logo
The deepening water shortage row between the US and Mexico

The deepening water shortage row between the US and Mexico

BBC News13-07-2025
After the thirtieth consecutive month without rain, the townsfolk of San Francisco de Conchos in the northern Mexican state of Chihuahua gather to plead for divine intervention.On the shores of Lake Toronto, the reservoir behind the state's most important dam – called La Boquilla, a priest leads local farmers on horseback and their families in prayer, the stony ground beneath their feet once part of the lakebed before the waters receded to today's critically low levels.Among those with their heads bowed is Rafael Betance, who has voluntarily monitored La Boquilla for the state water authority for 35 years."This should all be underwater," he says, motioning towards the parched expanse of exposed white rocks."The last time the dam was full and caused a tiny overflow was 2017," Mr Betance recalls. "Since then, it's decreased year on year."We're currently at 26.52 metres below the high-water mark, less than 14% of its capacity."
Little wonder the local community is beseeching the heavens for rain. Still, few expect any let up from the crippling drought and sweltering 42C (107.6F) heat.Now, a long-running dispute with Texas over the scarce resource is threatening to turn ugly.Under the terms of a 1944 water-sharing agreement, Mexico must send 430 million cubic metres of water per year from the Rio Grande to the US.The water is sent via a system of tributary channels into shared dams owned and operated by the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), which oversees and regulates water-sharing between the two neighbours.In return, the US sends its own much larger allocation (nearly 1.85 billion cubic metres a year) from the Colorado River to supply the Mexican border cities of Tijuana and Mexicali.Mexico is in arrears and has failed to keep up with its water deliveries for much of the 21st Century.
Following pressure from Republican lawmakers in Texas, the Trump administration warned Mexico that water could be withheld from the Colorado River unless it fulfils its obligations under the 81-year-old treaty.In April, on his Truth Social account, US President Donald Trump accused Mexico of "stealing" the water and threatened to keep escalating to "TARIFFS, and maybe even SANCTIONS" until Mexico sends Texas what it owes. Still, he gave no firm deadline by when such retaliation might happen.For her part, the Mexican President, Claudia Sheinbaum, acknowledged Mexico's shortfall but struck a more conciliatory tone.Since then, Mexico has transferred an initial 75 million cubic metres of water to the US via their shared dam, Amistad, located along the border, but that is just a fraction of the roughly 1.5 billion cubic metres of Mexico's outstanding debt.Feelings on cross-border water sharing can run dangerously high: in September 2020, two Mexican people were killed in clashes with the National Guard at La Boquilla's sluice gates as farmers tried to stop the water from being redirected.Amid the acute drought, the prevailing view in Chihuahua is that "you can't take from what isn't there", says local expert Rafael Betance.
But that doesn't help Brian Jones to water his crops.A fourth-generation farmer in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, for the past three years he has only been able to plant half of his farm because he doesn't have enough irrigation water."We've been battling Mexico as they've not been living up to their part of the deal," he says. "All we're asking for is what's rightfully ours under the treaty, nothing extra."Mr Jones also disputes the extent of the problem in Chihuahua. He believes that in October 2022 the state received more than enough water to share, but released "exactly zero" to the US, accusing his neighbours of "hoarding water and using it to grow crops to compete with us".
Farmers on the Mexican side read the agreement differently. They say it only binds them to send water north when Mexico can satisfy its own needs, and argue that Chihuahua's ongoing drought means there's no excess available.Beyond the water scarcity, there are also arguments over agricultural efficiency.Walnut trees and alfalfa are two of the main crops in Chihuahua's Rio Conchos Valley, both of which require a lot of watering – walnut trees need on average 250 litres a day.Traditionally, Mexican farmers have simply flooded their fields with water from the irrigation channel. Driving around the valley one quickly sees walnut trees sitting in shallow pools, the water flowing in from an open pipe.The complaint from Texas is obvious: the practice is wasteful and easily avoided with more responsible and sustainable farming methods.
As Jaime Ramirez walks through his walnut groves, the former mayor of San Francisco de Conchos shows me how his modern sprinkler system ensures his walnut trees are properly watered all year round without wasting the precious resource."With the sprinklers, we use around 60% less than flooding the fields," he says. The system also means they can water the trees less frequently, which is particularly useful when the Rio Conchos is too low to allow local irrigation.Mr Ramirez readily admits, though, that some of his neighbours aren't so conscientious. As a former local mayor, he urges understanding.Some haven't adopted the sprinkler method because of the costs in setting it up, he says. He's tried to show other farmers that it works out cheaper in the long run, saving on energy and water costs.But farmers in Texas must also understand that their counterparts in Chihuahua are facing an existential threat, Mr Ramirez insists.
"This is a desert region and the rains haven't come. If the rain doesn't come again this year, then next year there simply won't be any agriculture left. All the available water will have to be conserved as drinking water for human beings," he warns.Many in northern Mexico believe the 1944 water-sharing treaty is no longer fit for purpose. Mr Ramirez thinks it may have been adequate for conditions eight decades ago, but it has failed to adapt with the times or properly account for population growth or the ravages of climate change.Back across the border, Texan farmer Brian Jones says the agreement has stood the test of time and should still be honoured."This treaty was signed when my grandfather was farming. It's been through my grandfather, my father and now me," he says."Now we're seeing Mexico not comply. It's very angering to have a farm where I'm only able to plant half the ground because I don't have irrigation water."Trump's tougher stance has given the local farmers "a pep in our step", he adds.Meanwhile, the drought hasn't just harmed farming in Chihuahua.With Lake Toronto's levels so low, Mr Betance says the remaining water in the reservoir is heating up with uncommon speed and creating a potential disaster for the marine life which sustains a once-thriving tourism industry.The valley's outlook hasn't been this dire, Mr Betance says, in the entire time he's spent carefully recording the lake's ups and downs. "Praying for rain is all we have left," he reflects.Additional reporting by Angélica Casas.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

