Minute 242 and beyond: Challenges and opportunities for managing transboundary groundwater on the Mexico-U. S. border

Natural Resources Journal

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 321-360

  Mumme, Stephen P ^a  

^a Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23044520162     PISSN: 00280739     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. See Int'l Boundary & Water Comm'n, Minute No. 242: Permanent and Definitive Solution to the International Problem of the Salinity of the Colorado River, 15 NAT. RESOURCES J. 2, 2-9 (1975) [hereinafter Minute 242].
2. See Albert E. Utton, Mexican International Waters, in 5 WATERS AND WATER RIGHTS 126, 126-27 (Robert E. Beck ed., 1991).
3. For a discussion of the San Luis groundwater war see Michael D. Bradley & Kenneth J. DeCook, Groundwater Occurrence and Utilization in the Arizona-Sonora Border Region, 18 NAT. RESOURCES J. 29, 36-38 (1978).
4. See Albert E. Utton, The Transfer of Water from an International Border Region: A Tale of Six Cities and the All-American Canal, 16 N.C. J. INT'L L. & COM. REG. 477, 489-90 (1991);
5. C.R. Bath, Transboundary Resource Management Models: Applicability to the El Paso-Ciudad Juárez Region for Groundwater Management, 10 TRANSBOUNDARY RESOURCES REP. 1, 1-3 (1996).
6. ROBERT HAYTON & ALBERT E. UTTON, TRANSBOUNDARY GROUNDWATERS: THE BELLAGIO DRAFT TREATY (1989).
7. See generally Stephen P. Mumme, Groundwater Management on the Mexico-United States Border (Dec. 1996) (unpublished report submitted to the Commission on Environmental Cooperation, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, as part of the Mexico-United States-Canada Transboundary Inland Water Project, on file with author).
8. See DAVID G. LEMARQUAND, INTERNATIONAL RIVERS: THE POLITICS OF COOPERATION 7-11 (1977).
9. A common pool dilemma exists where two or more parties share a valuable common resource in the absence of clearly specified rules or regulations concerning its use, thereby enhancing each party's incentives to appropriate the resource to the point of degradation or exhaustion, eventually reducing its utility to all interested parties.
10. See ELINOR OSTROM, GOVERNING THE COMMONS 31-40 (1990);
11. J. Burger & M. Gochfeld, The Tragedy of the Commons 30 Years Later, 40 ENV'T 8 (1998).
12. See OSTROM, supra note 9, at 43-52.
13. See LEMARQUAND, supra note 7, at 10-11.
14. See OSTROM, supra note 9, at 139-42, 210-14.
15. See ENVTL. PROTECTION AGENCY, PUB. NO. EPA 160-R-96-003, U.S.-MEXICO BORDER XXI PROGRAM FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT (1996).
16. This project was recently transferred from the Texas General Land Office to the Texas Natural Resource Information System: Borderland Information Center (512) 463-8337.
17. See ENVTL. PROTECTION AGENCY, PUB. NO. EPA, 160-R-98-001, U.S.-MEXICO BORDER XXI PROGRAM, 1997-1998 IMPLEMENTATION PLANS AND 1996 ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT (1997) [hereinafter BORDER XXI PROGRAM 1997-1998 IMPLEMENTATION PLANS].
18. For a list of such projects see ENVTL. PROTECTION AGENCY, PUB. NO. EPA 160-R-98-003, U.S.-MEXICO BORDER XXI 1998 IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (1998).
19. For a comprehensive look at public views on environmental protection on the border see ENVTL. PROTECTION AGENCY, PUB. NO. EPA 160-R-96-001, U.S.-MEXICO BORDER XXI PROGRAM, SUMMARY OF DOMESTIC MEETINGS (1996).
20. For a focused look at a coalition of environmentalists' views on U.S.-Mexican water management along the Rio Grande River, see the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Basin Coalition website at 〈http://www.rioweb.org/〉.
