Arroyo

              V ARROYO
Vol. 3 No. 2
U.S.-Mexico
Transboundary
Water Issues
Challenge
Policymakers
The
U.S.-Mexico boundary is a
political division and, al-though
surveyed, mapped and
patrolled, cannot completely deter-mine
the two nations' rights to the
water resources along their common
border. The flow of rivers and
streams and the occurrence of
groundwater are largely determined
by nonpolitical, natural forces. As a
result, the United States and Mexico
must often negotiate the allocation
and use of border water resources.
This edition of Arroyo will discuss
U.S-Mexico transboundary water
Photofrom the Arizona Historical Society, Tucson
issues, with a focus on events along
the 358-mile Arizona-Sonora border.
The newsletter was prepared with the
belief that an interest in Arizona or
domestic water issues includes a
concern about U.S.-Mexico trans-boundary
water affairs.
In fact, an understanding of
Arizona water issues broadens with
an awareness of the binational
complexity of such familiar water
concerns as groundwater use, water
quality, floods, wastewater treatment,
surface and instream flow, and the
preservation of an endangered
August 1989
species of fish. In a sense, to review
transboundary water issues is to view
domestic water concerns on the
international stage.
Further, it could be argued that
U.S. activities to address transboun-dary
water affairs are motivated by
the same attitudes and beliefs that
ultimately determine the course of
action taken to resolve domestic
water issues. This again demonstrates
that an expanded understanding of
transboundary water affairs in-creases
comprehension of state water
issues.
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
Transboundary Water Issues
Gain Importance
Generally
located within a
semiarid zone, the U.S-Mexico
border arca was at one time consid-ered
an unlikely region for growth
and development. Recent occur-rences,
however, have greatly
modified this view, and populations
from both countries are now rapidly
settling near the border, although
usually for very different reasons. The
results, however, are the same:
increased population. With a present
annual growth rate in excess of three
percent, the border population can
be expected to double in less than 20
years.
Mexican border cities are gr(.)wing
rapidly as people arrive from the
interior, often seeking employment at
maciuiladora industries. These
assembly plants, which are set up by
non-Mexican, usually U.S. companies,
operate in Mexican border cities
because of the available surplus
labor. Nogales, Sonora, the largest
Mexican city along the Arizona-
Mexico border, has about lOOmaqui-ladora
plants. The city's population
has grown from 30,000 in 1960 to a
present population of about 200,000,
Meanwhile U,S. cities along the
border are also expanding, with
many newcomers drawn by the
warmth and appeal of the Sunbelt.
Nogales, Arizona, now has a popula-tion
of 80,000 people. In 1960 Sierra
Vista, another southern Arizona city,
had a population of 3,100 people. By
1985 the population had increased to
29,000, with 55,000 people projected
by the year 2000.
Before identifying specific trans-boundary
water issues, an important
matter needs to be raised, one that if
not clearly understood can sow seeds
of discontent and niisu nderstanding
between the two countries. Although
it should be obvious, it still must be
emphasized that the neighboring
countries of Mexico and the United
States are separated by social,
economic, cultural, political and legal
differences, and these differences
strongly affect how and what interna-tional
policies are worked out.
For example, each country's level
of economic development is an
important consideration when water
quality, especially wastewater
treatment, is an issue. With limited
economic means and an expanding
population, Mexico's water planning
priority is to secure needed potable
water supplies for its people. The
United States, on the other hand, has
the resources to expend for higher
levels of water quality. More gener-ally,
the U.S. concern for the environ-ment
is a luxuiy denied to less
developed countries which simply
cannot afford the environmental
standards often expected by the
United States.
An International Sharing of
Groundwater Resources
Undergrouncl
and out-of-sight,
with imprecise form and flows
and unclemarcated by surface
boundaries, groundwater is not easy
to regulate even within a single
country. The issue becomes even
more complex when two nations are
involved, Of all the transboundary
water issues confronting the United
States and Mexico, the shared use of
transboundary groundwater resources
is the one with the most potential to
spark future disputes.
Arizona and Sonora share ground-water
resources in Ambos Nogales,
an area that includes metropolitan
Nogales, Arizona, and Nogales,
Sonora. In appearance Ambos
Nogales seems to consist of a single
city divided by a border fence, an
impression reinforced by the fact that
both the U.S. and Mexican cities are
called Nogales. The cities are located
in a narrow valley and bordered by
steep hills. Along with environmental,
)
economic and cultural ties. the two
cities alSd) share the Santa Cruz basin
aquifer for their water supplies.
