U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service findings , asserting that the protections are not expected “to have observable effects on Delta smelt survival.”
Water restrictions require proof of benefit — Any actions that restrict water supply must show a material benefit to listed species in Action 5. It adds that this can be by using predictive tools for real time assessment of environmental conditions.

Not everyone is on board with the plan

Not everyone in California is happy about Action 5, however.

Prior to the final signing of Action 5’s Record of Decision, which occurred Dec. 2–4, several California state organizations raised concerns with the then-proposed plan in their comments. For example, California Department of Water Resources deputy director John Yarbrough said Action 5 could have “adverse consequences” on the SWP’s ability to deliver water.

“If Reclamation implements Action 5 in a way that harms the SWP’s ability to deliver water to its contractors and customers, the CVP export increase would be at the expense of all SWP water contractors and, due to the different water purposes the SWP and CVP serve, disproportionately impact Californians’ water supplies,” he wrote.

He additionally described Action 5 as “vague in how it will be implemented” and incomplete in its analysis of impacts. Similarly, Diane Riddle, assistant deputy director of California Water Boards Division of Water Rights, called many of Action 5’s claims about the impact of its changes on fish in California unsupported.

New WOTUS Proposal Could Reduce Red Tape for Farmers and Ranchers

Mon, 17 Nov 2025 18:01:44 GMT

Farmers and ranchers could soon face fewer regulatory hurdles when working near waterways, as EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers released a new proposal on Nov. 17 to redefine “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS). The agencies say the proposed rule is designed to bring long-requested clarity to what features fall under federal jurisdiction potentially reducing permitting uncertainty for agriculture, landowners and rural businesses.

The proposed rule can be found on the Federal Register . The public can submit comments online there or via Regulations.gov on or before Jan. 5, 2026. During the announcement event on Nov. 17, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin urged the public to submit comments.

The definition of WOTUS determines when producers must secure permits for projects that could affect surface water quality, including common activities such as building terraces, installing drainage or expanding livestock operations. EPA officials say the new proposal aims to align fully with the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision and prevent farmers from needing lawyers or consultants simply to determine whether a water feature on their land is federally regulated.

The proposal follows Zeldin’s promise in March to launch the biggest deregulatory action in history and a series of listening sessions in April and May that asked states, tribes, industry and agriculture to weigh in on WOTUS needs.

Clearer Definition After Years of Confusion

Zeldin and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam Telle emphasize the rule is designed to be clear, durable and commonsense.

Key elements include:

Defined terms such as relatively permanent, continuous surface connection, and tributary to outline which waters qualify under the Clean Water Act.
A requirement that jurisdictional tributaries must have predictable, consistent flow to traditional navigable waters.
Wetlands protections are limited to wetlands that physically touch and are indistinguishable from regulated waters for a consistent duration each year.
Reaffirmed exclusions important to agriculture, including prior converted cropland, certain ditches and waste treatment systems.
A new exclusion for groundwater.
Locally-familiar terminology, such as “wet season,” to help determine whether water features meet regulatory thresholds.

EPA says these changes are intended to reduce uncertainty that has stemmed from years of shifting definitions across administrations.

Impact of WOTUS Proposal on Agriculture

For producers, the proposal could simplify compliance by narrowing which water features fall under federal oversight and confirming exclusions that many farm groups have long advocated.

Zeldin says the aim is “protecting the nation’s navigable waters from pollution” while preventing unnecessary burdens on farmers and ranchers. He criticizes past Democratic administrations for broad interpretations that, in his view, extended federal reach to features that did not warrant regulation.

Farm groups have argued for years that unclear or overly broad definitions can lead to significant costs, delays and legal risks when planning conservation work, drainage projects or infrastructure improvements. A more consistent rule could reduce project backlogs and limit case-by-case determinations that often slow progress during planting, construction or livestock expansion.

“We’ve seen WOTUS definitions, guidance and legal arguments change with each administration,” said Garrett Hawkins, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, during the May 1 EPA listening session for agriculture . He adds: “farmers, land owners and small businesses are the ones who suffer the most when we don’t have clear rules.”

Several of those who gave testimony and public comment during the ag listening session argued that farmers and ranchers, who already struggle with unpredictable markets and tight margins, shouldn’t have to hire experts to identify elements of their own land.

“A practical WOTUS definition will allow the average landowner — not an engineer, not an attorney, not a wetland specialist — to walk out on their property, see a water feature and make, at minimum, a preliminary determination about whether a feature is federally jurisdictional,” says Kim Brackett, vice president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, who also gave testimony in May.

Alignment With the Sackett Decision

After the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett v. EPA ruling , which restricted federal authority over many wetlands, the agencies say the previous WOTUS definition no longer aligned with the law. EPA already issued a memo earlier this year clarifying limits on jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands. The newly proposed rule is the next step in that process.

The proposed rule focuses on relatively permanent bodies of water — streams, rivers, lakes and oceans — and wetlands that are physically connected to those waters. Seasonal and regional variations are incorporated, including waters that flow consistently during the wetter months.

The current situation is a regulatory patchwork. Due to litigation that followed the January 2023 WOTUS rule, which was considered in the Sackett decision, different states are following different rules. Currently, 24 states, mostly the coastal and Great Lakes states, are operating on the 2023 rule, while the other 26 states, mostly those in center and in the Southeast, are operating on pre-2015 WOTUS rule.

Oversight Rests With State and Tribes

A major theme of the proposal is cooperative federalism, giving more authority to states and tribes to manage local land and water resources. EPA says the rule preserves necessary federal protections while recognizing states and tribal governments are best positioned to oversee many smaller or isolated water features.

Sections 101b and 510 of the CWA are key structural examples of the concept of cooperative federalism. The sections give states and tribes the right to set standards and issue permits for federal activities that could discharge pollutants into a water of the U.S. within the state or territory. The most common example of this are 404 dredge and fill permits.

This focus on cooperative federalism was the main chorus of the EPA’s listening session for states , held April 29, especially as it concerns wetlands.

“If more wetlands are excluded from WOTUS, then certain federal projects would not require a section 401 water quality certification by the states,” noted Jennifer Congdon, director of federal affairs for New York Department of Environmental Conservation, during the states’ listening session. She argues that such a situation could impair water quality within a state, thus violating states’ rights under the CWA.

What Happens Next

The proposed rule is available online for public comment on the Federal Register and Regulations.gov on or before Jan. 5, 2026. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers will hold two hybrid public meetings, and details for submitting comments or registering to speak will be available on EPA’s website .

After the comment period, the agencies plan to move quickly toward a final rule.

“Once the rule is finalized, it typically takes effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register pursuant to Congressional Review Act requirements,” the EPA press office told The Packer earlier this summer .

Based on these potential timelines, a new — potentially final — WOTUS rule could take effect as early as early March.

Texas Faces Growing Pressure as Mexico Paid Only Half of Water Owed

Tue, 04 Nov 2025 19:41:08 GMT

Mexico’s water payday to Texas came and went Oct. 24. Once the full data came out a few weeks later, it was clear Mexico had only paid half the water it owed.

While this was not a surprise , it was still disappointing, according to sources.

“We’re just wrapping up a third year of water shortage,” says Sonny Hinojosa, current water advocate and former general manager at the Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 2 in San Juan, Texas. “So, we’re going to start a fourth year of having insufficient water for ag. We got half the water we need, so we’re going to be crippled again for fourth year.”

According to the 1944 treaty that governs water sharing between the U.S. and Mexico on the Rio Grande, Mexico must deliver 350,000 acre-feet of water annually, equating to 1.75 million acre-feet every five-year cycle. For this most recent five-year cycle, Mexico had only delivered 884,864 acre-feet, 50.5% of the total.

Texas Farm Bureau State Director Brian Jones called the situation infuriating in a statement issued on the last day of the previous cycle.

“Another missed water delivery deadline by Mexico is another serious blow to Rio Grande Valley farmers and communities,” he said. “Farmers in the Rio Grande Valley have done about as much as they can to hang on until Mexico delivers the water it owes, including reducing the number of acres planted and switching to dryland crops that require less water.”

He pointed to Texas’ recent loss of its sugar cane industry as an example. He also spoke from his own experience, saying he can’t irrigate a third of his operation — cotton, corn, grain sorghum and soybeans in Hidalgo County — even once with the water available to him.

“It’s getting harder and harder to hang on,” he said. “How can someone sustain more than half of their farm sitting unproductive? You can’t.”

Accolades for April’s Meeting

Despite the recent focus on five-year cycles, agricultural water needs to operate on a seasonal-to-annual cycle. The 1944 treaty also says the deliveries should be annual.

When looking at Mexico’s water deliveries on an annual scale, it did really well in this past year (Oct. 25, 2024, through Oct. 24, 2025), delivering roughly 475,000 acre-feet. Most of that delivery — about 360,000 acre-feet — happened since late April, following a meeting between the U.S. State Department and the Mexican government.

