Bill under review would guarantee water post-Trump
Love him, don’t love him, there is no denying that Donald Trump just handed the RGV a huge gift – much needed water from Mexico. On an annual basis, no less.
How did he do it? By threatening Mexico with a 5-percent tariff if it didn’t comply with a water treaty that dates back to 1944. The days of non-compliance are apparently over. Or are they?
Talks between the two countries about water obligations began last year, but according to a story written by the Associated Press two weeks ago, the U.S. and Mexico said that they had finally reached an agreement whereby, Mexico would send a minimum amount of water annually to thirsty South Texas.
Question is, will this recent agreement stick after Trump leaves office?
To help make it permanent, there is presently a bipartisan bill before Congress that hopes to do just that – hold Mexico’s feet to the fire no matter who occupies the White House.
After hearing the news last week, in the midst of a tough primary race, three-term incumbent Texas Ag Commissioner Sid Miller weighed in:
“If Mexico had honored the treaty from the start, Congress… wouldn’t have needed to unleash $280 million in emergency relief through USDA and TDA to rescue South Texas agriculture.”
Indeed, the $280 million rescue package (secured in 2024 under Biden) was a desperate “lifeline” thrown to the four counties that comprise the RGV to prevent the near total collapse of this region’s agricultural economy. It wasn’t just a generic drought handout; it was a targeted response to what local leaders called an “unprecedented economic crisis” caused by international treaty violations. (Source: Texas Department of Agriculture.)
Also, even though the bulk of the $280 million went to the RGV, it also benefited stakeholders as far away as Fort Quitman (approximately 80 miles southeast of El
Paso).
Liquid Gold
According to the recent water agreement announced two weeks ago, Mexico has now committed to delivering a minimum of 350,000 acre-feet of water annually. This marks a departure from the traditional five-year “averaging” cycle, which previously allowed Mexico to defer its obligations to the fifth and final year (of each cycle), often leading to massive water deficits.
The urgency of the new agreement is underscored by a historical imbalance in how the 1944 Treaty has been honored. While Rio Grande deliveries (Mexico to the U.S.) have been inconsistent for decades, the U.S. has maintained a nearly unbroken record of compliance regarding its own treaty obligations west of the Continental Divide.
For example, under the same 1944 Treaty, the U.S. is required to deliver 1.5 million acre-feet of water annually from the Colorado River to Mexico. Even despite the “megadrought” that has gripped the American West for over 20 years and forced historic water cuts in states like Arizona and California, the U.S. has consistently fulfilled this treaty quota/obligation.
Even when U.S. reservoir levels at Lake Mead fell to critical lows, the U.S. prioritized its international treaty obligations, often at the expense of its own domestic agricultural and municipal users. For decades, Texas lawmakers and agricultural groups argued that the U.S. was essentially subsidizing Mexican stability in the West while receiving no such reciprocity in the East (South Texas). In D.C., or so it seemed, no one was listening to pleas for help, no matter who was in the White House. Democrat, Republican, didn’t matter, even when two of the presidents hailed from the Lone Star State – George H.W. Bush and his son, George W.
This lack of help from the feds, despite Hidalgo County being one of the fastest growing regions in the U.S.
Not only was the ag industry being adversely affected, but water planners associated with Valley irrigation districts, municipalities, counties, were all scratching their heads – how are we going to meet increased water demands in future years, not to mention now?
Over the past 25 years, for example, this county’s population has almost doubled – from approximately half a million to 1 million. Yet, the same, old, tired water problems remained, with no help in sight.
Until now.
Ag Expansion in Mexico
From the (approximate) El Paso area to Boca Chica, six Mexican tributaries feed the Rio Grande and our two reservoirs – Amistad and Falcon.
Under the 1944 Water Treaty, the water that Mexico owes the United States comes primarily from those six specific tributaries. The problem is, however, that over the past approximate 80 years, Mexico has been busy building a massive network of dams on these tributaries (rivers)— not to facilitate treaty deliveries, but to fuel its own agricultural boom.
While Texas relies on water to reach the “international” dams (Amistad and Falcon), Mexico has built its own “internal” dams further upstream to catch the water first. Before it ever gets to us.
The problem for Texas, the Rio Grande Valley, isn’t that the water doesn’t exist; it’s that it is captured before it ever becomes an “international” resource.
While the RGV suffered historic losses — including the 2024 closure of the state’s last sugar mill and a nearly $1 billion hit to regional economic output — data shows a starkly different trend in Northern Mexico. (Source: TexasA&M AgriLife Extension Service.)
Despite official claims of “extraordinary drought,” Mexico’s agricultural footprint in the Rio Grande basin expanded significantly over the last decade. Utilizing the water historically owed to the U.S., Mexico developed robust irrigation districts in the state of Chihuahua:
Pecan and Alfalfa Production: Mexico’s pecan acreage has surged, particularly in the Rio Conchos basin. By capturing and storing water in upstream dams like La Boquilla and Las Virgenes, Mexico ensured a steady supply for its own water-intensive orchards while Texas growers saw their allocations slashed. (Source: Texas Farm Bureau.)
Modernization at U.S: Expense: Evidence suggests that while South Texas citrus groves were being bulldozed for lack of water, Mexican growers were modernizing thousands of acres for high-value export crops.
Market Irony: Many of the crops grown in Mexico using this withheld water were subsequently exported to the U.S., creating a scenario where American farmers were undercut in the marketplace by competitors using water legally allocated to the United States. (Source: Texas Department of Agriculture.)
From Diplomacy to Tariffs
The breakthrough in recent water treaty negotiations came after the Trump administration leveraged trade policy to enforce resource management. Following a shortfall in the 2020–2025 “Water Treaty” cycle — where Mexico delivered only about half of its 1.75 million acre-foot obligation — the administration threatened Mexico with the 5-percent tariff on a number of imports.
Under the new terms announced two weeks ago, the two nations will conduct monthly monitoring meetings to ensure compliance. Failure to meet these monthly benchmarks serves as a potential trigger for economic sanctions, effectively linking the flow of water from Mexico to the U.S. with the international flow of trade.
To ensure these changes outlast any single administration, the Ensuring Predictable and Reliable Water Deliveries Act is currently moving through the U.S. House.
The bill requires the Secretary of State to submit an annual report to Congress verifying whether Mexico has met its 350,000 acre-foot minimum.
It empowers the U.S. to limit engagement with Mexican economic sectors that benefit from water withholding.
The bill, if passed and signed into law, would legally prohibit the U.S. from fulfilling “non-treaty” water requests from Mexico — such as emergency supplies for border cities—unless the country is in good standing with its Rio Grande deliveries.
By turning these previous handshake agreements into law, supporters of the proposed bill aim to ensure that the U.S. no longer remains the only party consistently honoring the 1944 Treaty while its own producers bear the burden of non-compliance.
In the U.S. House, Republican Monica De La Cruz has joined forces with Democrat Henry Cuellar, while in the U.S. Senate, Ted Cruz introduced the bill, while John Cornyn serves as co-sponsor, all done with the coordinated help of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.
As a united front, these politicians have framed the bill as a way to “give teeth” to the 1944 Treaty. Their main argument is -- for 80 years, the U.S. has played the role of “good neighbor” along the Colorado River (west of El Paso) while being treated as a “silent partner” along the Rio Grande, much to the detriment of the state and especially the RGV where the ag industry was once king.
By requiring the Secretary of State (current and future) to formally certify Mexico's compliance every year, there will be a codified assurance (a new law) that no future president can look the other way while the Valley goes dry.
According to the Feb. 4th AP story, President Trump and Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, signed off on the agreement during a phone conversation three weeks ago.
Under the new agreement, Mexico will send at least 350,000 acre feet of water to the United States each year during the current five-year cycle. One acre-foot of water is the amount needed to cover 1 acre of land to a depth of 1 foot.