Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH1
Acknowledgments
SPONSORS:International Boundary and Water Commission
Department of the InteriorSecretaría de Medio ambiente y Recursos Naturales
Sección mexicana de la Comisión Internacional de Límites y AguasComisión Nacional del Agua
XVI Ayuntamiento de MexicaliUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California
U.S. ADVISORY COMMITTEE:Bobby Ybarra, International Boundary and Water Commission
Lorri Gray, U.S. Bureau of ReclamationSam Spiller, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Michael Cohen, Pacific InstituteJennifer Pitt, Environmental Defense
James Davenport, Colorado River Commission of Nevada
MEXICO ADVISORY COMMITTEE:Francisco A. Bernal Rodríguez, Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas
Jesús Luévano Grano, Comisión Internacional de Límites y AguasLuis Antonio Rascón Mendoza, Comisión Internacional de Límites y AguasAdriana Reséndez Maldonado, Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas
Dalia Bali Cohen, Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos NaturalesJosé Campoy Favela, Comisión Nacional de Aveas Natuales Protegidas
Francisco Rodríguez Rodríguez, Ayuntamiento de MexicaliJosé Trejo Alvarado, Comisión Nacional del Agua
Guillermo Torres Moye, Universidad Autónoma de Baja CaliforniaEfraín Muñoz Martín, Gobierno del Estado de Baja California
José Gutiérrez Ramírez, Comisión Nacional del AguaSaúl Alvarez Borrego, CICESE
Salvador Galindo Bect, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California
Special thanks to the Autónomous University of Baja California for allowing the use of their facilitiesfor the event.
The proceedings are the direct result of transcribed audio tape recordings from the event. Some of thepresentations provided are verbatim (indicated) while all others are summarized and have beenreviewed by the presenters.
WATER EDUCATION FOUNDATION STAFF:S. Joshua Newcom, proceedings editorGary Pitzer, technical assistance
Transcript: Secretarial Support ServicesLayout: Curt Leipold, Graphic CommunicationsPrinting: Paul Baker Printing
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH2
Table of Contents
Minute 306 ................................................................................................................................ 3
Agenda ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Tuesday, September 11Opening Session..................................................................................................................... 11
Panel I, Legal & Institutional, Laws and International Institutions ............................... 20Q&A ......................................................................................................................................... 25
Panel I, Legal & Institutional, Legal Matters of the U.S. and Mexico ............................ 27Q&A ......................................................................................................................................... 31
Panel II, Conveyance Systems, U.S. Colorado River System .......................................... 32Q&A ......................................................................................................................................... 36
Panel II, Conveyance Systems, Mexico Colorado River System..................................... 38Q&A ......................................................................................................................................... 41
Wednesday, September 12Panel III, Technical and Scientific Studies, Habitat and Species ..................................... 46Q&A ......................................................................................................................................... 51
Panel III, Existing Restoration Projects ............................................................................... 54Q&A ......................................................................................................................................... 61
Closing Remarks .................................................................................................................... 65
Attendee Appendix ............................................................................................................... 67
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH3
Minute
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH4
Minute
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH5
Minute
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH6
Agenda
UNITED STATES – MEXICOCOLORADO RIVER DELTA SYMPOSIUM
September 11-12, 2001University Theatre of the Autonomous University of Baja California
Mexicali, Baja California
– TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 –
OPENING SESSIONMaster of Ceremonies: Teodoro Pérez V. (UABC)
8:00 a.m. - 8:55 a.m. Opening Remarks Víctor E. Beltrán Corona, Rector,Autonomous University of Baja California
Symposium Objective J. Arturo Herrera Solís, Mexican Commissioner,International Boundary and Water Commission,United States and MexicoCarlos Ramírez, United States Commissioner,International Boundary and Water Commission,United States and Mexico
United States Departmentof Interior message Bennett W. Raley, Assistant Secretary for
Water and Science, Washington, D.C., United States
Mexican Secretariat of Environmentand Natural Resources message Olga Ojeda Cárdenas, Head of International Affairs
Coordinating Office
Secretariat of Foreign Relations message Alberto Székely, Advisor for the Secretary ofForeign Relations
Department of State message Dennis Linsky
Mexicali Mayor’s Message Víctor Hermosillo Celada
Inauguration and message by theGovernor of the State of Baja California Alejandro González Alcocer
Dignitaries’ Departure Master of Ceremonies
Delta Overview Film States of Nevada and Baja California
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH7
AgendaSYMPOSIUM ORIENTATION & LOGISTICS
General Coordinators: Francisco Bernal Rodríguez, IBWC Mexican SectionRobert M. Ybarra, IBWC U.S. Section
PANEL I – LEGAL & INSTITUTIONAL
Coordinators: Dalia Bali Cohen / Jose GutierrezDavid Getches / Jim Davenport
9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Moderators: Mexico – Jaime Tinoco, CNA Border ActivitiesUnited States – David Getches, University of ColoradoJim Davenport, Colorado River Commission ofNevada
9:15 a.m. - 10:45 a.m. LAWS AND INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Laws and International InstitutionsUnited States and Mexico
Relative to the Colorado River José de Jesús Luevano Grano, SecretaryMexican Section, IBWCDavid van Hoogstraten, Department of State
Laws and Multi-lateral Institutions Forthe Use of Transboundary Waters and
Environmental Protection Jaime Palafox, Private Consultant, Washington D.C.
10:45 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. Break
11:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m LEGAL MATTERS OF MEXICO ANDUNITED STATES
Legal Aspects in the U.S. Relative tothe Upper Basin of the Colorado River Jim Lochhead, Brownstein, Hyatt and Farber, P.C.
Legal Aspects in the U.S. Relative tothe Lower Basin of the Colorado River Gary Weatherford, Weatherford and Taaffe, LLP
Legal Aspects in MexicoRelative to Water Management Mario Alfonso Cantú Suárez,
National Water Commission, Mexico City, D.F.
1:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Lunch at Meeting Auditoriumhosted by U.S. Basin States
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH8
AgendaPANEL II – CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS
Coordinators: Francisco A. Bernal and Lorri Gray
2:00a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Moderators: Mexico: Alfonso Andrés Cortéz Lara, COLEFUnited States: Bill Rinne,USBR Lower Colorado Region
2:00 a.m. - 3:45 p.m. CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS ANDINFRASTRUCTURE IN THE COLORADORIVER BASIN IN THE UNITED STATES
Operations Aspects relative toColorado River Water Management
in the Upper Basin Tom Ryan, USBR Colorado RiverUpper Basin Salt Lake City, UT
Operations Aspects relative toColorado River Water Management
in the Lower Basin Jayne Harkins, USBR Colorado RiverLower Basin Boulder City, NV
Plumbing in Yuma Area Jim Cherry, USBR, Yuma, AZ
Colorado River Water DeliveriesUnder the 1944 Water Treaty Carlos Marin, Principal Engineer, USIBWC
3:45 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Break
4:00 a.m. - 5:45 p.m. CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS ANDINFRASTRUCTURE IN THE COLORADORIVER BASIN IN MEXICO
Operations Aspects relative toColorado River Water Management
in Mexico Francisco A. Bernal Rodríguez, Mexican Section,IBWC. Mexicali OfficeJose Trejo Alvarado, DirectorMexicali Irrigation District
Assignment of Colorado River Waterin Mexico for Urban use: Current
Situation and Future Perspectives Luis López Moctezuma Torres,Private Consultant, Baja California
6:00 p.m. Conclusion of Activities
7:30 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. Reception offered by Mexicali Mayor’sat Hotel Araiza Inn.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH9
Agenda– WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2001 –
PANEL III – ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ANDTECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC STUDIES
Coordinators: Jose Campoy Favela, Michael Cohen
7:00 a.m. - 5:45 p.m. Poster Session (See Annex).
8:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. SPECIES AND HABITAT IN THE COLORADORIVER DELTA AND UPPER GULF OF CALIFORNIA
Moderator: Exequiel Ezcurra, National EcologyInstitute of Mexico
Delta Habitats Edward Glenn, University of Arizona,Environmental Research Laboratory
Upper Gulf of California Saúl Álvarez Borrego, Center for Higher Studiesand Scientific Research – Ensenada
Habitat Response to Changesin Flow Regimes Francisco Zamora, Conservation International
Gulf of California Program – Guaymas
Aquatic Birds and Mammals Eric Mellink, Center for Higher Studies andScientific Research – Ensenada
Neotropical Migratory Species Charles Van Riper, USGS Science Center forForest and Rengeland Ecosystems – Flagstaff
Upper Gulf Invertebrates Karl Flessa, University of ArizonaGeo-Sciences Department
Water Quality Jaqueline García, Centro de Investigación enAlimentación y Desarrollo, A.C., CIAD, Guaymas
Wetlands and Estuarine Ecology Nicholas P. Yensen, NyPA International-Tucson
10:30 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. Refreshment Break
10:45 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. EXISTING RESTORATION PROJECTSModerator: Guillermo Torres Moye,
Autonomous University of Baja California
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH10
AgendaCottonwood and Willow Restoration Mark Briggs – Carlos Valdez
Community Participation inRestoration Projects Elena Chavarría, Sonora
Lower Colorado River Multi-SpeciesConservation Program Chris Harris, Colorado River Board of
California- Glendale
Purchase of Water Rights Michael Clinton, Michael Clinton Engineering– Las Vegas, NV
River Restoration Experiences in Mexico Alberto Jaime Paredes, Mexico’s NationalWater Commission
Restoration Projects and CommunityParticipation in the Upper Gulf Peggy Turk-Boyer, Cultural Center for Desert and
Ocean Studies (CEDO, A.C.)
Administration of the Biosphere Reserve José Campoy Favela, Director-Upper Gulf ofCalifornia & Colorado River Delta Biosphere Reserve
Research Programs in theDelta/Upper Gulf Andrea Kaus,University of California-Riverside
1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Lunch offered by Mexico’s National WaterCommission and Poster Session
3:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Conclusions/Follow Up Actions/Close
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH11
Tuesday, September 11, 2001
Opening Session
VICTOR EVERARDO BELTRAN CORONA
DIRECTOR, AUTONOMOUS UNIVERSITY
OF BAJA CALIFORNIA:On behalf of the university, Mr. Beltran
expressed his feelings of concern for the eventsof September 11 in the United States. He wel-comed participants and attendees, stating thewaters of the Colorado River had broughtpeople together at the conference, providing anopportunity to reach agreements on the Colo-rado River Delta (Delta) that will benefit popula-tions on both sides of the border. The river hasgiven life and progress to both countries and tothe cities and towns in the Imperial and Mexicalivalleys.
The university has a goal of contributing to ademocratic and equitable society, as well as theenvironment, by providing educated citizensthat can address the problems facing the envi-ronment including the Delta and the Gulf ofCalifornia. This is especially true when address-ing the state of Baja California where one of thebiggest challenges is water supply. Both nationsrecognize this ecosystem as a special resourcethat cannot be substituted with another resource.Taking the ecosystem into consideration, alongwith social and economic development, willrequire the efforts of the region’s inhabitants,many of whom have lived there for a longperiod of time. For them, the Delta is a source oflife.
The privilege of having the Delta as a re-source makes the populations that use theColorado River responsible for maintaining itssustainability. The Colorado River ecosystemextends from the Rocky Mountains to the Gulf,creating one of the most important habitats innature, the Delta, where more than 200 specieslive in harmony in a combination of fresh waterand sea water. We should feel proud of the lifegenerated by these conditions but in this cen-
tury, the region also is facing unprecedentedrisks. There are still problems with water man-agement, salinity and pollution.
Mexico’s president, Vincente Fox, establishedin his administration that water is an element ofnational security and part of the strategicdevelopment for the country. Because restoringthe Delta is such an important area requiringmuch effort, it is best to avoid conflict. Stoppingthe damage to the Delta is imperative before it isirreversible. It is essential to maintain a highquality of life for future generations.
J. ARTURO HERRERA SOLÍS
MEXICAN COMMISSIONER,INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND
WATER COMMISSION (VERBATIM):It gives me great pleasure to see several
Mexican and US organizations coming togetherwith one common goal: The conservation of theColorado River Delta.
The effort undertaken by such organizationsas the Mexican Department of the Environmentand National Resources (SEMARNAT) and theNational Water Commission (CNA), the Govern-ment of Baja California and the Municipality ofMexicali, the IBWC itself and the Department ofthe Interior of the United States, constitute aclear demonstration on the part of the adminis-tration of our President Fox and that of hiscounterpart, President Bush, that the issue of theColorado River is one of the primary topics onthe Mexico-United States border agenda.
I must mention the trend being experienced inthis issue. By that I mean that the contributionsmade by non-governmental organizations andacademic groups will be of great value fordefining the courses of action demanded by thisimportant body of water.
This is the reason why we have come togetherin the Auditorium of the Autonomous Univer-sity of Baja California, one of the most importantcenters of higher education in the northwesternpart of our country. We extend our most sincereappreciation to its distinguished Rector, Victor
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH12
Beltrán Corona, CPA, since without his supportthis event would not have been possible.
The Colorado River in the Mexican territoryhas a Delta that is unique in today’s world, asthe waters that gave it its original form havebeen used by both Mexico and by the UnitedStates primarily for urban and agriculturalpurposes, which has allowed the developmentof the states of Baja California, the northwest ofSonora, California, Arizona, Nevada, NewMexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.
The cost of this development, whose benefitsare enjoyed by tens of millions of people, is thatthe Delta of this river tends to be dry.
In this context, any changes made to the waythe basin north of the Morelos Dam is managed,which would result in this body receiving evenless water, are cause for permanent concern inMexico
As a matter of fact, Mexico has alreadyexpressed through diplomatic channels itsdisagreement with any modifications in theoperation or infrastructure of existing and futureprojects that affect the quality and availability ofthe water in Mexico, including the ColoradoRiver Delta.
Therefore, it is of prime importance to quicklyidentify the means and actions that are neededfor recovering this body of water, which reflectsthe relevance of this symposium.
During the following two days we will havethe opportunity to take a detailed look at thelegal aspects that have a bearing on the manage-ment of the flow, the operating conditions of thehydraulic infrastructure and the level of under-standing with regard to the ecological needs ofthe Delta.
Consequently, this symposium will becomeone of the ways I have pointed out for identify-ing in the short term the actions necessary forprotecting the ecological environment of thisbody of water.
Gentlemen, you have the floor and I wish youthe greatest success in your presentations.
CARLOS RAMIREZ
UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER,INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WA-TER COMMISSION (VERBATIM):
Good Morning. The International Boundaryand Water Commission has the pleasure ofjoining with officials of the United States andMexico in welcoming you to participate in theUnited States-Mexico Colorado River DeltaSymposium.
We are especially pleased and honored toexpress our appreciation to the AutonomousUniversity of Baja, California and the City ofMexicali for providing these facilities.
This Commission in partnership with theUnited States Department of the Interior andMexico’s Secretariat of Environment and Na-tional Resources entrusted the preparations forthis symposium six months ago to our bi-national planning group. We appreciate thehard work and dedication to the task of conven-ing this forum as a means of providing a techni-cal information base to stakeholders in the twocountries concerning this part of the ColoradoRiver system.
This planning group, made up of govern-ment, academic and non-government organiza-tions, did a remarkable job of establishingmutually acceptable terms of reference for thissymposium. But most importantly, for thepolitically sensitive subject that is the ColoradoRiver system, we take great pleasure in statingthose terms in the form of the following sympo-sium objectives.
In recognition of the respective governmentsinterest in the preservation of the riparian andestuarine ecology of the Colorado River in thelimitrophe section and its associated delta, themain objectives of the symposium are to im-prove the knowledge base of expert stakeholdersand decision makers on institutional and legalmatters, water conveyance and distributionmatters, ecological scientific studies, and toidentify Colorado River delta system needs andobstacles to meeting those needs.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH13
We look forward to hearing from the variouspanels of Colorado River system experts in thenext two days. There is much to learn. Thissymposium is not intended to provide immedi-ate cooperative projects. We would expect thatout of this symposium the United States andMexico will have a group of stakeholders anddecision makers that is more informed in thesethree disciplinary areas. Two days is a shorttime to cover all the details for many of thesubjects discussed of this symposium.
The United States is, of course, aware ofMexico’s concerns regarding developments inthe United States of those waters that are re-served to the United States. These are mattersthat are being addressed by the two govern-ments through appropriate consultative pro-cesses.
The United States supports this symposium tofurther the objective to provide expert stake-holders and decision makers in both countries anew level of knowledge in the areas of legal andinstitutional issues in the conveyance systemissues and the environmental issues.
The decision makers in both countries, whenyou have more knowledge to help implementwhatever technical summaries come from thismeeting, this is itself a significant progress.There is significant amount of knowledge of atechnical nature that is to be shared in these nexttwo days. The United States invites and encour-ages participants to adhere to the symposiumobjective.
We are very pleased to know that this plan-ning group considered that a key element of thissymposium will be that of memorializing theproceedings in the form of a publication. Wewill make every effort possible in this process tohave the proceedings available to the public bythe end of the year.
Thank you and good luck in your endeavors.
BENNETT W. RALEY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
WATER AND SCIENCE, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
(VERBATIM):Thank you. I thank the Mayor, this fine city
and the university for this opportunity. We allknow that there have been tragic events in theUnited States, but our history teaches us that wecannot let events like that take us from thecourse of working together. Our nations have ashared destiny, and the issues that we deal with,the bonds that we have, the communications wewill share are essential for those of us as freepeople to continue to do the work that ourcitizens would have us do regardless of outsideforces. So it’s with somewhat of a heavy heartbut a resolve to stay the course, to focus on whatcan be done here because that has enduringimportance.
I would like to offer some remarks on behalfof the Department of the Interior. I wouldparticularly like to thank the Mexican Section ofthe International Boundary and Water Commis-sion (IBWC) and the University for their hardwork in putting this together.
Issues regarding the ecological status of theColorado’s Delta have emerged on both sides ofour shared border in recent years. On behalf ofSecretary Norton, I want to reaffirm and empha-size the commitment of the Department of theInterior to work together with all interestedparties to seek out creative, cooperative solu-tions to conservation issues in the Delta throughthe IBWC process established under Minute 306,which was signed by the United States and theRepublic of Mexico this past December.
The first step contemplated is this veryimportant conference which provides an oppor-tunity for discussion of important technologicalissues, including the law applicable to theColorado River and the ecological status of theDelta region.
Secretary Norton and I both recognize that theMexican Delta is an important ecological re-
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH14
source, and we support the process that is inplace to identify the issues and to search forappropriate means to address them. We alsobelieve that the goal of this conference, which isto establish a shared factual understanding ofcurrent conditions, is the appropriate startingpoint for any effort to address these issues. Infact, this conference grew, in part, out of aspecific request for a greater understanding ofthe Delta region that emerged from discussionsbetween the United States stakeholders and thefederal government last year.
As we proceed with this conference and withDelta discussions, we believe that this effortshould be guided by five fundamental prin-ciples. First, the Delta calls for a bi-nationalapproach which fully respects the sovereignty ofboth nations. Second, sound science and de-tailed knowledge must be the foundation ofevery proposal for action. Third, the solutionmust fit within the existing framework. Fourth,the process should serve as a forum for the freeexchange of information. And fifth, and perhapsmost importantly, it is critical that we seeksolutions that are positive for stakeholders onboth sides of the border.
I want to emphasize this last point. TheColorado River, from its headwaters in the Stateof Colorado to its final destination in the Gulf ofCalifornia, is a vital water lifeline for the mostarid region of North America.
Within the United States, it’s been called theRiver of Controversy, and the limited waters ofthe Colorado have indeed been the source ofnumerous, and at times bitter, domestic conflicts.Our Upper Basin states have struggled to protecttheir right to future development in light of thefaster growing population centers in lower basincities.
Arizona has repeatedly sought judicial help toprotect its claims on the river. California hashad to confront the limits of its entitlement evenas its needs have grown dramatically, and thesame is true for Nevada who has to deal withthe explosive growth of the Las Vegas area.
Further, we know that our history, ourcommon history, is that the United States andMexico achieved a treaty in 1944 after decades ofdebate. We remain committed to honor andprotect the compromise between our twonations which is embodied in the treaty andwhich has allowed the waters of the Colorado tobe harnessed and fully utilized on both sides ofthe international border.
I mention this sensitive history to contrast itwith the progress our basin states, the sevenstates within the United States of the ColoradoRiver Basin, have made recently in fashioningconsensual approaches to a number of difficultand long-standing problems.
Nevada and Arizona have negotiated aninnovative method for storing water that canstretch the river’s supply to meet Nevada’simpending needs. In California, new proposalsfor conservation in agricultural use are facilitat-ing transfers to meet metropolitan demandthrough voluntary agreements. Similarly, allbasin states have come together to support aplan that will permit California to bring itsColorado River uses within its entitlement. Allthese efforts show the value of consensus-basednegotiation. They also demonstrate how tightlyallocated the Colorado River is within theavailable supply.
In moving forward with the next importantagenda items for the Colorado, and particularlythose involving the Colorado River Delta, wecannot jeopardize these innovative foundationsthat are essential to the future administration ofthe river.
In addition, the United States faces its own setof difficult issues with respect to the drainagebypass flows to the Cienega de Santa Clarawhich have been recognized as an importantwetland habitat within the Delta region. TheUnited States government, however, has anational obligation to replace the bypass flowsfor water users in the United States. We arehopeful that innovative solutions can be foundwhich respect the interests of the water users in
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH15
the United States while recognizing and preserv-ing this vital ecological habitat within the Delta.
In thinking about opportunities for protectingthe ecological values in the Delta, we want toencourage and support exploration of programsin Mexico that can focus on innovative actions toeffectively stretch existing supplies. Of course,any such actions would have to be accomplishedconsistent with the principles for this importanteffort that I mentioned a moment ago. I recog-nize and look forward to the fact that variousapproaches will be advanced in further bi-national technical discussions.
Working through the IBWC, our two nationscan and should fashion a cooperative effort. Letme add, we will fashion a cooperative effort. Wecan and want to be helpful in a variety of ways,and scientific expertise is only one of the re-sources we can potentially contribute to such bi-national cooperative efforts.
The ecological values of the Delta are extraor-dinary, supporting hundreds of thousands ofshore birds and waterfowl as well as providinghabitat for a number of endangered species ofanimals, fish and plants. The Delta region alsohas great significance for indigenous people as afishery and as an emerging destination fortourism.
We also recognize the pressing demandsimposed by the growing population in theregion, a trend that demands significant atten-tion on both sides of our border. We are readyand willing to work together with the Mexicangovernment and interested stakeholders to seeksolutions that are right for the Delta in accordwith our long-standing commitments, bothnational and international. Thank you.
ALBERTO SZEKELY
ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY OF
FOREIGN RELATIONS (VERBATIM):Because of several positions I have held, I
have had to monitor the Colorado River Deltaissue and I have always been concerned aboutthe slowness with which the governments of
both countries have responded to the demandsof an ecosystem that needs prompt attention. Icount myself among those who responded toAct 306 of the IBWC with a certain degree ofexasperation, when I felt that with said Act wewere not able to get past the purely academicphase, because it needs to be understood that weneed immediate and effective measures. Thus,my connection with this subject is through manyof you who are participating in this Symposiumand at the same time with those of you whocome from different areas. This is why I amespecially pleased to be able to state, in the nameof the Department of Foreign Relations ofMexico, the resolve of our country to give anactive push to our perception of the problem ofthe Colorado River Delta, and to begin acting ina pragmatic and immediate manner.
The defeat of the Harmon Doctrine – men-tioned so often when talking about the Interna-tional Law of international watercourses – has asan inevitable corollary in the shared responsibil-ity of the states along any course of water andthis is not only true with respect to the fairdistribution and the different reasonable uses ofthe water of these international watercourses.Thanks to the advances in International Law,such as the one registered in 1995 in the UnitedNations Convention on the Rights of Use ofInternational Watercourses for Purposes otherthan Navigation, the environment began to beseen as another user in the International FluvialLaw (the international rivers law), different in away from the states along the watercourses andthe traditional users. The dramatic unfolding –especially during the decades of the seventiesand eighties – of Environmental InternationalLaw, started to influence the internationalstandards of law of this new concept thatresulted in Rio Conference: The Concept ofSustainability, which comes very much to mindnow that we are discussing the Colorado RiverDelta. The way in which this Basin is being usedhas a lot to do with the possible solutions to thewater requirements for the survival of theColorado River Delta.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH16
Up until now, there has been a feeling thatthis has been an issue primarily of interest in theUnited States. Ironically, we have to admit thatthis is an issue that was not been pursued on theMexican side with the same intensity as com-pared to the United States, thanks mostly to thegenuine interest of a significant number ofscientists and non-governmental organizationson the American side. This has started to turnaround. In Mexico there is a growing interest inassuming our fundamental responsibility overwhat is an essentially Mexican ecosystem and,fortunately, it is happening at the same time inthe governmental and non-governmentalsectors. The Mexican Government wants tomove on to a new phase, leaving the academicphase, the phase of studies and discussions, andadvance to the action phase. This is why thissymposium is the fitting culmination of a phaseof intense studies and investigations that will belaid out on the table of this meeting and fromwhich we expect – and invite the participants todo the same – that specific practical proposalswill be realized and become part of the negotia-tions that should start taking place very soonbetween both countries, i.e., the table of specificproposals, based on the best science and the bestunderstanding of the requirements, not onlyscientific and technical, but also of the realpossibilities to redirect the destiny of the LowerBasin toward a better future for the ColoradoRiver Delta. This symposium must signal theconclusion of the discussion and study andresearch phase, and the start of the launching ofactions on the part of the Governments.
As you well know, the new Government ofMexico approached the Government of theUnited States during January of this year withan important diplomatic note, stating its concernwith regard to a series of matters related to theColorado River, with the subject of the Delta aspart of that diplomatic note. In said diplomaticnote, we have already stated our concern withregard to some actions in the United States thatcould have consequences for the Colorado RiverDelta, which none of us wants. By means of this
diplomatic note, we invited the Government ofthe United States to start diplomatic talksconcerning each of the issues that make up thebilateral agenda of the Colorado River. Every-thing that you come up with as a result of thissymposium will undoubtedly have a directimpact on this negotiation, because you collec-tively represent a series of research efforts thatwere undertaken during the last decades andfrom which we should now extract practicalconsequences. In a Basin of this type, delivery ofthe agreed upon volumes of water does notexhaust our bilateral obligations. We have toenrich the legal framework of our cooperation tobegin joining efforts and facing the challengesthat now being identified, many of which arerelated to sustainability, which is the subject ofthe Colorado River.
This is the great responsibility of this sympo-sium. I am sure that you will make a substantialcontribution that will allow both governments tomeet very soon and take immediate and practi-cal measures. These are my fervent desires for allof you. Thank you very much.
DENNIS LINSKY
STATE DEPARTMENT, UNITED STATES
(VERBATIM):Thank you for that very nice introduction.
Members of the legal and institutional panel,distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, I’mstruck by what a difference a week may make.The mood in Washington, as you can imagineright now, I’m sure is very somber. But last weekit was one of the most jubilant periods I saw inWashington for a long time. Especially some-thing that involved a foreign policy event. Ithink last week’s visit by President Fox was agreat success. I think it has established a newclimate for U.S.-Mexican relations.
President Bush, several times, expressed thefact that Mexico is our most important bi-lateralissue. Now, we may have problems. We’ll havedisagreements, and we discussed honestly andopenly, as friends, some of those issues in themeetings of last week. I think the tragic events
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH17
of today must temporarily shift our focus on oneissue for awhile in the United States, but cer-tainly our effort must be getting back to whereour true interests are. I don’t think our interestcan be any stronger than they are with Mexico.
In this line, our undersecretary for globalaffairs, Paula Dobrioski, is the person within theState Department and within the U.S. govern-ment who has responsibility for all global ortrans-boundary issues. She is in charge of thenarcotic’s policy and our environmental policies.Any real issue that doesn’t effect a single state,which is cross-boundary nation, she has respon-sibility for it.
She asked me to read a statement for her. Shecan’t be here today, but she’s not here for a verygood reason. Today she was to meet with a verysenior delegation from Mexico for, I think twodays, for some conversations on an internationaldolphin conservation program. So at least, if shecannot be here, we can take some comfort inknowing that she is working on a theme impor-tant to U.S.-Mexican relations. Let me just readundersecretariat Dobrioski’s remarks. I’mputting words in her mouth, so let me just readfrom the text here.
“I regret that I cannot be here today in person,but I applaud the efforts of the sponsoringagencies, the International Boundary and WaterCommission, U.S. Department of the Interior,and Mexico’s Secretariat of Environment,Natural Resources and Fishery, in bringingtogether officials of both governments, represen-tatives of the non-governed organizations, andthe academic community, in an effort to shareknowledge and to poll their respective resources.I hope this effort will help to clarify the scientificand legal framework that needs to be taken intoaccount when considering management of theColorado River system.
“By so doing, policy makers in both countrieswill be better able to make decisions relating tothe preservation of the riparian and estuarineecology of the Colorado River in its internationalregion and in the Delta. As undersecretary forglobal affairs, I understand diplomacy’s pivotal
role in reconciling competing interests andfinding mutually beneficial solutions.
“I think earlier today someone said we mustfind some win-win solutions here. It’s not aneasy job; there very often aren’t easy solutions.Nevertheless, we just have to keep working at ituntil we get it right. This is clearly the case withthe Colorado River where state, municipal,tribal, agricultural and environmental interestsconverge, each competing for an increasinglyscarce natural resource, competing and confront-ing the demands of growing populations onboth sides of the border.
“Let me assure you that we take water issuesvery seriously. Secretary of State, Colin Powell,has launched an ambitious effort to promotebetter management and reduce the tensionsassociated with scarce water resources world-wide. In this regard, the Department of State isaware of Mexico’s concerns that certain U.S.actions with respect to the management of theColorado River system within the United Stateshave failed to take into account the potentialimpacts on our neighbor Mexico. «However, theDepartment of State believes, nonetheless, thatthe United States carefully considered suchtransboundary impacts during a series ofconsultations held with Mexico under theauspices of International Boundary and WaterCommission over the past year, as well asduring the development of the EnvironmentalImpact Statement called for by the United StatesNational Environmental Policy Act.
“The Department of State also believes that intaking these actions the United States is acting ina manner that is consistent with the 1983 La Pazagreement. The United States concluded thatadjustments to the management of the ColoradoRiver system within the United States. Thoseadjustments which have occurred will not resultin appreciable adverse impacts on Mexico.
“In closing, it’s important to add that theUnited States intends to fulfill its treaty obliga-tions to deliver to Mexico 1.5 million acre-feet ofColorado River water per year as provided for inthe 1944 Water Treaty. And the United States
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH18
will continue to comply with its legal obligationsconcerning the salinity of those waters asprovided under International Boundary WaterCommission Minute 242.
“The United States gives its highest priority tofulfilling its international obligations andtherefore it manages the system, the ColoradoRiver, in a way that water is specifically allo-cated to assure deliveries to Mexico in accor-dance with the ‘44 Treaty.
“The State Department looks forward tocontinuing the currently ongoing extensivedialogues through the International Boundaryand Water Commission and the bi-nationaltechnical groups it has established on ColoradoRiver issues.
“It’s a good neighbor. The United States verymuch wants to cooperate with Mexico in everyway that we can to improve the environment ofthe border region and to support collaborativeefforts to improve the quality of the ColoradoRiver water delivered to Mexico. The sympo-sium is an important part of that process. I wishthe participants of this symposium success, and Ihope this experience will be a fruitful one for allconcerned.”
And Undersecretary Dobrioski concludes thatshe looks forward to receiving a full report of theoutcomes of these proceedings. Thank you.
OLGA OJEDA CARDENAS
HEAD OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
COORDINATING OFFICE, MEXICAN
SECRETARIAT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES (VERBATIM):Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you to the
planning committee. We hope to have a lot ofaccomplishments after this symposium that willstrengthen cooperation between the UnitedStates and Mexico around this topic, the RioColorado, the Colorado River. This was one ofthe richest ecosystems in the world and one thathas been effected by multiple modifications inthe Colorado basin due to the construction of bigdams. The volume of the river in the past as it
came across the border was great enough toreach the Gulf of California. However, this hasbeen deteriorating and it has had a negativeeffect on the Delta ecosystem.
During the last decade there has been aconsiderable volume of water released in theUnited States. This was one of the conditionsthat allowed restoration conditions to exist in theDelta. These conditions have resulted in in-creased fisheries and habitat in general. It isimportant to point out that the potential recu-peration of fish that are endangered, the indig-enous fish, depends on the restoration of theecosystem. Mexico is doing conceptual actions toeliminate fisheries in the high basin, the RioColorado Delta and along the Colorado River.The complimentary measures to prevent therecuperation of this species are going to bedifficult. The sustainable resources and waterresources for maintenance of the ecologicalstability of our shared basins also are needed forthe growth and development of productiveactivities that are critical for the region.
It also is a priority in Mexico to promotecoordinated actions based on bilateral coopera-tion. Therefore, it is essential to prevent theimplementation of unilateral actions that willaffect the spirit of cooperation as well as equityto water access. I would like for us to establish,at this symposium, new parameters that willallow us to reach conclusions that both countrieswant to reach in the spirit of cooperation andthat we have always had during the last years.This technical and scientific analysis is veryimportant, but it also is important for us toemphasize the different decisions and politicaldecisions that are in our hands to evaluate.Thank you very much.
ERNEST RUSFFO APPEL
COMISIONADO PRESIDENCIAL PARA LA
FRONTERA NORTE (VERBATIM):First of all, I am very sorry. I want to express
my feelings to the United States because of thethings that occurred there this morning.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH19
That said, I would now like to talk about whatwe can do together as two countries. This is themain reason Mr. Fox, President of Mexico,established a new commission to coordinate thefederal government in northern Mexico and thesix border states that have a boundary with thesouthwest United States. We are neighbors andas such share similar opportunities and prob-lems. I have talked with different representativesfrom the United States government and thegovernors of the border states and have beenable to add a vision that has evolved due to thegrowing trade between our two nations.
This region can grow very much. We knowthis growth has increased very rapidly but thispromising future also has its limitations. One ofthem is real and natural and happens to betoday’s topic: water. I also am looking at thefuture with optimism. We should address theselimitations in our region and try to see that weuse our resources efficiently. The reasons areclear but there is a need for investment in orderto continue implementing this vision. This callsfor a lot of information sharing and understand-ing, both of which will be supported in what weare discussing today. Therefore, I see, in thisspirit, the future of our region. We have to seekto work together to improve the water situationin both countries and eventually, this may meanwe have to administer what is done with thewater from a common hydrological basin. I wishyou a lot of luck in your discussions and afruitful day. Thank you.
VICTOR HERMOSILLO CELADA
MAYOR OF MEXICALI:Mr. Hermosillo expressed his remorse over
the events of September 11. He talked about thehistory of the region and how 150 years ago, theregion had a small population and no border.The introduction of the border is man-made butthat the geography has not changed and theColorado River still flows from north to south.Up until the mid-20th Century, border issueswere of little concern but times have since
changed. In the past, it was easier to maketreaties because of smaller populations and lessbureaucracy in both countries.
In 1944, the U.S. and Mexico signed a treatygranting water rights to Mexico, however, thattreaty took a long time to implement. The watersecured for these areas created great growth, asis evident by the populations in southernCalifornia and over the border. However with 35million people dependent on the river, theimpact these populations may have must betaken into account. We must try and addressproblems associated with the population and theriver so that people can continue to live here.Given the numerous resources, both natural andintellectual, solutions to water issues at theborder should be solved but not through short-sighted solutions. Instead, solutions should belong-term and win-win for stakeholders on bothsides of the border.
Mr. Hermosillo echoed the sentiment of otherspeakers by advocating that good informationcombined with objectivity is essential to arrive atgood conclusions. This is especially importantgiven the number of parties involved on bothsides of the border. Ecological situations cannotbe solved without including or addressingregional development and the limitation ofresources in both the U.S. and Mexico. Previousagreements, such as the 1944 Treaty, workedbetween the two countries and are good indica-tors of future potential for positive negotiationsover the Delta.
MIGUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ BARRIGA
REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE GOVERNOR
OF STATE OF BAJA, MEXICO:On behalf of the Governor of Baja, Mr.
Gonzalez welcomed conference attendees. Hestated that appropriate allocations of ColoradoRiver water to provide adequate use and preser-vation of surroundings are a high priority for theBaja State government.
Mr. Gonzalez agreed with several otherspeakers’ assertions that as the world population
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH20
grows, water is increasingly in demand. Histori-cally human settlement was dependent on theavailability of clean water and that a lack ofpreservation of this source led to the disappear-ance of different ethnic groups. It is for thisreason that close attention must be paid in the21st Century to water quality problems arisingfrom pollution. People tend to take water forgranted. However, there are agencies andindividuals committed to solving problemsthrough a joint vision without borders.
The Governor’s office realizes its strengthsand weaknesses but stressed that water prob-lems are a high priority and will require ad-dressing at federal, state and local levels. TheState of Baja has invested substantial amounts ofmoney to solve challenges surrounding drinkingwater, sewage and other water systems. Butgoodwill is not enough and there is no magicformula to solving problems. Instead, hard workand perseverance are needed to plan for theshort, medium and long-term. This includescommunity participation. It is better to add thanto subtract.
Panel 1 – Legal& Institutional
Laws andInternationalInstitutions
JIM DAVENPORT
COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION OF
NEVADA:Mr. Davenport began by discussing the three
categories of law with which the conferenceshould be concerned: national, bi-national andinternational. However, the jurisprudentialfoundations are different between those three,particularly with regard to the means and extentin which violations are sanctioned. Nationallaws of the U.S. and Mexico can be enforcedthrough the domestic judicial systems of therespective countries.
Using the 1944 U.S./Mexico Boundary andWater Treaty as an example, bi-national law canbe enforced by courts in either nation in thelocale where the persons or institutions againstwhom enforcement is intended reside. Suchlaws are more typically enforced throughdiplomatic or arbitrational means.
International law, or laws describing theaccepted behavior of persons or institutions,notwithstanding national residence, exist ascustom or international agreement, which arerare. Most are not enforceable except throughdiplomacy or in some instances, internationallyagreed upon tribunals. Comity, or the courtesyand friendship of nations, is marked by mutualrecognition of executive, legislative and judicialacts.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH21
DAVID GETCHES
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO:Mr. Getches said the Colorado River is
controlled by banks, dams and other means.However, the river also is controlled through asystem of laws referred to as the Law of theRiver. The Law of the River controls the river ina variety of ways, including dams and riveroperations; water quality issues (includingsalinity problems as the river enters Mexico);and environmental issues.
Parts of the Law of the River intertwine theU.S. and Mexico and the first panel of the dayincludes those laws that deal with the twocountries’ relations regarding the ColoradoRiver. The laws are evidence and inspiration thatthe two countries can cooperate in resolvingproblems of mutual concern regarding theColorado River.
JAIME TINOCO
CNA BORDER ACTIVIES, MEXICO:Mr. Tinoco said that as an engineer, and like
many engineers, he looks for problems withtechnical aspects of water problems. Howeverthe technical aspects are not necessarily the mostrelevant. The emphasis is shifting towards thesocial/political aspects of water and those areproving to be the most complicated. Sometimestechnical solutions can fall into second placebecause although they can create solutions, theycome at a high cost.
LUIS ANTONIO RASCÓN MENDOZA
INGENIERO PRINCIPAL, MEXICAN SEC-TION, INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND
WATER COMMISSION:Mr. Rascón said his presentation deals with
international boundary and water treaties.He mentioned the principles of international
law that are applied to continental internationaltreaties, pointing out that territorial jurisdictiondoes not allow a country to take advantage ofnatural resources in a way that may affect a
neighboring country, such as diverting a river.Such actions require the consent of the othercountry. Countries also may not affect the waterquality of international flows via wastewaterdischarges. Countries are not allowed to buildstructures that may alter the flow of a watersource into another country. Countries thatviolate these principles will have to prevent orsuspend their violating actions and pay for thedamages.
In the 19th Century, the Guadalupe Hidalgoand Mesilla treaties established the borderbetween the two countries. Rehabilitation of theinternational monuments took place under othertreaties around 1880. The IBWC was created in1889 by a treaty and continues to remain in effecttoday.
There were a number of treaties between thetwo countries in the 20th Century including theBanks Treaty of 1905 and the Rectification of theRio Grande Treaty in 1933 that allowed work tobegin on stabilizing the Rio Grande. The 1970Boundary Treaty establishes criteria to solveissues regarding the boundaries between the twocounties and established that the boundaries ofthe two countries would continue to be the RioGrande and Rio Colorado, and that no countrywill lose territory from shift course of theserivers.
The 1944 Water Treaty is the most importantof the water treaties between the two countrieswith reference to the Colorado River. It stipu-lates the Colorado River water rights of Mexicoand gives certainty of a water supply to agricul-ture and other beneficial uses. The IBWC en-sures treaty obligations are being met and isdivided into two sections: The Mexican Sectionunder the Foreign Affairs Secretariat of Mexicoand the U.S. Section, under the U.S. State De-partment. The sections have the necessarypersonnel to meet the responsibilities assignedby the governments. Jurisdiction of the IBWCincludes territorial boundaries, internationalcrossings, water quality issues, water measure-ment and accounting, operation of internationaldams, and water distribution.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH22
While volume and distribution of waters isdescribed in the ‘44 Treaty, more details areneeded to address specific projects or problems.Consequently, to cover these issues, there areminutes added as an addendum to the treaty.The minutes development process is dividedinto three stages: technical identification of theproject and the way it is to develop (includingthe problem and solutions); a consulting andnegotiation stage; and once consensus for aproject has been achieved, formalization throughminutes signed by Commissioners from eachside of the border and approved by both govern-ments.
There are a number of water projects con-nected to the Colorado River and to makealterations to any of them will affect otherelements of the hydraulic cycle (including dams,drainage systems, groundwater, disposal areas,etc.). Different IBWC international agreementsare related to these elements. There are a numberof minutes related to the Morelos Dam involvingits location, design, construction and operation,as well as complementary works. Likewise,minutes exist for issues of salinity, includingMinute 242 which established a permanentsalinity level for waters delivered by the U.S.and construction of the Mohawk drain whichkeeps the Cienega de Santa Clara slough withwater. Minute 248 focuses specifically on opera-tion of that drain.
Minute 291 deals with the accumulation ofupstream silt affecting the delivery of water toMexico.
Minute 287 allowed for the delivery ofemergency water from the Colorado River usingaqueducts in southern California to the city ofTijuana, B.C. Minute 301 agrees on a joint studybetween the two countries to explore alterna-tives for delivering water from the ColoradoRiver to San Diego and Tijuana.
There are a number of minutes that deal withthe New River. Minute 264, signed in 1960,establishes water quality standards for the NewRiver when it crosses the international bound-ary. Minute 274, assists with updating pumping
facilities along the Mexicali wastewater system.Minute 288 is the long-term recovery plan forthe river. Minute 294, signed in 1995, allocatesIBWC resources to facility planning projects forthe Mexicali wastewater systems, as well as tothe construction of a pumping station, a forcemain and a treatment plant.
Minute 306, signed in 2000, pertains to theecology of the Colorado River Delta. A workgroup, established under this minute, hascoordinated activities between the two countriesincluding information sharing, flow modeling,and pilot restoration projects. It is important tonote that Minute 306 involve participation fromacademic and non-governmental groups.
MARY BRANDT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE:Ms. Brandt addressed two main themes: the
relationship of the Department of State to theU.S. section of the IBWC and the internationalagreement process in the U.S. and how thatrelates to the adoption and entry into force ofIBWC minutes.
The IBWC applies and exercises the rights ofthe United States and Mexico under the 1944Water Treaty and settles any disputes that arisethereunder. It is composed of two sections: U.S.and Mexico. The U.S. Section is not technicallyunder the Department of State but, in accor-dance with the ’44 Treaty, operates under itsforeign policy guidance. It receives its fundingthrough the Department of State’s budget. Inessence, the U.S. Section, although an indepen-dent federal agency, is considered to be part ofthe foreign affairs family. The Department ofState plays an oversight role with respect to thedevelopment and approval of IBWC Minutessince most IBWC Minutes constitute legallybinding agreements between the United Statesand Mexico. These agreements are governed byinternational law.
The generally accepted customary interna-tional law on treaties is embodied in the 1970Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties. Thistreaty was signed by the United States, but never
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH23
entered into force for it. It was developed toaddress the need to codify the rules applicable totreaties and enhance the stability of the treatyregime following the Second World War.
Under the Vienna Convention a treaty isdefined as an international agreement betweennation states, in written form, intended to bebinding and governed by international law. Thebasic premise of treaty law is that treaties arebinding upon their parties and must be per-formed by them in good faith. There is nointernational treaty police; disputes are generallysettled through negotiation. The key that under-scores all treaty rights and obligations is that justabout anything is possible as long as bothparties agree.
In U.S. practice there is a distinction betweentreaties and executive agreements; however,under international law all international agree-ments are considered treaties. In the U.S.,treaties, such as the ’44 Water Treaty, are thoseagreements requiring the advice and consent ofthe Senate. Executive agreements, are thoseagreements concluded under the executivepower of the President as granted under theConstitution, or concluded pursuant to existingor subsequent legislation, or authorized byexisting treaties. The President may conclude aninternational agreement on any subject withinhis constitutional authority so long as theagreement is not inconsistent with Congres-sional legislation.
A number of factors are considered whendetermining whether a particular agreementshould be entered into for the United States as atreaty or executive agreement, such as the extentthe commitments effect the nation as a whole,whether the agreement affects state laws,whether the agreement requires subsequentCongressional legislation, past U.S. practice,preferences of the Congress, degree of formality,duration, and general international practice.
Notwithstanding any other provision of U.S.law, conclusion of an international requiresconsultation with the Secretary of State. Thislegal requirement is implemented by what has
become known as the Circular 175 procedure. Itallows for a coordinated review of the proposedagreement, ensures that all international agree-ments are fully consistent with U.S. foreignpolicy objectives. It determines when it isnecessary or appropriate to have consultationswith the Congress and whether the publicshould be given the opportunity to comment. Italso provides for a thorough legal review toexamine whether there is sufficient extant legalauthority for the United States to enter into aproposed agreement and execute its terms andconditions. The Office of the Legal Adviserdetermines whether an arrangement constitutesa legally binding international agreement. For itto be legally binding there must be two or moreparties to the agreement and each party must bea nation state or a federal government agency.The parties must intend that it be legally bindingand governed by international law, as usuallyindicated by the specific language used. Thesignificance must be such that it rises to the levelof an international agreement. For example, thesale of one map to a foreign nation would not beconsidered an international agreement. How-ever, an agreement to do mapping of a particularregion, over a prolonged period of time, couldbe considered an international agreement. Thelanguage must reflect a certain level of specific-ity, including objective criteria for determiningenforceability of performance.
All IBWC minutes are subject to this reviewprocess, at which time a determination is madeas to whether the proposed minutes containcommitments clearly contemplated within theexisting treaty structure, or whether they gobeyond the scope of existing treaties and there-fore constitute free-standing internationalagreements, such as those that govern wastewa-ter treatment plants on the border or Minute 242— the salinity Minute. IBWC Minutes are notconsidered amendments to the 1944 WatersTreaty; any amendment of the treaty, i.e. amodification of existing rights and obligations,would require that that agreement be submittedto the United States Senate for its advice and
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH24
consent. In most cases the authority to enter intoand implement IBWC minutes is found withinthe 1944 treaty or other boundary treaties, whichcharge the IBWC with their execution, or withinother existing U.S. statutory authorities.
Once authorized by the Department of Stateto do so, the U.S. IBWC finalizes the terms andconditions of the Minutes with its Mexicancounterpart. Following signature the Minutesare forwarded to the Department of State and tothe Mexican Secretariat of Foreign Affairs. Theyhave traditionally entered into force as agree-ments between the United States and Mexicofollowing the specific approval of both govern-ments.
JAIME PALAFOX
PRIVATE CONSULTANT, WASHINGTON,D.C.:
Mr. Palafox said he wanted to describe someof the institutional alternatives that exist on aninternational level that could aid in understand-ing concerns about the Delta and whether thoseconcerns are warranted or need further study.
The technical side of the Delta must first beunderstood before talking about the legal side. Abetter understanding of the water flows andexisting conditions in the Delta, as well as theoverall health of the ecosystem, is needed. Thereare now environmental concerns that didn’t existwhen the 1944 Treaty was adopted and adoptingMinute 306 is one avenue of addressing thischange.
In 1983, existing treaties were consideredinsufficient to deal with erupting environmentalproblems. The La Paz Agreement, betweenMexico and the U.S., is a border agreement thatallows the countries to address environmentalproblems of joint concern. It includes local, stateand federal institutions, including the IBWC andincludes issues such as hazardous waste, airemissions and other issues. This is what existedprior to the North American Free Trade Agree-ment (NAFTA).
Within NAFTA what are known as theparallel agreements were signed. Under NAFTA,
the Environmental Cooperation Commission(ECC) was formed and designated NAFTA ashaving an obligation to environmental issues forthe three countries (U.S., Mexico and Canada).The commission is available to study jointproblems between the countries and developaction programs to analyze and improve envi-ronmental situations within the countries. Thecommission has a $10 million annual budget andcurrently spends about $7 million annually. Thecommission also has research capabilities thatallow it to verify that countries are complyingwith their environmental regulations.
NAFTA promotes sustainable developmentincluding citizen involvement in environmentalissues. If local governments do not comply withtheir own environmental regulations, citizenscan make them comply through complaints. Italso allows citizens, both within and outside ofthe country, the opportunity to present com-plaints if one country is not meeting its environ-mental obligations. This helps to maintainobjectivity and also applies to transboundaryenvironmental impacts. The ECC, by establish-ing agreements on transboundary environmen-tal impacts, has shown desire to make thetreatment of environmental issues moretransboundary permeable. Ecosystems do nothave borders. There should also be more compli-ance with regards to exchanging information.
The North American Development Bank,established under NAFTA, is designed to assistwith the construction of environmental infra-structure in the U.S. and Mexico. They have $10million annually to spend on feasible projects.The bank is overseen by a board of directors thatestablishes priorities for use of the financing.These priorities are undergoing adjustments byPresident Fox who wants to use the funding inmore efficient ways. Additional money will bebudgeted by the National Water Commissionand other Mexican institutions. The ECC workswith the bank, other institutions and the com-munity to analyze the projects and determinewhat is best. There fore, the bank and the ECCwere created as two separate institutions in
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH25
order to keep the money out of the politicalspectrum.
All of this is important to the Delta becauseinstitutional alternatives exist and can serve as aconduit to providing better information on Deltaand increase operational activity in this area. Theinstitutions, such as the ECC and the NorthAmerican Development Bank, have financialresources available to attend to the Delta. The LaPaz Agreement is viable because it provides agreater scope of people interested in the prob-lems of the Delta and the Colorado River, suchas the Environmental Protection Agency/SEMARNATcreation of the Border 21 program.
Q&A(VERBATIM):
Q: JAIME PALAFOX: What legal or technicalactions are implemented by United Statesgovernment to control the water quality of theColorado River?
A: LUIS ANTONIO RASCÓN MENDOZA:With regards to the actions implemented by theUnited States government to control the qualityof the water in the Colorado River, and I’mgoing to comment on the actions that have beencarried out by IBWC. Even though Minute 242expresses the definite solution to the salinity ofthe Colorado River in the frame of this minute,we have been working in IBWC to look for away in which we can improve the conditions ofthe water delivered in order to ensure thebeneficial use on the Mexican side.
We have a work group in IBWC that analyzesthe quality of water that has been delivered. Wehave had very specific actions related to prob-lems, for example, with regards to the quality ofcertain peaks of water salinity, how can weattend to those problems.
The establishment of facilities to conduct ortransfer the non-saline waters to the MohawkDam are cooperation measures. So, at IBWC,
we’re always looking for cooperative measuresto solve these problems.
Q: JAIME TINOCO: What are the legallimitations in the treaty of 1944 that IBWC hasimplemented to solve ecological problems thatare being suffered by the Colorado River Delta?
A: LUIS ANTONIO RASCÓN MENDOZA:When the treaty was signed, both countries didnot consider the environment. This is somethingthat has had more importance recently. Whenthe treaty was signed, the treaty was focusedspecifically on water distribution. These aspectsthat suffered later on, like water quality, salinity,and other issues, have been looked into withspecific actions. The environmental aspect wasnot included.
Minute 306 takes a first step in that direction— the interest of considering the environment.Of course, right now, all the resources aredistributed and we would have to exploreoptions of how to consider the environment aspart of all this hydraulic system
Q: JAIME TINOCO: Thank you. This is alsoto Mr. Rascon and this is related to expanding onthe information on Minute 306, the objectives,the participation from different role players likelocal government, state government, etc.
A: LUIS ANTONIO RASCÓN MENDOZA:As was expressed during my presentation, weacknowledge the interest from both govern-ments in the conservation of the Colorado RiverDelta. We acknowledge the effort already madeto date. We acknowledge the activities that arebeing carried out by the fourth work group inthe interest of working jointly and of working incooperation to form work groups to have abetter knowledge of the Colorado River Deltaand to exchange information. I think that is, ingeneral terms, the minutes generate or formwork groups where we can identify problemsand potential solutions.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH26
Q: JIM DAVENPORT: I have two questions.Perhaps the three speakers can think about themboth and respond to both of them. The firstquestion relates to the hierarchy of legal signifi-cance of treaties, executive agreements, andstatutorily authorized executive agreements asthey were explained by Mary Brandt.
Would the three of you agree or disagree withthe proposition that any agreement to alter thevolumes of waters assigned to the respectivenations by the 1944 Treaty would require con-gressional approval in the United States andnational legislative approval of the Nation ofMexico? That’s my first question.
My second question is, given your experiencebetween the two nations, what have you foundto be the most valuable and productive andworkable: Is it the more formal agreement thatrequires a greater amount of approval by thenational legislative bodies, or the less formalagreement, which perhaps is more easily alteredand easily adapted to specific problems? Thoseare my two questions.
A: MARY BRANDT: I’ll be happy to explainthat. Under United States law, it would requirean amendment to the 1944 Water Treaty to alterthe water allocation. That would mean that wewould have to do a treaty that would be subjectto the advice and consent of the United StatesSenate.
I also should mention that the hierarchy that Iexplained of agreements, executive agreements,congressional agreements, they’re all equal withstatutes as the law of the land in the UnitedStates.
On your second question about which worksbetter, I’m not sure that I understand the distinc-tion between a formal agreement and an infor-mal agreement. To me an agreement is eitherlegally binding or it’s not legally binding, and Ithink we find within the IBWC that we havelegally binding agreements that work and thatthe IBWC is able to make this system work andwork well.
Q: JIM DAVENPORT: Let me clarify. Iwould agree with you that all have the samelegal effect. The question, I guess, is whetherthey are statutory or administrative type agree-ments, that is, more easily adaptable through anadministrative or regulatory amendment processas opposed to strict statutory or treaty typeamendment process.
A: MARY BRANDT: Well, do you want anagreement that’s legally binding or do you wanta political commitment of the two countries thatdoes not have legal force, that would be theanswer.
After spending 22 years working with treatiesand agreements, I would have to come down onthe side of a legally binding agreement, butthat’s because of my background. Anyone elsewant to comment?
A: JAIME PALAFOX: With regards to theMexican side, if there are any adjustments, if thetreaty has to be amended, that has to go throughthe Mexican Senate.
A: LUIS ANTONIO RASCÓN MENDOZA: Ithink that here we have different interpretationswith regards to the concept that exists of recipro-cal consulting. So, the commitment to do recip-rocal consulting when there is going to be achange or a new water development betweenthe two countries hasn’t been interpreted thesame by both parties.
A: MARY BRANDT: If we’re talking aboutwater quality, then we are probably talkingoutside the framework of the 1944 Water Treatywhich deals primarily with quantity unless youlook at the provisions in the treaty that talk tobeneficial use. I’m not sure, but I suspect thatwe entered into Minute 241, the salinity minute,on the President’s constitutional authority toconduct foreign affairs and not specifically theauthority within the 1944 Water Treaty.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH27
Legal Mattersof the UnitedStates andMexico
JIM LOCHHEAD
BROWNSTEIN HYATT & FARBER, P.C.:Since one theme of the conference is that
hydrologic systems are interrelated, Mr.Lochhead said it is as important to have anunderstanding of the allocations and administra-tion of water at the upper end of the ColoradoRiver system – the Upper Basin – as it is of theDelta region.
Water rights in the Upper Basin were devel-oped before statehood by irrigators and minersin the region, under a system known as “priorappropriation.” This is the law of first-in-time,first-in-right priority. The first water user todivert and use water from a stream has the firstright to use that water as against subsequentappropriators on that stream.
Upon statehood, title to water and the bedand banks of navigable streams and rivers wasremoved from the public or federal domain andwas vested in each state. As a result, each stateowns, controls and manages the water resourceswithin its borders, subject to prior appropriationby its citizens. Though states have individualwater laws, there are elements of prior appro-priation that are common. For example, waterrights are based on a right of use, not ownershipof the water itself. A water right is a propertyright to take water and use it for a beneficialpurpose, at a particular locale and with a givenpriority. Water rights can be created for uses thatare not yet vested. An unperfected right is aproperty right under state law. Individual statesalso can create in-stream flow rights for environ-mental and recreational purposes. States canapprove changes in water rights to new points ofdiversion, places of use or types of use. Gener-ally, changes are granted as long as they do not
injure other water rights.Under the Compact Clause of the U.S. Consti-
tution, states can apportion water amongstthemselves. (The United States Congress and theU.S. Supreme Court also have the power toapportion water between states.) Since com-pacts are adopted by state legislatures andapproved by Congress, they are both state andfederal law. The first interstate equitable appor-tionment of water by a compact was the 1922Colorado River Compact, which apportions theright to consumptively use the water of theColorado River between the Upper Basin andthe Lower Basin. A primary concept of thecompact is the individual sovereignty of eachstate to own, regulate and manage only waterapportioned to that state. Under the Compact,the Upper Division states (Colorado, Utah,Wyoming and New Mexico) must not depletethe flow at Lee’s Ferry, Arizona below 75 millionacre-feet over a rolling 10-year average period.The Upper Basin also may not withhold waterfrom the Lower Basin if the Upper Basin is notusing it.
For the Upper Basin, the 1922 Compact servesas a defined apportionment of water to allow forfuture development and prevent the applicationof prior appropriation on an interstate basis. Italso affirms individual states’ rights to controlappropriation of water and water rights withintheir borders. Under the Compact, the UpperDivision States may not sell, lease or transferwater to a Lower Division State.
The U.S. government has certain rights, bothreserved rights and rights appropriated understate law, to water associated with federal landsuch as national forests and Bureau of LandManagement (BLM) land. There are many issuesassociated with these rights, including howmuch water is needed to meet the purposes ofthe federal reservations.
Indian Tribes also have reserved water rights,many of which remain unquantified. Quantifi-cation is based on practicably irrigable acreage,the needs of the reservation and also on specifictreaty requirements and obligations.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH28
Under constitutional commerce and naviga-tion powers, the federal government has con-structed and operates large water projects for anumber of purposes, including reservoirs tostore and release water so as to allow the UpperBasin to meet Lower Basin obligations. TheSecretary of the Interior has the authority toestablish operating criteria for federal reservoirs,including how water is released and stored. TheSecretary also has the power to declare surpluswater within the Lower Basin. (This surplus isdifferent than a surplus declared under the 1944Mexican Treaty.) This has been a critical compo-nent of the interim surplus guidelines to help theState of California live within its Colorado Riverapportionment as established in Arizona v.California.
As a result of 1) appropriations under statelaw, 2) reserved rights for federal lands andIndian Reservations, 3) apportionments made toall of the states by interstate compact and in the1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act as upheld inArizona v. California, and 4) the delivery obliga-tion of the United States to Mexico under the1944 Treaty, all of the water in the ColoradoRiver basin in the United States has been appor-tioned and is obligated. Major cities, industriesand agricultural operations are dependent onthose allocations, as are environmental andrecreational interests and programs.
GARY WEATHERFORD
WEATHERFORD AND TAAFFE, LLP:Mr. Weatherford said he would focus on the
Lower Basin states and the allocation of Colo-rado River water within those states. Arizona,California and Nevada share a beneficial con-sumptive use right of 75 million acre-feet eachsuccessive 10-year period – about 7.5 millionacre-feet annually. California receives 4.4 millionacre-feet, Arizona 2.8 million acre-feet, andNevada 300,000 acre-feet, determined under the1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act and enforcedby the 1964 Arizona v. California Decree.
The 1964 Decree allows the Secretary of theInterior to allocate the unused apportionment ofone Lower Basin state to use in one or more ofthe other Lower Basin states. Historically,California has used the unused apportionmentsof Arizona and Nevada. However, surplusdeclarations by the Secretary have pushedconsumptive uses of the Lower Basin states, butprimarily by California, to 8.2 million acre-feetannually. California is expected to ramp downits use to the legal 4.4 million acre-feet by 2016.
When a surplus declaration is made, 50percent of the surplus goes to California, 46percent to Arizona and 3 percent to Nevada.However, in the case of the interim surplusguidelines, the normal numbers will be sus-pended.
Within Arizona, the largest of its allocation ispumped from Lake Havasu for the CentralArizona Project – about 1.42 million acre-feet in2000. Other uses in Arizona include the Colo-rado River Indian Reservation, the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District, theYuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District andthe Yuma County Water Users Associations.
California’s apportionment is divided by the1931 Seven Party Agreement. The prioritiesestablished by the agreement left MetropolitanWater District of Southern California’s ColoradoRiver Aqueduct less than half full. The top threeagricultural priorities under the agreement total3.85 million acre-feet of the 4.4 million acre-feettotal apportionment and this has led to somesquabbling among the parties. The pendingquantification settlement is intended to helpresolve some of those differences and includes alarge ag-to-urban water transfer that wouldreduce the 3.85 apportionment to 3.47 by theyear 2012.
For Nevada, the bulk of its 300,000 acre-feetapportionment is diverted through the SaddleIsland diversion of the Robert B. Griffith WaterProject to several Las Vegas Valley water pur-veyors who are members of the SouthernNevada Water Authority. Interstate water
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH29
banking will play a very important role forNevada as the Las Vegas region continues togrow. Such banking is allowed due to flexibilityof the Law of the River that allows the unusedapportionment of one state to be used by an-other.
Water banking in Arizona is permitted underfederal regulations adopted in 1999 and sincethen Nevada has negotiated a water bankingagreement with the Arizona Water Bank. Undersuch agreements, water agencies in Nevada orCalifornia would pay Arizona to place part ofunused apportionments in the ground. Later,when those water agencies request water,Arizona water users will pump the stored waterfor use and reduce diversions from the ColoradoRiver – thus allowing water from the main-stream to be release to those water agencies thathave built up credits in the water bank.
Major reservoir storage is an integral part ofwater supply for the Lower Basin. Hoover Damholds back approximately 28 million acre-feet ofwater that forms Lake Mead. Generation fromthe turbines at the dam total about 4 billionkilowatt hours. Reservoir levels in Mead andupstream at Lake Powell are coordinated by theBureau of Reclamation (Bureau) under the 1970Long-Range Operating Criteria and the 1968Colorado River Basin Project Act
A number of environmental issues impact theLower Basin. Salinity, the most historic waterquality issue on the Lower Colorado River, wasaddressed by Minute 242 which requires U.S.water deliveries to Mexico to not exceed 115parts-per-million, plus or minus 30 parts-per-million, over the average salinity at ImperialDam. Following the minute, the Colorado RiverBasin Salinity Control Forum was enacted andthe 1974 Colorado River Basin Salinity ControlAct was passed. Standards of the act are re-viewed every three years.
The Salton Sea is another environmental issuein the Lower Basin and is located in Imperialand Riverside counties in California. The sea hasa salt concentration 25 percent greater than thePacific Ocean and continues to take on an
additional four to five million tons of saltannually. There are regular fish kills on the sea,which serves as a large bird habitat as well as alarge sport fishery. The Salton Sea Authority andthe Bureau are the lead agencies in preparing theenvironmental impact documents for the sea andcurrently salt removal is the primary target.Other potential problems exist for the sea as itsprimary supply of water is agricultural flowfrom the Coachella and Imperial valleys andpending water transfers and conservation effortscould reduce those flows to the sea.
The are a number of environmental undertak-ings along the mainstem of the Colorado Riveras well. Under guidelines of the 1973 Endan-gered Species Act and from determinations bythe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and theNational Marine Fishery Service, recoveryprograms have been established for a number ofendangered species including the razorbacksucker, the bonytail chub, the southerwesternwillow flycatcher, the Yuma clapper rail and theflat-tailed horned lizard. The Bureau has estab-lished the Lower Colorado River Multi-SpeciesConservation Program, a regional, state, federal,tribal and private partnership aimed at recover-ing the aforementioned endangered specieswhile not hindering river operations. A numberof environmental groups have sued the Depart-ment of Interior and other agencies because ofconcerns over river operations on wildlife inMexico which they feel should be covered by theESA.
MARIO ALFONSO CANTÚ SUÁREZ
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION,MEXICO CITY, D.F.:
The National Water Commission has had aregulatory framework in place since the 1920s.The initial regulations dealt with irrigation lawsand originated with the National IrrigationCommission. These were created to help pro-mote agriculture in Mexico and help initiateconstruction of hydraulic infrastructure.
From 1947 to 1976, the Secretariat of Waterreally began to implement irrigation law. For the
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH30
first time, importance was placed on irrigation,focusing specifically on the irrigation districts,laws regulating water use and the regulation ofnational waters. All of this was integral todevelopment of hydraulic resources and estab-lished the executive commissions within themain water basins in Mexico.
From 1976 to 1994 brought the advent of theSecretariat of Agriculture and this establishedmuch of the federal water law for Mexico. Therewere two sets of regulations: one that handledrecuperation of infrastructure through federalfinancing contributions and the other that dealtwith discharges to national waters or property.
In 1989, the National Water Commission wasestablished and the focus of Mexico’s waterprogram changed from hydraulic infrastructureto more of an economic focus given that water issuch a scarce commodity. However, its mainrole remains to administer and keep custody ofnational waters, manage the hydraulic systemand to produce and promote social develop-ment.
With regards to international waters, theprimary role of the commission is to: providetitles, concessions and permits; maintain a publicregistry of water rights; exercise fiscal aspects;and maintain the existing hydraulic programwhile continuing to develop new programs. Thisincludes both the irrigation systems and thedrinking water systems.
Legally, laws require a concession to usewaters and as such, one must maintain certainwater quality and quantity standards and tomaintain an ecological equilibrium. This in-cludes the preservation of the environment andthe general health of the public. Such concessiondo have a termination period (though thedefinition of such is unclear) but can be ex-tended.
A recent situation in Mexico has establishedthat such concessions can be suspended, espe-cially if customers do not pay for exploitingnational waters, under federal water rights law.If aspects of the concession are not declared,such as place of use or amount of water to be
used, concessions can be suspended. Too little ortoo much water use can result in concessionsuspension. To transfer a permit from one userto another, permitees must request authorizationfrom the commission if it will impact third-partyusers.
Protecting against water pollution is neces-sary. The commission determines the parametersof the discharges and treatment and was estab-lished under a 1996 regulation. Sanctions andfines can be levied against violators. If you usewater, then you pay for it and the same holdstrue for discharges.
Agricultural water users have a variety ofrules to uphold, depending on if the water isgoing to an irrigation district or directly to anagricultural field. There is water scarcity innorthern Mexico that will make growth difficultand the result will likely be a shift in water fromagriculture to other uses. Water projections forthe future show we will not have enough waterto go around. About 83 percent of water usegoes towards agriculture, about 12 percent forpublic use and five percent for industrial use.Agriculture also suffers from low efficiency,contributing about 45 to 60 percent of waterlosses.
From central Mexico to the north, Mexicoaverages about 1,830 cubic meters of water peryear. By contrast, the southern portion of thecountry sees around 15,000 cubic meters. Re-gions such as Sonora and Baja get under 1,000cubic meters of water – a very low availability.The majority of Mexico’s population, about 77percent, lives in the northeast and central part ofthe country and produces the majority of thegoods and services. It would make sense tomove the population to the southern end of thecountry but to do such is nearly impossible.
Aquifers in the northern region of the countryalso are overdrafted. About two-thirds of thegroundwater is used for urban uses and aboutone-third by agriculture. Some of the aquifersalso suffer from water quality problems, such aspollution. In a 1999 sampling of 478 wells (about
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH31
54 percent of the total), about 19 percent werepolluted.
Adequate drinking water and sewage dis-posal are of concern. About 13 million peoplelack adequate drinking water and sewagetreatment and only about 24 percent of the watercollected are treated. About 18 percent of thecountry’s total water supply is untreated. Insome areas of Mexico, the cultural norm is to notpay for such services.
The National Water Commission has theability to issue permits for water and dischargesand therefore can help to distribute water whereit is needed. But part of the problem is a lack ofresources to verify the water is used in the placeand manner in which the government was told itwould be. Consequently, it is a challenge to keeptrack of water users and uses. Sometimes, usersjust want to have a water reserve and areaccumulating the water either for storage or toresell for profit.
Water marketing is another option to improvethe water deficit, but it is a very expensiveproposal for most water users. Water conserva-tion is one method of increasing the supply,especially with regards to irrigation efficiency.This will require convincing water users that it isnecessary to conserve in order to accommodategrowth. The best instrument we have for in-creasing efficiency and conservation is to ana-lyze and revise the water permits, but that willrequire a great deal of manpower and financialresources.
Q&A(VERBATIM):
Q: JIM DAVENPORT: My question iswhether a water right in Mexico which wasbased, which was a water right used for irriga-tion by an irrigation district, which right pre-dates the 1992 water law and is not registered or
confirmed as a concession by 2002, will thatright continue as an effective water right?
A: MARIO ALFONSO CANTÚ SUÁREZ:This is a very important question because it is aproblem throughout Mexico. There are about6,000 water users registered in the agriculturesector where we have to apply the 1992 waterlaw. The 6,000 became identified because wemade an investigation with the electricitycommission and we wanted to know which wereusing the subsidy. We wanted to know whetherthe water user was working on agriculture andthey were complying with the law. When wemade this cross investigation we discoveredabout 6,000. They came to us and they told usthey were not able to do it [register their waterrights as required by the 1992 water law] for thisor that reason, and they are out now [their oldirrigation rights are extinguished]. The onlyway to solve it [this problem] would be througha presidential decree where the president ofMexico would authorize them [the CNA][under the terms of 1995 and 1996] so they[CNA] can issue another permit or concession[to the water user in the agricultural sector].
We have 99,000 users in the agriculture sector,and of these only 57,000 are registered with us[CNA]. The difference, we do not know wherethey are. The size of the problem can be asserious as having 42,000 left out, but we do notknow if it’s because of the electric power com-mission or not. So, we want to establish a newlaw so if they do not go to the water commis-sion, then we are going to turn this over to theelectric commission so we can regulate thesepeople that have a permit and are using it. Weare waiting for a determination by the presidentof Mexico.
But anyway, we have a very serious problem.Thank you.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH32
Panel II:ConveyanceSystems
ConveyanceSystems andInfrastructurein the ColoradoRiver Basin inthe UnitedStates
TOM RYAN
U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,UPPER COLORADO REGION:
Mr. Ryan provided and overview of the waterresources in the Upper Basin, including thenatural hydrologic system.
The Upper Basin is about 113,000 square milesand slightly less in area than the Lower Basin.The region has a varied topography with eleva-tions ranging from 1,000 meters at Lees Ferry toover 4,000 meters in the mountainous headwa-ters. The river originates in Rocky MountainNational Park and is fed by a number of tribu-taries throughout the Upper Basin including thelargest, the Green River. Climates vary and someareas receive over 100 centimeters of rain whileother receive less than 20. April through July isconsidered the runoff period, contributing about70 percent of the annual runoff for the basin.
In the Colorado River basin there are, hydro-logically speaking, both wet and dry periods.Based on flow measurements at Lees Ferry, itwas abnormally wet the first part of the century,followed by a drying period in the ‘30s with acritical period starting in 1953 that brought the
12 driest consecutive years on record. The earlyto mid-‘80s were wet followed by dry years inthe late ‘80s and early ‘90s.
The current rate of depletion from the riverthat is taking place in the Upper Basin is ap-proximately 4.7 million acre-feet includingreservoir evaporation. There are about 50Reclamation reservoirs – more than in the LowerBasin but smaller in size – with over 30 millionacre-feet of water in storage. There are 1.6million acres of irrigated land and most of thewater in the Upper Basin is used towardsagriculture. Many of the projects are relativelysmall and use water from Reclamation facilitiesthat are operated by local water districts.
Water from the Upper Colorado River Basinalso serves major cities such as Denver, Albu-querque and Salt Lake City.
The most significant project in the UpperBasin is the Colorado River Storage Projectauthorized in 1956 under the Colorado RiverStorage Project Act and operated by the Bureau.It authorized construction of Glen Canyon Dam,Flaming Gorge Dam, the Aspinal units – a seriesof three dams (Blue Mesa, Morrow Point andCrystal reservoirs) and Navajo Dam on the SanJuan.
Lake Powell (behind Glen Canyon Dam) isoperated consistent with the 1970 coordinatedlong-range operating criteria. Lake Powellserves as the pool of water at the end of theUpper Basin to assure deliveries required underthe compact reach the Lower Basin. The operat-ing criteria include 3 modes that govern releasesfrom the dam. There is a minimum release of8.23 million acre-feet to meet downstreamdemands. There are equalization releases tobalance the amounts of water in Lake Powelland Lake Mead, though under certain condi-tions, equalization releases are not made.Additionally, spill avoidance is practicedwhereby if high inflows are expected, water isreleased prematurely in order to create storagespace.
There are endangered species recoveryprograms in place in the Colorado River and San
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH33
Juan River basins. The goal is to recover specieswhile allowing water development to take place.Glen Canyon Dam also has an adaptive manage-ment program that integrates scientific informa-tion with dam operations. Operations at GlenCanyon Dam have been modified through the1996 Record of Decision for the Glen CanyonDam Environmental Impact Statement. Powerplant ramp rates and daily fluctuations are nowin place to protect downstream resources in theGrand Canyon. Experimental test releases haveincluded beach habitat building flows thatoccurred in the spring of 1996, and a low, steadyflow in the summer of 2000. A temperaturecontrol device at the dam may be implementedin the future for the benefit of humpback chubpopulations.
Upper Basin uses are expected to increaseover the next 60 years and this will impact LakePowell, leading to a greater number of 8.23million acre-feet release years as opposed to therecent years where reservoir equalization/spillavoidance has been practiced.
JAYNE HARKINS
U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,LOWER COLORADO REGION:
Ms. Harkins provided an overview of theLower Colorado River Basin.
The average annual flow of the river is a littleover 15 million acre-feet and there is a totalstorage capacity on the entire river of about 60million acre-feet – so there is about four timesthe storage capacity of the river’s inflow. Cur-rent storage is about 47.2 million acre-feet –about 80 percent of the basin’s capacity.
There are tributaries to the Colorado Riverbelow Glen Canyon Dam though the mainannual tributary inflow to the Lower ColoradoRiver is less than one-and-a-half million acre-feet. Tributaries include the Gila River and theBill Williams River, however, the primary sourceof water for the Lower Basin comes from LakePowell.
Operation of Hoover Dam and Lake Mead isconsistent with the 1970 Coordinated Long-Range Operating Criteria. Priorities from theBoulder Canyon Project Act are to provide floodcontrol; improve navigation; regulate flows andprovide water for consumptive use; and lastly,power generation. For Mead, there are essen-tially two types of operation: normal operationand flood control.
Normal operations are carried out to meetdownstream demands that include U.S. andMexico consumptive use schedules; downstreamevaporation and transpiration losses; andreservoir regulation in lakes Mohave andHavasu.
Flood control regulations are authorized bythe Corps of Engineers (Corps) and imple-mented through the Bureau. January throughJuly, flood control releases are based on forecastsfrom the National Weather Service on theamount of inflow predicted to the system andthe current available system space. From August1st through January 1st, specific minimum spacerequirements – such as one-and-a-half millionacre-feet in Lake Mead – are implemented. Thenet result of flood control operations is that thereare releases in excess of downstream require-ments.
Inflows to Lake Mead have varied due to lowwater years and the filling of Lake Powell in theearly 80s. Flows below Hoover Dam also havevaried depending on flood requirements andwater use.
There are several facilities below HooverDam. Davis Dam, about 70 miles below HooverDam, is owned and operated by the Bureau as away to re-regulate deliveries to Mexico. Lakeelevations are kept within monthly targetsthroughout the year though such targets can beadjusted to meet short-term needs.
Parker Dam is about 150 miles downstream ofHoover Dam. It, too, is owned and operated bythe Bureau and was built as a forebay for thepumping plants that carry water to Californiaand Arizona. In normal operations, releases from
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH34
Parker are determined and then upstreamreservoir releases are coordinated appropriately.During flood operations, Mead releases aredetermined first and then are coordinateddownstream.
About 14 miles downstream from Parker isHeadgate Rock Dam, operated by the Bureau ofIndian Affairs as a diversion structure forColorado River Indian Tribes and a hydro powerplant. This is followed by Palo Verde IrrigationDam which is about 60 miles downstream ofParker Dam and serves as a diversion structurefor agriculture.
Imperial Dam, located 140 miles below ParkerDam, is owned by the Bureau and operated bythe Imperial Irrigation District (IID). It serves asa diversion structure for IID, Coachella ValleyIrrigation District, Yuma Valley, Yuma Mesa andthe Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District. Anotherdiversion dam, Laguna Dam, is operated by IIDand is located six miles below Imperial Dam.
On the Gila River, a major tributary of theLower Colorado River, is Painted Rock Dam –owned and operated by the Corps. Operationson the mainstem Colorado River are conductedin conjunction with this flood control structure.
Water use in Arizona has been slowly increas-ing since the Central Arizona Project came on-line. The state has been using about 2.7 millionacre-feet, however, use of their full allocation –2.8 million acre-feet – is expected to take place inthe near future with water needs exceeding 2.8million acre-feet.
California use has fluctuated between 4.5 and5.3 million acre-feet but in normal years, underthe proposed plan, use would have to drop totheir basic apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet.
Nevada is using just above its 300,000 acre-feet apportionment this year. Nevada needs areexpected to increase above their basic apportion-ment.
The Bureau has a water conservation programin 17 Western states. The Colorado River Basinhas a $4 million program with 18 employees andestimates it has conserved 350,000 acre-feet of
water between 1997 and 2001. The four compo-nents of the program include planning, educa-tion, demonstrations and implementation. Thosewater districts engaged in major contracts withthe Bureau must have water conservation plans.About 60 percent of the districts have completedplans and submitted them. Assistance from theBureau is given in the form of resource invento-ries, water budgets, technical evaluations,classroom education, financial assistance andgrants for demonstration projects, research onsoil salinity and low water use crops, improvedflow measurements, and cost-sharing/fundingto implement the projects.
JIM CHERRY
U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,YUMA, AZ:
Mr. Cherry provided an overview of thewater delivery infrastructure in the Yuma area,focusing on the flow of the Colorado Riverwaters from Imperial Dam to Morelos Dam.
The area serviced by the Yuma Area Office isspread throughout three states, seven countiesand 277 miles of the Colorado River. The Yumaarea includes 12 irrigation districts, five NativeAmerican tribes and a number of towns andcities. Within the district, there are over 300miles of laterals and canals and over 130 drain-age wells. Issues affecting the region includesediment control, non-native invasive aquaticspecies, drainage issues and groundwater.
There are four primary programs principallyoperated by the Yuma Area office. These pro-grams are primarily operation and maintenance(O&M). One such program encompasses theYuma area and includes Laguna Dam, theboundary pumping plant and the number ofcanals, laterals and drains in the region. Anotherprogram includes salinity efforts such as Title I,desalting research, improving drainage waterquality of the 242 well field, and O&M. TheColorado River Frontage and levy system coverscontrolling, improving and modifying the river.This can include straightening the river channeland conducting investigations where necessary.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH35
The Yuma Area Office also covers water projec-tions, river operations, river accounting, rivergauging, and the Dam Safety programs.
Senator Wash Dam and reservoir is the lastregulating reservoir on the Colorado River. It’sabout two miles upstream from Imperial Damand since 1987, its use has been restricted by theamount of water that can be placed in it due toseepage. Releases from Parker Dam to Yumatake about three days but in the event of athunderstorm that places additional water in thesystem below Parker Dam, Senator Wash allowsthose delivery waters to be stored. WithoutSenator Wash Dam at full capacity, a fair amountof water is passed along to Mexico during suchevents.
Laguna Dam, located 13 miles northeast ofYuma, was the first dam built on the ColoradoRiver in 1905. Today the dam serves as a regulat-ing structure for sluicing flows and downstreamflow protection downstream of Imperial Dam.
Morelos Dam, constructed in 1950, was thelast dam structure built on the Lower ColoradoRiver and was constructed pursuant to the 1944Treaty at the expense of Mexico. It is operatedunder the supervision of the InternationalBoundary and Water Commission.
Agricultural irrigation is the primary use ofwater in the region. Irrigation water is appliedthrough a number of methods including throughsprinkler systems, flood irrigation and dripirrigation.
There are a number of challenges to operationand maintenance in the Yuma region. Sedimentcontrol, in particular bank line erosion, is onesuch challenge. Such erosion can clog diversionfacilities and settling basins. Erosion also candiminish water quality and can pose threats topopulations and facilities because of rivermeandering created by erosion. High tributaryflow events, such as the 1993 flood on the GilaRiver, significantly contribute to this type ofproblem.
Another challenge is non-native invasiveaquatic species, such as Salvinia Molesta. Thiswater fern has the potential to infest ponds,
lakes, streams and choke irrigation systems. Amulti-agency effort to manage the problem isunderway.
Groundwater management is an issue of bi-national concern. Currently, the Yuma AreaOffice and other water resources managementgroups have established a groundwater manage-ment awareness process. An emphasis is beingplaced on return flow quality standards as partof the ongoing drainage program. This alsoincludes the disposal of saline flows in the U.S.
Maintaining water quality for internationaldeliveries to Mexico is a priority. Near theNorthern International Boundary (NIB), adesalting plant is maintained in a ready reservestatus, however, there are daily and seasonalfluctuations in salinity at the NIB. The YumaDesalting Plant, the world’s largest reverseosmosis plant, was built to desalt drainage flowsfrom the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation andDrainage District, however, excess flows on theGila and Colorado rivers have reduced salinitylevels so that the plant has not been needed.
At the Southern International Boundary (SIB),there is an initiative that could help improveflow control and water quality. This initiative isconsidered part of the overall regional ground-water management plan. One portion will be torenovate the SIB pumping facility and installvariable speed controls on one of the fourpumps. Another portion is designed to improvewater quality by constructing a bypass canal thatcould help to modulate saline flows during peakmonths.
CARLOS MARIN
PRINCIPAL ENGINEER, U.S.INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND
WATER COMMISSION:Mr. Marin’s presentation dealt primarily with
water deliveries to Mexico under the 1944 WaterTreaty and elements that impact the waterquality of those deliveries.
The Limitrophe Section is defined as the reachof the Lower Colorado River serving as theinternational boundary between the U.S. and
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH36
Mexico. It is 23 miles long and begins at the NIB,located about a mile above Morelos Dam. AtMorelos Dam, diversions are made through theAlamo Canal for deliveries to Mexico.
The time and frequency of deliveries toMexico are based on the Bureau’s annual operat-ing plan – 1.5 million acre-feet are guaranteed toMexico under the plan. The Secretary of Interiormakes designations on the amount of wateravailable in the system towards the end of theyear. Under surplus declarations, Mexico can begranted an additional 200,000 acre-feet. Mexicoinforms the International Boundary and WaterIBWC of their monthly delivery schedule for theupcoming year after the Secretary makes hisdesignation and the IBWC, in turn, informs theBureau of that schedule. Any changes to theschedule made by Mexico must be made at least30 days in advance of the delivery.
Following the 1944 Treaty, Mexico constructedMorelos Dam in order to deliver water to theMexicali and Sonora valleys. The first deliveryfrom the dam began in 1950. IBWC, both the U.S.and Mexican sections, do the accounting for thedeliveries. The accounting has never posed aproblem and Mexico has always received itswater.
Minute 242, effective on June 24, 1974, pro-vides salinity values for waters diverted atMorelos Dam of no greater than 115 parts-per-million, plus or minus 30 parts-per-million. Thenumber is based on annual flow weightedaverage and not daily values. Salinity values,however, are calculated monthly and samplingis done on both sides of the border. Some bi-national efforts are underway at the SIB to helpmeet salinity values. These include installingsome variable speed pumps and construction ofa conveyance channel that will help alleviateproblems during the critical months of Septem-ber, October, November and January.
Two major flood events on the LimitropheSection in 1983 and 1993 created some sedimentloading problems near Mexico’s intake on theAlamo Canal. A program was hatched to remove330,000 cubic yards of material just upstream of
the intake. However, it has had limited resultsbecause of the continuous volume of sedimentfrom upstream. Another sediment removalprogram at Morelos Dam has removed over amillion cubic yards of sediment.
Currently, the IBWC is undertaking anEnvironmental Impact Statement on theLimitrophe Section in order to preserve the riverchannel. Because of existing sediment and lowvolumes of water, vegetation has claimed muchof the channel and reduced the 140,000 cubic-feet-per-second floodway conveyance capacity.This could create problems during a flood eventand puts the Yuma Area at risk, as well as,populations on the Mexico side. The Corps ofEngineers is studying remedying the situationwhile being cautious to meet environmentalcompliance.
The IBWC has established task forces to dealwith issues on the river such as salinity, sedi-ment, preservation of the Limitrophe Section, theDelta and the lining of the All American Canal.In addition to IBWC members from both sides ofthe border, the task forces also include individu-als from the Bureau and Mexico’s NationalWater Commission.
Q&A(VERBATIM):
BILL RINNE: I’ll read the first question.How many acre-feet of water per acre are usedper year on Yuma area agricultural lands? Andplease answer with both average and highvalues. Do you want me to read that again?
JIM CHERRY: No, I understood the question.I don’t have that information right with me. I’mthinking it’s in the 417, but we have that infor-mation available but I do not have that rightwith me.
BILL RINNE: And I think it’s true too, thatdepending on the particular district or the landtypes you had some variation in that.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH37
JIM CHERRY: Absolutely. On the sandiersoils on the Mesa, they of course are going to usemore water than in the valley, and the type ofirrigation system also is going to dictate. If it’sflood irrigation on sandier soils, it’s going to usequite a bit more than drip irrigation on thesandier soils. We do have those averages, but Idon’t have those with me right at this moment.
BILL RINNE: And the second question also,does the Bureau of Reclamation have any legalobligation to ensure reasonable use of ColoradoRiver water?
JIM CHERRY: Through the part 417 of the ...
BILL RINNE: Yes, the beneficial use. Thebeneficial consumptive use part 417. You haveanother question. Okay.
JIM CHERRY: We do have a legal obligationto ensure that water is beneficially used andconsumed, Colorado River water.
BILL RINNE: Thank you, Jim. We have aquestion for Jayne. Why don’t you read it andthen.
JAYNE HARKINS: The question is onFebruary 5th, we researchers, a group fromUniversity of Baja, California, wrote a letter toyou asking for the interim surplus water policyfrom 2001 to 2015 on the Colorado River water.And the question we ask you is related forwhich what will be the role of Mexico in this ...I’m not sure what that says, in the interimsurplus criteria? And does the U.S. Governmentagree to share surplus water with Mexico?
The interim surplus criteria that we devel-oped were for guidelines on how to deliversurplus water to the three lower basin states inexcess of 7.5 million acre-feet. It did not includehow Mexico would share in that surplus water.We do when we deliver flood control releases orwe’re projecting to deliver flood control releases,make available to Mexico additional waterunder the treaty.
And Carlos, I think the last question is foryou. There’s a number three there.
CARLOS MARIN: The question is how muchwater should be given to the Colorado RiverDelta to be sustainable ecological quota? I haveno idea to tell you the truth, but the number thatI have heard from other sources is about 30,000acre-feet. I really have no idea what it wouldtake to sustain the Delta area.
TOM RYAN: Here’s the question. Are thereany instances where environmental legislationhave freed, forced plumbing operations in theColorado River to change in order to preservethe ecosystem. I think in the Upper Basin theanswer to that is the Endangered Species Act1973. I don’t know that we’ve changed theplumbing, but there’s been a number of re-operations of facilities, most notably FlamingGorge and Navajo, where in order to provideflows that are necessary to preserve and aid inthe recovery of endangered species, we havechanged the operation patterns at those reser-voirs.
JAYNE HARKINS: For the Lower Basin, wedo have some specific Endangered Species Actrequirements on our Lake Mohave elevationswhich does impact Mohave releases and some ofthe releases from Hoover Dam. It doesn’tchange the amount of water we deliver pastParker Dam, but it does impact the releases andelevations at certain times of the year for razor-back suckers in Lake Mohave.
TOM RYAN: Just one other addition. I didthink of an actual plumbing change. There’s afish ladder near the Redlands Diversion aroundthe Gunnison River where the Redlands Diver-sion had limited the passage of Colorado pikeminnows and so, that was specifically put in toallow for passage of endangered species.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH38
Panel II,ConveyanceSystems andInfrastructurein the ColoradoRiver Basin inMexico:
FRANCISCO A. BERNAL RODRIGUEZ
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND
WATER COMMISSION, MEXICAN
SECTION, MEXICALI OFFICE:Mr. Bernal focused on the operational aspects
of the IBWC from Mexico’s perspective.In relation to the rest of the Colorado River
basin, the section of the river in Mexico isrelatively short, however, it still serves as thewater supply for the states of Baja and a portionof Sonora. The number of dams throughout theUnited States and Mexico provide a watersupply for specific uses. However, water is notprovided for the Gulf of Mexico.
The Mexican section of the IBWC is respon-sible for operating and maintaining MorelosDam. This includes the water quality aspectsthat were mentioned by previous speakers.
When going into a water year, the NationalWater Commission sends to the Mexican sectionof the IBWC a calendar of desired water vol-umes for delivery which, in turn, will be turnedinto water use. Las derivaciones se hacenconforme lo establecen las reglas del Tratado de1944 and then is delivered at the NIB or SIB andthese deliveries have a right to increase ordecrease in an amount not to exceed 20 percent.This is an important aspect to recognize becauseMexico does not have a dam to store water. Thisflexibility allows Mexico to alter the deliveryamounts if use fluctuates. Changes to deliveryrequests are reflected in the upcoming month’s
deliveries so as not to impact operation toomuch. However, such alterations to the scheduledo require close coordination between theagencies involved.
Changes to deliveries at the NIB will bereflected in balancing the deliveries made at theSIB. At the SIB, the water deliveries primarilyconsist of untreated effluent from Yuma anddrainage flows and is used to irrigate lands inthe San Luis area. Water received at the NIB isprimarily for irrigation in Mexicali and theTijuana aqueduct.
Volumes of Colorado River water over theborder have varied throughout the 20th Century.Events such as the construction of Glen CanyonDam reduced the amount of surplus watersdelivered to Mexico. At times, surplus flowswere quite heavy and this resulted in construc-tion of infrastructure in Mexico that couldhandle such large volumes of water. In recentyears, these surplus flows have benefited theDelta. In 1999, the surplus flows were nottremendous, but they were stable and continu-ous.
Though Minute 242 set a salinity standard atthe NIB, it did not set a standard for the SIB andthose flows have an average of 1,400 parts-per-million. The number, however, has decreased inthe past year because pumping has increasedfrom other sources in the Yuma Valley. In 1996,when surplus flows were minimal, the differencebetween Morelos and Imperial dams was 400parts-per-million. From the Wellton-Mohawkdrainage channel that feeds the Cienega deSanta Clara, salt loads currently measure about2,500 parts-per-million.
Minute 291, passed in 1993, led to efforts toclean the Colorado River channel on both sidesof the border that were impacted by sediment.During the past two years, a sedimentation basinwas constructed on the Colorado River, 2.7kilometers downstream from Morelos Dam(financed by the Bureau) that has been effectivein decreasing sediment loading in the water.
Prior to the signing of Minute 306, a letter ofintent was signed in 1997 between both govern-
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH39
ments to explore and exchange informationregarding the Colorado River Delta. Environ-mental groups have been outspoken aboutimplementation of the Lower Colorado RiverMulti-Species Conservation Program because itdoes not extend beyond the border.
Also that year, a joint work group (IV Workgroup) was started between the two sections ofthe IBWC, Bureau and Mexican agencies in-volved in these issues – the first phase of whichwas to use GPS geographic information toanalyze vegetation in the Cienega de SantaClara. Technical meetings have been held toanalyze the environmental impacts of upstreamwater projects on the Delta and how to makethese projects more compatible with the Deltawhile not creating a direct impact on theiroperation. This bi-national work group has beenidentifying projects and updating an inventoryof information, including scientific, governmen-tal and academic information, for the public.Modeling also has been proposed to determinehow flooding certain areas of the Delta wouldimpact vegetation in the Delta. It is these meet-ings that led to the organization of the bi-national Delta symposium – an integral compo-nent to the management of the Delta.
JOSE TREJO ALVARADO
DIRECTOR, MEXICALI IRRIGATION
DISTRICT, NATIONAL WATER
COMMISSION:Most of the years, the river below the border
is dry. Most of the water diverted at MorelosDam is used by the irrigation districts in theMexicali Valley for beneficial uses. In total,including groundwater, there are about 2,740million cubic meters of water available to theregion annually.
The Mexicali Valley is located in the last partof the Colorado River Basin and is comprised ofan irrigation basin of about 350,000 hectares withinfrastructure to support about 250,000 hectares.However, because of public distribution, thereare only about 208,000 irrigated hectares. About26,600 of the hectares are located in San Rio
Colorado, Sonora and the rest, 181,000 hectares,in the state of Baja. The Colorado River is theonly secure source of water for the whole state ofBaja California.
Groundwater, about 197 million cubic metersannually, is used in the San Luis region (23million) and for urban areas like San Luis RioColorado, Mexicali (82 million), Tecate (3.3million), Ensenada (9 million) and Tijuana (80million). Agriculture also uses groundwater –about 500 million cubic meters annually, 200million of which are for private use. There are725 wells, 432 of which are federal, 236 privateand an additional 67 that are federal but that areused by the urban area in San Luis.
Over the past eight years, there has been somesurplus water available. It is estimated that overthe last eight years – which were heavier surpluswater years – surplus flows have exceeded 800million cubic meters. If enough warning is givenabout the possibility of surplus flows, such flowscan be used to support a second harvest. Surplusflows also can be used in lieu of pumpinggroundwater.
The Delta serves as a means of managingflows to and from the irrigation districts. Fouroperational levels are used to accomplish this.First, the National Water Commission handlesdeliveries from Morelos Dam through the first27 kilometers of the main river channel. Sec-ondly, it is delivered to the myriad of irrigationcanals, loosely controlled by an overseeing body.Thirdly, this body then delivers water to the 23civil associations who fourthly, deliver it to thedistrict for irrigation. The waters are deliveredthrough a system comprised of 424 kilometers ofmain channels and 2,152 kilometers of secondarychannels for irrigation districts, 2,350 of concretechannels and 2,376 kilometers of open airchannels. To manage all the channels, there are9,432 structures and 1,493 drains.
Soil types have made managing ColoradoRiver flows a challenge. Most of the soil deposi-tion in Mexico is the result of sedimentationfrom higher in the basin. Certain soil types havegiven rise to invasive plant species, such as salt
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH40
cedar. The impact from this invasive species hasbeen reduced transport capacity in the riverchannel. Areas of the channel have been riprapped to help the river flow and discourageplant growth. In some cases, trouble areas of theriver channel are bypassed to ensure higherquality water.
Along the Hardy River, there is irrigationinfrastructure as well as pumping facilities. Thepumping facilities operate on gravity, andpermit distribution of agricultural runoff.Currently, about 89 million cubic meters ofagricultural runoff are flushed through thesystem and into the river. The lower section ofthe river is more prone to sediment depositionbecause of sharp bends.
The Gila River, especially in 1993, producedstrong flows that impacted hydrology south ofthe border. The result was large deposits ofsedimentation – about 12 million cubic meters.Estimates are that all but about 5 million cubicmeters could have stayed on the U.S. side ifproper precautions had been taken. The worknow being taken at Morelos Dam by the Bureauhas helped to clean-up the large deposits of silt.However, about 2 million cubic meters of silthave created problems for the Mexicali waterdistribution system. The deposits are currentlybeing removed.
LUIS LÓPEZ MOCTEZUMA TORRES
PRIVATE CONSULTANT, BAJA
CALIFORNIA:Minute 306 defines the conceptual framework
between Mexico and U.S. for the development ofstudies to provide recommendations about theColorado River and the Delta. Specifically, itacknowledges the interest of the IBWC commis-sioners and their corresponding governments inconserving the ecology of the river and theDelta. This includes developing joint studies,recommendations for cooperative projects andthe possibility of allocating water for environ-mental purposes based on the principal of equaldistribution of resources.
Article 3 of the 1944 Treaty outlines water useof deliveries to Mexico in order of preference asfollows: First, domestic and municipal uses;second, agriculture and stockraising; third,electric power; fourth, other industrial uses;fifth, navigation; and sixth, hunting fishing andhunting. The final preference is for any otherbeneficial use determined by the commission.Comments from a technical report on the treaty(reported by Mr. Orive de Alba, an executivemember of the National Irrigation Committee)states that the priority established by the ’44Treaty are in correspondence with the 1972federal decree that established federal water law.However, the ’44 Treaty also states that federalexecutives can alter the order of the preferences(with the exception of the domestic uses) whenof interest to the community.
Baja California Mexico has changed from acountry with about 46 percent of its populationin a rural setting in 1930 to only 9 percent of itspopulation in a rural setting by the mid-1990s. In1992, the National Water Law was developedfurther giving domestic uses preference in timesof emergencies, scarcity, overuse or when thereis surplus.
Mr. Orive de Alba’s report states that thestretch of the Colorado River in Yuma, where theriver serves as the boundary between the twocountries, flows at 32,554 gallon-per-second(6,800 cubic meters-per-second). The maximumrunoff in 43 years of observation occurred in1940 with about 22,700,000 acre-feet (28,000million cubic meters). Article 10, paragraph (a)says Mexico is guaranteed 1,500,000 acre-ft(1,850 million cubic meters) annually.
Urban centers in Baja California are expectedto have a population of more than 4 millionpeople by the year 2030. Given the growingpopulation, water distribution systems have tobe better lined to be more efficient and effluentwill have to be adequately treated for reuse.Despite a number of wastewater treatmentplants in Baja California, wastewater is not beingreused in the major cities like Mexicali andTijuana. Mexicali returns its effluent to the New
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH41
River, and Tijuana and Ensenada return theireffluent to the sea.
Agriculture uses about 93.4 percent of thewater; industry uses 3.8 percent; and municipali-ties use about 2.7 percent. However, agricultureloses about 70 percent of the water they use;industry 20 percent; and municipalities 10percent.
How can riparian ecology be conserved in theLimitrophe Section? By ascribing a water supplyto the Delta. From 1930 to 1935 Hoover Dam wasconstructed and Mexico protested constructionof the dam because it altered the hydrology ofthe river and modified the agreement betweenthe two countries. However, it was acknowl-edged that the Colorado River was a navigablewaterway that would extend to the Gulf ofCalifornia. However, in most years, the riverdoes not reach to the Gulf. For the river to dosuch would require additional flows.
The amount of water needed every four years,in order to sustain flora and fauna in the Deltaregion, is estimated to be 353,500 acre-ft (436million cubic meters). This breaks down to about32,000 acre-ft (40 million cubic meters) a yearand 256,000 acre-ft (316 million cubic meters)every fourth year. The total amount correspondsto be less than 0.5 percent of the ColoradoRiver’s total runoff for this same period of time –a total of about 71,340,000 acre-ft (88,000 millioncubic meters).*
The solution would seem to be a reduction inthe amount of wasted water on both sides of theborder. Article 8 of the treaty says nationalexecutives can decree the reserves of nationalwater for the minimum flow required to main-tain stable flows for the environment. Thisincludes the preservation of aquatic species andthe restoration of aquatic ecosystems includingmarshes and lagoon, as well as aquatic ecosys-tems that have tourist or recreational value.
There is a pending task, not addressed by the’44 Treaty, to have a volume of Colorado Riverwater permanently devoted to the river so that itcan continue from its headwaters to the Gulf. Wemust agree to create a research center for the
Colorado River to examine the agencies incharge of water treatment and see what theirwater recycling requirements are required aswell as research how such recycled water can beused. The water efficiency of these organizationsmust be examined and industrial water use mustbe improved.
*Defenders of Wildlife and Southwest Center forBiological Diversity.
Q&A(VERBATIM):
ALFONSO ANDRES CORTEZ LARA:Thank you, Mr. Lopez Moctezuma. We areconcluding with this presentation the presenta-tions made by the panelists, and now we willbegin with the session of questions and answers,comments, et cetera, complaints. And we havesufficient time according to the program, so ifyou have any questions in writing please couldyou send them to us. We haven’t received any. Iask you to tell me who those questions aredirected to and that would be easier to answerthem.
Here is a question: Who is part of the fourthwork group and what are the specific purposesof this group and the projects?
FRANCISCO BERNAL RODRIGUEZ:I think that it’s for me. The fourth work
group is a technical bi-national group that wasformed, as I mentioned during my presentation,in 1997. This group is made up of authoritiesfrom both governments.
On the Mexico side we have the participationof representatives of the National Commissionof Natural Resources through the field office ofthe Colorado River Biosphere Reserve andUpper Gulf of California (Upper Gulf), and alsopeople from the state government and theNational Water Commission coordinated byIBWC.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH42
On the U.S. side, the Bureau through theBoulder offices and Yuma, the Fish and WildlifeService from the federal government, and someother agencies at state and local levels.
This group is coordinated through IBWC andthe projects and objectives that they have are ingeneral to carry out projects to review some ofthe impacts hydraulic projects have in theColorado River. I mentioned three projects thatwe are carrying out in that group. The first oneis to establish an inventory of the existinginformation. The second project is the hydraulicmodel that is being condensed, and we willcarry it out through a specialized group throughwhich people who create the model from theUnited States and Mexico with specializedgroups, and the environmental side correspondsto the agencies that I already mentioned.
ALFONSO ANDRES CORTEZ LARA: Thenext question is also related to this. MaybeBernal or the U.S. IBWC section can respond. It’sfour questions in one and refers to the fourthgroup. How can the inventory be concluded oravailable of this fourth work group, and if thisinventory of documents would be available tothe public, how? Another question, how do youdefine the area of the Delta restoration, andwhen can the information published be re-leased?
FRANCISCO BERNAL RODRIGUEZ: Thoseare several questions. That would have to beanother presentation, but I will try to give you afast answer.
In some way I mentioned that these threeprojects are being carried out. However, wehave made progress. The first project is estab-lishing proposals. Maybe soon we can releasethis information. We’re looking for a way inwhich this depository of information could bethrough a web page or maybe through a docu-ment that could be published. The most obviousis that it could be through a web page coordi-nated through certain groups, certain agencies.
What we have not been able to do or todetermine to date is the site. If these documentsexist physically, how can you have access tothem? These documents are 500 to 1,000 pageslong. We could give some feedback on theserequests, but we have to look for a way in whichwe can, through abstracts or summaries or aliterature guide, make them available as soon aspossible. This is coordinated by Mr. Campoywith counterparts in the United States and theMexican section in El Paso.
With regards to the model, one thing followsthe other. If we don’t have the model devel-oped, we have not identified the habitat restora-tion areas. But we have made some proposalsand some joint projects have been carried outthrough the reserves operated by the Depart-ment of Wildlife, together with the biospherereserve, and they are proposing some sites.
For example, they are proposing an areabelow Morelos Dam to restore some trees, andwe have to review in order not to have animpact on the operation of the Morelos Dam.There are other areas like the Hardy River andother areas that are considered flood zones.However, something that we have discussedduring the meetings on the Mexican side is thatas long as we don’t have the possibility ofsustaining these sites with water, it would bevery difficult to implement them. This is theelemental, or the fundamental, part and as wesolve this we would be trying to implementthese types of practices.
ALFONSO ANDRES CORTEZ LARA: Thesequestions are directed to CNA for Mr. TrejoAlvarado. This is a question regarding the basinboards, how are they integrated or organized,and are the basin boards operating right now?
JOSE TREJO ALVARADO: The basin boardsor councils were carried out at a state level, butare grouped by region. The users are grouped inthe case of areas where they are using under-ground water.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH43
In the case of the Mexicali Valley in this areaof the Rio Colorado, we have the Rio ColoradoCouncil made up of all the different type ofusers. We have users from water companies, wehave urban public customers, agricultureconsumers, industrial users, and agencies thatmake up the state government, the municipali-ties. We have two states and two municipalities,the State of Sonora and the State Baja, California;the municipality of San Luis and the municipal-ity of Mexicali.
This basin council was formed a little bit morethan a year ago. It is working. It is beingconsolidated and we’re gathering information.We’re talking about having a web page. We’retalking about having a bank of information ordatabase. And it’s working to capacity with allthe data. It is working to full capacity with allits users integrated.
ALFONSO ANDRES CORTEZ LARA: Ithink that this question is for different institu-tions even though it’s directed to IBWC U.S.section for the different actions carried out bythe IBWC. How much do you consider theclimactic variations, like for example the El Niñoor La Niña phenomena, or how much do youintegrate this into the actions that you carry out?
CARLOS MARIN: On this issue I think as faras IBWC is concerned, you know, we’re I guessbased on the treaty is the allocation of water tothe communities or to the different countries.We do extensive water accounting both on theColorado River and the Rio Grande, and I guess,it’s synonymous of El Nino, La Nina, and stuff.It basically relates to the water that’s madeavailable to the different basins and, you know,for municipal and agriculture, industrial use. Idon’t think we put much emphasis on that onthe phenomena but just on the water that theyprovide is a very important issue. Not related tothe Colorado River, but the Rio Grande, we dohave a severe drought in that area and, ofcourse, it’s a very delicate very serious issue thatwe’re facing in that basin there.
ALFONSO ANDRES CORTEZ LARA: Ithink that this question is for Mr. Torres withregards to part of his presentation on the re-search center that you mentioned in the RioColorado. I think that this question is regardingexpanding on this question. Who would be partof this institute or how would it be formed?
LUIS LóPEZ MOCTEZUMA TORRES: Thereis the disposition because Minute 306 wassigned. How can we carry out this research onthe Delta of the Rio Colorado? Well, withexperts on these areas.
I see and what I presented that in each wateruse we have a waste, sometimes greater, some-times smaller, and I’ll give you a very clearexample. The reserved water. We take it 180kilometers from here to over there, we move it1,200 meters, we treat it and then we dischargeto the sea.
With domestic water, we use more thannormal and that is because of a lack of research.And in the agricultural area, that’s more dra-matic. The waste of water in the agriculturalarea, instead of making more beneficial use, wejust waste it.
Who would form this institute? I would justleave it in the air. I don’t know. I know who canparticipate, the ones that I mentioned. We needmany areas, not only experts at a local level butat a national level as well.
I think these three questions have to do withthe ecological use of the Rio Colorado Delta.This has to do with the question of is it possibleto expand a Mexican official standard to definethe environmental use of what is required forthis area to be sustainable? And I think thateverything is focused on the volumes requiredfor the Delta.
Mexican official standards are drafted by theMexican side and in some ways, there are someindication from research of a volume of waterneed to sustain the Delta. We continue workingon that.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH44
I think that the majority of these questions, upto a certain point, will be answered with thepresentations that we are going to hear tomor-row. It would be important to make a linkbetween the environmental side, the operationalside and in some way the legal side, which is thelegal frame that was discussed this morning.That is the reason we’re here. And I think thatas we search for the answers during the presen-tations, then we will satisfy those concerns wehave.
ALFONSO ANDRES CORTEZ LARA: Thisis a question for Mr. Trejo. Can you expand onthe information of how the underground flowsmove and how the aquifer in the Mexicali Valleyis supplied? I think they are trying to determinehow the All American Canal supplies water tothe aquifer.
JOSE TREJO ALVARADO: The hydrologicaldata from the Mexicali Valley using the flowsthat we have analyzed are more or less asfollows. If you use your imagination, rememberthe maps that we saw of the north of the bound-ary line of the Rio Colorado, and then the part ofthe San Luis sandy area to be placed in theirrigation area of the Rio San Luis.
The aquifers that are exploited in the MexicaliValley, partially come from the north of theMexicali Valley. We’re talking about the wellsclose to the area of Algodones. To the north theycome to the Mexicali Valley in 100 million cubicmeters. Where we have the boundary of theColorado River with Arizona and Baja Califor-nia, we have another contribution of 50 millioncubic meters. And we have another contribu-tion, a vertical contribution, in the same irriga-tion district area given by our own users.
We also have from the San Luis sandy area,another flow that comes from Arizona to Sonorato contribute what is supplied in that part. I’mtalking from memory, and I would have to addup all these numbers to give you the totalnumber of the volume I mentioned, but thoseare more or less the flows.
I’m appealing to the person who asked thequestion to remember the districts so you canobtain your answer.
ALFONSO ANDRES CORTEZ LARA: Andhere we conclude with these questions. All ofthem have to do with the same thing. These referto Minute 242 and clarifying what it has to dowith the water salinity, the differences betweenthe water that we have in the Imperial Dam andthe water that we have in Mexico and to expandon that aspect. Is there any program beingconsidered to modify those great variations ofsalinity in the water that Mexico receives?
FRANCISCO BERNAL RODRIGUEZ: Imentioned in my presentation about desire toeliminate the variation as we have greateravailability of water. This is an issue occurs in anatural way, or periodic way, when we havesurpluses.
We have a measure to improve the conditionsin the NIB. We’re working on a limit for the SIB.Jim Cherry mentioned in his presentation themodification being proposed for the deliveryarea, the pumping area. They already have aconcrete project to begin in the next weeks. Insome way this implies modifying the systems tocontrol the speed. And in the process, we’ll beeliminating some of those saline peaks.
To eliminate the saline peaks, we are consider-ing replacing certain waters that are supplied ordelivered on that side with water from the wellsthat are being pumped in that area. Part of themore saline flows would be delivered throughan interconnection channel with the Wellton-Mohawk channel. This is a project being carriedout jointly with Yuma County Water UsersAssociation and through the Bureau, in whichMexico and the United States are working to seewhat would be the U.S. requirements for Mexicoto operate that diversion.
One of them is to increase the capacity ofSanchez Mejorada canal so that it can give us anaverage stability that is greater than what we arereceiving right now.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH45
In the case of the NIB, in a unilateral way,Mexico has been working since 1996/97 toimplement equipment to measure salinity. Theseautomatic systems would give us a measure-ment in real-time that would allow us at a givenmoment to be able to detect certain salinitypeaks of the water that is coming into Mexico.
This is something that we have not agreed tounder the commission. Such a proposal wouldgive immediate knowledge of the salinity of thewater that is coming into Mexico. We’re talkingabout automatic measurement systems whichwe could monitor using the existing communi-cation systems, allowing us to receive thatinformation on a timely manner.
This proposal would require a certain invest-ment and we are exploring this on the Mexicanside from the perspective of having joint imple-mentation between Mexico and the UnitedStates. That would help us to generate certaininformation that, at a given moment, wouldallow us to have more adequate managementaspects for delivery with regards to salinity.
ALFONSO ANDRES CORTEZ LARA: Thisis a very interesting question that perhaps couldbe answered by both sides. It has to do with theinterim surplus criteria in the Rio Colorado.
FRANCISCO BERNAL RODRIGUEZ: Wehave shared the surpluses of the Colorado River,and usually we have had damages on theMexican side when we have had flooding. Howcan Mexico be integrated into the interimsurplus criteria?
JAYNE HARKINS: I think I mentioned earlierthat the interim surplus guidelines were for thedelivery of surplus water to the three LowerBasin states. I think looking further, if wewanted to define how Mexico would become apart, we would have to work with Mexico andput some definitions on treaty surplus andchange parts of that or put more definition tothat part of what the surplus definitions are withregards to the treaty. I think that’s where we’d
have to go to provide more water or share inmore water.
CARLOS MARIN: In the 1944 Treaty, it statesthat Mexico will share in any surplus if there isno beneficial use in the United States. Again,like Jayne has mentioned, I think that wouldrequire a modification. If I understand right,even in this interim surplus criteria, there’sprobably around a 23/24 percent chance duringthe next 15 years that Mexico would get asurplus allocation. Of course, it all depends onthe system and any inflows into the system. It’sjust an issue that I think time will tell if Mexicowill be getting any surplus waters out of theColorado River system.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH46
Wednesday, September 12, 2001
Panel IIIEnvironmentalIssues
Technical andScientificStudiesSpecies andHabitat in theColorado RiverDelta and UpperGulf ofCalifornia
MODERATOR: EXEQUIEL EZCURRA
NATIONAL ECOLOGY INSTITUTE OF
MEXICO:Mr. Ezcurra informed the audience many
representatives from the U.S. government wererequested to return home due to the incidents onSeptember 11 and that panels would be short.He mentioned that given the incidents in theU.S., the dimension of what was being discussedat the conference seems smaller than the currentevents unfolding in the U.S.
DR. EDWARD GLENN
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, ENVIRON-MENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY:
Dr. Glenn began his talk by stressing the needfor more research in the Delta. There also is agreat deal of research that has already beenconducted, including about 20 papers in the
September 2001 issue of the Journal of AridEnvironments (Volume 49[1]). The U.C. Mexusprogram is funding ten new grants and therewill be new investigators in the field in theupcoming years.
On the U.S. side of the border, there is plentyof water in the river channel next to the border,however, the water is contained within thechannel and it has a very narrow flood plain.Most of the vegetation is dominated by shrubhalophytic vegetation because there is no over-bank flooding to wash the salts from the soil andto germinate tree seedlings. Most likely, floodingwill not occur in this river segment as there isproperty development along the river.
Agricultural return flows are a primarysource of water for the Delta. Wellton MohawkIrrigation District irrigation flows over the past20 years have created the largest emergentwetland in the Sonoran Dessert – the Cienega deSanta Clara. The wetland now covers about15,000 acres. In 1993, these flows were inter-rupted and the Cienega dried out. However,flows continued the following year and thehabitat was revived – verifying these ecosystemsare very resilient.
On the Mexican side of the border, pastMorelos Dam, the river has the ability to spreadout over a flood plain. This has created extensivecottonwood/willow habitat that require floodevents to become established. They seem tocontinue their existence on subsurface water –about two meters beneath the river bed – evenwhen there is no flow in the river. Flood flowsremain the largest source of water for the Delta.About 20 percent of the total river flow in thepast 20 years (since Lake Powell filled) havebeen flood flows and these typically come withEl Niño events.
Over the past two years, remote sensing andground studies have been conducted using tencross river transects to measure the cottonwood/willow zone and then categorizing by speciesand plant type. Most of the trees are from the1993 (about 70 percent of the vegetation) and1997 floods in the area. This has shown the
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH47
differences between the U.S. side of the riverversus the Mexico side as a result of the pulseflood flows. Most of the gallery forests that usedto dominate other parts of the river have re-established in Mexico. There are now severalthousand hectares of cottonwood and willowgallery forests in Mexico versus 98 hectaresremaining on the U.S. side.
There is an effort to determine the minimumflows needed to support the Delta habitat. InJanuary 1997, there was a release of approxi-mately 250,000 acre-feet of water over a three-month period. This was enough water to inun-date the flood plain, get water flowing into theGulf and Laguna Salada, and resulted in vegeta-tion response the following year. The water inthe MODE canal will be needed to keep theCienega alive – about 120,000 acre-feet of waterannually.
For the rest of the Delta, it is estimated that aflood release is needed every three to four yearsin order to germinate new cottonwood andwillow seedlings. Such trees can survive withoutwater for three or four years as was shown bythe trees established during the 1993 flows.Estimates for water needs in the Delta is about102,000 acre-feet of water annually. The total isabout .5 percent of the average annual flow ofthe Colorado River.
The estuary region of the Delta also is need of“freshening up.” Salinity measurements haveindicated that flows of 200 cubic-meters-per-second – about 20 percent of the maximumreleases done – decreases salt level in the estuarysignificantly in the northern Gulf. A correlationalso has been shown between shrimp catchesand flood events. To double the shrimp catch atSan Felipe (estuary region of the Delta), it’sestimated an additional 50,000 acre-feet of waterperennially is needed.
DR. SAÚL ÁLVAREZ BORREGO
CENTER FOR HIGHER STUDIES AND
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, ENSENADA:Dr. Borrego said he would discuss the Upper
Gulf of California, while focusing on twoprimary aspects: the impacts the lack of water inthe Colorado River has had on salinity and theapparent lack of nutrients and that impact on thecollapse of some fisheries.
There isn’t a lack of nutrients. The primaryproblem stems from the change in water qualityin the Upper Gulf – from an estuary to an anti-estuary. There are plenty of nutrients fromagricultural runoff, such as nitrate, but theeffects of these on the estuary are still understudy.
The University of Baja California beganconducting research on water quality in theUpper Gulf in the 1970s. Though the Gulf ofCalifornia is under the sovereignty of Mexico, itis a resource for both Mexico and the U.S. andultimately, the world.
We can compare the Gulf of California andthe Mediterranean. When the Nile River did notflow into the eastern Mediterranean, sardine andshrimp production collapsed due to the lack ofnutrients, not unlike what is happening in theGulf. While the Upper Gulf continues to be aproductive fishery, in a certain way, shrimpersalso are to blame for the reduction of marinebiodiversity. They have continued to systemati-cally harvest even when populations are small.
The Upper Gulf receives nutrients fromseveral sources including coastal upwelling offSonora during winter and nutrients fromrelatively deep waters that are brought to thesurface by intense tidal mixing. This createsintense photosynthesis. Temperatures varygreatly from less than 10 degrees centigrade tomore than 32 degrees centigrade with thewarmer temperatures typically in the summer.
Progressing from the Upper Gulf into theinternal extreme of the anti-estuary, nitrate levelsincrease and salinity levels decrease due toagricultural input. The 1993 flood flows pro-
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH48
duced more than two million acre-feet of freshwater to the Gulf. Southeastern portions of theUpper Gulf showed higher levels of salinity withthe northeastern portion showing the lowestlevels. Studies also have indicated that nitratelevels in the Upper Gulf tend to be higherduring years in which there are not flood flowsto the Gulf.
FRANCISCO ZAMORA
CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL GULF
OF CALIFORNIA PROGRAM, GUAYMAS:Mr. Zamora said he would focus on vegeta-
tion in the Delta from 1990 to 1999. This in-cluded discussion of how zones are defined inthe Delta; how the percentage of vegetationcoverage is determined; and finally, how thatcoverage is related to Colorado River flows.
The area of study is approximately 100 milesof the river from Morelos Dam on down – about170,000 hectares. This is divided into eight zonesbased on vegetation and water sources found ineach.
The first zone is Morelos Dam up to thecrossing of the Colorado River on the highway.The second zone is from that crossing up to therailroad crossing – the San Luis Zone – and isabout 4,000 hectares. The third zone is from therailroad crossing to the last willow trees foundon the river – about 7,000 hectares. The nextzone includes the Hardy River area. There also isthe Hardy Colorado that includes 24,000 hect-ares. There is the Ejido Drain. Other partsinclude the Cienega de Santa Clara and theinterim region as well.
The primary riparian areas include theMorelos, San Luis and Carranza zones – about25 percent; the Hardy – which is about 5 percent;and the Hardy Colorado, which is the majoritywith 34 percent.
The percentage of vegetation for each of theseareas was determined using satellite imagery.The vegetation index was estimated using aformula and analyzed images from several yearsincluding 1992 (a year following several years ofdrought), 1994 (a dry year following a wet year
in 1993), and wet years in 1997 and 1999. Theimages showed clear changes in the vegetationcoverage of the area. In the studies, the imagesshowed an increase of about 75,000 hectares ofcoverage between 1992 and 1999. Some areasshowed increases to being covered 70 percent byvegetation.
Modeling was done to try and determine howthe vegetative growth was related to water flowsfrom the Colorado River and included examina-tion of open water areas. Analysis indicated thatthe most important variable leading to greatervegetation was the number of days that con-tained flows greater than two cubic-meters-per-second.
The analysis is important because it showsthat during a decade of alternating dry and wetyears, vegetation in the Delta increased. Theecosystem is capable of supporting itself duringdry periods and recovering during the wetperiods. Certain conservation measures could beimplemented in the Delta to maintain thecurrently existing habitat.
ERIC MELLINK
CENTER FOR HIGHER STUDIES AND
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, ENSENADA:Many of the species once found in the Delta
region are no longer there or have very reducedpopulations because much of the habitat histori-cally there no longer exists. Data, however, arelimited. This is the case of beavers and somebirds. White egrets were nearly hunted toextinction early in the 20th century because of ademand for their feathers. Montague Island hasbecome an important colony for these birds.Montague Island appears to be an importanthabitat for birds, however, the island facesperiods of flooding and this can be devastatingto the nesting species. There is the possibilitythat if Colorado River flows increase to theDelta, the flooding of Montague Island couldincrease and prove detrimental to the colonies.Conversely, increased flows will generate habitatelsewhere in the Delta for these species.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH49
KARL FLESSA
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA,DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCES:
Mr. Flessa said he would discuss bivalvemollusks in the Northern Gulf of California, inparticular, because they are an indicator ofproductivity and diversity of the Northern Gulfecosystem in the vicinity of the Colorado RiverDelta.
Bivalve mollusks, after they die, leave behinda record of past environmental conditions intheir shells. By dating the shells, a good indica-tion can be given of what the Delta was likebefore the diversion of water from the river.Based on our data, we conclude that populationsizes and diversity of bivalve mollusks weremuch greater in the past – in the era before thedams – than they are today. Other invertebratepopulations (crabs, shrimps, snails, echino-derms, brachiopods, annelid worms, etc.) alsowere probably also more abundant – probablythe result of a higher nutrient supply from theriver. Populations of birds, fish, and marinemammals were probably also higher in the pastbecause of the greater supply of invertebrates forfood.
Mulinia coloradoensis, the Colorado Delta clam,was extremely abundant in the pre-dam era butis very rare today. It is found nowhere else thanin the Delta. We believe that this species isendangered by the increase in salinity due to thediversion of fresh water. Oxygen isotopes in theclamshells indicate that this species prefers amixture of fresh water and sea.
Islands and beaches in the marine zone of theDelta are composed entirely of shell materialand extend for great distances – some up to 40 to50 kilometers – from the mouth of the rivertowards San Felipe. This is a record of highbiological productivity in the past. We estimatethat more than two trillion shells compose thebeaches and islands in the marine zone.
Radiocarbon and amino acid dating of theseshells indicates they represent a thousand-yearinterval of time – most from before 1950; before
the major diversions of fresh water. Surveys oflive mollusks indicate that current bivalvemollusk densities range from three to five persquare meter. Estimates of past populationdensities – based on the number of shells, theirage range, generation time and habitat area –range from 25 to 50 per square meter. Thisindicates a population crash of 34 to 95 percentsince diversion of Colorado River water.
90 to 95 percent of the shells found are of onespecies – Mulinia coloradoensis – the ColoradoDelta clam – endemic to the Delta. This indicatesthat the Colorado Delta clam was once the mostabundant bivalve in the region. But this is nolonger the case. Today, the genus Chione is themost common bivalve with Mulinia composingless than five percent of the fauna. The change inabundance is attributed to the decrease innutrient input by the Colorado River while thechange in species composition is the result of theincrease in salinity. The Chione are more salttolerant.
Although there is now a lot of informationabout environments of the Delta and Upper Gulfof California, I think that the scientific researchneeds to be better coordinated. Scientists oftenuse different methods. We focus on differentorganisms. We work in different areas. We couldcoordinate our work with a series of baselinestudies. Then, when the next flood flow in theDelta occurs, we could study the short-term andlong-term effects of pulse flows of river water.Such a large, coordinated study could result inan integrated view of how the ecosystem re-sponds to increased amounts of water. Scientistson both sides of the border are ready to do thisnecessary work; all we need is the financialsupport.
JAQUELINE GARCÍA HERNANDEZ
CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIÓN EN
ALIMENTACIÓN Y DESARROLLO, A.C.,CIAD, GUAYMAS:
Ms. Garcia said she would discuss results of awater quality study in the Delta that took place
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH50
from 1996 to 2000. Those studies focused on theimpact of contaminants on wildlife, in particular,the distribution of selenium, trace metals andconcentrations of organochlorine pesticides inthe sediment and biota of the different Deltawetlands.
Chemical contaminants are a great threat toboth surface waters and groundwater. Suchcontaminants include heavy metals, asbestos,algae nutrients, organic contaminants, PCBs,pesticides, oil, sewage, pathogens, detergents,chemical carcinogens and sediment/salt.
Selenium is a semi-metal resulting fromsedimentary rock exposure in the ColoradoRiver drainage and though it is an essentialmicronutrient, concentrations of it may producea toxic effect ranging from physical deformitiesduring embryonic development to sterility anddeath. An example of such is the KestersonWildlife Refuge in California’s San JoaquinValley.
In the Delta, 41 samples of sediments weretaken from different sites, as well as samples offish, invertebrates, insects and amphibians from12 locations in the Delta. Sediment values rangesfrom .6 up to 2.81 parts-per-million (ppm). Someof the higher concentrations are found in wet-lands and these are believed to receive waterfrom agricultural drains around Mexicali andSan Luis and a geothermal plant.
The threshold for birth defects in fish andinvertebrates is 3 ppm with 23 percent of thesamples exceeding this guideline. El Mayorindicated a high level in sediment and fish. InBocana, located high in the Gulf, shrimp werecollected containing high levels of selenium.Other areas such as Cienega De Santa Clara,Mosqueda Camp and Campo Flores also indi-cated high levels of selenium.
When the same species of mosquito fish arecompared between sites north of the border inthe U.S. and south of the border in Mexico,concentrations are higher in the north – 9.5 ppmversus 2.6 ppm. A relationship was not foundbetween selenium concentration in the sedimentand that found in fauna.
With regards to pesticides, 86 percent of thesamples taken contained DDE in a range of .01to .34 ppm. Effects from toxicity can be seenbetween .15 and .3 ppm. 30 percent of thesamples were above .15 ppm and none exceed 1ppm. DDT was found in 26 percent of thesamples ranging in concentration from .01 to .3ppm. The range indicated DDT was usedrecently and often (but before the 1980s when itwas banned).
Areas that received agricultural runoff butthat had flushing mechanisms (such as tides)had lower concentrations of selenium. Areas thathad mild reducing or oxidizing conditions, loworganic carbon and high sand content werelikely to result in high selenium levels in fish.Generally, these areas received agriculturalrunoff but had little or no outflow. These sitesincluded the MODE canal, the El Mayor wet-lands, the Cienega de Santa Clara and the ElIndio wetlands.
The recommendations are to closely monitorthe El Mayor wetlands because of high avian useand to monitor the reproductive success of theYuma clapper rail in the Cienega de Santa Clara.Outflows from wetlands help to keep seleniumconcentrations to a minimum. Dredging in areaswith little or no outflow should be avoided or, atleast, such dredging should be coordinated afterbirds have nested to avoid creating high concen-trations of selenium to the chicks. Where out-flow is limited, periods of drying and floodingshould be avoided. Overall, more researchshould be conducted, including on the effects ofpesticides on wildlife; an analysis of groundwa-ter for organic and inorganic compounds; andthe impact of water quality from sewage,fertilizers and industrial discharges.
NICHOLAS P. YENSEN
NYPA INTERNATIONAL, TUCSON, AZ:Mr. Yensen said his talk would focus on
wetland and estuarine ecology, in particular,halophytes, found in the Delta. The CocopahIndians used to harvest Distichlis palmeri andstore it in baskets for the lean times of the year.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH51
Once, the plant was thought to be extinct,however, it has since been found and studied.
Most halophytes (of which the Distichlispalmeri is one) require fresh water for germina-tion. This has proven to be one of the problemsin the Delta – a lack of fresh water has meantless germination for the halophytes. When waterdoes flow, germination is tremendous. Halo-phytes increase growth with increased salinity toa certain point, however, it begins to drop afterthat point is reached. Distichlis palmeri growswell in inundated areas and has aerenchyma toassist in carrying oxygen to the roots. Conse-quently, it can grow well in anaerobic soils.
Distichlis palmeri only yields about one poundto the acre and has nutritional characteristicssimilar to whole wheat. By cross fertilizing, theyield was increased to about four tons to thehectare.
There are about 120 species of halophytes inthe Gulf of California region. Worldwide, thereare over 2000 species of plants that are salttolerant. There are various projects being under-taken by companies to work with halophytes toremove salts from the soil. NyPa has a nurseryin Arkansas experimenting with about 20different species of plants endemic to the region.
It would take a very little amount of water tocreate a greenbelt in the Delta. This was could allbe drainage water as there is quite an adequatesupply if it were properly used.
Q&A(VERBATIM):
EXEQUIEL EZCURRA: The question is aboutother species of Mulinia elsewhere in the Gulf ofCalifornia, especially to the south, and to whatextent they might have evidence for the influ-ence of the Colorado River in the 20th century.
KARL FLESSA: The species Muliniacoloradoensis occurs only in the Delta. The otherspecies of Mulinia that occurs in the Gulf ofCalifornia is Mulinia pallida. Mulinia pallida is
principally known from the southern part of theGulf near the mouth of the Gulf. We have lookedat specimens of Mulinia pallida and we haveexamined the isotopic composition of shellsfrom Nayarit and also from the area north ofGuyamas. We have not found any evidence forfresh water influence in the shells of thosespecimens. It appears that Mulinia coloradoensisis the only species of Mulinia that shows theinfluence of the Colorado River.
EXEQUIEL EZCURRA: Ms. Hernandez, 2.5selenium is considered in your study as themaximum concentration that causes abnormali-ties. Could you please tell me if the lagoons inCerro Prieto are similar or different?
JAQUELINE GARCÍA HERNÁNDEZ: InCerro Prieto, I only obtained two samples in thelagoon, which is the first inflow of water, be-cause they use those lagoons for evaporation. Itook the sample in a lagoon where the largestpopulation of desert pupfish is found. I didn’ttake from all the lagoons because there’s no lifein the rest of them. In that lagoon, we found 1.6parts-per-million of selenium in the sediment.So, they are below 2.5 that could cause abnor-malities.
This element selenium is an element that isnatural. There are certain organisms, the nativeorganisms of this area, that could be accustomedto (or they evolved in order to have a greatertolerance for) the levels of selenium. That is whyit’s so important to make this study in birds, tosee whether the levels that we found in fish andin sediment creating an impact.
EXEQUIEL EZCURRA: And then it says:How can you explain that the lagoons host themost active population of desert pupfish?
NICHOLAS P. YENSEN: This is why I toldyou they can sustain higher levels because of thefact that they have been here for a long period oftime and selenium also is an element that hasbeen here.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH52
The mosquito fish, you made the distinctionbetween the toxicology differences in the statusof the fish. Your conclusion does not agree forthe Cerro Prieto site and the pupfish. I hopethose was clear, and if not you can ask me later.
I want to say something about selenium. Inthe Central Valley of California, I have foundthat there is bacteria that can tolerate selenium.Also, the salt grass can tolerate selenium and ittransforms it. It can clean sites. It could be usedfor remediation. The wetlands clean or heal thebody of the rivers and they can clean those toxicelements before they go into the Gulf.
EXEQUIEL EZCURRA: I have a question thatsays: Could you please explain a little bit moreabout the potential danger of solutions for theSalton Sea and the Upper Gulf of California?
JAQUELINE GARCÍA HERNANDEZ: Well,there is only one possible solution for Salton Seathat I was mentioning. I believe that about twoyears ago it was very clear that it would be verydifficult to implement it and this is the solutionthat is called the exchange solution. This was anidea to pump water to the Upper Gulf and thento the Salton Sea and then to the Upper Gulf.Like I explained in my presentation, the dangeris that this is a marsh with high salinity thatwould be very hot in summer and it has highconcentrations of things like selenium and othertoxins.
EXEQUIEL EZCURRA: There is anotherquestion here that says: Considering the impor-tance of the supply of carbon and nitrogen in thehigh gulf of California, what is the opinion ofthe panelists to use waste water from urbanareas, duly treated, for environmental restora-tion?
NICHOLAS P. YENSEN: It doesn’t have animpact because we have an excess of nitrogenand carbon in sea water.
EXEQUIEL EZCURRA: There is a questionwhether the vegetation maps were available onthe Internet.
SAÚL ÁLVAREZ BORREGO: They’re notavailable on the Internet, but that’s a goodoption. They will be initially available, at leaston paper, in the publication published in Sep-tember in the Journal of Arid Environments.
EXEQUIEL EZCURRA: There’s a question forme. It says: What happened to species like thevaquita and jaguar?
FRANCISCO ZAMORA: The jaguar disap-peared from the Delta. There were reports fromthe early 20th Century that jaguars had a largepopulation. In reality, there were likely isolatedindividuals north of Sonora to the Gila River.There were reports of a very small local popula-tion but I don’t really believe this. The fact is thatthe habitat has changed so much that I don’tthink they exist anymore, and if there are any,they would have killed them already. The fact isthat you won’t find any jaguars.
With regards to the vaquita. The vaquita is aspecies of the Delta and of the Upper Gulf.Somebody mentioned some weeks ago that Ithink there’s about 600 individuals. It’s a speciesthat is very difficult to study and to determinepopulation numbers. We’re working withacoustic methods. They are endangered speciesunder any standard.
One of the causes, or the basic reasons, of whyvaquita are in this condition is because they canget tangled in fishing nets. In recent studies,people who were conducting the study said themammal is very easily tangled. Some peoplesay that the lack of fresh water has affected theirreproduction. This is a point for discussion.There are people who do not say the same thingand lack enough information to be on one sideor the other.
And taking advantage of this question, Iwould like to make a comment regarding otherspecies. Yesterday we discussed waste waters. If
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH53
you see the images in the Mexicali Valley andImperial Valley, they are very different becauseof the bushes that we have. This is very uniquefor different species and they have problems ofconservation in southern California. There’ssome cotton rats and I think that we haven’tfound them but I think that California is in asimilar condition.
EXEQUIEL EZCURRA: The specific questionis: Can you explain, in detail, the statement thatwith the contribution of water from the Colo-rado River, the levels of nutrients are higher?
ERIC MELLINK: Well, objectively, this hasbeen determined by the analysis carried out.They showed charts that in a wet year, April of1993, the general nutrients of the gulf werehigher than a dry year like April 1996. The thesestudies were directed by Salvadore Galindo andpublished in Coastal Science stating that from ‘89to ‘90 dry years, there were very high concentra-tions of nutrients up to 50 micrometers. Soevidently this is something objective that resultsfrom analysis.
EXEQUIEL EZCURRA: The second part says:Can you expand on the characteristics of theUpper Gulf that make it more resistant tonutrient deprivation?
ERIC MELLINK: The main reason of therichness of the California Gulf is because ofcoastal movements due to the winds and thecurrents. This causes the nutrients that are richgo to the surface where they have sunlight. Thisis one reason. And the other one is the tides thatkeep the water very well mixed and there’salways a high concentration of nutrients wherethere’s light. And in the Mediterranean every-thing is very calm, the tide is 20 centimetersbetween the highest to the lowest compared tomore than 7 meters in the Upper Gulf. Thesystem doesn’t have too much energy and if youdon’t have any nutrients from the Nile, thenthey don’t have any nutrients.
EXEQUIEL EZCURRA: Another question:How many samples per year of shrimp do youtake and for how many continuous years haveyou been sampling shrimp?
SAUL ALVAREZ BORREGO: Well, first like Isaid, I’m not the one that has sampled. I took itfrom a thesis for a bachelors degree that sampledin the 70’s. The problem with these types ofstudies is that since we haven’t had any moneyto sustain a research, these are studies that havebeen very fixed. The scope is changing becauseof a program with UC Mexus and the NationalBoard of Science and Technology. We hope theywill carry out this program for a few years. Wecannot monitor this frequently. These shrimpboats were on loan to the university to carry outthese samples. The other problem is that it’s noteasy to identify the juvenile shrimp. They’revery small and you have to have some expertiseto do it.
On the other side, based on research from theMarine Institute of the University of Baja Cali-fornia, we know totoaba can reproduce easily.On one hand, we don’t have a sample where weneed the water from the Rio Colorado, and onthe other hand, we have a very clear picture thatthe shrimp nets capture totoaba fish by thehundreds, at least in this case.
EXEQUIEL EZCURRA: Can you predict anyeffects on the Yuma?
JAQUELINE GARCÍA HERNANDEZ: Ithink that the worst effect is to put in operationthe marshes and not too much water with highsalinity so the first thing that it would effect isthe salinity and it would reduce the concentra-tions of salinity would be higher than what wehave right now.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH54
ExistingRestorationProjects
MARK BRIGGS
Mr. Briggs said he has been involved, on thecommunity level, with restoration projects in theDelta. He said there are three primary projectshe has been working on: the Moscela project,located along the Hardy River near the CocopahMountains; the El Indio wetlands restorationproject, east of the Cienega de Santa Clara; andEl Tapon – a small dam along the Hardy Riverjust downstream of the Moscela project.
The three projects have the same five princi-pal objectives: to improve local ecologicalconditions (carried out at the community levelwith a variety of people and organizations) byeither manipulating or changing the flow in theriver or through different revegetation efforts; tore-establish native seed sources; to bring benefitto local communities and make a connectionbetween the ecology and livelihood of thepeople that live there; to raise awareness of theresidents that live there, including understand-ing of regional issues; and to demonstrate thepower of restoration and the power of communi-ties through tangible improvements. Residentsinvolved with the projects would like to use thesites and gain some economic benefit from theareas.
The Moscela site, along the Hardy River, isnear an area known as Compo Moscela. The site,about ten hectares, was once heavily farmed buthas been fallow for the past eight years. The ideais to take the site and re-establish cottonwoodand willows, mesquite and some wetlands. Thissite, and the El Indio site, require water and soilsamples to determine what types of vegetationcan best grow there. The emergent wetlandsystem will be supplied from several irrigationcanals connected to the Hardy River and willinclude an aquaculture component. The project
has been funded and is expected to beginimplementation in 2002.
The El Indio site, of the three, is the most inthe design phase. The focus (similar to theMoscela site) will be on establishing and re-establishing emergent vegetation and includesan aquaculture component. The project iscurrently working to obtain funding.
The El Tapon project has been funded andimplemented by a local organization called theULIC. The primary purpose of the project is toestablish a small dam on the Hardy River toelevate the water level and create more wetlandareas. As with the other projects, the El Taponproject stresses community involvement in therestoration efforts which, in turn, leads to animproved Delta ecosystem
To create a greater ecological system in theDelta, several efforts need to happen. To changeriver management, water policy must bechanged. And this requires a greater under-standing of ecological conditions in the Delta.This includes a greater awareness for locals inthis region, to restore these areas and to preventfurther damage to the system.
Spot restoration efforts such as these, how-ever, will not entirely restore the Delta. The totalland area for the restoration projects is approxi-mately 40 hectares. The idea is to gather commu-nity involvement and create the momentumnecessary to create greater change. Theseprojects examples of what needs to be done on abroader scale in the Delta.
ELENA CHAVARRÍA
SONORA:Ms. Chavarría began her presentation with
the question: What does restoration of the Deltamean for the people that live there? Informationcan be obtained, regulations established and aninternational dialogue enacted but without thewill of the people, progress will not be made.
Ten years ago when restoration efforts in theDelta began, the focus was on making progressin specific areas but without paying attention to
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH55
the local population. However, involvement haschanged. It is no longer viewed as just a singleperson’s effort, but as projects that involvecommunities. Ethics levels, while important toinclude the environment, also must consider theneeds to the local communities.
Reassigning water from one use to anotherhas been discussed as one possible solution forthe Delta. However, there also needs to be achange in philosophy that recognizes commu-nity obligations as well because without it,efforts to create a long-standing contributionwill be in vain.
MICHAEL CLINTON
MICHAEL CLINTON ENGINEERING,LAS VEGAS, NEVADA:
Mr. Clinton said he would discuss the effortsof a team of professional from the U.S. andMexico, funded by the David and LucillePackard Foundation.
In 2001, about ten million acre-feet of waterwill be released from Hoover Dam to meet theneeds of downstream users. None of that wateris released for ecological purposes and instead isused to meet contracts, agreements and the 1944Water Treaty. Ten million acre-feet is one millionacre-feet more than was needed to be releasedfive years ago. Uses in the U.S. continue to growand the states continue to use more of theirentitlements.
The basin is in its third year of a drought withrunoff for 2001 – about 56 percent of normal. Inthe last three years, Colorado River Basinreservoirs have been drawn down about 12million acre-feet and as such, the Bureau hasdone its best to end inadvertent deliveries toparties not entitled to them. Extra water releasedto help keep a dredge afloat near the City ofYuma has stopped.
In recent months, deliveries at Morelos Damhave exactly matched delivery requirementswith no significant excess water deliveries.Under such tight releases, there will be verylittle excess water delivered to Mexico and in
particular, to the Delta ecosystem that has beensustained and restored over the past 20 years.The weather is unpredictable but if the Deltadoesn’t receive some near term water suppliesby next summer, the ecosystem will begin toshow signs of stress.
There are two potential approaches forbringing water to the Delta.
One involves bringing in water from the U.S.but this only is allowed during surplus condi-tions. However, an agreement in the 1970’sunder Minute 242 allows Wellton-Mohawkdrainage water to be delivered past MorelosDam and replaced with water from the Yumadesalting plant or with fresh water from othersources. There are currently large amounts ofbrackish water – agricultural drainage – in thesouth Gila Valley and the Yuma Valley beingdelivered as part of Mexico’s Morelos Damdelivery entitlement. Due to legal constraints inthe U.S., the only way to get water into the Deltaecosystem from the U.S. may be to move thoseresources away from being delivered in the riverand into a bypass drain for delivery into Mexicofor ecological purposes. By diverting thosebrackish water for use by the Delta ecosystem,this also could improve the water quality of thedeliveries to the Mexicali and San Luis RioColorado valleys.
Another potential source of supply could beto lease or purchase water rights in the Mexicaliand San Luis Rio Colorado valleys and transferthose fresh water resources from their currentagricultural uses to ecological uses. Examinationof CNA regulations and water law in Mexicoshows that such an effort is viable.
There have been concerns over whether or notsuch waters acquired for the ecosystem wouldactually get to their intended purpose in Mexico.Analysis of CNA operations in District 14 inMexico showed that accounting systems and theprotection of water rights in the valley are asgood or better than any place in the U.S. Thereare marginal farmlands located west of Mexicaliand at the south end of the Mexicali Valley thatcould temporarily or permanently be taken out
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH56
of production. The water rights could be deliv-ered to existing CNA canals into wetland areasthat have been protected for over the last 15 to20 years.
Currently, these are just ideas. The next stepwould be to implement the recommendations,leading to an interim (versus a permanent)water supply. Work needs to be done to developa long-term water management strategy in thenext three to five years. However, there isconcern that the existing wetlands cannotsurvive in their current state if a solution is notenacted. A bi-national effort to bring water fromboth nations is the near-term is needed tosustain these resources – if only on an interimbasis – as it is not know what is needed for afinal solution. It would probably need to be afive-year period needed to sustain the Deltaecosystems for now.
ALBERTO JAIME PREDES
MEXICO NATIONAL WATER
COMMISSION:Mr. Jaime said general Mexican environmen-
tal laws protect aquatic ecosystems. Citizenconcern for riparian and aquatic ecosystems isgrowing because of the realized aesthetic valuesand impacts from loss of habitat. Some have saidminimum flow requirements should be guaran-teed for the protection, conservation and restora-tion of aquatic ecosystems including marshesand swamps. This should hold true for ecosys-tems that have historic value or display greatbiodiversity.
Under regulations of Mexican national waterlaw, for water to be used for ecological purposes,there must be an understanding of the minimumamount of water needed to sustain the ecosys-tem. This is important to know for when sup-plies are scarce. Instream flows for ecologicalpurposes are permissible as long as they do notinterfere with the operation of the deliveryinfrastructure.
It also is necessary to know the other end ofthe spectrum: What are the maximum flows anecosystem can tolerate? This includes not only
the volume of water, but the quality of the wateras well. It also includes the organisms associ-ated with these ecosystems, such as the vaquitarefuge in a portion of the Colorado River.
In analyzing river flows, it is important not tothink strictly about optimum flows but alsoabout flows that sustain natural organismpopulations. Precautions must be taken whendesignating flow requirements to take intoaccount adequate habitat for flora and fauna,acceptable water temperature and salt andoxygen levels appropriate to specific areas of theriver. The flows also should include artificialflooding in order to scrub riverbanks andimprove overall water quality. Some of thecurrent flow regimens are based on historicalflows as well as the results of hydraulic model-ing designed to protect aquatic life.
There are fixed averages for current flows inorder to meet downstream needs. Minimumflow criteria are based on historical flows. Toestablish ecological flows based on historicaldata, the demands of downstream users wouldhave to be weighed with the ecological needs. Anumber of rivers around the U.S. have useddifferent types of methods to determine ecologi-cal flows within existing flow frameworks,however, they vary from river to river because ofthe diversity of organisms found there.
Because flow studies to determine the bestecological flows could take many years, propos-als have been made to contribute a certainpercentage of the average monthly flows to theDelta. Such flows could occur 95 percent of thetime in a natural setting. The Colorado River isnot a small river and has daily flows of 650 cubicmeters per second with a possible variation inflows of 60 cubic meters per second. Duringperiods of heavy precipitation, flows can reachupwards of 15,000 cubic meters per second.
A bi-national group needs to be established todetermine flow regimes to the Delta. Thisincludes determining which zones in the Deltashould receive what amounts of water to bestrecover the flora and fauna of the ecosystem.Alternatives for providing the water needed to
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH57
meet ecological needs should be determined.These could include recognizing the Delta as alegitimate user of Colorado River water; buyingor giving water rights to the Delta; or usingagricultural irrigation surplus from both sides ofthe border. Actions that would deteriorate theDelta further, such as the proposed interimsurplus guidelines, should be prevented.
PEGGY TURK-BOYER
INTERCULTURAL CENTER FOR THE
STUDY OF DESERTS AND OCEANS:Ms. Turk-Boyer said her talk would center on
community participation and the managementof fisheries resources in the Upper Gulf ofCalifornia.
The northern Gulf of California estuary isfamous for its abundance of fisheries resources.In the 1920’s, fishermen came in dugout canoesfrom Sonora and Sinaloa to establish fishingcommunities in El Golfo Santa Clara, PuertoPeñasco and San Felipe.
The economy of the three communities stillrelies on fishing today (though tourism is ofincreasing importance). Over $22 million in U.S.dollars directly enters the economies because offishing.
There’s been relatively little research donerelated to the fishery productivity and the flowof the Colorado River. Some recent work doneby Ed Glenn and Salvador Galindo Beck showthere’s a relationship and that increased riverflows have a logarithmic effect on shrimpproduction. Examining fisheries crises alsomight provide some insight about problemsplaguing the Upper Gulf. The shrimping crisis atthe end of the 1980’s and into the beginning ofthe 1990’s, resulted in a 50 percent reduction inshrimp catches. This crisis corresponded withthe five consecutively driest years of Coloradoflow to the Gulf. Likewise the collapse in thetotoaba fishery in the early 1970’s followed theopening of Glen Canyon Dam. Overfishing alsowas a factor in the collapse of the totoaba fisherywhich was banned in 1975, and juvenile popula-
tions continued to be devastated by trawlingpractices.
To better manage the fishery stocks, moreattention needs to be paid to the life cycle ofthese species. It is imperative to understandingthe factors that can impact the survival of thespecies at various life phases. Many of thesespecies use the Upper Gulf estuary for variousstages of their life cycle.
In 1993, during the wake of the shrimp crisis,the Upper Gulf of California and Colorado RiverDelta Biosphere Reserve was established, in part,to offer protection to endemic endangeredspecies. The shrimp industry was behind thededication of the reserve and has participatedactively in the development of a managementplan for the reserve. Small-scale fishermanbecame involved in 1996 and through a series ofabout 170 interviews, information was gatheredabout their fishing practices and published in abook called “Fishing between the Tides of theUpper Gulf of California.” The book providesinsight into the 13 major fisheries in the UpperGulf, the species fished, a history of the fisheries,equipment used and most importantly, thefishermen’s ideas for species management andoverall management of the fisheries in the UpperGulf. The final point is important and one of theconclusions of the study is that fishery manage-ment needs to involve fishermen, and because itis diverse and dynamic it should be managed byzones or by fishing sectors.
Interestingly, one of the high priorities forbetter management given by the small-scalefishermen, especially from San Felipe and ElGolfo de Santa Clara, is the need for release ofColorado River water. The request for higherflows was found to be less in demand in thePuerto Peñasco community perhaps becausethey are less physically aware of the flow of theColorado River due to the lack of flooding ofsurrounding lands. Also the influence of theriver for the marine system in this region may bereduced. Establishing closed seasons andcontrolling trawling boats also were listed as
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH58
important to fishermen for managing thefisheries.
CEDO work has involved commercial diversin Puerto Peñasco who harvest a large numberof benthic organisms including scallops, octo-puses and the black murex snail. The group ofdivers is tightly knit – making them goodcandidates for the development of resource co-management. In particular, the divers areconcerned about a decline in the snails (one oftheir most important fisheries) – they estimatedthe decline of snail from 600 tons in 1993 to 90tons in 1999.
The snails were studied by Richard CudneyBueno as part of his master’s thesis at theUniversity of Arizona and included diver inputon better management. One proposal was aformalized closed season for harvesting thesnails, including the establishment of a tempo-rary “no take” zone for the creature at Isla SanJorge. The divers began implementing restric-tions on their harvest without the government’sformalization.
The crab fishery in Puerto Peñasco is ofgrowing importance in the Upper Gulf as it is asustainable high value industry with lowincidental catch. The fishermen, in April 2001,began working with administrators in the crabindustry to monitor crab size and reproductivestate to determine the best season closure for thespecies. The also have been working with thegovernment to formalize sub-commissions offisheries to actively manage the resource for thelong-term. These efforts are being promoted bythe government, COBI at Kino Bay and CEDOat Puerto Peñasco.
Crabs, shrimp and other fisheries depend onhealthy coastal wetlands. Local and large-scalethreats to these habitats with changes in sedi-mentation due to dredging, nutrification anddevelopment may destroy these productiveecosystems. Citizens are joining together todiscuss how to manage and plan for sustainableuse of these wetlands. Pronatura Sonora andCEDO are working in the Puerto Peñasco regionto bring interested parties together for monitor-
ing, protecting and using the wetlands of theregion.
The following recommendations are made forrestoring the productive Upper Gulf estuarinesystem: 1) Support growing community effortsfor responsible fishing, reduced take, esteroprotection, 2) Study factors affecting survival ofall life stages of commercial species , i.e. larvalsurvival as a function of freshwater flow, nutri-ents, etc. 3) Make timing of water releasesknown to allow for such studies, 4) Maximizeproduction potential of the Upper Gulf tobalance fishermen’s sacrifices and responsiblebehavior for management of resources, and 5)Appreciate that communities and people inMexico depend on healthy fisheries.
JOSÉ CAMPOY FAVELA
DIRECTOR, UPPER GULF OF
CALIFORNIA AND COLORADO RIVER
DELTA BIOSPHERE RESERVE:Mr. Campoy said he would provide an
overview of Biosphere Reserve.The reserve was granted reserve status in
1993. It is a transition ecosystem located betweenthe Delta and the coastal marine area, with theSonoran Desert on both sides. It is shared by twostates (Baja California and Sonora) and a numberof coastal communities including IrrigationDistrict #14 and the Cocopah Indian Tribe.Because of the diversity, both of the inhabitants,the ecosystems and the organisms, the biospherereserve is a place that should be used for moni-toring and research activities including restora-tion opportunities.
The ecosystems of the reserve are vast andvaried, ranging from the dry Sonoran desert, tothe estuaries, the Delta and the waters of theUpper Gulf. The goal of the reserve is to protectthe biodiversity of the ecosystem and thisincludes priority species such as the vaquita, theendemic desert pupfish and other regionalorganisms.
This is the first biosphere reserve to have anofficial management program. Since 1985, what
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH59
is now the biosphere reserve was acknowledgedas an important area for fisheries and for theprotection and reproduction of marine species,such as the totoaba. Internationally, the vaquitawas acknowledged in the 1980’s and the impor-tance of the Delta in the 1990’s.The Mexicanfederal government, through the Secretariat ofthe Environment, began elaboration of themanagement program starting in 1996.
The biosphere reserve is known as a region ofhigh fishing productivity, ecological diversityand increasing conservation. There are areas,within the reserve, that are of special importanceto migrating bird species. The coastal environ-ments, including portions of the Delta, areheavily used by neotropical migratory birdsduring both seasons of annual migration.
Business is important to the region withcommercial fishing providing important em-ployment and the economic benefits. Conflictsbetween the commercial fishing operations canbe intense in some areas, but there has beenacknowledgment that the reserve is largely afishery reserve that needs to be managed.Tourism also is a growing economy around thereserve, particularly ecotourism in the GolfoSanta Clara, Pinasco, and the Ejidos of the Delta.
Issues for the reserve have included workingto protect species such as the vaquita. Thisdemands a great deal of collaboration, coopera-tion and paying attention to the needs of allparties involved. Fishing is a main activity in thereserve and the decrease in population becauseof this has created conflicts. There was the loss ofbiodiversity because of shrimping. Intensiveranching also is of concern and experimentationand collaborative work is underway to study theimpact of cattle on flora.
Other potential areas of concern include thebioaccumulation of contaminants, especiallyhigh in the Gulf, which could have potentialimpacts on the ecosystem because of the lack ofoutflow from the Colorado River. There has beena loss of habitat, such as north of San Felipe,because of increased development to accommo-
date tourists. Work is being done with develop-ers and land owners to minimize the loss ofvegetation.
The most complicated problem may theimpact limited flows are having on biodiversity.Sufficient information, not only on species buton entire communities, has shown that a lack offlows to the Delta and the Upper Gulf hascreated some adverse effects.
In the past four years, the managementprogram has progressed significantly. Thereserve has supported all research projects in theregion. The reserve has participated in the letterof intent that has allowed for joint work on theDelta, between colleagues on both sides of theborder, to begin in earnest. In 1998, a consultingboard was established for the reserve. There area number of new ordinances that have beenestablished since 1995, particularly with regardsto fishing (in coordination with different fishingorganizations), and these have been promoted atstate, federal and international levels. This alsohas included work with non-governmentalorganizations and institutions to help presentshort-term strategies to preserve the vaquita andalternative projects to fishing for communities.
In 2002, the reserve will receive additionalfinancing, giving it the opportunity tostrengthen and handle the scope of conflicts andissues within the reserve and its area of influ-ence. In particular, focus will be taken on theIndian agencies and indigent communities; abaseline will be established and coordinatedwith research institutions to design effectivemonitoring of priority species; and communica-tion increased to the interior and exterior of thereserve.
Acknowledgment on state, federal andinternational levels that the reserve is a veryimportant ecosystem is a call to Mexicans toestablish a serious, well- planned, well-struc-tured program to preserve and restore the Delta.This acknowledgment could potentially be tiedto a Delta research center that would solidify along-term water management program for the
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH60
Delta, including agricultural water. This alsoincludes collaborating with the Salton Searestoration program.
These efforts should be formalized in legaldocuments.
ANDREA KAUS
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, INSTITUTE
FOR MEXICO AND THE UNITED STATES
Ms. Kaus said she would report specificallyon the research program generated by a previ-ous meeting. One year ago, the Udall Center forStudies in Public Policy at The University ofArizona and the University of California Insti-tute for Mexico and the United States (UCMEXUS) jointly convened the symposium andworkshop, “To the Sea of Cortés: Nature, Water,Culture, and Livelihood in the Lower ColoradoRiver Basin and Delta” in Riverside, California.The meeting represented the convergence of theborder environment programs of both institu-tions and brought together U.S. and Mexicanscientists and scholars with government offi-cials, nongovernmental organizations, andindigenous and Native American representativesto examine critical problems regarding policy,management, and conservation in the region.The discussion not only reflected grave concernregarding the Delta’s future, it also demon-strated a collective willingness and determina-tion to seek creative binational options for thewelfare of the region’s environment and inhabit-ants.
One of the strong messages from the meetingwas that viable solutions for the region requiredcurrent and continuing research, including thedevelopment of human resources in terms ofstudent and research training. As a result, asmall meeting was held three weeks later atCICESE, the Centro de Investigación Científica yde Educación Superior de Ensenada, withCONACYT, Mexico’s National Council forScience and Technology, to discuss the possibili-ties and parameters for a future binationalresearch program in the area. A Memorandum ofUnderstanding was subsequently established to
sponsor a joint grants program focused on theDelta and Upper Gulf with equal contributionsfrom UC MEXUS and CONACYT and additionalin-kind support from CICESE.
UC MEXUS, CONACYT, and CICESE to-gether issued a special focused Call for Propos-als last Spring to foster collaborative, academicand scientific ties between U.S. and Mexicanresearchers. The Call was based on the UCMEXUS-CONACYT annual grants program,which provides seed funding for startingprojects that need to establish the initial datathat allow researchers to apply for larger grantsor long-term support from larger institutions.
The grants program for the Delta and UpperGulf has two main goals. One is to supportresearch that can inform water management andpolicy in the region. Second, the funded projectsare expected to fit into and help to expand andstrengthen the existing binational network ofresearchers and research institutions working onwater issues in the region. The review processended two weeks ago and nine projects wereselected out of the proposals submitted. Theprojects are as follows:
Jay Barlow, Marine Life Research Group, ScrippsInstitution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, &Horacio de la Cueva Salcedo, Ecología, CICESE“Habitat Use of the Vaquita (Phocoena sinus): AnAcoustic Approach”
Tommy D. Dickey & Grace Chang, Geography, UCSanta Barbara, & Luis G. Alvarez Sánchez,Oceanografía, CICESE“Suspended Sediment Concentration and Fluxes in theTidal Flats of the Upper Gulf of California”
John A. Dracup, Civil & Environmental Engineer-ing, UC Berkeley, & Silvia E. Ibarra-Obando,Ecología, CICESE“The Effects of Hydrologic Variability on the Ecology,Hydrology and Geomorphology of the River Delta”
Milton S. Love, Marine Science Institute, UC SantaBarbara, & Oscar Sosa-Nishizaki, Ecología,CICESE“Elasmobranchs Fisheries Biology in the Upper Gulf ofCalifornia”
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH61
Leal A.K. Mertes, Geography, UC Santa Barbara, &Alejandro Hinojosa Corona, Geología, CICESE“The Flood Plains of the Colorado River Delta Seenfrom Remote Sensing Perspective and Its Relation tothe Water Flow Crossing the United States-MexicoBorder”
Enric Sala, Center for Marine Biodiversity, ScrippsInstitution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, &Luis E. Calderon-Aguilera, Ecología, CICESE“Ecosystem-based Conservation and Resource Manage-ment of the Upper Gulf of California and ColoradoRiver Delta: A Mass Balance Approach”
Richard L. Snyder, Land, Air and Water Resources,UC Davis, & Jesus S. Ruiz, Ciencias Agrícolas,Universidad Autónoma de Baja California“Extension of CIMIS to Baja California to ImproveIrrigation Efficiency”
Drew M. Talley, Environmental Science and Policy,UC Davis, & Eric Mellink, Ecología, CICESE“Trophic Structure of the Food Web Supporting BirdsNesting on Isla Montague, Delta of the Río Colorado”
Libe Washburn, Geography, UC Santa Barbara, &Miguel F. Lavin, Oceanografía Física, CICESE“Circulation and Dispersion in the Upper Gulf ofCalifornia”
Several other projects that focused on theDelta and Gulf of California were fundedthrough other UC MEXUS grants programs in2001, notable among them being a projectdeveloped by Daniel Schlenk (EnvironmentalSciences, UC Riverside) and Jaqueline García-Hernández (Centro de Investigación enAlimentación y Desarrollo – Unidad Guaymas),in conjunction with researchers at The Univer-sity of Arizona, that is investigating the effects ofcontaminants in the Colorado River Delta onnest success of Yuma clapper rails and burrow-ing owls.
All together, this fledgling research programshows great promise. The projects present agood initial spread of research areas withexcellent possibilities to integrate together. Theresearch on the ecological and hydrologicaldynamics of the region has implications forother river basins as well. Future emphases forthe program will be to cultivate more research insocial sciences and public policy as well as toencourage more participation from additional
institutions. The goal from the very start wasand still is to foster binational research andtraining that not only informs policy and man-agement but that also joins with other suchprograms to form enough of a critical mass ofresearchers and institutions to be heard andunderstood when providing such information.
Q&A(VERBATIM):
GILLERMO TORRES MOYE: Thank you.Before continuing, this question is for Peggy:Are new fishing regulations helping to recoverthe vaquita?
PEGGY TURK-BOYER: That’s a very goodquestion. Considering the way in which they arefishing shrimp nowadays, I think that theanswer would be no. The current fishing prac-tices have a high incidental mortality of vaquita.In recent years the capturing of shrimp withgillnets has grown and we know that it hasrepercussions for the vaquita population.Trawlers also capture the vaquita, so it would bea matter of, and this is a concern of many, to lookfor alternatives or methods to capture theshrimp, that do not have this incidental catch inorder for it to be sustainable. And also, I wouldlike to say that maximizing productivity throughadequate Colorado River flow, is an importantpart of making these fisheries sustainable.
JOSÉ CAMPOY FAVELA: Has anyone seen avaquita in the reserve?
Many people have seen vaquita, at sea andalso on nets and also on the beaches, strandedon the beaches. We have seen a series of photo-graphs. There is a census which was carried outin 1998 where the largest schools of vaquita wereseen, and that is where we had an estimate, theestimate in force of the population of vaquita,which is 700 individuals. There’s a very goodfile of species in collections as well as in photo-graphs of vaquita.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH62
What is the best time to visit the reserve as atourist?
August 15th at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon,that is the best time. No, winter. Winter andspring. Remember that the reserve is located inone of the most arid and hot areas of the world,so I recommend to get in contact with theSonoran Institute, they promote interesting fieldtrips. This also is what we are promoting, alongwith all the local communities.
Vaquita also are impacted by fishing and thelocal culture. Harvesting shrimp is an industrythat is very important at a world level. Incountries like Equador, Panama, Costa Rico,Mexico, especially Mexico, this is a very impor-tant industry. The farms that are in the reserve,before the decree of the reserve, have beenworking for more than ten years to improve theindustry.
And the impact that we have seen is relativelysmall. The mitigation is taking place as are theregulations with regards to the environment andthe specific measures for those activities. It doeshave an impact because the landscape changedas they used water from the natural environ-ment. They discharge waters. It’s economicallybeneficial, it creates profits. It’s a legal activitythat could give economic alternatives to localpopulations.
What is the position of the reserve withregards to the nautical ladder?
As I mentioned in my presentation, Pinascoand San Felipe are considered within the nauti-cal ladder. The position is not from the reserveas much. The position is from the Secretariat ofTourism, to make a sustainable project, ecologi-cally and environmentally, not only in thatregion but in the Golfo California and Baja,California that would give benefits to the localcommunities.
Personally, and we’re looking at this for thereserve, it could be a very important alternativefor San Felipe and Pinasco in order to reduceand decrease the pressure with regards to thefisheries effort, especially for riparian fishing.
And we could promote sports fishing for thebenefit of the communities.
We were part of the team of Mexican federalinstitutions that the United States consulted inthis process of the Interim Surplus Guidelines.And there are written concerns with regards tothe concerns of the potential impacts of imple-menting these guidelines.
It is important to emphasize that in thedecree, the interim surplus guidelines, it isspecifically emphasized in several paragraphsthat the transboundary impact is not well-defined. They request and promote in thatdecree to continue with the consultation and thejoint consulting work, for example this sympo-sium, to define the potential impact and toestablish mitigation measures in the times as thecriteria is going to be implemented.
There are cases, like for example the lining ofthe All-American Canal, which will have an-other type of treatment and also a special groupto deal with this lining aspect. But we have beenworking in consultation jointly with IBWC andIBWC has been consulting us and inviting us tothe consultation meetings.
PEGGY TURK-BOYER: I have a few ques-tions here, and the first question is directed tome and José: How would the halt of shrimpingaffect what is proposed by Dr. Alvarez Borrego?
As I mentioned in one of my slides, we haveestimated that $22 million U.S. dollars, or $222million pesos, goes to the local economy fromshrimp fishing or other types of fisheries – themajority is shrimp. So, if shrimping were elimi-nated, it would reduce this amount of money asincome to the communities and it would affectthe population tremendously. Though it isimportant to note that the proposals that I haveheard do not include the suspension of thefishing of shrimp completely. Outside of thereserve, there will be an increase in the effortand there would be income for that activity.And if there’s a development of new methodolo-
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH63
gies, well, maybe they can continue fishing forshrimp.
Do you have any comments?
JOSÉ CAMPOY FAVELA: The industrialfishing of shrimp with larger ships is veryimportant at a national level and we see it onboth coasts. There are regulations established.What we’re trying to promote is to have moreprecise regulations to protect the reserve, andthat we could restrict, completely or partially,through consultation with the fishing authori-ties, especially those authorities that will give ajudgment whether the restrictions that we areproposing are feasible. There are other restric-tions, the excluding of turtles, the excluding offishes. We are looking at times, efforts, quotasand specific volumes for the small fleet and thelarger fleet.
This is very complicated work that has manysides, but the intention is that at least the drag-ging and the impact could be minimized in thenear future within the reserve. But it’s not ourintention to prohibit it completely in the Gulf,but to ensure that in the buffer zone we have asustainable fishing with the least impact pos-sible.
ALBERTO JAIME PAREDES: I have severalquestions here. One says: Is it possible to ascribewater for ecological use and what would be theimplications of doing so to international treatiesof water allocation in the Rio Colorado Delta?
With regards to this, we have received severalopinions that to make a rule for ecological usewould be to commit ourselves because of thelarge diversity of regimens and the large numberof rivers that we have in our country. In Mexicowe have rivers that 363 days a year do not carryany water and two they do. In others, flows arepermanent. But the majority have torrential useduring rain that they don’t have any sustainedwater flow, so it’s not easy to have a Mexicanofficial ecological standard with the high diver-sity of rivers.
I explained during my presentation that theecological regime or the ecological use in riversshould be based on studies that tie the hydrol-ogy of the river to the riparian habitat.
What would be the implications if we had astandard like that?
Well, what are the implications in the UnitedStates to have a standard like this? If we wouldhave this type of standard in the United States,they do it for every river, and I would ask thequestion also.
In a country, for example in Germany, wherethey were exporting cars that did not complywith a certain environmental law and theydemanded it for their country, I would tell them,well, you can’t do that. If you say that it’s badfor your country to have these emissions, whyare you sending automobiles to our country thatdo have those emissions? So in order to beequal, the consequence of ecological use thatwould be determined for the Colorado Rivershould be shared by both countries. Basically,we should wait for an equal treatment in Mexi-can territory than what we would like to have inMexican territory and visa-versa, that would bethe implication, to have equal treatment in bothcountries.
And since all the people who spoke before meand everybody after me said that they weregoing to be very brief, I will also be very brief. Iimagine that a representative from this group isasking: What is your opinion of the listing of theAmerican Rivers Group that says that this riveris endangered?
I apologize for my ignorance, but I don’tknow what the parameters are for this organiza-tion to declare an endangered river. I believe thatthe Colorado River is one of the most controlledrivers in the world, it has a very importantcontrol. There are many contradictory things.The Golden Group took geological centuries toform, and it’s funny, the arms of the HooverDam are very important now for the people inthe U.S. All the geological stage in which theriver was formed completely to give way to theDelta, and the interaction with the Upper Gulf of
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH64
California is not very important. We have todefend the lake but not the upper part of theCalifornia Gulf.
I think that by stretches, the Colorado River isin excellent condition, and by stretches it’s alsoin very bad condition. It depends on how wejudge the river. In the last 100 years, humanbeings, all the users of the Colorado River, havechanged the features of this river: the hydrol-ogy, the ecology, and the ecosystem. This isindubitable, but I don’t know what we consideran endangered river. In danger of what?
We should see the Rio Colorado as what it isright now: a controlled river, very well con-trolled, and we have modified it substantially.
Now, to say that we can revert that, I thinkthat that is an illusion. I do not agree that we cansay we can promise environmental protection.Man should stop being the center of that judg-ment to carry out studies that would allow us tosay, okay, we have to carry out these and theseactions. If we don’t have an anthropocentricvision of what is environmental protection,everything else is just a story because there’s noother species in the world that sees that we haveto protect the environment, and there’s nospecies in the world that has the capability. Thehuman being, if we protect the environment,then we will have a certain order. But if we alterthat order, that’s chaotic alteration of order andwe will alter the Colorado River in a chaoticway.
This is 60,000 million cubic meters is equiva-lent to the main dams in Mexico. We’re talkingabout very large volumes of water that werecaptured and that are not flowing. This is notonly in Colorado, this is in the majority of therivers in the world, in Europe and Asia and nowin Africa and Mexico and in South America. Sothis is a problem.
I don’t like the term endangered river. This isa very controlled river, and we have to mentionit that way, but we cannot say that we will returnthe river to the way it was at the beginning ofthe relationship.
Then they ask Mike and myself: If therewould be an ecological quota, where would wehave to discharge it? And I think that Michaelhas something to say.
MIKE CLINTON: Maybe we would have todivide that ecological use into sections. Mysuggestion would be that we should alwaysexplore first to use the existing infrastructure.
The work we have done suggests that protect-ing the existing habitat resource in the mainstem corridor below Morelos Dam, all the waydown to the Cocopah complex, is a very impor-tant purpose here in the near term, while weseek knowledge to determine what is needed ina longer term.
Also, I see another purpose and reason forthis work. We’ve talked this morning about theneed for additional research to know how muchwater is needed, how different kinds of waterquality can be used. I would propose andsuggest that if we are able to build a consensusamong the parties on both sides of the borderthat some interim water supplies should beprovided for this period in the next three to fiveyears, a part of that water resource ought to beused to validate the research work that’s goingon by people such as Mark Briggson habitatrestoration and possibly on shrimp farming inthe Delta.
A laboratory without any equipment is notvery useful. The equipment for understandinghow this Delta operates is water. During thisnext interim period, three, five years, I think theuse of this water ought to be first to protect theexisting habitats and secondly, to support theresearch work that’s needed. This is a very highcalling and very important to all of us.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH65
ClosingRemarks
FRANCISCO BERNAL RODRÍGUEZ
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND
WATER COMMISSION, MEXICAN
SECTION:On behalf of the Mexican delegation, here is a
summary of a document that outlines the actionsdeveloped by the delegation based on thepresentations, poster content and questionsasked by participants at the symposium.
The Delta and Upper Gulf have been ac-knowledged as important ecosystems due totheir biodiversity and the presence of endemicspecies, some of which are in danger of extinc-tion. Existing water treaties do not include theenvironment as a user of water from the Colo-rado River Basin. This should be taken intoconsideration during decision-making processesand during studies by the governments, scien-tists, academia and NGOs of both countries.Additional studies by the fourth bi-nationaltechnical group, to be coordinated by the IBWCshould address the following:
• Implement specific restoration sites imme-diately;
• Identify measures in both countries to re-establish a water source to maintain andsustain riparian areas;
• Identify native vegetation in riparian areasand wetlands;
• Quantify the relations between fresh waterflows in the Delta and the aquatic speciesin the Gulf;
• Explore opportunities for ecotourism;• Explore creating a new research center
related to aspects of the Lower ColoradoRiver Basin and the Upper Gulf;
• Both governments would be committed tocontributing volumes of water to protectand restore the Delta ecosystem;
• Promote conservation and efficient wateruse in the agricultural, urban and indus-
trial sectors and apply some of the con-served water to environmental purposes;
• Promote the transfer of state-of-the-arttechnology, both countries would adaptprincipals with unilateral actions;
• Continue bi-national efforts to determinethe use and quality of the water necessary,the scope of the region, and the engineer-ing and operational aspects of supplyingthe water, needed to sustain the Deltaecosystem. This should include participa-tion from scientists, academia and NGO’s;
• Obtain a comprehensive view of environ-mental problems in the region;
• Promote the financial support, in bothcountries, of environmental studies of theDelta and include bilateral and trilateralinstitutions with expertise;
• Promote water recycling in urban areas andevaluate the possibility of channeling thewater to Delta wetlands;
• Strengthen was quality monitoring andadopt legal water quality framework forwater ascribed to the Delta;
• The potential for federal, state and localentities to work together to acquire waterrights for environmental purposes;
• The Delta should be considered within theInterim Surplus Guidelines currently beingimplemented in the U.S.;
• Technically and financially support institu-tions and organizations currently workingin the Delta;
• Finally, to increase public participation onboth sides of the border through NGOs,academia and specifically, communities inthe Delta and form a coalition of interestedorganizations.
BOBBY YBARRA
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND
WATER COMMISSION, U.S. SECTION:With respect to the comments concerning
community participation, it is a main stay of thework done in the U.S. and though not always toeveryone’s satisfaction, it is a main stay.
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH66
The symposium had objective developedthrough a six-month process that involved theagencies mentioned by Francisco Bernal. Itinvolved non-governmental organizations andacademic organizations. The idea was to provideinformation to expert stakeholders and decision-makers, concerning the Delta.
The intent was to educate as many of thosefar away from the border that have little knowl-edge of the Delta as possible so they wouldknow the impacts on the Delta and what Deltarestoration would be like. This is being done inthe context of an international agreement that isa long-term process. The results will not beimmediate but to create a framework of interna-tional cooperation is an important accomplish-ment.
I would like to thank everyone involved andto recite the objectives of why we are here and inrecognition of the respective governments’interest in the preservation of the riparianecology of the Delta:
• To improve the knowledge base of theexpert stakeholders, decision-makers oninstitutional and legal matters (first panel),water conveyance and distribution (secondpanel), and as was seen today, ecologicaland scientific studies;
• And to identify the water needs for theColorado River Delta and the obstacles inthe way of meeting those needs.
On the U.S. side, the partnership will involveacademics, the non-governmental community;the Department of Interior with all of its agen-cies – the Bureau, Fish and Wildlife – and othersincluding the U.S. International Boundary andWater Commission and the Department of State.
To do this will require a great deal of consen-sus. As Under Secretary of Water ResourceBennett Raley said in his opening remarks thathe would like this partnership to adhere to fiveprincipals – recognize the river as bi-national;have respect for the sovereignty of both coun-tries; enhance community participation; andidentify data gaps; and identify a solution basedon solid science.
There are no immediate solutions. It takestime and work.
The planning group is invited to volunteertheir efforts again to support the IBWC, Depart-ment of Interior, to help organize the nextworkshop on some of the more specific areasthat need further identification.
GUILLERMO TORRES MOYE
AUTONOMOUS UNIVERSITY OF BAJA
CALIFORNIA:When Francisco Bernal discussed the possibil-
ity that the Autonomous Unviersity of BajaCalifornia could be the headquarters for asymposium like this, for a meeting of greatimportance to the Delta, the president accepted.People of Baja California should become in-volved in these open, participative processes inorder to re-establish healthy environmentalconditions on the Colorado River.
Robert Ybarra and Francisco Bernal men-tioned the objectives covered in this meeting andthe manner in which to carry them out. Someissues were left in the air, but this is only thebeginning.
The symposium opens doors so that Ameri-cans and Mexicans can start establishing thescientific arguments that can be used as elementsfor negotiations to restore a sustainable Colo-rado River Delta involving community partici-pation.
The symposium, at 1:45 p.m. on September12, 2001, is formally concluded. Congratulationsto the organizers and thank you for coming. �
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH67
Due to the events of September 11, 2001 in the UnitedStates, a complete and accurate attendee list from thesymposium was not entirely possible. The following is themost thorough attendee list available.
The Hon. Wayne AllardU.S. SenatorWashington, D.C.
Lloyd AllenBoard MemberImperial Irrigation DistrictCalipatria, CA
D. Larry AndersonDirectorUtah Division of Water ResourcesSalt Lake City, UT
Susan AndersonThe Nature ConservancyTucson, AZ
Lorenzo ArriagoBureau of ReclamationEl Paso, TX
Joseph BabbU.S. Embassy, Mexico CityLaredo, TX
Scott M. BalcombBalcomb & Greene, P.C.Glenwood Springs, CO
Jack BarnettExecutive DirectorColorado River Basin Salinity Control ForumBountiful, UT
Doug A. BarnumSalton Sea Science OfficeLa Quinta, CA
Mary BelardoChairwomanTorres Martinez Desert Cahuilla IndiansThermal, CA
The Hon. Robert BennettU.S. SenatorWashington D.C.
Mike BessonAdministratorWyoming Water Development CommissionCheyenne, WY
Jane BirdAssistant to Executive Director & General CouncilUpper Colorado River CommissionSalt Lake City, UT
Attendee AppendixSharon BlackwellDeputy Commissioner, Bureau of Indian AffairsWashington, D.C.
Charlie BlasingameLa Plata Conservancy DistrictLa Plata, NM
Jim BondDirectorSan Diego County Water AuthoritySan Diego, CA
Ben BrackenManagerGreen River/Rock Spring/ Sweetwater Co.Joint Powers Water BoardGreen River, WY
Mary BrandtDavid Van HoogstratenDepartment of StateWashington, D.C.
Mark BriggsSonoran InstituteTucson, AZ
Dan BuddWyoming Interstate Stream CommissionerBig Piney, WY
Richard BunkerChairmanColorado River Commission of NevadaLas Vegas, NV
Fred CagleSierra ClubSan Diego, CA
The Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,U.S. SenatorWashington, D.C.
The Hon. Chris CannonU.S. RepresentativeWashington D.C.
Thomas Carr, Section ManagerArizona Department of Water ResourcesPhoenix, AZ
Nick CarrilloU.S. Fish & Wildlife ServicePhoenix, AZ
Richard CheneyChairmanNew Mexico Interstate Stream CommissionFarmington, NM
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH68
Jim CherryBureau of ReclamationYuma Area OfficeYuma, AZ
Michael ClintonMichael Clinton EngineeringLas Vegas, NV
Mike CohenPacific InstituteBoulder, CO
Kimberly Collins, DirectorCalifornia Center for Border & Regional EcologicalStudiesImperial Valley CampusSan Diego State UniversityCalexico, CA
Chelsea CongdonSnowmass, CO
Wayne E. CookExecutive DirectorUpper Colorado River CommissionSalt Lake City, UT
Steve CorneliusSonoran InstituteTucson, AZ
Tim CoulterExecutive DirectorIndian Law Resource CenterHelena, MT
Peter CulpUniversity of Arizona Law SchoolTucson, AZ
Amy CutlerU.S. Bureau of ReclamationUpper Colorado RegionSalt Lake City, UT
Amanda CyphersChair-Board of DirectorsSouthern Nevada Water AuthorityLas Vegas, NV
David CzamanskeSierra ClubS. Pasadena, CA
Nancy DallettArizona Humanities CouncilPhoenix, AZ
James DavenportColorado River Commission of NevadaLas Vegas, NV
Thomas J. Davidson,Deputy Attorney General WyomingWater & Natural Resources Litigation SectionCheyenne, WY
Bill DeBuysThe Conservation FundSanta Fe, NM
Bill DiRienzoWater Quality Spec/WatershedWater Quality Div.Cheyenne, WY
Herb DishlipAssistant DirectorArizona Department of Water ResourcesPhoenix, AZ
David DonnelyDeputy General ManagerSouthern Nevada Water AuthorityLas Vegas, NV
Kevin DoyleDirectorNational Wildlife FederationSan Diego, CA
Larry DozierCentral Arizona Project ChairmanPhoenix, AZ
Carlos DuarteInternational Boundary & Water CommissionEl Paso, TX
William I. DuBoisDirector, Natural ResourcesCalifornia Farm Bureau FederationSacramento, CA
Mark DuncanChairmanSan Juan Water CommissionFarmington, NM
Jim DunlapSan Juan Rural Domestic Water UsersKirtland, NM
Mitchell EllisImperial National Wildlife ReserveYuma, AZ
John EntsmingerLegal CounselSouthern Nevada Water AuthorityLas Vegas, NV
Joe FellerCollege of LawArizona State UniversityTempe, AZ
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH69
Charles FisherInternational Boundary & Water CommissionEl Paso, TX
Karl FlessaDepartment of GeosciencesUniversity of ArizonaTucson, AZ
Tim FloodFriends of Arizona RiversPhoenix, AZ
Lisa ForceLiving RiversScottsdale, AZ
Johnny FrancisWater Management BranchNavajo NationFt. Defiance, AZ
Milt FriendNational Wildlife Health CenterSalton Sea Science OfficeMadison, WI
Michael R. GabaldonWashington, D.C.
Pat GalazAgua Caliente Band of Cahuilla IndiansPalm Springs, CA
David H. GetchesUniversity of Colorado, School of LawBoulder, CO
Gerald A. GeweAssistant General Manager-WaterLos Angeles Dept. of Water & PowerLos Angeles, CA
Kara GillonDefenders of WildlifeWashington D.C.
Steve GlazerSierra Club Colorado River Task ForceCrested Butte, CO
Dr. Ed GlennEnvironmental Research LaboratoryUniversity of ArizonaTucson, AZ
Robert GlennonUniversity of ArizonaCollege of LawTucson, AZ
Rick GoldU.S. Bureau of ReclamationSalt Lake City, UT
Glenn GouldBureau of Reclamation -Lower Co Reg.Boulder City, NV
Professor Richard GordonMorrison School of AgribusinessAZ State UniversityMesa, AZ
Lorri GrayU.S. Bureau of ReclamationLower Colorado RegionBoulder City, NV
Charles Groat, DirectorU.S. Geological Survey-Department of the InteriorReston, VA
Elston Grubaugh,General SuperintendentImperial Irrigation DistrictImperial, CA
Herb GuentherState SenatorSenate HousePhoenix, AZ
Thomas HanniganDirectorDepartment of California Water ResourcesSacramento, CA
Marcia HanscomWetlands Action NetworkMalibu, CA
Gary HansenColorado River Indian TribesParker, AZ
The Hon. James V. Hansen,U.S. RepresentativeWashington, D.C.
Jayne HarkinsBureau of ReclamationBoulder City, NV
Chris HarrisColorado River Board of CaliforniaGlendale, CA
The Hon. Orrin G. HatchU.S. SenatorWashington, D.C.
Chris HayesRegional Mgr.-Dept. of G&FInland Deserts-Eastern Sierra RegionLong Beach, CA
Eric HecoxIndiana State UniversityBloomington, IN
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH70
Tim HenleyManagerArizona Department of Water ResourcesPhoenix, AZ
Laura HerbransonU.S. Bureau of ReclamationLower Colorado RegionBoulder City, NV
C. R. HibbsThe William & Flora Hewlett FoundationMexico
Tom HineConsultant Martinez & CurtisPhoenix, AZ
David HoganCenter for Biological DiversitySan Diego, CA
Patrick HolmesColorado CollegeColorado Springs, CO
Kent HolsingerAssistant DirectorColorado Department of Natural ResourcesDenver, CO
Jennifer HolthausPackard FoundationLos Altos, CA
Sherm HoskinsDeputy DirectorUtah Department of Natural ResourcesSalt Lake City, UT
Stuart HurlbertSan Diego State UniversityCenter for Inland WatersSan Diego, CA
Sabine HuymenUniversity of RedlandsSalton Sea Database ProgramRedlands, CA
Pamela HydeExecutive Director for PolicySouthwest RiversFlagstaff, AZ
Helen IngramWarmington Endowed ChairUniversity of California-IrvineIrvine, CA
Josh JohnsonStaff DirectorSubcommitee on Water and PowerHouse Resource CommitteeWashington, D.C.
Luke JohnsonWashington, D.C.
Norm JohnsonUtah Asstant Attorney GeneralSalt Lake City, UT
Rick JohnsonSouthwest RiversFlagstaff, AZ
Robert JohnsonRegional DirectorU.S. Bureau of ReclamationLower Colorado RegionBoulder City, NV
Jeanine JonesDepartment of California Water ResourcesSacramento, CA
Virgil L. JonesJ & J RanchesBlythe, CA
Andrea KausU.C. MexusUniversity of California at RiversideRiverside, CA
Charles KeeneCalifornia Department of Water ResourcesGlendale, CA
Michael KellnerManager-Env. ResourcesAgua Caliente Band of Cahuilla IndiansPalm Springs, CA
Robert V. KingInterstate Streams EngineerUtah Division of Water ResourcesSalt Lake City, UT
Arleen Kingery (Quechan)Ft. Yuma Indian ReservationYuma, AZ
Randy KirkpatrickExecutive DirectorSan Juan Water CommissionFarmington, NM
John KleinU.S. Geological Survey-Department of the InteriorSacramento, CA
Rod KuharichDivision DirectorColorado Water Conservation BoardDenver, CO
Katherine KuhlmanU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 9San Francisco, CA
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH71
Steve LanichLegislative StaffUS House of RepresentativesWashington, D.C.
Phillip LehrColorado River Commission of NevadaLas Vegas, NV
Tom E. LevyGeneral Manager & Chief EngineerCoachella Valley Water DistrictCoachella, CA
David LindgrenDowney, Brand, Seymour and RohwerSacramento, CA
Dennis Linskey, CoordinatorU.S.-Mexico Border AffairsU.S. Department of StateWashington, D.C.
Deborah LivesayTorres Martinez Desert Cahuilla IndiansThermal, CA
Jim LochheadBrownstein, Hyatt & Farber, P.C.Glenwood Springs, CO
Jack LoefflerNational Public Radio/Moving WatersSanta Fe, NM
Daniel LueckeEnvironmental DefenseBoulder, CO
Carlos MarinInternational Boundary & Water CommissionUnited States SectionEl Paso, TX
Zane MarshallEnvironmental BiologistSNWA Resources DepartmentLas Vegas, NV
Jan MatusakMetropolitan Water District of Southern California,Los Angeles, CA
Jim McDivittActing Assist Secretary of Indian AffairsWashington, D.C.
The Hon. Scott McInnisU.S. RepresentativeWashington, D.C.
Malissa Hathaway McKeithAttorney at LawLoeb & Loeb, LLP,Los Angeles, CA
Dr. Eugenia McNaughtonU.S. EPARegion 9San Francisco, CA
Bob MeridethAssistant DirectorUdall Center for Studies Public PolicyUniversity of ArizonaTucson, AZ
Dave MerrittColorado Water Conservation DistrictColorado Springs, CO
Robert MestaSonoran Desert JV CoordinatorBureau of Land ManagementTucson, AZ
Suzanne MichelInstitute for Regional Studies of the CASDSUSantee, CA
Suzanne MichelCompton FoundationMenlo Park, CA
Gordon Mickelson D.V.M.Big Piney, WY
Bruce MonroeSierra ClubSeal Beach, CA
Tony MortonBureau of ReclamationUpper Colorado RegionSalt Lake City, UT
Patricia MulroyGeneral ManagerSouthern Nevada Water AuthorityLas Vegas, NV
Stephen MummeDepartment of Political ScienceColorado State UniversityFort Collins, CO
Claudia Vigil-MunizPresidentJicarilla Apache NationDulce, NM
Philip B. MutzNew Mexico Interstate Stream CommissionSanta Fe, NM
Pamela NaglerTucson, AZ
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH72
Josh NewcomWater Education FoundationSacramento, CA
Bryan NixBoard of DirectorsSouthern Nevada Water AuthorityLas Vegas, NV
Wade NobleWellton Mohawk Irrigation & Drainage DistrictYuma, AZ
Sergio L. NunezCommunity OrganizerIndio, CA
Tom O’Halleran,Arizona State RepresentativePhoenix, AZ
David OrrGlen Canyon Action NetworkMoab, UT
Michael PearceChief CouncilArizona Department of Water ResourcesPhoenix, AZ
Charles PelizzaSonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife RefugeCalipatria, CA
Carlos PenaInternational Boundary & Water CommissionEl Paso, TX
Randall PetersonU.S. Bureau of ReclamationUpper Colorado RegionSalt Lake City, UT
Jennifer PittEnvironmental DefenseBoulder, CO
Gary PitzerWater Education FoundationSacramento, CA
Donald PopeManagerYuma County Water Users AssociationYuma, AZ
Sara PriceDeputy Attorney GeneralColorado River Commission of NevadaLas Vegas, NV
Michael QuealyChief of Natural Resources SectionUtah Asst. Attorney GeneralSalt Lake City, UT
Bennett Raley,Assistant Secretary of Water & ScienceDepartment of the InteriorWashington, D.C.
Alberto RamarizTorres Martinez Desert Cahuilla IndiansThermal, CA
Carlos RamirezInternational Boundary & Water CommissionEl Paso, TX
Carlos RinconEnvironmental DefenseEl Paso, TX
Bill RinneU.S. Bureau of ReclamationLower Colorado RegionBoulder City, NV
Charles Van RiperU.S. Geological Survey, Forest & RangelandEcosystem Science CenterNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaff, AZ
David RobbinsSalinity Control ForumViceChair Hill & Robbins, P.C.Denver, CO
Renee L. RobichaudImperial National Wildlife RefugeYuma, AZ
Doug RyanNorth American Waterfowl & Wetlands OfficeArlington, VA
Tom RyanBureau of ReclamationSalt Lake City, UT
Charlie SanchezU.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceAlbuquerque, NM
D. L. SandersNew Mexico Interstate Stream CommissionSanta Fe, NM
Joseph SaxUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley, CA
Jack SchmidtUtah State UniversityNorth Logan, UT
Dr. Rick Van SchoikSouthwest Center for Environmental Research& PolicySan Diego, CA
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH73
D. Randolph SeaholmChief of Water Supply Protection,Colorado Water Conservation DistrictDenver, CO
Kurt SeglerSouthern Nevada Water AuthorityLas Vegas, NV
John M. SeidlMoore FoundationSan Francisco, CA
Lani ShawGeneral Service FoundationAspen, CO
John W. ShieldsInterstate Streams EngineerWyoming State Engineer’s OfficeCheyenne, WY
Gerald D. ShoafManaging PartnerRedwine and SherrillRiverside, CA
Jesse SilvaGeneral ManagerImperial Irrigation DistrictImperial, CA
Chad SmithFort Mojave Indian TribeDale PhillipsVice ChairmanMojave Valley, AZ
Joseph C. SmithDirectorArizona Department of Water ResourcesPhoenix, AZ
Pati SmithField RepresentativeSenator Craig ThomasRock Springs, WY
Robert SnowOffice of the SolicitorU.S. Department of the InteriorWashington, D.C.
Colin SotoCocopah TribeSomerton, AZ
Sam SpillerU.S. Fish & Wildlife ServicePhoenix, AZ
Maureen StapletonGeneral ManagerSan Diego County Water AuthoritySan Diego, CA
Jim StefanovInternational Boundary & Water CommissionEl Paso, TX
Nicole Maria StodutoDefenders of WildlifeWashington, D.C.
Ann StrandColorado River Basin Coordinating CouncilRock Springs, WY
Robert StreeterDucks UnlimitedFort Collins, CO
John StroudNew Mexico Interstate Stream CommissionSanta Fe, NM
Mike SullivanHammond Conservancy DistrictBloomfield, NM
Everett SunderlandStaff EngineerUpper Colorado River CommissionSalt Lake City, UT
Bill SwanConsultantScottsdale, AZ
John SwartoutGovernor’s Environmental Policy AdvisorColorado State CapitolDenver, CO
John SwensonDirectorEnvironmental Protection OfficeCocopah Indian TribeSomerton, AZ
Karen TachikiMcGuire Environmental Consultants, IncNewport Beach, CA
Dan TaylorNational Audubon SocietySacramento, CA
David ToddEPA DirectorChemehuevi Indian TribeHavasu Lake, CA
David P. TruemanU.S. Bureau of ReclamationUpper Colorado RegionSalt Lake City, UT
James TurnerChairman of the BoardSan Diego County Water AuthoritySan Diego, CA
COLORADO
RIVER DELTA
BI-NATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
ENGLISH74
Patrick T. TyrrellWyoming State EngineerWyoming State Engineer’s Office,Cheyenne, WY
Dennis UnderwoodSenior Executive Assistant to the General ManagerMetropolitan Water District of Southern California,Los Angeles, CA
Michael VamstadCalexico, CA
Robert VaradyDirector of Environmental ProgramsUdall Center for Studies in Public PolicyUniversity of ArizonaTucson, AZ
Greg WalcherExecutive DirectorColorado Department of Natural ResourcesDenver, CO
Gary WeatherfordWeatherford & Taaffe LLPSan Francisco, CA
Deborah WeinsteinDepartment of InteriorNational Park Service, River & TrailsSalt Lake City, UT
Richard WestergardCommissionerColorado River Commission of NevadaLas Vegas, NV
John WhippleNew Mexico Interstate Stream CommissionSanta Fe, NM
Myra WilenskyNational Wildlife FederationSan Diego, CA
Kimery WiltshireWilliam C. Kenney Watershed ProjectSausalito, CA
Pete WolfeUniversity of ColoradoGraduate School of Public AffairsDenver, CO
Manuel YbarraInternational Boundary & Water CommissionEl Paso, TX
Dr. Nicholas P. YensenCEONyPa InternationalTucson, AZ
Laura YoshiActing Regional AdministratorU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 9San Francisco, CA
Walter ZachritzExecutive Director for CALEMDesert Research InstituteLas Vegas, NV
John ZebrePast President, Colorado River Water UsersAssociationRock Springs, WY
Gerald R. ZimmermanExecutive DirectorColorado River Board of CaliforniaGlendale, CA
![Inspire 2016 Session - Customer [Delta Dental of Colorado]](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/58a1f98a1a28abac528b58cf/inspire-2016-session-customer-delta-dental-of-colorado.jpg)
