Posted on 5/10/2002, 6:42:23 AM by JohnHuang2
South Texas farmers growing impatient with Mexican and U.S. officials over diplomatic failure to resolve a water issue say they will blockade three major international bridges if they can't get relief for their crops soon.
"Some farmers may choose to blockade the bridges with farm equipment," said local rancher and activist George R. Givens. "That would probably get them the necessary attention."
Givens says a blockade "could spread along the border and affect industries all across the United States," most of which buy parts from Mexican distributors or have assembly plants there.
"Of course, parts and finished products from the United States couldn't get into Mexico either, which could shut down a bunch of [our] businesses," he told WorldNetDaily.
The blockade threats come amid a growing rift between the United States and Mexico over water rights that has begun to affect farmers on both sides of the border.
South Texas, which has suffered from drought conditions in recent years, shares water with Mexican farmers under the terms of a 1944 treaty. The water, which comes from the Lower Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers, is divvied up between the two countries. Under the terms of the treaty, Mexico is required to deliver 350,000 acre-feet of water to the U.S. from its "treaty tributaries" annually. (Editor's note: An "acre-foot" is 325,851 gallons – or enough water to cover an acre of land, one foot deep in water.)
However, southern Texas farmers say that instead of meeting the treaty's requirements, the Mexican government is "stealing" water so it can irrigate "dramatically expanded" desert farm plots in the state of Chihuahua.
Those allegations are supported by Texas Department of Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs' office. A spokesman there told WorldNetDaily the department had acquired commercial satellite photos within the past year that show Mexico allegedly diverting water meant for the U.S. to "water-intensive crops" in the Chihuahua deserts.
"The photos show a 'greening effect' occurring," said department spokesman Alan Spelce.
He said in December 2000, satellite photos showed "those fields to be essentially dormant." But by April 2001, "you can see that water is being released" from a nearby Mexican reservoir to feed those fields. By July – at the height of the dry season – he said the newly irrigated fields are completely lush.
Spelce also said the department suspected early on that the water being used for the new Mexican farmlands was supposed to be sent to south Texas farmers.
Sally Spener, a spokeswoman for the International Boundary and Water Commission, or IBWC, the U.S. State Department agency that monitors water rights between the U.S. and Mexico, agreed that Mexico "has incurred a deficit in its water deliveries" to the U.S. in excess of 1.5 million acre-feet.
"This has affected the water available to south Texas farmers," she told WND, adding that State Department officials "have kept up with this issue."
"Secretary of State [Colin] Powell has raised the water debt issue with his Mexican counterpart in meetings over the past year," she said, as have other American officials. "The U.S. government's position is that Mexico should make water deliveries in fulfillment of its obligations under the 1944 water treaty."
The issue has also been addressed at the highest levels. Under an agreement reached by President Bush and Mexican President Vincente Fox March 16, 2001, in an IBWC order titled Minute No. 307, Mexico was to release 600,000 acre feet of water. (Editor's note: Readers must have Adobe Acrobat Reader to open the above document.)
Bush raised the issue again with Fox when the two met this past March. But so far, officials say Mexico has only released about two-thirds of the agreed-upon amount.
For Mexico's part, the treaty says America's southern neighbor has five years to make up any shortfalls.
"In the event of extraordinary drought" or other conditions that make it impossible for Mexico to meet its obligation of 350,000 acre-feet annually, Article 4 states that "any deficiencies existing at the end of … [a] five-year cycle shall be made up in the following five-year cycle. …"
And, in a recent report on the water issue, the IBWC said the "Mexican government continues to assert that it does not have sufficient water under current climatic conditions to make additional water deliveries to the United States."
But U.S. officials say Mexico has had plenty of time to make up the deficit. The IBWC's Spener says Mexico's current deficit has been ongoing since 1992.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, has proposed a short-term solution that she hopes will placate angry south Texas farmers.
At a well-publicized congressional water hearing at the University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College, Hutchison said if Mexico could release 100,000 acre-feet of water reserves in the Amistad and Falcon reservoirs, Rio Grande Valley farmers could at least meet their May 15 crop harvest commitments.
"We have created a proposal that offers Mexico an opportunity to, at a minimum, make an immediate down payment on its enormous water debt to the U.S.," she said. "It would irrigate farms in South Texas in a matter of days."
Hutchison laid out her plan in a joint statement issued with another Texas Republican, U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla. Mexico has yet to formally respond to it, however.
Mexican politicians are entering the fray but are, not surprisingly, acting in their country's best interests.
On May 1, the Mexican Senate passed a resolution calling on Fox not to give any more water to the U.S. that isn't part of "previous bilateral agreements," according to one Mexican media report.
The resolution also called on the government to compensate farmers in northern Mexican states for losses incurred due to Fox's alleged preferential treatment of the United States.
Not all Mexican legislators agreed that the resolution is the best solution, however.
"To start a precedent saying the interests of the people come ahead of the interests of the country would be completely negative," said Sen. Luis Alberto Rico Samaniego, a conservative National Action Party lawmaker who opposed the measure.
Rico Samaniego blamed the plight of Mexico's northern farmers on drought, not Fox's "preferential" water policies towards the U.S.
Meanwhile, northern Mexican border towns are in a state of alert due to an extended drought in the region, said a News Mexico report. Local dams on the border are holding only 9 percent of their capacity, the report said, while water reserves for domestic use will be exhausted in nine months.
Thomas Segel, a 28-year Rio Grande Valley resident and former Texas state official, told WorldNetDaily that despite constant U.S. pressure, Mexico has refused to budge.
"Mexico claims it is not in violation of the treaty," he said. "While all these reports are being written and the diplomats talk, Texas crops die in the fields."
He says south Texas farmers and ranchers are "enraged" by the IBWC report. He said it was "supposed to analyze Mexico's water use" but instead was "gutted" by the State Department to "avoid offending Mexico."
"Farmers and local irrigators charge the State Department tendencies not to rock the boat have left them high and dry," he said.
But Spener countered that the IBWC included "factual data" in its report that includes "water usage by Chihuahua irrigation districts and deliveries to the United States."
"The report was intended to provide reliable data to the general public, which it does. The report was not intended to reflect the viewpoint or interpretation of any individual, so it does not do that," she told WND.
"I believe that the irrigators are upset because a contractor who worked on the report had previously done other reports for other clients in which he expressed his individual views or his personal interpretation of the treaty. For this project, the assignment was to provide reliable data, not to express individual viewpoints," she said.
Givens said that IBWC officials were warned by irrigators five years ago that "the Mexican deficits were going to cause the current problem."
Three years ago, he said, "irrigation district managers went to Washington and warned the State Department of the developing problem." In each instance, no tangible solutions were reached.
"Now, exactly what the irrigation district managers predicted has come true," said Givens.
Still, "while Mexico's domestic agricultural production is flourishing, the Rio Grande Valley is suffering from a decline of over 100,000 acres of farmland, nearly a $1 billion loss to the regional economy and 30,000 lost jobs," Hutchison said.
"The economic viability of communities along the border are being jeopardized by the withholding of water," she added. "It is crucial we find a solution."
"Farmers in south Texas have decided they will blockade three of the international bridges that connect Mexico to the United States" if the issue isn't resolved, said Segel.
If that happens, "it could also mean major losses to Mexican farmers," he said. Unless something breaks, "Texas farmers feel this is the only remaining thing they can do to gain the serious attention of those powers in both countries that could resolve their crisis. …"
Yesterday, a pair of irrigation districts in south Texas informed nine cities and a major industrial user they expect to run out of water in 60 days.
"We have been warning this could take place for some time now, and here it is," Jo-Jo White, general manager of Mercedes Irrigation District, told the Valley Morning Star newspaper.
"You can just feel the guillotine about to come down. The knot is being untied and, once again, it will be the agricultural user that ultimately pays the price," he said.
"The only thing that will stop us from running out of water now is a big storm or Mexico releasing water to us," said Sonia Kaniger, general manager of Cameron County No. 2. Irrigation District. "Unfortunately, I think we have more chance of getting a storm, but that is pretty remote."
You condone this illegal activity?
6 posted on 5/10/02 10:01 AM Pacific by PRND21
Didn't you mean UNDOCUMENTED activity? I hate to see the word illegal thrown around lightly.
If they are failing to obey a treaty, the US Military should be used to pound the bastards into utter submission.
I've yet to see it thrown "lightly" at FR. ;)
So, instead, I'll be critical of all the American corporations which moved their manufacturing and assembly facilities to Mexico, thereby encouraging the Mexican government to turn to a life of crime.
Makes one wonder who the real enemy is.
D1
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.