Water Rights

Water Fight With Mexico Leaves South Texas Farmer Unable to Plant Half His Acres

Mon, 22 Dec 2025 19:27:57 GMT

For South Texas farmers, the ongoing water dispute between the United States and Mexico isn’t an abstract policy issue. It’s a crisis that has reshaped planting decisions, reduced production and injected deep uncertainty into every growing season along the Rio Grande.

Brian Jones, a South Texas farmer, says years of shorted water deliveries under the 1944 Water Treaty have forced him and many of his neighbors to dramatically scale back their operations. What once was a fully irrigated farming system has turned into a constant struggle to stretch limited water supplies across fewer acres.

“I believe it really starts to reach a crescendo in the 2023 crop year,” Jones says. “For 2024 and 2025, basically I’m only able to plant half of my farm because we don’t have enough water.”

Jones says the water shortages are not the result of drought alone, but of Mexico failing to live up to its treaty obligations. Under the 1944 agreement, Mexico is required to deliver water to the United States through the Rio Grande basin. However, U.S. officials and South Texas producers argue those deliveries have fallen well short in recent years.

“That’s exactly right,” Jones says, confirming that he has been unable to plant roughly half of his acres. “Going from fully irrigated to basically only being able to plant half the farm — and not even having full irrigation for that half — has been quite a struggle over the last couple of years.”

The reduced water supply has forced farmers to make hard decisions, prioritizing which crops and fields can survive with limited irrigation. Jones says even the acres that do get planted are often under-irrigated, increasing risk and lowering yield potential.

“Mexico has willfully held back water that they had,” Jones says. “That puts us in a huge shortfall.”

Hope on the Horizon?

Earlier this month, USDA announced it had reached an understanding with Mexico to release 202,000 acre-feet of water to the U.S., following heightened pressure from the Trump administration — including threats of tariffs if Mexico failed to comply. The announcement marked the most significant movement on the issue in years. But for growers on the ground, the news has been met with cautious optimism.

“I would say I’m both hopeful and skeptical,” Jones says. “I’m hopeful because President Trump and his administration really take the bull by the horns on this and bring the fight to Mexico.”

Jones says farmers in South Texas have long felt ignored as water shortages worsened, and he credits the current administration for taking a more aggressive stance.

“Under the previous administration, it’s like talking to a brick wall,” he says. “Under this administration, President Trump and Secretary Rollins really pick up the club and use it to bring Mexico to the table.”

Despite the agreement, Jones says trust remains an issue. Years of unmet commitments have made farmers wary of celebrating until water is actually flowing into the Rio Grande and irrigation systems.

“On the other hand, I’m still skeptical because Mexico has willfully withheld the water for a number of years,” Jones says. “Until it really starts flowing and they meet that full agreement of the 202,000 acre-feet, we’re still skeptical.”

Water Releases Reported to Start Immediately

According to Jones, Mexico indicates water releases should begin immediately, though geography and infrastructure mean the impact is not instantaneous for South Texas farmers.

“It should start this week,” he says. “It takes about three to four days for the water, once they release it in the lower parts of Mexico, to reach the Rio Grande. Hopefully by now, we start seeing that flow.”

Beyond the immediate relief, Jones says the water dispute highlights deeper concerns about fairness and competition. He believes the issue should be addressed in broader trade discussions, particularly as the U.S. reviews the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

“We actually hope it is a point of contention,” Jones says. “Not only is Mexico withholding water, they’re using that water to grow products we normally grow here in South Texas and compete directly in our marketing window. That creates a trade imbalance.”

Water Issue Could Be at the Center of USCMA Review

Jones says Texas lawmakers and agricultural groups are pushing to bring the issue into USMCA negotiations, arguing water compliance should carry real consequences.

“We’re hoping to use USMCA as a tool to put some punitive measures and some teeth into the water-sharing agreement,” he says.

Planting Decisions Uncertain

As planting season approaches, uncertainty remains front and center. Jones says decisions for the 2025 crop year will hinge almost entirely on whether Mexico follows through on its promises — and how quickly water arrives.

“We’re about 45 days from corn planting here in South Texas,” he says. “I’ll definitely get all my corn in, then switch over to milo. Cotton is the big question mark.”

Cotton planting typically begins in mid-March, leaving little margin for error if water deliveries fall behind schedule.

“All the details are supposed to be out by January 31, and they’re guaranteeing all that water by the end of March,” Jones says. “By early- to mid-March, we should know where they stand on deliveries, and that will shape how I plant this upcoming year.”

For now, Jones and other South Texas farmers are watching river levels, weather forecasts and diplomatic negotiations with equal intensity — hoping that this time, the water fight turns into real relief on the ground.

New WOTUS Proposal Could Reduce Red Tape for Farmers and Ranchers

Mon, 17 Nov 2025 18:01:42 GMT

Farmers and ranchers could soon face fewer regulatory hurdles when working near waterways, as EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers released a new proposal on Nov. 17 to redefine “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS). The agencies say the proposed rule is designed to bring long-requested clarity to what features fall under federal jurisdiction potentially reducing permitting uncertainty for agriculture, landowners and rural businesses.

The proposed rule can be found on the Federal Register . The public can submit comments online there or via Regulations.gov on or before Jan. 5, 2026. During the announcement event on Nov. 17, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin urged the public to submit comments.

The definition of WOTUS determines when producers must secure permits for projects that could affect surface water quality, including common activities such as building terraces, installing drainage or expanding livestock operations. EPA officials say the new proposal aims to align fully with the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision and prevent farmers from needing lawyers or consultants simply to determine whether a water feature on their land is federally regulated.

The proposal follows Zeldin’s promise in March to launch the biggest deregulatory action in history and a series of listening sessions in April and May that asked states, tribes, industry and agriculture to weigh in on WOTUS needs.

Clearer Definition After Years of Confusion

Zeldin and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam Telle emphasize the rule is designed to be clear, durable and commonsense.

Key elements include:

Defined terms such as relatively permanent, continuous surface connection, and tributary to outline which waters qualify under the Clean Water Act.
A requirement that jurisdictional tributaries must have predictable, consistent flow to traditional navigable waters.
Wetlands protections are limited to wetlands that physically touch and are indistinguishable from regulated waters for a consistent duration each year.
Reaffirmed exclusions important to agriculture, including prior converted cropland, certain ditches and waste treatment systems.
A new exclusion for groundwater.
Locally-familiar terminology, such as “wet season,” to help determine whether water features meet regulatory thresholds.

EPA says these changes are intended to reduce uncertainty that has stemmed from years of shifting definitions across administrations.

Impact of WOTUS Proposal on Agriculture

For producers, the proposal could simplify compliance by narrowing which water features fall under federal oversight and confirming exclusions that many farm groups have long advocated.

Zeldin says the aim is “protecting the nation’s navigable waters from pollution” while preventing unnecessary burdens on farmers and ranchers. He criticizes past Democratic administrations for broad interpretations that, in his view, extended federal reach to features that did not warrant regulation.

Farm groups have argued for years that unclear or overly broad definitions can lead to significant costs, delays and legal risks when planning conservation work, drainage projects or infrastructure improvements. A more consistent rule could reduce project backlogs and limit case-by-case determinations that often slow progress during planting, construction or livestock expansion.

“We’ve seen WOTUS definitions, guidance and legal arguments change with each administration,” said Garrett Hawkins, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, during the May 1 EPA listening session for agriculture . He adds: “farmers, land owners and small businesses are the ones who suffer the most when we don’t have clear rules.”

Several of those who gave testimony and public comment during the ag listening session argued that farmers and ranchers, who already struggle with unpredictable markets and tight margins, shouldn’t have to hire experts to identify elements of their own land.