A day in the life, in photos, of one family's search for food in Gaza
A day in the life, in photos, of one family's search for food in Gaza

The Independent

time3 hours ago

  • The Independent

A day in the life, in photos, of one family's search for food in Gaza

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.

Scientists slam Trump administration climate report as a ‘farce' full of misinformation
Scientists slam Trump administration climate report as a ‘farce' full of misinformation

The Guardian

time9 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Scientists slam Trump administration climate report as a ‘farce' full of misinformation

A new Trump administration report which attempts to justify a mass rollback of environmental regulations is chock-full of climate misinformation, experts say. On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a proposal to undo the 2009 'endangerment finding', which allows the agency to limit planet-heating pollution from cars and trucks, power plants and other industrial sources. Hours later, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a 150-page report defending the proposal, claiming scientific concern about the climate crisis is overblown. 'Climate change is a challenge – not a catastrophe,' wrote the energy secretary, Chris Wright, in the report's introduction. The esteemed climate scientist Michael Mann said the report was akin to the result he would expect 'if you took a chatbot and you trained it on the top 10 fossil fuel industry-funded climate denier websites'. The energy department published the report hours after the EPA announced a plan to roll back 2009's 'endangerment finding', a seminal ruling that provided the legal basis for the agency to regulate climate-heating pollution under the Clean Air Act. If finalized, the move would topple virtually all US climate regulation. In a Fox News interview, Wright claimed the report pushed back on the 'cancel culture Orwellian squelching of science'. But Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University and expert in climate misinformation, said its true purpose was to 'justify what is a scientifically unjustifiable failure to regulate fossil fuels'. 'Science is the basis for climate regulation, so now they are trying to replace legitimate science with pseudoscience,' she said. The attack on the research underpinning the endangerment finding – which says greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare – comes as part of Trump's 'drill, baby, drill' agenda to boost fossil fuels, which are the primary cause of global warming. 'This is an agenda to promote fossil fuels, not to protect public health and welfare or the environment,' said Rachel Cleetus, a director at climate and science non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists who was an author on the sixth US national climate assessment. Asked about scientists' assertions that the new report is rife with misinformation, an energy department spokesperson, Ben Dietderich, said: 'This report critically assesses many areas of ongoing scientific inquiry that are frequently assigned high levels of confidence – not by the scientists themselves but by the political bodies involved, such as the United Nations or previous presidential administrations.' But the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces what is widely considered the gold standard compendium of climate science, compiled by a huge multinational team of scientists, peer-reviewed and agreed to by every national government. The latest IPCC synthesis report, released two years ago, was a vast undertaking involving 721 volunteer scientists around the world. It states that it is 'unequivocal' that human activity has heated the planet, which has 'led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people'. By contrast, the Trump administration report was crafted by five handpicked scientists who are seen as having fringe or contrarian views by mainstream climate scientists, with no peer review. The experts behind the report have previously denied being climate deniers. The energy department did not respond to a question about the authors. 'This report had five authors and was rushed over four months, and would not pass muster in any traditional scientific peer review process,' said Zeke Hausfather, a research scientist at the climate non-profit Berkeley Earth, who called the paper a 'farce'. Wright, the energy secretary, insisted he had not steered the report's conclusions, while Judith Curry, one of the report authors, said in a blogpost she hoped the document would push climate science 'away from alarmism and advocacy'. Mainstream climate scientists, however, condemned the findings as distorted and inaccurate. 