Fed by the Santa Cruz River, the
Santa Cruz Basin aquifer is bisected
by the U.S-Mexico border. Nogales,
Sonora, draws water from the aquifer
with five wells and an infiltration
system located along the Santa Cruz
River cast of the city, an area up-stream
of the Nogales, Arizona,
wellfield. The wells, however, are not
able to provide sufficient water, and
water supply problems afflict
Nogales, Sonora. Dry spells during
the summer of 1987 severely taxed
the city's water resources leaving an
estimated 80 percent of its residences
with insufficient water supplies, and
50 percent suffered periods of no
water at all. Plans have been rnad to
sink additional wells (U.S-Mexico,
1988).
Nogales, Arizona, obtains water
from a wellfield located downstream
from the wells of its twin city. Heavy
pumping by Nogales, Sonora,
increases the depth of water in
Arizona wells. With its wells becom-ing
less reliable, Nogales, Arizona, is
exploring options for additional
water supplies. Its options ïnclude
applying for its allocation of Central
Arizona Project water; purchasing
small private water companies; and
locating sites for additional wells
(U.S. -Mexico, 1988).
The Ambos Nogales area and its
use of transboundary groundwater
resources are of special interest to
water managers because the Tucson
Active Management Area (AMA)
extends to the border and includes
the U.S. portion of the Santa Cruz
Basin aquifer. An AMA is an area that
is intensely managed to assure an
eventual safe yieldi.e., a balance
between groundwater pumping and
the amount naturally and incidentally
recharged. Since Nogales, Arizona, is
within the Tucson AMA its ground-water
use is carefully documented to
determine its effect on the aquifer.
Arizona's management of the aquifer,
however, becomes complicated since
the aquifer is also shared by Nogales,
Sonora.
Another shared transboundaiy
basin underlies Douglas, Arizona,
and Agua Prieta, Sonora. Heavy
groundwater pumping to Support
agriculture in southern Sulpher
Springs Valley on the U.S. side
resulted in a significant drop in the
water tables in the area. As a result,
the, state of Arizona designated the
location as an Irrigation Non-Expan-sion
Area.
The areas of greatest water level
declines are several miles north of
the border, with relatively small
declines reported along the border.
Because groundwater use on the
Arizona side is now regulated,
excessive water table declines are not
expected at the border froin U.S.
activities.
Another transboundary groundwa-ter
concern involves pumping in the
Mexican Sonoita River valley south of
Organ Pipe National Monument. The
Mexican area is experiencing rapid
growth and development, with
extensive groundwater pumping
occurring to support expanding
activities. In Mexico and adjacent to
the monument the groundwater table
has dropped about 12 feet during the
last six years.
The U.S. National Park Service
fears that this pumping will eventu-ally
affect the monument's natural
habitat. For exafnple, an endangered
species of desert pupfish resides in a
pond created by Quitohaquito
Springs within the monument. The
pond is located along the border, and
a drop in the regional aquifer could
affect the flow of Quitohaquito
Springs. The pond's ecosysten1 would
then be disturbed threatening the
existence of the endangered pupfish.
N'o effects to the springs and the
pond have yet been reported.
Law and precedent is lacking to
establish the means to regulate the
two countries' use of shared ground-water
resources, In the United States
the individual states have authority
over groundwater use. This means in
effect that four sets of laws regulate
groundwater withdrawal along the
U.S. side of the bordier, with Texas,
New Mexico, Arizona, and California
each having its own approach.
Further, each state exerts different
diegrees of control over its groundwa-ter.
In contrast to the U.S. situation,
the Mexican federal government has
the power to control groundwater
use, even to the extent of establish-ing
prohibited groundwater zones.
Neither the U.S. states nor Mexico,
however, has worked out procedures
for joint international use of an
aquifer. In fact, the existence of so
many andi varied laws inhibits the
establishment of such international
regulations.
Despite a lack of established
procedures to resolve transhoundary
groundwater problems, a situation in
the Yuma-San Luis area was success-fully
addressed. lt stands as one of
the few international settlements to
address transboundary groundwater
use directly. Its terms were included
as part of Minute 242, a 1973 bina-tional
agreement to resolve the
salinity controversy of Colorado River
water flowing to Mexico. The terms
stipulate that each country, when
pumping groundwater within five
miles of the border in the Yuma-San
Luis area, is to limit its pumping to
160,000 acre feet annually.
MírnITnes potwv design of Itch-eating unter I,ird
3
Water Quality Concerns
The United States and Mexico
share a history of water quality
disputes. An early, major conflict was
sparked when the United States
seriously contaminated Mexico's
Mexicali Valley, an important agricul-tural
area, with highly saline water.
This concern arose in 1961 when the
Bureau of Reclamation began pump-ing
salty drain water from Arizona's
Wellton-Mohawk Valley into the Gua
River, near its confluence with the
Colorado. As a result, Colorado River
water flowing to Mexico contained as
much as 2,500 parts per million of
salinity.
Mexico strenuously objected to. the
saline water that threatened vital
agricultural production in its Mexicali
Valley and claimed that the 1944
treaty that assured delivery of Colo-rado
River water to Mexico was
being violated. The U.S. responded
that the treaty said nothing about
water quality.
After prolonged negotiations an
agreement was reached in 1973 that
guaranteed the quality of Colorado
River water delivered to Mexico. With
regards to salinity, water flowing to
Mexico is to be within 121 parts per
million of that provided to the
Imperial Valley, an agricultural area
in southern California. Later Congress
passed the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act that included
provisions to build a desalination
plant at Yuma to treat Colorado River
water before it flows to Mexico.
Flooding is a cause of water
quality problems in Ambos Nogales.
Floodwaters periodically flow
through the Santa Cruz and its
tributaries causing increased sedi-mentation
and bacterial contamina-tion.
Originating in Nogales, Sonora.
the Nogales Wash, a tributary of the
Santa Cruz River, drains the two
cities. Because of rapid urbanization,
Nogales, Sonora, experiences
increased runoff with additional
pollutants.
After draining Nogales, Sonora, the
wash carries floodwaters with
pollution from landfills, sewage, and
other sources of potentially hazard-ous
materials to the Santa Cruz River.
The contaminated floodwaters settle
in areas where the cities' weilfields
are recharged. The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers is considering a $6-
millión flood control project for the
area (US.- Mexico, 1988).
Segments of the Santa Cruz River
were recently included in a pollution
list drawn up by the U.S. Environ-mental
Protection Agency. According
to the EPA the stretch of river from
the Mexican border to the Nogales
sewer treatment plant is an area with
high readings of copper, manganese,
dissolved oxygen, and acidity-alkalinity.
The agency noted that the
source of pollution is unknown, but
presumably is from Mexico.
Maquiladoras may also contribute
to border water quality problems.
Although most maquiladoras are
established by U.S. firms, they are not
bound by U.S. industrial pollution
and safety standards. Further, acquir-ing
basic information about their
operations, including water use, is
difficult. Evidence indicates, however,
that solvents and other hazardous
material used in their operations have
entered water supplies. Water
samples from the.two cities of
Nogales, as well as Douglas, Arizona,
and Agua Prieta, Sonora, have
contained levels of heavy metal and
trichloroethylene (TCE) in excess of
current U.S. drinking water standards.
The San Pedro River has also been
the focus of a water quality contro-versy
between Mexico and the
United States. Beginning in 1977
pollution from a large copper works
located in the Cananea area in
Sonora entered the river and flowed
into Arizona. At the time the mining
operation was jointly owned by the
Mexican government, private Mexi-can
investors, and the U.S. Anna-conda
Copper Company. The imme-diate
problem was basically resolved
when the mine established new
tailing ponds outside the San Pedro
watershed.
The water quality of the San Pedro
River, however, is of continued
concern. Water samples taken close
to the border on the Arizona side
show some heavy metals, ammonia
and turbidity, presumably coming
from mining activities at Cananea. A
recently published pollution list from
EPA included the San Pedro from the
U.S-Mexico border to the Gua River.
Much of the pollution, however,
comes from a U.S. industry located in
the St. David area of Arizona.
Concern about water quality in the
San Pedro River system also focuses
on Greenbush Draw, one of the
river's tributaries. At one time sewage
from both Naco, Sonora, and Naco,
Arizona, was entering Greenbush
Draw because neither town had
adequate sewage treatment facilities.
