WSP12519 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

842 NATURALRESOURCES/OURNAL [Vol. 40 Fall 2000] MANAGING ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION 843 but the formation of new groups such as the Asociaci6n Ecol6gica de Usarios de 105 Rios Hardy y Colorado (Ecological Association for the Users of the Hardy and Colorado Rivers) demonstrates local commitment to promoting their interest in Delta restoration. IV. CONSERVATION CONSIDERATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES California adopted a resolutionlOI stating that the MSCP study area should not extend into Mexico, bisecting the river along a political, rather than a hydrologic, boundary. This history, as well as continuing disregard for the impacts of U.S. actions on habitat downstream of the international boundary, strongly suggests that the restoration of the Colorado River delta will require a binational agreement between the United States and Mexico. Althouglf=;:~ diplomacy alone cannot restore ecosystems, a binational commitmene would serve as a framework under which all other changes take place. Un~ conservation of the Delta is a priority for both nations, sufficiently important to merit discu$sion, negotiation, and most importantlyJC commitment, its welfare will remain an afterthought in management decisions. Once the United States and Mexico recognize that the Delta is a natural resource worthy of a conservation commitment, they will be obliged to codify their intentions in a binational treaty that dedicates water, land, and institutional support. Short of such formality, the Delta's future remains uncertain. Although the basic objective-keep sufficient water in the river-seems simple, it will require the alignment of numerous institutions, agreements, and organizations. Public attention needs to be focused on Delta ecosystems. The significant institutional commitments required to ensure the Delta's future necessitate that both international stakeholders and local communities develop strong and vigilant voices demanding that attention be paid to the Colorado River delta. A successful conservation strategy for the Delta's ecosystem is likely to include some or all of the following: an international agreement, legal action, the inclusion of the Delta as a priority in related management decisions, new funding for conservation, and increased public participation in decisions that affect the Delta and related ecosystems. The best conservation strategy will treat the Delta and the river upstream as one ecological whole, overcoming the obstacles presented by the international boundary. 1. Need for Binational Commitment Conservation of the Delta's ecosystems will require binational commitment. Mexico lacks sufficient water both to ensure the ecological viability of the Delta and to sustain a burgeoning human population at its border.I02 Additionally, it is not clear that Mexico should unilaterally shoulder responsibility for Delta restoration when the United States diverts some 90 percent of the Colorado's flows. Water that sustains the Delta is a transboundary resource, and it will take commitment from both Mexico and the United States to reserve sufficient waters for environmental purposes. The minimum volume required to sustain the Delta is a significant portion of Mexico's entire Colorado River entitlement. Not only does the United States capture 90 percent of the river's allocated waters, but as a nation of considerably greater wealth it has greater capacity to fund the protection of natural resources.I03 Finally, all Colorado River water storage capacity, and nearly all control, rests in the United States. Without the cooperation of the u.s. agencies that manage the Colorado's hydraulic systems, Delta ecosystem conservation will not be achieved. A. International Agreement Deliveries of Colorado River water from the United States into Mexico have been characterized by a lack of binational cooperation and considerations, necessitating the negotiation of binding international agreements.99 After a lengthy series of binational negotiations, the U.S.-Mexico Treaty governing the Colorado River was amended with Minute 242 in 1973 to mitigate the impacts of pronounced increases in the salinity of the Colorado River as it crossed into Mexico.loo Domestic interests in the United States continue to preclude discussion of transboundary impacts and cooperation. In December 1998, the Colorado River Board of 99. See generally NORRIS HUNDLEY, JR. DMDINCi1HEW ATERS: A CENTURY OF CONTROVERSY BETWEEN 1HE UNITED STATPS AND MExIco (1966). 100. Mexico complained that water deliveries on the Colorado River were too saline to support agriculture. The river's lnaeased salinity was due in part to the reduction of freshening flows because of storage in new upstream reservoirs and to the release of bracldsh drainage water from the Well ton-Mohawk Canal. See PONTIUS, supra note 1, at 62. 101, Colorado River Board. of California, Resolution Regarding the Planning Area for the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (Mar. 11, 1998) (unpublished document, on file with author). 102. Population in the Delta (entirely in Mexico) grew more than 3% annually &om 1990- 1995. See Paul Ganster, Environmental Issues of the CaliforniA-Baja CaliforniA Region, (visited Sept. 6,2000) <http://www.scerp.org/scerp/docs/berr1.html>. 103. See Jessica Mathews, The Implications for U.S. Policy, in PREsERVING 1HE GLOBAL ENvIRoNMENT: THE CHALLENCiIl 01' SHARED LEADERSHIP 309, 320 O'essica Mathews ed., 1991).