Water Conservation

EPA Opens Public Comment Period On Draft Fungicide Strategy

Mon, 04 May 2026 16:20:14 GMT

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is offering the U.S. public an opportunity to help shape the future of agricultural safety, unveiling a draft Fungicide Strategy designed to balance the needs of American farmers with the protection of the nation’s most vulnerable wildlife.

The proposal marks a significant step in the agency’s effort to meet its dual mandates under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). By creating a more efficient and transparent framework for pesticide registration, the EPA says it aims to “safeguard more than 1,000 federally endangered and threatened species” while ensuring growers maintain the tools necessary to protect the nation’s food supply.

A New Framework for Modern Farming

The draft strategy focuses on conventional agricultural fungicides across the lower 48 states — an area covering approximately 41 million treated acres annually. Rather than a one-size-fits-all mandate, the proposal introduces a three-step framework:

Identify Impacts: Assessing potential population-level effects on listed species.
Mitigation Planning: Pinpointing specific measures to reduce those risks.
Targeted Application: Determining exactly where these protections are most needed based on where endangered and threatened species live and how fungicides move through the environment.

The agency emphasizes that while this strategy guides future regulatory actions, it does not impose immediate requirements. Instead, the strategy serves as a roadmap for upcoming registration reviews, with the EPA promising public input on every specific action before it is finalized.

Balancing Innovation and Conservation

Saying that it recognizes farmers are the backbone of the U.S. economy, the EPA’s draft includes several updates to provide greater flexibility. Notably, the plan expands options for reducing spray drift buffer distances and introduces new mitigation tools, such as the use of “guar gum” as a spray adjuvant.

"[American farmers] need a diverse toolbox of innovative agricultural technologies to manage crop disease, prevent resistance, and produce the affordable, nutritious food that feeds our country,” the EPA says, in a press release. “The draft Fungicide Strategy is designed to ensure those innovative tools remain available and that they are used in ways that protect the environment and endangered species.

How to Get Involved

In a push for transparency, the EPA has opened a 60-day public comment period to gather feedback from scientists, conservationists, Tribal partners and the agricultural community.

Public Comment: Stakeholders can review the strategy and submit formal feedback via (Docket: EPA-HQ-OPP-2026-2973) through June 29, 2026.
Informational Webinar: The agency will host a public webinar on May 20, 2026, at 2 p.m. ET to walk through the proposal and answer questions. Register here .

The EPA expects to review all public input and finalize the Fungicide Strategy by November 2026.

New WOTUS Proposal Could Reduce Red Tape for Farmers and Ranchers

Mon, 17 Nov 2025 18:01:45 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.

Fresh Produce Growers Focus on Water for Sustainability

Mon, 22 Sep 2025 18:23:01 GMT

When asked what top three words came to mind when thinking about sustainability, respondents to The Packer’s 2025 Sustainability Insights Survey overwhelmingly responded with “water.”

Every year, The Packer conducts three Sustainability Insights surveys — one each for produce growers, retailers and consumers — on their perceptions and opinions related to sustainability in fresh produce. In this year’s survey, 74 fresh produce growers representing 29 states responded. Though the response rate means the results are not necessarily widely applicable to growers across the country, they represent a good snapshot.

Generally speaking, water-related concerns were very important to produce growers when it comes to sustainability.

One respondent from California defined it as “taking care of our resources so as to not waste them or use them up without renewing.” A Virginia-based respondent defined it as a “long-term business plan that addresses local scarcities of energy, labor, water or other inputs.”

Growers consistently ranked water among the top three issues depending on context. Precision irrigation is high on the list of sustainability investments growers are making, and the focus on water issues in the sustainability conversation seems to be increasing. Unfortunately, so too is uncertainty over the availability of water in the future.

Prioritizing Water in Sustainability

When asked to rank the importance of various sustainability practices for their impact, grower respondents overwhelmingly crowned water management efforts as the most important.

All told, 73 of the 74 total respondents listed water use management practices as being important, very important or extremely important for their impact on the sustainability of their operation. No respondent said it wasn’t important, and almost a third of respondents (31%) ranked it extremely important, which far outstripped the next most important category of biological inputs at 19%.

“Water use management practices” was an option for the first time in the 2025 Sustainability Insights Grower survey and topped the priority list.

(Chart courtesy of Prime46)

There have been some wording changes in survey questions between 2024 and 2025. This year was the first year that “water use management practices” was offered as an option in questions about sustainability impacts. In 2024’s survey, where there was no specific option for water practices in the comparable question, the top-ranked sustainability practice was “precision ag practices.” The same option was also available in 2025’s question, but only 18% of respondents listed it as “extremely important,” ranking it third in importance in 2025.

This suggests precision water use practices have been and continue to be top of mind for sustainability impact for growers for a while.

Unsurprisingly, those in the arid West ranked water use management practices as having a big impact on their operations’ sustainability. All 18 of the survey’s respondents from California ranked the option as either extremely important or very important (nine each), for example. Similarly, four out of the five respondents from Montana ranked it as extremely important, and both of the Texas respondents ranked it very important.

Precision Irrigation and Water Uncertainty

When it comes to putting those water sustainable priorities into action, over half of the survey’s respondents (51%) reported having implemented some form of water management improvements in their operation. It was the second-most common sustainability practice reported after soil testing (65%) and tied with crop rotation.

When asked about specific tech investments, 38% of respondents reported using precision irrigation tools on their operation. This was the single-most common tech investment reported.

Precision irrigation was the single most common sustainability tech investment reported by respondents to The Packer’s 2025 Grower Sustainability Insights survey.

(Graphic courtesy of Prime46)

This need for precision irrigation tools will likely increase as respondents overwhelming reported turning to precision irrigation to address water availability worries. While overall respondent concern about water availability fell — with 29% reporting being very or extremely concerned in 2025 compared to 49% last year — grower uncertainty about when negative impacts of lack of water will hit their operation jumped from 25% in 2024 to 39% in 2025.

However, when asked how well irrigation service providers are meeting their needs for sustainable agricultural supplies, a whopping 49% of respondents said providers were only somewhat meeting their needs. Only a quarter of respondents said irrigation service providers were completely meeting their needs. This suggests there is considerable room for improvement among companies supplying precision irrigation tools for produce growers.

Sen. Ernst Introduces Bill to Bring WOTUS Certainty

Tue, 29 Jul 2025 19:55:38 GMT

On July 23, Senator Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, introduced SB 2421, titled the Clarifying Legal Exclusions Around Regulated (CLEAR) Waters Act . The short bill was cosponsored by six other senate Republicans and seeks to categorically exclude certain types of water bodies from regulation under the Clean Water Act. Given the focus, the bill overlaps with the Waters of the U.S., which is currently being reworked by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers.

“I am making it CLEAR that the federal government has no businesses regulating cooling ponds, municipal treatment plants, groundwater and streams that only flow after rainfall under WOTUS,” Ernst says.

The bill , which was referred to the Senate’s Environment and Public Works committee, would make the following exclusions to the definition of “navigable waters” within the Clean Water Act:

Any element of a waste treatment system, such as settling lagoons or treatment ponds.
Ephemeral water bodies that flow only after rain.
Groundwater.
“Any other features determined to be excluded by the Administrator and the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.’’

The bill in context

The bill is redundant to many elements of the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett decision , which is directing EPA’s on-going WOTUS rework effort. For example, the 2023 Sacket decision already excludes waste treatment system features like lagoons and treatment ponds.

Though groundwater has not been regulated as navigable waters, EPA notes groundwater “ is often hydrologically connected to navigable waters ” as it relates to carrying pollutants. Under the 2023 Sackett decision, however, groundwater would only count as navigable waters if a groundwater-fed wetland connected to a traditionally navigable water.

Still, agricultural voices have praised the bill. Iowa’s Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Naig, praised Ernst for championing the state’s farmers and businesses for instance.

“This legislation will provide much-needed clarity and consistency when it comes to WOTUS, helping end the constant policy whiplash that changes with each new administration. It’s a common-sense approach that brings certainty to those who are working every day to responsibly manage our land and water.”

WOTUS rework recent action

Agricultural stakeholders have long demanded regulatory certainty around WOTUS and its implementation. This was a resounding theme of listening sessions held by EPA earlier this year .

“By making federal regulation consistent, clear and by leaving room for state primacy in regulating other streams, lakes, wetlands and water features, EPA and the Corps can implement a rule that is both consistent with the Supreme Court’s decisions and with Congress’s intent in the Clean Water Act,” said Laura Campbell of Michigan Farm Bureau in the May 1 listening session held for agricultural stakeholders.