“A practical WOTUS definition will allow the average landowner — not an engineer, not an attorney, not a wetland specialist — to walk out on their property, see a water feature and make, at minimum, a preliminary determination about whether a feature is federally jurisdictional,” says Kim Brackett, vice president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, who also gave testimony in May.

Alignment With the Sackett Decision

After the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett v. EPA ruling , which restricted federal authority over many wetlands, the agencies say the previous WOTUS definition no longer aligned with the law. EPA already issued a memo earlier this year clarifying limits on jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands. The newly proposed rule is the next step in that process.

The proposed rule focuses on relatively permanent bodies of water — streams, rivers, lakes and oceans — and wetlands that are physically connected to those waters. Seasonal and regional variations are incorporated, including waters that flow consistently during the wetter months.

The current situation is a regulatory patchwork. Due to litigation that followed the January 2023 WOTUS rule, which was considered in the Sackett decision, different states are following different rules. Currently, 24 states, mostly the coastal and Great Lakes states, are operating on the 2023 rule, while the other 26 states, mostly those in center and in the Southeast, are operating on pre-2015 WOTUS rule.

Oversight Rests With State and Tribes

A major theme of the proposal is cooperative federalism, giving more authority to states and tribes to manage local land and water resources. EPA says the rule preserves necessary federal protections while recognizing states and tribal governments are best positioned to oversee many smaller or isolated water features.

Sections 101b and 510 of the CWA are key structural examples of the concept of cooperative federalism. The sections give states and tribes the right to set standards and issue permits for federal activities that could discharge pollutants into a water of the U.S. within the state or territory. The most common example of this are 404 dredge and fill permits.

This focus on cooperative federalism was the main chorus of the EPA’s listening session for states , held April 29, especially as it concerns wetlands.

“If more wetlands are excluded from WOTUS, then certain federal projects would not require a section 401 water quality certification by the states,” noted Jennifer Congdon, director of federal affairs for New York Department of Environmental Conservation, during the states’ listening session. She argues that such a situation could impair water quality within a state, thus violating states’ rights under the CWA.

What Happens Next

The proposed rule is available online for public comment on the Federal Register and Regulations.gov on or before Jan. 5, 2026. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers will hold two hybrid public meetings, and details for submitting comments or registering to speak will be available on EPA’s website .

After the comment period, the agencies plan to move quickly toward a final rule.

“Once the rule is finalized, it typically takes effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register pursuant to Congressional Review Act requirements,” the EPA press office told The Packer earlier this summer .

Based on these potential timelines, a new — potentially final — WOTUS rule could take effect as early as early March.

Nebraska Urges Action on Canal Fight with Colorado

Thu, 30 Oct 2025 13:52:06 GMT

Claims and counterclaims come in and out like seasonal stream flows in the ongoing fight between Colorado and Nebraska over the Perkins County Canal.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser and State Engineer Jason Ullman met with the state legislature’s Joint Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee on Oct. 29. The hearing was to update the legislators on Nebraska’s lawsuit against Colorado, launched July 16, over a proposed canal on the South Platte River, an important source of irrigation water for both states.

“Our position is there is no case that’s yet ripe,” Weiser told the committee. “We’ve told the Supreme Court that this case is not ready for prime time, and the court should decline to hear it.”

Just minutes before the hearing began, however, Nebraska’s Attorney General Mike Hilgers issued a request to the U.S. Supreme Court , urging them to pursue the lawsuit and reject Colorado’s request for denial.

These are just the most recent events in a fight over water rights on the South Platte River that started July 16 when Nebraska sued Colorado .

On the one hand, Nebraska claims Colorado is violating the South Platte River Compact , which governs water sharing on the river between the states, is stealing water owed to Nebraska, and is hurting Nebraskan agriculture as a result.

On the other hand, Colorado claims Nebraska’s lawsuit is “meritless,” and has threatened the state and its agricultural property owners along the proposed canal path with unprecedented use of eminent domain.