Transboundary Resources
Information Avaîlable
The UA's Udall Center for
Studies in Public Policy
promotes interdisciplinary public
policy studies in three areas:
environment and natural resou rces
regional economic development;
and liealth and welfare. Because
the 1J.S.-Mexico border is a domi-nant
Lictor ifl the region and peses
policy challenges in all three areas,
the Udall Center established a
Border Policy Working Group. The
group is made up of researchers
and community leaders with
significant border policy interests.
The Jdall Center has published a
directory of the group that lists
70 individuals and institutions
conducting research and service
activities in the border region.
To obtain a copy of the direc-tOfl
contact: Udall Center for
Studies in I'ublic Policy, University
of Arizona, 1031 North Mountain,
4
This situation was of special concern
because Greenbush Draw flows
directly north of the wells that pro-vide
water to the community of
Bisbee.
Naco, Arizona, has since had
suitable sewage treatment facilities
designed and built. And since Naco,
Sonora, rehabilitated its original
lagoons, sewage flows from the area
have largely ceased. The situation,
however, is of continued concern to
the Arizona Department of Environ-mental
Quality which monitors it.
Water quality violations also have
been reported at the border where
the White River Draw flows south
from Douglas, Arizona, to Agua
Prieta, Sonora. Water samples have
shown high turbidity, ammonia,
dissolved oxygen, and mercury.
Concern has been expressed that the
abandoned mines in Douglas are the
source of various pollutants.
Tucsôn, AZ 85721. (602) 621-7189.
Tlic Inteinatioiil 1ran boundary
Resources Centei (CIR1') at the
University of New Mexko is con-cerned
with issues relating to the
( )CC U rience of nani ra I resources
acn)ss political 1)OufldarìeS, with a
special interest in U.S-Mexico
border issues. Along with water,
tlìc center is also interested in air,
energy. and living resources, as
well a' the transboundary environ-n
ìei ilal im lacts of human activities.
CIRT's newsletter, Tra nshoun-da,
y Resourc Repod. is pub-lished
three times per year. The
publication was established to
identify common transboundaiy
concerns, with the hope that solu-tions
adaptable to common prob-lems
will be found. To receive
copies of the newsletter contact:
The International i'ransboundary
Resources Center, University of
New Mexico, School of Law, 1117
Stanford NE. Albuquerque, NM
87131. (505) 277-4820.
U.S-Mexico international
Sewer Treatment Plants
Sewage
disposal is the tra nsboun-clary
water issue most success-fully
addressed jointly by Mexico and
the United States. Two projects have
been developed, one to serve the
cities of Douglas, Arizona, and Agua
Prieta, Sonora, and the other to treat
waste from Ambos Nogales. The
Douglas-Agua Prieta plant operated
jointly for 20 years, until 1969 when
the Mexican city opened its own
plant.
The plant established to serve the
two border cities of Ambos Nogales
is still in operation. To many this
project stands as a symbol of produc-tive
international collaboration, as
well as a model for solving border
sewage disposal problems. First dis-cussed
in the 1930s, the plant was
constructed in 1950-51 to treat
sewage produced by the twin cities.
The plant was constructed in
Nogales, Arizona, since the land
slopes northward.
Because of the area's rapid
increase in population the system
was inadequate by 1967. Negotiations
had already begun between the two
countries to work out details to
expand the operation. At the same
time, however, Mexico also wanted
to consider the option of each city
establishing its own waste disposal
plant. Mexico was concerned that the
proposed location of the enlarged
plant and the rigorous federal and
state \vater treatment standards to be
enforced served U.S. interests better
than Mexico's. Details, however, were
worked out, and construction of a
joint plant was completed in Decem-ber
1971.
The arrangements negotiated by
the two countries to accommodate
different national concerns and levels
of econoni ic development a re wort h
noting. For example, since Mexico
did not require chlorination, the
United States paid all chlorination
costs at the Ambos Nogales plant.
Also, other costs, such as construc-tion
costs, were prorated. The U.S.
share of construction erst was $1.1
million compared to Mexico's contri-bution
of $0.9 million because higher
costs are involved in constructing a
plant iii the United States than in
Mexico. Operating costs were also
prorated to reflect rates in the two
countries.
Despite the 1971 expansion, the
plant was insufficient by the late
1970s. At present, its capacity is
exceeded by about 700,000 gallons
daily. Also, broken sewer lines,
u nmonitored industrial sources,
outhouses and unconnected septic
tanks in Nogales, Sonora, cause
about one millk)n gallons of un-treated
sewage flows to the United
States daily via the Santa Cruz River
and its trihutarics (US. -Mexico, 1988).