EPA has said it expects to release a proposed final WOTUS rule this summer , updating it to correspond with the 2023 Sackett decision. Once released, the rule will be available to the public for comment. The agency expects the new rule will go into effect by the end of 2025.

Though not directly connected to the WOTUS rework effort, EPA has recently put out a call for public comment on challenges stakeholders have had with CWA Section 401 implementation. This deals with individual states’ ability to put limits on certain types of federal action that might impact water quality within their jurisdiction. Interested stakeholders have until 11:59 p.m. EDT on Aug. 6 to submit comments on Regulations.gov or the Federal Register .

Microsoft-Partnered Project Funds Improved Irrigation in CA

Thu, 10 Jul 2025 22:18:29 GMT

In early summer, Kilimo — a Latin America-based climatech company focused on improving agricultural water security — announced it had launched an irrigation improvement project in California’s Central Valley in partnership with Microsoft and Netafim.

According to Kilimo, the farms participating in the new Central Valley project raise forage crops such as winter grass and summer silage corn, wheat and tomatoes. Like previous similar projects with Microsoft in Chile and Mexico, the new project will transition participating farmers currently using flood irrigation to drip irrigation.

“The conversion to drip irrigation is going to be fully financed by us and the corporate partner,” says Jairo Trad, CEO and co-founder of Kilimo. He stresses that this partnership is quite unique: “This is a private stakeholder financing another private stakeholder without the government intervening.”

Based on past results in earlier projects, Kilimo estimates the water savings could approach 50%.

Microsoft’s involvement in the project is part of its commitment to becoming water positive by 2030 . This commitment includes supporting projects that replenish more water than the company consumes.

“We’re thrilled to collaborate with Kilimo and Netafim to support farmers in saving water in California’s Central Valley,” says Eliza Roberts, water lead at Microsoft, in a news release. “Irrigation conversion is a critical solution that preserves water and supports farmers in combating climate challenges.”

California irrigation ripe for improvement

Trad explains that Microsoft’s partnership on projects like the new Central Valley one is not just corporate responsibility, but pragmatic and proactive.

“Microsoft, like many other tech companies, understands that they have risk tied to water,” he says, giving examples like data centers that need water for cooling or manufacturing companies that use water in their processes. “Most of the water we use is in agriculture, so if you want to invest in reducing water risk, you have to work in the agricultural sector.”

As of 2023, an impressive 4.36 million acres (52.6%) of California’s 7.76 million acres of irrigated cropland were already under some form of drip or similarly efficient irrigation system. Across the country, there were only 6.43 million total acres under such systems, meaning California represented roughly two-thirds of the country’s total.

However, California also used 22.6 million acre feet of irrigation water — over three times that of the next-highest irrigator, Nebraska at 6.8 maf — making it the largest user of irrigation water in the country. It also had 2.95 million acres irrigated via gravity systems, which include various forms of flood irrigation.

Trad positions using flood irrigation is an example of a low-value use of water.

“Water is perpetually undervalued, even in areas where water is extremely scarce like California,” he says. It’s not that agriculture should have to pay more, he adds. “The question is: How can we realign incentives?”

Private-private partnerships

That is what partnerships like this one are trying to do, according to Trad. He describes such efforts as bringing new financing opportunities to farmers to improve their irrigation systems. But to get investments from companies like Microsoft, the water savings that might come from the switch must be measured and well documented. That’s where Kilimo comes in, Trad says.

“We have developed a solution and a set of methodologies that allow us to measure the volumetric water benefits in a way that is scalable, secure, comparable and that allows companies to be sure that the investment they are doing is well used and well measured,” he says.

The value proposition for participating farmers is great, too, he adds.

“They get a fully paid irrigation system,” he summarizes. “What we ask for in return — and this is us, not Microsoft — is access to the data. How much are you irrigating? So, we can prove that you are saving water.”

That and maintenance of the new equipment is an “extremely light” ask, Trad says. He compares it to the strings attached to government financing. He also calls this style of private-private partnership between water users and corporate organizations looking to mitigate their water risk an important growing trend.

“Companies are investing heavily in this,” he says. “This is private stakeholders engaging in reshaping how other private stakeholders are using water because they think that is going to be good for them too. And that’s great! What we need is for more people to do this.”

