Binational Watershed Councils.cover...Cover art: Kimi Eisele Udall Center Publications Robert Merideth, Editor-in-Chief Kathleen Veslany, Associate Editor Udall Center for Studies

by Christopher Brown

2000 Ford Foundation/Udall Center Fellowin Environmental Conflict Resolutionon the U.S.-Mexico Border

Binational WatershedCouncils as Instrumentsfor Conflict Resolution in theUpper Santa Cruz River Basin

B I N A T I O N A L W A T E R S H E D C O U N C I L S

24

Binational Watershed Councils as Instruments forConflict Resolution in the Upper Santa Cruz River Basinby Christopher Brown

ISBN 1-931143-18-8

Copy editing: Kathleen VeslanyLayout and design: Robert MeridethCover art: Kimi Eisele

Udall Center PublicationsUdall Center PublicationsUdall Center PublicationsUdall Center PublicationsUdall Center PublicationsRobert Merideth, Editor-in-ChiefKathleen Veslany, Associate Editor

Udall Center for Studies in Public PolicyThe University of Arizona803 East First StreetTucson, Arizona 85719(520) 884-4393 phone; (520) 884-4702 faxudallcenter.arizona.edu

Copyright © 2002The Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of The University of ArizonaAll Rights Reserved

The author gratefully acknowledges the Ford Foundation and the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, Centerfor Latin American Studies, and Graduate Program in Planning at The University of Arizona for their generousfinancial support. I would also like to acknowledge María Gutiérrez for generous assistance in fieldwork and CarolPlacchi for her assistance in producing the graphics in this paper. Special thanks are due to Diana Hadley and LarryMarshall for all the important doors they opened that allowed this research to be so fruitful and to Phil Halpennyfor his insightful comments to the penultimate draft of this manuscript. Lastly, I wish to thank the many people inthe United States and Mexico who provided information, data, and valuable insight in this work.

Additional support for the production of this report comes from the Morris K. Udall Foundation.

Acknowledgements

U P P E R S A N T A C R U Z R I V E R B A S I N

25

Table of Contents

General Scope and Context of Research

Study Area

Watershed Councils

Research Approach and Questions

Data and Methods of Investigation

Discussion and Results

Conclusions

References

Acronyms

1

2

4

4

5

6

17

19

23


1

General Scope and Context of Research

Water resources along the U.S.-Mexico border are keyingredients in regional economic development and es-sential to the quality of human health and the environ-ment in the area (Metzner 1989; Brown 1993). The sea-sonal patterns and limited quantities of regional pre-cipitation in the region also make this a scarce resourcethat is approaching full allocation among existing users(Eaton and Anderson 1987; Gonzalez 1997). The increas-ing industrialization, urbanization, and populationgrowth on the border in recent years that has occurredas a result of the North American Free Trade Agree-ment (NAFTA) and programs that led to NAFTA,greatly complicate water-resource management. Someof the most serious challenges facing the border includeadequate management of water supplies and wastewa-ter. According to the United States Environmental Pro-tection Agency (USEPA), “water pollution is one ofthe principal environmental and public health problemsfacing the border area” (USEPA 1996).

In addition to asymmetric patterns of development,the distribution of raw and finished water resourcesalong and across the border is uneven (Eaton and Ander-son 1987), negatively impacting the quality of life amongthe residents of twin cities in both the United Statesand Mexico (Mungaray 1993; USEPA 1996). Given thescarcity of this resource, its importance to the region’sviability, and the manner by which asymmetrical re-gional urbanization patterns are impacting water qual-ity, the existence of water- resource-based conflict comesas no surprise to residents of the border and to research-ers who examine these issues (DeWyze 1988; Sánchez1990; Altomare 1991; Varady and Mack 1995). Variable

allocations of water resources, the spatial variability ofsurface-water quality as a result of uneven urbaniza-tion patterns, and the manner by which the politicalrole of the border influences regional water-quality is-sues are all important sources of regional conflict alongthe U.S.-Mexico border (Dedina 1991).

Regional and bioregional approaches to resource-quality issues and the conflicts involved have a rich his-tory in geographic and resource-management literature(Mitchell 1989, 1990), and these approaches have alsobeen advanced by the USEPA in examining domesticand binational resource-management issues (Gallant etal. 1989; USEPA 1996). Watershed approaches that of-fer the river basin or catchment as both a spatial frame-work and context within which resource managementissues may be addressed have been extremely useful inresolving water-resource-based conflict and advancingholistic management of basin-wide water resources(White 1963, 1977; Downs et al. 1991; Montgomery et al.1995; Milich and Varady 1999).

In this paper, I explore opportunities for watershedapproaches to water-resource problems in the UpperSanta Cruz River Basin along the U.S.-Mexico borderand the utility such approaches may offer in resolvingcross-border water conflicts. After an introduction tothe Upper Santa Cruz River Basin, I discuss binationalwatershed councils (consejos de las cuencas) as a potentialtool for use in water-related conflicts. I then examine arange of significant water-resource issues in the regionand identify the key stakeholders and institutions, andboth pose and examine specific research questions con-cerning barriers to the use of these tools. In the latterpart of the paper I seek to collect the above elementsinto a cohesive regional framework that may help ad-vance policy efforts towards resolution of water-re-source-based conflict in the U.S.-Mexico border region.

BINATIONAL WATERSHED COUNCILSAS INSTRUMENTS FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION

IN THE UPPER SANTA CRUZ RIVER BASIN

Christopher Brown1

Department of Geography, New Mexico State University

1Ford Foundation/Udall Center Fellow in Environmental ConflictResolution in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region, 2000.


2

Study Area

The Upper Santa Cruz River Basin is a transboundarywatershed2 located in Sonora and Arizona, within whichthe binational twinned cities of Ambos Nogales(Nogales, Sonora and Nogales, Arizona) and the largeurban area of Tucson lie. Ambos Nogales have a popu-lation of about 200,000 people (INEGI 2001), or between1/3 and 1/2 the size of Tucson and an urban region ofincreasing importance for regional water-resource man-agement (Figure 1).

The Santa Cruz River originates in the San RafaelValley of Arizona and flows in a southerly directioncrossing the border into Mexico just east of Lochiel,Arizona. In its Mexican reaches, the Santa Cruz flowsin a u-shaped configuration primarily through ejido3 ag-ricultural lands and ranchos until reaching an area inwhich a major wellfield has been established to providewater for Nogales, Sonora.

The river then flows northward into Arizonathrough a region of mixed land use Santa Cruz Countyin which ranching, farming, and small scale settlementsexist. Streamflow north of the Nogales InternationalWastewater Treatment Plant (NIWTP) near Rio Ricois effluent-dominated due to the discharge of treated ef-fluent at the plant. As it crosses into Pima County, theriver flows to the northwest through the Canoa Ranch,a historical land-grant ranch comprising approximately6,500 acres, and an adjacent major region of pecan pro-duction.

Although the streambed continues northward to-wards Tucson, surface flows diminish due to the un-derlying hydrogeology of the area with intermittentflows only after precipitation events. As the course of

the river nears Tucson, it crosses the San Xavier Dis-trict of the Tohono O’odham Nation, a Native Ameri-can tribe that has lived in the Sonoran Desert for cen-turies. From this point north, the river is partiallychannelized for flood-control purposes as its coursemoves through the predominantly urban reaches ofTucson, Arizona. The river channel proceeds north-ward until its confluence with the Gila River, a tribu-tary of the Colorado River.

The river basin is essential in providing a vital sourceof water in various reaches, both in the United Statesand in Mexico. The climate of the region is character-ized as arid to semi-arid, with annual amounts of pre-cipitation ranging from approximately 300 millimeters(mm) in the lower elevations to 700 mm in the moun-tainous areas. This precipitation falls in a bimodal tem-poral pattern, with heavy summer monsoon rains ac-counting for approximately 60 percent of annual levelsand winter cyclonic events accounting for approximately20 percent. The driest months of the year tend to beApril, May, and June, and the cyclical nature of the pre-cipitation in the region results in minimum stream flowduring the higher demand times of the year when in-creasing irrigation needs combine with the municipaldemand generated in urban areas (Liverman et al. 1997).

Water uses in the Upper Santa Cruz River Basinproduce a complex set of challenges. These uses includeextraction of groundwater to meet agricultural and ur-ban demands, groundwater recharge of regional aqui-fers, in-stream uses in support of wildlife, and the useof the river as a disposal site for treated wastewater. Up-stream in the San Rafael Valley, the river is used as awatering source for stock grazing in the valley, andgroundwater is mined through irrigation wells in thevalley to support limited irrigated farming (Sharp 1999).In the Mexican portions of the basin from the border tothe region near El Cajon, fairly extensive irrigated agri-culture places demands on regional water resources as itdoes near Miguel Hidalgo and Mascareñas as well(Murrieta and Briggs 1999; Halpenny 2001). Regionalpopulation in the Mexican reaches from the border toMascareñas is approximately 1500 people, which exertsadditional pressure on regional water resources.