An agreement to further expand
the plant was signed July 21, 1988,
with Mexico agreeing to pay $1 mil-lion
of the $11 million expansion cost
and another $3 million to improvethe
Nogales, Sonora, sewage collection
system.
Transboundary Surface
Water Flow
Along
with numerous ephemeral
streams, which originate in the
desert and flow only during or after
rain, four basic watersheds or stream
drainages are shared by Arizona and
Sonora.
tJinmln's !)lt('i:i' cle.içii /ci ot/isb
The Colorado River is a resource
for seven U.S ..states before flowing
to the U.S-Mexico border. Concerned
about U .S.development of the
Colorado River, Mexico was anxious
to secure an international agreement
tO assure its supply of water from the
river.
Beginning in 1912 efforts were
made to establish such an agreement
with the United States, hut ìt was not
until 1944, after Colorado River water
was divided among U.S. Basin states,
that a treaty was worked out and
signed. This document assured 1.5
million acre-feet a year of Colorado
River water to Mexico. The Colorado
River is the only transhoundary
Arizona-Sonora river flow that is
apportioned.
Despite the above agreement,
however, some observers believe that
a major problem remains unresolved
and may prove disruptive in the
future. Mexico's assured water supply
by the 1944 treaty can be reduced
only in the event of "extraordinary
drought or accident." An "extraordi-nary
drought" can he treacherously
difficult to define to justify cutting
hack water delivered to Mexico
especially if threatened climate
changes develop. For example,
would a long-term dry spell in the
Southwest be an extraordinary
drought, or could it be seen as part
of a global climate change pattern,
with Mexico still entitled to its full
share of Colorado River water?
The White River Draw, which is
located near Douglas, Arizona, is
another transboundarv surface flow.
The \Vhite River watershed drains
south from Arizona to Sonora. Not
perennial and with little flow, the
stream discharges less than 7,000
acre-feet annually, with little or no
surface water use in the United
States.
West of the Whitewater I)raw is
the San Pedro Basin. With its head-waters
in Mexico, the San Pedro
River, which is a major tributary to
the Cilla River, flows northward
entering Arizona near the community
of Palominas. The San Pedro water-shed
covers 4,483 square miles with
696 square miles in Mexico, and is
155 miles long with 30 miles of its
length flowing in Mexico.
Tue flow of the San Pedro gained
special significance recently when the
U.S. federal government established
the San Pedro Riparian National
Conservation Area. This 56,431-acre
reserve Includes a 31-mile stretch of
the San Pedro River, and the Arizo-na
Department of Water Resources
granted instream flow rights to the
area to protect its valuable riparian
ecosystem. Obviously a secure river
flow is needed to justify this status.
Some liS, water managers have
expressed concern about how
Mexico might develop its water
resources in the San Pedro River
Basin and what effect this might have
on the river flow. The Cananea mine
is located at the head of the San
Pedro valley in Mexico, and a remote
possibility exists that, if the mine
were to expand and develop and
water consumption increase, surface
flow at the international boundary
could be affected.
Many hydrologists believe, how-ever,
that increased agricultural
groundwater pumping in the Sierra
Vista-Fort Huachuca area is a more
immediate threat to the flow of the
San Pedroincluding flow within the
established conservation areathan
any potential Mexican activities.
West of the San Pedro River is the
Santa Cruz River. The Santa Cruz
originates in Arizona, then flows
south into Mexico before returning to
Arizona in the Nogales area and
eventually flowing through Tucson.
The river feeds the Santa Cruz Basin
aquifer which supplies water to the
twin cities of Nogales, Arizona, and
Nogales, Sonora. The Santa Cruz
River flow is too periodic or intermit-tent
to support regular surface water
uses in either country.
The Institutional Setting
Aplethora
of organizations and in-stitutions
are involved with U.S.-
Mexico transhoundaiy water issues.
This impressively demonstrates that
the topic has attracted many and
varied resources and expertise. Also
demonstrated, however, is the com-plexity
of the situation since, accord-ing
to a recent document, 13 U.S. or-ganizations,
12 Mexican organizations
and six binational organizations have
substantial interest in water resources
management along the Arizona-
Sonora border. (U.S. -Mexico, 1988).