Proposed Final WOTUS Rule Coming This Summer

Mon, 23 Jun 2025 22:01:05 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.

States seek cooperation on WOTUS definitions

Wed, 30 Apr 2025 13:57:53 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:

Inside the U.S.-Mexico water issue

Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:50:00 GMT

On the evening of April 10, President Donald Trump claimed Mexico was stealing water from Texas farmers in a post on Truth Social.

“Mexico OWES Texas 1.3 million acre-feet of water under the 1944 Water Treaty, but Mexico is unfortunately violating their Treaty obligation,” he wrote, referencing the 1944 Treaty for the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers , which governs how the two countries share water from cross-border rivers.

“Ted Cruz has been leading the fight to get South Texas the water it is owed, but Sleepy Joe refused to lift a finger to help the Farmers. THAT ENDS NOW! I will make sure Mexico doesn’t violate our Treaties, and doesn’t hurt our Texas Farmers,” Trump continued.

During an interview with Farm Journal’s Chip Flory on AgriTalk the following morning, Agriculture Secretary Brook Rollins said, “Within two hours after that Truth Social [post] going up, the people from Mexico were calling to set up a call with me this morning.”

Indeed, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, during her daily press conference Friday morning , said (as translated from Spanish by Google) “there will be an immediate delivery” of water to Texas farmers.

However, neither Mexico’s late water deliveries nor efforts to deal with the problem are anything new. Both have been going on for decades because there just isn’t enough water.

An old treaty and too little water

According to the 1944 treaty, Mexico and the U.S. must deliver certain volumes of water to one another. The U.S. must deliver 1.5 million-acre feet to Mexico from the Colorado River every year. On the other hand, Mexico must deliver 1.75 million-acre feet to the U.S. from the Rio Grande every five years.

As of April 5 , Mexico had only delivered a cumulative 512,604 acre-feet during the current cycle.

However, when the 81-year-old treaty was written, it vastly overestimated the amount of water available at the time, and severely underestimated the growth in demand that we see now.

“The system doesn’t have enough water for all the users on both sides of the borders,” said 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. She explained that Mexico usually relies on hurricanes to get enough water in its reservoirs to fulfill the treaty requirements before the five-year cycle’s due date.

This seems to be part of Mexico’s strategy this cycle too. “We hope that the rainy season will give us more water so we can deliver more to the United States,” Sheinbaum said during an April 11 press conference.

An unsustainable pattern

Relying on increasingly uncertain weather patterns to deliver on its water obligations means Mexico often cuts it close to the five-year cycle’s deadline. This brings tensions to a boiling point on both sides.

This same dynamic played out at the end of the last five-year delivery cycle in 2020, during Trump’s first term. The Mexican government promised water deliveries would be made in that final year of the cycle. However, farmers suffering through drought in the state of Chihuahua protested, going so far as to seize the controls of a relevant reservoir in an armed standoff with government officials to prevent the deliveries. Meanwhile, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called on then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for action to get water to Texas farmers.

This pattern of late water deliveries from Mexico followed by cross-border tensions was called unsurprising in 2020 by binational water experts. But it is not a sustainable pattern, Sanchez said.

“Not for Texas at least. Texas cannot wait five years for Mexico to get lucky and get a hurricane to fulfill the treaty,” she said. “That is a luxury we are not willing to afford anymore.”

Long-term work on an international problem

In a response on social platform X to Trump’s Truth Social post, Sheinbaum pointed to the work of the International Boundary and Water Commission to identify mutually beneficial solutions. The group is an international body formed in 1889 with a U.S. section and a Mexican section. It is responsible for applying the boundary and water treaties between the two countries.

Among other tasks, the group also signs “minutes” for the 1944 treaty. Minutes function much like amendments and must be agreed to and signed by both governments. One of the more recent minutes, Minute 331 , was signed Nov. 7, 2024, and expands options for Mexico to make water deliveries to the U.S.

“In other words, Mexico can use additional sources of water not contemplated before as possible sources of water to comply with the treaty,” Sanchez said. But the situation is difficult, she added.

“[IBWC is] taking very small steps because international negotiation is hard,” Sanchez said. “Because you’re talking about water, it’s moving water from one place to another, which means taking water from one user to another user. And we don’t have excess of water or additional sources of water.”

How New Carbon Claims Shortchange Sustainable Agriculture and Why It Matters

Thu, 07 Dec 2023 15:34:12 GMT

Making sense of evolving carbon markets and understanding their on-farm implications is not for the faint of heart. Mitchell Hora, CEO of Continuum Ag, seventh generation Iowa farmer and advocate for regenerative agriculture, has made it his mission to help producers navigate the carbon conversation.

Most recently, Hora and Trust In Food President, Amy Skoczlas Cole, talked shop about soil health and carbon label standards in Hora’s TopSoil series webinar , “Carbon Intensity, Taming the Wild West of Carbon.”

“The thing that you and I have gelled over is not just soil health—there’s lots of folks who are thinking about soil health. What drives me and I think drives you is, ‘How do we find really pragmatic solutions that help farmers on the journey to continuing to improve soil health, continuing to be stewards of the land, water and air?’” Skoczlas Cole said. “Where does the rubber hit the road and how do we actually figure out how we support producers along the way?”

In the hour-long discussion, the two leaders debated the promise and perils of new carbon labels in the marketplace, the shift away from carbon offsets and opportunities for farmers and ranchers to get credit for, track and communicate innovative production practices happening on farm.

Measuring molecules: the limits of carbon labels

When it comes to putting carbon and sustainability labels on animal ag products, “we need to be really careful about greenwashing,” said Skoczlas Cole.

At the end of the day, the full value of what the producer is offering on the landscape needs to translate, she continued. Good grazing management offers a host of ecosystem benefits—think open space preservation, habitat restoration, wetland protections—beyond just carbon molecules.

“I would take a grazing pasture over a subdivision any day across our landscapes,” said Skoczlas Cole. “I think that’s something that a low-carbon label does not take into account.”

Despite the opportunity to develop deeper, more comprehensive standards in some carbon label programs, Skoczlas Cole was encouraged by the growing popularity of marketing value-added commodities, over promoting a separate entity such as carbon credits.

Related news: Connecting Producers to the Climate-Smart Economy with Opportunity Navigator

“I believe that we have to broaden the conversation beyond just low carbon,” Skoczlas Cole said. “Americans love our cowboys. There’s great consumer research that farmers and ranchers are the most believable people in the U.S., and Americans want to hear stories about what it’s like to do this because only 2% of Americans get to do it anymore. If we can reconnect to the roots of what this is all about—rather than counting the molecules—we will be so much better off.”

Zoom out: the chasm between awareness and adoption

The limits of low-carbon labels aside, right now the major hurdle to getting these highly differentiated products on the shelf is producer buy-in and participation. A recent Trust In Food report, “Ready or Not? U.S. Farmers and Carbon Markets”, underlined producer reluctance to participate. The research found that among farmers and ranchers, while there was broad awareness of carbon markets, only a small fraction of producers said they were ready to join.

“93% of farmers know about carbon markets, but only 3% of farmers have actually participated in them,” said Hora, citing the report.

“The thing I want carbon markets to hear is that something has to change if we’re going to reach the mainstream of American agriculture with this possibility,” Skoczlas Cole said.

Download the report for free.

“They’re not saying they would never do it,” agreed Hora. “They’re saying, ‘Hey, I would love to do something here, but I just I’m not going to sign up for the offer as it is today.’”

“We can bemoan how poorly structured carbon markets are for annualized systems—they were never designed for that,” said Skoczlas Cole. “But in the world of animal agriculture, we actually have an opportunity with Climate-Smart Commodities to reimagine…how we think about the metrics.”

In this way, USDA’s Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodity grant programs represent a new path for producers to reimagine how to get credit for, track and share sustainability data around innovative production practices happening on the ground. Trust In Food won $40 million in Climate-Smart Commodity grant funding in 2022 for its Connected Ag Project . The program incentivizes farmers to implement practices like cover crops and grazing management, while also delivering technical assistance and data-management support to track on-farm outcomes.

“Our grant is really focused on this,” said Skoczlas Cole. “We’re doing two things: We’re using data that we have within the functional ecosystem to help match producers up with solutions and practices that makes sense for their operation. Then, we are also partnering each enrollee in our program with a data provider to help gather the data and then with the data coach. It’s not just the solution, but it is also the coach that sits next to them and helps them figure out how to find value in it.”

Watch and listen to the entire TopSoil webinar, “Carbon Intensity, Taming the Wild West of Carbon” on YouTube and Spotify .