Near Mascareñas and at the pumping gallery atParedes, wells for the Municipio of Nogales, Sonora,extract water for municipal needs from a very shallowaquifer that is hydrologically linked to river flows (ASU

2A transboundary river system is one that flows across borders,thereby creating upstream and downstream riparians (Milich andVarady 1999). This spatial orientation of elements also affords theopportunity for cross-boundary conflict and disputes related towater quality and quantity, providing an added level of challenge inaddressing these conflicts.

3Ejidos lands are commonly held agricultural lands that are adminis-tered through a collective management regime. This arrangementhas existed historically in Mexico since at least the mid-1800s, butejidos increased in importance early in the 20th century as part ofland reform efforts arising from the Mexican Revolution whereby largeland holdings were broken up into these collectively managed ejidos(Meyer, Sherman, and Deeds 1999).


3

and COLEF 1995); the impact of this pumping may havefairly immediate impacts on river flows (Halpenny2001). Conversely, wells to the northwest of this area inthe United States extract groundwater for Nogales,Arizona, from much deeper aquifers. The impact of thispumping is minimal on river flows, but it does reducethe water table in groundwater aquifers (Halpenny2001). As regional groundwater is used in the urban ar-eas of Ambos Nogales, major amounts of wastewaterare generated; adequate collection, treatment, and dis-posal of this wastewater pose further water-quality chal-lenges to the region.

Through joint efforts of the U.S. and Mexican sec-tions of the International Boundary and Water Com-mission (IBWC; CILA in Mexico)4, the Nogales Inter-national Wastewater Treatment Plant (NIWTP) wasconstructed near Rio Rico, Arizona, in 1972 with an ini-tial design capacity of 8.2-million gallons per day (mgd).After the plant’s expansion in the early 1990s, the presentdesign capacity of the plant is 17.2 mgd (IBWC 1999).The plant treats a mix of municipal wastewater fromboth Nogales, Arizona, and Nogales, Sonora; 9.9 mgdof this treatment capacity is allocated to Nogales, Sonora,and the balance of 7.3 mgd is owned by Nogales, Ari-zona (Camp Dresser & McKee 1999). Wastewater is col-lected in both municipalities and pumped to the plant,and the treated effluent is then discharged into thereaches of the Santa Cruz River.

The discharge of this effluent is an important wa-ter resource to downstream reaches in the basin. Per-haps the most important aspect of this discharged efflu-ent is the support it provides for a major effluent-domi-nated riparian gallery. With respect to regional waterbalances, the effluent recharges the river system andallows regular surface flows in the river. Accordingly,water-quality issues related to effluent quality and thereliability of these effluent discharges are of major im-portance to water-resource managers and the generalpublic.

Use of water resources in these downstream reachescan best be examined by looking at uses in two separatemanagement sub-regions of the basin that extend fromthe U.S.-Mexico border to Tucson: the Santa CruzActive Management Area (SCAMA) and the TucsonActive Management Area (TAMA). Active manage-ment areas were established under terms of the 1980Arizona Groundwater Management Code as subregionswithin which groundwater resources were experienc-ing major overdraft; specific management goals weredeveloped for each active management area (AMA),with the overall goal being that of achieving safe yieldfor areas relying heavily on groundwater resources.

A 100-year assured water supply requirement forfuture development is one way in which the goal of safeyield of groundwater resources is pursued. The Ground-water Management Code established the TAMA as thearea that lies roughly from the U.S.-Mexico border tothe Tucson urban area. However, in 1994, the Arizonalegislature recognized the hydrogeological differencesbetween the northern and southern portions of theTAMA and split the AMA into a northern TAMAand a southern SCAMA (ADWR 1998, 1999a). Specifi-cally, the SCAMA has an excess of surface-water flowsat the Canoa Ranch; therefore the goal in the SCAMAis maintenance of safe yield, whereas the TAMA seeksto achieve a safe yield.

Within the SCAMA, approximately 33 percent oftotal water demand of 46.3-million cubic meters (Mm3)is used in irrigated agriculture and ranching operations;18 percent is used by the municipalities of Nogales, RioRico, and smaller towns in the area; four percent is usedin industry; and the balance of water resources is lost asevapotranspiration through riparian vegetation(Liverman et al. 1997). Currently, the SCAMA meets asafe yield criteria, yet future trends of increasing ur-banization and population growth could see urban de-mands approximately doubling by 2025, putting increas-ing pressures on the regional water resources and rais-ing questions concerning the ability to meet the safeyield criteria (ADWR 1999a).

Within the TAMA, total water use in 1994 was 386.2million cubic meters, with 47 percent used by residen-tial and service sectors, 31 percent used by agriculture,and 20 percent used by industry. Groundwater meets90 percent of this demand for water supply. However,with only 50 percent of this quantity of water projected

4The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) is a jointU.S.-Mexican federal agency with formal responsibility to deal withboundary and water- resource issues along the U.S.-Mexico border.Branches formally known as Sections, exist within the U.S. Depart-ment of State and the Mexican Foreign Ministry, these being the IBWCin the United States and La Comisión Internacional de Limites y Agua(CILA) in Mexico (IBWC 1981).


4

to be replenished in the long run, serious overdraft is amajor concern to the region (Liverman et al. 1997). Inorder to meet a safe yield criteria in the future, a varietyof water-resource management practices including wa-ter conservation, groundwater recharge, and augmenta-tion with imported Central Arizona Project water willneed to be implemented (ADWR 1998).

Watershed Councils

Watershed approaches have been advanced by theUSEPA for both domestic and binational work. Domes-tic basin councils in the United States have been suc-cessful in coordinating a wide range of watershed-man-agement issues and resolving the inherent environmen-tal conflict among multiple users of watershed resources.The Colorado River Compact and the Ohio River Sani-tary Commission offer two instructive examples of thistype of watershed council demonstrated in a U.S. do-mestic context (National Academy of Sciences 1968;Cleary 1967). In the binational arena, the 1997 BorderXXI Implementation Plans call for integrated water-shed planning and management along the border, yetthese plans also acknowledge that no federal fundingexists to support this work (USEPA 1997).

Concurrent with these U.S. domestic efforts sup-ported by the USEPA, the federal government inMexico mandates that consejos de las cuencas, or water-shed councils, be developed to serve the many users ofthe hydraulic resources, establish hydraulic infrastruc-ture, and preserve the water resources in the targetedbasins (Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Articulo IV, La Leyde Aguas Nacionales - National Water Law 1992 and1997). As such, these consejos have great potential toadvance a discourse among a wide range of water userswith competing interests, promote the understandingof different perspectives, and facilitate the resolution ofthe conflicts that these competing uses may generate.Although La Ley de Aguas Nacionales (the federal lawof national waters in Mexico) calls solely for domesticbasin councils in Mexico, considerable potential existsfor constitutional reform within Article XXVII of theNational Constitution of Mexico and for interpretationof the National Water Law that would allow the scopeand scale of these basins to be binational in nature(Espinoza 1998). Given the utility that such an approachhas demonstrated in the San Diego/Tijuana region(Brown and Mumme 2000), what potential does this tool

have for addressing water-resource issues in the UpperSanta Cruz River Basin?

Research Approach and Questions

To what degree and in what manner could watershedcouncils be advanced along the border in different bina-tional basins as a bioregional approach to the water-re-source challenges of flood control, wastewater manage-ment, and potable water supply? Numerous environ-mental conflicts are associated with these issues in theborder region—upstream versus downstream perspec-tives of water quality, junior versus senior appropria-tive water rights, and conflicts between the United Statesand Mexico over the groundwater seepage from Ameri-can surface canals that is pumped as groundwater byMexico. How might a watershed approach to these typesof issues that utilizes a watershed council promote un-derstanding among different perspectives and aid in reso-lution of these conflicts?

The United States Department of the Interior de-veloped a new definition of the border region that pro-vides considerable insight into the issues surroundingthis area; this new regionalization is solely defined by aseries of interconnected border river basins, the sum ofwhich yields a unique and holistic redefinition of theborder and watershed framework for applied research(Woodard and Durrall 1996). This regionalization pro-vides a blueprint by which watershed councils may beexplored in border watersheds.

Research on the role of consejos de cuencas in theUpper Santa Cruz River Basin (which contains AmbosNogales) can provide the foundation for a comparativeanalysis of consejos along the entire border. Addition-ally, this research pursues more applied results. TheUpper Santa Cruz River Basin has major regional im-portance to water-resource management as it containstwo very different and important active managementareas lie. As described above, the TAMA is a large allu-vial basin within which massive volumes of groundwa-ter have been extracted in the last 70 years to meet re-gional water demand, resulting in the potential for se-vere groundwater overdraft and related conflicts amongwater users. In contrast, the SCAMA is a surface-watersystem that lies adjacent to the international border withMexico and accordingly faces a range of internationalchallenges, including how to manage surface flows that


5

cross the border and how to jointly manage regionalwastewater. This research aims to explore how waterresource challenges may be addressed within a regionalframework based on watershed dynamics.

In my research, I contacted a wide array of share-holders within the Upper Santa Cruz River Basin whohave a heightened interest in the basin’s water resourcesand who have explored the possibilities of developing abinational watershed council for the Santa Cruz River.Questions posed in this research include:

1) What are the specific water-resource issues thateach stakeholder faces in the basin? Who are the keystakeholders, and what institutions do they representin examining these issues?

2) How may the existing institutional capacity toform watershed councils be enhanced along this sectionof the border? This capacity building may be in theform of:

functional enhancement: augmentation of the re-source management and policy functions of existingagencies to advance holistic solutions to problems in awatershed context (Mumme 1992 and 1993),

enhanced geographic sphere of influence: increases tothe geographic scope of agencies or organizations toadvance a watershed context (Brown 1998), or

creation of a new institution: exploration of the pos-sibilities for a newly formed organization or institutionto emerge as a truly binational watershed council.

3) What socio-cultural, economic, and political/le-gal impediments to a watershed council exist within theinstitutional framework that the above agencies andorganizations comprise? How can these impedimentsbe lessened or eliminated? Potential impediments thatmay exist include:

constitutional limitations that impair organiza-tions or agencies from expanding their spatial or func-tional sphere of influence,

funding and budget limitations of needed finan-cial resources,

inter-agency friction or cross-sectoral conflict thatmay exist among stakeholders within the basin and re-flect different priorities of resource use, or

lack of active stakeholders within certain sectorsof the institutional structure in the basin.

4) How can the answers to these research questionsbe brought together in a cohesive structural model ofthe hydropolitique (the politics and policy of water-re-source management) of the basin and serve as a tool topromote an understanding of potentially conflictinguses?

5) To what degree may a model be developed thatdeals with the above questions and that may be usefulin other binational basins depicted in the map byWoodard and Durrall (1996)?

Data and Methods of Investigation

The first step in my research was to conduct extensivearchival research within key agencies and organizationsidentified in preliminary research of the Ambos Nogalesregion to uncover both resource-specific areas of inves-tigation as well as specific water-resource issues of con-cern. I then reviewed the relevant literature to identifythe main water-resource problems in the basin. I alsoexplored the existing legal, political, and institutionalstructures for functional enhancement that could ad-vance a watershed organization and reduce the atten-dant barriers to this enhancement.

Next, I interviewed the stakeholders identifiedabove through a series of semi-structured queries. WhileI previously used this type of questionnaire in fieldworkconducted in the Tijuana River Basin (Brown 1998), mywork in the Ambos Nogales region extends this researchto seek location specific differences in the hydropolitiqueand to look for new potential vehicles through which awatershed council could be implemented as a conflictresolution tool. This latter point is of particular signifi-cance in that my work in the Upper Santa Cruz RiverBasin uncovered some previously unexplored tools thatoffer possibilities for regional approaches to water-re-source management.

I explored both the impediments to a watershedcouncil and potential means of reducing these obstaclesin a manner similar to the way in which environmentalimpact statements approach barriers posed to signifi-cant environmental impacts of public works projects.Traditional positivist approaches to analyzing and ex-


6

tracting data from my interviews and archival researchare not available; accordingly, I used a range of subjec-tive analysis techniques and qualitative research meth-ods for this work (Denzin and Lincoln 1994). Relevantdata collected from my interviews and archival workconcern the players and institutions involved in regionalwater resource issues; their positions on various policyoptions; the degree of political power they may possess;the manner in which they wield it; and the entire set ofsocio-cultural, economic, and political processes involvedin policy development and implementation.

Discussion and Results

Stakeholders, Institutions, and Major Issues

In the early stages of this work, I compiled a pre-liminary catalog of stakeholders in the basin that couldbe active in the formation and implementation of aconsejo de la cuenca del Rio Santa Cruz for water-re-source-based conflict resolution. From July-December1999, I contacted these stakeholders as well as peopleand institutions to whom they referred me, and I con-ducted interviews both to identify the major land-useand water-resource issues in the region and to explorepossibilities for a consejo regional. These stakeholdersincluded governmental agencies and staff, nongovern-mental organizations, and a range of private citizensinvolved in water- and land-resource issues both collec-tively and individually. Considering these issues in con-junction with a map of the basin indicates a strong con-nection between a specific stakeholder or voice in thebasin, the region within which this stakeholder exists,and the specific land-use and/or water-resource man-agement issue(s) involved. Figure 2 details the spheresof influence of the major stakeholders in the UpperSanta Cruz River Basin and provides a useful visual toolto study this regional framework. These subregions, orspheres of influence, are discussed below, along withthe major issue relative to each area.

San Rafael ValleySan Rafael ValleySan Rafael ValleySan Rafael ValleySan Rafael Valley. The San Rafael Valley is pre-dominantly an agricultural region within which theheadwaters of the Santa Cruz River originate. Approxi-mately 120,000 acres of the area used for agriculturalactivities, 90,000 acres are publicly held and worked vialease arrangements, and 30,000 acres were privately helduntil the San Rafael Cattle Company holdings were soldto The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in 1998 (Sharp 1999;

TNC 2000). This valley is a very rich riparian regionwithin which a “special diversity of plants and animalsexists, including rare and sensitive grassland and ripar-ian species” (TNC 2000). The valley is also extremelywell-suited to short prairie grasses indigenous to thisregion, making the area a prime area for ranching andrelated agricultural activities. For most of the last 50years, much of the valley was worked in a holistic man-ner and the region functioned in a stable and sustain-able manner. In a 1999 trinational research expeditionto the valley, I found both conservationists and ranch-ers on the trip, with much experience in working andprotecting grassland areas like this, who were impressedwith the stability and health of this ecosystem.

However, in the early 1990s, the first significantsubdivision of major land holdings occurred, splitting alarge integral parcel into smaller parcels more suitablefor “ranchette development.” Residents perceived thissubdivision as a grave risk to the integrity of the valley,and various conservation efforts were explored withinthe San Rafael Valley Association and the San RafaelValley Land Trust. The coupling of development pres-sures and conservation efforts brings to light a majorland-use management issue in the region: the fragmen-tation of rural land holdings caused by pressure for resi-dential and “ranchette” development. The outcome ofthese pressures in the valley was the sale of the SanRafael Ranch holdings to TNC. Since the original saleof the ranch, TNC has developed a series of conserva-tion easements and arranged for a private party to pur-chase these holdings with the goal of working the landand providing stewardship of the resources that existon the ranch (TNC 2000). Of particular note is howthe San Rafael Valley both illustrates the type of land-fragmentation risk that portions of the Upper SantaCruz River Basin face and lends insight into the valuethat regional approaches to resource management canprovide.

Mexican Reaches of the BasinMexican Reaches of the BasinMexican Reaches of the BasinMexican Reaches of the BasinMexican Reaches of the Basin. As the river flowssouth of the U.S.-Mexico border, it enters an agricul-tural region that differs somewhat from the San RafaelValley, particularly concerning the land-tenure regimeand population distribution. In the Mexican reaches ofthe basin, agricultural lands are held primarily as ejidos,yet some private ranchos also exist. Natural resourcessimilar to those in the San Rafael Valley exist in thisportion of the basin, yet they are managed differentlyand are under a greater and more immediate set of pres-


7

sures. Substantial irrigated acreage exists in the vicin-ity of the town of Santa Cruz, Sonora, which has beenan important settlement for centuries. Major land-useand water-resource management issues in this regioninclude : 1) maintaining the viability of agricultural ac-tivities given limited water resources and financial andhuman capital; 2) coping with water deficits due to cli-mate variation and extensive grazing of livestock; 3)addressing the threat of urban encroachment on agri-cultural lands in regions near Nogales, Sonora; and 4)combating related threats to agricultural activities asurban water demand “crowds out” agricultural water use.

Ambos Nogales RegionAmbos Nogales RegionAmbos Nogales RegionAmbos Nogales RegionAmbos Nogales Region. Owing to its nature as amajor urban area, the binational conurbation or “twincity” of Ambos Nogales faces a much different set ofwater-resource management issues. The earliest prelimi-nary population data from the 2000 census indicate thatthe current population in Ambos Nogales exceeds200,000 (INEGI 2001) generating a significant waterneed in the municipal and industrial sectors, and a rangeof related water-quality issues. Water-resource manage-ment issues in Ambos Nogales include provision ofwater supply to sectors of society with competing needs;development of the needed infrastructure and “plumb-ing” to deliver water to major sectors of Nogales, Sonora;facilitation of adequate wastewater collection and treat-ment; management of groundwater/surface-water in-teractions; and addressing a range of water-quality is-sues related to both groundwater and surface-water re-sources.

Groundwater is the major source of water for theregion, and wells in both the U.S. and Mexican por-tions of the basin affect groundwater availability andsurface-water flows in the river. Inherent in this dis-cussion of groundwater resources is an importantsubtlety concerning the source of subsurface water: ap-proximately 50 percent of the water for Nogales, Ari-zona, and 60 percent of the water for Nogales, Sonora,is pumped from deep groundwater resources in thePortero and Los Alisos wellfields respectively, and thebalance of the water for these urban areas is pumpedfrom wells that are much more shallow than Porteroand Los Alisos wellfields that are hydraulically linkedto the river (Halpenny 2001). Increasing urban ground-water extraction is impacting long-standing agriculturaluse of groundwater in the basin, and urban uses are alsonegatively impacting surface-water flows in the riverand raising questions concerning sustainable use of

groundwater in the future. Groundwater resources arefrequently extracted at a much greater rate than that ofgroundwater recharge, a rate that also impacts riverflows, making extensive extraction of groundwater suchas that found in the Ambos Nogales region highly prob-lematic.

In addition, drinking water is a particularly perva-sive and immediate need in Nogales, Sonora, whichposes special challenges for regional approaches to wa-ter-resource planning. Estimates indicate that only 50percent of Nogales, Sonora, residents have piped wateror connections to a sanitary sewer system (Solis Garza1999). Providing an enhanced delivery network, address-ing major loss of water resources through leaks, and se-curing a raw water source with which to meet demandare three related and very important issues that faceNogales, Sonora. These needs have led to explorationsof enhanced increase groundwater extraction in the ar-eas upstream from the city near Mascareñas, Santa Bar-bara, and Parades (Barcenas 1999). Towards resolutionof these water-supply issues, the region has undertakena major facilities-planning process (FPP) to enhance thewastewater collection and treatment facilities in theAmbos Nogales region, and to provide future suppliesof potable water to Nogales, Sonora (Barcenas 1999;IBWC 1995).

This FPP is a binational planning effort that ex-tends technical support to regional water-resource plan-ning agencies with the aim of obtaining USEPA fundsto construct needed wastewater- management infrastruc-ture (IBWC 1995). Within this FPP, the U.S. and Mexi-can sections of the International Boundary and WaterCommission (IBWC/CILA); the Sonoran Commissionfor Water Supply and Sewage (CoAPAES); the Cityof Nogales, Arizona; the Arizona Department of Wa-ter Resources, and a range of private sector consultantshave cooperated over the last few years on a regionalwater-infrastructure effort. Both a technical workinggroup and a policy group have collaborated on and ex-plored various configurations of enhanced water-re-sources infrastructure (Barcenas 1999).

As a result of this process, an alternative was ap-proved that provided for increased treatment capacity,upgraded treatment processes, and replacement of out-fall facilities. Specifically, the treatment capacity at theinternational treatment plant will be increased from 17.2mgd to 22 mgd, an amount projected to meet future de-


8

mands of both Nogales, Arizona, and Nogales, Sonora.Wastewater-treatment processes will be upgraded toincrease nitrogen removal. These treatment processeswill allow effluent treated in the plant to meet USEPAand State of Arizona regulations, and will address wa-ter-quality concerns advanced by residents downstreamfrom the plant. Replacement of the outfall that bringssewage from the border to the plant will provide addi-tional transmission capacity needed to convey largerflows in the future and will also eliminate extraneousflows into the outfall that were due to infiltration ofbaseflow into these outflowing waters (Camp Dresser& McKee 2000).

In addition, both wastewater-treatment and potablewater-treatment facilities are to be built in Sonora. Asmall wastewater-treatment plant (4-5 mgd) employingan advanced ponding system will be built at Los Alisosin Nogales, Sonora, and a lift station will be built toconvey wastewater to this new plant. Also, the existingwastewater collection network in Nogales, Sonora, willbe upgraded in an effort to reduce infiltration similar tothat posing problems with the outfall discussed above.(USEPA 2000). At the request of CoAPAES in Sonora,Mexico, a potable water component for Nogales, Sonora,is being planned, and this related potable water projecthas complicated the final design of the wastewater treat-ment plant and related funding issues. These complica-tions were largely resolved in early 2001, and currentplans are for approximately $8.5-million from the Bor-der Environmental Infrastructure Fund to support thepotable water component of the project (Sprouse 2001;Wachtel 2001).

Downstream From Ambos Nogales. Downstream From Ambos Nogales. Downstream From Ambos Nogales. Downstream From Ambos Nogales. Downstream From Ambos Nogales. The dischargeof treated effluent from the international plant also hasa major impact on surface-water and groundwater dy-namics within the downstream reaches of the river, ap-proximately from Rio Rico to Amado. The regular dis-charge of this effluent is the largest source of ground-water recharge in the region; over time, this effluenthas become the largest contribution to regional ground-water balances. Specifically, Mexican effluent that isdischarged after treatment at the NIWTP rechargesdownstream groundwater aquifers and provides for year-round flows in the downstream reaches of the river; aneffluent-dominated ecosystem has evolved downstreamthat depends wholly on this discharge for its existence.One noteworthy facet of the facilities-planning nego-tiations has been the desire on the part of downstream

riparians and of the Arizona Department of Water Re-sources to ensure that adequate amounts of Mexicanwastewater will be diverted over the long run to insureviable levels of recharge to groundwater aquifers. Thisguarantee is of primary importance to the possible for-mation of a groundwater-replenishment district(Barcenas 1999).

Several key stakeholders have been involved in ex-amining these water quality and quantity issues in thesedownstream reaches. The Friends of the Santa CruzRiver (FoSCR) is a relatively long-standing nongovern-mental organization representing downstream ripariansand property owners in this area of the basin. Formedin 1991, FoSCR seeks to “protect and enhance the flowand water quality of the river” (Friends of the SantaCruz River 1999a). Activities advanced by FoSCR sinceits inception include the Friends’ RiverWatch Program,which conducts regular water-quality monitoring, en-vironment, and watershed- education programs withlocal schoolchildren on both sides of the border. Thisproject also provides input to local land developmentprojects. FoSCR also was active in providing citizen in-put to government agencies working with the Mexicangovernment towards a minimum flow guarantee for ef-fluent discharges into the river at the NIWTP (Friendsof the Santa Cruz River 1998).

Two efforts have developed in conjunction with theSanta Cruz Active Management Area that are relevantto the water-resource management issues in the reachesof the river downstream and to the north of AmbosNogales: the SCAMA Groundwater Users AdvisoryCouncil (GUAC) and the SCAMA Settlement Group.The Groundwater Users Advisory Council, establishedunder the Arizona Groundwater Management Code of1980, is a governmental effort whereby private citizenswho are active users of water resources regularly meetwith SCAMA staff in an effort to discuss water-resourceissues in the region and various means available to man-age these resources more effectively. Recent Councildiscussion topics include the status of water rights ad-judication in the region, awards of ADWR grants tostudy groundwater resources, results of the StatewideSafe Yield Task Force, adjustment of pumping fees forgroundwater users, and the status of a SCAMA sur-face-water model (SCAMA GUAC 1999). Of particu-lar note is the open manner by which these meetingsare conducted. Not only are members of the Counciland SCAMA staff welcome to actively participate, in-


9

terested members of the general public are also welcometo attend and contribute to the discussions. If opennessand participation are deemed valuable to regional ap-proaches to water-resource management, then the ef-forts of this Council can provide important lessonslearned for future efforts in other regions along the bor-der.

Somewhat related to the Groundwater Users Advi-sory Council is a less formal effort known as theSCAMA Settlement Group. The Settlement Group iscomposed of private citizens who own water rightswithin SCAMA and attorneys representing the legalinterests of large water-rights holders in the region.Although ADWR staff members are not formal mem-bers of the Settlement Group, staff from both the Phoe-nix and the SCAMA offices regularly participates inSettlement Group meetings to provide technical sup-port, and meetings take place in ADWR offices. Theaim of the Settlement Group is to work towards resolu-tion of water rights adjudication in the SCAMA as analternate mechanism to the lengthy legal processes thathave unfolded concerning this adjudication and that haveshown little progress to date (SCAMA SettlementGroup 1999). As with FoSCR, the Settlement Groupfunctions in an open and participatory manner, whichis not surprising given the membership of the groupand the open manner by which SCAMA staff conductbusiness.

An example of this openness came in late 1999 andearly 2000, when the Settlement Group worked withADWR staff to develop and implement a pilot projectwhereby water-rights holders were surveyed concern-ing land ownership and water rights. The project’s firststep was the delineation of the study area, and ADWRstaff presented a sophisticated computer- generated mapidentifying what staff thought was a reasonable area.Immediately, local water-rights holders noticed severalpotential problems with the delineations, including ar-eas with limited water uses where a survey may lackutility and other locations where an uninvited visit fromADWR staff could actually pose a risk to the staff in-volved. To the credit of ADWR staff present, this localknowledge was actively welcomed into the debate. Af-ter more discussion, the study area was modified to takeinto account the hydrologic science that ADWR staffbrought to the table as well as the valuable local knowl-edge that ranchers and other water-rights holders pos-sessed. Given the political climate of rural southern Ari-

zona, considerable tensions exist among water- rightsholders and ADWR staff, and the cooperation evidentin this meeting was essential to implementing thisproject.

In addition to water-quantity issues that SCAMAefforts are addressing, both water quality of the treatedeffluent discharged by the NIWTP and water qualityof contaminated surface flows within Nogales Wash thatoriginate in Nogales, Sonora are of particular signifi-cance. Monitoring of effluent quality and surface flowsdownstream from the plant has revealed elevated levelsof ammonia and nitrate/nitrates (Friends of the SantaCruz River 1999b). These levels raise water-quality con-cerns that have been directly communicated to USEPAstaff involved in the upgrade of the NIWTP (Valen-tine 1999). As the primary operator of the NIWTP, theIBWC has failed to meet National Pollution DischargeElimination System, and these water quality concernshave been a good part of the impetus for enhancementsto the rigor of the treatment processes at the plant(Holub 1999).

Canoa Ranch RegionCanoa Ranch RegionCanoa Ranch RegionCanoa Ranch RegionCanoa Ranch Region. North of the region whereFoSCR has been working is the Canoa Ranch, an im-portant historical area of Pima County that has been atthe heart of a development-versus-preservation debatein Pima County since the mid 1990s. Initially establishedas a Spanish land grant in 1821, the commonly recog-nized modern grant occupies approximately 6,500 acresstraddling Interstate 19 in the southernmost part of PimaCounty. Valuable cultural resources that exist on theranch reflect early native Piman settlement, explora-tion and settlement by the Spanish, and a more modernperiod of ranching that occurred in the 20th centuryunder the ownership of the Manning family (Mayro1999).

In 1994, Fairfield Homes purchased the ranch andannounced plans to build between 6,000 and 9,000 homesand supporting resort facilities, thereby extending theGreen Valley area of development south towards SantaCruz County (Arizona Business Gazette 1995). Owing toboth the historical values of the ranch and the impor-tance of the area as a critical riparian wildlife corridor,the development plans offered by Fairfield Homes gen-erated a great deal of conflict. Amigos de Canoa, a localadvocacy group, and the Canoa Heritage Foundationhave worked to preserve these values. Conversely,Fairfield Homes has argued that the zoning be upgraded


10

to allow more extensive development. In March of 2001,after a great deal of debate and an extensive lawsuit filedby Fairfield Homes, the Pima County Board of Super-visors voted to accept a compromise plan that wouldpreserve approximately 85 percent of the Ranch whilealso allowing Fairfield Homes to build approximately2,200 homes and 150 acres of commercial shopping areas(Associated Press State & Local Wire 2001).

San Xavier District of the Tohono O’odham Na-San Xavier District of the Tohono O’odham Na-San Xavier District of the Tohono O’odham Na-San Xavier District of the Tohono O’odham Na-San Xavier District of the Tohono O’odham Na-tion.tion.tion.tion.tion. Located just south of Tucson is the San XavierDistrict, one of the four units of land that form theTohono O’odham Nation. The District is also an inde-pendent reservation predating other Nation holdings.Within its approximate 70,000 acres, several interrelatedland and water-management issues face the District asan independent entity and the Nation as a whole. TheDistrict leases large parcels of land to ASARCO, a ma-jor copper mining firm in the region; this constitutesthe largest land-use activity in the San Xavier District.For several years, the District and ASARCO have beenin conflict over the financial terms of the leases, rockwaste and tailings disposal practices, and the extractionof groundwater by ASARCO through wells adjacent toDistrict lands (Pierson 1999).

The San Xavier District Allottees Association wasformed in the early 1990s to advance the cause of the300 District members who held allotments and hadsigned lease agreements with ASARCO that allowedmining development to occur on this land without re-linquishing ownership to ASARCO. In the past,ASARCO had not pursued mining activity related tothe leases actively enough to produce the level of royal-ties that District allottees had desired. In 1971, the Na-tion initiated legal action against ASARCO that soughta guaranteed level of royalties, and this issue was settledlater that year. Another dispute surrounded howASARCO was disposing of mining tailings and wasterock. The District has long held that ASARCO shouldhave been abiding by mining regulations that requireda certain level of reclamation. ASARCO argued thatbecause the 1959 leases predated the mining regulations,and consequently, it was not obligated to follow thesemore stringent regulations.

Groundwater mining of the regional aquifer by theCity of Tucson, ASARCO, and the Farmers InvestmentCorporation (FICO) has been another resource-man-agement conflict in the region, an expected result of

extensive pumping by regional economic interests. Dueto this pumping, the water table in District wells droppeddramatically, increasing pumping expenses precipitouslyand consequently making agriculture unprofitable forthe cooperative farming operations in the District. Le-gal action initiated by the Nation and the District led tothe Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act,which provided 27,000 acre feet of water to the Districtdirectly and exchange rights to another 23,000 acre feetthrough indirect grants of water rights to the Nation.

The scope of land- and water-resource-managementissues that have faced the San Xavier District reflectboth competing interests for scarce water resources andconflicting viewpoints on how to best manage miningoperations in a manner that balances return on invest-ment for various parties with reclamation needs of Dis-trict allottees. It is notable that the majority of theseissues appear to be approaching resolution through acombination of stakeholder-driven legal actions on thepart of various stakeholders and interpersonal commu-nication among the various parties involved. Duringinterviews, these stakeholders appeared genuine in theirefforts to resolve these conflicts and were wary of inter-vention that could jeopardize resolution.

Urban Reaches Around Tucson.Urban Reaches Around Tucson.Urban Reaches Around Tucson.Urban Reaches Around Tucson.Urban Reaches Around Tucson. The subregionwithin the Upper Santa Cruz River Basin that containsthose reaches of the river within the urban area of Tuc-son hosts a wide range of governmental and nongov-ernmental stakeholders who interact on a wide range ofissues related to river restoration or rehabilitation. Infact, one of the more promising organizations that couldlead to a broader watershed approach to water-resourcemanagement in the basin, the Santa Cruz River Alli-ance (SCRA), evolved from discussions concerning ur-ban stream rehabilitation.

In October of 1997, the mayor and city council ofTucson approved the formation of a Santa Cruz Advi-sory Committee, whose goal was to explore opportuni-ties for an urban river renewal project that would in-clude active public participation (City of Tucson 1997).The Committee met for approximately one year to dis-cuss various options, and these options were shared witha larger public audience in a Santa Cruz River Restora-tion Conference in November of 1998. Out of the Con-ference and related activities, interested members of thepublic came together in January 1999 to form the SCRA,a group aiming “to promote ecological restoration and


11

conservation of the natural and cultural resources of theSanta Cruz River and its watershed” (SCRA 1999).

Land- and water-resource management issues in thispart of the basin reflect the impact of a large and grow-ing urban area within an extremely arid region. His-torically, the Tucson region has relied almost extensivelyon high quality groundwater resources for water sup-ply. Currently, heavy pumping rates with extremelyslow recharge are combining to threaten long-term sup-ply of water for the region (ADWR 1998). Attentionhas turned to inter-basin transfers of surface-water re-sources brought to the region by the Colorado River viaCental Arizona Project (CAP). Although this importedwater has the potential to significantly augment declin-ing groundwater resources, the physical quality of thesewaters is problematic. Poorly implemented use of thissurface water in the mid 1990s resulted in a firestorm ofcriticism from the public who found the taste and odorof the water offensive; in some cases considerable prop-erty damage resulted. The paradoxical outcome of thisinitial use of CAP water is that a large available sourceof water (approximately 150,000 acre feet) was not usedto its potential in a highly arid region that relies to largedegree on declining groundwater reserves (Jacobs 1999;ADWR 2001).

Groundwater recharge, where CAP water would beinjected into regional aquifers at a much higher rate thanwould normally occur through infiltration of precipita-tion and surface runoff, is one way CAP has been ex-amined as a means to increase regional water supply.Owing to the natural hydrology of the river, this por-tion of the basin has seen intermittent flows. Manystakeholders in this part of the basin would like to seeflow return to the river, even if this were to occurthrough a manufactured method. Linking groundwa-ter recharge with urban stream rehabilitation in theSanta Cruz River Basin could provide for flows in theriver; while this possibility is a subject of some research,the concept has not been proven within a scientific arena.Furthermore, landfills and other toxic disposal siteswithin the recharge zones in the river floodplain poseconsiderable problems that would be extremely expen-sive to rectify (Jacobs 1999). Stakeholder opinion in thebasin differs on the degree to which recharge can belinked to urban stream rehabilitation, making it an areaof lively discourse in the urban reaches of the river.

Flood control is another issue related to rehabilita-tion efforts in this section of the river. “Soil cement,”or the installation of concrete walls that mimic the soilsurfaces of steep banks in urban areas, is one extensivelyused means of flood control, yet this practice is not with-out its critics. Certain stakeholders argue that this prac-tice makes for a very barren and sterile river environ-ment within which natural or transplanted vegetationcannot survive. In spring 2001, the Santa Cruz RiverAlliance convened a second Santa Cruz River Confer-ence at which alternatives to this type of flood controlwere explored in an open and public manner.

Potential Vehicles to Advance Region Buildingand Regional Cooperation

International Boundary and Water CommissionInternational Boundary and Water CommissionInternational Boundary and Water CommissionInternational Boundary and Water CommissionInternational Boundary and Water Commission(IBWC/CILA).(IBWC/CILA).(IBWC/CILA).(IBWC/CILA).(IBWC/CILA). As stated in the 1944 Water Treatyand reaffirmed in the La Paz Agreement, the IBWC/CILA clearly have a pre-eminent role in binational wa-ter-resource management (United States of America andthe United Mexican States, 1944 and 1983). What thenis the potential role of IBWC/CILA in efforts towardsregion building and a watershed council? Previous re-search found that the IBWC/CILA could clearly play acrucial technical role in a wide range of border water-resource planning, yet its history of open and participa-tory engagement of the public is both problematic andinconsistent at best (Brown and Mumme 2000). None-theless, this agency clearly had an important role in theBorder Water Council formed in San Diego/Tijuana, arole that emerged in conjunction with crucial work thatwas done by the Consul General of Mexico to the UnitedStates in this region.

The situation in Ambos Nogales is much differentthat that in the San Diego/Tijuana region, due both tothe geography and the political culture of this part ofthe border. However, in clear contrast to the situationin San Diego and Tijuana in which IBWC and CILAstaff advanced a regional approach, little if any effortstowards a regionally based approach that would take ad-vantage of local and regional expertise have been ad-vanced by CILA or IBWC staff in the region (dos Santos2001).

Official activities of CILA and IBWC surroundingthe facilities-planning process discussed earlier illustratehow IBWC/CILA may view local participation in wa-


12

ter-resource management. This facilities-planning pro-cess was put in place by USEPA to more actively in-volve regional stakeholders in the planning of new wa-ter resource infrastructure in the Ambos Nogales re-gion (Barcenas 1999). This overall planning effort wasformally advanced under IBWC/CILA Minute No. 294,in which language included a public-information com-ponent. IBWC was the lead agency in the facilities-plan-ning process, and a range of agencies at many levels ofgovernment and on both sides of the border were in-volved, as well as private sector technical consultants(IBWC/CILA 1995).

After extensive consultation within both a techni-cal working group and a policy level group, the specificproject alternative for enhanced treatment capability andexpansion of the plant’s capacity that was previouslydiscussed was broadly shared with the public in a De-cember 1999 steering committee meeting convened inthe SCAMA office. The goal of this meeting was two-fold: to share the technical details of the project withthe public and, perhaps more important, to lay out aplan whereby members of the local community would“sign on” to this project and provide the needed publicparticipation component of a forthcoming proposal tothe Border Environment Cooperation Commission(BECC) for certification for NADB (North AmericanDevelopment Bank) and Border Environment Infra-structure Fund (BEIF) funding (Camp Dresser &McKee 2000). BECC, IBWC, and the private consult-ant involved in the project were striving to involve thepublic in this process, and the local community acknowl-edged and welcomed this increase in public participa-tion.

However, the timing of this public involvement wasproblematic on many levels. The public participationprocess needed to be completed by March 23, 2000, toensure access to the maximum amount of BEIF monies,yet the convening of the public participation meetingin early December left less than 120 days in which tohold two public meetings, allow 30-day and 45-day com-ment and review periods respectively, and compile acomplex document with fairly stringent guidelines. Par-ticipants at this initial meeting reflected a willingnessto work with the process and an appreciation for morepublic involvement within projects managed by IBWC/CILA. Yet participants’ comments also manifested theirfrustration over being invited so late as to have littleopportunity to impact the design and planning process.

In addition, this delayed invitation was seen as an ob-stacle to completing the public participation process ad-equately and in the time allowed. Finally, concerns werealso raised about the IBWC/CILA commitment to trulyinvolve the public and regional players in this process,given the ill-timed public invitation.

These experiences concerning IBWC/CILA’s man-ner in undertaking the regional outreach and public par-ticipation activities raise some questions about how todrive the formation of a binational watershed councilin the Ambos Nogales region. It appears that an efforttowards a binational watershed council is unlikely to beforthcoming from IBWC/CILA in this region of theborder. This comment is not meant as an indictment ofany of the people involved in the process; rather it isoffered as a comment concerning the institutional iner-tia that the IBWCand CILA exercise in these types ofproject.

Mexico’s National Water Commission (CNA).Mexico’s National Water Commission (CNA).Mexico’s National Water Commission (CNA).Mexico’s National Water Commission (CNA).Mexico’s National Water Commission (CNA).The National Water Commission of Mexico, ComisiónNacional del Agua (CNA), is the other agency essen-tial to regional efforts to borrow the watershed councilconcept, based on language in la Ley de AguasNacionales. Previous research has indicated that thisagency’s regional offices may be more prone than na-tional headquarters to engage in decentralization effortsconducive to a binational watershed council along theborder (Brown 1998 and Brown and Mumme 2000). Akey point to examine in the Upper Santa Cruz RiverBasin is how willing CNA regional staff (especially theAmbos Nogales region) might be to discuss the forma-tion of a regional watershed council in the AmbosNogales region.

Interviews with two CNA engineers illuminatednumerous barriers to this type of regional participation(Rodriguez and Oros 1999). The preeminence of CILAas the lead Mexican federal agency in water resourcematters concerning the United States was one of themost over-arching issues to emerge from these discus-sions, and the CNA staff interviewed unequivocallydeferred to CILA in all matters relating to binationalwater issues or management options. In addition, CNAstaff did not see a watershed council as advantageous toMexican interests in the basin and instead offered analternate treaty mechanism similar to the 1944 WaterTreaty. Perhaps the most notable comment reflectingCNA’s centralized manner suggested that the decen-


13

tralization that has occurred elsewhere in Mexico is nothappening in the Upper Santa Cruz River Basin(Rodriguez 1997; Brown 1998; Mumme and Brown 2001).

Offices of the Consuls GeneralOffices of the Consuls GeneralOffices of the Consuls GeneralOffices of the Consuls GeneralOffices of the Consuls General. The last piece ofthe national/international institutional framework thatwould influence the formation of a watershed councilin the Upper Santa Cruz River Basin is that of the Of-fices of the Consuls General that operate in twin citiesalong the border. The U.S. Consul General to Mexicothat resides in Nogales, Sonora, and the Mexican Con-sul General to the U.S. that resides in Nogales, Ari-zona, operates respectively within the U.S. Departmentof State and Mexico’s Secretaria de RelacionesExteriores. Activities from the sister offices in the SanDiego/Tijuana region eventually led to establishing theBorder Water Council, and it is instructive to discusshow this framework in Ambos Nogales enters the cal-culus of binational water policy reform efforts.

The potential for the offices of Consuls General tofacilitate regional discourse among a wide range of re-gional agencies in the Ambos Nogales region is clearlyevident, as past activities of the U.S. and Mexican Con-sul General has demonstrated (Gray 1999). During thelate 1990s, the U.S. and Mexican CGs in Ambos Nogalesconvened quarterly border liaison mechanism meetingsinvolving agencies in the region that examined a widerange of issues. Y2K compliance, public safety issuesrelated to immigration and immigration-control efforts,and social and economic development have been exam-ined through border liaison mechanism meetings (Gray1999; Rodriguez 1999)5. Such discussions clearly reflectthe border liaison mechanism’s usefulness in conven-ing representatives from a wide range of local and re-gional agencies with invaluable local knowledge and thelocal Consul General in the Ambos Nogales region tofacilitate these meetings.

Despite this success in region building on a widerange of efforts, the Ambos Nogales Consuls Generalhave not been active in water-resource issues. A greatdeal of the momentum and leadership for binationalwater-resource management and planning in the region

has come from IBWC/CILA through the facilities plan-ning process discussed previously. To a large degree,the Consuls General have deferred to the traditional roleof IBWC/CILA in water-resource issues (Rodriguez1999). This may reflect regional sensitivities, a greaterset of asymmetries across the border than is evident inSan Diego/Tijuana, and a shorter period of time withinwhich the border liaison mechanism has been exercisedin Ambos Nogales (Rodriguez 1999). Further, it is pos-sible that lack of activity within the border liaisonmechanism framework in water-resource issues may alsoreflect IBWC/CILA’s historically larger role in regionalwater-resource issues owing to their involvement andmanagement of the international wastewater-treatmentplant.

Very recent events in the Ambos Nogales regioninvolving the Arizona Department of EnvironmentalQuality (ADEQ) and the offices of the Consuls Gen-eral reflect more innovative approaches to environmen-tal issues within the border liaison mechanism frame-work. For the last few years, ADEQ’s coordinator ofborder issues has been working with the Consuls Gen-eral and a range of regional agencies in two areas: airquality and emergency response and preparedness. Fromthis collaboration, two working groups, the Air QualityWorking Group and the Border Emergency PlanningCommittee, have emerged as focused efforts within theEconomic and Social Development subcommittee of theborder liaison mechanism. These recent examples ofcross-border collaboration within the border liaisonmechanism on environmental quality issues highlightthe promise that this framework has for a wider arrayof environmental issues. These efforts could includewater-resource management loosely cast within a wa-tershed council type of framework.

State and Regional ContextState and Regional ContextState and Regional ContextState and Regional ContextState and Regional Context. North of the border,the active management areas (AMA) framework of theArizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) of-fers useful insights into regional approaches that couldsupport a watershed council or consejo effort. As de-tailed earlier, the Groundwater Management Code of1980 established AMAs based on groundwater basin di-vides as subregions within which ADWR would con-duct its management of water resources in Arizona(ADWR 1999a). Hence, both the Tucson AMA and theSanta Cruz AMA are subregionalizations consistentwith a hydro-regionalization in which a watershed orbasin approach is actively advanced (Jacobs 1999). In fact,

4The border liaison mechanism is a joint U.S.-Mexico federalinitiative operating under the auspices of the U.S. Department ofState and Mexico’s Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores (SRE -Mexico’s Department of State) that provides a protocol for dealingwith a range of binational issues at a regional level.


14

the recognition of the original TAMA’s hydro-regionaland institutional differences in its northern and south-ern portions led to revising this original AMA into thecurrent TAMA to the north and SCAMA to the south(ADWR 1999b; Jacobs 1999). Examining each AMA in-dividually provides further insight into how the AMAframework is consistent with the regional approach towater-resource management that a watershed councilseeks to advance.

Within the TAMA, the ADWR manages a widerange of water-resource issues predominantly linked togroundwater resources or the management of importedCAP resources, activities that are carried out regionallyand in a manner consistent with the establishment ofthe AMA boundary. However, there are various possi-bilities for TAMA to increase its functional sphere ofinfluence consistent with a more holistic approach inthe Tucson portion of the Upper Santa Cruz River Ba-sin. Functional enhancement refers to the TAMA in-creasing its functional reach within the current TAMAregion rather than expanding its spatial reach into theSCAMA or other regions.

The Safe Yield Task Force is an effort advancedwithin the TAMA framework that examines policiestowards a balanced and sustainable use of groundwaterresources, use that would provide a “safe yield.” Rec-ommendations of the Task Force include enhancedmanagement of exempt wells, industrial and agriculturalgroundwater rights, enhanced use of CAP resourcesincluding a replenishment district, and exploration ofbetter conservation practices (ADWR 1999b). One ofthe more innovative recommendations of the Task Forceis a suggestion to explore options for sub-area manage-ment that could be implemented as “overlay zones” tobe executed within an “overlay approach.”

Overlay zones would focus on immediate local ef-forts, “looking within each AMA” for subregions withinwhich specific management needs exist and developingappropriate management policies. Specific managementneeds that would be explored in overlay zones includesubsidence mitigation, water-supply management, In-dian rights management, water- quality management(a joint issue for ADWR to examine with input fromADEQ), and riparian enhancement and rehabilitation.This entire set of management objectives would also takeinto account the hydrologic connectivity of surface wa-ter and groundwater resources, a relationship that is not

acknowledged in existing water resource regulation inArizona. “Sustainable yield in this context would in-clude a component to protect surface-water flows, notjust groundwater balance” (ADWR 1999b).

What are the impediments to this logical extensionof the regional approach to water- resource managementin the TAMA? Stakeholders whose water use would beregulated may be resistant to policies advanced underoverlay zones, as would individuals within overlay zoneswho are generally in opposition to government regula-tion. Arizona is well-known for a sense of rugged indi-vidualism that does not always welcome governmentintervention in natural resource management, and con-sequently, resistance to overlay districts is expected. Inaddition, the Groundwater Management Code does notallow AMAs to be broken into subregions (the 1994 splitof the original TAMA into two smaller AMAs requiredArizona Senate Bill 1380), providing a major legal bar-rier to this subregionalization.

How might these impediments be lowered or elimi-nated to allow overlay districts to proceed? From a legaland administrative perspective, a change to the Ground-water Management Code would be needed to allow theTAMA to be redrawn into functional subregions thatwould function as overlay zones. The AMA would notactually be divided into smaller AMAs; rather the AMAwould remain intact, but different management poli-cies could be applied within subregions (Jacobs 1999).Discussions with water-resource experts in the UpperSanta Cruz River Basin indicate that this type of changeto the Groundwater Management Code is possible, pro-vided the socio/cultural and economic dimensions tothis change were handled properly. In this regard, theTucson Active Management Area Safe Yield Task ForceIssue Summaries outlining overlay zones provides ex-cellent suggestions in this regard. “Equity concerns willbe a major impediment unless there is a consensus thatthe selected approach is fair and reasonable” (ADWR1999b). ADWR would need to work with affected stake-holders in the development of overlay zone policies, costbenefit analyses would be required to support thesechanges, and a review and appeals process would be es-sential to handle objections and changes in the physicalconditions of the overlay zones.

Perhaps one of the more interesting insights gainedfrom discussions of TAMA issues concerned the de-gree that the present regional approach of AMAs ap-


15

proximates the manner by which a watershed councilwould function. In response to a query concerning howa watershed council in the Upper Santa Cruz River Ba-sin might be realized, a high level official with theADWR responded that the ADWR is “already doingthis type of work through the AMA approach” (Jacobs1999).

Looking to the south in the Santa Cruz ActiveManagement Area, similar opportunities for approachesto water-resource management that are consistent witha watershed council are evident. As noted earlier, twoefforts advanced within the SCAMA offered particularpromise in this regard: the SCAMA Groundwater Us-ers Advisory Committee and the SCAMA SettlementGroup. Both of these efforts are solidly based on a hy-drologic, regional approach based on sound scientificwork that actively includes local and regional knowl-edge and expertise. The success of these efforts to datereflects how important local participation is; this par-ticipation is particularly well-suited to watershed coun-cils. In this AMA much of the work that watershedcouncils are suited to conduct is already being donewithin the SCAMA, reflecting the utility of regionalapproaches to water-resource issues.

One of SCAMA’s most unique aspects is its loca-tion on the U.S.-Mexico border: “. . . the legislature rec-ognized the international nature of water managementissues facing the Upper Santa Cruz River Basin . . . andthe desire of the water-using community to participatein binational coordinate efforts” (ADWR 1999b). Asnoted previously, one of the most difficult binationalchallenges facing the SCAMA is how to reconcile theconfluence of issues related to binational wastewater inthe Ambos Nogales region and the role of dischargedtreated effluent in regional water balances. This is ex-actly the type of binational water-resource managementchallenge that is suited to a watershed council approach.

Given the region’s increasing rates of groundwaterextraction and the daily generation of millions of gal-lons of treated effluent, what prospects exist for ac-knowledging the hydrologic connectivity of surfacewater and groundwater in the Ambos Nogales region?Various water-resource experts in the region have ad-vanced the idea of a binational, regional, groundwater-replenishment district as a means of reconciling theneeds of various interest groups and water users acrossthe border in a regional framework that acknowledges

both regional linkages and the value of regional and lo-cal knowledge (Holub 1999; Barcenas 1999; SCAMAGUAC 1999).

Presently, approximately 10-million gallons per day(mgd) of wastewater generated in Nogales, Sonora, arediverted to the Nogales International Wastewater Treat-ment Plant in the United States. At the plant, theseflows and approximately 5mgd of wastewater fromNogales, Arizona, are treated and discharged into theSanta Cruz River. The cost to Mexico for treatment isapproximately $300,000 per year, and this amount is paidby CILA. The NIWTP was built with U.S. federalmonies, and the IBWC and the City of Nogales havejointly managed the plant.

Of note is that the Mexican government owns thewastewater generated in Mexico. As wastewater, it lacksimmediate value; however, once it has undergone vari-ous levels of treatment, this wastewater can have valueas reclaimed water for a variety of uses. Once the waste-water crosses the border and enters the plant on the U.S.side, it is owned by the IBWC or City of Nogales. (Thisownership and related management duties have beenshared to various degrees in the past). After the efflu-ent is treated and discharged into the river, it becomesan appropriable water resource within the State of Ari-zona (Barcenas 1999).

This dynamic takes on additional importance whenthe impact of the treated effluent on downstream sur-face and groundwater balances is addressed. Treated ef-fluent is the largest input of water supply into thesewater balances and is essential both to the riparian con-dition in downstream reaches and as a source of ground-water recharge to downstream aquifers. The reliabilityof wastewater input into this water balance is also im-portant to the IBWC, USEPA, and BECC, as all plansfor expanding wastewater-management infrastructurein the Ambos Nogales region require that minimuminflows of effluent arrive at the plant both to justifybuild-out of the plant and to insure efficient and effec-tive plant operation.

Implicit in this situation is the need for a guaran-teed minimum wastewater flow generated from Mexico;the conditions by which this guarantee are arrangedform the pre-conditions for a binational groundwaterreplenishment and management district. One possibil-ity for an entity (perhaps the City of Nogales) to as-


16

sume the $300,000 per year cost of operation and main-tenance that Mexico is currently paying and to provideadditional funds to buy or lease the rights to the waste-water involved in exchange for guaranteed minimumflows to the plant. A variation on this theme would seesome U.S. entity provide treated potable water in ex-change for the flow guarantee, perhaps at a 3:1 effluentto potable-water credit rate (Barcenas 1999). This mini-mum flow guarantee would then be credited by theADWR as an assured water supply as well as a validsource of supply for future management options. Theactual discharged effluent would continue to enter thehydrologic system in this portion of the basin as a sourceof groundwater recharge, which could then be appro-priated by some form of water right or lease. Upon saleor lease of these rights, proceeds would fund the opera-tion of the district and financial transfers of groundwa-ter recharge to Mexico.

Although a complex matrix of water flows, owner-ship, and potential terms of exchange, the above arrange-ment of some form of “Ambos Nogales BinationalGroundwater Replenishment and Management Dis-trict” has considerable potential to meet regional waterresource management needs well into the future. Thisarrangement could be viewed as a form of a watersjedcouncil that would incorporate the value of local andregional knowledge in a spatial framework consistentwith a subregion of the Upper Santa Cruz River Basin.

Although the above framework offers promise forinnovation in binational water-resource management,it is not without considerable barriers. Foremost of theseare the tendencies of the large federal and internationalagencies involved in border water-resource managementto not openly and actively engage the public and regionalplayers (Barcenas 1999; Holub 1999). In this regard,IBWC/CILA and the National Water Commission(CNA) of Mexico may obstruct this type of regionalcooperation. As noted in the 1944 Water Treaty, IBWC/CILA have the preeminent right and responsibility todirect binational water resource management and plan-ning (UMS and USA 1944), and past experiences haveshown this joint agency reluctant to surrender politicalprimacy. In addition, la Ley de Aguas Nacionales es-tablished CNA as the Mexican agency with absoluteauthority for management of federal water resources(CNA 1992 and 1997). It is clear that both the CNAand IBWC/CILA must be at the table for a replenish-ment district to emerge, and to date the needed partici-

pation and willingness to work with regional stakehold-ers has not been evident.

At the state and regional levels, issues of manage-ment and control are also potential barriers. Were a re-plenishment district to emerge, who would manage andcontrol the district: ADWR headquarters in Phoenix,the regional staff of the SCAMA, or local stakeholdersoperating outside of the formal ADWR framework?Historical management of the ADWR may argue forthe former, while the degree of regional expertise andperspective would argue for the latter. An alternate ar-rangement to outright management by the ADWRwould be an independent entity, and discussions of manyfacets of this possibility are presently occurring in theSettlement Group (Halpenny 2001). For the needed sup-port within the legislature and executive branches ofgovernment to materialize this management issue wouldneed to be resolved. Lastly, a lack of experience in man-aging traditional surface waters exists within the AMAframework, a framework that evolved primarily to man-age groundwater resources.

How might these barriers be removed or lessened?At the federal level, participation of the Consuls Gen-eral that serve the Ambos Nogales region through theborder liaison mechanism may help to facilitate a will-ingness on the part of CILA and CNA to explore sucha district. In addition, IBWC/CILA’s recent tendencyto employ a more participatory and open managementstyle would advance proper linkages between IBWC/CILA’s leadership and regional stakeholders to emerge.Ambos Nogales is a smaller urban region than manyother twin cities along the border. These qualities arevaluable to the success of an intra-regional effort. Long-term communication and lobbying at the state and na-tionals level will also increase the likelihood that indi-viduals in key positions will be willing to help such aneffort (Holub 1999).

Local and Regional StakeholdersLocal and Regional StakeholdersLocal and Regional StakeholdersLocal and Regional StakeholdersLocal and Regional Stakeholders. While there arepromising areas of regional cooperation based on gov-ernmental efforts, what of the nongovernmental sectorand members of the general public? The experiences oftwo such nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) of-fer insights regarding the potential contributions ofNGOs to region building towards a watershed council.

The Friends of the Santa Cruz River (FoSCR) isthe longest standing of the watershed organizations in


17

the basin, and has succeeded at a range of environmen-tal monitoring and education efforts, as well as focusedadvocacy on behalf of protecting and enhancing thequality of riparian areas. The majority of these effortshave been narrowly focused on the reaches of the riverdownstream from Ambos Nogales to Amado, althoughother initiatives include outreach and environmentaleducation involving Mexican school children. This lim-ited geographical scope has allowed the FoSCR to besuccessful in its activities, yet it also limits the spatialsphere of its influence to this reach of the river. Lim-ited financial resources and staff have also been factorspreventing FoSCR from playing a larger regional rolein the Upper Santa Cruz Basin.

The other watershed advocacy organization that hasplayed an increasing role in the Upper Santa Cruz RiverBasin is the Santa Cruz River Alliance. The mission ofthe organization speaks to a wider geographical scopeand also a wider set of issues intended– “to promote eco-logical restoration and conservation of the natural andcultural resources of the Santa Cruz River and its wa-tershed.” The Alliance has successfully engaged a widerange of individuals, other NGOs, and staff from manyimportant public agencies involved in urban river reha-bilitation as evidenced by the invited speakers at theSecond Santa Cruz River Conference that took placefrom March 30-April 1, 2001 (SCRA 2001)6. Discussionswith key members of the Alliance indicate that the en-tity would welcome opportunities to increase the spa-tial reach of their advocacy work and involve a widerrange of people in an open and participatory manner.The fact that the group’s name casts the entity as an“alliance” also speaks to the desire to involve a varietyof people and other organizations under an umbrella ofinterested parties working to protect and enhance wa-tershed resources.

The Alliance faces barrier to expanding their spa-tial and functional reach. Founded in 1999, this new or-ganization is wrestling with the issues familiar to allnew entities. Much of its early work focused on gener-ating membership and providing opportunities for

people to learn about relevant issues and to get to knowone another. More recently, the Alliance has been ableto refine the focus of its activities, evident in the group’supcoming conference on river rehabilitation projects inurban reaches of the basin (SCRA 2001). Despite itsmaturation, as a volunteer NGO, the group lacks a solidfunding base that would support a dedicated staff; fur-thermore, while members are dedicated to the group,there are limits on their time and energy. Lastly, as anNGO, the group lacks the political role to directly in-fluence the politics of water-resource management orspecific management decisions. While numerous pub-lic agencies respect the work of the Alliance, its voice isadvisory at best, and the group is unable to convene ba-sin-wide activities on a formal basis.

Despite these barriers, the Alliance is well-posi-tioned to contribute substantially to a watershed ap-proach to water-resource issues in the Upper Santa CruzRiver Basin. The Alliance’s history as an entity offer-ing a grass-roots response to pressing issues in the ur-ban reaches of the river reflects the value of local knowl-edge and expertise of the members of the Alliance. Theopen and participatory manner by which the Allianceoperates also bodes well for a regional approach to wa-tershed management. The group’s successes over the lasttwo years reflect an organizational maturity essentialfor future efforts and a level of momentum to continuebuilding upon.

Conclusions

What insights involving water-resource policy maybe of use in other border regions? Perhaps the most evi-dent conclusion concerns prospects for a binational wa-tershed council, a basin-wide effort encompassing theentire Upper Santa Cruz River Basin, that is consistentwith the intent of developing watershed councils andapproaches that is stated clearly in U.S. and Mexicanpolicy documents. Although la Ley de Aguas Nacionalescalls for councils, or consejos, and USEPA argues themerits of watershed-based research, the barriers to acomprehensive watershed council in the Upper SantaCruz River Basin appear to be considerable. Yet, thepolitical realities of the stakeholders involved, the re-gional and hydrogeological nature of subregions withinthe basin, and the strong local and regional connectionthat people have for the places within which they work

6The entire focus of this conference was to bring a wide range ofpeople from the public and private sectors together to discussurban stream rehabilitation. Speakers included Ann Riley, anationally recognized expert on stream rehabilitation, LewisMcAdams, Director of the Friends of the Los Angeles River, andJohn Drake, US Army Corp of Engineers staff person involved inArizona-Nevada planning (SCRA 2001).


18

and live combine to make an overarching regional ap-proach difficult, at best, to develop and implement.

Figure 2 illustrates some of these dimensions to awatershed-wide effort. Many of the basin’s stakehold-ers work and live within subregions that they knowbetter than those living and working elsewhere; goodfaith attempts by people outside the region to work to-wards resolution of problems may not be welcomed orsuccessful. Furthermore, despite dramatic changes in theway people communicate and move information, no sub-stitute exists for the day-to-day and face-to-face inter-action that those people living in a region experience.To what degree is it feasible for people in AmbosNogales to be active and effective in advancing urbanriver issues in Tucson? Given the unique connection tothe land that the Tohono O’odham people have, howeffective can others be at addressing the issues evidentin the San Xavier District?

Although an overarching basin-wide effort may notbe likely to emerge in the Upper Santa Cruz River Ba-sin, there are numerous cases of successful regional ap-proaches in this area that capitalize on the value of localand regional knowledge. The FoSCR has been very suc-

cessful at the work it has conducted in the reach of theriver downstream of Ambos Nogales, as has the SantaCruz River Alliance with its work in the Tucson re-gion. Due to the hard work done by members of theSan Xavier District and other stakeholders with whichthe District interacts, resolution of a range of environ-mental conflicts appears promising. ADWR staff withinboth the Tucson and Santa Cruz active managementareas have seen success in advancing regional approachesto water- resource management, as well as a great dealof potential for other regionally based innovations inthe future.

Many other examples of successful environmentalconflict resolution based on regional approaches existin the Upper Santa Cruz River Basin. A gran consejomay not be the likely outcome of these efforts, yet thevalue of regional approaches that capitalize on the sameelements on which watershed councils are based isclearly evident. Specifically, approaches that examinesubbasins and related subregions, and capitalize on thecommunity of shared hydrogeological resources, sharedconcerns, and the necessity to work together are usefulin solving applied water-resource management issues.

Documents

Binational Watershed Councils.cover...Cover art: Kimi Eisele Udall Center Publications Robert Merideth, Editor-in-Chief Kathleen Veslany, Associate Editor Udall Center for Studies