U.S. agencies include the Environ-mental
Protection Agency, the Bureau
of Reclamation, the Corps of Engi-neers,
and the Bureau of Land Man-agement.
At the Arizona state level the
Departments of Environmental
Quality, Health Services, and Water
Resources are involved. In Mexico the
federal government maintains cen-tralized
control functioning through
agencies such as the Secretaria de
Agricultura y Recursos Hydraulicos
and the Secretaria de Desarollo
Urbano y Ecologa.
The key international institution is
the International Boundary and Water
Commission (IBWC), which was
created by the 1944 water treaty. The
commission, which has considerable
authority to manage border water
issues, is made up of a U.S. section
and a Mexican section, each headed
by a commissioner with diplomatic
status. The role of the IBWC and its
effectiveness are debated and criti-cized,
as well as lauded. Even its
critics, however, generally acknowl-edge
that the commission, through its
continuous, ongoing efforts, has
managed to defuse international
conflicts resulting from transboundary
water disputes.
Resolving U.S-Mexico transboun-dary
water issues involves developing
foreign policy, usually a specialized
federal activity. Some observers
believe, however, that when natural
resource issues between Mexico and
the United States are addressed, the
border states have significant influ-ence
in the making of foreign policy,
an unusual role for a U.S. state.
That border states have a vital
interest in the outcome of transboun-dary
water issues is readily apparent,
for it is these states that directly suffer
the ill consequences of activities that
threaten the quality and quantity of
shared natural resources. State
officials as a result often have a
stronger incentive to solve these
problems than do federal officials.
Furthermore, U.S-Mexico transboun-dary
water policy is an obvious area
of state interest and involvement,
since states are empowered to work
out domestic water policies within
the United States.
Helen Ingram, UA professor of
political science and acting director
of the UA Udall Center for the
Studies in Public Policy, reviewed
natural resource issues occurring
along the U.S.-Mexico border to
determine policy areas that are
influenced by state actions (Ingram,
1988). She identified several areas.
She found that states have had
considerable power to determine
which natural resource issues would
be included on the federal agenda.
For example, the Colorado River
Basin states, believing their interests
threatened, succeeded in delaying
until 1944 federal action to allocate
Colorado River water to Mexico.
States also affect U.S. foreign
policy development by influencing
foreign policy implementation, espe-cially
when state action is needed to
establish an international agreement.
Further, States have influenced the
substance of foreign policy. For
example, the Colorado River Basin
states in effect got the federal govern-ment
to accept responsibility for
building a desalination plant to purify
water for delivery to Mexico.
Transboundary Policy
Development
With populations expanding on
both sides of the border, the
United States and Mexico are becom-ing
increasingly aware of their need
to manage shared and limited water
resources. To do this effectively initial
informational needs will have to be
met.
The two countries now maintain
hydrologic information on different
databases and, as a result, it is
difficult to coordinate the informa-tion.
A method needs to be worked
out to transfer information from one
nation's database to the other's to
facilitate data use in the analysis of
transhoundary water issues. Further,
Mexican agencies do not ordinarily
gather the massive amount of hydro-logic
information that U.S. agencies
are accustomed to collecting. As a
result, more Mexican hydrologic
information is needed.
Also hindering effective poli-cymaking
is the lack of research
devoted to transboundary natural
resource concerns. Valuable research
is at times not undertaken because of
the complexity involved with work-ing
in an international setting.
In sum, because of missing or
inaccessible information and various
institutional constraints, the two
countries have been unable to
develop a rational and comprehen-sive
plan to manage border water
resources. Many believe that such a
planone that would also integrate
water management with a considera-tion
of other natural resourcesis
very much needed.
Addressing this matter, a UA
project identifies specific areas of
concern related to transhoundary
water use, including the need to
develop effective policy. Funded by
the Ford Foundation, the project is
the result of the combined efforts of
the UA Udall Center for Studies in
Public Policy and the UA Office of
Arid Lands Studies, in collaboration
with El Colégio de la Frontera Norte
in Nogales, Sonora, and the Instituto
Tecnológico de Sonora in Ciudad
Obregon, Sonora.
Acknowledging the value of
federal support and activities to
resolve border problems, the project
aims to broaden centralized efforts by
developing locally based solutions to
border water resource issues. By
working with local people and
organizations, project researchers
expect to identify strategies and
solutions that better reflect local
needs and interests than do exter-nally
imposed actions.