'This is a report written by a couple of scientists who are outliers in their arguments for climate change,' said Natalie Mahowald, a climate scientist at Cornell University. 'This document does in no way depreciate the value of previous assessments, but rather just cherrypicks the literature to pretend to create a new review.' Mahowald said the lack of peer review meant it was 'obviously not as robust' as the IPCC report or the US government's periodic national climate assessment, which the Trump administration recently took offline. The latest national climate assessment, compiled by a dozen government agencies and outside scientists in 2023, concluded that the 'effects of human-caused climate change are already far-reaching and worsening across every region of the United States' 'If almost any other group of scientists had been chosen, the report would have been dramatically different,' Andrew Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M University, said of the new report. 'The only way to get this report was to pick these authors.' Hausfather agreed that the authors' work 'might represent their views but is not consistent with the broader scientific literature on climate change'. He was among the scientists whose work the authors cited. The new paper includes a chart from a 2019 report which he led, claiming it demonstrates how climate models 'consistently overestimated observations' of atmospheric carbon. But Hausfather's research actually showed that climate models have performed well. 'They appear to have discarded the whole paper as not fitting their narrative, and instead picked a single figure that was in the supplementary materials to cast doubt on models when the whole paper actually confirmed how well they have performed in the years after they were published,' he said. The energy department did not respond to a request for comment about Hausfather's concerns. That approach to research seems to underpin the entire paper, said Hausfather, who is also the climate research lead at tech company Stripe. 'This is a general theme in the report; they cherrypick data points that suit their narrative and exclude the vast majority of the scientific literature that does not,' he said. Dessler said scientists are obliged to engage with the full range of evidence, even if it contradicts their initial assumptions. Ignoring this principle 'can rise to the level of scientific misconduct', he said. 'The report they produced should be thought of as a law brief from attorneys defending their client, carbon dioxide,' Dessler said. 'Their goal is not to weigh the evidence fairly but to build the strongest possible case for CO2's innocence.' The lack of peer review in the administration's report led to conclusions that deviated, sometimes wildly, from the scientific literature. Many of its claims are based on long-debunked research long promoted by climate deniers, said Mann. 'It is shop worn, decades-old, discredited climate denier talking points, dressed up in the clothing of some sensible new set of revelations,' he said. 'What's different is that it has the imprimatur of the EPA and the federal government now.' The report, for instance claims that warming trends have been overstated, despite evidence to the contrary. It was published as extreme heat is affecting millions of Americans. 'They're literally trying to tell us not to believe what we see with our own two eyes … and instead buy into their denialist framing that rejects not just the science, but what is plainly evident if you look out your window,' said Mann. The authors also write that ocean acidification is occurring 'within the range of natural variability' and is beneficial for marine life despite the ocean's acidic levels currently being the highest since 14m years ago, a time when a major extinction event was occurring. And the report references the apparent health of Australia's Great Barrier Reef, which it says 'has shown considerable growth in recent years'. The reef was recently hit by its sixth mass bleaching event since 2016, a devastating phenomenon for corals in which they whiten and sometimes die due to high sea temperatures. No widespread bleaching events were recorded on the reef before 1998. The report is 'tedious' and at times 'truly wearisome', according to Bob Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University. Kopp recently worked on a paper showing how rising temperatures and drought will worsen crop yields, counter to the report's claims that crops will flourish with extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 'Carbon dioxide fertilization is largely irrelevant to how increasingly extreme heat and intense drought will impact crop yields,' Kopp said. 'As a former department of energy fellow, I'm embarrassed by this report.'

