Water Rights

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

Mon, 22 Dec 2025 19:37:23 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.

Details Unclear on Promised Water Deliveries From Mexico

Mon, 15 Dec 2025 20:52:32 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.”

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.

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.

Mexico Probably Won’t Deliver All the Water it Owes

Mon, 25 Aug 2025 14:41:29 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:

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.

California governor proposes fast-tracking water infrastructure projects

Mon, 19 May 2025 16:02:11 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 21:42:49 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

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:

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

Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:48:09 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.?

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.”