The project, which is scheduled to
operate for 18 months, will focus on
Ambos Nogales. Researchers will
gather information about the quantity
and quality of water resources shared
by the twin cities, Interdisciplinary in
approach, the project will also
identify and analyze the legal, social
and political aspects of water re-sources
decision-making on both
sides of the border. International
treaties and laws are to be reviewed,
and relevant government agencies,
public interest organizations, and
private sector interests will he
identified.
Data and information will be
reviewed to define and prioritize
water management problems in
Amlxs Nogales. Hydrologic informa-tion
is to be made available to
decision makers; and officials, laws
and institutions will be identified with
the potential to address water
management concerns effectively.
People and groups who, although
not officially sanctioned, influence
the resolution of water resource
issues, will also be identified.
Mimbres pottery desçn ofsunfzh
In the final and crucial phase of
the project research results are to be
applied to help develop local and
binational strategies to address
transboundary water problems. Local
individuals and groups will actively
participate to help promote accep-tance
and implementation of the
recommended strategies.
Information about the project can
be obtained from its principal
investigators at the UA: Simon Ince,
Department of Hydrology and Water
Resources; Helen Ingram, Udall
Center; and Robert Varady, Office of
Arid Lands Studies, and the Udall
Center
Conclusion
Aninternational boundary defines
or clarifies national territories. At
the same time, however, an interna-tional
border can create ambiguity
when transboundaiy natural resource
issues are to be decided. For ex-ample,
groundwater pumping issues
that can he readily settled in Phoenix
or Flagstaff, Arizona, or water quality
concerns that can he resolved in
Ciudad Obregon or Hermosillo,
Sonora, take on added complications
when they occur along the U.S.-
Mexico border. Instead of resolving
internal problems with local or
national resources, nations must
confront social, cultural, and histori-cal
complexities when working out
transhoundary issues.
Therefore no easy solution exists
to resolve U.S.-Mexico transhoundary
water problems. A systematic and
coordinated effort is needed to
develop policy, involving state,
national and international agencies
and including the participation of
private citizens from both sides of the
border. Such an effort would help
establish the rational, long-term,
comprehensive policies needed to
address transhoundary water issues
between Mexico and the United
States.
References
Ingram, Helen. 1988. State Govern-ment
Officials'Role in US./Mexico
Transboundary Resource Issues.
Natural Resource Journal 28(3): 431-
449.
U.S-Mexico Transboundary Water
Resources Management, a proposal
prepared by Simon mce, Helen
Ingram and Robert Varady and sub-mitted
to the Ford Foundation, 1989.
The editor thanks the following
people for contributiong informa-tion
to this newsletter: Malinda
Longworth, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality; Placido Dos
Santos, Kathy Jacobs, Craig O'Hare,
Arizona Department of Water Re-sources;
Dick Kamp, Border Ecology
Project Steve Mumme, Colorado State
University, Jim DeCook, University of
Arizona; Albert Utton, University of
New Mexico; Tom Anderson, US.
Geological Survey.
The ideas and opinions expressed in
the newsletter do not necessarily reflect the
views ofany ofthe above people.
ARROYO
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
Water Resources Research Center
Tucson, Arizona 85721
WRR(
Water Resources Research Center
Arroyo, a quarterly publication, is
published by:
A1izt)rìa l)epailment f Environ-mental
Quality
05 North Central
OefliX. AZ 85004
02') 257-230ó
Arizona Department of Water
Resources
I S South i 5th Avenue
Phocni". AZ 85007
(Ó02) 255-1554
Arizona State Land Department
1(24 West Adams
Phoenix. AZ 85007
(602) 255-4629
Graphics Arid Lands Design
Office of Arid Land Studies
College of Agriculture
University of Arizona
845 North Park
Tucson, AZ 85719
(602) 6214955
\Vatcr Rc'()t1rces Research Center
College of Engineering aix! lvti,
i nivei.sity of Arizona
1'UCS011. AZ 8521
(6t)2) 621-7607
Address comments to:
Joe Gelt, Editor/Writer
Arroyo
Water Resources Research Center
Geology Building, Room 314
t rniversity of Arizona
l'UCS()fl, AZ 85721
(602) 621-7607
NON-PROFIT ORG.
U.S. Postage Paid
Tucson, Arizona
Permit No. 190