Texas Growers Demand Water Treaty Enforcement

A recent agreement from Mexico to release up to 420,000 acre-feet of water to the U.S. under the 1944 Water Treaty is being cautiously welcomed by American growers, particularly in drought-stricken south Texas, but industry leaders say this short-term gain does little to address the long-term failures and lack of accountability that continue to plague the agreement.

On April 30, U.S. Representative Monica De La Cruz (R-Texas) announced that the Mexican government had agreed to deliver the additional water by the end of the current five-year cycle, which concludes in October.

While the commitment is seen as a diplomatic and political victory, growers, trade associations, and agriculture stakeholders made clear during recent meetings with U.S. officials in Washington, D.C., that it is not enough.

“Part of what we told them is, first and foremost, we are incredibly grateful for this water, and it’s going to be well used,” said Dante Galeazzi, president of the Texas International Produce Association. “But we also need more than this. We need consistency. We need enforcement. We need to know the rules are being followed beyond October.”

A Treaty Falling Short

Under the 1944 water treaty between the United States and Mexico, Mexico is required to deliver an average of 350,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Rio Grande to the U.S., totaling 1.75 million acre-feet every five years. As of June 7, according to the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), Mexico had delivered only 618,799 acre-feet, falling short by more than a million acre-feet.

Even with the promised 420,000 acre-feet, Mexico would still fall far below treaty obligations for this cycle, delivering only a little over one million acre-feet. And recent delivery trends show a troubling pattern: successive cycles with declining water volumes.

“We see this same pattern year after year,” Galeazzi noted. “The deliveries go down, and the excuses go up.”

Wrong Timing for U.S. Agriculture

The timing of this water release is another major concern. Texas growers begin planning for the next crop cycle in late summer, planting in the fall, and harvesting well into the following summer. But water deliveries that come near the treaty deadline in October do little to support this schedule.

“How are farmers in the U.S. going to make a plan and buy seed and borrow money and everything else if they don’t know if they’re going to have the water?” asked Greg Yielding, executive vice president of the National Onion Association.

Lack of water certainty has already led to visible consequences. Texas’s only sugar mill shut down in 2024 due to unreliable water access. One watermelon grower had to sell a recently acquired packing facility because he couldn’t guarantee irrigation. For many, such stories are becoming the norm rather than the exception.

“More and more of these guys are going to sell off equipment or sell off land,” said Galeazzi. “Or, God forbid, they’re going to have to make the hardest decision: ‘Do I keep doing this another year or do I close up shop?’”

Chihuahua’s Water Use Undermines U.S.-Mexico Treaty Commitments

Growers point squarely to the Mexican state of Chihuahua as a primary roadblock in water deliveries. Over the past two decades, Chihuahua has dramatically expanded its agricultural footprint, particularly in water-intensive crops like pecans, citrus, and onions, despite being a semi-arid region.

“Chihuahua has the water,” Galeazzi emphasized. “They’re just using it instead of delivering it like they said they would in the treaty.”

The state’s refusal to release water from impoundments is viewed not just as a violation of treaty commitments but also as a competitive tactic. Chihuahua’s increased onion acreage, for example, directly impacts market prices across the entire U.S., from Texas to Idaho to New York.

“They greatly increased their onion acres in the last 10 years, and they are only able to do that because they don’t release the water,” said Yielding. “It’s affecting everything, all onions, not just the Texas growers.”

Enforcement Must Be the Priority

At the heart of the issue is treaty enforcement or the lack thereof. While U.S. officials have pushed for negotiations, agriculture leaders argue that only firm compliance mechanisms will change the current dynamic.

Yielding cited past actions by the Trump administration, including the temporary withholding of Colorado River water from Tijuana, as examples of enforcement that produced results.

“That’s the level it’s got to be at to get anything done,” he said. “We figured that out a while back.”

Galeazzi, too, emphasized that diplomacy without consequences won’t solve the problem. He pointed to the upcoming renegotiation of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) as a possible opportunity to tie water delivery compliance to trade.

“If the renegotiation occurred with a compliance mechanism for the water treaty, that would be fantastic,” Galeazzi said. “We need compliance mechanisms created so that Mexico sees that there is value in honoring that signature on the treaty.”

The Fight Isn’t Over

For growers and agriculture stakeholders, the recent commitment from Mexico is welcome, but far from a solution. The problems are systemic, rooted in mismanagement, lack of planning, and inaction.

“We don’t want people in the administration or the general ag community to think, ‘There’s going to be some water release, so everything must be OK,’” Yielding warned. “That’s not the case. This is not over.”

As South Texas growers brace for the next planting cycle, many are still unsure whether the water they need will arrive, or whether Chihuahua’s fields will continue to thrive at the expense of U.S. agriculture.