Backstory Behind the Current Back-and-Forth

The compact, signed between the two states in 1923, outlined the right for Nebraska to create the Perkins County Canal in Colorado “for the diversion of water from the South Platte River within Colorado for irrigation of lands in Nebraska” during the non-irrigation season. Nebraska’s lawsuit asserts that Colorado has blocked its efforts to build this canal.

In the lawsuit’s bill of complaint , Nebraska says it initiated the building effort in 2022, including initial land acquisition talks with Colorado landowners in the projected canal area and “communicated no fewer than ten times between October 2022 and June 2025” with Colorado’s legal and technical representatives.

“Despite Nebraska’s best efforts to secure cooperation, Colorado has stonewalled and opposed Nebraska at every step,” the complaint reads.

Meanwhile, Colorado says there’s been no canal effort to block.

“For the century plus that this compact has been in place, Nebraska has declined to build such a canal,” Weiser said. “They have taken only the most preliminary steps thus far and there is a significant permitting process they will have to go through if they are serious. Many of these steps they have yet to do.”

Nebraska’s Oct. 29 request to the Supreme Court calls earlier such claims made Weiser and others untrue.

“Nebraska has spent millions of dollars on designs, permitting, legal and consulting fees, right-of-way investigations, and infrastructure engineering for the Canal,” the request document reads. “The design is substantially developed, and all major engineering decisions have been made. Nebraska has already acquired 80 acres in Colorado to facilitate Canal construction.”

Question of State-to-State Eminent Domain

Those Colorado acres came from one landowner who sold to Nebraska after it reached out to landowners along the proposed route in late 2022. While the lawsuit document characterized this initial outreach as amiable with Colorado landowners, saying it offered six Colorado landowners 115% of fair market value for their properties, Colorado characterized Nebraska’s later interactions — which included threats of condemnation — as threatening.

Ullman told committee members, “We are aware that [Nebraska] made these offers and threats of condemnation to a limited group of landowners at the location where the head gate of the canal was going to be, not along the 13 additional miles of canal that is necessary.”

Colorado state Sen. Byron Pelton (R-District 1), who represents the area where the Perkins County Canal would go, said the situation has been hard on those in his agriculture-dependent district.

“They are concerned about where their water is coming from,” he said. Pelton added that “$4.6 billion is generated with agriculture just in my district alone, and that’s because of the South Platte River and the Republican River basin.”

But he also questioned the seriousness of Nebraska’s negotiation efforts in light of the threats of eminent domain against Colorado farmers, ranchers and growers.

“It has been my experience growing up farming and ranching my entire life that whenever you walk into somebody’s property, walk into somebody’s place of business, and threaten eminent domain, everything shuts down — there is no more negotiation,” he said. “[Nebraska has] done nothing but threaten eminent domain from the very beginning.”

With some limitations, however, the compact grants Nebraska “the right to acquire by purchase, prescription, or the exercise of eminent domain” lands and easements necessary for the canal. In its lawsuit, Nebraska recognized that element of the compact as “exceptional.” It nonetheless asserts that it had moved to exerting this right only after meeting with Colorado landowners and met with “little success.”

Even though the right of eminent domain is in the compact, Weiser described it as potentially opening up “some novel, unprecedented territory” should the canal effort move forward.

“If this process is to get started — the eminent domain process, the condemnation process — that will generate some legal question,” Weiser said. “Our position is Colorado’s law of eminent domain is the only eminent domain law that applies in the state of Colorado.”

California's Water Crisis: Farmers Warn Water Rules Could Cripple Central Valley Agriculture

Wed, 01 Oct 2025 10:52:47 GMT

On Hansen Ranch in the Central Valley, fifth-generation farmer Erik Hansen grows a little bit of everything — pistachios, almonds, pomegranates, alfalfa, corn for silage and cotton.

