1 / 33

BINATIONAL COOPERATION WITH MEXICO ON COLORADO RIVER ISSUES Urban Water Institute August 15, 2013 Peter S. Silva, PE Con

BINATIONAL COOPERATION WITH MEXICO ON COLORADO RIVER ISSUES Urban Water Institute August 15, 2013 Peter S. Silva, PE Consultant (SSI) Metropolitan Water District. U.S. - Mexico Relations. All formal relationships on any matter must be through federal governments of both countries

riona
Télécharger la présentation

BINATIONAL COOPERATION WITH MEXICO ON COLORADO RIVER ISSUES Urban Water Institute August 15, 2013 Peter S. Silva, PE Con

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BINATIONAL COOPERATION WITH MEXICO ON COLORADO RIVER ISSUES Urban Water Institute August 15, 2013 Peter S. Silva, PE Consultant (SSI) Metropolitan Water District

  2. U.S. - Mexico Relations • All formal relationships on any matter must be through federal governments of both countries • U.S. states have no authority to enter into agreements directly with a Mexican state or other entity • All international issues are managed: by the U.S. State Department by Mexico RelacionesExteriores All binational issues related to maintenance of the border and water issues are managed by the International Boundary and Water Commission.

  3. International Boundaryand Water Commission • Feb. 2, 1848- Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo • March 1, 1889- International Boundary Commission • Feb. 3, 1944- Water Treaty for the “Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and the Rio Grande” Changed the name of the IBC to the International Boundary &Water Commission

  4. 1944 Water Treaty • Apportioned water from the CR and Rio Grande between the two countries • Did not deal with Tijuana River • Mexico receives 1.5 MAF of CR water annually • CR water to Mexico capped at 1.7 MAF annually • In reality, received more than 1.7 MAF prior to 2000 • Treaty refers to shortages to Mexico but does not define “extraordinary drought’

  5. IBWC • Both a U.S. and Mexico Section in El Paso, TX and Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua • Commissioners must be “Engineers” and appointed by the respective Presidents Currently in U.S.- Ed Drusina Currently in Mexico- Roberto Salmon

  6. U.S. – Mexico Boundary

  7. IBWC- U.S. Section • Deals with U.S. State Dept. on Treaty matters • Interacts with U.S. border states and cities • Water rights vested in states and local agencies • Can receive funding from Congress for construction of civil works in U.S. and Mexico • On Colorado River, acts as liaison with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) on Water Treaty deliveries to Mexico

  8. IBWC- Mexico Section • Deals with RelacionesExteriores on Treaty issues • Interacts with ComisionNacional de Agua (CNA) on water issues • Mexico water owned by Fed. Govt. • Much less interaction with states than U.S. section • Does not receive federal funding for construction and O&M- relies on CNA for funding mechanisms • On Colorado River issues acts as liaison with CNA on Treaty water deliveries from U.S.

  9. IBWC “Minute” Process • IBWC Minute mechanism used for recognition of binational actions approved by both governments • “Minute” refers to minutes of meetings of two Commissioners that describe agreement(s) reached • Formalized by informal approval of both countries’ Congresses through respective Ministries • Not formal amendments to the Treaty but treated with equal deference by the governments • 319 Minutes signed to date

  10. Upper Basin States Lower Basin States 1.04 .49 3.86 1.71 1.8 .3 .2 .80 .05 .02 5.1 2.8 4.4 2.4 .84 Apportionments .39 Deliveries in 1990s 2.5 1.5 Colorado River Apportionments (Million acre-feet) Mexico

  11. Pressures onColorado River System • Prior to 2000, both CA and Mexico using more than their CR allocations • In 2003, in California, QSA implemented to deal with cutback to 4.4 MAF CR allocation • AAC lining project funded as part of QSA • Extensive drought taking place immediately after 4.4 plan and QSA initiated

  12. All-American Canal DROP 3

  13. Lining of All-American Canal Controversy • Idea of lining AAC formally presented to Mexico in 1998 • Both formal and informal discussions with Mexico on project begin in 2003 • In 2005, CDEM from Mexicali sues in U.S. federal court for injunction to stop project • Due to lawsuit and controversy, formal discussions with Mexico cease (informal talks continue) • 12/8/06- Congress passes rider bill to move project forward (ESA exemption)

  14. AAC Controversy Aftermath • Recognition by both governments that AAC issue not best model for cooperation • 1944 Treaty silent on groundwater issues & both governments reluctant to address these issues • Idea of Binational Cooperative Process for CR began in 2007

  15. Drought on the Colorado River

  16. U.S. Actions on CR Drought • Severe drought in CR system led to discussions between U.S. basin states and BOR on shortage and surplus issues • Discussions led to signing of BOR Operating Criteria for the CR on 12/13/2007 • Intentionally did not deal with Mexico issues but recognized need for Mexico participation • Criteria EIS did include assumptions for shortage and surplus sharing by Mexico

  17. Alignment of U.S.-Mexico Issues2007 • Signing of BOR CR operating procedures allowed better focus on Mexico CR issues • Establishment of BCP work groups facilitated discussions on CR matters • Extensive dialogue through IBWC process on projects as well as shortage and surplus sharing • Good basis established for binational cooperation

  18. Mexico (Baja) CR System Morelos Dam CALIFORNIA MEXICO ARIZONA Mexicali Valley Gulf of California Pacific Ocean

  19. Pressures in Mexico on CR Uses • 1.5 MAF used primarily by Baja CA (some in Sonora) for both agricultural and urban uses • Similar battles as in CA between ag & urban users • Recognition of restricted use based on allocation • Continued population growth in coastal areas with very limited supplies • View of AAC lining and Drop 2 project as impacting CR flows to Mexico • Willingness to discuss broader CR issues with U.S.

  20. Minute 316: Yuma Desalting PlantSigned May 14, 2010 • Initial concerns from Mexico over U.S. intent • First project developed under the new BCP • Better communication by the two governments on the project issues • More inclusion of key stakeholders from both countries • Innovative funding mechanisms established in both countries to implement project • A major component was funding for review of potential environmental impacts to the CR Delta • Pilot project completed in March 2011

  21. Yuma Desalting Plant Color a California do Ri ver YUMA DESALTING PLANT Wellton-Mohawk IDD Morelos Dam Arizona C ol or ad o Ri Mexico v er Ciénega de Santa Clara Gulf of California

  22. Minute 317Signed June 17, 2010 • Titled “Conceptual Framework for U.S.-Mexico Discussions on Colorado River Cooperative Actions” • Formalized Binational Cooperative Process (BCP) • Instituted Binational Work Groups as well as a Core Group and a Consultative Council • Promoted idea of binational projects that promote water conservation and development of new water sources • Formalized the idea of addressing environmental issues as part of projects

  23. Minute 318Signed 12/20/2010 • Titled, “Adjustment of Delivery Schedules for Water Allotted to Mexico for the Years 2010 Through 2013 as a Result of Infrastructure Damage in Irrigation District 014, Rio Colorado, Caused by the April 2010 Earthquake in the Mexicali Valley, Baja California” • Allowed Mexico to store some of its Treaty water in Lake Mead for future delivery • Made possible by three years of intensive discussions by the two governments • Mexico stored 50 TAF in 2011, plans to store up to 250 TAF by 2014

  24. Negotiations on Minute 319 • Led by the IBWC Sections in US and Mexico • In U.S., BOR took the lead on input from US Basin states and coordinating with IBWC • In Mexico, IBWC coordinated with CNA • Extensive internal US negotiations among US Basin States on key CR system operation issues • Intense binational negotiations lasted two years

  25. Components of Minute 319Signed November 20, 2013 1. Extension of Minute 318 Measures 2. Surplus sharing criteria 3. Shortage sharing criteria 4. Intentionally Created Mexican Allocation 5. Management of Salinity Issues 6a. Water for the Environment 6b. ICMA/ICS Exchange Pilot Program 7. Binational Projects 8. Five-year term for Minute

  26. Minute 319 Binational Projects • Environmental project at Miguel Aleman site • Water Conservation Projects • Alamo Canal Regulating Reservoir • Fallowing • Modernization of Irrigation District 014 • Conveyance of Mexico Water via AAC • New Water Sources • BinationalDesal Plant at Rosarito • Beneficial Use of New River flows • BinationalDesal Plant (Gulf of California)

  27. Potential Binational Projectsunder Minute 319 Use of AAC Morelos Dam CALIFORNIA MEXICO ARIZONA Agriculture Conservation Desal Plant Environmental Project Gulf of California Pacific Ocean

  28. Minute 319 Work Groupsestablished and meeting • Environmental- Work on criteria for base and pulse flows. • AAC Connection- Work to design and construct connection to AAC • RosaritoDesal- Continuing effort to construct desal plant in Rosarito, BC • Miguel Aleman- Binational site on CR for environmental remidiation

  29. Minute 319 Work Groupsto be established • Canal Reforma- To work on ag conservation efforts in Mexicali Valley • Alamo Canal- Design and build a regulating reservoir for Mexico • New River- Conceptual project to reclaim and reuse the water currently in New River • Desal in Gulf of Cortez- Long-term project to build major facility to serve both US & Mexico

  30. Minute 319 Policy Groups • Water Accounting & Operations- Binational team to exchange information on water sources and develop ideas to improve delivery • Basin Conditions & Hydrology- Binational team to ensure timely information on hydrology in the CR basin

  31. Minute 319- New Directionon Binational Cooperation on the CR • More inclusive involvement by both governments on CR issues on a basin-wide basis • Allows use of U.S. CR facilities by Mexico for benefit of entire basin • New opportunities for binational projects to enhance water availability in both countries • Focus on environmental issues related to CR projects and programs

  32. Gracias Peter Silva, PE Silva-Silva International psilvape@yahoo.com

More Related