The timeliness of transboundary water management approaches is due in part to the cloud of security fears hovering over the region. Security has always been a factor in border politics but is currently an overriding presence. Border security was a central issue at the trinational North American Summit on March 23 of this year. The other key issue was trade. Sadly, the trilateral talks focused on insecurities rather than opportunities. However, the event highlighted the need for development of rational border policies before water concerns become casualties of national agendas. The transboundary concept is not only useful for binational issues, but for any situation in which a natural resource goes beyond a single jurisdiction. The two national governments, eight states, 25 border tribal governments in the United States, nearly as many tribes on the Mexican side, local governments, and their citizens need the tools and abilities to deal with each other effectively. Sovereignty, whether it is regional, state, tribal, or national, is a significant concern when any issue crosses boundaries.

The challenge to manage border water resources in a sustainable fashion is by no means easy. A great many extenuating factors emerge when the deeper issues are considered. In Mexico, water is a public national property and is federally regulated. This is done through federal agencies such as the Comisión Nacional del Agua (CNA), or National Water Commission. Pumping from aquifers is controlled by the federal government, while pumping from those same aquifers in the United States is mostly regulated by the states according to each one’s policy. In the United States, both the federal and state governments have some authority over surface and groundwater. Most standing interstate and international water treaties have come from the federal government. However, states handle many situations between themselves. Ultimately water management is decided inter-state; states have significant differences in management policies and practices. For example, Texas considers surface waters a public resource to be allocated by the state to everyone, but it considers groundwater to be private property. Water resources in New Mexico are public as stipulated in the state constitution while rights to water use are privately held. These differences add difficulty to cooperative efforts, yet they are one of the reasons transboundary approaches could increase management efficiency.

The lack of new or additional water-related infrastructure is another real and generally costly impediment to tracking and managing water and water usage. Recent initiatives to make water conservation projects cost-effective, such as the proposed Brownville-Matamoros Weir, are potential cooperative efforts to deal with the high costs of infrastructure needs. The Brownsville Public Utilities Board, City of Matamoros, CNA, and the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) all are involved in this binational initiative for a reservoir on the Lower Rio Grande that is intended to assure reasonable operating costs in providing municipal supplies. Initial funding for such projects can be difficult--especially for smaller communities. The overriding efficiency goals of transboundary water management can attract funding to offset individual community needs and assist communities in prioritizing those needs. Agreement on how to carry out such projects is another difficult factor. A standardized list of transboundary considerations in negotiations could ease tension in talks for infrastructure changes that will benefit both sides in the end.

Approaches to groundwater management are inconsistent. Applying transboundary criteria could promote coherency. Ground and surface water systems cross political boundaries, causing difficulties in forming a complete picture of those resources. Monitoring, mapping, and quality testing of both surface and groundwater is important, but complicated. Lately, regional initiatives--many involving universities--have been instrumental in attempts to bridge gaps between cities along the border. At the behest of Tijuana’s planning department, the Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias is working with other universities and organizations on a binational Tijuana River management project. The hope for the project is a water management plan that allows for sustainable urban development potential and environmental protection.

Disastrous, gaping holes and inconsistencies in data arise; standards vary; and equipment and human resources are not equally accessible to all of the constituencies dependent on border waters. For example, an aquifer that has water pumped by several communities under different political authorities cannot be measured in only one place with any real accuracy. El Paso and Ciudad Juarez have had recent conflicts concerning the quality and quantity of water the cities are pumping from the Hueco Bolson, including quarrels about when they were likely to run out of potable water. El Paso Water Utilities feels Ciudad Juarez has diversified less in sources of water, with Juarez’s entire municipal supply being pumped from the shared subterranean reserves. Juarez has planned options for diversifying, but infrastructure and funding remain problems in tapping alternate sources for the municipal supply. This urban corridor at the point of convergence of the states of Texas, New Mexico, and Chihuahua has become a center for transboundary initiatives, largely due to a need from local authorities, entities, and citizens to deal with detrimental clashes, as well as extreme population and industrial growth. The center for Sustainability of semi-Arid Hydrology and Riparian Areas (SAHRA) is working on salination studies of both surface and ground water for the El Paso-Juarez corridor with El Paso Utilities and the IBWC. A group of significance considered a model of transboundary cooperative efforts is the Paso del Norte Water Task Force, which is focusing a great deal on transboundary and cooperative water management in the El Paso-Juarez-Southern New Mexico corridor. The task force has many initiatives in progress or under consideration, including the combining of data gathering and analysis with prospective management mechanisms. In 2000 the task force created a Water Planning Report from data research. They now are using the report to develop a set of recommendations for entities in the region. They note that determining the true water picture is nearly impossible without a transboundary picture of that bolson.

Combining current concern over cross-boundary allocations and debts of river water with newfound attention given to groundwater, the time has come to consider border water management as a whole. Beginning with data sharing, a transboundary approach to management would help communities deal with some of the complexities of water resource issues. The rivers that travel the border area have been central but contested elements of border relations and politics. Groundwater has been overshadowed by surface water concerns. Both the Rio Grande and the Colorado Rivers are extremely depleted by the time they reach the gulfs. Surface water supplies are an almost constant source of conflict in the border region. The need to make compact agreements is a continual issue for the states involved. Surface water is fully allocated and water debts create stress. Historical surface water allotments are being reassigned for different uses, with farm and ranching water being bought by cities and towns to fulfill swelling demands for municipal and industrial use. Transboundary approaches are emerging from local surface water concerns as a result of the urban pressures, population boom, and industrial growth. The locally formed binational Colorado River Delta Coalition, as an illustration, compelled the IBWC to create a Binational Technical Task Force to evaluate impacts throughout the river’s course.

