border institute iv binational water management planning consideration of opportunities, costs,...
TRANSCRIPT
Border Institute IVBorder Institute IV
Binational Water Management PlanningBinational Water Management PlanningConsideration of Opportunities,Consideration of Opportunities,
Costs, Benefits,Costs, Benefits,& Unintended Consequences & Unintended Consequences
Rio Rico, ArizonaRio Rico, ArizonaMay 6, 7 and 8, 2002May 6, 7 and 8, 2002
Charles D. Turner, Ph.D., P.E. Charles D. Turner, Ph.D., P.E. UTEPUTEP Oscar F. Ibáñez H., M.S. Oscar F. Ibáñez H., M.S. UACJUACJ
Ed Hamlyn, AICPEd Hamlyn, AICP UTEPUTEP
Balancing Water
Balancing WaterSupply &
DemandSupply & Demand
The Challenge of
The Challenge of
U.S.-Mexico Border Region
10 States200 km
48 Counties
96 Municipios
200
0 P
op
ula
tion (
in m
illio
ns)
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Mexicali
Tucson
Cd. Juárez
San Diego
Nuevo Laredo
Lower Rio Grande Valley
West Central East
Doña Ana
AscensiónJuárez
El Paso
Hudspeth
Guadalupe
P.G. Guerrero
Otero
Rio GrandeRío Bravo
Elephant Butte
Caballo
Pecos
Salt Basin
El Paso
Cd. Juárez
Las Cruces
Hueco Bolson
Tularosa Basin
Jornada del Muerto
Mesilla Bolson
Conejos Médanos
Rio Grande Aquifer
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Historical Population GrowthHistorical Population Growth
2,073,000190
6 -
Mexic
an
Wate
r Tre
aty
193
8 –
Rio
Gra
nd
e
Com
pact 195
4-5
8 –
Dro
ught
of
Reco
rdDoña Ana County
El Paso County
Juárez Municipio
43,291
194
4 –
Mexic
an W
ate
r Tre
aty
- 1%
0%
+ 1%
+ 2%
+ 3%
+ 4%
+ 5%
+ 6%
+ 7%
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Comparative Growth RatesComparative Growth Rates
World United States México Paso del Norte
Avera
ge A
nnu
al G
row
th R
ate
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
Projected Population GrowthProjected Population Growth6,000,000
198
0
200
0
202
0
204
0
190
0
192
0
194
0
196
0
7,000,000
329,000
1,082,000
2,518,000
3,929,000
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1994
1996
1998
2000
1992
Per
Capit
a W
ate
r U
se(l
iters
/pers
on/d
ay)
1980
Per Capita Water Use TrendsPer Capita Water Use Trends
848
606
2000
350
El Paso
Cd. Juárez
250 km
128o
52o
Albuquerque
Lubbock
Hermosillo
Tucson
Phoenix
Chihuahua
MidlandOdessa
Elephant Butte Irrigation District
42%
El Paso County Water Improvement
Dist. No. 123%
CNA Distrito de Riego 009
13%Junta Municipal de
Aguas y Saneamiento
10%
El Paso Water Utilities11%
City of Las Cruces1%
Agriculture Constitutes 78% of all Water Use in the Region Agriculture Constitutes 78% of all Water Use in the Region
Doña Ana County
New MexicoDoña Ana County
New MexicoEl Paso County
TexasEl Paso County
TexasJuárez Municipio
ChihuahuaJuárez Municipio
Chihuahua
Surface Water AllocationSurface Water Allocation
36,4
00 h
a
27,9
00 h
a
12,1
00 h
a
174,6
82
1,2
18,8
17
679,6
22
333 M
m3
255 M
m3
74 M
m3
Irrigated Land (in ha)Irrigated Land (in ha)Surface Water Allocation (in Surface Water Allocation (in MmMm33))PopulationPopulation
Albuquerque
Santa Fe
Las Cruces
El Paso
Cd. Juárez
El Paso
Elephant Butte
Albuquerque
Lobatos
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
0500
100015002000250030003500400045005000
Monthly Mean Flow (cfs)
Months
Figure 10: Average Flows for the Rio Grande
JanFeb
MarApr
May
JunJu
l
AugSep
Oct
Nov
DecEl Paso
Elephant Butte
Albuquerque
Lobatos
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Monthy-Mean Flow (cfs)
Figure 11: Average Low Flows for the Rio Grande
050000
100000150000200000250000300000350000400000450000500000550000600000650000700000
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Vol
ume
in A
cre
Fee
t
ACEQUIA MADRE EBID DIVERSION AT HEADING
EPCWID #1 DIVERSION AT HEADING EPWU
HCCRD #1 DIVERSION AT HEADING
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Months
Mo
nth
ly-M
ea
n F
low
(c
fs)
Average Flow Years at El Paso
Figure 9: Drought Flow Years at El Paso
050
100150200250300350
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Months
Mo
nth
ly-M
ean
Flo
w
(cfs
)
1955 1956 1964 Average
Figure 12: Total Annual Salt Load at El Paso,1933-1994
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1933 1943 1953 1963 1973 1983 1993
To
tal
To
ns
of
Sa
lt p
er
Ye
ar
Figure 13: El Paso Annual-Mean in Tons per Acre-Foot, 1933-1994
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1933 1943 1953 1963 1973 1983 1993
To
ns
of
Sal
t p
er A
cre-
Fo
ot
Figure 14: Flow vs. Total Salts at El Paso, 1933-1994
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
0 400,000 800,000 1,200,000 1,600,000
Flow (Acre-feet per Year)
To
ns
of
Sa
lt p
er
Ye
ar
Figure 15: Total Cumulative Salt at El Paso1933-1994
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
1933 1943 1953 1963 1973 1983 1993
To
ns
of
Sal
t
y = 7E-06x2 - 0.0147x
R2 = 0.95
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005years
$ / K
gal
y = 0.0034x2 - 13.69x + 13593
R2 = 0.8302
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006
$ / K
gal
Canal Street
Poly. (Canal Street)
Cost of Surface Water Treatment
PerspectivesPerspectives
Knowledge / TimeframeKnowledge / TimeframePoliti
cal In
flu
en
ce
Politi
cal In
flu
en
ce
Alphabet Soup of Water Alphabet Soup of Water ManagementManagement
• IBWC/CILA• EPCWID/EBID/009• USBR• EPA/SEMARNAT• BECC/COCEF• CNA• TNRCC/OSE
Wa
ter
Su
pp
ly (
m3/s
)Proposed Water Supply for Cd. JuárezProposed Water Supply for Cd. Juárez
Hueco Bolson
10
11
12
9
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
0
2000
2010
2020
2005
2015
Río Bravo Surface Water
Conejos Médanos N.
Conejos Médanos S.
Río Bravo Aquifer
Bismark Mines
320160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560 600 640 680 720 760
2
4
6
8
10
0
Sustainable Population Sustainable Population ParametersParameters
Pop
ula
tion
(i
n m
illio
ns)
Per Capita Water Use (liters per person per day)
Surface Water Surface Water 740 740 MmMm33
Natural Recharge Natural Recharge 30 Mm30 Mm33 No Agriculture, 50%
RecyclingNo Agriculture, No Recycling 50% Agriculture, No Recycling
• An International Water Management District
Scenarios for Cooperative Scenarios for Cooperative PlanningPlanning
Sovereignty Precludes this Option!
• Individual actions based on parochial interests
• Guarded dialogue and limited cooperation
• Forthright information-sharing & willingness to engage in projects of mutual benefit
Tools for Possible SolutionsTools for Possible Solutions
• Technology
• Water Markets
• Region-based Cooperation
• Conservation
• Growth Management
• Financial Capability