“We farm 15, 16 different crops,” Hansen says. “Cotton is our biggest acreage crop, and that’s in the form of Pima cotton.”

That diversification has long been the Hansen family’s survival strategy. But in spring 2023, no amount of crop rotation could shield them from disaster.

“Where we’re standing right now was underwater,” Hansen recalls. “A mile from here, over by that PG&E substation, was the edge of the lake.”

The flood wiped out 600 acres of pomegranates and 400 acres of pistachios. One thousand acres of permanent crops gone in one season.

“It was a massive hit,” Hansen says. “We had about 5,000 to 6,000 acres under water. Some of that water lasted for over a year.”

From Too Much Water to Not Enough

The irony is hard to ignore: In 2023, floodwaters destroyed thousands of acres. Now, Hansen says it’s the lack of access to water that could cripple farms across the Central Valley.

“The last projections I heard were anywhere from 1 million to 1.2 million acres totaled in the valley,” he says, referring to farmland that could be idled by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) .

Passed in 2014, SGMA requires local agencies to reduce groundwater overdraft and achieve sustainable use by 2040. On paper, Hansen says, that makes sense.

“To some extent it is good because you have to have a way to manage the overdraft,” he explains. “The problem is there are surface water facilities we developed back in the 50s and 60s that we’re just not using. A lot of that water is going out to the Pacific Ocean.”

For Hansen, the politics sting. He believes decades of state decisions — prioritizing fish and wildlife, reallocating water, and neglecting infrastructure — set up today’s crisis.

“I’m frustrated because the families that have been farming here for years, some decades, sometimes even more, are being footed with a bill for problems that somebody else created,” Hansen says. “If the state doesn’t look in the mirror, I think we’re going to find ourselves in the same position again.”

Young Farmers Face the Same Struggles

Forty miles south, 30-year-old Elizabeth Keenan is navigating the same regulatory headwinds. Her grandfather Charlie started Keenan Farms in 1972, acquiring one of California’s first pistachio orchards. Today, Elizabeth farms alongside her parents and brother.

“Rolling with the regulatory punches can be complicated,” she admits. “Despite pistachios being such a high-value product, despite having optimal land and weather conditions, we really have everything set up beautifully — except for legislation.”

Water, she says, is the most difficult hurdle.

“We’re up to a 50% allocation,” Keenan explains. “The base allocation is 2.2 acre-feet, so we get 1.1 acre-feet to use. Otherwise, we have to have open fallow fields. To pump more water, we have to buy it on the open market, and that’s expensive too.”

A Political Battle Over Flows

Signs line highways across the Central Valley warning that 80% of California’s river water flows out to the Pacific instead of farms. Assemblyman David Tangipa, a freshman lawmaker representing the 8^th District, says those numbers are real.

“It’s 100% happening,” Tangipa says. “Almost 83% of all water in the state is automatically pushed out for environmental purposes.”

California averages about 200 million acre-feet of water each year, Tangipa notes, but despite record rainfall, farms often get less than half of their allocations.

“We’ve prioritized so much environmental legislation that more than 80% of our water is pushed out immediately to the ocean, unnaturally,” he says. “Meanwhile, farmers get less water and more land goes out of production.”

Proponents of Current Water Flows

There are proponents of the current way the water flows, mainly for environmental reasons and to prevent saltwater contamination of freshwater sources.

California releases water into the ocean to prevent saltwater intrusion into freshwater supplies, protect endangered aquatic species and ecosystems, and maintain the delicate balance of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary, a critical source of drinking and irrigation water.

A portion of released water is also used for stormwater management to prevent flooding, as it can be difficult and impractical to capture and store all of it.

And those in favor of environmental water releases say it’s essential to support broader ecosystem benefits like water filtration and carbon sequestration, which are important for overall environmental health.