Melrose defies tariffs and supply woes to beat profit forecast
Melrose defies tariffs and supply woes to beat profit forecast

Times

time10 hours ago

  • Times

Melrose defies tariffs and supply woes to beat profit forecast

A leading aerospace business's first-half profits were above forecasts in the face of disruption caused by President Trump's tariffs and long-running aerospace supply chain issues. Operating profits at Melrose, the owner of GKN Aerospace, were £310 million for the six months ended June 30, compared with a company-compiled analysts' consensus of £299 million. Revenue rose 6 per cent to £1.7 billion, driven by a particularly strong performance from Melrose's engines division, which supplies parts to the likes of Rolls-Royce and the US-based Pratt & Whitney. The performance sent shares up more than 5 per cent on a day that markets were backed into a retreat as Trump introduced a slew of fresh tariffs. Melrose was buoyed last week by news that the US-EU trade deal had granted a tariff exemption for aircraft and aviation parts, although it said on Friday it had successfully mitigated the 'direct impact' of the current levies on its half-year bottom line. The FTSE 100 group has a significant presence in the US, which makes up nearly two thirds of its sales, and it recently opened a multimillion-pound factory in San Diego. It does, however, run an operation in Mexico, which exports to both Europe and the United States. 'We delivered a strong performance in the first half with a 29 per cent improvement in profit and cashflow significantly stronger than last year despite the backdrop of supply chain and tariff disruptions,' Peter Dilnot, chief executive, said. • One-sided trade deal suggests outsider status has benefited Britain Melrose has benefited from a twin boom in defence and aviation. Conflict in Ukraine and the Middle East has led to governments increasing military spending budgets, while travel demand has soared in the post-pandemic era, leading to record order backlogs for new aircraft. It has, however, faced hurdles from wider supply chain issues affecting the aerospace industry, which have fuelled problems at the planemakers Boeing and Airbus. Those difficulties were further compounded by the additional complexity of Trump's trade levies. Dilnot said he was confident of delivering sustained increases in profit and cashflow in the years ahead and a £600 million free cashflow target by 2029. Melrose has managed to offset some of the impact from supply chain snarl-ups thanks to increasing demand for its aftermarket services, as companies look to get more life out of older aircraft. Dilnot said that despite lower growth forecasts for global air travel, 'constrained build rates' for new aircraft coupled with record order backlogs had forced airlines to make better use of their fleets, 'fuelling' aftermarket growth. • North Sea oil is a 'treasure chest' for the UK, says Donald Trump Operating profit at Melrose's engines division grew by more than a quarter to £261 million over the half-year period, alongside a 6 per cent rise in engine flying hours. Revenue increased 11 per cent to £781 million. Its structures division reported a near-third rise in operating profit to £63 million, with a strong 10 per cent revenue growth in defence. The company supplies parts for some of the largest defence programmes in the world, including Chinook helicopters and F-35 fighter jets. Recent contract awards include the extension of a six-year tie-up with BAE Systems to provide parts for its Eurofighter Typhoon jet, and a five-year deal with the US defence giant Lockheed Martin. Melrose's board has set an interim dividend of 2.4 pence per share for 2025, up 20 per cent year-on-year. The company is currently £91 million through a £250 million, 18-month, share buyback programme. Founded in 2003 by Christopher Miller, David Roper and Simon Peckham, Melrose floated on London's Aim market the same year. After rising to the FTSE 100, its market capitalisation now sits at about £6.87 billion.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store