Water Management in the Rio Conchos Basin: Impacts on Water Deliveries Under the 1944 Treaty texaswaterjournal.org An online, peer-reviewed journal published in cooperation with the Texas Water Resources Institute Volume 13 Number 1 | 2022 http://texaswaterjournal.org Volume 13, Number 1 2022 ISSN 2160-5319 texaswaterjournal.org THE TEXAS WATER JOURNAL is an online, peer-reviewed journal devoted to the timely consideration of Texas water resources management, research, and policy issues. The journal provides in-depth analysis of Texas water resources management and policies from a multidisciplinary perspective that integrates science, engineering, law, planning, and other disciplines. It also provides updates on key state legislation and policy changes by Texas administrative agencies. For more information on on the Texas Water Journal as well as our policies and submission guidelines, please visit texaswaterjournal.org. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, the Texas Water Journal needs your support to provide Texas with an open-accessed, peer-reviewed publication that focuses on Texas water. Please consider donating. The Texas Water Journal is published in cooperation with the Texas Water Resources Institute, part of Texas A&M AgriLife Research, the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, and the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Texas A&M University. Jude A. Benavides, Ph.D. The University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley Gabriel B. Collins, J.D. Center for Energy Studies Baker Institute for Public Policy Ken A. Rainwater, Ph.D. Texas Tech University Rosario F. Sanchez, Ph.D. Texas Water Resources Institute Michael H. Young, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin Editor-in-Chief Todd H. Votteler, Ph.D. Collaborative Water Resolution LLC Managing Editor Chantal Cough-Schulze Texas Water Resources Institute Layout Editor Sarah L. Richardson Texas Water Resources Institute Editorial Board Kathy A. Alexander, Ph.D. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Cover photo: A view of the Milky Way over Phoinix Ranch in Jim Wells and Live Oak counties. ©2022 Rey Garza and Jim Quisenberry The Texas Water Journal is indexed by Scopus, Google Scholar, and the Directory of Open Access Journals. http://texaswaterjournal.org https://twri.tamu.edu/ http://texaswaterjournal.org https://twj-ojs-tdl.tdl.org/twj/support http://texaswaterjournal.org http://texaswaterjournal.org https://www.scopus.com/home.uri https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=source:%22Texas+Water+Journal%22&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=source:%22Texas+Water+Journal%22&btnG= https://doaj.org/toc/2160-5319 https://doaj.org/apply/seal/ Texas Water Resources Institute Texas Water Journal Volume 13, Number 1, November 22, 2022 Pages 47-63 Water Management in the Rio Conchos Basin: Impacts on Water Deliveries Under the 1944 Treaty Abstract: The unusual drought that struck the Rio Grande Basin between Mexico and Texas in 1993 marked a new order in the relationship and commitments to water deliveries from both countries in the 1944 Treaty Between the United States of America and Mexico for the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande. As a result, Mexico did not comply with the volume of deliveries required in the 1992–1997 cycle. Since then, Mexican deliveries have shared a climate of tension with the United States, blamed partly on Mexico’s unpredictability of its obligations. This tendency is gaining academic interest from the perspective of the treaty and the binational relationship. However, the evidence on Mexico’s inability to meet its binational commitments is still scarce. Hence, this article explores the management of the Rio Conchos, Mexico’s most signifi- cant tributary, to meet its obligations under the 1944 treaty; the role of stakeholders involved; the competition among water uses and possible conflict scenarios and potential solutions; and the impacts on water deliveries from Mexico to the United States. This paper uses the multi-level governance and sub-national hydropolitics concepts and the partial results of an investigation on the internal factors in the basin that affect water deliveries to the United States. Keywords: water management, multi-level governance, sub-national hydropolitics, 1944 water treaty, Rio Conchos Watershed 1 Graduate of the Master’s Program in Integral Water Management, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Monterrey, Mexico 2 Professor-Researcher, Department of Urban and Environmental Studies. El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Monterrey, Mexico * Corresponding authors: rodrigoisraelgv93@gmail.com and jlcastro@colef.mx Received 18 December 2021, Accepted 7 June 2022, Published online 22 November 2022. Citation: González-Velázquez RI, Castro-Ruiz JL. 2022. Water Management in the Rio Conchos Basin: Impacts on Water Deliveries Under the 1944 Treaty. Texas Water Journal. 13(1):47-63. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21423/twj.v13i1.7139. © 2022 Rodrigo Israel González-Velázquez and Jose Luis Castro-Ruiz. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or visit the TWJ website. Texas Water Journal, Volume 13, Number 1 Rodrigo Israel González-Velázquez*1 and Jose Luis Castro-Ruiz*2 mailto:rodrigoisraelgv93%40gmail.com?subject= mailto:jlcastro%40colef.mx?subject= https://doi.org/10.21423/twj.v13i1.7139 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://journals.tdl.org/twj/index.php/twj/about#licensing Texas Water Journal, Volume 13, Number 1 Water Management in the Rio Conchos Basin:48 Terms used in paper Acronym/Initialism Descriptive Name af Acre-Feet AURECH Irrigation Users Association of the State of Chihuahua CC Consejo de Cuenca (Basin Council) CCRB Consejo de Cuenca Rio Bravo (Rio Bravo Basin Council) CILA Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas entre México y Estados Unidos (International Boundary and Water Commission [Mexico]) CONAGUA Comisión Nacional del Agua (National Water Commission [Mexico]) GECH Government of the State of Chihuahua GIT Grupo Interinstitucional de Trabajo GM Government of Mexico ha Hectare HAR Hydrological-Administrative Region IBWC International Boundary and Water Commission (U.S.) ID Irrigation District INEGI National Institute of Geography and Statistics (Mexico) IWT 1944 Treaty Between the United States of America and Mexico for the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande km2 Square Kilometer LAN Law of National Waters (Mexico) MAF Million Acre-Feet MCM Million Cubic Meters mi2 Square Mile MLG Multi-level Governance JCAS Central Board of Water and Sanitation of the State of Chihuahua JMAS Municipal Water and Sanitation Boards in the municipalities of Chihuahua NADB North American Development Bank OCRB Rio Bravo Basin Organization (Mexico) OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development PNH National Water Program (Mexico) PO Participant Observation SADER Secretariat of Agriculture and Rural Development (Mexico) SNH Sub-national Hydropolitics t Ton Texas Water Journal, Volume 13, Number 1 49Impacts on Water Deliveries Under the 1944 Treaty INTRODUCTION Since the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, the large surface water systems shared by Mexico and the United States have been an essential part of their historical rela- tionship. The 1944 Treaty Between the United States of Amer- ica and Mexico for the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande (IWT) signed by both countries in 1944 continues to be considered an extraor- dinary achievement for multiple reasons. First, despite pressure from the U.S. border states, its ratification allowed both coun- tries to settle their differences in using these resources. Second, it displayed a complexity beyond most treaties through its differential multi-basin application –Colorado, Grande, and Tijuana basins. Third, IWT is recognized a s one of the few international agreements with negotiation from equal power between the signatory countries (Mumme 2019). The Rio Conchos is Mexico’s most important water source to fulfill its obligations to deliver water to the Rio Grande under the IWT. At present, this river by itself contributes almost 49% of the volumes corresponding to Mexico (CILA 2019; Table 1). It also has a central role within the Mexican national context. It is one of the most important systems in its northern states and is the primary water source for Chihuahua to support its urban and economic development. The unusual drought that affect- ed the Mexico/Texas section of the Rio Grande Basin in the 1990s, and its effects on Mexico’s water deliveries in the corre- sponding cycle, led to two significant changes. First, it broke the balance and existing order regarding delivery commitments under the IWT. Though Mexico continued to fulfill its obliga- tions, the difficulties in delivering the accorded volume of 1.75 million acre-feet (MAF; 2,158.6 million cubic meters [MCM]) in subsequent 5-year cycles began to become evident, calling for more attention to the terms of the IWT and generating ten- sions between the two governments (Mumme 1999; Ingram 2004; Carter et al. 2017). Secondly, said event renewed the academic and other sectors’ attention in the Rio Conchos, its international and regional relevance, the problems related to its economic and urban development, and the impacts of climate change (Kelly 2001; Kim et al. 2002; Vargas 2007; Barrios et al. 2009; CONAGUA 2011; GIT 2013; Stewart et al. 2014; Martínez-Austria 2017; Montero- Martínez et al. 2018). This paper contributes to the previous knowledge on the Rio Conchos and its basin, in the context of its national importance and the impacts that its conditions and water management trends have on water deliveries by Mexico to the internation- al Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Basin. We examine the current fea- tures of the watershed, the water management forms and actors involved, the competition for water and potential scenarios of internal conflict, the ways in which conflicts were resolved, and the impacts on deliveries from Mexico. This paper utilizes the multi-level governance (MLG) approach through the typology created by Hooghe and Marks (2002, 2003) and the recently developed concept of sub-national hydropolitics (SNH; Moore 2018). METHODS The methodology followed in the analysis combined the participant observation (PO) approach with documentary research and unstructured interviews. PO was done during a stay at the headquarters of the Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas entre México y Estados Unidos (CILA), the Mexican section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. The unstruc- tured interviews were done with key actors in the Rio Conchos Basin—CILA-IBWC, Comisión Nacional del Agua (CONA- GUA) officials, irrigation district stakeholders, and state and local water agencies—and focused on their views on different issues and ways to improve cooperation and coordination. Participant Observation PO makes it easy to collect valuable information, in a more direct way (face to face). Furthermore, the aim is to avoid any distortion when applying experimental and measurement Table 1. Mexican tributaries of the Rio Grande under the 1944 water treaty. Tributary Confluence with Rio Grande Proportion of total delivery Rio Conchos Ojinaga, Chihuahua 49% San Diego River Jimenez, Coahuila 51% San Rodrigo River Piedras Negras, Coahuila Escondido River Piedras Negras, Coahuila Salado River Falcon Dam, Tamaulipas Las Vacas Creek Ciudad Acuña, Coahuila Source: González-Velázquez 2020 Texas Water Journal, Volume 13, Number 1 Water Management in the Rio Conchos Basin:50 We addressed these questions to key actors such as officials of CILA, the Rio Bravo Basin Organization (OCRB), CCRB, members of the irrigation districts in the Rio Conchos Basin, and officials of operating agencies in the state of Chihuahua. In total, we conducted 18 interviews. Interviewees were selected using the snowball methodology by interviewing an actor with a recommendation from a previous actor. This methodology allowed us to find the key actors most involved in the problem analyzed. The objective of the interviews was to have the specialized opinion of key actors regarding the necessary measures to improve cooperation and coordination between the actors at different participating levels and thereby make effective deliv- eries of water to the United States. Another objective was to identify the possible factors that hinder deliveries and generate conflict. THE RIO CONCHOS WATERSHED The Rio Conchos is one of the most important systems of Hydrological Region 024 (RH-024) Rio Bravo-Conchos, com- prising the northern states of Chihuahua, Tamaulipas, Duran- go, Coahuila, and Nuevo León3. The Rio Conchos Basin is located in the southwestern part of Chihuahua. It has an area 3 Thirty-seven hydrological regions represent the natural boundaries of the main river basins in Mexico. The Bravo-Conchos region is the largest, com- prising about 12 % of the national territory (CONAGUA 2020a). instruments that do not collect data beyond their design. We therefore observed, recorded, processed, and systematically interpreted the data (Sánchez Serrano 2001). The data collec- tion took place during a stay at CILA’s headquarters in Ciudad Juárez. In addition, PO was also carried out in the assemblies and meetings of the Rio Bravo Basin Council (CCRB) users to document how cooperation, interactions, conflict, allocation, and decision-making occur in and between the different levels of government. Documentary Research This stage dealt with identifying, gathering, and consulting related references and other materials to extract and collect the relevant and necessary information to frame the research prob- lem (Hernández Sampieri et al. 2010). The analysis sought to pinpoint the actions, decisions, and events that generated coop- eration, conflict, and water allocation at the different levels of government participating in the basin in the study period. Unstructured Interview Interviews are a specific form of social interaction to col- lect data for an investigation. Their design includes ques- tions directed at actors capable of providing data of interest for the research. The unstructured interview offers a relatively large margin of freedom to formulate questions and answers with a certain degree of spontaneity (Nel Quezada 2010). Figure 1. Rio Conchos Basin. Authors’ depiction based on SIG-Bravo n.d. Texas Water Journal, Volume 13, Number 1 51Impacts on Water Deliveries Under the 1944 Treaty of 28,707 mi2 (74,351 km2), representing 13.6% of the Rio Grande Basin and around 30% of the state’s surface (Figure 1). Its area includes 41 municipalities in Chihuahua and two in Durango. Surface hydrology includes several tributaries that feed the Rio Conchos along its route, from its source in the western Sierra Madre to the point of confluence with the Rio Grande. The main tributaries are the Florido, San Pedro, and Chuvicar rivers (Figure 1). Their contribution allows the Rio Conchos to maintain a perennial runoff during most of the year. As for groundwater, 17 aquifers supply the basin, 14 of which belong to Chihuahua, contributing around 20% of the groundwater extracted in the state (CONAGUA 2021c). Of this volume, the Chihuahua-Sacramento, Meoqui-Delicias, Jiménez-Camargo, and Aldama-San Diego aquifers stand out, which alone account for just over 70% of the total ground- water extraction (CONAGUA 2021c). The water infrastruc- ture includes 10 dams that serve the different uses of the basin, with three of them—La Boquilla, Luis L. León/El Granero, and Francisco I. Madero/Las Vírgenes—concentrating 90% of the total capacity. They provide water to the irrigation districts (IDs) of the basin and the Pico del Aguila dam. The water available to the different users in the basin is assigned annually by CONAGUA, the Mexican federal agen- cy in charge of water management in the national territo- ry through concessions4. Water availability accounts from a 4 Given the public nature of water resources in Mexico, CONAGUA man- ages their extraction and use through concessions or franchising to public and private entities (CONAGUA 2021a, 2021b). combination of surface and underground sources. In 2020, the total water assigned to the state of Chihuahua was 4.35 MAF (5,411 MCM). The agricultural sector was the largest consumer of water, receiving just over 89% of the total allocat- ed volumes. In comparison, public supply to cities and urban localities accounted for 9% of federal allocations (Table 2). An important feature noted is the higher proportion of water coming from underground sources. This situation is even more acute in the case of cities with groundwater assigned for con- sumption reaching 89%. There are four IDs in the basin, which stretches 100,458 hectares (ha), which alone account for 60% of the total sur- face water assigned for agricultural use in the state (Table 3). Among these, ID 005 Delicias stands out in the middle part of the basin, the largest and most important in the state, rep- resenting 90% of the south-central economy, with an approx- imate production according to farmers and federal legislators in the area of 7 billion pesos annually (González-Velázquez 2020). In addition, this ID also receives groundwater from the Meoqui-Delicias Aquifer. In 2020, the basin had just over 1.6 million inhabitants, cor- responding to just under half of the state’s population. This amount includes seven of the most important cities of the entity—Camargo, Chihuahua, Delicias, Hidalgo del Parral, Jiménez, Pedro Meoqui, and Ojinaga—which alone concen- trated 91.4% of the urban population in that year (INEGI 2020). Table 2. Water concessions by user in Chihuahua, 2020. User Surface Water (acre-feet [AF]) % Underground Water (AF) % Total water conceded (AF) Agriculture 1,576,719 40.5 2,311,854 59.5 3,888,573 Public Supply 42,900 10.8 355,574 89.2 398,474 Industry and Thermoelectric Generation 5,204 11.3 63,029 88.7 68,233 All Users Total 1,624,823 37.3 2,730,457 62.7 4,355,280 Source: CONAGUA 2020b Table 3. Rio Conchos Watershed irrigation districts in agricultural year 2018-2019. Irrigation district Total surface (hectares) Total water volume (acre-feet) Surface water (%) Underground water (%) Related dam Related river Bajo Rio Conchos 8,080 66,151 100 - Luis L. Leon Rio Conchos Delicias 73,002 788,686 94.5 5.5 Francisco I. Madero San Pedro River Alto Rio Conchos 11,184 64,018 100 - La Boquilla Rio Conchos Rio Florido 8,192 80,160 100 - Pico de Aguila Florido River All Irrigation Districts 100,458 999,015 95.6 4.4 Source: CONAGUA 2019 Texas Water Journal, Volume 13, Number 1 Water Management in the Rio Conchos Basin:52 WATER STRESSORS The World Resources Institute classifies Mexico as a coun- try with high water stress due to its climatic variability and competition for water in different regions throughout its ter- ritory (Gassert et al. 2013). In particular, the Rio Conchos Basin is classified as a region with high pressure on its water resources due to an increased allocation of available renewable water (75%; CONAGUA 2018)5. There are currently three significant factors that affect water availability in the basin: the growth of cities and economic activities, the intense use of water in the agricultural sector, and the effects of recurrent droughts in the region (González-Velázquez 2020). Urban Growth The population of Chihuahua presents two particular char- acteristics in its distribution: a high dispersion of small towns throughout its territory and a growing urban concentration in some municipalities. More than 12,000 rural communities in the state account for more than half a million inhabitants. On the other hand, 19 urban localities concentrate 83% of the state population (INEGI 2020). Among these are the most sig- nificant urban centers in the Rio Conchos Basin, which alone account for 44% of the urban population of Chihuahua (Table 4). In 2040, the state is projected to reach a population of 4.45 million inhabitants (GECH 2019a), which will continue fuel- ing the urbanization process of the basin. Although the volume 5 CONAGUA defines the degree of high pressure as a percentage of water allocation between 40-100% of the total renewable water available (CONA- GUA 2018). of water assigned for urban public use represents only 9% of the total allocated to the state by CONAGUA, 89% comes from underground sources (CONAGUA 2020b), increasingly pressing the availability of the resource for this sector due to the overexploitation of the aquifers that feed it and the deteri- oration of water quality. Searching for solutions to this prob- lem, the government of Chihuahua is considering exchanging groundwater for surface water through negotiations with the users of the IDs, which implies infrastructure works and oper- ating costs for the extraction of the necessary volumes of water (GECH 2019a). Agricultural Consumption The agricultural sector’s intensive use of available water is another factor contributing to the water-stressed conditions in the Rio Conchos Basin. In Mexico, 12% of agricultural pro- duction units have irrigation systems. Most of the rest (around 78%) is seasonal agriculture, where water use is more intensive, inefficient, and vulnerable to climate change (Earthgonomic 2017)6. These conditions are present in the Rio Conchos Basin, where 57% of the harvested area is rain-fed. Chihuahua has the highest national production and economic value of 12 crops, including walnuts and green alfalfa, for which water consump- tion is comparatively high (GECH 2019b)7. These are the fastest-growing crops in the last 10 years, representing 60% of state production in 2020 (Table 5). The Rio Conchos Basin 6 According to CONAGUA, the agricultural sector in Mexico wastes 57% of water due to obsolete and inefficient irrigation structures (Maguey 2018). 7 The water footprint for vegetables and fruits is 322 and 962 liters/kg, respectively (Mekonnen and Hoestra 2010). The values are 9,000 and 1,000 liters/kg for nuts and alfalfa. Table 4. Rio Conchos Basin urban population in largest municipalities (2020). Municipality Total population Urban population Percent urban Change in urban population 1990–2020 (%) Camargo 49,499 42,019 84.9 13.7 Chihuahua 937,674 925,762 98.7 79.4 Cuauhtémoc 180,638 145,782 80.7 81.0 Delicias 150,506 140,157 93.1 55.7 Hidalgo del Parral 116,662 113,843 97.6 29.1 Jiménez 40,859 35,087 85.9 29.1 Meoqui 44,853 32,979 73.5 43.7 Totals 1,570,871 1,453,039 92.5 68.2 State of Chihuahua 3,741,869 3,274,046 87.5 99.5 Percent of Chihuahua population overall 42.0 44.4 Sources: INEGI, Population Censuses 1990–2020 Texas Water Journal, Volume 13, Number 1 53Impacts on Water Deliveries Under the 1944 Treaty municipalities are the leading producers of these crops, repre- senting 74% (walnuts) and 68% (green alfalfa) of the harvested area, respectively, and participating with 77% and 70% of the total output in 2020. The above conditions have a significant impact on the available water resources in the basin. Six aquifers are currently over-ex- ploited, including the four most important due to competition and over-concession from the agricultural and urban sectors: Chihuahua-Sacramento, Meoqui-Delicias, Jiménez-Camargo, and Parral-Valle del Verano (González-Velázquez 2020). The dependence of most irrigation units on rainwater places addi- tional pressure on the water available in the basin dams. Feder- al allocations to the agricultural sector in dry seasons are there- fore affected to ensure the volumes committed under the IWT. The overexploitation of aquifers also deteriorates the quality of water available to urban centers, forcing the water utilities to seek the possibility of exchanging surface water for groundwa- ter (Montero-Martinez and Ibanez-Hernandez 2017). Drought Conditions Chihuahua is one of the Mexican states historically affected by recurrent droughts due to its geographic location in one of the most important desert strips in the world (GECH 2019a). The effects of drought conditions are more pronounced for the Rio Conchos Basin due to the dependence of large extensions of rain-fed agriculture on the available dams, the management of Table 5. Chihuahua main agricultural products, 2010–2020. Crop 2010 2020 Change 2010–2020 (%) Harvested area (hectares [ha]) Yield (tons [t]) Harvested area (ha) Yield (t) Harvested area (ha) Yield (t) Alfalfa 74,020.37 4,934,021.70 90,181.50 8,146,513.05 21.8 65.1 Cotton 63,696.43 254,114.02 99,510.44 501,663.14 56.2 97.4 Oat 272,273.00 3,139,480.10 156,892.50 1,487,609.90 -42.4 -52.6 Green chile 25,347.07 545,828.10 30,092.00 722,936.90 18.7 32.4 Bean 152,546.78 126,479.35 37,607.00 32,803.49 -75.3 -74.1 Corn 293,689.83 1,981,620.93 183,107.50 1,997,966.23 -37.7 0.8 Apple 23,079.00 398,155.26 31,785.37 594,710.82 37.7 49.4 Nut 39,420.64 39,764.97 64,993.23 102,061.00 64.9 156.7 Sorgo 36,989.37 388,787.31 6,355.00 110,132.36 -82.8 -71.7 Wheat 53,479.10 261,490.04 12,360.00 63,656.95 -76.9 -75.7 Totals 1,034,541.59 12,069,741.78 712,884.54 13,760,053.84 -31.1 14.0 Alfalfa + nut 113,441.01 4,973,786.67 155,174.73 8,248,574.05 36.8 65.8 Alfalfa + nut as % of totals 11.0 41.2 21.8 59.9 Sources: GM n.d. which must consider the volumes committed by the Rio Con- chos as part of the IWT. Since the middle of the last century, some records of these conditions show a continuity of drought events in the three large basin sections, defined based on their duration and the accumulated deficit volumes (Ortega-Gaucin 2013). The period of exceptional drought that struck the entire basin during the 1990s stands out in these analyses. Its effects lasted for 14 years, from 1992 to 2005, reducing to 64% the availability of irrigation water for the IDs of the Rio Conchos Basin and forcing agricultural users to decrease the annual cul- tivated area by 61% (Ortega-Gaucin 2013). Its impacts also affected Mexico’s water deliveries to the Rio Grande, when cycle 25 (1992–1997) finished with a deficit of 58% of the commitment of 1.75 MAF (2,158.6 MCM) established in the IWT, taking two cycles more before it was settled (Table 6). In the last 10 years, another critical drought was registered again in the basin, particularly affecting the area of ID 005 (Deli- cias). As a result, Mexico ended up with deficits in its deliveries in the two corresponding cycles (34 and 35). Finally, it paid the remaining debt at the end of cycle 35 through the signing of Minute 325 (IBWC 2020a), by which Mexico transferred 0.10 MAF (139 MCM) from its ownership at Amistad and Falcon International Reservoirs on the Rio Grande (Minute 234)8. 8 Minute 234 determines that any deficiency in a five-year cycle shall be made up by Mexico in the following cycle, including, among other options, the transfer of water in storage in the international reservoirs (IBWC 1969). Texas Water Journal, Volume 13, Number 1 Water Management in the Rio Conchos Basin:54 WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE BASIN Water management in a basin such as the Rio Conchos Basin has local, regional, national, and international characteristics. Human processes that influence decision-making add to the physical, geographical, and environmental contexts. Addition- ally, a diversity of actors participates in the operational man- agement of water, from public authorities and institutions to private groups, communities, and individuals, giving rise to rules and conflicting interests that interact at all levels (Finger et al. 2005). In this section, we examine the water management structure in the Rio Conchos Basin using the MLG approach. The origin of this approach goes back to the emergence of the European Union in the 1990s and the analysis of the decen- tralized decision-making processes (Hooge and Marks 2002, 2003; Saito-Jensen 2015). An expanded version of MLG has gained the attention of academics and decision-makers world- wide, referring to governance systems with a vertical and hor- izontal dispersion of authority in different directions between the various levels of government involved and across other realms, including states, markets, and civil society (Daniell and Kay 2017). The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) identifies central government minis- tries or agencies at the horizontal top-level in conceptualizing MLG. It analyzes the relationships between local, regional, state, national, and supranational levels in the vertical dimen- sion and sub-national actors in the lower plane sphere (OECD 2011). Hooghe and Marks (2002, 2003) analyze the intellec- tual views sharing the idea that dispersion of governance across multiple jurisdictions is more efficient and flexible than con- centration in a single jurisdiction. They identify two coher- ent governance structures that coexist, designated as Type I and Type II. Type I jurisdictions comprise a limited number of levels (international, national, regional, meso, local); have general purposes (involve multiple roles and responsibilities); have boundaries that do not intersect; are stable for periods of several decades or more; and have flexible jurisdiction across different jurisdictional levels. Type II jurisdictions are differ- ent in that they are specialized and fragmented; their functions are specific (particular services, monitoring) and include ter- ritories that intersect; their number is potentially vast; they are thin and flexible; and they come and go as a function of changes in governance. More recent research emphasized the role of Type II actors as key in resolving trans-jurisdictional problems and building bridges to improve social cooperation and conflict resolution (Mumme et al. 2012). In our case, we Table 6. Water delivery cycles to the United States in the Rio Grande. Cycle Period Duration (years) Debt (million acre-feet [MAF]) Delivered (MAF) Difference (MAF)1/3 Mexican tributaries Minute 234 Total 1-3 10/1/53–9/30/68 15 Provisions of Article 4 of the IWT were considered satisfied to September 30, 1968 (Minute 234) 4-15 10/1/68–6/1/82 13.7 The conservation capacities assigned to the United States were filled before the end of the cycle (IWT, Article 4) 16 6/2/82–6/1/87 5 1.75 1.52 0 1.52 - 0.23 17 6/2/87–6/23/87 0.06 0.021 0.075 0 0.075 0.054 18-24 6/24/87–9/26/92 5.3 The conservation capacities assigned to the United States were filled before the end of the cycle (IWT, Article 4) 25 10/1/92–9/30/97 5 1.75 0.73 0 0.73 -1.02 26 10/1/97–9/30/02 5 1.75 0.58 0.87 1.45 -0.3 27 1/10/02–9/30/07 5 1.75 1.25 1.83 3.08 1.33 28-33 10/1/07–10/24/10 3.1 The conservation capacities assigned to the United States were filled before the end of the cycle (IWT, Article 4) 34 10/25/10–10/24/15 5 1.75 1.49 0 1.49 -0.26 35 10/25/15–10/24/20 5 1.75 1.65* 0.10 1.75 - Color description: blue - the terms of the 1944 water treaty were met before or at the end of the cycles; orange - cycles with a deficit at the end; green - previous cycle debt was paid off; red - two successive cycles with deficit. *Included 0.06 MAF through Minute 325 Sources: CILA 2019; IBWC 2020b. Texas Water Journal, Volume 13, Number 1 55Impacts on Water Deliveries Under the 1944 Treaty Table 7. Rio Conchos Watershed type I actors. Name Authority/age Jurisdiction/ boundaries Functions Planning/reporting National Water Commission (CONAGUA) Federal government (31 years) National through 13 basin organizations and 26 basin coun- cils; regional through OCRB* and CCRB** • Grant permits for water extraction and waist waters discharge • Formulate the National Water Program • Collect and audit water-related contributions • Issue standards in hydraulic matters • Monitor compliance and application of the law (Law of National Waters [LAN]) • National Water Program (PNH) 2019– 2024 • Indicators and targets of the PNH • Annual reports on accomplishments • Annual report on water statistics in Mexico • Regional and sectorial reports Secretariat of Agriculture and Rural Development (SADER) Federal government (103 years) National, with state representatives • Formulate, conduct, and evaluate the general rural development policy • Organize and promote agricultural, livestock, poultry, beekeeping, and forestry research • Prepare, update, and disseminate a bank of projects and investment opportunities in the rural sector • Rural Development Program • Agriculture Promotion Program • Wellbeing Program Central Board of Water and Sanitation of the State of Chihuahua (JCAS) State government (77 years) State • Water planning in the state, with its proper coordination at the federal level • Coordination, between the state and the municipalities, of actions related to the exploitation of water and treatment and reuse of wastewater. State of Chihuahua Water Plan 2040 Irrigation Users Association of the State of Chihuahua (AURECH) Civil society/users (founded in the 1990s) State • Administration of the volumes granted by CONAGUA • Coordination of irrigation associations’ activities • Administration of resources for infrastructure development and maintenance The self-management carried out by the associations has allowed them to improve the efficiency of their irrigation district and thereby generate volume savings There are restoration projects in the upper area of the basin and pollution control in the main channels of the Rio Conchos Municipal Water and Sanitation Boards in the municipalities of Chihuahua (JMAS) Municipal government Municipal (local) • Responsible for the drinking water, sewerage, and wastewater sanitation services in the different municipalities • In charge of public works related to these services Planning actions and programs are primarily short-term and usually depend on resources from CONAGUA, JCAS, or binational support through NADB’s infra- structure programs Source: González-Velázquez 2020 *OCRB: Organismo de Cuenca del Rio Bravo **Consejo de Cuenca del Rio Bravo Texas Water Journal, Volume 13, Number 1 Water Management in the Rio Conchos Basin:56 adapt the Hooge and Marks (2002, 2003) typology to facilitate the analysis (Castro-Ruiz and Cortez-Lara 2020) by including type of authority (multi-functional or specialized); nature/level (national, state, local); trajectory/temporary durability; func- tions; and definition of jurisdictional territories (Table 7). Water Governance Structure Table 7 depicts a governance structure very similar to other regions in the Mexican territory, with jurisdictions belonging to Type I, well-defined boundaries, multi-functional features, and stable temporal trajectories. CONAGUA is the core actor within Mexico’s centralized water management model (Sán- chez Meza 2006). It has a long historical role beyond its cre- ation in 1989 as the sole federal agency to manage Mexico’s water and coordinate investment programs with other federal, state, and local agencies. Its characteristics are similar to other North American Type I jurisdictions in terms of its stability over time, geographic coverage, and multi-functionality. How- ever, CONAGUA concentrates more responsibilities due to its authority in Mexico’s water policy, including the formulation and implementation of the government’s National Water Pro- gram. It carries out its duties through 13 basin organizations all over the Mexican territory, assisted by 26 basin councils9. Another actor at the federal level is the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. It deals with the planning of agricul- tural production in the IDs of the state. At the state level, the Central Board of Water and Sanitation of Chihuahua (JCAS), created in 1942, has multiple functions, basically related to its role as a liaison body with the federal government in planning activities and coordination between the state government and the municipalities. In this capacity, JCAS was responsible for formulating and implementing the Water Plan of the State of Chihuahua 2040. Next are the local water and sanitation boards, which act as operating agencies and providers of ser- vices at the local level, with service areas clearly defined by the municipal divisions. Finally, the Association of Irrigation Users of the State of Chihuahua is a civil society but multi-function- al organization, with well-defined state coverage and history going back to the 1990s when the federal government initiated the transfer of the operation and maintenance of IDs to the agricultural users in the country10. In theory, despite the absence of Type II actors, the structure described in Table 7 presumes the existence of a systemic and 9 The basin councils are advising bodies instituted by the LAN of 1992 to promote user involvement in each basin organizations’ regions (Collado 2008). 10 With the transfer process, CONAGUA's responsibilities were to ensure the self-sufficiency of the transferred districts and the completion of the planned investments. Other functions were to provide guidance and technical sup- port to user organizations and supervise and monitor the proper use of the water granted (Trava-Manzanilla 1995). cooperative relationship between the actors regarding water management in the basin. However, in practice, CONAGUA maintains de facto central authority in decision-making related to the administration and planning of water resources, not- withstanding the changes undergone in the Law of National Waters (LAN) of 1992 and its modifications in 2004 towards decentralizing its functions in search of better governance con- ditions. CONAGUA is the sole agency to allocate water to the different user sectors, based on the concessions in each case and the provision and enforcement of the guidelines concern- ing water quality and quantity. It also leads the development of water availability studies and is responsible for the Public Registry of Water Rights (Collado 2008). The state and local authorities that participate depend mostly on CONAGUA’s financial and regulatory support to operate, with little room for their participation in the decision-making process. Civil society involvement in water management occurs in the Irriga- tion Users Association of the State of Chihuahua (AURECH), which has operational autonomy but depends on CONAGUA for its annual water concessions and monitoring of its activities and projects. All sector users rely on CCRB, the regional con- sultation body, to participate in the decision-making process concerning the basin. In theory, all those sector users interact with authorities and CONAGUA’s representatives, bringing their daily problems and proposals to try to solve them. CCRB is one of the Consejos de Cuenca (CCs), or basin councils, with more improvements in its functionality despite the size of its jurisdiction. Still, CCRB faces different challenges that hin- der its governance objectives. Among them are a low capability at the local levels to interpret and observe the legal framework that sustains the existence of the CCs; the absence of coordi- nation with other governmental actors; financial limitations; a lack of incentives to support the water users’ involvement; and in general, limited operative autonomy (Sosa-Rodriguez and Castro-Ruiz 2020)11. In addition, both CONAGUA and its local and state counterparts have to deal with the discontinuity of programs and policy actions resulting from constant politi- cal-administrative changes. Water Competition and Conflicts The study of conflict and cooperation in shared international rivers has gained interest in recent decades, given urban growth and the effects of climate change. This research focused on the conflict conditions experienced by riparian nations and the search for cooperation and agreements to manage the resource (Wolf 1998; Elhance 1999). Some authors also recognized the existence of internal water management problems as the cause 11 Some authors noted a decentralization trend in the federal water institu- tions during the 1980s toward other instances at different levels. For exam- ple, the transfer of responsibilities on the urban water services to the munici- pal governments in 1983 was part of this course (Collado 2008). Texas Water Journal, Volume 13, Number 1 57Impacts on Water Deliveries Under the 1944 Treaty Table 8. Rio Conchos Watershed conflict situations and actions of cooperation at the sub-national and binational levels. Level Current and potential situations of conflict Identified actions for cooperation and conflict reduction Sub-national There is competition for surface water between Municipal Water and Sanitation Boards in the municipalities of Chihuahua (JMAS) and irrigation districts (IDs) in Chihuahua. The former is highly dependent on ground- water, which is on the verge of depletion and cannot consider surface water in their development plans because the IDs use it. Just as there is competition, cooperation is also present. For exam- ple, ID* 005 Delicias reached an agreement with the municipality of Camargo, yielding 12,161 acre-feet (15 million cubic meters) per year for the JMAS to use. The frequent drought occurrences manifest themselves in complex condi- tions, requiring adjustable solutions not even per 5-year period but yearly. These changes are sources of conflict. Farmers in the upper basin have no mechanisms to obtain water from another source under drought conditions, as farmers in the lower basin do. They want no special deals, so a flexible plan can be established, such as annual irrigation plans, where all agricultural users share the same conditions. Farmers identify the existence of clandestine water intakes in the basin and report several of them. However, they point out their displeasure because the authority does nothing, affecting other people’s interests. Technology can help solve this, but strategies are needed to enforce the water authority so that legal users trust it. National Water Commission (CONAGUA) had made decisions in situations with no consensus, such as the opening of the La Boquilla dam on several occasions in 2020, even when negotiations continued, which caused large demonstrations by farmers and great distrust towards the authority. CONAGUA is under pressure to guarantee the volumes of water deliv- ered to the United States. Despite this, it is essential to establish a dialogue with more time to forge a closer relationship with the farmers, so they feel their comments and requests take part in the process. There is an over-concession of water in the basin, which exacerbates the conflicts over competition for water. The commitment of all resources gives no room to provide a solution. Improving the efficiency in managing the resource for all users should be a strategy to follow. It is necessary to enhance the distribution of available water without generating any conflict between uses. Agricultural users in the basin indicate that their peers from the Lower Rio Grande (Coahuila, Tamaulipas) let water drain for them. Still, they do nothing about the problems faced by the upper basin of the Rio Conchos, which they identify as their water factory. There is also the opinion that these farmers demand more water they use with very low efficiency. In comparison, the ID* 005 Delicias is presented as an example. The Payment for Environmental Services Program has worked in sev- eral parts of Mexico. In this direction, the Lower Rio Bravo/Rio Grande and Rio Conchos basins may create mechanisms for cooperation to take care of the upper basins. Considering that the farmers of the Rio Conchos contributed partially with resources to improve the efficiency in the use of water, their peers of the lower Rio Grande could also begin doing the same. Binational The frequent occurrence of drought in the basin causes conflict in deliver- ies. There are reductions for all water users and no mechanisms to inform the percentage of decrease in deliveries on the assumption that there will be no excess water in the end. The minutes are the principal means of cooperation and conflict resolu- tion. In this case, the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) should continue promoting the financial support in difficult times through organizations such as the North American Development Bank (NADB) to provide further certainty to constant deliveries to the United States (i.e., Minutes 307–309). The definition and classification of an extraordinary drought are still not entirely clear in both countries. When it has occurred, it complicated the process of agreements between both governments. It is essential to have contingency plans during drought episodes to help clarify these pending aspects and thus cooperatively standardize the measures to be followed. The most critical issue is that users in general assume that there will be plenty of water to pay for the 1944 water treaty despite the current over-granting of water in the Rio Grande Basin. Mexican users are willing to comply with the treaty. However, they are against the overexploitation of any of the current six tributaries and believe that Mexico should take more integral measures beyond these sources. Source: González-Velázquez 2020 Texas Water Journal, Volume 13, Number 1 Water Management in the Rio Conchos Basin:58 of those conflict situations (Uitto and Duda 2002; Giordano et al. 2002; Wolf 2005). A recent approach that deals with this context are SNH, a contemporary variant of the traditional concept of hydropolitics, which addresses a more common but little-studied problem: the conflict and cooperation in basins within countries, shared by multiple sub-national units (Moore 2018). One of the postulates of this approach estab- lishes that the difference between international hydropolitics and SNH is one of scale rather than kind. However, the prob- lems in searching for agreements leading to inter-jurisdictional collective action can be equally complex. The evidence around the dynamics of this trend defines three factors that intervene: (1) decentralizing processes (federalism, jurisdictions); (2) the sectoral identity (social, cultural, political, economic, ideolog- ical characteristics of the actors at the sub-national level); and (3) the structure of political opportunities, which opens the opportunity for actors and groups outside the governmental sphere to participate in political processes. These elements define greater participation of actors at the local and regional levels with significant weights in decision-making. The influ- ence of ideological and institutional factors can modify the dif- ferences and conflicts between groups at those levels. A possible way in the opposite direction could be an institutional struc- ture capable of building bridges between water users through third parties to allow collective action (Moore 2018). The Rio Conchos Basin is prone to conflict due to the water stressors and the governance structure described in Table 7. Table 8 shows the main points of conflict and cooperation— existing or possible—perceived by the governmental actors and stakeholders over water management and its binational impli- cations (González-Velázquez 2020). Domestic Issues and Centralization in Mexico The Rio Conchos Basin presents a de facto governance arrangement that contradicts the trends expected in a federal- ized model such as Mexico (Moore 2018). The omnipresence of CONAGUA in all orders related to water management inhibits the participation of other government entities and the possible influence of their sectoral identity. Also, the political opportunity structure is quite limited, and the involvement of actors outside the governmental sphere is almost nonexistent. Table 8 depicts a general view of CONAGUA’s operational role problems resulting from its functions’ weight and cover- age. Among these is the absence of coordination, resources, and competence at the local level to interact with other government entities and users to solve problems, a condition common to other regions in the country (Sosa-Rodríguez and Castro-Ruiz 2020). As a result, stakeholders report their low influence in the CCRB, which significantly restricts the possibility of hav- ing their complaints and ideas considered and implemented by the central government. The result is the lack of application of the law on the issues of clandestine intakes, the over-con- cession of water in some sectors and the coordination and fol- low-up actions to avoid this, which provokes questions from users towards the authority of CONAGUA. Some stakeholders opinions also indicate the absence of provisions for the occur- rence of droughts. Another concern is the high dependence of the urban sector on groundwater; the high population growth rates of some cities and the overexploitation of the main aqui- fers are common knowledge among the actors in the basin and public officials. There is also the impossibility of having great- er volumes of surface water because only 11% of the water assigned by CONAGUA to this sector comes from this type of water (CONAGUA 2020b). Chihuahua’s government has considered the feasibility of exchanging treated wastewater for potable water from the IDs, as the city of Delicias and ID 005 Delicias are doing (GECH 2019a). Still, these processes involve additional infrastructure costs, including improvements in the levels of treatment. Water Delivery Obligations in the IWT Table 8 also displays the views of the watershed stakehold- ers on Mexico’s water delivery commitments within the IWT. They are aware of the IWT terms and the Rio Conchos’ central role in these obligations. However, they experienced authori- tarian actions from CONAGUA, such as opening the gates of La Boquilla dam in 2020 without the knowledge of the affect- ed users. This lack of communication with CONAGUA pre- vents the participation of water users in decision-making about water delivery at the end of each five-year cycle. The watershed stakeholders feel that both users and authorities should seek agreements and develop contingency plans to improve water management efficiency and generate savings allocated to pay- ing the debt, restoring ecosystems, and recharging aquifers. Because compliance with the IWT is a national commitment, the respondents deem it necessary that all the neighbor states downstream should ensure equitable deliveries. Also, they believe that both governments should continue their cooper- ative actions through binational financing programs like the North American Development Bank’s (NADB) to improve the agricultural sector’s efficiency in the basin. Finally, the absence of direct communication with CILA is also a concern affecting stakeholders’ knowledge about the government’s activities on Rio Grande deliveries. It is then that the actors in the basin are aware of these difficulties within the Mexican government structure and therefore propose a more flexible role of CONA- GUA as a bridge with CILA to channel their viewpoints and ideas12. 12 This lack of flexibility shown by CILA is shared within the centralized Mexican model. It contrasts with the operative openness of its counterpart in the United States towards other governmental actors and the border commu- nities (Castro-Ruiz et al. 2018). Texas Water Journal, Volume 13, Number 1 59Impacts on Water Deliveries Under the 1944 Treaty CONCLUSIONS Our analysis in the previous sections depicts a picture of the Rio Conchos Basin that calls for attention beyond the bare vol- umes of water required by Mexico at the end of the 5-year cycles established in the IWT. In this sense, we conclude that the problems related to water management in the Rio Conchos Basin have not been fully understood or addressed within the lines of water policy in Mexico. The main factor behind these problems is the persistent presence of the centralized politi- cal-administrative model in the basin and its effects at the oper- ational levels, which hinders the possibility to reach an ideal governance. In addition, the autonomy of other government jurisdictions is considerably limited in decision-making, also inhibiting the participation of non-governmental organiza- tions, as AURECH’s characteristics show (Moore 2018). As the perceptions of stakeholders and government actors at lower levels consistently point out, CONAGUA, the central agency in charge of enforcing the LAN, exercises a significant weight in all active orders, despite its apparent territorial decentraliza- tion for decision-making. This presence forces other govern- ment entities and civil society to play a merely functional role, dependent on the regulations and funding of the agency. On the other hand, CONAGUA’s lack of resources and capabilities at the local level led to a series of operational gaps that do not allow the agency to fulfill its functions complete- ly or enforce legal frameworks, promoting situations such as illegal access to water and the contempt by part of the farmers towards the entity for not solving the problem of the excess of concessions. A recurring theme related to these demands is the operation of CCRB, CONAGUA’s consultative body for this region, whose relationship with users is a source of criticism for not fulfilling the support functions that justify its creation. The geographic jurisdiction of the CCRB is the largest of all CCs in Mexico, with almost 20% of the national territory (CONA- GUA 2018). The lack of resources restricts continued support for users’ participation or the representatives of the auxiliary entities in the sessions of the council. The impacts of internal water management on deliveries to the United States within the IWT is another aspect that deserves some reflection. From our analysis in this regard, it is evident in the case of Mexico that it is necessary to implement programs that seek efficiency, save water, and involve users of the basin, allowing better planning of water deliveries to the Rio Grande during each 5-year cycle. This process should improve users’ communication channels not only with CONAGUA but with CILA, enhancing the flow of information and allowing better cooperative work between them. On the other hand, cooper- ation around the IWT has not been constant in infrastructure investment to increase efficiency in water use in the basin; this would help to give certainty to delivery commitments to the United States. These programs are well known and expressed by water users in the Rio Conchos Basin from the projects signed in Minutes 307–309 of CILA. Therefore, investment opportunities in water infrastructure allow for more significant water savings in the basin. Our work also highlights the proactive and committed atti- tudes of the stakeholders in the basin, despite the reduced options available to channel their views, complaints, and prob- lems with CONAGUA. Their input and active participation align with other efforts from non-government actors and stake- holders along the U.S.-Mexico border (Mumme et al. 2014; Castro-Ruiz et al. 2018; Brown and Mumme 2021). Stake- holders provide strong support in seeking agreements on the role of the Rio Conchos in Mexico’s water delivery obligations in future cycles. Moreover, their views are straightforward: timely provisions will lower the likelihood of deficit problems such as those experienced at the end of each 5-year process in the past. The problem of the Rio Conchos should not be interpreted simply as the non-availability of water at the end of each cycle and take action based on short-term actions. Instead, the evolv- ing characteristics of the Rio Conchos Basin and the feedback provided by its stakeholders and water users about the basin’s problems and possible solutions should be an integral part of longer-range plans devised by CONAGUA and CILA. Minute 325, recently signed to solve Mexico’s debt in the last cycle, demonstrated the willingness of the Mexican and U.S. gov- ernments to jointly solve the problems that arise from compli- ance with the IWT. This Minute can be the starting point for future actions that are not limited to short-term horizons and are sensitive to the sustainable future of the Rio Grande Basin and its tributaries. As demonstrated in this study, continuous and close coordination between the two countries is essential. On one hand, this coordination integrates the social dimen- sion through better governance conditions between the actors of the Rio Conchos Basin and other regions downstream of the Rio Grande. On the other hand, it is opportune to consid- er the financial support that arose from cooperation programs through organizations such as NADB that foster long-term planning actions to assure greater water availability at the end of each cycle. Texas Water Journal, Volume 13, Number 1 Water Management in the Rio Conchos Basin:60 REFERENCES Barrios JE, Rodríguez-Pineda JA, De la Maza Benignos M. 2009. Integrated river basin management in the Con- chos River basin, Mexico: A case study of freshwater cli- mate change adaptation. Climate and Development. 1(3):249-260. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3763/ cdev.2009.0024. Brown C, Mumme SP. 2021. A comparative examination of watershed management efforts in two transboundary river basins on the U.S.-Mexico border. In: Castro-Ruiz JL, Cor- tez-Lara AA, Sánchez Munguía V, coordinators. Visiones contemporáneas de la cooperación y la gestión del agua en la frontera México-Estados Unidos. Tijuana (Mexico): El Colegio de la Frontera Norte. p. 29-56. Available from: https://www.colef.mx/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/pre- print-visiones-contempora%CC%81neas-24mar21-fff. pdf. Carter NT, Mulligan SP, Seelke CR. 2017. U.S.-Mexican water sharing: background and recent developments. Washing- ton (District of Columbia): Congressional Research Ser- vice. 25 p. R433112. Available from: https://sgp.fas.org/ crs/row/R43312.pdf. Castro-Ruiz JL, Mumme SP, Collins K. 2018. Cooperación local binacional: la cuenca internacional del Río Tijuana [Local binational cooperation: the Tijuana River interna- tional watershed]. Estudios Fronterizos. 19:1-19. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21670/ref.1806006. Castro-Ruiz JL, Cortez-Lara AA. 2020. Gobernanza y coop- eración binacional en la gestión del agua: la cuenca baja del Río Bravo [Governance and binational cooperation on water management: The Lower Rio Bravo watershed]. In: Aguilar-Benítez I, coordinator. Gestión del agua en Méx- ico: casos de estudio en torno a la gobernanza y la sus- tentabilidad. Tijuana (Mexico): El Colegio de la Frontera Norte. p. 33-58. Available from: https://www.research- gate.net/publication/339213543_Gobernanza_y_coop- eracion_binacional_en_la_gestion_del_agua_La_cuenca_ baja_del_rio_Bravo. Collado J. 2008. Entorno de la provisión de los servicios públi- cos de agua potable en México [Setting of the water pub- lic services provision in Mexico]. In: Olivares R, Sandoval R, coordinators. El Agua potable en México. Mexico City (Mexico): Asociación Nacional de Empresas de Agua y Saneamiento. p. 3-28. Available from: https://www.aneas. com.mx/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/EL-AGUA-PO- TABLE-EN-MEXICO.pdf. [CILA] Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas. 2019. Presentaciones de atribuciones de la CILA y cumplimien- to del Tratado [Presentations of CILA’s attributions and compliance with the treaty]. In: Meeting of the Rio Bravo Basin Council (CCRB), November 29th, 2019. Ciudad Juárez (Chihuahua): CILA. [CONAGUA] Comisión Nacional del Agua. 2011. Acuerdo por el que se da a conocer el resultado de los estudios técni- cos de la región hidrológica número 24 Bravo-Conchos [Agreement to present the results of the technical stud- ies in hydrological region 24, Bravo-Conchos]. Mexico City (Mexico): Diario Oficial de la Federación. Available form: https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codi- go=5192916&fecha=02/06/2011#gsc.tab=0. CONAGUA. 2018. Estadísticas del Agua en México [Water statistics in Mexico]. Mexico City (Mexico): CONAGUA. 306 p. Available from: https://agua.org.mx/wp-content/ uploads/2019/04/EAM_2018.pdf. CONAGUA. 2019. Distritos de Riego 2018–2019 [Irrigation districts 2018–2019]. Mexico City (Mexico): CONAGUA. Available from: http://sina.CONAGUA.gob.mx/sina/ tema.php?tema=distritosriego&ver=reporte&o=1&n=na- cional. CONAGUA. 2020a. Regiones Hidrológicas 2020 [Hydrolog- ical regions 2020]. Mexico City (Mexico). Available from: http://sina.CONAGUA.gob.mx/sina/tema.php?tema=re- gionesHidrologicas&ver=reporte&o=0&n=nacional. CONAGUA. 2020b. Volumen concesionado para usos consuntivos por Entidad Federativa 2020 [Volume granted for consumptive uses by state 2020]. Mexico City (Mexi- co). Available from: http://sina.CONAGUA.gob.mx/sina/ tema.php?tema=usosAgua&ver=reporte&o=0&n=estatal. CONAGUA. 2021a. Concesión/asignación de aprovechamien- to de aguas nacionales superficiales [Concession/assigning of national surface waters]. Mexico City (Mexico). 4 p. Available from: https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attach- ment/file/618393/BA_Tr_mite_Conagua-01-003.pdf. CONAGUA. 2021b. Concesión/asignación de aprove- chamiento de aguas nacionales subterráneas [Concession/ Assigning of national underground waters]. Mexico City (Mexico). 4 p. Available from: https://www.gob.mx/cms/ uploads/attachment/file/618396/BA_Tr_mite_Cona- gua-01-004.pdf. CONAGUA. 2021c. Condición de acuíferos 2021 [Aqui- fer conditions 2021]. Mexico City (Mexico). Avail- able from: http://sina.CONAGUA.gob.mx/sina/tema. php?tema=acuiferos&n=estatal. Daniell KA, Kay A. 2017. Multi-level governance: conceptual challenges and case studies from Australia. Acton (Austra- lia): Australian National University Press. 474 p. Avail- able from: https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/ n3935/pdf/book.pdf. https://doi.org/10.3763/cdev.2009.0024 https://doi.org/10.3763/cdev.2009.0024 https://www.colef.mx/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/preprint-visiones-contempora%CC%81neas-24mar21-fff.pdf https://www.colef.mx/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/preprint-visiones-contempora%CC%81neas-24mar21-fff.pdf https://www.colef.mx/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/preprint-visiones-contempora%CC%81neas-24mar21-fff.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/R43312.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/R43312.pdf https://doi.org/10.21670/ref.1806006 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339213543_Gobernanza_y_cooperacion_binacional_en_la_gestion_del_agua_La_cuenca_baja_del_rio_Bravo https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339213543_Gobernanza_y_cooperacion_binacional_en_la_gestion_del_agua_La_cuenca_baja_del_rio_Bravo https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339213543_Gobernanza_y_cooperacion_binacional_en_la_gestion_del_agua_La_cuenca_baja_del_rio_Bravo https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339213543_Gobernanza_y_cooperacion_binacional_en_la_gestion_del_agua_La_cuenca_baja_del_rio_Bravo https://www.aneas.com.mx/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/EL-AGUA-POTABLE-EN-MEXICO.pdf https://www.aneas.com.mx/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/EL-AGUA-POTABLE-EN-MEXICO.pdf https://www.aneas.com.mx/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/EL-AGUA-POTABLE-EN-MEXICO.pdf https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5192916&fecha=02/06/2011#gsc.tab=0 https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5192916&fecha=02/06/2011#gsc.tab=0 https://agua.org.mx/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/EAM_2018.pdf https://agua.org.mx/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/EAM_2018.pdf http://sina.CONAGUA.gob.mx/sina/tema.php?tema=distritosriego&ver=reporte&o=1&n=nacional http://sina.CONAGUA.gob.mx/sina/tema.php?tema=distritosriego&ver=reporte&o=1&n=nacional http://sina.CONAGUA.gob.mx/sina/tema.php?tema=distritosriego&ver=reporte&o=1&n=nacional http://sina.CONAGUA.gob.mx/sina/tema.php?tema=regionesHidrologicas&ver=reporte&o=0&n=nacional http://sina.CONAGUA.gob.mx/sina/tema.php?tema=regionesHidrologicas&ver=reporte&o=0&n=nacional http://sina.CONAGUA.gob.mx/sina/tema.php?tema=usosAgua&ver=reporte&o=0&n=estatal http://sina.CONAGUA.gob.mx/sina/tema.php?tema=usosAgua&ver=reporte&o=0&n=estatal https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/618393/BA_Tr_mite_Conagua-01-003.pdf https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/618393/BA_Tr_mite_Conagua-01-003.pdf https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/618396/BA_Tr_mite_Conagua-01-004.pdf https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/618396/BA_Tr_mite_Conagua-01-004.pdf https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/618396/BA_Tr_mite_Conagua-01-004.pdf http://sina.CONAGUA.gob.mx/sina/tema.php?tema=acuiferos&n=estatal http://sina.CONAGUA.gob.mx/sina/tema.php?tema=acuiferos&n=estatal https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n3935/pdf/book.pdf https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n3935/pdf/book.pdf Texas Water Journal, Volume 13, Number 1 61Impacts on Water Deliveries Under the 1944 Treaty Earthgonomic. 2017 Oct 17. Tipos de riego [Types of irriga- tion]. Earthgonomic. Available from: http://earthgonom- ic.com/noticias/tipos-de-riego/. Elhance A. 1999. Hydro-politics in the 3rd world: conflict and cooperation in international river basins. Washington (District of Columbia): U.S. Institute of Peace Press. 296 p. Finger M, Tamiotti L, Allouche J. 2005. Introduction: con- ceptual elements. In: Finger M, Tamiotti L, Allouche J. The multi-governance of water. Albany (New York): State University of New York Press. p. 1-42. Gassert F, Reig P, Luo T, Maddocks A. 2013. Aqueduct country and river basin rankings: a weighted aggregation of spatial- ly distinct hydrological indicators. Washington (District of Columbia): World Resources Institute. 28 p. Available from: http://wri.org/publication/aqueduct-country-riv- er-basin-rankings. Giordano M, Giordano M, Wolf A. 2002. The geography of water conflict and cooperation: internal pressures and international manifestations. The Geographical Journal. 168(4): 293-312. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/ stable/3451473. [GM] Government of Mexico. n.d. Anuario Estadístico de la Producción Agrícola [Statistical yearly report of agricultur- al production]. Mexico: Government of Mexico. Available from: https://nube.siap.gob.mx/cierreagricola/. [GECH] Government of the State of Chihuahua. 2019a. Plan Estatal Hídrico 2040 del Estado de Chihuahua [Water plan of the state of Chihuahua 2040]. Chihuahua (Mex- ico): Junta Central de Agua y Saneamiento del Estado de Chihuahua. 121 p. Available from: https://drive.google. com/file/d/1z8BHIs4fNB1n7oGW0xm4cjqBGiNu-yI0/ view. GECH. 2019b. Lidera Chihuahua producción nacional en 10 cultivos (Chihuahua leads the national production in 10 crops). Chihuahua (Mexico): Gobierno del Estado de Chihuahua. Available from: http://www.chihuahua.gob. mx/contenidos/lidera-chihuahua-produccion-nacion- al-en-10-cultivos. González-Velázquez RI. 2020. Factores que influyen en las entregas del Tratado de Aguas de 1944. El caso del Río Conchos, periodo 1992-2020 [Factors that influence the deliveries of the 1944 Water Treaty: the case of the Río Con- chos, period 1992-2020] [thesis]. Monterrey (Mexico): El Colegio de la Frontera Norte. Available from: https:// www.colef.mx/posgrado/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ TESIS-Gonz%C3%A1lez-Vel%C3%A1zquez-Rodri- go-Israel-MAGIA.pdf. [GIT] Grupo Interinstitucional de Trabajo. 2013. Programa de Manejo Integral de la Cuenca del Río Conchos [Inte- gral management program of the Rio Conchos water- shed]. Available from: https://agua.org.mx/wp-content/ uploads/2013/03/PROGRAMA-DE-MANEJO-INTE- GRAL-RIO-CONCHOS.pdf. Hernández Sampieri R, Fernández Collado C, Baptista Lucio M. 2010. Metodología de la investigación. Mexico City (Mexico): McGraw-Hill. Hooghe L, Marks G. 2002. Types of multi-level governance. European Integration online Papers. 5(11). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.302786. Hooghe L, Marks G. 2003. Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review. 97(2):233-243. Available from: https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000649. [IBWC] International Boundary and Water Commission. 1969. Minute Number 234: Waters of the Rio Grande allotted to the United States from the Conchos, San Diego, San Rodrigo, Escondido and Salado Rivers and the Las Vacas Arroyo. Ciudad Juárez (Mexico): IBWC. 3 p. Available from: https://www.ibwc.gov/Files/Minutes/ Min234.pdf. IBWC. 2020a. Minute Number 325: Measures to end the cur- rent Rio Grande water delivery cycle without a shortfall, to provide humanitarian support for the municipal water supply for Mexican communities, and to establish mecha- nisms for future cooperation to improve the predictability and reliability of Rio Grande water deliveries to users in the United States and Mexico. Ciudad Juárez (Mexico): IBWC. 4 p. Available from: https://ibwc.gov/Files/Min- utes/Min325.pdf. IBWC. 2020b Oct 22. U.S. and Mexico sign agreement for Rio Grande water delivery by Mexico. IBWC. Available from: https://ibwc.gov/Files/Press_Release_102220.pdf. [INEGI] Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. 2020. Censo de Población y Vivienda 2020 [2020 Housing and Population Census]. Aguascalientes (Mexico): INEGI. Available from: https://www.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/Olap/ Proyectos/bd/censos/cpv2020/pt.asp. Ingram SG. 2004. In a Twenty-First Century Minute. Natural Resources Journal. 44(1):163-211. Available from: https:// digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol44/iss1/6/. Kelly ME. 2001. The Rio Conchos, a preliminary overview. Austin (Texas): Texas Center for Policy Studies. 28 p. Avail- able from: https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/2875_ RioGrande_rioconchos.pdf. Kim T, Valdés JB, Aparicio J. 2002. Frequency and spatial characteristics of droughts in the Conchos River Basin, Mexico. Water International. 27(3):420-430. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060208687021. http://earthgonomic.com/noticias/tipos-de-riego/ http://earthgonomic.com/noticias/tipos-de-riego/ http://wri.org/publication/aqueduct-country-river-basin-rankings http://wri.org/publication/aqueduct-country-river-basin-rankings https://www.jstor.org/stable/3451473 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3451473 https://nube.siap.gob.mx/cierreagricola/ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z8BHIs4fNB1n7oGW0xm4cjqBGiNu-yI0/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z8BHIs4fNB1n7oGW0xm4cjqBGiNu-yI0/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z8BHIs4fNB1n7oGW0xm4cjqBGiNu-yI0/view http://www.chihuahua.gob.mx/contenidos/lidera-chihuahua-produccion-nacional-en-10-cultivos http://www.chihuahua.gob.mx/contenidos/lidera-chihuahua-produccion-nacional-en-10-cultivos http://www.chihuahua.gob.mx/contenidos/lidera-chihuahua-produccion-nacional-en-10-cultivos https://www.colef.mx/posgrado/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/TESIS-Gonz%C3%A1lez-Vel%C3%A1zquez-Rodrigo-Israel-MAGIA.pdf https://www.colef.mx/posgrado/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/TESIS-Gonz%C3%A1lez-Vel%C3%A1zquez-Rodrigo-Israel-MAGIA.pdf https://www.colef.mx/posgrado/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/TESIS-Gonz%C3%A1lez-Vel%C3%A1zquez-Rodrigo-Israel-MAGIA.pdf https://www.colef.mx/posgrado/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/TESIS-Gonz%C3%A1lez-Vel%C3%A1zquez-Rodrigo-Israel-MAGIA.pdf https://agua.org.mx/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/PROGRAMA-DE-MANEJO-INTEGRAL-RIO-CONCHOS.pdf https://agua.org.mx/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/PROGRAMA-DE-MANEJO-INTEGRAL-RIO-CONCHOS.pdf https://agua.org.mx/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/PROGRAMA-DE-MANEJO-INTEGRAL-RIO-CONCHOS.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.302786 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000649 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000649 https://www.ibwc.gov/Files/Minutes/Min234.pdf https://www.ibwc.gov/Files/Minutes/Min234.pdf https://ibwc.gov/Files/Minutes/Min325.pdf https://ibwc.gov/Files/Minutes/Min325.pdf https://ibwc.gov/Files/Press_Release_102220.pdf https://www.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/Olap/Proyectos/bd/censos/cpv2020/pt.asp https://www.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/Olap/Proyectos/bd/censos/cpv2020/pt.asp https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol44/iss1/6/ https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol44/iss1/6/ https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/2875_RioGrande_rioconchos.pdf https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/2875_RioGrande_rioconchos.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060208687021 Texas Water Journal, Volume 13, Number 1 Water Management in the Rio Conchos Basin:62 Maguey H. 2018 Oct 29. Más de 80% del agua se va en uso agrícola y de la industria [More than 80% of water goes to agricultural use and industry]. Gaceta UNAM. Available from: https://www.gaceta.unam.mx/crisis-agua-industria/. Martínez-Austria PF, editor. 2018. La Cuenca del Río Bravo y el Cambio Climático [The Rio Bravo Basin and climate change]. San Andrés Cholula (Mexico): Universidad de las Américas Puebla. 256 p. Available from: https://www. udlap.mx/catedraunesco/cuencaRioBravo.aspx. Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY. 2010. The green, blue, and grey water footprint of farm animals and animal products. Delft (The Netherlands): UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education. Value of Water Report Series No. 48. 50 p. Available from: https://waterfootprint.org/media/ downloads/Report-48-WaterFootprint-AnimalProd- ucts-Vol1_1.pdf. Montero-Martínez MJ, Ibáñez-Hernández OF, coordinators. 2017. La cuenca del río Conchos: Una mirada desde las ciencias ante el cambio climático [The Rio Conchos Basin: a view from science to climate change]. Cuernava- ca (Mexico): Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua. 267 p. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/324780788_LA_CUENCA_DEL_RIO_ CONCHOS_UNA_MIRADA_DESDE_LAS_CIEN- CIAS_ANTE_EL_CAMBIO_CLIMATICO/link/5ae- 1f239a6fdcc91399fc346/download. Moore SM. 2018. Subnational hydropolitics: conflict, cooper- ation, and institution-building in shared river basins. New York (New York): Oxford University Press. 270 p. Mumme SP. 1999. Managing acute water scarcity on the U.S.-Mexico border: institutional issues raised by the 1990s drought. Natural Resources Journal. 39(1):149- 166. Available from: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/ nrj/vol39/iss1/14. Mumme SP, Ibáñez O, Till SM. 2012. Multi-level governance of water on the U.S.-Mexico border. Regions and Cohe- sion. 2(2):6-29. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3167/ reco.2012.020202. Mumme SP, Collins K, Castro-Ruiz JL. 2014. Strengthening Binational Management of the Tijuana River. University of Denver Water Law Review. 17(2):329-357. Available from: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1285&context=wlr. Mumme SP. 2019. The 1944 U.S.-Mexico water treaty as a constitutional document. Houston (Texas): Rice Universi- ty’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. 14 p. Available from: https://doi.org/10.25613/penm-6c73. Nel Quezada L. 2010. Metodología de la investigación. Lima (Peru): Empresa Editora Macro. Available from: http:// biblioteca.unach.edu.ec/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_ display&id=9154. [OECD] Organization of Economic Co-operation and Devel- opment. 2011. Water governance in OECD countries: a multi-level approach. Paris (France): OECD Publish- ing. 244 p. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary. org/environment/water-governance-in-oecd-coun- tries_9789264119284-en. Ortega-Gaucin D. 2013. Caracterización de las sequías hidrológicas en la cuenca del río Bravo, México [Charac- terization of Hydrologic Draughts in the Rio Bravo Basin]. Terra Latinoamericana. 31(3):167-180. Available from: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=57328903001. Saito-Jensen M. 2015. Theories and methods for the study of multi-level environmental governance. Guideline. Bogor (Indonesia): CIFOR. 36 p. Available from: https://www. cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BCIFOR1502.pdf. Sánchez Meza JJ. 2006. ¿Se ha descentralizado la gestión del agua en México? [Has water management been decen- tralized in Mexico?]. México City (México): Centro del Tercer Mundo para el Manejo del Agua, A.C. Avail- able from: http://ru.juridicas.unam.mx:80/xmlui/han- dle/123456789/28165. Sánchez Serrano R. 2001. La observación participante como escenario y configuración de la diversidad de significados en Observar, escuchar y comprender [Participant obser- vation as a scenario and configuration of the diversity of meanings in Observing, listening, and understanding]. In: Tarrés María Luisa, coordinator. Observar, escuchar y comprender. Sobre la tradición cualitativa en la inves- tigación social. Mexico City (Mexico): El Colegio de México-Miguel Ángel Porrúa. p. 97-131. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt16f8cd1. SIG-Bravo. n.d. Monterrey (Mexico): Consejo de Cuenca Rio Bravo. Available from: https://sig-bravo.maps.arcgis.com/ apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e2013a4c4eda4b8b- 986c82f9221d9f7c. Stewart S, Valdés J, Gastelum J, Brookshire D, Aparicio J, Hidalgo J, Velazco I. 2014. A decision support system for demand management in the Rio Conchos basin, Mexi- co. Hydrology Science and Practice for the 21st Centu- ry. 2:487-494. Available from: https://www.researchgate. net/profile/Juan-Valdes-6/publication/252349062_A_ D e c i s i o n _ S u p p o r t _ S y s t e m _ f o r _ D e m a n d _ M a n - a g e m e n t _ o f _ t h e _ R i o _ C o n c h o s _ B a s i n _ M e x i c o / links/0c9605359669634179000000/A-Decision-Support- System-for-Demand-Management-of-the-Rio-Conchos- Basin-Mexico.pdf. https://www.gaceta.unam.mx/crisis-agua-industria/ https://www.udlap.mx/catedraunesco/cuencaRioBravo.aspx https://www.udlap.mx/catedraunesco/cuencaRioBravo.aspx https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report-48-WaterFootprint-AnimalProducts-Vol1_1.pdf https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report-48-WaterFootprint-AnimalProducts-Vol1_1.pdf https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report-48-WaterFootprint-AnimalProducts-Vol1_1.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324780788_LA_CUENCA_DEL_RIO_CONCHOS_UNA_MIRADA_DESDE_LAS_CIENCIAS_ANTE_EL_CAMBIO_CLIMATICO/link/5ae1f239a6fdcc91399fc346/download https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324780788_LA_CUENCA_DEL_RIO_CONCHOS_UNA_MIRADA_DESDE_LAS_CIENCIAS_ANTE_EL_CAMBIO_CLIMATICO/link/5ae1f239a6fdcc91399fc346/download https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324780788_LA_CUENCA_DEL_RIO_CONCHOS_UNA_MIRADA_DESDE_LAS_CIENCIAS_ANTE_EL_CAMBIO_CLIMATICO/link/5ae1f239a6fdcc91399fc346/download https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324780788_LA_CUENCA_DEL_RIO_CONCHOS_UNA_MIRADA_DESDE_LAS_CIENCIAS_ANTE_EL_CAMBIO_CLIMATICO/link/5ae1f239a6fdcc91399fc346/download https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324780788_LA_CUENCA_DEL_RIO_CONCHOS_UNA_MIRADA_DESDE_LAS_CIENCIAS_ANTE_EL_CAMBIO_CLIMATICO/link/5ae1f239a6fdcc91399fc346/download https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol39/iss1/14 https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol39/iss1/14 https://doi.org/10.3167/reco.2012.020202 https://doi.org/10.3167/reco.2012.020202 https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1285&context=wlr https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1285&context=wlr https://doi.org/10.25613/penm-6c73 http://biblioteca.unach.edu.ec/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=9154 http://biblioteca.unach.edu.ec/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=9154 http://biblioteca.unach.edu.ec/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=9154 https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/water-governance-in-oecd-countries_9789264119284-en https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/water-governance-in-oecd-countries_9789264119284-en https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/water-governance-in-oecd-countries_9789264119284-en http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=57328903001 https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BCIFOR1502.pdf https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BCIFOR1502.pdf http://ru.juridicas.unam.mx:80/xmlui/handle/123456789/28165 http://ru.juridicas.unam.mx:80/xmlui/handle/123456789/28165 https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt16f8cd1 https://sig-bravo.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e2013a4c4eda4b8b986c82f9221d9f7c https://sig-bravo.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e2013a4c4eda4b8b986c82f9221d9f7c https://sig-bravo.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e2013a4c4eda4b8b986c82f9221d9f7c https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan-Valdes-6/publication/252349062_A_Decision_Support_System_for_Demand_Management_of_the_Rio_Conchos_Basin_Mexico/links/0c9605359669634179000000/A-Decision-Support-System-for-Demand-Management-of-the-Rio-Conchos-Basi https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan-Valdes-6/publication/252349062_A_Decision_Support_System_for_Demand_Management_of_the_Rio_Conchos_Basin_Mexico/links/0c9605359669634179000000/A-Decision-Support-System-for-Demand-Management-of-the-Rio-Conchos-Basi https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan-Valdes-6/publication/252349062_A_Decision_Support_System_for_Demand_Management_of_the_Rio_Conchos_Basin_Mexico/links/0c9605359669634179000000/A-Decision-Support-System-for-Demand-Management-of-the-Rio-Conchos-Basi https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan-Valdes-6/publication/252349062_A_Decision_Support_System_for_Demand_Management_of_the_Rio_Conchos_Basin_Mexico/links/0c9605359669634179000000/A-Decision-Support-System-for-Demand-Management-of-the-Rio-Conchos-Basi https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan-Valdes-6/publication/252349062_A_Decision_Support_System_for_Demand_Management_of_the_Rio_Conchos_Basin_Mexico/links/0c9605359669634179000000/A-Decision-Support-System-for-Demand-Management-of-the-Rio-Conchos-Basi https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan-Valdes-6/publication/252349062_A_Decision_Support_System_for_Demand_Management_of_the_Rio_Conchos_Basin_Mexico/links/0c9605359669634179000000/A-Decision-Support-System-for-Demand-Management-of-the-Rio-Conchos-Basi https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan-Valdes-6/publication/252349062_A_Decision_Support_System_for_Demand_Management_of_the_Rio_Conchos_Basin_Mexico/links/0c9605359669634179000000/A-Decision-Support-System-for-Demand-Management-of-the-Rio-Conchos-Basi Texas Water Journal, Volume 13, Number 1 63Impacts on Water Deliveries Under the 1944 Treaty Sosa-Rodríguez FS, Castro-Ruiz JL. 2020. Evaluación de la Gestión Integrada de los Recursos Hídricos: Retos y Avances [Evolution of the integrated water resources man- agement: challenges and advances]. In: Aguilar-Benitez I, coordinator. La gestión de los usos del agua en tres sub- regiones hidrológicas. Rio San Juan, Valle de México y Bajo Grijalva. Tijuana (Mexico): El Colegio de la Fron- tera Norte. p. 255-283. Available from: https://www. researchgate.net/publication/347533835_Evaluacion_ de_la_Gestion_Integrada_de_los_Recursos_Hidricos_ Retos_y_avances_Assessment_of_the_Integrated_Water_ Resources_Management_challenges_and_advances. Trava-Manzanilla JL. 1995. Transferencia de los distritos de riego en México [Transfer of the irrigation districts in Mex- ico]. Mexico City (Mexico): Academia de Ingeniería Méx- ico. Available from: https://www.slideshare.net/Academi- aDeIngenieriaMx/transferencia-de-los-distritos-de-riego. Vargas S. 2007. Caracterización de los factores socioeconómi- cos de la desertificación en México [Characterization of the socioeconomic factors behind the desertification in Mexico]. Final Report. Cuernavaca (Mexico): Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua. Available from: https:// agua.org.mx/biblioteca/caracterizacion-de-los-factores-so- cioeconomicos-de-la-desertificacion-en-mexico/. Uitto JI, Duda A M. 2002. Management of transbound- ary water resources: lessons from international cooper- ation for conflict prevention. The Geographical Journal. 168(4):365-378. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3451478. Wolf AT. 1998. Conflict and cooperation along internation- al waterways. Water Policy. 1(2):251-265. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1366-7017(98)00019-1. Wolf AT. 2005. Transboundary water conflicts and coopera- tion. In: Kenney ES, editor. In search of sustainable water management: international lessons for the American West and beyond. Northampton (Massachusetts): Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 102 p. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347533835_Evaluacion_de_la_Gestion_Integrada_de_los_Recursos_Hidricos_Retos_y_avances_Assessment_of_the_Integrated_Water_Resources_Management_challenges_and_advances https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347533835_Evaluacion_de_la_Gestion_Integrada_de_los_Recursos_Hidricos_Retos_y_avances_Assessment_of_the_Integrated_Water_Resources_Management_challenges_and_advances https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347533835_Evaluacion_de_la_Gestion_Integrada_de_los_Recursos_Hidricos_Retos_y_avances_Assessment_of_the_Integrated_Water_Resources_Management_challenges_and_advances https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347533835_Evaluacion_de_la_Gestion_Integrada_de_los_Recursos_Hidricos_Retos_y_avances_Assessment_of_the_Integrated_Water_Resources_Management_challenges_and_advances https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347533835_Evaluacion_de_la_Gestion_Integrada_de_los_Recursos_Hidricos_Retos_y_avances_Assessment_of_the_Integrated_Water_Resources_Management_challenges_and_advances https://www.slideshare.net/AcademiaDeIngenieriaMx/transferencia-de-los-distritos-de-riego https://www.slideshare.net/AcademiaDeIngenieriaMx/transferencia-de-los-distritos-de-riego https://agua.org.mx/biblioteca/caracterizacion-de-los-factores-socioeconomicos-de-la-desertificacion-en-mexico/ https://agua.org.mx/biblioteca/caracterizacion-de-los-factores-socioeconomicos-de-la-desertificacion-en-mexico/ https://agua.org.mx/biblioteca/caracterizacion-de-los-factores-socioeconomicos-de-la-desertificacion-en-mexico/ https://www.jstor.org/stable/3451478 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1366-7017(98)00019-1 González-Velázquez 2020 Mumme 2019 CILA 2019 Mumme 1999 Ingram 2004 Carter et al. 2017 Kelly 2001 Kim et al. 2002 Vargas 2007 Barrios et al. 2009 CONAGUA 2011 GIT 2013 Stewart et al. 2014 Martínez-Austria 2017 Montero-Martínez et al. 2018 Hooghe and Marks 2002 Hooghe and Marks 2003 Moore 2018 SIG-Bravo n.d. Sánchez Serrano 2001 Hernández Sampieri et al. 2010 Nel Quezada 2010 CONAGUA 2020a CONAGUA 2020b CONAGUA 2019 CONAGUA 2021c CONAGUA 2021a CONAGUA 2021b González-Velázquez 2020 INEGI 2020 Gassert et al. 2013 CONAGUA 2018 González-Velázquez 2020 INEGI 2020 GECH 2019a CONAGUA 2018 CONAGUA 2020b GECH 2019a Earthgonomic 2017 GECH 2019b Maguey 2018 Mekonnen and Hoestra 2010 GM n.d. González-Velázquez 2020 Montero-Martinez and Ibanez-Hernandez 2017 GECH 2019a Ortega-Gaucin 2013 IBWC 2020a IBWC 1969 CILA 2019 IBWC 2020b Finger et al. 2005 Hooge and Marks 2002 Hooge and Marks 2003 Saito-Jensen 2015 Daniell and Kay 2017 OECD 2011 Hooghe and Marks 2002 Hooghe and Marks 2003 Mumme et al. 2012 González-Velázquez 2020 Hooge and Marks 2002 Hooge and Marks 2003 Castro-Ruiz and Cortez-Lara 2020 Sánchez Meza 2006 Collado 2008 Trava-Manzanilla 1995 Collado 2008 Sosa-Rodriguez and Castro-Ruiz 2020 Wolf 1998 Elhance 1999 Collado 2008 González-Velázquez 2020 Uitto and Duda 2002 Giordano et al. 2002 Wolf 2005 Moore 2018 González-Velázquez 2020 Sosa-Rodríguez and Castro-Ruiz 2020 CONAGUA 2020b GECH 2019a Castro-Ruiz et al. 2018 Moore 2018 CONAGUA 2018 Mumme et al. 2014 Castro-Ruiz et al. 2018 Brown and Mumme 2021