The Ripple Effect

The Central Valley of California is a powerhouse in food production for the U.S. That area alone produces approximately half of all the fruits and vegetables grown in the U.S., as well as a large portion of the nation’s nuts and other foods. When you break down the numbers, the Central Valley accounts for about 60% of the nation’s fruits and nuts, and about 30% of the nation’s vegetables.

For Thomas Putzel, who works with farmers across the Central Valley, the impact of regulations isn’t just measured in acre-feet. It’s measured in livelihoods and the food supply.

“The environmentalists try to say farmers are wasting water,” he says. “But when we look at what farmers provide, we’re planting forests. One acre of almonds will capture 18 metric tons of carbon a year. That’s like taking 29 million cars off the road.”

Putzel says California voters already approved a water bond to build new storage a decade ago, but no new projects have been built.

“Not one shovel has gone in the ground in 10 years,” he says. “Actually, they took some of that money and tore dams down.”

Meanwhile, permanent crops wither when water isn’t available, leaving behind dead orchards that invite pests and rodents into neighboring fields.

“SGMA’s not necessarily a bad thing,” Putzel says. “But you’ve asked growers to run a marathon with their legs tied together. People don’t understand; food doesn’t come from a grocery store. It comes from a farmer. If California stopped shipping produce for one week, our stores would be empty.”

“Is Farming in California’s Best Interest?”

For Erik Hansen, the question is bigger than water allocations or acreage lost.

“Government is probably the biggest problem right now,” he says. “It just seems California hasn’t really decided whether farming is in their best interest. Politicians like to say they’re for small business and small farming, but virtually every piece of legislation makes it more difficult to survive.”

As the Central Valley wrestles with the challenges of floods, drought and regulations, one reality is clear: The fate of these farms is tied not just to weather and soil but to political decisions that could shape the future of food in America.

Ag on WOTUS: We Need Predictability, Dependability and Consistency

Fri, 02 May 2025 17:14:17 GMT

It was a full virtual house during the Waters of the U.S. listening session for industry and agriculture. The May 1 morning session was part of an ongoing outreach effort by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers in reworking WOTUS to bring it into alignment with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett decision .

Over 40 speakers gave public comments and dozens more on the waiting list were left when the almost three-hour listening session ended.

The message from speakers — agricultural and industrial alike — was resounding: ‘We need clear, consistent, predictable and dependable definitions on WOTUS that everyday people can understand.’

Clear, consistent, predictable, dependable and understandable

“Agriculture bears the brunt of expansive and ambiguous WOTUS definitions,” said Norm Semanko, an environmental lawyer speaking for Family Farm Alliance. This perspective was echoed in dozens of ways by almost every agricultural voice at the hearing.

Garrett Hawkins, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, put a fine point on the issue.

“We’ve seen WOTUS definitions, guidance and legal arguments change with each administration,” he said, “and farmers, land owners and small businesses are the ones who suffer the most when we don’t have clear rules.”

“This uncertainty forces us to hire experts just to get guidance on whether we can use common agricultural practices on our farms,” he continued. Other speakers pointed out that getting it wrong is not an option for those in agriculture.

“The costs associated with non-compliance of the Clean Water Act are just simply too high for farmers,” said Jay Bragg, commodity and regulatory activities associate director for the Texas Farm Bureau. Instead, farmers “should be able to make these determinations without consultants or engineers.”

This was a theme repeated by speaker after speaker. Many quoted the direct text of the original Clean Water Act and its focus on “ordinary parlance” related to definitions of a water of the U.S.

“A practical WOTUS definition will allow the average landowner — not an engineer, not an attorney, not a wetland specialist — to walk out on their property, see a water feature, and make, at minimum, a preliminary determination about whether a feature is federally jurisdictional,” said Kim Brackett, vice president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

Ditches, converted crop land and other categories

The hosts of the listening session called the issue of jurisdictional determinations on ditches one of critical importance. Agricultural commenters agreed and called for wide, if not complete, exemption of agricultural ditches under the WOTUS definition.