At the opposite extreme from highly debated rivers, the issue of groundwater pumping has attracted little official scrutiny in regard to transboundary impacts. Knowledge is scarce about groundwater availability, physical dynamics of aquifers, quality of water and levels of pollutants, as well as other characteristics of the groundwater in the border region. The need for consideration and understanding of groundwater resources is unfilled. Groundwater pumping and polluting is unchecked to any practical degree because no mechanisms are in place for management of an entire bolson or aquifer system. The Hueco and Mesilla bolsons are both being drawn down faster than they are being recharged. In the case of the Mesilla Bolson virtually no recharge occurs in drought conditions. Lack of regeneration, erosion, and sink hole formations are serious concerns that only now are gaining genuine attention. There has never been a set of scientific data with which to make water management efficient. Groundwater issues need addressing from a transboundary perspective before real improvement can be made in the effectiveness of water management. The need to accommodate industrial and population growth is going to bring further pressure to the area to provide water from somewhere. The promoters of this growth must be held accountable for water availability and quality.

According to the federal Border 2012 Program, the projected population growth rates in the border region exceed anticipated national average rates for both countries. Not all of the associated problems are new, but current conditions require that the initiatives for water management be new or at least have a new approach. The separation of and disparity between surface and groundwater in historical border water management throughout the region highlights the lack of consideration for impacts on the water resources as a system. New transboundary initiatives could be the catalyst that forces authorities to respond to heightened demands on border water resources and the changing nature of water use in the region. Currently an opportunity exists to respond in a transboundary fashion without compromising sovereignty or existing authority policies. Seizing that opportunity entails taking full advantage of the potential of the IBWC and other cross-border water institutions, such as the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADB).

Historical treaties and federal programs, such as the 1944 Water Treaty, are the foundation for water policies in the border region; however they have not adequately addressed the water issues that cross local, regional, tribal, and national boundaries. Many agreements that deal with cooperation and transboundary concerns have not been successful in leading to practical mechanisms for water management. The lack of transboundary perspective combined with mounting uneasiness over the pressure placed on water resources has led many to seek efficiency in water management by approaching the resource in a more holistic fashion. The main binational water entity that exists is the IBWC. Its history sets precedents for the creation of transboundary mechanisms for water management. The 1944 treaty established the IBWC as a legal instrument for integrated management and water conflict management. The Bellagio Treaty (1989) argues the IBWC should take the initiative with regards to a number of transboundary groundwater issues. The IBWC has a transboundary aquifers and binational groundwater database for the El Paso-Juarez-Southern New Mexico corridor that folded together official data from both nations. However, this data was not gathered collaboratively or with consideration for the entire aquifer system, and the IBWC has been resistant to a change in roles regarding the separation of concerns over underground and surface water. A truly comprehensive, collaborative assessment of border area waters has never been done. To date the IBWC has been reluctant to dive too heavily into groundwater issues and has not been a vehicle for making transboundary water management a reality.

The old agreements and institutions could pave the way for the new. The La Paz Agreement (1983) gives U.S. and Mexican environmental authorities the ability to pursue cooperative initiatives through binational programs. Among the results of the La Paz Agreement was the provision of a legal base for Border 2012 and its predecessor Border 21. Border 2012 is a 10-year binational environmental program, which began in 2000. The program is intended to curb resource degradation and foster debate, participation, and prioritization. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) created the BECC and NADB. BECC oversees project design of sustainable water projects, while NADB provides financing for sponsored projects. Mechanisms such as NADB can be useful for transboundary initiatives, but so far they have proven sluggish in responding to urgent problems faced by the variety of communities that share water along the border. Meanwhile, IBWC recognizes that the transboundary resources of the bolsons are the managerial challenge for groundwater in the El Paso-Juarez-Southern New Mexico corridor. It also has pointed out benefits of U.S.-Mexican cooperative steps in protecting groundwater resources. IBWC could have an active role in a transition in the way the resource is managed in the region, while local initiatives taken independently and in tandem with federal programs set a path for practical policies for sustainable water use that extends from regional experiences. Local and regional authorities and organizations necessarily have attempted to find ways to mold binational federal entities and treaties to their needs. Many also have recognized that the lack of transboundary considerations is a weakness in the border area.

The idea of using a transboundary approach to water management has been around awhile, but lately it has shown greater potential to become a practical tool for water management. Recent initiatives throughout the border area have made it timely to inject transboundary mechanisms into regional choices that are critical to water management efficiency. The cooperative nature of this type of approach could promote dialogue and early conflict detection. Its broader, more complete perspective and analysis means more effective local and regional management. Strengthening transboundary water management could ease future water-related conflict because a system would be in place for cooperative resolution and data sharing. It would mean cooperating on information access, policy ideas, and management mechanisms, not control over one another’s decisions. Since sustainable choices and effective management are inseparable, transboundary considerations need to become primary aspects of border water management.