21. The literature on the All-American Canal dispute is fairly extensive. In addition to press reports, interested readers should consult the following sources: Douglas L. Hayes, The All-American Canal Lining Project: A Catalyst for Rational and Comprehensive Groundwater Management on the United States-Mexico Border, 31 NAT. RESOURCES J. 803 (1991);
22. Utton, supra note 4; T. Waller, Southern California Water Politics and U.S.-Mexican Relations: Lining the All-American Canal, 7 J. BORDERLANDS STUD. 1 (1992);
23. U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: ALL-AMERICAN CANAL LINING REPORT (1991).
24. See generally U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: ALL-AMERICAN CANAL LINING REPORT (1991);
25. ENVTL. PROTECTION AGENCY, PUB. NO. EPA 160-R-96-001, U.S./MEXICO BORDER XXI PROGRAM, SUMMARY OF DOMESTIC MEETINGS (1996).
26. See id.
27. See Hayes, supra note 18, at 2-3; Waller, supra note 18, at 18-19. The best presentation of the legal arguments that could be advanced by Mexico and the United States in this case is found in Utton, supra note 4, at 477-95.
28. See generally L. Jones et al., Assessing Transboundary Environmental Impacts on the U.S.-Mexican and U.S.-Canadian Borders, 12 J. BORDERLANDS STUD. 73 (1997).
29. See Utton, supra note 4, at 479.
30. The concern for water quality is minimal and has thus far not entered into the framing of the issue though important water quality issues related to groundwater are found within the basin.
31. Mexican national water law provides for private ownership and utilization of groundwater subject to the presumption that groundwater is a national resource that may be regulated in the national interest to include provision for the establishment of protected areas, while groundwater regulation is a matter of state law in the United States. California water law treats groundwater as private property and applies the doctrine of "correlative rights" to groundwater appropriations. See COMISION NACIONAL DEL AGUA, LEY DE AGUAS NACIONALES (1992)
32. [hereinafter LEY DE AGUAS NACIONALES];
33. R. Wehmhoefer, Water Law in the Southwest, WATER AND THE FUTURE OF THE SOUTHWEST 29-30 (Z. Smith ed., 1989).
34. See International Law Association, Resolution on International Groundwaters, in THE WORK OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION ON THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL WATER RESOURCES 39, 39-41 (Int'l Transboundary Resources Ctr. ed., 1996).
35. See LYNDON B. JOHNSON SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, WATER AND DEVELOPMENT: THE RIO GRANDE/ RIO BRAVO (Jurgen Schmandt ed., 1992/93).
36. See id. See also TEX. WATER DEV. BD., WATER FOR TEXAS: TODAY AND TOMORROW (1990);
37. TEX. WATER COMM'N, REGIONAL ASSESSMENT OF WATER QUALITY IN THE RIO GRANDE/RIO BRAVO 55 (1992);
38. Int'l Boundary & Water Comm'n, Transboundary Aquifers and Binational Groundwater Database City of El Paso/Ciudad Juárez Area (last modified Aug. 8, 1999) 〈http://www.ibwc.state.gov/RIOGRAND/tranaqui.htm〉 [hereinafter Transboundary Aquifers Database];
39. Mauricio G. Mercado & Ma. Del Rosario Diaz A., Problematica del Recurso Agua y Accion para su Conservacion y Mejoramiento en Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua (unpublished manuscript presented at Association of Borderlands Studies, Annual Meeting in Reno, Nevada, Apr. 22, 1996, on file with author).
40. See Transboundary Aquifers Database, supra note 28;
41. BORDER XXI PROGRAM 1997-1998 IMPLEMENTATION PLANS, supra note 15.
42. See Transboundary Aquifers Database, supra note 28, at 16.
43. See BORDER XXI PROGRAM 1997-1998 IMPLEMENTATION PLANS, supra note 15, at 30.
44. See LEY DE AGUAS NACIONALES, supra note 25.
45. See id. See also Reglamento de la Ley de Aguas Nacionales, DIARO OFICIAL (12 de Enero, 1994).
46. SEMARNAP's authority is grounded in the Federal Environmental Law and references to the Federal Environmental Law within the National Water Law. See LEY GENERAL DEL EQUILBRIO ECOLOGICO Y LA PROTECCION AL AMBIENTE, arts. 117-32 (1988, revisado 13 de Deciembre 1996);
47. LEY DE AGUAS NACIONALES, supra note 25, at art. 86.
48. See THE WORLD BANK, REP. NO. 15435-ME, STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT: MEXICO WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 12, Annex C, tbl.C-3 (1996).
49. See id.
50. Except where inter-state conflicts arise or where federal environmental and public health laws apply.
51. See Wehmhoefer, supra note 25; Wells A. Hutchins, Water Rights Laws in the Nineteen Western States, (Dep't Agric., Miscellaneous Pub. No. 1206, 1971).
52. Though state law predominates in groundwater regulation in the United States, the potential for greater federal involvement derives from the more recent managerial approach to water use and allocation at the federal level and possible applications of the federal Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and the 1986 Federal Power Act Amendments to groundwater situations. See W. WATER POLICY REVIEW ADVISORY COMM'N, WATER IN THE WEST: CHALLENGE FOR THE NEW CENTURY 3.38-39 (1998).
53. See Mumme, supra note 6.
54. See Utton, supra note 4, at 488-89.
55. See Minute 242, supra note 1.
56. See Ival V. Goslin, Colorado River Development, in VALUES AND CHOICES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN 18, 56-57 (Dean F. Peterson & A. Berry Crawford eds., 1978).
57. Agreement on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area, Aug. 14, 1983, U.S.-Mex., T.I.A.S. No. 10,827.
58. See BORDER XXI PROGRAM 1997-1998 IMPLEMENTATION PLANS, supra note 15.
59. See id.
60. Lenard Milich & Robert G. Varady, Openness, Sustainability, and Public Participation: New Designs for Transboundary River Basin Institutions, 8 J. ENV'T & DEV. 258, 292-93 (1999).
61. See id. at 292-95. See also Stephen P. Mumme & S. Moore, Innovation Prospects in U.S.-Mexico Border Water Management: The IBWC and the BECC in Comparative Perspective, 17 GOV'T & POL'Y C: ENV'T & PLAN. 753, 768-770 (1999).
62. See PIERRE MARK JOHNSON & ANDRE BEAULIEU, THE ENVIRONMENT & NAFTA: UNDERSTANDING AND IMPLEMENTING THE NEW CONTINENTAL LAW (1996).
63. See id. at 121-30.
64. See COMM'N ON ENVTL. COOPERATION, ANNUAL REPORT (1997).
65. For discussion of the very limited international aspect of environmental impact assessment in the AAC case, see Jones et al., supra note 22.
66. See COMM'N ON ENVTL. COOPERATION, ADVISORY PANEL REPORT ON THE UPPER SAN PEDRO RIVER INITIATIVE (1998).
67. See id.
68. In the past year scholars have called for a reinterpretation of the 1944 Water Treaty's Article 3 defining the priority of uses of treaty waters to incorporate environmental values. See William Snape, Adding an Environmental Minute to the 1944 Water Treaty: Impossible or Inevitable, Workshop Proceedings: Water and Environmental Issues of the Colorado River Border Region Roundtable Workshop vi-viii (1999). See also comments by law professor David Getches in the same workshop.
69. See HAYTON & UTTON, supra note 5.
70. Id. at 669.
71. See G.A. Res. 51/229, U.N. GAOR, 51st Sess., United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (1997),
72. reprinted in 36 I.L.M. 700-20 [hereinafter United Nations Convention].
73. See generally Stephen S. McCaffrey, An Assessment of the Work of the International Law Commission, 36 NAT. RESOURCES J. 297 (1996).
74. See id. See also United Nations Convention, supra note 58.
75. See United Nations Convention, supra note 58, at arts. 5-7.
76. For a discussion of the principle of "no significant harm," see Albert E. Utton, Which Rule Should Prevail in International Water Disputes: That of Reasonableness or that of No Harm?, 36 NAT. RESOURCES J. 635 (1996).
77. See United Nations Convention, supra note 58, at arts. 13-15.
78. See id. at art. 20.
79. Id. at art. 27.
80. See id. at art. 32.
81. See McCaffrey, supra note 59, at 317.