“No farm ditches should ever be included as a WOTUS. They should be excluded because they are neither streams, oceans, rivers or lakes,” said Michael Formica, chief legal strategist for the National Pork Producers Council, effectively summarizing the arguments of dozens of commenters.

Those who commented from outside the agricultural industry also stressed the importance of excluding most if not all ditches from jurisdictional waters definitions. Several representatives from building organizations cited concerns related to especially road-side ditches being considered jurisdictional.

Though fewer commenters spoke on the issue of prior converted cropland and its place in WOTUS, those who did made similar arguments appealing to common sense.

“Broadly speaking, land should not be classified as a jurisdictional water,” said Christina Gruenhagen, government relations counsel for the Iowa Farm Bureau. “Prior converted cropland should be considered land and not a jurisdictional water.”

Almost every speaker referenced the need for WOTUS definitions to conform with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett decision . Most also called for the agencies to significantly reduce the categories of jurisdictional waters.

“The Sackett decision helps us to clarify that there are three — and only three — primary categories of WOTUS waters,” said Andy Rieber, public lands consultant for Humbolt County, Nev. These are the traditional interstate navigable waters, waters with a relatively permanent flow connected to them, and wetlands which are adjacent to either of those two prior categories.

“It is important for the EPA and the Army Corps of engineers to ensure that their definition of WOTUS reflects those three —and only those three — categories.”

Future engagement opportunities on WOTUS

The agency hosts of the May 1 morning listening session for industry and ag told attendees there is another listening session planned for the public. That listening session has not yet been scheduled, however. They urged those who were unable to give testimony to keep watch on the EPA’s WOTUS site .

Your next read:

Mexico Will Send More Water to Texas to Make Up Treaty Shortfall, USDA Says

Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:09:25 GMT

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said on Monday that Mexico would increase its water shipments to Texas to help make up a shortfall under a 1944 treaty that outlines water-sharing between the countries.

U.S. officials and lawmakers have complained that Mexico’s failure to meet its obligations under the treaty is harming Texas farmers.

Mexico has argued that it is under drought conditions that have strained the country’s water resources.

“After weeks of negotiations with Mexican cabinet officials alongside the Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, we secured an agreement to give Texas producers the water they need to thrive. While this is a significant step forward, we welcome Mexico’s continued cooperation to support the future of American agriculture,” Rollins said in a statement.

🚨In President Trump’s first 100 days, we have secured an agreement with Mexico alongside @DeputySecState for an immediate transfer of water from international reservoirs to Texas farmers.

This will meet the immediate needs of American farmers and ranchers, and sets the stage…
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) April 28, 2025

Earlier this month, Reuters reported that the water issue had emerged as a possible new front in trade negotiations between the two countries.

The water treaty requires Mexico to send 1.75 million acre-feet of water to the U.S. from the Rio Grande every five years.

Mexico will now “transfer water from international reservoirs and increase the U.S. share of the flow in six of Mexico’s Rio Grande tributaries through the end of the current five-year water cycle,” which ends in October, said a USDA statement.

My gratitude to President Trump and Secretary Rollins. They have delivered as promised for our farmers. Mexico will meet its treaty obligations and provide south Texas water as required.
— Sid Miller (@MillerForTexas) April 29, 2025

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce in a statement thanked Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum “for her personal involvement in facilitating cooperation across multiple levels of her government to establish a unified path to addressing this ongoing priority.”

Mexico’s government released its own statement later on Monday saying it would implement “a series of measures aimed at mitigating potential shortfalls in water deliveries” including immediate water transfers as well as during the upcoming rainy season.

“All of these actions have as their fundamental premise the assurance of water supplies for human consumption for the Mexican populations that depend on the waters of the Rio Grande,” the statement said.

Your Next Read:
Tiny Farm Town Defies Feds, Drains Water to Protect Citizens

Can Mexico Afford to Retaliate Against the U.S.?