Hinojosa says he is very glad of the State Department’s efforts in the situation.

“Had it not been for that meeting and pressure being put on Mexico, we probably wouldn’t have got this much water from them,” he says.

A chart showing the most recent five-year cycle’s deliveries (black line) compared to other past cycles’ deliveries from Mexico to the U.S. “Had it not been for that [late April] meeting, that black line would have just continued straight across, and this would have been a historical low,” said Sonny Hinojosa, current water advocate and former general manager at the Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 2 in San Juan, Texas.

(Chart from the International Boundary and Water Commission; retrieved Nov. 3)

According to Hinojosa, Texas agriculture needs about 1 million acre-feet of water per year. Based on the most recent data, the state has about 900,000 acre-feet of water in storage, including from what Mexico sent this year.

“But after you subtract the reserves and such, agriculture is just left with a little over 500,000 acre-feet,” Hinojosa says. Still, the steady flow of water from Mexico this year was helpful to agriculture in the Rio Grande Valley, he adds.

“The sad part about it is, it was in the summertime,” a time when the most water losses occur, he explains. “But nonetheless, we needed the water for our vegetable growers.”

This water year in the cycle is a bit of a bittersweet situation.

“We still don’t have sufficient water, but we have more water than we have had the last couple of years,” Hinojosa says.

Still, the 2020-2025 cycle came in as the third-lowest delivery cycle in the past 10. Only the 1992-1997 cycle (when about 41% was delivered) and the 1997-2002 cycle (about 33% delivered) were lower.

Inner Workings of Water Debt

Mexico now finds itself in water debt. Again.

When Mexico doesn’t make its full 1.75 million acre-feet of water deliveries in a five-year cycle, it goes into debt that it must repay in the subsequent five-year cycle. This repayment comes in addition to the water it owes during that cycle.

“So, everything must be repaid within a 10-year period,” Hinojosa explains, adding that the treaty doesn’t allow for the debt to be carried into a third five-year cycle, though that did happen following the 1992-1997 cycle. Mexico has fallen into a habit of waiting and gambling for “a tropical system to pay this water for them,” he adds.

“A cycle ends when the United States conservation capacity is filled at both reservoirs,” he explains. “So, if there was some kind of storm that filled our capacity at 3.3 million acre-feet, then a cycle ends, all debts are considered paid, and a new cycle begins.”

This weather-dependent mindset needs to change, Hinojosa says.

What Now?

Even with the comparatively good 2024-25 year of water deliveries from Mexico, Jones characterized the situation for Texas as a dire one.

“The 2026 spring planting season here begins in February, and agriculture has only 50% of the water it needs,” he said in his statement. “Something must be done and done now, or we risk losing an entire industry.”

Hinojosa says the U.S. needs more leverage to enforce the annual water deliveries from Mexico the 1944 treaty requires. He and many others have said working treaty enforcement into the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is a potential way to prevent these situations in the future.

The trade connection isn’t new. Hinojosa notes the short water deliveries from Mexico started after the North American Free Trade Association was executed in 1994.

“With the passage of NAFTA — that started out with waiving the tariffs on about 50% of the goods from Mexico, then 10 years later eliminated the tariffs completely — that just gave Mexico free rein to increase their irrigated agriculture with the water that used to flow into the Rio Grande,” he says. “That really hurt us.”

Nebraska Urges Action on Canal Fight with Colorado

Thu, 30 Oct 2025 11:56:56 GMT

Claims and counterclaims come in and out like seasonal stream flows in the ongoing fight between Colorado and Nebraska over the Perkins County Canal.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser and State Engineer Jason Ullman met with the state legislature’s Joint Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee on Oct. 29. The hearing was to update the legislators on Nebraska’s lawsuit against Colorado, launched July 16, over a proposed canal on the South Platte River, an important source of irrigation water for both states.

“Our position is there is no case that’s yet ripe,” Weiser told the committee. “We’ve told the Supreme Court that this case is not ready for prime time, and the court should decline to hear it.”

Just minutes before the hearing began, however, Nebraska’s Attorney General Mike Hilgers issued a request to the U.S. Supreme Court , urging them to pursue the lawsuit and reject Colorado’s request for denial.

These are just the most recent events in a fight over water rights on the South Platte River that started July 16 when Nebraska sued Colorado .

On the one hand, Nebraska claims Colorado is violating the South Platte River Compact , which governs water sharing on the river between the states, is stealing water owed to Nebraska, and is hurting Nebraskan agriculture as a result.

On the other hand, Colorado claims Nebraska’s lawsuit is “meritless,” and has threatened the state and its agricultural property owners along the proposed canal path with unprecedented use of eminent domain.

Backstory Behind the Current Back-and-Forth

The compact, signed between the two states in 1923, outlined the right for Nebraska to create the Perkins County Canal in Colorado “for the diversion of water from the South Platte River within Colorado for irrigation of lands in Nebraska” during the non-irrigation season. Nebraska’s lawsuit asserts that Colorado has blocked its efforts to build this canal.

In the lawsuit’s bill of complaint , Nebraska says it initiated the building effort in 2022, including initial land acquisition talks with Colorado landowners in the projected canal area and “communicated no fewer than ten times between October 2022 and June 2025” with Colorado’s legal and technical representatives.

“Despite Nebraska’s best efforts to secure cooperation, Colorado has stonewalled and opposed Nebraska at every step,” the complaint reads.

Meanwhile, Colorado says there’s been no canal effort to block.

“For the century plus that this compact has been in place, Nebraska has declined to build such a canal,” Weiser said. “They have taken only the most preliminary steps thus far and there is a significant permitting process they will have to go through if they are serious. Many of these steps they have yet to do.”

Nebraska’s Oct. 29 request to the Supreme Court calls earlier such claims made Weiser and others untrue.

“Nebraska has spent millions of dollars on designs, permitting, legal and consulting fees, right-of-way investigations, and infrastructure engineering for the Canal,” the request document reads. “The design is substantially developed, and all major engineering decisions have been made. Nebraska has already acquired 80 acres in Colorado to facilitate Canal construction.”

Question of State-to-State Eminent Domain

Those Colorado acres came from one landowner who sold to Nebraska after it reached out to landowners along the proposed route in late 2022. While the lawsuit document characterized this initial outreach as amiable with Colorado landowners, saying it offered six Colorado landowners 115% of fair market value for their properties, Colorado characterized Nebraska’s later interactions — which included threats of condemnation — as threatening.

Ullman told committee members, “We are aware that [Nebraska] made these offers and threats of condemnation to a limited group of landowners at the location where the head gate of the canal was going to be, not along the 13 additional miles of canal that is necessary.”

Colorado state Sen. Byron Pelton (R-District 1), who represents the area where the Perkins County Canal would go, said the situation has been hard on those in his agriculture-dependent district.

“They are concerned about where their water is coming from,” he said. Pelton added that “$4.6 billion is generated with agriculture just in my district alone, and that’s because of the South Platte River and the Republican River basin.”

But he also questioned the seriousness of Nebraska’s negotiation efforts in light of the threats of eminent domain against Colorado farmers, ranchers and growers.

“It has been my experience growing up farming and ranching my entire life that whenever you walk into somebody’s property, walk into somebody’s place of business, and threaten eminent domain, everything shuts down — there is no more negotiation,” he said. “[Nebraska has] done nothing but threaten eminent domain from the very beginning.”

With some limitations, however, the compact grants Nebraska “the right to acquire by purchase, prescription, or the exercise of eminent domain” lands and easements necessary for the canal. In its lawsuit, Nebraska recognized that element of the compact as “exceptional.” It nonetheless asserts that it had moved to exerting this right only after meeting with Colorado landowners and met with “little success.”

Even though the right of eminent domain is in the compact, Weiser described it as potentially opening up “some novel, unprecedented territory” should the canal effort move forward.

“If this process is to get started — the eminent domain process, the condemnation process — that will generate some legal question,” Weiser said. “Our position is Colorado’s law of eminent domain is the only eminent domain law that applies in the state of Colorado.”

Texas Leaders Urge Rio Grande Valley Residents to Act on Water

Fri, 10 Oct 2025 19:26:12 GMT

There are 14 days left in the current five-year water cycle between the U.S. and Mexico. According to the 1944 water treaty, Mexico must deliver 1.75 million acre-feet of water from the Rio Grande River to Texas.

It almost certainly won’t make the total. As of Oct. 4 (most recent complete data), Mexico has only delivered 811,348 acre-feet.

“Currently, under the 1944 water treaty, there are no consequences to the Mexican government if they fail to deliver the water to us,” U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz (TX-15) said Oct. 10 at a press event hosted by Texas International Produce Association.

De La Cruz and the event’s other speakers stressed the need to give the 1944 treaty teeth by including water delivery enforcement mechanisms into the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement , which is up for renegotiation next year. To this end, all the speakers called for action.

“We need the public to step in and make comments on the U.S. Trade Representative’s website to urge them to put [the 1944 water treaty] into the USMCA agreement,” De La Cruz said.

Anyone interested can submit via the USTR’s comment portal , docket No. USTR-2025-0004. More detail below on specifics.

Comments can be submitted no later than Oct. 30, 2025.

The impact of late and lacking water deliveries

All speakers stressed the negative impacts of the late, lacking and sometimes non-existent deliveries of water from Mexico on Texas.

“Who suffers?” De La Cruz asked. “Not the Mexican farmers. Our farmers. Our fellow community members right here in the Rio Grande Valley.”

She referenced the loss of Texas’ sugar mill as an example of that suffering and cited negative impacts on Texas ranchers and row crop farmers. Dante Galeazzi, president and CEO of TIPA, quantified the impact for produce.

“This last year, our farmers put 30% less fruit and vegetables into the ground, not because they wanted to but because they were forced to,” he said.

This reduction, he said, was the result of tough decisions in the face of years of unpredictable, insufficient water deliveries. He added that Rio Grande-area growers are no longer able to grow water-intensive crops or crops that need specific watering intervals like broccoli or cauliflower or celery now due to the water situation with Mexico.

“Our farmers are not able to do the diverse mix that they usually can,” he said. “That creates all kinds of problems. The biggest problem is, when you have all these farmers planting the same two or three crops and that market goes down, the entire region goes down too.”

But it isn’t ag alone who suffers, according to Daniel Rivera, executive director of the Elsa Economic Development Corporation. Speaking from his experience in the ranching-heavy rural Hidalgo County town of Elsa, he said the impact of the lack of Mexico’s water deliveries ripples out into his community and beyond into Texas’ economy.

“Water drives production, labor and infrastructure; the very sectors that USMCA was designed to strengthen,” he said. “If we tie the 1944 water treaty to the USMCA, we create a system that assures predictability and accountability because, without reliable water, our region’s economic engine fails.”

Submitting USMCA Comments

Though De La Cruz said she didn’t know what water delivery enforcement mechanisms might look like if included in USMCA, she stressed the importance of making such mechanisms available.

“Please, submit your comments asking for the 1944 water treaty to be included into the USMCA agreement,” she said. “This is the time when the Rio Grande Valley can step up into the national light and really highlight the need for this treaty to be in the USMCA agreement.”

TIPA made some logistical recommendations for those in Texas agriculture who decide to submit comments, including:

In the “Chapters” prompt, select any that apply to your situation, but also or at least select 2, 3, 10, 24, and 31
If you are directly involved in Texas agriculture, include details such as number of acres, what you grow or raise on your operation, years in operation and number of employees you hire in your comments

Galeazzi described submitting comments as being a small time investment that could have big, beneficial impacts for the Rio Grande Valley.

“It will take 5 minutes out of your day, but if all 1.5 million citizens of the Rio Grande Valley were to take those 5 minutes, it would send a clear message to all three countries just how important this is, just how much we depend on the Rio Grande River,” he said.

“Please — citizens of the Rio Grande Valley and further afield — take the time,” he said. “Make the comments. Help save our region, save our way of life, and save our path forward.”

Your next reads:

California's Water Crisis: Farmers Warn Water Rules Could Cripple Central Valley Agriculture

Wed, 01 Oct 2025 10:52:47 GMT

On Hansen Ranch in the Central Valley, fifth-generation farmer Erik Hansen grows a little bit of everything — pistachios, almonds, pomegranates, alfalfa, corn for silage and cotton.

“We farm 15, 16 different crops,” Hansen says. “Cotton is our biggest acreage crop, and that’s in the form of Pima cotton.”

That diversification has long been the Hansen family’s survival strategy. But in spring 2023, no amount of crop rotation could shield them from disaster.

“Where we’re standing right now was underwater,” Hansen recalls. “A mile from here, over by that PG&E substation, was the edge of the lake.”

The flood wiped out 600 acres of pomegranates and 400 acres of pistachios. One thousand acres of permanent crops gone in one season.

“It was a massive hit,” Hansen says. “We had about 5,000 to 6,000 acres under water. Some of that water lasted for over a year.”

From Too Much Water to Not Enough

The irony is hard to ignore: In 2023, floodwaters destroyed thousands of acres. Now, Hansen says it’s the lack of access to water that could cripple farms across the Central Valley.

“The last projections I heard were anywhere from 1 million to 1.2 million acres totaled in the valley,” he says, referring to farmland that could be idled by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) .

Passed in 2014, SGMA requires local agencies to reduce groundwater overdraft and achieve sustainable use by 2040. On paper, Hansen says, that makes sense.

“To some extent it is good because you have to have a way to manage the overdraft,” he explains. “The problem is there are surface water facilities we developed back in the 50s and 60s that we’re just not using. A lot of that water is going out to the Pacific Ocean.”

For Hansen, the politics sting. He believes decades of state decisions — prioritizing fish and wildlife, reallocating water, and neglecting infrastructure — set up today’s crisis.

“I’m frustrated because the families that have been farming here for years, some decades, sometimes even more, are being footed with a bill for problems that somebody else created,” Hansen says. “If the state doesn’t look in the mirror, I think we’re going to find ourselves in the same position again.”

Young Farmers Face the Same Struggles

Forty miles south, 30-year-old Elizabeth Keenan is navigating the same regulatory headwinds. Her grandfather Charlie started Keenan Farms in 1972, acquiring one of California’s first pistachio orchards. Today, Elizabeth farms alongside her parents and brother.

“Rolling with the regulatory punches can be complicated,” she admits. “Despite pistachios being such a high-value product, despite having optimal land and weather conditions, we really have everything set up beautifully — except for legislation.”

Water, she says, is the most difficult hurdle.

“We’re up to a 50% allocation,” Keenan explains. “The base allocation is 2.2 acre-feet, so we get 1.1 acre-feet to use. Otherwise, we have to have open fallow fields. To pump more water, we have to buy it on the open market, and that’s expensive too.”

A Political Battle Over Flows

Signs line highways across the Central Valley warning that 80% of California’s river water flows out to the Pacific instead of farms. Assemblyman David Tangipa, a freshman lawmaker representing the 8^th District, says those numbers are real.

“It’s 100% happening,” Tangipa says. “Almost 83% of all water in the state is automatically pushed out for environmental purposes.”

California averages about 200 million acre-feet of water each year, Tangipa notes, but despite record rainfall, farms often get less than half of their allocations.

“We’ve prioritized so much environmental legislation that more than 80% of our water is pushed out immediately to the ocean, unnaturally,” he says. “Meanwhile, farmers get less water and more land goes out of production.”

Proponents of Current Water Flows

There are proponents of the current way the water flows, mainly for environmental reasons and to prevent saltwater contamination of freshwater sources.

California releases water into the ocean to prevent saltwater intrusion into freshwater supplies, protect endangered aquatic species and ecosystems, and maintain the delicate balance of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary, a critical source of drinking and irrigation water.

A portion of released water is also used for stormwater management to prevent flooding, as it can be difficult and impractical to capture and store all of it.

And those in favor of environmental water releases say it’s essential to support broader ecosystem benefits like water filtration and carbon sequestration, which are important for overall environmental health.

The Ripple Effect

The Central Valley of California is a powerhouse in food production for the U.S. That area alone produces approximately half of all the fruits and vegetables grown in the U.S., as well as a large portion of the nation’s nuts and other foods. When you break down the numbers, the Central Valley accounts for about 60% of the nation’s fruits and nuts, and about 30% of the nation’s vegetables.

For Thomas Putzel, who works with farmers across the Central Valley, the impact of regulations isn’t just measured in acre-feet. It’s measured in livelihoods and the food supply.

“The environmentalists try to say farmers are wasting water,” he says. “But when we look at what farmers provide, we’re planting forests. One acre of almonds will capture 18 metric tons of carbon a year. That’s like taking 29 million cars off the road.”

Putzel says California voters already approved a water bond to build new storage a decade ago, but no new projects have been built.

“Not one shovel has gone in the ground in 10 years,” he says. “Actually, they took some of that money and tore dams down.”

Meanwhile, permanent crops wither when water isn’t available, leaving behind dead orchards that invite pests and rodents into neighboring fields.

“SGMA’s not necessarily a bad thing,” Putzel says. “But you’ve asked growers to run a marathon with their legs tied together. People don’t understand; food doesn’t come from a grocery store. It comes from a farmer. If California stopped shipping produce for one week, our stores would be empty.”

“Is Farming in California’s Best Interest?”

For Erik Hansen, the question is bigger than water allocations or acreage lost.

“Government is probably the biggest problem right now,” he says. “It just seems California hasn’t really decided whether farming is in their best interest. Politicians like to say they’re for small business and small farming, but virtually every piece of legislation makes it more difficult to survive.”

As the Central Valley wrestles with the challenges of floods, drought and regulations, one reality is clear: The fate of these farms is tied not just to weather and soil but to political decisions that could shape the future of food in America.

USMCA Could Give U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty Teeth

Thu, 28 Aug 2025 19:36:32 GMT

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:

Remember the Sugar Mill: Water Shortfall Looms Over Texas Ag

Tue, 26 Aug 2025 17:06:02 GMT

In February 2024, the board of directors of Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers Inc. announced Texas’ last sugar mill would close. That sugar cane harvest and milling season was to be the Santa Rosa mill’s last.

Why? Mexico had starved the area for irrigation water.

“For over 30 years, farmers in South Texas have been battling with Mexico’s failure to comply with the provisions of the 1944 Water Treaty between the U.S. and Mexico that governs water sharing between the two nations on the Colorado River and the Lower Rio Grande,” the board wrote in its Feb. 22, 2024, announcement .

“We regret the impact our closure will have on communities across the Valley, especially those closest to the mill, La Villa, Santa Rosa, and Edcouch,” it added. The board described the mill as supporting up to 100 local sugar cane growers and employing “over 500 full-time and seasonal workers annually.”

There are two months remaining in the current five-year water cycle in the 1944 treaty, and Mexico hasn’t delivered even half of the water it owes. While it will likely send some additional water this cycle, it probably won’t make up the total.

The lack of full water deliveries will hit growers in the area hard, according to experts. But the lack of water will also hit the industries that support agriculture — and the people who work in those industries or supply them.

In one way or another, experts advise to remember the sugar mill.

Short- and Long-Term Impact on Growers

As produce growers in the Rio Grande Valley look to the prospect of a fourth year of water shortages in 2026, Dante Galeazzi, president and CEO of the Texas International Produce Association, says they will have to make some tough decisions soon.

“They’ve got to decide ‘what am I going to plant?’” he says. “We are sitting just barely better than we were last year at the same time. Not a whole lot better; we still don’t have the water we need to put in a full crop.”

The more distant future is more concerning, however.

“The longer term is perhaps an even more bleak picture for our farmers, unfortunately,” Galeazzi says. He points to the lessons of COVID when it came to big disruptions on supply chains and how markets don’t just magically rematerialize when the stressor goes away.

“If our industry is on average producing 30% less, that means someone else’s region picked up 30% more business. So, when we do get water — and we will have a hurricane and we will get water down here — we will have to fight tooth and nail to get any additional business we can. That really, in my opinion, is the big concern.”

But with growers being water-stressed for so long, that usually also means being profit-stressed.

“Folks down here aren’t all going to have the money to go out and reestablish market share, so that means they’re going to have an uphill battle trying to reclaim that space in the marketplace,” he says.

Impacting the Ecosystem of Agricultural Production

That dynamic applies to more than just growers, however.

“Everyone that goes into the ecosystem of agricultural production are all impacted by this,” Galeazzi says. This can be anyone from seed and chemical companies to the companies that make the boxes, pallets, and packaging for produce. He gave the example of trucking companies: “If they don’t have people to truck for, they’re out of business.”

Similarly, he highlighted the massive infrastructure that goes into making the H-2A program function smoothly — workman’s comp, staffing agencies, buses, housing — as an example of what can be lost.

Lucas Gregory, associate director and chief science officer of the Texas Water Resources Institute, explains the interconnected dynamic in the context of the sugar mill.

“If you have an irrigated operation, like a citrus grove or sugar cane, that has to have water, and if that water is not there, that’s it,” he says. “That’s what happened to sugar cane industry. There was not enough volume that could be guaranteed to keep the mill viable. So, the mill closed, and now with no mill, no sugar cane.”

A recent review by Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service attempted to quantify what the impact of the lack of water deliveries from Mexico on citrus and vegetables in the area. The review estimates the region would lose $358.6 million annually and 6,079 total jobs lacking irrigation water.

“It’s a domino effect that’s felt within the community,” Galeazzi says. “In the four counties that make up the [Rio Grande Valley], something like 56% of the population lives outside municipal limits. That’s a lot of people who are going to be tied into agriculture in the rural community. Those are the guys who are going to get hit on top of the farmers.”

Impact on Irrigation Districts and Beyond

The effect of low water deliveries from Mexico is also real for irrigation districts.

Sonny Hinojosa, current water advocate and former general manager at the Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 2 in San Juan, Texas, explains that irrigation districts in the state have two sources of revenue: the water delivery charge and a flat rate assessment. But both come down to delivering water.

“So, if we don’t have the water, we’re not generating revenue, and you have to start laying people off, and we don’t have money for improvements or maintenance,” he says.

That is the situation playing out in Delta Lake Irrigation District in Edcouch, Texas.

“That’s a big majority of my revenue to keep the doors open here and to keep my employees working and buying equipment,” says Troy Allen, the district’s general manager. “We normally rely on selling at least 80,000 to 120,000 acre feet of water annually to stay alive. And last year was a very, very tough year for us; we sold just a little under 30,000 acre feet worth of water.”

When speaking to The Packer in mid-August, he said the district has only sold 12,000 acre feet this year.

“We’ve really had to tighten our belts to survive,” he adds, explaining that his district usually employs between 51 to 55 people, but now only has 37. He says that, even with how tied into agriculture the region is, many people don’t realize “if we don’t survive, then the farming industry doesn’t survive.”

Hinojosa similarly described irrigation districts as little-known but essential entities in the Texas political landscape.

“We fall between the cracks. Municipalities get all the attention because of the population,” he says.

But negative impacts to irrigation districts are not just a farming issue; they also serve municipalities. Allen says his district serves a few small municipalities, though often at a loss. Galeazzi describes the whole network that depends on water from Mexico as likely to face adjacent economic impacts.

“If the irrigation company has no water, those guys are out of jobs. That infrastructure doesn’t get reinvestment, doesn’t get updated or modernized, further dilapidates, creates further inefficiencies,” he says. “That’s that adjacent community, that adjacent economic downturn, that’s happening as a result of this water scarcity the longer that it goes on in our region.”

Your next reads:

Mexico Probably Won’t Deliver All the Water it Owes

Mon, 25 Aug 2025 14:34:58 GMT

Mexico has two months left to deliver almost 1 million acre-feet of water to the U.S., but all that water probably won’t be coming, according to U.S. experts.

“Barring some kind of tropical system, that’s not going to happen,” says Sonny Hinojosa, current water advocate and former general manager at the Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 2 in San Juan, Texas.

According to the 1944 treaty that governs water sharing between the U.S. and Mexico , Mexico must deliver 1.75 million acre-feet of water from the Rio Grande into Texas every five years. The current cycle ends October 25. As of Aug. 25, it only delivered 747,982 acre-feet , 43% of the total.

“The only thing that can bail Mexico out is a tropical system,” Hinojosa says. “Now, this is a monsoon season in northwest Mexico and west Texas, so we’re still hopeful to get some precipitation, but that still may or may not be enough to get us 100% of the water that we need.”

The deliveries of water from Mexico the the U.S. on the Rio Grande as of Aug. 25, 2025, from the International Boundary and Water Commission.

(Chart from International Boundary and Water Commission)

Hoping for a hurricane

Ideally, Mexico should deliver 350,000 acre-feet of water to the Rio Grande for Texas annually to reach the five-year total of 1.75 million acre-feet. But the 1944 treaty allows deliveries to run on the five-year cycle in the case of extraordinary drought. Mexico has been citing this provision and delivering water later and later in the cycle , often getting into “water debt” by not delivering enough on time.

In the past few cycles, late-cycle hurricanes bumped up deliveries. In the last cycle, which ended on Oct. 24, 2020, Mexico made the total 1.75 million acre-feet in the last days due to a heavy weather event.

The last time Mexico delivered roughly a million-acre feet of water in a couple months — what’s needed now — was at the end of 2010 as a result of Hurricane Alex that hit Mexico in late June.

“That’s the last time our reservoirs were full,” Hinojosa says.

The recent history of water delivery cycles from Mexico to the U.S. on the Rio Grande as recorded by the International Boundary and Water Commission. The mostly-vertical lime green line on the far left of the chart is shows the impact of Hurricane Alex in 2010.

(Chart from the International Boundary and Water Commission)

Alex was a just-in-time hurricane for Texas as well. Hinojosa explains those full reservoirs in late 2010 protected the state’s agriculture while it was deep in drought in 2011 and 2012. But by 2013, the water had again run out.

“It’s horrible to hope for a hurricane, but sometimes it seems to be what we need to get us caught up,” says Troy Allen, general manager of the Delta Lake Irrigation District in Edcouch, Texas.

“We don’t want the devastating ones that kill people,” he adds. “But if we do not get a hurricane this year in the watershed area, it’s going to be very rough come next year.”

Lucas Gregory, associate director and chief science officer of the Texas Water Resources Institute, says the best-case scenario “would be for a system to move pretty far inland and rain up in the mountains, in Chihuahua and the Rio Conchos watershed. That’s upstream of Amistad [International Reservoir], and that’s where the best storage capacity is.”

It’s not just a drought problem

However, there’s far more than drought going on in the situation between Mexico and Texas.

Gregory highlights issues such as growing metro populations on both sides of the Rio Grande and the impacts of climate change as contributing factors.

“But the ability of Mexico to store water in country is improved,” he adds. “They’ve built a lot more reservoirs in more recent history than the U.S. has, so now they can actually hold that water there and use it for themselves.”

Hinojosa says Mexico has built eight reservoirs since the 1944 treaty. Most were built along the Rio Conchos, a major tributary that delivers a lot of water to the Rio Grande — or used to, he says.

“Now they’re capturing it and using all the water for their expanded irrigation,” Gregory adds. “They’re basically irrigating desert with our water.”

Every source The Packer talked to pointed to the expansion of Mexico’s agriculture as a reason the U.S. is not getting the water it’s owed. This is particularly the case in the dry state of Chihuahua, and especially problematic with permanent, water-hungry crops like pecans.

Hinojosa points to the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement as when the problems started.

“It opened the doors for Mexico, mainly Chihuahua, to expand their irrigated agriculture into the desert using water that used to flow into the Rio Grande,” he explains.

“They’re using our water, and I say ‘our water’ because it’s rightfully ours,” he continues. “They’re capturing that water, storing it, using it to grow crops and then bringing them to the U.S. for us. And they’re killing our farmers. They’re killing our market.”

The impact on Texas growers

Since Mexico has only delivered roughly two years’ worth of water over the course of five years, Texas farmers and growers have been in a tough place for a while. Allen explains that his growers have been “on allocation” since April of 2023, while others in neighboring irrigation districts have enforced it since 2022.

“Meaning that they’ve told their farmers they are only going to get X number of irrigations,” he says. He calls the situation unprecedented in his 22 years at the district.

“It’s been very difficult for my farmers,” he adds, saying it is especially “looking pretty scary for the citrus farmers.”

Dante Galeazzi, president and CEO of the Texas International Produce Association, says Texas produce growers in particular are going to have to make some tough decisions.

“What it means this coming season is our growers are going to continue to veer away from water-intensive crops,” he says. “They’re not going to put in broccoli. They’re not going to put in celery. They’re probably not going to take a lot of chances on new commodities. They’re going to double down on what they know works.”

Those produce standbys will likely be crops like cabbage, onions, carrots and established citrus like oranges and grapefruit, he says. But the potential loss of produce diversity comes with its own problems.

“The diversity, the variety, the trying new things — that’s what has always helped South Texas be a region that provides commercial volumes of fresh fruits and vegetables,” Galeazzi stresses. But, without assurances about water availability, growers will likely stay in the safe lane, he adds.

“The safe lane is great, but the safe lane isn’t always profitable, and that’s challenging because now you’re coming off of two years where profits have been cut into if there’s even profits. And now, you’re about to go into year three of pretty similar conditions. It’s gut wrenching.”

What’s likely to happen in the next two months

Though Texas probably won’t get the full volume of water owed by Mexico, it will likely get some additional water this cycle. It might even amount to more than the usual annual delivery.

In an agreement signed between the U.S. State Department and Mexico in late April , Mexico pledged to deliver 324,000 to 420,000 acre-feet between the signing and October. That’s roughly a year’s worth of water delivered in five months. These deliveries are on top of the 110,000 acre-feet Mexico had delivered since the start of the current water year that started Oct. 25, 2024 and late April 2025.

If realized, the April agreement will bring the total deliveries for the current water year to 434,000 to 530,000 acre-feet, and the total five-year cycle deliveries between 854,000 and 950,000 acre-feet.

“Mexico has delivered 60.8% of the minimum that they said they would, so they’re on target to deliver this minimum of 324,000 acre feet,” Hinojosa says. “By the time this current cycle ends, it still leaves them with a deficit, but nonetheless, it has brought us some water in in recent history.”

Hinojosa praises the current administration for putting pressure on Mexico to achieve the April agreement that actually seems to be happening.

“I’ve been in this business for 38 years, and I’ve never known Mexico to do anything voluntarily before a cycle ends,” he says. “There’s a lot of pressure being put on Mexico, and that’s why they made these targets of delivering water to the U.S. before this current cycle ends.”

Needs for the future

More pressure is going to be needed to prevent this situation from repeating in the future, sources say.

“[Our administration is] going to have to implement something that puts pressure on Mexico that’s not tied to water,” Allen opines. That might mean tariffs or inclusion into the USMCA renegotiation, but whatever it is, it needs to spur Mexico to make good on their delivery requirements.

“Mexico could have fulfilled and caught up to what they owed us in 2022 because their reservoirs were full. They had a little over 3 million acre-feet in storage, and they still were over a year behind at that point in time,” Allen says. “But they didn’t deliver any of that water to the U.S.”

Hinojosa says a mindset change is needed in Mexico.

“We need Mexico to treat us, the United States, as we treat them on the Colorado River,” he says. The same 1944 treaty that dictate’s Mexico’s water deliveries to the U.S. on the Rio Grande also dictates the U.S.’s deliveries of water to Mexico on the Colorado River.

He says the U.S. takes Mexico’s allocation “off the top” of the available water in the Colorado River, then divides the rest among the seven U.S. states that rely on it. But Mexico does not return the favor, he adds.

“That has to change,” Hinojosa says. “Mexico needs to recognize that the treaty calls for a minimum delivery to United States of 350,000 acre-feet per year — that’s a minimum delivery — and they need to set that water aside and deliver that water to United States.”

Galeazzi also advocates for a mindset change here in the U.S. around not only Texas’ water issues with Mexico, but all of the country’s water issues. He describes the U.S. as having put water infrastructure on the back burner, adding that the country has “hamstrung ourselves” with excessive and burdensome regulations.

“We absolutely need to pressure Mexico,” he says. “But, if we want to prevent this from happening, the other thing we have to do is we — as a region, a state and a country — need to get serious and make some very big investments in the infrastructure of water.”

Your next reads:

Disappointing Water Allocations for California’s Central Valley

Tue, 01 Jul 2025 20:20:10 GMT

California growers get the first news about how much water they will get for their operations that year in late February. In bad years, the news can start and end there. In over half of the past 24 years , however, allocation updates — usually slight increases, but not always — trickle in each month through the end of June.

June came and went this year without an update to the 55% water allocation for Central Valley Project (CVP) South-of-Delta agricultural contractors received in late May.

Of course, finding out you’re only getting half of your annual water allocation in May or June doesn’t work well for growers who have already planted crops. Knowing earlier rather than later is necessary to make fruitful plans.

According to the Westlands Water District, which serves a southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley, an estimated 210,000 acres will be followed in the district this year. That represents slightly more than a third of the district’s area.

Full Reservoirs, Low Allocations

At the end of May, when the allocation for South-of-Delta agricultural contractors went up from 50% to 55%, Allison Febbo, general manager for the Westlands Water District, called the increase appreciated but disappointing given the situation.

The situation? Almost all of California’s reservoirs were at or above their historic average levels at the time. This situation continued to the end of June.

Reservoir conditions in California as of midnight on June 30, 2025, according to the California Department of Water Resources reservoir storage monitoring app, available at cdec.water.ca.gov/resapp/RescondMain.

(California Department of Water Resources)

“If you look at the reservoir levels and you look at the stream flows and you look at the general hydrology — precipitation, snowpack, all of those things — we’re in a pretty good year,” she says. “We were really hoping, in a year like this, we’d be able to get much higher allocation, much closer to our full allocation amount.”

Westlands gets its water from the San Luis Unit , a joint effort of the federal CVP and the California State Water Project. It primarily supplies irrigation water to the farmland of central California’s San Joaquin Valley; some of the most productive farmland in the world.

“When the CVP came online and we built the San Luis unit of the CVP, the expectation was we would get 100% of our water supply in all years except maybe the very driest years, so extreme drought years,” Febbo says. “And that was happening for the first decade or so, but then we started seeing environmental restrictions come in and cut our water supply.”

According to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the South-of-Delta agricultural contractors have received full allocation, or come close, in only seven out of the past 35 years. In five of those past 35 years, the allocations have been nothing (0%), or close to it.

“We have a long decline in our available water supply to a point now where, instead of expecting something like 100%, we’re expecting on average maybe 30 to 40%,” Febbo says. “That’s really just unsustainable. It points to the fact that we have a broken water system in California that is not meeting the needs and intentions it was built for.”

Modernizing California’s Water Infrastructure

Febbo says the state needs modernized water infrastructure.

The two major water projects in California — the State Water Project and the CVP — were both conceived of in the early 1900s, built throughout the 1900s and represented huge investments from both the federal government and the state of California.

“The state and the federal government saw the value of building a water system in California to grow our economy to become what we are now: The fourth largest economy in the world . But unfortunately, in about the ’70s and ’80s, we as a culture stopped investing in our water systems. We haven’t made any major infrastructure improvements since,” Febbo says.

Modern water infrastructure looks like substantial investments in surface water storage and water conveyance, because it all comes down to surface water, according to Febbo.

“When we don’t have the water supply deliveries that we expect from the water projects, people turn to groundwater, and that’s caused overdraft and subsidence,” she adds. “The best way to protect our groundwater is to make sure we continue to have surface water.”

For 2025, the Westlands Water District estimates it will need to pump 200,000 acre-feet of groundwater to make up for grower needs. But the availability of groundwater will severely decline soon too.

According to California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 , local agencies must submit groundwater sustainability plans.

“We have an approved groundwater sustainability plan and we are meeting sustainability on a fast track by 2030, but that means we’re cutting our access to groundwater for our growers significantly — by more than half — in just a few years,” Febbo says.

This is part of why science- and data-based regulations and management systems for water are another big part of modernized water infrastructure, she adds.

“We’re looking at the various regulations on how we can move water through the Central Valley Project to make sure that, whenever we are cutting water supplies, it has a meaningful benefit. And if there is not a meaningful benefit to our ecosystems, then that action shouldn’t be taken,” she says.

“Westlands remains committed to working with state and federal partners to advance balanced, science-based solutions that improve the regulatory landscape, water storage and delivery capabilities for the hardworking families who grow the food that feeds California — and the nation — day in and day out.”

Those communities in California’s central valley are not doing well, she adds.

“We have local communities that completely rely on our agricultural operations, and we’re seeing them dwindle,” Febbo says. “Schools are closing. Businesses are closing. It’s really hard when people leave to get them back. We want to keep our communities thriving. We want to keep being able to have safe, affordable food. So, that’s why we are taking this so seriously and really advocating for our water supply.”

Your next read:

Proposed Final WOTUS Rule Coming This Summer

Mon, 23 Jun 2025 21:24:09 GMT

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of the Army announced June 17 that the groups expect to issue a final Waters of the U.S. that will bring it in line with the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett decision by the end of 2025.

The announcement came in the wake of nine listening sessions the groups conducted to get input from key stakeholders. Those listening sessions included one that sought comments from the state level and another that focused on industries including agriculture .

“When it comes to the definition of ‘waters of the United States,’ EPA has an important responsibility to protect water resources while setting clear and practical rules of the road that accelerate economic growth and opportunity,” says EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. “These listening sessions gave us real-world perspectives as we work toward a proposed rule that follows the Supreme Court decision in Sackett, ends the regulatory uncertainty and ping-pong that has persisted for years, supports our nation’s farmers who feed and fuel the world, and advances the agency’s Powering the Great American Comeback initiative.”

During the state-level listening session, commentors stressed the need for cooperative federalism and flexibility. During the industry-focused listening session, those representing agricultural interests frequently echoed the need for a predictable, understandable definition that is consistently enforced.

“The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plays a key role in implementing the Clean Water Act. The importance of input from all our stakeholders including landowners, local governments, the states, Tribes and others is critical to how we undertake our statutory responsibilities,” says Lee Forsgren, acting assistant secretary of the Army for Civil Works. “We understand the importance of communication and appreciate the feedback we received as we move forward together with EPA on this important effort.”

What’s coming for WOTUS

EPA’s press office tells The Packer the agencies expect a proposed final rule will be issued in the coming months during the summer. This proposed rule will be available on the Federal Register .

“Once proposed, EPA and Army will open a public comment period, review comments and finalize a rule. Per typical agency practice, public comments would be submitted to the rulemaking docket, including via Regulations.gov ,” the EPA press office says.

The process of reviewing public comment can take some time, particularly on regulations that come with as much public attention as WOTUS. The EPA press office noted that it received over 45,000 letters submitted via the recommendations docket that was open alongside the listening sessions, for example.

The agencies said they intend to issue a final rule by the end of 2025 after the public input is reviewed.

“Once the rule is finalized, it typically takes effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register pursuant to Congressional Review Act requirements,” the EPA press office says.

More information about WOTUS can be found online . Interested members of the public can also subscribe to specific agencies on the Federal Register to be alerted when new documents for public comment are available.

Recent Water Delivery Win is Not Enough

Mon, 16 Jun 2025 21:41:00 GMT

On April 30, Rep. Monica De La Cruz, R-Texas, announced the Mexican government had “agreed to deliver up to 420,000 acre-feet of water” through to October when the current five-year delivery cycle ends. In a June 9 letter to the editor , TJ Flowers, vice president of Lone Star Citrus Growers, thanked De La Cruz and the Trump administration for securing that additional water. And later that week, representatives of Texas agriculture and crops impacted by Mexican water withholdings met with the U.S. Department of State and others in Washington, D.C., to stress that far more needs to be done.

“Part of what we told them is, first and foremost, we are incredibly grateful for this water, and it’s going to be well used,” says Dante Galeazzi, president of the Texas International Produce Association.

It’s a great start, he says, but it is not enough and certainly not at the right time. Growers in Texas and beyond need a more comprehensive solution they can depend on.

“We need to create a system that ensures there is enforcement and that these deliveries occur beyond October. This is a great short-term victory,” he continues. “We need to capture this opportunity, but we also need to expand it.”

Water stats along the Rio Grande

According to the 1944 treaty between the U.S. and Mexico , Mexico must deliver 1.75-million-acre feet of water from the Rio Grande to the U.S. every five-year cycle. This means an average of 350,000 acre feet of water delivered per year. These cycles begin and end in late October, with the current cycle ending on Oct. 24.

According to the International Boundary and Water Commission — the U.S./Mexican international body responsible for applying the boundary and water treaties between the two countries — Mexico has delivered a total 618,799-acre feet through June 7. This level represents roughly a million-acre feet less than what Mexico should have delivered by this time in the cycle.

Even if Mexico delivers all of the 420,000-acre feet of water De La Cruz mentioned as being possible, that will bring Mexico’s total deliveries for this five-year cycle to just over a million-acre feet, slightly more than half of what Mexico is required to deliver. According to records available from the IBWC , recent cycles have seen declining volumes of water deliveries from Mexico.

Water uncertainty means lost U.S. ag

Assuming all of the additional 420,000-acre feet of water is delivered by October, it will not only not be enough, the timing will also be all wrong, according to Galeazzi.

“The problem is, our farming season runs well beyond October,” he says, explaining that growers in Texas, especially south Texas, plan their crops in late summer, plant in fall, and harvest through the beginning of the following summer.

“How are farmers in the U.S. going to make a plan and buy seed and borrow money and everything else if they don’t know if they’re going to have the water?” asks Greg Yielding, executive vice president of the National Onion Association, summarizing the issue.

He outlines the result of not having predictable water, pointing to the closure of Texas’ only sugar mill in 2024 as an example. Galeazzi too offeres an example of a watermelon grower who had to make the hard decision to cut acreage and ultimately sell a recently acquired packing facility due to water issues. Both men say these outcomes are going to get more likely.

“[Growers are] not going to be able to grow crops and, ultimately, more and more of these guys are going to sell off equipment or sell off land,” Galeazzi says. “Or, God forbid, they’re going to have to make the hardest decision: ‘Do I keep doing this another year or do I close up shop?’”

Mexican state of Chihuahua not cooperating

Both Galeazzi and Yielding identify the Mexican state of Chihuahua as a major problem underlaying a lot of the water delivery issues from Mexico.

“What has happened over the last 20 years is Chihuahua has significantly grown its agricultural production,” Galeazzi says.

He explains that since the early 2000s, Chihuahua has more than tripled its acreage of pecans. Yielding similarly notes that the acreage of citrus, onions and other long-term and/or water-hungry crops have expanded greatly in Chihuahua in recent years.

All of this is happening in a state that is roughly half desert. Galeazzi compares it to trying to grow produce in Las Vegas.

“Chihuahua and their agriculture is the same thing — they are growing in an area that should not be growing fresh produce,” he says. “That’s why you see these cycles go down year after year and these deliveries not happening. It’s not because they don’t have the water. Let’s be clear: Chihuahua has the water. They’re just using the water instead of delivering it like they said they would in the treaty.”

Yielding also says Chihuahua has been planting produce crops that directly compete with U.S. producers, pointing to onions as an example.

“They greatly increased their onion acres in the last 10 years, and they are only able to do that because they don’t release the water from the impoundments,” he says, stressing that such efforts impact all of U.S. agriculture, not just onion growers in Texas.

“What [Chihuahuan growers] do affects prices — and I specifically talk about onions — all the way up to Washington and Oregon and Idaho and New York and everywhere,” Yielding says. “It’s affecting everything, all onions, not just the Texas growers.”

Enforcement is key to 1944 treaty issues

Solving the ongoing issue of growing demand on the finite resource of shared water is a difficult one. Galeazzi points to other sources of water Mexico could tap to fulfill their treaty obligations such as the Rio San Juan. But ultimately, he says the situation in Chihuahua needs to change.

“Chihuahua is going to have to make some very difficult decisions about what stays and what goes, but ultimately, that’s where a bulk of that water can come from.” Galeazzi says. “Chihuahua is obligated to participate in a treaty that the country of Mexico signed with the country of the U.S., and it is not OK for a state in Mexico to not comply because they simply don’t want to or don’t think it’s fair.”

Enforcement is the key, however. Yielding says this is something for the current administration to take care of, praising recent past efforts of the Trump administration refusal to deliver water to Tijuana from the Colorado River .

“That’s the level it’s got to be at to get anything done.” he says. “We figured that out a while back. Everything was being done in terms of trying to negotiate with the Mexican government, and it hasn’t worked.”

Galeazzi also stresses the importance of enforcement. Though he says he doesn’t know what it might look like, he points to the upcoming renegotiation of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement as a potential tool.

“That would be fantastic in my opinion, if the renegotiation occurred with a compliance mechanism for the water treaty.” Galeazzi says. “That has really been our ask of the government agencies as we move forward — we need compliance mechanisms created so that way Mexico sees that there is value in honoring that signature on the treaty.”

Yielding says he and the others who talked to the administration recently want them to know efforts can’t stop with these potential water deliveries.

“We don’t want people in the administration or the general ag community to think, ‘There’s going to be some water release, so everything must be OK,’” he says. “That’s not the case. This is not over.”

Your Next Read:

Irrigators Are Water Supply Friends … if You Listen

Tue, 10 Jun 2025 20:05:00 GMT

DENVER — Speaking at the American Water Works Association’s Annual Conference and Exposition conference on June 9, Dixie Poteet, a graduate research assistant at Colorado State University’s water resources engineering, told fellow water workers that irrigators can be “friends for future water supply planning.”

She explained the issue of buy and dry — where water rights are sold away from historically agricultural land, usually to a local municipality — to her largely non-agricultural audience. She also pointed out that stripping the water rights from agricultural land usually precedes it being removed from production.

“The classic picture of that is when a farm field gets turned into multiple houses or a subdivision,” she said. “Typically, this is blamed on growing urban water demands or population,” she added.

Alternatives to buy and dry (and farm goodbyes)

Given the generally negative impact on agriculture and rural communities, many in production resist buy-and-dry strategies. But buy and dry isn’t the only way to temporarily offset a municipality’s water needs, Poteet said. Water leasing, under various names — including collaborative water sharing agreements or alternative transfer methods — is a viable alternative.

“These are strategies and agreements that utilize temporary lease or transfer of water to nearby or interested entities,” Poteet explained. Farmers “can temporarily lease that water to a nearby municipality or party and get paid at or above market value, hopefully, so that they offset the cost of not having that water to produce with and perhaps meeting the water needs of those nearby.”

But these strategies are poorly utilized, Poteet said. As part of her ongoing Ph.D. research efforts, she started by trying to find out why.

“We have a solution, supposedly, but why isn’t it more widely implemented?” she said. “I started my Ph.D. saying: Why don’t we talk to the farmers?”

Listening to the farmers

Through listening sessions and interviews with Colorado farmers and ranchers as part of her research, Poteet found a collection of barriers to the adoption of water leasing programs. These included knowledge issues (e.g. “what is a CWSA/ATM?”), support issues (e.g. “Who do I go to to learn more?”) and trust issues among stakeholders.

“There has to be trust between stakeholders, and there’s often a perceived power imbalance: us versus them, east slope versus west slope, urban versus rural ag, big ag versus small ag, that ditch versus my ditch,” Poteet offered as an example.

But the key Poteet stressed to the audience of AWWA members — water professionals across industries such as water utilities, wastewater treatment, scientists, environmental advocates and irrigation districts — was that working with agricultural water users requires trust and relationship building. That starts with keeping their needs in mind.

“I had someone tell me ‘I had an irrigation leak over the weekend; I don’t have time to think about how much I can sell my water right for if I’m trying to track down a leak and replace the pipe,’” Poteet said. “That is a key thing to think about when proposing solutions; these are people’s livelihoods where their lives revolve around if irrigation turns on.”

She added that, according to her research, there are agricultural water users who are actively interested in temporary water leasing. But working together for water supply planning at the ag-urban interface comes down to listening.

“We’re talking about irrigators as friends,” she said. “Part of being a good friend with irrigators and having key collaboration is to actually listen.”

California governor proposes fast-tracking water infrastructure projects

Mon, 19 May 2025 12:35:54 GMT

California Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a proposed addition to his state budget May 14 that would “fast-track” water infrastructure improvements. The presented changes would, among other things, change the way property acquisitions — including eminent domain — are dealt with relative to water infrastructure projects under the State Water Project . It would also change how protests to water rights permitting decisions are managed.

“For too long, attempts to modernize our critical water infrastructure have stalled in endless red tape, burdened with unnecessary delay,” Newsom said in a news release. “We’re done with barriers — our state needs to complete this project as soon as possible, so that we can better store and manage water to prepare for a hotter, drier future.”

The proposal includes several changes to existing law.

For example, it notes the state currently must appraise a property it seeks to acquire before negotiations start. The government must also provide a summary of how that appraisal was reached to the property owner. The proposal would exempt efforts by the State Water Resources Development Board to acquire property relative to the needs of water supply facilities from these requirements.

The proposal also notes that, under existing law, protests to water rights permitting decisions must meet certain requirements, including deadlines. While existing law “authorizes the board to cancel a protest, permit or petition” for failure to meet the specified requirements, the new proposal would require the cancellation.

“The proposals will allow the Department of Water Resources to move quickly through the permitting and land acquisition processes for the Delta Conveyance Project to allow the state’s most important water supply and climate adaptation project to move forward, saving years, and billions of dollars by avoiding further delay,” Ryan Endean, deputy director of communications for the California Department of Water Resources, told The Packer.

“The State Water Project delivers water to 750,000 acres of farmland,” he added. “Fast-tracking the Delta Conveyance Project will allow the system to more reliably deliver water to those agricultural regions — providing growers with a higher degree of water supply security — as we see more extreme swings between wet periods and drought.”

Endean said Newsom’s proposed budget will go to the California Legislature, which is required to pass the main budget by June 15. The same deadline is not required of trailer bills such as the new proposal.

“If approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor, the proposals would take effect later this summer,” said Endean, who added, “The target date for the start of [the Delta Conveyance Project’s] construction is 2029 and these proposals keep that target on track.”

Ag on WOTUS: We need predictability, dependability and consistency

Thu, 01 May 2025 19:48:59 GMT

It was a full virtual house during the Waters of the U.S. listening session for industry and agriculture. The May 1 morning session was part of an ongoing outreach effort by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers in reworking WOTUS to bring it into alignment with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett decision .

Over 40 speakers gave public comments and dozens more on the waiting list were left when the almost three-hour listening session ended.

The message from speakers — agricultural and industrial alike — was resounding: ‘We need clear, consistent, predictable and dependable definitions on WOTUS that everyday people can understand.’

Clear, consistent, predictable, dependable and understandable

“Agriculture bears the brunt of expansive and ambiguous WOTUS definitions,” said Norm Semanko, an environmental lawyer speaking for Family Farm Alliance. This perspective was echoed in dozens of ways by almost every agricultural voice at the hearing.

Garrett Hawkins, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, put a fine point on the issue.

“We’ve seen WOTUS definitions, guidance and legal arguments change with each administration,” he said, “and farmers, land owners and small businesses are the ones who suffer the most when we don’t have clear rules.”

“This uncertainty forces us to hire experts just to get guidance on whether we can use common agricultural practices on our farms,” he continued. Other speakers pointed out that getting it wrong is not an option for those in agriculture.

“The costs associated with non-compliance of the Clean Water Act are just simply too high for farmers,” said Jay Bragg, commodity and regulatory activities associate director for the Texas Farm Bureau. Instead, farmers “should be able to make these determinations without consultants or engineers.”

This was a theme repeated by speaker after speaker. Many quoted the direct text of the original Clean Water Act and its focus on “ordinary parlance” related to definitions of a water of the U.S.

“A practical WOTUS definition will allow the average landowner — not an engineer, not an attorney, not a wetland specialist — to walk out on their property, see a water feature, and make, at minimum, a preliminary determination about whether a feature is federally jurisdictional,” said Kim Brackett, vice president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

Ditches, converted crop land and other categories

The hosts of the listening session called the issue of jurisdictional determinations on ditches one of critical importance. Agricultural commenters agreed and called for wide, if not complete, exemption of agricultural ditches under the WOTUS definition.

“No farm ditches should ever be included as a WOTUS. They should be excluded because they are neither streams, oceans, rivers or lakes,” said Michael Formica, chief legal strategist for the National Pork Producers Council, effectively summarizing the arguments of dozens of commenters.

Those who commented from outside the agricultural industry also stressed the importance of excluding most if not all ditches from jurisdictional waters definitions. Several representatives from building organizations cited concerns related to especially road-side ditches being considered jurisdictional.

Though fewer commenters spoke on the issue of prior converted cropland and its place in WOTUS, those who did made similar arguments appealing to common sense.

“Broadly speaking, land should not be classified as a jurisdictional water,” said Christina Gruenhagen, government relations counsel for the Iowa Farm Bureau. “Prior converted cropland should be considered land and not a jurisdictional water.”

Almost every speaker referenced the need for WOTUS definitions to conform with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett decision . Most also called for the agencies to significantly reduce the categories of jurisdictional waters.

“The Sackett decision helps us to clarify that there are three — and only three — primary categories of WOTUS waters,” said Andy Rieber, public lands consultant for Humbolt County, Nev. These are the traditional interstate navigable waters, waters with a relatively permanent flow connected to them, and wetlands which are adjacent to either of those two prior categories.

“It is important for the EPA and the Army Corps of engineers to ensure that their definition of WOTUS reflects those three —and only those three — categories.”

Future engagement opportunities on WOTUS

The agency hosts of the May 1 morning listening session for industry and ag told attendees there is another listening session planned for the public. That listening session has not yet been scheduled, however. They urged those who were unable to give testimony to keep watch on the EPA’s WOTUS site .

Your next read:

States seek cooperation on WOTUS definitions

Tue, 29 Apr 2025 21:46:09 GMT

During the first of several listening sessions on the future of Waters of the U.S., state-level stakeholders had a clear message for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers: Respect cooperative federalism, and work with the states and their unique needs.

“Rule No. 1 is for the federal government not to get into the way of, or complicate efforts on behalf of, the states’ environmental agencies,” said Ben Grumbles, executive director of the Environmental Council of the States.

“All of our members support the rule of law, the value of wetlands and small waters, and the need for cooperative federalism to help achieve the overall goals of the Clean Water Act.”

Cooperative federalism and state flexibility

Cooperative federalism refers to the fact the CWA gives states the right to set standards and issue permits if they meet federal requirements. Sections 101b and 510 of CWA address the concept of cooperative federalism. This provision recognizes the interconnected nature of the state- and federal-level efforts to protect waters of the U.S.

Most speakers stressed the importance of this concept in their comments, some very directly.

“The section 401 certification program is an embodiment of these cooperative federalism principles,” said Jennifer Congdon, director of federal affairs for New York Department of Environmental Conservation. She explained that federal agencies cannot issue a permit or license for an activity that could discharge into a water of the U.S. unless the state either allows it or waives the need.

“If more wetlands are excluded from WOTUS, then certain federal projects would not require a section 401 water quality certification by the states, and it could prevent New York from determining whether certain projects would impair water quality in our own state, thus violating the right to do so as enshrined in the Clean Water Act.”

Many commenters spoke less directly about cooperative federalism, instead stressing the need for flexibility considering each state’s unique hydrologic situation. Commenters speaking for arid southwestern states pointed to the ephemeral nature of flows and water quality concerns that come with desert environments, for example.

Megan Kernan, energy, water and major water projects division manager for Washington’s Department of Fish and Wildlife, highlighted the vast difference in the state’s hydrology from the coast, which gets roughly 120 inches of precipitation, to the east, which can see less than 10.

Gene McCabe, director of the division of water with Alaska’s Department of Conservation, pointed out his state has an ecosystem unique in the entire nation.

“Applying the Clean Water Act to Alaska’s permafrost wetland imposes unnecessary complexity and delay, forcing a framework designed for the lower 48 states onto an arctic ecosystem,” he said. “Alaska asserts the Clean Water Act, as it stands, is simply too blunt an instrument to manage these areas effectively.”

Kernan summarized many commenters’ statements on the need for flexibility, saying: “We understand the desire for clear and easy-to-administer protocols for implementing the WOTUS rule, but the reality is that ecological systems are diverse, highly nuanced and often difficult to neatly bin into rigid categories.”

While each representative from the different states made specific comments based on their state’s interests, all speakers shared several core themes:

The agencies must use science-based, data-driven approaches to jurisdictional determinations.
Definitions must allow for flexibility for the states
States have rich, localized research and knowledge on water quality.
Even non-jurisdictional waters are important to the states’ economies and environments.

Future listening sessions, engagement on WOTUS

The state-focused listening session was held April 29 and was the first of several the EPA and Corps are holding. The listening sessions are part of an effort to bring WOTUS into alignment with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett decision .

“We all know we’ve been here on this WOTUS journey a long time, so our effort here is to provide a regulation that will stand the test of time, prioritizing practical implementation approaches,” said Stacey Jensen, director of the oceans, wetlands and communities division of EPA, who hosted the listening session.

Additional listening sessions will be held through May 6. More information on future listening sessions can be found online. The EPA and Corps are also accepting written federalism feedback from states, local governments and their representative organizations through June 2. Interested parties can email their comments to CWAwotus@epa.gov .

Jensen said the agency expects to solicit public comments on a forthcoming proposed rule. She encouraged members of the public to keep watch on the EPA’s WOTUS site and the Federal Register for that and submit written feedback when available.

Your next read:

Mexico Will Send More Water to Texas to Make Up Treaty Shortfall, USDA Says

Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:11:02 GMT

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said on Monday that Mexico would increase its water shipments to Texas to help make up a shortfall under a 1944 treaty that outlines water-sharing between the countries.

U.S. officials and lawmakers have complained that Mexico’s failure to meet its obligations under the treaty is harming Texas farmers.

Mexico has argued that it is under drought conditions that have strained the country’s water resources.

“After weeks of negotiations with Mexican cabinet officials alongside the Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, we secured an agreement to give Texas producers the water they need to thrive. While this is a significant step forward, we welcome Mexico’s continued cooperation to support the future of American agriculture,” Rollins said in a statement.

🚨In President Trump’s first 100 days, we have secured an agreement with Mexico alongside @DeputySecState for an immediate transfer of water from international reservoirs to Texas farmers.

This will meet the immediate needs of American farmers and ranchers, and sets the stage…
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) April 28, 2025

Earlier this month, Reuters reported that the water issue had emerged as a possible new front in trade negotiations between the two countries.

The water treaty requires Mexico to send 1.75 million acre-feet of water to the U.S. from the Rio Grande every five years.

Mexico will now “transfer water from international reservoirs and increase the U.S. share of the flow in six of Mexico’s Rio Grande tributaries through the end of the current five-year water cycle,” which ends in October, said a USDA statement.

My gratitude to President Trump and Secretary Rollins. They have delivered as promised for our farmers. Mexico will meet its treaty obligations and provide south Texas water as required.
— Sid Miller (@MillerForTexas) April 29, 2025

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce in a statement thanked Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum “for her personal involvement in facilitating cooperation across multiple levels of her government to establish a unified path to addressing this ongoing priority.”

Mexico’s government released its own statement later on Monday saying it would implement “a series of measures aimed at mitigating potential shortfalls in water deliveries” including immediate water transfers as well as during the upcoming rainy season.

“All of these actions have as their fundamental premise the assurance of water supplies for human consumption for the Mexican populations that depend on the waters of the Rio Grande,” the statement said.

Your Next Read:
Tiny Farm Town Defies Feds, Drains Water to Protect Citizens

Can Mexico Afford to Retaliate Against the U.S.?

EPA sessions seek input on WOTUS rework

Mon, 21 Apr 2025 14:57:45 GMT

The Environmental Protection Agency will begin a series of five listening sessions next week on defining “waters of the United States” — or WOTUS — following the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against the agency . Beginning April 29, the sessions aim to get “targeted input” from stakeholders.

The EPA is asking for input on topics including the concepts of “continuous surface connection” and “relatively permanent,” as well as jurisdictional versus non-jurisdictional ditches.

Listening sessions are scheduled for:

Tuesday, April 29, 9:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. ET — Session for states (virtual and in person in Washington, D.C.).
Wednesday, April 30, 1-3:30 p.m. ET — Session for tribes (virtual).
Thursday, May 1, 9:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. ET — Session for industry and agriculture (virtual and in person in Washington, D.C.).
Thursday, May 1, 1-3:30 p.m. ET: — Session for environmental and conservation (virtual and in person in Washington, D.C.).
To be determined — session for the public.

Participants must register to attend the listening sessions. Visit the EPA’s WOTUS outreach and engagement page to register .

To attend in-person, participants must register at least 48 hours ahead of the event. Virtual listening sessions will be held via Zoom. Participants can preregister to give a three-minute testimony, but speaking slots are limited and given out on a first-come, first-served basis

Your next read: