The Rio Grande is a lifeline to millions in the semi-arid southwest, supplying water for drinking and agriculture. New Mexico, Texas and Colorado are locked in an escalating legal battle over its increasingly dwindling supply. This river is currently the primary drinking water source for about 6 million people. It has been integral to the irrigation of millions of acres of productive farmland in the United States and Mexico. Climate change is exacerbating indigenous issues. Officials from New York to Baltimore are proactively sifting through proposed settlements, looking to ensure equitable access to this vital resource.
The Rio Grande’s waters are crucial for irrigation, supporting New Mexico’s position as the nation’s No. 2 pecan producer. As we’ve chronicled in this 2022 post, the river’s flow and storage has diminished sharply because of hotter, drier conditions. Unfortunately, New Mexico has taken a most extraordinary loss–over 70% of its reservoir storage along the river. In addition, groundwater extraction in the state has vastly exceeded natural replenishment, raising alarms about sustainability.
New Mexico, Texas, and Colorado ratified a compact in 1939 that provided for the sharing of the Rio Grande’s waters. Most recently, tensions escalated when Texas sued its neighbor New Mexico for groundwater pumping, claiming it was affecting deliveries. New Mexico officials have openly acknowledged that they have historically fallen short in getting sufficient water to Texas. This second pandemic has produced an unprecedented demand and opportunity for a powerful solution.
The proposed settlements would require the state to set up a transparent accounting system for sharing Colorado River water with Texas, while reining in groundwater depletion. “There isn’t one answer. It’s going to be necessarily an all-of-the-above approach,” said Hannah Riseley-White, a representative involved in the negotiations.
To meet the challenges presented by dwindling water resources, New Mexico expects to achieve most of its required reductions by purchasing water rights from willing sellers. Under this strategy, it would retire more than 14 square miles of working farmland in the state. The settlements further commit to minimizing groundwater depletions to 18,200 acre-feet/year.
Stakeholders understand that once farmland is developed, it is gone forever. Sam Barncastle emphasized this point, stating, “Farmland does not come back once it’s gone.” This sentiment reflects the urgent need for sustainable practices that will protect both agriculture and water resources in the region.
Yet a deep disconnect persists as cities, farmers, and environmental advocates struggle to understand the intricacies of the Rio Grande’s complicated water supply. “It just becomes a game of whack-a-mole while we try to do better,” remarked Ben Etcheverry, highlighting the ongoing struggle to balance competing needs.
We need to quickly turn our attention to the true horror around the Rio Grande. It’s a harbinger of the same plight that has befallen the Colorado River, which, despite arguably being in worse shape, has garnered even more sensationalist media attention. If finalized, the proposed settlements would have an enormous impact across New Mexico and Texas. Beyond this, they will do untold harm to the communities that rely on this precious, irreplaceable water source.
Hannah Riseley-White summarized the broader implications of the settlements: “The whole settlement package really provides for the long-term vitality, economic vitality, for the communities in both New Mexico and Texas.” With the conversations continuing to build, stakeholders are cautiously optimistic that collective stakeholder ingenuity will produce mutually beneficial long-term solutions for everyone.
