Aquifer Recharge, Storage, and Recovery - Southwest Hydrology ...

New Mexico and Texas Burythe HatchetIrrigation districts in Doña Ana County,New Mexico, and El Paso, Texas,have reached what Elephant ButteIrrigation District (EBID) ManagerGary Esslinger calls “a monumentalagreement” on the apportionment ofwater from the Elephant Butte Reservoir,according to an Associated Pressreport in the Las Cruces Sun-News.In February, the districts, which togethercomprise the Rio Grande Project, agreedto drop their separate lawsuits over waterrights, following a 29-year dispute,said the AP report. El Paso CountyImprovement District No. 1 had claimedthat unregulated groundwater pumpingby New Mexico farmers was cutting intotheir share of reservoir water. Under theagreement, EBID will guarantee deliveryof the El Paso districts’ water to the stateborder, and the New Mexico farmers cancontinue to pump groundwater as long asthe El Paso delivery requirements are met.Visit www.lcsun-news.com.Division Over Rio Grande WatersA 1944 treaty that equally apportionsRio Grande waters to Mexico and theUnited States is proving inadequate toresolve disputes on both sides of theborder. Under the treaty’s terms, waterallocations to Texas farmers were severelycurtailed from 1992 to 2002 becauseof low waters in the shared Amistadand Falcon reservoirs, with Mexicoaccumulating a deficit of 1.5 million acrefeetby the end of that period. The debthas been gradually repaid through watertransfers from the dams every five years.Farmers in northeastern Mexico arehurting and unhappy from the latesttransfers, reported Reuters, and lawmakersin Tamaulipas have asked the MexicanSupreme Court to rule on whether themost recent transfer, in 2007, was lawful.The farmers claim their harvests are ruinedand farms must be abandoned every timea transfer is made. They argue that waterfrom six western Mexican tributaries tothe Rio Grande should be used instead toreduce the deficit, according to Reuters.Meanwhile, the state of Texas has joinedfarmers, ranchers, and irrigation districtsin continuing to seek redress from Mexicofor uncompensated damages racked upfrom 1992 to 2002. Because individualscannot sue Mexico or the United Statesunder the 1944 treaty, the farmers suedMexico for $500 million through atribunal of the North American Free TradeAgreement in 2004. The case was thrownout because NAFTA ruled it did not havecontinued on next pageMay/June 2008 • Southwest Hydrology • 13