AquaPedia Case Study Database - User contributions [en]

A Salty Affair: An Analysis of U.S. – Mexico Water Diplomacy in the Colorado River

2025-12-26T01:22:56Z

Administrator: TEST: fixed old version

{{Case Study
|Water Use=Agriculture or Irrigation, Domestic/Urban Supply, Other Ecological Services
|Land Use=agricultural- cropland and pasture, agricultural- confined livestock operations
|Climate=Arid/desert (Köppen B-type)
|Population=281.333
|Area=3500
|Geolocation=32.6245389, -115.4522623
|Agreement=1944 US-Mexico Water Treaty
|Issues={{Issue
|Issue=The deterioration of water quantity and quality flowiníg into Mexico along the Colorado river following the inauguración of the Wellton-Mohawk project.
|Issue Description=The Wellton-Mohawk’s location in a deep basin with no adequate drainage led to reuse of water that eventually declined in quantity and quality. How to satisfy the demand for water?
|NSPD=Water Quantity; Water Quality; Ecosystems; Governance
|Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Sovereign state/national/federal government, Local Government, Non-legislative governmental agency, Environmental interest, Industry/Corporate Interest
}}{{Issue
|Issue=The bottom problem (inadequate drainage) was never addressed. With time, this situation plus the introduction of water from the Colorado River led to waterlogging farmlands.
|Issue Description=The construction of the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation Project and pumping out the
briny waters and and dump the saline water into the Colorado river which began flowing to Mexico
|NSPD=Water Quantity; Water Quality; Ecosystems; Governance; Assets
|Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Sovereign state/national/federal government, Local Government, Development/humanitarian interest, Environmental interest, Community or organized citizens
}}{{Issue
|Issue=Mexico could not utilize these water for irrigation purposes and was forced to allow it flow directly to the sea.
|Issue Description=This resulted in crop losses in one of the most prosperous region for the national economy.
|NSPD=Water Quality; Ecosystems; Governance; Assets
|Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Sovereign state/national/federal government, Local Government, Development/humanitarian interest, Environmental interest, Community or organized citizens
}}
|Key Questions={{Key Question
|Subject=Transboundary Water Issues
|Key Question - Transboundary=What mechanisms beyond simple allocation can be incorporated into transboundary water agreements to add value and facilitate resolution?
|Key Question Description=Minute No. 241- Recommendations to Improve Immediately the Quality of Colorado River Waters going to Mexico determined the substitution of 118,000 acre-feet with equal volumes of other waters. Moreover, Minute No. 242 Permanent and Definitive Solution to the International Problem of the Salinity of the Colorado River - recognizes the United States obligation to deliver water under certain salinity level. No more than 115 ppm ± 30 ppm measured against the waters which feed the Imperial Dam salinity levels.
}}{{Key Question
|Subject=Power and Politics
|Key Question - Influence=How does asymmetry of power influence water negotiations and how can the negative effects be mitigated?
|Key Question Description=Mexico could have brought the case brought to the International Court of Justice. It had arguments to held the United States responsible under customary international law for the damages caused by the high salinity levels in the Colorado River.
}}
|Water Feature=
|Riparian=
|Water Project=
|Agreement=
|REP Framework====Background===
The Colorado River is a 1,450 miles-long water body that crosses seven states in the U.S., Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, and two in Mexico, Baja California and Sonora. In 1944, Mexico and the U.S. signed a bilateral treaty for the 'Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande' (hereon known as the 1944 Water Treaty). This treaty created the legal framework which would define the relations between the U.S. and Mexico regarding water issues. In the early 1960s the salinity levels of the Colorado River rose from 800 parts per million (ppm) to 2700 ppm. This led to tensions between the U.S. and Mexico which lasted over a decade before reaching a “permanent and definitive solution” to the salinity problem of the Colorado River, as claimed by Minute 242 – Permanent and Definitive Solution to the International problem of the salinity of the Colorado River.

The Imperial Valley in Southern California and the Mexicali Valley, a continuation of the Imperial Valley in the Northeast of Baja California, underwent significant development in the early 20th century. In Mexico, the development of the Mexicali Valley was a natural consequence of the agricultural development of the Imperial Valley in California.

Specifically, the Mexican government’s award of a concession to the Colorado River Company (an American firm) incentivized the economic growth of the region through the development of irrigation facilities and the expansion of the production of cotton. Other factors contributed to further incentivize the growth of the region. For example, the annual allocation of 1.5 million acre feet of Colorado River Water established in the 1944 Water Treaty between Mexico and the United States expanded agriculture, while cotton prices were in the midst of a boom in the international market. By the mid-1950s, the Mexicali Valley was the leading cotton-production region in the country, and by the 1960s the Mexicali Valley had become one of the most important regions to the overall Mexican economy.

Meanwhile in the U.S., the Wellton-Mohawk Valley area in Arizona started its development in the 1880s. This was a fertile region due to the presence of the Gila River. Yet, events such as the diversion of flows to other areas or the construction of the Roosevelt Dam on the Salt River (the Gila’s primary tributary) reduced the flow of the Gila River, rendering it necessary to use ground water for irrigation purposes. The Wellton-Mohawk valley’s location and lack of outlet for drainage had a negative impact in the water by increasing the salinity levels considerably. This led first to a fall in crop yields subsequently a drop in property values in the region. In the 1950s, the federal government determined to supply water from the Colorado River. Although initially successful, this proved to be a temporary fix rather than a permanent solution. Once again, inadequate drainage in the region resulted in a rise of the water table.

The solution given was to construct wells, pump out the briny waters and substitute the saline water with fresh resources from the Colorado River. Finally, in 1961, the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation project, a 50-mile-long channel was completed and used to transport the highly saline waters into the Colorado River, south of its confluence with the Gila River. These saline waters then began flowing into Mexico by the end of that year. Moreover, during that year, upstream releases, that could have diluted the waters from the Wellton-Mohawk, decreased considerably in order to fill Lake Powell behind the new Glen Canyon Dam.

===High Salinity on the Colorado River===

By the end of 1961, the salinity levels of the Colorado River almost quadrupled from 800 ppm to 2700 ppm making the waters unsuitable for human consumption and irrigation. Mexico had no choice but to let those waters flow into the Gulf of California, resulting in significant crop losses. Subsequently, Mexico accused the United States of breaching the 1944 Water Treaty between them. In response to these accusations the United States argued they had no obligation with respect to the quality of water. Nonetheless, the U.S. agreed to send fresh water to Mexico. The U.S. stressed that this 'good faith' measure should not be considered precedent.

The U.S. and Mexico positions rested in a different approach to the 1944 Treaty Water. The U.S. adopted a literal interpretation of the treaty; whereas Mexico appealed to a more holistic interpretation.

According to the1944 Water Treaty Mexico was allotted 1.5 acre-feet per year. This amount could be increased in an amount determined by the United States in case of excess water, but would not exceed 1.7 acre-feet a year. (Article 10). The 1944 Water Treaty was clear on the quantity asigned to Mexico and the U.S. argued the Treaty was silent on its obligations regarding water quality. Mexico sustained water quality was implicit under the International Boundary and Water Commission’s (IBWC) authority to preside over the joint use of international waters on matters such as domestic and municipal uses, agricultural and stock-raising, fishing and hunting, among other issues (Article 3).

===The Stakeholders===

*United States of America – Federal Government
*Department of State
*Department of Interior - Bureau of Reclamation
*The Committee of Fourteen which represents the Seven Basin States – Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Basin States did not take direct part in the negotiation process. Yet, congressmen of the seven states lobbied the State and Interior Departments.
*The Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District in Arizona. Created by an act of the Arizona State Legislature in 1951, the District provides a legal entity to contract with the United States to repay the cost of the Welton-Mohawk irrigation and drainage projects, and to operate the project facilities.
*Mexico – Federal Government (Under Article 73, XVII of the Federal Constitution of Mexico, Congress has the power to enact laws regarding the use and utilization of waters under federal jurisdiction).
*Ministry of Foreign Relations
*Ministry of Interior

===Resolving the Dispute over Salinity===

The negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico to solve the salinity of the Colorado River lasted a decade before reaching a final solution in 1973. The negotiation process resulted in three Minutes issued by the International Boundary and Water Commission, Minute 218 in 1965, Minute 241 in 1972 and Minute 242 in 1973.

Despite the U.S. maintaining that they had no obligation to a particular standard of water quality under the 1944 Water Treaty, they agreed to enter negotiations with Mexico in 1962. Among the factors inducing the U.S. to join negotiations were the aversion to facing a case brought by Mexico to the International Court of Justice, and the U.S.’s desire to establish friendlier relations with its southern neighbors.

The U.S. law firm Chapman and Friedman, retained by the Mexican government, concluded the U.S. could be held responsible under customary international law for the damages caused by the high salinity levels in the Colorado River. Still, the firm advised Mexico to seek a diplomatic solution rather than going to court. Moreover, it seems possible that the logic behind the U.S. decision to allocate an annual 1.5 allotment of Colorado River water to Mexico established in the 1944 Water Treaty was a result of the U.S. interest in fostering relations with neighboring countries during and after World War II. Likewise, the negotiation process that resulted in Minutes 218, 241 and 242 could have followed a similar pattern and be a result of the interest from the United States to cultivate better relations with Latin America. In support to this argument, leftist and Communists groups had gained strength in the Mexicali region and had focused their attacks both in the U.S. and Mexican governments. It seems likely that the U.S. would have had a particular interest to minimize and contain the rise of Communists groups south from its border and cooperating with Mexico was a way to undermine the progress of these groups.

An initial recommendation from the Department of Interior urged both countries to adopt remedial measures to address the conflict. It also underscored Mexico had faced salinity problems even before the Wellton-Mohawk project was finished, mainly due to agricultural overexpansion in the Colorado Delta. The Bureau of Reclamation suggested the implementation of measures and river regulation plans that would reduce the peak salinity concentrations of water delivered to about 1800 ppm. Mexico refused this first approach for the salinity levels were still be high enough to damage crop yields.

In 1965, the parties agreed to a five-year agreement Minute No. 218 - Recommendations on the Colorado River Salinity Problem. According to Minute 218, the United States would construct (at its expense) a 13-mile channel which would prevent Wellton-Mohawk drainage waters from reaching Mexico’s diversion facilities at the Morelos Dam and instead flow directly to the Gulf of California. Furthermore, these provisions would not constitute any precedent, recognition, or acceptance affecting the rights of either country.

In 1972, Minute No. 241- Recommendations to Improve Immediately the Quality of Colorado River Waters going to Mexico was signed after U.S. and Mexico issued a Joint Communique. This document reflected a mutual interest in finding a solution to the salinity problem. According to the Minute, President Nixon was prepared to “a) undertake certain actions immediately to improve the quality of water going to Mexico; b) designate a special representative to begin work immediately to find a permanent, definitive and just solution of this problem; c) instruct the special representative to submit a report to him by the end of this year; d) submit this proposal, once it has the approval of this Government to President Echeverria for his consideration and approval.”

Based on the instructions from both Governments the commissioners issued a series of recommendations. The new agreement determined the substitution of 118,000 acre-feet with equal volumes of other waters, to be discharged to the Colorado River above the Morelos Dam.
Nixon had appointed Herbert Brownell, former Attorney General of the United States as special representative. Finally, in 1973 the parties agreed to sign Minute No. 242 Permanent and Definitive Solution to the International Problem of the Salinity of the Colorado River. The resolution recognizes the United States obligation to deliver water under certain salinity level. No more than 115 ppm ± 30 ppm measured against the waters which feed the Imperial Dam salinity levels.

===Limitations of Minute 242===

Minute 242, while overall a good outcome, is still insufficient. Considering it a permanent and definitive solution could be wishful thinking at best.
Probably, the greatest success in Minute 242 was the United States acknowledgement of its obligation to provide suitable waters for domestic and irrigation purposes to Mexico and the determination of what seems a reliable parameter, up to 115 ppm ± 30 ppm against the salinity levels in the Imperial Dam. Still, it is important to underscore some limitations to this document. According to Furnish and Ladman (Furnish and Ladman, 1975), Minute 242 was unclear in the following issues: 1) The salinity levels of the waters delivered to Mexico are still undefined. Water quality measured against the salinity in the Imperial Dam leaves room for uncertainty; 2) part of the waters delivered to Mexico are allocated to the San Luis Valley in Sonora.

According to Minute 242, the salinity levels are the same as the waters ordinarily delivered. The water delivered at San Luis comes from the Yuma Valley Division and is a combination of ground water and return flow from the Yuma Mesa Division with high salinity levels, approximately 1700 ppm that are later mixed with waters of the Colorado River waters. Moreover, this document establishes that neither country should take any action for modification or developments of surface or groundwater resources without previous consultation; 3) Water supply as a consequence of the development of the Lower Basin States; 4) Responsibility for damages caused to Mexico although it establishes the improvement and rehabilitation of the Mexicali Valley; and 5) Potential alterations to the ecosystem in the Gulf of California as a consequence of increased salinity levels with potential damages to the fishing industry in the region.

How could these issues have been better addressed? As noted before Minute 242 establishes salinity levels could not exceed 115 ppm ± 30 ppm against the waters which arrive at the Imperial Dam. Yet, this parameter does not guarantee water quality in the Imperial Dam. What would happen if salinity levels in these waters increased to levels that make them unfit for Mexico? Probably a better solution for this could have been either to set certain limits to salinity levels or specify that Mexico could only accept water whose salinity levels were suitable for the specific crops in the region.

What does “…salinity substantially the same as that of the waters customarily delivered there” mean? Isn’t this language as ambiguous as the 1944 Water Treaty was at a time? If, as noted by Furnish and Ladman, 1975, the waters allocated to the San Luis Valley in Sonora are a mix of waters of ground water and return flow from the Yuma Mesa Division which has high salinity levels before getting mixed with the Colorado River waters, does the substantially same salinity refer to the salinity levels before the waters are mixed with the Colorado River waters or after they are mixed? Logic and good faith would suggest the latter, but the omission demands clarity. As for point 6 of the Minute, what does consultation “prior to undertaking any new development of either the surface or the groundwater resources, or undertaking substantial modifications of present developments, in its own territory in the border area that might adversely affect the other country” mean? Does consultation mean mere notifications or the need of an express authorization from the other party? Can parties oppose the development of surface or ground water resources across their borders? How to determine what might or might not affect the other party?

Moreover, there are some other issues worth noticing in addition to the above mentioned. Minute 242 recognizes that the U.S. has an obligation to deliver water of quality to Mexico, not only related to the salinity levels but in general terms. This obligation to water quality can be interpreted from the content of Minute 242 which establishes that “It is understood that no radioactive material or nuclear wastes shall be discharged through this drain..” Even though, the Minute does not refer to pollutants other than radioactiva material or nuclear wastes, good faith and logic, make it clear that the same reasoning can be applied to other materials that affect water quality. This is particularly relevant under the current circumstances. If the Government of the United States builds a wall between Mexico and the U.S. and as a consequence of the erection of it pollutes waters that are to be delivered to Mexico, the United States could potentially be violating its obligations to Mexico.

Moreover, probably the most pressing issue is climate change and how it could affect the Colorado River. A recent study published by the Water Resources Research journal centers its analysis in the annual flow reductions in the Colorado River in the 2000-2014 period which represented 19.3% below the 1906-1999 average. Flow losses are a consequence of high temperatures and lack of precipitation, both direct consequences of climate change. But high temperatures will increase evaporation from water bodies and soils too. Though many of the consequences of climate change are still uncertain there is high confidence on the increase of temperatures. This study addresses the decrease of flow (quantity). Still, these same factors, high temperatures and lack of precipitation, could have a further negative impact by increasing the salinity levels in the Colorado River.

===Way Forward===

Minute 242 is neither a “permanent” nor “definitive” solution to the salinity problem. Law is not and should never be static. Law evolves and adapts to reality as it unfolds. As mentioned before, climate change is one of the pressing issues in the global agenda. There are few certainties regarding climate change. Yet, increase of the global temperatures is one thing we can be certain of. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, each decade has proven to be warmer than the previous one, and the period from 1983 to 2012 was the warmest of the last 1400 years. Salinity levels have increased in regions where evaporation dominates, whereas other waters have become fresher as precipitation has increased. For the case of the Colorado Basin, it appears the tendency is an increase in temperatures. Temperatures in the Upper Basin are currently 0.9 degrees Celsius above the 1896-1999 period.

All of this makes it is most likely that the U.S. and Mexico will meet again to further negotiate, among other issues in the bilateral agenda, the salinity levels from the Colorado River waters, which could rise as a consequence of climate change. Minute 242 is a good starting point, for it has clarified loopholes left by the 1944 Water Treaty. A clear example is the parties approach to value creation where the U.S. committed to install a desalting plant to reduce the salinity of the Wellton-Mohawk drainage water or replacing 118,000 acre feet of water pumped out of Arizona’s Yuma Mesa and/or taken from above the imperial Dam. Moreover, other negotiations such as Minute 319 on the allocation and management of shared waters prove the U.S. and Mexico are capable of reaching mutual understanding and cooperation, and consequently mutual gains. The success in these negotiations can make us hope for further collaboration between the U.S. and Mexico.

Further negotiations should include other stakeholders aside from the Federal agencies of both governments. The presence of the Seven Basin States is crucial to get a better understanding of the state’s interests as well as to guarantee the implementation of any resolution, due to the power of states over water management. Their participation in the negotiation process of Minute 319 sets a precedent and it is likely that from now on they will take part in the bilateral negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico. NGOs also proved to be very useful in the negotiations towards Minute 319 so it would be expected to have them as interlocutors. The Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District in Arizona is another important stakeholder since it is an independent political entity which overviews irrigation works and water utilities. As for Mexico, representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Relations or the Ministry of Interior would be the main stakeholders. But its is possible that some other governmental agencies could be interested in joining a negotiation process such as the Ministry of Energy or Ministry of Economy to name two examples. As mentioned before, water is a federal matter and thus, the states of Baja California and Sonora would not have a direct participation in any process.

In this case joint fact finding and scenario planning could be particularly challenging. As mentioned before the current reference of 115 ppm ± 30 ppm against the waters which arrive at the Imperial Dam is still ambiguous. Ideally, the parties should determine a range for what is consider an acceptable salinity level for irrigation purposes considering the crops that are grown or have been grown in the Mexicali Valley region. Other challenges are related to climate change and its uncertain consequences. So far, we can be certain of an increase in temperature globally and an increase in temperature in the Upper Colorado Basin of 0.9 degrees Celsius. Such factors would potentially lead to evaporation and thus higher salinity levels in the Colorado River Waters. In addition to the decrease in water quality, the decrease in quantity is also looming. This is an issue that should be addressed once the negotiations for the renewal of Minute 319 start in December 2017.

Value creation will also be challenging in this case where quality or quantity could potentially be affected as a consequence of climate change. Still, it is almost certain that both parties will have to adapt to new circumstances. New policies and implementation of technologies have to be develop to mitigate climate change and to adapt to those changes already occurring, it is worth considering some ideas that were proposed before. In this context, the installation of additional desalting plants as well as considering the introduction of different crops that could be resistant to more saline water in both countries are options worth evaluating. Furthermore, it is relevant to determine if there are technologies available that could allow the capture of the water that is evaporating. If this is technologies are not available, could the parties start working on ways to develop such technologies? Is it possible to think in terms of relocation of people to reduce the demand of water?

Finally, it is clear that the panorama is both complex and uncertain and whatever decision is taken will be far from “permanent or definitive”, particularly due to the impact of climate change. All stakeholders involved will have to adopt a collaborative adaptive management (CAM) approach. This should imply the opportunity to revise decisions within a defined timeframe. It seems likely that there will be a phase of trial and error and everyone involved should be aware of this.

===Timeline: Salinity of the Colorado River Conflict between the U.S. and Mexico===
{{{!}} class="wikitable"
! style="width:15%;"{{!}} Year !! style="width:75%;" {{!}} Event Description
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1944 {{!}}{{!}} Mexico and the U.S. signed the “Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande from Fort Quitman, Texas to the Gulf of Mexico” also known as the 1944 Treaty.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1945 {{!}}{{!}} Ratification of the “Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande from Fort Quitman, Texas to the Gulf of Mexico.”
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1961 {{!}}{{!}} The salinity levels of the Colorado River rose from 800 ppm to 2700 ppm as a consequence of the construction of the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation Project used to transport saline waters into the Colorado River.
{{!}}-
{{!}}1962 {{!}}{{!}} Negotiation process between the U.S. and Mexico to address the salinity crisis start.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1965 {{!}}{{!}} The parties agreed on a five-year agreement Minute No. 218. The United States would construct at its expense an extension to the Wellton-Mohawk District’s drainage channel which would allow the discharge of the waters to the bed of the river above or below the Morelos Dam flowing directly to the Gulf of California. The U.S. insists it does not have any obligation regarding water quality.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1972 {{!}}{{!}} Joint Communique issued by the Mexican and American governments, where the latter committed to: a) undertake certain actions immediately to improve the quality of water going to Mexico; b) designate a special representative to begin work immediately to find a permanent, definitive and just solution of this problem; c) instruct the special representative to submit a report to him by the end of this year; d) submit this proposal, once it has the approval of this Government to President Echeverria for his consideration and approval.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1972 {{!}}{{!}} The parties issue Minute No. 241 The new agreement determined the substitution of 118,000 acre-feet with equal volumes of other waters, to be discharged to the Colorado River above the Morelos Dam.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1973 {{!}}{{!}} The parties issue Minute No. 242 The resolution recognizes the United States obligation to deliver water under certain salinity level. No more than 115 ppm ± 30 ppm measured against the waters which feed the Imperial Dam salinity levels.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1974 {{!}}{{!}} Passage of the legislation PL 93-320 that confirms the content of Minute 242.
{{!}}}
|Summary=During the 1960s the salinity levels in the Colorado River increased considerably. This situation was triggered by the construction of the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation Project, a 50-mile-long channel, completed in 1961 in Southwestern Arizona which was used to transport highly salinated waters into the Colorado River which then began flowing into Mexico. The salinity concentration increased from 800 parts per million (ppm) to 2700 ppm making the Colorado River waters useless for irrigation purposes. Mexico had no choice but to let those waters flow into the Gulf of California. Consequently, these circumstances led to significant crop losses for Mexico, who accused the United States of breaching the 1944 Water Treaty between them. In response to these accusations the United States argued they had no obligation with respect to the quality of water but were willing to send fresh water. The U.S. stressed that this 'good faith' measure should not be considered a precedent.The negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico to solve the salinity of the Colorado River lasted a decade before reaching a final solution in 1973. The negotiation process resulted in three Minutes issued by the International Boundary and Water Commission, Minute 218 in 1965, Minute 241 in 1972 and Minute 242 in 1973.
|Topic Tags={{Topic Tag
|Topic Tag=Salinity of the Colorado River; water conflicts between the U.S. and Mexico
}}
|Refs=*Furnish, D. B., & Ladman, J. R. (January 1975). The Colorado river salinity agreement of 1973 and the Mexicali valley. ''Natural Resources Journal'',15 (1), 83-107.

*History. (2004). Retrieved May 14, 2017, from http://www.wmidd.org/history.html

*Hundley, N. (1966). Dividing the waters: a century of controversy between the United States and Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press.

*DeMarsay, A. (n.d.). The Bronwell Task Force and the Mexican Salinity Problem: A Narrative Chronology of events. Retrieved May 17, 2017, from http://www.coloradoriversalinity.org/docs/The%20Brownell%20Task%20Force%20and%20the%20Mexican%20Salinity%20Problem,%20A%20Narrative%20Chronology%20of%20Events.pdf

*Treaties Between the U.S. and Mexico. (n.d.). Retrieved May 14, 2017, from https://www.ibwc.gov/Treaties_Minutes/treaties.html

*Umoff, A. A. (2008). An Analysis of the 1944 U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty: Its Past, Present, and Future. University of California, Davis,32(1), 71-98. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from https://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/volumes/32/1/umoff.pdf.

*General. (2004). Retrieved May 14, 2017, from http://www.wmidd.org/general.html

*Constitution of Mexico. (n.d.). Retrieved May 16, 2017, from https://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/mex/en_mex-int-text-const.pdf

*Kneese, A. V. (1975). A theoretical Analysis of Minute 242. Natural Resources Journal,15(1), 135-140. Retrieved May 15, 2017, from http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals%2Fnarj15&div=20&id=&page=

*Exteriores, S. D. (n.d.). Actas de la CILA MEX-EUA. Retrieved May 16, 2017, from http://www.gob.mx/sre/acciones-y-programas/actas-de-la-cila-mex-eua

*Udall, B., & Overpeck, J. (2017). The twenty-first century Colorado River hot drought and implications for the future. Water Resources Research,53(3), 2404-2418. doi:10.1002/2016wr019638

*Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers. 2-31., p. 2 Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
|External Links=
|Case Review={{Case Review Boxes
|Empty Section=No
|Clean Up Required=No
|Expand Section=No
|Add References=No
|Wikify=No
|connect to www=No
|Out of Date=No
|Disputed=No
|MPOV=No
|ForceDiv=yes
}}
}}

A Salty Affair: An Analysis of U.S. – Mexico Water Diplomacy in the Colorado River

2025-12-26T01:21:40Z

Administrator: TEST: edited length of colorado river from 1450 to 1460

{{Case Study
|Water Use=Agriculture or Irrigation, Domestic/Urban Supply, Other Ecological Services
|Land Use=agricultural- cropland and pasture, agricultural- confined livestock operations
|Climate=Arid/desert (Köppen B-type)
|Population=281.333
|Area=3500
|Geolocation=32.6245389, -115.4522623
|Agreement=1944 US-Mexico Water Treaty
|Issues={{Issue
|Issue=The deterioration of water quantity and quality flowiníg into Mexico along the Colorado river following the inauguración of the Wellton-Mohawk project.
|Issue Description=The Wellton-Mohawk’s location in a deep basin with no adequate drainage led to reuse of water that eventually declined in quantity and quality. How to satisfy the demand for water?
|NSPD=Water Quantity; Water Quality; Ecosystems; Governance
|Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Sovereign state/national/federal government, Local Government, Non-legislative governmental agency, Environmental interest, Industry/Corporate Interest
}}{{Issue
|Issue=The bottom problem (inadequate drainage) was never addressed. With time, this situation plus the introduction of water from the Colorado River led to waterlogging farmlands.
|Issue Description=The construction of the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation Project and pumping out the
briny waters and and dump the saline water into the Colorado river which began flowing to Mexico
|NSPD=Water Quantity; Water Quality; Ecosystems; Governance; Assets
|Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Sovereign state/national/federal government, Local Government, Development/humanitarian interest, Environmental interest, Community or organized citizens
}}{{Issue
|Issue=Mexico could not utilize these water for irrigation purposes and was forced to allow it flow directly to the sea.
|Issue Description=This resulted in crop losses in one of the most prosperous region for the national economy.
|NSPD=Water Quality; Ecosystems; Governance; Assets
|Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Sovereign state/national/federal government, Local Government, Development/humanitarian interest, Environmental interest, Community or organized citizens
}}
|Key Questions={{Key Question
|Subject=Transboundary Water Issues
|Key Question - Transboundary=What mechanisms beyond simple allocation can be incorporated into transboundary water agreements to add value and facilitate resolution?
|Key Question Description=Minute No. 241- Recommendations to Improve Immediately the Quality of Colorado River Waters going to Mexico determined the substitution of 118,000 acre-feet with equal volumes of other waters. Moreover, Minute No. 242 Permanent and Definitive Solution to the International Problem of the Salinity of the Colorado River - recognizes the United States obligation to deliver water under certain salinity level. No more than 115 ppm ± 30 ppm measured against the waters which feed the Imperial Dam salinity levels.
}}{{Key Question
|Subject=Power and Politics
|Key Question - Influence=How does asymmetry of power influence water negotiations and how can the negative effects be mitigated?
|Key Question Description=Mexico could have brought the case brought to the International Court of Justice. It had arguments to held the United States responsible under customary international law for the damages caused by the high salinity levels in the Colorado River.
}}
|Water Feature=
|Riparian=
|Water Project=
|Agreement=
|REP Framework====Background===
The Colorado River is a 1,460 miles-long water body that crosses seven states in the U.S., Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, and two in Mexico, Baja California and Sonora. In 1944, Mexico and the U.S. signed a bilateral treaty for the 'Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande' (hereon known as the 1944 Water Treaty). This treaty created the legal framework which would define the relations between the U.S. and Mexico regarding water issues. In the early 1960s the salinity levels of the Colorado River rose from 800 parts per million (ppm) to 2700 ppm. This led to tensions between the U.S. and Mexico which lasted over a decade before reaching a “permanent and definitive solution” to the salinity problem of the Colorado River, as claimed by Minute 242 – Permanent and Definitive Solution to the International problem of the salinity of the Colorado River.

The Imperial Valley in Southern California and the Mexicali Valley, a continuation of the Imperial Valley in the Northeast of Baja California, underwent significant development in the early 20th century. In Mexico, the development of the Mexicali Valley was a natural consequence of the agricultural development of the Imperial Valley in California.

Specifically, the Mexican government’s award of a concession to the Colorado River Company (an American firm) incentivized the economic growth of the region through the development of irrigation facilities and the expansion of the production of cotton. Other factors contributed to further incentivize the growth of the region. For example, the annual allocation of 1.5 million acre feet of Colorado River Water established in the 1944 Water Treaty between Mexico and the United States expanded agriculture, while cotton prices were in the midst of a boom in the international market. By the mid-1950s, the Mexicali Valley was the leading cotton-production region in the country, and by the 1960s the Mexicali Valley had become one of the most important regions to the overall Mexican economy.

Meanwhile in the U.S., the Wellton-Mohawk Valley area in Arizona started its development in the 1880s. This was a fertile region due to the presence of the Gila River. Yet, events such as the diversion of flows to other areas or the construction of the Roosevelt Dam on the Salt River (the Gila’s primary tributary) reduced the flow of the Gila River, rendering it necessary to use ground water for irrigation purposes. The Wellton-Mohawk valley’s location and lack of outlet for drainage had a negative impact in the water by increasing the salinity levels considerably. This led first to a fall in crop yields subsequently a drop in property values in the region. In the 1950s, the federal government determined to supply water from the Colorado River. Although initially successful, this proved to be a temporary fix rather than a permanent solution. Once again, inadequate drainage in the region resulted in a rise of the water table.

The solution given was to construct wells, pump out the briny waters and substitute the saline water with fresh resources from the Colorado River. Finally, in 1961, the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation project, a 50-mile-long channel was completed and used to transport the highly saline waters into the Colorado River, south of its confluence with the Gila River. These saline waters then began flowing into Mexico by the end of that year. Moreover, during that year, upstream releases, that could have diluted the waters from the Wellton-Mohawk, decreased considerably in order to fill Lake Powell behind the new Glen Canyon Dam.

===High Salinity on the Colorado River===

By the end of 1961, the salinity levels of the Colorado River almost quadrupled from 800 ppm to 2700 ppm making the waters unsuitable for human consumption and irrigation. Mexico had no choice but to let those waters flow into the Gulf of California, resulting in significant crop losses. Subsequently, Mexico accused the United States of breaching the 1944 Water Treaty between them. In response to these accusations the United States argued they had no obligation with respect to the quality of water. Nonetheless, the U.S. agreed to send fresh water to Mexico. The U.S. stressed that this 'good faith' measure should not be considered precedent.

The U.S. and Mexico positions rested in a different approach to the 1944 Treaty Water. The U.S. adopted a literal interpretation of the treaty; whereas Mexico appealed to a more holistic interpretation.

According to the1944 Water Treaty Mexico was allotted 1.5 acre-feet per year. This amount could be increased in an amount determined by the United States in case of excess water, but would not exceed 1.7 acre-feet a year. (Article 10). The 1944 Water Treaty was clear on the quantity asigned to Mexico and the U.S. argued the Treaty was silent on its obligations regarding water quality. Mexico sustained water quality was implicit under the International Boundary and Water Commission’s (IBWC) authority to preside over the joint use of international waters on matters such as domestic and municipal uses, agricultural and stock-raising, fishing and hunting, among other issues (Article 3).

===The Stakeholders===

*United States of America – Federal Government
*Department of State
*Department of Interior - Bureau of Reclamation
*The Committee of Fourteen which represents the Seven Basin States – Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Basin States did not take direct part in the negotiation process. Yet, congressmen of the seven states lobbied the State and Interior Departments.
*The Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District in Arizona. Created by an act of the Arizona State Legislature in 1951, the District provides a legal entity to contract with the United States to repay the cost of the Welton-Mohawk irrigation and drainage projects, and to operate the project facilities.
*Mexico – Federal Government (Under Article 73, XVII of the Federal Constitution of Mexico, Congress has the power to enact laws regarding the use and utilization of waters under federal jurisdiction).
*Ministry of Foreign Relations
*Ministry of Interior

===Resolving the Dispute over Salinity===

The negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico to solve the salinity of the Colorado River lasted a decade before reaching a final solution in 1973. The negotiation process resulted in three Minutes issued by the International Boundary and Water Commission, Minute 218 in 1965, Minute 241 in 1972 and Minute 242 in 1973.

Despite the U.S. maintaining that they had no obligation to a particular standard of water quality under the 1944 Water Treaty, they agreed to enter negotiations with Mexico in 1962. Among the factors inducing the U.S. to join negotiations were the aversion to facing a case brought by Mexico to the International Court of Justice, and the U.S.’s desire to establish friendlier relations with its southern neighbors.

The U.S. law firm Chapman and Friedman, retained by the Mexican government, concluded the U.S. could be held responsible under customary international law for the damages caused by the high salinity levels in the Colorado River. Still, the firm advised Mexico to seek a diplomatic solution rather than going to court. Moreover, it seems possible that the logic behind the U.S. decision to allocate an annual 1.5 allotment of Colorado River water to Mexico established in the 1944 Water Treaty was a result of the U.S. interest in fostering relations with neighboring countries during and after World War II. Likewise, the negotiation process that resulted in Minutes 218, 241 and 242 could have followed a similar pattern and be a result of the interest from the United States to cultivate better relations with Latin America. In support to this argument, leftist and Communists groups had gained strength in the Mexicali region and had focused their attacks both in the U.S. and Mexican governments. It seems likely that the U.S. would have had a particular interest to minimize and contain the rise of Communists groups south from its border and cooperating with Mexico was a way to undermine the progress of these groups.

An initial recommendation from the Department of Interior urged both countries to adopt remedial measures to address the conflict. It also underscored Mexico had faced salinity problems even before the Wellton-Mohawk project was finished, mainly due to agricultural overexpansion in the Colorado Delta. The Bureau of Reclamation suggested the implementation of measures and river regulation plans that would reduce the peak salinity concentrations of water delivered to about 1800 ppm. Mexico refused this first approach for the salinity levels were still be high enough to damage crop yields.

In 1965, the parties agreed to a five-year agreement Minute No. 218 - Recommendations on the Colorado River Salinity Problem. According to Minute 218, the United States would construct (at its expense) a 13-mile channel which would prevent Wellton-Mohawk drainage waters from reaching Mexico’s diversion facilities at the Morelos Dam and instead flow directly to the Gulf of California. Furthermore, these provisions would not constitute any precedent, recognition, or acceptance affecting the rights of either country.

In 1972, Minute No. 241- Recommendations to Improve Immediately the Quality of Colorado River Waters going to Mexico was signed after U.S. and Mexico issued a Joint Communique. This document reflected a mutual interest in finding a solution to the salinity problem. According to the Minute, President Nixon was prepared to “a) undertake certain actions immediately to improve the quality of water going to Mexico; b) designate a special representative to begin work immediately to find a permanent, definitive and just solution of this problem; c) instruct the special representative to submit a report to him by the end of this year; d) submit this proposal, once it has the approval of this Government to President Echeverria for his consideration and approval.”

Based on the instructions from both Governments the commissioners issued a series of recommendations. The new agreement determined the substitution of 118,000 acre-feet with equal volumes of other waters, to be discharged to the Colorado River above the Morelos Dam.
Nixon had appointed Herbert Brownell, former Attorney General of the United States as special representative. Finally, in 1973 the parties agreed to sign Minute No. 242 Permanent and Definitive Solution to the International Problem of the Salinity of the Colorado River. The resolution recognizes the United States obligation to deliver water under certain salinity level. No more than 115 ppm ± 30 ppm measured against the waters which feed the Imperial Dam salinity levels.

===Limitations of Minute 242===

Minute 242, while overall a good outcome, is still insufficient. Considering it a permanent and definitive solution could be wishful thinking at best.
Probably, the greatest success in Minute 242 was the United States acknowledgement of its obligation to provide suitable waters for domestic and irrigation purposes to Mexico and the determination of what seems a reliable parameter, up to 115 ppm ± 30 ppm against the salinity levels in the Imperial Dam. Still, it is important to underscore some limitations to this document. According to Furnish and Ladman (Furnish and Ladman, 1975), Minute 242 was unclear in the following issues: 1) The salinity levels of the waters delivered to Mexico are still undefined. Water quality measured against the salinity in the Imperial Dam leaves room for uncertainty; 2) part of the waters delivered to Mexico are allocated to the San Luis Valley in Sonora.

According to Minute 242, the salinity levels are the same as the waters ordinarily delivered. The water delivered at San Luis comes from the Yuma Valley Division and is a combination of ground water and return flow from the Yuma Mesa Division with high salinity levels, approximately 1700 ppm that are later mixed with waters of the Colorado River waters. Moreover, this document establishes that neither country should take any action for modification or developments of surface or groundwater resources without previous consultation; 3) Water supply as a consequence of the development of the Lower Basin States; 4) Responsibility for damages caused to Mexico although it establishes the improvement and rehabilitation of the Mexicali Valley; and 5) Potential alterations to the ecosystem in the Gulf of California as a consequence of increased salinity levels with potential damages to the fishing industry in the region.

How could these issues have been better addressed? As noted before Minute 242 establishes salinity levels could not exceed 115 ppm ± 30 ppm against the waters which arrive at the Imperial Dam. Yet, this parameter does not guarantee water quality in the Imperial Dam. What would happen if salinity levels in these waters increased to levels that make them unfit for Mexico? Probably a better solution for this could have been either to set certain limits to salinity levels or specify that Mexico could only accept water whose salinity levels were suitable for the specific crops in the region.

What does “…salinity substantially the same as that of the waters customarily delivered there” mean? Isn’t this language as ambiguous as the 1944 Water Treaty was at a time? If, as noted by Furnish and Ladman, 1975, the waters allocated to the San Luis Valley in Sonora are a mix of waters of ground water and return flow from the Yuma Mesa Division which has high salinity levels before getting mixed with the Colorado River waters, does the substantially same salinity refer to the salinity levels before the waters are mixed with the Colorado River waters or after they are mixed? Logic and good faith would suggest the latter, but the omission demands clarity. As for point 6 of the Minute, what does consultation “prior to undertaking any new development of either the surface or the groundwater resources, or undertaking substantial modifications of present developments, in its own territory in the border area that might adversely affect the other country” mean? Does consultation mean mere notifications or the need of an express authorization from the other party? Can parties oppose the development of surface or ground water resources across their borders? How to determine what might or might not affect the other party?

Moreover, there are some other issues worth noticing in addition to the above mentioned. Minute 242 recognizes that the U.S. has an obligation to deliver water of quality to Mexico, not only related to the salinity levels but in general terms. This obligation to water quality can be interpreted from the content of Minute 242 which establishes that “It is understood that no radioactive material or nuclear wastes shall be discharged through this drain..” Even though, the Minute does not refer to pollutants other than radioactiva material or nuclear wastes, good faith and logic, make it clear that the same reasoning can be applied to other materials that affect water quality. This is particularly relevant under the current circumstances. If the Government of the United States builds a wall between Mexico and the U.S. and as a consequence of the erection of it pollutes waters that are to be delivered to Mexico, the United States could potentially be violating its obligations to Mexico.

Moreover, probably the most pressing issue is climate change and how it could affect the Colorado River. A recent study published by the Water Resources Research journal centers its analysis in the annual flow reductions in the Colorado River in the 2000-2014 period which represented 19.3% below the 1906-1999 average. Flow losses are a consequence of high temperatures and lack of precipitation, both direct consequences of climate change. But high temperatures will increase evaporation from water bodies and soils too. Though many of the consequences of climate change are still uncertain there is high confidence on the increase of temperatures. This study addresses the decrease of flow (quantity). Still, these same factors, high temperatures and lack of precipitation, could have a further negative impact by increasing the salinity levels in the Colorado River.

===Way Forward===

Minute 242 is neither a “permanent” nor “definitive” solution to the salinity problem. Law is not and should never be static. Law evolves and adapts to reality as it unfolds. As mentioned before, climate change is one of the pressing issues in the global agenda. There are few certainties regarding climate change. Yet, increase of the global temperatures is one thing we can be certain of. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, each decade has proven to be warmer than the previous one, and the period from 1983 to 2012 was the warmest of the last 1400 years. Salinity levels have increased in regions where evaporation dominates, whereas other waters have become fresher as precipitation has increased. For the case of the Colorado Basin, it appears the tendency is an increase in temperatures. Temperatures in the Upper Basin are currently 0.9 degrees Celsius above the 1896-1999 period.

All of this makes it is most likely that the U.S. and Mexico will meet again to further negotiate, among other issues in the bilateral agenda, the salinity levels from the Colorado River waters, which could rise as a consequence of climate change. Minute 242 is a good starting point, for it has clarified loopholes left by the 1944 Water Treaty. A clear example is the parties approach to value creation where the U.S. committed to install a desalting plant to reduce the salinity of the Wellton-Mohawk drainage water or replacing 118,000 acre feet of water pumped out of Arizona’s Yuma Mesa and/or taken from above the imperial Dam. Moreover, other negotiations such as Minute 319 on the allocation and management of shared waters prove the U.S. and Mexico are capable of reaching mutual understanding and cooperation, and consequently mutual gains. The success in these negotiations can make us hope for further collaboration between the U.S. and Mexico.

Further negotiations should include other stakeholders aside from the Federal agencies of both governments. The presence of the Seven Basin States is crucial to get a better understanding of the state’s interests as well as to guarantee the implementation of any resolution, due to the power of states over water management. Their participation in the negotiation process of Minute 319 sets a precedent and it is likely that from now on they will take part in the bilateral negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico. NGOs also proved to be very useful in the negotiations towards Minute 319 so it would be expected to have them as interlocutors. The Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District in Arizona is another important stakeholder since it is an independent political entity which overviews irrigation works and water utilities. As for Mexico, representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Relations or the Ministry of Interior would be the main stakeholders. But its is possible that some other governmental agencies could be interested in joining a negotiation process such as the Ministry of Energy or Ministry of Economy to name two examples. As mentioned before, water is a federal matter and thus, the states of Baja California and Sonora would not have a direct participation in any process.

In this case joint fact finding and scenario planning could be particularly challenging. As mentioned before the current reference of 115 ppm ± 30 ppm against the waters which arrive at the Imperial Dam is still ambiguous. Ideally, the parties should determine a range for what is consider an acceptable salinity level for irrigation purposes considering the crops that are grown or have been grown in the Mexicali Valley region. Other challenges are related to climate change and its uncertain consequences. So far, we can be certain of an increase in temperature globally and an increase in temperature in the Upper Colorado Basin of 0.9 degrees Celsius. Such factors would potentially lead to evaporation and thus higher salinity levels in the Colorado River Waters. In addition to the decrease in water quality, the decrease in quantity is also looming. This is an issue that should be addressed once the negotiations for the renewal of Minute 319 start in December 2017.

Value creation will also be challenging in this case where quality or quantity could potentially be affected as a consequence of climate change. Still, it is almost certain that both parties will have to adapt to new circumstances. New policies and implementation of technologies have to be develop to mitigate climate change and to adapt to those changes already occurring, it is worth considering some ideas that were proposed before. In this context, the installation of additional desalting plants as well as considering the introduction of different crops that could be resistant to more saline water in both countries are options worth evaluating. Furthermore, it is relevant to determine if there are technologies available that could allow the capture of the water that is evaporating. If this is technologies are not available, could the parties start working on ways to develop such technologies? Is it possible to think in terms of relocation of people to reduce the demand of water?

Finally, it is clear that the panorama is both complex and uncertain and whatever decision is taken will be far from “permanent or definitive”, particularly due to the impact of climate change. All stakeholders involved will have to adopt a collaborative adaptive management (CAM) approach. This should imply the opportunity to revise decisions within a defined timeframe. It seems likely that there will be a phase of trial and error and everyone involved should be aware of this.

===Timeline: Salinity of the Colorado River Conflict between the U.S. and Mexico===
{{{!}} class="wikitable"
! style="width:15%;"{{!}} Year !! style="width:75%;" {{!}} Event Description
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1944 {{!}}{{!}} Mexico and the U.S. signed the “Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande from Fort Quitman, Texas to the Gulf of Mexico” also known as the 1944 Treaty.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1945 {{!}}{{!}} Ratification of the “Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande from Fort Quitman, Texas to the Gulf of Mexico.”
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1961 {{!}}{{!}} The salinity levels of the Colorado River rose from 800 ppm to 2700 ppm as a consequence of the construction of the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation Project used to transport saline waters into the Colorado River.
{{!}}-
{{!}}1962 {{!}}{{!}} Negotiation process between the U.S. and Mexico to address the salinity crisis start.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1965 {{!}}{{!}} The parties agreed on a five-year agreement Minute No. 218. The United States would construct at its expense an extension to the Wellton-Mohawk District’s drainage channel which would allow the discharge of the waters to the bed of the river above or below the Morelos Dam flowing directly to the Gulf of California. The U.S. insists it does not have any obligation regarding water quality.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1972 {{!}}{{!}} Joint Communique issued by the Mexican and American governments, where the latter committed to: a) undertake certain actions immediately to improve the quality of water going to Mexico; b) designate a special representative to begin work immediately to find a permanent, definitive and just solution of this problem; c) instruct the special representative to submit a report to him by the end of this year; d) submit this proposal, once it has the approval of this Government to President Echeverria for his consideration and approval.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1972 {{!}}{{!}} The parties issue Minute No. 241 The new agreement determined the substitution of 118,000 acre-feet with equal volumes of other waters, to be discharged to the Colorado River above the Morelos Dam.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1973 {{!}}{{!}} The parties issue Minute No. 242 The resolution recognizes the United States obligation to deliver water under certain salinity level. No more than 115 ppm ± 30 ppm measured against the waters which feed the Imperial Dam salinity levels.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1974 {{!}}{{!}} Passage of the legislation PL 93-320 that confirms the content of Minute 242.
{{!}}}
|Summary=During the 1960s the salinity levels in the Colorado River increased considerably. This situation was triggered by the construction of the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation Project, a 50-mile-long channel, completed in 1961 in Southwestern Arizona which was used to transport highly salinated waters into the Colorado River which then began flowing into Mexico. The salinity concentration increased from 800 parts per million (ppm) to 2700 ppm making the Colorado River waters useless for irrigation purposes. Mexico had no choice but to let those waters flow into the Gulf of California. Consequently, these circumstances led to significant crop losses for Mexico, who accused the United States of breaching the 1944 Water Treaty between them. In response to these accusations the United States argued they had no obligation with respect to the quality of water but were willing to send fresh water. The U.S. stressed that this 'good faith' measure should not be considered a precedent.The negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico to solve the salinity of the Colorado River lasted a decade before reaching a final solution in 1973. The negotiation process resulted in three Minutes issued by the International Boundary and Water Commission, Minute 218 in 1965, Minute 241 in 1972 and Minute 242 in 1973.
|Topic Tags={{Topic Tag
|Topic Tag=Salinity of the Colorado River; water conflicts between the U.S. and Mexico
}}
|Refs=*Furnish, D. B., & Ladman, J. R. (January 1975). The Colorado river salinity agreement of 1973 and the Mexicali valley. ''Natural Resources Journal'',15 (1), 83-107.

*History. (2004). Retrieved May 14, 2017, from http://www.wmidd.org/history.html

*Hundley, N. (1966). Dividing the waters: a century of controversy between the United States and Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press.

*DeMarsay, A. (n.d.). The Bronwell Task Force and the Mexican Salinity Problem: A Narrative Chronology of events. Retrieved May 17, 2017, from http://www.coloradoriversalinity.org/docs/The%20Brownell%20Task%20Force%20and%20the%20Mexican%20Salinity%20Problem,%20A%20Narrative%20Chronology%20of%20Events.pdf

*Treaties Between the U.S. and Mexico. (n.d.). Retrieved May 14, 2017, from https://www.ibwc.gov/Treaties_Minutes/treaties.html

*Umoff, A. A. (2008). An Analysis of the 1944 U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty: Its Past, Present, and Future. University of California, Davis,32(1), 71-98. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from https://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/volumes/32/1/umoff.pdf.

*General. (2004). Retrieved May 14, 2017, from http://www.wmidd.org/general.html

*Constitution of Mexico. (n.d.). Retrieved May 16, 2017, from https://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/mex/en_mex-int-text-const.pdf

*Kneese, A. V. (1975). A theoretical Analysis of Minute 242. Natural Resources Journal,15(1), 135-140. Retrieved May 15, 2017, from http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals%2Fnarj15&div=20&id=&page=

*Exteriores, S. D. (n.d.). Actas de la CILA MEX-EUA. Retrieved May 16, 2017, from http://www.gob.mx/sre/acciones-y-programas/actas-de-la-cila-mex-eua

*Udall, B., & Overpeck, J. (2017). The twenty-first century Colorado River hot drought and implications for the future. Water Resources Research,53(3), 2404-2418. doi:10.1002/2016wr019638

*Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers. 2-31., p. 2 Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
|External Links=
|Case Review={{Case Review Boxes
|Empty Section=No
|Clean Up Required=No
|Expand Section=No
|Add References=No
|Wikify=No
|connect to www=No
|Out of Date=No
|Disputed=No
|MPOV=No
|ForceDiv=yes
}}
}}

How do national policies influence water use at the local level?

2025-12-12T07:29:03Z

Administrator: Replaced content with "{{Key Question Page |Key Question Category=Power and Politics }}"

Template:Key Question

2025-12-04T06:31:23Z

Administrator:

<noinclude>
This is the "Key Question" template.
It should be called in the following format:
<pre>
{{Key Question
|Subject
|Key Question - Transboundary
|Key Question - Desalination
|Key Question - Dams
|Key Question - Urban
|Key Question - Influence
|Key Question - Industries
|Key Question Description
}}
</pre>
Edit the page to see the template text.
</noinclude><includeonly>

{{#if: {{{Subject|}}} | '''{{{Subject|}}}:''' }}
''''' {{#if: {{{Key Question - Transboundary|}}} | [[Key Question::{{{Key Question - Transboundary|}}} ]] | {{#if: {{{Key Question - Urban|}}} | [[Key Question::{{{Key Question - Urban|}}}]] | {{#if: {{{Key Question - Dams|}}} | [[Key Question::{{{Key Question - Dams|}}}]] | {{#if: {{{Key Question - Desalination|}}} | [[Key Question::{{{Key Question - Desalination|}}}]] | {{#if: {{{Key Question - Influence|}}} | [[Key Question::{{{Key Question - Influence|}}}]] | {{#if: {{{Key Question - Industries|}}} | [[Key Question::{{{Key Question - Industries|}}}]] | }} }} }} }} }} }}'''''

{{#if: {{{Key Question Description|}}} | {{{Key Question Description|}}} | no description entered }}

{{#subobject:
|Question={{{Key Question - Dams|}}}{{{Key Question - Urban|}}}{{{Key Question - Transboundary|}}}{{{Key Question - Desalination|}}}{{{Key Question - Influence|}}}{{{Key Question - Industries|}}}
|Answer={{{Key Question Description|}}}
|Case Study={{PAGENAME}}
}}

</includeonly>

Template:Case Description

2025-12-04T03:11:11Z

Administrator:

<noinclude>
This is the "Case Description" template. It should be called in the following format:
<pre>
{{Case Description
|Geolocation=
|Population=
|Area=
|Climate=
|Land Use=
|Water Use=
|Water Features=
|Water Projects=
|Agreements=
|Riparian=
}}
</pre>
Edit the page to see the template text.
</noinclude>
<includeonly>
<div class="section-right-box">'''Case Description'''
{{#display_point:{{{Geolocation|}}} | width=200 | height=200 | zoom=3}}
<table style="text-align: left; font-size:10px; width:100%; border-collapse: collapse;">
{{#if: {{{Geolocation|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Geolocation:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">[[Geolocation::{{{Geolocation}}}]]</td>
</tr>
}}
{{#if: {{{Population|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Total Population:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">[[Population::{{{Population}}}]] million</td>
</tr>
}}
{{#if: {{{Area|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Total Area:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">[[Area::{{{Area}}}]] km<sup>2</sup></td>
</tr>
}}
{{#if: {{{Climate|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Climate Descriptors:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">[[Climate::{{{Climate}}}]]</td>
</tr>
}}
{{#if: {{{Land Use|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Predominent Land Use Descriptors:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">[[Land Use::{{{Land Use}}}]]</td>
</tr>
}}
{{#if: {{{Water Use|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Important Uses of Water:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">[[Water Use::{{{Water Use}}}]]</td>
</tr>
}}
{{#if: {{{Water Features|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Water Features:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">{{{Water Features}}}</td>
</tr>
}}
{{#if: {{{Riparians|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Riparians:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">{{{Riparians}}}</td>
</tr>
}}
{{#if: {{{Water Projects|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Water Projects:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">{{{Water Projects}}}</td>
</tr>
}}
{{#if: {{{Agreements|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Agreements:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">{{{Agreements}}}</td>
</tr>
}}
</table>
</div>
</includeonly>

Template:Case Description

2025-12-04T02:56:25Z

Administrator:

<noinclude>
This is the "Case Description" template. It should be called in the following format:
<pre>
{{Case Description
|Geolocation=
|Population=
|Area=
|Climate=
|Land Use=
|Water Use=
|Water Features=
|Water Projects=
|Agreements=
|Riparian=
}}
</pre>
Edit the page to see the template text.
</noinclude>
<includeonly>
<div class="section-right-box">'''Case Description'''
{{#display_point:{{{Geolocation|}}} | width=200 | height=200 | zoom=3}}
<table style="text-align: left; font-size:10px; width:100%; border-collapse: collapse;">
{{#if: {{{Geolocation|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Geolocation:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">[[Geolocation::{{{Geolocation}}}]]</td>
</tr>
}}
{{#if: {{{Population|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Total Population:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">[[Population::{{{Population}}}]] million</td>
</tr>
}}
{{#if: {{{Area|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Total Area:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">[[Area::{{{Area}}}]] km<sup>2</sup></td>
</tr>
}}
{{#if: {{{Climate|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Climate Descriptors:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">[[Climate::{{{Climate}}}]]</td>
</tr>
}}
{{#if: {{{Land Use|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Predominent Land Use Descriptors:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">[[Land Use::{{{Land Use}}}]]</td>
</tr>
}}
{{#if: {{{Water Use|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Important Uses of Water:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">[[Water Use::{{{Water Use}}}]]</td>
</tr>
}}
{{#if: {{{Water Features|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Water Features:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">[[Water Feature::{{{Water Features}}}]]</td>
</tr>
}}
{{#if: {{{Riparians|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Riparians:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">[[Riparian::{{{Riparians}}}]]</td>
</tr>
}}
{{#if: {{{Water Projects|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Water Projects:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">[[Water Project::{{{Water Projects}}}]]</td>
</tr>
}}
{{#if: {{{Agreements|}}} |
<tr>
<th style="padding: 4px; text-align: left; vertical-align: top; font-weight: normal;">Agreements:</th>
<td style="padding: 4px;">[[Agreement::{{{Agreements}}}]]</td>
</tr>
}}
</table>
</div>
</includeonly>

Template:Case Description

2025-12-04T02:54:05Z

Administrator: Fix table headers - use proper MediaWiki table syntax

Template:Case Description

2025-12-04T02:50:52Z

Administrator:

Template:Key Question Page

2025-11-30T03:57:05Z

Administrator:

<noinclude>
This is the "Key Question Page" template.
It should be called in the following format:
<pre>
{{Key Question Page
|Key Question Category=
}}
</pre>
Edit the page to see the template text.
</noinclude><includeonly>
''Key Question Categor(ies):[[Key Question Category::{{{Key Question Category|}}}]]''

{{#ask:[[Question::{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}]] |mainlabel=-
| ?Case Study
| ?Answer#
| format=list
| sep= 
| intro=
| default=No case studies currently include this question.
| template=Case and Answer
}}

[[Category:Key Question]]
__NOTOC__
</includeonly>

File:CASonoma.png

2025-10-14T09:41:59Z

Administrator:

File:Sal2.png

2025-10-14T09:19:18Z

Administrator: Administrator uploaded a new version of File:Sal2.png

Change in Groundwater Level 2004-2014

Groundwater Information Center, CA Department of Water Resources

Browse Cases

2025-10-14T08:58:11Z

Administrator:

Browse by:

=Map=
{{#ask:
[[Category:Case Study]]
| ?Geolocation
| format=map
| height=300
| width=900
}}

=Key Question=
{{#ask:[[Category:Key Question Category]]
| format=template
| template=Key Questions in Category
| link=none
}}

=Attribute Lists=

Here are lists of specific properties from cases studies.

You can '''use the [[Special:BrowseData/Case_Study|DrillDown Tool to browse multiple properties at the same time]].'''
<BR><BR><BR>
<hr />

''Select from a list of cases that include one or more of these [[Property: NSPD | Natural, Societal or Political Domain Variables]]:''

*[[Water Quantity]]
*[[Water Quality]]
*[[Ecosystems]]
*[[Governance]]
*[[Assets]]
*[[Values and Norms]]

''Select from a list of cases that include one or more of these primary [[Property:Land Use | land uses]]:''
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Land-20Use/agricultural-2D-20cropland-20and-20pasture | agricultural- cropland and pasture]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Land-20Use/agricultural-2D-20confined-20livestock-20operations | agricultural- confined livestock operations]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Land-20Use/conservation-20lands| conservation lands]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Land-20Use/industrial-20use | industrial use]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Land-20Use/mining-20operations | mining operations]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Land-20Use/forest-20land | forest land]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Land-20Use/rangeland | rangeland]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Land-20Use/urban | urban]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Land-20Use/urban-2D-20high-20density | urban- high density]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Land-20Use/religious-2Fcultural-20sites | religious/cultural sites]]

''Select from a list of cases that include one or more of these [[Property:Water Use | water uses]]''

*[[Special:SearchByProperty/Water-20Use/Agriculture-20or-20Irrigation | Agriculture or Irrigation]]
*[[Special:SearchByProperty/Water-20Use/Domestic-2FUrban-20Supply | Domestic/Urban Supply]]
*[[Special:SearchByProperty/Water-20Use/Fisheries-20-2D-20wild | Fisheries - wild]]
*[[Special:SearchByProperty/Water-20Use/Fisheries-20-2D-20farmed | Fisheries - farmed]]
*[[Special:SearchByProperty/Water-20Use/Hydropower-20Generation | Hydropower Generation]]
*[[Special:SearchByProperty/Water-20Use/Industry-20-2D-20consumptive-20use | Industry - consumptive use]]
*[[Special:SearchByProperty/Water-20Use/Industry-20-2D-20non-2Dconsumptive-20use | Industry - non-consumptive use]]
*[[Special:SearchByProperty/Water-20Use/Livestock | Livestock]]
*[[Special:SearchByProperty/Water-20Use/Mining-2FExtraction-20support | Mining/Extraction support]]
*[[Special:SearchByProperty/Water-20Use/Other-20Ecological-20Services | Other Ecological Services]]
*[[Special:SearchByProperty/Water-20Use/Recreation-20or-20Tourism | Recreation or Tourism]]

''Select from a list of cases that include one or more of these [[Property: Stakeholder Type | stakeholder types]]''

* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Stakeholder-20Type/Federated-20state-2Fterritorial-2Fprovincial-20government | Federated state/territorial/provincial government]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Stakeholder-20Type/Sovereign-20state-2Fnational-2Ffederal-20government | Sovereign state/national/federal government]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Stakeholder-20Type/Local-20Government | Local Government]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Stakeholder-20Type/Supranational-20union | Supranational union]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Stakeholder-20Type/Non-2Dlegislative-20governmental-20agency | Non-legislative governmental agency]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Stakeholder-20Type/Development-2Fhumanitarian-20interest | Development/humanitarian interest]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Stakeholder-20Type/Environmental-20interest | Environmental interest]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Stakeholder-20Type/Industry-2FCorporate-20Interest | Industry/Corporate Interest]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Stakeholder-20Type/Community-20or-20organized-20citizens | Community or organized citizens]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Stakeholder-20Type/Cultural-20Interest | Cultural Interest]]

''Select from a list of cases that mention one of these [[Property:Climate | climate types]]''

* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Climate/Moist-20tropical-20(Köppen-20A-2Dtype) | Moist tropical (Köppen A-type)]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Climate/Semi-2Darid-2Fsteppe-20(Köppen-20B-2Dtype)| Semi-arid/steppe (Köppen B-type)]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Climate/Arid-2Fdesert-20(Köppen-20B-2Dtype) | Arid/desert (Köppen B-type) ]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Climate/Humid-20mid-2Dlatitude-20(Köppen-20C-2Dtype) | Humid mid-latitude (Köppen C-type)]]
* [[Special:SearchByProperty/Climate/Continental-20(Köppen-20D-2Dtype) | Continental (Köppen D-type)]]
:Additional Descriptors
:*[[Special:SearchByProperty/Climate/Moist | Moist]]
:*[[Special:SearchByProperty/Climate/Monsoon | Monsoon]]
:*[[Special:SearchByProperty/Climate/Dry-2Dsummer | Dry-summer]]
:*[[Special:SearchByProperty/Climate/Dry-2Dwinter | Dry-winter]]
:*[[Special:SearchByProperty/Climate/cold-2Dclimate-20(permafrost,-20tundra,-20polar) | cold-climate (permafrost, tundra, polar) ]]
:*[[Special:SearchByProperty/Climate/temperate | temperate]]
:*[[Special:SearchByProperty/Climate/alpine | alpine]]

=Query Cases by Attribute=

You can search the database for cases by attributes. Below are some sample queries that you may find useful. Each item you select will limit the search results to only include cases that meet '''all''' selected criteria. If you do not get useful results, you may need to broaden your query. Selecting more than ~10 limiting options may cause errors in your results.

These property tags are added by volunteer contributing authors and editors, and some cases may not be properly or completely tagged. If you notice such a case, please contact and administrator so that we can improve the quality of query results.

''Overly detailed query requests may produce no results or errors in your search results. Anyone can use the [[Special:Ask | Semantic Mediawiki Query ]] interface to build their own complex queries using [http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Selecting_pages Semantic Query Language].''

{|
| {{#queryformlink:form=Query_Case_Study_Attributes | link text=Query by Attributes }} -- variables, stakeholder groups, and land/water uses
|-
|{{#queryformlink:form=Query_Case_Study_Infrastructure| link text=Query by Key Infrastructure Attributes}} -- types of built and characteristics of organizations or agreements
|-
|{{#queryformlink:form=Query_Case_Study_Geography | link text=Query by Geographic Attributes}} -- water resources and riparians
|}

=List All Cases and Articles=
==Case Studies==
{{#ask: [[Category:Case Study]]
| format=ul
| default=There are no case studies }}

==Agreements==
{{#ask: [[Category:Agreement]]
| format=ul
| default=There are no Agreement Articles !}}

==Riparians==
{{#ask: [[Category:Riparian]]
| format=ul
| default=There are no Riparian Articles !}}

==Water Features==
{{#ask: [[Category:Water Feature]]
| format=ul
| default=There are no water feature articles}}

==Water Project==
{{#ask: [[Category:Water Project]]
| format=ul
| default=There are no water project articles}}

<headertabs />

The Bear River Compact

2025-10-14T02:09:22Z

Administrator:

{{Case Study
|Water Use=Agriculture or Irrigation, Domestic/Urban Supply, Hydropower Generation, Industry - consumptive use, Industry - non-consumptive use, Recreation or Tourism
|Land Use=agricultural- cropland and pasture, conservation lands, urban, urban- high density
|Climate=Semi-arid/steppe (Köppen B-type); Arid/desert (Köppen B-type)
|Area=19,425
|Geolocation=42.153223312399, -111.15692138672
|Issues=
|Key Questions=
|Water Feature=
|Riparian=
|Water Project=
|Agreement=
|REP Framework=== Geographic Facts ==

The Bear River originates in the Uinta Mountains in eastern Utah. It briefly flows north into the southwestern corner of Wyoming before crossing back into northern Utah. As the river continues northward it veers back into Wyoming and then begins a northwestern trajectory as it crosses into the southeastern corner of Idaho. It passes through the Bear Lake Valley where a series of canals connect the river to Bear Lake, which is used as a water storage reservoir and also for hydropower generation. The river turns south at Soda Springs and winds through the Cache Valley, eventually crossing back into northern Utah and ultimately emptying into the eastern side of the Great Salt Lake, 90 miles from its headwaters.

The vast majority of the Bear River’s water derives from precipitation that comes in the form of snowfall from the mountains surrounding the basin. An estimated 4 million acre-feet of the precipitation originates in Utah, 2.3 million and 2.0 million acre-feet come from Idaho and Wyoming, respectively. <ref name="Sehlke et al 2005"> Sehlke, Gerald, and Jake Jacobson. 2005. "System dynamics modeling of transboundary systems: the bear river basin model." Ground Water 43, no. 5: 722-730.</ref> The Bear River is the Great Salt Lake’s biggest source of fresh water, making up about 60% of the lake’s inflow.<ref name ="Utah Water Research Laboratory"> Utah Water Research Laboratory and Utah State Univeresity. 2011. "Bear River Watershed Description." - Bear River Watershed. http://www.bearriverinfo.org/htm/bear-river-watershed-description</ref> It is approximately 490 miles in length and drains an area of 6,900 square miles.

== Uses ==

=== Overview ===

Irrigation has been the primary human use of the Bear River since it began to be developed in the mid 1800s. Since then, the river has also become a source of hydropower and municipal water. As the Bear River Basin has become more populated in recent years, and land that was previously agricultural or undeveloped is being converted into housing, a growing portion of the river’s flow is being used for human consumption, although irrigation usage has not decreased. Additionally, the Bear River provides habitat for species such as Bonneville trout and is an important source of freshwater for the Great Salt Lake and its surrounding wetlands.

==== Agriculture ====

Irrigation accounts for the vast majority of withdrawals from the Bear River.<ref name="Sehlke et al 2005" /> The river currently irrigates half a million acres of land, and has been used for agricultural purposes since the 1860s.<ref name="Bear River Commission 2013"> Bear River Commission. 2013. "Seventeenth Biennial Report." . http://bearrivercommission.org/docs/17th%20BIENNIAL%20-%20Final.pdf</ref> A 2009 study by the Utah Division of Water Resources measured over 250,000 acres of irrigated land in the Bear River Basin within the state’s boundaries. The majority of irrigated crop land in Utah is used for alfalfa (33.53%), grass hay (21.35%), grain (17.5%), pasture (17.18%) or corn (8.63%).<ref name="Bear River Commission 2009">Bear River Commission. 2009. “2009 Depletions Update.” http://bearrivercommission.org/docs/Tech%20Memo%20-%20Depletions%20-%20Complete%20Document%202014-03-26.pdf </ref> Similar crops are grown in the Wyoming and Idaho portions of the Basin. During the May to September growing season, only five to six inches of rain fall in the lower elevation areas of the Basin. Average crop requirements during this time are 20 to 30 inches. Water impounded from the Bear River is used to make up the difference. <ref name="Utah Department of Natural Resources 2010">Utah Department of Natural Resources. 2010. “Bear River Watershed” – Great Salt Lake Information System. http://www.greatsaltlakeinfo.org/Background/BearRiver</ref>

==== Power Generation and the Bear Lake Reservoir ====

Over its 490-mile course from the Unita Mountains to the Great Salt Lake, the Bear River drops roughly 9,000 feet in elevation. The river’s inertia has been seized to generate hydroelectric power since early in the 20th Century. Today there are six hydroelectric plants along the river. <ref name="Utah Department of Natural Resources 2010" />

Bear Lake is the most significant manmade alteration to the Bear River’s flow. The 110 square-mile lake straddles the eastern edge of the Utah-Idaho border and is connected to the Bear River by a series of inflowing and outflowing canals.<ref name="Sehlke et al 2005" /> The Bear River was naturally connected to Bear Lake roughly 12,000 years ago, but the waterbodies became separated as the West grew more arid at the end of the last ice age.<ref name="Palacios et al 2007">Palacios, Patsy; Luecke, Chris; and Robinson, Justin (2007) "History of human impact on Bear Lake," Natural Resources and Environmental Issues: Vol. 14, Article 4.</ref> The lake’s potential for water storage and irrigation was identified in the late 1800s and in the 1910s the Telluride Power Company constructed several canals between the lake and the river.

The lake’s storage capacity has been increased by a series of levies and is currently estimated at 6,500,000 acre-feet. Water released from the lake irrigates over 150,000 acres and is responsible for 94% of the hydropower generated by the Bear River.<ref name="Palacios et al 2007" /> Utah Power and Light is currently responsible for the management of lake levels, although their decisions are heavily regulated by the Bear River Compact. Nearly the entire flow of the Bear River is diverted into Bear Lake, with the exception of extremely high flow years. <ref name="Sehlke et al 2005" /> The system of using Bear Lake to store and release water from the Bear River has helped turn the river into a year-round water source in spite of its highly seasonal flow patterns.

==== Municipal and Industrial Usage ====

When compared with irrigation, municipal and industrial (M&I) depletions make up a small percentage of withdrawals from the Bear River. In Utah, an estimated water usage budget published in 2004 by the state’s Division of Water Resources allocated 21,000 acre-feet for M&I depletions. 536,000 and 340,000 acre-feet were estimated for agricultural depletions and wetland/riparian depletions, respectively. A remainder of 1,200,000 acre-feet flowed into the Great Salt Lake. <ref name="Utah Division of Water Resources 2004">Utah Division of Water Resources. 2004. “Bear River Basin: Planning for the Future” Utah State Water Plans. http://www.water.utah.gov/planning/SWP/bear/bearRiver-1A.pdf</ref>

Large population increases are projected throughout the Bear River Basin, especially within the Wasatch Front and around Bear Lake. Utah has plans to develop and store 220,000 acre-feet of water from the lower Bear River to meet future demand projections.<ref name="Bear River Commission 2013" />

==== Environmental Needs ====

The Bear River accounts for nearly 2/3rds of the freshwater inflow to the Great Salt Lake, a highly saline lake that supports a simple but productive ecosystem that includes brine shrimp, brine flies and several species of algae. Over 257 species of birds, many of them migratory, utilize the lake and its surrounding wetlands, including the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, an 80,000 acre preserve of marshes and open water. Prior to the river’s development, an estimated 1,750,000 acre-feet of Bear River water flowed into the Great Salt Lake annually. Today the number is closer to one million acre-feet.<ref name="Bear River Commission 2013" />

The Bear River is also habitat for the Bonneville cutthroat trout, a native species that has seen its numbers fall due to dams and other impoundments along the river though efforts are being made to remediate some of these impacts. <ref name="Hydropower Reform Coalition 2009">Hydropower Reform Coalition. 2009. “Restoration of the Bear River, Idaho” Hydropower Reform Coalition Success Story. http://www.hydroreform.org/sites/default/files/BearRiver_FINAL_1_0.pdf</ref>

== The Bear River Compact ==

=== Pre Compact ===
The need for an interstate agreement between Utah, Wyoming and Idaho regarding management of the Bear River became clear during a drought that lasted from 1931 to 1935.<ref name="Jibson 1991">Jibson, Wallace N. 1991. “History of the Bear River Compact” Bear River Commission. http://waterrights.utah.gov/techinfo/bearrivc/history.html</ref> Conflicts arose between upstream and downstream users over storage rights (especially regarding the Bear Lake reservoir) and irrigation allowances.<ref name="Boyce 1996">Boyce, Jeff. 1996. "Wrestling with the bear: A compact approach to water allocation." BYU Journal Of Public Law 10, no. 2: 301.</ref> During this period Utah Power and Light was relying on Bear Lake releases for an estimated 75% of their system-wide power generation. <ref name="Jibson 1991" />

The three states first met to discuss joint management of the river in 1943. The approach of adopting a compact was seen as preferable to federal legislation or litigation. The United States Constitution allows for the formation of interstate compacts, which must ultimately be approved by congress. Formal negotiations began in 1946 and lasted nine years. <ref name="Boyce 1996" />

=== First Compact ===

The first Bear River Compact was enacted into law on March 17th, 1958. In the agreement, the management of the river was split into three sections: the Upper Division (from the Unita Mountains to Pixley Dam in Wyoming), the Middle Division (from Pixley Dam to Stewart Dam in Idaho), and the Lower Division (from Stewart Dam to the Great Salt Lake, including Bear Lake).

The compact included allocations for surface water diversion, which only apply during times of shortage if divertable flow drops below predetermined levels.<ref name="Boyce 1996" /> Allocation is treated differently in each of the three divisions.

In the Upper Division, drought-time divertable flow allocation is determined by the percentage of irrigable acres in each state: 58.9% in Wyoming and 41.1% in Utah. The original compact set storage allocations for the Upper Division as well: 324 acre-feet in Idaho, 11,850 acre-feet in Utah and 2,150 acre-feet in Wyoming.

The Central Division uses similar provisions to divide Bear River waters between Wyoming and Idaho. Irrigation acreage determines flow allocations, with 43% going to Idaho and 57% going to Wyoming.

In original compact does not include flow allocations in the Lower Division. This was primarily because, at the time of negotiations, the Bear Lake reservoir system that had been developed early in the century had almost never failed to provide enough water for to meet the needs of all downstream users (with the exception of a drought year in 1934). The negotiators opted to avoid the potential controversies of divvying up allocations between Idaho and Utah users in the Lower Division. A priority system was included in the compact in case of controversies between Idaho and Utah users of the downstream waters. The compact also contained provisions establishing minimum “irrigation reserve” Bear Lake levels and ensured that future upstream development would not affect them.<ref name="Boyce 1996" />

=== Updated Compact ===

The terms of the original compact stipulate that the document be amended at intervals of no less than 20 years. The Amended Bear River Compact was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on February 8th, 1980. This document was updated by the Bear River Commission in 1998.<ref name="Boyce 1996" />

The Amended Compact granted significant additional storage rights above Bear Lake to Utah, Wyoming and Idaho with the provision that additional storage not infringe upon the allocations to downstream users during times of shortage. Utah and Idaho were both granted the right to develop additional water in the Lower Division downstream of Bear Lake (125,000 acre-feet in Idaho and 275,000 acre-feet in Utah).<ref name="Boyce 1996" />

|Summary=The Bear River charts a winding, 490-mile horseshoe-shaped course from the Utita Mountains in eastern Utah, up into Wyoming and Idaho, and then back down into Utah where it empties into the Great Salt Lake, 90 miles from its point of origin. The river goes back and forth across state borders several times, making a total of five crossings.

The Bear River is heavily developed and is used primarily for agricultural irrigation. The river is also utilized to generate hydropower and, increasingly, as a municipal water source. The State of Utah has plans to develop the lower stretch of the Bear River to provide water for the rapidly growing population of the Wasatch Front. The river provides water to several important wetland areas and accounts for 60% of the freshwater inflow to the Great Salt Lake.

Allocation and management of the Bear River is governed by the Bear River Compact, an interstate agreement between Utah, Wyoming and Idaho that became law on March 17th, 1958. The Bear River Commission was established to oversee and carry out the Compact. Each state has three representatives on the Commission in addition to a tenth non-voting, federally-appointed commissioner. The current version of the compact, known as the Amended Bear River Compact, was instated February 8th, 1980 and updated in 1998.
|Topic Tags=
|External Links=
|Case Review={{Case Review Boxes
|Empty Section=No
|Clean Up Required=No
|Expand Section=No
|Add References=No
|Wikify=No
|connect to www=No
|Out of Date=No
|Disputed=No
|MPOV=No
|ForceDiv=yes
}}
}}

Main Page

2025-10-11T04:50:03Z

Administrator:

Main Page

2025-10-11T02:02:58Z

Administrator:

Welcome to '''AquaPedia Case Study Database'''

This is the main page of the AquaPedia Case Study Database, part of the WATER DIPLOMACY project.

== About AquaPedia ==

AquaPedia is a comprehensive case study database focused on water diplomacy and conflict resolution.

== Getting Started ==

* [[Special:AllPages|Browse all pages]]
* [[Special:RecentUpdates|Recent changes]]
* [[Special:Random|Random page]]

== Navigation ==

* [[Main_Page|Home]]
* [[Help:Contents|Help]]
* [[Special:SpecialPages|Special pages]]

----
''This page was automatically created to resolve display issues.''

Main Page

2025-10-11T02:01:00Z

Administrator:

__NOTOC__
__NOTITLE__

<div style="display:none;">{{#var: location map}}</div>


<slideshow sequence="forward" transition="fade" refresh="10000" center="true">
<div class="container" style="max-width:98%;">[[File:Site-main-slide01.png|border|center|link=Special:UserLogin]]</div>
<div class="container" style="max-width:98%;">[[File:Site-main-slide02.png|border|center|link=AquaPedia:About]]</div>
</slideshow>


<div style="background: #4a5568; color: white; padding: 25px; margin: 20px 0; border-radius: 6px;">
<div style="font-size: 120%; line-height: 1.6; text-align: center;">
''The Water Diplomacy AquaPedia Case Study Database is a freely accessible database of water case studies with boundary crossing properties often with competing and conflicting needs. Please join us to create, edit, refine, and comment on AquaPedia Case Studies.''
</div>
</div>


{| style="width: 100%; border-spacing: 15px 0;"
|-
| style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top; padding: 20px; background: #f7fafc; border-radius: 6px;" |

==== Browse Existing Cases ====
{{#ask:
[[Category:Case Study]]
| ?Geolocation
| format=map
| height=500
| zoom=2
| resizable=no
| markercluster=yes
}}

[[Browse Cases|Browse a list of cases and articles »]]

==== Get Started ====
* [[Help:Contents|Read about how to use AquaPedia]]
* [[Special:UserLogin|Login or Register for an Account]]
* [http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/info/contact-an-administrator/ Questions? Contact an Administrator]

| style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top; padding: 20px; background: #f7fafc; border-radius: 6px;" |

==== Quick Links ====
* [[AquaPedia:About|Learn about AquaPedia]]
* [http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/info/collaborate/ Sign Up] or [[Special:UserLogin|Login]]
* [[Browse_Cases|Read and Comment on Cases and Articles]]
* [[AquaPedia:Contribute Content|Contribute a Case Study or New Article]]

==== Most Recently Updated Case Studies ====
{{#ask:[[Category:Case Study]]
|format=ul
|limit=5
|sort=Modification date
|order=descending
|headers=hide
|mainlabel=
|link=subject
|searchlabel=more results
}}

==== Most Recently Updated Articles ====
{{#ask:[[Category:Article]]
|format=ul
|limit=5
|sort=Modification date
|order=descending
|headers=hide
|mainlabel=
|link=subject
|searchlabel=more results
}}

==== Recently Updated Discussion Pages ====
{{#recentdiscussions:5}}

[[Special:AllPages|List all discussion pages]]

|}

Main Page

2025-10-08T07:59:41Z

Administrator:

<div style="display:none;">{{#var: location map}}</div><slideshow sequence="forward" transition="fade" refresh="10000" center="true">
<div class="container" style="max-width:98%;">[[File:Site-main-slide01.png |border|center|link=Special:UserLogin]]</div>
<div class="container" style="max-width:98%;">[[File:Site-main-slide02.png |border|center|link=AquaPedia:About]]</div>
</slideshow>
{| style="width: 100%; margin:0px 0 0 0; border-spacing: 0px;"
| style="width:48%; vertical-align:top; padding-right: 5px; margin: 5px;" |<div style="font-size:120%">''The Water Diplomacy AquaPedia Case Study Database is a freely accessible database of water case studies with boundary crossing properties often with competing and conflicting needs. Please join us to create, edit, refine, and comment on AquaPedia Case Studies.''</div>

==== Browse Existing Cases ====
{{#ask:
[[Category:Case Study]]|?Geolocation|format=map|height=600|zoom=2|resizable=no|markercluster=yes}}
you can also [[Browse Cases| browse a list of cases and articles]].

==== Get Started ====

* [[Help:Contents| Read about how to use AquaPedia]]
* [[Special:UserLogin| Login or Register for an Account]]
* [http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/info/contact-an-administrator/ Questions? Contact an Administrator]
| style="width:48%; vertical-align:top; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px; margin: 5px;"|

<div style="font-size:120%">
*[[AquaPedia:About|Learn about AquaPedia]]
*[http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/info/collaborate/ Sign Up] or [[Special:UserLogin | Login]]
*[[Browse_Cases|Read and Comment on Cases and Articles]]
*[[AquaPedia:Contribute Content|Contribute a Case Study or New Article]]</div>

====Most Recently Updated Case Studies ====
{{#ask:[[Category:Case Study]]|format=ul|limit=5|sort=Modification date|order=descending|headers=hide|main label=|link=subject|searchlabel=more results|offset=}}

====Most Recently Updated Articles ====
{{#ask:[[Category:Article]]|format=ul|limit=5|sort=Modification date|order=descending|headers=hide|main label=|link=subject|searchlabel=more results|offset=}}
====Recently Updated Discussion Pages====
{{#dpl:|namespace=Talk|addeditdate=true|ordermethod=lastedit|order=descending|count=5|format=,\n* [[%PAGE%|%TITLE%]] (%DATE%),,}}
[http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=&to=&namespace=1 list all discussion pages ]

|}
__NOTOC__

__NOTITLE__

Main Page

2025-10-08T07:46:02Z

Administrator:

<nowiki>__NOTOC__</nowiki>

<nowiki>__NOTITLE__</nowiki>

<nowiki><div style="display:none;">{{#var: location map}}</nowiki><nowiki></div></nowiki>

<nowiki><slideshow sequence="forward" transition="fade" refresh="10000" center="true"></nowiki>

<nowiki><div class="container" style="max-width:98%;">[[File:Site-main-slide01.png |border|center|link=Special:UserLogin]]</nowiki><nowiki></div></nowiki>

<nowiki><div class="container" style="max-width:98%;">[[File:Site-main-slide02.png |border|center|link=AquaPedia:About]]</nowiki><nowiki></div></nowiki>

<nowiki></slideshow></nowiki>

<nowiki>{| style="width: 100%; margin:0px 0 0 0; border-spacing: 0px;"</nowiki>

|-

| style="width:48%; vertical-align:top; padding-right: 5px; margin: 5px;" |

<nowiki><div style="font-size:120%">''</nowiki>The Water Diplomacy AquaPedia Case Study Database is a freely accessible database of water case studies with boundary crossing properties often with competing and conflicting needs. Please join us to create, edit, refine, and comment on AquaPedia Case Studies.<nowiki>''</nowiki> <nowiki></div></nowiki>

<nowiki>====Browse Existing Cases====</nowiki>

<nowiki>{{#ask:</nowiki>

<nowiki>[[Category:Case Study]]</nowiki>

| ?Geolocation

| format=map

| height=600

| zoom=2

| resizable=no

| markercluster=yes

<nowiki>}}</nowiki>

you can also <nowiki>[[Browse Cases| browse a list of cases and articles]]</nowiki>.

<nowiki>====Get Started====</nowiki>

<nowiki>*</nowiki><nowiki>[[Help:Contents | Read about how to use AquaPedia]]</nowiki>

<nowiki>*</nowiki><nowiki>[[Special:UserLogin | Login or Register for an Account]]</nowiki>

<nowiki>*</nowiki><nowiki>[http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/info/contact-an-administrator/ Questions? Contact an Administrator ]</nowiki>

| style="width:48%; vertical-align:top; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px; margin: 5px;"|

<nowiki><div style="font-size:120%"></nowiki>

<nowiki>*</nowiki><nowiki>[[AquaPedia:About|Learn about AquaPedia]]</nowiki>

<nowiki>*</nowiki><nowiki>[http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/info/collaborate/ Sign Up]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[Special:UserLogin | Login]]</nowiki>

<nowiki>*</nowiki><nowiki>[[Browse_Cases|Read and Comment on Cases and Articles]]</nowiki>

<nowiki>*</nowiki><nowiki>[[AquaPedia:Contribute Content|Contribute a Case Study or New Article]]</nowiki><nowiki></div></nowiki>

<nowiki>====Most Recently Updated Case Studies ====</nowiki>

{{#ask:<nowiki>[[Category:Case Study]]</nowiki>

|format=ul

|limit=5

|sort=Modification date

|order=descending

|headers=hide

|main label=

|link=subject

|searchlabel=more results

|offset=

<nowiki>}}</nowiki>

<nowiki>====Most Recently Updated Articles ====</nowiki>

{{#ask:<nowiki>[[Category:Article]]</nowiki>

|format=ul

|limit=5

|sort=Modification date

|order=descending

|headers=hide

|main label=

|link=subject

|searchlabel=more results

|offset=

<nowiki>}}</nowiki>

<nowiki>====Recently Updated Discussion Pages====</nowiki>

<nowiki>{{#recentdiscussions:5}}</nowiki>

<nowiki>[http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=&to=&namespace=1 list all discussion pages ]</nowiki>

|}

__NOTOC__

__NOTITLE__

Main Page

2025-10-08T07:39:15Z

Administrator:

<div style="display:none;">{{#var: location map}}</div><slideshow sequence="forward" transition="fade" refresh="10000" center="true">
<div class="container" style="max-width:98%;">[[File:Site-main-slide01.png |border|center|link=Special:UserLogin]]</div>
<div class="container" style="max-width:98%;">[[File:Site-main-slide02.png |border|center|link=AquaPedia:About]]</div>
</slideshow>
{| style="width: 100%; margin:0px 0 0 0; border-spacing: 0px;"
| style="width:48%; vertical-align:top; padding-right: 5px; margin: 5px;" |<div style="font-size:120%">''The Water Diplomacy AquaPedia Case Study Database is a freely accessible database of water case studies with boundary crossing properties often with competing and conflicting needs. Please join us to create, edit, refine, and comment on AquaPedia Case Studies.''</div>

==== Browse Existing Cases ====
{{#ask:
[[Category:Case Study]]|?Geolocation|format=map|height=600|zoom=2|resizable=no|markercluster=yes}}
you can also [[Browse Cases| browse a list of cases and articles]].

==== Get Started ====

* [[Help:Contents| Read about how to use AquaPedia]]
* [[Special:UserLogin| Login or Register for an Account]]
* [http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/info/contact-an-administrator/ Questions? Contact an Administrator]
| style="width:48%; vertical-align:top; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px; margin: 5px;"|

<div style="font-size:120%">
*[[AquaPedia:About|Learn about AquaPedia]]
*[http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/info/collaborate/ Sign Up] or [[Special:UserLogin | Login]]
*[[Browse_Cases|Read and Comment on Cases and Articles]]
*[[AquaPedia:Contribute Content|Contribute a Case Study or New Article]]</div>

====Most Recently Updated Case Studies ====
{{#ask:[[Category:Case Study]]|format=ul|limit=5|sort=Modification date|order=descending|headers=hide|main label=|link=subject|searchlabel=more results|offset=}}

====Most Recently Updated Articles ====
{{#ask:[[Category:Article]]|format=ul|limit=5|sort=Modification date|order=descending|headers=hide|main label=|link=subject|searchlabel=more results|offset=}}
====Recently Updated Discussion Pages====
{{#dpl:|namespace=Talk|addeditdate=true|ordermethod=lastedit|order=descending|count=5|format=,\n* [[%PAGE%|%TITLE%]] (%DATE%),,}}
[http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=&to=&namespace=1 list all discussion pages ]

|}
__NOTOC__

__NOTITLE__

Main Page

2025-10-08T07:36:10Z

Administrator:

File:Site-main-slide02.png

2025-10-08T06:46:37Z

Administrator: Site-main-slide02.png

== Summary ==
Site-main-slide02.png

File:20251006060315!CMWU-2010-chloride.png

2025-10-06T06:03:35Z

Administrator: == Summary == Imported from old wiki

== Summary ==
Imported from old wiki

File:20251006060315!ALTorgchart.jpg

2025-10-06T06:03:34Z

Administrator: == Summary == Imported from old wiki

== Summary ==
Imported from old wiki

File:20251006060315!AverageAnnualColoradoUSFlows.jpg

2025-10-06T06:03:29Z

Browse Cases

2021-12-27T15:49:37Z

Administrator:

AquaPedia:User Tools

2021-12-27T15:44:16Z

Administrator:

=Explore, Contribute, and Refer to AquaPedia=

*[[Browse_Cases | Browse all cases and linked sections on AquaPedia]]
*[[Special:NewPages | List of the most recently created pages]]
*[[Special:PopularPages | List of the most viewed pages]]
*[http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/wiki/index.php?namespace=0&title=Special:RecentChanges List of the most recently changed Articles and Case Studies] (opens in new window/tab)
*[[List_of_Background_Sections|List of Background Sections]] Shows all Agreements, Water Features, and Water Projects in AquaPedia.
*[[Special:Cite|Citation Generator]] - generates a citation for any AquaPedia page (you will need to cut/paste the page title (name of case or linked section)). Be aware that it often not appropriate to use AquaPedia as a reference. See: [[Help:How_to_Use_AquaPedia_for_Research]]

=Advanced Exploration=
*[[Special:Contributions]] See contributions from any user name

=Editing and Creating new Content=
*[[Special:Upload|Upload a new file (image or document)]]
*[[Form:Case_Study | Start a new case study]]
*[[Form:Riparian | Start a new page to describe riparian]]
*[[Form:Water_Project | Start a new page to describe a water project]]
*[[Form:Water_Feature | Start a new page to describe a body of water or other water resource]]
*[[Form:Agreement | Start a new page to describe an agreement or treaty]]

Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Subbasin

2017-10-31T21:10:09Z

Administrator: